Full node - Bitcoin Wiki

[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 27;

Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be always some misunderstandings and exaggerations, plus many convos are from 'spec channel', so take it with a grain of salt, pls.
+ I added some recent convos afterward.
--------------------------------------------------​
📷
Luigi Vigneri [IF]어제 오후 8:26
Giving the opportunity to everybody to set up/run nodes is one of IOTA's priority. A minimum amount of resources is obviously required to prevent easy attacks, but we are making sure that being active part of the IOTA network can be possible without crazy investments.
we are building our solution in such a way that the protocol is fair and lightweight.

📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:24
IOTA is not "free to use" but it's - fee-less
you have tokens? you can send them around for free
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:25
you have no tokens? you have to pay to use the network
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:25
I think it is a smart way to avoid the spamming network problem
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26
owning tokens is essentially like owning a share of the actual network
and the throughput it can process
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26****​
if you don't need all of that yourself, you can rent it out to people and earn money
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27
mana = tokens * time since you own them
simplified
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27
the longer you hold your tokens and the more you have, the more mana you have
but every now and then you have to move them to "realize" that mana
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:28
Is there any other project that is using a Mana solution to the network fee problem ?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:28
nah
the problem with current protocol is that they are leader based
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29
you need absolute consensus on who the current leaders are and what their influence in the network is
that's how blockchains works
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29
if two block producers produce 2 blocks at the same time, then you have to choose which one wins
and where everybody attaches their next block to
IOTA works differently and doesn't need to choose a single leader
we therefore have a much bigger flexibility of designing our sybil protection mechanisms
in a way, mana is also supposed to solve the problem of "rewarding" the infrastructure instead of the validators
in blockchain only the miners get all the money
running a node and even if it's one that is used by a lot of people will only cost
you won't get anything back
no fees, nothing
the miners get it all
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:31
in IOTA, the node operators receive the mana
which gives them a share of the network throughput
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:32
because in blockchain you need to decide whose txs become part of the blocks
and it's not really based on networking protocols like AIMD
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:33
And the more Mana your node have, the more trust your node has and you have more to say in the FPC, is that correct?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:33
yeah
a node that has processed a lot of txs of its users will have more mana than other nodes
and therefore a bigger say in deciding conflicts
its a direct measure of "trust" by its users
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:34
And choosing committee for dRNG would be done on L1 protocol level?
Everything regarding Mana will be L1 level, right?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35
Yeah
Mana is layer1, but will also be used as weight in L2 solutions like smart contracts
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:35
And you are not dependant on using SC to implement this
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35
No, you don't need smart contracts
That's all the base layer
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:37
'Time' actually takes into account things like decay
So it doesn't just increase forever
It's close to "Demurrage" in monetary theory
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:36
For projects to be able to connect to Polkadot or Cosmos, you need to get the state of the ledger.
Will it be possible to get the Tangle state?
If this would be possible, then I think it would be SUPER good for IOTA
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:38
Yeah but polkadot is not connecting other dlts
Just inhouse stuff
📷
Hyperware어제 오후 11:39
Is there still a cap on mana so that the rich don't get richer?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:39
Yes mana is capped
📷
TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:39
u/Hans Moog [IF] My first thought is that the evolution of this renting system will lead to several big mana renting companies that pool together tons of token holders mana. That way businesses looking to rent mana just need to deal with a reliable mana renting company for years instead of a new individual every couple of months (because life happens and you don't know if that individual will need to sell their IOTAs due to personal reasons). Any thoughts on this?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:41
u/TangleAccountant yes that is likely - but also not a bad thing - token holders will have a place to get their monthly payout and the companies that want to use the tangle without having tokens have a place to pay
📷
TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:42
Oh I completely agree. That's really cool. I'll take a stab at creating one of those companies in the US.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:42
And everybody who wants to run a node themselves or has tokens and wants use the tangle for free can do so
But "leachers" that would want to use the network for free won't be able to do so
I mean ultimately there will always be "fees", as there is no "free lunch".
You have a certain amount of resources that a network can process and you have a certain demand.
And that will naturally result in fees based on supply / demand
what you can do however is to build a system where the actual users of that system that legitimately want to use it can do so for free,
just because they already "invest" enough by having tokens
or running infrastructure
they are already contributing to the well-being of the network through these two aspects alone
it would be stupid to ask those guys for additional fees
and mana essentially tries to be such a measure of honesty among the users
📷
Hyperware어제 오후 11:47
It's interesting from an investment perspective that having tokens/mana is like owning a portion of the network.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:48
Yeah, you are owning a certain % of the throughput and whatever the price will ultimately be to execute on this network - you will earn proportionally
but you have to keep in mind that we are trying to build the most efficient DLT that you could possibly ever build
📷
semibaron어제 오후 11:48
The whole mana (tokens) = share of network throuput sounds very much like EOS tbh
Just that EOS uses DPoS
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50
yeah i mean there is really not too many new things under the sun - you can just tweak a few things here and there, when it comes to distributing resources
DPoS is simply not very nice from a centralization aspect
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50
at least not the way EOS does it
delegating weights is 1 thing
but assuming that the weight will always be in a way that 21 "identities" run the whole network is bad
in the current world you see a centralization of power
but ultimately we want to build a future where the wealth is more evenly distributed
and the same goes for voting power
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:52
blockchain needs leader selection
it only works with such a centralizing component
IOTA doesn't need that
it's delusional to say that IOTA wouldn't have any such centralization
but maybe we get better than just a handselected nodes 📷
📷
Phantom3D어제 오후 11:52
How would this affect a regular hodler without a node. Should i keep my tokens elsewere to generate mana and put the tokens to use?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:53
you can do whatever you want with your mana
just make an account at a node you regularly use and use it to build up a reputation with that node
to be able to use your funds for free
or run a node yourself
or rent it out to companies if you just hodl
📷
semibaron어제 오후 11:54
Will there be a build-in function into the node software / wallet to delegate ("sell") my mana?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:55
u/semibaron not from the start - that would happen on a 2nd layer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📷
dom어제 오후 9:49
suddenly be incentive to hold iota?
to generate Mana
📷
Hyperware오늘 오전 4:21
The only thing I can really do, is believe that the IF have smart answers and are still building the best solutions they can for the sake of the vision
📷
dom오늘 오전 4:43
100% - which is why we're spending so much effort to communicate it more clearly now
we'll do an AMA on this topic very soon
📷
M [s2]오늘 오전 4:54
u/dom​ please accept my question for the AMA: will IOTA remain a permissionless system and if so, how?
📷
dom오늘 오전 4:57
of course it remains permissionless
📷
dom오늘 오전 5:20
what is permissioned about it?
is ETH or Bitcoin permissioned because you have to pay a transaction fee in their native token?
📷
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:24
How did your industry partners think about the mana solution and the fact they need to hold the token to ensure network throughput?
📷
dom오늘 오전 5:26
u/Gerrit considering how the infrastructure, legal and regulatory frameworks are improving around the adoption and usage of crypto-currencies within large companies, I really think that we are introducing this concept exactly at the right time. It should make enterprise partners comfortable in using the permissionless network without much of a hurdle. They can always launch their own network if they want to ...
📷
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:27
Launching their own network can’t be what you want
📷
dom오늘 오전 5:27
exactly
but that is what's happening with Ethereum and all the other networks
they don't hold Ether tokens either.
📷
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:32
Will be very exciting to see if ongoing regulation will „allow“ companies to invest and hold the tokens. With upcoming custody solutions that would be a fantastic play.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:34
It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority
there will still be sharding to keep the network free most of the time
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:35
but without a protection mechanism, somebody could just spam a lot of bullshit and you could break the network(수정됨)
you need some form of protection from this
📷
M [s2]오늘 오전 5:36
u/Hans Moog [IF] so when I have 0 Mana, I can still send transactions? This is actually the point where it got strange...
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37
yes you can
unless the network is close to its processing capabilities / being attacked by spammers
then the nodes will favor the mana holders
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37
but having mana is not a requirement for many years to come
currently even people having fpgas can't spam that many tps
and we will also have sharding implemented by then
📷
M [s2]오늘 오전 5:39
Thank you u/Hans Moog [IF] ! This is the actually important piece of info!
📷
Basha오늘 오전 5:38
ok, i thought it was communicated that you need at least 1 mana to process a transaction.
from the blogpost: "... a node with 0 mana can issue no transactions."
maybe they meant during the congestion**, but if that's the case maybe you should add that**
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:42
its under the point "Congestion control:"
yeah this only applies to spam attacks
network not overloaded = no mana needed
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:43
if congested => favor txs from people who have the most skin in the game
but sharding will try to keep the network non-congested most of the time - but there might be short periods of time where an attacker might bring the network close to its limits
and of course its going to take a while to add this, so we need a protection mechanism till sharding is supported(수정됨)
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 6:36
I don't have a particular problem with EOS or their amount of validators - the reason why I think blockchain is inferior has really nothing to do with the way you do sybil protection
and with validators I mean "voting nodes"
I mean even bitcoin has less mining pools
and you could compare mining pools to dpos in some sense
where people assign their weight (in that case hashing power) to the corresponding mining pools
so EOS is definitely not less decentralized than any other tech
but having more identities having weight in the decision process definitely makes it harder to corrupt a reasonable fraction of the system and makes it easier to shard
so its desirable to have this property(수정됨)

-------------------------------------------------

📷
Antonio Nardella [IF]오늘 오전 3:36
https://twitter.com/cmcanalytics/status/1310866311929647104?s=19
u/C3PO [92% Cooless] They could also add more git repos instead of the wallet one, and we would probably be #1 there too..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I'm sorry, maybe I'm fueling some confusion through posting this mana-thing too soon,
but, instead of erasing this posting, I'm adding recent convos.
Certain things about mana seem to be not clear, yet.
It would be better to wait for some official clarification.
But, I hope the community gives its full support to IF, 'cause
there could be always some bumps along the untouched, unchartered way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Addition;

Billy Sanders [IF]오늘 오후 1:36

It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority
u/Hans Moog [IF] Im sorry Hans, but this is false in the current congestion control algorithm. No mana = no transactions. To be honest, we havent really tried to make it work so that you can sent transactions with no mana during ties with no congestion, but I dont see how you can enable this and still maintain the sybil protection required. u/Luigi Vigneri [IF] What do you think?📷

Dave [EF]오늘 오후 2:19

Suggestion: Sidebar, then get back to us with the verdict.(수정됨)📷2📷

dom오늘 오후 2:27

No Mana no tx will definitely not be the case(수정됨)📷5📷7***[오후 2:28]***Billy probably means the previous rate control paper as it was written by Luigi. I'll clarify with them📷

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오후 2:29

When was this decided u/Billy Sanders [IF] and by whom? Was this discussed at last resum when I wasnt there? The last info that I had was that the congestion control should only kick in when there is congestion?!?***[오후 2:29]***📷 📷 📷📷

Navin Ramachandran [IF]오늘 오후 2:30

Let's sidebar this discussion and return when we have agreement. Dave has the right idea

submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

RenVM AMA Answers

RenVM AMA Answers


1) What are some challenges you think will come up in 2020?
Some of the biggest challenges that we see for 2020 are:
Adoption; it is the most difficult, but it has the highest impact for the project, and for the blockchain community at large. Perhaps the biggest challenge within adoption is education. It is critical that people understand how RenVM works, its capabilities, its limitations, where it is meant to be used, and where it is not meant to be used. At times, it has already proved difficult to cut through misinformation/misunderstanding that proliferates throughout the wider community or to explain complex cryptographic concepts. We will be addressing these challenges by producing more education material, releasing audits (when they’re completed), engaging more with other communities, and open-sourcing more of the project.
Rolling out updates; to the Darknodes as fixes, improvements, and new features. This is a technical challenge, but also a social challenge. It requires comprehensive testing environments and a focus on backwards compatibility, but it also requires coordination and social agreement amongst hundreds (and potentially thousands) of Darknode owners. To face these challenges, we have already begun building more extensive testing frameworks, auto-update capabilities for the Darknodes, and looking at informal methods of governance (until we settle on a formal one).

2) As far as I understand, you already have a list of companies that will be the first to adopt RenVM and make integration. How do these companies feel about the fact that not all repositories are open and some of the code is still closed (private repo)? Doesn't that scare them off? Do you have plans to go full open source?
TL:DR: Yes, absolutely we plan going full open-source and all projects we are in conversation with are aware of the below plan and understand the logic behind it. Our logic and subsequent plan (and the thresholds needed) to go full open-source can be found in this document, if curious: RenVM Open-Source Roadmap.
Long Answer: The team at Ren are very strong proponents of the open-source ethos and believe all decentralized protocols need to be made open-source when secure. The Ren team also wants to (a) be competitive in this space, given the hard work and capital invested by the team and the community, and (b) give an appropriate amount of time for security issues to be discovered and fixed before making the codebase available to potentially malicious actors.
With that said, all of Ren's codebase barring the RZL sMPC algorithm will be open-sourced at the advent of RenVM Mainnet Subzero which will be launched after our security audit is completed. The RZL sMPC algorithm, however, is what makes RenVM and its sMPC solution so special. This RZL sMPC Algorithm has been pioneered in-house by our development team and can be considered a trade secret. It will, therefore, not be released to the wider public until certain security and capital thresholds within RenVM have been met. We have worked very hard over the last two years; this approach ensures RenVM's security and that the Ren community, team, and investors are rewarded for their patience.
Stage 1 | Q1 2020 RenVM Mainnet Security Audit
The security audit will verify our RZL sMPC algorithm security, correctness, and functionality under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). This, the security audit of RenVM, and all other components of RenVM's code-base will be available for the public to review when completed.
Stage 2 | Q2 2020 Onward
Our RZL sMPC Algorithm will be fully open-sourced to the public when the milestones outlined in this document are met: https://github.com/renproject/ren/issues/2
This document has purposefully been designed for open comment as we encourage any stakeholder to voice their opinion or suggestions (supported by empirically-based evidence, of course). The team will take the feedback and incorporate them into the RenVM Open-Source Roadmap thresholds.
The open comment period will end at the formal release of RenVM Mainnet Subzero, at which point the specific security and capital thresholds will be solidified, and presented to the public. If you have suggestions or questions, please do voice them on our Github! https://github.com/renproject/ren/issues/2

3) Any ideas on which DeFi dapps could or should in your opinion use RenVM?
Any DeFi app can utilize RenVM. If their users have a desire to trade/lend cross-chain pairs then they could/should use RenVM to do so. With that said, a few potential use cases can be found below:
  1. Cross-Chain Decentralized Exchanges,
  2. Cross-Chain Lending & Leveraging,
  3. Multi-Collateralized Synthetics and Stablecoins (e.g. DAI),
  4. No-Counterparty Risk OTC Desk | An Interoperable Escrow,
  5. Multi-Collateral Crowdfunding,
  6. Multi-Collateral Basketed Investment vehicle (ETFs),
  7. Universal Cross-Chain Stablecoin Converter.
We’ll also be releasing a blog that outlines all the potential use cases for RenVM in the coming months, so please do stay tuned!

4) Have you announced a partnership with AZTEC, what are your plans for cooperation with them, are these plans still in force or have your priorities changed?
At this stage, our entire focus is on Mainnet SubZero. But, we will definitely be following up on integrating with AZTEC once everything is released, stable, and adopted.

5) Can you expand on Universal Interoperability and how important of a role it will play in the future, what are the qualifications of being that third party?
TL:DR: The ultimate goal of Universal Interoperability is to ensure a great user experience (UX) regardless of what Blockchain they come from or its end destination. In the immediate terms, this means abstracting away confirmation wait times and the need for ETH gas, so someone could use a BTC on a DeFi app (built on Ethereum) and never know it.
Long Answer: The number and speed of confirmations inherently depends on the original chain and must be set at the time the chain is admitted into the protocol. RenVM mainnet will wait for 6 confirmations for BTC (Chaosnet, is 2). This obviously takes a long time and, while it’s not so bad for some use cases (lending, collateralization, etc), it’s not the best for dApps/DEXs and general UX. ‌ So, we have the concept of Universal Interoperability which allows a third party to provide two things (in exchange for a fee nominated by users):
1) Expedited Confirmations | Confirmation as a Service (CaaS)
CaaS= Expedited Confirmations | This removes confirmations wait time for users when minting digital assets on Ethereum. It provides speed by taking on the confirmation risk. The third-party sees you have (let’s say) 1 confirmation and is confident you’re not a miner about to attack Bitcoin. They come in and provide the shifted BTC immediately to complete whatever action you were taking, and when the real underlying shift finishes the 3rd party get their funds back.
By implementing CaaS, developers can help users complete actions faster by using funds that have already been shifted. These funds can be accessed in a variety of trustful and trustless ways, however the goal is the same - facilitate a cross-chain transaction in a shorter time than it would take the user to first fully shift in an asset (i.e. for BTC, RenVM waits for six (6) confirmations).
2) GSN Integration | Gas as a Service (GaaS)
GaaS = GSN Integration | This removes the need for users to interact with ETH gas when dealing with native blockchain interactions. It provides gas so you don’t need to manage lots of different tokens, just the ones you’re actually using for the dApp.By Implementing GaaS, this allows dApps to pay for their users' transactions in a secure way, so users don’t need to hold ETH to pay for their gas or even set up an account. This can be particularly valuable when it comes to cross-chain applications as you might be building for a non-ethereum user base.
*We'll be releasing a demo if these working the real-world quite soon along with tutorials for 3rd parties to use these solutions if they so choose.

6) What’s the path forward for more liquidity on the REN token? Currently US users are limited in where they can purchase tokens and cannot easily acquire enough to get bonding for even one Darknode.
We encourage those who are restricted based on their jurisdiction to utilize the decentralized exchange infrastructure currently available. We try to practice what we preach and by utilizing DeFi, it's a great way to further propel the space into the mainstream.
We can’t legally recommend specific exchanges and we don't publicly discuss potentially listing until they are public, but do know we are always working on bringing more democratic access to REN.

7) How does your company plan to make money in the future (to finance the development, when the money received on the ICO will be over)?
Our team’s incentives are directly aligned with that of our community (those who run Darknodes). The organization and its funding is centered around Darknode rewards. Darknodes earn fees for facilitating interoperability via RenVM and this is how the organization will fund itself.

8) How does the audit go, any major issue has been identified that could delay MN subzero? When is it estimated to complete an audit?
The audit is going well. The smart contracts have been finished, and all issues were addressed quickly. The Hyperdrive audit is currently underway, and there have been no critical issues reported so far. The next steps are to scope the audit for the RZL sMPC paper and its accompanying implementation (the z0 engine). There are no timeline estimates that we are comfortable giving to the public at this stage, as audits times can vary a lot depending on what is found, and an audit of an sMPC implementation is not common (estimates quickly propagate through the community and become incorrectly interpreted as hard commitments).

9) How does your sMPC algorithm work? Can't find any description anywhere. Can the Darknodes perform any calculations over any data splitted using SSS? How fast are those calculations performed? How is the new private key generated for the next era, so old nodes that generated this key does not have access to it? Also, What kind of help from external developers do you need right now?
- It takes many pages of very formal discussion to describe how our sMPC algorithm works, but we are working on a paper that formally defines the algorithm, and proves its properties. This paper is being audited, and both the paper and audit will be released to the public after the release of Mainnet.- Darknodes can, in theory, perform any computation over Shamir secret shared (SSS) data, but they are only configured to perform interoperability related computation at the moment (key generation, and key signing).
- The performance of general computation over SSS data is very dependent on the kind of computation, however, sMPC is invariably orders of magnitude slower than the equivalent computations running on your local machine (because they involve network communication).
- Every epoch a new key must be generated to store assets (and assets in the old key must be transferred to this new key). The old group of Darknodes can generate the new key in such a way that the public key is known, but the private key shares are encrypted for the new group of Darknodes (this process does not reveal any of the new shares to any of the old Darknodes). Under the hood, this uses very simple homomorphic properties. Once the new key is generated, the old Darknodes can simply do their usual sMPC to transfer all assets to the new key.
-We would love it if the developer community started experimenting with our SDKs and contributed their thoughts/improvement to RenVM (and the dev infrastructure that supports it e.g. RenJS & GatewayJS) via: https://github.com/renproject/ren/issues

10) What are the plans for the initial network bootstrapping to onboard darknodes to achieve sufficient decentralization and deliver on the security benefits? I understand the early stages of the network will have the core nodes of the Ren Team and trusted partners responsible for maintaining the integrity of the network - do you intend to remain in this phase until sufficient transaction volume is on the network that attracts sufficient 3rd party operators? Are there plans to incentive that initial volume?
We intend to remain in the Mainnet SubZero phase until there is sufficient volume (stable over a reasonable period of time) to attract members of the public to run Darknodes and earn rewards by doing so. During this period, Ren and other projects will operate Darknodes to keep the networking running (and to keep it semi-decentralized amongst Ren and these third-parties). It is important for the security of the network that volume grows naturally, otherwise, it risks dropping after the incentivization ends. However, to begin with, we will support volume by providing liquidity to DEXs, and keeping minting fees low.

Thank everyone for contributing to our first AMA!
We'll have more over the coming months but as always, if you have any questions just come and ask in our Telegram: https://t.me/renproject
submitted by RENProtocol to RenProject [link] [comments]

⚡ Lightning Network Megathread ⚡

Last updated 2018-01-29
This post is a collaboration with the Bitcoin community to create a one-stop source for Lightning Network information.
There are still questions in the FAQ that are unanswered, if you know the answer and can provide a source please do so!

⚡What is the Lightning Network? ⚡

Explanations:

Image Explanations:

Specifications / White Papers

Videos

Lightning Network Experts on Reddit

  • starkbot - (Elizabeth Stark - Lightning Labs)
  • roasbeef - (Olaoluwa Osuntokun - Lightning Labs)
  • stile65 - (Alex Akselrod - Lightning Labs)
  • cfromknecht - (Conner Fromknecht - Lightning Labs)
  • RustyReddit - (Rusty Russell - Blockstream)
  • cdecker - (Christian Decker - Blockstream)
  • Dryja - (Tadge Dryja - Digital Currency Initiative)
  • josephpoon - (Joseph Poon)
  • fdrn - (Fabrice Drouin - ACINQ )
  • pmpadiou - (Pierre-Marie Padiou - ACINQ)

Lightning Network Experts on Twitter

  • @starkness - (Elizabeth Stark - Lightning Labs)
  • @roasbeef - (Olaoluwa Osuntokun - Lightning Labs)
  • @stile65 - (Alex Akselrod - Lightning Labs)
  • @bitconner - (Conner Fromknecht - Lightning Labs)
  • @johanth - (Johan Halseth - Lightning Labs)
  • @bvu - (Bryan Vu - Lightning Labs)
  • @rusty_twit - (Rusty Russell - Blockstream)
  • @snyke - (Christian Decker - Blockstream)
  • @JackMallers - (Jack Mallers - Zap)
  • @tdryja - (Tadge Dryja - Digital Currency Initiative)
  • @jcp - (Joseph Poon)
  • @alexbosworth - (Alex Bosworth - yalls.org)

Medium Posts

Learning Resources

Books

Desktop Interfaces

Web Interfaces

Tutorials and resources

Lightning on Testnet

Lightning Wallets

Place a testnet transaction

Altcoin Trading using Lightning

  • ZigZag - Disclaimer You must trust ZigZag to send to Target Address

Lightning on Mainnet

Warning - Testing should be done on Testnet

Atomic Swaps

Developer Documentation and Resources

Lightning implementations

  • LND - Lightning Network Daemon (Golang)
  • eclair - A Scala implementation of the Lightning Network (Scala)
  • c-lightning - A Lightning Network implementation in C
  • lit - Lightning Network node software (Golang)
  • lightning-onion - Onion Routed Micropayments for the Lightning Network (Golang)
  • lightning-integration - Lightning Integration Testing Framework
  • ptarmigan - C++ BOLT-Compliant Lightning Network Implementation [Incomplete]

Libraries

Lightning Network Visualizers/Explorers

Testnet

Mainnet

Payment Processors

  • BTCPay - Next stable version will include Lightning Network

Community

Slack

IRC

Slack Channel

Discord Channel

Miscellaneous

⚡ Lightning FAQs ⚡

If you can answer please PM me and include source if possible. Feel free to help keep these answers up to date and as brief but correct as possible
Is Lightning Bitcoin?
Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.
Is the Lightning Network open source?
Yes, Lightning is open source. Anyone can review the code (in the same way as the bitcoin code)
Who owns and controls the Lightning Network?
Similar to the bitcoin network, no one will ever own or control the Lightning Network. The code is open source and free for anyone to download and review. Anyone can run a node and be part of the network.
I’ve heard that Lightning transactions are happening “off-chain”…Does that mean that my bitcoin will be removed from the blockchain?
No, your bitcoin will never leave the blockchain. Instead your bitcoin will be held in a multi-signature address as long as your channel stays open. When the channel is closed; the final transaction will be added to the blockchain. “Off-chain” is not a perfect term, but it is used due to the fact that the transfer of ownership is no longer reflected on the blockchain until the channel is closed.
Do I need a constant connection to run a lightning node?
Not necessarily,
Example: A and B have a channel. 1 BTC each. A sends B 0.5 BTC. B sends back 0.25 BTC. Balance should be A = 0.75, B = 1.25. If A gets disconnected, B can publish the first Tx where the balance was A = 0.5 and B = 1.5. If the node B does in fact attempt to cheat by publishing an old state (such as the A=0.5 and B=1.5 state), this cheat can then be detected on-chain and used to steal the cheaters funds, i.e., A can see the closing transaction, notice it's an old one and grab all funds in the channel (A=2, B=0). The time that A has in order to react to the cheating counterparty is given by the CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) in the cheating transaction, which is adjustable. So if A foresees that it'll be able to check in about once every 24 hours it'll require that the CLTV is at least that large, if it's once a week then that's fine too. You definitely do not need to be online and watching the chain 24/7, just make sure to check in once in a while before the CLTV expires. Alternatively you can outsource the watch duties, in order to keep the CLTV timeouts low. This can be achieved both with trusted third parties or untrusted ones (watchtowers). In the case of a unilateral close, e.g., you just go offline and never come back, the other endpoint will have to wait for that timeout to expire to get its funds back. So peers might not accept channels with extremely high CLTV timeouts. -- Source
What Are Lightning’s Advantages?
Tiny payments are possible: since fees are proportional to the payment amount, you can pay a fraction of a cent; accounting is even done in thousandths of a satoshi. Payments are settled instantly: the money is sent in the time it takes to cross the network to your destination and back, typically a fraction of a second.
Does Lightning require Segregated Witness?
Yes, but not in theory. You could make a poorer lightning network without it, which has higher risks when establishing channels (you might have to wait a month if things go wrong!), has limited channel lifetime, longer minimum payment expiry times on each hop, is less efficient and has less robust outsourcing. The entire spec as written today assumes segregated witness, as it solves all these problems.
Can I Send Funds From Lightning to a Normal Bitcoin Address?
No, for now. For the first version of the protocol, if you wanted to send a normal bitcoin transaction using your channel, you have to close it, send the funds, then reopen the channel (3 transactions). In future versions, you and your peer would agree to spend out of your lightning channel funds just like a normal bitcoin payment, allowing you to use your lightning wallet like a normal bitcoin wallet.
Can I Make Money Running a Lightning Node?
Not really. Anyone can set up a node, and so it’s a race to the bottom on fees. In practice, we may see the network use a nominal fee and not change very much, which only provides an incremental incentive to route on a node you’re going to use yourself, and not enough to run one merely for fees. Having clients use criteria other than fees (e.g. randomness, diversity) in route selection will also help this.
What is the release date for Lightning on Mainnet?
Lightning is already being tested on the Mainnet Twitter Link but as for a specific date, Jameson Lopp says it best
Would there be any KYC/AML issues with certain nodes?
Nope, because there is no custody ever involved. It's just like forwarding packets. -- Source
What is the delay time for the recipient of a transaction receiving confirmation?
Furthermore, the Lightning Network scales not with the transaction throughput of the underlying blockchain, but with modern data processing and latency limits - payments can be made nearly as quickly as packets can be sent. -- Source
How does the lightning network prevent centralization?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
What are Channel Factories and how do they work?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
How does the Lightning network work in simple terms?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
How are paths found in Lightning Network?
Bitcoin Stack Exchange Answer
How would the lightning network work between exchanges?
Each exchange will get to decide and need to implement the software into their system, but some ideas have been outlined here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges
Note that by virtue of the usual benefits of cost-less, instantaneous transactions, lightning will make arbitrage between exchanges much more efficient and thus lead to consistent pricing across exchange that adopt it. -- Source
How do lightning nodes find other lightning nodes?
Stack Exchange Answer
Does every user need to store the state of the complete Lightning Network?
According to Rusty's calculations we should be able to store 1 million nodes in about 100 MB, so that should work even for mobile phones. Beyond that we have some proposals ready to lighten the load on endpoints, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. -- Source
Would I need to download the complete state every time I open the App and make a payment?
No you'd remember the information from the last time you started the app and only sync the differences. This is not yet implemented, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a preliminary protocol working if that turns out to be a problem. -- Source
What needs to happen for the Lightning Network to be deployed and what can I do as a user to help?
Lightning is based on participants in the network running lightning node software that enables them to interact with other nodes. This does not require being a full bitcoin node, but you will have to run "lnd", "eclair", or one of the other node softwares listed above.
All lightning wallets have node software integrated into them, because that is necessary to create payment channels and conduct payments on the network, but you can also intentionally run lnd or similar for public benefit - e.g. you can hold open payment channels or channels with higher volume, than you need for your own transactions. You would be compensated in modest fees by those who transact across your node with multi-hop payments. -- Source
Is there anyway for someone who isn't a developer to meaningfully contribute?
Sure, you can help write up educational material. You can learn and read more about the tech at http://dev.lightning.community/resources. You can test the various desktop and mobile apps out there (Lightning Desktop, Zap, Eclair apps). -- Source
Do I need to be a miner to be a Lightning Network node?
No -- Source
Do I need to run a full Bitcoin node to run a lightning node?
lit doesn't depend on having your own full node -- it automatically connects to full nodes on the network. -- Source
LND uses a light client mode, so it doesn't require a full node. The name of the light client it uses is called neutrino
How does the lightning network stop "Cheating" (Someone broadcasting an old transaction)?
Upon opening a channel, the two endpoints first agree on a reserve value, below which the channel balance may not drop. This is to make sure that both endpoints always have some skin in the game as rustyreddit puts it :-)
For a cheat to become worth it, the opponent has to be absolutely sure that you cannot retaliate against him during the timeout. So he has to make sure you never ever get network connectivity during that time. Having someone else also watching for channel closures and notifying you, or releasing a canned retaliation, makes this even harder for the attacker. This is because if he misjudged you being truly offline you can retaliate by grabbing all of its funds. Spotty connections, DDoS, and similar will not provide the attacker the necessary guarantees to make cheating worthwhile. Any form of uncertainty about your online status acts as a deterrent to the other endpoint. -- Source
How many times would someone need to open and close their lightning channels?
You typically want to have more than one channel open at any given time for redundancy's sake. And we imagine open and close will probably be automated for the most part. In fact we already have a feature in LND called autopilot that can automatically open channels for a user.
Frequency will depend whether the funds are needed on-chain or more useful on LN. -- Source
Will the lightning network reduce BTC Liquidity due to "locking-up" funds in channels?
Stack Exchange Answer
Can the Lightning Network work on any other cryptocurrency? How?
Stack Exchange Answer
When setting up a Lightning Network Node are fees set for the entire node, or each channel when opened?
You don't really set up a "node" in the sense that anyone with more than one channel can automatically be a node and route payments. Fees on LN can be set by the node, and can change dynamically on the network. -- Source
Can Lightning routing fees be changed dynamically, without closing channels?
Yes but it has to be implemented in the Lightning software being used. -- Source
How can you make sure that there will be routes with large enough balances to handle transactions?
You won't have to do anything. With autopilot enabled, it'll automatically open and close channels based on the availability of the network. -- Source
How does the Lightning Network stop flooding nodes (DDoS) with micro transactions? Is this even an issue?
Stack Exchange Answer

Unanswered Questions

How do on-chain fees work when opening and closing channels? Who pays the fee?
How does the Lightning Network work for mobile users?
What are the best practices for securing a lightning node?
What is a lightning "hub"?
How does lightning handle cross chain (Atomic) swaps?

Special Thanks and Notes

  • Many links found from awesome-lightning-network github
  • Everyone who submitted a question or concern!
  • I'm continuing to format for an easier Mobile experience!
submitted by codedaway to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A (hopefully mathematically neutral) comparison of Lightning network fees to Bitcoin Cash on-chain fees.

A side note before I begin
For context, earlier today, sherlocoin made a post on this sub asking if Lightning Network transactions are cheaper than on-chain BCH transactions. This user also went on to complain on /bitcoin that his "real" numbers were getting downvoted
I was initially going to respond to his post, but after I typed some of my response, I realized it is relevant to a wider Bitcoin audience and the level of analysis done warranted a new post. This wound up being the longest post I've ever written, so I hope you agree.
I've placed the TL;DR at the top and bottom for the simple reason that you need to prepare your face... because it's about to get hit with a formidable wall of text.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.

Let's Begin With An Ideal World
Lightning network fees themselves are indeed cheaper than Bitcoin Cash fees, but in order to get to a state where a Lightning network fee can be made, you are required to open a channel, and to get to a state where those funds are spendable, you must close that channel.
On the Bitcoin network, the minimum accepted fee is 1sat/byte so for now, we'll assume that ideal scenario of 1sat/byte. We'll also assume the open and close is sent as a simple native Segwit transaction with a weighted size of 141 bytes. Because we have to both open and close, this 141 byte fee will be incurred twice. The total fee for an ideal open/close transaction is 1.8¢
For comparison, a simple transaction on the BCH network requires 226 bytes one time. The minimum fee accepted next-block is 1sat/byte. At the time of writing an ideal BCH transaction fee costs ~ 0.11¢
This means that under idealized circumstances, you must currently make at least 16 transactions on a LN channel to break-even with fees
Compounding Factors
Our world is not ideal, so below I've listed compounding factors, common arguments, an assessment, and whether the problem is solvable.
Problem 1: Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash prices are asymmetrical.
Common arguments:
BTC: If Bitcoin Cash had the same price, the fees would be far higher
Yes, this is true. If Bitcoin Cash had the same market price as Bitcoin, our ideal scenario changes substantially. An open and close on Bitcoin still costs 1.8¢ while a simple Bitcoin Cash transaction now costs 1.4¢. The break-even point for a Lightning Channel is now only 2 transactions.
Is this problem solvable?
Absolutely.
Bitcoin Cash has already proposed a reduction in fees to 1sat for every 10 bytes, and that amount can be made lower by later proposals. While there is no substantial pressure to implement this now, if Bitcoin Cash had the same usage as Bitcoin currently does, it is far more likely to be implemented. If implemented at the first proposed reduction rate, under ideal circumstances, a Lightning Channel would need to produce around 13 transactions for the new break even.
But couldn't Bitcoin reduce fees similarly
The answer there is really tricky. If you reduce on-chain fees, you reduce the incentive to use the Lightning Network as the network becomes more hospitable to micropaments. This would likely increase the typical mempool state and decrease the Lightning Channel count some. The upside is that when the mempool saturates with low transaction fees, users are then re-incentivized to use the lightning network after the lowes fees are saturated with transactions. This should, in theory, produce some level of a transaction fee floor which is probably higher on average than 0.1 sat/byte on the BTC network.
Problem 2: This isn't an ideal world, we can't assume 1sat/byte fees
Common arguments:
BCH: If you tried to open a channel at peak fees, you could pay $50 each way
BTC: LN wasn't implemented which is why the fees are low now
Both sides have points here. It's true that if the mempool was in the same state as it was in December of 2017, that a user could have potentially been incentivized to pay an open and close channel fee of up to 1000 sat/byte to be accepted in a reasonable time-frame.
With that being said, two factors have resulted in a reduced mempool size of Bitcoin: Increased Segwit and Lightning Network Usage, and an overall cooling of the market.
I'm not going to speculate as to what percentage of which is due to each factor. Instead, I'm going to simply analyze mempool statistics for the last few months where both factors are present.
Let's get an idea of current typical Bitcoin network usage fees by asking Johoe quick what the mempool looks like.
For the last few months, the bitcoin mempool has followed almost the exact same pattern. Highest usage happens between 10AM and 3PM EST with a peak around noon. Weekly, usage usually peaks on Tuesday or Wednesday with enough activity to fill blocks with at least minimum fee transactions M-F during the noted hours and usually just shy of block-filling capacity on Sat and Sun.
These observations can be additionally evidenced by transaction counts on bitinfocharts. It's also easier to visualize on bitinfocharts over a longer time-frame.
Opening a channel
Under pre-planned circumstances, you can offload channel creation to off-peak hours and maintain a 1sat/byte rate. The primary issue arises in situations where either 1) LN payments are accepted and you had little prior knowledge, or 2) You had a previous LN pathway to a known payment processor and one or more previously known intermediaries are offline or otherwise unresponsive causing the payment to fail.
Your options are:
A) Create a new LN channel on-the-spot where you're likely to incur current peak fee rates of 5-20sat/byte.
B) Create an on-chain payment this time and open a LN channel when fees are more reasonable.
C) Use an alternate currency for the transaction.
There is a fundamental divide among the status of C. Some people view Bitcoin as (primarily) a storage of value, and thus as long as there are some available onramps and offramps, the currency will hold value. There are other people who believe that fungibility is what gives cryptocurrency it's value and that option C would fundamentally undermine the value of the currency.
I don't mean to dismiss either argument, but option C opens a can of worms that alone can fill economic textbooks. For the sake of simplicity, we will throw out option C as a possibility and save that debate for another day. We will simply require that payment is made in crypto.
With option B, you would absolutely need to pay the peak rate (likely higher) for a single transaction as a Point-of-Sale scenario with a full mempool would likely require at least one confirm and both parties would want that as soon as possible after payment. It would not be unlikely to pay 20-40 sat/byte on a single transaction and then pay 1sat/byte for an open and close to enable LN payments later. Even in the low end, the total cost is 20¢ for on-chain + open + close.
With present-day-statistics, your LN would have to do 182 transactions to make up for the one peak on-chain transaction you were forced to do.
With option A, you still require one confirm. Let's also give the additional leeway that in this scenario you have time to sit and wait a couple of blocks for your confirm before you order / pay. You can thus pay peak rates alone and not peak + ensure next block rates. This will most likely be in the 5-20 sat/byte range. With 5sat/byte open and 1sat/byte close, your LN would have to do 50 transactions to break even
In closing, fees are incurred by the funding channel, so there could be scenarios where the receiving party is incentivized to close in order to spend outputs and the software automatically calculates fees based on current rates. If this is the case, the receiving party could incur a higher-than-planned fee to the funding party.
With that being said, any software that allows the funding party to set the fee beforehand would avoid unplanned fees, so we'll assume low fees for closing.
Is this problem solvable?
It depends.
In order to avoid the peak-fee open/close ratio problem, the Bitcoin network either needs to have much higher LN / Segwit utilization, or increase on-chain capacity. If it gets to a point where transactions stack up, users will be required to pay more than 1sat/byte per transaction and should expect as much.
Current Bitcoin network utilization is close enough to 100% to fill blocks during peak times. I also did an export of the data available at Blockchair.com for the last 3000 blocks which is approximately the last 3 weeks of data. According to their block-weight statistics, The average Bitcoin block is 65.95% full. This means that on-chain, Bitcoin can only increase in transaction volume by around 50% and all other scaling must happen via increased Segwit and LN use.
Problem 3: You don't fully control your LN channel states.
Common arguments:
BCH: You can get into a scenario where you don't have output capacity and need to open a new channel.
BCH: A hostile actor can cause you to lose funds during a high-fee situation where a close is forced.
BTC: You can easily re-load your channel by pushing outbound to inbound.
BCH: You can't control whether nodes you connect to are online or offline.
There's a lot to digest here, but LN is essentially a 2-way contract between 2 parties. Not only does the drafting party pay the fees as of right now, but connected 3rd-parties can affect the state of this contract. There are some interesting scenarios that develop because of it and you aren't always in full control of what side.
Lack of outbound capacity
First, it's true that if you run out of outbound capacity, you either need to reload or create a new channel. This could potentially require 0, 1, or 2 additional on-chain transactions.
If a network loop exists between a low-outbound-capacity channel and yourself, you could push transactional capacity through the loop back to the output you wish to spend to. This would require 0 on-chain transactions and would only cost 1 (relatively negligible) LN fee charge. For all intents and purposes... this is actually kind of a cool scenario.
If no network loop exists from you-to-you, things get more complex. I've seen proposals like using Bitrefill to push capacity back to your node. In order to do this, you would have an account with them and they would lend custodial support based on your account. While people opting for trustless money would take issue in 3rd party custodians, I don't think this alone is a horrible solution to the LN outbound capacity problem... Although it depends on the fee that bitrefill charges to maintain an account and account charges could negate the effectiveness of using the LN. Still, we will assume this is a 0 on-chain scenario and would only cost 1 LN fee which remains relatively negligible.
If no network loop exists from you and you don't have a refill service set up, you'll need at least one on-chain payment to another LN entity in exchange for them to push LN capacity to you. Let's assume ideal fee rates. If this is the case, your refill would require an additional 7 transactions for that channel's new break-even. Multiply that by number of sat/byte if you have to pay more.
Opening a new channel is the last possibility and we go back to the dynamics of 13 transactions per LN channel in the ideal scenario.
Hostile actors
There are some potential attack vectors previously proposed. Most of these are theoretical and/or require high fee scenarios to come about. I think that everyone should be wary of them, however I'm going to ignore most of them again for the sake of succinctness.
This is not to be dismissive... it's just because my post length has already bored most casual readers half to death and I don't want to be responsible for finishing the job.
Pushing outbound to inbound
While I've discussed scenarios for this push above, there are some strange scenarios that arise where pushing outbound to inbound is not possible and even some scenarios where a 3rd party drains your outbound capacity before you can spend it.
A while back I did a testnet simulation to prove that this scenario can and will happen it was a post response that happened 2 weeks after the initial post so it flew heavily under the radar, but the proof is there.
The moral of this story is in some scenarios, you can't count on loaded network capacity to be there by the time you want to spend it.
Online vs Offline Nodes
We can't even be sure that a given computer is online to sign a channel open or push capacity until we try. Offline nodes provide a brick-wall in the pathfinding algorithm so an alternate route must be found. If we have enough channel connectivity to be statistically sure we can route around this issue, we're in good shape. If not, we're going to have issues.
Is this problem solvable?
Only if the Lightning network can provide an (effectively) infinite amount of capacity... but...
Problem 4: Lightning Network is not infinite.
Common arguments:
BTC: Lightning network can scale infinitely so there's no problem.
Unfortunately, LN is not infinitely scalable. In fact, finding a pathway from one node to another is roughly the same problem as the traveling salesman problem. Dijkstra's algorithm which is a problem that diverges polynomially. The most efficient proposals have a difficulty bound by O(n^2).
Note - in the above I confused the complexity of the traveling salesman problem with Dijkstra when they do not have the same bound. With that being said, the complexity of the LN will still diverge with size
In lay terms, what that means is every time you double the size of the Lightning Network, finding an indirect LN pathway becomes 4 times as difficult and data intensive. This means that for every doubling, the amount of traffic resulting from a single request also quadruples.
You can potentially temporarily mitigate traffic by bounding the number of hops taken, but that would encourage a greater channel-per-user ratio.
For a famous example... the game "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" postulates that Kevin Bacon can be connected by co-stars to any movie by 6 degrees of separation. If the game is reduced to "4 degrees of Kevin Bacon," users of this network would still want as many connections to be made, so they'd be incentivized to hire Kevin Bacon to star in everything. You'd start to see ridiculous mash-ups and reboots just to get more connectivity... Just imagine hearing Coming soon - Kevin Bacon and Adam Sandlar star in "Billy Madison 2: Replace the face."
Is this problem solvable?
Signs point to no.
So technically, if the average computational power and network connectivity can handle the problem (the number of Lightning network channels needed to connect the world)2 in a trivial amount of time, Lightning Network is effectively infinite as the upper bound of a non-infinite earth would limit time-frames to those that are computationally feasible.
With that being said, BTC has discussed Lightning dev comments before that estimated a cap of 10,000 - 1,000,000 channels before problems are encountered which is far less than the required "number of channels needed to connect the world" level.
In fact SHA256 is a newer NP-hard problem than the traveling saleseman problem. That means that statistically, and based on the amount of review that has been given to each problem, it is more likely that SHA256 - the algorithm that lends security to all of bitcoin - is cracked before the traveling salesman problem is. Notions that "a dedicated dev team can suddenly solve this problem, while not technically impossible, border on statistically absurd.
Edit - While the case isn't quite as bad as the traveling salesman problem, the problem will still diverge with size and finding a more efficient algorithm is nearly as unlikely.
This upper bound shows that we cannot count on infinite scalability or connectivity for the lightning network. Thus, there will always be on-chain fee pressure and it will rise as the LN reaches it's computational upper-bound.
Because you can't count on channel states, the on-chain fee pressure will cause typical sat/byte fees to raise. The higher this rate, the more transactions you have to make for a Lightning payment open/close operation to pay for itself.
This is, of course unless it is substantially reworked or substituted for a O(log(n))-or-better solution.
Finally, I'd like to add, creating an on-chain transaction is a set non-recursive, non looping function - effectively O(1), sending this transaction over a peer-to-peer network is bounded by O(log(n)) and accepting payment is, again, O(1). This means that (as far as I can tell) on-chain transactions (very likely) scale more effectively than Lightning Network in its current state.
Additional notes:
My computational difficulty assumptions were based on a generalized, but similar problem set for both LN and on-chain instances. I may have overlooked additional steps needed for the specific implementation, and I may have overlooked reasons a problem is a simplified version requiring reduced computational difficulty.
I would appreciate review and comment on my assumptions for computational difficulty and will happily correct said assumptions if reasonable evidence is given that a problem doesn't adhere to listed computational difficulty.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.
submitted by CaptainPatent to btc [link] [comments]

Why use the blockchain instead of a database? What gives tokens value?

Edit: By popular demand, here’s the Medium version of this post: https://medium.com/@matrixportfolio/why-use-the-blockchain-instead-of-a-database-what-gives-tokens-value-263449681153
I see these questions asked all the time by newbies entering the space, either for specific projects, or as a general question. So I thought I'd attempt to write a detailed yet basic explanation on the utility of tokens, and what justifies the use of a blockchain.
Basically, blockchain inherits a lot of game theory and incentive methodologies. In order for a blockchain network to be valuable or useful, it has to have participants in a network, it would be worthless if Bitcoin only had me and you using it, there's not much value there in a barren network with not much utility.
In order to secure participants, there needs to be some sort of incentive to attract them, the most common method is via issuance or reward of the token used in the network, the more participants, the more decentralized it is.
So why not just a database, why do these projects need a blockchain?
So basically, there are a few key benefits to decentralizing things instead of keeping it in a centralized servedatabase:
Immutability Having records and data decentralized, and deployed on a blockchain makes it virtually impossible for any one party to tamper with data or records. Versus how it is now, if you host your data on let's say, your computer, you can easily edit that file, before you send it to someone else, how can I ensure I can trust you?
Security Traditional servers or data are generally centralized, making it a likely target for malicious attacks. Just look at the Equifax breaches and other cybersecurity concerns arising in recent times. Instead of having a single or limited # of servers hackers can attack, decentralization via the blockchain greatly increases the difficulty. The more participants/nodes in a network, the more copies of the data there is. Therefore, if you want to tamper with the data, you will need to attack every single node on the network and alter all of their data simultaneously. Not only does blockchain make data tamper proof, it is also hard to breach. Every “block” on a chain contains a certain amount of data, and when that block gets filled, much like a USB drive, it is encrypted and sealed forever. To get the full picture, hackers will need to hack not just the current block, but also every block before it. This is not only technically almost impossible, but it is costly, thereby reducing the incentive for malicious activities. Different blockchains have different security measures and algorithms, this is a generalization of the concepts.
Redundancy You basically have the same set of data distributed across the world, you don't need to worry if you lose your copy. This provides data resilience to corporations which gives peace of mind from any data corruption, server downtimes, etc
Overhead/cost reduction Having a decentralized network of nodes to maintain this ledger allows companies to offset and offload hosting, security, and maintenance costs. It removes a lot of the costs of IT staffing, Dev Ops, and infrastructural overhead. For example: Apple's servers are literally under attack constantly. They have teams, and teams of people monitoring their servers 24/7/365.
Accountability Obviously, with all of the above in place, you can be sure that everything that is logged or deployed on the blockchain, is accurate, and true.
All of this results in the ease of trust, and ease of the ability to do business in a transparent manner, without needing to trust the counter-party. You can simply leverage blockchain technology to let the data and facts speak for themselves.
Do currently systems and data infrastructures work? Sure, but they are not perfect. They only exist the way they do because there hasn't been technology that could come along and offer a vast improvement until the introduction of Blockchain.
Ok but what gives token value? Why are they needed?
Well, it really depends on the project. 90% of the projects out there are pure bullshit, but for sake of argument, I'll simply address it for the ones that have actual utility and use cases.
As mentioned above, tokens are often used as a method of incentivizing participating in a network, therefore, a successful network means there are a plethora of participants, contributing to the decentralization and securitization of a network. The more participants, the more consensus there is that the network has utility, like Bitcoin. It was worth nothing when Satoshi first introduced it to the world, and it was only him on the network. But as it gained adoption, there is increasing consensus now that Bitcoin the token, has utility as a currency, and therefore intrinsic value between participants in the network.
There are generally a few classes of tokens and each class derives value differently:
For a currency token like Bitcoin, it's value is derived primarily on the use case of it being a currency/store of value.
For utility tokens, value could come from the adoption and usage of the network, for example, the amount of data that gets put on the blockchain, and the amount of information that it's processing, as there are parties willing to pay transaction fees to nodes to process, validate, exchange, and secure that data. This could be decentralized exchanges, or businesses putting supply chain data on the blockchain, etc.
For an asset token, this could be tied to the valuation of the assets (ie: Cryptokitties could be considered an asset, yet the underlying network powering it is Ethereum, thereby giving ETH value because it is a method of trade, and it now has utility to trade this asset) that it's tied to or represents. If a CryptoKitty is traded and its value is tied to a KittyCoin, then that would make KittyCoin an asset token.
Equity tokens, this could be valued closer to the investor sentiment and the progress of the project itself. Are they getting business and real world adoption? What kind of voting power will token holders have? What is the future potential and direction of the company?
So now that we know where value is derived from, what affects their price? Every project and token may have different stimuli or economic models that affect price. Speculation aside, here's a few technical factors that affect it regardless of investor sentiment:
So as you can see there are a large number of factors that can affect the valuation and price of a token. But at least I hope this post explains the general question of "why is a token even worth anything".
I hope I've explained the concepts of why a blockchain is needed and the incentive structure around decentralization and its benefits, as well as why tokens are needed and what drives value. If anything's unclear or if I've made any mistakes, please make a suggestion to improve the post! :)
Good luck!
submitted by MatrixApp to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

A Lost Gem In A Sea Of Shitcoins

What’s up everyone!
 
Yeah, it’s another one of “those”. But honestly, after being in the game for long enough, you end up developing an eye for the good coins. Not the “good” ones, the GOOD ones. Believe it or not, research and common sense is the name of the game!
 
A little bit more about me: I come from a business & logistics management background. I started investing in cryptocurrencies and trading a little more than six months ago. As a person, I am very detail oriented and I’ve been researching all kinds of cryptos, for hours a day, for the past six months. The more I researched, the more I learned, the more I became hungry for knowledge, and therefore the more i researched. From trading to cryptocurrency basics, their economics, their political implications, the technology revolution they represent, the human psychology aspect as well as emotional trading behaviours (FOMO, FODO, etc.), all of it!
 
I’ve purchased Ethereum at 150$ (when I first started in crypto). Then NEO back when it was still AntShares and trading under 3$. Gas (Antcoin back then) at 30c, OMG when it was sub-1$, and ETP at exactly a dollar (selling it later at 5$). This was all before I even knew how to do a basic margin trade & was still in the process of learning about crypto (and while tether still had a “reasonable” market cap! LOL)
 
My approach is pretty simple when it comes to crypto. I split coins into seven main categories:
 
-Store of Value (BTC)
-Payment (DASH, BCH, LTC)
-Pure Anonymity and/or Evil Stuff (XMR)
-Platform/platform’ish (ETH, NEO, LISK, CARDANO, ETP, Iota, Factom and the likes)
-Shitcoins (99% of ERC20 tokens)
-Absolute Shitcoins (Boolberry, Embercoin et al.)
-Fee Split / Dividend Coins
 
That last category is my favorite. While I do strongly believe in diversification (10% store of value, 10% payment, 5% anonymity, 25% platform in my case), I always have a “lean” towards coins that make business sense. Coins that derive their value directly from the amount of usage the platform gets (Factom, for example). Coins such as NEO, BNB, Kucoin, Coss, ICN, TenX and the likes, basically coins that either have a direct “dividend-paying” property (NEO generating gas, Kucoin/Coss awarding holders with a % of the exchange’s trading fees) or an indirect “dividend paying” property such as BNB, ICN, TenX using quarterly profits to buy back their own coins and burn them, thus raising the value of the rest of the coins in circulation over time.
 
Now let’s look at market caps of these direct and indirect “dividend” coins.
 
Neo: 2.3B
TenX: 246M
Binance: 200M
Iconomi: 155M
Kucoin: 44M (68M at ath, not too long ago)
Coss: 5M
 
You see that odd one there with only 5M market cap? Yeah. That’s the great buy right now. That’s the x10, x20 or even x30 that most people haven’t realized yet. That’s also the “dividend coin” you can scoop a ton of while it’s on the cheap, and make massive recurring revenue from as the exchange solidifies and evolves.
 
What is COSS? COSS stands for Crypto One Stop Solution. They’re a Singapore based cryptocurrency exchange with an amazing team that’s currently expanding. They aim at becoming the “One Stop” solution for crypto, meaning A) an exchange, B) a payment gateway for merchants to accept crypto payments, and probably sometime in the future C) crypto debit/credit cards. They offer their own coin (COSS coin), and holders of this coin receive 50% of the trading fees generated by the exchange (more on this later).
 
Now, what a lot of people still don’t realize in crypto, you don’t invest in the bigger market cap coins expecting to make a killing (“the moonshot”). Sure, they’ll bring you nice long term growth as the whole market matures, and that’s where you want to diversify and solidify your portfolio, solid coins with a purpose. But what if you want more thrill? An actual opportunity to “moon”? You find a project that makes business sense, that has at least a working product, and a good team. Buying NEO at 2.5B market cap? You missed the boat, it was a dollar a few months ago and already went x60 (“mooned”), and now stabilized at roughly x38. OMG had it’s x10-15 already. BNB as well. Their market caps are big, and a lot of buying needs to happen to even double in price.
 
Antshares (NEO) back then was a steal at 1, 2 and 3$. It was a huge risk, with huge rewards. They didn’t even have a product other than their blockchain. No dApp running or even being built on it, no english resources to even figure out how to code on it and deploy a smart contract, no marketing, hell we didn’t even know if Da Hongfei was still alive. All it was is a Chinese based smart contract platform, with an innovative dBFT concensus algorithm. It was a 100M market cap coin that early adopters believed in, and essentially invested in when it was not much more than a website and a blockchain. Look where it’s at now, with more than a dozen dApps being built on it, a solid team of roughly 10 devs, with the NEO council also funding City of Zion (team of 20+ NEO devs). NEO has grown into an incredible community, and is now launching coding dApp contests left and right, with the latest one in partnership with Microsoft china & offering half a million dollar’s worth in prizes.
 
NEO holders get rewarded with GAS on a daily basis. When NEO gets further adoption, all fees such as registering an asset, deploying a contract, changing an asset, etc. will be redistributed to NEO holders as well on a pro rated basis. Only transaction fees are not, as those will go out to MasterNodes. If you got yourself a thousand NEO’s back when they were a dollar or two a piece, you’re now generating 7 gas per month. That’s roughly 161$ USD per month, on a recurring basis, at current gas prices, out of a 1000$ investment. That’s a whopping 16.1% PER MONTH on original investment, and not even counting the fact that you pretty much made 37000$ profit on the NEO’s themselves. Today? Well, you gotta dish out 38000$ to buy a thousand neos and make 161$ per month, basically bringing you 0.4% per month on original investment.
 
Same with bitcoin. Early adopters that got it at pennies. It just hit $10K USD a piece. For every 30 cent spent purchasing bitcoin in 2009, you’d have $10K USD in the bank account. Invested 3$? 100K. Invested 30$? 1M.
 
Ethereum? From a dollar to half a grand now.
 
Moral of the story? Early adoption pays off. History repeats itself, and it will continue to do so. Bitcoin was digital money for nerds, ethereum was a cool project that nobody really gave a crap about until they got EEA which showed credibility (early adopters of eth had a great vision, I’ll give them that!). Neo was chinese vaporware. What do they all have in common? Their.Early. Adopters. Made. A. Killing.
 
Look where they stand now. Look where a lot of coins stand now. Even a lot of ERC20 tokens that don’t even really have a reason to exist have market caps over 100M. And for what? They don’t reward you with anything other than price increasing because more people buy (greater fool theory)? They don’t reward you with dividends from the project/platform itself? Their value isn’t derived directly from the amount of usage it gets (a la Factom, PaulSnow you genius.)? They still don’t even have a minimum viable product to show? When you ask yourself why does it need a coin, and the answer is either “uhh…” or “oh it grants you voting rights” (that nobody gives a crap about, let’s be honest), you should reconsider your investment strategy. Cause I can tell you a lot of people don’t know what the hell they’re doing, and they’d be better off diversifying in the top 5 or 10 coins and holding than investing in the shitcoinfest that crypto has become.
 
And that’s why COSS is a pretty buy right now. You’re investing in a platform that’s already up and running, not a whitepaper or vaporware. Hell even Eth and Neo were riskier investments for early adopters. Let’s go over the cons first:
 
It’s ugly. The UI sucks.
It doesn’t have API’s yet, meaning there’s no bots to create liquidity, and therefore low volume.
It’s been fudded to death by KuCoin shills (and their referral links you’ve seen everywhere a month ago).
Charts are horrible
 
That’s about it. Whenever you read up about coss, those are the cons you’ll find. But what about the pros? Well, all of this is in the process of being fixed, as we speak.
 
Singapore has lax laws about cryptocurrencies and issued a statement it does not feel the need to regulate them.
It’s securing exclusive ICO’s already despite being a tiny exchange, and has mentioned being able to secure from 4 to 6 per month.
The team listens to the community’s feedback and takes it seriously. This is Gold. One of the first things they were criticized about was trying to do too many things at once (an exchange, a payment gateway, a full one-stop solution for crypto, etc.) and they’ve taken the community’s advice and decided to focus solely on the exchange for now and build it properly, before branching out to the rest. “Better excel at one thing and build from there, than be mediocre at multiple things at once”
Also following community feedback, they are implementing trading promotions “a la Binance”.
Part of the total supply of COSS tokens will be donated to charities (the community votes to who they go). First of all, that’s just plain nice. Secondly, I find it pretty damn cool that we donate this for good causes, and they basically keep “generating” income from it. It’s basically like a “perpetual donation” on behalf of COSS and all of its users, and definitely will make a lot of people feel good about using the exchange. Thirdly, this pretty much guarantees millions of COSS tokens are going to be in perpetual “HODL” mode, essentially taking them off the market.
They will be implementing a FIAT gateway sooner than later. We all know FIAT gateways are game changers.
They are constantly hiring. The team growing is definitely a good sign.
They are revamping the overall UI and charts, once again following the community’s advice, and the proposed new look is fantastic! Check it out here, as well as other great announcements: https://medium.com/@runeevensen/coss-io-7379b7628d93 EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that there is a UI upgrade scheduled for tomorrow (Dec. 3rd), although it isn't clear if it's a minor one or the actual major overhaul, might wanna keep an eye out on that!
They are upgrading the matching engine and releasing API’s soon to allow bots to create liquidity and significantly raise the trading volume.
Unlike KuCoin, the revenue split (COSS token holders) will always receive 50% of the fees, whereas kucoin will start decreasing it in 4-6months and it will bottom out at 10-15%
The revenue split from trading fees is controlled by a DAO, meaning the COSS team cannot arbitrarily decide to change it later down the line, unlike KuCoin where the control over the fee split is centralized and they decrease it as they please.
The DAO model also avoids it being labeled a security. First of all, those aren’t really “dividends” as dividends would require them to calculate income minus expenses to determine profit, and then distribute this profit to shareholders, and obviously that’s a legal nightmare. With the DAO model, you don’t get a percentage of the “profits”, you get a revenue split from the exchange fees, and it’s done by clicking a “distribute” button which makes a call to the smart contract and distributes your coins. COSS itself is not giving you anything
COSS is still in Beta. It has a tiny market cap. Now’s the time to pick it up, not when it’s out of beta and has become successful, or you’ll be in another Antshares/NEO situation. A ridiculously small move from 5M to 50M in Mcap and that’s x10, a move from 5M to 150M (still under binance levels) and that’s x30.
In the long run, COSS aims to be more than just an exchange. Holders of the token, who currently get 50% of the exchange’s trading fees, will also get 50% of other fees charged from coss. This includes their eventual payment gateway. Merchants around the world wishing to accept crypto payments will be able to use COSS’s gateway and COSS will charge a 0.75% fee per transaction. We, as COSS holders, also get 50% of that. You believe crypto is the future and going mainstream? Well your COSS will entitle you to the revenue generated by tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of businesses accepting crypto payments via COSS Point-Of-Sale.
COSS also mentioned that all other COSS “fee generating” products to come will all be subject to the same DAO/50% split. Logically, If they have 1) The trading platform, and 2) the payment gateway, then the third step is solving the problem of spending the crypto in places that don’t accept direct crypto payment, AKA a crypto credit/debit card. Well, guess what? Users of such cards will be charged a small fee as well when their crypto is being converted to fiat in real time for payment at a gas station. We as COSS holders are, again, getting 50% of that fee. As you can see, this is a coin that makes business sense to invest in. Unless you really, reaaaaaally care about a coin being the “Future of decentralized prediction markets” or “the future of decentralized dating” or the “decentralized gambling coin” and whatnot.
Smart money is smart. It's only a matter of time before savvy investors discover this coin.
 
What do the dividends look like (credits to lickmypussy28):
 
Here’s an excel showing the Yearly %ROI based on the COSS exchange volume and your COSS token buy-in price: https://i.imgur.com/XKjjCbZ.png
 
Here’s another one showing how much you’d make in USD per year based on how many COSS tokens you own, again all relative to the volume on the left: https://i.imgur.com/p15DKAr.png
 
Lastly, here’s another showing the exact same as above but on a weekly basis: https://i.imgur.com/ezp5FCV.png
 
ALTHOUGH, keep in mind, the calculations above take into consideration an average trading fee of 0.2% and while this fee is accurate right now, it will most likely average 0.1% once API’s are released and liquidity/market maker bots start operating on the platform. Also, the calculations above do NOT take into consideration that in 4 years from now, there will be 200M (hard cap) COSS tokens on the market. HOWEVER, these calculations also do not take into consideration that by then, COSS will have a fully up and running payment gateway, crypto credit cards, and other revenue-generating products such as a crowdfunding platform, smart contract deployment platform, etc. that are also generating revenue for COSS holders.
 
All in all, if all goes as planned, the payment gateway/cards/other products will negate the additional COSS tokens released in the market as well as the average trading fee of 0.1%, and therefore the numbers presented in the excel docs will remain sensibly the same. Also, if crypto really takes off in the mainstream, then the revenue split to coss holders from the payment gateway & credit card spending could very well double, triple or quadruple all the numbers you’re seeing in these excel sheets, and that’s on the low end. Remember, the exchange only charges 0.2% (0.1% average once we have bots) out of which we get half, but the payment gateway on the other hand charges a flat 0.75% (7.5x the what the exchange’s fee), out of which COSS holders get half. This could be a massive revenue driver, easily surpassing the exchange itself, and honestly if at that point in time this coin is NOT valued at 3B+ (I mean, even ethereum classic is over that right now..), then I’ll just give up on the whole notion of logical thinking.
 
Quick example, assuming in 4 years 50M in gateway processing daily (18B yearly), 0.375% of that would be 187.5K USD daily for COSS holders. With 200M Coss tokens total supply, if you hold 10K coss you’d generate 9.375$ per day (65$ per week, 282$/mo.), and that’s purely from the gateway (totally excluding the exchange revenue, crowdfunding revenue, credit card revenue, etc.).
 
If you have 100K coss you’d generate 93.7$/day, 650$/week, 2820$/mo, again purely from the gateway.
 
If you’d rather assume more conservative figures (let’s say 25M in daily gateway processing on COSS, all around the globe, or 9B yearly), then simply divide these figures by half. If you wanna go balls to the walls, double them (100M daily, 36B yearly). Play around, have fun with the numbers! To keep things in perspective, square has processed 50B’s worth of transactions in 2016. Therefore I believe using 9B, 18B and 36B for our calculations isn’t too far fetched, and actually pretty reasonable.
 
Anyway, to sum this up, no matter how you look at it, COSS is an extremely promising project with huge potential, and actually has working math (and a working beta!) behind it. It’s only a matter of a month or two before they’re out of their Beta, have upgrades to their UI and engine, and start really growing from there. The team listens to the community, which is super important, and they’re working on a multitude of revenue streams, out of which not only them, but all coss holders will benefit from, fifty fifty.
 
Their crowdfunding platform will be a competitor to indiegogo, gofundme, kickstarter, and they’ll have a small percentage fee (50% of which goes to COSS holders). The crypto Point-Of-Sale will be a competitor to Square and the likes (50% revenue to COSS holders). The crypto credit card (also 50% revenue to COSS holders). It is truely an admirable project. Shovel manufacturers made a killing during the gold rush, and COSS is positioning itself as the shovel manufacturer in the crypto adoption gold rush. This is a coin that makes sense to invest in, it is ultra tangible, and will give greater returns than any type of “decentralized [insert function here]” type coins.
 
On a personal note: Honestly, I believe this is the proper way to ICO, by NOT giving people worthless tokens that only go up in value due to speculation (looking at you, 99% of ERC20 tokens). Let investors guide you, let them reap 50% of the rewards as THEY are the ones funding you. This’ll keep the investors interested in the project, and every single one of them will have a direct incentive to vouch for your product. It’s only right for the investors to get rewarded with something tangible, I’d take that any day over a speculative shitcoin who’s only purpose was to put money in the project’s founders pockets
 
Oh, and cherry on the sundae: they are planning on launching massive marketing campaigns as soon as UI and trading engine are ready, Q1 2018, as you can see in Rune’s Nov 27th update. I suggest you read it, it puts us up to date on a lot of exciting new things: https://medium.com/@runeevensen/coss-io-update-november-27th-fa74f1237062
 
Quoted directly from said link: “For those that are most interested in discussions regarding the trading price of COSS. Please have in mind that when we entered our token sale, our clear sales message was a 3–5 year road-map, and not a 3–5 months pump and dump. We are a small team, doing our utmost to deliver and all we ask is for you to continue to give us feedback and also for you to give us some time to deliver. *That being said. We still aim to be out of BETA as soon as possible with a new engine for the exchange in Q1 2018. New UI should be in place well before that.** Once we feel we have this in place we will roll out massive marketing campaigns to attract users and increased volume. So although we have a 3–5 year road-map ahead, you should expect to see 2018 being “our year”. The 3–5 year plan is more on the complete roadmap when we proudly can call ourselves a one-stop solution. For now it is all about the exchange, and there we will see rapid changes over the coming weeks/months.”*
 
All in all, i’d like to thank the COSS team for actually caring about their investors, keeping them in the loop, listening to their feedback and giving them a unique and tangible opportunity. I’d also like to thank all the other COSS investors, who see a huge potential in this project and support the team, and lastly, all of you crypto-heads for reading through!
 
Happy hodling, and hopefully see you all at 500M+ market cap by late 2018 :)
 
-Some random guy on Reddit.
 
PS: Not investment advice. Always do your due diligence. Also, if you’d like, you can join the discussion at /cossIO
 
Friendly reminder: ETH is the quickest way to get your funds on the COSS exchange, and COSS/ETH pair has 4x the volume of the COSS/BTC pair.
submitted by globetrotter_s14 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Part 5. I'm writing a series about blockchain tech and possible future security risks. This is the fifth part of the series talking about an advanced vulnerability of BTC.

The previous parts will give you usefull basic blockchain knowledge and insights on quantum resistance vs blockchain that are not explained in this part.
Part 1, what makes blockchain reliable?
Part 2, The mathematical concepts Hashing and Public key cryptography.
Part 3, Quantum resistant blockchain vs Quantum computing.
Part 4A, The advantages of quantum resistance from genesis block, A
Part 4B, The advantages of quantum resistance from genesis block, A

Why BTC is vulnerable for quantum attacks sooner than you would think.
Content:
The BTC misconception: “Original public keys are not visible until you make a transaction, so BTC is quantum resistant.”
Already exposed public keys.
Hijacking transactions.
Hijacks during blocktime
Hijacks pre-blocktime.
MITM attacks

- Why BTC is vulnerable for quantum attacks sooner than you would think. -

Blockchain transactions are secured by public-private key cryptography. The keypairs used today will be at risk when quantum computers reach a certain critical level: Quantum computers can at a certain point of development, derive private keys from public keys. See for more sourced info on this subject in part 3. So if a public key can be obtained by an attacker, he can then use a quantum computer to find the private key. And as he has both the public key and the private key, he can control and send the funds to an address he owns.
Just to make sure there will be no misconceptions: When public-private key cryptography such as ECDSA and RSA can be broken by a quantum computer, this will be an issue for all blockchains who don't use quantum resistant cryptography. The reason this article is about BTC is because I take this paper as a reference point: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10377.pdf Here they calculate an estimate when BTC will be at risk while taking the BTC blocktime as the window of opportunity.
The BTC misconception: “Original public keys are not visible until you make a transaction, so BTC is quantum resistant.”
In pretty much every discussion I've read and had on the subject, I notice that people are under the impression that BTC is quantum resistant as long as you use your address only once. BTC uses a hashed version of the public key as a send-to address. So in theory, all funds are registered on the chain on hashed public keys instead of to the full, original public keys, which means that the original public key is (again in theory) not public. Even a quantum computer can't derive the original public key from a hashed public key, therefore there is no risk that a quantum computer can derive the private key from the public key. If you make a transaction, however, the public key of the address you sent your funds from will be registered in full form in the blockchain. So if you were to only send part of your funds, leaving the rest on the old address, your remaining funds would be on a published public key, and therefore vulnerable to quantum attacks. So the workaround would be to transfer the remaining funds, within the same transaction, to a new address. In that way, your funds would be once again registered on the blockchain on a hashed public key instead of a full, original public key.
If you feel lost already because you are not very familiar with the tech behind blockchain, I will try to explain the above in a more familiar way:
You control your funds through your public- private key pair. Your funds are registered on your public key. And you can create transactions, which you need to sign to be valid. You can only create a signature if you have your private key. See it as your e-mail address (public key) and your password (Private key). Many people got your email address, but only you have your password. So the analogy is, that if you got your address and your password, then you can access your mail and send emails (Transactions). If the right quantum computer would be available, people could use that to calculate your password (private key), if they have your email address (public key).
Now, because BTC doesn’t show your full public key anywhere until you make a transaction. That sounds pretty safe. It means that your public key is private until you make a transaction. The only thing related to your public key that is public is the hash of your public key. Here is a short explanation of what a hash is: a hash is an outcome of an equation. Usually one-way hash functions are used, where you can not derive the original input from the output; but every time you use the same hash function on the same original input (For example IFUHE8392ISHF), you will always get the same output (For example G). That way you can have your coins on public key "IFUHE8392ISHF", while on the chain, they are registered on "G".
So your funds are registered on the blockchain on the "Hash" of the public key. The Hash of the public key is also your "email address" in this case. So you give "G" as your address to send BTC to.
As said before: since it is, even for a quantum computer, impossible to derive a public key from the Hash of a public key, your coins are safe for quantum computers as long as the public key is only registered in hashed form. The obvious safe method would be, never to reuse an address, and always make sure that when you make a payment, you send your remaining funds to a fresh new address. (There are wallets that can do this for you.) In theory, this would make BTC quantum resistant, if used correctly. This, however, is not as simple as it seems. Even though the above is correct, there is a way to get to your funds.
Already exposed public keys.
But before we get to that, there is another point that is often overlooked: Not only is the security of your personal BTC is important, but also the security of funds of other users. If others got hacked, the news of the hack itself and the reaction of the market to that news, would influence the marketprice. Or, if a big account like the Satoshi account were to be hacked and dumped, the dump itself, combined with the news of the hack, could be even worse. An individual does not have the control of other people’s actions. So even though one might make sure his public key is only registered in hashed form, others might not do so, or might no know their public key is exposed. There are several reasons why a substantial amount of addresses actually have exposed full public keys:
In total, about 36% of all BTC are on addresses with exposed public keys Of which about 20% is on lost addresses. and here
Hijacking transactions.
But even if you consider the above an acceptable risk, just because you yourself will make sure you never reuse an address, then still, the fact that only the hashed public key is published until you make a transaction is a false sense of security. It only works, if you never make a transaction. Why? Public keys are revealed while making a transaction, so transactions can be hijacked while being made.
Here it is important to understand two things:
1.) How is a transaction sent?
The owner has the private key and the public key and uses that to log into the secured environment, the wallet. This can be online or offline. Once he is in his wallet, he states how much he wants to send and to what address.
When he sends the transaction, it will be broadcasted to the blockchain network. But before the actual transaction will be sent, it is formed into a package, created by the wallet. This happens out of sight of the sender.
That package ends up carrying roughly the following info: the public key to point to the address where the funds will be coming from, the amount that will be transferred, the address the funds will be transferred to (depending on the blockchain this could be the hashed public key, or the original public key of the address the funds will be transferred to). This package also carries the most important thing: a signature, created by the wallet, derived from the private- public key combination. This signature proves to the miners that you are the rightful owner and you can send funds from that public key.
Then this package is sent out of the secure wallet environment to multiple nodes. The nodes don’t need to trust the sender or establish the sender’s "identity”, because the sender proofs he is the rightful owner by adding the signature that corresponds with the public key. And because the transaction is signed and contains no confidential information, private keys, or credentials, it can be publicly broadcast using any underlying network transport that is convenient. As long as the transaction can reach a node that will propagate it into the network, it doesn’t matter how it is transported to the first node.
2.) How is a transaction confirmed/ fulfilled and registered on the blockchain?
After the transaction is sent to the network, it is ready to be processed. The nodes have a bundle of transactions to verify and register on the next block. This is done during a period called the block time. In the case of BTC that is 10 minutes.
If we process the information written above, we will see that there are two moments where you can actually see the public key, while the transaction is not fulfilled and registered on the blockchain yet.
1: during the time the transaction is sent from the sender to the nodes
2: during the time the nodes verify the transaction. (The blocktime)
Hijacks during blocktime
This paper describes how you could hijack a transaction and make a new transaction of your own, using someone else’s address and send his coins to an address you own during moment 2: the time the nodes verify the transaction:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10377.pdf
"(Unprocessed transactions) After a transaction has been broadcast to the network, but before it is placed on the blockchain it is at risk from a quantum attack. If the secret key can be derived from the broadcast public key before the transaction is placed on the blockchain, then an attacker could use this secret key to broadcast a new transaction from the same address to his own address. If the attacker then ensures that this new transaction is placed on the blockchain first, then he can effectively steal all the bitcoin behind the original address." (Page 8, point 3.)
So this means that BTC obviously is not a quantum secure blockchain. Because as soon as you will touch your funds and use them for payment, or send them to another address, you will have to make a transaction and you risk a quantum attack.
Hijacks pre-blocktime.
The story doesn't end here. The paper doesn't describe the posibility of a pre-blocktime hijack.
So back to the paper: as explained, while making a transaction your public key is exposed for at least the transaction time. This transaction time is 10 minutes where your transaction is being confirmed during the 10 minute block time. That is the period where your public key is visible and where, as described in the paper, a transaction can be hijacked, and by using quantum computers, a forged transaction can be made. So the critical point is determined to be the moment where quantum computers can derive private keys from public keys within 10 minutes. Based on that 10 minute period, they calculate (estimate) how long it will take before QC's start forming a threat to BTC. (“ By our most optimistic estimates, as early as 2027 a quantum computer could exist that can break the elliptic curve signature scheme in less than 10 minutes, the block time used in Bitcoin.“ This is also shown in figure 4 on page 10 and later more in depth calculated in appendix C, where the pessimistic estimate is around 2037.) But you could extend that 10 minutes through network based attacks like DDoS, BGP routing attacks, NSA Quantum Insert, Eclipse attacks, MITM attacks or anything like that. (And I don’t mean you extend the block time by using a network based attack, but you extend the time you have access to the public key before the transaction is confirmed.) Bitcoin would be earlier at risk than calculated in this paper.
Also other Blockchains with way shorter block times imagine themselves safe for a longer period than BTC, but with this extension of the timeframe within which you can derive the private key, they too will be vulnerable way sooner.
Not so long ago an eclipse attack demonstrated it could have done the trick. and here Causing the blockchain to work over max capacity, means the transactions will be waiting to be added to a block for a longer time. This time needs to be added on the blocktime, expanding the period one would have time to derive the private key from the public key.
That seems to be fixed now, but it shows there are always new attacks possible and when the incentive is right (Like a few billion $ kind of right) these could be specifically designed for certain blockchains.
MITM attacks
An MITM attack could find the public key in the first moment the public key is exposed. (During the time the transaction is sent from the sender to the nodes) So these transactions that are sent to the network, contain public keys that you could intercept. So that means that if you intercept transactions (and with that the private keys) and simultaneously delay their arrival to the blockchain network, you create extra time to derive the private key from the public key using a quantum computer. When you done that, you send a transaction of your own before the original transaction has arrived and is confirmed and send funds from that stolen address to an address of your choosing. The result would be that you have an extra 10, 20, 30 minutes (or however long you can delay the original transactions), to derive the public key. This can be done without ever needing to mess with a blockchain network, because the attack happens outside the network. Therefore, slower quantum computers form a threat. Meaning that earlier models of quantum computers can form a threat than they assume now.
When MITM attacks and hijacking transactions will form a threat to BTC, other blockchains will be vulnerable to the same attacks, especially MITM attacks. There are ways to prevent hijacking after arrival at the nodes. I will elaborate on that in the next article. At this point of time, the pub key would be useless to an attacker due to the fact there is no quantum computer available now. Once a quantum computer of the right size is available, it becomes a problem. For quantum resistant blockchains this is differetn. MITM attacks and hijacking is useless to quantum resistant blockchains like QRL and Mochimo because these projects use quantum resistant keys.
submitted by QRCollector to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Holy shit! Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd both just ADMITTED and AGREED that NO solution has been implemented for the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector, discovered by Peter Todd in 2015, exposed again by Peter Rizun in his recent video, and exposed again by Bitcrust dev Tomas van der Wansem.

UPDATE - Below is an ELI5 (based on a comment below by u/cryptorebel, and another comment below by u/H0dl) of this silent-but-deadly, ledger-corrupting novel attack vector which will inevitably happen on the Bitcoin SegWit fork (but which can never happen on the Bitcoin Cash fork - because Bitcoin Cash does not use SegWit for this very reason, because all the smart people already know that SegWit is not Bitcoin):
ELI5:
Basically miners can be incentivized to mine without validating all of the data. Currently this problem already happens without SegWit, but there exists a Nash Equilibrium (from game theory), where the incentives make sure that this problem does not get out of hand - because currently if the percentage of "validationless miners" gets too high, then (in the system as it is now), validationless mining becomes unprofitable, and easy to attack.
But SegWit would significantly change these incentives. SEPARATING THE SEGWIT DATA FROM THE BLOCKCHAIN ENLARGES THE PROBLEM, RESULTING IN a change to the Nash Equilibrium and AN UNSTABLE AND LESS SECURE SYSTEM where miners are encouraged to do validationless mining at higher rates.
For example, if 20% of smaller struggling miners are incentivized to perform validationless mining, an attacking miner with as little as 31% hash could suddenly also "go validationless" (because 20% + 31% = 51%), forking the network back to pre-SegWit-as-a-soft-fork and stealing "Anyone-Can-Spend" transactions, causing mass confusion and havoc.
In fact, as Peter Rizun pointed out below: WITH SEGWIT THERE WOULD NOT EVEN BE ANY PROOF THAT THE THEFT HAD ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Meanwhile, with Satoshi's original Bitcoin (now renamed Bitcoin Cash to distinguish it from Core's "enhanced" version of Bitcoin incorporating SegWit), proof of the theft would at least exist in the blockchain. This highlights Peter Rizun's main assertion that SEGWIT BITCOIN HAS A MUCH WEAKER "SECURITY MODEL" THAN SATOSHI'S ORIGINAL BITCOIN - a scathing condemnation of SegWit which Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is apparently unable to rebut.
Greg Maxwell made some inaccurate statements trying to claim that this kind of attack would never happen - arguing that because Compact Blocks are smaller than SegWit blocks (30kb vs 750kb), this would disincentivize such an attack. But Peter Todd pointed out that DISINCENTIVIZING NON-MALICIOUS MINERS from doing this is not the same thing as PREVENTING MALICIOUS MINERS from doing this - because the difference between 30kb vs 750kb would obviously not prevent a malicious miner from performing this attack.
Other people have also pointed out that by discarding the fundamental definition of a "bitcoin" from Satoshi's whitepaper ("We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures"), SegWit would open the door to various new failure modes and attack vectors, by encouraging miners to "avoid downloading the signature data". This could lead to what Peter Todd calls the "nightmare scenario" where "mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain" - and people wouldn't even notice (because so many SegWit miners were no longer actually downloading and validating signatures).
Background
This debate is all happening as Bitcoin is about to fork into two separate, diverging continuations (or "spinoffs") of the existing ledger or blockchain, as of August 1, 2017, 12:20 UTC.
All Bitcoin investors will automatically hold all their coins, duplicated onto both forks (Bitcoin-SegWit and Bitcoin Cash). However, in order to be sure you have all your coins automatically duplicated onto both forks, you must personally be in possession of your private keys before the August 1 fork. The only way you can gain possession of your private keys is by moving all your coins from any online exchanges or wallets, to a local wallet under your control - and you must do this before August 1, 2017, in order to guarantee your coins will be automatically duplicated onto both forks. Some online exchanges and wallets (most notably, the biggest exchange in the US, Coinbase) have announced they will refuse to give people their coins on the Bitcoin Cash fork after August 1 - already leading to a mass exodus of coins from those online wallets and exchanges.
DETAILS:
Below is the recent exchange between Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd, where they're arguing about whether the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector discovered by Peter Todd in 2015 has or has not been solved yet - and where Peter Todd makes the bombshell revelation that it has not been solved:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qdp90/peter_todd_warning_on_segwit_validationless/dkwvyim/?context=3
https://archive.fo/zVP35
u/nullc:
This was resolved a long time ago ...
u/petertodd:
Hmm?
1) Your first link doesn't resolve the problem at all - compact blocks do not work in adversarial scenarios, particularly for issues like this one.
2) Your second link - my "follow up post" - is just a minor add-on to the original post, noting that validationless mining can continue to be allowed. Calling it me "saying I thought things would be okay" is a mis-characterization of that email.
[...]
ydtm's scenarios are realistic...
u/nullc:
You have the right answer: we know how to block it, and if abuse happens there would be trivial political will to deploy the countermeasure (and perhaps before, but considering the fact that the same miners that have been most aggressive in holding segwit up are the same ones that still visibly engage in spy mining, it may have to wait).
Remark:
Note how Greg engages in his usual tactics of distortion, half-truths, misquoting people, etc. - in order to spread his propaganda and lies.
A more-complete link to the same thread (from above) is here, showing some additional comments which also branched off from that thread:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qdp90/peter_todd_warning_on_segwit_validationless/dkwoata/
https://archive.fo/MrMcp
Here's the devastating video by Peter Rizun detailing how "SegWit validatonless mining" would decrease the security of the Bitcoin SegWit blockchain / ledger:
Peter Rizun: The Future of Bitcoin Conference 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO176mdSTG0
The main points made by Peter Rizun in that presentation are summarized on one of his slides, reproduced below in its entirety for convenience:
  1. SegWit coins have a different definition than bitcoins, which gives them different properties.
  2. Unlike with bitcoins, [with SegWit coins] miners can update their UTXO sets without witnessing the previous owners' digital signatures.
  3. The previous owners' digital signatures have significantly less value to a miner for SegWit coins than for bitcoins - because miners do no require them [the digital signatures] in order to claim fees [when mining SegWit bitcoins].
  4. Although a stable Nash equilibrium exists where all miners witness the previous owners for bitcoins, one [such a Nash equilibrium] does not exist for SegWit coins.
  5. SegWit coins have a weaker security model than bitcoins.
Here's the blog post by Bitcrust dev Tomas van der Wansem where he describes the same flaw with SegWit - "a simple yet disastrous side effect caused by SegWit fixing malleability in an incorrect manner":
The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
https://bitcrust.org/blog-incentive-shift-segwit
SegWit transactions will be less secure than non-SegWit transactions
If the flippening occurs for the 20% smallest (e.g. most bandwidth restricted) miners, a 31% miner could start stealing SegWit transactions!
We cannot mess with the delicate incentive structures that hold Bitcoin together.
Finally, below are four recent posts from me, where I've been attempting to alert people about the serious dangers of the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector - and the dangers, in general, of SegWit "allowing miners to avoid downloading signature data".
So SegWit would actually destroy the very essence of what defines a bitcoin - because, recall that in the whitepaper, Satoshi defined a "bitcoin" as a "chain of digital signatures".
Note that the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector could only happen on the Core's radical, irresponsible Bitcoin SegWit fork.
This attack is totally impossible on the original version of Bitcoin (now called "Bitcoin Cash") - because Bitcoin Cash does not support Core's dangerous, messy SegWit hack.
Note:
Many of the people attempting to rebut my claims in the three posts below were totally confused: they apparently thought this attack is about non-mining nodes (what they call "full nodes") failing to validate transactions.
But actually (as Peter Todd clearly described in his original warning, and as Peter Rizun and Bitcrust dev Tomas van der Wansem also described in their warnings), this attack vector involves mining nodes mining transactions without ever validating or even downloading the signatures.
Just read these two sentences and you'll understand why a SegWit Coin is not a Bitcoin: Satoshi: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures." // Core: "Segregating the signature data allows nodes to avoid downloading it in the first place, saving resources."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qb61g/just_read_these_two_sentences_and_youll/
Peter Todd warning on "SegWit Validationless Mining": "The nightmare scenario: Highly optimised mining with SegWit will create blocks that do no validation at all. Mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain, producing blocks that appear totally normal and contain apparently valid txns."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qdp90/peter_todd_warning_on_segwit_validationless/
BITCRUST 2017-07-03: "The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit: Peter Rizun pointed out a flaw in SegWit (discussed by Peter Todd) that makes it unacceptably dangerous. A txn spending a SegWit output will be less safe than a txn spending a non-SegWit output, and therefore will be less valuable."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6q149z/bitcrust_20170703_the_dangerously_shifted/
SegWit would make it HARDER FOR YOU TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR BITCOINS. SegWit deletes the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) deleted the "chain of (legal) title" for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) in the foreclosure fraud / robo-signing fiasco
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6oxesh/segwit_would_make_it_harder_for_you_to_prove_you/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Function X: A Concept Paper introducing the f(x) ecosystem, a universal decentralized internet powered by blockchain technology and smart devices

Function X: A Concept Paper introducing the f(x) ecosystem, a universal decentralized internet powered by blockchain technology and smart devices

https://preview.redd.it/yylq6k0yqrv21.png?width=633&format=png&auto=webp&s=089ffe83e18baeceb87d465ca6fad184939490e4

Prologue

This is a Concept Paper written to introduce the Function X Ecosystem, which includes the XPhone. It also addresses the relationship between the XPOS and Function X.
Pundi X has always been a community-driven project. We have lived by the mission of making sure the community comes first and we are constantly learning from discussions and interactions on social media and in real-life meetings.
As with all discussions, there is always background noise but we have found gems in these community discussions. One such example is a question which we found constantly lingering at the back of our mind, “Has blockchain changed the world as the Internet did in the ’90s, and the automobile in the ‘20s?”. Many might argue that it has, given the rise of so many blockchain projects with vast potential in different dimensions (like ours, if we may add). But the question remains, “can blockchain ever become what the Internet, as we know it today, has to the world?”
Function X, a universal decentralized internet which is powered by blockchain technology and smart devices.
Over the past few months, in the process of implementing and deploying the XPOS solution, we believe we found the answer to the question. A nimble development team was set up to bring the answer to life. We discovered that it is indeed possible to bring blockchain to the world of telephony, data transmission, storage and other industries; a world far beyond financial transactions and transfers.
This is supported by end-user smart devices functioning as blockchain nodes. These devices include the XPOS and XPhone developed by Pundi X and will also include many other hardware devices manufactured by other original equipment manufacturers.
The vision we want to achieve for f(x) is to create a fully autonomous and decentralized network that does not rely on any individual, organization or structure.
Due to the nature of the many new concepts introduced within this Concept Paper, we have included a Q&A after each segment to facilitate your understanding. We will continuously update this paper to reflect the progress we’re making.

Function X: The Internet was just the beginning

The advent of the Internet has revolutionized the world. It created a communications layer so robust that it has resulted in TCP/IP becoming the network standard.
The Internet also created a wealth of information so disruptive that a company like Amazon threatened to wipe out all the traditional brick-and-mortar bookstores. These bookstores were forced to either adapt or perish. The same applies to the news publishing sector: the offerings of Google and Facebook have caused the near extinction of traditional newspapers.
The digitalization of the world with the Internet has enabled tech behemoths like Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook to dominate and rule over traditional companies. The grip of these tech giants is so extensive that it makes you wonder if the choices you make are truly your own or influenced by the data they have on you as a user.
We see the blockchain revolution happening in three phases. The first was how Bitcoin showed the world what digital currency is. The second refers to how Ethereum has provided a platform to build decentralized assets easily. The clearest use case of that has come in the form of the thousands of altcoins seen today that we all are familiar with. The third phase is what many blockchain companies are trying to do now: 1) to bring the performance of blockchain to a whole new level (transaction speed, throughput, sharding, etc.) and 2) to change the course of traditional industries and platforms—including the Internet and user dynamics.
Public blockchains allow trustless transactions. If everything can be transacted on the blockchain in a decentralized manner, the information will flow more efficiently than traditional offerings, without the interception of intermediators. It will level the playing field and prevent data monopolization thus allowing small innovators to develop and flourish by leveraging the resources and data shared on the blockchain.

The Blockchain revolution will be the biggest digital revolution

In order to displace an incumbent technology with something new, we believe the change and improvement which the new technology has to bring will have to be at least a tenfold improvement on all aspects including speed, transparency, scalability and governance (consensus). We are excited to say that the time for this 10-times change is here. It’s time to take it up 10x with Function X.
Function X or f(x) is an ecosystem built entirely on and for the blockchain. Everything in f(x) (including the application source code, transmission protocol and hardware) is completely decentralized and secure. Every bit and byte in f(x) is part of the blockchain.
What we have developed is not just a public chain. It is a total decentralized solution. It consists of five core components: Function X Operating System (OS); Function X distributed ledger (Blockchain); Function X IPFS; FXTP Protocol and Function X Decentralized Docker. All five components serve a single purpose which is to decentralize all services, apps, websites, communications and, most importantly, data.
The purpose of Function X OS is to allow smart hardware and IoTs to harness the upside and potential utility of the decentralization approach. We have built an in-house solution for how mobile phones can leverage Function X OS in the form of the XPhone. Other companies can also employ the Function X OS and further customize it for their own smart devices. Every smart device in the Function X ecosystem can be a node and each will have its own address and private key, uniquely linked to their node names. The OS is based on the Android OS 9.0, therefore benefiting from backward compatibility with Android apps. The Function X OS supports Android apps and Google services (referred to as the traditional mode), as well as the newly developed decentralized services (referred to as the blockchain mode). Other XPhone features powered by the Function X OS will be elaborated on in the following sections.
Using the Function X Ecosystem (namely Function X FXTP), the transmission of data runs on a complex exchange of public and private key data and encryption but never through a centralized intermediary. Hence it guarantees communication without interception and gives users direct access to the data shared by others. Any information that is sent or transacted over the Function X Blockchain will also be recorded on the chain and fully protected by encryption so the ownesender has control over data sharing. And that is how a decentralized system for communications works.
For developers and users transitioning to the Function X platform, it will be a relatively seamless process. We have intentionally designed the process of creating and publishing new decentralized applications (DApps) on Function X to be easy, such that the knowledge and experience from developing and using Android will be transferable. With that in mind, a single line of code in most traditional apps can be modified, and developers can have their transmission protocol moved from the traditional HTTP mode (centralized) to a decentralized mode, thus making the transmission “ownerless” because data can transmit through the network of nodes without being blocked by third parties. How services can be ported easily or built from scratch as DApps will also be explained in the following sections, employing technologies in the Function X ecosystem (namely Function X IPFS, FXTP Protocol and Decentralized Docker).

f(x) Chain

f(x) chain is a set of consensus algorithms in the form of a distributed ledger, as part of the Function X ecosystem. The blockchain is the building block of our distributed ledger that stores and verifies transactions including financials, payments, communications (phone calls, file transfers, storage), services (DApps) and more.
Will Function X launch a mainnet?
Yes. The f(x) chain is a blockchain hence there will be a mainnet.
When will the testnet be launched?
Q2 2019 (projected).
When will the mainnet be launched?
Q3 2019 (projected).
How is the Function X blockchain designed?
The f(x) chain is designed based on the philosophy that any blockchain should be able to address real-life market demand of a constantly growing peer-to-peer network. It is a blockchain with high throughput achieved with a combination of decentralized hardware support (XPOS, XPhone, etc.) and open-source software toolkit enhancements.
What are the physical devices that will be connected to the Function X blockchain?
In due course, the XPOS OS will be replaced by the f(x) OS. On the other hand, the XPhone was designed with full f(x) OS integration in mind, from the ground up. After the f(x) OS onboarding, and with adequate stability testings and improvements, XPOS and XPhone will then be connected to the f(x) Chain.
What are the different elements of a block?
Anything that is transmittable over the distributed network can be stored in the block, including but not limited to phone call records, websites, data packets, source code, etc. It is worth noting that throughout these processes, all data is encrypted and only the owner of the private key has the right to decide how the data should be shared, stored, decrypted or even destroyed.
Which consensus mechanism is used?
Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT).
What are the other implementations of Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT)?
Flight systems that require very low latency. For example, SpaceX’s flight system, Dragon, uses PBFT design philosophy. [Appendix]
How do you create a much faster public chain?
We believe in achieving higher speed, thus hardware and software configurations matter. If your hardware is limited in numbers or processing power, this will limit the transaction speed which may pose security risks. The Ethereum network consists of about 25,000 nodes spread across the globe now, just two years after it was launched. Meanwhile, the Bitcoin network currently has around 7,000 nodes verifying the network. As for Pundi X, with the deployment plan (by us and our partners) for XPOS, XPhone and potentially other smart devices, we anticipate that we will be able to surpass the number of Bitcoin and Ethereum nodes within 1 to 2 years. There are also plans for a very competitive software implementation of our public blockchain, the details for which we will be sharing in the near future.

f(x) OS

The f(x) OS is an Android-modified operating system that is also blockchain-compatible. You can switch seamlessly between the blockchain and the traditional mode. In the blockchain mode, every bit and byte is fully decentralized including your calls, messages, browsers and apps. When in traditional mode, the f(x) OS supports all Android features.
Android is the most open and advanced operating system for smart hardware with over 2 billion monthly active users. Using Android also fits into our philosophy of being an OS/software designer and letting third-party hardware makers produce the hardware for the Function X Ecosystem.
What kind of open source will it be?
This has not been finalized, but the options we are currently considering are Apache or GNU GPLv3.
What kind of hardware will it work on?
The f(x) OS works on ARM architecture, hence it works on most smartphones, tablet computers, smart TVs, Android Auto and smartwatches in the market.
Will you build a new browser?
We are currently using a modified version of the Google Chrome browser. The browser supports both HTTP and FXTP, which means that apart from distributed FXTP contents, users can view traditional contents, such ashttps://www.google.com.
What is the Node Name System (NNS)?
A NNS is a distributed version of the traditional Domain Name System. A NNS allows every piece of Function X hardware, including the XPhone, to have a unique identity. This identity will be the unique identifier and can be called anything with digits and numbers, such as ‘JohnDoe2018’ or ‘AliceBob’. More on NNS in the following sections.
Will a third-party device running the f(x) OS be automatically connected to the f(x) blockchain?
Yes, third-party devices will be connected to the f(x) blockchain automatically.

f(x) FXTP

A transmission protocol defines the rules to allow information to be sent via a network. On the Internet, HTTP is a transmission protocol that governs how information such as website contents can be sent, received and displayed. FXTP is a transmission protocol for the decentralized network.
FXTP is different from HTTP because it is an end-to-end transmission whereby your data can be sent, received and displayed based on a consensus mechanism rather than a client-server based decision-making mechanism. In HTTP, the server (which is controlled by an entity) decides how and if the data is sent (or even monitored), whereas in FXTP, the data is sent out and propagates to the destination based on consensus.
HTTP functions as a request–response protocol in the client-server computing model. A web browser, for example, may be the client and an application running on a computer hosting a website may be the server. FXTP functions as a propagation protocol via a consensus model. A node that propagates the protocol and its packet content is both a “client” and a “server”, hence whether a packet reaches a destination is not determined by any intermediate party and this makes it more secure.

f(x) IPFS

IPFS is a protocol and network designed to store data in a distributed system. A person who wants to retrieve a file will call an identifier (hash) of the file, IPFS then combs through the other nodes and supplies the person with the file.
The file is stored on the IPFS network. If you run your own node, your file would be stored only on your node and available for the world to download. If someone else downloads it and seeds it, then the file will be stored on both your node the node of the individual who downloaded it (similar to BitTorrent).
IPFS is decentralized and more secure, which allows faster file and data transfer.

f(x) DDocker

Docker is computer program designed to make it easier to create, deploy, and run applications. Containers allow a developer to package up an application including libraries, and ship it all out as a package.
As the name suggests, Decentralized Docker is an open platform for developers to build, ship and run distributed applications. Developers will be able to store, deploy and run their codes remote in different locations and the codes are secure in a decentralized way.

XPhone

Beyond crypto: First true blockchain phone that is secured and decentralized to the core
XPhone is the world’s first blockchain phone which is designed with innovative features that are not found on other smartphones.
Powered by Function X, an ecosystem built entirely on and for the blockchain, XPhone runs on a new transmission protocol for the blockchain age. The innovation significantly expands the use of blockchain technology beyond financial transfers.
Unlike traditional phones which require a centralized service provider, XPhone runs independently without the need for that. Users can route phone calls and messages via blockchain nodes without the need for phone numbers.
Once the XPhone is registered on the network, for e.g., by a user named Pitt, if someone wants to access Pitt’s publicly shared data or content, that user can just enter FXTP://xxx.Pitt. This is similar to what we do for the traditional https:// protocol.
Whether Pitt is sharing photos, data, files or a website, they can be accessed through this path. And if Pitt’s friends would like to contact him, they can call, text or email his XPhone simply by entering “call.pitt”, “message.pitt”, or “mail.pitt”.
The transmission of data runs on a complex exchange of public and private key data with encryption. It can guarantee communication without interception and gives users direct access to the data shared by others. Any information that is sent or transacted over the Function X Blockchain will also be recorded on the chain.
Toggle between now and the future
Blockchain-based calling and messaging can be toggled on and off on the phone operating system which is built on Android 9.0. XPhone users can enjoy all the blockchain has to offer, as well as the traditional functionalities of an Android smartphone.
We’ll be sharing more about the availability of the XPhone and further applications of Function X in the near future.

DApps

DApps for mass adoption
So far the use of decentralized applications has been disappointing. But what if there was a straightforward way to bring popular, existing apps into a decentralized environment, without rebuilding everything? Until now, much of what we call peer-to-peer or ‘decentralized’ services continue to be built on centralized networks. We set out to change that with Function X; to disperse content now stored in the hands of the few, and to evolve services currently controlled by central parties.
Use Cases: Sharing economy
As seen from our ride-hailing DApp example that was demonstrated in New York back in November 2018, moving towards true decentralization empowers the providers of services and not the intermediaries. In the same way, the XPhone returns power to users over how their data is being shared and with whom. Function X will empower content creators to determine how their work is being displayed and used.
Use Cases: Free naming
One of the earliest alternative cryptocurrencies, Namecoin, wanted to use a blockchain to provide a name registration system, where users can register their names to create a unique identity. It is similar to the DNS system mapping to IP addresses. With the Node Name System (NNS) it is now possible to do this on the blockchain.
NNS is a distributed version of the traditional Domain Name System. A NNS allows every piece of Function X hardware, including the XPhone, to have a unique identifier that can be named anything with digits and numbers, such as ‘JohnDoe2018’ or ‘AliceBob’.
Use Cases: Mobile data currency
According to a study, mobile operator data revenues are estimated at over $600 billion USD by 2020, equivalent to $50 billion USD per month [appendix]. Assuming users are able to use services such as blockchain calls provided by XPhone (or other phones using Function X) the savings will be immense and the gain from profit can be passed on to providers such as DApp developers in Function X. In other words, instead of paying hefty bills to a mobile carrier for voice calls, users can pay less by making blockchain calls, and the fees paid are in f(x) coins. More importantly users will have complete privacy over their calls.
Use Cases: Decentralized file storage
Ethereum contracts claim to allow for the development of a decentralized file storage ecosystem, “where individual users can earn small quantities of money by renting out their own hard drives and unused space can be used to further drive down the costs of file storage.” However, they do not necessarily have the hardware to back this up. With the deployment of XPOS, smart hardware nodes and more, Function X is a natural fit for Decentralized File Storage. In fact, it is basically what f(x) IPFS is built for.
These are just four examples of the many use cases purported, and there can, will and should be more practical applications beyond these; we are right in the middle of uncharted territories.

Tokenomics

Decentralized and autonomous
The f(x) ecosystem is fully decentralized. It’s designed and built to run autonomously in perpetuity without the reliance or supervision of any individual or organization. To support this autonomous structure, f(x) Coin which is the underlying ‘currency’ within the f(x) ecosystem has to be decentralized in terms of its distribution, allocation, control, circulation and the way it’s being generated.
To get the structure of f(x) properly set up, the founding team will initially act as ‘initiators’ and ‘guardians’ of the ecosystem. The role of the team will be similar to being a gatekeeper to prevent any bad actors or stakeholders playing foul. At the same time, the team will facilitate good players to grow within the ecosystem. Once the f(x) ecosystem is up and running, the role of the founding team will be irrelevant and phased out. The long term intention of the team is to step away, allowing the ecosystem to run and flourish by itself.

Utility

In this section, we will explore the utility of the f(x) Coin. f(x) Coin is the native ‘currency’ of the Function X blockchain and ecosystem. All services rendered in the ecosystem will be processed, transacted with, or “fueled” by the f(x) Coin. Some of the proposed use cases include:
  • For service providers: Getting paid by developers, companies and consumers for providing storage nodes, DDocker and improvement of network connections. The role of service providers will be described in greater detail in the rest of the paper.
  • For consumers: Paying for service fees for the DApps, nodes, network resources, storage solutions and other services consumed within the f(x) ecosystem.
  • For developers: Paying for services and resources rendered in the ecosystem such as smart contract creation, file storage (paid to IPFS service provider), code hosting (paid to DDocker service provider), advertisements (paid to other developers) and design works. Developers can also get paid by enterprises or organizations that engaged in the developer’s services.
  • For enterprises or organizations: Paying for services provided by developers and advertisers. Services provided to consumers will be charged and denominated in f(x) Coin.
  • For phone and hardware manufacturers: Paying for further Function X OS customizations. It is worth noting that Pundi X Labs plan to only build a few thousand devices of the XPhone flagship handsets, and leave the subsequent market supply to be filled by third-party manufacturers using our operating system.
  • For financial institutions: receiving payments for financial services rendered in the ecosystem.
  • Applications requiring high throughput.
Hence f(x) Coin can be used as ‘currency’ for the below services,
  • In-app purchases
  • Blockchain calls
  • Smart contract creations
  • Transaction fees
  • Advertisements
  • Hosting fees
  • Borderless/cross-border transactions
We believe f(x) Coin utilization will be invariably higher than other coins in traditional chains due to the breadth of the f(x) ecosystem. This includes storage services and network resources on f(x) that will utilize the f(x) Coin as “fuel” for execution and validation of transactions.
Example 1: A developer creates a ride-hailing DApp called DUber.
DUber developer first uploads the image and data to IPFS (storage) and code to DDocker, respectively. The developer then pays for a decentralized code hosting service provided by the DDocker, and a decentralized file hosting service provided by the IPFS. Please note the storage hosting and code hosting services can be provided by a company, or by a savvy home user with smart nodes connected to the Function X ecosystem. Subsequently, a DUber user pays the developer.
Example 2: User Alice sends an imaginary token called ABCToken to Bob.
ABCToken is created using Function X smart contract. Smart nodes hosted at the home of Charlie help confirms the transaction, Charlie is paid by Alice (or both Alice and Bob).

The flow of f(x) Coin

Four main participants in f(x): Consumer (blue), Developer (blue), Infrastructure (blue), and Financial Service Provider (green)
Broadly speaking, there can be four main participants in the f(x) ecosystem, exhibited by the diagram above:
  • Consumer: Users enjoy the decentralized services available in the f(x) ecosystem
  • Infrastructure Service Provider: Providing infrastructures that make up the f(x) ecosystem such as those provided by mobile carriers, decentralized clouds services.
  • Developer: Building DApp on the f(x) network such as decentralized IT, hospitality and financial services apps.
  • Financial Service Provider: Providing liquidity for the f(x) Coin acting as an exchange.
The f(x) ecosystem’s value proposition:
  • Infrastructure service providers can offer similar services that they already are providing in other markets such as FXTP, DDocker and IPFS, to earn f(x) Coin.
  • Developers can modify their existing Android apps to be compatible with the f(x) OS environment effortlessly, and potentially earn f(x) Coin.
  • Developers, at the same time, also pay for the infrastructure services used for app creation.
  • Consumers immerse in the decentralized app environments and pay for services used in f(x) Coin.
  • Developer and infrastructure service providers can earn rewards in f(x) Coin by providing their services. They can also monetize it through a wide network of financial service providers to earn some profit, should they decide to do so.
Together, the four participants in this ecosystem will create a positive value flow. As the number of service providers grow, the quality of service will be enhanced, subsequently leading to more adoption. Similarly, more consumers means more value is added to the ecosystem by attracting more service providers,and creating f(x) Coin liquidity. Deep liquidity of f(x) Coin will attract more financial service providers to enhance the stability and quality of liquidity. This will attract more service providers to the ecosystem.
Figure: four main participants of the ecosystem The rationale behind f(x) Coin generation is the Proof of Service concept (PoS)
Service providers are crucial in the whole f(x) Ecosystem, the problem of motivation/facilitation has become our priority. We have to align our interests with theirs. Hence, we have set up a Tipping Jar (similar to mining) to motivate and facilitate the existing miners shift to the f(x) Ecosystem and become part of the infrastructure service provider or attract new players into our ecosystem. Income for service provider = Service fee (from payer) + Tipping (from f(x) network generation)
The idea is that the f(x) blockchain will generate a certain amount of f(x) Coin (diminishing annually) per second to different segments of service provider, such as in the 1st year, the f(x) blockchain will generate 3.5 f(x) Coin per second and it will be distributed among the infrastructure service provider through the Proof of Service concept. Every service provider such as infrastructure service providers, developers and financial service providers will receive a ‘certificate’ of Proof of Service in the blockchain after providing the service and redeeming the f(x) Coin.
Example: There are 3 IPFS providers in the market, and the total Tipping Jar for that specific period is 1 million f(x) Coin. Party A contributes 1 TB; Party B contributes 3 TB and Party C contributes 6 TB. So, Party A will earn 1/10 * 1 million = 100k f(x) Coin; Party B will earn 3/10 * 1 million = 300k f(x) Coin. Party C will earn 6/10 * 1 million = 600k f(x) Coin.
Note: The computation method of the distribution of the Tipping Jar might vary due to the differences in the nature of the service, period and party.
Figure: Circulation flow of f(x) Coin
The theory behind the computation.
Blockchain has integrated almost everything, such as storage, scripts, nodes and communication. This requires a large amount of bandwidth and computation resources which affects the transaction speed and concurrency metric.
In order to do achieve the goal of being scalable with high transaction speed, the f(x) blockchain has shifted out all the ‘bulky’ and ‘heavy duty’ functions onto other service providers, such as IPFS, FXTP, etc. We leave alone what blockchain technology does best: Calibration. Thus, the role of the Tipping Jar is to distribute the appropriate tokens to all participants.
Projected f(x) Coin distribution per second in the first year
According to Moore’s Law, the number of transistors in a densely integrated circuit doubles about every 18 -24 months. Thus, the performance of hardware doubles every 18-24 months. Taking into consideration Moore’s Law, Eric Schmidt said if you maintain the same hardware specs, the earnings will be cut in half after 18-24 months. Therefore, the normal Tipping Jar (reward) for an infrastructure service provider will decrease 50% every 18 months. In order to encourage infrastructure service providers to upgrade their hardware, we have set up another iteration and innovation contribution pool (which is worth of 50% of the normal Tipping Jar on the corresponding phase) to encourage the infrastructure service provider to embrace new technology.
According to the Andy-Bill’s law, “What Andy gives, Bill takes away”; software will always nibble away the extra performance of the hardware. The more performance a piece of hardware delivers, the more the software consumes. Thus, the developer will always follow the trend to maintain and provide high-quality service. The Tipping Jar will increase by 50% (based upon the previous quota) every 18 months.
Financial service providers will have to support the liquidation of the whole ecosystem along the journey, the Tipping Jar (FaaS) will increase by 50% by recognizing the contribution and encouraging innovation.
From the 13th year (9th phase), the Tipping Jar will reduce by 50% every 18 months. We are well aware that the “cliff drop” after the 12th year is significant. Hence, we have created a 3year (two-phase) diminishing transition period. The duration of each phase is 18 months. There are 10 phases in total which will last for a total of 15 years.
According to Gartner’s report, the blockchain industry is forecast to reach a market cap of
3.1 trillion USD in 2030. Hence, we believe a Tipping Jar of 15 years will allow the growth of Function X into the “mature life cycle” of the blockchain industry.

f(x) Coin / Token Allocation

Token allocation We believe great blockchain projects attempt to equitably balance the interests of different segments of the community. We hope to motivate and incentivize token holders by allocating a total of 65% of tokens from the Token Generation Event (TGE). Another 20% is allocated to the Ecosystem Genesis Fund for developer partnerships, exchanges and other such related purposes. The remaining 15% will go to engineering, product development and marketing. There will be no public or private sales for f(x) tokens.
NPXS / NPXSXEM is used to make crypto payments as easy as buying bottled water, while f(x) is used for the operation of a decentralized ecosystem and blockchain, consisting of DApps and other services. NPXS / NPXSXEM will continue to have the same functionality and purpose after the migration to the Function X blockchain in the future. Therefore, each token will be expected to assume different fundamental roles and grant different rights to the holders.
https://preview.redd.it/xohy6c6pprv21.png?width=509&format=png&auto=webp&s=a2c0bd0034805c5f055c3fea4bd3ba48eb59ff07
65% of allocation for NPXS / NPXSXEM holders is broken down into the following: 15% is used for staking (see below) 45% is used for conversion to f(x) tokens. (see below) 5% is used for extra bonus tasks over 12 months (allocation TBD).

https://preview.redd.it/6jmpfhmxprv21.png?width=481&format=png&auto=webp&s=c9eb2c124e0181c0851b7495028a317b5c9cd6b7
https://preview.redd.it/1pjcycv0qrv21.png?width=478&format=png&auto=webp&s=c529d5d99d760281efd0c3229edac494d5ed7750
Remarks All NPXS / NPXSXEM tokens that are converted will be removed from the total supply of NPXS / NPXSXEM; Pundi X will not convert company's NPXS for f(x) Tokens. This allocation is designed for NPXS/NPXSXEM long term holders. NPXS / NPXSXEM tokens that are converted will also be entitled to the 15% f(x) Token distribution right after the conversion.

Usage

Management of the Ecosystem Genesis Fund (EGF)
The purpose of setting up the Ecosystem Initialization Fund, is to motivate, encourage and facilitate service providers to join and root into the f(x) Ecosystem and, at the same time, to attract seed consumers to enrich and enlarge the f(x) Ecosystem. EIF comes from funds raised and will be used as a bootstrap mechanism to encourage adoption before the Tipping Jar incentives fully kicks in.
The EGF is divided into 5 parts:
  1. Consumer (10%): To attract consumers and enlarge the customer base;
  2. Developer (20%): To encourage developers to create DApps on the f(x) blockchain;
  3. Infrastructure Service Provider (20%): To set up or shift to the f(x) infrastructure;
  4. Financial Service Provider (20%): To create a trading platform for f(x) Coin and increase liquidity; and
  5. Emergency bridge reserve (30%): To facilitate or help the stakeholders in f(x) during extreme market condition
To implement the spirit of decentralization and fairness, the EGF will be managed by a consensus-based committee, called the f(x) Open Market Committee (FOMC).

Summary

Time moves fast in the technology world and even faster in the blockchain space. Pundi X’s journey started in October 2017, slightly over a year ago, and we have been operating at a lightning pace ever since, making progress that can only be measured in leaps and bounds. We started as a blockchain payment solution provider and have evolved into a blockchain service provider to make blockchain technology more accessible to the general public, thereby improving your everyday life.
The creation of Function X was driven by the need to create a better suited platform for our blockchain point-of sale network and through that process, the capabilities of Function X have allowed us to extend blockchain usage beyond finance applications like payment solutions and cryptocurrency.
The complete decentralized ecosystem of Function X will change and benefit organizations, developers, governments and most importantly, society as a whole.
The XPhone prototype which we have created is just the start to give everyone a taste of the power of Function X on how you can benefit from a truly decentralized environment. We envision a future where the XPOS, XPhone and other Function X-enabled devices work hand-in-hand to make the decentralized autonomous ecosystem a reality.
You may wonder how are we able to create such an extensive ecosystem within a short span of time? We are fortunate that in today’s open source and sharing economy, we are able to tap onto the already established protocols (such as Consensus algorithm, FXTP, etc), software (like Android, IPFS, PBFT, Dockers, etc.) and hardware (design knowledge from existing experts) which were developed by selfless generous creators. Function X puts together, aggregates and streamlines all the benefits and good of these different elements and make them work better and seamlessly on the blockchain. And we will pay it forward by making Function X as open and as decentralized as possible so that others may also use Function X to create bigger and better projects.
To bring Function X to full fruition, we will continue to operate in a transparent and collaborative way. Our community will continue to be a key pillar for us and be even more vital as we get Function X up and running. As a community member, you will have an early access to the Function X ecosystem through the f(x) token conversion.
We hope you continue to show your support as we are working hard to disrupt the space and re-engineer this decentralized world.

Reference

Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance
http://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf
Byzantine General Problem technical paper
https://web.archive.org/web/20170205142845/http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/byz.pdf
Global mobile data revenues to reach $630 billion by 2020
https://www.parksassociates.com/blog/article/pr-07112016
NPXSXEM token supply
https://medium.com/pundix/a-closer-look-at-npxsxem-token-supply-843598d0e7b6
NPXS circulating token supply and strategic purchaser
https://medium.com/pundix/total-token-supply-and-strategic-investors-b41717021583
[total supply might differ from time to time due to token taken out of total supply aka “burn”]
ELC: SpaceX lessons learned (PBFT mentioned) https://lwn.net/Articles/540368/

Full: https://functionx.io/assets/file/Function_X_Concept_Paper_v2.0.pdf
submitted by crypt0hodl1 to PundiX [link] [comments]

Bitcoin's Incentive Structure NEWS: Spreadcoin incentives. Alt clients' 12%. Sex shares on Counterparty. Chris Ellis on Max Keiser - Bitcoin Full Nodes and ProTip - Episode #847 [RT] Bitcoin: How Cryptocurrencies Work - YouTube Bitcoin Blockchain, Miners, and Nodes (Explained Simply)

The node was designed with an incentive model in order to attract willing participants from the members of the Dash community. Those who were willing to run a masternode would have a more significant role on the network, a privilege that they use via the voting system where only they and others who run masternodes can participate. What is the incentive for full node to maintain all blocks. Suppose the block size will growth to G even T in future. The maintaince cost of block will growth graduatelly. If all the benefit comes from the coinbase and the transaction. What is the incentive will be for the server running a full node? 14 comments. share. save hide report. 77% Upvoted. This thread is archived ... Running a full node is the only way you can use Bitcoin in a trustless way. You will know for sure that all the rules of Bitcoin are being followed, for example that no bitcoins are spent not belonging to the owner, that no coins were spent twice, that no inflation happens outside of the schedule and that all the rules needed to make the system work (e.g. difficulty ) are followed. If we get to the point where only the miners, a couple of exchanges and larger shops run a full node, we're basically just a slightly better paypal. Full nodes matter, but not in the "securing the network" type matters, it's more like "securing the trust". We trust bitcoin because we don't have to, we can validate. Since Bitcoin had no value when it launched, it was extremely easy to mine, and also free to send tons of transactions. In theory, this was a Denial of Service (DoS) Attack vector. A DoS or DDoS attack is when nodes get flooded with more data than they can handle and they crash. On a young Bitcoin network, a crash like this would have been ...

[index] [47101] [1455] [29373] [32733] [29617] [33227] [499] [29459] [13987] [3070]

Bitcoin's Incentive Structure

Aviv Zohar, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Algorithmic Game Theory and Practice https://simons.berkeley.edu/talks/aviv-zohar-2015-11-20 What is a Bitcoin Full Node? Why would I want one? - Duration: 11:06. Off Chain with Jimmy Song Recommended for you. 11:06. Multi-Billionaire Cuts the B.S. and Explains How To Succeed Tilman ... Quick tutorial explaining how to run a Bithereum full node using the Bithereum Node Tool. Subtitles available in: English, French, Indonesian, Swedish, Russian, Ukrainian, Hindi, and Bosnian. Run ... The Bitcoin Fullnode project would not have been possible without the support of Whaleclub Teamspeak, in particular: Alex Kosinski (@PQMerkle) and Drak (@BTCDrak), Bitcoin Core Developer and ... Running nodes and payment channels ... Andreas M. Antonopoulos Bitcoin Game Theory For Countries [Let's Talk Bitcoin!] - Duration: 12:18. Bitcoinboy 7,342 views. 12:18. Christian Decker - History ...

#