Ultimate glossary of crypto currency terms, acronyms and abbreviations
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/HansMoog [IF] My first thought is thatthe 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 individualevery 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/TangleAccountantyes 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/semibaronnot 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/Gerritconsidering 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/HansMoog [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 youu/HansMoog [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
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/HansMoog [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/LuigiVigneri [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/BillySanders [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
Multi apartment clustered cryptocurrency mining rig
So you’ve probably just heard all your classes are online. And now you’re trying to sublet your apartment but no one’s gonna take it. So now you’re gonna be paying at least $1000/month for an empty apartment. I have a proposal that can reduce that cost and possibly turn a profit. Firstly, we have a very high risk credit market on our hands. The Federal Reserve has been pumping money into the economy and at some point the US dollar will have to inflate while growth stagnates (aka stagflation). During stagflationary periods in the past the price of non-fiat currencies like gold or silver has skyrocketed. Recently cryptocurrencies have emerged with the same general economic properties of such commodities. Therefore we may see an increase in their values as the Fed keeps pumping more money into the economy. As of now in order to generate enough money per month to pay off rent in South Campus Commons, each apartment would need a Bitcoin rig capable of generating ~2200 TH/s (since you don’t pay for electricity). For the Varsity and View this might have to be higher considering the cost of electricity. This is definitely possible with new ASIC chips that are solely built for the purpose of running Bitcoin hashing algorithms. For other cryptocurrencies (Ethereum, Litecoin, Dogecoin), these rates may be different. But like any good portfolio manager, diversifying our investments will ensure we have a profitable outcome. If enough students come together to construct a Bitcoin mining rig in their apartments we could essentially create a multi apartment clustered miner to be able to generate Bitcoin. On top of that, because campus server resources will be diminished due to online classes, we can in turn utilize that computing power to help mine such cryptocurrencies. As a result we won’t have to find people to sublet our apartments to and won’t have to worry about the financial undertakings associated with it. TL;DR: Corona collectively fucked everyone in the ass and we should build a massive Bitcoin rig to pay off our rent.
Inspired by the discussion on the cc subreddit (which I won't link to), I have some questions.
These Nakamoto coefficients aren't very comparable. Miners can reassign their hashrate at any time. Hashrate also has an ongoing, real expense. Nano votes can't be reassigned if the network is controlled, and there's no out of band "real" cost to acquire or maintain control. Thus, it's extremely misleading to try and compare these.
I would say that indeed hashrate has an ongoing, real expense so indeed, performing a 51% attack on Bitcoin will cost you on a per hour basis. On the other hand, get a 51% majority of Nano and you essentially block the network for eternity from what I understand. Bitcoin would most likely also collapse in value if a 51% attack was successfully performed, because even if it were to go offline for an hour and just a few doublespends were performed, it would undermine the store of value mantra quite strongly. Some sides notes here are, of course, that getting a 51% majority delegates for Nano is extremely difficult or expensive, as you need to buy up a large percentage of the supply yourself or you need to convince a lot of people to delegate to you, which hopefully only works if you build services that use Nano and therefore, in both cases, you have a vested interest in ensuring the Nano network remains valuable. On the other hand, Bitcoin miners have made large investments in ASICs which means they are strongly incentivized in the same sense, they want the Bitcoin network to remain valuable. Convincing either enough large Nano holders, or large swathes of Bitcoin hash power, would therefore be difficult. However, wouldn't it, generally, not be easier to find hash power outside the large miners currently mining than it would be to find Nano to give yourself a majority? I'm thinking that to get a 51% majority in Nano as said earlier you need to buy up enough of the outstanding Nano, or convince holders with a vested interest in the value of the Nano network. For Bitcoin however, I could rent out a chunk of Amazon's computing power and set up my own temporary mining operation to compete with the mining pools currently available. It would still be expensive, but, I am assuming, less so than taking the Nano option (even with current market caps). Is this a fair comparison? Or am I misrepresenting how easy it would be to get a Nano majority, or misrepresenting how difficult it would be to find alternative hash power to mine Bitcoin? Edit: Comparing to Bitcoin because it has the most hash power, this goes for all PoW crypto.
Bull market is back… Another wave of hacker attacks starts again?
The picture from COINDESK related reports On Aug. 2, Ethereum Classic Labs (ETC Labs) made an important announcement on ETC blockchain. ETC Labs said due to network attack, Ethereum Classic suffered a reorganization on August 1st. This has been the second attack on the Ethereum Classic Network this year. Did renting-power cause the problem again? In this ETC incident, one of the miners mined a large number of blocks offline. When the miner went online, due to its high computing power, and some versions of mining software did not support large-scale blockchain mergers, the consensus failed. Therefore, the entire network was out of sync, which produced an effect similar to a 51% attack. Finally, it caused the reorganization of 3693 blocks, starting at 10904147. The deposit and withdrawal between the exchanges and mining pools had to be suspended for troubleshooting during this period. Media report shows that the blockchain reorganization may be caused by a miner (or a mining pool) disconnected during mining. Although it has been restored to normal after 15 hours of repair, it does reflect the vulnerability of the Proof of Work (PoW) network: once the computing power of the network is insufficient, the performance of one single mining pool can affect the entire network, which is neither distributed nor secure for the blockchain. Neither does it have efficiency. At present, most consensus algorithms of blockchains are using PoW, which has been adopted over 10 years. In PoW, each miner solves a hashing problem. The probability to solve the problem successfully is proportional to the ratio of the miner’s hash power to the total hash power of mainnet. Although PoW has been running for a long time, the attack model against PoW is very straightforward to understand, and has attracted people’s attention for a long time: such an attack, also known as double-spending attack, may happen when an attacker possesses 51% of the overall network hash power. The attacker can roll back any blocks in the blockchain by creating a longer and more difficult chain and as a result, modify the transaction information. Since hash power can be rented to launch attacks, some top 30 projects have suffered from such attacks. In addition to this interference, the main attack method is through the computing power market such as Nice Hash. Hackers can rent hashpower to facilitate their attacks, which allows the computing power to rise rapidly in a short time and rewrite information. In January of this year, the Ethereum Classic was attacked once, and it was also the case that hackers can migrate computing power from the fiercely competitive Bitcoin and Ethereum, and use it to attack smaller projects, such as ETH Classic. The picture shows the cost of attacking ETH Classic. It can be seen that it costs only $6,634 to attack ETH Classic for one hour. The security of one network is no longer limited by whether miners within the main net take more than 51% of the total hash power, rather it is determined by whether the benevolent (non-hackers) miners take more than 51% of the total hash power from the pool of projects that use similar consensus algorithm. For example, the hash power of Ethereum is 176 TH/s and that of Ethereum Classic is 9 TH/s. In this way, if one diverts some hash power from Ethereum (176 TH/s) to Ethereum Classic, then one can easily launch a double-spending attack to Ethereum Classic. The hash power ratio for this attack between the two projects is 9/176 = 5.2%, which is a tiny number. https://preview.redd.it/qj57vgmgb9f51.png?width=699&format=png&auto=webp&s=39c1efc3645f268dbf1c73e1b373d532d5461006 As one of the top 30 blockchain projects, Ethereum Classic has been attacked several times. Therefore, those small and medium-sized projects with low hash power and up-and-coming future projects are facing great potential risks. This is the reason that many emerging public chain projects abandon PoW and adopt PoS. Proof of Stake (PoS) can prevent 51% attack but has problems of its own In addition to PoW consensus, another well-adopted consensus algorithm is Proof of Stake (PoS). The fundamental concept is that the one who holds more tokens has the right to create the blocks. This is similar to shareholders in the stock market. The token holders also have the opportunities to get rewards. The advantages of PoS are: (i) the algorithm avoids wasting energy like that in PoW calculation; and (ii) its design determines that the PoS will not be subjected to 51% hash power attack since the algorithm requires the miner to possess tokens in order to modify the ledger. In this way, 51% attack becomes costly and meaningless. https://preview.redd.it/rf65o1vhb9f51.png?width=685&format=png&auto=webp&s=9d7a9f9dab6ce823a224e91afa9d116310cf27e1 In terms of disadvantages, nodes face the problem of accessibility. PoS requires a permission to enter the network and nodes cannot enter and exit freely and thus lacks openness. It can easily be forked. In the long run, the algorithm is short of decentralization, and leads to the Matthew effect of accumulated advantages whereby miners with more tokens will receive more rewards and perpetuate the cycle. More importantly, the current PoS consensus has not been verified for long-term reliability. Whether it can be as stable as the PoW system is yet to be verified. For some of the PoW public chains that are already launched, if they want to switch consensus, they need to do hard fork, which divides communities and carries out a long consensus upgrade and through which Ethereum is undergoing. Is there a safer and better solution? QuarkChain Provide THE Solution: High TPS Protection + PoSW Consensus For new-born projects, and some small or medium-sized projects, they all are facing the problem of power attack. For PoW-based chains, there are always some chains with lower hash power than others (ETC vs. ETH, BCH vs BTC), and thus the risk of attack is increased. In addition, the interoperability among the chains, such as cross-chain operation, is also a problem. In response, QuarkChain has designed a series of mechanisms to solve this problem. This can be summed up as a two-layer structure with a calculation power allocation and Proof of Staked Work (PoSW) consensus. First of all, there is a layer of sharding, which can be considered as some parallel chains. Each sharding chain handles the transactions relatively independently. Such design forms the basis to ensure the performance of the entire system. To avoid security issues caused by the dilution of the hash power, we also have a root chain. The blocks of the root chain do not contain transactions, but are responsible for verifying the transactions of each shard. Relying on the hash power distribution algorithm, the hash power of the root chain will always account for 51% of the net. Each shard, on the other hand, packages their transactions according to their own consensus and transaction models. Moreover, QuarkChain relies on flexibility that allows each shard to have different consensus and transaction models. Someone who wants to launch a double-spending attack on a shard that is already contained in the root chain must attack the block on the root chain, which requires calling the 51% hash power of the root chain. That is, if there are vertical field projects that open new shards on QuarkChain, even with insufficient hash power, an attacker must first attack the root chain if he or she wants to attack a new shard. The root chain has maintained more than 51% of the network’s hash power, which makes the attack very difficult. https://preview.redd.it/rxpohs7jb9f51.png?width=674&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2df1307a1753542472f2b6da88e7a4022b30884 As illustrated in the diagram, if the attacker wants to attack the QuarkChain network, one would need to attack the shard and the root chain simultaneously. PoW has achieved a high level of decentralization and has been verified for its stability for a long time. Combining PoW with the staking capability for PoS would make use of the advantages of both consensus mechanisms. That is what QuarkChain’s PoSW achieves exactly. PoSW, which is Proof of Staked Work, is exclusively developed by QuarkChain and runs on shards. PoSW allows miners to enjoy the benefits of lower mining difficulty by staking original tokens (currently it’s 20 times lower). Conversely, if someone malicious with a high hash power and does not stake tokens on QuarkChain, he will be punishable by receiving 20 times the difficulty of the hash power, which increases the cost of attack. If the attacker stakes tokens in order to reduce the cost of attack, he/she needs to stake the corresponding amount of tokens, which may cost even more. Thus, the whole network is more secure. Taking Ethereum Classics (ETC) as an example, if ETC uses the PoSW consensus, if there was another double-spending attack similar to the one in January, the attacker will need at least 110Th/s hash power or 650320 ETC (worth $3.2 million, and 8 TH/s hash power) to create this attack, which is far greater than the cost of the current attack on the network (8Th/s hash power) and revenue (219500 ETC). Relying on multiple sets of security mechanisms, QuarkChain ensures its own security, while providing security for new shards and small and medium-sized projects. Its high level of flexibility also allows the projects to support different types of ledger models, transaction models, virtual machines, and token economics. Such great degrees of security and flexibility will facilitate the blockchain ecosystem to accelerate growth of innovative blockchain applications. Learn more about QuarkChain Website https://www.quarkchain.io Telegram https://t.me/quarkchainio Twitter https://twitter.com/Quark_Chain Medium https://medium.com/quarkchain-official Reddit https://www.reddit.com/quarkchainio/ Community https://community.quarkchain.io/
How much money will Roger spend on vote rigging this time?
Roger Ver rented a lot of hash power when BAB forked away from BSV just to to pretend that he and deadalnix had miner support and kept the ticker BCH. Now that they have fallen out of love it is time again for a fork. So does Rogers Vision have any miner support this time or will he go full banana republic dictator again and rent hash power to steal the ticker? https://maxbit.cc/deadalnix-will-fork-away-from-bitcoin-cash-in-nov-roger-ve
A series of 51% attacks puts Ethereum Classic’s security into question
A series of 51% attacks puts Ethereum Classic’s security into question An adversary performed a successful 51% attack on the Ethereum Classic (ETC) network between July 31 and August 1. The hacker was able to steal around $5.6 million worth of ETC from the OKEx crypto exchange, according to Bitquery. Later, on August 6, the attacker used the same scheme to double-spend an additional $1.68 million worth of ETC. This time the targets were Bitfinex and another unidentified crypto service. The necessary hash power for these double-spend attacks was rented on cloud mining marketplace NiceHash — which was also used during a recent 51% attack attempt on Bitcoin Gold (BTG). The team behind BTG mitigated the attack by asking miners to follow the so-called “honest” chain instead of the longest one, basically censoring attacker’s blocks. Such controversial measures, however, would be against Ethereum Classic’s core principles of decentralization and censorship-resistance, so it’s unclear how the community is planning to deal with similar attacks in the future. Meanwhile, US-based crypto exchange Coinbase increased the confirmation time for ETC deposits to roughly 2 weeks. The second 51% attack on ETC didn’t have any significant impact on its price, though. One of the reasons for such a small market change, among other things, is that 10% of all ETC supply is held in a regulated trust run by Grayscale Investments, which also funds the development of Ethereum Classic, according to CoinDesk. Both Grayscale and CoinDesk are subsidiaries of American venture capital company Digital Currency Group (DCG) founded by Barry Silbert, a long-time supporter of ETC. Given the very low cost of a 51% attack against ETC, Vitalik Buterin suggested that switching to a proof-of-stake consensus algorithm would be a lower-risk strategy for Ethereum Classic, than using a proof-of-work algorithm. Ethereum Classic originated in 2016 as a hard fork of Ethereum, when the latter’s community made a controversial decision to reverse the DAO hack, which sparked discussions about network’s censorship-resistance.
ETC new Network Security Plan involved possibly adopting 0xBitcoin inspired proof of work algorithm
The main motivation for changing the algorithm is to step out of the shade of the Ethereum network which is powered by the Dagger Hashimoto proof-of-work, also known as Ethash. This could be implemented within 6 months, depending upon the results of testing. As a minority chain with regards to the total hash rate using the same mining algorithm as the Ethereum network, Ethereum Classic is not only vulnerable to 51% attacks, but these attacks are possible to execute due to the available hash rate that can be rented on various platforms. Switching to a unique mining algorithm could position Ethereum Classic as a leader in its own class of proof-of-work. The Ethereum Classic community has discussed several algorithms thus far, two of which are promising:
SHA3, or specifically Ethereum’s Keccak256 (ECIP-1049)
RandomX, a proof-of-work for general-purpose CPUs (ECIP-1093)
ECIP-1049 is based on the EIP918 standard first developed for 0xBitcoin (0xBTC).With the direction that Ethereum Classic is taking: a focus on Layer-2 solutions and cross-chain compatibility; being able to evaluate proof of work on chain, will be tremendously valuable to developers of both smart-contracts and node software writers. This could greatly simplify interoperability. this could be implemented on ETC through a hard fork with public community calls scheduled for August 20 and August 28, 2020! Source:
"You're fucking crazy John," the man in the black T-Shirt announced. "Seriously, you want to pretend to be a paedo, so you can lure in the FBI and fuck with them? That is some next level warped shit." "Chill out dude. That was just an example. Doesn't have to be a paedo." "I don't give a fuck. Anything that's gonna make them zero-day you is some dark shit that you can't just laugh off. And what if they chain the sploits? They'll bounce out of your sandbox and be kicking the door down in minutes." "No, no, it's ok. Really. I bought these laptops from a heroin addict in another city. Totally untraceable. I've had the lid off and de-soldered the camera, microphone and wireless." "That's no use, we've got to get online somehow. And when their payload fires they'll trace us through a ToR bypass." "That's why we need three laptops. Physical separation. This one," he tapped the metallic blue case, "is the bait. It's a regular laptop, but it's only connection is a single wired Ethernet. The only route to the Internet is via this one," tap tap, "which is running hardened Kali and only connects via ToR." "Seriously, you're going to actually do this?" "Come on dude, I've always wanted to try. Live a little." "What's the third one for?" "It's hardened Kali too. We proxy everything from the bait browser through here. When they deliver their exploit we'll catch it here, do some reverse engineering, and get ready for the fun bit!" "What the hell. But you're crazy man. And we never speak of this." "Of course. Goes without saying." "How do we start?" "You get a proxy running on that. I'll get the ToR connection set up. I got a 4G dongle off the same guy." John removed a small ethernet hub from his bag, connected its power but held off from plugging in the laptops. He connected the 4G dongle, started the ToR service and watch its status update. With the connection active he configured the iptables firewall so outbound traffic was permitted only through ToR. Cal started the intercepting proxy, exposed its listener and looked at John. "Ready" They both plugged into the hub, and Cal watched as John connected the bait laptop, accessed the proxy settings and linked it to the listener. He accessed a non-descript site to check the setup. It loaded a little slowly, while the series of requests popped up on the intercepting proxy. "Are we sure it's going through ToR?" Cal asked. "Don't worry". "Seriously, show me a packet trace." John started a sniffer, gestured to Cal to refresh the bait browser, while a series of packets scrolled up the screen, all safely encrypted by ToR. "So what now?" a pause "And definitely no paedo stuff. That's too dark to mess about with." "Old school," John replied, "I guess it's a bit of a cliche. We go on the dark net and try to order a murder for BitCoin. We'll make it an American prosecutor, that'll get the FBI going." Cal stared at him. But that didn't stop him typing and Cal watched with grim fascination as he navigated around dark net markets, registering accounts, searching vendors and sending onimous enquiries. Cal monitored the proxy, configuring ever more intricate filters to weed out the mundane. They'd crossed a line of no return and complicit Cal joined in, weaving convincing tales in their messages, striking the right tone to complete their deception. This went on for hours, with no sign of any incoming exploits. Until the browser popped up with "Do you want to allow this site to access WebGL?" "That's it," John smiled, "there's no way that site really uses WebGL. This is an exploit. Stands to reason too, we always knews that had huge attack surface." He was about to permit it, but Cal stopped him. "No, don't allow it. If we allow it, we'll just get a lame zero day that requires WebGL. Deny it and carry on. They'll send a better exploit soon enough." The intensity increased, Cal identified the malicious code that had tried to access WebGL. But it was just a stager - no exploit there. John carried on his ruse, until he noticed the browser stutter. He grabbed Cal's arm, "this is it!" Fear in the room intensified. This was serious now, some hacker - be it FBI or otherwise - had control of the laptop right in front of them. "Carry on with the messaging Cal. If we stop now they'll know our game." Cal typed into the bait laptop while John began to investigate the exploit delivery. He identified the malware quickly enough, and a lingering connection that could be to the command and control server. Alarmingly, it was transferring a lot of data in both directions, a detail he decided not to share with Cal. He loaded the malware into a binary analysis tool and begun the painstaking process of unpicking its workings. 20 minutes in he told Cal to stop. "That'll do. Sign off naturally and shut it down." Cal joined him with the binary anaysis and gradually they formed a picture of its armory. "It's not like one I've seen before," Cal said, "it's tighter coded than a typical rootkit. Really could be FBI." John nodded. "You can see it repeatedly copying this string. That's gotta be a heap spray. And it looks like self-decrypting machine code. Yeah, that's the payload for sure. We can just plug our own in here." "What if the exploit's been watermarked?" Cal interjected, "We don't know where they could have hidden one." "Who cares? We're gonna deliver it anonymously anyway." They worked industriously to decouple the exploit and payload, build a delivery mechanism, and soon they were ready to test it. They watched in delight as a fully-patched browser accessed their delivery site, churned the laptop's CPU, then registered a ping back on the console. The next step was to incorporate a real payload. "So what's it gonna do John?" "Persist itself to disk, then sit quietly and await further instructions. I've got the C&C software figured out already, it was a fun project from long ago. What I need you to do is use BitCoin to rent a couple of dozen virtual servers in different data centres around the world." As Cal started registering the servers, John used the third laptop to generate a public/private key pair. One by one, the servers came online, and John installed the C&C software, configuring each to only respond to instructions signed by their private key. On the 20th he told Cal to stop. There was a sparkle in his eyes. "We're nearly there! Everything's in place." "How are we going to deliver it?" "That's why we had to do this today. I found something earlier. A cache poisoning vulnerability on a major site." Cal stared at him. The chain was complete. This was not real. They completed their final maneouvers. Scripted a mechanism to dynamically generate payloads containing a random sample of C&C servers. Uploaded the exploit delivery mechanism into the control cloud, and generated a list of exploit URLs. John accessed the vulnerable major site, saved the HTML code locally, and modified it to include an exploit URL. Then he exploited the cache poisoning flaw, so that every visitor - at least every visitor coming through that particular cache cluster - would receive not the legitimate site but his malicious modificiations. They watched the C&C management console. Around the world, thousands of unsuspecting web users experienced an annoying pause while their web pages loaded. Each time, under the hood, the zero day exploit fired, the payload persisted itself to disk, and made a connection to their C&C network to receive further instructions. Each time a new node joined their botnet, a line was logged to their console, and soon the screen was scrolling uncontrollably. John was elated, Cal terrified. Cal watched in horror as John repeated the cache poison process across multiple clusters in different data centres. The rate of scrolling on the C&C console exploded. John cancelled it with a smile. "Lets just look at the numbers" Running a grep count on the log showed over 900,000 payload activations. And their malware had been live for barely 15 minutes. "What are you going to do with it?" "That's for another day. Now, we cover our tracks." John removed two USB drives from his bag. He created an encrypted container, and into it put his decoy. Some nudes of an office chick that had been circulating. Incriminating enough, but not the crown jewels. He then created a hidden container within the free space of the first container, using a very strong password. Into this hidden container he copied the private key for the C&C network. This key put him in control. The only way to control the botnot was having both the USB drive, and his strong password. He repeated the process for Cal, inviting him to choose his own passwords. When he handed over the drive, Cal held it like it was on fire. He shut down the bait laptop, gesturing Cal to do the same with the proxy. Removed the hard drive and connected it via USB to the ToR relay. The ToR relay was unlikely to have been compromised that night, a trustworthy system he could use to erase the others. After a secure erase of both drives, then of the ToR relay itself, John started putting everything in a bag. They left the hotel room in silence. Bag on the rear seat and John drove. Cal was acutely aware of the USB drive in his pocket, the angled corners pressing into his leg. He went out of town, down lanes Cal didn't recognise, and stopped by a chain link fence. They both got out, John retrieved the bag, and with a big hurl, launched it over the fence into the landfill. Back home, John smoked a large joint of double zero hash and fell fast asleep. He awoke a few hours later. It almost felt like a dream. But he ran his fingers along the USB drive and remembered the sheer power it contained.
Author:Gamals Ahmed, CoinEx Business Ambassador ABSTRACT A Blockchain is a continuously growing record, called blocks, which are linked and secured using cryptography such as hashing. Each block contains a hash pointer as a link to the previous block, a timestamp and transaction data. Filecoin is a decentralized storage network that turns cloud storage into an algorithmic market. The market runs on a blockchain with a native protocol token (also called Filecoin), which miners earn by providing storage to clients. The first section of report is demonstrate the filecoin which is a decentralized storage system used to encrypt files that we need to share it through blockchain platform. The second section is explain briefly blockchain Proof of Concept (POC) which is a process of locate whether a Blockchain project idea can be feasible in a real-world situation, need of proof of concept and blockchain proof of concept stages. 1.Introduction Filecoin is a protocol token whose blockchain runs on a novel proof, called Proof-of-Space time, where blocks are created by miners that are storing data. Filecoin protocol provides a data storage and retrieval service via a network of independent storage providers that does not rely on a single coordinator, where: (1) clients pay to store and retrieve data, (2) Storage Miners earn tokens by offering storage (3) Retrieval Miners earn tokens by serving data. Filecoin is a decentralized storage network that turns cloud storage into an algorithmic market. The market runs on a blockchain with a native protocol token (also called Filecoin”), which miners earn by providing storage to clients. Conversely, clients spend Filecoin hiring miners to store or distribute data. As with Bitcoin, Filecoin miners compete to mine blocks with sizable rewards. Filecoin mining power is proportional to active storage, which directly provides a useful service to clients (unlike Bitcoin mining, whose usefulness is limited to maintaining blockchain consensus). This creates a powerful incentive for miners to amass as much storage as they can, and rent it out to clients. The protocol weaves these amassed resources into a self-healing storage network that anybody in the world can rely on. The network achieves robustness by replicating and dispersing content, while automatically detecting and repairing replica failures. Clients can select replication parameters to protect against different threat models. The protocol’s cloud storage network also provides security, as content is encrypted end-to-end at the client, while storage providers do not have access to decryption keys. Filecoin works as an incentive layer on top of IPFS , which can provide storage infrastructure for any data. It is especially useful for decentralizing data, building and running distributed applications, and implementing smart contracts . Filecoin based on IPFS proposes a completely decentralized distributed storage network where customers and storage miners request services and submit orders to the storage and retrieval markets. And the miner provides a service to view matching quotes to initiate a transaction. The protocol guarantees the integrity of data storage by copying proofs and space-time certificates. The Filecoin protocol writes the order book, token transactions, and integrity challenge response records to the blockchain. 1.1 Blockchain Blockchain is a characteristic data structure formed by combining data blocks in a chain order inchronological order, and cryptographically guarantees decentralized, non-tamperable, unforgeable distributed shared ledger system. Figure 1 Blockchain Structure 1.2 Elementary Components in Filecoin The Filecoin protocol builds upon four novel components :
Decentralized Storage Network (DSN): We provide an abstraction for network of independent storage providers to offer storage and retrieval services.
Novel Proofs-of-Storage: We present two novel Proofs-of-Storage,(1) Proof-of Replication allows storage providers to prove that data has been replicated to its own uniquely dedicated physical storage. Enforcing unique physical copies enables a verifier to check that a prover is not deduplicating multiple copies of the data into the same storage space, (2) Proof-of-Space time allows storage providers to prove they have stored some data throughout a specified amount of time.
Verifiable Markets: We model storage requests and retrieval requests as orders in two decentralized verifiable markets operated by the Filecoin network. Verifiable markets ensure that payments are performed when a service has been correctly provided. We present the Storage Market and the Retrieval Market where miners and clients can respectively submit storage and retrieval orders.
Useful Proof-of-Work: We show how to construct a useful Proof-of-Work based on Proof-of Space time that can be used in consensus protocols. Miners do not need to spend wasteful computation to mine blocks, but instead must store data in the network .
1.3 Filecoin: Lifecycle of a File In this section we mentioned the lifecycle for file in Filecoin, as follow:
Put: Clients send information about the file, storage duration, and a small amount of Filecoin to the Storage Market as a bid. Simultaneously, Miners submit asks, competing to offer low cost storage. Deals are made in the Storage Market, on the blockchain.
Send: The Client then sends the file to the Miner, and the Miner adds the file to a sector. The sectors are cryptographically sealed, with verification sent to the blockchain.
Manage: Miners continuously prove they are storing all sectors they agreed to store. The client’s payment is released in installments. Additional currency is minted over time and awarded to Miners as a block reward, proportional to the storage they provide.
Request: A Client requests a file with some payment in Filecoin to the Retrieval Market (off chain); the first Miner to send the file is paid. Eventually, the contract expires and the storage is once again free.
Figure 2 Filecoin Lifecycle of a File 1.4 Filecoin is Built with IPFS The Interplanetary File System (IPFS) is a next-generation protocol to make the Web faster, safer, decentralized, and permanent. Since the initial IPFS release in January 2015, it has gained strong traction in a variety of industries and organizations. Today, IPFS is a foundational technology for many applications in the blockchain industry. Over 5 billion files have been added to IPFS, spanning scientific data and papers, genetic research, video distribution & streaming, 3D modeling, legal documents, entire blockchains and their transactions, video games, and more. IPFS and Filecoin are complementary protocols, and the adoption of the underlying IPFS protocol is a leading indicator of market demand for a faster, safer, decentralized storage service . Some IPFS Users Figure(3) IPFS users 1.5 IPFS Open Source Community The IPFS Project is a large community of open source contributors driven to decentralize the web. The community is made up of thousands of developers and users who have been working together for several years, building valuable and widely used software tools. The same seasoned core developers of IPFS are also leading the design and development of Filecoin. The IPFS team has experience building ambitious sotware projects and coordinating thriving developer communities. A significant portion of the IPFS community plans to join the Filecoin network, building tools and applications on this new, exciting platform [ 7]. 2. PoC PROJECTS: 2.1 What is PoC? PoC is abbreviate of Project of Concept which is a process of determining whether a Block-chain project idea can be feasible in a real-world situation. This process is necessary to verify that the idea will function as envisioned. The best part about proof of concept blockchain meaning is that it will help you to get a clear idea of what you are doing before you even get started. Furthermore, the proof of concept in the blockchain niche isn’t for exploring the marketplace for ideas only. Moreover, you won’t determine the best way to start the production process. Instead, you’ll only work on your possible blockchain solution option and see whether it’s capable of being a reality or not. Developing a blockchain proof of concept would require an investment of time, money and resources. In reality, you’d need to get your hands on supporting technologies or even the physical components needed to get the perfect plan. Going through the process is necessary for enterprises to see whether their idea is visible before using all production level equipment for it. According to a recent Gartner survey, 66% of CIOs think that blockchain is here to disrupt the existing marketplaces. And many will spend more than $10 million on the experimentation of the technology. So, if you were confused with what is proof of concept blockchain, now you know just what it is . PoC is used to demonstrate the feasibility and practical potential of any blockchain project in any field such as Energy, Communication, Services, Insurance and Healthcare. A PoC can either be a prototype without any supporting code or any MVP (Minimum Viable Product) with bare feature set. A PoC is a prototype that is used for internal organization who can have a better understanding of a particular project. 2.3 Why Companies Need a Proof of Concept? Usually, the blockchain proof of concept is awfully popular among the startups in the market. However, proof of concept in blockchain can also be a great tool for the Enterprises as well. Mainly there are three points for needing it.
Test out the blockchain project before going for mass production.
Identify possible pain points that can make the project not useful.
Save an enormous amount of time and money.
Although anyone who comes up with a blockchain project idea will think that it will work, however, proof of concept in blockchain will test out your idea to ensure that you get the best version out of it, which will save up a lot of time and money in the process. Another major reason for you to use proof of concept for blockchain is to ensure that all the stakeholders love your idea and would be interested in investing in it. Whether you are just adding up a new type of feature in the existing blockchain solution or developing it from scratch blockchain proof of concept would let you take the fastest route possible. This relatively gives a different edge in the proof of concept blockchain meaning . 2.4 Proof of Concept Phases Its explain as follows: Figure (4) explains the steps of blockchain PoC Step-1: Finding the Proper Blockchain Application Sectors That Adds Value Let’s start with the first step of the theoretical build-up stage. Many of you don’t really know which application sectors are great for blockchain Proof of concept . That’s why we are outlining some major application sector where you can use your solution. These are: 1.Finance Let’s start with the financing sector. This sector is relatively popular among the blockchain community. Furthermore, there are many projects already that cover this sector and offer a lucrative solution for major issues. So, in that sense, this sector is quite competitive in case of blockchain PoC development. 2. Medical The medical sector is another major blockchain application sector at present. There are count-less scenarios where blockchain can truly shine. Hospitals have to deal with a lot of falsifying reports and counterfeit drugs. 3. Asset Management Maintaining asset in these times are relatively hard due to all the bad players in the market. Simple paper-based record keeping isn’t enough now. Moreover, due to political and other reasons, ownership management is at risk of becoming a corrupted sector. 4. Government Many governmental institutions are falling behind in the race of digitization. Moreover, every citizen needs a better infrastructure which will give them the security they need. In reality, the government sector is unable to reserve the citizen rights properly. 5. Identity Identity management is a big hassle when it comes to enterprises. Furthermore, many often impersonate other people’s identity and commit serious crimes. Even in trade financer, many companies have to deal with fake companies and fake documents. 6. IoT Internet of things is a wonderful sector for proof of concept in blockchain development. Furthermore, this sector is responsible for linking all your smart applications together. Moreover, the device to device connection in a secured platform is necessary. 7. Payments The payments sector is another awesome application point for your enterprise-grade solution. The blockchain system is more than capable of handling payments, and many of it also offer micro payments. Furthermore, it takes a really small amount of time to send money compared to the traditional banking system. Not to mention the reduction of fees in overseas payment. 8. Supply Chain Big enterprise needs to have their eyes and ears in every step of the supply chain process. Furthermore, any minor errors could end up in a million dollars of loss. Obviously, you would not want that. Tracking where the raw materials are coming from and whether your products are truly authentic or not is one of the major pain points. 9. Insurance The insurance industry is facing some serious problems regarding insurance claims and document authentication. Also, the enormous amount of paperwork that every single employee has to fill out is overly dreadful. Detecting fraud, managing all the documents in a secure environment is tough. So, if you introduce a blockchain framework that can solve all these issues would be a huge factor. However, the competition in this marketplace is a bit high; still, with proper blockchain proof of concept, it should be a great opportunity. Step-2: Defining the Product In the second stage of the theoretical build-up, you would need to think your blockchain Proof of concept just like any other product. Furthermore, you need to have a solid plan along with full support from all stakeholders. PoC Feature Requirements Define all the features that your enterprise blockchain solution needs. After deciding your blockchain application, you would probably have some idea on what features to add up. Step-3: Investigating the Technology After you’ve come up with the solid idea of what features to include and how to focus the road map, you would need to hand them off to the engineering team. Therefore, your team will then research the technology based on your requirements and come up with the best plat-form to develop it on.
Advice to make a successful Proof of Concept As we knew, a proof of concept is a project, and like any project it must be clearly defined. That means breaking down the process into these four steps in order to can manage it better.
Focus on a Specific Business Issue If you want to make the blockchain PoC framework a success, then you have to start with focusing your real-life problems. At the beginning of the theoretical build-up stage when you are looking for a popular sector of deployment, look for a specific issue. Furthermore, any problem that your idea can fix would be a big plus from the consumers’ end. Many blockchain proof of concept only focuses on the capabilities of the technology only. However, they just don’t resolve any new issues or even old issues.
Take Small Steps, Avoid Scope Creeps Another major thing that the enterprises face is the scope creeps. While choosing what features you might need for the blockchain proof of concept many go for too much from the start. However, making a flashier entrance in the market won’t mean 100% success. Further-more, get the ones that you can truly deliver, not the ones you aren’t capable of.
Connect All Ideas and Control Them You won’t be the only one coming up with all the ideas. As you already know you’d need to get yourself a good team that will back you up and helps you come up with a compact solution. However, not every single member of your team would agree with the same idea. Furthermore, they have different ideas and vision regarding the blockchain development too.
Construct a Thorough Plan Another hurdle in the way of proper proof of concept blockchain is the misinterpretation of the blockchain implementation challenges. Obviously, blockchain implementation isn’t an easy task. At the first stage, it might have many flaws that would end up in possible failure scenarios.
Test A Million Times After getting the design done, you’d need to go into the testing phase. However, the problem is many seem to enroll the MVP before properly testing it, which end up in failure. So, test out the MVP a lot of time before making it accessible to the end-users.
Collaborate With Other Parties Collaborating with other enterprises could help to take down the overall costing of the block-chain proof of concept. Furthermore, if you are a small to medium level enterprise than collaborating with other parties could help out with the production costing. It will solely depend on the feature or the type of blockchain PoC framework you want to work on.
The Right Amount of Staff The right amount of stuff is always necessary to pull off a blockchain proof of concept project. Furthermore, you would need to recruit staffs that have blockchain skills or have an intellectual concept of the technology. Get the necessary amount of stuff with blockchain skill set to perfect the Blockchain Proof of Concept..
3. Conclusion This report explain a distributed storage scheme based on blockchain technology( Filecoin), and introduces the system design in detail in first part , we have studied about blockchain technology related for Filecoin(decentralized storage network), Filecoin, a highly-anticipated decentralized storage network (under development), announced that there will be more delays before its Mainnet can be officially launched. Created by Protocol Labs, Filecoin has been developed using the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS), an established peer to peer data storage network. The Filecoin software will allow users to trade storage space in an open and decentralized market place.In the second part we mentioned a proof of concept (PoC), The Blockchain Proof of Concept is a demonstration to verify that certain concepts or theories have the potential for real-world application. PoC represents the evidence demonstrating that a project or product is feasible and worthy enough to justify the expenses needed to support and develop it. REFERENCES  Juan Benet. IPFS — Content Addressed, Versioned, P2P File System. 2014.  Protocol Labs. Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network. https://filecoin.io/ filecoin.pdf, 2017.  Benet J. IPFS-content addressed, versioned, P2P file system[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.3561, 2014.  Liu AD, Du XH, Wang N, Li SZ. Research Progress of Blockchain Technology and its Application in Information Security. Ruan Jian Xue Bao/Journal of Software,2018,6,14:1–24.  Protocol Labs, Inc,[email protected] , Filecoin Primer July 25, 2017.  Protocol Labs, Inc,[email protected] , Filecoin Primer July 25, 2017.  Retrieved from IPFS internal monitoring July 6, 2017.  https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/proof-of-concept-definition.  https://www.blockchainappfactory.com/poc-blockchain-application  https://101blockchains.com/blockchain-proof-of-concept/#prettyPhoto
If history is any guide, we’re not going to see ETH 2.0 until 2022 at the earliest, even if the earliest phases of “Serenity” begin getting pushed in mid-2020. ETH 2.0’s rollout breaks down into seven (7!!!) phases and brings with it the promise of staking, sharding, a new virtual machine, and more dancing badgers. (One of our analysts,Wilson Withiam, put together an excellent overview of both the ETH 2.0 and ETH 1.x roadmaps for this report. They are critical to track and understand at a high-level given how much Ethereum’s performance will affect other competitive projects and most of the DeFi and Web 3 infrastructure. So these next two sections are longer and more technical.) Here’s what you need to know about the current game plan for crypto’s largest platform. Phase 0 marks the launch of the “beacon chain”, which will serve as the backbone for a new blockchain. The beacon chain will manage network validators (large early stakers like ConsenSys) and ultimately assign validators to individual shards (slicing the new blockchain into smaller chunks is a key, difficult, controversial scaling decision that’s been made). The new chain will support Ethereum’s new proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, and offer inflation rewards with new ETH2 for those that pony up and lock 32 ETH1 tokens into an irreversible contract. That one way bridge into the new system is also contentious, but it means ETH1 supply will start getting “effectively burned”once token holder begin claiming beacon chain validator slots. Initial reports claimed Jan. 3 as a realistic launch date (lol). It will be amazing to see this launched by end of June. Phase 1 will introduce 64 individual shard chains (reduced from 1,024!!!) to the network, with the option to increase the total down the road as the design gets tested. The Ethereum elite see sharding as the “key to future scalability” as shards can parallelize transaction processing, something that could improve network performance and reduce individual validator’s costs (good for decentralization). It comes with big risk: this is still theoretical. No network the size of Ethereum has successfully sharded its blockchain. In Phase 1, shard chains will only contain simple data sets (no smart contracts or transaction executions) to test the system’s structure. As with Phase 0, the beacon chain will continue to run in parallel with ETH 1.x throughout the phase. Don’t expect Phase 1 anytime before 2021. Phase 2 marks the full launch of the ETH2 chain, allowing for on-chain contract execution and introducing the new eWASM virtual machine (dubbed EVM 2.0). At this point, existing dApps can start migrating their contracts from ETH 1.x to a specific shard (one shard per contract) in the new network. Storage rent, charging contract owners for storing data on the network (more on this below), is in the cards as well, which would require mass contract rewrites. Even though Phase 2 intends to replace the original Ethereum blockchain entirely, ETH 1.x may still live on as a shard within ETH2. (How confused are you by now? See why bitcoin will still dominate the macro narrative for a while?) A late 2021 release for Phase 2 is optimistic. Before the end of 2022 would be a win. The final four phases are less defined, and without an attached timeline: Phase 3 implements state-minimized clients (because stateless clients are just too much). Phase 4 allows for cross-shard transactions. Phase 5 improves network security and the availability of data proofs. Phase 6 introduces meta-shards, as in “shards within shards within shards,” for near-infinite scaling. If you’re scratching your head and are sadistic enough to read more, the Sharding Wiki page does note, “this may be difficult.” Scaling and compilation efficiencies aside, the most notable change in Ethereum’s metamorphosis is the transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. PoW is the more battle tested security model for blockchain networks, while PoS may prove to be more efficient but with new and less obvious attack vectors. For the more technical, we recommend reading Bison Trails’ Viktor Bunin on the subject of PoS security threats. Past research has also shown PoS requires an extra layer of “trust” vs. PoW, to help nodes sync to the network. Most models share specific characteristics to address this trust issue, such as allowing for a dynamic set of validators (rotate your security), promoting token holder participation in consensus, and assessing steep penalties (slashing) for any network participant that violates the protocol guidelines. ETH 2.0 will function similarly, but may be able to learn from other PoS networks (and their R&D) as well as those come live and see real world issues. As Vitalik points out, recent research in PoS resulted in “great theoretical progress,” But... Listen, we're talking about practice. Not a game. Not a game. Not a game. We're talking about practice. Not a game….Practice? We're talking about practice, man? We're talking about practice. We're talking about practice. We ain't talking about the game. We're talking about practice, man. Vitalik was eight when this happened, so the clip might help and prove metaphoric.
2 ETH 1.x Research/Governance/Roadmap at a glance.
Ok, one more. Bear with us. Let’s reiterate, ETH 2.0 is a brand new blockchain. It’s going to be a chaotic and high-risk transition. In the meantime, the existing network needs to run existing applications (particularly financial settlements for DeFi transactions). More critical upgrades are needed in the current system. To that end, ETH 1.x devs have three goals to boost performance and reduce blockchain bloat: (1) introduce client optimizations that increase transaction capacity; (2) cap disk space requirements and prune old, memory-sucking data (so running a node is less expensive and more decentralized); and (3) upgrade the EVM to eWASM, a newer open standard for code compilers that simplifies debugging, and is also used by all the newer smart contract platforms. ETH 1.x developers have decided to split the major tasks amongst four working groups:
State Rent: Developers today incur a single payment for deploying contracts and storing data on the network. Thanks to the immutable nature of blockchains, this data occupies the disk space of node operators permanently. As the network’s state grows, so do operating costs, which is where “state rent” comes in. It makes sense to charge for ongoing storage needs since the node operators are on the hook in perpetuity. This is a big change as it could break a bunch of contracts, but also limits state growth and creates economic incentives to run a node. What happens to data that users don’t want to pay for? Boot delinquent user data off the network but keep a stub (a hash) of information on hand in case the user wants to later reinstate it.
Pruning: Similar goal. Pruning removes old data that is longer useful, but does so in a way that allows clients to prove past transactions. There are a couple of ways developers think this is possible (e.g. maintain a proof of deleted chain segments, which is similar to a “light client” in bitcoin that makes it possible to run a wallet on your phone), but all current strategies would cap annual “state growth” to prevent spikes in storage costs, at the expense of some new complications (e.g., dApps might be unable to access some data, and nodes might be unable to tell if data was deleted or whether it never existed in the first place).
eWASM: Like ETH 2.0, devs plan to implement eWASM on the flagship Ethereum chain. The eWASM virtual machine, a subset of the well-established WebAssembly compiler, offers improved flexibility for the introduction of “high-performance” smart contracts.
Simulation and Emulation: This group develops tools to help support and evaluate the other groups because, well, someone has to test everything.
Core developers intend to introduce most of these implementations through a series of hard forks, the latest of which activated just over a week ago (Istanbul, Dec. 7). However, Istanbul’s second phase, tentatively scheduled for Q2 next year, has Ethereans at each other’s throats. The controversy boils down to the fork’s inclusion of ProgPoW, an ASIC-resistant hashing algorithm designed to replace Ethereum’s current algo. ProgPoW aims to even the playing field for GPU miners and ward off the entrance of potential ASIC competitors. The miners like that. But many miners and investors see ProgPoW as a threat to their investments. For miners, the change would shift the power dynamic away from mining farms and render expensive, specialized mining hardware useless. Ethereum (and ERC-20) investors intent on securing their assets might balk because ASIC miners typically prop up hash rates (overall chain security) and their costs “naturally create a price-floor for ASK prices of miners’ sell-orders.” This saga is far from over. The infighting will likely continue leading up to ProgPoW’s activation date mid-next year, and presents the strongest potential for a network split since “The DAO” fork that spawned Ethereum Classic. The looming transition to ETH 2.0 (and proof-of-stake) will likely deter investor pushback, because it’s a short-term battle in a war the miners are ultimately going to lose, anyway. Unless the roadmap changes back to supporting a hybrid PoW/PoS system, of course, but... Oh my god, I’m just kidding. This section is mercifully over.
Rent A Hash is a professional mining platform that allows you to rent hashing power as it becomes available on the platform for the period of time you need to achieve your goals. You will not have to deal with setting up rigs, importing machines or GPU cards, renting and maintaining warehouses, securing the site or paying the bills. You can get all the advantages of having a rig without the ... The Faster More Powerful way to Rent Crypto Mining Rigs and Hashing Power. Welcome to the faster, smarter, more powerful way to rent or lease crypto currency mining rigs and hashing power. Whether you're new and want to try mining out before you buy equipment or you're a veteran looking for more hash power at a coin launch, MiningRigRentals.com is your one stop website. Our service has been ... NiceHash hash power marketplace works entirely also on Bitcoin, meaning it’s the currency used for both purchasing and selling hash power. And although buyers can deposit many other cryptocurrencies, in order to finalize hash power order one has to still exchange those other cryptocurrencies to Bitcoin. Hi friends - These are step-by-step instructions for how to rent hashing power and point it at a pool that is working on mining XT blocks. You can think of this as an alternative to the big block bounty and block vote ideas; they're all ways of showing support for XT, though I personally think this approach is more interesting. It also makes for an actual increase in the XT-supporting hashing ... I have seen some people on the bitcointalk forum looking for hashing power to rent (here is one example) ... [email protected] this guy isn't looking for "Bitcoin hashing power", or else he'd be happy offering a GetWork proxy. He might be looking for "hashing power" of some other sort. Maybe you want to modify the title of your question? I think there's a possibility that he's just using BTC-hashes-per ...
This quick how-to tutorial will explain you how to quickly and easily buy hashing power at NiceHash.com and mine your coins with massive hashing rate! When y... Renting Bitcoin hashing power from Nice Hash / Rundown on how it works. - Duration: 5:45. TheBitcoinMiner 14,055 views. 5:45. PIVX Setup and staking (for Windows) - Duration: 10:53. ... In this tutorial I show you how you can purchase hash power in the NiceHash marketplace. Even if you don't plan on renting hash power all the time, I recomme... Today we go over how to use NiceHash to rent mining power and get ourselves some GRIN. https://MWGrinPool.com Discord Channel: https://discord.gg/UP5QFbq Tel... Renting Bitcoin hashing power from Nice Hash / Rundown on how it works. - Duration: 5:45. TheBitcoinMiner 14,055 views. 5:45. Robert Kiyosaki 2019 - The Speech That Broke The Internet!!! KEEP THEM ...