Vocabulary - Bitcoin

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners.

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners. submitted by VeritasSapere to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin as rbitcoin knows it and Bitcoin cash as rbtc knows it are two contenders for the title "Bitcoin," which is defined in the white paper as the chain with the longest valid ledger. Whichever chain is longer and valid will be Bitcoin by definition /r/btc

Bitcoin as rbitcoin knows it and Bitcoin cash as rbtc knows it are two contenders for the title submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

"We need define what is Bitcoin at first. Definitely should not be the implementation of bitcoin-core."

submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners.

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners. submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners.

Changing the rules and splitting the chain is not an attack. Carrying out long reorgs definitely is an attack, since the intent is to disrupt that blockchain. The Bitcoin whitepaper also defines long reorgs as an attack carried out by dishonest miners. submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

09-26 08:52 - 'Hey fucker, just a quick heads-up. **definately** is actually spelled **definitely**. You can actually remember it by remembering it. Unless you have Alzheimer's, then you'll probably forget to breathe anyways...' by /u/spellingbotwithtumor removed from /r/Bitcoin within 342-352min

'''
Hey fucker, just a quick heads-up. definately is actually spelled definitely. You can actually remember it by remembering it. Unless you have Alzheimer's, then you'll probably forget to breathe anyways.
The parent commenter can reply with 'delet!' to delete this comment.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: spellingbotwithtumor
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

10-25 09:23 - '[quote] I'm defining economic majority to be the bitcoin most people use - so by definition they get to decide whatever they like. / You can of course still refer to anything you like as being "canonical Bitcoin" if it makes yo...' by /u/bitcoind3 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-7min

'''
Even economic majority can't decide what Bitcoin is when it comes to hard-forks.
I'm defining economic majority to be the bitcoin most people use - so by definition they get to decide whatever they like.
You can of course still refer to anything you like as being "canonical Bitcoin" if it makes you happy, but after a while it gets a bit [Judean's people's front]1 - I don't think it helps the debate much.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: bitcoind3
1: g*co/k**/4iXkv*
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

"We need define what is Bitcoin at first. Definitely should not be the implementation of bitcoin-core."

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Raoul Pal and Michael Saylor's Bitcoin vs Ethereum analysis is deeply flawed, and here is why.

Regarding the Bitcoin vs Ethereum narrative
Allocating capital in Bitcoin but not in Ethereum is a bet that the planned road-map for Ethereum will not be successfully implemented and/or its economic properties will not function as designed once the final phase of ETH 2.0 goes live. The combination of PoS, sharding and EIP-1559 will allow for a monetary policy that can sustain the system with zero, possibly negative, issuance. Detailed explanations of how this is possible has been documented through numerous interviews and blogs with developers and pundits. We also must take into consideration that even if the issuance is above zero, the returns from staking Ether must be accounted to compare the long-term holding value proposition against something like Bitcoin. If the staking rewards provide ~3% annual returns and issuance is ~2% then the equivalent issuance for a PoW protocol would be ~-1% (this will never happen in the Bitcoin protocol).
Addressing the claim that Ether is not money
The narrative that Ether is not money because the Ethereum protocol is not designed to exclusively function as money is akin to saying that the Internet is not a good emailing system because it is not exclusively designed to transmit emails. This type of narrative is trying to restrict the definition of money by suggesting that its underlying protocol should not have functionality that extends beyond the conventional way we think of it. The reality is that Ethereum is much better suited for a digital economy - Ether is its native monetary asset. The ability to issue other forms of digital assets and execute computer logic in a trustless unified system with a natively defined monetary asset encompasses all the fundamental building blocks of a future digital economy. This is a future where monetary, financial and information systems can take advantage of the inclusiveness, permissionless and trustless aspects that are central to the Bitcoin value proposition.
The Ethereum protocol is designed to do a lot of wonderful things, but it costs money to operate the network and that cost must be covered by something of value that can be easily liquidated or exchanged into other things of value.... otherwise known as money. The idea that Ether is more akin to oil than gold/money just because the price metric for computations is called "gas" falls apart under scrutiny. Ether is strictly used as a monetary incentive. It is not magically burned to propel a fictitious machine that runs the network... the computers that run the Ethereum network run under the same physical principles from the ones of Bitcoin - they consume energy and someone has to pay for it. It just so happens that the monetary rewards and cost of transactions operating the Ethereum network are done exclusively in Ether, and therefore it serves as a monetary base. In addition, Ether has been used as the monetary base for the acquisition of other digital assets during their ICO phase. Lastly, Paypal has revealed they will be including Ether as a means of payment for online merchants. Saying that Ether is not money is like saying the sky isn't blue.
Additional thoughts
  1. The combination of staking, EIP-1559 and sharding will allow ETH to reduce issuance ahead of Bitcoin's schedule. It is very likely going to allow for sustainable zero issuance which is something that is still up in the air for Bitcoin.
  2. The switch from PoW to PoS will dramatically reduce the operational cost of the network while incentivizing ownership of Ether. The reduction in operational cost is a huge factor contributing to a sustainable monetary policy.
  3. The true soundness of Ether as a store of wealth needs to account for the returns from staking. That means that even if the nominal issuance remained higher than Bitcoin, it could still a better investment when you account for the staking returns.
  4. Ethereum can operate as an entire financial system. It allows for issuance of new tokens and it can operate autonomously as a digital assets exchange... so that means that it can be an exchange for tokenized FIAT currencies, cryptocurrencies, tokenized securities and commodities. Think of a global market for stocks, commodities, future contracts and derivatives.
  5. The integration with digital assets is done natively in one network. Ethereum serves as a native monetary asset with sound properties. Tokenized bitcoins would not only significantly reduce security (value would be lost if EITHER network is compromised) it also makes little sense if Ethereum's soundness (staking - issuance) is superior to Bitcoin.
  6. There are a gazillion more use cases for Ethereum that would benefit from having a natively defined monetary asset.
  7. Ultimately Bitcoin might serve as digital gold as a hedge against Ethereum. So they can coexist, but they are still competing with each other in terms of building value. Every investor who is getting into cryptocurrencies should be asking what assets to buy and why. Money allocated to Bitcoin cannot be allocated to Ethereum and vice-versa.
submitted by TheWierdGuy to ethereum [link] [comments]

Transcript of how Philip the tyrant admin of the Bitcoin Cash Telegram group called Spoice stupid, an idiot, a parrot among other insults then banned her instead of discussing Bitcoin Cash. That Telegram group is hostile, ABC/IFP shills run and follows the rBitcoin toxic censorship modus operandi.

David B., [18.10.20 01:46]
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/jdagi3/whats_up_with_the_bchn_hypocrisy/

David B., [18.10.20 01:47]
Wut x2

J Stodd, [18.10.20 01:49]
[In reply to David B.]
Their words are meaningless. They have no principles. Wish i could comment but bitcoinxio banned me from rbtc and never told me why

David B., [18.10.20 01:59]
These comments are so toxic

Spoice, [18.10.20 01:59]
In reality, the real continuation of Bitcoin as we all know it is what is carried on by BCHN, BU, BCHD and others

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00]
ABC is changing the rules to something that is not Bitcoin

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00]
anyone denying those facts is selling you snake oil

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00]
If Blockstream tried to take some % to their own benefit, we would have never needed BCH in the first place

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00]
everyone would have rejected them in a second

J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:01]
[In reply to Spoice]
Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin to start with, so who cares?

David B., [18.10.20 02:01]
[ Album ]

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01]
yet we have ABC trying to pull this theft and all those puppets think it's ok

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01]
JSTodd that's bullshit

David B., [18.10.20 02:01]
Like trying to talk to a core maxi about altcoins

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01]
Bitcoin Cash is the most Bitcoin out of all Bitcoins

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01]
it is the continuation of what Satoshi started

David B., [18.10.20 02:02]
Tbh they aren't even toxic

Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:02]
[In reply to Spoice]
If the hash follows then it is Bitcoin Cash. Only if it doesn't is your claim true

J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:03]
[In reply to Spoice]
Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Bitcoin failed to be Peer to Peer Cash, so Bitcoin Cash attempted to fix this by forking Bitcoin and attacking the root of the problem. This does not mean Bitcoin Cash is literally Bitcoin. Adopt a different argument. Sorry if you bought into that bc of Rogers rantings

J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:05]
Bitcoin Cash can replace Bitcoin, and if Bitcoin dies and BCH wins then sure maybe it can take its name from its grave, but they are different products, trying to say Bitcoin stopped being "Bitcoin" and became BCH is a self contradiction.

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:08]
Jstodd's got some good points.

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:08]
He's learnt so much in the last year ☺️

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:08]
"Bitcoin is Bitcoin" is a false statement. BTC is just an instance of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the set of rules defined in the whitepaper first and foremost, it is peer to peer electronic cash. BTC no longer fits that criteria. Bitcoin Cash meets them. The fork proposed by ABC also fails to meet that criteria. Therefore the continuation of Bitcoin is in whatever BU, BCHN, Flowee and others will continue.

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:09]
What rules were defined in the WP?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:10]
Let's see which rules aren't: 1) No coinbase tax going to any centralized entity such as ABC 2) No throttling of TX throughput such as BTC

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:10]
therefore they both fail the simple "Is this Bitcoin?" test

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:11]
Finally, Michael, if you think Hash rate defines what Bitcoin is, you should stick to BTC

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:11]
21 million coins isn't in the WP

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:11]
I asked what rules did the WP define.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12]
Because BCH failed that criteria since it forked, therefore your point is wrong

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12]
https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12]
The announcement of the white paper included the 21 million limit, close enough

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:12]
HIs announcement isn't the WP

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12]
show me where Satoshi said that Amaury shoudl tax the chain?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12]
Doesn't matter- close enough

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:12]
Bitcoin is the set of rules defined in the whitepaper first and foremost - You

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:13]
My ears pricked up on that comment, so I'm asking you what you meant.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:13]
Correct. Changing the 21 million hard limit is still more Bitcoin than taxing the Coinbase, yet both will never ever happen. Not to Bitcoin anyway

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:13]
If you meant Satoj's writings pre and post WP then you should be clear about it

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:13]
some bastardized chain might, just not Bitcoin

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:14]
The closest we have to anything to indicate what is "Bitcoiness" is general things like "the longest chain"

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:14]
No, it is never a single thing

David B., [18.10.20 02:15]
REEEE

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:15]
trustless, no single trusted third parties, and rules can change due to incentives via consensus

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:15]
it is a set of common sense and experiment driven and historical relevance and initial parameters and "peer to peer electronic cash" definition indicators

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:15]
never a single thing

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16]
[In reply to Spoice]
This is like the exact opposite of what you said earlier

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16]
Bitcoin is defined by the rules in the WP, I mean common sense.

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16]
🤷‍♂️

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:16]
Nope, the rule set is defined in the white paper should never change, but I never said all rules are defined in the white paper

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16]
What rules?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:16]
It is a union

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:17]
What rules are there?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:17]
Rules in the white paper + what continued to define Bitcoin thereafter

J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:17]
[In reply to Spoice]
> "Bitcoin is Bitcoin is a false statement."
Alas, if we cannot agree on the law of identity, aka A=A, then i dont understand how to hold a conversation with you using logic.
> BTC is an instance of Bitcoin
No, BTC is a ticker used optionally by exchanges. Other common tickers for bitcoin include XBC, XBT, BC (correct me if im wrong on any of these)
> "Bitcoin is a set of rules in the whitepaper"
Super hard to defend this. Theres no mention of a 21M supply cap, no blocksize limit *at all*, and it also says additional rules and incentives can be enforced (implying maybe they should).

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:17]
I go through this with BSVers all the time. We have no spec sheet of rules defining what Bitcoin is from Satoshi.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18]
Rules such as what defines a correct block, miners receiving the full incentive of mining it, etc

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:18]
The WP is a highlevel document

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18]
The WP is a description of a scientific experiment

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18]
if you want to start your own experiment, be my guest

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:18]
[In reply to Spoice]
Valid tx rules aren't defined in the WP

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18]
just don't try to call it Bitcoin

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:19]
The word majority is in the WP an awful lot wouldn't you say?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:19]
Not valid TX rules, but what a proof of work block is and how it diverts the reward to the miner, etc

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20]
[In reply to Spoice]
and? what about BTC doesn't apply?

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20]
I'm not arguing for any fork of BCH here.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20]
It no longer meets the very title of the white paper experiment, "Peer to peer electronic cash"

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20]
The BTC instance of the experiment is destined to move away from the very title of the white paper

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20]
It's electronic, and I use it like cash.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20]
that the maintainers even wanted to edit the white paper (Cobra and co) because of this fact

J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:20]
u/Spoice When did BTC stop being Bitcoin in your view? The day Amaury decided to launch the fork, before Segwit happened?
If someone else launched a fork first, they would have been "the real bitcoin"?
This is a game of whoever forks first becomes the real Bitcoin?
What if two people launched a fork at the exact same time, maybe even with identical specs?

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21]
Where did I go wrong?

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21]
[In reply to Spoice]
Did they?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:21]
Doesn't matter if you use it today, its very technical fabric will have to move your transactions to 2nd layers and it will no longer be peer to peer electronic cash on chain

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21]
peer to peer electronic cash on chain - Not in the wp

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:22]
We have satoj talking about HFT with sidechannels.

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:22]
So what?

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:23]
I think this is a good discussion Phil, nothing disrespectful is being said. I hope this is ok?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:23]
Doesn't matter, the rule of common sense, which is closer to that title? Increasing a simple variable (Blocksize) to stay on track of the title and experiment, or introduce IOUs and Watchtowers and channels and locked BTC and that whole LN Bastardization? Which is close to the title?

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:23]
No one said that can't happen

Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:24]
[In reply to Spoice]
Congratulations you've made an argument which isn't an argument.

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:25]
The whole thing that was said was the system is based on majority rules, and incentives can be changed. Majority breaks any deadlock.

David B., [18.10.20 02:25]
How to kill a coin 101

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:25]
Logic fails anyone who tries to claim BTC, ABC, BSV or any similar standalone experiments as Bitcoin, because of simple sanity checks and logic checks, often stemming out of common sense - If what you have moves you a single step away from what is otherwise the same old experiment which Satoshi wrote about and unleashed, you're not Bitcoin. If what you have moves you a step closer, it is Bitcoin. and so on and so forth.

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:25]
Wow, really fanatical almost religious statements. I guess its Sunday morning.

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:27]
[In reply to Spoice]
There's nothing common about common sense. You point to the WP to make a point, and your point isn't in there.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:27]
Throttled and you need off-chain IOUs and always-on services to function (BTC) ? Not Bitcoin. Requires permission to be used and could be centrally confiscated on the whim of the organization behind it (BSV)? Not Bitcoin. Premined (Bitcoin Gold, Diamond)? Not Bitcoin. Taxing the miners through Coinbase and changing the incentives which were at play since day 0 (ABC)? Not Bitcoin

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:27]
simple checks really, yet those who are set to benefit will of course be oblivious to these

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:28]
This whole “Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin - see whitepaper” is really stupid. It also ignores the history of how Bitcoin Cash came into existence

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:28]
Phillip, remove anyone here that has said Bitcoin Gold was the original Bitcoin immediately

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:28]
^^^^

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:29]
[In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins]
It falls to pieces the moment it's questioned.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:29]
It is not about "True" Bitcoin

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30]
It is about the Bitcoin closest to the experiment which always was

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30]
I don't care about "True" or not, they all are true

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:30]
[In reply to Jingles]
Sorry, I hve stopped reading all the sillyness above. Will reread later

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:30]
[In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins]
I'm joking around 😂

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30]
but the rule of entropy says I shouldn't place my money nor effort in experiments which are set to fade eventually, because they have skewed incentives

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:31]
[In reply to Spoice]
You get to chose that for yourself but you do not get to dictate it for others

David B., [18.10.20 02:31]
[In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins]
Don't read it. You will have no braincells left

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31]
Bitcoin as we know it has a long track record of incentives which work

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31]
I won't ever dictate it for others

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31]
I only would dictate it for myself, just like how I never use BTC or BSV today, I won't use ABC tomorrow

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32]
only because they're new experiments

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32]
interesting, and I wish them luck

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32]
"Bitcoin is Bitcoin" is a false statement - Spoice 2020

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32]
but I would rather stick to the Bitcoin I know

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32]
that's all

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32]
I won't ever dictate it for others - Also Spoice
Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:32]
Bitcoin Cash came with a plan snd goals. They were clearly presented in two presentations that happened before viabtc announced they would mine with ABC software and create a coin and chain named Bitcoin Cash

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32]
Yes, because he means BTC is Bitcoin, and that's a false statement

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32]
How is it false?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32]
It is an instance of Bitcoin

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:33]
[In reply to Michael Nunzio]
you're looking intimidatingly handsome in your new profile picture

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:33]
[In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]]
Lol

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:33]
[In reply to J Stodd]
actually a good question

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34]
Anyway, those are my two cents

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34]
Everyone is free to choose which experiments to pour their effort on and their money in

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:34]
[In reply to Spoice]
You are entitled to your opinion.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34]
Andreas is publishing Lightning Network books, I mean

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34]
So to each his own

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:35]
[In reply to Spoice]
Lets leave it at that

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:35]
but Bitcoin as I know it continues with no Tax, and that in my opinion is BCH with no tax

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:35]
Ah you had to continue

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:36]
Good thing no tax is proposed by anyone
Spoice, [18.10.20 02:35]
Isn't this the Bitcoin Cash telegram?

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:35]
😅

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36]
If I don't discuss Bitcoin Cash here, where should I?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36]
Tax, IFP, call it what you will

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36]
from my perspective as a user, it's one the same

J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:36]
[In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]]
I bet nobody will answer it, either

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37]
[In reply to Spoice]
Apparently btc /s

David B., [18.10.20 02:37]
[In reply to Spoice]
As a user what do you care?

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:37]
Ooh, can I shill the Bitcoin room in here?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:37]
Nah, I prefer quick responses and chats

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:37]
Reddit is broken

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37]
[In reply to Jingles]
Lol

J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:37]
[In reply to Spoice]
Nobody even pays it, it just comes out of the block reward. The block reward is not sentient, it cannot be stolen from or wronged

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37]
Dont push your luck 😉

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:37]
[ 😀 Sticker ]

Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:38]
[In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]]
You too brother. 🙏

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38]
[In reply to Michael Nunzio]
but mine is the same....i need new ones everyone always calls me fat because of this one

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38]
literally if i say 1 thing to any troll anywhere first thing they say is "ok fatass"

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38]
i blame this dumb photographer

Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:38]
[In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]]
Don't listen.

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:39]
u/spoice maybe write a read.cash article if you really feel you need to educate people

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:39]
David, as a user I believe that each new experiment carries risk with it, why should I take part in a new fork of Bitcoin which has a new set of game-theory rules which doesn't even benefit me, rather it benefits some other entity which will take 5% of any effort or economic activity I produce on this chain? They're also off-loading the risk to me as a usebuildebusiness who choose to join their experiment.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:40]
Why should I take that risk while the Bitcoin I know and have known for over 10 years worked perfectly for me thus far? (BCH, that is)

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:40]
small fees and empty blocks?

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:41]
It will insure that a centralized group has control over development and they are by decree in the code, it's a literal take over.

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:41]
[In reply to Spoice]
“BSV-freeze the protocol - true Bitcoin” sounds like more your thing

David B., [18.10.20 02:41]
[In reply to Spoice]
Better run bitcoin core 0.1

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:41]
Imagine if satoshi keyd his address in the code to be paid out of every block, but instead of paying himself started a company "Bitcoin Dev Co"

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42]
Not really, BSV kills the incentives I am discussing too

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:42]
[In reply to Jingles]
Please stay nice now

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:42]
No one would ever be able to say Bitcoin was Decentralized, Bitcoin Dev Co would get paid directly from the reward.

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:42]
[In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins]
"BSV: We have all the Bad Idea. On chain"

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42]
The Nash equilibrium we have tested for the past 10 years will be changed with ABC, it changed with BTC and BSV too

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:42]
"Bad Solutions Verified"

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42]
that game-theory set of incentives

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:43]
why would I want to take a risk with any of those experiments when I gain 0?

David B., [18.10.20 02:43]
Better run bitcoin core 0.1

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:43]
Nope, you're talking technical freezing of development, that's not what I am addressing

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:43]
[In reply to David B.]
Thats the BTC chain though

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:43]
[In reply to Spoice]
O please share with us your background in the subject. Or are you now just parroting others

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:44]
BSV wants to freeze the technical development and they want a stable protocol from an API/development perspective

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:44]
but from an incentive ruleset perspective, they already butchered the equilibrium Bitcoin had

Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:44]
[In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins]
That's one of those phrases, when you hear it you know they are just a parrot of someones propaganda. "MUH NASH EQUILIBRIUM!"

David B., [18.10.20 02:44]
Stable = bad?

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:45]
[In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]]
I love you

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:45]
Philip, for an admin you are ought to be nicer, if you think I am parroting others you're free to think that, but to state it so bluntly in your position is just... wrong

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:46]
If you think the point I made is wrong, discuss it

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:46]
[In reply to Jingles]
Maybe talk to him in DM about that?😉

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:46]
not me

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:46]
[In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins]
working on it.

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:46]
[In reply to Spoice]
I ought to be nicer...😂😂😂

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:47]
Also, anyone who studied Bitcoin at length and its set of incentives and game-theory ruleset should know what a Nash Equilibrium is and who the players are in the Bitcoin game

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:47]
[In reply to Spoice]
You state as fact. You get to dhow why your statements or opinions are even relevant.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48]
If it's not a fact, highlight how

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48]
don't attack me

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48]
prove me wrong

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48]
if you fail that simple debate test

David B., [18.10.20 02:48]
How's that breakfast helping?

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48]
you should rename from Janitor to Tyrant

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:48]
I'm still waiting to see the defined rules as per the wp

Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:49]
[In reply to Spoice]
Didn't know this was stand up comedy night in here.

Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:49]
I missed the memo

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:49]
If I have to prove all idiots on the internet wrong I would have a hard time. You are starting to really waste everybody’s time. You state, you prove. Or you are just generating noise

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:50]
[In reply to Spoice]
Be careful now.

Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:50]
Noisy bugger.

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:52]
Getting close to just do some cleaning up.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:52]
If you can't debate technical points I am making about Bitcoin Cash on a Bitcoin Cash Telegram, and within the span of 10 minutes you called me stupid, idiot, noisy and a parrot, you absolutely are a tyrant and I stand by my point: You should not be an admin here, nor anywhere actually. If you think I should be careful for the fear of you banning me, go ahead. You still fail to debate the simplest technical point and yet claim you can "but can't be bothered to". You remind me of that Thermos guy.

Spoice, [18.10.20 02:53]
How do people with 0 technical know how end up in these admin positions is beyond me

Jingles, [18.10.20 02:53]
I challenged your comments and you just changed the goal posts.

Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:53]
[In reply to Spoice]
Ok. You are not paying me and you are free to create noise elsewhere
submitted by wisequote to btc [link] [comments]

Raoul Pal and Michael Saylor's Bitcoin vs Ethereum analysis is deeply flawed... here is why.

Regarding the Bitcoin vs Ethereum narrative
Allocating capital in Bitcoin but not in Ethereum is a bet that the planned road-map for Ethereum will not be successfully implemented and/or its economic properties will not function as designed once the final phase of ETH 2.0 goes live. The combination of PoS, sharding and EIP-1559 will allow for a monetary policy that can sustain the system with zero, possibly negative, issuance. Detailed explanations of how this is possible has been documented through numerous interviews and blogs with developers and pundits. We also must take into consideration that even if the issuance is above zero, the returns from staking Ether must be accounted to compare the long-term holding value proposition against something like Bitcoin. If the staking rewards provide ~3% annual returns and issuance is ~2% then the equivalent issuance for a PoW protocol would be ~-1% (this will never happen in the Bitcoin protocol).
Addressing the claim that Ether is not money
The narrative that Ether is not money because the Ethereum protocol is not designed to exclusively function as money is akin to saying that the Internet is not a good emailing system because it is not exclusively designed to transmit emails. This type of narrative is trying to restrict the definition of money by suggesting that its underlying protocol should not have functionality that extends beyond the conventional way we think of it. The reality is that Ethereum is much better suited for a digital economy - Ether is its native monetary asset. The ability to issue other forms of digital assets and execute computer logic in a trustless unified system with a natively defined monetary asset encompasses all the fundamental building blocks of a future digital economy. This is a future where monetary, financial and information systems can take advantage of the inclusiveness, permissionless and trustless aspects that are central to the Bitcoin value proposition.
The Ethereum protocol is designed to do a lot of wonderful things, but it costs money to operate the network and that cost must be covered by something of value that can be easily liquidated or exchanged into other things of value.... otherwise known as money. The idea that Ether is more akin to oil than gold/money just because the price metric for computations is called "gas" falls apart under scrutiny. Ether is strictly used as a monetary incentive. It is not magically burned to propel a fictitious machine that runs the network... the computers that run the Ethereum network run under the same physical principles from the ones of Bitcoin - they consume energy and someone has to pay for it. It just so happens that the monetary rewards and cost of transactions operating the Ethereum network are done exclusively in Ether, and therefore it serves as a monetary base. In addition, Ether has been used as the monetary base for the acquisition of other digital assets during their ICO phase. Lastly, Paypal has revealed they will be including Ether as a means of payment for online merchants. Saying that Ether is not money is like saying the sky isn't blue.
Additional thoughts
  1. The combination of staking, EIP-1559 and sharding will allow ETH to reduce issuance ahead of Bitcoin's schedule. It is very likely going to allow for sustainable zero issuance which is something that is still up in the air for Bitcoin.
  2. The switch from PoW to PoS will dramatically reduce the operational cost of the network while incentivizing ownership of Ether. The reduction in operational cost is a huge factor contributing to a sustainable monetary policy.
  3. The true soundness of Ether as a store of wealth needs to account for the returns from staking. That means that even if the nominal issuance remained higher than Bitcoin, it could still a better investment when you account for the staking returns.
  4. Ethereum can operate as an entire financial system. It allows for issuance of new tokens and it can operate autonomously as a digital assets exchange... so that means that it can be an exchange for tokenized FIAT currencies, cryptocurrencies, tokenized securities and commodities. Think of a global market for stocks, commodities, future contracts and derivatives.
  5. The integration with digital assets is done natively in one network. Ethereum serves as a native monetary asset with sound properties. Tokenized bitcoins would not only significantly reduce security (value would be lost if EITHER network is compromised) it also makes little sense if Ethereum's soundness (staking - issuance) is superior to Bitcoin.
  6. There are a gazillion more use cases for Ethereum that would benefit from having a natively defined monetary asset.
  7. Ultimately Bitcoin might serve as digital gold as a hedge against Ethereum. So they can coexist, but they are still competing with each other in terms of building value. Every investor who is getting into cryptocurrencies should be asking what assets to buy and why. Money allocated to Bitcoin cannot be allocated to Ethereum and vice-versa.
submitted by TheWierdGuy to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Taproot, CoinJoins, and Cross-Input Signature Aggregation

It is a very common misconception that the upcoming Taproot upgrade helps CoinJoin.
TLDR: The upcoming Taproot upgrade does not help equal-valued CoinJoin at all, though it potentially increases the privacy of other protocols, such as the Lightning Network, and escrow contract schemes.
If you want to learn more, read on!

Equal-valued CoinJoins

Let's start with equal-valued CoinJoins, the type JoinMarket and Wasabi use. What happens is that some number of participants agree on some common value all of them use. With JoinMarket the taker defines this value and pays the makers to agree to it, with Wasabi the server defines a value approximately 0.1 BTC.
Then, each participant provides inputs that they unilaterally control, totaling equal or greater than the common value. Typically since each input is unilaterally controlled, each input just requires a singlesig. Each participant also provides up to two addresses they control: one of these will be paid with the common value, while the other will be used for any extra value in the inputs they provided (i.e. the change output).
The participants then make a single transaction that spends all the provided inputs and pays out to the appropriate outputs. The inputs and outputs are shuffled in some secure manner. Then the unsigned transaction is distributed back to all participants.
Finally, each participant checks that the transaction spends the inputs it provided (and more importantly does not spend any other coins it might own that it did not provide for this CoinJoin!) and that the transaction pays out to the appropriate address(es) it controls. Once they have validated the transaction, they ratify it by signing for each of the inputs it provided.
Once every participant has provided signatures for all inputs it registered, the transaction is now completely signed and the CoinJoin transaction is now validly confirmable.
CoinJoin is a very simple and direct privacy boost, it requires no SCRIPTs, needs only singlesig, etc.

Privacy

Let's say we have two participants who have agreed on a common amount of 0.1 BTC. One provides a 0.105 coin as input, the other provides a 0.114 coin as input. This results in a CoinJoin with a 0.105 coin and a 0.114 coin as input, and outputs with 0.1, 0.005, 0.014, and 0.1 BTC.
Now obviously the 0.005 output came from the 0.105 input, and the 0.014 output came from the 0.114 input.
But the two 0.1 BTC outputs cannot be correlated with either input! There is no correlating information, since either output could have come from either input. That is how common CoinJoin implementations like Wasabi and JoinMarket gain privacy.

Banning CoinJoins

Unfortunately, large-scale CoinJoins like that made by Wasabi and JoinMarket are very obvious.
All you have to do is look for a transactions where, say, more than 3 outputs are the same equal value, and the number of inputs is equal or larger than the number of equal-valued outputs. Thus, it is trivial to identify equal-valued CoinJoins made by Wasabi and JoinMarket. You can even trivially differentiate them: Wasabi equal-valued CoinJoins are going to have a hundred or more inputs, with outputs that are in units of approximately 0.1 BTC, while JoinMarket CoinJoins have equal-valued outputs of less than a dozen (between 4 to 6 usually) and with the common value varying wildly from as low as 0.001 BTC to as high as a dozen BTC or more.
This has led to a number of anti-privacy exchanges to refuse to credit custodially-held accounts if the incoming deposit is within a few hops of an equal-valued CoinJoin, usually citing concerns about regulations. Crucially, the exchange continues to hold private keys for those "banned" deposits, and can still spend them, thus this is effectively a theft. If your exchange does this to you, you should report that exchange as stealing money from its customers. Not your keys not your coins.
Thus, CoinJoins represent a privacy tradeoff:

Taproot

Let's now briefly discuss that nice new shiny thing called Taproot.
Taproot includes two components:
This has some nice properties:

Taproot DOES NOT HELP CoinJoin

So let's review!
CoinJoin:
Taproot:
There is absolutely no overlap. Taproot helps things that CoinJoin does not use. CoinJoin uses things that Taproot does not improve.

B-but They Said!!

A lot of early reporting on Taproot claimed that Taproot benefits CoinJoin.
What they are confusing is that earlier drafts of Taproot included a feature called cross-input signature aggregation.
In current Bitcoin, every input, to be spent, has to be signed individually. With cross-input signature aggregation, all inputs that support this feature are signed with a single signature that covers all those inputs. So for example if you would spend two inputs, current Bitcoin requires a signature for each input, but with cross-input signature aggregation you can sign both of them with a single signature. This works even if the inputs have different public keys: two inputs with cross-input signature aggregation effectively define a 2-of-2 public key, and you can only sign for that input if you know the private keys for both inputs, or if you are cooperatively signing with somebody who knows the private key of the other input.
This helps CoinJoin costs. Since CoinJoins will have lots of inputs (each participant will provide at least one, and probably will provide more, and larger participant sets are better for more privacy in CoinJoin), if all of them enabled cross-input signature aggregation, such large CoinJoins can have only a single signature.
This complicates the signing process for CoinJoins (the signers now have to sign cooperatively) but it can be well worth it for the reduced signature size and onchain cost.
But note that the while cross-input signature aggregation improves the cost of CoinJoins, it does not improve the privacy! Equal-valued CoinJoins are still obvious and still readily bannable by privacy-hating exchanges. It does not improve the privacy of CoinJoin. Instead, see https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/gqb3udesign_for_a_coinswap_implementation_fo

Why isn't cross-input signature aggregation in?

There's some fairly complex technical reasons why cross-input signature aggregation isn't in right now in the current Taproot proposal.
The primary reason was to reduce the technical complexity of Taproot, in the hope that it would be easier to convince users to activate (while support for Taproot is quite high, developers have become wary of being hopeful that new proposals will ever activate, given the previous difficulties with SegWit).
The main technical complexity here is that it interacts with future ways to extend Bitcoin.
The rest of this writeup assumes you already know about how Bitcoin SCRIPT works. If you don't understand how Bitcoin SCRIPT works at the low-level, then the TLDR is that cross-input signature aggregation complicates how to extend Bitcoin in the future, so it was deferred to let the develoeprs think more about it.
(this is how I understand it; perhaps pwuille or ajtowns can give a better summary.)
In detail, Taproot also introduces OP_SUCCESS opcodes. If you know about the OP_NOP opcodes already defined in current Bitcoin, well, OP_SUCCESS is basically "OP_NOP done right".
Now, OP_NOP is a do-nothing operation. It can be replaced in future versions of Bitcoin by having that operation check some condition, and then fail if the condition is not satisfied. For example, both OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY and OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY were previously OP_NOP opcodes. Older nodes will see an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY and think it does nothing, but newer nodes will check if the nLockTime field has a correct specified value, and fail if the condition is not satisfied. Since most of the nodes on the network are using much newer versions of the node software, older nodes are protected from miners who try to misspend any OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY/OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY, and those older nodes will still remain capable of synching with the rest of the network: a dedication to strict backward-compatibility necessary for a consensus system.
Softforks basically mean that a script that passes in the latest version must also be passing in all older versions. A script cannot be passing in newer versions but failing in older versions, because that would kick older nodes off the network (i.e. it would be a hardfork).
But OP_NOP is a very restricted way of adding opcodes. Opcodes that replace OP_NOP can only do one thing: check if some condition is true. They can't push new data on the stack, they can't pop items off the stack. For example, suppose instead of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, we had added a OP_GETBLOCKHEIGHT opcode. This opcode would push the height of the blockchain on the stack. If this command replaced an older OP_NOP opcode, then a script like OP_GETBLOCKHEIGHT 650000 OP_EQUAL might pass in some future Bitcoin version, but older versions would see OP_NOP 650000 OP_EQUAL, which would fail because OP_EQUAL expects two items on the stack. So older versions will fail a SCRIPT that newer versions will pass, which is a hardfork and thus a backwards incompatibility.
OP_SUCCESS is different. Instead, old nodes, when parsing the SCRIPT, will see OP_SUCCESS, and, without executing the body, will consider the SCRIPT as passing. So, the OP_GETBLOCKHEIGHT 650000 OP_EQUAL example will now work: a future version of Bitcoin might pass it, and existing nodes that don't understand OP_GETBLOCKHEIGHT will se OP_SUCCESS 650000 OP_EQUAL, and will not execute the SCRIPT at all, instead passing it immediately. So a SCRIPT that might pass in newer versions will pass for older versions, which keeps the back-compatibility consensus that a softfork needs.
So how does OP_SUCCESS make things difficult for cross-input signatur aggregation? Well, one of the ways to ask for a signature to be verified is via the opcodes OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY. With cross-input signature aggregation, if a public key indicates it can be used for cross-input signature aggregation, instead of OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY actually requiring the signature on the stack, the stack will contain a dummy 0 value for the signature, and the public key is instead added to a "sum" public key (i.e. an n-of-n that is dynamically extended by one more pubkey for each OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY operation that executes) for the single signature that is verified later by the cross-input signature aggregation validation algorithm00.
The important part here is that the OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY has to execute, in order to add its public key to the set of public keys to be checked in the single signature.
But remember that an OP_SUCCESS prevents execution! As soon as the SCRIPT is parsed, if any opcode is OP_SUCCESS, that is considered as passing, without actually executing the SCRIPT, because the OP_SUCCESS could mean something completely different in newer versions and current versions should assume nothing about what it means. If the SCRIPT contains some OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY command in addition to an OP_SUCCESS, that command is not executed by current versions, and thus they cannot add any public keys given by OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY. Future versions also have to accept that: if they parsed an OP_SUCCESS command that has a new meaning in the future, and then execute an OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY in that SCRIPT, they cannot add the public key into the same "sum" public key that older nodes use, because older nodes cannot see them. This means that you might need more than one signature in the future, in the presence of an opcode that replaces some OP_SUCCESS.
Thus, because of the complexity of making cross-input signature aggregation work compatibly with future extensions to the protocol, cross-input signature aggregation was deferred.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Ultimate glossary of crypto currency terms, acronyms and abbreviations

I thought it would be really cool to have an ultimate guide for those new to crypto currencies and the terms used. I made this mostly for beginner’s and veterans alike. I’m not sure how much use you will get out of this. Stuff gets lost on Reddit quite easily so I hope this finds its way to you. Included in this list, I have included most of the terms used in crypto-communities. I have compiled this list from a multitude of sources. The list is in alphabetical order and may include some words/terms not exclusive to the crypto world but may be helpful regardless.
2FA
Two factor authentication. I highly advise that you use it.
51% Attack:
A situation where a single malicious individual or group gains control of more than half of a cryptocurrency network’s computing power. Theoretically, it could allow perpetrators to manipulate the system and spend the same coin multiple times, stop other users from completing blocks and make conflicting transactions to a chain that could harm the network.
Address (or Addy):
A unique string of numbers and letters (both upper and lower case) used to send, receive or store cryptocurrency on the network. It is also the public key in a pair of keys needed to sign a digital transaction. Addresses can be shared publicly as a text or in the form of a scannable QR code. They differ between cryptocurrencies. You can’t send Bitcoin to an Ethereum address, for example.
Altcoin (alternative coin): Any digital currency other than Bitcoin. These other currencies are alternatives to Bitcoin regarding features and functionalities (e.g. faster confirmation time, lower price, improved mining algorithm, higher total coin supply). There are hundreds of altcoins, including Ether, Ripple, Litecoin and many many others.
AIRDROP:
An event where the investors/participants are able to receive free tokens or coins into their digital wallet.
AML: Defines Anti-Money Laundering laws**.**
ARBITRAGE:
Getting risk-free profits by trading (simultaneous buying and selling of the cryptocurrency) on two different exchanges which have different prices for the same asset.
Ashdraked:
Being Ashdraked is essentially a more detailed version of being Zhoutonged. It is when you lose all of your invested capital, but you do so specifically by shorting Bitcoin. The expression “Ashdraked” comes from a story of a Romanian cryptocurrency investor who insisted upon shorting BTC, as he had done so successfully in the past. When the price of BTC rose from USD 300 to USD 500, the Romanian investor lost all of his money.
ATH (All Time High):
The highest price ever achieved by a cryptocurrency in its entire history. Alternatively, ATL is all time low
Bearish:
A tendency of prices to fall; a pessimistic expectation that the value of a coin is going to drop.
Bear trap:
A manipulation of a stock or commodity by investors.
Bitcoin:
The very first, and the highest ever valued, mass-market open source and decentralized cryptocurrency and digital payment system that runs on a worldwide peer to peer network. It operates independently of any centralized authorities
Bitconnect:
One of the biggest scams in the crypto world. it was made popular in the meme world by screaming idiot Carlos Matos, who infamously proclaimed," hey hey heeeey” and “what's a what's a what's up wasssssssssuuuuuuuuuuuuup, BitConneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeect!”. He is now in the mentally ill meme hall of fame.
Block:
A package of permanently recorded data about transactions occurring every time period (typically about 10 minutes) on the blockchain network. Once a record has been completed and verified, it goes into a blockchain and gives way to the next block. Each block also contains a complex mathematical puzzle with a unique answer, without which new blocks can’t be added to the chain.
Blockchain:
An unchangeable digital record of all transactions ever made in a particular cryptocurrency and shared across thousands of computers worldwide. It has no central authority governing it. Records, or blocks, are chained to each other using a cryptographic signature. They are stored publicly and chronologically, from the genesis block to the latest block, hence the term blockchain. Anyone can have access to the database and yet it remains incredibly difficult to hack.
Bullish:
A tendency of prices to rise; an optimistic expectation that a specific cryptocurrency will do well and its value is going to increase.
BTFD:
Buy the fucking dip. This advise was bestowed upon us by the gods themselves. It is the iron code to crypto enthusiasts.
Bull market:
A market that Cryptos are going up.
Consensus:
An agreement among blockchain participants on the validity of data. Consensus is reached when the majority of nodes on the network verify that the transaction is 100% valid.
Crypto bubble:
The instability of cryptocurrencies in terms of price value
Cryptocurrency:
A type of digital currency, secured by strong computer code (cryptography), that operates independently of any middlemen or central authoritie
Cryptography:
The art of converting sensitive data into a format unreadable for unauthorized users, which when decoded would result in a meaningful statement.
Cryptojacking:
The use of someone else’s device and profiting from its computational power to mine cryptocurrency without their knowledge and consent.
Crypto-Valhalla:
When HODLers(holders) eventually cash out they go to a place called crypto-Valhalla. The strong will be separated from the weak and the strong will then be given lambos.
DAO:
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations. It defines A blockchain technology inspired organization or corporation that exists and operates without human intervention.
Dapp (decentralized application):
An open-source application that runs and stores its data on a blockchain network (instead of a central server) to prevent a single failure point. This software is not controlled by the single body – information comes from people providing other people with data or computing power.
Decentralized:
A system with no fundamental control authority that governs the network. Instead, it is jointly managed by all users to the system.
Desktop wallet:
A wallet that stores the private keys on your computer, which allow the spending and management of your bitcoins.
DILDO:
Long red or green candles. This is a crypto signal that tells you that it is not favorable to trade at the moment. Found on candlestick charts.
Digital Signature:
An encrypted digital code attached to an electronic document to prove that the sender is who they say they are and confirm that a transaction is valid and should be accepted by the network.
Double Spending:
An attack on the blockchain where a malicious user manipulates the network by sending digital money to two different recipients at exactly the same time.
DYOR:
Means do your own research.
Encryption:
Converting data into code to protect it from unauthorized access, so that only the intended recipient(s) can decode it.
Eskrow:
the practice of having a third party act as an intermediary in a transaction. This third party holds the funds on and sends them off when the transaction is completed.
Ethereum:
Ethereum is an open source, public, blockchain-based platform that runs smart contracts and allows you to build dapps on it. Ethereum is fueled by the cryptocurrency Ether.
Exchange:
A platform (centralized or decentralized) for exchanging (trading) different forms of cryptocurrencies. These exchanges allow you to exchange cryptos for local currency. Some popular exchanges are Coinbase, Bittrex, Kraken and more.
Faucet:
A website which gives away free cryptocurrencies.
Fiat money:
Fiat currency is legal tender whose value is backed by the government that issued it, such as the US dollar or UK pound.
Fork:
A split in the blockchain, resulting in two separate branches, an original and a new alternate version of the cryptocurrency. As a single blockchain forks into two, they will both run simultaneously on different parts of the network. For example, Bitcoin Cash is a Bitcoin fork.
FOMO:
Fear of missing out.
Frictionless:
A system is frictionless when there are zero transaction costs or trading retraints.
FUD:
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt regarding the crypto market.
Gas:
A fee paid to run transactions, dapps and smart contracts on Ethereum.
Halving:
A 50% decrease in block reward after the mining of a pre-specified number of blocks. Every 4 years, the “reward” for successfully mining a block of bitcoin is reduced by half. This is referred to as “Halving”.
Hardware wallet:
Physical wallet devices that can securely store cryptocurrency maximally. Some examples are Ledger Nano S**,** Digital Bitbox and more**.**
Hash:
The process that takes input data of varying sizes, performs an operation on it and converts it into a fixed size output. It cannot be reversed.
Hashing:
The process by which you mine bitcoin or similar cryptocurrency, by trying to solve the mathematical problem within it, using cryptographic hash functions.
HODL:
A Bitcoin enthusiast once accidentally misspelled the word HOLD and it is now part of the bitcoin legend. It can also mean hold on for dear life.
ICO (Initial Coin Offering):
A blockchain-based fundraising mechanism, or a public crowd sale of a new digital coin, used to raise capital from supporters for an early stage crypto venture. Beware of these as there have been quite a few scams in the past.
John mcAfee:
A man who will one day eat his balls on live television for falsely predicting bitcoin going to 100k. He has also become a small meme within the crypto community for his outlandish claims.
JOMO:
Joy of missing out. For those who are so depressed about missing out their sadness becomes joy.
KYC:
Know your customer(alternatively consumer).
Lambo:
This stands for Lamborghini. A small meme within the investing community where the moment someone gets rich they spend their earnings on a lambo. One day we will all have lambos in crypto-valhalla.
Ledger:
Away from Blockchain, it is a book of financial transactions and balances. In the world of crypto, the blockchain functions as a ledger. A digital currency’s ledger records all transactions which took place on a certain block chain network.
Leverage:
Trading with borrowed capital (margin) in order to increase the potential return of an investment.
Liquidity:
The availability of an asset to be bought and sold easily, without affecting its market price.
of the coins.
Margin trading:
The trading of assets or securities bought with borrowed money.
Market cap/MCAP:
A short-term for Market Capitalization. Market Capitalization refers to the market value of a particular cryptocurrency. It is computed by multiplying the Price of an individual unit of coins by the total circulating supply.
Miner:
A computer participating in any cryptocurrency network performing proof of work. This is usually done to receive block rewards.
Mining:
The act of solving a complex math equation to validate a blockchain transaction using computer processing power and specialized hardware.
Mining contract:
A method of investing in bitcoin mining hardware, allowing anyone to rent out a pre-specified amount of hashing power, for an agreed amount of time. The mining service takes care of hardware maintenance, hosting and electricity costs, making it simpler for investors.
Mining rig:
A computer specially designed for mining cryptocurrencies.
Mooning:
A situation the price of a coin rapidly increases in value. Can also be used as: “I hope bitcoin goes to the moon”
Node:
Any computing device that connects to the blockchain network.
Open source:
The practice of sharing the source code for a piece of computer software, allowing it to be distributed and altered by anyone.
OTC:
Over the counter. Trading is done directly between parties.
P2P (Peer to Peer):
A type of network connection where participants interact directly with each other rather than through a centralized third party. The system allows the exchange of resources from A to B, without having to go through a separate server.
Paper wallet:
A form of “cold storage” where the private keys are printed onto a piece of paper and stored offline. Considered as one of the safest crypto wallets, the truth is that it majors in sweeping coins from your wallets.
Pre mining:
The mining of a cryptocurrency by its developers before it is released to the public.
Proof of stake (POS):
A consensus distribution algorithm which essentially rewards you based upon the amount of the coin that you own. In other words, more investment in the coin will leads to more gain when you mine with this protocol In Proof of Stake, the resource held by the “miner” is their stake in the currency.
PROOF OF WORK (POW) :
The competition of computers competing to solve a tough crypto math problem. The first computer that does this is allowed to create new blocks and record information.” The miner is then usually rewarded via transaction fees.
Protocol:
A standardized set of rules for formatting and processing data.
Public key / private key:
A cryptographic code that allows a user to receive cryptocurrencies into an account. The public key is made available to everyone via a publicly accessible directory, and the private key remains confidential to its respective owner. Because the key pair is mathematically related, whatever is encrypted with a public key may only be decrypted by its corresponding private key.
Pump and dump:
Massive buying and selling activity of cryptocurrencies (sometimes organized and to one’s benefit) which essentially result in a phenomenon where the significant surge in the value of coin followed by a huge crash take place in a short time frame.
Recovery phrase:
A set of phrases you are given whereby you can regain or access your wallet should you lose the private key to your wallets — paper, mobile, desktop, and hardware wallet. These phrases are some random 12–24 words. A recovery Phrase can also be called as Recovery seed, Seed Key, Recovery Key, or Seed Phrase.
REKT:
Referring to the word “wrecked”. It defines a situation whereby an investor or trader who has been ruined utterly following the massive losses suffered in crypto industry.
Ripple:
An alternative payment network to Bitcoin based on similar cryptography. The ripple network uses XRP as currency and is capable of sending any asset type.
ROI:
Return on investment.
Safu:
A crypto term for safe popularized by the Bizonnaci YouTube channel after the CEO of Binance tweeted
“Funds are safe."
“the exchage I use got hacked!”“Oh no, are your funds safu?”
“My coins better be safu!”


Sats/Satoshi:
The smallest fraction of a bitcoin is called a “satoshi” or “sat”. It represents one hundred-millionth of a bitcoin and is named after Satoshi Nakamoto.
Satoshi Nakamoto:
This was the pseudonym for the mysterious creator of Bitcoin.
Scalability:
The ability of a cryptocurrency to contain the massive use of its Blockchain.
Sharding:
A scaling solution for the Blockchain. It is generally a method that allows nodes to have partial copies of the complete blockchain in order to increase overall network performance and consensus speeds.
Shitcoin:
Coin with little potential or future prospects.
Shill:
Spreading buzz by heavily promoting a particular coin in the community to create awareness.
Short position:
Selling of a specific cryptocurrency with an expectation that it will drop in value.
Silk road:
The online marketplace where drugs and other illicit items were traded for Bitcoin. This marketplace is using accessed through “TOR”, and VPNs. In October 2013, a Silk Road was shut down in by the FBI.
Smart Contract:
Certain computational benchmarks or barriers that have to be met in turn for money or data to be deposited or even be used to verify things such as land rights.
Software Wallet:
A crypto wallet that exists purely as software files on a computer. Usually, software wallets can be generated for free from a variety of sources.
Solidity:
A contract-oriented coding language for implementing smart contracts on Ethereum. Its syntax is similar to that of JavaScript.
Stable coin:
A cryptocoin with an extremely low volatility that can be used to trade against the overall market.
Staking:
Staking is the process of actively participating in transaction validation (similar to mining) on a proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchain. On these blockchains, anyone with a minimum-required balance of a specific cryptocurrency can validate transactions and earn Staking rewards.
Surge:
When a crypto currency appreciates or goes up in price.
Tank:
The opposite of mooning. When a coin tanks it can also be described as crashing.
Tendies
For traders , the chief prize is “tendies” (chicken tenders, the treat an overgrown man-child receives for being a “Good Boy”) .
Token:
A unit of value that represents a digital asset built on a blockchain system. A token is usually considered as a “coin” of a cryptocurrency, but it really has a wider functionality.
TOR: “The Onion Router” is a free web browser designed to protect users’ anonymity and resist censorship. Tor is usually used surfing the web anonymously and access sites on the “Darkweb”.
Transaction fee:
An amount of money users are charged from their transaction when sending cryptocurrencies.
Volatility:
A measure of fluctuations in the price of a financial instrument over time. High volatility in bitcoin is seen as risky since its shifting value discourages people from spending or accepting it.
Wallet:
A file that stores all your private keys and communicates with the blockchain to perform transactions. It allows you to send and receive bitcoins securely as well as view your balance and transaction history.
Whale:
An investor that holds a tremendous amount of cryptocurrency. Their extraordinary large holdings allow them to control prices and manipulate the market.
Whitepaper:

A comprehensive report or guide made to understand an issue or help decision making. It is also seen as a technical write up that most cryptocurrencies provide to take a deep look into the structure and plan of the cryptocurrency/Blockchain project. Satoshi Nakamoto was the first to release a whitepaper on Bitcoin, titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” in late 2008.
And with that I finally complete my odyssey. I sincerely hope that this helped you and if you are new, I welcome you to crypto. If you read all of that I hope it increased, you in knowledge.
my final definition:
Crypto-Family:
A collection of all the HODLers and crypto fanatics. A place where all people alike unite over a love for crypto.
We are all in this together as we pioneer the new world that is crypto currency. I wish you a great day and Happy HODLing.
-u/flacciduck
feel free to comment words or terms that you feel should be included or about any errors I made.
Edit1:some fixes were made and added words.
submitted by flacciduck to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 14;

Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be some errors, misunderstandings or exaggerations.
Waiting for "IOTA TIME " (an era where IOTA defines nearly everything in terms of the block-chain world)

niels12어제 오후 4:51
IOTA funds are public: https://thetangle.org/address/IDNAFP9FWWKYGNDMKGJWZD9GATGRPTJYTYHLKFNDEQSISPSETLZQOSPGOHC99LMPXDEHSH9XYHNVOLUBBQPCEGHYK9 But they have probably other sources of income, like funding by government etc. And maybe also other IOTA funds on other addresses. I don't know.
Balance: 59.68 Ti


David Sønstebø어제 오후 9:41
I wonder how many times an out of context 2 year old private DM has to be addressed. At the time IOTA was approaching stagnation due to the actions of primarily CFB**, thus since we both started Jinn together which lead to IOTA,** I tried repeatedly to talk sense into him. I.E. "If you are going to torpedo all progress, let's just sell it all and start from scratch, fuck it" It's a figure of speech, while trying to talk sense into someone who insists that 1 + 1 = 3.59 My tax records show when I last sold iotas. February of 2018. Now stop reading into private DMs, especially ones taken out of context and especially those leaked by someone who's proclaimed he is going to ruin IOTA and my life. You need to go back to school if you think there is anything to 'speculate' on there.


dom어제 오후 4:15
u/unsy we will release the condensed version of them once we want to. Just because you so desperately desire them for whatever reason doesn't make us do it faster. Being in this space for so fucking long, last thing I want is to attempt to act in good faith again and then be screwed over by those trying to misconstrue reality and spread lies. We've been at that for too long. Once they are fully ready, and we have them in a format we like, we will publish them.


dom어제 오후 4:16
Our objective of the finance / legal department is to become one of the most trustworthy / transparent organizations in this space. Which is why we're setting up new and stricter policies in general


dom어제 오후 4:18
quite frankly, with everything that has happened up until now, I would certainly say that we are one of the most transparent organization (if we wanted it or not) u/unsy


dom어제 오후 4:21
u/unsy I am not worried about it. If we have problems, we always solve them - I think we've proven that by now. And as it stands right now with our current funding + our strategy, we are in good hands


David Sønstebø오늘 오전 6:41
Don't worry, a shitty FUD piece in a cryptoblog is nada
[오전 6:41]
We were once numero uno target by Jeffrey Epstein funded Joi Ito's MIT DCI
[오전 6:41]
This is nothing


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

Antonio Nardella [IF]어제 오후 11:13
IMO the community has matured a lot, we have community and certified developers working with the IF in the X-Teams, there are new people coming in with direct interest in the tech (yeah, also spec is still popular) and from the chats that I've had, there are devs waiting for the breaking changes of Chrysalis P2, before starting to develop again.. But that's my assessment..


Jelle Millenaar [IF]어제 오후 9:15
Well, I can say the DID developments are going smooth. Starting publishing the first DIDs to the Tangle ;D


Jelle Millenaar [IF]어제 오후 9:15
And since I am totally not biased towards Identity, but its gonna be revolutionary ;D


Jelle Millenaar [IF]어제 오후 10:06
This is the perfect time to loose faith in the IOTA Foundations capability to deliver, especially after the network just received a major update with many improvements. Its just crypto being crypto,


dom오늘 오전 2:12
Yeh we'll go through it. This is the usual game...


Dominik Schiener
There is more tech maturity, more adoption and more progress than ever. We are one of the only projects which gets funding from government grants and corporations. Stop the attention grabbing headlines and get your sources right.


Long field
You can track their iota address, and I can tell they didn't sell any iota tokens in last two months


HusQy
IOTA is like a large decentralized network cable that connects any number of nodes with each other and that enables data and values ​​to be exchanged with one another, whereby the data is protected against manipulation and the value transactions against double spends. Thereon ...

... you can run any decentralized application (we call this layer) - e.g. a blockchain that stores certain data for as long as you want and limits the amount of data to be saved via fees like Bitcoin. Each of these uses inherit ...

... your security from the basic protocol and can specifically only save the data that is relevant for you (also decentralized). To say that IOTA is not a DLT is in principle not that wrong - it is a platform for DLTs and therefore much more powerful than all ...

... existing DLTs because it is much more flexible. For example, you can run Hashgraph in IOTA, or Bitcoin or whatever. And IOTA is the token that connects the entire ecosystem. This is of course "not yet" the case, but Chrysalis Part 2 is the first step.​


HusQy
@blocktrainerperhaps this explanation will enable you to understand where the journey is going. If a decentralized data storage is required, then you can build it with IOTA and it then has exactly the same properties in terms of permanent storage as Bitcoin.


Block trainer
We can also get a little more technical. The way you describe it, it sounds like an interoperability layer ... something like that here, which then equates to a polkadot etc.
📷

HusQy
In principle yes, only that it doesn't connect Bitcoin and ETH but "IOTA Smart Contracts" with "IOTA Storage" etc. It is not there to connect other projects but to offer the same as other projects, only faster and cheaper.

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

Bitcoin Coach
And in 5 years there will be a completely new project, which then claims to be better than IOTA. And then should all the infrastructure be thrown overboard and the partners simply change the DLT?


HusQy
This is how technology works. It makes no sense to run the Internet on the basis of 64k modems just because many people have one at home. The change does not take place overnight but creeping and if you look at the BTC Dominance you can see that too.

Ultimately, everything will switch to the best technology and we'll see which that is :)


Block trainer
The "best" must also be defined. What are the classes to master?


HusQy
All classes. If there is a technology that can represent even one aspect better, then it is not yet good enough. Blockchain, for example, is a "degenerate" DAG with only one reference. The goal is that IOTA can also use blockchains if the use case requires it.


HusQy
The future is not "either DAG or blockchain" but both seamlessly linked within the same ecosystem. IOTA smart contracts use a blockchain, for example, but a separate chain for each smart contract and the blockchain is within the tangle.

Block trainer
According to the new definition, they are no longer saved ... A doublespent could change the reference retrospectively.


HusQy
That's not quite true. The tangle itself contains all information for all eternity and you cannot remove any information. Once the data has reached a certain age, it is no longer stored by every node in the network. But you can still ...

... still prove what happened in the part of the tangle that was "forgotten" by the nodes after a certain time. Now there are two ways to keep this evidence: 1. You save the evidence personally and can present it at any time. 2. Man ...​​

... writes a plug-in for the node, which monitors the Tangle for information of a certain type and keeps a copy of all car purchase-related data forever (or for at least 30 years, for example). All dealerships could then install this plugin and ...

... jointly store this data decentrally in order to query the information if necessary. However, you would only selectively save the data that interests you. The evidence they produce can still be verified by any node on the network.​​

If the server of a car dealership fails, it can download the data again from one of the other dealerships. Quasi like an application-related private blockchain which is secured by the Tangle. It is also conceivable that there are service providers for this ...

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


HusQy
Data is only kept immutable. How do you intend to execute a token transaction over pure data? I'm simply sending the following two data transactions at the same time: 1. I'm sending $ 100 from address A to address B. 2. I'm sending $ 100 from address A to address C.


HusQy
In order to determine which transaction is successful / came first, you need consensus. Data transactions do not allow token transfer.


Block trainer
Why doesn't that allow token transfer? I can simply use it to sign my values. The question is about the meaning of the token. I can also sign that I have transferred € 10 for the petrol station. Or I transmit the proof via curled BTC ...


HusQy
Did I just describe you can publish two conflicting data transactions and no one knows which is the correct one: P


Block trainer
Unless you agree on a consensus. Time stamp + BTC (locked) in hash = value transmitted ... What else is the IOTA token for?


HusQy
Whether information is correct can only be seen in the context. Take a look at the difference between "data" and "information". For example, you can claim that you locked Bitcoin even though it didn't.


Block trainer
I may need a proof of this. See how, for example, BTC is unlocked in liquid or in the LN. The IOTA data layer is extremely similar to the principle of Lightning. Accordingly, the sending of tokens would be possible here, which means that I see the use case of the IOTA coin at risk


HusQy
Such a proof is impossible. The reason why this works with LN nodes is because LN nodes are Bitcoin nodes that know what is happening in the Bitcoin network and have "information" and not just "data": P What you are describing is technically impossible.


Block trainer
Data = information What can the LN not, what IOTA can sometimes?


HusQy
That's not rubbish. There is a huge difference between data and information, and inter-chain transactions are not possible because of that very difference. LN won't work - there are too many game theory problems: P​

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

Dominik Schiener
There is more tech maturity, more adoption and more progress than ever. We are one of the only projects which gets funding from government grants and corporations. Stop the attention grabbing headlines and get your sources right.


Dominik Schiener
As an innovation leader in Europe, I certainly say we deserve to get grants. There is a below 7% success chance usually. And yes, everything is fully audited (by externals ofc), showing clearly how and that the money was used in achieving the milestones of the grant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

Is Mirror Trading International A Scam


I’ve seen a lot of questions as to whether Mirror Trading International (MTI) is a pyramid scheme or multiplication scheme. As their members often attest, they operate the business with full transparency at all times. With this in mind, I would like to address some of those allegations. MTI is a legitimate, legal entity and doesn’t fall into the ambit of a pyramid scheme or anything of that nature.
We got one of the greatest legal minds in South Africa to write an opinion piece on network marketing in SA and on FSB regulations to explain this further.
Regulatory body
For far too long network marketing has been depicted as a pyramid scheme. Everyone thinks that anything that has a referral or recruiting function is a pyramid scheme, and that couldn’t be further from the truth.
The legislation that regulates network marketing is the Consumer Protection Act. It is very clear about what is illegal in terms of network marketing companies under this act, and this is what we are going to explain further in this article.
Legal application
Mirror Trading International is not a pyramid scheme and is a 100% legal business. They are registered in South Africa because the core business operations happen in South Africa.
Multi-level Marketing, or MLM, is a strategy direct sales companies use to encourage members who are authorised to sell products to recruit new members in order to further sales of the product. MLM is a marketing campaign that promotes the sale of legitimate products or services.
MLM as per SA legislation is not illegal, and it’s not a dirty little secret. You don’t have to feel worried when you recruit people into a legitimate organisation. You are giving them an opportunity to make money in a legitimate way while creating a secondary income stream for yourself at the same time.
If a financial scheme doesn’t fall within the ambit of an MLM campaign, i.e. it doesn’t have a service or product attached, you have a problem regarding legality. Investment in fiat money is regulated by the Collective Investment Scheme Control Act.
MTI is not an investment company. They provide a service where trades are done on your behalf. They provide a service to trade with bitcoin as a base currency. The Financial Services Board deals with fiat currency, and our government doesn’t recognise bitcoin as currency, but rather as an asset. Therefore, the FSB is not a regulating body for any bitcoin-based companies, such as MTI.
📷
DEFINITIONS
The CPA defines various schemes in a specific way, and this may help you further understand why MTI doesn’t fall under any of the following illegal types of schemes.
  1. Multiplication scheme – According to the CPA, a multiplication scheme exists when a person is offered a guaranteed amount of return, or an effective annual interest rate that is 20% above the repo rate.
MTI doesn’t fall into this ambit. They do not offer or guarantee results in the future. While our company boasts excellent trading results of an average of 0.5% a day for the past year of trading, we cannot guarantee these results in the future, and it is made clear to members that trading results may vary over time.
  1. Pyramid scheme – this is defined as an arrangement or agreement where participants receive compensation derived from respective recruitment of other persons as participants.
MTI does not have this problem. You do not have to recruit new members in order to make money with MTI. Every cent that is made is through profit generated by trade, not recruiting. When you join, you use bitcoin and the company trades on your behalf. Thereafter, you get a portion of the profit. You are not being used to pay someone else. Additionally, there are no admin fees, joining fees or subscriptions.
A pyramid scheme needs recruitment to keep the company alive. If 0 new members join MTI, they will still make money.
  1. Chain Letter Scheme – this type of scheme involves various levels of participation. Existing participants recruit new participants, and upon joining, get compensated according to their “level” within the company.
Mirror Trading International – it’s legal and legitimate
From the above definitions it is easy to see why MTI is not a multiplication scheme, pyramid scheme, or chain letter scheme.
They generate profit from trade.
They cannot guarantee returns.
There are no levels within the company.
I hope this article puts to rest any doubts you may have about joining Mirror Trading International. With the world advancing at such a fast rate, a legitimate trading company like Mirror Trading International offers members the opportunity to create a lucrative secondary income stream for themselves, whether they choose to recruit new members or not.
submitted by DavidDekel2020 to GrowBitcoin [link] [comments]

Why we need to think more carefully about what money is and how it works

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with?It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.

submitted by anthropoz to sustainability [link] [comments]

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin Explained Simply for Dummies ... bitcoin What is BITCOIN? BITCOIN meaning - BITCOIN definition - How to get BITCOIN - How does BITCOIN work PayPal and Bitcoin defined - YouTube What is Bitcoin Mining? (In Plain English) - YouTube

Putting it down in simple terms, the definition goes like this: bitcoin is a digital currency, existing only on internet. It can be considered as a file that is created and transferred around using computers, which are seen as bitcoin nodes. It is not governed by a single entity nor is an institution responsible for its value. It is completely decentralized asset that is moved by the market ... Everyone is talking cryptocurrency, especially Bitcoin. To many of us, Bitcoin is still a relatively new term. Bitcoin is generally defined as a digital currency and share a lot of similarities with other currencies. For those who are new, find out more from this Bitcoin for Beginners and learn how it works in the real world. Bitcoin for Beginners #1 Definition of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a form of ... Bitcoin is a digital or virtual currency created in 2009 that uses peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments. It follows the ideas set out in a whitepaper by the mysterious Satoshi ... Definition und Erklärung. Wenn heute von digitalen Geschäftsmodellen die Rede ist, taucht oft der Begriff „Blockchain“ auf. Manche verbinden damit die nächste digitale Revolution - ähnlich ... Bitcoin definition, a type of digital currency that uses state-of-the-art cryptography, can be issued in any fractional denomination, and has a decentralized distribution system: stores and online businesses that accept Bitcoin. See more.

[index] [15800] [5661] [7445] [20404] [9145] [89] [14012] [7494] [47936] [28836]

What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin Explained Simply for Dummies ...

Altcoins (or alts, as they're also called) are alternatives to bitcoin and started appearing as of 2011, when Namecoin tried to decentralize the domain name ... Voici une définition bitcoin pour les nuls et débutants. Les trois définitions différentes du bitcoin, comment le bitcoin fonctionne et par quel réseau ? ⏰TI... Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin mining is the process of updating the ledger of Bitcoin transactions known as th... PayPal exposes us to the many types of #bitcoin people. What kind of #btc hodler are you? #cryptocurrency #blockchain #cryptocurrencies Suite de la Bitcoin définition et détail sur le mempool blockchain. Son rôle dans la transition des transactions et comment les mineurs réalisent du profit ?...

#