Why Bitcoin Failed - kaushalvivek.github.io

Bitcoin blockchain size now over 20 GB

Bitcoin blockchain size now over 20 GB submitted by maxminski to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin cash blockchain size=158.70 GB vs bitcoin blockchain size=181.96 GB - Counter intuitive?

Bitcoin cash blockchain size=158.70 GB vs bitcoin blockchain size=181.96 GB - Counter intuitive?
References: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/ https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin%20cash/
submitted by natasha097 to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin cash blockchain size=158.70 GB vs bitcoin blockchain size=181.96 GB - Counter intuitive? /r/btc

Bitcoin cash blockchain size=158.70 GB vs bitcoin blockchain size=181.96 GB - Counter intuitive? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Is blockchain size increase 420 GB per year OK with us? /r/Bitcoin

Is blockchain size increase 420 GB per year OK with us? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

It's not just about the 150 GB blockchain size. It's also about the time it takes to reindex the chain. On my 2.6 GHz Intel Core i7, it takes over 40 hours to reindex. Just thought everyone should be aware of this. /r/Bitcoin

It's not just about the 150 GB blockchain size. It's also about the time it takes to reindex the chain. On my 2.6 GHz Intel Core i7, it takes over 40 hours to reindex. Just thought everyone should be aware of this. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The blockchain size reaches 100 Gb. /r/Bitcoin

The blockchain size reaches 100 Gb. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Why i’m bullish on Zilliqa (long read)

Edit: TL;DR added in the comments
 
Hey all, I've been researching coins since 2017 and have gone through 100s of them in the last 3 years. I got introduced to blockchain via Bitcoin of course, analyzed Ethereum thereafter and from that moment I have a keen interest in smart contact platforms. I’m passionate about Ethereum but I find Zilliqa to have a better risk-reward ratio. Especially because Zilliqa has found an elegant balance between being secure, decentralized and scalable in my opinion.
 
Below I post my analysis of why from all the coins I went through I’m most bullish on Zilliqa (yes I went through Tezos, EOS, NEO, VeChain, Harmony, Algorand, Cardano etc.). Note that this is not investment advice and although it's a thorough analysis there is obviously some bias involved. Looking forward to what you all think!
 
Fun fact: the name Zilliqa is a play on ‘silica’ silicon dioxide which means “Silicon for the high-throughput consensus computer.”
 
This post is divided into (i) Technology, (ii) Business & Partnerships, and (iii) Marketing & Community. I’ve tried to make the technology part readable for a broad audience. If you’ve ever tried understanding the inner workings of Bitcoin and Ethereum you should be able to grasp most parts. Otherwise, just skim through and once you are zoning out head to the next part.
 
Technology and some more:
 
Introduction
 
The technology is one of the main reasons why I’m so bullish on Zilliqa. First thing you see on their website is: “Zilliqa is a high-performance, high-security blockchain platform for enterprises and next-generation applications.” These are some bold statements.
 
Before we deep dive into the technology let’s take a step back in time first as they have quite the history. The initial research paper from which Zilliqa originated dates back to August 2016: Elastico: A Secure Sharding Protocol For Open Blockchains where Loi Luu (Kyber Network) is one of the co-authors. Other ideas that led to the development of what Zilliqa has become today are: Bitcoin-NG, collective signing CoSi, ByzCoin and Omniledger.
 
The technical white paper was made public in August 2017 and since then they have achieved everything stated in the white paper and also created their own open source intermediate level smart contract language called Scilla (functional programming language similar to OCaml) too.
 
Mainnet is live since the end of January 2019 with daily transaction rates growing continuously. About a week ago mainnet reached 5 million transactions, 500.000+ addresses in total along with 2400 nodes keeping the network decentralized and secure. Circulating supply is nearing 11 billion and currently only mining rewards are left. The maximum supply is 21 billion with annual inflation being 7.13% currently and will only decrease with time.
 
Zilliqa realized early on that the usage of public cryptocurrencies and smart contracts were increasing but decentralized, secure, and scalable alternatives were lacking in the crypto space. They proposed to apply sharding onto a public smart contract blockchain where the transaction rate increases almost linear with the increase in the amount of nodes. More nodes = higher transaction throughput and increased decentralization. Sharding comes in many forms and Zilliqa uses network-, transaction- and computational sharding. Network sharding opens up the possibility of using transaction- and computational sharding on top. Zilliqa does not use state sharding for now. We’ll come back to this later.
 
Before we continue dissecting how Zilliqa achieves such from a technological standpoint it’s good to keep in mind that a blockchain being decentralised and secure and scalable is still one of the main hurdles in allowing widespread usage of decentralised networks. In my opinion this needs to be solved first before blockchains can get to the point where they can create and add large scale value. So I invite you to read the next section to grasp the underlying fundamentals. Because after all these premises need to be true otherwise there isn’t a fundamental case to be bullish on Zilliqa, right?
 
Down the rabbit hole
 
How have they achieved this? Let’s define the basics first: key players on Zilliqa are the users and the miners. A user is anybody who uses the blockchain to transfer funds or run smart contracts. Miners are the (shard) nodes in the network who run the consensus protocol and get rewarded for their service in Zillings (ZIL). The mining network is divided into several smaller networks called shards, which is also referred to as ‘network sharding’. Miners subsequently are randomly assigned to a shard by another set of miners called DS (Directory Service) nodes. The regular shards process transactions and the outputs of these shards are eventually combined by the DS shard as they reach consensus on the final state. More on how these DS shards reach consensus (via pBFT) will be explained later on.
 
The Zilliqa network produces two types of blocks: DS blocks and Tx blocks. One DS Block consists of 100 Tx Blocks. And as previously mentioned there are two types of nodes concerned with reaching consensus: shard nodes and DS nodes. Becoming a shard node or DS node is being defined by the result of a PoW cycle (Ethash) at the beginning of the DS Block. All candidate mining nodes compete with each other and run the PoW (Proof-of-Work) cycle for 60 seconds and the submissions achieving the highest difficulty will be allowed on the network. And to put it in perspective: the average difficulty for one DS node is ~ 2 Th/s equaling 2.000.000 Mh/s or 55 thousand+ GeForce GTX 1070 / 8 GB GPUs at 35.4 Mh/s. Each DS Block 10 new DS nodes are allowed. And a shard node needs to provide around 8.53 GH/s currently (around 240 GTX 1070s). Dual mining ETH/ETC and ZIL is possible and can be done via mining software such as Phoenix and Claymore. There are pools and if you have large amounts of hashing power (Ethash) available you could mine solo.
 
The PoW cycle of 60 seconds is a peak performance and acts as an entry ticket to the network. The entry ticket is called a sybil resistance mechanism and makes it incredibly hard for adversaries to spawn lots of identities and manipulate the network with these identities. And after every 100 Tx Blocks which corresponds to roughly 1,5 hour this PoW process repeats. In between these 1,5 hour, no PoW needs to be done meaning Zilliqa’s energy consumption to keep the network secure is low. For more detailed information on how mining works click here.
Okay, hats off to you. You have made it this far. Before we go any deeper down the rabbit hole we first must understand why Zilliqa goes through all of the above technicalities and understand a bit more what a blockchain on a more fundamental level is. Because the core of Zilliqa’s consensus protocol relies on the usage of pBFT (practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance) we need to know more about state machines and their function. Navigate to Viewblock, a Zilliqa block explorer, and just come back to this article. We will use this site to navigate through a few concepts.
 
We have established that Zilliqa is a public and distributed blockchain. Meaning that everyone with an internet connection can send ZILs, trigger smart contracts, etc. and there is no central authority who fully controls the network. Zilliqa and other public and distributed blockchains (like Bitcoin and Ethereum) can also be defined as state machines.
 
Taking the liberty of paraphrasing examples and definitions given by Samuel Brooks’ medium article, he describes the definition of a blockchain (like Zilliqa) as: “A peer-to-peer, append-only datastore that uses consensus to synchronize cryptographically-secure data”.
 
Next, he states that: "blockchains are fundamentally systems for managing valid state transitions”. For some more context, I recommend reading the whole medium article to get a better grasp of the definitions and understanding of state machines. Nevertheless, let’s try to simplify and compile it into a single paragraph. Take traffic lights as an example: all its states (red, amber, and green) are predefined, all possible outcomes are known and it doesn’t matter if you encounter the traffic light today or tomorrow. It will still behave the same. Managing the states of a traffic light can be done by triggering a sensor on the road or pushing a button resulting in one traffic lights’ state going from green to red (via amber) and another light from red to green.
 
With public blockchains like Zilliqa, this isn’t so straightforward and simple. It started with block #1 almost 1,5 years ago and every 45 seconds or so a new block linked to the previous block is being added. Resulting in a chain of blocks with transactions in it that everyone can verify from block #1 to the current #647.000+ block. The state is ever changing and the states it can find itself in are infinite. And while the traffic light might work together in tandem with various other traffic lights, it’s rather insignificant comparing it to a public blockchain. Because Zilliqa consists of 2400 nodes who need to work together to achieve consensus on what the latest valid state is while some of these nodes may have latency or broadcast issues, drop offline or are deliberately trying to attack the network, etc.
 
Now go back to the Viewblock page take a look at the amount of transaction, addresses, block and DS height and then hit refresh. Obviously as expected you see new incremented values on one or all parameters. And how did the Zilliqa blockchain manage to transition from a previous valid state to the latest valid state? By using pBFT to reach consensus on the latest valid state.
 
After having obtained the entry ticket, miners execute pBFT to reach consensus on the ever-changing state of the blockchain. pBFT requires a series of network communication between nodes, and as such there is no GPU involved (but CPU). Resulting in the total energy consumed to keep the blockchain secure, decentralized and scalable being low.
 
pBFT stands for practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance and is an optimization on the Byzantine Fault Tolerant algorithm. To quote Blockonomi: “In the context of distributed systems, Byzantine Fault Tolerance is the ability of a distributed computer network to function as desired and correctly reach a sufficient consensus despite malicious components (nodes) of the system failing or propagating incorrect information to other peers.” Zilliqa is such a distributed computer network and depends on the honesty of the nodes (shard and DS) to reach consensus and to continuously update the state with the latest block. If pBFT is a new term for you I can highly recommend the Blockonomi article.
 
The idea of pBFT was introduced in 1999 - one of the authors even won a Turing award for it - and it is well researched and applied in various blockchains and distributed systems nowadays. If you want more advanced information than the Blockonomi link provides click here. And if you’re in between Blockonomi and the University of Singapore read the Zilliqa Design Story Part 2 dating from October 2017.
Quoting from the Zilliqa tech whitepaper: “pBFT relies upon a correct leader (which is randomly selected) to begin each phase and proceed when the sufficient majority exists. In case the leader is byzantine it can stall the entire consensus protocol. To address this challenge, pBFT offers a view change protocol to replace the byzantine leader with another one.”
 
pBFT can tolerate ⅓ of the nodes being dishonest (offline counts as Byzantine = dishonest) and the consensus protocol will function without stalling or hiccups. Once there are more than ⅓ of dishonest nodes but no more than ⅔ the network will be stalled and a view change will be triggered to elect a new DS leader. Only when more than ⅔ of the nodes are dishonest (66%) double-spend attacks become possible.
 
If the network stalls no transactions can be processed and one has to wait until a new honest leader has been elected. When the mainnet was just launched and in its early phases, view changes happened regularly. As of today the last stalling of the network - and view change being triggered - was at the end of October 2019.
 
Another benefit of using pBFT for consensus besides low energy is the immediate finality it provides. Once your transaction is included in a block and the block is added to the chain it’s done. Lastly, take a look at this article where three types of finality are being defined: probabilistic, absolute and economic finality. Zilliqa falls under the absolute finality (just like Tendermint for example). Although lengthy already we skipped through some of the inner workings from Zilliqa’s consensus: read the Zilliqa Design Story Part 3 and you will be close to having a complete picture on it. Enough about PoW, sybil resistance mechanism, pBFT, etc. Another thing we haven’t looked at yet is the amount of decentralization.
 
Decentralisation
 
Currently, there are four shards, each one of them consisting of 600 nodes. 1 shard with 600 so-called DS nodes (Directory Service - they need to achieve a higher difficulty than shard nodes) and 1800 shard nodes of which 250 are shard guards (centralized nodes controlled by the team). The amount of shard guards has been steadily declining from 1200 in January 2019 to 250 as of May 2020. On the Viewblock statistics, you can see that many of the nodes are being located in the US but those are only the (CPU parts of the) shard nodes who perform pBFT. There is no data from where the PoW sources are coming. And when the Zilliqa blockchain starts reaching its transaction capacity limit, a network upgrade needs to be executed to lift the current cap of maximum 2400 nodes to allow more nodes and formation of more shards which will allow to network to keep on scaling according to demand.
Besides shard nodes there are also seed nodes. The main role of seed nodes is to serve as direct access points (for end-users and clients) to the core Zilliqa network that validates transactions. Seed nodes consolidate transaction requests and forward these to the lookup nodes (another type of nodes) for distribution to the shards in the network. Seed nodes also maintain the entire transaction history and the global state of the blockchain which is needed to provide services such as block explorers. Seed nodes in the Zilliqa network are comparable to Infura on Ethereum.
 
The seed nodes were first only operated by Zilliqa themselves, exchanges and Viewblock. Operators of seed nodes like exchanges had no incentive to open them for the greater public. They were centralised at first. Decentralisation at the seed nodes level has been steadily rolled out since March 2020 ( Zilliqa Improvement Proposal 3 ). Currently the amount of seed nodes is being increased, they are public-facing and at the same time PoS is applied to incentivize seed node operators and make it possible for ZIL holders to stake and earn passive yields. Important distinction: seed nodes are not involved with consensus! That is still PoW as entry ticket and pBFT for the actual consensus.
 
5% of the block rewards are being assigned to seed nodes (from the beginning in 2019) and those are being used to pay out ZIL stakers. The 5% block rewards with an annual yield of 10.03% translate to roughly 610 MM ZILs in total that can be staked. Exchanges use the custodial variant of staking and wallets like Moonlet will use the non-custodial version (starting in Q3 2020). Staking is being done by sending ZILs to a smart contract created by Zilliqa and audited by Quantstamp.
 
With a high amount of DS; shard nodes and seed nodes becoming more decentralized too, Zilliqa qualifies for the label of decentralized in my opinion.
 
Smart contracts
 
Let me start by saying I’m not a developer and my programming skills are quite limited. So I‘m taking the ELI5 route (maybe 12) but if you are familiar with Javascript, Solidity or specifically OCaml please head straight to Scilla - read the docs to get a good initial grasp of how Zilliqa’s smart contract language Scilla works and if you ask yourself “why another programming language?” check this article. And if you want to play around with some sample contracts in an IDE click here. The faucet can be found here. And more information on architecture, dapp development and API can be found on the Developer Portal.
If you are more into listening and watching: check this recent webinar explaining Zilliqa and Scilla. Link is time-stamped so you’ll start right away with a platform introduction, roadmap 2020 and afterwards a proper Scilla introduction.
 
Generalized: programming languages can be divided into being ‘object-oriented’ or ‘functional’. Here is an ELI5 given by software development academy: * “all programs have two basic components, data – what the program knows – and behavior – what the program can do with that data. So object-oriented programming states that combining data and related behaviors in one place, is called “object”, which makes it easier to understand how a particular program works. On the other hand, functional programming argues that data and behavior are different things and should be separated to ensure their clarity.” *
 
Scilla is on the functional side and shares similarities with OCaml: OCaml is a general-purpose programming language with an emphasis on expressiveness and safety. It has an advanced type system that helps catch your mistakes without getting in your way. It's used in environments where a single mistake can cost millions and speed matters, is supported by an active community, and has a rich set of libraries and development tools. For all its power, OCaml is also pretty simple, which is one reason it's often used as a teaching language.
 
Scilla is blockchain agnostic, can be implemented onto other blockchains as well, is recognized by academics and won a so-called Distinguished Artifact Award award at the end of last year.
 
One of the reasons why the Zilliqa team decided to create their own programming language focused on preventing smart contract vulnerabilities is that adding logic on a blockchain, programming, means that you cannot afford to make mistakes. Otherwise, it could cost you. It’s all great and fun blockchains being immutable but updating your code because you found a bug isn’t the same as with a regular web application for example. And with smart contracts, it inherently involves cryptocurrencies in some form thus value.
 
Another difference with programming languages on a blockchain is gas. Every transaction you do on a smart contract platform like Zilliqa or Ethereum costs gas. With gas you basically pay for computational costs. Sending a ZIL from address A to address B costs 0.001 ZIL currently. Smart contracts are more complex, often involve various functions and require more gas (if gas is a new concept click here ).
 
So with Scilla, similar to Solidity, you need to make sure that “every function in your smart contract will run as expected without hitting gas limits. An improper resource analysis may lead to situations where funds may get stuck simply because a part of the smart contract code cannot be executed due to gas limits. Such constraints are not present in traditional software systems”. Scilla design story part 1
 
Some examples of smart contract issues you’d want to avoid are: leaking funds, ‘unexpected changes to critical state variables’ (example: someone other than you setting his or her address as the owner of the smart contract after creation) or simply killing a contract.
 
Scilla also allows for formal verification. Wikipedia to the rescue: In the context of hardware and software systems, formal verification is the act of proving or disproving the correctness of intended algorithms underlying a system with respect to a certain formal specification or property, using formal methods of mathematics.
 
Formal verification can be helpful in proving the correctness of systems such as: cryptographic protocols, combinational circuits, digital circuits with internal memory, and software expressed as source code.
 
Scilla is being developed hand-in-hand with formalization of its semantics and its embedding into the Coq proof assistant — a state-of-the art tool for mechanized proofs about properties of programs.”
 
Simply put, with Scilla and accompanying tooling developers can be mathematically sure and proof that the smart contract they’ve written does what he or she intends it to do.
 
Smart contract on a sharded environment and state sharding
 
There is one more topic I’d like to touch on: smart contract execution in a sharded environment (and what is the effect of state sharding). This is a complex topic. I’m not able to explain it any easier than what is posted here. But I will try to compress the post into something easy to digest.
 
Earlier on we have established that Zilliqa can process transactions in parallel due to network sharding. This is where the linear scalability comes from. We can define simple transactions: a transaction from address A to B (Category 1), a transaction where a user interacts with one smart contract (Category 2) and the most complex ones where triggering a transaction results in multiple smart contracts being involved (Category 3). The shards are able to process transactions on their own without interference of the other shards. With Category 1 transactions that is doable, with Category 2 transactions sometimes if that address is in the same shard as the smart contract but with Category 3 you definitely need communication between the shards. Solving that requires to make a set of communication rules the protocol needs to follow in order to process all transactions in a generalised fashion.
 
And this is where the downsides of state sharding comes in currently. All shards in Zilliqa have access to the complete state. Yes the state size (0.1 GB at the moment) grows and all of the nodes need to store it but it also means that they don’t need to shop around for information available on other shards. Requiring more communication and adding more complexity. Computer science knowledge and/or developer knowledge required links if you want to dig further: Scilla - language grammar Scilla - Foundations for Verifiable Decentralised Computations on a Blockchain Gas Accounting NUS x Zilliqa: Smart contract language workshop
 
Easier to follow links on programming Scilla https://learnscilla.com/home Ivan on Tech
 
Roadmap / Zilliqa 2.0
 
There is no strict defined roadmap but here are topics being worked on. And via the Zilliqa website there is also more information on the projects they are working on.
 
Business & Partnerships
 
It’s not only technology in which Zilliqa seems to be excelling as their ecosystem has been expanding and starting to grow rapidly. The project is on a mission to provide OpenFinance (OpFi) to the world and Singapore is the right place to be due to its progressive regulations and futuristic thinking. Singapore has taken a proactive approach towards cryptocurrencies by introducing the Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act). Among other things, the PS Act will regulate intermediaries dealing with certain cryptocurrencies, with a particular focus on consumer protection and anti-money laundering. It will also provide a stable regulatory licensing and operating framework for cryptocurrency entities, effectively covering all crypto businesses and exchanges based in Singapore. According to PWC 82% of the surveyed executives in Singapore reported blockchain initiatives underway and 13% of them have already brought the initiatives live to the market. There is also an increasing list of organizations that are starting to provide digital payment services. Moreover, Singaporean blockchain developers Building Cities Beyond has recently created an innovation $15 million grant to encourage development on its ecosystem. This all suggests that Singapore tries to position itself as (one of) the leading blockchain hubs in the world.
 
Zilliqa seems to already take advantage of this and recently helped launch Hg Exchange on their platform, together with financial institutions PhillipCapital, PrimePartners and Fundnel. Hg Exchange, which is now approved by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), uses smart contracts to represent digital assets. Through Hg Exchange financial institutions worldwide can use Zilliqa's safe-by-design smart contracts to enable the trading of private equities. For example, think of companies such as Grab, Airbnb, SpaceX that are not available for public trading right now. Hg Exchange will allow investors to buy shares of private companies & unicorns and capture their value before an IPO. Anquan, the main company behind Zilliqa, has also recently announced that they became a partner and shareholder in TEN31 Bank, which is a fully regulated bank allowing for tokenization of assets and is aiming to bridge the gap between conventional banking and the blockchain world. If STOs, the tokenization of assets, and equity trading will continue to increase, then Zilliqa’s public blockchain would be the ideal candidate due to its strategic positioning, partnerships, regulatory compliance and the technology that is being built on top of it.
 
What is also very encouraging is their focus on banking the un(der)banked. They are launching a stablecoin basket starting with XSGD. As many of you know, stablecoins are currently mostly used for trading. However, Zilliqa is actively trying to broaden the use case of stablecoins. I recommend everybody to read this text that Amrit Kumar wrote (one of the co-founders). These stablecoins will be integrated in the traditional markets and bridge the gap between the crypto world and the traditional world. This could potentially revolutionize and legitimise the crypto space if retailers and companies will for example start to use stablecoins for payments or remittances, instead of it solely being used for trading.
 
Zilliqa also released their DeFi strategic roadmap (dating November 2019) which seems to be aligning well with their OpFi strategy. A non-custodial DEX is coming to Zilliqa made by Switcheo which allows cross-chain trading (atomic swaps) between ETH, EOS and ZIL based tokens. They also signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a (soon to be announced) USD stablecoin. And as Zilliqa is all about regulations and being compliant, I’m speculating on it to be a regulated USD stablecoin. Furthermore, XSGD is already created and visible on block explorer and XIDR (Indonesian Stablecoin) is also coming soon via StraitsX. Here also an overview of the Tech Stack for Financial Applications from September 2019. Further quoting Amrit Kumar on this:
 
There are two basic building blocks in DeFi/OpFi though: 1) stablecoins as you need a non-volatile currency to get access to this market and 2) a dex to be able to trade all these financial assets. The rest are built on top of these blocks.
 
So far, together with our partners and community, we have worked on developing these building blocks with XSGD as a stablecoin. We are working on bringing a USD-backed stablecoin as well. We will soon have a decentralised exchange developed by Switcheo. And with HGX going live, we are also venturing into the tokenization space. More to come in the future.”
 
Additionally, they also have this ZILHive initiative that injects capital into projects. There have been already 6 waves of various teams working on infrastructure, innovation and research, and they are not from ASEAN or Singapore only but global: see Grantees breakdown by country. Over 60 project teams from over 20 countries have contributed to Zilliqa's ecosystem. This includes individuals and teams developing wallets, explorers, developer toolkits, smart contract testing frameworks, dapps, etc. As some of you may know, Unstoppable Domains (UD) blew up when they launched on Zilliqa. UD aims to replace cryptocurrency addresses with a human-readable name and allows for uncensorable websites. Zilliqa will probably be the only one able to handle all these transactions onchain due to ability to scale and its resulting low fees which is why the UD team launched this on Zilliqa in the first place. Furthermore, Zilliqa also has a strong emphasis on security, compliance, and privacy, which is why they partnered with companies like Elliptic, ChainSecurity (part of PwC Switzerland), and Incognito. Their sister company Aqilliz (Zilliqa spelled backwards) focuses on revolutionizing the digital advertising space and is doing interesting things like using Zilliqa to track outdoor digital ads with companies like Foodpanda.
 
Zilliqa is listed on nearly all major exchanges, having several different fiat-gateways and recently have been added to Binance’s margin trading and futures trading with really good volume. They also have a very impressive team with good credentials and experience. They don't just have “tech people”. They have a mix of tech people, business people, marketeers, scientists, and more. Naturally, it's good to have a mix of people with different skill sets if you work in the crypto space.
 
Marketing & Community
 
Zilliqa has a very strong community. If you just follow their Twitter their engagement is much higher for a coin that has approximately 80k followers. They also have been ‘coin of the day’ by LunarCrush many times. LunarCrush tracks real-time cryptocurrency value and social data. According to their data, it seems Zilliqa has a more fundamental and deeper understanding of marketing and community engagement than almost all other coins. While almost all coins have been a bit frozen in the last months, Zilliqa seems to be on its own bull run. It was somewhere in the 100s a few months ago and is currently ranked #46 on CoinGecko. Their official Telegram also has over 20k people and is very active, and their community channel which is over 7k now is more active and larger than many other official channels. Their local communities also seem to be growing.
 
Moreover, their community started ‘Zillacracy’ together with the Zilliqa core team ( see www.zillacracy.com ). It’s a community-run initiative where people from all over the world are now helping with marketing and development on Zilliqa. Since its launch in February 2020 they have been doing a lot and will also run their own non-custodial seed node for staking. This seed node will also allow them to start generating revenue for them to become a self sustaining entity that could potentially scale up to become a decentralized company working in parallel with the Zilliqa core team. Comparing it to all the other smart contract platforms (e.g. Cardano, EOS, Tezos etc.) they don't seem to have started a similar initiative (correct me if I’m wrong though). This suggests in my opinion that these other smart contract platforms do not fully understand how to utilize the ‘power of the community’. This is something you cannot ‘buy with money’ and gives many projects in the space a disadvantage.
 
Zilliqa also released two social products called SocialPay and Zeeves. SocialPay allows users to earn ZILs while tweeting with a specific hashtag. They have recently used it in partnership with the Singapore Red Cross for a marketing campaign after their initial pilot program. It seems like a very valuable social product with a good use case. I can see a lot of traditional companies entering the space through this product, which they seem to suggest will happen. Tokenizing hashtags with smart contracts to get network effect is a very smart and innovative idea.
 
Regarding Zeeves, this is a tipping bot for Telegram. They already have 1000s of signups and they plan to keep upgrading it for more and more people to use it (e.g. they recently have added a quiz features). They also use it during AMAs to reward people in real-time. It’s a very smart approach to grow their communities and get familiar with ZIL. I can see this becoming very big on Telegram. This tool suggests, again, that the Zilliqa team has a deeper understanding of what the crypto space and community needs and is good at finding the right innovative tools to grow and scale.
 
To be honest, I haven’t covered everything (i’m also reaching the character limited haha). So many updates happening lately that it's hard to keep up, such as the International Monetary Fund mentioning Zilliqa in their report, custodial and non-custodial Staking, Binance Margin, Futures, Widget, entering the Indian market, and more. The Head of Marketing Colin Miles has also released this as an overview of what is coming next. And last but not least, Vitalik Buterin has been mentioning Zilliqa lately acknowledging Zilliqa and mentioning that both projects have a lot of room to grow. There is much more info of course and a good part of it has been served to you on a silver platter. I invite you to continue researching by yourself :-) And if you have any comments or questions please post here!
submitted by haveyouheardaboutit to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin SV Price Prediction 2020

Bitcoin SV Price Prediction 2020
What is Bitcoin SV (BSV)?
Bitcoin SV appeared as a result of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork in November 2018.
The idea to create a new cryptocurrency came from entrepreneur Craig Wright. He tried to solve the scalability issue and increased the block size to 128MB. Later Craig Wright announced that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin SV is the original Bitcoin. SV stands for Satoshi Vision.
by StealthEX
Bitcoin SV has the plan for a stable protocol and massive on-chain scaling to become the world’s new money and the global public blockchain for enterprise. Today BSV coin is one of the TOP-10 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization.

Bitcoin SV Statistics

Source: CoinMarketCap, Data was taken on 16 July 2020 by StealthEX
Current Price $176.3
ROI since launch 99.66%
Market Cap $3,254,911,090
Market Rank #6
Circulating Supply 18,461,896 BSV
Total Supply 18,461,896 BSV

Bitcoin SV achievements and future plans

In 2019 the project has gone through the following milestones:
• Upgraded Quasar protocol and as a result the block size was lifted from 128 MB to 2 GB.
• Bitcoin SV handled up to 20,000,000 transactions per day.
• Worked on the technical development: Paymail, Nakasendo, Keyring, sCrypt, GearSV, Datapay was launched.
• More than 300 development projects, apps were launched for the BSV network.
• Celebrated the project’s first birthday.

What to expect in the future?

According to the official roadmap, the Bitcoin SV team will continue working on:
• Stability to give enterprises the confidence to create their apps on top of BSV.
• Scalability. The developers intend to provide the capacity for BSV to act as the foundation for the entire financial world.
• Security and excellent payment experience. The BSV project will concentrate on both measurement and improvement of transactions safety, fast transaction propagation, and miner-configurable fee policies.

Bitcoin SV Technical Analysis

Source: Tradingview, Data was taken on 16 July 2020 by StealthX

Bitcoin SV Price Prediction 2020

TradingBeasts BSV price prediction

In August 2020 BSV crypto may reach a maximum price of $209.095 (+18.60%), while it’s the average price will be around $166.599 per coin (-5.50%). According to TradingBeasts forecasts, the Bitcoin SV price is going to decrease and by the end of 2020, the average BSV price is expected to be $168.674 (-4.33%).

Wallet investor BSV coin price prediction

Wallet investor.com thinks that Bitcoin SV is an awesome long-term investment and predicts a wide selection of digital coins like Bitcoin SV. The project may reach $269.566 as the maximum price by the end of December 2020 (+52.80%) while the average price will stay around $196.916 per coin (+11.69%).

Crypto-Rating BSV price prediction

Crypto-Rating says that BSV will return to the $200 mark (+13.44%), or maybe even exceed it if BTC climbs above $10,000. If not, it might remain between $200 and $100, unless a new bear market strikes.

DigitalCoinPrice BSV price prediction

According to DigitalCoinPrice Bitcoin SV price will increase in the near future. By the end of the year 2020, the average price will be $284.19 per coin (+61.19%).

Where to buy BSV coin

Bitcoin SV (BSV) is available for exchange on StealthEX with a low fee. Follow these easy steps:
✔ Choose the pair and the amount for your exchange. For example BTC to BSV.
✔ Press the “Start exchange” button.
✔ Provide the recipient address to which the coins will be transferred.
✔ Move your cryptocurrency for the exchange.
✔ Receive your coins.
Follow us on Medium, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get StealthEX.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us via [email protected]
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.
Original article was posted on https://stealthex.io/blog/2020/07/16/bitcoin-sv-price-prediction-2020/
submitted by Stealthex_io to StealthEX [link] [comments]

Why i’m bullish on Zilliqa (long read)

Hey all, I've been researching coins since 2017 and have gone through 100s of them in the last 3 years. I got introduced to blockchain via Bitcoin of course, analysed Ethereum thereafter and from that moment I have a keen interest in smart contact platforms. I’m passionate about Ethereum but I find Zilliqa to have a better risk reward ratio. Especially because Zilliqa has found an elegant balance between being secure, decentralised and scalable in my opinion.
 
Below I post my analysis why from all the coins I went through I’m most bullish on Zilliqa (yes I went through Tezos, EOS, NEO, VeChain, Harmony, Algorand, Cardano etc.). Note that this is not investment advice and although it's a thorough analysis there is obviously some bias involved. Looking forward to what you all think!
 
Fun fact: the name Zilliqa is a play on ‘silica’ silicon dioxide which means “Silicon for the high-throughput consensus computer.”
 
This post is divided into (i) Technology, (ii) Business & Partnerships, and (iii) Marketing & Community. I’ve tried to make the technology part readable for a broad audience. If you’ve ever tried understanding the inner workings of Bitcoin and Ethereum you should be able to grasp most parts. Otherwise just skim through and once you are zoning out head to the next part.
 
Technology and some more:
 
Introduction The technology is one of the main reasons why I’m so bullish on Zilliqa. First thing you see on their website is: “Zilliqa is a high-performance, high-security blockchain platform for enterprises and next-generation applications.” These are some bold statements.
 
Before we deep dive into the technology let’s take a step back in time first as they have quite the history. The initial research paper from which Zilliqa originated dates back to August 2016: Elastico: A Secure Sharding Protocol For Open Blockchains where Loi Luu (Kyber Network) is one of the co-authors. Other ideas that led to the development of what Zilliqa has become today are: Bitcoin-NG, collective signing CoSi, ByzCoin and Omniledger.
 
The technical white paper was made public in August 2017 and since then they have achieved everything stated in the white paper and also created their own open source intermediate level smart contract language called Scilla (functional programming language similar to OCaml) too.
 
Mainnet is live since end of January 2019 with daily transaction rate growing continuously. About a week ago mainnet reached 5 million transactions, 500.000+ addresses in total along with 2400 nodes keeping the network decentralised and secure. Circulating supply is nearing 11 billion and currently only mining rewards are left. Maximum supply is 21 billion with annual inflation being 7.13% currently and will only decrease with time.
 
Zilliqa realised early on that the usage of public cryptocurrencies and smart contracts were increasing but decentralised, secure and scalable alternatives were lacking in the crypto space. They proposed to apply sharding onto a public smart contract blockchain where the transaction rate increases almost linear with the increase in amount of nodes. More nodes = higher transaction throughput and increased decentralisation. Sharding comes in many forms and Zilliqa uses network-, transaction- and computational sharding. Network sharding opens up the possibility of using transaction- and computational sharding on top. Zilliqa does not use state sharding for now. We’ll come back to this later.
 
Before we continue disecting how Zilliqa achieves such from a technological standpoint it’s good to keep in mind that a blockchain being decentralised and secure and scalable is still one of the main hurdles in allowing widespread usage of decentralised networks. In my opinion this needs to be solved first before blockchains can get to the point where they can create and add large scale value. So I invite you to read the next section to grasp the underlying fundamentals. Because after all these premises need to be true otherwise there isn’t a fundamental case to be bullish on Zilliqa, right?
 
Down the rabbit hole
 
How have they achieved this? Let’s define the basics first: key players on Zilliqa are the users and the miners. A user is anybody who uses the blockchain to transfer funds or run smart contracts. Miners are the (shard) nodes in the network who run the consensus protocol and get rewarded for their service in Zillings (ZIL). The mining network is divided into several smaller networks called shards, which is also referred to as ‘network sharding’. Miners subsequently are randomly assigned to a shard by another set of miners called DS (Directory Service) nodes. The regular shards process transactions and the outputs of these shards are eventually combined by the DS shard as they reach consensus on the final state. More on how these DS shards reach consensus (via pBFT) will be explained later on.
 
The Zilliqa network produces two types of blocks: DS blocks and Tx blocks. One DS Block consists of 100 Tx Blocks. And as previously mentioned there are two types of nodes concerned with reaching consensus: shard nodes and DS nodes. Becoming a shard node or DS node is being defined by the result of a PoW cycle (Ethash) at the beginning of the DS Block. All candidate mining nodes compete with each other and run the PoW (Proof-of-Work) cycle for 60 seconds and the submissions achieving the highest difficulty will be allowed on the network. And to put it in perspective: the average difficulty for one DS node is ~ 2 Th/s equaling 2.000.000 Mh/s or 55 thousand+ GeForce GTX 1070 / 8 GB GPUs at 35.4 Mh/s. Each DS Block 10 new DS nodes are allowed. And a shard node needs to provide around 8.53 GH/s currently (around 240 GTX 1070s). Dual mining ETH/ETC and ZIL is possible and can be done via mining software such as Phoenix and Claymore. There are pools and if you have large amounts of hashing power (Ethash) available you could mine solo.
 
The PoW cycle of 60 seconds is a peak performance and acts as an entry ticket to the network. The entry ticket is called a sybil resistance mechanism and makes it incredibly hard for adversaries to spawn lots of identities and manipulate the network with these identities. And after every 100 Tx Blocks which corresponds to roughly 1,5 hour this PoW process repeats. In between these 1,5 hour no PoW needs to be done meaning Zilliqa’s energy consumption to keep the network secure is low. For more detailed information on how mining works click here.
Okay, hats off to you. You have made it this far. Before we go any deeper down the rabbit hole we first must understand why Zilliqa goes through all of the above technicalities and understand a bit more what a blockchain on a more fundamental level is. Because the core of Zilliqa’s consensus protocol relies on the usage of pBFT (practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance) we need to know more about state machines and their function. Navigate to Viewblock, a Zilliqa block explorer, and just come back to this article. We will use this site to navigate through a few concepts.
 
We have established that Zilliqa is a public and distributed blockchain. Meaning that everyone with an internet connection can send ZILs, trigger smart contracts etc. and there is no central authority who fully controls the network. Zilliqa and other public and distributed blockchains (like Bitcoin and Ethereum) can also be defined as state machines.
 
Taking the liberty of paraphrasing examples and definitions given by Samuel Brooks’ medium article, he describes the definition of a blockchain (like Zilliqa) as:
“A peer-to-peer, append-only datastore that uses consensus to synchronise cryptographically-secure data”.
 
Next he states that: >“blockchains are fundamentally systems for managing valid state transitions”.* For some more context, I recommend reading the whole medium article to get a better grasp of the definitions and understanding of state machines. Nevertheless, let’s try to simplify and compile it into a single paragraph. Take traffic lights as an example: all its states (red, amber and green) are predefined, all possible outcomes are known and it doesn’t matter if you encounter the traffic light today or tomorrow. It will still behave the same. Managing the states of a traffic light can be done by triggering a sensor on the road or pushing a button resulting in one traffic lights’ state going from green to red (via amber) and another light from red to green.
 
With public blockchains like Zilliqa this isn’t so straightforward and simple. It started with block #1 almost 1,5 years ago and every 45 seconds or so a new block linked to the previous block is being added. Resulting in a chain of blocks with transactions in it that everyone can verify from block #1 to the current #647.000+ block. The state is ever changing and the states it can find itself in are infinite. And while the traffic light might work together in tandem with various other traffic lights, it’s rather insignificant comparing it to a public blockchain. Because Zilliqa consists of 2400 nodes who need to work together to achieve consensus on what the latest valid state is while some of these nodes may have latency or broadcast issues, drop offline or are deliberately trying to attack the network etc.
 
Now go back to the Viewblock page take a look at the amount of transaction, addresses, block and DS height and then hit refresh. Obviously as expected you see new incremented values on one or all parameters. And how did the Zilliqa blockchain manage to transition from a previous valid state to the latest valid state? By using pBFT to reach consensus on the latest valid state.
 
After having obtained the entry ticket, miners execute pBFT to reach consensus on the ever changing state of the blockchain. pBFT requires a series of network communication between nodes, and as such there is no GPU involved (but CPU). Resulting in the total energy consumed to keep the blockchain secure, decentralised and scalable being low.
 
pBFT stands for practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance and is an optimisation on the Byzantine Fault Tolerant algorithm. To quote Blockonomi: “In the context of distributed systems, Byzantine Fault Tolerance is the ability of a distributed computer network to function as desired and correctly reach a sufficient consensus despite malicious components (nodes) of the system failing or propagating incorrect information to other peers.” Zilliqa is such a distributed computer network and depends on the honesty of the nodes (shard and DS) to reach consensus and to continuously update the state with the latest block. If pBFT is a new term for you I can highly recommend the Blockonomi article.
 
The idea of pBFT was introduced in 1999 - one of the authors even won a Turing award for it - and it is well researched and applied in various blockchains and distributed systems nowadays. If you want more advanced information than the Blockonomi link provides click here. And if you’re in between Blockonomi and University of Singapore read the Zilliqa Design Story Part 2 dating from October 2017.
Quoting from the Zilliqa tech whitepaper: “pBFT relies upon a correct leader (which is randomly selected) to begin each phase and proceed when the sufficient majority exists. In case the leader is byzantine it can stall the entire consensus protocol. To address this challenge, pBFT offers a view change protocol to replace the byzantine leader with another one.”
 
pBFT can tolerate ⅓ of the nodes being dishonest (offline counts as Byzantine = dishonest) and the consensus protocol will function without stalling or hiccups. Once there are more than ⅓ of dishonest nodes but no more than ⅔ the network will be stalled and a view change will be triggered to elect a new DS leader. Only when more than ⅔ of the nodes are dishonest (>66%) double spend attacks become possible.
 
If the network stalls no transactions can be processed and one has to wait until a new honest leader has been elected. When the mainnet was just launched and in its early phases, view changes happened regularly. As of today the last stalling of the network - and view change being triggered - was at the end of October 2019.
 
Another benefit of using pBFT for consensus besides low energy is the immediate finality it provides. Once your transaction is included in a block and the block is added to the chain it’s done. Lastly, take a look at this article where three types of finality are being defined: probabilistic, absolute and economic finality. Zilliqa falls under the absolute finality (just like Tendermint for example). Although lengthy already we skipped through some of the inner workings from Zilliqa’s consensus: read the Zilliqa Design Story Part 3 and you will be close to having a complete picture on it. Enough about PoW, sybil resistance mechanism, pBFT etc. Another thing we haven’t looked at yet is the amount of decentralisation.
 
Decentralisation
 
Currently there are four shards, each one of them consisting of 600 nodes. 1 shard with 600 so called DS nodes (Directory Service - they need to achieve a higher difficulty than shard nodes) and 1800 shard nodes of which 250 are shard guards (centralised nodes controlled by the team). The amount of shard guards has been steadily declining from 1200 in January 2019 to 250 as of May 2020. On the Viewblock statistics you can see that many of the nodes are being located in the US but those are only the (CPU parts of the) shard nodes who perform pBFT. There is no data from where the PoW sources are coming. And when the Zilliqa blockchain starts reaching their transaction capacity limit, a network upgrade needs to be executed to lift the current cap of maximum 2400 nodes to allow more nodes and formation of more shards which will allow to network to keep on scaling according to demand.
Besides shard nodes there are also seed nodes. The main role of seed nodes is to serve as direct access points (for end users and clients) to the core Zilliqa network that validates transactions. Seed nodes consolidate transaction requests and forward these to the lookup nodes (another type of nodes) for distribution to the shards in the network. Seed nodes also maintain the entire transaction history and the global state of the blockchain which is needed to provide services such as block explorers. Seed nodes in the Zilliqa network are comparable to Infura on Ethereum.
 
The seed nodes were first only operated by Zilliqa themselves, exchanges and Viewblock. Operators of seed nodes like exchanges had no incentive to open them for the greater public.They were centralised at first. Decentralisation at the seed nodes level has been steadily rolled out since March 2020 ( Zilliqa Improvement Proposal 3 ). Currently the amount of seed nodes is being increased, they are public facing and at the same time PoS is applied to incentivize seed node operators and make it possible for ZIL holders to stake and earn passive yields. Important distinction: seed nodes are not involved with consensus! That is still PoW as entry ticket and pBFT for the actual consensus.
 
5% of the block rewards are being assigned to seed nodes (from the beginning in 2019) and those are being used to pay out ZIL stakers.The 5% block rewards with an annual yield of 10.03% translates to roughly 610 MM ZILs in total that can be staked. Exchanges use the custodial variant of staking and wallets like Moonlet will use the non custodial version (starting in Q3 2020). Staking is being done by sending ZILs to a smart contract created by Zilliqa and audited by Quantstamp.
 
With a high amount of DS & shard nodes and seed nodes becoming more decentralised too, Zilliqa qualifies for the label of decentralised in my opinion.
 
Smart contracts
 
Let me start by saying I’m not a developer and my programming skills are quite limited. So I‘m taking the ELI5 route (maybe 12) but if you are familiar with Javascript, Solidity or specifically OCaml please head straight to Scilla - read the docs to get a good initial grasp of how Zilliqa’s smart contract language Scilla works and if you ask yourself “why another programming language?” check this article. And if you want to play around with some sample contracts in an IDE click here. Faucet can be found here. And more information on architecture, dapp development and API can be found on the Developer Portal.
If you are more into listening and watching: check this recent webinar explaining Zilliqa and Scilla. Link is time stamped so you’ll start right away with a platform introduction, R&D roadmap 2020 and afterwards a proper Scilla introduction.
 
Generalised: programming languages can be divided into being ‘object oriented’ or ‘functional’. Here is an ELI5 given by software development academy: > “all programmes have two basic components, data – what the programme knows – and behaviour – what the programme can do with that data. So object-oriented programming states that combining data and related behaviours in one place, is called “object”, which makes it easier to understand how a particular program works. On the other hand, functional programming argues that data and behaviour are different things and should be separated to ensure their clarity.”
 
Scilla is on the functional side and shares similarities with OCaml: > OCaml is a general purpose programming language with an emphasis on expressiveness and safety. It has an advanced type system that helps catch your mistakes without getting in your way. It's used in environments where a single mistake can cost millions and speed matters, is supported by an active community, and has a rich set of libraries and development tools. For all its power, OCaml is also pretty simple, which is one reason it's often used as a teaching language.
 
Scilla is blockchain agnostic, can be implemented onto other blockchains as well, is recognised by academics and won a so called Distinguished Artifact Award award at the end of last year.
 
One of the reasons why the Zilliqa team decided to create their own programming language focused on preventing smart contract vulnerabilities safety is that adding logic on a blockchain, programming, means that you cannot afford to make mistakes. Otherwise it could cost you. It’s all great and fun blockchains being immutable but updating your code because you found a bug isn’t the same as with a regular web application for example. And with smart contracts it inherently involves cryptocurrencies in some form thus value.
 
Another difference with programming languages on a blockchain is gas. Every transaction you do on a smart contract platform like Zilliqa for Ethereum costs gas. With gas you basically pay for computational costs. Sending a ZIL from address A to address B costs 0.001 ZIL currently. Smart contracts are more complex, often involve various functions and require more gas (if gas is a new concept click here ).
 
So with Scilla, similar to Solidity, you need to make sure that “every function in your smart contract will run as expected without hitting gas limits. An improper resource analysis may lead to situations where funds may get stuck simply because a part of the smart contract code cannot be executed due to gas limits. Such constraints are not present in traditional software systems”. Scilla design story part 1
 
Some examples of smart contract issues you’d want to avoid are: leaking funds, ‘unexpected changes to critical state variables’ (example: someone other than you setting his or her address as the owner of the smart contract after creation) or simply killing a contract.
 
Scilla also allows for formal verification. Wikipedia to the rescue:
In the context of hardware and software systems, formal verification is the act of proving or disproving the correctness of intended algorithms underlying a system with respect to a certain formal specification or property, using formal methods of mathematics.
 
Formal verification can be helpful in proving the correctness of systems such as: cryptographic protocols, combinational circuits, digital circuits with internal memory, and software expressed as source code.
 
Scilla is being developed hand-in-hand with formalization of its semantics and its embedding into the Coq proof assistant — a state-of-the art tool for mechanized proofs about properties of programs.”
 
Simply put, with Scilla and accompanying tooling developers can be mathematically sure and proof that the smart contract they’ve written does what he or she intends it to do.
 
Smart contract on a sharded environment and state sharding
 
There is one more topic I’d like to touch on: smart contract execution in a sharded environment (and what is the effect of state sharding). This is a complex topic. I’m not able to explain it any easier than what is posted here. But I will try to compress the post into something easy to digest.
 
Earlier on we have established that Zilliqa can process transactions in parallel due to network sharding. This is where the linear scalability comes from. We can define simple transactions: a transaction from address A to B (Category 1), a transaction where a user interacts with one smart contract (Category 2) and the most complex ones where triggering a transaction results in multiple smart contracts being involved (Category 3). The shards are able to process transactions on their own without interference of the other shards. With Category 1 transactions that is doable, with Category 2 transactions sometimes if that address is in the same shard as the smart contract but with Category 3 you definitely need communication between the shards. Solving that requires to make a set of communication rules the protocol needs to follow in order to process all transactions in a generalised fashion.
 
And this is where the downsides of state sharding comes in currently. All shards in Zilliqa have access to the complete state. Yes the state size (0.1 GB at the moment) grows and all of the nodes need to store it but it also means that they don’t need to shop around for information available on other shards. Requiring more communication and adding more complexity. Computer science knowledge and/or developer knowledge required links if you want to dig further: Scilla - language grammar Scilla - Foundations for Verifiable Decentralised Computations on a Blockchain Gas Accounting NUS x Zilliqa: Smart contract language workshop
 
Easier to follow links on programming Scilla https://learnscilla.com/home Ivan on Tech
 
Roadmap / Zilliqa 2.0
 
There is no strict defined roadmap but here are topics being worked on. And via the Zilliqa website there is also more information on the projects they are working on.
 
Business & Partnerships  
It’s not only technology in which Zilliqa seems to be excelling as their ecosystem has been expanding and starting to grow rapidly. The project is on a mission to provide OpenFinance (OpFi) to the world and Singapore is the right place to be due to its progressive regulations and futuristic thinking. Singapore has taken a proactive approach towards cryptocurrencies by introducing the Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act). Among other things, the PS Act will regulate intermediaries dealing with certain cryptocurrencies, with a particular focus on consumer protection and anti-money laundering. It will also provide a stable regulatory licensing and operating framework for cryptocurrency entities, effectively covering all crypto businesses and exchanges based in Singapore. According to PWC 82% of the surveyed executives in Singapore reported blockchain initiatives underway and 13% of them have already brought the initiatives live to the market. There is also an increasing list of organisations that are starting to provide digital payment services. Moreover, Singaporean blockchain developers Building Cities Beyond has recently created an innovation $15 million grant to encourage development on its ecosystem. This all suggest that Singapore tries to position itself as (one of) the leading blockchain hubs in the world.
 
Zilliqa seems to already taking advantage of this and recently helped launch Hg Exchange on their platform, together with financial institutions PhillipCapital, PrimePartners and Fundnel. Hg Exchange, which is now approved by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), uses smart contracts to represent digital assets. Through Hg Exchange financial institutions worldwide can use Zilliqa's safe-by-design smart contracts to enable the trading of private equities. For example, think of companies such as Grab, AirBnB, SpaceX that are not available for public trading right now. Hg Exchange will allow investors to buy shares of private companies & unicorns and capture their value before an IPO. Anquan, the main company behind Zilliqa, has also recently announced that they became a partner and shareholder in TEN31 Bank, which is a fully regulated bank allowing for tokenization of assets and is aiming to bridge the gap between conventional banking and the blockchain world. If STOs, the tokenization of assets, and equity trading will continue to increase, then Zilliqa’s public blockchain would be the ideal candidate due to its strategic positioning, partnerships, regulatory compliance and the technology that is being built on top of it.
 
What is also very encouraging is their focus on banking the un(der)banked. They are launching a stablecoin basket starting with XSGD. As many of you know, stablecoins are currently mostly used for trading. However, Zilliqa is actively trying to broaden the use case of stablecoins. I recommend everybody to read this text that Amrit Kumar wrote (one of the co-founders). These stablecoins will be integrated in the traditional markets and bridge the gap between the crypto world and the traditional world. This could potentially revolutionize and legitimise the crypto space if retailers and companies will for example start to use stablecoins for payments or remittances, instead of it solely being used for trading.
 
Zilliqa also released their DeFi strategic roadmap (dating November 2019) which seems to be aligning well with their OpFi strategy. A non-custodial DEX is coming to Zilliqa made by Switcheo which allows cross-chain trading (atomic swaps) between ETH, EOS and ZIL based tokens. They also signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a (soon to be announced) USD stablecoin. And as Zilliqa is all about regulations and being compliant, I’m speculating on it to be a regulated USD stablecoin. Furthermore, XSGD is already created and visible on block explorer and XIDR (Indonesian Stablecoin) is also coming soon via StraitsX. Here also an overview of the Tech Stack for Financial Applications from September 2019. Further quoting Amrit Kumar on this:
 
There are two basic building blocks in DeFi/OpFi though: 1) stablecoins as you need a non-volatile currency to get access to this market and 2) a dex to be able to trade all these financial assets. The rest are build on top of these blocks.
 
So far, together with our partners and community, we have worked on developing these building blocks with XSGD as a stablecoin. We are working on bringing a USD-backed stablecoin as well. We will soon have a decentralised exchange developed by Switcheo. And with HGX going live, we are also venturing into the tokenization space. More to come in the future.”*
 
Additionally, they also have this ZILHive initiative that injects capital into projects. There have been already 6 waves of various teams working on infrastructure, innovation and research, and they are not from ASEAN or Singapore only but global: see Grantees breakdown by country. Over 60 project teams from over 20 countries have contributed to Zilliqa's ecosystem. This includes individuals and teams developing wallets, explorers, developer toolkits, smart contract testing frameworks, dapps, etc. As some of you may know, Unstoppable Domains (UD) blew up when they launched on Zilliqa. UD aims to replace cryptocurrency addresses with a human readable name and allows for uncensorable websites. Zilliqa will probably be the only one able to handle all these transactions onchain due to ability to scale and its resulting low fees which is why the UD team launched this on Zilliqa in the first place. Furthermore, Zilliqa also has a strong emphasis on security, compliance, and privacy, which is why they partnered with companies like Elliptic, ChainSecurity (part of PwC Switzerland), and Incognito. Their sister company Aqilliz (Zilliqa spelled backwards) focuses on revolutionizing the digital advertising space and is doing interesting things like using Zilliqa to track outdoor digital ads with companies like Foodpanda.
 
Zilliqa is listed on nearly all major exchanges, having several different fiat-gateways and recently have been added to Binance’s margin trading and futures trading with really good volume. They also have a very impressive team with good credentials and experience. They dont just have “tech people”. They have a mix of tech people, business people, marketeers, scientists, and more. Naturally, it's good to have a mix of people with different skill sets if you work in the crypto space.
 
Marketing & Community
 
Zilliqa has a very strong community. If you just follow their Twitter their engagement is much higher for a coin that has approximately 80k followers. They also have been ‘coin of the day’ by LunarCrush many times. LunarCrush tracks real-time cryptocurrency value and social data. According to their data it seems Zilliqa has a more fundamental and deeper understanding of marketing and community engagement than almost all other coins. While almost all coins have been a bit frozen in the last months, Zilliqa seems to be on its own bull run. It was somewhere in the 100s a few months ago and is currently ranked #46 on CoinGecko. Their official Telegram also has over 20k people and is very active, and their community channel which is over 7k now is more active and larger than many other official channels. Their local communities) also seem to be growing.
 
Moreover, their community started ‘Zillacracy’ together with the Zilliqa core team ( see www.zillacracy.com ). It’s a community run initiative where people from all over the world are now helping with marketing and development on Zilliqa. Since its launch in February 2020 they have been doing a lot and will also run their own non custodial seed node for staking. This seed node will also allow them to start generating revenue for them to become a self sustaining entity that could potentially scale up to become a decentralized company working in parallel with the Zilliqa core team. Comparing it to all the other smart contract platforms (e.g. Cardano, EOS, Tezos etc.) they don't seem to have started a similar initiatives (correct me if I’m wrong though). This suggest in my opinion that these other smart contract platforms do not fully understand how to utilize the ‘power of the community’. This is something you cannot ‘buy with money’ and gives many projects in the space a disadvantage.
 
Zilliqa also released two social products called SocialPay and Zeeves. SocialPay allows users to earn ZILs while tweeting with a specific hashtag. They have recently used it in partnership with the Singapore Red Cross for a marketing campaign after their initial pilot program. It seems like a very valuable social product with a good use case. I can see a lot of traditional companies entering the space through this product, which they seem to suggest will happen. Tokenizing hashtags with smart contracts to get network effect is a very smart and innovative idea.
 
Regarding Zeeves, this is a tipping bot for Telegram. They already have 1000s of signups and they plan to keep upgrading it for more and more people to use it (e.g. they recently have added a quiz features). They also use it during AMAs to reward people in real time. It’s a very smart approach to grow their communities and get familiar with ZIL. I can see this becoming very big on Telegram. This tool suggests, again, that the Zilliqa team has a deeper understanding what the crypto space and community needs and is good at finding the right innovative tools to grow and scale.
 
To be honest, I haven’t covered everything (i’m also reaching the character limited haha). So many updates happening lately that it's hard to keep up, such as the International Monetary Fund mentioning Zilliqa in their report, custodial and non-custodial Staking, Binance Margin, Futures & Widget, entering the Indian market, and more. The Head of Marketing Colin Miles has also released this as an overview of what is coming next. And last but not least, Vitalik Buterin has been mentioning Zilliqa lately acknowledging Zilliqa and mentioning that both projects have a lot of room to grow. There is much more info of course and a good part of it has been served to you on a silver platter. I invite you to continue researching by yourself :-) And if you have any comments or questions please post here!
submitted by haveyouheardaboutit to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Addressing Common Arguments For Limiting BTC's Block Size

For a while, I've seen many BTC maximalists bring up arguments about why the block size for Bitcoin should be limited to 1 MB. I have made this post to address most of these arguments. If you disagree, feel free to make your point in the comments!

Limiting block size is what helps keep nodes cheap, and helps decentralize Bitcoin.
Let's do some math here...
With the block size of BTC being 1.00 MB, and having ~144 blocks a day, 365 days a year, there are roughly 52,560 blocks in a year. Using this data, 52.5 GB of storage will be used up in an entire year (we'll make the assumption that someone running a node buys 1 hard drive a year to store all this data).
Looking at Amazon, the average cost for 64.0 GB of storage capacity for a flash drive is roughly $10.00. This means on average, someone running a node is paying roughly 80 cents per month for storage. Okay, now let's look at the internet aspect of things. The average internet speed globally is around ~75 Mbps (which is more than enough for both BTC and BCH) and will likely run for around ~$40 a month (this is a rough figure, and slightly pessimistic, but let's take it). Therefore, doing some math:
($40.00/month + $0.80/month) x 12 months = ~$490.00/year
Okay, so it roughly costs $490.00 a year which is just a little over $1/day for running a node. Let's see how much more expensive BCH is when running the same type of node:
For BCH, everything stays the same, except for storage costs. Since the block size is 32 times bigger than BTC, doing the math, BCH will take up roughly 1.7 TB of data. For a 2 TB hard drive, the cost is roughly $60. For an entire year, that will cost about $5 per month for storage.
Taking this into consideration, we can calculate how much it will cost to run a BCH node for storage and internet:
($40.00/month + $5.00/month) x 12 months = ~$540.00/year
So in conclusion:
BTC Node BCH Node
Price (yearly) $490.00 $540.00
Price (monthly) ~$40.80 ~$45.00
As we can see, it really isn't that much more expensive, and this isn't even factoring in how much cheaper digital storage will become over time. As digital storage becomes bigger, we can also expand block size, and not have to worry about centralization.

The market has decided that BTC is better, therefore BCH is not Bitcoin.
While yes, based on hashing power, this is true, Bitcoin being Bitcoin is not about hashing power. It is about what Bitcoin was intended to do. Bitcoin was created by Satoshi as a form of peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Even in the whitepaper of Bitcoin, Bitcoin is not working the way it was intended to. From the whitepaper:

The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.
It says it right here, one of the issues with current forms electronic payments is high transaction fees, and how they make small, everyday purchases expensive, making it bad for regular, everyday purchases.
Currently, looking at the fees, BTC costs roughly $0.50 for every transaction (fees vary every single block, but this is the current average), regardless of the transaction amount. That means if I'm making a purchase at a coffee shop for $2.00, it is going to cost me $2.50 effectively for the coffee. That means that I am paying 25% of my transaction value just to transfer my own money. What incentive would I have to make that purchase, especially when I could just use normal cash, and not pay ridiculously high fees for a normal transaction?
Let's compare this to BCH. Right now, the average fee for BCH is about $0.0025 for every transaction. When comparing that even to a $2 purchase, the fee is negligible and makes effectively no difference to the transaction amount. As we can see, BCH is far cheaper for everyday normal transactions, a.k.a. electronic cash.

Bitcoin only has high transaction fees because of the higher transaction volume, and Bitmain has spammed transactions to make BTC look bad.
As far as I know, I don't recall Bitmain spamming transactions on the network (I could be wrong on this). If someone has evidence of this, I will gladly retract this. As for transaction volume (number of transactions), we can use comparable numbers from when BCH and BTC were both having extremely high transaction volumes:
Date (DD/MM/YYYY) No. of transactions (BTC) No. of transactions (BCH) Average Transaction Fee (BTC) Average Transaction Fee (BCH)
19/08/2018 167k 129k $0.65 $0.0033
15/11/2018 241k 688k $0.74 $0.0018
19/11/2018 268k 283k $0.79 $0.0007
20/11/2018 288k 329k $1.11 $0.0006
01/09/2019 285k 575k $0.68 $0.0007
Note: The peak fees for both blockchains were $52.00 for BTC and $0.90 (which is still bad for BCH. The difference is that BCH has taken steps to ensure that kind of transaction fee would never happen again, even faced with the same amount of traffic on the network.)

The Lightning Network (an off-chain solution) is a better solution to Bitcoin's current problem than increasing the block size (an on-chain solution), and has a much higher transactions per second capability than BCH.
Yes, the Lightning Network may have a higher transaction per second capability when compared to BCH, but it comes at a cost: centralization.
The aim of Bitcoin was to make a peer-to-peer electronic cash system with a high transaction per second capability, but it also is supposed to have 3 distinct properties to it. Bitcoin should also be:
  1. Cheap (fees should be negligible, no matter how low the transaction amount)
  2. Decentralized
  3. Secure
When you take away any one of these characteristics, it becomes A LOT easier to make a currency with a higher transaction input capability, but it ignores the goal of what Bitcoin is supposed to be. For example, if you have a system of cash that is:

Cheap and secure, but not decentralized:
XRP (Ripple)
Credit Cards
Paypal
Lightning Network

Cheap and decentralized, but not secure:
LTC (Litecoin)
(DOGE) Dogecoin
Plenty of other low-use altcoins

Secure and Decentralized, but not cheap:
BTC (Bitcoin)
XMR (Monero)

BCH manages to have all 3 characteristics, all while having a transaction capability of more than 200 transactions per second. Not to mention that setting up a node on the Lightning Network is a complicated, tedious, and painful process to go through, just to put your fund somewhere where they aren't safe (you risk losing your funds pretty easily, especially if you're an everyday person who doesn't have much knowledge when it comes to technology). Not only is this the case, but eventually the funds from the Lightning Network will have to be settled on the blockchain, and when adoption increases, the fees will increase as well, meaning that you will be charged a ridiculously high amount for withdrawing your own money.
To add to this, nodes that are run by people with more resources will eventually become Lightning Hubs, meaning that they are the only few who you can go through to send a transaction to whoever you want. This makes Lightning Hubs the new intermediaries for financial transactions. Does this all sound familiar? It is literally banking right now, but with the name 'Bitcoin' slapped on top of it.

Anyway, these are all the arguments I have heard from BTC maximalists. If you have any more arguments, feel free to comment them below, and I'm willing to change my mind if you make a good point.
submitted by 1MightBeAPenguin to btc [link] [comments]

06-16 12:55 - 'boss linux' (self.linux) by /u/bossdevelopers removed from /r/linux within 437-447min

'''
-BOSS PROJECT: Standing for Blockchain Operative System Series is a new Linux distribution based on ubuntu core with important changes, highly improved security and the default incorporation of blockchain services and support for cryptocurrencies.We have modified the original standards to transform it into a very useful tool for the entire bitcoin community consisting of an interesting combination of security, manageability, speed and performance. It can be used on any x64 X86 machine simply after installation.
.-BLOCKCHAIN FULLY DEDICATED: It has been more than a decade since the physical birth of cryptocurrencies, although the idea is over 50 years old. The future will undoubtedly be governed by blockchain systems and governments, banks and corporations are already taking positions in this regard. BOSS is not far behind. Now it is possible to mine even if it has not been done previously. For even more in-depth development of the blockchain applications included in BOSS operating systems, you have your own version of bitcoin PoW PoS mining: BitcoinBOSS. Our own blockchain that is enhanced with BOSS token erc20.
-BOSS SECURITY & PRIVACY FEATURES: A weak point of easy access for hacker attacks, such as automatic updates, has been modified so that the user can carry out his updates when he deems necessary and under monitoring. The elevated privileges allow you not only to modify the system, they also allow you to quickly act on files that are prohibited from accessing other operating systems. BOSS has installed active-passive security measures
-MAC ADDRESS DEFAULT SPOOFING: MAC address Spoofing privacy + from BOSS. Every time you log in to your BOSS computer, you are doing so with a different MAC address. Privacy thus reaches its highest degrees by making MAC-TRACK impossible
-LIGHTWEIGHT RECORD: BOSS has achieved maximum performance in a really small space. BOSS takes up very little space and can be downloaded via torrent or direct download through our mirrors. BOSS has concentrated a large operating system in a super small space of less than 1 GB, which puts us at the forefront among the lightest and safest distributions as leaders in relation to gb-installed applications.
-INSTALLATION PROCESS: BOSS installation is simple and guided using the ubiquity installer and depending on the performance of your system it can take between 15-30 minutes in normal circumstances. Download BOSS now and enjoy a high level of performance, security and privacy in an enviable small space. BOSS can be tested after installation, fully or partially installed on your system, together with windows or your favorite operating system.
.-POWERFUL RECOVERY TOOL: BOSS is an excellent file recovery tool. The combination of BOSS tools and its elevated privileges allow you to access areas hidden or inaccessible. Simply use BOSS live to freely rescue files from the laptop where the BOSS USB is inserted. Recover Bitcoin paraphrase or .DAT files easier and faster than other recovery programs simply by acceding to the file system where BOSS usb is inserted.
-STABLE RELEASES: BOSS V01-LTS Available now for download at sourceforge.
[**[link]2
FEATURING
-UNITY DESKTOP-BRAVE BROWSER-ATOMIC WALLET-COMMON UTILITIES-ELEVATED PRIVILEGES ENABLED.-MAC ADDRESS SPOOFING-FILE SYSTEM RECOVERY TOOL
-WE DELIVER BOSS: Using BOSS as removable OS is recommended if you do not want to install the system. For this our team recommends the use of persistent USB where your session is recorded and ready for the next login, find everything as you left it. BOSS makes available to its users the delivery of these persistent USB devices worldwide via regular mail or messaging. The flat rate of our installation on the USB and shipping to the user is USD 20 to which we must add the shipping costs in the options selected by the user. Please check with our team to process your shipment while this process is automated on our website. Order now your BOSS or a even more customized BOSS with your company requirements, logo etc. We deliver in CD, USB or SD card in your selected size from minimal 4GB, however 16GB and above are recommended.
[link]3
[link]4

[link]5
'''
boss linux
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: bossdevelopers
1: *ourcef*r*e.**t/proj*cts/*oss-min*mi*al*ed**ion/ 2: sourceforge.net/pr*j*cts*****-mi*im**al-editio****]^*1 3: pr*vie*.*edd.it/2j0i*g*tk755*.p*g*wid*h*1*00&form*t*png&**uto*w**p*a*p;s=57745a79590667**059****948ab*84e*1*693*7 4: *revi*w.red*.it*9l8yh7ag*7551*png?wi*th=160*&a*p;fo*m**=png*amp;a*to=***p&s=acd*6e9**8d2*a**4d*b*14737cf**72**dcc2*5 5: pr**ie**re*d.it*3*qyxtw*k755*.*ng?wid**=*600*amp**ormat=p*g&am*;au*o=webp&am*;s=02b*905*4cb**f770b77*13a3*6**90fc*6*0d3b
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Is u/luke-jr right in advocating for a smaller block size??

A few things to consider:
Making blocks smaller would make block space more scarce thus causing fees to rise (and compensate for lower block subsidy), while at the same time allow the blockchain to grow at a slower pace and allow household users to (continue to) run full nodes on existing hardware without having to upgrade or abandon the network.
submitted by modern_life_blues to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: SPV security

There’s often a tension in the crypto world between security and convenience. That trade-off is unacceptable if we want these technologies to be widely used. Here’s how Ergo addresses one common and very important issue.
We all know that the most secure way to use Bitcoin, or any crypto, is to download a copy of the blockchain and run a full node yourself. That way, every time you or anyone else makes a transaction, your client checks the blockchain to ensure it’s valid. You don’t have to trust anyone else.
A full Bitcoin node checks all the blocks in the blockchain (using headers) and makes sure there are no fraudulent transactions. It’s a very secure way of using crypto – but there’s a problem. It requires significant bandwidth, storage and processing power. That kind of commodity hardware is expensive, and using a full node to validate and make transactions is in any case unsuitable for mobile devices. This is particularly true for Bitcoin, where the blockchain is over 270 GB and counting.
SPV
Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) is designed to address this problem, as described in the Bitcoin white paper:
Satoshi notes that this is not a perfect solution, and is vulnerable to an attacker overpowering the network and fooling SPV users.
Moreover, while SPV mode is intended for resource-limited devices, even this ‘lite’ approach is not always feasible. Ethereum’s headers alone total around 5 GB to download. Thus Ethereum mobile clients do not validate chain validity and so blindly have to trust third parties.
There are proposals to reduce the requirements for SPV mode by checking just a few random headers, instead of all of them. But it’s hard to do that securely.
Efficient SPV
Several years have been spent researching and developing secure protocols that allow for efficient SPV clients. The two best-known and most reliable protocols are NiPoPoWs and FlyClient.
Ergo implements NiPoPoWs, or Non-interactive Proof-of-Proof-of-Work. This technology can be explored in full on this dedicated website: https://nipopows.com:
This enables us to build a mobile SPV client that requires around just 100KB of block headers to be downloaded.
A super-efficient Ergo wallet with SPV security is in development, so stay tuned for more updates!
Share post:
Facebook
Twitter
Ergoplatform.org
submitted by kushti to ergoplatformorg [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: SPV security

There’s often a tension in the crypto world between security and convenience. That trade-off is unacceptable if we want these technologies to be widely used. Here’s how Ergo addresses one common and very important issue.
We all know that the most secure way to use Bitcoin, or any crypto, is to download a copy of the blockchain and run a full node yourself. That way, every time you or anyone else makes a transaction, your client checks the blockchain to ensure it’s valid. You don’t have to trust anyone else.
A full Bitcoin node checks all the blocks in the blockchain (using headers) and makes sure there are no fraudulent transactions. It’s a very secure way of using crypto – but there’s a problem. It requires significant bandwidth, storage and processing power. That kind of commodity hardware is expensive, and using a full node to validate and make transactions is in any case unsuitable for mobile devices. This is particularly true for Bitcoin, where the blockchain is over 270 GB and counting.
SPV
Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) is designed to address this problem, as described in the Bitcoin white paper:
Satoshi notes that this is not a perfect solution, and is vulnerable to an attacker overpowering the network and fooling SPV users.
Moreover, while SPV mode is intended for resource-limited devices, even this ‘lite’ approach is not always feasible. Ethereum’s headers alone total around 5 GB to download. Thus Ethereum mobile clients do not validate chain validity and so blindly have to trust third parties.
There are proposals to reduce the requirements for SPV mode by checking just a few random headers, instead of all of them. But it’s hard to do that securely.
Efficient SPV
Several years have been spent researching and developing secure protocols that allow for efficient SPV clients. The two best-known and most reliable protocols are NiPoPoWs and FlyClient.
Ergo implements NiPoPoWs, or Non-interactive Proof-of-Proof-of-Work. This technology can be explored in full on this dedicated website: https://nipopows.com:
This enables us to build a mobile SPV client that requires around just 100KB of block headers to be downloaded.
A super-efficient Ergo wallet with SPV security is in development, so stay tuned for more updates!
submitted by eleanorcwhite to btc [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: SPV security

There’s often a tension in the crypto world between security and convenience. That trade-off is unacceptable if we want these technologies to be widely used. Here’s how Ergo addresses one common and very important issue.
We all know that the most secure way to use Bitcoin, or any crypto, is to download a copy of the blockchain and run a full node yourself. That way, every time you or anyone else makes a transaction, your client checks the blockchain to ensure it’s valid. You don’t have to trust anyone else.
A full Bitcoin node checks all the blocks in the blockchain (using headers) and makes sure there are no fraudulent transactions. It’s a very secure way of using crypto – but there’s a problem. It requires significant bandwidth, storage and processing power. That kind of commodity hardware is expensive, and using a full node to validate and make transactions is in any case unsuitable for mobile devices. This is particularly true for Bitcoin, where the blockchain is over 270 GB and counting.
SPV
Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) is designed to address this problem, as described in the Bitcoin white paper:
Satoshi notes that this is not a perfect solution, and is vulnerable to an attacker overpowering the network and fooling SPV users.
Moreover, while SPV mode is intended for resource-limited devices, even this ‘lite’ approach is not always feasible. Ethereum’s headers alone total around 5 GB to download. Thus Ethereum mobile clients do not validate chain validity and so blindly have to trust third parties.
There are proposals to reduce the requirements for SPV mode by checking just a few random headers, instead of all of them. But it’s hard to do that securely.
Efficient SPV
Several years have been spent researching and developing secure protocols that allow for efficient SPV clients. The two best-known and most reliable protocols are NiPoPoWs and FlyClient.
Ergo implements NiPoPoWs, or Non-interactive Proof-of-Proof-of-Work. This technology can be explored in full on this dedicated website: https://nipopows.com:
This enables us to build a mobile SPV client that requires around just 100KB of block headers to be downloaded.
A super-efficient Ergo wallet with SPV security is in development, so stay tuned for more updates!
submitted by eleanorcwhite to btc [link] [comments]

Current node implementation, regular quad-core VPS, gigabyte blocks

This is pretty cool. I'm syncing the BCH blockchain using BCHD on a regular ~$30/month quad-core VPS (rented virtual server):
Processed 169 blocks in 10.08s (56405 transactions Processed 153 blocks in 10.06s (63754 transactions Processed 181 blocks in 10.04s (56514 transactions 
So, a regular current generation VPS for $30/m can process ~50000 transactions per 10 seconds, which is about 5000 transactions per second.
This block from today was 1758 transactions, 625031 bytes in size.
That means that as far as CPU processing goes we can process blocks of the size of 625031/1758*5000*600/1024/1024/1024 ~ 1 GB...
...on current generation commodity hardware... today... no Moore's law required... 5000 transactions per second... gigabyte blocks.
Blows my mind.
(Of course, I'm not implying we're ready for gigabyte blocks today, but seeing this makes me think that the idea of gigabyte blocks in some near future is not crazy at all)
UPDATE Out of curiosity I've tried Flowee the Hub on the same machine.. It's crazy!
15:24:00 [1001] ... height=139000 tx=1176784 15:24:30 [1001] ... height=151000 tx=1764047 
It has processed (1764047-1176784)=587 263 transactions in 30 seconds, that's nearly 20 000 transactions per second or 4 GB blocks
Note: Flowee the Hub was running without an indexer, while BCHD was running with an indexer (building an index of transactions and addresses), so it's not a direct comparison, just my curiosity. It's totally possible that bchd without an indexer would run as fast.
submitted by readcash to btc [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: SPV security

There’s often a tension in the crypto world between security and convenience. That trade-off is unacceptable if we want these technologies to be widely used. Here’s how Ergo addresses one common and very important issue.
We all know that the most secure way to use Bitcoin, or any crypto, is to download a copy of the blockchain and run a full node yourself. That way, every time you or anyone else makes a transaction, your client checks the blockchain to ensure it’s valid. You don’t have to trust anyone else.
A full Bitcoin node checks all the blocks in the blockchain (using headers) and makes sure there are no fraudulent transactions. It’s a very secure way of using crypto – but there’s a problem. It requires significant bandwidth, storage and processing power. That kind of commodity hardware is expensive, and using a full node to validate and make transactions is in any case unsuitable for mobile devices. This is particularly true for Bitcoin, where the blockchain is over 270 GB and counting.
SPV
Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) is designed to address this problem, as described in the Bitcoin white paper:
Satoshi notes that this is not a perfect solution, and is vulnerable to an attacker overpowering the network and fooling SPV users.
Moreover, while SPV mode is intended for resource-limited devices, even this ‘lite’ approach is not always feasible. Ethereum’s headers alone total around 5 GB to download. Thus Ethereum mobile clients do not validate chain validity and so blindly have to trust third parties.
There are proposals to reduce the requirements for SPV mode by checking just a few random headers, instead of all of them. But it’s hard to do that securely.
Efficient SPV
Several years have been spent researching and developing secure protocols that allow for efficient SPV clients. The two best-known and most reliable protocols are NiPoPoWs and FlyClient.
Ergo implements NiPoPoWs, or Non-interactive Proof-of-Proof-of-Work. This technology can be explored in full on this dedicated website: https://nipopows.com:
This enables us to build a mobile SPV client that requires around just 100KB of block headers to be downloaded.
A super-efficient Ergo wallet with SPV security is in development, so stay tuned for more updates!
submitted by eleanorcwhite to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: SPV security

There’s often a tension in the crypto world between security and convenience. That trade-off is unacceptable if we want these technologies to be widely used. Here’s how Ergo addresses one common and very important issue.
We all know that the most secure way to use Bitcoin, or any crypto, is to download a copy of the blockchain and run a full node yourself. That way, every time you or anyone else makes a transaction, your client checks the blockchain to ensure it’s valid. You don’t have to trust anyone else.
A full Bitcoin node checks all the blocks in the blockchain (using headers) and makes sure there are no fraudulent transactions. It’s a very secure way of using crypto – but there’s a problem. It requires significant bandwidth, storage and processing power. That kind of commodity hardware is expensive, and using a full node to validate and make transactions is in any case unsuitable for mobile devices. This is particularly true for Bitcoin, where the blockchain is over 270 GB and counting.
SPV
Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) is designed to address this problem, as described in the Bitcoin white paper:
Satoshi notes that this is not a perfect solution, and is vulnerable to an attacker overpowering the network and fooling SPV users.
Moreover, while SPV mode is intended for resource-limited devices, even this ‘lite’ approach is not always feasible. Ethereum’s headers alone total around 5 GB to download. Thus Ethereum mobile clients do not validate chain validity and so blindly have to trust third parties.
There are proposals to reduce the requirements for SPV mode by checking just a few random headers, instead of all of them. But it’s hard to do that securely.
Efficient SPV
Several years have been spent researching and developing secure protocols that allow for efficient SPV clients. The two best-known and most reliable protocols are NiPoPoWs and FlyClient.
Ergo implements NiPoPoWs, or Non-interactive Proof-of-Proof-of-Work. This technology can be explored in full on this dedicated website: https://nipopows.com:
This enables us to build a mobile SPV client that requires around just 100KB of block headers to be downloaded.
A super-efficient Ergo wallet with SPV security is in development, so stay tuned for more updates!
submitted by eleanorcwhite to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

Doing the Math on the S4E10 eCoin Transaction...

In this week's Mr Robot episode, Darlene sits on a park bench with Dom, and distributes the money she stole from the Deus Group to everybody, evenly. I timed the transaction as it happened in the show. It was 24 seconds, between her hitting return and seeing the following message on her screen: "*Transfers Complete. All Wallets Updated*" This processing time includes a message that says, "cleaning coins through crypto tumbler". It took 1 minute and 16 seconds for the transaction to tumble, process, and for the recipients to begin to get notices that they received money in their accounts.
If you have worked with bitcoin, you know that cryptocurrency does not work like this. Transferring money is a slow and sometimes expensive process, as transaction fees eat into every transaction. I know that eCoin isn't necissarily bitcoin, because it's controlled by eCorp, but it's fun to think about what happens if eCoin works like bitcoin does today...
How much money was transferred?
According to Forbes, the most wealthy people in the world are worth a combined $8.7 trillion, or $2.7 trillion. It depends on which Forbes list you are looking at. On the actual Forbes web site, they say the richest people in the world are worth $8.7 trillion, but they do not state how many of the richest people in the world are worth that much. If you look at sites like Victor Media, they publish a table of the 100 most wealthy people, and say they got the list from Forbes. They probably did purchase the list from Forbes. If I put the Victor Media list into excel, and add all the values in the net worth column, that number comes out to $2.7 trillion. So Forbes might be talking about a list that is more than the top 100 people, and sell the top 100 people list to sites like Victor Media? I don't know.
Either way, we are talking about somewhere between $2.7 and $8.7 trillion.
How many people did the money go to?
That's complicated. There was no global montage showing people celebrating all over the world (which I found a little surprising, even though I still love how this episode was shot). The only indication of a truly global transfer, to every individual in the world, is a TV screen in the airport saying that, "Global eCoin Payout... Deus group collapses as wealth spreads around the world." So Darlene could have sent the money to every individual with an eCoin wallet in the world, or she could be sending them to every American, or to everybody in the developed world. I doubt the average rice farmer in Indonesia is really using eCoin, but it's possible. If she only sent it to every American, our wealth tends to spread around the globe pretty fast, so that's possible, too.
Lets work with World Bank population numbers for all three of these possibilities...
World Population: 7.6 billion people
Global North (AKA the developed world): 1.24 billion people
United States: 327 million people
So we have 6 possibilities for how much money was sent to each person...
People Total Money Money Per Capita Satoshis
7.6 billion $2.7 trillion $355.53 4,739,471
1.21 billion $2.7 trillion $2230.82 29,741,808
327 million $2.7 trillion $8252.65 110,079,512
7.6 billion $8.7 trillion $1145.60 15,279,332
1.21 billion $8.7 trillion $7188.22 95,883,716
327 million $8.7 trillion $26591.89 355,275,242
How much would this transaction cost with bitcoin?
Aside from the fact that eCoin probably functions differently than bitcoin, this is a very complex question. I'm definitely not as sure about these numbers as the other numbers I have, but I'll do my best to come up with useful, realistic numbers. If you are more familiar with the block chain than me, please correct me.
The coins were taken from 100 different Deus Group accounts. Lets say each transaction launders through a bitcoin tumbler 1,000 times. I'm going to ignore transaction fees for the tumbling process, because I don't fully understand the details of tumbling, but 1,000 times seems reasonable to me.
That means that there are 100 x 1,000 = 10,000 inputs in any transaction that spends all the money from the Deus group.
For outputs... for simplicity's sake, I will make the conservative assumption that everybody has one eCoin wallet. That means somewhere between 327 million and 7.6 billion outputs. Accounting for everybody having multiple wallets would make the transaction even bigger, but this is a good starting point to get a feel for what this transaction would look like, in the real world.
How long will this transaction take to process?
There is a bidding process and a bit of politics involved in processing a cryptocurrency transaction. For simplicity, I'll assume we bid enough that this transaction gets priority treatment from the bitcoin miners.
According to blockchain.com, transactions happen on the block chain at a rate of roughly 3.5 transactions per second. At that rate, the tumbling would take roughly 48 minutes, rather than the few seconds it took for Darlene to tumble this money.
According to buybitcoinworldwide.com's fee calculator, here are the transaction sizes, the transaction fees involved (in US Dollars), and the time it would take at 3.5 transactions per second...
Inputs Outputs Size Cost Time
10,000 7.6 billion 240.4737 Gb $38,884,280.55 68.85 years
10,000 1.21 billion 38.32587 Gb $6,192,571.09 10.96 years
10,000 327 million 10.35582 Gb $1,673,260.46 2.96 years
So this transaction would take years to go through, and it pays Evil Corp somewhere between $1.6 and $38 million. In the real world, most of that money would go to Chinese bitcoin miners.
What would the impact be?
A one time windfall of $327 per capita would probably not trigger hyperinflation in America. The largest payout we calculated was $26.5k, and I doubt that would cause hyperinflation, either. Regular inflation? Yes. Hyperinflation? Probably not.
It might lead to hyperinflation in other countries, though, because of differences in purchasing power.
Purchasing power parity is a number that describes the differences in the cost of goods and services around the world. $5 in America will buy you a big mac, but if you go to, say, Indonesia, you can buy a lot more with that $5, because Indonesia is full of people who make something like 25 cents a week.
OECD.org publishes PPP (purchasing power parity) numbers for countries all around the world. If you want to know how far your dollar will stretch, on average, in a foreign country, consult this list. If you have $100 in America, you can expect it to be worth $100 worth of American goods and services, so on the OECD table, it has a PPP of 1.0. If you take that $100 to, say, the UK, where the PPP is 0.7, you can expect that $100 to be worth $70 worth of goods and services. If you take that $100 to Australia, where the PPP is 1.48, you can expect that $100 to buy roughly $148 worth of goods and services.
If Elliot and Darlene were genius economists, I might expect them to account for PPP in their payout. They would have to be geniuses, to predict what PPP is doing after events like the 5/9 hack, because their best data would be out of date, so they would have to use all kinds of fancy regressions and tricks to figure out how that would work in such a volatile world economy. They definitely aren't economists, though, so I'll assume they sent the same nominal amount to everybody.
So what's the range on how much purchasing power this transaction gives people around the world? In 2018, the highest PPP number on the OECD list is Indonesia, with a PPP of 4,245.613140. The lowest PPP on the list is Lithuania, with a PPP of 0.457582. Lets see how this shakes out in each of these countries...
$ Per Capita Lithuania (0.46) Indonesia (4,245.61)
$355.53 $162.68 $1,509,442.84
$2,230.82 $1,020.78 $9,471,198.70
$8,252.65 $3,776.26 $35,037,559.28
$1,145.60 $524.20 $4,863,774.41
$7,188.22 $3,289.20 $30,518,401.29
$26,591.89 $12,167.97 $112,898,877.60
What would this cause? People might predict a lot of different things. The Yang gang people probably strong opinions on this. I have a bachelor's degree in economics, so I believe I can predict that most mainstream economists would predict the following...
In Lithuania, when they get a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, they probably raise a pint to F Society, then put the rest towards a house or car payment, or buy themselves something nice. Minor inflation would happen, probably starting at the pubs, and that would worry financial types, but it would not cause any kind of major economic catastrophe.
In Indonesia, where everybody becomes an asset millionaire overnight, they will probably have hyperinflation, mass social upheaval, and violence.
In conclusion...
TL;DR: What Darlene did last night with eCoin isn't actually possible with bitcoin, and the impact in America might not be as great as you think, but the impact would be much bigger in poorer parts of the world.
submitted by bubblesort to MrRobot [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: SPV security

There’s often a tension in the crypto world between security and convenience. That trade-off is unacceptable if we want these technologies to be widely used. Here’s how Ergo addresses one common and very important issue.
We all know that the most secure way to use Bitcoin, or any crypto, is to download a copy of the blockchain and run a full node yourself. That way, every time you or anyone else makes a transaction, your client checks the blockchain to ensure it’s valid. You don’t have to trust anyone else.
A full Bitcoin node checks all the blocks in the blockchain (using headers) and makes sure there are no fraudulent transactions. It’s a very secure way of using crypto – but there’s a problem. It requires significant bandwidth, storage and processing power. That kind of commodity hardware is expensive, and using a full node to validate and make transactions is in any case unsuitable for mobile devices. This is particularly true for Bitcoin, where the blockchain is over 270 GB and counting.

SPV

Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) is designed to address this problem, as described in the Bitcoin white paper:
Satoshi notes that this is not a perfect solution, and is vulnerable to an attacker overpowering the network and fooling SPV users.
Moreover, while SPV mode is intended for resource-limited devices, even this ‘lite’ approach is not always feasible. Ethereum’s headers alone total around 5 GB to download. Thus Ethereum mobile clients do not validate chain validity and so blindly have to trust third parties.
There are proposals to reduce the requirements for SPV mode by checking just a few random headers, instead of all of them. But it’s hard to do that securely.

Efficient SPV

Several years have been spent researching and developing secure protocols that allow for efficient SPV clients. The two best-known and most reliable protocols are NiPoPoWs and FlyClient.
Ergo implements NiPoPoWs, or Non-interactive Proof-of-Proof-of-Work. This technology can be explored in full on this dedicated website: https://nipopows.com:
This enables us to build a mobile SPV client that requires around just 100KB of block headers to be downloaded.
A super-efficient Ergo wallet with SPV security is in development, so stay tuned for more updates!
submitted by Guilty_Pea to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

Building Ergo: SPV security

There’s often a tension in the crypto world between security and convenience. That trade-off is unacceptable if we want these technologies to be widely used. Here’s how Ergo addresses one common and very important issue.
We all know that the most secure way to use Bitcoin, or any crypto, is to download a copy of the blockchain and run a full node yourself. That way, every time you or anyone else makes a transaction, your client checks the blockchain to ensure it’s valid. You don’t have to trust anyone else.
A full Bitcoin node checks all the blocks in the blockchain (using headers) and makes sure there are no fraudulent transactions. It’s a very secure way of using crypto – but there’s a problem. It requires significant bandwidth, storage and processing power. That kind of commodity hardware is expensive, and using a full node to validate and make transactions is in any case unsuitable for mobile devices. This is particularly true for Bitcoin, where the blockchain is over 270 GB and counting.
SPV
Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) is designed to address this problem, as described in the Bitcoin white paper:
Satoshi notes that this is not a perfect solution, and is vulnerable to an attacker overpowering the network and fooling SPV users.
Moreover, while SPV mode is intended for resource-limited devices, even this ‘lite’ approach is not always feasible. Ethereum’s headers alone total around 5 GB to download. Thus Ethereum mobile clients do not validate chain validity and so blindly have to trust third parties.
There are proposals to reduce the requirements for SPV mode by checking just a few random headers, instead of all of them. But it’s hard to do that securely.
Efficient SPV
Several years have been spent researching and developing secure protocols that allow for efficient SPV clients. The two best-known and most reliable protocols are NiPoPoWs and FlyClient.
Ergo implements NiPoPoWs, or Non-interactive Proof-of-Proof-of-Work. This technology can be explored in full on this dedicated website: https://nipopows.com:
This enables us to build a mobile SPV client that requires around just 100KB of block headers to be downloaded.
A super-efficient Ergo wallet with SPV security is in development, so stay tuned for more updates!
submitted by Guilty_Pea to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Forks Compared: BTC, BCH, BSV, & BSC

Bitcoin Forks Compared: BTC, BCH, BSV, & BSC

https://preview.redd.it/kcpsab012oq41.jpg?width=1016&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e1865cb3c1d758e7f87b9a1ff602cffa51db3ce4

Written by Steven M.

To help understand the upcoming Bitcoin SC hard fork, this article will compare the hard forks for Bitcoin Cash (ABC) and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, review the technical approach and parameters for these forks, and compare with Bitcoin SC’s approach.

Intro to Hard Forks


Blockchain hard forks happen when protocol or consensus rules are updated in node software to produce blocks and transactions that are not compatible with non-updated versions of nodes. This is generally described as the software not being “backward compatible” which is a bit of a misnomer, since the new version nodes are compatible with older blocks and transactions, thus preserving the full history of a blockchain. Node software enforces the protocol change at a block height certain. What is incompatible after a hard fork is the blocks going forward. After a hard fork, the blockchain is split and exists as two blockchains with separate characteristics.

For “consensus” hard forks, where the community agrees on the updates to a blockchain, a single “official” new blockchain will continue after the hard fork, and perhaps a split chain for laggards who didn’t update in time. However, if there is developer support for both chains after a hard fork, and technology — business — community interest in supporting two versions of the blockchain, the hard fork will give two blockchains going forward.

This report compares three blockchain splits from hard forks which are shown schematically below.

https://preview.redd.it/oxk7fj852oq41.jpg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aa6b7dfa017cdaf621c653be747a7c7630f46639
This timeline shows the Bitcoin Cash split from Bitcoin was on August 1, 2017, the Bitcoin SV split from Bitcoin Cash on November 15, 2018, and Bitcoin SC will split from Bitcoin in the June timeframe at a block height TBD.

Next, consideration of some of the technical issues for these hard forks.

Block Size


Block size is an important parameter in blockchain configuration since it controls scaling for transaction capacity, transactions per second, and node requirements. Block size has been a contentious issue in the blockchain community and has been a motivating factor for past chain splits.

Table 1 - Block Size

Bitcoin launched with a 1.0 MB block size, and has retained this size although adjustments using block “weight” for SegWit transactions allow larger blocks. Bitcoin Cash launched with an initial block size of 8 MB, and hard forked in May 2018 to a size of 32 MB.

Bitcoin SV features very large blocks, launched with 128 MB, and implemented the Quasar protocol in July 2019 allowing blocks up to 2 GB.

Bitcoin SC will launch with 2.0 MB blocks and is scalable up to 32 MB size (plus the SegWit “weight” adjustment).

Another way to examine block size and TPS is to see actual usage of blocks on-chain. Blockchains are occasionally overloaded, but most run at a lesser capacity than full blocks.

getchaintxstats give some statistics for the blockchain capacity usage over the past 4,320 blocks or 30 days. Table 2 gives transactions during the last 30 days (window_tx_count) and TPS (txrate) and shows an actual usage rate over the last month of 3.4 TPS for Bitcoin, 0.5 TPS for Bitcoin Cash and 6.3 TPS for Bitcoin SV.


Table 2 - getchainxstats

The commonly used value for Bitcoin TPS is 4, implying a transaction size of 417 bytes, and using SegWit transactions would give higher throughput. Bitcoin SC with 2 MB block size would give 2x Bitcoin TPS.

Block Height Delta

As you know, difficulty is adjusted every 2,016 blocks (~ 2 weeks) to maintain the 10-minute block spacing. In a perfect world, after splitting from the Bitcoin blockchain, the split chains would run block height roughly in sync with Bitcoin block height. However, various tweaks attempting to improve difficulty adjustment can decouple block height on the split chains.

By definition, at the hard fork block height, the main chain and split chain are exactly in sync. There are minimal practical issues with these different block heights, although it is nice when software does what you are expecting for block spacing. Perhaps the only implication for different block heights is that halvings will occur at different times, so more for reference, the approximate block height offsets are shown below.


Table 3 - Block Height Offset

Again, the practical implication of these block height offsets is that Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV will reach their halvings a little over a month earlier than Bitcoin.

Bitcoin SC may use a more frequent and gentler difficulty adjustment algo, effectively tracking closer to the Bitcoin block height.

Replay Attacks


Since the addresses, private keys and coins are otherwise identical between Bitcoin and a forked chain, developers of the new split chain can add replay protection. Without replay protection, a signed transaction from one chain will validate and execute on the split chain in a “replay attack”, as Ethereum discovered in 2016.

Bitcoin Cash added replay protection in their hard fork by adding a marker so that signatures wouldn’t match between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash (two-way replay protection). Bitcoin SV did not initially add replay protection (for philosophical reasons). Bitcoin SC will add replay protection using a modified signature similar to Bitcoin Cash.

Opcodes and Bytecodes


Bitcoin and its forks use script opcodes for basic programming operations executed on a stack. By design, script has limited capability for safety and of the ~100 opcodes available, relatively few are used for normal transactions (pay2pubkeyhash, multi-sig, etc.).

Table 4 - Opcodes

There is a slight variation in opcodes between these projects. Table 4 shows the count in current release GetOpName() function. The Bitcoin SV count includes 16 opcodes (OP_1 — OP16) for pushing onto the stack but otherwise is in the same size range as Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.

Bitcoin SC, forked from Bitcoin v0.19, will include additional opcodes for interfacing with the smart contract layer, which will offer Turing-complete on-chain smart contract execution with ~100 bytecodes (e.g., a Constantinople-class virtual machine). In contrast to Bitcoin and these other forks, Bitcoin SC is a fully programmable blockchain, capable of running on-chain applications such as decentralized exchanges and DeFi solutions.

More info and sign your support for Bitcoin SC https://bsc.net/


Another kind of hard fork: American Gothic, Grant Wood, 1930
submitted by bitcoinSCofficial to BitcoinSCofficial [link] [comments]

Script Blockchain Hack - 5 BTC - 2020 How to Calculate Bitcoin Transaction Size 4K Bitcoin Seamless Loop with Alpha Matte  Motion Graphics - Envato elements Explained Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Technology & Twitter hack  Marathi  Dheera Bitcoin Documentary Crypto Currencies Bitcoins Blockchain Digital Currency

1. Blockchain is not a distributed computing system. Blockchain is a network that relies on nodes to function properly. The quality of the nodes determines the quality of the blockchain. For example, Bitcoin’s blockchain is strong and incentivizes the nodes to participate in the network. Blockchain Size (MB) The total size of the blockchain minus database indexes in megabytes. 30 Days 60 Days 180 Days 1 Year 3 Years All Time Raw Values 7 Day Average 30 Day Average The size of the Bitcoin blockchain has experienced consistently high levels of growth since its creation, reaching approximately 269.82 gigabytes in size as of the end of March 2020. Min est. size: ~1,794 GB (~1,503 GB for coinbase-only txs) Avg est. size: ~2,64 TB Max est. size: ~6,6 TB Note: The blockchain is currently ~36,5 GB so the above min value is only the theoretical limit, we already know that the blockchain size will be larger than today's ~36,5 GB. Blockchain has emerged as a decentralized and distributed framework that enables tamper-resilience and, thus, practical immutability for stored data. This immutability property is important in scenarios where auditability is desired, such as in maintaining access logs for sensitive healthcare and biomedical data. However, the underlying data structure of blockchain, by default, does not

[index] [9486] [14557] [28697] [24152] [28495] [22355] [3481] [30688] [13619] [4350]

Script Blockchain Hack - 5 BTC - 2020

How To Pay Off Your Mortgage Fast Using Velocity Banking How To Pay Off Your Mortgage In 5-7 Years - Duration: 41:34. Think Wealthy with Mike Adams 751,087 views I am a Cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, and Blockchain article writing specialist and doing the job of Forex Technical Analyst and Financial writing for several brokers/websites/blogs since 2010. - https ... Download 4K Bitcoin Seamless Loop with Alpha Matte - https://1.envato.market/c/1301690/346304/4662?u=https://elements.envato.com/4k-bitcoin-seamless-loop-wit... Every time we send a bitcoin transaction, we pay a fee relative to its size. Strangely, this has almost nothing to do with how much money is being sent -- the blockchain world just isn't that simple! What will you do if Blockchain size on Bitcoin Core software is more bigger and bigger in future? it will occupy a lot of your disk space, so we need to reduce the Blockchain size with prune ...

Flag Counter