I really still don't get miners. How hard is it to mine on a pool that is not one of the top 3? Two pools own >50% of the mining power and no one cares anymore? Is it so hard and unthinkable for a large mining operation to solo mine or join p2pool? /r/Bitcoin
freenode.net [13:47:03] The guide is divided into sections, each with a specific section of activity and a cause for why I should work on that area. [13:47:03] Those are still facts [13:47:08] So there is still a little more work to do. [13:47:15] I need to add all the pages to the wiki. [13:47:18] After that, I'll start putting more resources up, including some images and if I'm doing it right, some story sections. [13:47
freenode/ip.184.108.40.206) has joined #/cicada3302 [21:18] or uh, scribe great, wtf? [21:18] He's come into this room, perhaps from the dark house? So we should return the greeting? [21:18] (We can't go there. I don't think. He's been there before, but on a cloudy day.) [21:18] <@shecalledmepaul> no it's been such a while since youve heard anything that I don't think you'll remember [21:18] <@shecalledmepaul
freenode/ip.220.127.116.11) Quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) [10:47] how about talk about the XP drop rate in general? [10:47] also [10:47] <@dine909> wait wtf [10:47] <@dine909> X is 75% [10:47] <@dine909> of XP [10:47] i think you have to have very high level to get 95% in dungeons [10:47] <@dine909> yeah i guess [10:48] but yeah [10:48] maybe it has something
freenode/ip.18.104.22.168] has joined #/cicada3302 [01:45] and yes, we have /vaspool/cicada3302/daemon/rules also. anything is possible, we know that [01:45] not everything though [01:45] well, some of the entries do not exist [01:45] So this new detective in the thread goes by "ricardo75"? [01:46] Hi everyone, I am new here, but I'm quite convinced that whoever made this 2.
Hi Everyone, Over the past few weeks, I've seen some unhappy comments here on Reddit. I think one of the trends in those comments is that the development team is quiet here on Reddit and perhaps that’s a just observation. So I felt the need to organize some of my thoughts and lay them out for all of my Reddit friends (that’s assuming I still have some). So, if I were to believe some of the comments made here, Vertcoin is dead and buried. Developers are “in hiding”. I’m still active in our Discord almost daily and talk to many people there. I don’t feel that way in the slightest. I talk to fellow dev team members on a daily basis, and we’re progressing on the work we need to do right now, which is working on the security of our network. Trying to maintain a secure, pure, honest, decentralized peer-to-peer Proof of Work currency is hard. Yes, there are easy solutions to the most obvious problem: introduce checkpointing, notarization or even master nodes. The attack vector of 51% attacks could be removed easily. But is the Vertcoin we would be left with really something unique? When I joined this team, I learned about its goals. Its primary goal is a decentralized currency that tries to distribute the rewards of maintaining the ledger in as fair a manner as possible. Being able to begin and end your participation in consensus without permission, and using readily-available and affordable commodity hardware like a GPU. I don’t think it’s easy to achieve, and the longer I’m part of this team and trying to figure this out, the harder it seems to become. But allowing consensus to be dominated by specialized, hard to acquire hardware - or entrusting the consensus partly or entirely to privileged consortia of nodes would be the true death of this project. I honestly think that it’s worth it to continue down this road. And I will keep doing that because I think it’s interesting and because I am happy to be working together with some very capable people that are a part of the Vertcoin team. I think we have a good vibe going (despite all the negative comments thrown our way), which shows in the fact that a lot of team members have been with us since long. I’ve been with these guys for nearly 2 years and I’m still one of the rookies. So first and foremost, our “Layer 1” has to be secure. Without that, there’s no point in building anything cool on top of it because it will break down. We temporarily removed ASICs and Nicehash dominance from our network by forking to Lyra2REv3, but we know this is no permanent solution. We have to figure out how we can best protect our network against specialized hardware and large pools of rented hash rate. This, to me, is our biggest challenge and our most prominent item to work on. To that effect, we’re actively working on a new Proof-of-Work algorithm dubbed Verthash, and have been doing so since last year. I expect this to materialize somewhere over the next 2 to 6 months. We are continuously making iterations on the design and have a proof-of-concept implementation in a Vertcoin Core build running on a forked testnet between our developers. We want to ensure its stability and that it does not interfere with any of the features currently available to Vertcoin users, like p2pool, pool mining in general, and SPV wallets like Electrum. Otherwise, we’ll have to keep iterating until it does. Once we’ve established that, and the design is final, we release a first testnet beta and all the source code to Verthash well before even planning a mainnet fork. We will make sure there is a GPU miner with that testnet release so everyone can try mining our new Proof-of-Work algorithm and see what kind of hash rate they can expect for their hardware. There’s actively being worked on this on a weekly basis. Some weeks more, some weeks less. Another part of securing the base layer is keeping up-to-date with upstream Bitcoin Core improvements. We are currently behind a tad, but one of our community members is actively trying to bring us up to date with the latest upstream improvements, and it’s great to see someone stepping up like that. This person is also actively being supported by dev team members to complete his task and is noticing and taking away roadblocks to make this process easier in the future. I think this is a great initiative and an example that if you want to contribute to the development of Vertcoin, you can. Lastly, there’s a bunch of other ideas we could work on. Since people haven’t heard about things in a while doesn’t mean they’re not still viable ideas (such as the Litbox concept, an updated, multi-platform One-click Miner, improved version of P2Pool, Vertcoin Assets, Stealth Transactions). In general, I think we have way more ideas than the capacity to implement them. If people at some point had the idea that these ideas were close to launching, I am sorry about that. I have never considered any of these to be release-imminent. There are two ways to deal with the misalignment of ideas and resources: either lower your expectations and be realistic about what can be achieved, or hire people to speed up execution. Since we don’t have the funds for the latter, we have to stick to the former. Literally, everyone involved in Vertcoin does this in their spare time, and they work on what they think is the most interesting, challenging, what they can learn from the most, etcetera. It’s both the beauty of volunteers, that work on something they’re passionate about - and not just because they get paid - and also its biggest pitfall: people that lose interest, life getting in the way, and projects stalling. We don’t have people we can dictate what to work on, that’s a reality we have to live with. So if you think: “these Vertcoin guys are a bunch of amateurs” - it’s because we are… at Vertcoin at least. Most of us have careers in fields very valuable to Vertcoin and bring in the knowledge that other projects have to spend an arm and a leg on. In conclusion, I very much disagree with the fact that this project would be dead. I agree that there is a greatly reduced community activity on Reddit, Discord and other channels. It’s obvious that the market valuation of Vertcoin is down a lot. But neither of those indicate the death of this project. As long as people are passionate about its goals and are actively trying to achieve them, this project will go on. It’s been around for over five years, and I don’t see any reason to doubt it will be around for plenty of time to come. Gert-Jaap Volunteer at Vertcoin
Vertcoin was created in 2014. It is a direct hedge against long term mining consensus centralization on the Bitcoin mining network. Vertcoin achieves its mining consensus solely through Graphics Cards as they are the most abundant / widely available consensus devices that produce a reasonable amount of hashrate. This is done using a mining algorithm that deliberately geared against devices like ASICs, FPGAs and CPUs (due to botnets) making them extremely inefficient. Consensus distribution over time is the most important aspect of a blockchain and should not be taken lightly. It is critical that you understand what blockchain specifications mean/do to fully understand Vertcoin.
When users of our network send each other Vertcoin, their transactions are secured by a process called mining. Miners will compose a so-called block out of the pending transactions, and need to perform a large number of computations called hashes in order to produce the Proof-of-Work. With this Proof-of-Work, the block is accepted by the network and the transactions in it become confirmed. Mining is essentially a race. Whoever finds a valid Proof-of-Work and gets the block propagated over more than half of the Vertcoin network first, wins this race and is allowed to reward themselves with the block reward. The block reward is how new Vertcoin come in circulation. This block reward started at 50 VTC when Vertcoin was launched, and halves every four years. The current block reward is 25 VTC. Vertcoin's One Click Miner: https://github.com/vertcoin-project/One-Click-Minereleases Learn more about mining here: https://vertcoin.org/mine/ Specification List: · Launch date: Jan 11, 2014 · Proof-Of-Work (Consensus Mechanism) · Total Supply: 84,000,000 Vertcoin · Preferred Consensus Device: GPU · Mining Algorithm: Lyra2REv3 (Made by Vertcoin) · Blocktime: 2.5 minutes · SegWit: Activated · Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm: Kimoto Gravity Well (Every Block) · Block Halving: 4 year interval · Initial Block Reward: 50 coins · Current Block Reward: 25 coin More spec information can be found here: https://vertcoin.org/specs-explained/
Why Does Vertcoin Use GPUs Then?
ASIC’s (Manufactuer Monopoly) If mining were just a spade sure, use the most powerful equipment which would be an ASIC. The problem is ASICs are not widely available, and just happen to be controlled by a monopoly in China. So, you want the most widely available tool that produces a fair amount of hashrate, which currently manifests itself as a Graphics Card. CPUs would be great too but unfortunately there are viruses that take over hundreds of thousands of computers called Botnets (they’re almost as bad as ASICs).
Mining In Pools
Because mining is a race, it’s difficult for an individual miner to acquire enough computational power to win this race solo. Therefore there’s a concept called pool-mining. With pool-mining, miners cooperate in finding the correct Proof-of-Work for the block, and share the block reward based on the work contributed. The amount of work contributed is measured in so-called shares. Finding the Proof-of-Work for a share is much easier than finding it for a block, and when the cooperating miners find the Proof-of-Work for the block, they distribute the reward based on the number of shares each miner found. Vertcoin always recommends using P2Pool to keep mining as decentralized as possible. How Do I Get Started? If you want to get started mining, check out the Mine Vertcoin page.
Vertcoin just forked to Lyra2REv3 and we are currently working on Verthash
Verthash is and was under development before we decided to hard fork to Lyra2REv3. While Verthash would’ve resulted in the same effect for ASICs (making them useless for mining Vertcoin), the timeline was incompatible with the desire to get rid of ASICs quickly. Verthash is still under development and tries to address the outsourcability problem. Verthash is an I/O bound algorithm that uses the blockchain data as input to the hashing algorithm. It therefore requires miners to have all the blockchain data available to them, which is currently about 4 GB of data. By making this mining data mandatory, it will become harder for auto profit switching miners — like the ones that rent out their GPU to Nicehash — because they will need to keep a full node running while mining other algorithms for the moment Verthash becomes more profitable — the data needs to be available immediately since updating it can take a while. Over the past month, we have successfully developed a first implementation of Verthash in the Vertcoin Core code base. Within the development team we have run a few nodes on Testnet to test the functionality — and everything seems to work properly. The next step is to build out the GPU miners for AMD and Nvidia. This is a NOETA at the moment, since we’re waiting on GPU developers which are in high demand. Once the miners are ready, we’ll be releasing the Vertcoin 0.15 beta that hardforks the testnet together with the miners for the community to have a testrun. Given the structural difference between Lyra2RE and Verthash, we’ll have to run the testnet for a longer period than we did with the Lyra2REv3 hard fork. We’ll have to make sure the system is reliable before hardforking our mainnet. So the timeline will be longer than with the Lyra2REv3 hard fork. Some people in the community have voiced concerns about the fact that Verthash development is not being done “out in the open”, i.e.: the code commits are not visible on Github. The main two reasons for us to keep our cards to our chest at this stage are: (1) only when the entire system including miners has been coded up can we be sure the system works, we don’t want to release preliminary stuff that doesn’t work or isn’t secure. Also (2) we don’t want to give hardware manufacturers or mining outsourcing platforms a head start on trying to defeat the mechanisms we’ve put in place.
A gentle reminder to everyone that no bull lasts forever. I can't reach into the future and say when or how much, but a correction will come, and it will come soon. It could be $600 -> $300, could be $2000 -> $1000, who knows. But you can be sure that there will be a correction, and the suppressed rage of Core diehards will come back and troll you with the intensity of a thousand suns. You've all seen how bitcoin works, we're (mostly) oldies who have seen shit in price volatility that violates human rights treaties. Expect it. Ignore the trolls, the shills, and the anguished screams of weak-handed newbies. Do what is good for bitcoin. Expand the economy. That is the only thing that has ever grown the very foundation of the price we enjoy now, and what separates valuable coins with a believing community versus pump-and-dump shitcoins. Run a Cash node, spend coins on merchants that accepts Cash (followed by a re-buy), push your favorite merchant to adopt the Cash chain. Give small amounts of coins to your friends and family to play with. Start services that take bitcoin (cash). Participate in efforts to expand functionality of the Cash chain (test/improve EC and Flextrans, for example). Considering starting a public pool (is there a P2Pool fork for Cash?) for Bitcoin Cash, I'll join with my meager 700GH. We're in this for the long term. Stay strong.
This post is a temporary resting place for FAQs while we wait for the release of VertDocs.
What is Vertcoin?
Vertcoin is a digital peer to peer currency focused on decentralization and ASIC resistance. Vertcoin is aiming to be easily accessible to the everyday user without extensive technical knowledge. Vertcoin has started to lower the barrier of entry with lots of video guides and the development of the One Click Miner (OCM).
Why does ASIC Resistance Matter?
ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) are dedicated mining devices that can only mine one algorithm. Coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin both made GPU mining obsolete when SHA-256 and Scrypt ASICs were created.
ASIC Resistance and How it Makes Vertcoin Decentralized
Vertcoin believes that ASIC resistance goes hand in hand with decentralization. ASICs are made by companies like Bitmain and almost all the original sellers of ASICs sell on a preorder basis. When pre ordering an ASIC you are buying from a limited batch that the ASIC company has produced. Often times the batch will not be fully filled and the ASIC company will often have left over ASICs. When the ASIC company has left over ASICs they will put them to work mining. Soon enough the ASIC company will have a very large amount of unsold ASICs that are mining and slowly the ASIC company starts to own a large part of the network’s hashrate. When an ASIC company(s) starts to own a large majority of the hashrate the network can become very centralized after a while. Having your network consist of a few large companies can be very dangerous as they could eventually get 51% hashing power and 51% attack your network, destabilizing the network. When your network is made out of a lot of smaller miners, like Vertcoin, it is much harder for your network to be 51% attacked, therefore increasing network security. By having centralized hashing power your coin effectively centralizing the network as the centralized hashing power can deny transactions and stop any activity they don’t want.
What Ways is Vertcoin Superior to Litecoin and Bitcoin?
Network Difficulty Adjustments with Kimoto Gravity Well
Vertcoin uses a difficulty adjustment called Kimoto Gravity Well which adjusts the difficulty every block, whereas Bitcoin and Litecoin’s difficulty changes every 2016 blocks. By adjusting the difficulty every block Vertcoin’s block time can stay consistent by adjusting for the fluctuation in network hash rate from hash rate renting and part time miners. If a large miner switches off Bitcoin or Litecoin mining the network could be slowed to a crawl until 2016 blocks are mined and the difficulty can change to adjust for the new network hash rate. We observed this happen to Bitcoin when Bitcoin Cash became more profitable than Bitcoin and Bitcoin’s network hash rate saw a steep fall off, slowing the network to a crawl. If this was to happen with Vertcoin the difficulty would adjust after 1 block was mined, allowing Vertcoin to always be profitable to mine.
Anyone can Meaningfully help Verify Transactions
In Proof-of-Work crypto currencies miners help secure the blockchain and get rewarded with the block reward. In ASIC mineable coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin you can’t meaningfully verify transactions unless you pay 1000-2000$ for a ASIC miner. When you mine with a CPU or GPU in a ASIC mineable coin you make no meaningful impact on the network. It is like trying to break concrete with a shovel while everyone else has a jackhammer.
Simple Upgrades Aren’t Held back by 1-2 Large Miners
In ASIC market people buy ASICs in batches in a preorder. With Bitcoin ASICs there is not enough demand for ASICs so the batch often doesn’t get sold out so now the manufacturer has spare ASICs. Now that the manufacturer has spare ASICs they will often start mining with them and eventually the ASIC company has one of the highest hash rates. If the ASIC company doesn’t want a certain upgrade to go through, for example SegWit, they can vote with their hash rate to hold back the upgrade forever or at least until people who want SegWit get more hash rate.
You Have a Say in Protocol Rules and Consensus
In Bitcoin you are a passive observer because you can only issue transactions and you have no part in the process after that. In Vertcoin you can be apart of the process for deciding the ordering of transactions and deciding what transactions get into blocks.
Block Rewards and Transaction Fees are Distributed Evenly
In Bitcoin and Litecoin the block rewards and transaction fees are often given to the large miners in China due to mining centralization created by ASICs. Vertcoin distributes its mining rewards to people all around the world thanks to the mining decentralization.
When will Atomic Swaps Be Ready?
Atomic Swaps can be done in two flavors: On-chain and Off-chain (via Lightning Network). On-chain swaps were actually done already using Blocknet, you can see it in use on Youtube. We're looking into doing it again using Interledger. However our main focus is to do off-chain Atomic Swaps using Lightning Network technology. Because it has the same benefits as Lightning transactions: No network fees and instant transactions. For off-chain swaps we need Lightning Network to be fully operational. It's difficult to give an ETA on that since we aren't the ones developing it. U/gertjaap posted a video on the current state of the Lightning Network for Vertcoin a while ago, which you can see here. This was actually the "bleeding edge" of Lightning Network at the time. was able to use it on VTC's main net, meaning that our blockchain is ready for the good stuff. As you can see however, it can't yet be considered production ready (most users would want a little better UX than a command line app). Now off-chain Atomic Swaps is a technique based on the same principles as Lightning Network, but adds an extra complexity for it being across chains. So it's basically the same as a "multi hop" Lightning payment, which is not yet built by any of the implementations. They're still working hard on making the single-hop payments robust. So in order for AS to be possible, LN has to be fully operational. A timeline cannot be given at this time, because frankly we don't know. The implementation of Lightning Network we feel has the most potential is LIT, because it supports multiple currencies in its protocol (where LND is bitcoin-only at the time and requires significant work to support other currencies, which is an essential part of being able to work across multiple blockchains). LIT is open source and there's nothing secretive about its progress, you can see the development on Github. We even have our lead dev James Lovejoy (u/jamesl22) close to the action and contributing to it where possible (and our team as well through testing it on the Vertcoin chain). So we're not developing LN or AS ourselves, we're just ready with our blockchain technology whenever it becomes available. If we have any real progress that has some substance, you can expect us to let the world know. We're not interested in fluffy marketing - we post something when we achieve real progress. And we are not keeping that secret.
How do I Choose the Right Vertcoin Wallet?
Deciding what Vertcoin wallet you should choose can be a difficult process. You can choose between three different wallets: Core, Electrum and Paper. Once you decide you can use the "How to Setup Your Vertcoin Wallets" video guide to assist you.
The Core wallet is the wallet that most people should use. It will store the entire blockchain (~2GB) on your computer. The Core wallet is the only wallet that fully supports P2Pool mining. You will also have to use the Core wallet if you plan to run a P2Pool node or any Vertcoin related server.
The Electrum wallet is a light wallet for Vertcoin. You do not have to download the blockchain on your computer, but you will still have your own private keys on your computer. This is recommended for people who don't need to store Vertcoins for very long and just need a quick but secure place to store them.
The Paper wallet is as the name implies, a physical paper wallet. When generating a paper wallet you will get a pdf that will need to print out. A paper wallet is normally used for long term storage since it is the safest way to store Vertcoins. A paper wallet can also be called "cold storage." Cold storage references the storage of your coins offline, preventing you from getting hacked over the internet.
Ledger Nano S
The Ledger Nano S is a hardware wallet designed by Ledger. A hardware wallet is similar to a paper wallet since it is normally used for cold storage. The hardware wallet is on par with the security of a paper wallet while being easy to use and setup. Note: You should never mine directly to a Ledger hardware wallet.
You can get the latest version of the One Click Miner in the Vertcoin Discord. The download is pinned to the top of the #oneclick channel.
What do all the Numbers Mean on P2Pool’s Web Interface
I've seen a lot of confusion from new miners on public p2pool nodes, so here's a primer for the most common static node page style, for first time miners: https://imgur.com/K48GmMw
Active Miners on this Node
Address - This is the list of addresses currently mining on this node. If your address does not show up here, you are not mining on this node.
This is a snapshot of your hashrate as seen by the node. It will fluctuate up to 15% from the hashrate you are seeing on your mining software, but will average out to match the output in your mining software.
This is the amount of your hashing contribution that is rejected, both in hashrate and as a percentage of your total contribution. Running your own p2pool node minimizes this number. Mining on a node that is geographically close to reduce lag also minimizes this number. Ideally you would like it to be less than 1%, but most people seem happy keeping it under 3%.
This speaks for itself, it is the difficulty of the share being currently worked on. Bigger numbers are more difficult.
Time to Share
This is how long you need to mine before you will receive any payouts, or any "predicted payout." The lower your hashrate, the higher your time to share.
This is the reward you would receive if a block was found by p2pool right now. If it reads "no shares yet" then you have not yet been mining the requisite amount of time as seen in the previous "time to share" column.
This is the total hashrate of all the miners mining vertcoin everywhere, regardless of where or how.
Global Pool Hashrate
This is the total hashrate of all the miners mining vertcoin on this p2pool network, be it the first network or the second network.
Local Pool Hashrate
This is the total hashrate of all the miners mining Vertcoin on this node.
Current Block Value
This is the reward that will be given for mining the current block. The base mining reward is currently 50 VTC per block, so any small decimal over that amount is transaction fees being paid by people using the network.
Network Block Difficulty
This is the difficulty of the block being mined. The higher the number, the higher the difficulty. This number rises as the "Network Hashrate" rises, so that blocks will always be found every 2.5 minutes. Inversely, this number falls when the "Network Hashrate" lowers as well.
Expected Time to Block
This is a guess at how much time will elapse between blocks being found by this p2pool network. This guess is accurate on average, but very inaccurate in the short term. Since you only receive a payout when the network finds a block, you can think of this as "Estimated Time to Payout."
Why is P2Pool Recommended Over Traditional Pools?
P2Pool is peer to peer allowing a decentralized pool mining system. There are many nodes setup around the world that connect to each other too mine together. Many other coins have 1 very large pool that many miners connect to and sometimes the largest pool can have 51% or more of the network hash rate which makes the network vulnerable to a 51% attack. If P2Pool is the largest network then that prevents the Vertcoin network to be susceptible to a 51% attack as P2Pool is decentralized.
PPLNS Payout System
P2Pool uses a PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) payout system which awards miners more the longer they mine, sort of like a loyalty system. A drawback to this system is that part time miners that aren't 24/7 won't be able to earn that much.
While Network 1 is catered towards 24/7 miners and people who have dedicated mining rigs, Vertcoin has a second P2Pool network where part time miners and miners under 100 MH/s can go to mine.
Mines Directly to Your Wallet
P2Pool mines directly to your wallet and cuts out the middleman. This reduces the likely hood that the pool will run away with your coins.
Since P2Pool is decentralized and has different nodes for you to choose from there will be no downtime because the P2Pool network does not die if one node goes down. You can setup a backup server in your miner so that you will have no downtime when mining.
Anonymity and Security
When using P2Pool you use a wallet address making your real identity anonymous, you are simply known by a random 34 letter string. Along with using a wallet address instead of a username there is no password involved P2Pool preventing the possibility of cracking your pool account (If you were on a traditional pool,) and stealing all your coins.
How do I Find a Nearby P2Pool Node
You can find the public p2pool nodes the the P2Pool Node Scanners. If you want to find a network 1 node go here. If you want to find a network 2 node go here.
The quickest way for you to get help is for you to join the Vertcoin Discord Group. We almost always have knowledgable Vertans, whether that be developers or experienced Vertans, online to help you with whatever problems you may have.
How can I donate to the Developers?
You can donate to the dev fund at https://vertcoin.org/donate/. You can select what you want your funds to go to by donating to the corresponding address. You can also see how much funding is required and how much we have donated.
The Vertcoin developers currently have a trello board where you can see the goals and what the status of said goal is. You can also vote on what you want the Vertcoin developers to focus on next.
What is the Status of the AMD Optimized Miner?
The AMD Optimized Miner internal beta is aiming to be ready by the end of September. The AMD Optimized Miner is currently being developed by @turekaj on the Vertcoin Discord. He currently does not have a Reddit account and Discord is the only way you can contact him.
What Does Halving Mean?
Halving means that the block reward for miners will be split in half. Halving happens around every 4 years for Vertcoin or 840,000 blocks. This means around December miners will only receive 25 VTC per block instead of the current 50 VTC per block. If you would like to add another question to this list please comment it and I will get around to adding it ASAP.
Vertcoin is a digital currency that can be sent from peer to peer over the internet. Though similar to LTC and BTC, Vertcoin has one major difference; ASIC resistance. While this may seem like a minor change, it actually has much larger implications when it comes to the fair distribution, politics, and decentralization of the coin. Vertcoin stays true to the original vision of cryptocurrency: a financial system owned by its users, the people’s coin.
Why ASICs are harmful to cryptocurrency
While ASICs can more efficiently mine coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin compared to GPUs, their introduction unfortunately created a new problem. Unlike GPUs or CPUs, the every day person does not and will never own an ASIC. In fact, most Bitcoin and Litecoin mining isn't done by it's users at all. The majority of these machines are owned and operated by large mining companies and ASIC manufacturers, this is a problem. This creates an environment where the companies ultimately control the ASIC coins and have a vested interest to pursue profit over progress. We all witnessed the politics behind Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Segwit2x. This isn't the first time we've seen drama like this, and it won't be that last. Vertcoin foresaw the issues ASICs would bring in to this space and is committed to remaining ASIC resistant. We believe everyone should have the opportunity to mine the currency, not just a select few. Now that you're more familiar with Vertcoin, let's get started!
To get started with Vertcoin, the first thing you need is a Wallet. Wallets are needed to store, send and receive your coins (private keys) on your computer or mobile device. If possible, we recommend you use the Vertcoin Core Wallet. When setting up your wallet you will generate a set of receiving addresses. These addresses are to be used whenever receiving VTC. Listed below are a few wallet options available.
Depending on where you live, the process for purchasing may be a little different. The majority of Vertcoin is purchased with bitcoin on an exchange. Listed below are different exchanges that support Vertcoin trading.
Mining Vertcoin helps secure the network and process transactions but it also is a great way to generate Vertcoin for yourself. Because Vertcoin is mined using GPUs (Graphics cards), chances are, you already have what you need to get started. This is just a general overview so we won't go into detail here, but the only things you need to get started mining are a Vertcoin wallet, a computer with a GPU, and a miner - a little program that tells your GPU what to mine. Right now the best GPUs to use when mining Vertcoin are the NVidia 10 Series cards. We're working on making it more profitable to use AMD cards as well. Listed below are a few miners you can use to mine Vertcoin.
We believe Vertcoin is a better alternative to Litecoin and Bitcoin. Centralized mining has no place in the crypto-space and should not be considered the norm or acceptable. Vertcoin is positioned to break this cycle and place the power back in to the communities hands. As more people begin to realize the value of ASIC resistance, we're starting to see an influx of interest in the coin. To put it plainly, Vertcoin is a coin with simple principles. We aim to provide a truly decentralized currency by placing the power to mine and secure the network in the hands of everyone. No politics. No centralized ASIC farms. No bullshit. Just the coin and the community, we believe the crypto-space needs that.
Announcing SmartPool project: decentralized mining pools for cryptocurrencies based on Ethereum smart contracts
Hello everyone. This is Loi Luu from the National University of Singapore. You might have met me at Devcon2 when I presented Oyente, the first analyzer for Ethereum smart contract. Today, on behalf of my team, I am happy to announce the SmartPool project, which aims to build decentralized mining pools for existing cryptocurrencies. Tl;dr:Mining centralization is bad, but it has been around with pooled mining. We propose a decentralized pooled mining protocol for cryptocurrencies which leverages Ethereum smart contracts. Please check our website and technical paper for more details about the protocol. We plan to implement the protocol and deploy SmartPool-based pools for existing cryptocurrencies. Our project is not for profit, thus we need your help in funding. Our crowdfund will start soon in a couple of days. Problem: Mining centralization Cryptocurrencies like Ethereum, Bitcoin and ZCash operate in trustless, decentralized environments managed and run by thousands of full nodes and miners around the world. Mining is one of the most critical components of popular cryptocurrencies, which secures the underlying networks and makes it hard for anyone to compromise the security of the blockchains. Mining, unfortunately, is not quite decentralized. It is mostly because solo-mining is difficult for miners due to high variance in rewards. Thus, miners tend to join some mining pool to receive frequent and stable rewards. As a result, mining is highly centralized in all proof-of-work based cryptocurrencies. For example, as of this writing, 3 major pools in Ethereum and ZCash control more than 50% of the network mining power. Mining in Bitcoin is not better: 4 major pools control roughly 56% of mining power. Pooled mining is good for miners, but it’s considered bad for the network as a whole. Many people think that Satoshi Nakamoto didn’t foresee the mining centralization problem. More seriously, pooled mining makes transaction and block censorship a bigger threat since only a few pools can dictate which transactions, which blocks can be included in the blockchain. The recent DoS attack in which a lot of blocks were empty is a good example. Solution: A decentralized pooled mining protocol using Ethereum smart contracts Ethereum is a platform which supports decentralized applications. However, it is a bit ironic that the underlying mechanism which secures the platform is heavily centralized. Thus, we ask if we can actually secure the Ethereum network itself in a decentralized manner, i.e. decentralize the mining. Challenges. There exists an attempt in Bitcoin to solve this problem (p2pool.org). However, the solution is so inefficient for large networks that the adoption is pretty low (the last block mined by P2Pool was several days ago). In pooled mining, there is a concept of share which represents how much work you have contributed to the pool. A share is similar to a block, but satisfies smaller difficulty, i.e., having less leading 0 bits than a valid block. In centralized pools, miners have to submit all the shares to the pools, so the pools can pay in proportional to miners’ submissions. Now lets imagine if we replace the centralized pool by a smart contract, and we still want to keep track of miners’ contributions by asking miners to send a transaction to the contract for every share that they find. It is going to require millions of messages to the contract per block, the amount that none of the current blockchains can support. Our solution. In our solution, we devise a new mechanism to verify and record miners' contributions to the pool without centralized operators. SmartPool's efficient probabilistic verification drastically reduces both the number of messages and the costs to run the pool for miners by several orders of magnitude. Using a novel data structure called the augmented Merkle tree, SmartPool's batched share submission and efficient payment scheme remove any incentive for submitting invalid batches. More interestingly, we can use SmartPool to build decentralized pools for not only Ethereum, but also existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, ZCash, Monero. Please check out our website to learn more about our solution. What's next? We are planning to build and deploy SmartPool as real decentralized pools for Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies. We already have a team (please check our website), we understand the technology well. In order to achieve the mining decentralization goal, we need your help on funding. Our vision is to build SmartPool as a non-profit project, which is run by and for the community (that’s why we do not have an ICO). Our call for donation will be up soon, so please stay tuned. In the meantime, feel free to ask us any questions.
Let's leave GHash in the past. Miners and Bitcoiners can use P2Pools to secure the network! Learn how to help! Our community has come together in the past to solve much larger problems.
I apologize for adding another "Ghash, nooooooo!" post, yet network centralization demands priority attention to prevent it from affecting the positive contributions of others. Summary As a community, let's make this the last time we all hear about the 51% attack. How? The community can encourage the use of P2Pools (pools of bitcoin miners that cannot be controlled by the pool operator). Attention all Miners You guys are literally the backbone of our system. Without your hashing power the community couldn't send transactions! Nonetheless, we need your help once again, yet this requires effort on your part unfortunately. (The community can still do it's part to help!) Miners! Become a fighting soldier in the war against centralization by joining P2Pools and leaving GHash Here is a list of P2Pools, yet below are the pools most often recommended by the community.
Attention all Developers & everyday Bitcoiners Currently tools are being developed to allow bitcoiners to contribute to the P2Pool cause without buying machines. By using tools like BlisterPool's donate button it makes it easy for bitcoiners to tip miners actively contributing towards securing the network in a decentralized way. Let's build and use more tools to tip P2Pools, and give these pools a little financial push to get the ball rolling Here are some resources to help understand the situation a bit better, please still look around ask ask questions
Are you a bitcoiner? Donate here(your funds will be sent towards miners actively contributing to p2pools!)
Update:I've just learned that regular people can help ensure the security of the network by running nodes. I don't want to lead the discussion on this though as I'm not well informed enough to lead that, yet please look around and ask questions. Lesser Update: whoah, cool to be mentioned on coindesk
West Coast USA Digibyte Scrypt P2Pool Node. 0% Fee
Hey all, I recently put up a DGB mining node for any miners out there. Scrypt only for now but if anyone is interested in mining via the other algorithms I can certainly look into setting one up! If you're not familar with P2Pool, it's a little different than other pools. Read more about that here. Anyways, I welcome any of you to join my Scrypt pool if you're interested in checking it out. There's a link to our mining group discord at the top of the pool as well if you want to drop by/have any questions! Just know it takes a day or so for your payouts to ramp up to max, but typically it pays out better than other mining methods from my tests. Location: San Diego, CA USA Connect to: stratum+tcp://dgb.brutang.work:5025 Worker: your DGB wallet No password. Web Interface: http://dgb.brutang.work:5025/static/
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS? A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream. We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%? A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network. Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future? A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night). I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second. Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned. Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely? A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time. When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before. Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks. A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful. I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good. I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them. Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem? A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things. We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe? A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise. My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people. The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create. “Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever. It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary? A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else. I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers. And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork? A: Lightning does not need a hard fork. It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly. I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream? A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached. A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015. The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents. I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit. Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests? A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically. He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time. Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy? A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things. Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say. A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer. The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning. Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan? A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy. Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all. A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks. And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing). I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features). I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions: Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling? A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing. Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team? A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it. Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic. The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two. I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj. Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this? A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions. The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened. Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects. Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners. A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning. Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners. Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed. A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been. I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018. Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split? A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain. Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.? A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic? A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap. We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms? A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down. I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io… And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them! I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"? A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.” As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn? A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now? Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks. A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful. I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser. In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next. As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not. Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
Hi Gavin, I have some questions: Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community? A: 1) Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects. Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic. Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out). Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently. Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else? A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project. Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin? A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible. Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be? A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have. Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times. Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future? A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong. Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you! A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture. I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen! Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin. A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood. 15. satoshi Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions? A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download. The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
I'm on board with classic
I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions: Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high. Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners. Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting? *The questioner further explained his concern. Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem. A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin). Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization? A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now. And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time. Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa? A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal. I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design. Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)? A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not. Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap? A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else. Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price? A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project. Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business. Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing. Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info? A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions. Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ? A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that. Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core? A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin? A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
hi guys. i have been mining for the last 6 months and thought will share some of my experience with you guys. initially started out using slush's pool. then moved on to eligius, btc guild. finally i was mining with ghash and by far the best experience i have had mining has been with ghash. However, while experimenting trying to set up a solo mining pool for my mining needs, i stumbled upon p2pool. i was already running a bitcoin node at home and setting up a p2pool node was fairly easy. With ghash approaching 51% i decided to give p2pool a try. Been mining on p2pool since 31st May and during that time 14 blocks have been found by P2Pool as compared to about 20 that should have been found for the average hash rate on P2Pool. Lots of donations were received during this period especially the last 7 days. on average the earnings by donations compared to mining was about 4-5% for me. The hash rate on P2Pool stays about 0.5 to 0.6 Ph/s as compared to about 40 Ph/s on Ghash. Though i read lots of posts asking people to shift to P2Pool during the last week, i have not seen the hash rate have any significant change. I have lost about 30 percent of my potential earnings mining on P2Pool which i would have easily made on Ghash and i have been tempted to go back to Ghash but mining on P2Pool feels more pure to me and i feel i am going to stick to P2Pool and hope for more people to join this pool so that variance can reduce to a more acceptable level.
While DDOSing my pool, check out what this asshole sent me
So I run blisterpool.com (simple p2pool node + layer of bonuses), and this asshole decides to try to extort 2btc from me. My node has been under a ddos attack for about 2-3 hours now. I get an email to all my addresses, and then finally a message on bitcointalk a few minutes ago. Copy/pasta of message:
DD4BC Newbie * Online Online Activity: 1 View Profile Personal Message (Online) Trust: -11: -2 / +0(0) Warning: Trade with extreme caution! HELLO? « Sent to: Hunterbunter on: Today at 04:02:32 PM » Reply with quoteQuote ReplyReply Remove this messageDelete Hello Your mining server is extremely vulnerable to ddos attacks I want to offer you info how to properly setup your protection, so that you can't be ddosed, at >least not with so little power. My price is 2 Bitcoin only. Right now I'm running small (very small) attack which will not crash your server, but you should >notice it in logs. Just check it. If I increase the attack size, I could completely crash, it would drop all connections and damage >would be big... Don't worry, I will not do it. Smiley I want to offer you info on how I did it and what you have to do to prevent it. If interested pay me 2 BTC to 17aLGgw8AwJdqiBtMMG1QtQJgNQQkiyEsp Thank you.
It's a shame for him that I can just shut the server down for a while and join one of the hundred other public p2pool nodes out there.
Have been mining VTC for 89 days. First Reddit post!
Since the 11th of February I've been nonstop mining VTC and am firmly married to Vertcoin. I believe in Vertcoin, its Dev Team and why we all need Vertcoin to succeed. Of those out there it is the only crypto currency that takes the concern of the future, not only for us but for our children and their children, to heart a secure decentralized currency is a NEED for all going forward. This is my first post and I wanted to use such to make some commentary on recent events here (until now I've read through /Vertcoin on a daily basis sans Reddit membership to go along with non-membership recon on the Vertcoin threads in the Bitcointalk forum): I understand the feelings that everyone has against SimpleVert but let's all be honest their site is slick. Name calling and anything else against them or anyone using such a slick setup isn't the way to make people change their use of such. People need to be educated in a kind way as to why their mining needs to be spread out amongst the pools available or why they need to join the P2Pool fanbase. I personally got in to Vertcoin mining through both Ecurie as my primary pool and DedicatedPool as my secondary and stuck with them until P2Proxy came online. After bengtotron had to stop things there I stayed up until 4AM the next morning figuring out how to get my own P2Pool node going after my son went to sleep. With P2Pool I'll be until the end. Regarding VertPay DavidSeamanUS and others have EVERY reason to be wondering about VertPay and those directly involved. A 200,000 VTC IPO being a goal of theirs really requires some serious PR work on their part and FULL transparency in addition to being calm and polite in the face of questioning from those that stand to be involved in the IPO. With events like Mt.Gox (http://www.dailytech.com/Bitcoin+King+Pt+II+Mt+Goxs+Dictator+Karpels+Proves+Tragically+Flawed/article34452.htm) and Scharmbeck (http://worldcoinforum.org/topic/1358-scharmbeck-q-a/) in recent memory questions should exist and EVERYTHING should be gone over with a fine comb when someone pops up asking for this kind of investment. Honestly at this time I don't disagree with anyone that Coinpayments and Moolah suffice for VTC ATM. There's no need to rush into VertPay BUT I will say that a service rivaling BTC's BitPay for VTC will only help us all in the long run. We just need to keep it civil and take the time to hear them out/do our research as a community.
What I've Learned As a Newbie / Lowbie: Tips & Tricks to Better Doge-ing
I'll admit it, I've been doing this as a goof. I'm not planning on investing in any hardware to up my hashrate. I'm not quite topping 95 khash/s between my desktop gpu and my htpc's cpu (in the off hours), and I will never likely see 50k doge unless I buy them with cash....but, and this is a big but (hehe, but...), the whole things been fun, interesting, and a learning experience. Like many folks, I didn't get in on the bitcoin thing in the early days...I heard about it, understood it, even, but I didn't think it would amount to anything other than an IT guy's fantasy. In some respects, I think that's still true. Bitcoin has become host to finance wonks, venture capitalists, and still has a tinge of "dark net" / underground to it. Dogecoin, oddly enough, has been striving to remain a functional virtual currency while maintaining a positive attitude. While I'd love to see the coin be worth hundreds or thousands in exchange, the idea having something to exchange with people anywhere on the internet without having to deal in tiny fractions (like bitcoin), is part of what I find appealing in in doge. As for tips and tricks, I probably don't have much to offer that hasn't already been said, but here goes:
Read the sidebars in all the doge subreddits; there's a wealth of info there. Don't be afraid to ask questions on some the items.
Try to figure out how to mine, even if you don't plan on doing it long term. It was an interesting learning experience, and it could teach you a little about how your computer works, distributed networking...all sort of stuff.
Tip and be tipped. I've actually made up the difference in tipping that I've tipped out to others. Might I suggest a variation of the digits 80085...
If you just started out, try visiting the faucets, yeah, you may only get a fraction of a doge, but it will get you in the habit of using addresses and engaging in transactions.
Before you join a mining pool, verify that your expected hashrate will be accepted. If you are CPU mining, this is especially true, as many places won't accept a hashrate under 5 khash/s (and it will often look like your work is being accepted).
P2Pools can work for lower hashrates, but you will likely see more rapid results from a standard mining pool.
Sign up for the tip bot...use the tip bot. Don't worry too much about that balance unless you want to make sure you have enough to tip. How often do you refresh your bank balance in real life?
Encrypt you wallet
Back up your wallet. Placing a back up in your Google Drive or something similar (assuming you have a decent password and two-factor authentication) will hopefully assure you aren't kicking yourself for a lost wallet a year or two from now (especially if doge is to the moon).
Make a meme or two...it's not the highest form of communication, but enthusiasm can go a long way to building a community.
Try to help others. This has to be one of the greatest assets of dogecoin. People are actually trying to spread the knowledge and the wealth. You have to get buy-in in more ways than one.
That said, be careful. There are reports of scams...not more or less than other internet realms, but still, keep your nose to the air and your paws to the ground.
Try not to ramble too much...ba dum bum...
Finally, have fun...this doge was made for you and me.
After watching the latest episode of tech crunch's trust disrupted it seemed very pessimistic in nature focusing on mining collusion and transaction censoring. Pools operators dictate the rules of their operation, if you join a particular pool then you agree with their rules. Why on earth is there not just one enforced P2Pool that every single miner uses. From small home miners to big mega miners, everyone just joines the same P2Pool, which is decentralised with predetermined rules that benefit the network. This way every single miner is guranteed a return on every single block directly proportionate to their percentage of hasing contribution. And transaction censoring becomes impossible as everyone is abiding by the rules of the pool which maintains network neutrality. It is my opinion that this is how it should have been from day one. A single P2Pool whos rules were immutably locked in on day one to benefit the network and as part of the core bitcoin protocol is forced to be used. You can not mine unless you use the core protocol P2Pool. This would fix all censorship concerns, all mining centralisation concerns, all 51% attack concerns. All of those problems just gone! And we would be left in a world where no matter how small a miner you are, you are guaranteed a return on every single block.
Some bloggers have recently been claiming that P2Pool adoption can be increased by addressing so-called "low-hanging fruit," which in software development generally refers to issues that require little time to resolve and provide a significant benefit. The idea is that the serious technical challenges could be postponed until later because the little things done now would make those serious challenges less pressing. P2Pool has some issues that could prevent pools from adopting it, but it is naive to claim that doing things like changing the P2Pool website address is one of them. Apparently, p2pool.in is the official P2Pool site. P2Pool.org is a pool that runs on top of P2Pool and charges a fee. The flaw with the reasoning of "low hanging fruit" is that if people were indeed being fooled into thinking that P2Pool.org is P2Pool's official site, then the results won't make any difference in P2Pool's hashrate anyway. Since P2Pool.org is a "P2Pool pool," people joining the .org pool would simply add to P2Pool's hashrate. Therefore, spending lots of money in an attempt to acquire the P2Pool.org domain is unlikely to have any effect on the actual P2Pool hashrate.
Why bitcoins aren't widely used
I want to devote a section today to examine why bitcoins aren't widely used now. First, everyone can agree that bitcoins have some issues with how they are implemented now, like a lack of insurance and so on. However, despite the shortcomings, I still think it's pretty clear that bitcoins, even in their current state, are already superior to the other options. Anyone trying to send money internationally has found that out long ago. Trying to pay someone with PayPal is a significant challenge, and requires both parties to have a PayPal account and to incur large fees in the transaction. Meanwhile, if you want to send money to someone without worrying about volatility, you can at the very least have two people sign up for Coinbase accounts. The Coinbase signup process is less difficult than the PayPal signup process. The fee totals are only 2%, instead of 2.9% plus 30 cents, and Coinbase will pull the money out of the account just in time. If you want to buy things at most stores, you can save large amounts of money using the gift card sites, which can save 3% or even 6%. And it isn't true that it is particularly difficult to secure bitcoins using this method. Simply choosing a strong password and enabling two-factor authentication will be good enough for the majority of people who aren't holding thousands of bitcoins. Therefore, there is something that is preventing uptake of bitcoins quickly as many people here believed that is unrelated to the benefits of the technology. I do not agree with the assertion that ease of use is preventing bitcoin adoption anymore. A few months ago, that might have been true, but the technology has advanced rapidly and anyone who can go to a website (the most basic form of Internet usage) can sign up for Coinbase. The stubbornness of the market to move isn't due to usability follies; it's due to something else, whether it be the development issues I talked about, less interest by institutions than believed, or something else.
Why usability is a false argument
I just wanted to add one short section about why the "usability" issue is an excuse that does not explain the reason for the price movement. It doesn't require a lot of explanation or many paragraphs. Why is usability suddenly an issue now, but it wasn't an issue during the harder-to-use times when buyers were running up the price to $1100?
What happens if a new all-time high isn't reached
On Friday, I spent a paragraph discussing the effects on the bubble cycle if a bubble doesn't form within a week or two of July 24. Long ago, I discussed how we would know that the cycle has broken, but I realized since then that the cycle may not break at all. There has been precedent in the earlier cycles for there to be "false" bubbles that cause only a slight rise before another period of bad news and stagnation, but where the price still remains above the lower boundary. Therefore, I'll suggest that there are three possible outcomes as the July 24 date approaches. First, the rise begins and the cycle resumes. Second, the cycle breaks because the price falls below the lower boundary, and I and a lot of people were wrong. Third, this is one of those "false bubbles" where there will be a crash, followed by another few months of bad news like happened earlier this year, with the next bubble not happening for another 235 days or so. Of the three, I'd probably say that #1 or #3 are more likely, because I don't see what has changed in the fundamentals to cause the cycle to break.
Cannot extrapolate to a longer cycle
There is a fourth possible outcome that I discount because it does not seem likely to me, but in which other commenters have placed some credence. This outcome is the idea that the current bubble is delayed until September. The reason that I discount the suggestion is because there is little evidence to support the assertion. The theory of a "longer cycle" seems to be a way of changing the data to fit the prediction. Looking at the charts, the current price movement does not resemble any phase of any of the other cycles. In the other cycles, there has been a crash, followed by a stability period, then a rise. Some people say that there has been a second stability period after the first, but even if they are right, those periods did not result in a decline like the current period has. Rather than the auction producing a run or a crash, there has been the perplexing behavior of bitcoins slowly losing value, which is simply a continuation of the trend that was in place before the auction occurred. Those with a short time horizon might think we are in a bear market, given that the predominant trend has been a slow leeching of money out of the system despite hundreds of "good news" stories. This behavior is not like the upside of any previous bubble. In moral_agent's bubble charts, there are few slow downtrends anywhere, let alone in the upside of bubbles. We can continue to use the current model without needing to massage the data if we acknowledge that we are starting turn into a bear market rather than suggesting the model failed and that we can fix it by making this cycle 300 days long. Should this pattern continue, people are going to see this slow decline, look at the calendar, and realize that something is different this time. Bad news will give people excuses to sell. That's why, if things don't turn around soon, there will be a crash that ends this cycle. The number of people who are precariously perched in massive long positions will see a huge squeeze, hastening the crash. However, since the high of $680 won't have been that high, we could probably expect the end of this bubble to be less dramatic than the end of the previous bubble in December. In that case, we wouldn't expect the next really high bubble to form until mid-March. If this were /bitcoinmarkets, I think that if things don't turn around within two weeks, I would change my flair to bearish. A failure for this bubble to occur doesn't mean that it will just be delayed a month; it means that it will be a weak, false bubble, and we won't see any significant gains until early next year as the next cycle approaches.
Why good news doesn't affect the markets
As a final thought on this issue, it's almost a given that bad news causes crashes, while merchant adoption and good news doesn't affect the markets. But that hasn't always been the case. In November, good news like the Senate hearings caused astronomical rises. What if that assumption is wrong, and the cycle dictating people's reaction to the news is correct? In the past week or two, it seems that the bad news, like that European ruling, is starting to have an effect again. This supports the notion that perhaps this bubble already peaked, with the date moving towards the past, not the future, as I suggested it might. We may already be in a downtrend and won't know it until we see it in retrospect.
If I were to write vertcoin.org.....[LONG POST WARNING!]
I want to preface this post by saying that I have great respect for a432511, and the amount he's achieved since joining the dev team is remarkable. However, since I first looked at the revamped vertcoin.org this morning, I've had an uneasy feeling all day that it hasn't moved us far enough in the right direction. I'm not a visual person, so I'm not really referring to the aesthetic design of the site here (I think the general consensus is that this has been improved). I'm more concerned about the content (or lack of). It's not his fault, because, unless I missed it, we never really had a community discussion about what content would be good to have on the site. I think one of our weaknesses as a community is that we tend to focus on the mechanics of the coin (often from the perspective of miners), perhaps at the expense of considering the image we portray to the outside world? Sooner or later, if we're to succeed in the goal of mass adoption, this has to change. I think if we honestly and objectively try to look at our website through the eyes of someone who's never come across Vertcoin before - or even maybe only just heard about Bitcoin - the site doesn't deliver the key information it needs to with clarity and simplicity. So I thought I'd have a go at writing an outline for the sub-pages and content I'd like to see on the site. The sub-pages I would have are: Features Buy/Trade VTC (I wouldn't write "VTC" on the navigation bar, I'd use the "v" logo) Store VTC Use VTC Mine VTC FAQs Team Blog A rough outline of page content would be as follows: Features: I think I recall seeing a good short video explanation of Vertcoin on the old website? I would have this and the new video explaining SX side by side on this page, together with the "Features" content that's currently on the home page (though some of that content could do with a bit of fleshing out - for example "support" should maybe include a link to this sub-reddit, or wherever else we're offering support?) Some of the current "details" page could also live here, though I'd drop the merged-mining info and save it for the mining page. Buy/Trade VTC: This sub-page would replace the current "invest" sub-page. I would give up front prominence to all fiat>vtc exchange services such as Bittylicious, Vault of Satoshi and Prelude. Why? Because anyone looking at crypto for the very first time is going to want to take the most straightforward route possible. I know there are verification headaches with fiat>crypto exchanges, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to send people via BTC by default. Perhaps we could incorporate a dropdown for country of residence so that visitors can see at a glance which exchanges are available in their country? If their country is not served by a fiat exchange, only then should we send them down the route of buying BTC by whatever means available. Store VTC: One of the biggest pitfalls for anyone getting started in crypto is learning the basics of safely storing them. So this page would need to be educational, and include warnings about things like leaving coins on exchanges and not encrypting and backing up your wallet. This page is where the wallet downloads belong. Details on cold storage and trustworthy paper wallet creators would be good to include here. Use VTC: This page would be all about how awesomely versatile VTC is as a spendable currency. I can't stress enough that we need to really start selling the utility of our coin better. A link to a "Merchant Monday" reddit post does not cut the mustard! I'd start with the most universal means of spending VTC anywhere via services like The Crypto Depot. The next most versatile means of spending it would be VertVerser. Then finally I'd have a regularly updated copy of the Merchant Monday list (though as this grows we'd have to give some consideration to presenting this in the form of a directory). Mine VTC: This is where we make a big deal of the fact that we intend to keep our coin mineable with consumer grade hardware. As and when it's available, the one click miner download would be prominent on this page. We give p2pool the prominence it deserves too, perhaps with a statement that we're proud to have the highest p2pool participation of any coin? I don't think p2pool prominence should be at the expense of total exclusion of traditional pools though. I suggest we emphasise the importance of spreading the hashrate, list available pools in order of size (largest always at the bottom), and say that we'll exclude a pool from the list if they're over a certain percentage of network hashrate. FAQs: I hope this page is fairly self explanatory, but I think an FAQ page would be a nice resource to include for newbies. Team: Not too much to be said that hasn't already been said about this elsewhere. Blog: Vital that this gets updated regularly, even if they're just one-liners. The twitter feed may also belong on this page? (not sure it looks great on the home page right now). I hope this post is received in the positive way that it's intended. I'm just very keen for us all to get maximum bang for our buck from the forthcoming marketing campaign. If the marketing campaign is primarily focussed on driving traffic to vertcoin.org, then it's vital that we work hard to make it the very best it can be.
P2Pool, much fast, very doge. Wow. I just switched from a pool to my own P2Pool server and I have to say, I'm getting at least the same, and more than some full days of mining with only 12 hours on the p2pool! I myself am only currently sitting at 450kH/s and getting 170 DOGE/h so far today, so even Shibes under 1MH/s can benefit from it! TO THE MOOOOOON!!!! http://i.imgur.com/LZPq4mj.png If any Shibe is interested in joining, the server address is http://soulphalanx.com:22550. Just set your username as your doge wallet address and password as anything. The block rewards will go straight into your wallet!! ZERO FEES for ALL SHIBES on my node!!! Pool stats page is http://soulphalanx.com:22550/static/index.html. Donations are welcome! Please let me know if you need help with your settings. Other notes, make sure to ping http://soulphalanx.com and see if you're under 100ms for the best results. P2Pool relies on fast responses to be efficient. I myshibe am sitting at around 50ms ping. EDIT: Even if you are over 100ms ping, please still try and see what percentage shares are stale or orphaned. As long as it's lower than the p2pool network, you're FINE!! Check your dead % @ http://soulphalanx.com:22550/static/index.html#activeminers EDIT2: Don't worry about not getting your rewards initially, P2Pool uses a Pay-Per-Last-N-Shares (PPLNS) system to prevent pool hoppers. YOU MUST BE A PATIENT SHIBE. Rewards only start coming AFTER your first share, which may take a couple hours especially if you have low hashrate! A share will expire after 12 hours, so there will be periods where you will not get any doge at all, but that's because it's being offset and will average out when you find a share and receive a bunch!! Also, don't worry about stale or orphaned shares. P2Pool uses a totally different system than traditional pools. Shibes can read more about it at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool.
Dear Bushido Please allow me to introduce myself. My (not real) name is depboy. You may have seen me around this subreddit. I first came across Bitcoin about three years ago. At first I only took a passing interest and only really got involved with making my first purchases in 2013. Like many others I was inspired by blockchain technology and the concept of a financial system based on distributed consensus. I guess it appealed to the anarchist libertarian in me. As I immersed myself in the world of crypto, it became apparent to me that, beautiful as blockchain technology is, it’s not immune to the subversive forces of centralization. Naturally, I began looking for alternative cryptocurrencies that built upon the Bitcoin model, but had greater potential for remaining decentralized in the long term. In March 2014 I discovered Vertcoin. The 6+ months that I’ve been an active member of this community have been quite a ride! In the early days I got stuck in enthusiastically as a miner. I had my 12 gpus mining away on my own private p2pool node. Following the launch of Monocle, I branched out into making my node public and joining in with Vertgeek to help support merged mining and p2pool participation. I was hooked. That all feels like a long time ago now. In the time I’ve been involved here, I’ve seen so much change, and I have to be honest and say that much of it has not been positive. The only thing that’s remained unnervingly constant is the total number of subscribers on this sub which has flat-lined at ~5K. Anyway, I’m determined not to dwell on past negativity, but instead look ahead to the future. That must necessarily be based on an honest assessment of where this coin stands presently. For better or worse, Vertcoin has nailed its colours to the mast and differentiated itself as the only truly ASIC resistant crypto. Implicit in this statement is a pledge to fork this coin onto another algo as and when the need arises due to ASIC development. We’ve reached the point in time when this pledge is about to be tested for the first time, with ASIC manufacturers making bold claims about scrypt-n capabilities. There’s also circumstantial evidence of ASIC testing in the form of miners with very large hashrates appearing sporadically on some pools. There are only two possible outcomes where ASICs are concerned: either they come to dominate the Vertcoin network forever more, or they don’t. Some people seem to think that Vertcoin could be forked to move away from ASICs after the fact. This overlooks the non-trivial issue of successful forks requiring network consensus. In a network of pools and miners dominated by ASICs, that would be analogous to turkeys voting for Christmas. Put simply, if we pass a certain point in terms of ASIC mining, the ASIC resistant claim will be forever lost. The need for mining consensus is critical here. We can fool ourselves all we like that developers hold the key to the future of this coin. The true power lies with the miners, or more specifically the larger mining pools. Out of adversity springs the greatest opportunity? It’s seems likely to me that if Vertcoin succeeded in forking away from ASICs in time, and did it in a convincing manner that instilled confidence in a decentralized future, Vertcoin could flourish. Truly passionate about decentralization? We don’t know each other personally, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume some common ground. Because I find it hard to believe that someone who took the time to launch something like Vertcoin would not have an awareness of, and passion for, true decentralization. All alt currencies begin life as the brainchild of their developer(s). It’s not unreasonable to assume that during the early stages a coin is dependent on its developer(s), in much the same way that children depend on their parents. However, for a decentralized currency to achieve long term viability, there must come a time in the life of every coin when the developer(s) take a back seat and the training wheels are removed. Whether by accident or design, Vertcoin has travelled some way down this road already. It seems clear that in terms of the dev team you are pretty much the last man standing. Unfortunately for Vertcoin, being beholden to a one man dev team runs contrary to the decentralized ethos. “If you love it, set it free” I understand that you’ve had recent obstacles in your life that must take precedence over Vertcoin. You are not a paid employee and nobody has the right to expect you to dedicate your time to Vertcoin. But this coin is now in a perilous position where ASICs are apparently knocking on the door, and we’re down to one semi active lead dev. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the time and effort it took on your part to appear at Hashers United, but publicly implying that you head up a team of active developers is disingenuous, and I fear it does this coin no favours. So I have the following suggestions for you as steps you could take to turn adversity into opportunity, in order for this coin to flourish:
Publically declare that Vertcoin no longer has a formal dev team. This could include a statement to say that you no longer consider yourself to be the lead dev, and that henceforth, to be consistent with Vertcoin’s decentralized nature, development will be “ad hoc” in nature. This might sound very counter-intuitive, but please consider the possibility of stealing a march on the competition by “walking the walk” in terms of true, meaningful decentralization. It’s all about turning a negative into a positive.
Acknowledge that the true power over the destiny of any coin lies not with developers, but with miners. This very much relates to number 1, because where ASICs are concerned, no dev team can ever hope to offer indefinite resistance. We are all mortal.
Give as honest and accurate assessment as you can of the threat of ASICs, and how imminent that threat is to the Vertcoin network.
Provide a realistic and conservative estimate of when you expect to be able to roll out Lyra2.
If you cannot be confident that the answer to 4, is earlier than the answer to 3, then it’s imperative that you issue an open invite to anyone who’s technically capable of producing a fork to an ASIC resistant algo, even if that ASIC resistance is only temporary. Possibly even forking to a higher N-factor? In fact, I recall Boris the Spider making frequent references to “tricks up sleeves” when it came to swerving ASICs, so maybe you could even pull those out of the hat? Really, all options should be open to exploration if the alternative is a one way ticket to ASIC-induced oblivion. We can surely assume that any sensibly proposed fork would achieve consensus while our mining pools are still dominated by gpus? The window to act may be shorter than we think here, given the advanced notice required for a hard fork.
At first glance some of what I’m proposing here may sound drastic, or even abhorrent. But before you dismiss it out of hand, please remember that none of the above need necessarily change your practical day-to-day involvement with Vertcoin. Aside from the obvious priority of ASIC avoidance, these suggestions are primarily designed to rebrand the development of Vertcoin to be in line with our decentralized aspirations. Peace and love depboy
The following pools are believed to be currently fully validating blocks with Bitcoin Core 0.11 or later: BTCC: BTCC is a Bitcoin exchange, wallet, and mining pool located in China. Its mining pool currently controls around 15% of the network hash rate. Slush Pool: Slush Pool is run by Satoshi Labs, a Bitcoin company based in the Czech Republic Bitcoin mining tends to gravitate towards countries with cheap electricity. As Bitcoin mining is somewhat centralized, 10-15 mining companies have claimed the vast majority of network hash power. With many of these companies in the same country, only a number of countries mine and export a significant amount of bitcoins. China Litecoin's use of ports 9333 and 9332 conflicts with P2Pool running on the Bitcoin network. To avoid problems, add these lines to litecoin.conf and restart litecoind: rpcport=10332 port=10333 Litecoin's use of ports 9333 and 9332 conflicts with P2Pool running on the Bitcoin network. To avoid problems, add these lines to litecoin.conf and restart litecoind: rpcport=10332 port=10333 Bitcoin mining is the process of validating transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. You give up some (or all) of your computer’s computational power to help validate these transactions, and in return you’re rewarded with cryptocurrency. But solo mining is tough. You might be better off in a mining pool, where you can join forces with other
Join a Bitcoin Pool. In this Walkthrough you'll see me explain/demo how to join the Slush Bitcoin Pool. This is 2 of a 3-part Walkthrough on Bitcoin Mining. You can watch the full length, "Bitcoin ... Coinbase offers secure Bitcoin Wallet and also secure Vault options to members. Coinbase is a secure online bitcoin exchange for buying, selling, sending, receiving, and storing bitcoin. Arnold Schwarzenegger This Speech Broke The Internet AND Most Inspiring Speech- It Changed My Life. - Duration: 14:58. Alpha Leaders Productions Recommended for you Educate yourself on how to trade Bitcoin correctly, just like I have done. If you take all 3 levels, the last level is jaw-dropping as you will learn how to buy stocks for free. Get a $50 discount ... Bitcoin Basics (Part 1) - "Explained For Beginners" - Duration: 24:27. Chris Dunn 980,996 views. 24:27. 1 Cryptocurrency Trading Strategy To Make $100 Day Trading Bitcoin - Duration: 13:17.