What is solo mining and how it works? Pros and cons of ...
What is solo mining and how it works? Pros and cons of ...
Bitcoin and Gold "Miners Multiple" Points To Drastically ...
Bitcoin and Gold “Miners Multiple” Points To Drastically ...
This Is What Happens When Bitcoin Miners Take Over Your ...
Bitcoin and Gold “Miners Multiple” Points To Drastically ...
the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history
the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history What follows at the bottom is a four page long chronological overview of what happened in BCH in 2020 so far. To make it more digestable and fun to read I start with my narrating of the story. My attempt was to remain as objective as possible and "let the facts speak for themselve" with everything sourced. I also link to manyread.casharticles, the decision of which are the important ones to include is certainly not easy, I count on the rest of the community if I overlooked anything important. summary & my narrating of the story: The year started out relatively calm, with cashfusion in "the news" and an older ongoing controversy between Amaury and Roger Ver being worked out. Starting Jan 22nd all debate broke loose with the announcement of “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP. To illustrate this point 2 days later coinspice ran the title " Roger Ver Praises Vigorous Debate, [...]" and 6 days, less than a week, later Chris Pacia made a read.cash post titled "The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article" which might have been only a slight exaggeration or he might have been counting. Part of the reason of the tsunami was the lack of worked out details. By the time of Pacia's post a lot had changed: Both BU, Bitcoin Verde and a group of miners had made announcements not to go along with "the plan". On feb 1st, the second version of the IFP was announced by Jiang Zhuoer in a post “BCH miner donation plan update”. Two weeks later on Feb 15th, the third iteration was announced by Bitcoin ABC which was to be activated by hashrate voting and on the same day Flipstarter was introduced, a sign of the search for alternative solutions. After a few more days and a few more people coming out more against the IFP (including Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg & Josh Ellithorpe), BCHN was announced on feb 20th with a formal release a week later. Also feb 27th, the DAA was brought back into the conversation by Jonathan Toomim with his " The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it." video. By early march the IFP was effectively dead with its author Jiang Zhuoer vowing to vote against it. This became clear to everyone when ABC, a day later sudddenly shifted gears towards non-protocol, donation based funding: the IFP was dead. End march ABCs 2020 Business Plan was announced as a way to raise $3.3 million. Mid april to mid may was the high time for voluntary funding with four node implementations and General Protocols, a BCH DeFi Startup successfully raising funds. By May 15th, the 6th HF network upgrade things had pretty much cooled down. The upgraded included nothing controversial and even saw an unexpected doubling in the unconfirmed transaction chain. June 15th a month later things started to heat up again with the BCHN announcement to remove the "poison pill" or "automatic replay protection". 8th Jul Jonathan Toomim posted "BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA" which promised the solution to the long dragging DAA problem. Jul 23th however an unexpected twist occurred when Amaury Séchet posted "Announcing the Grasberg DAA" an incompatible, alternative solution. This, again, sparked a ton of debate and discussion. Grasberg lasted just two weeks from Jul 23th to Aug 6th when ABC announced its plans for the november 2020 upgrade but it had successfully united the opposition in the meanwhile. ABCs plan for november included dropping grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d and introducing IFPv4. Now we're here August 8th, the IFP which was declared dead after just over a month (Jan 22-Mar 5) is now back in full force. The rest of the history is still being written but if p2p electronic cash is to succeed in any big regard it's very thinkable that these events will get into history books. Important resources:coinspice IFP timeline&Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions History Jan 13th : “Do CoinJoins Really Require Equal Transaction Amounts for Privacy? Part One: CashFusion” article by BitcoinMagazine [source] Jan 13th : “Clearing the Way for Cooperation” Read.cash article by Amaury Séchet [source] on the controversy with Roger Ver about the amount of donations over the years Jan 22nd : “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” IFPv1 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] IFPv1: 12.5% of BCH coinbase rewards which will last for 6 months through a Hong Kong-based corporation & to be activated on May 15th Jan 22nd : ”Bitcoin Cash Developers React to Infrastructure Fund Announcement: Cautiously Optimistic” coinspice article including Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers, Jonald Fyookball & Josh Ellithorpe [source] Jan 23rd : Jiang Zhuoer reddit AMA [source] [coinspice article] Jan 23rd : Vitalik weighs in with his take on twitter [source] Jan 23rd :” On the infrastructure funding plan for Bitcoin Cash” article by Amaury Séchet [source] [coinspice article] in which he proposed to place control of the IFP key in his hands together with Jonald Fyookball and Antony Zegers. . A group of 7 to 12 miners, developers, and businessmen in total would get an advisory function. Jan 24th : “Bitcoin.com's Clarifications on the Miner Development Fund“ which emphasizes, among other things, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal [source] [coinspice article] Jan 24th : “Little Known (But Important!) Facts About the Mining Plan” Read.cash article by Jonald Fyookball in which he defended the IFP and stressed its necessity and temporary nature. Jan 25th : massive amounts of public debate as documented by coinspice [coinspice article] with Justin Bons, Tobias Ruck and Antony Zegers explaining their take on it. Jan 26th : public debate continues: “Assessment and proposal re: the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding situation” Read.cash article by imaginary_username [source] which was noteworthy in part because the post earned over Earns $1,000+ in BCH [coinspice article] and “The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead” by Peter Rizun [source] Jan 27th : “We are a group of miners opposing the BTC.TOP proposal, here's why” article on Read.cash [source] [reddit announcement] Jan 27th : Bitcoin Unlimited's BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax [source][reddit announcement] Jan 28th : “Bitcoin Verde's Response to the Miner Sponsored Development Fund” read.cash article by Josh Green in which he explains “Bitcoin Verde will not be implementing any node validation that enforces new coinbase rules.” [source] Jan 28th : “Update on Developer Funding” read.cash article from Bitcoin.com [source] in which they state “As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.” And that “any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.” This announcement from bitcoin.com and their mining pool lead the anonymous opposition miners to stand down. [source] Jan 28th : The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article – by Chris Pacia, to tackle the “serious misconceptions in the community about how software development works”. He ends on a note of support for the IFP because of lack of realistic alternatives. [source] Feb 1st: “BCH miner donation plan update” IFPv2 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] Which changes the donation mechanism so miners directly send part of their coinbase to the projects they wants to donate to. It would be activated with hashrate voting over a 3-month period with a 2/3 in favour requirement. The proposal also introduces a pilot period and a no donation option, Jiang Zhuoer also says he regards 12.% as too much. Feb 7th: Group of BCH miners led by AsicSeer voice scepticism about the IFP during a reddit AMA [source] Feb 15th: “On the Miner Infrastructure Funding Plan” article by Bitcoin ABC [source] In which they announce they will implement IFPv3 in their upcoming 0.21.0 release. This version has amount reduced to 5% of block reward and will go in effect with BIP 9 hashratevoting and a whitelist with different projects. Feb 15th : “Introducing Flipstarter” [source] Feb 16th :” Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals” video by Roger Ver on the Bitcoin.com Official Channel. [source] > Ver called Zhuoer’s IFP “clever” but ultimately “problematic.” [coinspice article] Feb 16th :” BCH miner donation plan update again” read.cash article by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] In which he briefly outlines the details of IFPv3 Feb 17th : “Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan” post by Jonald Fyookball [source] Feb 17th : “Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately.” tweet by Mark Lundeberg [source] Feb 19th : “Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective“ read.cash article by Josh Ellithorpe [source] Feb 20th : “Bitcoin Cash Node” post announcing the new node implementation [source] Feb 20th : First “Bitcoin Cash Developer Meeting” After IFP Proposal [source] Feb 24th : “Flipstarter 500k, 6 independent campaigns” post announcing the goal to “fund the BCH ecosystem with 6 independent campaigns and an overall 500,000 USD target” [source] Feb 27th : BCHN Formally Released [source] Feb 27th : “The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it.” Video by Jonathan Toomim [source] Mar 3th :” Bitcoin Cash Node 2020: plans for May upgrade and beyond” post by BCHN [source] Mar 4th :”Author of the Bitcoin Cash IFP [Jiang Zhuoer] Vows to Vote Against It, Using Personal Hash in Opposition” [source] Mar 5th :Bitcoin ABC announces their 2020 Business Plan Fundraising for later in march [source] Mar 15th : “EatBCH campaign funded! Next: node campaigns.” campaign funded after 11 hours [source] Mar 30th : Bitcoin ABC 2020 Business Plan [source] $3.3 Million Fundraiser [source] Apr 17th : Five flipstarter node campaign launched. [source] Apr 26th : BCHN flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] Apr 27th : VERDE flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 4th : KNUTH flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 7th : “BCH DeFi Startup General Protocols Raises Over $1 mil“ [source] May 8th : BCHD flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source] May 9th : Deadline for node campaigns, ABC flipstarter campaign not funded. [source] May 14th : “With IFP Defeated, Bitcoin ABC, ViaBTC & CoinEX CEO Publicly Consider a Bitcoin Cash Foundation” [source] May 15th : deadline for ABC fundraiser campaign, ends at 55% completed. [source] May 15th : 6th HF network upgrade -> new opcode op_Reversebytes, increased of the chained transaction limit from 25 to 50, and the improved counting of signature operations using the new “Sigchecks” implementation [source] with the “Controversial Funding Plan Rejected by Miners” [source] May 25th : “Announcing the SLP Foundation” [source] Jun 15st : “BCHN lead maintainer report 2020-06-15” announcement to remove the Automatic Replay Protection (a.k.a. the Poison Pill) from BCHN in november [source] Jun 16st : “So [BCHN] is going to fork off from BCH at the next upgrade. Same old story. […]” tweeted Vin Armani [source] Jun 21st : “Why Automatic Replay Protection Exists” post by Shammah Chancellor [source] Jul 7th : “The Popular Stablecoin Tether Is Now Circulating on the Bitcoin Cash Network” [source] Jul 8th : “BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source] Jul 18th : “$6M Worth of Tether on the Bitcoin Cash Chain Highlights the Benefits of SLP Tokens” [source] Jul 23th : “Announcing the Grasberg DAA” post by Amaury Séchet[source] Jul 24th : “Thoughts on Grasberg DAA” post by Mark Lundeberg [source] Jul 29th : CashFusion security audit has been completed [source] Jul 31st : Electron Cash 4.1.0 release with CashFusion support [source] 4th year, august 2020 – 2021 Aug 1st : “Bitcoin Cash: Scaling the Globe“ Online conference for ForkDay Celebration [source] Aug 2nd : >“Is there going to be a fork between ABC and BCHN?” > “IMO it is very likely. If not in November, then next May.” – Amaury Séchet Aug 3rd : “Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source] Aug 3rd : “Joint Statement On aserti3-2d Algorithm“ post by General Protocols, including Cryptophyl, Read.cash, Software Verde & SpinBCH [source] Aug 3rd : Knuth announces they will be implementing aserti3-2d as DAA for november. [source] Aug 3rd : Amaury rage quit from the developer call [source] Aug 4th : “But why do people care about compensating for historical drift? Seems like a tiny problem and if it's causing this much social discord it seems not even worth bothering to try to fix.” Tweet by Vitalik [source] Aug 5th : “Bitcoin Cash (BCH) November 2020 Upgrade statement” signed by BCHD, electron cash, VERDE, BU members, BCHN developers, Jonathan Toomim, Mark B. Lundeberg and many others [source] Aug 5th : “BCHN FAQ on November 2020 Bitcoin Cash network upgrade” [source] Aug 6th : “Bitcoin ABC’s plan for the November 2020 upgrade” [source] the announcement that they will drop Grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d (ASERT) and will also include FPv4 in which 8% of the blockreward goes to ABC as development funding. Aug 7th : “Joint Statement from BCH Miners regarding Bitcoin ABC and the November 2020 BCH Upgrade.” Read.cash article by asicseer [source] stating “Over recent months, most miners and pools have switched to BCHN, and presently operate a majority of BCH hashrate.” Aug 7th : “Simple Ledger Protocol's Joint Statement Regarding Bitcoin ABC on BCH's November 2020 Upgrade” read.cash post by the SLP-Foundation [source]
Round up of Cryptocurrency News #2 Week 13/07 - 19/07
So much has happened this week! We saw a capitulation point of bitcoin before bears took over and we saw the selling pressure push Bitcoin down toward the $9000USD mark then move back up above $9100USD So far it has been a stable hold, however we may see some more action within the coming weeks.
Widespread scamming within the Twitter-sphere, Youtube and other platforms as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may seem like fair game. Cryptocurrencies providing big payouts for scammers without the ability for reversals of accounts. Remember if something seems too good to be true, do some research or just plain do not respond/believe it. Stay safe and careful with your funds!
On the brightside, there has been even more adoption of cryptocurrencies as rumours of Paypal utilising cryptocurrency has been confirmed as they are developing crypto capabilities. In addition to this we received exciting news at the start of this week about Binance partnering with Swipe (SXP) and offering a debit card to spend BNB, SXP, BTC and BUSD. ( I will be keeping a swift eye on BNB and Swipe as its utilisation as tokens has just increased 43 fold).
Positive news for the Bitcoin network as its hashrate reaches all time high which helps to secure the network further even though mining profits have dropped by 50% from the recent halving. If you didn't know already the last Bitcoin will be expected to be mined in 2140 with its difficulty ever increasing and each time securing the network further. Processing units will have to become faster, stronger and most importantly more cost effective to continue to entice miners for the block rewards and further renewable energy practices.
Furthermore we can see Central banks and countries discussing and developing Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC). Read more about it here https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/central-bank-digital-currency-cbdc.asp and check out some of the developments in the world above. This shows the popularity and strong nature of cryptocurrencies. As the saying goes "If you cant beat them, JOIN them".
Overall, very solid week full of adoption, animation and anticipation. Another post next week for a weekly round up! See you then but in the mean time join us at our Gravychain Discord. - DISCORD LINK: https://discord.gg/zxXXyuJ 🍕 Bring some virtual pizza to share 🍕 Come have a chat, stimulate a discussion, ask a question or share some knowledge. We are all friendly crypto enthusiasts up for a chat, supportive and want to help each other with knowledge and investments! Big thanks to our Telegram and My Crypto HQ for the constant news updates! - The Gravychain Collective: https://t.me/gravychain - My Crypto HQ: https://t.me/My_Crypto_HQ Important/Notable/Highlights:
Cryptocurrency exchanges process over $20 billion in trade volume per day. Most of the transactions are going through centralized exchanges, where the users need to fully trust them for managing their assests and transactions. However, the risk of trusting these centralized exchanges has also been seen. For example, QuadrigaCX, which was the largest cryptocurrency exchange in Canada, lost $19 million of their customers' assets . Decentralized Exchanges (DEXes) have been introduced to address this problem -- they allow traders to purchase and sell cryptocurrencies in a peer-to-peer manner, so no involvement of any trusted party is required. Atomic Swap is one of the promising technology for implementing a DEX. While it enables pure peer to peer trading, it also introduces problems such as unfairness and long confirmation latency. While existing work  has provided a solution towards a fair atomic swap protocol, the issue of long confirmation latency is inherent. Another promising direction is leveraging liquidity pools. With liquidity pools, pairs of assets are reserved for trading. For any pair of assets supported by the liquidity pool, traders can exchange their assets without any third party. As traders can only perform the transactions if there are reserved assets, one core problem is how to attract liquidity providers to provide liquidity by reserving assets. It is not difficult to see that incentive [3,4], which has been a key component of all permissionless blockchains, can be equipped to incentivize liqudity providers. However, flawed incentive designs will lead to attacks and other concerns [5-13]. There are two main types of incentive designs, namely "trans-fee mining" and "liquidity mining". They are different from the Proof-of-X mining in blockchains for reaching consensus (a detailed analysis can be found in the survey ). Rather, they are used to incentivise users to join the ecosystem. "Trans-fee mining" was proposed by FCoin in 2018 . With FCoin, each time a transaction is created, 100% of its transaction fee will be returned in FCoin token to the payer as a reward. This is one incentive design to encourage traders to join the system. However, as FCoin may have no value to the trader, FCoin also introduces extra reward to all coin holders -- 80% of the transaction fee in its native currency (such as ETH) will be distributed to all coin holders. So, traders are incentivized to join the system, becoming a holder of FCoin token, and obtaining a share of the transaction fee of every transaction in the FCoin ecosystem. While this had successful attracted traders, it is not sustainable. Rather than charging a trader to perform transactions, FCoin rewards traders. Profit-driven traders will create transactions at full speed to earn FCoin token and the share as a token holder. Indeed, the trading volume of FCoin was the top one among all exchange services, and the daily reward can be as high as 6000 BTC . However, once all coins are minted, then the system would lose liveness as there is not enough supply to be distributed. "Liquidity mining" aims at giving reward to the liquidity providers rather than the traders. There are different ways to implement liquidity mining. Compound  is a famous example of protocols deploying liquidity mining. With Compound, users become a liquidity provider by supply assets to a pool and obtain interests for its contribution (similar to depositing money into a bank). Liquidity providers first reserve some assets in the pool and obtain "cToken" of Compound which entitles the owner to an increasing quantity of the underlying asset. Users can use their "cToken" to borrow different assets available on the Compound and pay some interests to Compund. The borrowers may have some quick gains through the financial games . Both borrowers and liquidity providers can withdraw their asset by trading them back with "cToken". Oners of "cToken" can also manage the business direction and decisions of Compound through weighted voting. The potential concern here is that rich users might be able to take over the control of the system. Uniswap  is another popular DEX deploying liquidity mining. Uniswap incentivizes liquidity providers by giving them a share of the earned transaction fees. In particular, Uniswap changes each transaction a 0.3% fee, where 0.25% will be distributed to the liquidity providers, and 0.05% will go to the Uniswap account. One issue is how to incentivize traders. With Uniswap, traders are incentivized by the potential profit it can gain through the price difference between Uniswap and other exchanges. Uniswap price oracle is based on a constant function market makers [20,21], where the product of the number of reserved tokens is a constant. For example, if Uniswap has a pair of X token A and Y token B, then when a user using X' token A to buy Y' token B, the product of the reserved number of tokens should remain the same, i.e., XY = (X+X')(Y-Y'). The price of Uniswap (V1) is also defined in this way. This allows traders to speculate in the exchange market as the asset price on Uniswap is changed dynamically and is different from other exchanges. This, on the other hand, may have a security risk as the price can be easily manipulated. Uniswap (V2) fixed this problem by taking an accumulated price over a period of time . However, as speculation/manipulation becomes harder, the trading volume may decrease. MiniSwap  introduces a hybrid model (a mixture of "trans-fee mining" and "liquidity mining") to address the above issues. MiniSwap provides three types of rewards. For each trade with transaction fee f ETH in MiniSwap, a number of MiniSwap tokens (called MINI) worth 2f ETH will be minted. A (parameterized) portion of the tokens are given to the trader, and the rest are distribued to the liqudity providers. The transaction fee (f ETH) is used to exchange MINI in the liquidity pool. 50% of the obtained MINI will be distributed to all MINI holders, and the other 50% will be destroyed. In this way, both traders and liquidity providers are incentivized to join the ecosystem. Recall that with FCoin, there is a problem when all coins are minted. MiniSwap has an upper bound (of 500,000 tokens) on the number of tokens can be created every day, and this limit reduces every month until a point where the limit (18,000 tokens) remains unchanged. This guarantees the sustainability of the system as the mining process can last for 100 years. The parameterized ratio of tokens as the reward to the trader and liquidity provider can also strengthen sustainability. It enables the system to dynamically balance the incentive of different parties in the system to make it more sustainable. Overall, the MiniSwap hybrid model has taken the benefit of both "trans-fee mining" model and "liquidity mining" model, while eliminated the potential concerns. Formally defining and analyzing these models, e.g. through the game-theoretic approach , would be an interesting direction. Reference  The Guardian, Cryptocurrency investors locked out of $190m after exchange founder dies, 2019.  Runchao Han, Haoyu Lin, Jiangshan Yu. On the optionality and fairness of Atomic Swaps, ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, 2019.  Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system  Jiangshan Yu, David Kozhaya, Jeremie Decouchant, and Paulo Verissimo. Repucoin: your reputation is your power. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2019.  Joseph Bonneau. Why Buy When You Can Rent? - Bribery Attacks on Bitcoin-Style Consensus. Financial Cryptography and Data Security - International Workshops on BITCOIN, VOTING, and WAHC, 2016.  Yujin Kwon, Hyoungshick Kim, Jinwoo Shin, and Yongdae Kim. Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash: Coexistence or Downfall of Bitcoin Cash, IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2019.  Kevin Liao and Jonathan Katz. Incentivizing blockchain forks via whale transactions. International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2017.  Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. Optimal Selfish Mining Strategies in Bitcoin. Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2016.  Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer. Majority Is Not Enough: Bitcoin Mining Is Vulnerable. Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2014.  Ittay Eyal. The Miner’s Dilemma. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2015.  Miles Carlsten, Harry A. Kalodner, S. Matthew Weinberg, and Arvind Narayanan. On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward. ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016.  Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi. Stubborn mining: generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016.  Runchao Han, Zhimei Sui, Jiangshan Yu, Joseph K. Liu, Shiping Chen. Sucker punch makes you richer: Rethinking Proof-of-Work security model, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch, 2019.  Christopher Natoli, Jiangshan Yu, Vincent Gramoli, Paulo Jorge Esteves Veríssimo. Deconstructing Blockchains: A Comprehensive Survey on Consensus, Membership and Structure. CoRR abs/1908.08316, 2019.  FCoin, https://www.fcoin.pro  The Block Crypto. Cryptocurrency exchange Fcoin expects to default on as much as $125M of users' bitcoin, 2020.  Compound, https://compound.finance.  Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Bentov, Lorenz Breidenbach, Ari Juels. Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning, Transaction Reordering, and Consensus Instability in Decentralized Exchanges. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2020.  Uniswap. https://uniswap.org  Bowen Liu, Pawel Szalachowski. A First Look into DeFi Oracles. CoRR abs/2005.04377, 2020.  Guillermo Angeris, Tarun Chitra. Improved Price Oracles: Constant Function Market Makers, CoRR abs/ 2003.10001, 2020.  Uniswap V2.0 whitepaper. https://uniswap.org/whitepaper.pdf  MiniSwap. https://www.miniswap.org  Ziyao Liu, Nguyen Cong Luong, Wenbo Wang, Dusit Niyato, Ping Wang, Ying-Chang Liang, Dong In Kim. A Survey on Blockchain: A Game Theoretical Perspective. IEEE Access, 2019.
PoW or PoS: The Difference Between Mined and Non-Mined Crypto
The whole crypto world discusses how Ethereum will switch from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake now. This change can significantly affect the cryptocurrency market. What are the positive and negative sides of PoW and PoS? Cryptocurrencies can be divided into two types: those that can be mined (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero) and pre-mined ones (Ripple, Stellar, Cardano, EOS, NEO).
What is the big difference?
Although they differ in the method of generation, the basis of both types of crypto is the same: verification. Every transaction processed by the network must be verified by someone to ensure that virtual money has not been spent twice. Here we are talking about the difference in the verification process. Transaction groups are combined into a block; after verification, the block joins other previously confirmed blocks, and create a chain of transactions, or blockchain.
PoW: Mined Crypto
Mining is a process in which individuals, groups, or companies solve complex mathematical equations to verify transaction blocks using powerful computers. These math problems are part of the encryption process that protects transactions from cybercriminals and third party access. The first who solves the problem and signs a block of transactions receives a reward. The miner, who confirmed the block of transactions e.g. in the Bitcoin network, receives a reward in BTC.
Disadvantages of Mined Crypto
Mining can be very expensive due to the large amounts of electricity consumed. In mined crypto with less capitalization, competition is usually lower than in BTC.
BTC mining requires special ASIC chips, that are combined into huge farms. Electricity is one of the main expenses for these projects. That is why China, where electricity is relatively cheap, has become a home to four of the five largest Bitcoin mining companies in the world.
Mining farms have to spend significant money funds on new equipment, which becomes out of date very fast.
Large projects need additional cooling, as servers and graphics cards heat up to high temperatures during operations.
The Proof-of-Work model is potentially vulnerable to a 51% attack (when a group of people with 51% of the computing power gains control of the network and its participants). For popular cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), and Monero (XMR) this is not a problem due to their large capitalization. However, minor cryptocurrencies with long block processing times and low daily volumes are risking a lot.
PoS: Non-Mined Crypto
At the other end of the spectrum are pre-mined cryptocurrencies such as Ripple (XRP), Stellar, Cardano, EOS, and NEO. In the PoS model, super-powered computers are not needed, and participants do not compete for the right to sign the next block. Thus, the costs of this approach are significantly lower. Transaction verification is carried out by cryptocurrency owners. The more cryptocurrencies you have, the longer you own it, the higher the probability that you will be selected to check the transaction block. Certain mechanisms are built into the system that prevents the dominance of large cryptocurrency holders over the verification process. There are many random ways to select owners who get the right to sign a transaction block. This ensures that small holders have a chance to participate in the process.
Disadvantages of Non-Mined Crypto
Despite the fact that the costs of the Proof-of-Stake method are lower, PoS has its drawbacks.
Such cryptocurrencies are not threatened by an attack of 51%, however, another trouble replaces it — a person who posses 51% of all tokens in circulation can gain control of the network and its participants. Of course, in the case of cryptocurrencies with high capitalization, the possibility of this scenario is low, but small partners may suffer from this vulnerability.
The Proof-of-Stake model also gives major owners additional votes in determining the future development of the network. Most NEO tokens) belong to several founders, for instance. This helps increase transaction speed and reduces consensus-building time, but also makes cryptocurrency too centralized. In other words, in the PoS model, large players gain significant power, which is theoretically impossible with the PoW model.
Which method is better?
Both methods have their pros and cons. Nevertheless, sooner or later, some of the largest mined currencies (e.g. BTC) will reach their token limit. At this point, they will have to switch to Proof-of-Stake. Since it significantly reduces power consumption and doesn't require powerful computers, gradually all crypto including BTC will switch to a non-mined model just like Ether did.
If history is any guide, we’re not going to see ETH 2.0 until 2022 at the earliest, even if the earliest phases of “Serenity” begin getting pushed in mid-2020. ETH 2.0’s rollout breaks down into seven (7!!!) phases and brings with it the promise of staking, sharding, a new virtual machine, and more dancing badgers. (One of our analysts,Wilson Withiam, put together an excellent overview of both the ETH 2.0 and ETH 1.x roadmaps for this report. They are critical to track and understand at a high-level given how much Ethereum’s performance will affect other competitive projects and most of the DeFi and Web 3 infrastructure. So these next two sections are longer and more technical.) Here’s what you need to know about the current game plan for crypto’s largest platform. Phase 0 marks the launch of the “beacon chain”, which will serve as the backbone for a new blockchain. The beacon chain will manage network validators (large early stakers like ConsenSys) and ultimately assign validators to individual shards (slicing the new blockchain into smaller chunks is a key, difficult, controversial scaling decision that’s been made). The new chain will support Ethereum’s new proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, and offer inflation rewards with new ETH2 for those that pony up and lock 32 ETH1 tokens into an irreversible contract. That one way bridge into the new system is also contentious, but it means ETH1 supply will start getting “effectively burned”once token holder begin claiming beacon chain validator slots. Initial reports claimed Jan. 3 as a realistic launch date (lol). It will be amazing to see this launched by end of June. Phase 1 will introduce 64 individual shard chains (reduced from 1,024!!!) to the network, with the option to increase the total down the road as the design gets tested. The Ethereum elite see sharding as the “key to future scalability” as shards can parallelize transaction processing, something that could improve network performance and reduce individual validator’s costs (good for decentralization). It comes with big risk: this is still theoretical. No network the size of Ethereum has successfully sharded its blockchain. In Phase 1, shard chains will only contain simple data sets (no smart contracts or transaction executions) to test the system’s structure. As with Phase 0, the beacon chain will continue to run in parallel with ETH 1.x throughout the phase. Don’t expect Phase 1 anytime before 2021. Phase 2 marks the full launch of the ETH2 chain, allowing for on-chain contract execution and introducing the new eWASM virtual machine (dubbed EVM 2.0). At this point, existing dApps can start migrating their contracts from ETH 1.x to a specific shard (one shard per contract) in the new network. Storage rent, charging contract owners for storing data on the network (more on this below), is in the cards as well, which would require mass contract rewrites. Even though Phase 2 intends to replace the original Ethereum blockchain entirely, ETH 1.x may still live on as a shard within ETH2. (How confused are you by now? See why bitcoin will still dominate the macro narrative for a while?) A late 2021 release for Phase 2 is optimistic. Before the end of 2022 would be a win. The final four phases are less defined, and without an attached timeline: Phase 3 implements state-minimized clients (because stateless clients are just too much). Phase 4 allows for cross-shard transactions. Phase 5 improves network security and the availability of data proofs. Phase 6 introduces meta-shards, as in “shards within shards within shards,” for near-infinite scaling. If you’re scratching your head and are sadistic enough to read more, the Sharding Wiki page does note, “this may be difficult.” Scaling and compilation efficiencies aside, the most notable change in Ethereum’s metamorphosis is the transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. PoW is the more battle tested security model for blockchain networks, while PoS may prove to be more efficient but with new and less obvious attack vectors. For the more technical, we recommend reading Bison Trails’ Viktor Bunin on the subject of PoS security threats. Past research has also shown PoS requires an extra layer of “trust” vs. PoW, to help nodes sync to the network. Most models share specific characteristics to address this trust issue, such as allowing for a dynamic set of validators (rotate your security), promoting token holder participation in consensus, and assessing steep penalties (slashing) for any network participant that violates the protocol guidelines. ETH 2.0 will function similarly, but may be able to learn from other PoS networks (and their R&D) as well as those come live and see real world issues. As Vitalik points out, recent research in PoS resulted in “great theoretical progress,” But... Listen, we're talking about practice. Not a game. Not a game. Not a game. We're talking about practice. Not a game….Practice? We're talking about practice, man? We're talking about practice. We're talking about practice. We ain't talking about the game. We're talking about practice, man. Vitalik was eight when this happened, so the clip might help and prove metaphoric.
2 ETH 1.x Research/Governance/Roadmap at a glance.
Ok, one more. Bear with us. Let’s reiterate, ETH 2.0 is a brand new blockchain. It’s going to be a chaotic and high-risk transition. In the meantime, the existing network needs to run existing applications (particularly financial settlements for DeFi transactions). More critical upgrades are needed in the current system. To that end, ETH 1.x devs have three goals to boost performance and reduce blockchain bloat: (1) introduce client optimizations that increase transaction capacity; (2) cap disk space requirements and prune old, memory-sucking data (so running a node is less expensive and more decentralized); and (3) upgrade the EVM to eWASM, a newer open standard for code compilers that simplifies debugging, and is also used by all the newer smart contract platforms. ETH 1.x developers have decided to split the major tasks amongst four working groups:
State Rent: Developers today incur a single payment for deploying contracts and storing data on the network. Thanks to the immutable nature of blockchains, this data occupies the disk space of node operators permanently. As the network’s state grows, so do operating costs, which is where “state rent” comes in. It makes sense to charge for ongoing storage needs since the node operators are on the hook in perpetuity. This is a big change as it could break a bunch of contracts, but also limits state growth and creates economic incentives to run a node. What happens to data that users don’t want to pay for? Boot delinquent user data off the network but keep a stub (a hash) of information on hand in case the user wants to later reinstate it.
Pruning: Similar goal. Pruning removes old data that is longer useful, but does so in a way that allows clients to prove past transactions. There are a couple of ways developers think this is possible (e.g. maintain a proof of deleted chain segments, which is similar to a “light client” in bitcoin that makes it possible to run a wallet on your phone), but all current strategies would cap annual “state growth” to prevent spikes in storage costs, at the expense of some new complications (e.g., dApps might be unable to access some data, and nodes might be unable to tell if data was deleted or whether it never existed in the first place).
eWASM: Like ETH 2.0, devs plan to implement eWASM on the flagship Ethereum chain. The eWASM virtual machine, a subset of the well-established WebAssembly compiler, offers improved flexibility for the introduction of “high-performance” smart contracts.
Simulation and Emulation: This group develops tools to help support and evaluate the other groups because, well, someone has to test everything.
Core developers intend to introduce most of these implementations through a series of hard forks, the latest of which activated just over a week ago (Istanbul, Dec. 7). However, Istanbul’s second phase, tentatively scheduled for Q2 next year, has Ethereans at each other’s throats. The controversy boils down to the fork’s inclusion of ProgPoW, an ASIC-resistant hashing algorithm designed to replace Ethereum’s current algo. ProgPoW aims to even the playing field for GPU miners and ward off the entrance of potential ASIC competitors. The miners like that. But many miners and investors see ProgPoW as a threat to their investments. For miners, the change would shift the power dynamic away from mining farms and render expensive, specialized mining hardware useless. Ethereum (and ERC-20) investors intent on securing their assets might balk because ASIC miners typically prop up hash rates (overall chain security) and their costs “naturally create a price-floor for ASK prices of miners’ sell-orders.” This saga is far from over. The infighting will likely continue leading up to ProgPoW’s activation date mid-next year, and presents the strongest potential for a network split since “The DAO” fork that spawned Ethereum Classic. The looming transition to ETH 2.0 (and proof-of-stake) will likely deter investor pushback, because it’s a short-term battle in a war the miners are ultimately going to lose, anyway. Unless the roadmap changes back to supporting a hybrid PoW/PoS system, of course, but... Oh my god, I’m just kidding. This section is mercifully over.
A double-spend occurs when the same funds are spent more than once. The term is used almost exclusively in the context of digital money — after all, you’d have a hard time spending the same physical cash twice. When you pay for a coffee today, you hand cash over to a cashier who probably locks it in a register. You can’t go to the coffee shop across the road and pay for another coffee with the same bill. In digital cash schemes, there’s the possibility that you could. You’ve surely duplicated a computer file before — you just copy and paste it. You can email the same file to ten, twenty, fifty people. Since digital money is just data, you need to prevent people from copying and spending the same units in different places. Otherwise, your currency will collapse in no time. For a more in-depth look at double-spending, check out Double Spending Explained.
Why is Proof of Work necessary?
If you’ve read our guide to blockchain technology, you’ll know that users broadcast transactions to the network. Those transactions aren’t immediately considered valid, though. That only happens when they get added to the blockchain. The blockchain is a big database that every user can see, so they can check if funds have been spent before. Picture it like this: you and three friends have a notepad. Anytime one of you wants to make a transfer of whatever units you’re using, you write it down — Alice pays Bob five units, Bob pays Carol two units, etc. There’s another intricacy here — each time you make a transaction, you refer to the transaction where the funds came from. So, if Bob was paying Carol with two units, the entry would actually look like the following: Bob pays Carol two units from this earlier transaction with Alice. Now, we have a way to track the units. If Bob tries to make another transaction using the same units he just sent to Carol, everyone will know immediately. The group won’t allow the transaction to be added to the notepad. Now, this might work well in a small group. Everyone knows each other, so they’ll probably agree on which of the friends should add transactions to the notepad. What if we want a group of 10,000 participants? The notepad idea doesn’t scale well, because nobody wants to trust a stranger to manage it. This is where Proof of Work comes in. It ensures that users aren’t spending money that they don’t have the right to spend. By using a combination of game theory and cryptography, a PoW algorithm enables anyone to update the blockchain according to the rules of the system.
How does PoW work?
Our notepad above is the blockchain. But we don’t add transactions one by one — instead, we lump them into blocks. We announce the transactions to the network, then users creating a block will include them in a candidate block. The transactions will only be considered valid once their candidate block becomes a confirmed block, meaning that it has been added to the blockchain. Appending a block isn’t cheap, however. Proof of Work requires that a miner (the user creating the block) uses up some of their own resources for the privilege. That resource is computing power, which is used to hash the block’s data until a solution to a puzzle is found. Hashing the block’s data means that you pass it through a hashing function to generate a block hash. The block hash works like a “fingerprint” — it’s an identity for your input data and is unique to each block. It’s virtually impossible to reverse a block hash to get the input data. Knowing an input, however, it’s trivial for you to confirm that the hash is correct. You just have to submit the input through the function and check if the output is the same. In Proof of Work, you must provide data whose hash matches certain conditions. But you don’t know how to get there. Your only option is to pass your data through a hash function and to check if it matches the conditions. If it doesn’t, you’ll have to change your data slightly to get a different hash. Changing even one character in your data will result in a totally different result, so there’s no way of predicting what an output might be. As a result, if you want to create a block, you’re playing a guessing game. You typically take information on all of the transactions that you want to add and some other important data, then hash it all together. But since your dataset won’t change, you need to add a piece of information that is variable. Otherwise, you would always get the same hash as output. This variable data is what we call a nonce. It’s a number that you’ll change with every attempt, so you’re getting a different hash every time. And this is what we call mining. Summing up, mining is the process of gathering blockchain data and hashing it along with a nonce until you find a particular hash. If you find a hash that satisfies the conditions set out by the protocol, you get the right to broadcast the new block to the network. At this point, the other participants of the network update their blockchains to include the new block. For major cryptocurrencies today, the conditions are incredibly challenging to satisfy. The higher the hash rate on the network, the more difficult it is to find a valid hash. This is done to ensure that blocks aren’t found too quickly. As you can imagine, trying to guess massive amounts of hashes can be costly on your computer. You’re wasting computational cycles and electricity. But the protocol will reward you with cryptocurrency if you find a valid hash. Let’s recap what we know so far:
It’s expensive for you to mine.
You’re rewarded if you produce a valid block.
Knowing an input, a user can easily check its hash — non-mining users can verify that a block is valid without expending much computational power.
So far, so good. But what if you try to cheat? What’s to stop you from putting a bunch of fraudulent transactions into the block and producing a valid hash? That’s where public-key cryptography comes in. We won’t go into depth in this article, but check out What is Public-Key Cryptography? for a comprehensive look at it. In short, we use some neat cryptographic tricks that allow any user to verify whether someone has a right to move the funds they’re attempting to spend. When you create a transaction, you sign it. Anyone on the network can compare your signature with your public key, and check whether they match. They’ll also check if you can actually spend your funds and that the sum of your inputs is higher than the sum of your outputs (i.e., that you’re not spending more than you have). Any block that includes an invalid transaction will be automatically rejected by the network. It’s expensive for you to even attempt to cheat. You’ll waste your own resources without any reward. Therein lies the beauty of Proof of Work: it makes it expensive to cheat, but profitable to act honestly. Any rational miner will be seeking ROI, so they can be expected to behave in a way that guarantees revenue.
Proof of Work vs. Proof of Stake
There are many consensus algorithms, but one of the most highly-anticipated ones is Proof of Stake (PoS). The concept dates back to 2011, and has been implemented in some smaller protocols. But it has yet to see adoption in any of the big blockchains. In Proof of Stake systems, miners are replaced with validators. There’s no mining involved and no race to guess hashes. Instead, users are randomly selected — if they’re picked, they must propose (or “forge”) a block. If the block is valid, they’ll receive a reward made up of the fees from the block’s transactions. Not just any user can be selected, though — the protocol chooses them based on a number of factors. To be eligible, participants must lock up a stake, which is a predetermined amount of the blockchain’s native currency. The stake works like bail: just as defendants put up a large sum of money to disincentivize them from skipping trial, validators lock up a stake to disincentivize cheating. If they act dishonestly, their stake (or a portion of it) will be taken. Proof of Stake does have some benefits over Proof of Work. The most notable one is the smaller carbon footprint — since there’s no need for high-powered mining farms in PoS, the electricity consumed is only a fraction of that consumed in PoW. That said, it has nowhere near the track record of PoW. Although it could be perceived as wasteful, mining is the only consensus algorithm that’s proven itself at scale. In just over a decade, it has secured trillions of dollars worth of transactions. To say with certainty whether PoS can rival its security, staking needs to be properly tested in the wild.
Proof of Work was the original solution to the double-spend problem and has proven to be reliable and secure. Bitcoin proved that we don’t need centralized entities to prevent the same funds from being spent twice. With clever use of cryptography, hash functions, and game theory, participants in a decentralized environment can agree on the state of a financial database.
Recently, I have been thinking a lot about cryptocurrencies. As Satoshi Nakamoto said, "Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own." When you cut off one head, 2 more will grow in its place. And the BTC vs Bitcoin Cash fork is exactly what happened on 1st Aug 2017. The good news is that Bitcoin Cash has survived and proved its anti-fragility properties. Bitcoin Cash continues its goal as "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", as specified in the original Bitcoin whitepaper. Betting against Bitcoin Cash is like betting against Bitcoin in the early years. In fact, Bitcoin Cash had made such huge progress in the last 2 years, thanks to the extremely talented developers, that the value proposition of Bitcoin Cash has grown multifold. I have no doubt that the prices of cryptocurrencies are heavily manipulated, with no exception to Bitcoin Cash. If some malicious actors wanted to sabotage Bitcoin Cash, they will suppress the prices so that people feel disheartened by it. Evidence of constant trolling, seemingly paid propaganda campaigns, harassments against the Bitcoin Cash community has added weight to this suspicion. And that is why, I have decided to write this article about the risk/reward and share my opinions about Bitcoin Cash. Let's get right to it. In my opinion, here are the 3 biggest risk factors concerning Bitcoin Cash. 1) Tether Implosion - With the New York AG case hanging over Bitfinex/Tethers, I expect unusually high volatility as the bad guys tries to milk as much money (liquidating longs/shorts) as they can while the court case is still ongoing. However, I expect New York AG to win the case eventually, and the massive loss of confidence in the space will affect the entire crypto space very badly. 2) Hostile Regulatory Climate - Some governments may try to ban cryptocurrencies outright, such as India. Ironically, these countries will be the ones shooting themselves in the foot because the crypto innovations and money will prosper in the more welcoming countries. Given that the crypto space is easily influenced by such news, there may be price dumps in the short term due to such regulatory actions. 3) Malicious Actors Infiltrating BCH Community - Just because it had happened before doesn't mean it won't happen again. Splitting the community is one of the ways to hurt the value proposition of a cryptocurrency. Afterall, it's the community that gives the cryptocurrency its value. I'm a big fan of Warren Buffett when it comes to value investing. He likes to say, he wished the prices were lower so that he could buy them cheaper. Value investors are always on the lookout for undervalued stocks, buy low sell high. The last few days, I had scooped up as many undervalued Bitcoin Cash as I could, and it felt incredibly liberating. It felt truly awesome knowing that you, and only you, has total control over this new p2p magic Internet money. With BTC, you need to worry about unspendable funds due to insufficient fees. With fiat money, you need to worry about hyperinflation due to corrupt government. With Bitcoin Cash, you never have such worries with your own money. In my opinion, here are the things going for Bitcoin Cash. 1) Bitcoin Cash has much better fundamentals (Privacy - CashShuffle, Tokens - SLP/Wormhole/etc, Cash Accounts, Utility - Medium of Exchange, Oracles - Sports Betting, etc) than BTC. In other words, this means both the floor and ceiling price for Bitcoin Cash will be much higher than BTC. It may take some time to catch up, but it seems inevitable given Bitcoin Cash's current progress and trajectory. If BTC could reach $20k, then Bitcoin Cash's ceiling could well be multiple times that. This means Bitcoin Cash has a much more attractive risk/reward ratio compared to obselete coins like BTC. In my opinion, BTC is for short term gambling/speculation while Bitcoin Cash is more fundamentals based investment. 2) Bitcoin Cash's Halving is coming within a few months, around 8th April 2020. This means less supply which, based on historic data, usually leads to growing prices. 3) The global money supply is around $75 trillion dollars. With Bitcoin Cash's marketcap of $5 billion dollars currently, and its goals as a medium of exchange, $75 trillion will give us plenty of room to grow into. Even if we consider shadow banking, which Bitcoin Cash is well suited for, that's around $50 trillion dollars. That's a lot of room to grow into so again, the risk/reward ratio is too attractive for me to pass up. 4) Bitcoin Cash is my insurance policy. Most people didn't know that the average lifespan of a fiat currency is only 27 years nor do they know fiat currency such as US dollars had lost over 90% of its purchasing power in mere decades. If it could happen to once properous countries such as Venezuela or Greece or Argentina or even powerful nations such as America, it could happen to any country. Of if there is a war, how am I going to carry the gold bar across the border without getting robbed by the borders officers? Bitcoin Cash is my insurance policy to be able to seek refuge in a safe country and protect my loved ones from poverty when such precarious situations happens. 5) I think Bitcoin Cash is still in the very early adopters period. It's exactly like Bitcoin back in 2010 where only a small group of folks know what's up. Back then, when you talk about Bitcoin to people, they had all these wrong impressions due to their lack of understanding about it. Likewise, when you talk about Bitcoin Cash now even in the crypto space alone, you can see people with wrong impressions due to their lack of understanding about it. Some see this as a problem, I see this as an opportunity to be ahead of the crowd and accumulate more Bitcoin Cash! One of the things I learnt from people like Jack Ma is that if you do what everyone else is doing, you're going to get what everyone else is getting, average results. Value investors educate themselves and are ahead of the curve. So I am not even mad at the propaganda against Bitcoin Cash, because it helps value investors like myself get as much Bitcoin Cash at as low a price point as possible ahead of the pack. Thanks to those trolls costantly spreading lies and propaganda against Bitcoin Cash, because if not for them, I would have left so much more money on the table while buying those same amount of Bitcoin Cash. 6) The Bitcoin Cash community is awesome. What can I say, so many incredibly smart and passionate folks making a difference in shaping the future of money. I think it's worth repeating that what gives cryptocurrency its value is because of its community. If I am going to put my money on something, one of the driving factors is definitely the awesome community. 7) Let's do some Math about BTC. Miners need to sell their BTC to pay for electricity. 6 (blocks/hour) * 24 (hours) * 12.5 (block reward) * $12000 * 30 (days/month) is equal to $648 million dollars per month required just to sustain the BTC price. Do you really believe there is $648 million dollars each month or about $8 billion dollars a year of new money coming into BTC? Really? I am not sure anyone with so much money is that stupid to buy BTC. And even so, it merely sustains the BTC price at $12000. If the price goes up to $20k, you need more than 1 billion dollars of new money coming in every single month! On the other hand, Bitcoin Cash just needs $16 million dollars per month to grow, which looks much more sustainable to me. BTC Maximalists loves shouting how BTC will get to a million dollars, as if repeating over and over what they hope to be true, will make it come true. Sheeps follow these lies without thinking for themselves. They seems to believe that by repeating a lie or name calling (bcash) long enough, it will become reality. I leave you this quote from Michael Burry (The Big Short), "People want an authority to tell them how to value things, but they choose this authority not based on facts or results. They choose it because it feels authoritative and familiar." With Bitcoin Cash, there is no authority nor maximalists telling you what you can or cannot do. I see Bitcoin Cash as the people's money and having Bitcoin Cash gives me the feeling of solidarity with commoners around the world. Everytime I read about how badly some governments treated their own citizens, it makes me buy more Bitcoin Cash with a passion. Unlike other cryptocurrencies such as BTC which depends on lies and propaganda to sustain its price, Bitcoin Cash survives based on merits and fundamentals and putting power back into the peoples hands. I hold Bitcoin Cash with a happy clear conscience and sleep well at night. Bitcoin Cash is betting against dumb money (aka lambo/moon bois) and soon enough, we will know just how dumb that money really is. Sorry about the wall of text. It was an accumulation of days of thoughts and self reflection.
A hybrid crypto exchange is a platform that provides users with access to their private keys and aims to solve the scalability issues of decentralized exchanges. *Disclaimer: I don’t insist that one have to store 100% of the portfolio on any kind of exchange. Why is it called Hybrid exchange? Hybrid crypto exchanges combine the pros of Centralized crypto exchanges and Decentralized crypto exchanges. The hybrid concept allows for certain cons to be remedied by implementing the advantages of the opposite. What are Centralized and Decentralized exchanges? Centralized(CEX) crypto exchanges provide massive volatility with the help of market-making activities. Occasional fiat gateways for its users, so everyone could quickly cash out gainings. Besides, substantial centralized crypto exchanges have a higher trust score within the community. Decentralized(DEX) crypto exchanges provide a solution to the security issues by letting users be in control of their private keys. This feature is a part of the real decentralization of trust philosophy, which is essential for the whole crypto economy. DEX vs CEX
Decentralized nature - in contrast to CEX, mostly DEXes are hosted on decentralized servers. This method of hosting makes them almost invulnerable to hacks;
Not restricted by law- because of its decentralized nature. There is no so-called single point of failure. It is nearly impossible to shut one down or regulate it. This is a strong point for users who live in countries that ban cryptocurrencies. But it’s really hard to find the independent Decentralized exchange. For example, IDEX which labels itself as DEX is a custodial exchange and is now sort of putting accounts and KYC into place. KYC is required for withdrawals of greater than 5,000$
Privacy - most CEXes requires users to go through a KYC process, which requires one to upload an ID. Without KYC procedure user can’t withdraw his funds. Unlike CEXes, DEXes requires an email address and nothing more, you even can think up a custom identity for it;
User responsibility - CEXes store all funds located on their platform on custody wallets which can potentially be a vulnerable target for hackers. However, DEXes allow users to be in full control over their funds. All that is needed to access a DEX is for a user to connect his wallet based on some mechanic (private key, metamask, json). This is the true nature of decentralization, blockchain is supposed to cut off third parties that collect fees for holding your funds.
On the one hand, DEX’s provide higher security and privacy for its users, but those aren't the only things we are looking for. On the other hand, CEX’s, as I told earlier, have a higher trust score, so what does this mean exactly?
Resources - currently CEX’s have more resources. Hence they can deliver a better user experience for its users. CEX’s are generally much more popular than DEXes. Though, DEXes are still an option B, and frequently used by those who do not trust the management of centralized exchanges due to human factors such as breach of internal controls and fraud..
But is their royalty deserved? “I definitely hope centralized exchanges go burn in hell as much as possible,” Vitalik Buterin stated in 2018. In particular, he thinks there’s no reason some projects need to pay $10 to $15 million(as per 2018) in listing fees to let people trade their tokens on centralized exchanges. This feels like a blood diamonds issue in the diamond industry. Most of those platforms were built on lies, some of them are currently building themselves out on falsehoods.
Ownership transparency - DEX’s were created to avoid regulatory pressure. Thus DEX founders' prefer to remain anonymous. Of course, this doesn't contradict decentralization, but users always have to remain skeptical when it comes to their funds.
CEXs have to be regulatory compliant, it’s impossible to be obedient without registering a company, submitting documents for proof of identity, etc. Most of the legal registries are opened to the public. Hence the founders are publicly known individuals. Besides, there is no need to hide while you are compliant and not involved in illegal activities.
Due diligence - Large CEX’s always do research on projects prior to listing, or even hosting an IEO for them. This leads to vast FOMO, users don't hesitate to do their own research and line up to for an investment opportunity. Currently, Binance is the most prosperous platform regarding IEO investments. DEXes dont host IEOs due to their decentralized nature and user anonymity. Usually, if one wants to participate in an IEO, a KYC process is required.
Easy to use - DEX’s frequently have convoluted interfaces, which is one of the considerable bottlenecks for new investors. In contrast, CEX’s are built for relative ease of use by experienced traders and newbies.
If you are new to this industry, or do not want to understand the intricacies of blockchains and came here to trade Bitcoin, I advise you to use a CEX. But If you came here for the tech, you will enjoy reading this more. What is the hybrid crypto exchange approach? Not so long ago, I decided to dive into the topic of hybrid exchanges as a potential game-changer in the cryptocurrency industry. The hybrid exchange philosophy builds on the strengths of decentralized and centralized exchanges. During my research, I came across a curious example - NEXT.exchange To further simplify the process of understanding the principles of hybrid exchanges, I propose to consider this topic by case. It’s worth noting that there is much to contemplate in regards to hybrid exchange platforms, their solutions and approaches may vary. There are also not many out there. DEX pros within NEXT:
Transparency - Unlike DEX’s that use decentralized or cloud servers, NEXT.exchange will use its own blockchain - NEXT.chain, based on SYS, DASH, and BTC, which in turn will allow the platform to expand on its transaction throughout (occasionally DEX’s majority of which are ETH based, experience hang time when the Ethereum network is overloaded with transactions).
Essentially NEXT.chain will be used by the exchange as an open database that stores information about all transactions and tokenized assets (assets created on NEXT.chain are dubbed 00X standard) within the exchange. To maintain the blockchain, investors will deploy 100 master nodes during the first year (79 out of 100 are already functioning).
Hybrid mining POW/POS - Each successfully executed order will be a transaction for mining. An interesting fact is that the issue of the exchange token will be carried out by mining, in a similar way to how it happens on the bitcoin network. Master nodes & miners will receive rewards for their contribution to the ecosystem.
Governance - the NEXT team is looking to provide Masternode operators with the opportunity to participate in the management of further development of the exchange and hybrid ecosystem by means of voting. How exactly this feature will be implemented remains a mystery, but sounds fair.
User confidence - the team plans on providing users with access to their wallet private keys. Additionally, they aim to involve an escrow services (similar to Kucoin) on their platform. Below is a brief schematic of their system and how NEXT.chain will factor in. Seems the goal is to tokenize assets using their chain, similar to Binance.
Privacy - Traders will be able to trade crypto-crypto without going through the KYC procedure, which is great for users. But the regulatory landscape may change over time. KYC will be needed for anything involving fiat.
CEX pros within NEXT:
Ownership transparency - Legal entity is registered in the Netherlands. All information about the team is publicly available on their site and on linkedin.
Fiat gateway - Presence of a legal entity allows the exchange to enable its users to withdraw their crypto assets to fiat and to trade several cryptocurrencies against fiat.
However, to do this, users will have to go through KYC (Yes, the guys from NEXT have some workings with banks to provide their users with access to USD and EUR. Other currencies will probably be available later). Thus, traders will be able to withdraw funds directly to Bank cards. As far as I am aware, they also plan to make PayPal available for withdrawals only.
High-quality community support - When I found myself in their community, I was surprised by the quality of support, I have not seen this even in TIER-1 exchanges. The team members eagerly answered all my questions. And the people in the chat were wonderful and kind.
It’s important to note that NEXT is just at its start, and will be releasing a huge update dubbed 2.0 (after a testing period with its community), so if hybrid cryptocurrency exchanges are interesting to you - then this is definitely one to keep an eye out for. Summing up Recently, the industry of centralized crypto-exchanges is literally filled with scammers. Teams of second-rate centralized exchanges "draw" trading volumes and even IEO results. Unfortunately, many blindly believe them. This is going to be a massive problem in the future, more important than you can imagine. Those scam exchanges will become more prominent and will swindle more people, this will lead to a severe outflow of defrauded people from the industry, which can not afford it. Hybrid cryptocurrency exchanges are a new trend that I think can improve the whole industry. Not all hybrid exchanges have their own blockchain, NEXT was considered as the project most suitable for the description of a hybrid cryptocurrency exchange. Don't FOMO and don't hesitate to do your own researches before depositing funds on the exchange wallets or participating in an IEO.
NOTE: Not sure if this is useful at all. I welcome corrections. This was off the top of my head, probably a lot of stuff can be made clearer. I see many people here are not really understanding why bitcoin was created. As a result, many are unable to answer these questions:
Why bitcoin over another crypo-currency?
If bitcoin is slower than CC why use it?
If you can answer "Why was Bitcoin created?" you will automatically form your own opinion on the questions above! Wrong Question The original question we asked is kind of the wrong question to ask. It has a simple (unsatisfying) answer: Question: Why was Bitcoin created? Answer: To prevent spending the same digital dollar twice. Wait.. what? Before we understand above, let's first understand the problem with digital money... Money: physical vs. digital Physical money is easy. Let's say we decide to use apples as currency. If I have one apple and you have one apple, and I give you one apple, than you now have two apples and I have none. Digital money is hard. Let's say we decide to use cat pictures as currency. If I have a picture of a cat named "sparkles.jpeg" and you have a picture of a cat named "rocket.jpeg", and I send you "sparkles.jpeg" - then you now have two pictures of a cat, but I still have one! Similarly, if we were to represent digital dollars as information (file, record in a database or photo of a dollar), then anytime we send a dollar, we effectively create a copy of it. Why is this a problem? Double Spending Suppose I have only $1 digital dollar on my hard-drive (doesn't matter how it is stored - it can be a file called "Wallet.txt" with a single entry "Me = 1"). Let's say there are two online stores: Tables.com and Chairs.com. Tables.com sells tables online. Chairs.com sells chairs online. The prices are as follows:
Tables are $1 digital dollars each
Chairs are $0.5 digital dollars each
I am now going to buy 1 table and 2 chairs (total cost $2) for only $1 dollar. Here is how I can do this:
First, I will create a copy of my wallet (where my digital dollars are stored). Let's called it "Wallet.txt.backup"
Then, I will send $1 digital dollars to Tables.com store and ask them to ship me 1 Table.
After my order is accepted, I will immediately immediately restore my "Wallet.txt.backup" file (which still has $1 dollars in it) and...
Send $1 digital dollars to Chairs.com and order 2 chairs.
Since Chairs.com doesn't know about Tables.com (they don't have direct communication channel), they will both ship me the goods. I have now spent the same dollar twice. I have double spent my dollar. Banks solve Double Spending There is a very simple (and elegant) solution to this problem. Instead of letting everyone keep track of their own Wallet.txt file, let one person do it and send all transactions through them. Let's say that now we have to send every transaction through Mr. Knab. So if I want to pay Chairs.com I don't send the digital dollar to the store directly, but instead I send my digital dollar to Mr. Knab and ask him to forward my digital dollar to Chairs.com Let's see how this prevents spending the same dollar twice:
Mr. Knab knows that I have $1 digital dollar to my name. He stores it in a file called "Wallet.txt".
I ask Mr. Knab to send $1 digital dollar to Tables.com store to order 1 Table.
Mr. Knab subtracts $1 from me in "Wallet.txt" and adds it to the line that corresponds to Tables.com (how he does this is irrelevant - the important thing is that he remembers how many digital dollars I have)
Mr. Knab sends an email to Tables.com saying "You got $1 digital dollar, please ship a Table to this guy".
(Now comes me trying to cheat) After my order is accepted, I immediately ask Mr. Knab to send $1 digital dollar to Chairs.com to order 2 chairs.
Mr. Knab checks "Wallet.txt" and sees that I have $0 digital dollars remaining and rejects my order.
I could not spend the same digital dollar twice. In the real world "Mr. Knab" is the bank. It is an institution that stores your digital wallet to make sure you can't cheat. Bank is a tool to prevent double spending. The Right Question Now that we understand the challenge with digital money (making sure you don't spend a digital dollar twice) and how the bank solves this (by storing your digital wallet for you) we can ask the proper question: Question: Why was Bitcoin created to prevent spending the same digital dollar twice if the bank already does it? Answer: Bitcoin prevents spending the same digital dollar twice without a bank. Let us reiterate this point: Bitcoin was created to prevent spending the same digital dollar twice without a bank. Useful or Not? Whether this property (preventing double spending without intermediaries) is a useful thing is not what we are concerned with here. Think of bitcoin as solving a challenge: hey, we can prevent double spending with a bank in between, can we do this without a bank? We leave the question whether Bitcoin is "useful" to others. How Bitcoin solves this problem (Short version) Bitcoin network chooses a random computer to briefly act as a bank. That computer then makes sure no dollar is spent twice. Randomly choosing computer is hard and Bitcoin solves this problem by requiring proof of work, the first to provide it will get chosen as the bank. Being chosen as a bank pays (block reward) and everyone wants to provide proof of work first. The more people compete the harder it becomes to be the bank. The harder it is to become the bank, the more secure the Bitcoin is.
How Bitcoin solves this problem (long version)
I lied. Bitcoin still has a bank. Only this bank is one of the people who participates in Bitcoin network: let's call them a person-bank. This person-bank is chosen randomly for EVERY transaction (*gross simplification*). The person-bank is responsible for verifying that the transaction is correct. Since Bitcoin network sends a copy of the Wallet.txt file to EVERY person, anyone can verify any transaction. If the person-bank verifies transaction correctly - it gets paid. Otherwise it gets nothing. Picking random person is hard The problem then becomes how to pick a person-bank randomly, so that you can't always have Joe being the person-bank and spending his own dollars twice. Turns out the problem if picking a random person from a group of people is really hard to do in practice. Bitcoin solves this problem by posing a puzzle to each person - and the first person to come up with an answer gets to act as a person-bank for the next transaction. This puzzle must be so hard, that nobody should be able to do any better on it than anybody else. It's hard to think of this in human terms, because with practice we get better at everything. However, imagine that everyone in the world got REALLY REALLY drunk and was forced to throw darts. So that no matter how much practice anyone had with darts, everyone was equally horrible. Every time anyone threw a dart it would always land randomly. Now, picking a random person is easy - pick the person who threw the dart into the middle of the board. In Bitcoin this puzzle involves hashing and the answer to it is called proof of work. But this is all really irrelevant. What is important is that no computer can practice to get better at solving this puzzle. They are all equally drunk when it comes to the solution. All the bitcoin computers who are trying to solve the puzzle are called miners. The winning participant gets a lot of money as a reward: currently 12.5BTC. Security depends on puzzle complexity If the puzzle is too easy, then someone can always solve it first (by buying a bigger computer) and approve their own invalid transaction. Bitcoin increases the difficulty of the puzzle if it takes the network less than 10 minutes to solve it. It decreases the difficulty if it takes more than 10 minutes to solve it. If there are 1 person trying to solve a puzzle and another joins, then the difficulty will increase by two. This is because 1 person solved the puzzle every 10 minutes, so if another joins, they will solve it twice as fast (think two drunken people throwing darts instead of one - it will take half the time to hit the center). If we have 100,000 people trying to solve a puzzle and another person joins, this will barely affect the difficulty. Alternatively, if we wanted to beat 100,000 and solve the puzzle first, we would need as much computation power as all those people combined (and a little bit more). We would need about 51% of the power of the whole bitcoin mining network. That is why for Bitcoin to be secure, the puzzle must be hard for anyone on the planet EARTH to solve. If bitcoin was only mined by one country, then another country could easily purchase enough computers (say 10x as many) to make sure they act as the bank every time. They could then spend the same dollar twice (for example, they could buy some tanks from another country, but then revert the money back to their wallet).
arriving at consensus AND distributing coins via burning Bitcoin instead of electricity/equipment to create permissionless, unfakeable, green, and trust minimized basis over every aspect of sidechain control.
creating Bitcoin peg from altcoin chain to mainchain (the hard direction) by allocating small percentage of Bitcoin intended for burning to reimbursing withdrawals, effectively making it a childchain/sidechain (no oracles or federated multisigs)
This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.
how to create continuous sunk costs, permissionless entry, high cost of attacks?
how to do it without needing to build up a new source of hardware capital or energy costs?
how to peg another chain's token value w/o incentivized collusion risk of federation or oracles?
how to make sidechain use fully optional for all Bitcoin parties?
how to allow programmable Bitcoins w/ unlimited permissionless expressiveness w/o forcing mainchain into additional risks?
Solution to first few points:
Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn (CPoBB) to distribute supply control and sidechain consensus control to independent parties
Distributes an altcoin for permissionless access and sidechain-only sybil protection.
In case of sidechain block-producer censorship, Bitcoin's independent data availability makes sidechain nodes trivially aware
PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
cost of capital and energy -> cost of burnt bitcoin
finality of their PoW -> finality of Bitcoin's PoW
impact on environment -> 0 impact on environment
unforgeable costliness of work -> unforgeable costliness of burn
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:
permissioned by coin holders entry -> permissionless entry by anyone with access to Bitcoin
no incentive to give up control or sell coins -> incentive to sell coins to cover the cost of burnt bitcoin
incentivized guaranteed centralization of control over time by staking -> PoW guarantees with same 0 environmental impact
nothing at stake -> recovering sunk costs at stake
contract logic can include conditions dependent on real Bitcoins as it's Bitcoin-aware
We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.
What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?
limited burn time window prevents permissionless entry in the future. how many years did it take for most heavily mined projects to become known and well reviewed? many. thus entry into control of supply that's vital to control of chain cannot be dependent on the earliest stage of the project. (counterparty)
"land grabs" - by having limited supply without continuous emission or inflation we encourage holding vs spending.
These issues can be fixed by having Proof of Burn be permanently accessible and continuous: Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn CPoBB
This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable. Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software. Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively. Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include. Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do. More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to. Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.
What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different. Issues with value pegs:
federation based pegs allow collusion to steal bitcoins stored in multi-party controlled accounts
even if multisig participants are switched or weighted in some trust minimized manner, there's always incentive to collude and steal more
smart contract pegs (plasma, rollups) on base chain would require bitcoin nodes and miners to validate sidechain transactions and has to provide block content for availability (e.g. call data in rollups), making them not optional.
bitcoin nodes shouldn't be sidechain aware so impossible to peg the value
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee. In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions. Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2 withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable. Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses. Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners. The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design). _______________________________________
Brief issues with current altchains options:
PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.
Few extra notes from my talks with people:
fees must be high to be included in next block (and helps pay and bribe bitcoin miners), RBF use is encouraged to cancel late transactions
what if not enough burners, just passive nodes? you can burn smallest amount of bitcoin yourself when you have a transaction you want to go through
using commit hashes on bitcoin to lock altcoin state isn't new (e.g. kmd) but usually those rely on some federation or permissioned proof of stake mechanism with no real costs. this is combination of both.
this is not exactly like counterparty's embedded consensus as block data and transactions are outside Bitcoin, but consensus is derived with help of embedded on Bitcoin data.
deterministic randomness (e.g. via that block's hash) could be used to assign winning sidechain block weighted by amount burned to allow occasional blocks formed by others curbing success rate of censorship by highest burner
wants to transition away from using proof of burn via tunable proofs and native proof of work (whitepaper)
a dominant premine (trust maximized) relative to emission that defeats the purpose of distributing control over incentives (figure 3 in tokenpaper suggests premine still ~30%-70% by year 2050)
variable emission rate "adaptive mint and burn" makes supply unpredictable (and possibly gameable)
additional rewards that aren't trust minimized like "app mining" and "user incentives" possibly gameable with premine
election of a leader includes their own PoW to be elected even at start (5% cap), why lol?
blockstack also suggested use of randomness that depends on that block so Bitcoin miners that already spent energy mining that block can't just re-do it to get picked at no cost
if can burn bitcoins directly via op_return tx would help to use 1 less output and be provably prunable for utxo set (not sure if that's relayed as standard)
Main questions to you:
why not? (other than blocktime)
can this be done without an altcoin? (Not sure and don't think so w/o compromising unforgeable costliness and thus trust minimization. At least it's not using an altcoin that's clearly centralized.)
how to make it less detectable by Bitcoin miners? ( BMM could use some techniques described here: https://twitter.com/SomsenRuben/status/1210040270328254464 ) ( Perhaps since sidechain nodes receive proposed blocks independently and can figure out their hash, the commit message ( sidechain id + block commit + miner address) can be hashed one more time before its placed on Bitcoin, making miners unaware until after Bitcoin block is found that this is that sidechain's burn. Sidechain block producers would have to delay sidechain block propagation until after Bitcoin block is propagated, 10 minutes blocktime helps here. Hiding the fact that Bitcoin is burnt until after the fact is another possibly important matter. )
Should reward be split between all valid blocks or just winner gets all? (Blockstacks approach does not reward blocks marked by different from leader chaintip. That seems dangerous since sidechain tx sorting would be difficult to match and could take significant time to be compensated for perfectly valid work and coins burned. It doesn't seem as necessary in burning since we're not expending costs based on only one previous block version, the costs are independent of block assembly. Tradeoff is between making it easier for independent "mining" of sidechain and making it easier to validate for full nodes on sidechain)
Which are your Top 5 favourite coins out of the Top 100? An analysis.
I am putting together my investment portfolio for 2018 and made a complete summary of the current Top 100. Interestingly, I noticed that all coins can be categorized into 12 markets. Which markets do you think will play the biggest role in the coming year? Here is a complete overview of all coins in an excel sheet including name, market, TPS, risk profile, time since launch (negative numbers mean that they are launching that many months in the future) and market cap. You can also sort by all of these fields of course. Coins written in bold are the strongest contenders within their market either due to having the best technology or having a small market cap and still excellent technology and potential. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1s8PHcNvvjuy848q18py_CGcu8elRGQAUIf86EYh4QZo/edit#gid=0 The 12 markets are
Currency 13 coins
Platform 25 coins
Ecosystem 9 coins
Privacy 10 coins
Currency Exchange Tool 8 coins
Gaming & Gambling 5 coins
Misc 15 coins
Social Network 4 coins
Fee Token 3 coins
Decentralized Data Storage 4 coins
Cloud Computing 3 coins
Stable Coin 2 coins
Before we look at the individual markets, we need to take a look of the overall market and its biggest issue scalability first: Cryptocurrencies aim to be a decentralized currency that can be used worldwide. Its goal is to replace dollar, Euro, Yen, all FIAT currencies worldwide. The coin that will achieve that will be worth several trillion dollars. Bitcoin can only process 7 transactions per second (TPS). In order to replace all FIAT, it would need to perform at at least VISA levels, which usually processes around 3,000 TPS, up to 25,000 TPS during peak times and a maximum of 64,000 TPS. That means that this cryptocurrency would need to be able to perform at least several thousand TPS. However, a ground breaking technology should not look at current technology to set a goal for its use, i.e. estimating the number of emails sent in 1990 based on the number of faxes sent wasn’t a good estimate. For that reason, 10,000 TPS is the absolute baseline for a cryptocurrency that wants to replace FIAT. This brings me to IOTA, which wants to connect all 80 billion IoT devices that are expected to exist by 2025, which constantly communicate with each other, creating 80 billion or more transactions per second. This is the benchmark that cryptocurrencies should be aiming for. Currently, 8 billion devices are connected to the Internet. With its Lightning network recently launched, Bitcoin is realistically looking at 50,000 possible soon. Other notable cryptocurrencies besides IOTA and Bitcoin are Nano with 7,000 TPS already tested, Dash with several billion TPS possible with Masternodes, Neo, LISK and RHOC with 100,000 TPS by 2020, Ripple with 50,000 TPS, Ethereum with 10,000 with Sharding. However, it needs to be said that scalability usually goes at the cost of decentralization and security. So, it needs to be seen, which of these technologies can prove itself resilient and performant. Without further ado, here are the coins of the first market
Market 1 - Currency:
Bitcoin: 1st generation blockchain with currently bad scalability currently, though the implementation of the Lightning Network looks promising and could alleviate most scalability concerns, scalability and high energy use.
Ripple: Centralized currency that might become very successful due to tight involvement with banks and cross-border payments for financial institutions; banks and companies like Western Union and Moneygram (who they are currently working with) as customers customers. However, it seems they are aiming for more decentralization now.https://ripple.com/dev-blog/decentralization-strategy-update/. Has high TPS due to Proof of Correctness algorithm.
Bitcoin Cash: Bitcoin fork with the difference of having an 8 times bigger block size, making it 8 times more scalable than Bitcoin currently. Further block size increases are planned. Only significant difference is bigger block size while big blocks lead to further problems that don't seem to do well beyond a few thousand TPS. Opponents to a block size argue that increasing the block size limit is unimaginative, offers only temporary relief, and damages decentralization by increasing costs of participation. In order to preserve decentralization, system requirements to participate should be kept low. To understand this, consider an extreme example: very big blocks (1GB+) would require data center level resources to validate the blockchain. This would preclude all but the wealthiest individuals from participating.Community seems more open than Bitcoin's though.
Litecoin : Little brother of Bitcoin. Bitcoin fork with different mining algorithm but not much else.Copies everything that Bitcoin does pretty much. Lack of real innovation.
Dash: Dash (Digital Cash) is a fork of Bitcoin and focuses on user ease. It has very fast transactions within seconds, low fees and uses Proof of Service from Masternodes for consensus. They are currently building a system called Evolution which will allow users to send money using usernames and merchants will find it easy to integrate Dash using the API. You could say Dash is trying to be a PayPal of cryptocurrencies. Currently, cryptocurrencies must choose between decentralization, speed, scalability and can pick only 2. With Masternodes, Dash picked speed and scalability at some cost of decentralization, since with Masternodes the voting power is shifted towards Masternodes, which are run by Dash users who own the most Dash.
IOTA: 3rd generation blockchain called Tangle, which has a high scalability, no fees and instant transactions. IOTA aims to be the connective layer between all 80 billion IOT devices that are expected to be connected to the Internet in 2025, possibly creating 80 billion transactions per second or 800 billion TPS, who knows. However, it needs to be seen if the Tangle can keep up with this scalability and iron out its security issues that have not yet been completely resolved.
Nano: 3rd generation blockchain called Block Lattice with high scalability, no fees and instant transactions. Unlike IOTA, Nano only wants to be a payment processor and nothing else, for now at least. With Nano, every user has their own blockchain and has to perform a small amount of computing for each transaction, which makes Nano perform at 300 TPS with no problems and 7,000 TPS have also been tested successfully. Very promising 3rd gen technology and strong focus on only being the fastest currency without trying to be everything.
Decred: As mining operations have grown, Bitcoin’s decision-making process has become more centralized, with the largest mining companies holding large amounts of power over the Bitcoin improvement process. Decred focuses heavily on decentralization with their PoW Pos hybrid governance system to become what Bitcoin was set out to be. They will soon implement the Lightning Network to scale up. While there do not seem to be more differences to Bitcoin besides the novel hybrid consensus algorithm, which Ethereum, Aeternity and Bitcoin Atom are also implementing, the welcoming and positive Decred community and professoinal team add another level of potential to the coin.
Aeternity: We’ve seen recently, that it’s difficult to scale the execution of smart contracts on the blockchain. Crypto Kitties is a great example. Something as simple as creating and trading unique assets on Ethereum bogged the network down when transaction volume soared. Ethereum and Zilliqa address this problem with Sharding. Aeternity focuses on increasing the scalability of smart contracts and dapps by moving smart contracts off-chain. Instead of running on the blockchain, smart contracts on Aeternity run in private state channels between the parties involved in the contracts. State channels are lines of communication between parties in a smart contract. They don’t touch the blockchain unless they need to for adjudication or transfer of value. Because they’re off-chain, state channel contracts can operate much more efficiently. They don’t need to pay the network for every time they compute and can also operate with greater privacy. An important aspect of smart contract and dapp development is access to outside data sources. This could mean checking the weather in London, score of a football game, or price of gold. Oracles provide access to data hosted outside the blockchain. In many blockchain projects, oracles represent a security risk and potential point of failure, since they tend to be singular, centralized data streams. Aeternity proposes decentralizing oracles with their oracle machine. Doing so would make outside data immutable and unchangeable once it reaches Aeternity’s blockchain. Of course, the data source could still be hacked, so Aeternity implements a prediction market where users can bet on the accuracy and honesty of incoming data from various oracles.It also uses prediction markets for various voting and verification purposes within the platform. Aeternity’s network runs on on a hybrid of proof of work and proof of stake. Founded by a long-time crypto-enthusiast and early colleague of Vitalik Buterin, Yanislav Malahov. Promising concept though not product yet
Bitcoin Atom: Atomic Swaps and hybrid consenus. This looks like the only Bitcoin clone that actually is looking to innovate next to Bitcoin Cash.
Dogecoin: Litecoin fork, fantastic community, though lagging behind a bit in technology.
Bitcoin Gold: A bit better security than bitcoin through ASIC resistant algorithm, but that's it. Not that interesting.
Digibyte: Digibyte's PoS blockchain is spread over a 100,000+ servers, phones, computers, and nodes across the globe, aiming for the ultimate level of decentralization. DigiByte rebalances the load between the five mining algorithms by adjusting the difficulty of each so one algorithm doesn’t become dominant. The algorithm's asymmetric difficulty has gained notoriety and been deployed in many other blockchains.DigiByte’s adoption over the past four years has been slow. It’s still a relatively obscure currency compared its competitors. The DigiByte website offers a lot of great marketing copy and buzzwords. However, there’s not much technical information about what they have planned for the future. You could say Digibyte is like Bitcoin, but with shorter blocktimes and a multi-algorithm. However, that's not really a difference big enough to truly set themselves apart from Bitcoin, since these technologies could be implemented by any blockchain without much difficulty. Their decentralization is probably their strongest asset, however, this also change quickly if the currency takes off and big miners decide to go into Digibyte.
Bitcoin Diamond Asic resistant Bitcoin and Copycat
Market 2 - Platform
Most of the cryptos here have smart contracts and allow dapps (Decentralized apps) to be build on their platform and to use their token as an exchange of value between dapp services.
Ethereum: 2nd generation blockchain that allows the use of smart contracts. Bad scalability currently, though this concern could be alleviated by the soon to be implemented Lightning Network aka Plasma and its Sharding concept.
EOS: Promising technology that wants to be able do everything, from smart contracts like Ethereum, scalability similar to Nano with 1000 tx/second + near instant transactions and zero fees, to also wanting to be a platform for dapps. However, EOS doesn't have a product yet and everything is just promises still. Highly overvalued right now. However, there are lots of red flags, have dumped $500 million Ether over the last 2 months and possibly bought back EOS to increase the size of their ICO, which has been going on for over a year and has raised several billion dollars. All in all, their market cap is way too high for that and not even having a product.
Cardano: Similar to Ethereum/EOS, however, only promises made with no delivery yet, highly overrated right now. Interesting concept though. Market cap way too high for not even having a product. Somewhat promising technology.
VeChain: Singapore-based project that’s building a business enterprise platform and inventory tracking system. Examples are verifying genuine luxury goods and food supply chains. Has one of the strongest communities in the crypto world. Most hyped token of all, with merit though.
Neo: Neo is a platform, similar to Eth, but more extensive, allowing dapps and smart contracts, but with a different smart contract gas system, consensus mechanism (PoS vs. dBfT), governance model, fixed vs unfixed supply, expensive contracts vs nearly free contracts, different ideologies for real world adoption. There are currently only 9 nodes, each of which are being run by a company/entity hand selected by the NEO council (most of which are located in china) and are under contract. This means that although the locations of the nodes may differ, ultimately the neo council can bring them down due to their legal contracts. In fact this has been done in the past when the neo council was moving 50 million neo that had been locked up. Also dbft (or neo's implmentation of it) has failed underload causing network outages during major icos. The first step in decentralization is that the NEO Counsel will select trusted nodes (Universities, business partners, etc.) and slowly become less centralized that way. The final step in decentralization will be allowing NEO holders to vote for new nodes, similar to a DPoS system (ARK/EOS/LISK). NEO has a regulation/government friendly ideology. Finally they are trying to work undewith the Chinese government in regards to regulations. If for some reason they wanted it shut down, they could just shut it down.
Stellar: PoS system, similar goals as Ripple, but more of a platform than only a currency. 80% of Stellar are owned by Stellar.org still, making the currency centralized.
Ethereum classic: Original Ethereum that decided not to fork after a hack. The Ethereum that we know is its fork. Uninteresing, because it has a lot of less resources than Ethereum now and a lot less community support.
Ziliqa: Zilliqa is building a new way of sharding. 2400 tpx already tested, 10,000 tps soon possible by being linearly scalable with the number of nodes. That means, the more nodes, the faster the network gets. They are looking at implementing privacy as well.
QTUM: Enables Smart contracts on the Bitcoin blockchain. Useful.
Icon: Korean ethereum. Decentralized application platform that's building communities in partnership with banks, insurance providers, hospitals, and universities. Focused on ID verification and payments. No big differentiators to the other 20 Ethereums, except that is has a product. That is a plus. Maybe cheap alternative to Ethereum.
LISK: Lisk's difference to other BaaS is that side chains are independent to the main chain and have to have their own nodes. Similar to neo whole allows dapps to deploy their blockchain to. However, Lisk is currently somewhat centralized with a small group of members owning more than 50% of the delegated positions. Lisk plans to change the consensus algorithm for that reason in the near future.
Rchain: Similar to Ethereum with smart contract, though much more scalable at an expected 40,000 TPS and possible 100,000 TPS. Not launched yet. No product launched yet, though promising technology. Not overvalued, probably at the right price right now.
ARDR: Similar to Lisk. Ardor is a public blockchain platform that will allow people to utilize the blockchain technology of Nxt through the use of child chains. A child chain, which is a ‘light’ blockchain that can be customized to a certain extent, is designed to allow easy self-deploy for your own blockchain. Nxt claims that users will "not need to worry" about security, as that part is now handled by the main chain (Ardor). This is the chief innovation of Ardor. Ardor was evolved from NXT by the same company. NEM started as a NXT clone.
Ontology: Similar to Neo. Interesting coin
Bytom: Bytom is an interactive protocol of multiple byte assets. Heterogeneous byte-assets (indigenous digital currency, digital assets) that operate in different forms on the Bytom Blockchain and atomic assets (warrants, securities, dividends, bonds, intelligence information, forecasting information and other information that exist in the physical world) can be registered, exchanged, gambled and engaged in other more complicated and contract-based interoperations via Bytom.
Nxt: Similar to Lisk
Stratis: Different to LISK, Stratis will allow businesses and organizations to create their own blockchain according to their own needs, but secured on the parent Stratis chain. Stratis’s simple interface will allow organizations to quickly and easily deploy and/or test blockchain functionality of the Ethereum, BitShares, BitCoin, Lisk and Stratis environements.
Status: Status provides access to all of Ethereum’s decentralized applications (dapps) through an app on your smartphone. It opens the door to mass adoption of Ethereum dapps by targeting the fastest growing computer segment in the world – smartphone users.16. Ark: Fork of Lisk that focuses on a smaller feature set. Ark wallets can only vote for one delegate at a time which forces delegates to compete against each other and makes cartel formations incredibly hard, if not impossible.
Neblio: Similar to Neo, but 30x smaller market cap.
NEM: Is similar to Neo No marketing team, very high market cap for little clarilty what they do.
Bancor: Bancor is a Decentralized Liquidity Network that allows you to hold any Ethereum token and convert it to any other token in the network, with no counter party, at an automatically calculated price, using a simple web wallet.
Dragonchain: The Purpose of DragonChain is to help companies quickly and easily incorporate blockchain into their business applications. Many companies might be interested in making this transition because of the benefits associated with serving clients over a blockchain – increased efficiency and security for transactions, a reduction of costs from eliminating potential fraud and scams, etc.
Skycoin: Transactions with zero fees that take apparently two seconds, unlimited transaction rate, no need for miners and block rewards, low power usage, all of the usual cryptocurrency technical vulnerabilities fixed, a consensus mechanism superior to anything that exists, resistant to all conceivable threats (government censorship, community infighting, cybenucleaconventional warfare, etc). Skycoin has their own consensus algorithm known as Obelisk written and published academically by an early developer of Ethereum. Obelisk is a non-energy intensive consensus algorithm based on a concept called ‘web of trust dynamics’ which is completely different to PoW, PoS, and their derivatives. Skywire, the flagship application of Skycoin, has the ambitious goal of decentralizing the internet at the hardware level and is about to begin the testnet in April. However, this is just one of the many facets of the Skycoin ecosystem. Skywire will not only provide decentralized bandwidth but also storage and computation, completing the holy trinity of commodities essential for the new internet. Skycion a smear campaign launched against it, though they seem legit and reliable. Thus, they are probably undervalued.
Market 3 - Ecosystem
The 3rd market with 11 coins is comprised of ecosystem coins, which aim to strengthen the ease of use within the crypto space through decentralized exchanges, open standards for apps and more
Nebulas: Similar to how Google indexes webpages Nebulas will index blockchain projects, smart contracts & data using the Nebulas rank algorithm that sifts & sorts the data. Developers rewarded NAS to develop & deploy on NAS chain. Nebulas calls this developer incentive protocol – basically rewards are issued based on how often dapp/contract etc. is used, the more the better the rewards and Proof of devotion. Works like DPoS except the best, most economically incentivised developers (Bookkeeppers) get the forging spots. Ensuring brains stay with the project (Cross between PoI & PoS). 2,400 TPS+, DAG used to solve the inter-transaction dependencies in the PEE (Parallel Execution Environment) feature, first crypto Wallet that supports the Lightening Network.
Waves: Decentralized exchange and crowdfunding platform. Let’s companies and projects to issue and manage their own digital coin tokens to raise money.
Salt: Leveraging blockchain assets to secure cash loands. Plans to offer cash loans in traditional currencies, backed by your cryptocurrency assets. Allows lenders worldwide to skip credit checks for easier access to affordable loans.
CHAINLINK: ChainLink is a decentralized oracle service, the first of its kind. Oracles are defined as an ‘agent’ that finds and verifies real-world occurrences and submits this information to a blockchain to be used in smart contracts.With ChainLink, smart contract users can use the network’s oracles to retrieve data from off-chain application program interfaces (APIs), data pools, and other resources and integrate them into the blockchain and smart contracts. Basically, ChainLink takes information that is external to blockchain applications and puts it on-chain. The difference to Aeternity is that Chainlink deploys the smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain while Aeternity has its own chain.
WTC: Combines blockchain with IoT to create a management system for supply chains Interesting
Ethos unifyies all cryptos. Ethos is building a multi-cryptocurrency phone wallet. The team is also building an investment diversification tool and a social network
Aion: Aion is the token that pays for services on the Aeternity platform.
USDT: is no cryptocurrency really, but a replacement for dollar for trading After months of asking for proof of dollar backing, still no response from Tether.
Market 4 - Privacy
The 4th market are privacy coins. As you might know, Bitcoin is not anonymous. If the IRS or any other party asks an exchange who is the identity behind a specific Bitcoin address, they know who you are and can track back almost all of the Bitcoin transactions you have ever made and all your account balances. Privacy coins aim to prevent exactly that through address fungability, which changes addresses constantly, IP obfuscation and more. There are 2 types of privacy coins, one with completely privacy and one with optional privacy. Optional Privacy coins like Dash and Nav have the advantage of more user friendliness over completely privacy coins such as Monero and Enigma.
Monero: Currently most popular privacy coin, though with a very high market cap. Since their privacy is all on chain, all prior transactions would be deanonymized if their protocol is ever cracked. This requires a quantum computing attack though. PIVX is better in that regard.
Zcash: A decentralized and open-source cryptocurrency that hide the sender, recipient, and value of transactions. Offers users the option to make transactions public later for auditing. Decent privacy coin, though no default privacy
Verge: Calls itself privacy coin without providing private transactions, multiple problems over the last weeks has a toxic community, and way too much hype for what they have.
Bytecoin: First privacy-focused cryptocurrency with anonymous transactions. Bytecoin’s code was later adapted to create Monero, the more well-known anonymous cryptocurrency. Has several scam accusations, 80% pre-mine, bad devs, bad tech
Bitcoin Private: A merge fork of Bitcoin and Zclassic with Zclassic being a fork of Zcash with the difference of a lack of a founders fee required to mine a valid block. This promotes a fair distribution, preventing centralized coin ownership and control. Bitcoin private offers the optional ability to keep the sender, receiver, and amount private in a given transaction. However, this is already offered by several good privacy coins (Monero, PIVX) and Bitcoin private doesn't offer much more beyond this.
Komodo: The Komodo blockchain platform uses Komodo’s open-source cryptocurrency for doing transparent, anonymous, private, and fungible transactions. They are then made ultra-secure using Bitcoin’s blockchain via a Delayed Proof of Work (dPoW) protocol and decentralized crowdfunding (ICO) platform to remove middlemen from project funding. Offers services for startups to create and manage their own Blockchains.
PIVX: As a fork of Dash, PIVX uses an advanced implementation of the Zerocoin protocol to provide it’s privacy. This is a form of zeroknowledge proofs, which allow users to spend ‘Zerocoins’ that have no link back to them. Unlike Zcash u have denominations in PIVX, so they can’t track users by their payment amount being equal to the amount of ‘minted’ coins, because everyone uses the same denominations. PIVX is also implementing Bulletproofs, just like Monero, and this will take care of arguably the biggest weakness of zeroknowledge protocols: the trusted setup.
Zcoin: PoW cryptocurrency. Private financial transactions, enabled by the Zerocoin Protocol. Zcoin is the first full implementation of the Zerocoin Protocol, which allows users to have complete privacy via Zero-Knowledge cryptographic proofs.
Enigma: Monero is to Bitcoin what enigma is to Ethereum. Enigma is for making the data used in smart contracts private. More of a platform for dapps than a currency like Monero. Very promising.
Navcoin: Like bitcoin but with added privacy and pos and 1,170 tps, but only because of very short 30 second block times. Though, privacy is optional, but aims to be more user friendly than Monero. However, doesn't really decide if it wants to be a privacy coin or not. Same as Zcash.Strong technology, non-shady team.
Tenx: Raised 80 million, offers cryptocurrency-linked credit cards that let you spend virtual money in real life. Developing a series of payment platforms to make spending cryptocurrency easier. However, the question is if full privacy coins will be hindered in growth through government regulations and optional privacy coins will become more successful through ease of use and no regulatory hindrance.
Market 5 - Currency Exchange Tool
Due to the sheer number of different cryptocurrencies, exchanging one currency for the other it still cumbersome. Further, merchants don’t want to deal with overcluttered options of accepting cryptocurrencies. This is where exchange tool like Req come in, which allow easy and simple exchange of currencies.
Cryptonex: Fiat and currency exchange between various blockchain services, similar to REQ.
QASH: Qash is used to fuel its liquid platform which will be an exchange that will distribute their liquidity pool. Its product, the Worldbook is a multi-exchange order book that matches crypto to crypto, and crypto to fiat and the reverse across all currencies. E.g., someone is selling Bitcoin is USD on exchange1 not owned by Quoine and someone is buying Bitcoin in EURO on exchange 2 not owned by Quoine. If the forex conversions and crypto conversions match then the trade will go through and the Worldbook will match it, it'll make the sale and the purchase on either exchange and each user will get what they wanted, which means exchanges with lower liquidity if they join the Worldbook will be able to fill orders and take trade fees they otherwise would miss out on.They turned it on to test it a few months ago for an hour or so and their exchange was the top exchange in the world by 4x volume for the day because all Worldbook trades ran through it. Binance wants BNB to be used on their one exchange. Qash wants their QASH token embedded in all of their partners. More info here https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/8a8lnwhich_are_your_top_5_favourite_coins_out_of_the/dwyjcbb/?context=3
Kyber: network Exchange between cryptocurrencies, similar to REQ. Features automatic coin conversions for payments. Also offers payment tools for developers and a cryptocurrency wallet.
Achain: Building a boundless blockchain world like Req .
Req: Exchange between cryptocurrencies.
Bitshares: Exchange between cryptocurrencies. Noteworthy are the 1.5 second average block times and throughput potential of 100,000 transactions per second with currently 2,400 TPS having been proven. However, bitshares had several Scam accusations in the past.
Loopring: A protocol that will enable higher liquidity between exchanges and personal wallets.
ZRX: Open standard for dapps. Open, permissionless protocol allowing for ERC20 tokens to be traded on the Ethereum blockchain. In 0x protocol, orders are transported off-chain, massively reducing gas costs and eliminating blockchain bloat. Relayers help broadcast orders and collect a fee each time they facilitate a trade. Anyone can build a relayer.
Market 6 - Gaming
With an industry size of $108B worldwide, Gaming is one of the largest markets in the world. For sure, cryptocurrencies will want to have a share of that pie.
Storm: Mobile game currency on a platform with 9 million players.
Fun: A platform for casino operators to host trustless, provably-fair gambling through the use of smart contracts, as well as creating their own implementation of state channels for scalability.
Electroneum: Mobile game currency They have lots of technical problems, such as several 51% attacks
Wax: Marketplace to trade in-game items
Market 7 - Misc
There are various markets being tapped right now. They are all summed up under misc.
OMG: Omise is designed to enable financial services for people without bank accounts. It works worldwide and with both traditional money and cryptocurrencies.
Power ledger: Australian blockchain-based cryptocurrency and energy trading platform that allows for decentralized selling and buying of renewable energy. Unique market and rather untapped market in the crypto space.
Populous: A platform that connects business owners and invoice buyers without middlemen. Invoice sellers get cash flow to fund their business and invoice buyers earn interest. Similar to OMG, small market.
Monacoin: The first Japanese cryptocurrency. Focused on micro-transactions and based on a popular internet meme of a type-written cat. This makes it similar to Dogecoin. Very niche, tiny market.
Revain: Legitimizing reviews via the blockchain. Interesting concept, though market not as big.
Augur: Platform to forecast and make wagers on the outcome of real-world events (AKA decentralized predictions). Uses predictions for a “wisdom of the crowd” search engine. Not launched yet.
Substratum: Revolutionzing hosting industry via per request billing as a decentralized internet hosting system. Uses a global network of private computers to create the free and open internet of the future. Participants earn cryptocurrency. Interesting concept.
Veritaseum: Is supposed to be a peer to peer gateway, though it looks like very much like a scam.
TRON: Tronix is looking to capitalize on ownership of internet data to content creators. However, they plagiarized their white paper, which is a no go. They apologized, so it needs to be seen how they will conduct themselves in the future. Extremely high market cap for not having a product, nor proof of concept.
Syscoin: A cryptocurrency with a decentralized marketplace that lets people buy and sell products directly without third parties. Trying to remove middlemen like eBay and Amazon.
Hshare: Most likely scam because of no code changes, most likely pump and dump scheme, dead community.
BAT: An Ethereum-based token that can be exchanged between content creators, users, and advertisers. Decentralized ad-network that pays based on engagement and attention.
Dent: Decentralizeed exchange of mobile data, enabling mobile data to be marketed, purchased or distributed, so that users can quickly buy or sell data from any user to another one.
Ncash: End to end encrypted Identification system for retailers to better serve their customers .
Factom Secure record-keeping system that allows companies to store their data directly on the Blockchain. The goal is to make records more transparent and trustworthy .
Market 8 - Social network
Web 2.0 is still going strong and Web 3.0 is not going to ignore it. There are several gaming tokens already out there and a few with decent traction already, such as Steem, which is Reddit with voting through money is a very interesting one.
Mithril: As users create content via social media, they will be rewarded for their contribution, the better the contribution, the more they will earn
Steem: Like Reddit, but voting with money. Already launched product and Alexa rank 1,000 Thumbs up.
Rdd: Reddcoin makes the process of sending and receiving money fun and rewarding for everyone. Reddcoin is dedicated to one thing – tipping on social networks as a way to bring cryptocurrency awareness and experience to the general public.
Kin: Token for the platform Kik. Kik has a massive user base of 400 million people. Replacing paying with FIAT with paying with KIN might get this token to mass adoption very quickly.
Market 9 - Fee token
Popular exchanges realized that they can make a few billion dollars more by launching their own token. Owning these tokens gives you a reduction of trading fees. Very handy and BNB (Binance Coin) has been one of the most resilient tokens, which have withstood most market drops over the last weeks and was among the very few coins that could show growth.
BNB: Fee token for Binance
Gas: Not a Fee token for an exchange, but it is a dividend paid out on Neo and a currency that can be used to purchase services for dapps.
Kucoin: Fee token for Kucoin
Market 10 - Decentralized Data Storage
Currently, data storage happens with large companies or data centers that are prone to failure or losing data. Decentralized data storage makes loss of data almost impossible by distributing your files to numerous clients that hold tiny pieces of your data. Remember Torrents? Torrents use a peer-to-peer network. It is similar to that. Many users maintain copies of the same file, when someone wants a copy of that file, they send a request to the peer-to-peer network., users who have the file, known as seeds, send fragments of the file to the requester., he requester receives many fragments from many different seeds, and the torrent software recompiles these fragments to form the original file.
Gbyte: Byteball data is stored and ordered using directed acyclic graph (DAG) rather than blockchain. This allows all users to secure each other's data by referencing earlier data units created by other users, and also removes scalability limits common for blockchains, such as blocksize issue.
Siacoin: Siacoin is decentralized storage platform. Distributes encrypted files to thousands of private users who get paid for renting out their disk space. Anybody with siacoins can rent storage from hosts on Sia. This is accomplish via "smart" storage contracts stored on the Sia blockchain. The smart contract provides a payment to the host only after the host has kept the file for a given amount of time. If the host loses the file, the host does not get paid.
Maidsafecoin: MaidSafe stands for Massive Array of Internet Disks, Secure Access for Everyone.Instead of working with data centers and servers that are common today and are vulnerable to data theft and monitoring, SAFE’s network uses advanced P2P technology to bring together the spare computing capacity of all SAFE users and create a global network. You can think of SAFE as a crowd-sourced internet. All data and applications reside in this network. It’s an autonomous network that automatically sets prices and distributes data and rents out hard drive disk space with a Blockchain-based storage solutions.When you upload a file to the network, such as a photo, it will be broken into pieces, hashed, and encrypted. The data is then randomly distributed across the network. Redundant copies of the data are created as well so that if someone storing your file turns off their computer, you will still have access to your data. And don’t worry, even with pieces of your data on other people’s computers, they won’t be able to read them. You can earn MadeSafeCoins by participating in storing data pieces from the network on your computer and thus earning a Proof of Resource.
Storj: Storj aims to become a cloud storage platform that can’t be censored or monitored, or have downtime. Your files are encrypted, shredded into little pieces called 'shards', and stored in a decentralized network of computers around the globe. No one but you has a complete copy of your file, not even in an encrypted form.
Market 11 - Cloud computing
Obviously, renting computing power, one of the biggest emerging markets as of recent years, e.g. AWS and Digital Ocean, is also a service, which can be bought and managed via the blockchain.
Golem: Allows easy use of Supercomputer in exchange for tokens. People worldwide can rent out their computers to the network and get paid for that service with Golem tokens.
Elf: Allows easy use of Cloud computing in exchange for tokens.
Market 12 - Stablecoin
Last but not least, there are 2 stablecoins that have established themselves within the market. A stable coin is a coin that wants to be independent of the volatility of the crypto markets. This has worked out pretty well for Maker and DGD, accomplished through a carefully diversified currency fund and backing each token by 1g or real gold respectively. DO NOT CONFUSE DGD AND MAKER with their STABLE COINS DGX and DAI. DGD and MAKER are volatile, because they are the companies of DGX and DAI. DGX and DAI are the stable coins.
DGD: Platform of the Stablecoin DGX. Every DGX coin is backed by 1g of gold and make use proof of asset consensus.
Maker: Platform of the Stablecoin DAI that doesn't vary much in price through widespread and smart diversification of assets.
EDIT: Added a risk factor from 0 to 10. The baseline is 2 for any crypto. Significant scandals, mishaps, shady practices, questionable technology, increase the risk factor. Not having a product yet automatically means a risk factor of 6. Strong adoption and thus strong scrutiny or positive community lower the risk factor. EDIT2: Added a subjective potential factor from 0 to 10, where its overall potential and a small or big market cap is factored in. Bitcoin with lots of potential only gets a 9, because of its massive market cap, because if Bitcoin goes 10x, smaller coins go 100x, PIVX gets a 10 for being as good as Monero while carrying a 10x smaller market cap, which would make PIVX go 100x if Monero goes 10x.
That is instead of connecting to a pool a solo miners points out their mining hardware to their local Bitcoin wallet client (Bitcoin QT wallet) and starts finding blocks. Solo miners are individuals who own a large mining equipment’s and they don’t require help from other miners to solve a block. Bitcoin and Gold “Miners Multiple” Points To Drastically Different Price Peaks But since Bitcoin was born, gold now has to compete with a better-built, digital counterpart. The arms race for the fastest-growing safe haven asset is on, and currently, Bitcoin is in the lead despite such an enormous head start by the precious metal. For each share score is updated by: score += exp(t/C). This makes later shares worth much more than earlier shares, thus the miner’s score quickly diminishes when they stop mining on the pool. Rewards are calculated proportionally to scores (and not to shares). (at slush’s pool C=300 seconds, and every hour scores are normalized) Miner Multiple Brings BTC To 11X Returns, While Gold To Only Double. The Miners Multiple is a mathematical formula that attempts to present a possible peak value in gold or Bitcoin, based on past peaks and supply. According to the formula, Bitcoin price will reach $122,000 per BTC at its next peak, while gold’s target is just $4,000. A Bitcoin rewards program is a service—usually available via a web browser and/or mobile app—that allows users to earn Bitcoin (BTC) on in-store or online purchases. Bitcoin rewards programs currently exist in the following categories: online rebates, gift cards, card rebates, and card rewards. Different Types of Bitcoin Rewards Programs
Bitcoin At $1 Million By 2020 Is Still Possible And Might ...
Script unlimited reward points RP Freebitcoin Script. ... freebitco.in hack script, freebitco.in bot, freebitcoin strategy 2019, bitcoin mining, dogecoin, hack freebitco.in 10000 roll, ... Hint: the Bitcoin block reward actually changes. If you want to learn more about cryptocurrency, subscribe to #LunoTV and don’t forget to leave a comment with what you want to see next. Hit that ... #Bitcoin #Cardano #CryptoCrow https://CrowTrader.com - Algorithmic Crypto Trading Bot https://CrowMining.com - Co-Located Bitcoin Mining Farm NOTICE: All Paid Reviews And Features on my channel ... While the process of mining Bitcoin is expensive and time-consuming, the reward is always on a downward trend due to Bitcoin Halving. The reward is now 12.5 BTC but soon enough it will drop to ... 704 / 900 - Mining Rewards, Hash vs Staked Miners, Block chain security and Economics Midnight Discovery. ... Who Pays the Bitcoin Mining Reward? - George Levy - Duration: 4:13.