Bitcoin Cash mining calculator - SHA-256 ⛏️ | minerstat

Myriad - A coin for everyone.

Myriad (XMY) is a Multi-PoW consensus protocol secured by 5 mining algorithms. Each one suits different hardware.
[link]

Pure PoW is DEAD

When I was 16, camping out in an airport waiting to board my first International flight to England I began chatting with a U.S. Airforce pilot who had camped up beside my group. Asking him what it was like to fly at mach speeds he replied in a very sober expression, “you have to be alert at all times. You see a mountain or some obstacle appear on the horizon, you better adjust now or you’re going to slam into it.” Maybe he was adding dramatic effect, I’ve never flown at mach speeds at low altitudes, but I never forgot it and the analogy it carries...especially so fitting for technology and progress.
This past week in cryptocurrency shined an important (and hopefully sobering) light on a “mountain” that appeared on our industries horizon...and has actually been visible to us for far too long already: Pure Proof of Work’s inevitable fate.
By pure, I mean consensus algorithms that use nothing but the original Bitcoin proof of work consensus model without updates or algorithm changes to address its weaknesses relative to the ever expanding technology used to hash it. This means Bitcoin, today’s Ethereum, Zcash, Ethereum Classic, and other coins that comprise most of the value in the top 100 cryptocurrencies. The original, unmodified form of basic PoW that most of these coins use is dead. This demise may not be fully appreciated today, but as sure as a mach-speed plane, unable to turn in time is doomed to collide with a mountain in its path, these blockchains must soon either accept their lack of security in today’s world or fork and upgrade to more effective solutions, some of which have been pioneered by smaller projects that don’t command as much hash power and therefore already had to face and address their need for extra security.
I believe it’s actually irresponsible to deny it and assume economics, hash power, market, sentiment or even self-preservation of network participants will be protection enough.
Because Bitcoin is the biggest (by market cap) of the pure PoW cryptocurrencies in existence today, I’ll establish my arguments using BTC, but the same goes for all pure PoW cryptos.
1 - Economics Bitcoin is often defended because it has the largest market cap of all cryptocurrencies and commands most of the capable hash worldwide that might be used to attack it. It is a “store of value” with proponents of this argument relying on few factors, limited supply combined with sentiment being one of the most prominent. They believe that this limited supply will inevitably drive the price up and, somehow, bitcoin will remain unequivocally secured and established.
Bitcoin has serious limitations in its adherence to the pure PoW model, and though the realities of competition has kept it free from major 51% attacks, I predict that it’s only a matter of time before it cannot command the majority of hash power that may be used to attack it. Lack of acceptance that consensus must use more than just PoW, even when checkpoints are an already accepted as necessary augmentation, leaves Bitcoin open to a catastrophic failure at some point in the future, which would affect the short term value of every cryptocurrency, even those that have addressed and solved the most glaring security challenges of a pure PoW model. Some projects have developed and are now using more advanced, more secure technology than pure PoW, and still remain fully decentralized. This is now an area where altcoins are leading, as they fill the security vacuum. With altcoins also having smart contracts and advanced currency capabilities and being potential stores of value as well, the landscape visible on the horizon in front of us looks quite different from the smooth sailing we have seen behind us with respect to projects relying on PoW and PoW alone. I’m not suggesting that Bitcoin should try to be everything that every other altcoin is becoming, but to rely on its single function as an argument of it’s security and sustainability while refraining from important technical advancements to secure its future, is foolish. The calculator is an important, valuable, and useful tool, yet people understood that it should be part of a more multifunction solution and now carry one around inside their smartphone.
The argument supporting Bitcoin’s status quo as a pure PoW blockchain and claiming it is perfect as is for whatever particular reason, is often combined with the following and includes an argument resting on self-preservation. In other words, why would anyone be nefarious and ruin their own wealth and store of value given the enormous hash power and cost it would take to attack Bitcoin? Bitcoin, then, relies on theoretical protection with idealistic boundaries.
2 - Hash Power and Hardware Capabilities This is sort of a 2 in 1 argument. Bitcoin is considered by many, the most secure blockchain in terms of pure hash power. In other words, more hash power is directed at Bitcoin than any other cryptocurrency and, there are limits to sha256d hashing speeds, economically and in hardware capabilities therefore it would be too expensive to attack Bitcoin and by the same token, make no sense to the attacker to do any wrong in this case (self preservation).
To assume technology, A: is limited to what we know now and B: will remain within these bounds for long, is just ignorant. What happens when sha256d can be hashed faster, when hardware innovations change the cost and capabilities involved? How do we know it isn’t possible now? What’s more, will Bitcoin always hold its position as the “special” coin due to its leading network hashpower that simply will never experience a world where there is enough available hash power from other sources to use for a 51% attack? The argument that Bitcoin will remain special is not an argument that its technology can protect it, especially with its roots as a project that grew from a figurative David with its sights set on the Goliath of the banking industry.
Look at the enormous hash power presently directed at Bitcoin and ask, what happens if that hash power is suddenly directed at another, less special coin, as part of a 51% attack? Is that other coin ready to defend in some way against that event? And how does this then impact Bitcoin? I would submit that at the end of the analysis, if the only thing protecting Bitcoin and its current technology from being doublespent to death is the fact that it is uniquely “special” because it is biggest, then as it unarguably becomes centralized among the largest Bitcoin participants and/or institutions, in an ironic way, refusal to improve technology could create exactly the systemic centralization that Satoshi was trying to prevent.
Even so, the idea that Bitcoin can always and forever remain the largest cryptocurrency and “special” as such, ignores historical realities that teach us differently. Remember “alta-vista”, the pre-Google winner of the search engine wars? Remember AOL? MySpace? The economics of bitcoin as people understand them today, the economics involved in mining pure PoW, the sentiment and value assigned to bitcoin and any coin now, can change as rapidly as Bitcoin emerged, even unexpectedly to the masses.
The ETC attack of only a few days ago just put the entire Cryptocurrency industry on notice. Any project without an active solution in place of immunity or at least a defense against a 51% hash attack is in trouble. I would argue that even though it will likely still take some time for market dynamics to enable an attacker to reasonably mount a 51% attack on the largest pure PoW cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, without new defense against such an attack, it is a question of when, not if.
The other day I identified a small handful of projects that have developed and are using defenses against 51% hash attacks, only one of which has a provable solution of hash attack immunity in place.
It’s important to note, any solution that can be seen as real progress over the Bitcoin protocol must be one that is decentralized. While some cryptocurrencies solve the 51% hash attack problem with a fully centralized approach, that truly misses the point of the original Bitcoin paper. Centralized databases are a different technology altogether, and implementing a centralized solution to a decentralized technology changes it entirely, in which case it’s more akin to just trying to brand your centralized database with the latest catch phrases to gain attention, support or funding.
Here’s a short list I identified of projects who have developed a defense or a complete solution to 51% hash attacks. To my knowledge, all of these solutions are now active on the respective project main networks, with the exception of Litecoin Cash, which is running on testnet at this time.:
As an industry, we need to face the fact that pure PoW is an incomplete solution to decentralized blockchain security in this age of cheap, fungible compute power. Pure PoW-only systems must evolve, and it’s time we look beyond to understand what are the best solutions that have evolved to address that fact. If you are part of a crypto project, no matter how large, you ignore the notice provided by the ETC attack at your own peril and the peril of your network participants.
My request is this… if you know of a project with a 51% hash attack solution, please provide some information below. If you totally disagree with the main point of this post, please provide a reasoned argument to prove me wrong or explain why pure PoW systems will remain viable indefinitely. As an industry, it’s time we see the blunt reality and apply innovation. Those who don’t will be reduced to interesting historical experiments.
submitted by ethadvisor to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Pure PoW is DEAD

When I was 16, camping out in an airport waiting to board my first International flight to England I began chatting with a U.S. Airforce pilot who had camped up beside my group. Asking him what it was like to fly at mach speeds he replied in a very sober expression, “you have to be alert at all times. You see a mountain or some obstacle appear on the horizon, you better adjust now or you’re going to slam into it.” Maybe he was adding dramatic effect, I’ve never flown at mach speeds at low altitudes, but I never forgot it and the analogy it carries...especially so fitting for technology and progress.
This past week in cryptocurrency shined an important (and hopefully sobering) light on a “mountain” that appeared on our industries horizon...and has actually been visible to us for far too long already: Pure Proof of Work’s inevitable fate.
By pure, I mean consensus algorithms that use nothing but the original Bitcoin proof of work consensus model without updates or algorithm changes to address its weaknesses relative to the ever expanding technology used to hash it. This means Bitcoin, today’s Ethereum, Zcash, Ethereum Classic, and other coins that comprise most of the value in the top 100 cryptocurrencies. The original, unmodified form of basic PoW that most of these coins use is dead. This demise may not be fully appreciated today, but as sure as a mach-speed plane, unable to turn in time is doomed to collide with a mountain in its path, these blockchains must soon either accept their lack of security in today’s world or fork and upgrade to more effective solutions, some of which have been pioneered by smaller projects that don’t command as much hash power and therefore already had to face and address their need for extra security.
I believe it’s actually irresponsible to deny it and assume economics, hash power, market, sentiment or even self-preservation of network participants will be protection enough.
Because Bitcoin is the biggest (by market cap) of the pure PoW cryptocurrencies in existence today, I’ll establish my arguments using BTC, but the same goes for all pure PoW cryptos.
1 - Economics Bitcoin is often defended because it has the largest market cap of all cryptocurrencies and commands most of the capable hash worldwide that might be used to attack it. It is a “store of value” with proponents of this argument relying on few factors, limited supply combined with sentiment being one of the most prominent. They believe that this limited supply will inevitably drive the price up and, somehow, bitcoin will remain unequivocally secured and established.
Bitcoin has serious limitations in its adherence to the pure PoW model, and though the realities of competition has kept it free from major 51% attacks, I predict that it’s only a matter of time before it cannot command the majority of hash power that may be used to attack it. Lack of acceptance that consensus must use more than just PoW, even when checkpoints are an already accepted as necessary augmentation, leaves Bitcoin open to a catastrophic failure at some point in the future, which would affect the short term value of every cryptocurrency, even those that have addressed and solved the most glaring security challenges of a pure PoW model. Some projects have developed and are now using more advanced, more secure technology than pure PoW, and still remain fully decentralized. This is now an area where altcoins are leading, as they fill the security vacuum. With altcoins also having smart contracts and advanced currency capabilities and being potential stores of value as well, the landscape visible on the horizon in front of us looks quite different from the smooth sailing we have seen behind us with respect to projects relying on PoW and PoW alone. I’m not suggesting that Bitcoin should try to be everything that every other altcoin is becoming, but to rely on its single function as an argument of it’s security and sustainability while refraining from important technical advancements to secure its future, is foolish. The calculator is an important, valuable, and useful tool, yet people understood that it should be part of a more multifunction solution and now carry one around inside their smartphone.
The argument supporting Bitcoin’s status quo as a pure PoW blockchain and claiming it is perfect as is for whatever particular reason, is often combined with the following and includes an argument resting on self-preservation. In other words, why would anyone be nefarious and ruin their own wealth and store of value given the enormous hash power and cost it would take to attack Bitcoin? Bitcoin, then, relies on theoretical protection with idealistic boundaries.
2 - Hash Power and Hardware Capabilities This is sort of a 2 in 1 argument. Bitcoin is considered by many, the most secure blockchain in terms of pure hash power. In other words, more hash power is directed at Bitcoin than any other cryptocurrency and, there are limits to sha256d hashing speeds, economically and in hardware capabilities therefore it would be too expensive to attack Bitcoin and by the same token, make no sense to the attacker to do any wrong in this case (self preservation).
To assume technology, A: is limited to what we know now and B: will remain within these bounds for long, is just ignorant. What happens when sha256d can be hashed faster, when hardware innovations change the cost and capabilities involved? How do we know it isn’t possible now? What’s more, will Bitcoin always hold its position as the “special” coin due to its leading network hashpower that simply will never experience a world where there is enough available hash power from other sources to use for a 51% attack? The argument that Bitcoin will remain special is not an argument that its technology can protect it, especially with its roots as a project that grew from a figurative David with its sights set on the Goliath of the banking industry.
Look at the enormous hash power presently directed at Bitcoin and ask, what happens if that hash power is suddenly directed at another, less special coin, as part of a 51% attack? Is that other coin ready to defend in some way against that event? And how does this then impact Bitcoin? I would submit that at the end of the analysis, if the only thing protecting Bitcoin and its current technology from being doublespent to death is the fact that it is uniquely “special” because it is biggest, then as it unarguably becomes centralized among the largest Bitcoin participants and/or institutions, in an ironic way, refusal to improve technology could create exactly the systemic centralization that Satoshi was trying to prevent.
Even so, the idea that Bitcoin can always and forever remain the largest cryptocurrency and “special” as such, ignores historical realities that teach us differently. Remember “alta-vista”, the pre-Google winner of the search engine wars? Remember AOL? MySpace? The economics of bitcoin as people understand them today, the economics involved in mining pure PoW, the sentiment and value assigned to bitcoin and any coin now, can change as rapidly as Bitcoin emerged, even unexpectedly to the masses.
The ETC attack of only a few days ago just put the entire Cryptocurrency industry on notice. Any project without an active solution in place of immunity or at least a defense against a 51% hash attack is in trouble. I would argue that even though it will likely still take some time for market dynamics to enable an attacker to reasonably mount a 51% attack on the largest pure PoW cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, without new defense against such an attack, it is a question of when, not if.
The other day I identified a small handful of projects that have developed and are using defenses against 51% hash attacks, only one of which has a provable solution of hash attack immunity in place.
It’s important to note, any solution that can be seen as real progress over the Bitcoin protocol must be one that is decentralized. While some cryptocurrencies solve the 51% hash attack problem with a fully centralized approach, that truly misses the point of the original Bitcoin paper. Centralized databases are a different technology altogether, and implementing a centralized solution to a decentralized technology changes it entirely, in which case it’s more akin to just trying to brand your centralized database with the latest catch phrases to gain attention, support or funding.
Here’s a short list I identified of projects who have developed a defense or a complete solution to 51% hash attacks. To my knowledge, all of these solutions are now active on the respective project main networks, with the exception of Litecoin Cash, which is running on testnet at this time.:
As an industry, we need to face the fact that pure PoW is an incomplete solution to decentralized blockchain security in this age of cheap, fungible compute power. Pure PoW-only systems must evolve, and it’s time we look beyond to understand what are the best solutions that have evolved to address that fact. If you are part of a crypto project, no matter how large, you ignore the notice provided by the ETC attack at your own peril and the peril of your network participants.
My request is this… if you know of a project with a 51% hash attack solution, please provide some information below. If you totally disagree with the main point of this post, please provide a reasoned argument to prove me wrong or explain why pure PoW systems will remain viable indefinitely. As an industry, it’s time we see the blunt reality and apply innovation. Those who don’t will be reduced to interesting historical experiments.
submitted by ethadvisor to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

A letter from the Myriad team to the community by a dedicated miner.

What is the myriad project ?
It is a crypto currency like bitcoin but that's about all it has in common with bitcoin. I dare to say myriad's concept is better than bitcoin's, or any other coin for that matter, it's a big step in the future of the phenomenon known as crypto currency. These are not just words and marketing, Myriad proves its superiority every passing day. Allow me to explain how and why: Myriad is the first coin to implement the concept of multi-hashing, meaning, myriad does not run on a single algorythm or a chunk of algorythms chained together, it runs on 5 parallel algorythms. They are: sha256d, scrypt, skein, groestl and qubit.
What does this mean ?
It means that each algorythm works independently from the others to secure the network while using the same blockchain. It also means that each algorythm can be mined individually providing ALL miners a fair chance of generating coins. Myriad welcomes everyone, asic users, gpu users and cpu users. This not only makes the network more secure, it also ensures a fair and wide distribution of the generated coins avoiding one of the other big problems bitcoin is facing: most coins being generated by industrial mining farms controlled by rich investors. Another proven fact is that the concept of multi-hashing also provides much better protection against 51% attacks because while an attacker could gain 51% of one single algorythm it's highly improbable that he could gain 51% of the hashing power for all algorythms so if any one algorythm suffers a fork the other for will be working with the remaining 49% of the attacked algorythm to keep the network secure and your transactions safe (this has recently been proven when cryptopool.eu owning over 51% of the scrypt hashing power forked and the networks reaction was PERFECT) . This is also the best security against multipools attack because they can only target one algorythm they can only aquire 20% of the total coins since the coins are split up equally between algorythms and each algorythm gets TOTAL COINS / 5 .
Other advantages the Myriad project has to offer include, but are not limited to:
The list of features the Myriad project has to offer is too large to include in one email while avoiding making it a long and boring email but it is becoming increasingly clear that Myriad is a big step twards the future and the possibilities are amazing when thinking about new ways and services that Myriad can bring to the crypto world.
As I've already described it in the thread (excuse the plastic representation):
Myriad is a rose in a sea of rotting carcases , a fresh water lake in the middle of the sahara. It's being held back because it is hard to notice it when 20 hyped premined scam ipo coins emerge daily, but users who do notice it tend to stick around because as it happened to vertcoin people will eventually learn about myriad and see that it trully is the concept to unite the whole mining comunity under one coin, a huge step forward for the crypto currency world.
In conclusion, no matter who you are and what hardware you have you are welcome to mine Myriad and I assure you it will be profitable no matter what technical inovations come to the market. Investors and crypto currency enthusiasts MYR offers more security and decentralization than any other coin in existence, even bitcoin, making it a very promising investment and considering the price and trading volume getting involved in Myriad right now is as good as getting involved from the begining. The community is blossoming day by day and we are all guided by the same principles, progress and fairness to each and every individual.
Thank you for reading,
A crypto currency miner who supports progress.
PS:
List of TODOS and projects that are in development or are being considered for MYR:
-implementing an RPC command that returns network hashrate per algorythm
-algorythm switching mining software for a algo-profit-switching pool
-algo-profit-switching pool
-andoid wallet
-implementation of a 100% proven CPU algorythm (right now qubit and groestl are CPU friendly but not CPU dedicated so while CPU miners can still mine competing with GPUS on fair grounds they still do not have an exclusive algorythm)
-adding a metalayer to Myriad (similar to xcp)
and the list is evergrowing.
submitted by bordb to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

An open letter from the myriad to ... everyone.

Hi there,
I̶'̶m̶ ̶D̶a̶n̶i̶e̶l̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶M̶y̶r̶i̶a̶d̶C̶o̶i̶n̶ ̶D̶e̶v̶e̶l̶o̶p̶e̶r̶s̶.̶
I'm you, when you first started your internet venture, just some guy with a vision and limited ways to achieve it.
What's Myriad you say ?
It's a cryptocurrency who decided to part from the flock of copycat coins that started to spawn recently. We decided to take Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto's vision even further by creating a concept that goes a step beyond bitcoin's--towards a better decentralization, fairer distribution and better security.
How you ask ?
Easy! (from an outside point of view): instead of a mono proof-of-work driven network, we've created a multiple proof-of-work network meaning. Rather than solving just one type of mathematical problem like bitcoin's sha256d schema to sustain the network, our miners (users that use their computers to sustain the network while getting a reward) have the option to chose from five different algorithms. They can use just about any type of hardware to mine without the fear that someone with enough money to buy a lot of specialized hardware can control the network and get all the coins.
In short, ASICs (specialized hardware), GPUs (video cards) and CPUs (processors) each have at least one algorithm that's more friendly to them than the others.
We believe that this will ultimately be the best way to move forward as it ensures a more secure network as a wider array of hardware is employed to secure it, wider distribution and decentralization along with a larger coin total are also another great effect of this schema. Moved by our love of the cryptocurrency concept, we've dedicated all of our time and efforts towards tech-wise projects and less on marketing because we believe cryptocurrencies are not an asset or a commodity that needs to be promoted and advertised.
We believe it's supposed to be, as the name says, a currency; and because of that we've provided our users with a mobile wallet (Android for now), an Electrum lightwallet (fast secure and multifunctional wallet), an application that calculates which algorithm is more profitable and switches to it for miners, and a merchant integration platform via coinpayments.net (soon to be added to moolah.io too).
There are many other projects in the works but I don't like to talk about them until they're ready to be released as I don't want to come across as one to hype our project without a solid basis.
As of now we are a very young project (3 months old) and due to lack of potential for short term gains and our complete and utter refusal to partake in gimmicks and other questionable actions that result in artificial price rises, our community is very small and most people ignore us.
Why am I writing this letter?
Because although we'll keep trying to regardless of your answer, without outside help, it's becoming increasingly difficult to get noticed and give our concept a fair chance against others that rely on gimmicks, scams, lies and unfulfilled promises to promote their alternative coin concepts.
Besides all that I also think writing a letter such as this will ultimately prove to be a better choice than proposing some bribe, media stunt, or other eye-catching tricks.
Why should you help us?
Because at some point in life YOU WERE US. Perhaps you made it on your own, but I'm pretty sure that a helping hand would have sped things up and made your life a little bit better, perhaps you had a stroke of luck and someone helped and now you are here.
Are you still reading this?
Oh man, you must really be bored, or... genuinely interested in what I wrote so far, in which case I'm genuinely happy and I'd like to sincerely thank you.
What can you do to help us?
Integrate Myriad with your services. Do you run a media/social/news platform? An article about our concept would be great. Give us a shout out on Twitter (@myriadcoin), join us on Reddit (/myriadcoin), visit our Facebook page (http://facebook.com/themyriadplatform), come chat with us on bitcointalk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=483515), tell some of your friends (the ones that understand crypto currency :) ) about us.
I'm not asking you to blindly believe what I just wrote: visit our bitcointalk thread, read the first post, see what we've achieved so far, ask around, and draw your own conclusions.
If you reading this last line I'd like to thank you on behalf of your development team and community for having the patience to read such a long letter and tell you that whether you decide to reach out and lend us a helping hand is up to you, I've done the best I can: ask for help.
Thank you,
D̶a̶n̶i̶e̶l̶
Any and all of the Myriadcoin community members.
submitted by bordb to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

Airdropping masternodes — fair distribution & healthy economy of MTNC

One such worthwile project is Masternodecoin (MTNC), of which the first airdrop took place at the turn of August and September. Masternodecoin is a cryptocurrency based on DASH with 2MB block size, 60 blocks confirmation, and Proof of Stake (PoW SHA256d algorithm was only used to premine coins). Those lucky ones who supported this project from the beginning and participated in the first airdrop, got the amount needed to set up a masternode for free, but anyone who owns at least 50,000 coins can run a masternode. Masternodecoin rewards “connectivity age” instead of “coin age” thus eliminating the abuse from exchanges and users that do not actively contribute to the network. By having a static reward system, the rewards for participation are proportional to the work of each active node. Currently there are about 90 masternodes and the number is constantly increasing. These MTNC nodes allow instant transfers between addresses in a decentralized way, so even if several of them stop working, transactions are still validated without any problems. Masternodecoin also allows you to send funds using the DarkSend feature, which is fully anonymous, mixing coin transaction. Mixing removes any traces that would allow to discover the address or IP of sender. Imagine that you can transfer any amount of money to other side of the world in seconds, completely anonymously! With DarkSend, this is possible.
MTNC on Coinmarketcap.com The total number of created coins is almost 104,000,000, with about half amount in circulation (locked in masternodes or on wallets and exchanges). MTNC is listed on two well-known crypto exchanges — Cryptopia and NovaExchange. Current price ranges between 1800–2200 satoshi per one MTNC, which allows to set up a masternode for about $ 10,000 (assuming present bitcoin price at around $ 10,000) and ROI may vary between 200%-300%. Considering the growing popularity of cryptocurrencies with masternodes for steady passive income, this is not an excessive price, especially since the MTNC has a lot of potential for growth thanks to the currency development plans we can see on the roadmap below.
Masternodecoin roadmap The roadmap looks very appealing, thanks to the interesting features that dev plans to implement — search engine with private search or peer-to-peer chat with all messages after read, are just some of them. In addition, a very good idea for the whole currency ecosystem are the regular burnings of coins. By the end of November next year, half of the total supply of coins will be destroyed (50,000,000 MTNC). Thanks to this, as well as six rounds of airdrops, the distribution of coins is very fair, and anyone who sets up their masternode now should be happy with the future profits and growth of the MTNC value. With a huge amount of new blockchain projects and hundreds or even thousands of cryptcurrencies, it’s really hard to find such a remarkable project like Masternodecoin, with engaged dav and quickly growing community. If you are interested in Masternodecoin, you are most welcome to join the third round of airdrop, which is happening right now on the Bitcointalk forum. You can also join the discussion on the slack channel. Some useful links:
submitted by wwzsocki to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

We have 30 seconds of advertising time on an upcoming Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast. Adam B. Levine asked for bullet points for the items we believe are top priority for Myriad.

List everything you think we should air on the advertisement.
I'm not clear how lenient Adam B. Levine will be with what is presented. He may read it verbatum, he may pick and choose what to present for our advertisement.
Regardless, I'd like the community to brainstorm with me.
I think it should be mostly what multi-PoW is and the implications it has for decentralized mining. I think we should focus the least on current projects we have going. (Reasoning: Bitcoiners are least familiar with multi-PoW and most familiar with the type of projects cryptocurrencies have going for them. What would impress them most? Multi-POW.)
EDIT: I think it's vital to include these bullet points that 8bitcoder originally had on the announcement thread regarding how Myriadcoin works:
So we have:
1) What is Myriad? It is the first multiple-proof-of-work cryptocurrency in which 5 algorithms "compete" to solve blocks on the same blockchain (SHA256d, Scrypt, Skein, Qubit, and Myriad-Groestl).
2) How does it work?
3) Implications?
4) Learn more and join the community
submitted by neuroMode to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

Quark phylosophy or why does it differ from bitcoin.

Fundamental ideas of any cryptocurrency could be considered anarchic and anti-government. Bitcoin and its descendants supplant the function of money creation and monetary policy from the state, the function of money transfer and account control from banks and place them in the hands of individual. The deal between economic agents could be executed without middleman or any kind of regulation (apart from rules of math and double-spend prevention) be it a trade on a basaar or large intercontinental service. Noone is able to prevent, tax, regulate, enforce sanctions on a deal against the will of its participants - what could be more libertarian!
But many Satoshi’s ideas governing Bitcoin and blindly copied by its forks are questionable. It seems that many of institutional decisions were taken by a programmer not an economist and their hardly predictable economic consequences now are slowing down the cryptocurrency development. For example the Bitcoin “monetary policy” is the rule of halving of mining reward. Each 4 years amount of newly created bitcoins is designed to halve as it was in 2013 when the 50 bitcoins rewarded each 10 minutes reduced to 25. Thus the descending geometrical progression forms and its sum is a finite number equals 21 million bitcoins.
Bitcoiners advocate that Bitcoin is a deflationary monetary system which is wrong. For example number of new coins to be created in 2014 is roughly equals 365 [days] * 24*6 [blocks each day] * 25 [BTC for each block] = 1,314,000 BTC. Money mass in 2014 could be estimated as 13,500,000 so we observe a 9.5% inflation. Worth noting that this estimate of bitcoin money mass includes dormant coins which sit still for 3 years or more. If drop them, inflation could reach 15-20%. In case of younger coins such as litecoin the inflation is certainly double-digit and could reach 50% and more.
For an economist miners are agents who perform seigniorage - issuing new coins and selling them taking profit from the margin between cost of production and market price. From the economist’s point of view there is no difference between central bank or government mint and distributed community of miners. They are still extracting seigniorage rent from anyone using cryptocoin and taxing society with inflation. From ideological side of the problem there is a huge difference between crony elites and masses but pure economy like pure physics doesn’t distinguish right from wrong and fair from unfair. The consequences are the same -- long-term price and stability deteriorating from inflation. Double-digit inflation alone doesn’t mean the unusability of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. They still are the cheapest, fastest and just monetary system ever invented. But large long-term inflation is completely unnecessary evil which brings depression and future day uncertainty.
Quark uses another distribution model with aggressive coin generation at the very beginning and a low mining reward and hence inflation in perspective. Quark implements a 247 million coins base money with steady 1 million annual generation without halving, thus the inflation rate equals roughly 0.4%. This logic is desiged to solve 2 problems: low down the burden of inflation tax on society and provide a long-term sustainability in terms of mining reward and transaction fees. In future (2040 and further) Bitcoin block reward will drop significantly but mining reward must be paid since basically it represents a cost of maintenance of the whole system. Without mining reward transactions would not confirm and the whole payment system die. It is supposed that this reward will come mostly from transaction fees. This assumption doesn’t stand even the slightest critics. If exists another cryptocurrency without transaction fee then what’s the point in paying the fees in Bitcoin? It is reasonable to perform the transaction in another cryptocoin system without fees, isn’t it? Quark does not implement forced transaction fees.
Many claim that Quark monetary decision as unfair and extremely benefiting the earliest adopters. We have 2 points regarding this. At first, any cryptocurrency extremely benefits early adopters and one could reasonably estimate that Bitcoin did it an order of magnitude more than any other cryptocurrency. And still somehow it is argued that Quark is more unfair to late adopters than Bitcoin. At the very least it is questionable and need to be proven. Secondly, as we noticed before, the laws of economy don’t distinguish fair from unfair but they do distinguish feasible and working system from naive and crippled one. For this reason we could face an alternative between fair and working system - a hard but an obvious choice.
The second Satoshi’s decision we are to consider is an average block time. Blocks are a blockchain structure using to sign transaction and make them irreversible. Block time could be considered as a time frame in which an average transaction will be signed and guaranteed from double-spend attempts. So why a 10 minutes timeframe was chosen? This put the severe constraints on cryptocurrency adoption. Imagine you are forced to wait 10 minutes on a cash desc in a grocery store or a ticket office in cinema while miners would solve the blocks for you. This is completely unacceptable and cut the entire sectors of economy from the usage of cryptocurrencies. Apparently the usage will be limited to internet trade where time doesn’t cost much or to large deals such as buying a car or house where security of transactions is more important than waiting time.
Quark put the average block time at 30 seconds. This timeframe is much more acceptable even for a daytrade. In case of large deal the users should simply wait for more than 1 block to receive larger level of security and stronger guarantee from reversing the transaction and attempts to double-spend. Lesser block time introduces the ability for sellers and buyers to choose their own security/waiting time trade-off while in cryptocoins with larger block time it has been chosen for us. We respect Satoshi, but won’t let him to diminish our freedom to transact and trade.
We just can not pass the mining algorithm problem. This is an amazing example of how a pure technical decision could affect the whole cryptocoin economy on enormous scale. Bitcoin’s SHA256d algo leaded to ASIC mining, monopolisation of mining by a small family of ASIC produces and a complete fail of initial idea of a “crowd central bank”. As for 2014 Fall ASIC-miners clans are engaging in a damping war on attrition. Difficulty skyrockets to a unsustainable level, forcing small mining incentives to close. Then came the market manipulations like dumping 30k BTCs on the early October 2014. This struggle severely hurts the confidence in cryptocoins and depletes crypto economy. The end of the war will likely be a winner-takes-all scenario with extreme monopolisation of the market.
And all of this is a consequence of a single choosing of main mining algorithm. We can’t blame Satoshi for it, he couldn’t know the consequences. We can’t blame Gavin Andersen and his team for not switching to another algo as it would inevitably impose the danger of crashing the whole system in blockchain fork. But we could learn from their mistakes and build a system in which such a line of events is simply impossible.
Quark has 9 rounds of hashing and 3 different algorithms. We can’t say that it’s impossible to create an ASIC chip for solving these complex hashes but we do state that it will be an order of magnitude more complex and expensive. For now, an ordinary CPUs are producing as much hashes as GPUs of the same price, which could be considered as a prove of the complexity and viability.
Besides, there is a risk of compromising of SHA256 hash function since noone knows what the future will bring us. But in Quark even if one of hashing algos compromised there would be a 5 more. If you had an alternative of putting your money to a chest with 1 lock and 6 locks, what would you choose?
As a conclusion we could say that the Quark is an evolutionary step ahead in a field of cryptocurrency development. Maybe a small one but still a step. While writing Bitcoin code Satoshi could not know how his creation would behave in a real complex economy with millions of participants and billions at stake. But we do know it, we do see it and we must draw the conclusions from his mistakes.
The whole Quark project could be seen as a work on the bugs which the real world and the real economy identified in cryptocurrencies.
submitted by br0nevik to QuarkCoin [link] [comments]

It's been a while, so let's brainstorm and list all the things a multiple-proof-of-work blockchain offers that mono-proof-of-work, proof-of-stake, and other blockchains cannot.

It's been a while so perhaps some new ideas have subconsciously materialized inside your heads and are waiting to be scribed down.
Advantages of multi-PoW and is it enough?
Any more?
submitted by neuroMode to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

Has anyone done an analysis on the correlation between the increases in Bitcoin mining difficulty and the value of the top 5 Altcoin SHA256d clones?

My hunch is that over time more 'profit motive' based miners will fall off the Bitcoin mining wagon and dedicate their hashing power (and faith) to other altcoin crypto-currencies. Which in turn could increase the price per unit of those coins.
TL;DR It might not be a bad idea to have an investment in a basket of SHA256d altcoins, the ones that have a great community backing them.
submitted by coolcityboy to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How DECOR++ can eradicate selfish mining incentive by design | Sergio Demian Lerner | Aug 16 2015

Sergio Demian Lerner on Aug 16 2015:
In these shocking forking times, nothing more relaxing that to immerse
yourself in a pure technical reading about cryptocurrency design, letting
aside Bitcoin politics for a moment. This message is about cryptocurrencies
design in general, so you're free to skip my message if you think it will
never apply to Bitcoin.
[ full article copied from my blog:
https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/how-decor-can-eradicate-selfish-mining-incentive-by-design/
]
A year ago I proposed the DECOR protocol
<https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/deco>, a new rule for
cryptocurrencies to reduce significantly the amount of orphan blocks and
then allow block rate to be as high as one block every 5 seconds, and at
the same time it promised to address the problem of selfish mining
<http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/>. After one
year, I’ve received very little feedback about it. Yet the selfish mining
<http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/> problem has
been argued over and over against certain changes in Bitcoin, as if selfish
mining were something inevitable to all POW-based cryptocurrencies. But it
is not.
In a nutshell, DECOR is a protocol that permits miners to share the block
reward if both mine competing blocks. This is done by publishing block
header siblings (sometime called uncles) into child blocks, and modifying
the cryptocurrency protocol to pay some amount to the miners of uncles. If
all miners are honest, this strategy increases slightly the probability of
1-block reversals, but reduces considerably the probability of longer
reversals, as all miners choose the same parent. A few months after my
post, Ethereum <https://www.ethereum.org/>adopted a similar strategy of
paying a certain amount of ether to uncles, but the amount paid was created
out of thin ear, and at that time there could be any amount of uncles, so
basically it distorted the money supply function into a uncapped
inflationary one, if all miners decided to collude. After I reported this
issue, they restricted the number of uncles that can be included, but still
it leaves an incentive for all miners to collude to increase miner revenue.
DECOR does reward sharing, so the supply function cap is maintained. But it
does not solve the Selfish mining problem: miners withholding a block get
paid a full reward but the remaining miners are working (without knowing
it) for a half of the block reward. So my original strategy does not work
for rational (but not necessarily honest) miners. A few posts later I
presented DECOR+ <https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/decor-2/> to try
to address the problem of unbalanced rewards: what happens if there are two
competing blocks, but one has a 12.5 BTC reward, but the other has a 20 BTC
reward due to additional fees? But again, if miners are dishonest, the
proposed scheme does not solve the underlying problem, as miners can
artificially increase their fees to win the conflict resolving rule, at
least in all cryptocurrencies that do not burn transaction fees. How can we
fix it?
DECOR++
We’ll fix DECOR by doing three changes. The first is by paying full rewards
to all competing blocks, either the parent or the uncles. To prevent
increasing the money supply, first we set a maximum number of uncles U than
can be included over a period of N blocks. For example we can set U=100 and
N=1000 (a maximum orphan rate of 10%). Then we create rule to decrease the
money supply per time interval in case it previously was increased. So to
prevent miners colluding to increase the money supply in U/N, we either
decrease the subsidies of the following N blocks by the excess amount in
the previous period or we make N coincident with block difficulty re-target
interval and we consider uncles in the rate computation, so mining
afterward simply gets more difficult. If all miners collude to try to
increase their revenue by U/N, they will see their revenue decrease by the
same amount in the following re-target interval.
Miners could start switching between two cryptocurrencies to mine only
during the low difficulty interval and avoid the high difficulty interval.
But here are no competing valuable non-merged mined cryptocurrency using
SHA256D, so this is no problem for Bitcoin. Also the cryptocurrency left
without mining power would become insecure and its price will fall to near
zero. So increasing the immaturity lock time for coinbases to at least N
blocks destroys any miner earnings if all decide to switch all at once.
The second change is to choose the parent block in case of conflict based
on a deterministic random selection in case of deciding between several
chains with the same accumulated difficulty but different tip: we order the
competing tip blocks by their hash digest values, we hash the hashes and we
use the resulting hash digest as seed to a PRNG to choose an index in the
sorted list of the block to choose as parent.
The third change is to process the transactions of all competing blocks
(the actual block and its siblings) in case of a conflict. The transactions
on the parent block will be processed first as normal. The others will be
processed in the order they are referenced in following child blocks.
Conflicting transactions (double-spends) present in uncle blocks with
respect to the main block are skipped, while obviously internal conflicts
in the uncle blocks make them invalid, as usual. Now, as long as the
subsidy dominates the fees, miners have no incentive to withhold blocks.
Let’s analyze what can happen in the long term, when fees dominate the
block reward. In the future there may be two kinds of transactions: public
transactions and private transactions. Public transactions are the current
standard transactions: they pay a fee in the standard way and are broadcast
over the public network. Private transactions may appear if miners decide
to negotiate inclusion in blocks directly with web wallets or gateways:
private transactions will pay fees as an output to the miner’s public key.
Blocks with high rewards competing with blocks with low rewards due to
public transactions will be rare, since for the benefit of the miner most
transactions included in blocks should be present in all other miners
memory pools to accelerate propagation, so all miners are exposed to the
same reward pool. If it happens (by the mistake of a user) that a public
transaction pays an extremely high fee, the withholding incentive may
reappear. But in a far future, when subsidy disappears and miners receive
the payment mainly because of fees, they may adopt the more competitive
commercial strategy of rely mainly in private transactions (or maybe using Mike
Hearn’s assurance contracts
<https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Funding_network_security>). As fees from
private transactions are not shared between competing blocks, they won’t
affect selfish mining. I conclude that DECOR++ is currently incentive
compatible and it is highly probable that remains incentive compatible in
the future.
To summarize, DECOR++ main protocol properties are:
Best regards, Sergio.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150816/a101786f/attachment.html>
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010261.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

What would happen to Bitcoin if SHA256 were broken Sale USED OLD Innosilicon T2T 30T sha256 asic miner T2 Turbo 30Th/s bitcoin BTC Mining machine with Bitcoin Curve ball - Current Bitcoin Price [May 26th 2020] What is SHA256?  Bitcoin mining using Raspberry Pi Deal in stock Innosilicon T2T 30T sha256 asic miner T2 Turbo 30Th/s bitcoin BTC Mining machine with

X2 Original Bitmain Antminer S9 Control Board Bitcoin Mining Miner in Stock $148.95 New Bitmain Apw3 -12-1600 Antminer PSU 1600w Power Supply for Bitcoin Mining List of top SHA256 coins by Market Capitalization. About. Coinlore provides original cryptocurrency/coin prices calculated by own algorithm, and other metrics such as markets, volumes, historical prices, charts, coin market caps, blockchain info, API, widgets and more. Make Offer - Halong Dragonmint T1 16TH/s Bitcoin SHA256 Miner USA Ready to Ship w/ PSU - USED 24 Hour BTC Lottery Miner-Turn $1.5 Into $60k(6.25BTC)(5xOC)500MHz Up To 115Gh/s $1.50 The price is as unstable as always and it can go up or down by 10%-20% in a single day. Bitcoin is an SHA-256 POW coin with 21,000,000 total minable coins. The block time is 10 minutes. See below for a full range of Bitcoin markets where you can trade US Dollars for Bitcoin, crypto to Bitcoin and many other fiat currencies too. Digitalcoin SHA 256 Price Chart The Digitalcoin SHA 256 price chart provides historical price values and exchange rate values for the last 6 months. Warning: Digitalcoin is no longer being monitored as of 6/26/2017.

[index] [14104] [7583] [30920] [27938] [15579] [12659] [24239] [28279] [15856] [27127]

What would happen to Bitcoin if SHA256 were broken

Bitcoin Mining using Raspberry Pi explains to you about bitcoin mining from its very basics. Initially, you will learn about all the different terminologies associated with the mining process. Bitcoin price predictions: 1 target $19.000 +80%, 2 target $35.000 +230%, in the next 1.500 days! DON'T CLICK THIS: https://bit.ly/2CfXa6Q If you are a trader, then is this the right trading ... Bitcoin Algo Trading on Deribit. BTCUSD Price Chart. Deribot 370 watching. Live now; If I Were BROKE… This Is What I’d Do - Duration: 18:20. Tatiana James Recommended for you. in stock Innosilicon T2T 30T sha256 asic miner T2 Turbo 30Th/s bitcoin BTC Mining machine with psu Better Than Antminer S9 z9 b7 For You the Special Price: h... The current prices of Bitcoin $8,893.56 The current prices of Ethereum $202.58 The current prices of Dash $72.61 The current prices of Litecoin $42.58 These are the current prices of ...

Flag Counter