GitHub - unixb0y/SystemVerilogSHA256: SHA256 in (System ...

Myriad - A coin for everyone.

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

DigiByte Mining Pool - Official Launch - 50,000 DGB Giveaway!

DigiByte Mining Pool - Official Launch - 50,000 DGB Giveaway!

https://preview.redd.it/1hlax7cksas51.png?width=2000&format=png&auto=webp&s=6893e01650cfdd3a778df5705a0382ad8b382488
I have been working hard on the front-end of my pool for the past couple of months. Anyone who saw v1.0 will be shocked to see the progress it's made. It now has a fantastic front-end with detailed charts, graphs, and user stats, all in a sleek Bootstrap 4.0 layout.
Miners....come join us at https://Luckyblocks.ninja
I wanted to offer support for all Algo's, and initially, I did. But after talking with DigiByte developers, and taking their advice this was changed to support only Scrypt and SHA256D. Until ProgPOW is implemented GPU mining is pointless, so this ultimately is why I chose Scrypt and SHA256D.
Another feature of the pool is BTC and LTC Solo Mining for any of you guys out there that have some gear that's not profitable to mine with anymore and just want to play the blockchain lottery. Wouldn't it be nice to wake up with 6.25 Bitcoin in your wallet one morning?
General Pool Features are:
  • Asic-Boost Supported
  • Ultra-efficient handcrafted code
  • Transaction fees paid to miners
  • VarDiff & Static Diff Supported
  • Anonymous mining to your wallet
  • Solo Mining
  • No withdraw fees
  • No registration
  • No pool wallets
Ready to join up? Head over to https://Luckyblocks.ninja to get started.
PS - Did I mention we're going to give one lucky miner 50,000 DigiByte?
Want to know more about the Giveaway? https://Luckyblocks.ninja/faq
submitted by WeDontServeYourKind to Digibyte [link] [comments]

Ethereum 's Top 7 Mining Tools in 2020

If there is a cryptocurrency that has acquired popularity close to Bitcoin, then it is Ethereum. It is among the leading crypto-currencies when it comes to market capitalization. Ethereum is not just a cryptocurrency, but it is also a blockchain system that is useful in creating decentralised applications. Since Ethereum Blockchain is used by most companies now, it is gaining popularity among Ethereum miners and developers.
Ethereum mining is a great way to make more cash. Benefiting from cryptocurrencies in p is a perfect option. Since many applications for Blockchain depend on Ethereum. Ethereum mining is going to be lucrative, as its price is expected to grow. The Ethereum minimum can be simplified with the use of the best Ethereum software. There are some apps like that on the market, and we've got the seven best for you here.
7 Ethereum 's Best Apps:
ETHminer- This is an Ethereum mining application which is supported on Linux , Windows, and Mac. It is also possible to use the Ethash algorithm, luke Ellaisma, Musicoin Ethereum Classic, Metaverse, It is a command-line program that allows you to construct shortcut commands using a Windows cmd / batch file or Linux Bash script.
The next software on our list is CGMiner-A, which was published in 2011. It is one of the common choices and has compatibility with GPU, FPGA, and ASIC. It is open-source software and can cause advanced detection of blocks.
It is written in C; Ethereum developers are able to save a hash rate without delay using this Ethereum mining programme. On Linux , Windows, and Mac, this program is open.
BitMinter- The graphical interface is transparent and it links easily to the Bitminter mining pool. This software was launched in 2011 and has more than 450,000 user accounts registered. The Java Network Launch Protocol (JNLP) is the foundation of its operations. Linux, Windows and Mac are also compatible with this programme.
Claymore- This is one of the most powerful mining applications for Ethereum, and without delaying the mining pace, you can scale up the hash rate. You can also mine other cryptocurrencies like Lbry, Pascal, Siacoin, and Decred using this Ethereum mining programme. This software is Linux and Windows compatible and not Mac compatible.
WinETH- If you are looking for an Ethereum mining app that is fast and simple to use, then this is the one for you. It is comparable to WinETH, but it has a simpler Interface and a smarter algorithm that makes it easy to use for Ethereum miners.
Minergate-It was the first mining app for Ethereum to deliver merged mining. You can use this app to concurrently mine two separate coins without impacting the main coin's hash rate. In addition, this coin will also tell you about the market's most valuable coins.
This programme can be used by Ethereum miners to mine other coins, including Zcash, Liteoin, Monero.
BFGMiner- This programme is written in C and operates on various Linux, Windows and Mac operating systems. You will mine crypto coins and have both SHA256D and Scrypt on its algorithm. It also offers you total support for tracking.
Conclusion- These are some of the popular mining applications for Ethereum that you can use. If you would like to know more about the creation of Ethereum, or Ethereum mining, If you wish to know more about Ethereum development, or Ethereum mining, or you want to enroll for Ethereum certification, connect with Blockchain Council today.
submitted by Blockchain_org to BlockchainStartups [link] [comments]

[MINING] Can anyone help with this? "stratum_subscribe timed out ...retry after 10 seconds"

Hi everyone,
Just as a disclaimer for the beginning, I'm not investing in Bitcoin, I'm not doing this for any profit or reason, it's more for my own interest.
I'm trying to do some mining on my Raspberry Pi 3, and I have set up a wallet, got a pool account with Slush Pool, and installed or the libraries and software needed to run. As far as I am aware I have ran the right code. However, when I run it, I get this:
 ./cpuminer --algo sha256d --url stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.slushpool.com:3333 --user CENSORED --pass CENSORED ** cpuminer-multi 1.3.7 by [email protected] ** [2020-05-18 21:25:38] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.slushpool.com:3333 [2020-05-18 21:25:38] 4 miner threads started, using 'sha256d' algorithm. [2020-05-18 21:26:08] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:26:08] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:26:48] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:26:48] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:27:28] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:27:28] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:28:08] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:28:08] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:28:48] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:28:48] ...retry after 10 seconds 
Anyone have any idea on how to sort this out? Thanks
submitted by SwagBee to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Many mistake that PoW is the single defining factor of Bitcoin. However if you understand that Satoshi didn’t conceive the idea of e-currency, but simply put all the pieces of the puzzle together to gift us Bitcoin, you will understand that it’s a melting pot of ideas & tech.

Many mistake that PoW is the single defining factor of Bitcoin. However if you understand that Satoshi didn’t conceive the idea of e-currency, but simply put all the pieces of the puzzle together to gift us Bitcoin, you will understand that it’s a melting pot of ideas & tech. submitted by BitcoinXio to btc [link] [comments]

[dev] Very developer update

Dear Shibes,
I have the honor of updating you this time with news from the development front, as both u/rnicoll and u/langer_hans are occupied. I’ll try to keep it as to-the-point as possible.
Last week we started to have interactions with the Namecoin development team, as they found u/rnicoll’s gem libdohj and that with all the work he did there and on bitcoinj, he actually did the majority of altcoins a huge favor, as most coins can now very easily, without having to hack bitcoinj, create a java wallet for their coin.
Returning the favor, the Namecoin devs alerted us to the impeding BIP9 implementation in Bitcoin (and therefore becoming a protocol standard that other coins will copy) that conflicts with the auxpow standard that both Namecoin and Dogecoin implement. We’ve quickly looked at BIP9 before, and shortly discussed it, but at that time it seemed to be far on the horizon and a proposal that was very likely to get shot down. However, now that Bitcoin Core wants to introduce Segregated Witness in the short term, BIP9 is very likely to also get implemented short term, and the conflict, unfortunately, remains.
Both Namecoin and Dogecoin have to do something: we need to update the standard to make sure that coins we allow in our auxpow proofs (sha256d coins for Namecoin and scrypt coins for Dogecoin), cannot influence the rules that decide whether a block is valid or not, or we could see an artificial drop in hashrate, putting us at risk of losing security “by accident”. Until so far the bad news, on to the good news.
The good news is that we have been working together with the Namecoin devs on a solution and we know what to do: we’ll change our rules a little bit, so that other coins cannot influence the proof of work validation on our end anymore, without breaking their own. That way, we can be assured that as long as other coins like Litecoin do not hard-fork (when they do that, we need to check ourselves in any case) we will have a working security model. I’m currently reviewing code that is developed by the Namecoin devs, to help them and in the same time have something good that we can take from them: it’s great work as a team with another coin as awesome as Namecoin, too!
The roadmap for Dogecoin is now:
We’re still discussing some details of how we’re going to implement the hard-fork, which mechanism we’ll use to determine the fork moment and when that exactly will take place. We will get back with a proposal on that soon.
So what does this mean for Dogecoin:
  1. We want to make sure that the hard-fork only triggers if more than 95% of the miners are migrated. This is more secure as it means the maximum amount of hashpower we’ll lose is 5%.
  2. We will keep working with Namecoin to make sure that we have a standardized implementation. This helps with transparency and custom implementations (most pools nowadays have custom implementations for “SPV mining”)
What does this mean for shibes:
  1. For now, keep building and fueling your rockets and training for zero gravity environments, this is not a major change like we had before, but it is one that forces an update for everyone, and important enough to do so.
  2. Once we release, you’ll have to update your wallets. We will absolutely notify you and you’ll have a lot of time to do so (many months.)
  3. We will remind you often. Like every other week. And of course whenever we meet you on IRC, per email, on the street and even on reddit, any chance we get, really :-)
To the moon!
submitted by patricklodder to dogecoin [link] [comments]

I was just given an Antminer U2 Bitcoin ASIC miner. Now what?

So I've been doing a lot of research and reading on bitcoin and was going to buy some bitcoin but a friend of mine gave me an Antminer U2 to mine with. THIS ONE
My questions is what should I do with? It seems that this single miner isn't powerful enough to mine bitcoin on my own so i've looked into pooling using something like BitMinter but it still seems that I will hardly get any bitcoin even if I let it run 24/7. However if I do use BitMinter how do I get bitcoin from there to my wallet... Do I take this address 16AqPMxWdBA9nFCgumMWXqhc2nkBJdAC9i (my address) and simply copy it to the 'Send to BTC address' location and press send?
Is there any other kind of bitcoin like dogecoin or whatever that would be more worth my time to mine and then later trade for bitcoin? If so how do i do that? Or should I not even bother with other currency's like dogecoin.
I have my wallet setup using multibit as i'm not too worried about being anonymous and the amount of bitcoin i'd have at any given time would not be anymore than the amount i'm willing to lose.
I also realize that using a miner is probably not cost efficient but i'm very hesitant to give my banking info to some website to trade USD for bitcoin.
Thanks in advance!
submitted by ball_gag3 to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

So you’ve got your miner working, busy hashing away … but what is it really doing?

Posted for eternity @ https://vertcoin.easymine.online/articles/mining
Your miner is repeatedly hashing (see below for detail about a hash) a block of data, looking for a resulting output that is lower than a predetermined target. Each time this calculation is performed, one of the fields in the input data is changed, and this results in a different output. The output is not able to be determined until the work is completed – otherwise why would we bother doing the work in the first place?
Each hash takes a block header (see more below, but basically this is a 80-byte block of data). It runs this through the hashing function, and what comes out is a 32-byte output. For each, we usually represent that output in hexadecimal format, so it looks something like:
5da4bcb997a90bec188542365365d8b913af3f1eb7deaf55038cfcd04f0b11a0 
(that’s 64 hexadecimal characters – each character represents 4-bits. 64 x 4 bits = 256bit = 32 bytes)
The maximum value for our hash is:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 
And the lowest is:
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
The goal in Proof-of-Work systems is to look for a hash that is lower than a specific target, i.e. starts with a specific number of leading zeros. This target is what determines the difficulty.
As the output of the hash is indeterminate, we look to statistics and probability to estimate how much work (i.e. attempts at hashing) we need to complete to find a hash that is lower than a specific target. So, we can therefore assume that to find a hash that starts with a leading zero will take, on average, 16 hashes. To find one that will start with two leading zeros (00), we’re looking at 256 hashes. Four leading zeros (0000) will take 65,536 hashes. Eight leading zeros (00000000) takes 4,294,967,296 hashes. So on and so on, until we realize that it will take 2 ^ 256 (a number too big for me to show here) attempts at hitting our minimum hash value.
Remember – this number of hashes is just an estimate. Think of it like rolling a dice. A 16-sided dice. And then rolling it 64 times in a row. And hoping to strike a specific number of leading zeros. Sometimes it will take far less than the estimate, sometimes it will take far more. Over a long enough time period though (with our dice it may take many billions of years), the averages hold true.
Difficulty is a measure used in cryptocurrencies to simply show how much work is needed to find a specific block. A block of difficulty 1 must have a hash smaller than:
00000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
A block of difficulty 1/256 (0.00390625) must have a hash lower than:
000000FFFF000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
And a block of difficulty 256 must have a hash lower than:
0000000000FFFF00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
So the higher the difficulty, the lower the hash must be; therefore more work must be completed to find the block.
Take a recent Vertcoin block – block # 852545, difficulty 41878.60056944499. This required a hash lower than:
000000000001909c000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
The achieve finding this, a single miner would need to have completed, on average 179,867,219,848,013 hashes (calculated by taking the number of hashes needed for a difficulty 1 block - 4,294,967,296 or 2 ^ 32 or 16 ^ 8 – and multiplied by the difficulty). Of course, our single miner may have found this sooner – or later – than predicted.
Cryptocurrencies alter the required difficulty on a regular basis (some like Vertcoin do it after every block, others like Bitcoin or Litecoin do it every 2016 blocks), to ensure the correct number of blocks are found per day. As the hash rate of miners increases, so does the difficulty to ensure this average time between blocks remains the same. Likewise, as hash rate decreases, the difficulty decreases.
With difficulties as high as the above example, solo-mining (mining by yourself, not in a pool) becomes a very difficult task. Assume our miner can produce 100 MH/s. Plugging in this into the numbers above, we can see it’s going to take him (on average) 1,798,673 seconds of hashing to find a hash lower than the target – that’s just short of 21 days. But, if his luck is down, it could easily take twice that long. Or, if he’s lucky, half that time.
So, assuming he hit’s the average, for his 21 days mining he has earned 25 VTC.
Lets take another look at the same miner, but this time he’s going to join a pool, where he is working with a stack of other miners looking for that elusive hash. Assume the pool he has joined does 50 GH/s – in that case he has 0.1 / 50 or 0.2% of the pool’s hash rate. So for any blocks the pool finds he should earn 0.2% of 25 VTC = 0.05 VTC. At 50 GH/s, the pool should expect to spend 3,597 seconds between finding blocks (2 ^ 32 * difficulty / hashrate). So about every hour, our miner can expect to earn 0.05 VTC. This works out to be about 1.2 VTC per day, and when we extrapolate over the estimated 21 days of solo mining above, we’re back to 25 VTC.
The beauty of pooled-mining over solo-mining is that the time between blocks, whilst they can vary, should be closer to the predicted / estimated times over a shorter time period. The same applies when comparing pools – pools with a smaller hash rate will experience a greater variance in time between blocks than a pool with a greater hash rate. But in the end, looking back over a longer period of time, earnings will be the same.
Hashes
A Hash is a cryptographic function that can take an arbitrary sized block of data and maps it to a fixed sized output. It is a one-way function – only knowing the input data can one calculate the output; the reverse action is impossible. Also, small changes to the input data usually result in significant changes to the output value.
For example, take the following string:
“the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” 
If we perform a SHA256 hash of this, it results in:
05c6e08f1d9fdafa03147fcb8f82f124c76d2f70e3d989dc8aadb5e7d7450bec 
If we change a single character in the input string (in this case we will replace the ‘o’ in ‘over’ to a zero), the resulting hash becomes:
de492f861d6bb8438f65b2beb2e98ae96a8519f19c24042b171d02ff4dfecc82 
Blocks
A block is made up of a header, and at least one transaction. The first transaction in the block is called the Coinbase transaction – it is the transactions that creates new coins, and it specifies the addresses that those coins go to. The Coinbase transaction is always the first transaction in a block, and there can only be one. All other transactions included in a block are transactions that send coins from one wallet address to another.
The block header is an 80-byte block of data that is made up of the following information in this order:
  • Version – a 32-bit/4-byte integer
  • Previous Block’s SHA256d Hash – 32 bytes
  • Merkle Hash of the Transactions – 32 bytes
  • Timestamp - a 32-bit/4-byte integer the represents the time of the block in seconds past 1st January 1970 00:00 UTC
  • nBits - a 32-bit/4-byte integer that represents the maximum value of the hash of the block
  • Nonce - a 32-bit/4-byte integer
The Version of a block remains relatively static through a coin’s lifetime – most blocks will have the same version. Typically only used to introduce new features or enforce new rules – for instance Segwit adoption is enforced by encoding information into the Version field.
The Previous Blocks’ Hash is simple a doubled SHA256 hash of the last valid blocks header.
The Merkle Hash is a hash generated by chaining all of the transactions together in a hash tree – thus ensuring that once a transaction is included in a block, it cannot be changed. It becomes a permanent record in the blockchain.
Timestamp loosely represents the time the block was generated – it does not have to be exact, anywhere within an hour each way of the real time will be accepted.
nBits – this is the maximum hash that this block must have in order to be considered valid. Bitcoin encodes the maximum hash into a 4-byte value as this is more efficient and provides sufficient accuracy.
Nonce – a simple 4-byte integer value that is incremented by a miner in order to find a resulting hash that is lower than that specified by nBits.
submitted by nzsquirrell to VertcoinMining [link] [comments]

Multiple simultaneous PoWs

I've made multiple comments about this but I'm starting to feel like a spammer so I'll start a big post here and be done with it.
Everyone's asking what do we do about the PoW? If we don't change it, the chain could easily be attacked. This hasn't happened with ETC, but that's no guarantee. We could switch to a new PoW that is GPU/CPU friendly, but then we would also instantly lose support from 100% of current Bitcoin miners. Many of them would be sympathetic to our fork if we don't fire them...
The solution can be borrowed from an altcoin called Myriadcoin. Instead of a block being solved by satisfying sha256d(sha256d(header + nonce)) < diff, you could have:
sha256d(sha256d(header + nonce)) < shaDiff OR equihash(header + nonce) < equihashDiff
Whichever solution propagates across the network first, wins. Sha blocks could build on top of equihash blocks and vice versa, on the same chain. This eliminates the possibility of sha256 miners performing a 51% attack.
I used sha256d and equishash as an example, but it's possible to use any PoW and to have more than 2.
Tl;dr: We can have the best of both worlds.
submitted by myriadyoucunts to btcfork [link] [comments]

A writing style comparaison between CSW and Satoshi

I would like to post this comment and let anyone make his own mind on how likely it is that CSW and Satoshi are the same person:
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9uoy92/comment/e962non
The full thread, for the lulz:
A note. Many like to treat me like Casandra. Well, here is your warning to ignore at your peril. We will win this fast, or we will win this slow, but, we will win this. Others would like this to be "nicer", I would prefer a lesson. I want to have people understand Bitcoin.
If it means we spend a year or more slowly bleeding every satoshi of value one by one from the ABC chain, we will. Without exception. If ABC stays on SHA256d and does not add replay protection, we will hound it.
Not until it is weak, not until it is unlisted on every miner and major and home level exchange globally, but until the last CPU running it anywhere globally burns out If this means chasing a lone dev with a CPU to burn that last vestige of hope, and you think I will not...
Then, you do not know me! But, you will learn. This is not vengeance. It is a lesson. And I intend to burn it into the hearts and souls of all the socialists in ABC so their great grand children do not forget it! Have a nice day
The thing that strikes me straight away is how much he sounds like Satoshi Nakamto /s :
I wish you wouldn’t keep talking about me as a mysterious shadowy figure, the press just turns that into a pirate currency angle. Maybe instead make it about the open source project and give more credit to your dev contributors; it helps motivate them.
submitted by Ant-n to btc [link] [comments]

List of solutions we have against ASICs and 51% attacks. Which do you think is best?

  1. Merge Mining An brought up by the creator of Litecoin, one of the Doge devs brought up the idea of merge mining with Digibyte. Merged mining allows a miner to mine for more than one block chain at the same time. The benefit is that every hash the miner does contributes to the total hash rate of both (all) currencies, and as a result they are all more secure. You can learn more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Both communities are linked leading to a larger community. Low risk as merge mining has been successfully tried before. Increase hashing power. Miners would get both Litecoin/Digibyte and Doge when mining.
Cons: High likelihood that Litecoin or Digibyte miners will dump their Doge and vice versa. Still susceptible to a 51% attack by a large ASIC scrypt farm. All risk lies on Doge and not Litecoin when implementing the required fork.
  1. Change to Scrypt-N algorithm. Current coin used by Vertcoin you can read more about it here...ok you can in all seriousness look more into it here or here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Benefits GPU miners (significant portion of the Doge community is made up of GPU miners).
Cons: Short term solution. Scrypt-n ASICs will probably be developed in the future leading us to where we are now. Scrypt-n can also damage GPU over time.
  1. Change to SHA-256 algorithm. SHA-256 is the mining algorithm that Bitcoin uses. Not much to say here.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases.
Cons: Little innovation. GPU miners can no longer mine Doge.
  1. Change Doge from pure PoW (proof of work) to PoW/PoS hybrid. Coins like Peercoin, Mintcoin and Blackcoin follow this system. You can learn a little more about the how the system works here or here
Pros: Attacker would need 51% of all Dogecoins to do a 51% attack. Significantly energy efficient. GPU mining is no longer necessary. Dogecoin owners will gain coins simply by leaving them in their wallet;.
Cons: Changing from pure PoW to PoW/PoS has (to my knowledge) never been tried before. Can encourage hoarding.
  1. Change to X11 algorithm. This algorithm was brought up in the comments. I don't know much about it but it is very interesting! I'm currently reading up on it here, here and in /hirocoin
Pros: Potential 51% attack decreases. Energy efficient. Lower GPU temperature for miners. More fair to laptop miners and people with lower end tech.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scypt to X11 as its never been done before. Higher risk of 51% attack by a botnet.
  1. Change to Multi-Algo algorithm. Also brought up in the comments. Multi-Algo uses SHA-256, Scrypt, Groestl, Skein and Qubit as one algorithm. In use by Myriadcoin. You can read more on it here and in /myriadcoin.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (I don't even know if its possible).
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to Multi-Algo as its never been done before.
  1. Change to HVC algorithm. Brought up in the comments. Similar to Multi-Algo in that it has multiple algorithms in one. Currently used by Heavycoin. You can read more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (Just like Multi-Algo, I am not sure if its even possible). More secure.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to HVC as its never been done before.
If you have any more solutions please let me know. If there is something you want to add to a con or pro or a correction let me know as well. I would like this post to drum up discussion. Thank you for participating.
submitted by kanada_kid to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Added function to mine Cryptos on the Raspberry Pi.

LucasJones CPU - Multi miner available to install from this new guide.
Support for:
Although the Pi is not a suitable miner (for economic reasons), it may be of interest to those who are unfamiliar with the process and wish to try mining first hand.
I should help with understanding how nodes, miners and users interact on these networks.
Plus it's just spare unused CPU so why not make a bit or two :)
submitted by shermand100 to pinode [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]

Block hashing calculations

o/
I'm learning about block hashing algorithm. I've found a very good beginner explanation here : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm
But I struggle to understand why it still takes 10 minutes to find a block ! As I understand it, at the beginning of the race to find a new block, the only unknown is the nonce which is iterated to find a suitable sha256d hash.
So, a miner must iterate 232 possibilities, which with an antminer S9 doing 14*1012 iterations per second is near instant ...
What am I missing here ? If someone can explain that to me, I would be grateful !
submitted by Balistick to BitcoinMining [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]

Compilation of all the solutions we have against ASICs and 51% attacks. Which do you think is best? (originally by /u/kanada_kid - re-posting for visibility)

This post by kanada_kid, which was posted 5 days ago, is a very nice compilation of all the solutions to any problems which dogecoin is facing.
Unfortunately, the post didn't get much upvotes and got buried soon.
ORIGINAL POST HERE
Shibes, please go through this post and let's take some time to study and further discuss this among ourselves.
Newbie shibes, if you don't understand something, no problem. Please always feel free to ask anything. We are here to explain you everything in the simplest way possible. But please do go through this. You and us decide the future of our coin :)

THE ORIGINAL POST STARTS HERE:

  • Merge Mining
An brought up by the creator of Litecoin, one of the Doge devs brought up the idea of merge mining with Digibyte. Merged mining allows a miner to mine for more than one block chain at the same time. The benefit is that every hash the miner does contributes to the total hash rate of both (all) currencies, and as a result they are all more secure. You can learn more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Both communities are linked leading to a larger community. Low risk as merge mining has been successfully tried before. Increase hashing power. Miners would get both Litecoin/Digibyte and Doge when mining.
Cons: High likelihood that Litecoin or Digibyte miners will dump their Doge and vice versa. Still susceptible to a 51% attack by a large ASIC scrypt farm. All risk lies on Doge and not Litecoin when implementing the required fork.
  • Change to Scrypt-N algorithm
Current coin used by Vertcoin you can read more about it here...ok you can in all seriousness look more into it here or here.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Benefits GPU miners (significant portion of the Doge community is made up of GPU miners).
Cons: Short term solution. Scrypt-n ASICs will probably be developed in the future leading us to where we are now. Scrypt-n can also damage GPU over time.
  • Change to SHA-256 algorithm.
SHA-256 is the mining algorithm that Bitcoin uses. Not much to say here.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases.
Cons: Little innovation. GPU miners can no longer mine Doge.
  • Change Doge from pure PoW (proof of work) to PoW/PoS hybrid.
Coins like Peercoin, Mintcoin and Blackcoin follow this system. You can learn a little more about the how the system works here or here
Pros: Attacker would need 51% of all Dogecoins to do a 51% attack. Significantly energy efficient. GPU mining is no longer necessary. Dogecoin owners will gain coins simply by leaving them in their wallet;.
Cons: Changing from pure PoW to PoW/PoS has (to my knowledge) never been tried before. Can encourage hoarding.
  • Change to X11 algorithm.
This algorithm was brought up in the comments. I don't know much about it but it is very interesting! I'm currently reading up on it here, here and in /hirocoin
Pros: Potential 51% attack decreases. Energy efficient. Lower GPU temperature for miners. More fair to laptop miners and people with lower end tech.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scypt to X11 as its never been done before. Higher risk of 51% attack by a botnet.
  • Change to Multi-Algo algorithm.
Also brought up in the comments. Multi-Algo uses SHA-256, Scrypt, Groestl, Skein and Qubit as one algorithm. In use by Myriadcoin. You can read more on it here and in /myriadcoin.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (I don't even know if its possible).
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to Multi-Algo as its never been done before.
  • Change to HVC algorithm.
Brought up in the comments. Similar to Multi-Algo in that it has multiple algorithms in one. Currently used by Heavycoin. You can read more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (Just like Multi-Algo, I am not sure if its even possible). More secure.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to HVC as its never been done before.
If you have any more solutions please let me know. If there is something you want to add to a con or pro or a correction let me know as well. I would like this post to drum up discussion. Thank you for participating.
submitted by sklite to dogecoin [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]

USB Bitcoin Miner - The Power of 1000's Computers - YouTube Gekkoscience NewPac - USB BTC Mining (100 GH/s + on ... Forget Mining BITCOIN, Start MINING LITECOIN with Home Built LITECOIN MINING RIG Are USB Bitcoin Miners Profitable RIGHT NOW In 2020? - YouTube How To Mine Bitcoin The Easy Way

Bitcoin mining calculator for SHA-256: Price 12,977.79$, 19.9973T difficulty, 144.1406 EH/s network hashrate, 6.2500 BTC block reward. Bitcoin mining pools list and list of best mining software. Bitcoin / SHA256 Miner; Equihash Miner; Litecoin / Scrypt Miner; Other Miner; GPU Miner; GPU BOX MINER; Rig Kit; Frame RIG; Mining Hardware; Immersion Cooling; Cooler & Silencer Case; FPGA Miner; Water Cooled Miner; Used Hardware; Cart. Filter. Filter × Filter by price. Filter — Close. Showing 1–28 of 35 results. ANTMINER – S19 PRO – 110TH/s – PSU INCLUDED. SHIPPED IN 1-31 JANUARY ... Looking for list of all mining pools based on Sha256 algorithm? Here you can find them all, e.g. A Hash Pool, Fairmine. The mining algorithm SHA-256 is the most popular and generating data blocks in bitcoin system. The performance of one digit of «asic-miners» (their hashrate is measured in Th/s and Ph/s) can include hundreds of chips and several working plates. Chips’ work in communicating with algorithm is directed to high supporting of cyphering digital data and protecting the information. Range of asic ... Bitmain Antminer L3+ Bitcoin Miner + Bitmain APW3+ Netzteil Litecoin Miner (LTC) EUR 349,00. Bitmain AntMiner AntRouter R1-LTC Scrypt WiFi Crypto Miner mit ASIC Chip Schwarz. EUR 75,90. Bisher: Bisheriger Preis EUR 79,90. Bitmain Antminer S9 13.5 th/s ² Incl. PSU. EUR 249,00. Bitmain AntRouter R1-LTC WiFi Router Scrypt Miner Mining 802.11g/n 2.4G ASIC Neu . EUR 86,90. Crypto Browser Bitcoin ...

[index] [19761] [27060] [13393] [12997] [47704] [43706] [24578] [28999] [35131] [4365]

USB Bitcoin Miner - The Power of 1000's Computers - YouTube

Are USB Bitcoin Miners profitable right now? This video will show you all of the facts you need to know about usb bitcoin miners and how much money they actu... SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE HOW MUCH - http://shorturl.at/arBHL To get the Gekkoscience R606 Terminus Pod Miner -https://bitcoinmerch.com/collections/best-sellers/pro... New video every Tuesday! Today we are taking a look at the Gekkoscience NewPac USB miner. We'll check all the hardware you need for setting it up, discuss so... Litecoin is based upon the Scrypt hashing algorithm and Bitcoin is based on SHA256D. Miners are incentivized with bounties. For each Litecoin found the current reward is 50 LTC and the maximum ... sha256d SHA256d (bitcoin) sha256t SHA256 x3 sia SIA (Blake2B) sib Sibcoin (X11+Streebog) scrypt Scrypt scrypt-jane Scrypt-jane Chacha skein Skein SHA2 (Skeincoin) skein2 Double Skein (Woodcoin ...

#