Who won the Presidential Debate? Trump screencaps Twitter ...

To Vitalik and other ETH Devs, GPU Miners need you and you need GPU Miners (PoW/ProgPoW)

This is directed towards u/nickjohnson, u/vbuterin, u/5chdn and other ETH Devs.

Edit: Proof of ProgPoW: https://gangnam.wattpool.net/#/account/0x445c466856266f8a609f87fdc6b0aaeb274d203f
Initial testing is seeing 8.8-10.15mh/s on RX480 and 3.8-4mh/s on RX460. Will include write-up soon, Newest ETH-Miner release!

Let me start this by saying, I mined my first BTC before it was even $100 or well known. BTC Mined. That was my first foray into the PoW mining scene. I had a lot a fun doing so. I enjoy building computers, testing equipment, fixing problems. It's literally my everyday job as an IT Hardware Analyst for a company.

I had to put down my mining on GPU dreams due to ASICs overtaking the networks of both BTC and LTC. I gave up on crypto as a hobby. Why bother? I don't want an ASIC in my house. There's no fun in tuning an ASIC, cannot change out components, upgrade it, etc. Then in 2017 I heard a whisper of GPU mineable coin that was ASIC resistant. It was called Ethereum. It was posed to be the next "Apple" with great innovations. At first I was beset by previous failures of GPU mineable coins getting overtaken by ASICs. Eventually with some discussion to my friend we built our first GPU mining rig in June of 2017. I got into Ethereum by mining it.

Now ASICs run rampant through most of the top 100 Cryptocurrencies. The current outlook, regardless of the bear-market pricing, looks bleak. I want to appeal to Vitalik, Nick, and the other Ethereum developers. It was GPU miners you had in mind when you created the Ethereum network and not ASICs. Vitalik made the best effort of a ASIC-Resistant algorithm. It latest for years but it's a cat and mouse game. Continued development of ASIC-Resistant algorithms needs to continue, not fall by the wayside. u/AndLan u/ohgodagirl, Mr If, and others have poured non-paid work into ProgPoW and getting it working on the Ethereum network because they want to see Ethereum succeed.

ASICs are now on the network, ProgPoW is a solution, and we need YOU DEVELOPERS, To stand with US, THE MINERS! Together lets push Ethereum forward to #1!

The Developers and GPU Miners need a symbiotic relationship. GPU Miners are NOT against you! You should not be against us! We need to stand together to make Ethereum strong and succeed, not become Bitcoin, which as even in Ethereum's whitepaper you understood it became fairly centralized.
However, this mining algorithm is vulnerable to two forms of centralization. First, the mining ecosystem has come to be dominated by ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits), computer chips designed for, and therefore thousands of times more efficient at, the specific task of Bitcoin mining. This means that Bitcoin mining is no longer a highly decentralized and egalitarian pursuit, requiring millions of dollars of capital to effectively participate in.

In regards to Centralization Mr If, made an excellent argument last Dev meeting, for ProgPoW which I shall reiterate/paraphrase here for everyone on Reddit.

PoW is geared towards industries of scale. This is why ASICs typically become the dominate force, because the ASIC manufactures have the capital, investment, and industry to produce them at a low cost. Thus they reap the PoW rewards. Hence why all PoW tends to go towards ASIC. They can decide to sell ASIC and recoup cost plus profit or keep mining with that equipment. Making ASICs egalitarian. ASIC manufactures decide, not the miner communities, what they do with the ASICs. You pay to play and you must be first.
ProgPoW takes the same approach but changes who the industry is, instead of Bitmain/Innosilicon it is AMD/Nvidia. These two companies are industrial level manufactures and have the ability to produce on a scale to support PoW(Just look at all the overstock of Nvidia 1000 GPUs). In this sense we are trading one(ASICs) for another (ASIC-GPUs). We as PoW miners must use Nvidia/AMD GPUs to support the network. Because it is the commodity hardware mass available to everyone. ASICs ARE NOT commodity hardware and ARE NOT mass available to everyone. Changing from Eth-hash to ProgPoW changes the players in the game and chooses the lesser two evils (AMD/Nvidia).

ProgPoW is not stricitly an Algorithm to replace Eth-hash but a has various "buttons" and "knobs" to tune. hence why its called Programmable! Ill let an Eth-miner Dev explain it...
-Andrea LanFranchi (EthMiner Dev)
ProgPoW is not strictly an Algo, it is a finite set of basic operations. ProgPoW is to be considered more of a process which creates variants of the algo every specified interval. Due to this there is no concept of ProgPoW as an immutable algo like Eth-hash. It tune-able and can dial various "knobs" that allow the creation of large number "definition sets" which again due to the deterministic randomness create an infinite number of algo changes.
ProgPoW creates a new search kernel every 50 blocks. Every 50 . blocks the gpu receives a completely new and different kernel from the previous which causes hashrate to change. In ProgPoW there is no fixed and constant hashrate for GPUs. You have to take into account averages across multiple periods to get the best out of the hardware. Variances are from 8-9%.

I personally supported the Network at $400, $180, $1400 and still support it now $100. I supported throughout the uncertainty of the Iceage and delays. Ethereum is still a PoW coin! ONE OF THE BEST! It's what made ethereum great! The project has excellent idea's of smart contracts and Dapps. On top of all is a massive GPU networking supporting it. Throughout 2017 there were no ASICs(That we know of) yet the ethereum network grew. What helped make Ethereum blossom was the miners and the mining community.

I am personally invested into Ethereum want to see it succeed, I'm personally invested in PoW GPU mining, and want to see it succeed. I will invest my own time and money, being a GPU miner, into seeing that ProgPoW testnet gets fully scrutinized, put through it's paces to ensure that it is a fit for Ethereum and minimize problems. I plead, beg, and invite all other GPU miners to do so. If we want change we as miners must show through hashpower on the testnet, that we are pushing forward with ProgPoW. Throw a single GPU, a Rig, whatever you can spare or muster for ProgPoW testnet.

I can and am more than willing to help anyone setup the necessary files, miners, etc needed to get mining on the test network.
Right now you can download the ProgPoW Miner(Updates are constant) And Ethermine is in full support.
Ethminer -P stratum://(ProgPoW Test Address)[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]):4444 -A progpow

Let's make a Decision together on ProgPoW. Miners are in majority support of ProgPoW and 100% support of kicking ASICs of the network(Look at Ethermine's twitter poll). GPU miners supported you, helped build your network, not investors, not ICOs. At the very heart of Ethereum beats the GPU. Operating that GPU is a typically an enthusiast, hobby miner, and a believer in Crypto.

*Edit:*PoW is the known best way to distribute token "fairly", yet everyone hates it and wants PoS? What happens when large ASIC manufacture and centralized parties mining with ASICs earn more tokens than anyone else? Wouldn't that lead to centralization in PoS? Ethereum is on PoW BECAUSE it needs it! And because Ethereum needs PoW, it needs GPU miners, and to stay decentralized to PoS and in PoS it needs to keep GPUs miners on board.

Vitalik, Nick, and others, a time-line needs to be set, ProgPoW needs to be in the Agenda continually, discussed throughly, until it's launched on the main network. I will personally come chat, debate ideas, with any of you! Civil discussions are important!







submitted by Xazax310 to ethereum [link] [comments]

Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto

A couple of years ago in the early months of the 2017, I published a piece called Abundance Via Cryptocurrencies (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/69d12a/abundance\_via\_cryptocurrencies/) in which I kind of foresaw the crypto boom that had bitcoin go from $1k to $21k and the alt-coin economy swell up to have more than 60% of the bitcoin market capitalisation. At the time, I spoke of coming out from “the Pit” of conspiracy research and that I was a bit suss on bitcoin’s inception story. At the time I really didn’t see the scaling solution being put forward as being satisfactory and the progress on bitcoin seemed stifled by the politics of the social consensus on an open source protocol so I was looking into alt coins that I thought could perhaps improve upon the shortcomings of bitcoin. In the thread I made someone recommended to have a look at 4chan’s business and finance board. I did end up taking a look at it just as the bull market started to really surge. I found myself in a sea of anonymous posters who threw out all kinds of info and memes about the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of different shitcoins and why they’re all going to have lambos on the moon. I got right in to it, I loved the idea of filtering through all the shitposts and finding the nuggest of truth amongst it all and was deeply immersed in it all as the price of bitcoin surged 20x and alt coins surged 5-10 times against bitcoin themselves. This meant there were many people who chucked in a few grand and bought a stash of alt coins that they thought were gonna be the next big thing and some people ended up with “portfolios” 100-1000x times their initial investment.
To explain what it’s like to be on an anonymous business and finance board populated with incel neets, nazis, capitalist shit posters, autistic geniuses and whoever the hell else was using the board for shilling their coins during a 100x run up is impossible. It’s hilarious, dark, absurd, exciting and ultimately addictive as fuck. You have this app called blockfolio that you check every couple of minutes to see the little green percentages and the neat graphs of your value in dollars or bitcoin over day, week, month or year. Despite my years in the pit researching conspiracy, and my being suss on bitcoin in general I wasn’t anywhere near as distrustful as I should have been of an anonymous business and finance board and although I do genuinely think there are good people out there who are sharing information with one another in good faith and feel very grateful to the anons that have taken their time to write up quality content to educate people they don’t know, I wasn’t really prepared for the level of organisation and sophistication of the efforts groups would go to to deceive in this space.
Over the course of my time in there I watched my portfolio grow to ridiculous numbers relative to what I put in but I could never really bring myself to sell at the top of a pump as I always felt I had done my research on a coin and wanted to hold it for a long time so why would I sell? After some time though I would read about something new or I would find out of dodgy relationships of a coin I had and would want to exit my position and then I would rebalance my portfolio in to a coin I thought was either technologically superior or didn’t have the nefarious connections to people I had come across doing conspiracy research. Because I had been right in to the conspiracy and the decentralisation tropes I guess I always carried a bit of an antiauthoritarian/anarchist bias and despite participating in a ridiculously capitalistic market, was kind of against capitalism and looking to a blockchain protocol to support something along the lines of an open source anarchosyndicalist cryptocommune. I told myself I was investing in the tech and believed in the collective endeavour of the open source project and ultimately had faith some mysterious “they” would develop a protocol that would emancipate us from this debt slavery complex.
As I became more and more aware of how to spot artificial discussion on the chans, I began to seek out further some of the radical projects like vtorrent and skycoin and I guess became a bit carried away from being amidst such ridiculous overt shilling as on the boards so that if you look in my post history you can even see me promoting some of these coins to communities I thought might be sympathetic to their use case. I didn’t see it at the time because I always thought I was holding the coins with the best tech and wanted to ride them up as an investor who believed in them, but this kind of promotion is ultimately just part of a mentality that’s pervasive to the cryptocurrency “community” that insists because it is a decentralised project you have to in a way volunteer to inform people about the coin since the more decentralised ones without premines or DAO structures don’t have marketing budgets, or don’t have marketing teams. In the guise of cultivating a community, groups form together on social media platforms like slack, discord, telegram, twitter and ‘vote’ for different proposals, donate funds to various boards/foundations that are set up to give a “roadmap” for the coins path to greatness and organise marketing efforts on places like reddit, the chans, twitter. That’s for the more grass roots ones at least, there are many that were started as a fork of another coin, or a ICO, airdrop or all these different ways of disseminating a new cryptocurrency or raising funding for promising to develop one. Imagine the operations that can be run by a team that raised millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on their ICOs, especially if they are working in conjunction with a new niche of cryptocurrency media that’s all nepotistic and incestuous.
About a year and a half ago I published another piece called “Bitcoin is about to be dethroned” (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/7ewmuu/bitcoin\_is\_about\_to\_be\_dethroned/) where I felt I had come to realise the scaling debate had been corrupted by a company called Blockstream and they had been paying for social media operations in a fashion not to dissimilar to correct the record or such to control the narrative around the scaling debate and then through deceit and manipulation curated an apparent consensus around their narrative and hijacked the bitcoin name and ticker (BTC). I read the post again just before posting this and decided to refer to it to to add some kind of continuity to my story and hopefully save me writing so much out. Looking back on something you wrote is always a bit cringey especially because I can see that although I had made it a premise post, I was acting pretty confident that I was right and my tongue was acidic because of so much combating of shills on /biz/ but despite the fact I was wrong about the timing I stand by much of what I wrote then and want to expand upon it a bit more now.
The fork of the bitcoin protocol in to bitcoin core (BTC) and bitcoin cash (BCH) is the biggest value fork of the many that have occurred. There were a few others that forked off from the core chain that haven’t had any kind of attention put on them, positive or negative and I guess just keep chugging away as their own implementation. The bitcoin cash chain was supposed to be the camp that backed on chain scaling in the debate, but it turned out not everyone was entirely on board with that and some players/hashpower felt it was better to do a layer two type solution themselves although with bigger blocks servicing the second layer. Throughout what was now emerging as a debate within the BCH camp, Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre of Coin Geek said they were going to support massive on chain scaling, do a node implementation that would aim to restore bitcoin back to the 0.1.0 release which had all kinds of functionality included in it that had later been stripped by Core developers over the years and plan to bankrupt the people from Core who changed their mind on agreeing with on-chain scaling. This lead to a fork off the BCH chain in to bitcoin satoshis vision (BSV) and bitcoin cash ABC.

https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/cbb50c322a2a89f3c627e1680a3f40d4ad3cee5a3fb153e5d6d001bdf85de404

The premise for this post is that Craig S Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. It’s an interesting premise because depending upon your frame of reference the premise may either be a fact or to some too outrageous to even believe as a premise. Yesterday it was announced via CoinGeek that Craig Steven Wright has been granted the copyright claim for both the bitcoin white-paper under the pen name Satoshi Nakamoto and the original 0.1.0 bitcoin software (both of which were marked (c) copyright of satoshi nakamoto. The reactions to the news can kind of be classified in to four different reactions. Those who heard it and rejected it, those who heard it but remained undecided, those who heard it and accepted it, and those who already believed he was. Apparently to many the price was unexpected and such a revelation wasn’t exactly priced in to the market with the price immediately pumping nearly 100% upon the news breaking. However, to some others it was a vindication of something they already believed. This is an interesting phenomena to observe. For many years now I have always occupied a somewhat positively contrarian position to the default narrative put forward to things so it’s not entirely surprising that I find myself in a camp that holds the minority opinion. As you can see in the bitcoin dethroned piece I called Craig fake satoshi, but over the last year and bit I investigated the story around Craig and came to my conclusion that I believed him to be at least a major part of a team of people who worked on the protocol I have to admit that through reading his articles, I have kind of been brought full circle to where my contrarian opinion has me becoming somewhat of an advocate for “the system’.
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-s-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-granted-us-copyright-registrations-for-bitcoin-white-paper-and-code/

When the news dropped, many took to social media to see what everyone was saying about it. On /biz/ a barrage of threads popped up discussing it with many celebrating and many rejecting the significance of such a copyright claim being granted. Immediately in nearly every thread there was a posting of an image of a person from twitter claiming that registering for copyright is an easy process that’s granted automatically unless challenged and so it doesn’t mean anything. This was enough for many to convince them of the insignificance of the revelation because of the comment from a person who claimed to have authority on twitter. Others chimed in to add that in fact there was a review of the copyright registration especially in high profile instances and these reviewers were satisfied with the evidence provided by Craig for the claim. At the moment Craig is being sued by Ira Kleiman for an amount of bitcoin that he believes he is entitled to because of Craig and Ira’s brother Dave working together on bitcoin. He is also engaged in suing a number of people from the cryptocurrency community for libel and defamation after they continued to use their social media/influencer positions to call him a fraud and a liar. He also has a number of patents lodged through his company nChain that are related to blockchain technologies. This has many people up in arms because in their mind Satoshi was part of a cypherpunk movement, wanted anonymity, endorsed what they believed to be an anti state and open source technologies and would use cryptography rather than court to prove his identity and would have no interest in patents.
https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/1fce34a7004759f8db16b2ae9678e9c6db434ff2e399f59b5a537f72eff2c1a1
https://imgur.com/a/aANAsL3)

If you listen to Craig with an open mind, what cannot be denied is the man is bloody smart. Whether he is honest or not is up to you to decide, but personally I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and then cut them off if i find them to be dishonest. What I haven’t really been able to do with my investigation of craig is cut him off. There have been many moments where I disagree with what he has had to say but I don’t think people having an opinion about something that I believe to be incorrect is the same as being a dishonest person. It’s very important to distinguish the two and if you are unable to do so there is a very real risk of you projecting expectations or ideals upon someone based off your ideas of who they are. Many times if someone is telling the truth but you don’t understand it, instead of acknowledging you don’t understand it, you label them as being stupid or dishonest. I think that has happened to an extreme extent with Craig. Let’s take for example the moment when someone in the slack channel asked Craig if he had had his IQ tested and what it was. Craig replied with 179. The vast majority of people on the internet have heard someone quote their IQ before in an argument or the IQ of others and to hear someone say such a score that is actually 6 standard deviations away from the mean score (so probably something like 1/100 000) immediately makes them reject it on the grounds of probability. Craig admits that he’s not the best with people and having worked with/taught many high functioning people (sometimes on the spectrum perhaps) on complex anatomical and physiological systems I have seen some that also share the same difficulties in relating to people and reconciling their genius and understandings with more average intelligences. Before rejecting his claim outright because we don’t understand much of what he says, it would be prudent to first check is there any evidence that may lend support to his claim of a one in a million intelligence quotient.

Craig has mentioned on a number of occasions that he holds a number of different degrees and certifications in relation to law, cryptography, statistics, mathematics, economics, theology, computer science, information technology/security. I guess that does sound like something someone with an extremely high intelligence could achieve. Now I haven’t validated all of them but from a simple check on Charles Sturt’s alumni portal using his birthday of 23rd of October 1970 we can see that he does in fact have 3 Masters and a PhD from Charles Sturt. Other pictures I have seen from his office at nChain have degrees in frames on the wall and a developer published a video titled Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 degrees where he went and validated at least 8 of them I believe. He is recently publishing his Doctorate of Theology through an on-chain social media page that you have to pay a little bit for access to sections of his thesis. It’s titled the gnarled roots of creation. He has also mentioned on a number of occasions his vast industry experience as both a security contractor and business owner. An archive from his LinkedIn can be seen below as well.

LinkedIn - https://archive.is/Q66Gl
https://youtu.be/nXdkczX5mR0 - Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 Degrees
https://www.yours.org/content/gnarled-roots-of-a-creation-mythos-45e69558fae0 - Gnarled Roots of Creation.
In fact here is an on chain collection of articles and videos relating to Craig called the library of craig - https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/94b361b205196560d1bd09e4e3b3ec7ad6bea478af204cabfe243efd8fc944dd


So there is a guy with 17 degrees, a self professed one in a hundred thousand IQ, who’s worked for Australian Federal Police, ASIO, NSA, NASA, ASX. He’s been in Royal Australian Air Force, operated a number of businesses in Australia, published half a dozen academic papers on networks, cryptography, security, taught machine learning and digital forensics at a number of universities and then another few hundred short articles on medium about his work in these various domains, has filed allegedly 700 patents on blockchain related technology that he is going to release on bitcoin sv, copyrighted the name so that he may prevent other competing protocols from using the brand name, that is telling you he is the guy that invented the technology that he has a whole host of other circumstantial evidence to support that, but people won’t believe that because they saw something that a talking head on twitter posted or that a Core Developer said, or a random document that appears online with a C S Wright signature on it that lists access to an address that is actually related to Roger Ver, that’s enough to write him off as a scam. Even then when he publishes a photo of the paper copy which appears to supersede the scanned one, people still don’t readjust their positions on the matter and resort back to “all he has to do is move the coins or sign a tx”.

https://imgur.com/urJbe10

Yes Craig was on the Cypherpunk mailing list back in the day, but that doesn’t mean that he was or is an anarchist. Or that he shares the same ideas that Code Is Law that many from the crypto community like to espouse. I myself have definitely been someone to parrot the phrase myself before reading lots of Craig’s articles and trying to understand where he is coming from. What I have come to learn from listening and reading the man, is that although I might be fed up with the systems we have in place, they still exist to perform important functions within society and because of that the tools we develop to serve us have to exist within that preexisting legal and social framework in order for them to have any chance at achieving global success in replacing fiat money with the first mathematically provably scarce commodity. He says he designed bitcoin to be an immutable data ledger where everyone is forced to be honest, and economically disincentivised to perform attacks within the network because of the logs kept in a Write Once Read Many (WORM) ledger with hierarchical cryptographic keys. In doing so you eliminate 99% of cyber crime, create transparent DAO type organisations that can be audited and fully compliant with legislature that’s developed by policy that comes from direct democratic voting software. Everyone who wants anonymous coins wants to have them so they can do dishonest things, illegal things, buy drugs, launder money, avoid taxes.

Now this triggers me a fair bit as someone who has bought drugs online, who probably hasn’t paid enough tax, who has done illegal things contemplating what it means to have that kind of an evidence ledger, and contemplate a reality where there are anonymous cryptocurrencies, where massive corporations continue to be able to avoid taxes, or where methamphetamine can be sold by the tonne, or where people can be bought and sold. This is the reality of creating technologies that can enable and empower criminals. I know some criminals and regard them as very good friends, but I know there are some criminals that I do not wish to know at all. I know there are people that do horrific things in the world and I know that something that makes it easier for them is having access to funds or the ability to move money around without being detected. I know arms, drugs and people are some of the biggest markets in the world, I know there is more than $50 trillion dollars siphoned in to off shore tax havens from the value generated as the product of human creativity in the economy and how much human charity is squandered through the NGO apparatus. I could go on and on about the crappy things happening in the world but I can also imagine them getting a lot worse with an anonymous cryptocurrency. Not to say that I don’t think there shouldn’t be an anonymous cryptocurrency. If someone makes one that works, they make one that works. Maybe they get to exist for a little while as a honeypot or if they can operate outside the law successfully longer, but bitcoin itself shouldn’t be one. There should be something a level playing field for honest people to interact with sound money. And if they operate within the law, then they will have more than adequate privacy, just they will leave immutable evidence for every transaction that can be used as evidence to build a case against you committing a crime.

His claim is that all the people that are protesting the loudest about him being Satoshi are all the people that are engaged in dishonest business or that have a vested interest in there not being one singular global ledger but rather a whole myriad of alternative currencies that can be pumped and dumped against one another, have all kinds of financial instruments applied to them like futures and then have these exchanges and custodial services not doing any Know Your Customer (KYC) or Anti Money Laundering (AML) processes. Bitcoin SV was delisted by a number of exchanges recently after Craig launched legal action at some twitter crypto influencetalking heads who had continued to call him a fraud and then didn’t back down when the CEO of one of the biggest crypto exchanges told him to drop the case or he would delist his coin. The trolls of twitter all chimed in in support of those who have now been served with papers for defamation and libel and Craig even put out a bitcoin reward for a DOX on one of the people who had been particularly abusive to him on twitter. A big european exchange then conducted a twitter poll to determine whether or not BSV should be delisted as either (yes, it’s toxic or no) and when a few hundred votes were in favour of delisting it (which can be bought for a couple of bucks/100 votes). Shortly after Craig was delisted, news began to break of a US dollar stable coin called USDT potentially not being fully solvent for it’s apparent 1:1 backing of the token to dollars in the bank. Binance suffered an alleged exchange hack with 7000 BTC “stolen” and the site suspending withdrawals and deposits for a week. Binance holds 800m USDT for their US dollar markets and immediately once the deposits and withdrawals were suspended there was a massive pump for BTC in the USDT markets as people sought to exit their potentially not 1:1 backed token for bitcoin. The CEO of this exchange has the business registered out of Malta, no physical premises, the CEO stays hotel room to hotel room around the world, has all kind of trading competitions and the binance launchpad, uses an unregistered security to collect fees ($450m during the bear market) from the trading of the hundreds of coins that it lists on its exchange and has no regard for AML and KYC laws. Craig said he himself was able to create 100 gmail accounts in a day and create binance accounts with each of those gmail accounts and from the same wallet, deposit and withdraw 1 bitcoin into each of those in one day ($8000 x 100) without facing any restrictions or triggering any alerts or such.
This post could ramble on for ever and ever exposing the complexities of the rabbit hole but I wanted to offer some perspective on what’s been happening in the space. What is being built on the bitcoin SV blockchain is something that I can only partially comprehend but even from my limited understanding of what it is to become, I can see that the entirety of the crypto community is extremely threatened as it renders all the various alt coins and alt coin exchanges obsolete. It makes criminals play by the rules, it removes any power from the developer groups and turns the blockchain and the miners in to economies of scale where the blockchain acts as a serverless database, the miners provide computational resources/storage/RAM and you interact with a virtual machine through a monitor and keyboard plugged in to an ethernet port. It will be like something that takes us from a type 0 to a type 1 civilisation. There are many that like to keep us in the quagmire of corruption and criminality as it lines their pockets. Much much more can be read about the Cartel in crypto in the archive below. Is it possible this cartel has the resources to mount such a successful psychological operation on the cryptocurrency community that they manage to convince everyone that Craig is the bad guy, when he’s the only one calling for regulation, the application of the law, the storage of immutable records onchain to comply with banking secrecy laws, for Global Sound Money?

https://archive.fo/lk1lH#selection-3671.46-3671.55

Please note, where possible, images were uploaded onto the bitcoin sv blockchain through bitstagram paying about 10c a pop. If I wished I could then use an application etch and archive this post to the chain to be immutably stored. If this publishing forum was on chain too it would mean that when I do the archive the images that are in the bitstragram links (but stored in the bitcoin blockchain/database already) could be referenced in the archive by their txid so that they don’t have to be stored again and thus bringing the cost of the archive down to only the html and css.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

Privacy Protocol Implementation Poll

A recent poll has shown that the NavCoin community greatly values auditability. However, the level of privacy that can be achieved while retaining full audibility is considered low. It seems this sentiment along with the voting format was not effectively propagated throughout the community which lead to confusion and possibly skewing the results of this very important decision. Let's put that poll aside for now and focus on the path forward.

There has been an interesting option for privacy brought to the table by developer Alex (@aguycalled) which could satisfy both sides of the privacy/auditability debate. Alex is proposing to implement a solution based off of ValueShuffle which was first introduced by Tim Ruffing and Pedro Mereno-Sanchez ( https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/238 ).
What is ValueShuffle?
ValueShuffle combines three existing privacy techniques that if used independently provide limited privacy, but when packaged together create a solid foundation for privacy. ValueShuffle consists of the following three privacy-oriented techniques:

- CoinJoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinJoin)
- Confidential Transactions (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Confidential_transactions)
- Stealth Addresses (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stealth-address-cryptocurrency.asp)

ValueShuffle is based on the coin-mixing protocol known as CoinJoin which has well known and serious flaw regarding user's privacy. Through blockchain meta-data analysis, the private nature of CoinJoin begins to fall apart. As more data is added to the blockchain, it becomes easier to break through the privacy aspect of CoinJoin. This is where the feature set of confidential transactions and stealth addresses complement the flaws of CoinJoin to produce a strong solution for user's privacy. With these additional features, meta-data analysis is no longer possible since the required information is now obfuscated; sending address, receiving address and transaction amount.

An important trait of ValueShuffle that the NavCoin community may appreciate is that the total coin supply remains auditable using only weak assumptions where as other implementations of privacy protocols would require much stronger assumptions (a weaker assumption is less likely to break). Auditability while retaining privacy is achieved using a discrete logarithm assumption (range proofs). Initially, the complexity of implementing range proofs was a weakness of this solution. However, two years have passed since ValueShuffle was first introduced and we now have a technique referred to as Bulletproofs. Bulletproofs allow the solution to become significantly simpler while also making it more robust. Although a correct implementation of ValueShuffle is fully auditable, it is important to note that this state of auditability is dependant upon the underlying cryptography as well as the correctness of the methods in which it is implemented.
If you would like to read up more on ValueShuffle, further information can be found here:
https://btcmanager.com/valueshuffle-a-way-to-improve-bitcoins-fungibility/
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/valueshuffle-brings-together-the-best-of-both-worlds-for-privacy-1483557170

This article also includes comparisons with other methods of privacy:
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@sames/the-future-of-bitcoin-privacy

Improvements to ValueShuffle

Although ValueShuffle offers a great solution for privacy, it does have shortcomings of its own:
- It is designed as a centralized service.
- It requires a lot of data stored on the blockchain.
This is where a little ingenuity comes into effect as Alex's implementation will address and fully resolve these issues.

Improvement #1:

CoinJoin relies on a centralized server to manage the coin-mixing portion of the protocol. The authors of ValueShuffle did not see a reason nor a need to change this configuration, so left it as such. Having a centralized server goes against what NavCoin strives to retain as we all truly understand the critical importance of decentralization. A centralized service is susceptible to DoS attacks and even worse, manipulation and malpractice. The improved version of ValueShuffle will not have any centralized aspect to its implementation. All nodes (wallets) on the NavCoin network will have the ability to manage the coin-mixing portion of the transaction, thus retaining a trust-less decentralized environment.

Improvement #2:

With three different techniques being used behind the scenes within ValueShuffle; multiple transactions, addresses and amounts being encrypted... a lot of additional data is required to be stored on the blockchain which can quickly lead to bloating. This would cause the size of the NavCoin blockchain to grow significantly. Overtime, this blockchain growth would increase the necessary requirements to run a node on the network which in turn raises the cost of node operation and could have an impact on the decentralized nature of NavCoin. However, this can be avoided since NavCoin is in a fortunate scenario to handle this quite easily. Two years ago, the NavCoin community voted to enable SegWit which gives us the ability to use some valuable tools to aid in mitigating this:

- Bulletproofs (https://web.stanford.edu/~buenz/pubs/bulletproofs.pdf)
- BLS signatures (https://medium.com/cryptoadvance/bls-signatures-better-than-schnorr-5a7fe30ea716)

The activation of SegWit has eliminated transaction malleability which gives NavCoin access to unique tools to ensure our blockchain remains lean and efficient. By using aggregated Bulletproofs, the amount of data required to be stored on the blockchain for the range proofs will see up to a 10-fold reduction in size. There would also be an additional 40% capacity savings achieved by using BLS signatures for transactions. Another benefit of BLS signatures is that they would be signed over pairs of inputs/outputs within the coin-mixing transaction as opposed to Schnorr's signature that would be signed over the entire coin-mixing transaction. This adds some great resilience to a decentralized environment against malicious actors attempting to fail coin-mixing transactions.

This improved version of ValueShuffle provides a very high level of privacy while keeping in line with the decentralized nature of NavCoin. It can also be considered as close as you can currently get to having a solid foundation for privacy while retaining auditability without the use of very strong cryptographic assumptions. There are currently no other protocols available to implement on NavCoin which meet those conditions. If this proposal is not accepted, developers will focus their work on other areas of development.

If you have any questions or need clarification on the details contained within this proposal, please don't hesitate to ask other members or developers of the NavCoin ecosystem. It is your own responsibility to be fully aware and educated on what you are voting for.

Please go vote:
https://www.navexplorer.com/community-fund/proposal/27e3c0d3870edb24c88055ec35de822e802cd258177c5e3c5babe9edcdc534d5
Vote YES if you ACCEPT the implementation of an improved version of ValueShuffle as the method of privacy for NavCoin.
Vote NO if you REJECT the implementation of an improved version of ValueShuffle as the method of privacy for NavCoin.
submitted by jambaboba to NavCoin [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell /u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream) has sent me two private messages in response to my other post today (where I said "Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream."). In response to his private messages, I am publicly posting my reply, here:

Note:
Greg Maxell nullc sent me 2 short private messages criticizing me today. For whatever reason, he seems to prefer messaging me privately these days, rather than responding publicly on these forums.
Without asking him for permission to publish his private messages, I do think it should be fine for me to respond to them publicly here - only quoting 3 phrases from them, namely: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity" LOL.
There was nothing particularly new or revealing in his messages - just more of the same stuff we've all heard before. I have no idea why he prefers responding to me privately these days.
Everything below is written by me - I haven't tried to upload his 2 PMs to me, since he didn't give permission (and I didn't ask). The only stuff below from his 2 PMs is the 3 phrases already mentioned: "340GB", "paid off", and "integrity". The rest of this long wall of text is just my "open letter to Greg."
TL;DR: The code that maximally uses the available hardware and infrastructure will win - and there is nothing Core/Blockstream can do to stop that. Also, things like the Berlin Wall or the Soviet Union lasted for a lot longer than people expected - but, conversely, the also got swept away a lot faster than anyone expected. The "vote" for bigger blocks is an ongoing referendum - and Classic is running on 20-25% of the network (and can and will jump up to the needed 75% very fast, when investors demand it due to the inevitable "congestion crisis") - which must be a massive worry for Greg/Adam/Austin and their backers from the Bilderberg Group. The debate will inevitably be decided in favor of bigger blocks - simply because the market demands it, and the hardware / infrastructure supports it.
Hello Greg Maxwell nullc (CTO of Blockstream) -
Thank you for your private messages in response to my post.
I respect (most of) your work on Bitcoin, but I think you were wrong on several major points in your messages, and in your overall economic approach to Bitcoin - as I explain in greater detail below:
Correcting some inappropriate terminology you used
As everybody knows, Classic or Unlimited or Adaptive (all of which I did mention specifically in my post) do not support "340GB" blocks (which I did not mention in my post).
It is therefore a straw-man for you to claim that big-block supporters want "340GB" blocks. Craig Wright may want that - but nobody else supports his crazy posturing and ridiculous ideas.
You should know that what actual users / investors (and Satoshi) actually do want, is to let the market and the infrastructure decide on the size of actual blocks - which could be around 2 MB, or 4 MB, etc. - gradually growing in accordance with market needs and infrastructure capabilities (free from any arbitrary, artificial central planning and obstructionism on the part of Core/Blockstream, and its investors - many of whom have a vested interest in maintaining the current debt-backed fiat system).
You yourself (nullc) once said somewhere that bigger blocks would probably be fine - ie, they would not pose a decentralization risk. (I can't find the link now - maybe I'll have time to look for it later.) I found the link:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43mond/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
I am also surprised that you now seem to be among those making unfounded insinuations that posters such as myself must somehow be "paid off" - as if intelligent observers and participants could not decide on their own, based on the empirical evidence, that bigger blocks are needed, when the network is obviously becoming congested and additional infrastructure is obviously available.
Random posters on Reddit might say and believe such conspiratorial nonsense - but I had always thought that you, given your intellectual abilities, would have been able to determine that people like me are able to arrive at supporting bigger blocks quite entirely on our own, based on two simple empirical facts, ie:
  • the infrastructure supports bigger blocks now;
  • the market needs bigger blocks now.
In the present case, I will simply assume that you might be having a bad day, for you to erroneously and groundlessly insinuate that I must be "paid off" in order to support bigger blocks.
Using Occam's Razor
The much simpler explanation is that bigger-block supporters believe will get "paid off" from bigger gains for their investment in Bitcoin.
Rational investors and users understand that bigger blocks are necessary, based on the apparent correlation (not necessarily causation!) between volume and price (as mentioned in my other post, and backed up with graphs).
And rational network capacity planners (a group which you should be in - but for some mysterious reason, you're not) also understand that bigger blocks are necessary, and quite feasible (and do not pose any undue "centralization risk".)
As I have been on the record for months publicly stating, I understand that bigger blocks are necessary based on the following two objective, rational reasons:
  • because I've seen the graphs; and
  • because I've seen the empirical research in the field (from guys like Gavin and Toomim) showing that the network infrastructure (primarily bandwidth and latency - but also RAM and CPU) would also support bigger blocks now (I believe they showed that 3-4MB blocks would definitely work fine on the network now - possibly even 8 MB - without causing undue centralization).
Bigger-block supporters are being objective; smaller-block supporters are not
I am surprised that you no longer talk about this debate in those kind of objective terms:
  • bandwidth, latency (including Great Firewall of China), RAM, CPU;
  • centralization risk
Those are really the only considerations which we should be discussing in this debate - because those are the only rational considerations which might justify the argument for keeping 1 MB.
And yet you, and Adam Back adam3us, and your company Blockstream (financed by the Bilderberg Group, which has significant overlap with central banks and the legacy, debt-based, violence-backed fiat money system that has been running and slowing destroying our world) never make such objective, technical arguments anymore.
And when you make unfounded conspiratorial, insulting insinuations saying people who disagree with you on the facts must somehow be "paid off", then you are now talking like some "nobody" on Reddit - making wild baseless accusations that people must be "paid off" to support bigger blocks, something I had always thought was "beneath" you.
Instead, Occams's Razor suggests that people who support bigger blocks are merely doing so out of:
  • simple, rational investment policy; and
  • simple, rational capacity planning.
At this point, the burden is on guys like you (nullc) to explain why you support a so-called scaling "roadmap" which is not aligned with:
  • simple, rational investment policy; and
  • simple, rational capacity planning
The burden is also on guys like you to show that you do not have a conflict of interest, due to Blockstream's highly-publicized connections (via insurance giant AXA - whose CED is also the Chairman of the Bilderberg Group; and companies such as the "Big 4" accounting firm PwC) to the global cartel of debt-based central banks with their infinite money-printing.
In a nutshell, the argument of big-block supporters is simple:
If the hardware / network infrastructure supports bigger blocks (and it does), and if the market demands it (and it does), then we certainly should use bigger blocks - now.
You have never provided a counter-argument to this simple, rational proposition - for the past few years.
If you have actual numbers or evidence or facts or even legitimate concerns (regarding "centralization risk" - presumably your only argument) then you should show such evidence.
But you never have. So we can only assume either incompetence or malfeasance on your part.
As I have also publicly and privately stated to you many times, with the utmost of sincerity: We do of course appreciate the wealth of stellar coding skills which you bring to Bitcoin's cryptographic and networking aspects.
But we do not appreciate the obstructionism and centralization which you also bring to Bitcoin's economic and scaling aspects.
Bitcoin is bigger than you.
The simple reality is this: If you can't / won't let Bitcoin grow naturally, then the market is going to eventually route around you, and billions (eventually trillions) of investor capital and user payments will naturally flow elsewhere.
So: You can either be the guy who wrote the software to provide simple and safe Bitcoin scaling (while maintaining "reasonable" decentralization) - or the guy who didn't.
The choice is yours.
The market, and history, don't really care about:
  • which "side" you (nullc) might be on, or
  • whether you yourself might have been "paid off" (or under a non-disclosure agreement written perhaps by some investors associated the Bilderberg Group and the legacy debt-based fiat money system which they support), or
  • whether or not you might be clueless about economics.
Crypto and/or Bitcoin will move on - with or without you and your obstructionism.
Bigger-block supporters, including myself, are impartial
By the way, my two recent posts this past week on the Craig Wright extravaganza...
...should have given you some indication that I am being impartial and objective, and I do have "integrity" (and I am not "paid off" by anybody, as you so insultingly insinuated).
In other words, much like the market and investors, I don't care who provides bigger blocks - whether it would be Core/Blockstream, or Bitcoin Classic, or (the perhaps confusingly-named) "Bitcoin Unlimited" (which isn't necessarily about some kind of "unlimited" blocksize, but rather simply about liberating users and miners from being "limited" by controls imposed by any centralized group of developers, such as Core/Blockstream and the Bilderbergers who fund you).
So, it should be clear by now I don't care one way or the other about Gavin personally - or about you, or about any other coders.
I care about code, and arguments - regardless of who is providing such things - eg:
  • When Gavin didn't demand crypto proof from Craig, and you said you would have: I publicly criticized Gavin - and I supported you.
  • When you continue to impose needless obstactles to bigger blocks, then I continue to criticize you.
In other words, as we all know, it's not about the people.
It's about the code - and what the market wants, and what the infrastructure will bear.
You of all people should know that that's how these things should be decided.
Fortunately, we can take what we need, and throw away the rest.
Your crypto/networking expertise is appreciated; your dictating of economic parameters is not.
As I have also repeatedly stated in the past, I pretty much support everything coming from you, nullc:
  • your crypto and networking and game-theoretical expertise,
  • your extremely important work on Confidential Transactions / homomorphic encryption.
  • your desire to keep Bitcoin decentralized.
And I (and the network, and the market/investors) will always thank you profusely and quite sincerely for these massive contributions which you make.
But open-source code is (fortunately) à la carte. It's mix-and-match. We can use your crypto and networking code (which is great) - and we can reject your cripple-code (artificially small 1 MB blocks), throwing it where it belongs: in the garbage heap of history.
So I hope you see that I am being rational and objective about what I support (the code) - and that I am also always neutral and impartial regarding who may (or may not) provide it.
And by the way: Bitcoin is actually not as complicated as certain people make it out to be.
This is another point which might be lost on certain people, including:
And that point is this:
The crypto code behind Bitcoin actually is very simple.
And the networking code behind Bitcoin is actually also fairly simple as well.
Right now you may be feeling rather important and special, because you're part of the first wave of development of cryptocurrencies.
But if the cryptocurrency which you're coding (Core/Blockstream's version of Bitcoin, as funded by the Bilderberg Group) fails to deliver what investors want, then investors will dump you so fast your head will spin.
Investors care about money, not code.
So bigger blocks will eventually, inevitably come - simply because the market demand is there, and the infrastructure capacity is there.
It might be nice if bigger blocks would come from Core/Blockstream.
But who knows - it might actually be nicer (in terms of anti-fragility and decentralization of development) if bigger blocks were to come from someone other than Core/Blockstream.
So I'm really not begging you - I'm warning you, for your own benefit (your reputation and place in history), that:
Either way, we are going to get bigger blocks.
Simply because the market wants them, and the hardware / infrastructre can provide them.
And there is nothing you can do to stop us.
So the market will inevitably adopt bigger blocks either with or without you guys - given that the crypto and networking tech behind Bitcoin is not all that complex, and it's open-source, and there is massive pent-up investor demand for cryptocurrency - to the tune of multiple billions (or eventually trillions) of dollars.
It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
Regarding the "success" which certain small-block supports are (prematurely) gloating about, during this time when a hard-fork has not happened yet: they should bear in mind that the market has only begun to speak.
And the first thing it did when it spoke was to dump about 20-25% of Core/Blockstream nodes in a matter of weeks. (And the next thing it did was Gemini added Ethereum trading.)
So a sizable percentage of nodes are already using Classic. Despite desperate, irrelevant attempts of certain posters on these forums to "spin" the current situation as a "win" for Core - it is actually a major "fail" for Core.
Because if Core/Blocksteam were not "blocking" Bitcoin's natural, organic growth with that crappy little line of temporary anti-spam kludge-code which you and your minions have refused to delete despite Satoshi explicitly telling you to back in 2010 ("MAX_BLOCKSIZE = 1000000"), then there would be something close to 0% nodes running Classic - not 25% (and many more addable at the drop of a hat).
This vote is ongoing.
This "voting" is not like a normal vote in a national election, which is over in one day.
Unfortunately for Core/Blockstream, the "voting" for Classic and against Core is actually two-year-long referendum.
It is still ongoing, and it can rapidly swing in favor of Classic at any time between now and Classic's install-by date (around January 1, 2018 I believe) - at any point when the market decides that it needs and wants bigger blocks (ie, due to a congestion crisis).
You know this, Adam Back knows this, Austin Hill knows this, and some of your brainwashed supporters on censored forums probably know this too.
This is probably the main reason why you're all so freaked out and feel the need to even respond to us unwashed bigger-block supporters, instead of simply ignoring us.
This is probably the main reason why Adam Back feels the need to keep flying around the world, holding meetings with miners, making PowerPoint presentations in English and Chinese, and possibly also making secret deals behind the scenes.
This is also why Theymos feels the need to censor.
And this is perhaps also why your brainwashed supporters from censored forums feel the need to constantly make their juvenile, content-free, drive-by comments (and perhaps also why you evidently feel the need to privately message me your own comments now).
Because, once again, for the umpteenth time in years, you've seen that we are not going away.
Every day you get another worrisome, painful reminder from us that Classic is still running on 25% of "your" network.
And everyday get another worrisome, painful reminder that Classic could easily jump to 75% in a matter of days - as soon as investors see their $7 billion wealth starting to evaporate when the network goes into a congestion crisis due to your obstructionism and insistence on artificially small 1 MB blocks.
If your code were good enough to stand on its own, then all of Core's globetrotting and campaigning and censorship would be necessary.
But you know, and everyone else knows, that your cripple-code does not include simple and safe scaling - and the competing code (Classic, Unlimited) does.
So your code cannot stand on its own - and that's why you and your supporters feel that it's necessary to keep up the censorship and and the lies and the snark. It's shameful that a smart coder like you would be involved with such tactics.
Oppressive regimes always last longer than everyone expects - but they also also collapse faster than anyone expects.
We already have interesting historical precedents showing how grassroots resistance to centralized oppression and obstructionism tends to work out in the end. The phenomenon is two-fold:
  • The oppression usually drags on much longer than anyone expects; and
  • The liberation usually happens quite abruptly - much faster than anyone expects.
The Berlin Wall stayed up much longer than everyone expected - but it also came tumbling down much faster than everyone expected.
Examples of opporessive regimes that held on surprisingly long, and collapsed surpisingly fast, are rather common - eg, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, or the collapse of the Soviet Union.
(Both examples are actually quite germane to the case of Blockstream/Core/Theymos - as those despotic regimes were also held together by the fragile chewing gum and paper clips of denialism and censorship, and the brainwashed but ultimately complacent and fragile yes-men that inevitably arise in such an environment.)
The Berlin Wall did indeed seem like it would never come down. But the grassroots resistance against it was always there, in the wings, chipping away at the oppression, trying to break free.
And then when it did come down, it happened in a matter of days - much faster than anyone had expected.
That's generally how these things tend to go:
  • oppression and obstructionism drag on forever, and the people oppressing freedom and progress erroneously believe that Core/Blockstream is "winning" (in this case: Blockstream/Core and you and Adam and Austin - and the clueless yes-men on censored forums like r\bitcoin who mindlessly support you, and the obedient Chinese miners who, thus far, have apparently been to polite to oppose you) ;
  • then one fine day, the market (or society) mysteriously and abruptly decides one day that "enough is enough" - and the tsunami comes in and washes the oppressors away in the blink of an eye.
So all these non-entities with their drive-by comments on these threads and their premature gloating and triumphalism are irrelevant in the long term.
The only thing that really matters is investors and users - who are continually applying grassroots pressure on the network, demanding increased capacity to keep the transactions flowing (and the price rising).
And then one day: the Berlin Wall comes tumbling down - or in the case of Bitcoin: a bunch of mining pools have to switch to Classic, and they will do switch so fast it will make your head spin.
Because there will be an emergency congestion crisis where the network is causing the price to crash and threatening to destroy $7 billion in investor wealth.
So it is understandable that your supports might sometimes prematurely gloat, or you might feel the need to try to comment publicly or privately, or Adam might feel the need to jet around the world.
Because a large chunk of people have rejected your code.
And because many more can and will - and they'll do in the blink of an eye.
Classic is still out there, "waiting in the wings", ready to be installed, whenever the investors tell the miners that it is needed.
Fortunately for big-block supporters, in this "election", the polls don't stay open for just one day, like in national elections.
The voting for Classic is on-going - it runs for two years. It is happening now, and it will continue to happen until around January 1, 2018 (which is when Classic-as-an-option has been set to officially "expire").
To make a weird comparison with American presidential politics: It's kinda like if either Hillary or Trump were already in office - but meanwhile there was also an ongoing election (where people could change their votes as often as they want), and the day when people got fed up with the incompetent incumbent, they can throw them out (and install someone like Bernie instead) in the blink of an eye.
So while the inertia does favor the incumbent (because people are lazy: it takes them a while to become informed, or fed up, or panicked), this kind of long-running, basically never-ending election favors the insurgent (because once the incumbent visibly screws up, the insurgent gets adopted - permanently).
Everyone knows that Satoshi explicitly defined Bitcoin to be a voting system, in and of itself. Not only does the network vote on which valid block to append next to the chain - the network also votes on the very definition of what a "valid block" is.
Go ahead and re-read the anonymous PDF that was recently posted on the subject of how you are dangerously centralizing Bitcoin by trying to prevent any votes from taking place:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4hxlquhoh_a_warning_regarding_the_onset_of_centralised/
The insurgent (Classic, Unlimited) is right (they maximally use available bandwidth) - while the incumbent (Core) is wrong (it needlessly throws bandwidth out the window, choking the network, suppressing volume, and hurting the price).
And you, and Adam, and Austin Hill - and your funders from the Bilderberg Group - must be freaking out that there is no way you can get rid of Classic (due to the open-source nature of cryptocurrency and Bitcoin).
Cripple-code will always be rejected by the network.
Classic is already running on about 20%-25% of nodes, and there is nothing you can do to stop it - except commenting on these threads, or having guys like Adam flying around the world doing PowerPoints, etc.
Everything you do is irrelevant when compared against billions of dollars in current wealth (and possibly trillions more down the road) which needs and wants and will get bigger blocks.
You guys no longer even make technical arguments against bigger blocks - because there are none: Classic's codebase is 99% the same as Core, except with bigger blocks.
So when we do finally get bigger blocks, we will get them very, very fast: because it only takes a few hours to upgrade the software to keep all the good crypto and networking code that Core/Blockstream wrote - while tossing that single line of 1 MB "max blocksize" cripple-code from Core/Blockstream into the dustbin of history - just like people did with the Berlin Wall.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Decred Journal — April 2018

This post covers what happened in Decred last month. Let's get down to business and have About section at the end.

Development

Wallet and node software version 1.2.0 has been released. Decrediton wallet highlights: improved startup experience, redesigned overview page, added basic graphs to visualize statistics and an export to CSV (helpful for tax reporting). dcrd node software highlights: significantly faster startup and compact filters to support light clients. See full release notes and downloads here, for Decrediton use 1.2.1 bugfix release.
The release process has been improved. Instead of announcing a release date and trying to meet it, a Release Candidate 1 (RC1) will now be posted. After it has been tested an bugfixed with the help of the community, a second candidate (RC2) will be released. This is repeated until an RC version with no apparent bugs becomes the final release. The new process removes a ton of pressure from developers and users and gives more time for testing. As our primary consumer-facing product, Decrediton, is growing in features and complexity, more testing will be required for new releases.
Politeia is "Getting close to a public beta of voting" (slack). Decred plugin merged, paywall and voting are in the testing stage. Ticket voting works on testnet via CLI.
Trezor support got closer as Decred patch was merged. Please note this is only firmware support, to be usable it also needs wallet integration.
WooCommerce Decred plugin alpha version is ready for testing.
Decred.org received a new sleek exchanges page.
The contributors page has been updated to add 10 new faces. Some of them are new to the project but others have been contributing for a while.
Dev activity stats for April: 152 active PRs, 125 commits, 21,656 added and 10,288 deleted lines spread across 7 repositories done by 2-7 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: April started at 2.0-2.7 PH/s range and seen a general increase with some big fluctuations between lows at 2.2 and new all time high above 5.2 PH/s.
Nodes: there are 200 public listening and 500 normal nodes per dcred.eu as of May 1. 169 nodes already upgraded to version 1.2.0. Some 30 nodes were observed to be testing Release Candidate versions before the final release.
Ticket price 30-day average has seen a steady rise to 87.5 DCR. Stake participation is solid 46.1% with 3.53 million DCR as of May 1.

ASICs

Updates from Obelisk's Taek:
We got results back. They are more or less on line with the simulations I didn't realize this, but we don't get the real chips back for 3 more weeks. The ones we've been testing are hacked together into a DIP package (they are BGA chips) that really screws up the results There's a decent chance that the full bga chips perform better For the time being though, we're pretty much on track for the hashrates estimated on the website (slack, Apr 12)
And regarding the June delivery date:
We're still on track for batch 1. We've ordered most of the parts we'll need, including the chips. We've got working chips, we've got test boards, test units, test everything. We've signed manufacturers to produce everything. Obelisk is going strong. (reddit, Apr 23)
We are thankful for his updates in our #pow-mining channel and hope other ASIC manufacturers will also join.
Fellow Sia miners are discussing the design of Obelisk SC1 case.
Halong: B29 units are shipping. The amount of units in first batch was estimated 450-600 by our community member. Review of DragonMint B29 published, people are discussing shipping and running the miners.
By surprise, Innosilicon announced the sale of D9 DecredMaster ASIC miner with specs identical to Halong B29 while being much cheaper ($6800 Inno vs $10499 Halong). Expected shipping date of the first batch is April 28-30. The company is active on their bitcointalk thread, also see our reddit.
Just 9 days later Innosilicon announced second batch with delivery on May 7-11 and same price of $6800. (reddit)

Integrations

Decred's Brazilian community made good progress with integrations this month.
emiliomann: On April 2nd @Rhama will launch the first BR exchange of altcoins with fiat market and totally within the laws of the Brazilian government. Decred will have the two markets DCBTC and DCBRL. It’s very difficult to fulfill all the legal requirements and get authorization to work with FIAT here.
The exchange turned out to be Profitfy. Profity is innovating by using dcrtime for their blockchain ID login via Original My. Great to see this deeper engagement with the tools that Decred provides, and not a surprise that it comes from @Rhama, who has been a community member since day one.
This seems to have spurred another exchange, Braziliex, to bring forward their launch of DCBRL and DCBTC pairs, coming just 2 hours after Profitfy launched.
Not stopping there,
emiliomann: Hey guys, this is a poll of the biggest Bitcoin exchange in Brazil that is planning to open altcoins markets. Please, help the Brazilian community by voting for Decred! Just one click. Thank you! https://twitter.com/mercadobitcoin/status/981602483268194307
Finally,
viniciusfrias: We're excited to announce PagueCripto.com, a Brazilian crypto-to-fiat payment gateway which accepts Decred among other cryptocurrencies for Brazilians to pay daily bills, such as credit cards, energy, rent, etc, and also to make local bank transfers. Our service is both a web platform and an Android app, and as our community is relevant in Brazil, we are offering a discount coupon (50%) in service fees using DCR until May 14, 2018. Check it out at paguecripto.com and in Google Play Store. (slack)
Moving to other countries, good news from Canada:
michae2xl: Decred is now available on @ezBtcCanada, an exchange with DCCAD trading pair. From Toronto – ezbtc.ca
i2Rav announced i2trading.com, a new trading desk that will be offering DCEUR pair:
Eventually we hope to offer the pair in GBP and YEN as well
changenow.io, a non-custodian exchange for fast conversions, added DCR.
You can see all exchanges known to support Decred in a spreadsheet maintained by snr01. Many of them are missing from coinmarketcap.

Adoption

The Crypto Lawyers, LLP, a crypto exclusive U.S. law firm began accepting Decred (reddit):
RAurelius: I think that a law firm accepting Decred is a worthy distinction from other previously publicized companies that accept Decred for typical consumer products. Legal services are severely lacking in the Crypto-sphere, so the publicity is good for everyone in this arena.
Great to see business owners reaching us directly in chat.
VotoLegal is migrating from Ethereum to Decred blockchain:
emiliomann: VotoLegal, a Brazilian project that uses blockchain technology to allow election campaign funding to be transparent and that all transactions conducted are tracked and made available to the citizens, now uses dcrtime and Decred blockchain. https://twitter.com/decred_bstatus/986610826051276800 (slack)

Partnerships

YBF Ventures and Decred announced partnership in building a blockchain-focused development and business hub in Australia.
With the YBF Ventures partnership, Decred hopes to grow their Australian contractor network and scale their operations throughout the Asia-Pacific region. (btcmanager.com)
We specifically chose Decred for a more robust corporate partnership, and it is the first time that a decentralised autonomous organisation is partnering with a ‘traditional’ organisation in such a capacity. (ybfventures.com)

Marketing

Dustorf joined on the marketing front and is conducting a brand discovery analysis:
Decred is soliciting the input of our user community. In order to better understand you, what you think of Decred, and where you would like it to focus its efforts, we've come up with a short (4 minute) survey. Your input of all varieties is most appreciated https://www.surveymonkey.com/2LHK3FV
April targeted advertising report released (previous March report here). Reach @timhebel for full version.
The iconic "Not Overly Scammy" t-shirt by cryptograffiti is available for purchase. For those wondering, the meme originates from @fluffypony.
Some hilarious promos by @jackliv3r: one two three.

Events

Community event at YBF Ventures in Australia.
Meetup in Wroclaw, Poland.
BBQ with @scalarcapital team in Austin, USA.
Blockchain Expo in London, UK. Decred was well represented at this large-scale industry event. Project Lead Jake took part in several interview and the Decred stand manned by community members was flooded with inquisitive visitors. (video, photo 1 2 3)
First Decred meetup in Hangzhou, China. (slack)
Business of Blockchain at MIT Media Lab in Cambridge, USA. Presentation: Blockchain Sovereignty and Blockchain Integration for Businesses by Jake Yocom-Piatt. (event, reddit, photo 1 2 3)
Cambridge Blockchain Meetup in Cambridge, USA. Talk: Cutting the Head off the Snake by Jake Yocom-Piatt. (event, photo 1 2 3)
Upcoming events:

Media

Second episode of Lightning Network educational series is out, exploring topics such as payment channels, onion routing, centralization risk, and challenges that still lie ahead. (youtube)
A user’s perspective and introduction to blockchain governance (Richard Red)
The Importance of Governance: Analyzing the Aftermath of the Monero Hard Fork by Noah Pierau (btcmanager.com)
The Crypto Show w/ Marco from Decred (youtube)
Interview with Jake at @Blockchain_Expo by Crypto Coin Growth (youtube)
Interview with Jake at @Blockchain_Expo by Cryptocurrency Academy (youtube)
Alternative Blockchain Governance Systems With Jake & Kyle From Decred at @Blockchain_Expo by Crypto Disrupt (youtube)
Decred Looks Ahead: An Interview with Project Lead Jake Yocom-Piatt (Exclusive) (sludgefeed.com)
How Complex Bitcoin Politics Led to the Creation of Decred (btcmanager.com)
Interview with Decred’s Project Lead Jake Yocom-Piatt on Crypto Ad Bans and Market Volatility (cryptoslate.com)
Decred’s Jonathan Zeppettini: The Industry Is Going To Be Displacing Wall Street (blocktribune.com)
On Chain VS. Off Chain Governance: The Ins And Outs (coinjournal.net)
Decred: On true decentralisation, Bitcoin communities, and avoiding the ICO route [Video] (blockchaintechnology-news.com)
Marco in shitcoin talk episode 54 (youtube)

Community Discussions

Reddit highlights: A debate on Decred protocol security and attack cost, a comparison of expected and actual block production times, a write-up on distribution of powers and how Monero could benefit from a PoS governance layer, two other threads on ASIC resistance, and one discussing different types of decentralization.
Very thoughtful discussion on whether it is appropriate to use half naked photos in marketing, followed by meta-discussion how to handle very polarizing issues and unwanted contributions to the marketing efforts of a decentralized project. (slack, continued)
A new #governance channel was created to discuss governance in Decred and other projects.
politeia subreddit was recovered for Decred community. Thanks to Tivra for filing the request. Politeia can bring a lot of value outside Decred so it well deserves its own sub.
A new Slack invite page has been setup and onboarded 40 people in 48 hours.
Decred StackExchange site proposal was closed due to inactivity in a 7 day period, according to Area 51 rules.

Markets

In April Decred showed a confident recovery after previous months. DCUSD moved from below $40 to nearly $90 and the more liquid DCBTC from 0.0058 to 0.0093.
OOOBTC showed unexpectedly huge DCR trading volume of $19 m on April 10 (reddit), it went back to normal 2 weeks later.
On April 25 a wild rush took the price from 0.00777 to 0.0177 BTC in under 30 minutes on Poloniex, setting a new USD all time high of ~$165 ($141 world average). Prices on other exchanges followed to a lesser degree. Possible causes were discussed on reddit. Talking about all time highs, an indicator tracking difference between ATH and current price shows Decred is competitive at retaining USD value.

Relevant External

Bittrex finally opened registrations again.
ASIC debates are raging after Bitmain stealth-launched ASICs for Sia, Monero and Ethereum. Most opinions reflect on whether and how to resist ASICs, but some are recognizing the Decred way, like this excellent piece.
The importance of governance is gaining recognition as well. One notable example is Mike Hearn's AMA where it was a hot topic.

About This Issue

This project was motivated by the desire to expose just how much is happening in Decred and save the time for people unable to actively follow our channels. It aims to cover all relevant developments with a short description and links to read further. It shows the depth of the project and the involvement of the community. We also plan to launch a newsletter and consider a shorter version if there is such a demand.
This is the first issue and feedback is welcome to discover what is best for our readers. Please join our Slack and write us on #writers_room or comment directly on GitHub. Any help is welcome too.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, jazzah, Richard-Red, snr01 and vj.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

Decred Journal — May 2018

Note: New Reddit look may not highlight links. See old look here. A copy is hosted on GitHub for better reading experience. Check it out, contains photo of the month! Also on Medium

Development

dcrd: Significant optimization in signature hash calculation, bloom filters support was removed, 2x faster startup thanks to in-memory full block index, multipeer work advancing, stronger protection against majority hashpower attacks. Additionally, code refactoring and cleanup, code and test infrastructure improvements.
In dcrd and dcrwallet developers have been experimenting with new modular dependency and versioning schemes using vgo. @orthomind is seeking feedback for his work on reproducible builds.
Decrediton: 1.2.1 bugfix release, work on SPV has started, chart additions are in progress. Further simplification of the staking process is in the pipeline (slack).
Politeia: new command line tool to interact with Politeia API, general development is ongoing. Help with testing will soon be welcome: this issue sets out a test plan, join #politeia to follow progress and participate in testing.
dcrdata: work ongoing on improved design, adding more charts and improving Insight API support.
Android: design work advancing.
Decred's own DNS seeder (dcrseeder) was released. It is written in Go and it properly supports service bit filtering, which will allow SPV nodes to find full nodes that support compact filters.
Ticket splitting service by @matheusd entered beta and demonstrated an 11-way split on mainnet. Help with testing is much appreciated, please join #ticket_splitting to participate in splits, but check this doc to learn about the risks. Reddit discussion here.
Trezor support is expected to land in their next firmware update.
Decred is now supported by Riemann, a toolbox from James Prestwich to construct transactions for many UTXO-based chains from human-readable strings.
Atomic swap with Ethereum on testnet was demonstrated at Blockspot Conference LATAM.
Two new faces were added to contributors page.
Dev activity stats for May: 238 active PRs, 195 master commits, 32,831 added and 22,280 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: rapid growth from ~4,000 TH/s at the beginning of the month to ~15,000 at the end with new all time high of 17,949. Interesting dynamic in hashrate distribution across mining pools: coinmine.pl share went down from 55% to 25% while F2Pool up from 2% to 44%. [Note: as of June 6, the hashrate continues to rise and has already passed 22,000 TH/s]
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 91.3 DCR (+0.8), stake participation is 46.9% (+0.8%) with 3.68 million DCR locked (+0.15). Min price was 85.56. On May 11 ticket price surged to 96.99, staying elevated for longer than usual after such a pump. Locked DCR peaked at 47.17%. jet_user on reddit suggested that the DCR for these tickets likely came from a miner with significant hashrate.
Nodes: there are 226 public listening and 405 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 45% on v1.2.0 (up from 24% last month), 39% on v1.1.2, 15% on v1.1.0 and 1% running outdaded versions.

ASICs

Obelisk team posted an update. Current hashrate estimate of DCR1 is 1200 GH/s at 500 W and may still change. The chips came back at 40% the speed of the simulated results, it is still unknown why. Batch 1 units may get delayed 1-2 weeks past June 30. See discussions on decred and on siacoin.
@SiaBillionaire estimated that 7940 DCR1 units were sold in Batches 1-5, while Lynmar13 shared his projections of DCR1 profitability (reddit).
A new Chinese miner for pre-order was noticed by our Telegram group. Woodpecker WB2 specs 1.5 TH/s at 1200 W, costs 15,000 CNY (~2,340 USD) and the initial 150 units are expected to ship on Aug 15. (pow8.comtranslated)
Another new miner is iBelink DSM6T: 6 TH/s at 2100 W costing $6,300 (ibelink.co). Shipping starts from June 5. Some concerns and links were posted in these two threads.

Integrations

A new mining pool is available now: altpool.net. It uses PPLNS model and takes 1% fee.
Another infrastructure addition is tokensmart.io, a newly audited stake pool with 0.8% fee. There are a total of 14 stake pools now.
Exchange integrations:
OpenBazaar released an update that allows one to trade cryptocurrencies, including DCR.
@i2Rav from i2trading is now offering two sided OTC market liquidity on DCUSD in #trading channel.
Paytomat, payments solution for point of sale and e-commerce, integrated Decred. (missed in April issue)
CoinPayments, a payment processor supporting Decred, developed an integration with @Shopify that allows connected merchants to accept cryptocurrencies in exchange for goods.

Adoption

New merchants:
An update from VotoLegal:
michae2xl: Voto Legal: CEO Thiago Rondon of Appcívico, has already been contacted by 800 politicians and negotiations have started with four pre-candidates for the presidency (slack, source tweet)
Blockfolio rolled out Signal Beta with Decred in the list. Users who own or watch a coin will automatically receive updates pushed by project teams. Nice to see this Journal made it to the screenshot!
Placeholder Ventures announced that Decred is their first public investment. Their Investment Thesis is a clear and well researched overview of Decred. Among other great points it noted the less obvious benefit of not doing an ICO:
By choosing not to pre-sell coins to speculators, the financial rewards from Decred’s growth most favor those who work for the network.
Alex Evans, a cryptoeconomics researcher who recently joined Placeholder, posted his 13-page Decred Network Analysis.

Marketing

@Dustorf published March–April survey results (pdf). It analyzes 166 responses and has lots of interesting data. Just an example:
"I own DECRED because I saw a YouTube video with DECRED Jesus and after seeing it I was sold."
May targeted advertising report released. Reach @timhebel for full version.
PiedPiperCoin hired our advisors.
More creative promos by @jackliv3r: Contributing, Stake Now, The Splitting, Forbidden Exchange, Atomic Swaps.
Reminder: Stakey has his own Twitter account where he tweets about his antics and pours scorn on the holders of expired tickets.
"Autonomy" coin sculpture is available at sigmasixdesign.com.

Events

BitConf in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Jake Yocom-Piatt presented "Decentralized Central Banking". Note the mini stakey on one of the photos. (articletranslated, photos: 1 2 album)
Wicked Crypto Meetup in Warsaw, Poland. (video, photos: 1 2)
Decred Polska Meetup in Katowice, Poland. First known Decred Cake. (photos: 1 2)
Austin Hispanic Hackers Meetup in Austin, USA.
Consensus 2018 in New York, USA. See videos in the Media section. Select photos: booth, escort, crew, moon boots, giant stakey. Many other photos and mentions were posted on Twitter. One tweet summarized Decred pretty well:
One project that stands out at #Consensus2018 is @decredproject. Not annoying. Real tech. Humble team. #BUIDL is strong with them. (@PallerJohn)
Token Summit in New York, USA. @cburniske and @jmonegro from Placeholder talked "Governance and Cryptoeconomics" and spoke highly of Decred. (twitter coverage: 1 2, video, video (from 32 min))
Campus Party in Bahia, Brazil. João Ferreira aka @girino and Gabriel @Rhama were introducing Decred, talking about governance and teaching to perform atomic swaps. (photos)
Decred was introduced to the delegates from Shanghai's Caohejing Hi-Tech Park, organized by @ybfventures.
Second Decred meetup in Hangzhou, China. (photos)
Madison Blockchain in Madison, USA. "Lots of in-depth questions. The Q&A lasted longer than the presentation!". (photo)
Blockspot Conference Latam in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photos: 1, 2)
Upcoming events:
There is a community initiative by @vj to organize information related to events in a repository. Jump in #event_planning channel to contribute.

Media

Decred scored B (top 3) in Weiss Ratings and A- (top 8) in Darpal Rating.
Chinese institute is developing another rating system for blockchains. First round included Decred (translated). Upon release Decred ranked 26. For context, Bitcoin ranked 13.
Articles:
Audios:
Videos:

Community Discussions

Community stats: Twitter 39,118 (+742), Reddit 8,167 (+277), Slack 5,658 (+160). Difference is between May 5 and May 31.
Reddit highlights: transparent up/down voting on Politeia, combining LN and atomic swaps, minimum viable superorganism, the controversial debate on Decred contractor model (people wondered about true motives behind the thread), tx size and fees discussion, hard moderation case, impact of ASICs on price, another "Why Decred?" thread with another excellent pitch by solar, fee analysis showing how ticket price algorithm change was controversial with ~100x cut in miner profits, impact of ticket splitting on ticket price, recommendations on promoting Decred, security against double spends and custom voting policies.
@R3VoLuT1OneR posted a preview of a proposal from his company for Decred to offer scholarships for students.
dcrtrader gained a couple of new moderators, weekly automatic threads were reconfigured to monthly and empty threads were removed. Currently most trading talk happens on #trading and some leaks to decred. A separate trading sub offers some advantages: unlimited trading talk, broad range of allowed topics, free speech and transparent moderation, in addition to standard reddit threaded discussion, permanent history and search.
Forum: potential social attacks on Decred.
Slack: the #governance channel created last month has seen many intelligent conversations on topics including: finite attention of decision makers, why stakeholders can make good decisions (opposed to a common narrative than only developers are capable of making good decisions), proposal funding and contractor pre-qualification, Cardano and Dash treasuries, quadratic voting, equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, and much more.
One particularly important issue being discussed is the growing number of posts arguing that on-chain governance and coin voting is bad. Just a few examples from Twitter: Decred is solving an imagined problem (decent response by @jm_buirski), we convince ourselves that we need governance and ticket price algo vote was not controversial, on-chain governance hurts node operators and it is too early for it, it robs node operators of their role, crypto risks being captured by the wealthy, it is a huge threat to the whole public blockchain space, coin holders should not own the blockchain.
Some responses were posted here and here on Twitter, as well as this article by Noah Pierau.

Markets

The month of May has seen Decred earn some much deserved attention in the markets. DCR started the month around 0.009 BTC and finished around 0.0125 with interim high of 0.0165 on Bittrex. In USD terms it started around $81 and finished around $92, temporarily rising to $118. During a period in which most altcoins suffered, Decred has performed well; rising from rank #45 to #30 on Coinmarketcap.
The addition of a much awaited KRW pair on Upbit saw the price briefly double on some exchanges. This pair opens up direct DCR to fiat trading in one of the largest cryptocurrency markets in the world.
An update from @i2Rav:
We have begun trading DCR in large volume daily. The interest around DCR has really started to grow in terms of OTC quote requests. More and more customers are asking about trading it.
Like in previous month, Decred scores high by "% down from ATH" indicator being #2 on onchainfx as of June 6.

Relevant External

David Vorick (@taek) published lots of insights into the world of ASIC manufacturing (reddit). Bitmain replied.
Bitmain released an ASIC for Equihash (archived), an algorithm thought to be somewhat ASIC-resistant 2 years ago.
Three pure PoW coins were attacked this month, one attempting to be ASIC resistant. This shows the importance of Decred's PoS layer that exerts control over miners and allows Decred to welcome ASIC miners for more PoW security without sacrificing sovereignty to them.
Upbit was raided over suspected fraud and put under investigation. Following news reported no illicit activity was found and suggested and raid was premature and damaged trust in local exchanges.
Circle, the new owner of Poloniex, announced a USD-backed stablecoin and Bitmain partnership. The plan is to make USDC available as a primary market on Poloniex. More details in the FAQ.
Poloniex announced lower trading fees.
Bittrex plans to offer USD trading pairs.
@sumiflow made good progress on correcting Decred market cap on several sites:
speaking of market cap, I got it corrected on coingecko, cryptocompare, and worldcoinindex onchainfx, livecoinwatch, and cryptoindex.co said they would update it about a month ago but haven't yet I messaged coinlib.io today but haven't got a response yet coinmarketcap refused to correct it until they can verify certain funds have moved from dev wallets which is most likely forever unknowable (slack)

About This Issue

Some source links point to Slack messages. Although Slack hides history older than ~5 days, you can read individual messages if you paste the message link into chat with yourself. Digging the full conversation is hard but possible. The history of all channels bridged to Matrix is saved in Matrix. Therefore it is possible to dig history in Matrix if you know the timestamp of the first message. Slack links encode the timestamp: https://decred.slack.com/archives/C5H9Z63AA/p1525528370000062 => 1525528370 => 2018-05-05 13:52:50.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
Your feedback is precious. You can post on GitHub, comment on Reddit or message us in #writers_room channel.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Richard-Red, snr01 and solar.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

I had like 3 friends ask me how to build a PC in the past week so I made this to help them.

(Reddit Edit: Help my improve the document with productive constructive comments on what I got wrong or messed up! Im only human lol
Also a lot of this is supposed to be kinda humorous. I didn't think I had to say that but, hey, its the internet.
I appreciate the positive and productive comments! )
Beginners basic guide to building your own PC as of early 2018
(EDIT: Sorry for being a MSI/Corsair Fanboy)
Heres a collection of thoughts to consider when building your own personal PC
As always Id personally use PCPartPicker.com to configure your parts and for further thoughts on compatibility.
First off building a computer is 100% based around what you plan to use the computer for.
Here are a few uses and generic ideas of what to go for. Audio Editing: Lots of small tasks that need to be completed quickly without lag. - Fast Processor( >4GHZ) - Fast RAM (MHZ) -At least 16 gigs! - Fast Storage, SSD manditorily - M.2 or PCI for best performance. - Shitty Graphics card, graphics card there only to keep the cpu from doing other tasks when working. - Can be a few generations or years old. - Many screens for lots of plug in windows to be open Video Editing: Lots of large to render and files to read. - Multi core processor the more the merrier - SSD for fast read/write of large video files. - Insane graphics card, AMD graphics cards are debatibly better but the nvidia Quadro series are specific for video rendering. Gaming: No more than 4 cores intense graphics card - 92% of games are not coded for more than 4 cores so why spend the extra money for it. - SSD for quick load screens - Nvidia cards, 10 series, the higher the number the better. Titan cards for MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE! Coding: quick processor for lots of small tasks. Ergonomic peripherials? - Dear god please dont use a mechanical keyboard so that your coworkers dont kill you. Home office: Everything can be a few gens behind so you can get the best power per dollar spent. - Sorry that Gateway doesnt exist anymore. I guess try Dell... 
Parts (Expensive Legos)
CPU (tells things to go places and outputs data) Basically three main routes to go for: Intel, AMD, or ASIC. Intel - Gaming, Data center, Hackintosh Pros: Cooler, Faster speed (GHZ), short small tasks faster Cons: $$$$, less cores AMD - Gaming, Personal Computing, Large task processing Pros: Lots of cores, better price per performance, faster processing of large tasks Cons: Hot chips, large chips?, compatibility issues with MacOS. ASIC - "Application-specific integrated circuit" Pros: Does the task that they are made to do insanely efficently, great for mining. Cons: Literally does nothing else. Holy hell these are expensive, very hot (fans will get loud) CPU Cooler (Im a big fan) Most come with an in box cooler that are ok but please buy aftermarket. In Box - the free shitty cooler that comes with the processor. Pros: Free. Cons: Ugly, makes chip run hot, hard to clean Air cooler - oldest type of cooler but new designs are highly efficent. Pros: Only cooler that has the possibility of being 100% quiet, most likely cheaper Cons: large, if cooler isnt large enough for the chips thermal output the fans will be loud. Liquid - Custom pipes are beautiful, AIO is easy to install and offers similare performance. Pros: Looks cool, great temperatures, "quiet" Cons: Water pump has possibility of being loud, possible spills Phase Change - uses the technology of refridgerators to cool the chip Pros: Can overclock until the chip breaks. (whats colder than cold? ICE COLD!) Cons: Loud (compressor noise), Large pipes, just why.... Motherboard (the convienacnce store of computer parts) Really just about what type of I/O you want. - MAKE SURE FORM FACTOR FITS YOUR CASE! (or vice versa) - Look for PCI lanes for expansion. - How many graphic cards do you have? - PCI based interfaces? - PCI SSD? - PCI DAC? - PCI WIFI? - USbs? Network? Audio? - How many lanes of RAM? - DOES IT FIT YOUR PROCESSOR!?! (really tho) - M.2? - How many sata interaces? Good Brands: MSI, ASUS, Gigabyte Bad Brands: AS(s)Rock, Dell Memory (Dory) - The more the merrier - No less than 8gb for a functional windows machine (16 gb to never have a problem) - Use all the lanes your computer has to offer! the more lanes to access the faster the data can travel! -Imagine drinking a milkshake. If the straw is wider you can drink more of the milkshake than a skinny straw. - Faster MHZ for faster data access but give minimal performance differances - Please get ram with heat spreadders unles youre building a server with high airflow. - Make sure the type (DDR3 or DDR4) of RAM matches what your processomotherboard call for. Good Brands: Corsair, G.Skill, Ballistix Storage (Grandpa that remembers everythign about how things used to be but takes forever to learn a new tasK) Speed or massive storage? slower is cheaper. Golden ratio of speed/storage/price is 250-500 gb SSD and a 1+ tb disk drive. *Max speeds listed are for a single drive not RAID* Hard Disk Drives (HDD) - Cheapest and slowest - read/write speeds of < 0.5gb/s - 7200+ RPM or GTFO - Higher Speed drives can access data faster. - Do not move while powered up. physical parts will break. - Larger Cahche = faster Read/Write Speeds Pros: Cheap, Holds massive amounts of data Cons: Slower than molasses in a frezer Reputible Brands: Seagate, WD Solid State Drives (SSD) - necessity for quick boots and fast load screens (can only be re-written to so many times) - SATA based (2.5 inch)- Read/Write speeds capped @ 6 gb/s Pros: Most economical, form factor fits with old computers, Cons: "Slow" compared to other ssd's (but stil 12 times faster than a HDD) - M.2 based - Read/Write speeds capped @ 10 gb/s Pros: Size of a sick of gum! High End but not too expensive to be out of reach. Cons: Expensive for any size over 500 gb - PCI based - Read/Write speeds capped @ 20 gb/s for PCI3, x4 Pros: HOLY BANDWIDTH BATMAN! Faster than that little creepy ghost thats always in the corner of you eye Cons: You might have to take out a loan to buy one. *takes up a x4 PCI Lane* Reputible Brands: Samsung! Corsair, Plextor, Intel, Kingston, Crucial Video Card (that one kid that has thick glasses and is really good at math) - A regular old PCI card that handles all of the video rendering and output for your computer. - ASIC PCI cards. - The PCBs and chips are patented by two main companies but the differances come from line up and varying manufacturer cooling devices. - The more memory the better -NVIDIA (Team Green) Great for gaming, has specific card series for intensive rendering. Lazy driver updates. - Gaming - 900 series - Cheap - Low performance - Can play any video game made befrore 2010 on max settings - 1000 (ten) series - Expensive (thanks bitcoin miners...) - Great for VR! - Video Rendering -Quadro Series - Gaming and Rendering - Titan X - Maxwell based chip same as 900 series cards - Titan XP - Pascal based chip same as 10 series cards -AMD (Team Red) Underdog does the same thing but slighly worse and cheaper. (except video rendering) - Gaming - RX 400 series - Cheap - Hot - RX 500 series - Cheap - Ok at VR and deacent gaming frame rates. - Not bad but not particularly great either. - Video Rendering - Fire Pro series - Gaming and Rendering - Vega series -Good luck finding one to buy lmao Case (Fancy clothing for your parts!) - Similar to human clothing you want it to do a few main things really well with compromises for each extreme. - Durability - Steel - Incredibly durable - Creates Farady cage for components - Heavy af - Magnets, just magnets.... - Rust over time - Aluminium - Light - East to bend for modding or "physical maintenance" - Less likely to rust - Huzzah for Farady cages! - Plastic - Just dont - no electrical Ground - no faraday cage - Light AF! - Breath (Airflow) - positive internal airflow! - larger fans push the same amount of air with less speed/noise - Looks - Window? - RGB - Cool Paint? - Fit all your parts - graphics card length/ clearacne - support for liquid cooling raiators? - How many spots for HDD/SSDs - Motherboard format - Cable management! Power Supply (FIGHT MILK) - Rule of thumb: BUy Powersupply that outputs 1.5 times the wattage that you need. - You can walk further than you can you can run. - The PSU can casually output 50-75% power for much longer than at 90-100% (without failure) - If you never demand enough wattage for it to get hot the fan doesnt have to turn on therefore making it quieter. - Modular means you can remove/replace the cables from the PSU. Reputible Brands: Corsair, EVGA Optical Drive (motorized cup holder) - You can download most things today so I'd suggest against it unless you really NEED to watch/write DVD's/CD's Operating System (software that makes everything work) Windows (Always Updates) - Compatible with just about everything - Easy to learn to code on! - POS inital browser - Likely to get virus's Linux (Penguins are cute) - Unique - takes less resources to run - Barebones - Incredibly personalizable! - Compatibility issues with just about everything MacOS (Linux but more annoying) - It is legal! - Great for art and your grandma that doenst know how to use computers! - User friendly - Compatibility issues with various hardware - Confusing/Limiting coding structure Peripherials (cables everywhere!) - Keyboard (higer Polling rate is better) - Mechanical (key is pressed at an exact stroke length every time - Mouse (Higher Polling rate is better) - more buttons = better? - DPI (Dots Per Inch) - In theory, if a mouse has 1600 DPI, then, if you move your mouse one inch (2.54 cm), the mouse cursor will move 1600 pixels - Higher DPI the faster your cursor is able to be moved. - Monitor - In theory the human eye cant see faster than 60 frames per second. - Keep in mind Pixel ratio! - 4k screen that is 22inches will have more pixels in a square inch than a 4k screen that is 28 inches. - Interface? - DVI (Analog) - thumbscrews..... - can do two monitors with one port! - support for 4k - VGA (Analog) - thumbscrews... - max resolution is 1440p - Display Port (digital) - nice button clip - supports 4k - HDMI (Digital) - 1.2 or higer supports 4k - DAC/Speakers/Headphones - Dont even get me started - Microphone - Dont get me started PT.2 Other (other) - UPS (uninterruptible power supply) Just a battery that allows your computer to have some time if the power ever goes out so that you have time to save your work. - Cable Organization materials! - Zipties - velcro - LED LIGHTING! - Manditory - Extra/Better fans - More pressure, less woosh - IFIXIT Pro Tech Toolkit - becasue who buys just one torx wrench. - Cute kitten mousepad - Yes, it has to be a cat. Dont argue 
This is a very general entry into building computers and what you should buy/look for. If you have any questions/comments send me an e-mail!
-Zac Holley-
submitted by Zac_Attack13 to pcmasterrace [link] [comments]

Luke-Jr is a seriously a super crazy person quotes gigathread.

Feel free to add your own, there is just so many. in no particular order:
slavery is still moral (unless prohibited by law, in which case it's the sin of disobedience).
http://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/44jj4y/i_went_to_catholic_schools_from_preschool_to_college.._now_i_have_0_feeling/czqwmje?context=3
If the intent is to simply prevent conception, even abstinence can be sinful within marriage.
http://www.reddit.com/TrueChristian/comments/45ypf9/question_about_contraceptionbirth_control/d01kbup?context=3
Masturbation, or any sexual pleasure not ordered toward procreation, is always a grave sin http://www.reddit.com/Christianity/comments/42guxq/is_having_remote_virtual_sex_a_sin_if_you_arent_married/czas8qq?context=3
if you argue that God is allowing the sin, so we shouldn't stop it: consider that it may very well also be God's will that we intervene. Perhaps He is allowing the attempted rape/murder to take place specifically to give you the opportunity to stop it. http://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/41b0kw/christians_is_it_sinful_to_stop_a_rape_or_murdecz2g9fj?context=3
The fact that the liberal mass media has deceived the secularists into thinking Francis is the pope of that Church is another matter
http://www.reddit.com/ChristianityMeta/comments/4080p6/uoutsider_just_added_a_new_batch_of_flaicyxy92d?context=3
As a general principle, it is moral for the State to execute criminals with due process, including heretics.
http://www.reddit.com/DebateReligion/comments/44jj4y/i_went_to_catholic_schools_from_preschool_to_college.._now_i_have_0_feeling/czrez0x?context=3
Logical impossibility. Marriage is by definition a relationship for reproduction, but gay relationships simply cannot do that. http://www.reddit.com/Christianity/comments/48avz0/informational_poll_-_tell_us_your_theology/d0noawh?context=3
By the way, the Sun really orbits the Earth, not vice-versa. http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?t=19038
[he also has been posting in the geocentrism reddit but then deleting his posts: http://www.reacttant.com/Geocentrism/comments/3vyc5u/the_principle_movie_anyone_seen_it ]
I am not aware of any evidence that /Bitcoin engages in censorship. https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/40avc5/hey_bitcoin_core_i_think_that_your_team_should/cyswi1y
04:25 luke-jr Bitcoin can very easily be banned.
04:26 luke-jr cjdelisle: if a law passes banning it, it is wrong
04:26 luke-jr nobody has a right to Bitcoin .
04:27 cjdelisle I know right from wrong and I don't need to consult the words of corrupt politicians and lawyers.
04:27 justmoon luke-jr: there are legal rights and natural rights. free speech is a natural right, so by that standard using bitcoin can never be morally wrong.
04:27 luke-jr "free speech" is not a right at all
04:28 luke-jr cjdelisle: disobedience is wrong .
04:28 cjdelisle luke-jr: how do you know?
04:28 luke-jr cjdelisle: the same way anyone can know morality: the Church teaches it .
04:29 lfm disobedience is absolutly required sometimes
04:30 luke-jr lfm: not the sin of disobedience, no.
04:30 midnightmagic civil disobedience is the duty of every citizen who lives under an unjust law
04:30 luke-jr midnightmagic: all laws are just by default
04:30 luke-jr an unjust law is one which contradicts a higher law.
04:30 luke-jr which banning Bitcoin does not.
04:30 midnightmagic the syrian people would disagree with you
04:31 luke-jr then they are wrong

https://gist.github.com/AgoristRadio/5803075

the State does have the authority, and in some cases the duty, to execute heretics.
https://gist.github.com/AgoristRadio/5803075
05:22 luke-jr lfm: protestantism is heresy
https://gist.github.com/AgoristRadio/5803075
05:19 luke-jr it is legitimate to punish by death, someone who openly declares the popes to not be infallible on matters of faith and morals
https://gist.github.com/AgoristRadio/5803075
Also a shady thing I didn't really remember he did:
Since Coiledcoin launched with merged mining, Luke Jr was able to use Eligius' combined hashing power to execute a 51% attack against the new block chain. Additionally, the Eligius-mined blocks contained no transactions, effectively slowing the function of the Coiledcoin network to a crawl.
Miners on Eligius suffered no monetary loss since merged mining does not affect the hashing power on the primary network and this is an excellent example of a pool operator performing merged mining without the consent of the miners.
Eligius miners were not consulted prior to the attack and it's been stated publicly by at least a few major players in Eligius' network that they do not approve of the attack. Eligius states that his major motivation was to prevent the damage caused by the pump-and-dump schemes that most of the alternate currencies typically represent - a large number of coins premined or mined by early adopters which get sold off rapidly, collapsing the altcoin's new economy and effectively destroying the project. He incorrectly referred to them as "pyramid schemes" though, in at least a few cases, he is probably correct as identifying some altcoins as "schemes" or "scams."
Even some miners (myself included) who agree with Luke Jr's assessment of the altcoin pump-and-dump scenarios disapprove of Eligius' actions since the attack happened without the consent of those actually responsible for it, even when such consent would likely have been given. There is, simply put, a great deal of resentment about not being asked or given any option.
That said, the effect seems to have been felt quite little by Eligius regardless of public opinion surrounding the fallout. At the time of the incident, Eligius was reporting combined hashrates of ~250GH/s and today is reporting hashrates upward of 440GH/s. However much this may have hurt public opinion, it certainly hasn't hurt business.
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3472/what-is-the-story-behind-the-attack-on-coiledcoin
There is just infinitely more. Feel free to continue where I'm leaving off. Does the bitcoin community realize how literally crazy this guy is?
submitted by Hodldown to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Could we please make a stronger attempt to bridge this divide in the community and get more insight into the thought processes of the Core Developers?

I'm making this post in what may be a futile attempt to bridge this ever widening gap in the Bitcoin community. This is mostly going to be from the perspective of a small-time investor, not a technical guy at all. I may not be the most qualified person to make this post, but I'd like to see more posts like this so that it may be possible for us to move past this current quagmire as a more unified community. I'm posting in this subreddit even under the fear that it may get removed because I want this to be seen by more than just the people that have been pushed out of this community.
Having said that, I think the first thing that we should acknowledge is that an extremely significant portion of the Bitcoin community HATE the core developers. I know that many don't care that this happens to be true, but this really should be cause for alarm. I'll spend most of this post addressing the reasons I think this is the case, then perhaps in the comments others can chime in, and we can hear from the Core developers as well.
I'd like to see more polls done within the community so that we can find a better sense of the thoughts of everybody. I'm not sure where the majority of support lies but I think we need to make a better effort to address the concerns of everybody, so that we can move forward as one, stronger unit. Every one of us have invested into Bitcoin in some way, and collectively, we are what make Bitcoin worth $414 dollars. If a significant portion of us get fed up and leave, we can expect price drop, which is bad for everybody. (Unless of course you have decided to short Bitcoin.) But the people that leave are probably not going to leave Crypto altogether. Personally, I've started putting more and more of my money into alt-coins that seem better equipped to fulfill the potential which Bitcoin may not be able to with the current development team. If enough of us decide that, it's possible that another coin could take over.
While this is unlikely, I think it's undeniably true that many have liquidated their Bitcoin holdings because this loss of faith in developers, and I think there are far more people that would like to invest, but think that Bitcoin is too risky with its current development team.
To that end, let's restore confidence in the current team by delving into their thought processes. I think everything unfortunately comes back to the blocksize debate. It's exhausting, but it needs to come to a conclusion if we want more people to invest in Bitcoin. And I think we all want as many people to invest in Bitcoin as possible.
  1. Core Developers don't seem to have any urgency to get this block size thing resolved. I think most people see this as the number one problem with bitcoin right now, and would like to see is all effort being put into a permanent solution before we see the developers work on less critical things. A lot of talk has been thrown around about a temporary, small increase to buy more time, but many want this blocksize issue to be in Bitcoin's rear-view mirror. The reason being that as long as this uncertainty exists, there are a lot of investors that simply won't get into bitcoin, and to foster the network effect, we need to get as many people in as soon as possible. We have a halving coming up shortly, which brings with it a potential price increase, and I for one would like to see how much it can go up if we don't have this blocksize cloud hanging over investors. So the question for Core Developers is, how much do you feel the same? How committed are you to putting out a permanent solution as quickly as is safe?(This, by the way, is why BIP101 is so appealing to so many people. It may not be the best solution, but it is A solution. One that has been tested, and can resolve this debate once and for all.)
  2. The Core Developers don't seem to be willing to compromise much. It's great that we had those scaling Bitcoin conferences, but what did we get out of them? When the major exchanges came out this summer in support of BIP101, the Core developers quickly issued a letter saying that they've heard our concerns, and asked us to wait until the Scaling Bitcoin conferences were over. Many were hoping for a clear path forward and a clear alternative to BIP101 upon the conclusion of the second one, but the second one has concluded and we do not have that. We have a lot of promising ideas, but nothing that would be an alternative to BIP101. (That is, something that would conclude this block size debate once and for all.) We don't even have a timeline or a plan for one. It seems to me that a golden opportunity was missed to compromise on BIP101. I didn't see anything come out of the conference that would last us more than a couple of years. BIP101 supporters want a clear path forward and they still do not have that from Core. So the questions is, how willing are you to compromise with the people that want BIP101? Would you be willing to compromise on a version of BIP101 that started at 4MB, or doubled slower?
  3. The Core developers aren't very good at communicating with their detractors. I think this is in part because they have little interest in communicating with people that don't understand the technical side of things. There is a sense that they see themselves above everybody else, and that they do not answer to the people that give their project value. Contrast this with the simple, thorough, and easy-to-understand, blog posts of Gavin and Mike. Gavin made a series of blog posts addressing every single one of Core developers concerns about raising the block size. As a casual investor, I really get the sense that he knows what he's talking about, and I trust him to lead us forward. The core developers didn't really do an adequate job explaining to us why that trust would be misplaced, and didn't adequately address his points about raising the block size. So the question is, will Core Developers make a better effort to communicate with us, and make us feel that our concerns are being heard? (This would of course include publicly denouncing the censorship which runs through some of the main Bitcoin channels, instead of pretending like it doesn't exist, or that it's not a problem.)
  4. It feels like core developers have framed the argument about raising the block size in a bad way. They have presented this as a matter of centralization vs. decentralization. Could you help us better understand why supporting BIP101 is necessarily synonymous with centralization, and why that would be a bad thing. It seems to me that the biggest concern is that if the block size gets too high, then it will be too cost prohibitive for an individual to run a full node, and it may lead to transactions not being broadcast because those transactions go against the interests of the small number of node operators that can afford to run them. (If I understand the argument correctly.) However, I'm not really too concerned about it. It seems that no matter how big Bitcoin gets, there will always be a significant number of early adopters that care about Bitcoin's decentralization, and will be able to afford to run a full node. This makes some sense, right? If we're maxing out 8GB blocks, it's difficult to imagine that bitcoin is going to continue to be worth $414 dollars. Most likely they will be worth tens of thousands of dollars, and given how much more affordable memory, disc space, and bandwidth are each and every year, I have a really hard time imagining a scenario where a full node would be so costly to operate that they there wouldn't still be plenty that are are willing to broadcast any valid transaction. So where am I wrong here? Why should I be more concerned about this than I am? (Also, when it comes to centralization, why is it okay for the future of Bitcoin to rely on Blockstream's ability to put out a functional Lightning network? If we had to rely on such a network to continue to make transactions affordably, wouldn't that be centralization as well?)
  5. It feels like the core developers are abandoning some of the potential that Bitcoin has to offer. When I was first looking into Bitcoin, I was told about all the potential the the blockchain could offer. This is one of the reasons I invested. We could use bitcoin for normal peer-to-peer financial transactions, but also micropayments, smart contracts, remittances, a distributed public ledger, colored coins, etc. It seems like if we want our currency to have the most possible value, shouldn't we try to do everything in our power to maximizes it's potential uses? Shouldn't we be inviting people to use our blockchain to use as they please instead of pushing them toward private blockchains? Do we still want Bitcoin to remain peer-to-peer? There seems to be a debate over whether Bitcoin should be merely a settlement layer. Can't it be both? Wouldn't it be more useful as both? Wouldn't that drive more people to invest?
This is getting long, and I know this isn't an exhaustive list of complaints, but I think it hits at the biggest ones. I also realize I may be showing my ignorance here as well, so please do correct any misunderstandings. I have a significant portion of my total wealth tied up in this currency, and I would like to be reassured that this remains a good investment with Core developers in charge. I believe that they do want what's best for Bitcoin, but their words and actions have been confusing, and fostering a greater divide in the community. It certainly feels like they aren't too concerned about Bitcoin as an investment for a lot of people, and I'd like to see that changed. Thank you for reading all this, and thank you for your thoughts and opinions. Lets keep this friendly, even if it ends up getting sorted by most controversial.
submitted by hotdogsafari to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Block size: Reminder of BIP-100, and a point about miner voting

If you have an interest in the block size debate and haven't read Jeff Garzik's BIP-100 yet, you should. Besides having what I consider the best proposal so far, the introductory pages provide a thorough background on the block size issue (in plain English).
The summary of his proposal (from the text):
1. Hard fork, to 2. Remove static 1MB block size limit. 3. *Simultaneously*, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB. 4. The historical 32MB limit remains. 5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015. 6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016. 7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks. 8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step. 9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen. 
The benefits should be obvious (also from the text):
G1: Demonstrates change is possible; the bitcoin protocol can be upgraded. G2: Eliminate 1MB limit as impediment to adoption. G3: Get hard fork risk out of the way early. G4: KISS solution, in terms of code changes. G5: Upgrade path, yet constrained until problem & solution better understood. 
G3 is really important because it separates the hard fork from any potential block size change by at least 3 months, thereby greatly reducing any chance of split chains forming.
The main objection in the original post and a follow up was that the voting was done by miners. As Jeff notes in the proposal, voting by miners is the "lesser of the evils" because there is no way currently to reliably poll full nodes or other stakeholders for their votes. Also as noted by Jeff in a comment, full nodes do vote for adopting this system, and need to vote again in the future to raise the block size above 32MB.
More importantly though, most objections seems to equate the concept of miners that vote with the current generation of miners, i.e. mining farms and pools that operate to generate a profit from mining. The concern is that these miners will vote for block sizes that benefit their economic interests, for example keeping the block size small to reduce orphans. What this analysis misses is that fact that once the block size is determined by miners' votes, there will suddenly be an economic incentive for many stakeholders who are not currently mining, to start mining. Payment processors, exchanges, smart contracts providers, vault services, wallet makers, early adopters and others will all be motivated to participate in mining in order to influence the block size.
Aside from actually mining themselves, it would seem natural for a market for votes to form. Rather than mining themselves, interested parties would pay miners to vote for their preferred block size. I could imagine this becoming a standardized bounty system, whereby interested parties post bounties for votes and miners would decide what to vote for based on the bounties offered. Although a trusted marketplace would likely suffice, there may even by a way to cryptographically guarantee that the bounty payments will be paid to the miner in exchange for their vote.
And just like p2pool was created to push back against the trend of centralized mining, it would be natural for it to be extended to allow for pool users to vote for their preferred block size as well.
So in summary, I believe that "voting by miners" should be seen as "voting by everyone" and should not serve as an objection to BIP-100 adoption.
submitted by ts43lr2g to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I had like 3 friends ask me how to build a PC in the past week so I made this to help them. Feel free to use or send me an e-mail if you want the txt file

(Reddit Edit: Help my improve the document with productive comments on what I got wrong or messed up! Im only human lol
Also a lot of this is supposed to be kinda humorous. I didn't think I had to say that but, hey, its the internet.
I appreciate the positive and productive comments! )
Beginners basic guide to building your own PC as of early 2018
(EDIT: Sorry for being a MSI/Corsair Fanboy)
Heres a collection of thoughts to consider when building your own personal PC
As always Id personally use PCPartPicker.com to configure your parts and for further thoughts on compatibility.
First off building a computer is 100% based around what you plan to use the computer for.
Here are a few uses and generic ideas of what to go for. Audio Editing: Lots of small tasks that need to be completed quickly without lag. - Fast Processor( >4GHZ) - Fast RAM (MHZ) -At least 16 gigs! - Fast Storage, SSD manditorily - M.2 or PCI for best performance. - Shitty Graphics card, graphics card there only to keep the cpu from doing other tasks when working. - Can be a few generations or years old. - Many screens for lots of plug in windows to be open Video Editing: Lots of large to render and files to read. - Multi core processor the more the merrier - SSD for fast read/write of large video files. - Insane graphics card, AMD graphics cards are debatibly better but the nvidia Quadro series are specific for video rendering. Gaming: No more than 4 cores intense graphics card - 92% of games are not coded for more than 4 cores so why spend the extra money for it. - SSD for quick load screens - Nvidia cards, 10 series, the higher the number the better. Titan cards for MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE! Coding: quick processor for lots of small tasks. Ergonomic peripherials? - Dear god please dont use a mechanical keyboard so that your coworkers dont kill you. Home office: Everything can be a few gens behind so you can get the best power per dollar spent. - Sorry that Gateway doesnt exist anymore. I guess try Dell... 
Parts (Expensive Legos)
CPU (tells things to go places and outputs data) Basically three main routes to go for: Intel, AMD, or ASIC. Intel - Gaming, Data center, Hackintosh Pros: Cooler, Faster speed (GHZ), short small tasks faster Cons: $$$$, less cores AMD - Gaming, Personal Computing, Large task processing Pros: Lots of cores, better price per performance, faster processing of large tasks Cons: Hot chips, large chips?, compatibility issues with MacOS. ASIC - "Application-specific integrated circuit" Pros: Does the task that they are made to do insanely efficently, great for mining. Cons: Literally does nothing else. Holy hell these are expensive, very hot (fans will get loud) CPU Cooler (Im a big fan) Most come with an in box cooler that are ok but please buy aftermarket. In Box - the free shitty cooler that comes with the processor. Pros: Free. Cons: Ugly, makes chip run hot, hard to clean Air cooler - oldest type of cooler but new designs are highly efficent. Pros: Only cooler that has the possibility of being 100% quiet, most likely cheaper Cons: large, if cooler isnt large enough for the chips thermal output the fans will be loud. Liquid - Custom pipes are beautiful, AIO is easy to install and offers similare performance. Pros: Looks cool, great temperatures, "quiet" Cons: Water pump has possibility of being loud, possible spills Phase Change - uses the technology of refridgerators to cool the chip Pros: Can overclock until the chip breaks. (whats colder than cold? ICE COLD!) Cons: Loud (compressor noise), Large pipes, just why.... Motherboard (the convienacnce store of computer parts) Really just about what type of I/O you want. - MAKE SURE FORM FACTOR FITS YOUR CASE! (or vice versa) - Look for PCI lanes for expansion. - How many graphic cards do you have? - PCI based interfaces? - PCI SSD? - PCI DAC? - PCI WIFI? - USbs? Network? Audio? - How many lanes of RAM? - DOES IT FIT YOUR PROCESSOR!?! (really tho) - M.2? - How many sata interaces? Good Brands: MSI, ASUS, Gigabyte Bad Brands: AS(s)Rock, Dell Memory (Dory) - The more the merrier - No less than 8gb for a functional windows machine (16 gb to never have a problem) - Use all the lanes your computer has to offer! the more lanes to access the faster the data can travel! -Imagine drinking a milkshake. If the straw is wider you can drink more of the milkshake than a skinny straw. - Faster MHZ for faster data access but give minimal performance differances - Please get ram with heat spreadders unles youre building a server with high airflow. - Make sure the type (DDR3 or DDR4) of RAM matches what your processomotherboard call for. Good Brands: Corsair, G.Skill, Ballistix Storage (Grandpa that remembers everythign about how things used to be but takes forever to learn a new tasK) Speed or massive storage? slower is cheaper. Golden ratio of speed/storage/price is 250-500 gb SSD and a 1+ tb disk drive. *Max speeds listed are for a single drive not RAID* Hard Disk Drives (HDD) - Cheapest and slowest - read/write speeds of < 0.5gb/s - 7200+ RPM or GTFO - Higher Speed drives can access data faster. - Do not move while powered up. physical parts will break. - Larger Cahche = faster Read/Write Speeds Pros: Cheap, Holds massive amounts of data Cons: Slower than molasses in a frezer Reputible Brands: Seagate, WD Solid State Drives (SSD) - necessity for quick boots and fast load screens (can only be re-written to so many times) - SATA based (2.5 inch)- Read/Write speeds capped @ 6 gb/s Pros: Most economical, form factor fits with old computers, Cons: "Slow" compared to other ssd's (but stil 12 times faster than a HDD) - M.2 based - Read/Write speeds capped @ 10 gb/s Pros: Size of a sick of gum! High End but not too expensive to be out of reach. Cons: Expensive for any size over 500 gb - PCI based - Read/Write speeds capped @ 20 gb/s for PCI3, x4 Pros: HOLY BANDWIDTH BATMAN! Faster than that little creepy ghost thats always in the corner of you eye Cons: You might have to take out a loan to buy one. *takes up a x4 PCI Lane* Reputible Brands: Samsung! Corsair, Plextor, Intel, Kingston, Crucial Video Card (that one kid that has thick glasses and is really good at math) - A regular old PCI card that handles all of the video rendering and output for your computer. - ASIC PCI cards. - The PCBs and chips are patented by two main companies but the differances come from line up and varying manufacturer cooling devices. - The more memory the better -NVIDIA (Team Green) Great for gaming, has specific card series for intensive rendering. Lazy driver updates. - Gaming - 900 series - Cheap - Low performance - Can play any video game made befrore 2010 on max settings - 1000 (ten) series - Expensive (thanks bitcoin miners...) - Great for VR! - Video Rendering -Quadro Series - Gaming and Rendering - Titan X - Maxwell based chip same as 900 series cards - Titan XP - Pascal based chip same as 10 series cards -AMD (Team Red) Underdog does the same thing but slighly worse and cheaper. (except video rendering) - Gaming - RX 400 series - Cheap - Hot - RX 500 series - Cheap - Ok at VR and deacent gaming frame rates. - Not bad but not particularly great either. - Video Rendering - Fire Pro series - Gaming and Rendering - Vega series -Good luck finding one to buy lmao Case (Fancy clothing for your parts!) - Similar to human clothing you want it to do a few main things really well with compromises for each extreme. - Durability - Steel - Incredibly durable - Creates Farady cage for components - Heavy af - Magnets, just magnets.... - Rust over time - Aluminium - Light - East to bend for modding or "physical maintenance" - Less likely to rust - Huzzah for Farady cages! - Plastic - Just dont - no electrical Ground - no faraday cage - Light AF! - Breath (Airflow) - positive internal airflow! - larger fans push the same amount of air with less speed/noise - Looks - Window? - RGB - Cool Paint? - Fit all your parts - graphics card length/ clearacne - support for liquid cooling raiators? - How many spots for HDD/SSDs - Motherboard format - Cable management! Power Supply (FIGHT MILK) - Rule of thumb: BUy Powersupply that outputs 1.5 times the wattage that you need. - You can walk further than you can you can run. - The PSU can casually output 50-75% power for much longer than at 90-100% (without failure) - If you never demand enough wattage for it to get hot the fan doesnt have to turn on therefore making it quieter. - Modular means you can remove/replace the cables from the PSU. Reputible Brands: Corsair, EVGA Optical Drive (motorized cup holder) - You can download most things today so I'd suggest against it unless you really NEED to watch/write DVD's/CD's Operating System (software that makes everything work) Windows (Always Updates) - Compatible with just about everything - Easy to learn to code on! - POS inital browser - Likely to get virus's Linux (Penguins are cute) - Unique - takes less resources to run - Barebones - Incredibly personalizable! - Compatibility issues with just about everything MacOS (Linux but more annoying) - It is legal! - Great for art and your grandma that doenst know how to use computers! - User friendly - Compatibility issues with various hardware - Confusing/Limiting coding structure Peripherials (cables everywhere!) - Keyboard (higer Polling rate is better) - Mechanical (key is pressed at an exact stroke length every time - Mouse (Higher Polling rate is better) - more buttons = better? - DPI (Dots Per Inch) - In theory, if a mouse has 1600 DPI, then, if you move your mouse one inch (2.54 cm), the mouse cursor will move 1600 pixels - Higher DPI the faster your cursor is able to be moved. - Monitor - In theory the human eye cant see faster than 60 frames per second. - Keep in mind Pixel ratio! - 4k screen that is 22inches will have more pixels in a square inch than a 4k screen that is 28 inches. - Interface? - DVI (Analog) - thumbscrews..... - can do two monitors with one port! - support for 4k - VGA (Analog) - thumbscrews... - max resolution is 1440p - Display Port (digital) - nice button clip - supports 4k - HDMI (Digital) - 1.2 or higer supports 4k - DAC/Speakers/Headphones - Dont even get me started - Microphone - Dont get me started PT.2 Other (other) - UPS (uninterruptible power supply) Just a battery that allows your computer to have some time if the power ever goes out so that you have time to save your work. - Cable Organization materials! - Zipties - velcro - LED LIGHTING! - Manditory - Extra/Better fans - More pressure, less woosh - IFIXIT Pro Tech Toolkit - becasue who buys just one torx wrench. - Cute kitten mousepad - Yes, it has to be a cat. Dont argue 
This is a very general entry into building computers and what you should buy/look for. If you have any questions/comments send me an e-mail!
-Zac Holley-
submitted by Zac_Attack13 to buildapc [link] [comments]

Let's Talk Crypto - The Great Crypto Debate: Is BitCoin ... Coin Rivet Debate: Journalism Debates - YouTube The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Peter Schiff Argues w/ Bitcoin Activists in Heated Debate ...

Debate.org is a dynamic social community where you can voice your opinion on today’s hottest issues. Bitcoin prices may continue to track higher on the back of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s lead in the polls and rising inflation expectations. The polls do not directly aggregate electoral votes. These are polls that can be participated in by anyone, regardless of capability to vote. Aside from general polls, political analysts and the media provides their opinions as to the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates during the debate. Das Bitcoinblog wird von Bitcoin.de gesponsort, ist inhaltlich aber unabhängig und gibt die Meinung des Redakteurs Christoph Bergmann wieder. Christoph hat vor kurzem ein Buch geschrieben: Bitcoin: Die verrückte Geschichte vom Aufstieg eines neuen Geldes.Das Buch stellt Bitcoin in seiner ganzen Pracht dar. Ihr könnt es direkt auf der Webseite Bitcoin-Buch.org bestellen - natürlich auch mit ... Clay: Let’s shift to chapter three, which is Kraken’s report entitled Inheriting [00:36:00] USDs & Acquiring BTCs: How “The Great Wealth Transfer” Will Fuel “The Great Bitcoin Adoption.” I looked at the report and read it. It’s fascinating. It reminds me a little bit of the report that got me to actually buy a Bitcoin back in the ...

[index] [22163] [16847] [15626] [1066] [33804] [15229] [5885] [27413] [11606] [30126]

Let's Talk Crypto - The Great Crypto Debate: Is BitCoin ...

Everyone on the internet wants to be paid for creating content. But is creating your own currency the right way to reward them? Tonight we discuss https://st... Subscribe to our newsletter at . Episode 121: Doug Casey of Casey Research (/) debates e-money researcher (themonetaryfuture.blogspot.co.uk/) and "crypto economist" Jon Matonis on the virtues ... The Gold Vs. BTC (or Crypto for that matter) has existed since the inception of BTC in 2009. Ever since it has been an either or argument for many in both communities, including myself. Only ... Peter Schiff debates bitcoin bubble, bitcash, Litecoin, Ether, gold, dollar, market, blockchain, satoshi, crypto and cryptocurrency on The Heat December 19th... He also points out that -- unlike gold -- physical confiscation of Bitcoin, a la FDR in 1933, is for obvious reasons impossible. This podcast was recorded on 11 April 2013. Loading...

#