Litecoin Cash (LCC) is a fork of Litecoin itself utilizing an SHA-256 hashing algorithm. While the initial goal was to focus on bringing back SHA-256, along the way we created "Hive Mining," an agent-based system allowing everyday users to participate in securing and hashing the network to earn real LCC rewards. Be sure to visit our website @ https://litecoinca.sh for more information and join us on DISCORD to speak with the team and get free LCC rains just for chatting and being active!
3 x 256 day or 2.11 years of 256 day candles closing with the same price as resistance. September 13th We made that price support. Did you do you duty and buy Bitcoin to celebrate 256 sha encryption on September 13th?
3 x 256 day or 2.11 years of 256 day candles closing with the same price as resistance. September 13th We made that price support. Did you do you duty and buy Bitcoin to celebrate 256 sha encryption on September 13th? (x-post from /r/Cryptocurrency)
5 things hardly anyone knows about the BMP project
1. The BMP is the most secure public voting system ever build.
Because all BMP actions are weighted by hashpower and is the first system capable of adding all the Bitcoin SHA-256 hashpower (BTC+BCH+BSV) at the same time. Then, BMP computes more hashpower than BTC or any other crypto.
2. BMP is a legitimately and neutral place.
Open-source, free, politically neutral, hashpower calculation is fair and accurate, each miner or pool can use it independently, without permission. Fully compatible with the whitepaper vision, specifically the last two sentences.
3. BMP is decentralized and indestructible as Bitcoin blockchain.
100% on-chain. It is designed to be deployed on multiple independent servers, and will display the same information at all times. No dependencies, except Bitcoin clients.
4. Votes can be modified while the voting is open.
You can vote more than once, the BMP only computes the last vote for each miner. This allows for discovering consensus, thinking, negotiating and rectifying. Because we learn in the process.
5. Miners can delegate % of hashpower in any address.
With power_by_opreturn coinbase signaling, any solo-miner or pool can delegate arbitrary percentages of his hashpower in any address. And without interfering with mining operations. This allows for the participation of the entire community: mining partners/associates, small miners, pool miners, developers, researchers, operators, communicators and other key professionals (if miners want). In this way, the BMP is an indestructible pressure cooker, containing controversies, without split, by voting with hashpower, stably, as whitepaper says, legitimately, ad-infinitum. And this is just the minimum viable beta. If you look the BMP protocol you will see that it is a powerful base system ready for building a next-level organization, as never seen before.
BMP: a new hashpower voting system for Bitcoin global adoption
BMP is a voting system, completely on-chain, verifiable, replicable and driven by hashpower. A robust and expandable base system. Merging all Bitcoin SHA-256 hashpower. Expanding the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto whitepaper. https://bmp.virtualpol.com Features:
3 facts proving NSA/US Fed created Bitcoin. Challenge the 3 facts, I dare you.
We are often way too focused on the price of Bitcoin, to question Bitcoin’s origin. Yet the facts are right under the spot light, how 1 million of Bitcoin is kept in reserve, how SHA 256 is a baby of NSA, and how it takes less than $20 billion to crack Bitcoin yet the US Gov has done nothing 10 years after the invention of Bitcoin. FACT 1: "Satoshi" kept 1,000,000 Bitcoins for "himself". Satoshi is NOT a kind benevolent saviour who invented Bitcoin to save the world. Satoshi invented Bitcoin and kept 1,000,000 Bitcoin for himself, in hope one day when Bitcoin becomes the single world currency he/his organisation will at least own 5% of Bitcoin, aka 5% of global purchasing power, at least. The Fiat System is collapsing. If we crypto/bitcoin enthusiasts on the Reddit forum can see it, of course the guys at the top of the pyramid can see it, and they saw it long before we did. They did something about it, they invented Bitcoin. And yes, it would take more than one computer nerd to come up with Bitcoin. It would have involved many years of work in complete secrecy by many number of experts with a lot of computing power. Which organisation fits the bill besides NSA? And yes they kept 1,000,000 Bitcoin. FACT 2: Bitcoin's Sha 256 is a subset of cryptographic hash functions designed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA). SHA-2 (Secure Hash Algorithm 2) is a set of cryptographic hash functions designed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA). The SHA-2 family consists of six hash functions with digests (hash values) that are 224, 256, 384 or 512 bits: SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, SHA-512/224, SHA-512/256. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2 BOOM! Yes people, NSA actually came up with the backbone of Bitcoin. It is right under the spotlight. Who else, besides from NSA, could have taken NSA tech and use it to create Bitcoin? FACT 3: If the Fed/NSA/US Government really wanted to destroy Bitcoin, they could have and would have done a 51% attack already, it is dirt cheap. But no, instead they sent a hairless patsy like Brad Sherman to whine about it in public. Do you really think Sherman is the US government's best shot against Bitcoin? To launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin, it only takes $8.4 billion USD in hardware, and a day run rate of $5 million USD to do so. https://gobitcoin.io/tools/cost-51-attack/ To put things into perspective, the Fed just sold $27 billion USD worth of US Treasuries on 8th of May. Apple's market value is $859 billion USD. Yes NSA/Fed/US Government could easily break Bitcoin if they wanted to. Once again. the 3 facts: FACT 1: "Satoshi" kept 1,000,000 Bitcoins for "himself". FACT 2: Bitcoin's Sha 256 is a subset of cryptographic hash functions designed by NSA FACT 3: If the Fed/NSA/US Government really wanted to destroy Bitcoin, they could have and would have done a 51% attack already, it is dirt cheap for the US government to do so. Conclusion: Yes Bitcoin is designed by the NSA/Fed/US Gov. That is absolutely fine because if anything it is actually sign that Bitcoin will actually flourish, given the implicit government backing Bitcoin has. They pulled it off with Fiat Money for 80 years. They realised the fiat game is ending. They started a new game - Bitcoin!
It's easy to compare blockchain hashrates when the Proof-of-Work algorithm is the same. For example if Bitcoin has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s and Bitcoin Cash has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 2 PH/s, it's easy to see that for a given period of time the Bitcoin blockchain will have 20x (40/2) the amount of work securing it than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. Or to say that differently, you need to wait for 20x more Bitcoin Cash confirmations before an equivalent amount of work has been done compared to the Bitcoin blockchain. So 6 Bitcoin confirmations would be roughly equivalent to 120 Bitcoin Cash confirmations in the amount of work done. However if the Proof-of-Work algorithms are different, how can we compare the hashrate? If we're comparing Bitcoin (SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s) against Litecoin (Scrypt @ 300 TH/s), the hashes aren't equal, one round of SHA-256 is not equivalent to one round of Scrypt. What we really want to know is how much energy is being consumed to provide the current hash rate. Literal energy, as in joules or kilowatt hours. It would be great if we had a universal metric across blockchains like kWh/s to measure immutability. However that's fairly hard to calculate, we need to know the average power consumption of the average device used to mine. For GPU/CPU mined Proof-of-Work algorithms this varies greatly. For ASIC mined Proof-of-Work algorithms it varies less, however it's likely that ASIC manufacturers are mining with next generation hardware long before the public is made aware of them, which we can't account for. There's no automated way to get this data and no reliable data source to scrape it from. We'd need to manually research all mining hardware and collate the data ourself. And as soon as newer mining hardware comes out our results will be outdated. Is there a simpler way to get an estimated amount of work per blockchain in a single metric we can use for comparisons? Yeah, there is, we can use NiceHash prices to estimate the cost in $ to secure a blockchain for a given timeframe. This is directly comparable across blockchains and should be directly proportionate to kWh/s, because after all, the energy needs to be paid for in $. How can we estimate this?
Get the blockchains Proof-of-Work algorithm
Lookup the average price per hash on NiceHash for this algorithm
Multiply price per hash by total hashrate per second
Now we have an estimated total Proof-of-Work metric measured in dollars per second ($/s). The $/s metric may not be that accurate. Miners will mark up the cost when reselling on NiceHash and we're making the assumption that NiceHash supply is infinite. You can't actually rent 100% of Bitcoin's hashpower from NiceHash, there isn't enough supply. However that's not really an issue for this metric, we aren't trying to calculate the theoretical cost to rent an additional 100% of the hashrate, we're trying to get a figure that allows us to compare the cost of the current total hashrate accross blockchains. Even if the exact $ value we end up with is not that accurate, it should still be proportionate to kWh/s. This means it's still an accurate metric to compare the difference in work done over a given amount of time between blockchains. So how do we compare these values between blockchains? Once we've done the above calculations and got a $/s cost for each blockchain, we just need to factor in the average block time and calculate the total $ cost for a given number of confirmations. Then see how much time is required on the other blockchain at it's $/s value to equal the total cost. So to calculate how many Litecoin confirmations are equivalent to 6 Bitcoin confirmations we would do:
Bitcoin (SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s) or ($100/s)
Litecoin (Scrypt @ 300 TH/s) or ($10/s)
Bitcoin's average block time is 10 minutes (600 seconds)
6 Bitcoin confirmations on average is 60 minutes (3,600 seconds)
Bitcoin's total $ cost for 6 confirmations is ($100 * 3,600 seconds) $360,000
At Litecoin's hashrate of $10/s it would take ($360,000 / $10) 36,000 seconds (10 hours) to complete an equivalent amount of work
Litecoin's average block time is 2.5 minutes (150 seconds)
The amount of Litecoin blocks expected over this period of time is (36,000 seconds / 150 seconds) 240 blocks.
Therefore we can say that 240 Litecoin confirmations are roughly equal to 6 Bitcoin confirmations in total amount of work done.
$/s doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.
The $/s values should not be taken as literal costs. For example:
Bitcoin's total $ cost for 6 confirmations is ($100 * 3,600 seconds) $360,000
This is does not mean you could do a 51% attack on Bitcoin and roll back 6 blocks for a cost of $360,000. An attack like that would be much more expensive. The $/s value is a metric to compare the amount of work at the current hashrate between blockchains. It is not the same as the cost to add hashrate to the network. When adding hashrate to a network the cost will not scale linearly with hashrate. It will jump suddenly at certain intervals. For example, once you've used up the available hashrate on NiceHash you need to add the costs of purchasing ASICs, then once you've bought all the ASICs in the world, you'd need to add the costs of fabricating your own chips to keep increasing hashrate.
These metrics are measuring "work done", not security.
More "work done" doesn't necessarily mean "more security". For example take the following two blockchains:
Bitcoin Cash (SHA-256 @ 2 PH/s) or ($5/s)
Zcash (Equihash @ 4 GH/s) or ($3/s)
Bitcoin Cash has a higher $/s value than Zcash so we can deduce it has more "work done" over a given timeframe than Zcash. More kWh/s are required to secure it's blockchain. However does that really mean it's safer? Zcash is the dominant blockchain for it's Proof-of-Work algorithm (Equihash). Whereas Bitcoin Cash isn't, it uses the same algorithm as Bitcoin. In fact just 5% of Bitcoin's hashrate is equivalent to all of Bitcoin Cash's hashrate. This means the cost of a 51% attack against Bitcoin Cash could actually be much lower than a 51% attack against Zcash, even though you need to aquire more kWh/s of work, the cost to aquire those kWh/s will likely be lower. To attack Bitcoin Cash you don't need to acquire any hardware, you just need to convince 5% of the Bitcoin hashrate to lend their SHA-256 hashpower to you. To attack Zcash, you would likely need to fabricate your own Equihash ASICs, as almost all the Equihash mining hardware in the world is already securing Zcash.
Accurately calculating security is much more complicated.
These metrics give a good estimated value to compare the hashrate accross different Proof-of-Work blockchains. However to calculate if a payment can be considered "finalised" involves many more variables. You should factor in:
Is this cryptocurrency the dominant cryptocurrency for it's Proof-of-Work algorithm?
What is the market cap of this cryptocurrency?
What is the daily trading volume of this cryptocurrency?
What is the $ value of this transaction?
If the cryptocurrency doesn't dominate the Proof-of-Work it can be attacked more cheaply. If the market cap or trading volume is really low, an attacker may crash the price of the currency before they can successfully double spend it and make a profit. Although that's more relevant in the context of exchanges rather than individuals accepting payments. If the value of the transaction is low enough, it may cost more to double spend than an attacker would profit from the double spend. Ultimately, once the cost of a double spend becomes higher than an attacker can expect to profit from the double spend, that is when a payment can probably be considered "finalised".
3 facts proving Bitcoin was created by NSA/US Gov. Challenge these 3 facts, I dare you.
We are often way too focused on the price of Bitcoin, to question Bitcoin’s origin. Yet the facts are right under the spot light, how 1 million of Bitcoin is kept in reserve, how SHA 256 is a baby of NSA, and how it takes less than $20 billion to crack Bitcoin yet the US Gov has done nothing 10 years after the invention of Bitcoin. FACT 1: "Satoshi" kept 1,000,000 Bitcoins for "himself". Satoshi is NOT a kind benevolent saviour who invented Bitcoin to save the world. Satoshi invented Bitcoin and kept 1,000,000 Bitcoin for himself, in hope one day when Bitcoin becomes the single world currency he/his organisation will at least own 5% of Bitcoin, aka 5% of global purchasing power, at least. The Fiat System is collapsing. If we crypto/bitcoin enthusiasts on the Reddit forum can see it, of course the guys at the top of the pyramid can see it, and they saw it long before we did. They did something about it, they invented Bitcoin. And yes, it would take more than one computer nerd to come up with Bitcoin. It would have involved many years of work in complete secrecy by many number of experts with a lot of computing power. Which organisation fits the bill besides NSA? And yes they kept 1,000,000 Bitcoin. FACT 2: Bitcoin's Sha 256 is a subset of cryptographic hash functions designed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA). SHA-2 (Secure Hash Algorithm 2) is a set of cryptographic hash functions designed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA). The SHA-2 family consists of six hash functions with digests (hash values) that are 224, 256, 384 or 512 bits: SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, SHA-512/224, SHA-512/256. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2 BOOM! Yes people, NSA actually came up with the backbone of Bitcoin. It is right under the spotlight. Who else, besides from NSA, could have taken NSA tech and use it to create Bitcoin? FACT 3: If the Fed/NSA/US Government really wanted to destroy Bitcoin, they could have and would have done a 51% attack already, it is dirt cheap. But no, instead they sent a hairless patsy like Brad Sherman to whine about it in public. Do you really think Sherman is the US government's best shot against Bitcoin? To launch a 51% attack on Bitcoin, it only takes $8.4 billion USD in hardware, and a day run rate of $5 million USD to do so. https://gobitcoin.io/tools/cost-51-attack/ To put things into perspective, the Fed just sold $27 billion USD worth of US Treasuries on 8th of May. Apple's market value is $859 billion USD. Yes NSA/Fed/US Government could easily break Bitcoin if they wanted to. Once again. the 3 facts: FACT 1: "Satoshi" kept 1,000,000 Bitcoins for "himself". FACT 2: Bitcoin's Sha 256 is a subset of cryptographic hash functions designed by NSA FACT 3: If the Fed/NSA/US Government really wanted to destroy Bitcoin, they could have and would have done a 51% attack already, it is dirt cheap. Conclusion: Yes Bitcoin is designed by the NSA/Fed/US Gov. That is absolutely fine because if anything it is actually sign that Bitcoin will actually flourish, given the implicit government backing Bitcoin has. They pulled it off with Fiat Money for 80 years. They realised the fiat game is ending. They started a new game - Bitcoin!
https://preview.redd.it/kcue5nbw87o21.png?width=1125&format=png&auto=webp&s=416794e0b481a686d9ae23f8e5c687c63725382e "Quantum computing and blockchain are somewhat competing with each other because a lot of crypto encoding algorithms could be broken by quantum." Shoucheng Zhang (1963-2018), Chinese-American physicist, Stanford University It is being said that, within a decade from now, quantum computers will be able to break the cryptographic codes of most blockchains ?this could include users' precious private keys of their blockchain wallet addresses. When this will happen, most blockchain technology and all cryptocurrencies could instantly become obsolete. Rumor has it that this is one critical reason why Bitcoin, Ethereum, and most other cryptocurrency's prices are not quite recovering despite of several positive forecasts and predictions regarding their future. It is also believed that some large crypto traders who are aware of the existence and public release of commercial quantum computers are not getting the answers and assurance that they need. The concern of quantum computers breaking the cryptographic codes of a blockchain is being said to be being neglected by major crypto influencers and personalities or they are simply just dumb on the topic. The following are some of the basic information EtherFlyer gathered so far about quantum computers and it's part on blockchain technology. On the 8th of January, 2019, IBM unveiled its first commercial quantum computer ?the Q System One. Luckily, it is not that powerful enough to break the traditional blockchain's cryptographic codes. However, the reality that quantum computers now exist and are commercially available can not be neglected anymore. Moreso, the competition from different computer companies to build more powerful quantum computers is on. The time that a powerful variant of quantum computers capable of breaking cryptographic codes is imminent. Bitcoin and Ethereum is relatively safe ?for now. Even the current Google's Britestone 72-qubit quantum computer cannot break the Bitcoin's SHA-256 algorithm yet. However, as quantum computers develop rapidly with the support of both private and public sectors, it is just a matter of time that SHA-256 algorithm can be broken. Even updating a current blockchain's algorith from SHA-256 to SHA-512 (or any other hashing algorithm) will just be nothing but "band-aid" solutions. No details about the vulnerability of Keccak-256 and Keccak-512 (which are Ethereum's cryptographic algoriths) against powerful quantum attacks are available online yet. There are no official press or article releases from both major cryptocurrencies on how will they deal with the threat of quantum computers to their blockchain. No articles or research online conclusively states that Bitcoin, Ethereum, as well as most other cryptocurrencies with their own independent blockchains are 100% quantum resistant already. Most are nothing but speculative proposals without actual conclusive implementations. With this, crypto traders who are aware of quantum computers could remain doubtful. They could be less willing to take risks in initiating a bullish run for any cryptocurrencies simply because they don't have security assurance yet. Eventhough there is a lack of official public statements regarding the issue, the crypto community 's demand for solutions are continuously being raised. Furthermore, as aforesaid, the blockchain development community still have time to come up with something that could ease everyone's worries ?a decade more or less. EtherFlyer truly believes it is just a matter of time that an assuring working solution will be released by blockchain developers. The blockchain is an ever evolving technology and comes along with this evolution will be enhancements and developments. We guarantee to all of our users that, as a decentralized exchange with its core utilizing the Ethereum blockchain technology, EtherFlyer will evolve along with the blockchain. We had, have been, and will always be putting our trust in the Ethereum blockchain ?we are encouraging everyone to have peace of mind and dedicate the same level of trust to the technology that we all love and admire. "Generative adversarial networks...they (quantum computing and blockchain) can actually reach two progress by competing with each other." Shoucheng Zhang (1963-2018), Chinese-American physicist, Stanford University
https://gist.github.com/anonymous/8ad2001a8a3a824afeb862ad2bc54300 Just for fun this is a contract that grants ownership of all of the funds it contains to the first person to submit a solution to a 3 by 3 magic square consisting of only numbers that are the square of integers with no repeats. This contract is not deployed and I cannot guarantee it to be bug free but I though I would show it off anyway. The original design would allow someone to submit a hash of the solution and then after that confirms the solution itself. This was intended to prevent miners from intercepting the solution transaction and submitting their own solution a problem that exists with bitcoins sha collision bounty even though no miners likely thought of exploiting it. However I realized that the first design allowed denial of service attacks because it locked the hash of the solution to whoever submitted it and anyone could see the commitment hash in the mempool and submit the hash locking the reward to themselves even though they could never claim it. This design includes the address of the submitter in the commitment hash and instead of locking to the address it sets up an interval period, in this case 48 hours. After the 48 hours passes the provider of the solution can submit the solution in the clear with at least 48 hours to confirm before anyone else can make the claim because they would have to also commit to the 48 hour period. Anyway, I love the idea of unsolved mathematical problems having contract bounties on them. Maybe this one wont get deployed but I hope it inspires people to think about the possibilities and look for other easily verified but hard to solve problems that could have bounties. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOT_bG-vWyg
Some changes: added in a secret to the hash of the solution for added security.
Reduced the interval to 30 minutes
Added in a function to increase the interval up to at most 2 days with a 1 Ether bond.
added a refund functionality allowing donators to withdraw their donation any time before a solution is claimed
Hey guys, today I bought some myriad and I'd really love to try out the mining process, but I have no clue where to start. The coin's page was more or less talking about some bitcoin SHA has algorithms and not myriad, got me a bit confused. Could someone please help me out? Thank you
Will mining Litecoins make me more money than Bitcoins? (Answer: YES)
Hi, I have held Bitcoins for a while and have recently started converting them to Litecoins. I would like to share why. I think a lot of the activity in this subreddit is from people realizing that GPU mining of Bitcoin is becoming unprofitable; you are looking to Litecoin as your latest venture. If that's what you're here for, then you're on the right track! Litecoin is by far the most popular alternative cryptocurrency, and for very good reason. It holds strong to the core architecture of the Bitcoin, inheriting most of Bitcoin's codebase. This is a good thing. Where it differs, it differs in well thought and beneficial ways. Where it doesn't, it inherits the time tested strengths of Bitcoin. In particular, there are four times more Litecoins that will be generated than Bitcoins. Also, the target time for new blocks is every 2.5 minutes instead of Bitcoin's 10 minutes. This means that transaction verifications start happening faster. The big difference though is that Litecoin's proof of work algorithm is Scrypt. Scrypt replaces Bitcoin's SHA-256. This is a major change which affects the type of computers that can be used for mining. Bitcoin over the next half a year will become almost entirely mined by ASICs because GPU miners are so much less efficient at computing Bitcoin's SHA-256 algorithm. The difficulty will become so high that GPU miners will actually lose money to electricity costs. On the other hand, Litecoin's Scrypt algorithm is specifically designed to be hard to make an efficient ASIC for. Scrypt is meant to work efficiently on general purpose computing hardware, so your GPU will not have unfair competition against it. Not only that, but Litecoins are already consistently more profitable to mine than Bitcoins. If you watch the charts here, you'll very often find Litecoins producing 10-30% better yields than Bitcoin. And that's only at the current exchange rates! I personally find Litecoins to be undervalued relative to Bitcoin by a very large margin. This is for multiple reasons. First, Litecoins are much newer and have had very little media attention. Second, Litecoins are still in very early stages in terms of market support. You could think of Bitcoin currently as a toddler and Litecoin as an infant (with other altcoins being still in the womb and looking for a reason to be birthed). Bitcoin can now be easily exchanged with most major world currencies and there is a growing network of tools which make it easier, more secure, and cheaper than credit for merchants to accept Bitcoins even if all they want is their normal national currency. Litecoin is just now growing similar support, but it is coming! It is already easy to exchange your Bitcoins for Litecoins through btc-e.com and I expect the better Bitcoin exchanges and merchant services will adopt Litecoin support as interest continues to rise. When it's ready, we'll see a wave of value increase similar to what Bitcoin has seen. I have seen a lot of people question why Litecoin or any altcoin needs to exist outside of Bitcoin and had to question it a lot myself before I jumped into Litecoins because I didn't see many good arguments out there. Most were based on poor assumptions of the fundamentals of the architectures and didn't really establish a solid ground for the longterm coexistence of multiple cryptocurrencies. Then I realized that it is important for at least two cryptocurrencies which are secured by different classes of hardware to exist because it provides greater security and stability to the system of cryptocurrencies as a whole. For one, it makes the total available computing power for securing the networks greater which improves their total security. Mining is how cryptocurrencies are secured, and the more mining there is the more reliable their transaction systems are. For two, it ensures that markets can't be brought to a halt if there's a temporary issue with one cryptocurrency. Finally, a coin which can be secured with general purpose hardware (that is, Litecoin) is harder for governments to regulate against because it means that EVERYONE can mine them no matter what; governments won't ban general purpose computers, but they might ban crypto-hashing ASICs (and there are already countries which are unable to import the existing ASICs). Imagine when all exchanges and merchant tools integrate Bitcoin and Litecoin, and cryptocoins are accepted everywhere. You can hold both and be sure that you're always able to buy groceries on the spot. Even if a bug causes a blockchain fork on one of the networks and merchants start holding transactions for them temporarily, your phone's cryptocoin app could just say "Bitcoins temporarily unstable. Use Litecoins instead?" You walk home with bread and don't have to hope you still have cash. So my best recommendation for you is to mine and (mostly) hold Litecoins. Spend them whenever you can, but replace what you spend by exchanging your national currency for more Litecoins. If you can afford to, buy as much as you can of Bitcoins and Litecoins with your national currency. Personally, I am mostly buying Litecoins because I think they're more undervalued than Bitcoins. P.S.: I go into more depth on why cryptocoin diversity is good and why it's good to have a coin which is efficient to mine on GPUs in my earlier posts on Cryptocurrency Market Evolution and the Long Term Future of Cryptocurrencies. EDIT: A few days after I posted this a Venezuelan posted asking about Litecoin. In Venezuela, exchange of currencies (Bolivar to USD, for example) is illegal and it makes ordering anything internationally near-impossible. They are also unable to import ASICs. In the thread they discussed mining Litecoins in order to provide a means of converting their local currency to something which could be exchanged internationally legally. This is a perfect example of where Bitcoins can't help but Litecoins really shine. EDIT 2: Litecoins are trading around $4 each. I recently wrote about why I think Litecoins are still undervalued. EDIT 3: Litecoins are now valuable enough and the mining levels are high enough that the network is becoming pretty secure. Now is the perfect time to get more people to accept Litecoins for goods and services. If you're excited by the freedom, convenience, and security that Litecoins and Bitcoins are giving to people of the world and you want to spread the word and make them more useful, ask everyone you shop with to accept Litecoins.
I've mentioned this idea before looking for input because I'm not a technical wizard by any stretch of the imagination but now that Charlie has apparently alluded to this point I would like to try again. I'm referencing this article https://ambcrypto.com/charlie-lees-vision-about-litecoin-ltcs-bright-future/ in which Charlie apparently indicated: "He also mentioned that the security for Bitcoin Cash is very low because it shares the same hashing function as Bitcoin, making it more exposed to hacks." There's obviously a giant bounty on cryptocurrencies. Hack the blockchain and become a billionaire. But, does Litecoin's place behind Bitcoin with a different hashing algo possibly function as a firewall where, since the biggest bounty is on Bitcoin, sha-256 is what someone would theoretically work on cracking which would give Scrypt/Litecoin time to adjust and protect itself in the event that sha-256 is ever compromised? As I said, from a technical side I have very little knowledge about these mechanisms and so I could be drawing incorrect conclusions which is why I was looking for input from someone more technical on here. From a motivational/ economic perspective, making an argument for Litecoin being the most secure crypto seems pretty logical to me. Especially since SHA-2 algos are also used in banks and industry increasing the motivation for hackers even more.
In the evening of February 18, on the block 1361111 hardfork of Litecoin Cash happened. All LTC holders were promised LCC coins in the ratio 1 LTC = 10 LCC. The new cryptocurrency works on the Bitcoin SHA-256 hashing algorithm instead of the Scrypt from Litecoin. It will attract owners of obsolete equipment for bitcoin mining. At the same time, developers promise faster transactions than Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Litecoin Cash is now developing its own QT wallets. Now a new coin is supported by at least one purse - Coinomi. The project site also reports that the new coin will be traded on crypto-exchangers Yobit, MercatoX, TradeSatoshi, MeanXTrade and CryptoBridge. At the time of writing this post LCC on the Yobit exchange is worth 0.00031000 BTC, or $ 3.40. The price since the beginning of trading has more than doubled. Litecoin founder Charlie Lee said that he has nothing to do with the project, and advised not to invest in it. Join our Telegram channel to be the first to read news of blockchain and crypto industries
I have a comparatively fresh account with around 0.35 th/s Bitcoin sha+scrypt instance and a 7mh/s eth instance. I will share the login info first. You may buy it for $100 and build your hash instance as you require. Payments by PayPal
Good afternoon! A few thoughts for dinner tonight:
Finally, some progress
It looks like there is finally some progress being made to address network efficiency. A "Technical discussion of Gavin's O(1) block propagation proposal" is going on at http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2d7ofh/technical_discussion_of_gavins_o1_block/. It seems as if I am not the only person who believes this development is very significant. I hadn't appreciated this for the genius that it is. I saw the parts about reducing bandwidth for uploaded blocks and thought that was a good enough reason to implement the proposal. But it turns out that there is an interesting twist that can come out of this. If you don't have to upload the transactions a second time in every block that is mined, then why upload a list at all? In fact, why not simply make the default to include every transaction that is available, and then only submit differences from that list? The actual implementation is more complicated, but the idea changes the entire concept of the network. While everyone else viewed the task as figuring out how to deal with increasing block sizes, Andresen came along and entirely bypassed the problem. It's a great example of overcoming existing thinking and coming up with entirely new assumptions. These are the sorts of ideas that will cause bitcoin to rise out of its current slump and resume its march towards widespread acceptance. lifeboatz thinks that it will take 6 months for implementation of this proposal, but I'd propose that experience is so important that he could implement it in one month. lifeboatz is correct in suggesting that testing will take much longer. If implementation requires x time, then testing is probably 6x, and political discussion to reach agreement is likely 18x. After implementation, I think that what Andresen has done will be viewed as a significant breakthrough in computer science. He has demonstrated a way, when there are two copies of the same data across a network, to agree on a subset of the data with trivial bandwidth. If implemented successfully, the algorithm can be used for many other applications - like online video gaming, for example.
Right now, everyone assumes that the problem has always been how blocks can be propagated across the network efficiently, and the key to that was always to raise transaction fees high enough to cut out spam. What transactions are spam has been debated by a lot of people and is a sticking point for many of these arguments about how to make blocks bigger. But once you make it the default to include all transactions nodes have received, then there isn't much danger in including "spam." The "spam" transactions need to be received by every client anyway, even if just to determine they are spam and not include them in blocks. Spam costs money to send. I think it's worth demonstrating how "spam" (which can also be called microtransactions) is a non-issue, even now, let alone in the future. Let's suppose that we have 100MB blocks, which are filled entirely with transactions that have a fee of 10 satoshi, which is worth about $0.00006. You could send nearly 200 of these microtransactions before you would lose even a single cent to fees. Presume the transactions take up 256 bytes each. The total fees earned in this block would be about $23.40. A hard drive costs about 3.77 cents per gigabyte today, which makes 100MB worth about 0.37 cents. If there are 7000 nodes in the bitcoin network, then the total cost of all the 700 gigabytes in copies is about $25.90. Therefore, with today's technology, the blockchain storage for such transactions can be paid for with fees of $0.00006 using gavinandresen's new method. Of course, we can expect storage to decrease in cost, so in two years, blocks could be 200MB in size, and in four, 400MB, and so on. In just 10 years, 10-minute blocks can contain 3.2GB in "spam" and the transaction fees would be equal to the cost of the storage. Note that bandwidth costs are not relevant to these calculations because there is nothing we can do to stop people from using our download bandwidth, even if we don't want to receive the data. Bandwidth is what is called a "sunk cost." There are some problems with these calculations: for example, node operators don't earn any fees; miners do. But since large banks and hedge funds are going to be the miners of the future, and these are the same people who have an incentive to run fast nodes, they will have a shot at winning these fees by mining.
Some mistaken ideas about decentralization
Expanding the network means giving up on the idea that everyone will be able to run a node at home in their basement without using specialized equipment. Even if Gavin's algorithm were implemented under the conditions where all transactions are included by default, it would still be possible for someone with just a few thousand dollars to set up a node. On the other hand, there will be a point where people who have laptops they want to use to install Bitcoin Core will be unable to do so. A decentralized network is immune to interference, while a centralized network is more efficient. Bitcoin will probably end up somewhere between the two. There will be many nodes run by companies with powerful computers. The lower number of nodes will make the network faster, and as long as the number doesn't go too low, it still cannot be shut down by anyone. The goal should be to create the maximum amount of centralization that can be attained without introducing a risk of takeover.
A note about VISA
People keep mentioning VISA's transaction volume as something that bitcoin needs to be able to achieve. That is limited thinking. Bitcoin has the potential to make types of transactions possible that VISA cannot handle, like microtransactions for only a few cents. Saying that VISA has 1,000 transactions per second is irrelevant. The bitcoin network needs to be able to handle 100,000 transactions per second or more, because there will be new use cases that VISA doesn't handle, and which aren't possible with VISA.
Altcoins moving to avoid ASICs?
There are a lot of altcoins appearing nowadays that believe they can be "more secure" by using an algorithm that does not have ASICs (yet). Their creators believe that, by forcing miners to use CPUs or GPUs, then anyone will be able to mine, making the network more secure. This idea is flawed for many reasons. First, using general purpose CPUs to secure a network is dangerous, because there are so many of them that can be repurposed for a brief period at minimal cost. For example, someone could rent a supercomputer for a few hours, and destroy every single altcoin that doesn't have ASICs protecting it. After the attack, the supercomputer is put back to its other work, so the only cost is the rental fee. The same person can rent the supercomputer a second time and perform the attack again, should the creators of the coins reissue their blockchains. If ASICs were required to destroy these coins, the attackers would have to spend a lot more to buy up all the ASICs, the price of which would skyrocket as supply dwindled (note that a pool with different miners cannot execute such an attack, because miners will leave the pool, so one person needs to buy up all the equipment). Then, his or her investment would be worthless after someone produced newer, more efficient ASICs. Even if it were possible to make an "ASIC-resistant" coin, then it is too easy for people to buy up a batch of CPUs and destroy hundreds of coins with 50 different algorithms. But that assumes that it is possible to design an "ASIC-resistant" coin, which it is not. It is always more efficient to implement something in hardware than it is to do it in software. Even if the ASICs are only 1.2 times as fast as the CPUs, people will still buy them because they can make more money. Any coin that succeeds will have ASICs produced to mine it. My prediction is that within a year, we will start to see ASICs for other algorithms, like scrypt-n, scrypt-jane, x11, and so on. The other way that new coins try to avoid ASICs, which aren't a bad thing in the first place, is to be 100% proof-of-stake. Since proof-of-stake causes the rich to get richer, a proof-of-stake economy reduces the incentive to buy anything and concentrates power. To earn money in a proof-of-stake system, you have to leave your node online all the time. But since doing that costs electricity and hardware, you need to be earning enough money to justify the odds of running the node. Since many POS coins pay 1% interest per year, and a typical computer and router and cable modem might consume 100W, I computed that at 7.79 cents per Kwh it costs $73/yr to run the node (but it might also cost $100/yr in hardware costs, for a $300 initial outlay depreciated over 3 years). To make $173 in one year at 1% interest, a POS miner needs to hold and not spend $17300 just to break even! That's an absurd figure - who would invest so much money in an altcoin that could go down the tubes when the much safer stock market has made an average of 7% for the past 100 years? There is no innovation in the altcoin world when it comes to algorithms or mining. Bitcoin's SHA-256 mining is still as good as anything else out there, and it has the benefit of simplicity.
Days until the initial New York comment period ends: 28
I began seriously mining Dogecoin yesterday. I spent the last several days assembling and configuring a computer for this (among other uses). I developed a strong interest in digital currency in the last month, and have been gently wading into this exciting new world that we are all building together. I have a wife, children, and a day job, and have had an unsuccessful time explaining why I'm so interested in this, and why altcoins and Bitcoin are not a pyramid scam, a joke, etc. Here, I hope to explain my personal reasons for choosing to spend time and money in Dogecoin mining, since it may be useful to others coming into digital currencies, as they are gaining more and more press and publicity lately with many articles in the mainstream press on Bitcoin, Coinye, etc. Only a month ago, I began to notice that Bitcoin was really being mentioned a lot in the media. I had known about it for several years, but had assumed it would just go away. It never made sense to me (it does now!), but I didn't spend much time thinking about it. I figured, "after all, there's nothing backing it", and left it at that. Obviously, I knew nothing about currencies or monetary systems at the time, and neglected the fact that nothing tangible backs a USD either. After hearing about the Dread Pirate Roberts / Silk Road bust, I was surprised to learn that Bitcoin was alive and had grown to such an impressive value (it was around $1,000 USD per 1 BTC at the time, as I recall). Later, I heard a longer story about Bitcoin on the radio (on NPR, I believe), and was further surprised that several legitimate, real-life businesses had started to accept Bitcoins. Now, I was hooked, and needed to learn more. By the end of December, I'd read enough about Bitcoin to know I wanted to participate, but wasn't comfortable speculating in it with real money. I knew it wasn't going to be profitable, but in early January, I spent about $40 on a USB ASIC "Block Erupter" for Bitcoin mining. This runs at 334 MH/s (using Bitcoin's SHA-256 algorithm, not Dogecoin's scrypt algorithm). This has been sufficient to generate approximately $0.75 worth of Bitcoins over the last 2 weeks that I've been running it. It gave me something to play with, but was pathetic compared to what the professional miners were doing (measured in TH/s, tens of thousands of times faster than my capability). Reaching their levels required more specialized ASIC hardware (not just a single USB key-sized device). The higher performing Bitcoin mining hardware was all backordered or available only from relatively unestablished companies that I would not want to send thousands of dollars for. Furthermore, the hardware seems to only really be usable for Bitcoin mining; it had no other obvious utility. BUT, through cryptsy it was easily possible to convert other altcoins into BTC or vice-versa. Litecoin, Dogecoin, and others were mentioned in several mainstream news articles. Dogecoin was treated as a joke and novelty. However, on looking into it, along with several other altcoins, I decided it was more than serious. Dogecoin:
has a relatively healthy market cap and volume according to sites like coinmarketcap.com.
has an active reddit community tipping one another in dogecoins (I'd never even been a reddit member before or looked at it, but could see it was awesome)
has real online games and services (casinos, Mincraft servers, etc.) that accept payments in Dogecoin
had several active mining pools and easy to use wallet and mining software on multiple platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Android)
seemed to be surviving as a community, despite a pancake in the price
had "bounties" for improvements in the ecosystem, which people seemed to really be ponying up to support
an extremely enthusiastic and engaged community, with numerous posts ("to the moon!", etc.) whenever anything at all seemed to happen to Dogecoin. Whether the event was positive or negative, the enthusiasm was still there.
Few or no other altcoins seemed to have all these properties to the same degree as Dogecoin. I started CPU-mining it immediately, lacking any GPU hardware in my house (I am not a gamer). Even the modest CPU power in my home PCs (used for web surfing, primarily) was able to generate a little less than 1,000 DOGE per day (which was roughly $0.25 - $0.30 at the time). Not super-impressive, but enough to play with and check out the rest of the Dogecoin universe. I became hooked. I decided that not only was this a fun thing to play with, but it was also potentially a very good investment. Not having much spare cash, not having a high risk tolerance, and not having any desire in being a "speculator", I decided that rather than convert USD to Dogecoin, I would build a more capable mining computer. I will share more details on this later, if there is interest. Dogecoin mining on GPUs and CPUs is easy, and the cost of building a machine for this is very reasonable, considering that the machine has many other uses, including:
learning to program with OpenCL
contributing computing power to projects such as Folding @ Home
use as another general-purpose computer or server in the home
This is vastly superior to me, compared to investing the same amount of money in Bitcoin hardware, which is useless for anything else. Rather than speculating in Bitcoins, I decided there was no risk at all in building a computer with high-powered GPUs that would be useful for Dogecoin's scrypt-based altcoin mining, since even if it never made economic sense, I could use the system for many other things. I had not built a PC in over 10 years, and would up spending about $2000. Since yesterday night, I am now mining Dogecoin at a consistent rate of 1.2 MH/s (my hardware can go to 1.6 MH/s, but the temperatures did not seem healthy to me, so I slowed it down while I study them). This is extremely fun, and I'm proud to be contributing to the Dogecoin ecosystem.
Hello Vertans! As we zoom past 4k subscribers and the price fluctuations are dying down, I would like to start up a semi-daily update on certain issues/ideas brought up by the community, as well as links to important links,crowdfunding, etc. Somedays, these may be just some key points about some things going on, others I might be able to go in depth on an issue. Today, I would like to address what Vertcoin is, what it's about, and why a lot of us see it as a contender for the crypto-top-spots. Who?: A very skilled group of individuals that you can read all about at vertcoin.org and the community of Vertans here on reddit and at the official vertcoin forum: www.vertcoinforum.com . What?: Vertcoin is a cryptocurrency/digital currency that exist on computers through mining the coin using your computer and transactions with others via the vertcoin wallet .
So a currency like Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin? What makes it special?
Vertcoin is similar to these coins in that they are cryptocurrencies that exist online and through paper wallets. Vertcoin also has 84 million coins, which is the same as Litecoin but different from Bitcoin(21 million) and Dogecoin(100 billion/milliard). Vertcoin takes a huge step in the direction of the true spirit of what a cryptocurrency should be : decentralized . How: Vertcoin accomplishes this in a few main ways:
No pre-mine: this means that the community has the same chance at mining the coins as the developers themselves.
ASIC-Resistance: All coins that are not ASIC resistant can be mined used these super miners that create an extreme amount of hash-power towards mining the coins. These means that the wealthiest individuals interested in mining will be able to centralize the currency to where they control the mining. Instead of using the same algorithms as Bitcoins(SHA-256) and Litecoin and Dogecoin (Scrypt), Vertcoin uses Scypt-N which uses its "Adaptive N-Factor" to keep Vertcoin decentralized by increasing the memory over time. This means that instead of the other crpytos which are at a fixed amount of memory that allow ASICs to be able to target. This means that Vertcoin will be profitable over time through CPU mining which usually accomplishes very little with other cryptocurrencies.
Multipool resistance: Most altcoins are subject to huge mining groups jumping on them when they become low difficulty and high value. This causes instability in coins and allows this big pools to take over the hash power and weed out the smaller miners. Vertcoin does something different by changing or "retargeting" the difficulty after ever block. This means that as soon as a multipool jumps on for a block, the next block a different coin would be more profitable because the difficulty would skyrocket and then go back to normal the block after they leave (block time: 2.5 minutes).
Anymore questions can be answered by asking here after checking the sidebar which is full of information. UPDATES Now for the part I will be doing daily to compile important links and information from the day:
Vaultofsatoshi.com will be adding Vertcoin and AuroraCoin to it's Fiat to Coin exchange tomorrow, Wednesday, March 26th.!Some other coins being added can be seen here
Crowdfunding ideas, for those who don't know, can be found at http://vertcoinmarket.com/ . One started yesterday is for a Lightweight wallet from the same guy who made the lightweight doge wallet.
Moolah.io is suppose to be grand opening it's fiat/coin exchanges, and is one of the most hyped openings ever, today. This will allow you to buy most major cryptocurrencies(of course Vertcoin) with fiat money.
An official Vertcoin Wallet for Androids has been realeased and can be found here
Hi, I'm new to curecoin and am interested in the concept. I was wondering if there's any documentation on how the PoW is implemented. For instance how robust is it in comparison to bitcoin SHA-256. Could a miner get rewards by trying to fake Proof of Folds?
Looking into running an ASIC to mine bitcoins. I am new to this but I live in a dorm so electricity is unregulated and free. Would I make my money back running this 24/7? Butterfly Labs Single 50GH/s Bitcoin SHA-256 ASIC miner
SHA-2 is known for its security (it hasn’t broken down like SHA-1), and its speed. In cases where keys are not being generated, such as mining Bitcoin, a fast hash algorithm like SHA-2 often reigns supreme. What Is a Hash Function? If you want to read more about hash functions in general, do so here. That said, in order to move forward let ... SHA-256 is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA. SHA stands for Secure Hash Algorithm. Cryptographic hash functions are mathematical operations run on digital data; by comparing the computed "hash" (the output from execution of the algorithm) to a known and expected hash value, a person can determine the data's integrity. SHA-256 is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA. SHA stands for Secure Hash Algorithm. Cryptographic hash functions are mathematical operations run on digital data; by comparing the computed "hash" (the output from execution of the algorithm) to a known and expected hash value, a person can determine the data's integrity. Ursprünge der SHA 2 Funktionen. In Auftrag gegeben wurden die Funktionen von der US-Standardisierungsbehörde NIST. 1991 veröffentlichte der US-Inlandsheimdienst NSA die erste Version einer Hash Funktion. Seitdem gehören diese Hash Funktion und ihre Nachfolger zu Standardanwendungen im Internet. SHA 256 und Bitcoin. Der sichere Hash Algorithmus erfüllt zwei wesentliche Funktionen für ... SHA-1 is a 160-bit hash. SHA-2 is actually a “family” of hashes and comes in a variety of lengths, the most popular being 256-bit. The variety of SHA-2 hashes can lead to a bit of confusion, as websites and authors express them differently. If you see “SHA-2,” “SHA-256” or “SHA-256 bit,” those names are referring to the same ...
How To Make SHA256 Hash Converter in Microsoft Visual Basic coded and compiled in Microsoft Visual Basic 2010 Express Source Code: http://molecul3.bl.ee/tuto... Mine Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies DAILY with HashFlare! https://hashflare.io/r/CCE92A6E Join Coinbase to start buying Cryptocurrencies! https://www.coi... What is sha 256, How it works, sha 256 algorithm, sha 256 bitcoin, sha 256 blockchain in hindi, sha 256 in blockchain, SHA, SHA1, Secure Hashing Algorithm, sha 256 explained in hindi, in hindi ... Why is SHA-2 safer than SHA-1 in SSL certificates (screencast) ... What is SHA 256 - How sha256 algorithm works sha 256 bitcoin sha 256 blockchain sha2 in hindi - Duration: 10:28. Geeks Prix ... https://GeorgeLevy.com/Free presents: In this video, I answer a question from one of the viewers of my YouTube channel YouTube.com/GeorgeLevy : What is a SHA...