CounterPary.Cash XCPC: Bitcoin Cash BCH Crypto Derivatives?

PSA: Someone is using a bot to downvote everything in this subreddit. For newcomers, please know that Bitcoin Cash has been under attacked for the last 4 years because Bitcoin Cash, a global peer to peer cash system, is a threat to banks and fiat currencies.

For any newbies coming here wondering why someone is running a downvote bot in this subreddit (among other attacks), I would like to spread awareness about this issue.
There are many signs that BTC has been infiltrated. When you put them all together, it starts to form a clearer picture. Here are some examples.
There is consistent trolls/harassments/smear campaigns against Bitcoin Cash the last 4 years. Who is funding all these propaganda campaigns? Who is funding these efforts to run downvote bots to disrupt this community?
In 2013, Peter Todd was paid off by a government intelligence agent to create RBF, create a propaganda video, and cripple the BTC code. Source: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/in-2013-peter-todd-was-paid-off-by-a-government-intelligence-agent-to-create-rbf-create-a-propaganda-video-and-cripple-the-btc
Blockstream kicking Gavin, the lead Bitcoin developer, out of Bitcoin development, successfully hijacked control over the Bitcoin github.
Mike Hearn and Gavin wanted to prevent Bitcoin from being hijacked, so they created a fork. That fork didn't survived after they were heavily DDOS. Mike Hearn was heavily character assassinated by what I believe to be orchestrated paid campaigns by Blockstream. And of course, now that Mike Hearn is gone, the character assassination campaigns are directed at Bitcoin Cash main supporters like Roger Ver. Source: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoincash/comments/8lozww/how_bitcoin_btc_was_hijacked_and_why_bitcoin_cash/
Blockstream not honoring the Hong Kong agreement and the New York agreement they signed.
Blockstream doesn't want Bitcoin to compete with the banks. Their aim is to make Bitcoin unusable with no long term future. Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/12/22/gregory-maxwell-celebrates-high-fees-300000-stuck-transactions
Samson Mow admitting in an interview that Blockstream is out for profit (in other words, the BTC holders will be milked as their cash cows, BTC miners will be driven out with Lightning Network taking its place) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFOmUm-_DMQ The false flag attacks where they claimed Bitcoin Cash was hacking them (but turns out Greg Maxwell was the ones doing it) Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/11/22/reddit-bitcoin-mods-gregory-maxwell-accused-false-flag-bot-attack-hacking)
Hackers targeting Bitcoin Cash users stealing their tippr funds and taking over their reddit accounts Source: https://np.reddit.com/tippcomments/7naogq/tippr_on_reddit_disabled_temporarily/
Misinformation campaigns (BTC people registering bcash sites and subreddits, then trying to associate Bitcoin Cash as bcash to forums/websites they control) Source: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/8dd5ij/why_bitcoin_cash_users_reject_the_name_bcash_so/
Censorship to brainwash newcomers with Bitcoin misinformation and propaganda. Source: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43
Blockstream declaring that Bitcoin is not for the poor. Source: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/ahzog2/reminder_bitcoin_isnt_for_people_that_live_on/
Blockstream sabotaged Bitcoin codes by reducing its functionality such as OP Return size reduction, RBF vulnerability, 1MB blocksize, etc... so that it breaks software built on top of Bitcoin.
Source (OP Return Reduction): https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/
Source (Bitcoin RBF Vulnerability): https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
I was involved in some BCH projects and there had been multiple DDOS attacks and other stuff, such as flooding my inbox with few hundred thousand emails per day. I'm sure those activities are not for profit, so why are they doing it?
There are actually plenty more nasty unethical things BTC people had done which is not covered in this comment. Bitcoin Cash is an attempt to rescue what the bad actors had hijacked successfully, mainly the peer to peer cash revolution. And it won't be the last time the bad actors will try to find ways to sabotage this project.
Link: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/e61fyz/poll_results_are_in_53_2296_votes_have_declared/f9n5lma/
Here's my suggestion to counter these attempts at disrupting the Bitcoin Cash community. We keep onboarding more users into the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem. That's what they don't want us to do, and that's exactly what we will do.
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

What is Bitcoin's Lightning Network?

Tackling bitcoin’s scalability isn’t easy, but developers Thaddeus Dryja and Joseph Poon had an idea. In a 2016 white paper, they proposed the concept of a protocol called “the lightning network” that would enable faster and cheaper transactions while not having to change the block size.
The network creates a second layer on top of the bitcoin blockchain and comprises user-generated channels. You can securely send payments back and forth without the need to trust or even know your counterparty.
Say, for instance, that I wanted to pay you for each minute of video that I watched. We would open up a lightning channel, and as the minutes rolled by, periodic payments would be made from my wallet to yours. When I’m done watching, we would close the channel to settle the net amount on the bitcoin blockchain.
Because the transactions are just between me and you and don’t need to be broadcast to the whole network, they are almost instantaneous. And because there are no miners that need incentivizing, transaction fees are low or even non-existent.
How it works
First, two parties who wish to transact with each other set up a multisignature wallet (which requires more than one signature to enact a transaction). This wallet holds some amount of bitcoin. The wallet address is then saved to the bitcoin blockchain. This sets up the payment channel.
The two parties can now conduct an unlimited number of transactions without ever touching the information stored on the blockchain. With each transaction, both parties sign an updated balance sheet to always reflect how much of the bitcoin stored in the wallet belongs to each.
Once the two parties finish transacting and close out the channel, the resulting balance is registered on the blockchain. In the event of a dispute, both parties can use the most recently signed balance sheet to recover their share of the wallet.
It is not necessary to set up a direct channel to transact on lightning – you can send payments to someone via channels with people that you are connected with. The network automatically finds the shortest route.
Development of the technology got a significant boost with the adoption of SegWit on the bitcoin and litecoin networks. Without the upgrade’s transaction malleability fix, transactions on the lightning network would have been too risky to be practical.
Without the security of the blockchain behind it, the lightning network will not be as secure, which implies that it will largely be used for small or even micro transactions which carry a lower risk. Larger transfers that require decentralized security are more likely to be done on the original layer.
Where are we now?
In March 2018, California startup Lightning Labs announced the launch of a beta version of its software, making available what investors and project leads say is the first thoroughly tested version of the tech to date. It is still early days, however – transaction sizes are limited, and the release is aimed at developers and “advanced users”. Recent research on the lightning network shows signs of increased vulnerability due to the centralization of a number of nodes in the network that control a majority of funds. Developers are continuously exploring new possibilities to enhance the privacy and efficiency of the lightning, as well as ways to incorporate other technologies such as Schnorr into the network. There’s no doubt that it’ll be some time before such system-wide updates can successfully take place.
submitted by hackatoshi to u/hackatoshi [link] [comments]

Amazing AMA from Douglas Horn

AMA Recap telos Foundation with Crypto Hunters
On August 02, 2020 at 12:00 WIB Indonesia Time / August 01 2020 at 10:00 PM ( PST ) in the Crypto Hunter Telegram Group, AMA TELOS started with Mr.Douglas as guest speaker and Gus Fahlev from Crypto Hunters as moderator. When campaigning, 10 lucky AMA participants when asking questions on Google forms and AMA sessions will get a total TELOS ( TLOS ) prize of $100.
The following is a summary of AMA questions and answers announced by the moderator and
Segment 1
Question 1: Can you explain us, what is Telos?
Answer: Telos is a blockchain platform for smart contracts. It is a low latency—a new block every half second, high capacity—currently in the top 2 blockchains in transactions per day, according to Blocktivity.info, and no transaction fee blockchain. Telos also has many unique features that allow developers to make better, dapps, such as our Telos Decide governance engine.
Question 2: what ecosystem is used by telos?
Answer: Telos is its own Layer-1 blockchain, not a token on another blockchain. The technology behind Telos is EOSIO, the same technology used by EOS and WAX, for example.
Question 3: I see that Telos uses EOSIO platform, what are the very significant advantages that distinguish Telos from other projects?
Answer: Telos uses the EOSIO platform but we have built several additional tools. Some of these add more security and resiliency to the blockchain, such as testing block producers and removing non-performant ones, but most are related to development. Telos provides attractive development tools that aren’t available elsewhere. Telos Decide is a governance platform that lets any group create self-governance tools easily. These run on Telos at very little cost and can provide all kinds of voting, elections, initiative ballots, committee management and funds allocation. Telos also has Telos EVM, an Ethereum virtual machine that can run Ethereum Solidity contracts at hundreds of times the speed of Ethereum and with no costs. Another Telos technology that is deploying soon is dStor, which is a decentralized cloud storage system associated with Telos so that dapps can store files controlled by blockchain contracts.
Question 4: At what stage is Teloa Road Map now? what are the latest updates currently being realized?
Answer: Telos launched its mainnet in December 2018 and has so far produced over 100,000,000 blocks without ever stopping or rolling back the chain. This is likely a record for a public blockchain. We have an ongoing group Telos Core Developers who build and maintain the code and are paid by our Telos Works funding system that is voted by the Telos token holders. Telos is a leader in blockchain governance and regularly amends its governance rules based on smart contract powered voting called Telos Amend. You can see the current Telos governance rules as stored live on the blockchain at tbnoa.org.
The most recent updates were adding new features to Telos Decide to make it more powerful, implementing EOSIO v2.0 which increased the capacity of Telos about 8-10 times what it previously was, and implementing Telos EVM on our Testnet.
We are currently working on better interfaces for Telos Decide voting, and building more infrastructure around Telos EVM so that it is ready to deploy on our mainnet.
Question 5: Is telos currently available on an exchange? and is it ready to be traded?
Answer: Telos has been trading on exchanges for over a year. The largest exchanges are Probit, CoinTiger, CoinLim, and P2PB2B. Other exchanges include Newdex and Alcor. We expect to be listed on larger exchanges in the near future.
Question 6: Now is the time when defi tokens begin to develop, can telos be categorized as a defi project? and what strategies for this year and in the years to come prepared by telos?
Answer: Telos is a smart contract platform, but it already has many DeFi tools built for it including REX staking rewards with a current yield of ~19% APR, smart contract controlled token swaps (like Bancor) with no counterparty called Telos Swaps, a common liquidity pool/order book shared by multiple DEXs to improve liquidity called EvolutionDEX. Wrapped BTC, ETH, XRP, EOS, and other tokens can be brought to Telos and exchanged or used via smart contracts through Transledger. We have more DeFi tools coming all the time including two new offerings in the next few weeks that will be the first of their kind.
Question 7: Governance is an important topic in blockchain and Telos is considered a leader in this area. Why is that?
Answer: Telos is among the top blockchain projects in terms of how it empowers its users to guide the growth of the chain—along the likes of Tezos or new DeFi tokens that offer governance coins. Telos users continuously elect the validating nodes, called Block Producers, that operate the network based on a set of governance documents such as the Telos Blockchain Network Operating Agreement (TBNOA). These are all stored entirely on-chain (viewable at tbnoa.org) and can be modified by smart contract through blockchain voting using Telos Amend. You can see examples of this at https://chainspector.io/governance/ratify-proposals Telos also has a robust user-voted funding mechanism called Telos Works that has funded many projects and is one of the more successful blockchain incubators around. Voting for all of these can be done in a number of ways including block explorers, wallets like Sqrl (desktop) and Telos Wallet (mobile), telos.net and Chainspector (https://chainspector.io/governance/telos-works). But Telos goes beyond any other chain-level governance by making all of these features and more available to any dapp on Telos through Telos Decide governance engine, making it easy for any dapp or DAO to add robust, highly customized voting.
Segment 2 from google form
Question 1: Defi projects are now trending whether telos will also go to Defi projects, to increase investors or the community?
Answer: Yes, we have several DeFi tools on Telos that can work together:
Telos Swaps is an automated, zero-counterparty token swapping smart contract where you can exchange any Telos tokens you may want at any time.
Telos has DEXs and uses a common order book called EvolutionDEX that's available to any DEX so that a buy order on one can be matched against a sell order on another. This greatly increases liquidity for traders.
We have staking rewards though the Resource EXchange (REX) with rewards currently at about 19% APR.
We also have "wrapped" BTC, ETH, and other tokens that can be traded on Telos or used by its smart contracts at half-second transaction times with no transaction fees. This makes Telos a Bitcoin or Ethereum second layer or state channel that's much faster even than Lightning Network and has no fees once the BTC has been brought to Telos.
Question 2: Telos aim is to build a new global economy could you explain how whole ecosystem works? There are already many centralized competitors so what is decentralization aspect in telos?
Answer: Telos is one of the most decentralized blockchain's in the world. It is operated by 51 validators (block producers) who validate blocks in any month. These are voted for on an ongoing basis by Telos account holders.
Telos is also economically decentralized with no large whales like Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP or EOS because Telos never performed an ICO and limited the size of genesis accounts to 40,000 TLOS max.
Telos is also geographically decentralized with users and block producers on every continent but Antarctica and in numerous countries. The is a large amount in North America and Western Europe, but also in Asia, Australia, and large contingents in Latin America and Africa. Telos has had a Block Producer in Indonesia since the beginning and some dapps on Telos are based in Indonesia as well, like SEEDS, for example.
Question 3: Most investors focus only on the token price in the short term instead of the real value of the project.
Can #TELOS tell me the benefits for investors holding #TELOS the long term?
Answer: That's true about crypto speculators and traders, certainly. Traders are usually looking for coins with good positive momentuum that they hope will continue. But these are often pump and dumps where a few people get in early, pump the price, and then get out at the expense of new investors. That's very unfortunate. Telos isn't like this. One reason is that there aren't large whales who can easily manipulate the price.
Telos seems to be greatly undervalued compared to its peers. Telos has capacity like EOS and well above XRP, XML, Tron, Ethereum. But its value is miniscule relative to these. Telos is a leader in blockchain governance like Tezos but its marketcap is tiny in comparison. Telos onboarded 100,000 new accounts last month and is appearing in the leading crypto press every week with new dapps or developments. So there's some disconnect between the value of Telos and the price. In my experience, these tend to equalize once more people learn about a project.
Question 4: Eos Problems and How Telos Will Solve Them?
Answer: Telos originally set out to solve problems with EOS. It was successful in this and now Telos stands on it's own and our roadmap is more about empowering users. In short, these are some of the EOS problems we already solved:
RAM speculation - Telos had a plan to reduce RAM speculation through a published guidance price that has been extremely successful. The RAM price is guided by market forces but has remained within 10% of the guidance price since launch.
CPU resources - Telos implemented the Telos Resource Improved Management Plan many months ago which was a 7-point approach to making EIDOS-type resource mining unprofitable on Telos. It has largely been successful and Telos has not experienced any resource shortages.
Exchange Collusion/Voting - Telos governance does not permit Exchanges to vote with user tokens. This prevent voting situations seen on EOS or STEEM.
Block Producer collusion - Telos has minimum requirements for block producers and do not allow anyone to own more than one block producer. Those who are found doing so (there have been about 3 cases so far) have been removed and sanctioned in accordance with the rules of the TBNOA.
Question 5: What ecosystems do telos use? and why telos prefers to use EOS network over BEP2 or ERC20? what layer is used telos, can you please explain?
Answer: uses the EOSIO protocol because it is the fastest and most powerful in the world and it also receives the fastest upgrades and ongoing development compared to other blockchain technologies. EOS and WAX also use the EOSIO protocol but they are completely different chains.
Telos is a Layer 1 protocol, meaning that it is its own blockchain that other dapps and smart contracts deploy upon.
One thing that happens when a blockchain like Telos has much, much higher speed and capacity than others like Bitcoin or Ethereum is that Telos can actually run those other blockchains better on its own platform than they can natively. For example, a number of tokens can come in to Telos as wrapped tokens. BTC, ETH, XRP are all current examples of tokens that can be on Telos as wrapped tokens. Once there, these can all be moved around with half-second transaction times and no transaction fees, so they are a better second layer for Bitcoin or Ethereum than Lightning Network or Loom.
Telos can also emulate other chains, which we are doing using Telos EVM which emulates the Ethereum Virtual Machine at about 300 times faster and with no gas fees or congestion compared to Ethereum native deployment. Telos can run Ethereum (Solidity) smart contracts without any changes required. Telos EVM is already deployed on the Telos Testnet and will move to our mainnet soon. So anyone who wants to run ERC-20 tokens on Telos can do so easily and they will be faster and with much less cost than running the same contract on Ethereum.
Segment 3 free asking
Question: I am happy to see new things created by the Telos team. Like What concept did you build in 2020 to make Telos superior?
Answer: Currently, I think Telos Decide is the most unique and powerful feature we have built. There are all kinds of organizations that need to vote. Apartment buildings, school boards, unions, tribes, youth sports leagues, city councils. Voting is hard, time consuming, and expensive for many. Telos Decide makes voting easy, convenient, and transparent. That will be a major improvement and disrupt old style voting. It also goes for buisnesses and corporate governance. Even before COVID it was important, but now people can't really gather in one place so fraud-proof voting is very important. No one has the tools that Telos has. And if they try to copy us, well, we are already way out ahead working on the next features.
Question: If we look about partnerships, Telos has many partnership ! so what's the importance of that partnership for Telos? And How will you protect the value of Telos to your partners or investors ??
Answer: Many of the partnerships are dapps that have decided to deploy on Telos and receive some level of help from the TCD or Telos Foundation to do so. Once a dapp deploys on a chain, it really is like a long term partnership.
Many dapps will become block producers as well and join in the governance of Telos. I suspect that in a few years, most block producers will be the large dapps on the platform with just a few remaining like my company GoodBlock. Of course, we will have our own apps out as well so I guess we'll be developers too.
Telos is very fiscally responsible for investors. We spend little. There has not been any actual inflation on the chain in almost a year. (The token supply has remained unchanged at about 355M TLOS) we are actively working with dapps to bring more to Telos and exchanges and other services like fiat on- and off-ramps to increase value for users.
Question: In challenging crypto market condition any project is really difficult to survive and we are witnessing that there are many platforms . What is telos project plan for surviving in this long blockchain marathon? In this plan, what motivates long term investors and believers?
Answer: True.
While we currently have a low token price, Telos as a DPOS chain can be maintained and grow without a massive army of miners and still maintain BFT.
But the risk is really not whether Telos can continue. Already there are enough dapps that if the block producers went away somehow (not gonna happen) the dapps would just run the chain themselves.
But with 100,000 new users last month and new dapps all the time, we are looking to join the top 5 dapp platforms on DappRadar soon. Survival as a project is not in question.
One of the big reasons is that we never did any ICO and Telos is not a company. So regulatory risks aren't there and there's no company to go bankrupt or fail. We have already developed a bootstrapped system to pay block producers and core developers. So we aren't like a company that will run out of runway sometime.
Question: Could you explain what is DSTOR? What will it contribute to your ecosystem?
Answer: dStor is a decentralized cloud storage system that will have the performance of AWS or Azure with much lower costs and true decentralization. It's based on a highly modified version of IPFS that we have applied for patents for our implementation. It means that dapps will be able to store data like files, images, sound, etc. in a decentralized way.
Question: Trust and security is very important in any business , what makes investors , customer and users safe secure when working with TELOS??
Answer: Telos is decentralized in a way that's more like bitcoin than other blockchains (but without the whales who can manipulate price). There was never any single company that started Telos, so there's no company whose CEO could make decisions for the network. There are numerous block producers who decide on any operational issue that isn't clearly described in the TBNOA governance documents. And to get to an action, 15 of the 21 currently active BPs need to sign a multisig transaction. So that's a high threshold. But also, the TBNOA speaks to a large number of issues and so the BPs can't just make up their own rules.
Since there are really no whales, no one can vote in any kind of change or bring in their own BPs with their votes. This is also very different from other chains where there are whales. Telos is not located in any one country, so our rules can't be driven by one nation's politics.
All in all, this level of decentralization sets Telos apart from almost any blockchain project in existence. People don't have to trust Telos because the system is designed to make trust unnecessary.
submitted by TelosNetwork to TELOS [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash, the peer to peer electronic cash system, is under attack and we need your help.

TLDR: Bitcoin Cash, the peer to peer electronic cash system, shifts the dynamics of power from the elites back to the people. This is a threat to the survivability of the banks and regimes seeking to control the masses through the financial system. And there are many direct and indirect evidence (outlined below) of such bad actors trying to sabotage the peer to peer cash revolution through various means. We need your help to stand up against such saboteurs. Unity is our strength when we have to make a righteous stand against the toxic bullies and shifts the power from the elites back into the people hands. Just by speaking up and spreading awareness on this, and refusing to stay silent about it, you’re making a difference, and for that, I thank you.
This is going to be a very long post, please bear with me. And it’s a very long post precisely because the bad actors had tried so many different things to sabotage the peer to peer cash project throughout the years.
Source (OP Return Reduction): https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/
Source (Bitcoin RBF Vulnerability): https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
The global banking elites control over trillion dollars in assets. They can afford to throw few million dollars each day to protect their massive business empires. If I were them, I would make the same choice. It’s a no brainer. They don’t have to win; each day they sabotage the adoption of peer to peer cash, their trillion dollars empire survive another day while the rest of the population suffers.
There are actually plenty more nasty unethical things BTC bullies had done which is not covered here. Bitcoin Cash is an attempt to rescue what the bad actors had hijacked successfully, mainly the peer to peer cash revolution. And it won't be the last time the bad actors will try to find ways to sabotage this project. And we need your help. Bitcoin Cash does not care if you are black, white, Asian, male, female, American, Iranian, Chinese… We are about bringing economic freedom and financial sovereignty to the world, increasing quality of lives to everyone and putting the power back into the people hands. We are in this together. It can be really uncomfortable being ahead of the crowd in this peer to peer cash revolution, but when you have the truth at your side, all these naysayers screaming “bcash btrash” has little power over us.
Update 1: Fixed an inaccuracy and added few other items which I missed out.
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

For any newbies coming here wondering why there is so much pro-Bitcoin Core propaganda and lies propagated here, I would like to spread awareness about this issue,

For any newbies coming here wondering why there is so much pro-Bitcoin Core propaganda and lies, propagated by trolls such as OP, I would like to spread awareness about this issue,
There are many signs that BTC has been infiltrated. When you put them all together, it starts to form a clearer picture. Here are some examples.
There is consistent trolls/harassments/smear campaigns against Bitcoin Cash the last 2 years. Who is funding all these propaganda campaigns?
In 2013, Peter Todd was paid off by a government intelligence agent to create RBF, create a propaganda video, and cripple the BTC code. Source: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/in-2013-peter-todd-was-paid-off-by-a-government-intelligence-agent-to-create-rbf-create-a-propaganda-video-and-cripple-the-btc
Blockstream kicking Gavin, the lead Bitcoin developer, out of Bitcoin development, successfully hijacked control over the Bitcoin github.
Mike Hearn and Gavin wanted to prevent Bitcoin from being hijacked, so they created a fork. That fork didn't survived after they were heavily DDOS. Mike Hearn was heavily character assassinated by what I believe to be orchestrated paid campaigns by Blockstream. And of course, now that Mike Hearn is gone, the character assassination campaigns are directed at Bitcoin Cash main supporters like Roger Ver. Source: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoincash/comments/8lozww/how_bitcoin_btc_was_hijacked_and_why_bitcoin_cash/
Blockstream not honoring the Hong Kong agreement and the New York agreement they signed.
Blockstream doesn't want Bitcoin to compete with the banks. Their aim is to make Bitcoin unusable with no long term future. Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/12/22/gregory-maxwell-celebrates-high-fees-300000-stuck-transactions
Samson Mow admitting in an interview that Blockstream is out for profit (in other words, the BTC holders will be milked as their cash cows, BTC miners will be driven out with Lightning Network taking its place) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFOmUm-_DMQ The false flag attacks where they claimed Bitcoin Cash was hacking them (but turns out Greg Maxwell was the ones doing it) Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/11/22/reddit-bitcoin-mods-gregory-maxwell-accused-false-flag-bot-attack-hacking)
Hackers targeting Bitcoin Cash users stealing their tippr funds and taking over their reddit accounts Source: https://www.reddit.com/tippcomments/7naogq/tippr_on_reddit_disabled_temporarily/
Misinformation campaigns (BTC people registering bcash sites and subreddits, then trying to associate Bitcoin Cash as bcash to forums/websites they control) Source: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/8dd5ij/why_bitcoin_cash_users_reject_the_name_bcash_so/
Censorship to brainwash newcomers with Bitcoin misinformation and propaganda. Source: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43
Blockstream declaring that Bitcoin is not for the poor. Source: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/ahzog2/reminder_bitcoin_isnt_for_people_that_live_on/
Blockstream sabotaged Bitcoin codes by reducing its functionality such as OP Return size reduction, RBF vulnerability, 1MB blocksize, etc... so that it breaks software built on top of Bitcoin.
Source (OP Return Reduction): https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/
Source (Bitcoin RBF Vulnerability): https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
I was involved in some BCH projects and there had been multiple DDOS attacks and other stuff, such as flooding my inbox with few hundred thousand emails per day. I'm sure those activities are not for profit, so why are they doing it?
There are actually plenty more nasty unethical things BTC people had done which is not covered in this comment. Bitcoin Cash is an attempt to rescue what the bad actors had hijacked successfully, mainly the peer to peer cash revolution. And it won't be the last time the bad actors will try to find ways to sabotage this project.
Source by user mobTwo
submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

Time flies. Lighting has been running on BTC for over a year. With about 1000 BTC in channels, would you call it a success or a failure?

Time flies. Lighting has been running on BTC for over a year. With about 1000 BTC in channels, would you call it a success or a failure? submitted by ChronosCrypto to btc [link] [comments]

Binance CEO realises he can't do a reorg.

Binance CEO realises he can't do a reorg. submitted by Fly115 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

TkeyNet: release date, a brief analysis of the system, future plans

TkeyNet: release date, a brief analysis of the system, future plans

https://preview.redd.it/ayym7cl9c1b51.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=367792bdc6acdcc670345cf1d6e12865d681b21b
During the development of the project, we published 3 documents about the technology that we are developing and preparing for the market. Some decisions were changed, but the main idea and goal remained the same — effective financial management.
Since the ICO boom, several years have passed, blockchain and cryptocurrencies have become synonymous and are perceived only as a means of earning money and the obvious advantages of using the technology itself in combination with others are of little interest to anyone. A user, business representatives, or some government officials associate the word “blockchain” directly with cryptocurrency or Bitcoin, without thinking about using systems built on a distributed registry in the current reality.
As we mentioned above, during the development of the project, several documents were published in which we announced our technology and clearly said that we are mixing modern concepts and approaching the market from an economic and scientific point of view, borrowing the best from Bitcoin, Ethereum, DASH, and other alternative currencies.
It is important to note that the concept of Bitcoin or Monero will be different from the concept of TkeyNet. These are other areas and practical application that some market participants may perceive as similar, but this is far from the case.
“When you innovate, you must be prepared for a prolonged lack of understanding of your actions on the part of your environment. You can do something you believe in, but for a long time, people who only wish you well may criticize your endeavors. When faced with such criticism, ask yourself — Are they right? And if you answer this question positively, accept the criticism and adjust your work accordingly. If the answer is negative, if you are firmly convinced of your rightness, you should prepare for a long defense, defending your positions. This approach is a key component of innovation.” ©
The idea of Bitcoin is beautiful, even if it has not yet been accepted by society as planned, but at least the idea of using Bitcoin as a means of accumulating value and storing savings has a place to be. Bitcoin actively strives for a high price mark and dominates the market by more than 50%, and this is a great result. Bitcoin set the necessary vector for many developers around the world, people were able to review the systems used and make their own decisions based on the Bitcoin core, for example, DASH or Ethereum, and users, in turn, learned about such a phenomenon as cryptocurrency.
In General, what was this introduction for? That TKEY should be considered as a universal asset, without defining it as a cryptocurrency. The question may immediately arise, why is this so? It doesn’t have explicit currency properties? Bitcoin also does not have the properties of cash but is called a cryptocurrency, and the types of applications of the peer-to-peer payment system Bitcoin and TkeyNet can differ significantly from each other.
https://preview.redd.it/3qfe582cc1b51.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=406f3c93314c473f9b9c9512e543fa33c6211067
The purpose of this publication is to tell you about the new features of TkeyNet, when the official transition to the new Protocol will take place, and why TKEY is a universal asset that simply needs liquidity? In General, we will talk about the clear advantages of switching to new technologies that we have been striving for so long and about your benefits of using them accordingly.

What is TkeyNet, and what are its advantages?

TkeyNet is an infrastructure that combines various solutions for users, businesses, and the public sector. Secure corporate networks, payment processors, liquidity, cross-border payments, trading tools, information security, instant exchanges, investment tools. One platform — millions of opportunities.
https://preview.redd.it/bwewihsdc1b51.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=4bfc1343b46a1eb51f0b972cac509cc1893f3fa4
When creating TkeyNet, we immediately turned to e-cash protocols, concepts of electronic currencies, considered the movements of Bank international transfers, and also drew attention to the obvious complexity of these systems. Therefore, to build a high-quality architecture of TkeyNet, the team took as a basis — blockchain technology, cryptography, payment and banking system, electronic cash protocols, exchanges, stock markets, DHT, and other p2p networks.
Now more than ever, businesses, users, and most financial market participants need reliable and modern systems that will meet the needs of the market.
For example, a user wants to quickly send funds to another user, and they do not want to think about how the blockchain works and who the “miners” are and what they do for the network. Any of us want to open the app and click a few buttons on the screen to pay for a particular service or send money to relatives abroad and the most importantly, know that the funds will reach you quickly and with a minimum Commission. Or let’s say you came to India, you have some funds in Bitcoin, but you would like to pay for your purchases in the local currency — the Indian rupee without extra conversions.
You are the owner of a payment system or Bank, and you want to receive % for conversion transactions, or banks want to create their consortium for cross-border payments. Either you are an entrepreneur and plan to open an exchange or trading platform for trading various assets, not necessarily digital, but, for example, gold and diamonds, or you are a young and purposeful startup team and want to quickly launch your Digital Bank, or you do not want to do business, and you have several million euros or dollars, you want to get % of their use.
https://preview.redd.it/hkv2xcpfc1b51.png?width=626&format=png&auto=webp&s=4ae497765a2d02b66046d5a112eb0dd4f1eeb0bc
TkeyNet makes these features available to all participants.
As we can see with you, there are quite a lot of use cases, and it may seem that TKEY is again torn into 100500 different directions, but this is far from the case. Here, a specific and clear direction is Finance and its movement.

How TkeyNet works

Remember, we said that — “to develop the platform on a global level, it is necessary to reach a consensus between government regulation, business, and society. We understand that it is impossible to achieve 100% of this, but it is possible to create favorable conditions favorable to all parties.”
How will the system work? All participants are connected to the system using TkeyNet technology that allows the financial gateway to control their transactions with increased speed, transparency, and efficiency. Independent verification servers constantly compare their transaction records. To hack the system, you will need to get access to all the devices that are logged in.
https://preview.redd.it/ltwgjrhhc1b51.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=413d03504eafa2b496cf99d837b6a2a1c9ba6818
TkeyNet solutions offer a cryptographically secure, end-to-end payment flow with the immutability of transactions and redundancy of information contained in them. It is developed to meet each financial gateway’s risk, privacy, and compliance requirements. Since the software is developed to be easily integrated into the existing financial infrastructure, it minimizes any integration costs and failures, and also meets international standards (ISO, etc.).

TkeyNet can be a neutral utility for financial institutions and systems

A gateway is an organization that allows users to invest money and take money out of a pool of liquidity. The gateway accepts currency deposits from users and issues balances to the TkeyNet blockchain.
TkeyNet Protocol provides a single source of truth for counterparties while maintaining the confidentiality of payment data of Bank clients.
TKEY is a universal bill (digital obligation) in the distributed registry TkeyNet.
Gateways install specialized software for interacting with the distributed registry and other system participants. Users, brokers, and other participants interact with the system via mobile or web interfaces. Gateways act as a link between the distributed registry, brokers, users, and other services that allow you to make quick transactions.
https://preview.redd.it/igdiw4tjc1b51.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=3a25f8f6b74a0cebf2450d05a7bf7c675547e624
The participants of the system make payments between themselves by using cryptographically signed transactions denominated in digital obligation. This type of transaction uses an internal registry.
In the case of working with Fiat currency and other assets, such as securities and precious metals, the registry records the amounts owed with assets presented as debt obligations. All accounts and transactions are cryptographically secure and verified algorithmically. Payments can only be authorized by the account holder, and all payments are processed automatically, without any third parties or intermediaries. The TkeyNet Protocol checks balances and accounts inside the system for transferring payments and sends payment notifications with minimal delay, which ensures fast calculations in the system.
For more specialized solutions can be created by the Central gateways and the gateways just. A Central gateway is an organization that allows users to invest money and take money out of the liquidity pool. Gateway is an organization that interacts with the Central gateway. Accepts and exchanges digital liabilities for other assets, such as securities.
TkeyNet globally reduces the number of different expenses and automates operational tasks, simplifies and reduces the cost of conducting monetary transactions, and improves traditional financial services.
We understand that it is not easy to tell all the principles of the TkeyNet system in a single publication, especially one that deals with neither one nor two issues. Therefore, you should consider this material as a basis, a base that will help you learn the information that is related to the TkeyNet Protocol most easily after the release of TkeyNet.
Moving a little away from corporate solutions, we suggest you recall some theses from our roadmap, which was published on the official website in the period from September 2018 to November 2019:
“The introduction of the exchanger in web wallets and the app will allow users to send money in one currency, and the recipient will receive it in another currency. For example, a user can buy Tkeycoin for dollars and exchange it for euros or Bitcoin or Ethereum at the current exchange rate.This functionality provides full control of funds through a single trusted and most secure source. Users no longer need to create multiple accounts on third-party resources to make an exchange into a particular currency.With the development of the network, it is possible to implement a multi-exchange that works on the principle of a payment bridge, when the user sends funds to Tkeycoin, and the recipient chooses the receiving currency, let’s say Litecoin, the funds are automatically converted” ©
https://preview.redd.it/htf048hmc1b51.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=9be3fe4895b5bece5c7c0d72548d4724e46556a7
We wrote above that TKEY can in principle be used as a universal asset, acting as a digital obligation or an asset as an exchange. By the way, references to this were also published on the official website — tkeycoin.com. In simple words, using one of our web interfaces, you can access TKEYRUB or TKEYUSD or any other asset, such as TKEYGOLD.
TKEYUSD, TKEYRUB, and TKEYGOLD are symbols and can be called differently in the system, for example, TKUSD or GOLDTKEY, so now they should be considered as an example.

Why is TKEY a universal asset?

As before, you can easily and quickly send TKEY to any member of the network and TKEY will have liquidity on the exchange also, TKEY allows you to fast exchange for euros, dollars, or other currencies.
https://i.redd.it/qapkdnvoc1b51.gif
For the interface, the applications will display functions of digital assets 1:1 to a particular currency, for example, TKEY to RUB, TKey to EUR, or TKEY to Dirhams or TKEY to the pound and vice versa, respectively.
https://preview.redd.it/0ipx86fqc1b51.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=a406e9c0f181a5d0b1ecde347511954ba61bf433
Therefore, as we said above, TKEY should not be regarded as a cryptocurrency, it is a universal unit inside the system TkeyNet, which may refer to transaction information as exchanges of obligations between banks and transaction TKEY -> TKEY between users, or to carry information about the exchange on the exchange or the exchange of digital assets or gold variations quite a lot, for most of the functions we describe in the release day TkeyNet.

What are the advantages for companies and developers?

First of all, we strive to open the doors for all platform participants. Only through synergy and cooperation can we accelerate the pace of development of the entire system and the introduction of new technologies in the market.
The platform will open doors for developers, who in turn can create technological solutions based on TkeyNet. A working environment will be created, and integration with the TkeyNet platform will be as easy as with the documented SDK or plug-ins. In the course of development, API documentation and ready-made SDKs for developers will be published.
https://i.redd.it/31x1k7gsc1b51.gif
This will make it easy to use and implement TkeyNet technology in various types of applications, for example, you want to create fast exchanges, we provide you with a framework, back-end, and API, and you create a front-end and launch your service, get your Commission, and are an independent project in the market. An important point is that integration into the existing infrastructure takes place while maintaining the decentralization of the TkeyNet system so that all its internal and external operations remain confidential and verified at the same time.

What are the advantages for users?

This means getting a universal tool for working with financial markets and easily converting an asset into any other asset: euro, dollars, or gold.

https://preview.redd.it/ol4964huc1b51.png?width=626&format=png&auto=webp&s=7fedfc9009201cb8c392be3f214f285d003c0d95
Also, TKEY owners should clearly understand that the more the system develops and there are more participants, namely the corporate segment, projects, and partners, the company will be more stable and thus the project assets will grow stronger.
The popularity of the platform and trust in it directly affects the price of assets, these are the key points of growth signs, the wider and more influential the spread of the company in various areas, the higher its performance in the market.

When will the long-awaited transition to TkeyNet take place?

What changes will be made to the products?

As you understand, everything will change, and this is for the better. At a minimum, products will become faster, lighter, safer, and more versatile.
Changes and new releases will be released as soon as they are ready. In TkeySpace, the TKEY libraries will be rewritten under TkeyNet. A web version of the wallet will appear, and eventually, an application with an exchange interface will be released for quick trading and exchange of various assets, not limited to digital ones. The Tkey Messenger will be adapted for TkeyNet and will be released for previously announced platforms: iOS, Android, Linux, macOS, Windows immediately with the ability to translate directly in the messenger. We will tell you about the messenger architecture on the release day.
All changes and releases will be published and announced after the release of TkeyNet.

What is radically new in TkeyNet?

There will be funds, the Protocol will become much more universal, as well as the TKEY itself. The Protocol will also exclude the possibility of attacks that could have been in Core 1.0, also, the principles of the platform will change. We will publish all technical specifications on the day of release.

Timeline for switching to TkeyNet

The transition to TkeyNet will not take place until August 2020. We will release news and instructions for switching to TkeyNet, so we recommend that you subscribe to the newsletter immediately: https://tkeycoin.com/en/newslette.

Listing on crypto exchanges

The liquidity of the TKEY asset is urgently needed for the development of the entire TkeyNet system, so the company will provide trading platforms for TKey trading and exchange.

Conclusion

The introduction of technologies using digital currencies will create the fastest transition of users and the corporate market to a new level.
FinTech direction makes it possible to manage finances in the most efficient and secure way, without violating the law. This system simplifies, reduces the cost of conducting monetary transactions, and actually improves traditional financial services.
The solution is interesting to everyone who works with money and is used to getting maximum efficiency from it: business, investors, traders, users of banking solutions, the corporate segment, etc. When using the system, large businesses get solutions for interacting with customers online, without using specialized points.
We, in turn, are open to various offers and cooperation on flexible terms. If you have any suggestions or interesting concepts, please contact us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by tkeycoin to Tkeycoin_Official [link] [comments]

Hybrix: Blockchain for all chains

Third party services currently assist users to exchange one form of digital cash or asset for another, but a trusted third party is still required to mediate these transactions.
We propose a solution to the problem of these isolated digital currency systems using a meta-level transfer protocol with an extendable and modular design, making accessible any kind of ledger-based economy or other digital cash system for cross-blockchain and inter-systemic transactions.
Every hybrix protocol transaction yields profit to these respective ecosystems by paying transaction fees to their network supporting miners and stakers.
Technically Bitcoin earlier on had solved some of the problems of the reversibility of transactions and trust issues that plagued online commerce new players in the arena are offering replacements for Bitcoin's peer-to-peer payment solution.
Its transactions are stored in a data block inside the attachment section of a zero-value transaction on any distributed ledger system.
Transactions containing meta data pay the usual fees denominated in the base currency Our proposal is to create a protocol - called hybrix protocol -as a cross-ledger colored coin, making it technically borderless and not bound to a single ledger system.
Intersystemic transaction A transaction occurring between two distinct ledger systems.
Entanglement Informational connection between two transactions on separate ledger systems, that functionally relate them as a cross-ledger transaction.
Validator Network actor that analyses past transactions and makes available the legitimacy of these transactions according to the rules of the system protocol.
Double spend A transaction that illegitimately increases the money supply in a ledger system.
Immutability of past transactions attachment The data included with a transaction, sometimes called message or in the case of Bitcoin and its derived coins - OP RETURN. Primarily used on most ledger systems for annotation of the transaction.
Transactions have a unique transaction id OPRETURN An Bitcoin script opcode used to mark a transaction output as an attachment field for storing data 3 invalid.
Figure 2: The parsing function p parses the attachment of the base transaction into the required fields.
Intersystemic Transactions 3.2 Structured Data on a Ledger We define an electronic intersystemic token as a block of structured data that is inserted into the attachment section of a zerovalue transaction on a distributed ledger system.
The content of the attachment of transaction on a base ledger can be parsed into a second layer transaction of the meta ledger.
A parsing function p will extract the required meta transaction details from the base transactions attachment as well as using details from the base transaction that are still relevant.
Token ownership is secured by the underlying ledger system every time a transaction is done.
Each owner transfers their zero-value transaction containing the token data to another owner by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the current transaction.
The only thing that is added to the recipe is the ledger symbol, and transaction hash of where the verification hash can be found.
Subsequently the token is minted on the same address using a followup transaction 3.
cross-ledger entangled transactions Other Types of Transactions tion and then choosing a branch that has not yet been validated.
When a transaction contains more data than a ledger system can handle in its attachmentstorage space, the transaction may be split up, and sent using a transaction accompaniedby tailing part transactions that complete thecontents of the entire operation 7.
A swap transaction is legitimate when the counterparty responds to a swap proposal using a signing transaction.
Finally a burn transaction returns spendable HRC1 token balance to address E on the Ethereum chain 9.
In case of a collision, validators will only accept the recipe that was proven first by way of the genesis transaction.
The older genesis transaction must also be recorded in the recipe, so the chain of mutations can be followed and approved by validators.
Validators check a new incoming recipe for validity first, by comparing its hashes with available data in the blockchain, and authenticating that the updated genesis transaction has been done using the same secret key as the first genesis transaction.
Validation of Transactions DR AF T 6 5 6.1 Mutation of Monetary Supply Validation as a Service External validation should be handled in a decentralized manner using a consensus amongst multiple validator nodes.
If a transaction fee is enforced by the ruleset, the supply is subtracted from on every transaction.
7 7 Examinations 7.1 Validating the Validators Validators need to be rigorously examined in order to find out if they are properly doing their job of validating transactions on the chains.
In the case that all is going according to plan validators check the transactions and record their findings for the public truthfully.
In sending a transaction they can opt to pay a higher fee, and this will result in more validators eager to validate the user's chain of transactions.
A decentralized consensus state database maintained by a pool of validators will consist of a sub tree Tn0 where n increments with each state update, providing a snapshot of the agreed upon valid transaction tree.
To ensure the recovery from a 51% attack on any one single chain, snapshotting by validators could enable network users to request the verification of the current ledger and balances state, regardless of a transaction history tainted by 51% attack damage.
Common hybrix Index Storing the genesis transaction ID, or other hash information in every transaction would require a significant amount of blockchain storage as the volume of transactions grows.
The token protocol Omni, on the contrary, uses an index number for the asset ID in every transaction.
Where less computing and storage resources are available a hybrixjslib client can be used to sign and interpret transactions and get necessary data from a publicly available hybrixd node API. AF T Deterministic Libraries and API Connectors For a meta ledger we define a seed k KL¯ that can be used to generate a corresponding key pair in each base ledger using the function χL¯ : L¯ K(` ) χL,j :K L j DR 9 ψL : KL AL We connect to a large variety of blockchain APIs using a peer-to-peer network daemon called hybrixd 10.
Deterministic functions are used to generate key pairs for all included 10 Conclusion We have proposed a system for meta-level transfers across multiple distributed ledgers 10 Notes without relying on centralized exchanges or decentralized atomic transaction compatibility.
The process of moving value between ledger systems is not controlled by a centralized party, as transactions can be created and signed client-side and sent peer-to-peer among users.
We started with the usual framework of second-layer tokens specified by storing data attached to transactions, which provides a method of accounting on top of existing ledgersystems, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending.
submitted by ramanpandwar to XeraExchange [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash, the peer to peer electronic cash system, is under attack and we need your help.

TLDR: Bitcoin Cash, the peer to peer electronic cash system, shifts the dynamics of power from the elites back to the people. This is a threat to the survivability of the banks and regimes seeking to control the masses through the financial system. And there are many direct and indirect evidence (outlined below) of such bad actors trying to sabotage the peer to peer cash revolution through various means. We need your help to stand up against such saboteurs. Unity is our strength when we have to make a righteous stand against the toxic bullies and shifts the power from the elites back into the people hands. Just by speaking up and spreading awareness on this, and refusing to stay silent about it, you’re making a difference, and for that, I thank you.
This is going to be a very long post, please bear with me. And it’s a very long post precisely because the bad actors had tried so many different things to sabotage the peer to peer cash project throughout the years.
Source (OP Return Reduction): https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/
Source (Bitcoin RBF Vulnerability): https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
The global banking elites control over trillion dollars in assets. They can afford to throw few million dollars each day to protect their massive business empires. If I were them, I would make the same choice. It’s a no brainer. They don’t have to win; each day they sabotage the adoption of peer to peer cash, their trillion dollars empire survive another day while the rest of the population suffers.
There are actually plenty more nasty unethical things BTC bullies had done which is not covered here. Bitcoin Cash is an attempt to rescue what the bad actors had hijacked successfully, mainly the peer to peer cash revolution. And it won't be the last time the bad actors will try to find ways to sabotage this project. And we need your help. Bitcoin Cash does not care if you are black, white, Asian, male, female, American, Iranian, Chinese… We are about bringing economic freedom and financial sovereignty to the world, increasing quality of lives to everyone and putting the power back into the people hands. We are in this together. It can be really uncomfortable being ahead of the crowd in this peer to peer cash revolution, but when you have the truth at your side, all these naysayers screaming “bcash btrash” has little power over us.
Update 1: Fixed an inaccuracy and added few other items which I missed out.
submitted by MobTwo to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Technical: A Brief History of Payment Channels: from Satoshi to Lightning Network

Who cares about political tweets from some random country's president when payment channels are a much more interesting and are actually capable of carrying value?
So let's have a short history of various payment channel techs!

Generation 0: Satoshi's Broken nSequence Channels

Because Satoshi's Vision included payment channels, except his implementation sucked so hard we had to go fix it and added RBF as a by-product.
Originally, the plan for nSequence was that mempools would replace any transaction spending certain inputs with another transaction spending the same inputs, but only if the nSequence field of the replacement was larger.
Since 0xFFFFFFFF was the highest value that nSequence could get, this would mark a transaction as "final" and not replaceable on the mempool anymore.
In fact, this "nSequence channel" I will describe is the reason why we have this weird rule about nLockTime and nSequence. nLockTime actually only works if nSequence is not 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. final. If nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF then nLockTime is ignored, because this if the "final" version of the transaction.
So what you'd do would be something like this:
  1. You go to a bar and promise the bartender to pay by the time the bar closes. Because this is the Bitcoin universe, time is measured in blockheight, so the closing time of the bar is indicated as some future blockheight.
  2. For your first drink, you'd make a transaction paying to the bartender for that drink, paying from some coins you have. The transaction has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, and a starting nSequence of 0. You hand over the transaction and the bartender hands you your drink.
  3. For your succeeding drink, you'd remake the same transaction, adding the payment for that drink to the transaction output that goes to the bartender (so that output keeps getting larger, by the amount of payment), and having an nSequence that is one higher than the previous one.
  4. Eventually you have to stop drinking. It comes down to one of two possibilities:
    • You drink until the bar closes. Since it is now the nLockTime indicated in the transaction, the bartender is able to broadcast the latest transaction and tells the bouncers to kick you out of the bar.
    • You wisely consider the state of your liver. So you re-sign the last transaction with a "final" nSequence of 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. the maximum possible value it can have. This allows the bartender to get his or her funds immediately (nLockTime is ignored if nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF), so he or she tells the bouncers to let you out of the bar.
Now that of course is a payment channel. Individual payments (purchases of alcohol, so I guess buying coffee is not in scope for payment channels). Closing is done by creating a "final" transaction that is the sum of the individual payments. Sure there's no routing and channels are unidirectional and channels have a maximum lifetime but give Satoshi a break, he was also busy inventing Bitcoin at the time.
Now if you noticed I called this kind of payment channel "broken". This is because the mempool rules are not consensus rules, and cannot be validated (nothing about the mempool can be validated onchain: I sigh every time somebody proposes "let's make block size dependent on mempool size", mempool state cannot be validated by onchain data). Fullnodes can't see all of the transactions you signed, and then validate that the final one with the maximum nSequence is the one that actually is used onchain. So you can do the below:
  1. Become friends with Jihan Wu, because he owns >51% of the mining hashrate (he totally reorged Bitcoin to reverse the Binance hack right?).
  2. Slip Jihan Wu some of the more interesting drinks you're ordering as an incentive to cooperate with you. So say you end up ordering 100 drinks, you split it with Jihan Wu and give him 50 of the drinks.
  3. When the bar closes, Jihan Wu quickly calls his mining rig and tells them to mine the version of your transaction with nSequence 0. You know, that first one where you pay for only one drink.
  4. Because fullnodes cannot validate nSequence, they'll accept even the nSequence=0 version and confirm it, immutably adding you paying for a single alcoholic drink to the blockchain.
  5. The bartender, pissed at being cheated, takes out a shotgun from under the bar and shoots at you and Jihan Wu.
  6. Jihan Wu uses his mystical chi powers (actually the combined exhaust from all of his mining rigs) to slow down the shotgun pellets, making them hit you as softly as petals drifting in the wind.
  7. The bartender mutters some words, clothes ripping apart as he or she (hard to believe it could be a she but hey) turns into a bear, ready to maul you for cheating him or her of the payment for all the 100 drinks you ordered from him or her.
  8. Steely-eyed, you stand in front of the bartender-turned-bear, daring him to touch you. You've watched Revenant, you know Leonardo di Caprio could survive a bear mauling, and if some posh actor can survive that, you know you can too. You make a pose. "Drunken troll logic attack!"
  9. I think I got sidetracked here.
Lessons learned?

Spilman Channels

Incentive-compatible time-limited unidirectional channel; or, Satoshi's Vision, Fixed (if transaction malleability hadn't been a problem, that is).
Now, we know the bartender will turn into a bear and maul you if you try to cheat the payment channel, and now that we've revealed you're good friends with Jihan Wu, the bartender will no longer accept a payment channel scheme that lets one you cooperate with a miner to cheat the bartender.
Fortunately, Jeremy Spilman proposed a better way that would not let you cheat the bartender.
First, you and the bartender perform this ritual:
  1. You get some funds and create a transaction that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig between you and the bartender. You don't broadcast this yet: you just sign it and get its txid.
  2. You create another transaction that spends the above transaction. This transaction (the "backoff") has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, plus one block. You sign it and give this backoff transaction (but not the above transaction) to the bartender.
  3. The bartender signs the backoff and gives it back to you. It is now valid since it's spending a 2-of-2 of you and the bartender, and both of you have signed the backoff transaction.
  4. Now you broadcast the first transaction onchain. You and the bartender wait for it to be deeply confirmed, then you can start ordering.
The above is probably vaguely familiar to LN users. It's the funding process of payment channels! The first transaction, the one that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig, is the funding transaction that backs the payment channel funds.
So now you start ordering in this way:
  1. For your first drink, you create a transaction spending the funding transaction output and sending the price of the drink to the bartender, with the rest returning to you.
  2. You sign the transaction and pass it to the bartender, who serves your first drink.
  3. For your succeeding drinks, you recreate the same transaction, adding the price of the new drink to the sum that goes to the bartender and reducing the money returned to you. You sign the transaction and give it to the bartender, who serves you your next drink.
  4. At the end:
    • If the bar closing time is reached, the bartender signs the latest transaction, completing the needed 2-of-2 signatures and broadcasting this to the Bitcoin network. Since the backoff transaction is the closing time + 1, it can't get used at closing time.
    • If you decide you want to leave early because your liver is crying, you just tell the bartender to go ahead and close the channel (which the bartender can do at any time by just signing and broadcasting the latest transaction: the bartender won't do that because he or she is hoping you'll stay and drink more).
    • If you ended up just hanging around the bar and never ordering, then at closing time + 1 you broadcast the backoff transaction and get your funds back in full.
Now, even if you pass 50 drinks to Jihan Wu, you can't give him the first transaction (the one which pays for only one drink) and ask him to mine it: it's spending a 2-of-2 and the copy you have only contains your own signature. You need the bartender's signature to make it valid, but he or she sure as hell isn't going to cooperate in something that would lose him or her money, so a signature from the bartender validating old state where he or she gets paid less isn't going to happen.
So, problem solved, right? Right? Okay, let's try it. So you get your funds, put them in a funding tx, get the backoff tx, confirm the funding tx...
Once the funding transaction confirms deeply, the bartender laughs uproariously. He or she summons the bouncers, who surround you menacingly.
"I'm refusing service to you," the bartender says.
"Fine," you say. "I was leaving anyway;" You smirk. "I'll get back my money with the backoff transaction, and posting about your poor service on reddit so you get negative karma, so there!"
"Not so fast," the bartender says. His or her voice chills your bones. It looks like your exploitation of the Satoshi nSequence payment channel is still fresh in his or her mind. "Look at the txid of the funding transaction that got confirmed."
"What about it?" you ask nonchalantly, as you flip open your desktop computer and open a reputable blockchain explorer.
What you see shocks you.
"What the --- the txid is different! You--- you changed my signature?? But how? I put the only copy of my private key in a sealed envelope in a cast-iron box inside a safe buried in the Gobi desert protected by a clan of nomads who have dedicated their lives and their childrens' lives to keeping my private key safe in perpetuity!"
"Didn't you know?" the bartender asks. "The components of the signature are just very large numbers. The sign of one of the signature components can be changed, from positive to negative, or negative to positive, and the signature will remain valid. Anyone can do that, even if they don't know the private key. But because Bitcoin includes the signatures in the transaction when it's generating the txid, this little change also changes the txid." He or she chuckles. "They say they'll fix it by separating the signatures from the transaction body. They're saying that these kinds of signature malleability won't affect transaction ids anymore after they do this, but I bet I can get my good friend Jihan Wu to delay this 'SepSig' plan for a good while yet. Friendly guy, this Jihan Wu, it turns out all I had to do was slip him 51 drinks and he was willing to mine a tx with the signature signs flipped." His or her grin widens. "I'm afraid your backoff transaction won't work anymore, since it spends a txid that is not existent and will never be confirmed. So here's the deal. You pay me 99% of the funds in the funding transaction, in exchange for me signing the transaction that spends with the txid that you see onchain. Refuse, and you lose 100% of the funds and every other HODLer, including me, benefits from the reduction in coin supply. Accept, and you get to keep 1%. I lose nothing if you refuse, so I won't care if you do, but consider the difference of getting zilch vs. getting 1% of your funds." His or her eyes glow. "GENUFLECT RIGHT NOW."
Lesson learned?

CLTV-protected Spilman Channels

Using CLTV for the backoff branch.
This variation is simply Spilman channels, but with the backoff transaction replaced with a backoff branch in the SCRIPT you pay to. It only became possible after OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV) was enabled in 2015.
Now as we saw in the Spilman Channels discussion, transaction malleability means that any pre-signed offchain transaction can easily be invalidated by flipping the sign of the signature of the funding transaction while the funding transaction is not yet confirmed.
This can be avoided by simply putting any special requirements into an explicit branch of the Bitcoin SCRIPT. Now, the backoff branch is supposed to create a maximum lifetime for the payment channel, and prior to the introduction of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY this could only be done by having a pre-signed nLockTime transaction.
With CLTV, however, we can now make the branches explicit in the SCRIPT that the funding transaction pays to.
Instead of paying to a 2-of-2 in order to set up the funding transaction, you pay to a SCRIPT which is basically "2-of-2, OR this singlesig after a specified lock time".
With this, there is no backoff transaction that is pre-signed and which refers to a specific txid. Instead, you can create the backoff transaction later, using whatever txid the funding transaction ends up being confirmed under. Since the funding transaction is immutable once confirmed, it is no longer possible to change the txid afterwards.

Todd Micropayment Networks

The old hub-spoke model (that isn't how LN today actually works).
One of the more direct predecessors of the Lightning Network was the hub-spoke model discussed by Peter Todd. In this model, instead of payers directly having channels to payees, payers and payees connect to a central hub server. This allows any payer to pay any payee, using the same channel for every payee on the hub. Similarly, this allows any payee to receive from any payer, using the same channel.
Remember from the above Spilman example? When you open a channel to the bartender, you have to wait around for the funding tx to confirm. This will take an hour at best. Now consider that you have to make channels for everyone you want to pay to. That's not very scalable.
So the Todd hub-spoke model has a central "clearing house" that transport money from payers to payees. The "Moonbeam" project takes this model. Of course, this reveals to the hub who the payer and payee are, and thus the hub can potentially censor transactions. Generally, though, it was considered that a hub would more efficiently censor by just not maintaining a channel with the payer or payee that it wants to censor (since the money it owned in the channel would just be locked uselessly if the hub won't process payments to/from the censored user).
In any case, the ability of the central hub to monitor payments means that it can surveill the payer and payee, and then sell this private transactional data to third parties. This loss of privacy would be intolerable today.
Peter Todd also proposed that there might be multiple hubs that could transport funds to each other on behalf of their users, providing somewhat better privacy.
Another point of note is that at the time such networks were proposed, only unidirectional (Spilman) channels were available. Thus, while one could be a payer, or payee, you would have to use separate channels for your income versus for your spending. Worse, if you wanted to transfer money from your income channel to your spending channel, you had to close both and reshuffle the money between them, both onchain activities.

Poon-Dryja Lightning Network

Bidirectional two-participant channels.
The Poon-Dryja channel mechanism has two important properties:
Both the original Satoshi and the two Spilman variants are unidirectional: there is a payer and a payee, and if the payee wants to do a refund, or wants to pay for a different service or product the payer is providing, then they can't use the same unidirectional channel.
The Poon-Dryjam mechanism allows channels, however, to be bidirectional instead: you are not a payer or a payee on the channel, you can receive or send at any time as long as both you and the channel counterparty are online.
Further, unlike either of the Spilman variants, there is no time limit for the lifetime of a channel. Instead, you can keep the channel open for as long as you want.
Both properties, together, form a very powerful scaling property that I believe most people have not appreciated. With unidirectional channels, as mentioned before, if you both earn and spend over the same network of payment channels, you would have separate channels for earning and spending. You would then need to perform onchain operations to "reverse" the directions of your channels periodically. Secondly, since Spilman channels have a fixed lifetime, even if you never used either channel, you would have to periodically "refresh" it by closing it and reopening.
With bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels, you may instead open some channels when you first begin managing your own money, then close them only after your lawyers have executed your last will and testament on how the money in your channels get divided up to your heirs: that's just two onchain transactions in your entire lifetime. That is the potentially very powerful scaling property that bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels allow.
I won't discuss the transaction structure needed for Poon-Dryja bidirectional channels --- it's complicated and you can easily get explanations with cute graphics elsewhere.
There is a weakness of Poon-Dryja that people tend to gloss over (because it was fixed very well by RustyReddit):
Another thing I want to emphasize is that while the Lightning Network paper and many of the earlier presentations developed from the old Peter Todd hub-and-spoke model, the modern Lightning Network takes the logical conclusion of removing a strict separation between "hubs" and "spokes". Any node on the Lightning Network can very well work as a hub for any other node. Thus, while you might operate as "mostly a payer", "mostly a forwarding node", "mostly a payee", you still end up being at least partially a forwarding node ("hub") on the network, at least part of the time. This greatly reduces the problems of privacy inherent in having only a few hub nodes: forwarding nodes cannot get significantly useful data from the payments passing through them, because the distance between the payer and the payee can be so large that it would be likely that the ultimate payer and the ultimate payee could be anyone on the Lightning Network.
Lessons learned?

Future

After LN, there's also the Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels (DMC). This post is long enough as-is, LOL. But for now, it uses a novel "decrementing nSequence channel", using the new relative-timelock semantics of nSequence (not the broken one originally by Satoshi). It actually uses multiple such "decrementing nSequence" constructs, terminating in a pair of Spilman channels, one in both directions (thus "duplex"). Maybe I'll discuss it some other time.
The realization that channel constructions could actually hold more channel constructions inside them (the way the Decker-Wattenhofer puts a pair of Spilman channels inside a series of "decrementing nSequence channels") lead to the further thought behind Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer channel factories. Basically, you could host multiple two-participant channel constructs inside a larger multiparticipant "channel" construct (i.e. host multiple channels inside a factory).
Further, we have the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun or "eltoo" construction. I'd argue that this is "nSequence done right". I'll write more about this later, because this post is long enough.
Lessons learned?
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: More channel mechanisms!

This is a followup of my older post about the history of payment channel mechanisms.
The "modern" payment channel system is Lightning Network, which uses bidirectional indefinite-lifetime channels, using HTLCs to trustlessly route through the network.
However, at least one other payment channel mechanism was developed at roughly the same time as Lightning, and there are also further proposals that are intended to replace the core payment channel mechanism in use by Lightning.
Now, in principle, the "magic" of Lightning lies in combining two ingredients:
  1. Offchain updateable systems.
  2. HTLCs to implement atomic cross-system swaps.
We can replace the exact mechanism implementing an offchain updateable system. Secondly we can replace the use of HTLCs with another atomic cross-system swap, which is what we would do when we eventually switch to payment points and scalars from payment hashes and preimages.
So let's clarify what I'll be discussing here:
Now I might use "we" here to refer to what "we" did to the design of Bitcoin, but it is only because "we" are all Satoshi, except for Craig Steven Wright.
So, let's present the other payment channel mechanisms. But first, a digression.

Digression: the new nSequence and OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY

The new relative-timelock semantics of nSequence.
Last time we used nSequence, we had the unfortunate problem that it would be easy to rip off people by offering a higher miner fee for older state where we own more funds, then convince the other side of the channel to give us goods in exchange for a new state with tiny miner fees, then publish both the old state and the new state, then taunt the miners with "so which state is gonna earn you more fees huh huh huh?".
This problem, originally failed by Satoshi, was such a massive facepalm that, in honor of miners doing the economically-rational thing in the face of developer and user demands when given a non-final nSequence, we decided to use nSequence as a flag for the opt-in replace-by-fee.
Basically, under opt-in replace-by-fee, if a transaction had an nSequence that was not 0xFFFFFFFF or 0xFFFFFFFE, then it was opt-in RBF (BIP125). Because you'd totally abuse nSequence to bribe miners in order to steal money from your bartender, especially if your bartender is not a werebear.
Of course, using a 4-byte field for a one-bit flag (to opt-in to RBF or not) was a massive waste of space, so when people started proposing relative locktimes, the nSequence field was repurposed.
Basically, in Bitcoin as of the time of this writing (early 2020) if nSequence is less than 0x80000000 it can be interpreted as a relative timelock. I'll spare you the details here, BIP68 has them, but basically nSequence can indicate (much like nLockTime) either a "real world" relative lock time (i.e. the output must have been confirmed for X seconds before it can be spent using a transaction with a non-zero nSequence) or the actual real world, which is measured in blocks (i.e. the output must have been confirmed for N blocks before it can be spent using a transaction with a non-zero nSequence). Of course, this is the Bitcoin universe and "seconds" is a merely human delusion, so we will use blocks exclusively.
And similarly to OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, we also added OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in BIP112. This ensures that the nSequence field is a relative-locktime (i.e. less than 0x80000000) and that it is the specified type (block-based or seconds-based) and that it is equal or higher to the specified minimum relative locktime.
It is important to mention the new, modern meaning of nSequence, because it is central to many of the modern payment channel mechanisms, including Lightning Poon-Dryja.
Lessons learned?

Decker-Wattenhofer "Duplex Micropayment Channels"

Mechanisms-within-mechanisms for a punishment-free bidirectional indefinite-lifetime payment channel.
The Decker-Wattenhofer paper was published in 2015, but the Poon-Dryja "Lightning Network" paper was published in 2016. However, the Decker-Wattenhofer paper mentions the Lightning mechanism, specifically mentioning the need to store every old revocation key (i.e. the problem I mentioned last time that was solved using RustyReddit shachains). Maybe Poon-Dryja presented the Lightning Network before making a final published paper in 2016, or something. Either that or cdecker is the Bitcoin time traveler.
It's a little hard to get an online copy now, but as of late 2019 this seems to work: copy
Now the interesting bit is that Decker-Wattenhofer achieves its goals by combining multiple mechanisms that are, by themselves, workable payment channel mechanisms already, except each has some massive drawbacks. By combining them, we can minimize the drawbacks.
So let's go through the individual pieces.

Indefinite-lifetime Spilman channels

As mentioned before, Spilman channels have the drawback that they have a limited lifetime: the lock time indicated in the backoff transaction or backoff branch of the script. However, instead of an absolute lock time, we can use a relative locktime.
In order to do so, we use a "kickoff" transaction, between the backoff transaction and the funding transaction. Our opening ritual goes this way, between you and our gender-neutral bartender-bancho werebear:
  1. First, you compute the txid for the funding transaction and the kickoff transaction. The funding transaction takes some of your funds and puts it into a 2-of-2 between you and the bartender, and the kickoff is a 1-input 1-output transaction that spends the funding transaction and outputs to another 2-of-2 between you and the bartender.
  2. Then, you generate the backoff transaction, which spends the kickoff transaction and returns all the funds to you. The backoff has a non-zero nSequence, indicating a delay of a number of blocks agreed between you, which is a security/convenience tradeoff parameter
  3. You sign the backoff transaction, then send it to the bartender.
  4. The bartender signs the backoff, and gives back the fully-signed transaction to you.
  5. You sign the kickoff transaction, then send it to the bartender.
  6. The bartender signs the kickoff, and gives it back to you fully signed.
  7. You sign and broadcast the funding transaction, and both of you wait for the funding transaction to be deeply confirmed.
The above setup assumes you're using SegWit, because transaction malleability fix.
At any time, either you or the bartender can broadcast the kickoff transaction, and once that is done, this indicates closure of the channel. You do this if you have drunk enough alcoholic beverages, or the bartender could do this when he or she is closing the bar.
Now, to get your drinks, you do:
  1. Sign a transaction spending the kickoff, and adding more funds to the bartender, to buy a drink. This transaction is not encumbered with an nSequence.
  2. Hand the signed transaction to the bartender, who provides you with your next drink.
The channel is closed by publishing the kickoff transaction. Both of you have a fully-signed copy of the kickoff, so either of you can initiate the close.
On closure (publication and confirmation of the kickoff transaction), there are two cases:
  1. You fail to pick up any chicks at the bar (I prefer female humans of optimum reproductive age myself rather than nestling birds, but hey, you do you) so you didn't actually spend for drinks at all. In this case, the bartender is not holding any transactions that can spend the kickoff transaction. You wait for the agreed-upon delay after the kickoff is confirmed, and then publish the backoff transaction and get back all the funds that you didn't spend.
  2. You spend all your money on chicks and end up having to be kicked into a cab to get back to your domicile, because even juvenile birds can out-drink you, you pushover. The bartender then uses the latest transaction you gave (the one that gives the most money to him or her --- it would be foolish of him or her to use an earlier version with less money!), signs it, and broadcasts it to get his or her share of the money from the kickoff transaction.

Decrementing nSequence channels

Enforcing order by reducing relative locktimes.
I believe this to be novel to the Decker-Wattenhofer mechanism, though I might be missing some predecessor.
This again uses the new relative-locktime meaning of nSequence. As such, it also uses a kickoff transaction like the above indefinite-lifetime Spilman channel. Set up is very similar to the setup of the above indefinite-lifetime Spilman channel, except that because this is bidirectional, we can actually have both sides put money into the initial starting backoff transaction.
We also rename the "backoff" transaction to "state" transaction. Basically, the state transaction indicates how the money in the channel is divided up between the two participants. The "backoff" we sign during the funding ritual is now the first state transaction. Both sides keep track of the current state transaction (which is initialized to the first state transaction on channel establishment).
Finally, the starting nSequence of the first state transaction is very large (usually in the dozens or low hundreds of blocks).
Suppose one participant wants to pay the other. The ritual done is then:
  1. A new version of the current state transaction is created with more money in the payee side.
  2. This new version has nSequence that is one block lower than the current state transaction (in practice it should be a few blocks lower, not just one, because sometimes miners find blocks in quick succession).
  3. Both sides exchange signatures for the new state transaction.
  4. Both sides set the new state transaction as the current state transaction that will be the basis for the next payment.
When the channel is closed by publication of the kickoff transaction, then the transaction with the lowest nSequence becomes valid earlier than the other state transactions. This is enough to enforce that the most recent state transaction (the one with the lowest nSequence, and thus the first to become valid) is published.

Mechanism-within-mechanism

Combining the ingredients of the Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels concoction.
Of note is that we can "chain" these mechanisms together in such a way that we strengthen their strengths while covering their weaknesses.
A note is that both the indefinite-lifetime nSequence Spilman variant, and the above decrementing nSequence mechanism, both have "kickoff" transactions.
However, when we chain the two mechanisms together, it turns out that the final transaction of one mechanism also serves as the kickoff of the next mechanism in the chain.
So for example, let's chain two of those decrementing nSequence channels together. Let's make them 144 blocks maximum delay each, and decrement in units of 4 blocks, so each of the chained mechanisms can do 37 updates each.
We start up a new channel with the following transactions:
  1. A funding transaction paying to a 2-of-2, confirmed deeply onchain. All other transactions are offchain until closure.
  2. A kickoff transaction spending the funding transaction output, paying to a 2-of-2.
  3. A "stage 1" decrementing nSequence state transaction, spending the kickoff, with current nSequence 144, paying to a 2-of-2.
  4. A "stage 2" decrementing nSequence state transaction, spending the stage 1, with current nSequence 144, paying to the initial state of the channel.
When we update this channel, we first update the "stage 2" state transaction, replacing it with an nSequence lower by 4 blocks. So after one update our transactions are:
  1. A funding transaction paying to a 2-of-2, confirmed deeply onchain. All other transactions are offchain until closure.
  2. A kickoff transaction spending the funding transaction output, paying to a 2-of-2.
  3. A "stage 1" decrementing nSequence state transaction, spending the kickoff, with current nSequence 144, paying to a 2-of-2.
  4. A "stage 2" decrementing nSequence state transaction, spending the stage 1, with current nSequence 140, paying to the second state of the channel.
The first 3 transactions are the same, only the last one is replaced with a state transaction with lower `nSequence.
Things become interesting when we reach the "stage 2" having nSequence 0. On the next update, we create a new "stage 1", with an nSequence that is 4 lower, and "reset" the "stage 2" back to an nSequence of 144.
This is safe because even though we have a "stage 2" with shorter nSequence, that stage 2 spends a stage 1 with an nSequence of 144, and the stage 1 with nSequence of 140 would beat it to the blockchain first.
This results in us having, not 36 + 36 updates, but instead 36 * 36 updates (1296 updates). 1296 updates is still kinda piddling, but that's much better than just a single-stage decrementing nSequence channel.
The number of stages can be extended indefinitely, and your only drawback would be the amount of blockchain space you'd spend for a unilateral close. Mutual cooperative closes can always shortcut the entire stack of staged transactions and cut it to a single mutual cooperative close transaction.
But that's not all! You might be wondering about the term "duplex" in the name "Duplex Micropayment Channels".
That's because the last decrementing nSequence stage does not hold the money of the participants directly. Instead, the last stage holds two indefinite-lifetime Spilman channels. As you might remember, Spilman channels are unidirectional, so the two Spilman channels represent both directions of the channel. Thus, duplex.
Let's go back to you and your favorite werebear bartender. If you were using a Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channel, you'd have several stages of decrementing nSequence, terminated in two Spilman channels, a you-to-bartender channel and a bartender-to-you channel.
Suppose that, while drinking, the bartender offers you a rebate on each drink if you do some particular service for him or her. Let us not discuss what service this is and leave it to your imagination. So you pay for a drink, decide you want to get the rebate, and perform a service that the bartender finds enjoyable. So you transfer some funds on the you-to-bartender direction, and then later the bartender transfers some funds in the bartender-to-you channel after greatly enjoying your service.
Suppose you now exhaust the you-to-bartender direction. However, you note that the rebates you've earned are enough to buy a few more drinks. What you do instead is to update the staged decrementing nSequence mechanisms, and recreate the two Spilman directions such that the you-to-bartender direction contains all your current funds and the bartender-to-you direction contains all the bartender's funds. With this, you are now able to spend even the money you earned from rebates. At the same time, even if the staged decrementing nSequence mechanisms only have a few hundred thousand updates, you can still extend the practical number of updates as long as you don't have to reset the Spilman channels too often.

Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer Channel Factories

Because you like channels so much, you put channels inside channels so you could pay while you pay. I N C E P T I O N
The Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels introduced the possibility of nesting a channel mechanism inside another channel mechanism. For example, it suggests nesting a decrementing-nSequence mechanism inside another decrementing-nSequence mechanism, and having as well an unlimited-lifetime Spilman channel at the end. In the Decker-Wattenhofer case, it is used to support the weakness of one mechanism with the strength of another mechanism.
One thing to note is that while the unlimited-lifetime Spilman channel variant used is inherently two-participant (there is one payer and one payee), the decrementing-nSequence channel mechanism can be multiparticipant.
Another thing of note is that nothing prevents one mechanism from hosting just one inner mechanism, just as it is perfectly fine for a Lightning Network channel to have multiple HTLCs in-flight, plus the money in your side, plus the money in the counterparty's side. As these are "just" Bitcoin-enforceable contracts, there is no fundamental difference between an HTLC, and a payment channel mechanism.
Thus the most basic idea of the Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer Channel Factories paper is simply that we can have a multiparticipant update mechanism host multiple two-party update mechanisms. The outer multiparticipant update mechanism is called a "channel factory" while the inner two-party update mechanisms are called "channels".
The exact mechanism used in the Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer paper uses several decrementing-nSequence mechanisms to implement the factory, and Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels to implement the channel layer.
However, as noted before, there is no fundamental difference between a Poon-Dryja channel and an HTLC. So it is in fact possible to have chained Decker-Wattenhofer decrementing-nSequence mechanisms to implement the factory level, while the channels are simply Poon-Dryja channels.

Conclusion

So this concludes for now an alternative mechanism to the classic Poon-Dryja that Lightning uses. The tradeoffs are significantly different between Decker-Wattenhofer vs Poon-Dryja:

Copyright

Copyright 2020 Alan Manuel K. Gloria. Released under CC-BY.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Continuous Proof of Bitcoin Burn: trust minimized sidechains and bitcoin-pegs w/o oracles/federations today

Original design presented for discussion and criticism
originally posted here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5212814.0
TLDR: Proposing the following that's possible today to use for any existing or new altcoins:
_______________________________________

Disclaimer:

This is not an altcoin thread. I'm not making anything. The design discussed options for existing altcoins and new ways to built on top of Bitcoin inheriting some of its security guarantees. 2 parts: First, the design allows any altcoins to switch to securing themselves via Bitcoin instead of their own PoW or PoS with significant benefits to both altcoins and Bitcoin (and environment lol). Second, I explain how to create Bitcoin-pegged assets to turn altcoins into a Bitcoin sidechain equivalent. Let me know if this is of interest or if it exists, feel free to use or do anything with this, hopefully I can help.

Issue:

Solution to first few points:

PoW altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:

PoS altcoin switching to CPoBB would trade:

We already have a permissionless, compact, public, high-cost-backed finality base layer to build on top - Bitcoin! It will handle sorting, data availability, finality, and has something of value to use instead of capital or energy that's outside the sidechain - the Bitcoin coins. The sunk costs of PoW can be simulated by burning Bitcoin, similar to concept known as Proof of Burn where Bitcoin are sent to unspendable address. Unlike ICO's, no contributors can take out the Bitcoins and get rewards for free. Unlike PoS, entry into supply lies outside the alt-chain and thus doesn't depend on permission of alt-chain stake-coin holders. It's hard to find a more bandwidth or state size protective blockchain to use other than Bitcoin as well so altcoins can be Bitcoin-aware at little marginal difficulty - 10 years of history fully validates in under a day.

What are typical issues with Proof of Burn?

Solution:

This should be required for any design for it to stay permissionless. Optional is constant fixed emission rate for altcoins not trying to be money if goal is to maximize accessibility. Since it's not depending on brand new PoW for security, they don't have to depend on massive early rewards giving disproportionate fraction of supply at earliest stage either. If 10 coins are created every block, after n blocks, at rate of 10 coins per block, % emission per block is = (100/n)%, an always decreasing number. Sidechain coin doesn't need to be scarce money, and could maximize distribution of control by encouraging further distribution. If no burners exist in a block, altcoin block reward is simply added to next block reward making emission predictable.
Sidechain block content should be committed in burn transaction via a root of the merkle tree of its transactions. Sidechain state will depend on Bitcoin for finality and block time between commitment broadcasts. However, the throughput can be of any size per block, unlimited number of such sidechains can exist with their own rules and validation costs are handled only by nodes that choose to be aware of a specific sidechain by running its consensus compatible software.
Important design decision is how can protocol determine the "true" side-block and how to distribute incentives. Simplest solution is to always :
  1. Agree on the valid sidechain block matching the merkle root commitment for the largest amount of Bitcoin burnt, earliest inclusion in the bitcoin block as the tie breaker
  2. Distribute block reward during the next side-block proportional to current amounts burnt
  3. Bitcoin fee market serves as deterrent for spam submissions of blocks to validate
e.g.
sidechain block reward is set always at 10 altcoins per block Bitcoin block contains the following content embedded and part of its transactions: tx11: burns 0.01 BTC & OP_RETURN tx56: burns 0.05 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 1> ... tx78: burns 1 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of valid sidechain block version 2> ... tx124: burns 0.2 BTC & OP_RETURN ... <...root of INVALID sidechain block version 3> ...
Validity is deterministic by rules in client side node software (e.g. signature validation) so all nodes can independently see version 3 is invalid and thus burner of tx124 gets no reward allocated. The largest valid burn is from tx78 so version 2 is used for the blockchain in sidechain. The total valid burn is 1.06 BTC, so 10 altcoins to be distributed in the next block are 0.094, 0.472, 9.434 to owners of first 3 transactions, respectively.
Censorship attack would require continuous costs in Bitcoin on the attacker and can be waited out. Censorship would also be limited to on-sidechain specific transactions as emission distribution to others CPoB contributors wouldn't be affected as blocks without matching coin distributions on sidechain wouldn't be valid. Additionally, sidechains can allow a limited number of sidechain transactions to happen via embedding transaction data inside Bitcoin transactions (e.g. OP_RETURN) as a way to use Bitcoin for data availability layer in case sidechain transactions are being censored on their network. Since all sidechain nodes are Bitcoin aware, it would be trivial to include.
Sidechain blocks cannot be reverted without reverting Bitcoin blocks or hard forking the protocol used to derive sidechain state. If protocol is forked, the value of sidechain coins on each fork of sidechain state becomes important but Proof of Burn natively guarantees trust minimized and permissionless distribution of the coins, something inferior methods like obscure early distributions, trusted pre-mines, and trusted ICO's cannot do.
More bitcoins being burnt is parallel to more hash rate entering PoW, with each miner or burner getting smaller amount of altcoins on average making it unprofitable to burn or mine and forcing some to exit. At equilibrium costs of equipment and electricity approaches value gained from selling coins just as at equilibrium costs of burnt coins approaches value of altcoins rewarded. In both cases it incentivizes further distribution to markets to cover the costs making burners and miners dependent on users via markets. In both cases it's also possible to mine without permission and mine at a loss temporarily to gain some altcoins without permission if you want to.
Altcoins benefit by inheriting many of bitcoin security guarantees, bitcoin parties have to do nothing if they don't want to, but will see their coins grow more scarce through burning. The contributions to the fee market will contribute to higher Bitcoin miner rewards even after block reward is gone.

Sidechain Bitcoin-pegs:

What is the ideal goal of the sidechains? Ideally to have a token that has the bi-directionally pegged value to Bitcoin and tradeable ~1:1 for Bitcoin that gives Bitcoin users an option of a different rule set without compromising the base chain nor forcing base chain participants to do anything different.
Issues with value pegs:
Let's get rid of the idea of needing Bitcoin collateral to back pegged coins 1:1 as that's never secure, independent, or scalable at same security level. As drive-chain design suggested the peg doesn't have to be fast, can take months, just needs to exist so other methods can be used to speed it up like atomic swaps by volunteers taking on the risk for a fee.
In continuous proof of burn we have another source of Bitcoins, the burnt Bitcoins. Sidechain protocols can require some minor percentage (e.g. 20%) of burner tx value coins via another output to go to reimburse those withdrawing side-Bitcoins to Bitcoin chain until they are filled. If withdrawal queue is empty that % is burnt instead. Selection of who receives reimbursement is deterministic per burner. Percentage must be kept small as it's assumed it's possible to get up to that much discount on altcoin emissions.
Let's use a really simple example case where each burner pays 20% of burner tx amount to cover withdrawal in exact order requested with no attempts at other matching, capped at half amount requested per payout. Example:
withdrawal queue: request1: 0.2 sBTC request2: 1.0 sBTC request3: 0.5 sBTC
same block burners: tx burns 0.8 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.1 BTC is sent to request2 tx burns 0.4 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1 tx burns 0.08 BTC, 0.02 BTC is sent to request 1 tx burns 1.2 BTC, 0.1 BTC is sent to request1, 0.2 BTC is sent to request2
withdrawal queue: request1: filled with 0.32 BTC instead of 0.2 sBTC, removed from queue request2: partially-filled with 0.3 BTC out of 1.0 sBTC, 0.7 BTC remaining for next queue request3: still 0.5 sBTC
Withdrawal requests can either take long time to get to filled due to cap per burn or get overfilled as seen in "request1" example, hard to predict. Overfilling is not a big deal since we're not dealing with a finite source. The risk a user that chooses to use the sidechain pegged coin takes on is based on the rate at which they can expect to get paid based on value of altcoin emission that generally matches Bitcoin burn rate. If sidechain loses interest and nobody is burning enough bitcoin, the funds might be lost so the scale of risk has to be measured. If Bitcoins burnt per day is 0.5 BTC total and you hope to deposit or withdraw 5000 BTC, it might take a long time or never happen to withdraw it. But for amounts comparable or under 0.5 BTC/day average burnt with 5 side-BTC on sidechain outstanding total the risks are more reasonable.
Deposits onto the sidechain are far easier - by burning Bitcoin in a separate known unspendable deposit address for that sidechain and sidechain protocol issuing matching amount of side-Bitcoin. Withdrawn bitcoins are treated as burnt bitcoins for sake of dividing block rewards as long as they followed the deterministic rules for their burn to count as valid and percentage used for withdrawals is kept small to avoid approaching free altcoin emissions by paying for your own withdrawals and ensuring significant unforgeable losses.
Ideally more matching is used so large withdrawals don't completely block everyone else and small withdrawals don't completely block large withdrawals. Better methods should deterministically randomize assigned withdrawals via previous Bitcoin block hash, prioritized by request time (earliest arrivals should get paid earlier), and amount of peg outstanding vs burn amount (smaller burns should prioritize smaller outstanding balances). Fee market on bitcoin discourages doing withdrawals of too small amounts and encourages batching by burners.
The second method is less reliable but already known that uses over-collateralized loans that create a oracle-pegged token that can be pegged to the bitcoin value. It was already used by its inventors in 2014 on bitshares (e.g. bitCNY, bitUSD, bitBTC) and similarly by MakerDAO in 2018. The upside is a trust minimized distribution of CPoB coins can be used to distribute trust over selection of price feed oracles far better than pre-mined single trusted party based distributions used in MakerDAO (100% pre-mined) and to a bit lesser degree on bitshares (~50% mined, ~50% premined before dpos). The downside is 2 fold: first the supply of BTC pegged coin would depend on people opening an equivalent of a leveraged long position on the altcoin/BTC pair, which is hard to convince people to do as seen by very poor liquidity of bitBTC in the past. Second downside is oracles can still collude to mess with price feeds, and while their influence might be limited via capped price changes per unit time and might compromise their continuous revenue stream from fees, the leverage benefits might outweight the losses. The use of continous proof of burn to peg withdrawals is superior method as it is simply a minor byproduct of "mining" for altcoins and doesn't depend on traders positions. At the moment I'm not aware of any market-pegged coins on trust minimized platforms or implemented in trust minimized way (e.g. premined mkr on premined eth = 2 sets of trusted third parties each of which with full control over the design).
_______________________________________

Brief issues with current altchains options:

  1. PoW: New PoW altcoins suffer high risk of attacks. Additional PoW chains require high energy and capital costs to create permissionless entry and trust minimized miners that are forever dependent on markets to hold them accountable. Using same algorithm or equipment as another chain or merge-mining puts you at a disadvantage by allowing some miners to attack and still cover sunk costs on another chain. Using a different algorithm/equipment requires building up the value of sunk costs to protect against attacks with significant energy and capital costs. Drive-chains also require miners to allow it by having to be sidechain aware and thus incur additional costs on them and validating nodes if the sidechain rewards are of value and importance.
  2. PoS: PoS is permissioned (requires permission from internal party to use network or contribute to consensus on permitted scale), allows perpetual control without accountability to others, and incentivizes centralization of control over time. Without continuous source of sunk costs there's no reason to give up control. By having consensus entirely dependent on internal state network, unlike PoW but like private databases, cannot guarantee independent permissionless entry and thus cannot claim trust minimization. Has no built in distribution methods so depends on safe start (snapshot of trust minimized distributions or PoW period) followed by losing that on switch to PoS or starting off dependent on a single trusted party such as case in all significant pre-mines and ICO's.
  3. Proof of Capacity: PoC is just shifting costs further to capital over PoW to achieve same guarantees.
  4. PoW/PoS: Still require additional PoW chain creation. Strong dependence on PoS can render PoW irrelevant and thus inherit the worst properties of both protocols.
  5. Tokens inherit all trust dependencies of parent blockchain and thus depend on the above.
  6. Embedded consensus (counterparty, veriblock?, omni): Lacks mechanism for distribution, requires all tx data to be inside scarce Bitcoin block space so high cost to users instead of compensated miners. If you want to build a very expressive scripting language, might very hard & expensive to fit into Bitcoin tx vs CPoBB external content of unlimited size in a committed hash. Same as CPoBB is Bitcoin-aware so can respond to Bitcoin being sent but without source of Bitcoins like burning no way to do any trust minimized Bitcoin-pegs it can control fully.

Few extra notes from my talks with people:

Main questions to you:

open to working on this further with others
submitted by awasi868 to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Technical: The `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` Debate! Chaperones and output tagging and signature replay oh my!

Bitcoin price isn't moving oh no!!! You know WHAT ELSE isn't moving?? SIGHASH_NOINPUT that's what!!!
Now as you should already know, Decker-Russell-Osuntokun ("eltoo") just ain't possible without SIGHASH_NOINPUT of some kind or other. And Decker-Russell-Osuntokun removes the toxic waste problem (i.e. old backups of your Poon-Dryja LN channels are actively dangerous and could lose your funds if you recover from them, or worse, your most hated enemy could acquire copies of your old state and make you lose funds). Decker-Russell-Osuntokun also allows multiparticipant offchain cryptocurrency update systems, without the drawback of a large unilateral close timeout that Decker-Wattenhofer does, making this construction better for use at the channel factory layer.
Now cdecker already wrote a some code implementing SIGHASH_NOINPUT before, which would make it work in current pre-SegWit P2PKH, P2SH, as well as SegWit v0 P2WPKH and P2WSH. He also made and published BIP 118.
But as is usual for Bitcoin Core development, this triggered debate, and thus many counterproposals were made and so on. Suffice it to say that the simple BIP 118 looks like it won't be coming into Bitcoin Core anytime soon (or possibly at all).
First things first: This link contains all that you need to know, but hey, maybe you'll find my take more amusing.
So let's start with the main issue.

Signature Replay Attack

The above is the Signature Replay Attack, and the reason why SIGHASH_NOINPUT has triggered debate as to whether it is safe at all and whether we can add enough stuff to it to ever make it safe.
Now of course you could point to SIGHASH_NONE which is even worse because all it does is say "I am authorizing the spend of this particular coin of this particular value protected by my key" without any further restrictions like which outputs it goes to. But then SIGHASH_NONE is intended to be used to sacrifice your money to the miners, for example if it's a dust attack trying to get you to spend, so you broadcast a SIGHASH_NONE signature and some enterprising miner will go get a bunch of such SIGHASH_NONE signatures and gather up the dust in a transaction that pays to nobody and gets all the funds as fees. And besides; even if we already have something you could do stupid things with, it's not a justification for adding more things you could do stupid things with.
So yes, SIGHASH_NOINPUT makes Bitcoin more powerful. Now, Bitcoin is a strong believer in "Principle of Least Power". So adding more power to Bitcoin via SIGHASH_NOINPUT is a violation of Principle of Least Power, at least to those arguing to add even more limits to SIGHASH_NOINPUT.
I believe nullc is one of those who strongly urges for adding more limits to SIGHASH_NOINPUT, because it distracts him from taking pictures of his autonomous non-human neighbor, a rather handsome gray fox, but also because it could be used as the excuse for the next MtGox, where a large exchange inadvertently pays to SIGHASH_NOINPUT-using addresses and becomes liable/loses track of their funds when signature replay happens.

Output Tagging

Making SIGHASH_NOINPUT safer by not allowing normal addresses use it.
Basically, we have 32 different SegWit versions. The current SegWit addresses are v0, the next version (v1) is likely to be the Schnorr+Taproot+MAST thing.
What output tagging proposes is to limit SegWit version ranges from 0->15 in the bech32 address scheme (instead of 0->31 it currently has). Versions 16 to 31 are then not valid bech32 SegWit addresses and exchanges shouldn't pay to it.
Then, we allow the use of SIGHASH_NOINPUT only for version 16. Version 16 might very well be Schnorr+Taproot+MAST, with a side serving of SIGHASH_NOINPUT.
This is basically output tagging. SIGHASH_NOINPUT can only be used if the output is tagged (by paying to version 16 SegWit) to allow it, and addresses do not allow outputs to be tagged as such, removing the potential liability of large custodial services like exchanges.
Now, Decker-Russell-Osuntokun channels have two options:
The tradeoffs in this case are:
The latter tradeoff is probably what would be taken (because we're willing to pay for privacy) if Bitcoin Core decides in favor of tagged outputs.
Another issue here is --- oops, P2SH-Segwit wrapped addresses. P2SH can be used to wrap any SegWit payment script, including payments to any SegWit version, including v16. So now you can sneak in a SIGHASH_NOINPUT-enabled SegWit v16 inside an ordinary P2SH that wraps a SegWit payment. One easy way to close this is just to disallow P2SH-SegWit from being valid if it's spending to SegWit version >= 16.

Chaperone Signatures

Closing the Signature Replay Attack by adding a chaperone.
Now we can observe that the Signature Replay Attack is possible because only one signature is needed, and that signature allows any coin of appropriate value to be spent.
Adding a chaperone signature simply means requiring that the SCRIPT involved have at least two OP_CHECKSIG operations. If one signature is SIGHASH_NOINPUT, then at least one other signature (the chaperone) validated by the SCRIPT should be SIGHASH_ALL.
This is not so onerous for Decker-Russell-Osuntokun. Both sides can use a MuSig of their keys, to be used for the SIGHASH_NOINPUT signature (so requires both of them to agree on a particular update), then use a shared ECDH key, to be used for the SIGHASH_ALL signature (allows either of them to publish the unilateral close once the update has been agreed upon).
Of course, the simplest thing to do would be for a BOLT spec to say "just use this spec-defined private key k so we can sidestep the Chaperone Signatures thing". That removes the need to coordinate to define a shared ECDH key during channel establishment: just use the spec-indicated key, which is shared to all LN implementations.
But now look at what we've done! We've subverted the supposed solution of Chaperone Signatures, making them effectively not there, because it's just much easier for everyone to use a standard private key for the chaperone signature than to derive a separate new keypair for the Chaperone.
So chaperone signatures aren't much better than just doing SIGHASH_NOINPUT by itself, and you might as well just use SIGHASH_NOINPUT without adding chaperones.
I believe ajtowns is the primary proponent of this proposal.

Toys for the Big Boys

The Signature Replay Attack is Not A Problem (TM).
This position is most strongly held by RustyReddit I believe (he's the Rusty Russell in the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun). As I understand it, he is more willing to not see SIGHASH_NOINPUT enabled, than to have it enabled but with restrictions like Output Tagging or Chaperone Signatures.
Basically, the idea is: don't use SIGHASH_NOINPUT for normal wallets, in much the same way you don't use SIGHASH_NONE for normal wallets. If you want to do address reuse, don't use wallet software made by luke-jr that specifically screws with your ability to do address reuse.
SIGHASH_NOINPUT is a flag for use by responsible, mutually-consenting adults who want to settle down some satoshis and form a channel together. It is not something that immature youngsters should be playing around with, not until they find a channel counterparty that will treat this responsibility properly. And if those immature youngsters playing with their SIGHASH_NOINPUT flags get into trouble and, you know, lose their funds (as fooling around with SIGHASH_NOINPUT is wont to do), well, they need counseling and advice ("not your keys not your coins", "hodl", "SIGHASH_NOINPUT is not a toy, but something special, reserved for those willing to take on the responsibility of making channels according to the words of Decker-Russell-Osuntokun"...).

Conclusion

Dunno yet. It's still being debated! So yeah. SIGHASH_NOINPUT isn't moving, just like Bitcoin's price!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Quick Easy Cheap Bitcoin mining with Bitminter Antminer Free BitCoins - Bitcoin Mining HQ - YouTube Bitcoin mining system and parts Bitcoin Miner Überblick (2019) - die Profitabelsten Bitcoin mining News

Crypto mining firm HASHR8 introduces Compass, which matches Bitcoin (BTC) miners with affordable, verifiable hosting facilities. Miner fees are paid by counterparty users, who must store a small amount of bitcoin in their counterparty wallets in order to transact on the network. Counterparty built its protocol layers and exploited the bitcoin network without the explicit consent of the bitcoin core developers or the mining community, but was widely lauded by the general bitcoin community a represented on bitcoin talk ... Für diejenigen, die nicht wissen, was Counterparty ist, es ist ein Peer-to-Peer Finanzplattform, die auf der Bitcoin-Blockchain basiert. Es hat keine formale Unternehmensstruktur, sondern besteht aus einem Kernteam, das den Großteil der technischen und geschäftlichen Entwicklung abwickelt. No limit. Or, where XCP is created by giving it to the miner who found the bitcoin block that carries a counterparty transaction? Both of these solutions sound way more fair, and there's nothing to stop anyone from doing it. Forking bitcoin is hard - for it to be as secured, you have to replace the hash power, too - but forking Counterparty should be easy, because it sits on top of Bitcoin ... ★ Bitcoin Miner Lookup Biggest Bitcoin Address Bitcoin Counterparty Bitcoin Miner Lookup Crypto Currency Vs Bitcoin. Bitcoin Miner Lookup Will Bitcoin Go Up Or Down Bitcoin Simple Chart Bitcoin Miner Lookup Bitcoin To Hit 5000 Bitcoin Token Card Bitcoin Lbc Bitcoin Miner Lookup Biggest Bitcoin Address Bitcoin Counterparty Crypto Currency Vs Bitcoin. Bitcoin Miner Lookup Twitter Bitcoins ...

[index] [32130] [22018] [42923] [44897] [23315] [34885] [49520] [49151] [24656] [46560]

Quick Easy Cheap Bitcoin mining with Bitminter Antminer

Watch my channal all videos... these videos helps you to know more about cryptocurrency. Gnosis GNO Syscoin SYS DigiByte DGB Nexus NXS Byteball GBYTE Populous PPT Civic CVC Ardor ARDR Status SNT ... Counterparty is moving in precise patterns in and around key trendlines giving potential areas that I personaly am looking at to take my buy and sells around. Donations appreciated https://www ... BitCoin Mining Hardware Buyer's Guide ft. Riggit Mining Frame - Duration: 5:09. NCIX Tech Tips 67,046 views. 5:09. How to make an Arizona penny can alcohol stove - Duration: 19:40. ... Watch my channal all videos... these videos helps you to know more about cryptocurrency. Gnosis GNO Syscoin SYS DigiByte DGB Nexus NXS Byteball GBYTE Populous PPT Civic CVC Ardor ARDR Status SNT ... This miner is tested by DevTech Plus+ and it actually pays. Mining with a windows software are always the best miners you can get and Silverlight Miner Pro v8.8 is one of them. https://goo.gl/FA8PVj.

#