Block hashing algorithm - Bitcoin Wiki

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Upcoming Major Riecoin 0.20 Upgrade

Upcoming Major Riecoin 0.20 Upgrade
A new major Riecoin upgrade is planned, and includes a hard fork. Below is a summary of the changes so far and the hard fork improvements. More details can be found on BitcoinTalk. Feel free to ask Pttn there or on Discord if you have questions regarding the update.
The first step of this upgrade was to update the base code to Bitcoin’s 0.20, which is done. You can find the experimental code at the Github repository. Experimental binaries can also be downloaded here. Despite their prerelease status, they should work fine, though please backup your wallets if you plan to use 0.20, just in case.
Pool operators and other advanced Riecoin users should start looking into the changes and update their software accordingly, as well as closely follow the Riecoin Core development.
Here is a list of notable changes from
The next step will be the hard fork, in order to improve Riecoin in multiple ways. Here is the list of planned changes.
Once the development is advanced enough, a date will be chosen for the hard fork. Testnet will be hardforked first to ensure the well functioning of the implementation. Stay tuned!
submitted by PttnMe to RieCoin [link] [comments]

Finding SHA256 partial collisions via the Bitcoin blockchain

This is not a cryptocurrency post, per se. I used Bitcoin's blockchain as a vehicle by which to study SHA256.
The phrase "partial collision" is sometimes used to describe a pair of hashes that are "close" to one another. One notion of closeness is that the two hashes should agree on a large number of total bits. Another is that they should agree on a large number of specific (perhaps contiguous) bits.
The goal in Bitcoin mining is essentially (slight simplification here) to find a block header which, when hashed twice with SHA256, has a large number of trailing zeros. (If you have some familiarity with Bitcoin, you may be wondering: doesn't the protocol demand a large number of leading zeros? It does, kind of, but the Bitcoin protocol reverses the normal byte order of SHA256. Perhaps Satoshi interpreted SHA256 output as a byte stream in little endian order. If so, then this is a slightly unfortunate choice, given that SHA256 explicitly uses big endian byte order in its padding scheme.)
Because Bitcoin block header hashes must all have a large number of trailing zeros, they must all agree on a large number of trailing bits. Agreement or disagreement on earlier bits should, heuristically, appear independent and uniform at random. Thus, I figured it should be possible to get some nice SHA256 partial collisions by comparing block header hashes.
First, I looked for hashes that agree on a large number of trailing bits. At present, block header hashes must have about 75 trailing zeros. There are a little over 2^19 blocks in total right now, so we expect to get a further ~38 bits of agreement via a birthday attack. Although this suggests we may find a hash pair agreeing on 75 + 38 = 113 trailing bits, this should be interpreted as a generous upper bound, since early Bitcoin hashes had fewer trailing zeros (as few as 32 at the outset). Still, this gave me a good enough guess to find some partial collisions without being overwhelmed by them. The best result was a hash pair agreeing on their final 108 bits. Hex encodings of the corresponding SHA256 inputs are as follows:
(I will emphasize that these are hex encodings of the inputs, and are not the inputs themselves.) There were a further 11 hash pairs agreeing on at least 104 trailing bits.
Next, I searched for hashes that agree on a large number of total bits. (In other words, hash pairs with low Hamming distance.) With a little over 2^19 blocks, we have around (2^19 choose 2) ~= 2^37 block pairs. Using binomial distribution statistics, I estimated that it should be possible to find hash pairs that agree on more than 205 bits, but probably not more than 210. Lo and behold, the best result here was a hash pair agreeing on 208 total bits. Hex encodings of the corresponding SHA256 inputs are as follows:
There were 8 other hash pairs agreeing on at least 206 total bits.
So how interesting are these results, really? One way to assess this is to estimate how difficult it would be to get equivalent results by conventional means. I'm not aware of any clever tricks that find SHA256 collisions (partial or full) faster than brute force. As far as I know, birthday attacks are the best known approach.
To find a hash pair agreeing on their final 108 bits, a birthday attack would require 2^54 time and memory heuristically. Each SHA256 hash consists of 2^5 bytes, so 2^59 is probably a more realistic figure. This is "feasible", but would probably require you to rent outside resources at great expense. Writing code to perform this attack on your PC would be inadvisable. Your computer probably doesn't have the requisite ~600 petabytes of memory, anyway.
The hash pair agreeing on 208 of 256 bits is somewhat more remarkable. By reference to binomial distribution CDFs, a random SHA256 hash pair should agree on at least 208 bits with probability about 2^-81. A birthday attack will cut down on the memory requirement by the normal square root factor - among ~2^41 hashes, you expect that there will be such a pair. But in this case, it is probably necessary to actually compare all hash pairs. The problem of finding the minimum Hamming distance among a set doesn't have obvious shortcuts in general. Thus, a birthday attack performed from scratch would heuristically require about 2^81 hash comparisons, and this is likely not feasible for any entity on Earth right now.
I don't think these results carry any practical implications for SHA256. These partial collisions are in line with what one would expect without exploiting any "weaknesses" of SHA256. If anything, these results are a testament to just how much total work has been put into the Bitcoin blockchain. Realistically, the Bitcoin blockchain will never actually exhibit a SHA256 full collision. Still, I thought these were fun curiosities that were worth sharing.
submitted by KillEveryLastOne to crypto [link] [comments]

Review and Prospect of Crypto Economy-Development and Evolution of Consensus Mechanism (2)

Review and Prospect of Crypto Economy-Development and Evolution of Consensus Mechanism (2)
The consensus mechanism is one of the important elements of the blockchain and the core rule of the normal operation of the distributed ledger. It is mainly used to solve the trust problem between people and determine who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining the effective unification of the system in the blockchain system. Thus, it has become an everlasting research hot topic in blockchain.
This article starts with the concept and role of the consensus mechanism. First, it enables the reader to have a preliminary understanding of the consensus mechanism as a whole; then starting with the two armies and the Byzantine general problem, the evolution of the consensus mechanism is introduced in the order of the time when the consensus mechanism is proposed; Then, it briefly introduces the current mainstream consensus mechanism from three aspects of concept, working principle and representative project, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the mainstream consensus mechanism; finally, it gives suggestions on how to choose a consensus mechanism for blockchain projects and pointed out the possibility of the future development of the consensus mechanism.
First, concept and function of the consensus mechanism
1.1 Concept: The core rules for the normal operation of distributed ledgers
1.2 Role: Solve the trust problem and decide the generation and maintenance of new blocks
1.2.1 Used to solve the trust problem between people
1.2.2 Used to decide who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining effective unity in the blockchain system
1.3 Mainstream model of consensus algorithm
Second, the origin of the consensus mechanism
2.1 The two armies and the Byzantine generals
2.1.1 The two armies problem
2.1.2 The Byzantine generals problem
2.2 Development history of consensus mechanism
2.2.1 Classification of consensus mechanism
2.2.2 Development frontier of consensus mechanism
Third, Common Consensus System
Fourth, Selection of consensus mechanism and summary of current situation
4.1 How to choose a consensus mechanism that suits you
4.1.1 Determine whether the final result is important
4.1.2 Determine how fast the application process needs to be
4.1.2 Determining the degree to which the application requires for decentralization
4.1.3 Determine whether the system can be terminated
4.1.4 Select a suitable consensus algorithm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages
4.2 Future development of consensus mechanism
Last lecture review: Chapter 1 Concept and Function of Consensus Mechanism plus Chapter 2 Origin of Consensus Mechanism
Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 1)
Figure 6 Summary of relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms
Source: Hasib Anwar, "Consensus Algorithms: The Root Of The Blockchain Technology"
The picture above shows 14 relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms summarized by a geek Hasib Anwar, including PoW (Proof of Work), PoS (Proof of Stake), DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake), LPoS (Lease Proof of Stake), PoET ( Proof of Elapsed Time), PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance), SBFT (Simple Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DBFT (Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), Proof-of-Activity (Proof of Activity), Proof-of- Importance (Proof of Importance), Proof-of-Capacity (Proof of Capacity), Proof-of-Burn ( Proof of Burn), Proof-of-Weight (Proof of Weight).
Next, we will mainly introduce and analyze the top ten consensus mechanisms of the current blockchain.
Work proof mechanism. That is, the proof of work means that it takes a certain amount of computer time to confirm the work.
Figure 7 PoW work proof principle
The PoW represented by Bitcoin uses the SHA-256 algorithm function, which is a 256-bit hash algorithm in the password hash function family:
Proof of work output = SHA256 (SHA256 (block header));
if (output of proof of work if (output of proof of work >= target value), change the random number, recursive i logic, continue to compare with the target value.
New difficulty value = old difficulty value* (time spent by last 2016 blocks /20160 minutes)
Target value = maximum target value / difficulty value
The maximum target value is a fixed number. If the last 2016 blocks took less than 20160 minutes, then this coefficient will be small, and the target value will be adjusted bigger, if not, the target value will be adjusted smaller. Bitcoin mining difficulty and block generation speed will be inversely proportional to the appropriate adjustment of block generation speed.
-Representative applications: BTC, etc.
Proof of stake. That is, a mechanism for reaching consensus based on the holding currency. The longer the currency is held, the greater the probability of getting a reward.
PoS implementation algorithm formula: hash(block_header) = Coin age calculation formula: coinage = number of coins * remaining usage time of coins
Among them, coinage means coin age, which means that the older the coin age, the easier it is to get answers. The calculation of the coin age is obtained by multiplying the coins owned by the miner by the remaining usage time of each coin, which also means that the more coins you have, the easier it is to get answers. In this way, pos solves the problem of wasting resources in pow, and miners cannot own 51% coins from the entire network, so it also solves the problem of 51% attacks.
-Representative applications: ETH, etc.
Delegated proof of stake. That is, currency holding investors select super nodes by voting to operate the entire network , similar to the people's congress system.
The DPOS algorithm is divided into two parts. Elect a group of block producers and schedule production.
Election: Only permanent nodes with the right to be elected can be elected, and ultimately only the top N witnesses can be elected. These N individuals must obtain more than 50% of the votes to be successfully elected. In addition, this list will be re-elected at regular intervals.
Scheduled production: Under normal circumstances, block producers take turns to generate a block every 3 seconds. Assuming that no producer misses his order, then the chain they produce is bound to be the longest chain. When a witness produces a block, a block needs to be generated every 2s. If the specified time is exceeded, the current witness will lose the right to produce and the right will be transferred to the next witness. Then the witness is not only unpaid, but also may lose his identity.
-Representative applications: EOS, etc.
Delayed proof of work. A new-generation consensus mechanism based on PoB and DPoS. Miners use their own computing power, through the hash algorithm, and finally prove their work, get the corresponding wood, wood is not tradable. After the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, you can go to the burning site to burn the wood. This can achieve a balance between computing power and mining rights.
In the DPoW-based blockchain, miners are no longer rewarded tokens, but "wood" that can be burned, burning wood. Miners use their own computing power, through the hash algorithm, and finally prove their work, get the corresponding wood, wood is not tradable. After the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, you can go to the burning site to burn the wood. Through a set of algorithms, people who burn more wood or BP or a group of BP can obtain the right to generate blocks in the next event segment, and get rewards (tokens) after successful block generation. Since more than one person may burn wood in a time period, the probability of producing blocks in the next time period is determined by the amount of wood burned by oneself. The more it is burned, the higher the probability of obtaining block rights in the next period.
Two node types: notary node and normal node.
The 64 notary nodes are elected by the stakeholders of the dPoW blockchain, and the notarized confirmed blocks can be added from the dPoW blockchain to the attached PoW blockchain. Once a block is added, the hash value of the block will be added to the Bitcoin transaction signed by 33 notary nodes, and a hash will be created to the dPow block record of the Bitcoin blockchain. This record has been notarized by most notary nodes in the network. In order to avoid wars on mining between notary nodes, and thereby reduce the efficiency of the network, Komodo designed a mining method that uses a polling mechanism. This method has two operating modes. In the "No Notary" (No Notary) mode, all network nodes can participate in mining, which is similar to the traditional PoW consensus mechanism. In the "Notaries Active" mode, network notaries use a significantly reduced network difficulty rate to mine. In the "Notary Public Activation" mode, each notary public is allowed to mine a block with its current difficulty, while other notary public nodes must use 10 times the difficulty of mining, and all normal nodes use 100 times the difficulty of the notary public node.
Figure 8 DPoW operation process without a notary node
-Representative applications: CelesOS, Komodo, etc.
CelesOS Research Institute丨DPoW consensus mechanism-combustible mining and voting
Practical Byzantine fault tolerance algorithm. That is, the complexity of the algorithm is reduced from exponential to polynomial level, making the Byzantine fault-tolerant algorithm feasible in practical system applications.
Figure 9 PBFT algorithm principle
First, the client sends a request to the master node to call the service operation, and then the master node broadcasts other copies of the request. All copies execute the request and send the result back to the client. The client needs to wait for f+1 different replica nodes to return the same result as the final result of the entire operation.
Two qualifications: 1. All nodes must be deterministic. That is to say, the results of the operation must be the same under the same conditions and parameters. 2. All nodes must start from the same status. Under these two limited qualifications, even if there are failed replica nodes, the PBFT algorithm agrees on the total order of execution of all non-failed replica nodes, thereby ensuring security.
-Representative applications: Tendermint Consensus, etc.
Next Lecture: Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 2) + Chapter 4 Consensus Mechanism Selection and Status Summary
As the first DPOW financial blockchain operating system, CelesOS adopts consensus mechanism 3.0 to break through the "impossible triangle", which can provide high TPS while also allowing for decentralization. Committed to creating a financial blockchain operating system that embraces supervision, providing services for financial institutions and the development of applications on the supervision chain, and formulating a role and consensus ecological supervision layer agreement for supervision.
The CelesOS team is dedicated to building a bridge between blockchain and regulatory agencies/financial industry. We believe that only blockchain technology that cooperates with regulators will have a real future. We believe in and contribute to achieving this goal.

📷 Telegram
📷 Twitter
📷 Reddit
📷 Medium
📷 Facebook
📷 Youtube
submitted by CelesOS to u/CelesOS [link] [comments]

Looking for Technical Information about Mining Pools

I'm doing research on how exactly bitcoins are mined, and I'm looking for detailed information about how mining pools work - i.e. what exactly is the pool server telling each participating miner to do.
It's so far my understanding that, when Bitcoins are mined, the following steps take place:
  1. Transactions from the mempool are selected for a new block; this may or may not be all the transactions in said mempool. A coinable transaction - which consists of the miner's wallet's address and other arbitrary data - that will help create new Bitcoin will also be added to the new block.
  2. All of said transactions are hashed together into a Merkle Root. The hashing algorithm is Double SHA-256.
  3. A block header is formed for the new block. Said block header consists of a Version, the Block Hash of the Previous Block in the Blockchain, said Merkle Root from earlier, a timestamp in UTC, the target, and a nonce - which is 32 bits long and can be any value from 0x00000000 to 0xFFFFFFFF (a total of 4,294,967,296 nonce values in total).
  4. The nonce value is set to 0x00000000, and said block header is double hashed to get the Block Hash of the current block; and if said Block Hash starts with a certain number of zeroes (depending on the difficulty), the miner sends the block to the Bitcoin Network, the block successfully added to the blockchain and the miner is awarded with newly created bitcoin.
  5. But if said Block Hash does not start with the required number of zeroes, said block will not be accepted by the network, and the miner Double Hashes the block again, but with a different nonce value; but if none of the 4,294,967,296 nonce values yields a Block Hash with the required number of zeroes, it will be impossible to add the block to the network - and in that case, the miner will either need to change the timestamp and try all 4,294,967,296 nonce values again, or the miner will need to start all over again and compose a new block with a different set of transactions (either a different coinable transaction, a different set of transactions from the mempool, or both).
Now, what I'm trying to figure out is what exactly each miner is doing differently in a mining pool, and if it is different depending on the pool.
One thing I've read is that a mining pool gives each participating miner a different set of transactions from the mempool.
I've also read that, because the most sophisticated miners can try all 4,294,967,296 nonce values in less than a fraction of a second, and since the timestamp can only be updated every second, the coinbase transaction is used as a "second nonce" (although, it is my understanding that, being part of a transaction, if this "extra nonce" is changed, all the transactions need to be double hashed into a new Merkle Root); and I may have read someplace that miners could also be given the same set of transactions from the mempool, but are each told to use a different set of "extra nonce" values for the coinbase transaction.
Is there anything else that pools tell miners to do differently? Is each pool different in the instructions it gives to the participating miners? Did I get anything wrong?
I want to make sure I have a full technical understanding of what mining pools are doing to mine bitcoin.
submitted by sparky77734 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Attacking bitcoin with classical simulation of quantum computers?

Bitcoin is a digital currency based on blockchains. Each block in a blockchain contains transaction information, and bitcoin miners "mine" each block in order to verify the transactions. When a miner mines a block, he receives a hefty reward (6.25 bitcoins).
To mine a block, a miner has to do this: SHA256(SHA256(bitcoin block header info))) to produce a hash with a certain amount of leading zeroes.
Now, let's say I want to produce a hash with 94 bits of leading zeroes. If we use the classical brute force method, we would need to iterate through 2^94 SHA256(SHA256(x))) hashes before finding a valid hash output. However, if we use quantum computers, which implement Grover's algorithm, which provides a quadratic speedup, we would only need to iterate through 2^47 hashes.
Is this doable with a quantum computer simulator on a classical computer? If we need to iterate through 2^47 hashes, then 47 qubits should suffice. From what I know, 47 qubits can be simulated on a classical system. Therefore, if we use a 47-qubit quantum computer simulator, can we find a bitcoin block hash with 94 bits of leading zeroes? If so, how long would this take (months? years?)?
I'm not very familiar with quantum computers yet; I'm only starting to learn about it.
submitted by Palpatine88888 to QuantumComputing [link] [comments]

TKEYSPACE — blockchain in your mobile

TKEYSPACE — blockchain in your mobile
Someone says that the blockchain in the phone is marketing. This is possible for most applications, but not for Tkeycoin. Today we will talk about how the blockchain works in the TkeySpace app.
Who else is not in the topic, TkeySpace is a financial application for decentralized and efficient management of various cryptocurrencies, based on a distributed architecture without using a client-server.
In simple words, it is a blockchain in the user’s mobile device that excludes hacking and hacker attacks, and all data is encrypted using modern cryptographic methods.


Let’s start with the most important thing — the blockchain works on the principles of P2P networks, when there is no central server and each device is both a server and a client, such an organization allows you to maintain the network performance with any number and any combination of available nodes.
For example, there are 12 machines in the network, and anyone can contact anyone. As a client (resource consumer), each of these machines can send requests for the provision of some resources to other machines within this network and receive them. As a server, each machine must process requests from other machines in the network, send what was requested, and perform some auxiliary and administrative functions.
With traditional client-server systems, we can get a completely disabled social network, messenger, or another service, given that we rely on a centralized infrastructure — we have a very specific number of points of failure. If the main data center is damaged due to an earthquake or any other event, access to information will be slowed down or completely disabled.
With a P2P solution, the failure of one network member does not affect the network operation in any way. P2P networks can easily switch to offline mode when the channel is broken — in which it will exist completely independently and without any interaction.
Instead of storing information in a single central point, as traditional recording methods do, multiple copies of the same data are stored in different locations and on different devices on the network, such as computers or mobile devices.
This means that even if one storage point is damaged or lost, multiple copies remain secure in other locations. Similarly, if one part of the information is changed without the consent of the rightful owners, there are many other copies where the information is correct, which makes the false record invalid.
The information recorded in the blockchain can take any form, whether it is a transfer of money, ownership, transaction, someone’s identity, an agreement between two parties, or even how much electricity a light bulb used.
However, this requires confirmation from multiple devices, such as nodes in the network. Once an agreement, otherwise known as consensus, is reached between these devices to store something on the blockchain — it can’t be challenged, deleted, or changed.
The technology also allows you to perform a truly huge amount of computing in a relatively short time, which even on supercomputers would require, depending on the complexity of the task, many years or even centuries of work. This performance is achieved because a certain global task is divided into a large number of blocks, which are simultaneously performed by hundreds of thousands of devices participating in the project.

P2P messaging and syncing in TkeySpace

TkeySpace is a node of the TKEY network and other supported networks. when you launch the app, your mobile node connects to an extensive network of supported blockchains, syncs with full nodes to validate transactions and incoming information between nodes, so the nodes organize a graph of connections between them.
You can always check the node information in the TkeySpace app in the ⚙ Settings Contact and peer info App Status;
TkeySpace creates initiating connections to servers registered in the blockchain Protocol as the main ones, from these servers it gets the addresses of nodes to which it can join, in turn, the nodes to which the connection occurred share information about other nodes.
TkeySpace sends network messages to nodes from supported blockchains in the app to get up-to-date data from the network.
The Protocol uses data structures for communication between nodes, such as block propagation over the network, so before network messages are read, nodes check the “magic number”, check the first bytes, and determine the type of data structure. In the blockchain, the “magic number” is the network ID used to filter messages and block traffic from other p2p networks.
Magic numbers are used in computer science, both for files and protocols. They identify the type of file/data structure. A program that receives such a file/data structure can check the magic number and immediately find out the intended type of this file/data structure.
The first message that your node sends is called a Version Message. In response, the node waits for a Verack message to establish a connection between other peers. The exchange of such messages is called a “handshake”.
After the “handshake” is set, TkeySpace will start connecting to other nodes in the network to determine the last block at the end of the required blockchain. At this point — nodes request information about blocks they know using GetBlock messages — in response, your node receives an inv (Inventory Message) from another node with the information that it has the information that was requested by the TkeySpace node.
In response to the received message, inv — TkeySpace sends a GetData message containing a list of blocks starting immediately after the last known hash.

Loading and storing blocks

After exchanging messages, the block information is loaded and transactions are uploaded to your node. To avoid storing tons of information and optimize hard disk space and data processing speed, we use RDBMS — PostgreSQL in full nodes (local computer wallet).
In the TkeySpace mobile app, we use SQLite, and validation takes place by uploading block headers through the Merkle Tree, using the bloom filter — this allows you to optimize the storage of your mobile device as much as possible.
The block header includes its hash, the hash of the previous block, transaction hashes, and additional service information.
Block headers in the Tkeycoin network=84 bytes due to the extension of parameters to support nChains, which will soon be launched in “combat” mode. The titles of the Bitcoin block, Dash, Litecoin=80 bytes.
And so, let’s continue — application nodes receive information from the blockchain by uploading block headers, all data is synchronized using the Merkle Tree, or rather your node receives and validates information from the Merkle root.
The hash tree was developed in 1979 by Ralph Merkle and named in his honor. The structure of the system has received this name also because it resembles a tree.
The Merkle tree is a complete binary tree with leaf vertexes containing hashes from data blocks, and inner vertexes containing hashes from adding values in child vertexes. The root node of the tree contains a hash from the entire data set, meaning the hash tree is a unidirectional hash function. The Merkle tree is used for the efficient storage of transactions in the cryptocurrency blockchain. It allows you to get a “fingerprint” of all transactions in the block, as well as effectively verify transactions.
Hash trees have an advantage over hash chains or hash functions. When using hash trees, it is much less expensive to prove that a certain block of data belongs to a set. Since different blocks are often independent data, such as transactions or parts of files, we are interested in being able to check only one block without recalculating the hashes for the other nodes in the tree.
The Merkle Tree scheme allows you to check whether the hash value of a particular transaction is included in Merkle Root, without having all the other transactions in the block. So by having the transaction, block header, and Merkle Branch for that transaction requested from the full node, the digital wallet can make sure that the transaction was confirmed in a specific block.
The Merkle tree, which is used to prove that a transaction is included in a block, is also very well scaled. Because each new “layer” added to the tree doubles the total number of “leaves” it can represent. You don’t need a deep tree to compactly prove transaction inclusion, even among blocks with millions of transactions.

Statistical constants and nChains

To support the Tkeycoin cryptocurrency, the TkeySpace application uses additional statistical constants to prevent serialization of Merkle tree hashes, which provides an additional layer of security.
Also, for Tkeycoin, support for multi-chains (nChains) is already included in the TkeySpace app, which will allow you to use the app in the future with most of the features of the TKEY Protocol, including instant transactions.

The Bloom Filter

An additional level of privacy is provided by the bloom filter — which is a probabilistic data structure that allows you to check whether an element belongs to a set.
The bloom filter looks for whether a particular transaction is linked to Alice, not whether Alice has a specific cryptocurrency. In this way, transactions and received IDs are analyzed through a bloom filter. When “Alice wants to know about transaction X”, an ID is requested for transaction X, which is compared with the filled segments in her bloom filter. If “Yes” is received, the node can get the information and verify the transaction.

HD support

The multi-currency wallet TkeySpace is based on HD (or hierarchical determinism), a privacy-oriented method for generating and managing addresses. Each wallet address is generated from an xPub wallet (or extended public key). The app is completely anonymous — and individual address is generated for each transaction to accept a particular cryptocurrency. Even for low-level programming, using the same address is negative for the system, not to mention your privacy. We recommend that you always use a new address for transactions to ensure the necessary level of privacy and security.
The EXT_PUBLIC_KEY and EXT_SECRET_KEY values for DASH, Bitcoin, and Litecoin are completely identical. Tkeycoin uses its values, as well as other methods for storing transactions and blocks (RDBMS), and of course — nChains.

Secret key

Wallets in the blockchain have public and private keys.
Centralized applications usually store users’ private keys on their servers, which makes users’ funds vulnerable to hacker attacks or theft.
A private key is a special combination of characters that provides access to cryptocurrencies stored on the account. Only a person who knows the key can move and spend digital assets.
TkeySpace — stores the encrypted key only on the user’s device and in encrypted form. The encrypted key is displayed as a mnemonic phrase (backup phrase), which is very convenient for users. Unlike complex cryptographic ciphers, the phrase is easy to save or write. A backup keyword provides the maximum level of security.
A mnemonic phrase is 12 or 24 words that are generated using random number entropy. If a phrase consists of 12 words, then the number of possible combinations is 204⁸¹² or 21¹³² — the phrase will have 132 security bits. To restore the wallet, you must enter the mnemonic phrase in strict order, as it was presented after generation.


Now we understand that your application TkeySpace is a node of the blockchain that communicates with other nodes using p2p messages, stores block headers and validate information using the Merkle Tree, verifies transactions, filters information using the bloom filter, and operates completely in a decentralized model. The application code contains all the necessary blockchain settings for communicating with the network, the so-called chain parameters.
TkeySpace is a new generation mobile app. A completely new level of security, easy user-friendly interfaces and all the necessary features that are required to work with cryptocurrency.
submitted by tkeycoin to Tkeycoin_Official [link] [comments]

Can a quantum computer be used for bitcoin mining?

This has been bothering me for a while.
I'm a newbie in computer science, and I just found out about Grover’s algorithm, which can only be implemented on a quantum computer. Supposedly it can achieve a quadratic speedup over a classical computer, brute-forcing a solution to a n-bit symmetric encryption key in 2^n/2 iterations.
This led me to think that, by utilizing a quantum computer or quantum simulator of about 40-qubits that runs Grover's algorithm, is it possible to mine bitcoins this way? The current difficulty of bitcoin mining is about 15,466,098,935,554 (approximately 2^44), which means that it would take about 2^44*2^32=2^76 SHA256 hashes before a valid block header hash is found.
However, by implementing Grover's algorithm, we would only need to sort through 2^76/2=2^38 hashes to discover a valid block header hash. A 38-qubit quantum computer should be sufficient in this case - which means the 40-qubit quantum computer should be more than enough to handle bitcoin mining.
Therefore - is it possible to use quantum computers to mine bitcoins this way? I'm not too familiar with quantum computers, so please correct me if I missed something.......
NOTE: I am NOT asking whether it is possible to use quantum computers to break the ECDSA secp256k1 algorithm, which would effectively allow anyone to steal bitcoins from wallets. I know that this would require much more than 40 qubits, and is definitely not happening in the near-future.
Rather, I'm asking about bitcoin mining, which is a much easier problem than trying to break ECDSA secp256k1.
submitted by Palpatine88888 to QuantumComputing [link] [comments]

Groestlcoin 6th Anniversary Release


Dear Groestlers, it goes without saying that 2020 has been a difficult time for millions of people worldwide. The groestlcoin team would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone our best to everyone coping with the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19. Let it bring out the best in us all and show that collectively, we can conquer anything.
The centralised banks and our national governments are facing unprecedented times with interest rates worldwide dropping to record lows in places. Rest assured that this can only strengthen the fundamentals of all decentralised cryptocurrencies and the vision that was seeded with Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper over 10 years ago. Despite everything that has been thrown at us this year, the show must go on and the team will still progress and advance to continue the momentum that we have developed over the past 6 years.
In addition to this, we'd like to remind you all that this is Groestlcoin's 6th Birthday release! In terms of price there have been some crazy highs and lows over the years (with highs of around $2.60 and lows of $0.000077!), but in terms of value– Groestlcoin just keeps getting more valuable! In these uncertain times, one thing remains clear – Groestlcoin will keep going and keep innovating regardless. On with what has been worked on and completed over the past few months.

UPDATED - Groestlcoin Core 2.18.2

This is a major release of Groestlcoin Core with many protocol level improvements and code optimizations, featuring the technical equivalent of Bitcoin v0.18.2 but with Groestlcoin-specific patches. On a general level, most of what is new is a new 'Groestlcoin-wallet' tool which is now distributed alongside Groestlcoin Core's other executables.
NOTE: The 'Account' API has been removed from this version which was typically used in some tip bots. Please ensure you check the release notes from 2.17.2 for details on replacing this functionality.

How to Upgrade?

If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), then run the installer.
If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), run the dmg and drag Groestlcoin Core to Applications.

Other Linux


Download the Windows Installer (64 bit) here
Download the Windows Installer (32 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (32 bit) here
Download the OSX Installer here
Download the OSX binaries here
Download the Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Linux binaries (32 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (32 bit) here


ALL NEW - Groestlcoin Moonshine iOS/Android Wallet

Built with React Native, Moonshine utilizes Electrum-GRS's JSON-RPC methods to interact with the Groestlcoin network.
GRS Moonshine's intended use is as a hot wallet. Meaning, your keys are only as safe as the device you install this wallet on. As with any hot wallet, please ensure that you keep only a small, responsible amount of Groestlcoin on it at any given time.





ALL NEW! – HODL GRS Android Wallet

HODL GRS connects directly to the Groestlcoin network using SPV mode and doesn't rely on servers that can be hacked or disabled.
HODL GRS utilizes AES hardware encryption, app sandboxing, and the latest security features to protect users from malware, browser security holes, and even physical theft. Private keys are stored only in the secure enclave of the user's phone, inaccessible to anyone other than the user.
Simplicity and ease-of-use is the core design principle of HODL GRS. A simple recovery phrase (which we call a Backup Recovery Key) is all that is needed to restore the user's wallet if they ever lose or replace their device. HODL GRS is deterministic, which means the user's balance and transaction history can be recovered just from the backup recovery key.



Main Release (Main Net)
Testnet Release


ALL NEW! – GroestlcoinSeed Savior

Groestlcoin Seed Savior is a tool for recovering BIP39 seed phrases.
This tool is meant to help users with recovering a slightly incorrect Groestlcoin mnemonic phrase (AKA backup or seed). You can enter an existing BIP39 mnemonic and get derived addresses in various formats.
To find out if one of the suggested addresses is the right one, you can click on the suggested address to check the address' transaction history on a block explorer.


Live Version (Not Recommended)



ALL NEW! – Vanity Search Vanity Address Generator

NOTE: NVidia GPU or any CPU only. AMD graphics cards will not work with this address generator.
VanitySearch is a command-line Segwit-capable vanity Groestlcoin address generator. Add unique flair when you tell people to send Groestlcoin. Alternatively, VanitySearch can be used to generate random addresses offline.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic addresses generated by regular groestlcoin clients, then VanitySearch is the right choice for you to create a more personalized address.
VanitySearch is a groestlcoin address prefix finder. If you want to generate safe private keys, use the -s option to enter your passphrase which will be used for generating a base key as for BIP38 standard (VanitySearch.exe -s "My PassPhrase" FXPref). You can also use VanitySearch.exe -ps "My PassPhrase" which will add a crypto secure seed to your passphrase.
VanitySearch may not compute a good grid size for your GPU, so try different values using -g option in order to get the best performances. If you want to use GPUs and CPUs together, you may have best performances by keeping one CPU core for handling GPU(s)/CPU exchanges (use -t option to set the number of CPU threads).





ALL NEW! – Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020

Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020 is a windows app built from the ground-up and makes it easier than ever before to create your very own bespoke bech32 address(es) when whilst not connected to the internet.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic bech32 addresses generated by regular Groestlcoin clients, then Groestlcoin EasyVanity2020 is the right choice for you to create a more personalised bech32 address. This 2020 version uses the new VanitySearch to generate not only legacy addresses (F prefix) but also Bech32 addresses (grs1 prefix).




Remastered! – Groestlcoin WPF Desktop Wallet (v2.19.0.18)

Groestlcoin WPF is an alternative full node client with optional lightweight 'thin-client' mode based on WPF. Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is one of Microsoft's latest approaches to a GUI framework, used with the .NET framework. Its main advantages over the original Groestlcoin client include support for exporting blockchain.dat and including a lite wallet mode.
This wallet was previously deprecated but has been brought back to life with modern standards.


Remastered Improvements



ALL NEW! – BIP39 Key Tool

Groestlcoin BIP39 Key Tool is a GUI interface for generating Groestlcoin public and private keys. It is a standalone tool which can be used offline.



Linux :
 pip3 install -r requirements.txt python3 bip39\ 


ALL NEW! – Electrum Personal Server

Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server aims to make using Electrum Groestlcoin wallet more secure and more private. It makes it easy to connect your Electrum-GRS wallet to your own full node.
It is an implementation of the Electrum-grs server protocol which fulfils the specific need of using the Electrum-grs wallet backed by a full node, but without the heavyweight server backend, for a single user. It allows the user to benefit from all Groestlcoin Core's resource-saving features like pruning, blocks only and disabled txindex. All Electrum-GRS's feature-richness like hardware wallet integration, multi-signature wallets, offline signing, seed recovery phrases, coin control and so on can still be used, but connected only to the user's own full node.
Full node wallets are important in Groestlcoin because they are a big part of what makes the system be trust-less. No longer do people have to trust a financial institution like a bank or PayPal, they can run software on their own computers. If Groestlcoin is digital gold, then a full node wallet is your own personal goldsmith who checks for you that received payments are genuine.
Full node wallets are also important for privacy. Using Electrum-GRS under default configuration requires it to send (hashes of) all your Groestlcoin addresses to some server. That server can then easily spy on your transactions. Full node wallets like Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server would download the entire blockchain and scan it for the user's own addresses, and therefore don't reveal to anyone else which Groestlcoin addresses they are interested in.
Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can also broadcast transactions through Tor which improves privacy by resisting traffic analysis for broadcasted transactions which can link the IP address of the user to the transaction. If enabled this would happen transparently whenever the user simply clicks "Send" on a transaction in Electrum-grs wallet.
Note: Currently Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can only accept one connection at a time.



Linux / OSX (Instructions)


UPDATED – Android Wallet 7.38.1 - Main Net + Test Net

The app allows you to send and receive Groestlcoin on your device using QR codes and URI links.
When using this app, please back up your wallet and email them to yourself! This will save your wallet in a password protected file. Then your coins can be retrieved even if you lose your phone.



Main Net
Main Net (FDroid)
Test Net


UPDATED – Groestlcoin Sentinel 3.5.06 (Android)

Groestlcoin Sentinel is a great solution for anyone who wants the convenience and utility of a hot wallet for receiving payments directly into their cold storage (or hardware wallets).
Sentinel accepts XPUB's, YPUB'S, ZPUB's and individual Groestlcoin address. Once added you will be able to view balances, view transactions, and (in the case of XPUB's, YPUB's and ZPUB's) deterministically generate addresses for that wallet.
Groestlcoin Sentinel is a fork of Groestlcoin Samourai Wallet with all spending and transaction building code removed.




UPDATED – P2Pool Test Net



Pre-Hosted Testnet P2Pool is available via


submitted by Yokomoko_Saleen to groestlcoin [link] [comments]

Transaction finality is one of the key metrics when considering blockchain speed.

Transaction finality is one of the key metrics when considering blockchain speed. Here’s how it works in Elrond Netwwork Protocol
1/ “Transaction finality” represents the time needed for a transaction to be irreversible. Roll-back mechanisms, such as fork recovery, can invalidate blocks and thus transactions. For this reason, a transaction is only considered final if it is included in an old-enough block.
2/ This is why it takes so long to deposit certain currencies to an exchange - even if you see your deposit transaction as successfully finalized in a block explorer, exchanges will wait a bit before they credit your account.
3/ Bitcoin TXs (transactions) are usually accepted as final after 6 confirmations, or 60 minutes. Ethereum TXs are considered final after 25 confirmations, or 6 minutes. In Elrond, finality is reached in ~27 seconds for intra-shard TXs and ~51 seconds for cross shard TXs
4/ TX finality in Elrond happens when the Metachain builds the next valid block on top of the block that “notarizes” - confirms as executed correctly - the TX. Intra-shard TXs are notarized in 4 rounds: Round 1 -> TX is included in the block
5/ Round 2 ->the next block is built after the previous one, Round 3 -> Metachain notarizes the header of the block with the TX in current metablock. The next Metachain block is created in Round 4, which makes the Meta-block from Round 3 final.
6/ The transaction was submitted sometime in Round 0. A “Round” is 6 seconds - the time needed to build a valid block. So intra-shard transaction finality is 0-6s +24s (4 rounds), so ~27 seconds.
7/ Cross-shard transactions require 4 extra Rounds to process the transaction in the destination shard: 0-6s + 48s (8 rounds), so ~51 sec
8/ Round duration is likely be lowered to 5s, so we might look at ~23s to ~43s finality or even less confirmation blocks, depending on observed mainnet data.
Stay tuned for more @ElrondNetwork tech.
submitted by victoroshi99 to elrondnetwork [link] [comments]

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part 2]

Part 1
It's been a bit of time since the first post during which I believe things have crystallised further as to the intentions of the three primary bitcoin variants. I was going to go on a long winded journey to try to weave together the various bits and pieces to let the reader discern from themselves but there's simply too much material that needs to be covered and the effort that it would require is not something that I can invest right now.
Firstly we must define what bitcoin actually is. Many people think of bitcoin as a unit of a digital currency like a dollar in your bank but without a physical substrate. That's kind of correct as a way to explain its likeness to something many people are familiar with but instead it's a bit more nuanced than that. If we look at a wallet from 2011 that has never moved any coins, we can find that there are now multiple "bitcoins" on multiple different blockchains. This post will discuss the main three variants which are Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. In this respect many people are still hotly debating which is the REAL bitcoin variant and which bitcoins you want to be "investing" in.
The genius of bitcoin was not in defining a class of non physical objects to send around. Why bitcoin was so revolutionary is that it combined cryptography, economics, law, computer science, networking, mathematics, etc. and created a protocol which was basically a rule set to be followed which creates a game of incentives that provides security to a p2p network to prevent double spends. The game theory is extremely important to understand. When a transaction is made on the bitcoin network your wallet essentially generates a string of characters which includes your public cryptographic key, a signature which is derived from the private key:pub key pair, the hash of the previous block and an address derived from a public key of the person you want to send the coins to. Because each transaction includes the hash of the previous block (a hash is something that will always generate the same 64 character string result from EXACTLY the same data inputs) the blocks are literally chained together. Bitcoin and the blockchain are thus defined in the technical white paper which accompanied the release client as a chain of digital signatures.
The miners validate transactions on the network and compete with one another to detect double spends on the network. If a miner finds the correct solution to the current block (and in doing so is the one who writes all the transactions that have elapsed since the last block was found, in to the next block) says that a transaction is confirmed but then the rest of the network disagree that the transactions occurred in the order that this miner says (for double spends), then the network will reject the version of the blockchain that that miner is working on. In that respect the miners are incentivised to check each other's work and ensure the majority are working on the correct version of the chain. The miners are thus bound by the game theoretical design of NAKAMOTO CONSENSUS and the ENFORCES of the rule set. It is important to note the term ENFORCER rather than RULE CREATOR as this is defined in the white paper which is a document copyrighted by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009.

Now if we look at the three primary variants of bitcoin understanding these important defining characteristics of what the bitcoin protocol actually is we can make an argument that the variants that changed some of these defining attributes as no longer being bitcoin rather than trying to argue based off market appraisal which is essentially defining bitcoin as a social media consensus rather than a set in stone rule set.
BITCOIN CORE: On first examination Bitcoin Core appears to be the incumbent bitcoin that many are being lead to believe is the "true" bitcoin and the others are knock off scams. The outward stated rationale behind the bitcoin core variant is that computational resources, bandwidth, storage are scarce and that before increasing the size of each block to allow for more transactions we should be increasing the efficiency with which the data being fed in to a block is stored. In order to achieve this one of the first suggested implementations was a process known as SegWit (segregating the witness data). This means that when you construct a bitcoin transaction, in the header of the tx, instead of the inputs being public key and a signature + Hash + address(to), the signature data is moved outside of header as this can save space within the header and allow more transactions to fill the block. More of the history of the proposal can be read about here (bearing in mind that article is published by the bitcoinmagazine which is founded by ethereum devs Vitalik and Mihai and can't necessarily be trusted to give an unbiased record of events). The idea of a segwit like solution was proposed as early as 2012 by the likes of Greg Maxwell and Luke Dash Jnr and Peter Todd in an apparent effort to "FIX" transaction malleability and enable side chains. Those familiar with the motto "problem reaction solution" may understand here that the problem being presented may not always be an authentic problem and it may actually just be necessary preparation for implementing a desired solution.
The real technical arguments as to whether moving signature data outside of the transaction in the header actually invalidates the definition of bitcoin as being a chain of digital signatures is outside my realm of expertise but instead we can examine the character of the individuals and groups involved in endorsing such a solution. Greg Maxwell is a hard to know individual that has been involved with bitcoin since its very early days but in some articles he portrays himself as portrays himself as one of bitcoins harshest earliest critics. Before that he worked with Mozilla and Wikipedia and a few mentions of him can be found on some old linux sites or such. He has no entry on wikipedia other than a non hyperlinked listing as the CTO of Blockstream. Blockstream was a company founded by Greg Maxwell and Adam Back, but in business registration documents only Adam Back is listed as the business contact but registered by James Murdock as the agent. They received funding from a number of VC firms but also Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman and there are suggestions that MIT media labs and the Digital Currency Initiative. For those paying attention Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman have links to Jeffrey Epstein and his offsider Ghislaine Maxwell.

Ghislaine is the daughter of publishing tycoon and fraudster Robert Maxwell (Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch, a yiddish orthodox czech). It is emerging that the Maxwells are implicated with Mossad and involved in many different psyops throughout the last decades. Greg Maxwell is verified as nullc but a few months ago was outed using sock puppets as another reddit user contrarian__ who also admits to being Jewish in one of his comments as the former. Greg has had a colourful history with his roll as a bitcoin core developer successfully ousting two of the developers put there by Satoshi (Gavin Andreson and Mike Hearn) and being referred to by Andreson as a toxic troll with counterpart Samon Mow. At this point rather than crafting the narrative around Greg, I will provide a few links for the reader to assess on their own time:

Now I could just go on dumping more and more articles but that doesn't really weave it all together. Essentially it is very well possible that the 'FIX' of bitcoin proposed with SegWit was done by those who are moral reprobates who have been rubbing shoulders money launderers and human traffickers. Gregory Maxwell was removed from wikipedia, worked with Mozilla who donated a quarter of a million to MIT media labs and had relationship with Joi Ito, the company he founded received funding from people associated with Epstein who have demonstrated their poor character and dishonesty and attempted to wage toxic wars against those early bitcoin developers who wished to scale bitcoin as per the white paper and without changing consensus rules or signature structures.
The argument that BTC is bitcoin because the exchanges and the market have chosen is not necessarily a logical supposition when the vast majority of the money that has flown in to inflate the price of BTC comes from a cryptographic USD token that was created by Brock Pierce (Might Ducks child stahollywood pedo scandal Digital Entertainment Network) who attended Jeffrey Epstein's Island for conferences. The group Tether who issues the USDT has been getting nailed by the New York Attorney General office with claims of $1.4 trillion in damages from their dodgey practices. Brock Pierce has since distanced himself from Tether but Blockstream still works closely with them and they are now exploring issuing tether on the ethereum network. Tether lost it's US banking partner in early 2017 before the monstrous run up for bitcoin prices. Afterwards they alleged they had full reserves of USD however, they were never audited and were printing hundreds of millions of dollars of tether each week during peak mania which was used to buy bitcoin (which was then used as collateral to issue more tether against the bitcoin they bought at a value they inflated). Around $30m in USDT is crossing between China to Russia daily and when some of the groups also related to USDT/Tether were raided they found them in possession of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of counterfeit physical US bills.
Because of all this it then becomes important to reassess the arguments that were made for the implementation of pegged sidechains, segregated witnesses and other second layer solutions. If preventing the bitcoin blockchain from bloating was the main argument for second layer solutions, what was the plan for scaling the data related to the records of transactions that occur on the second layer. You will then need to rely on less robust ways of securing the second layer than Proof Of Work but still have the same amount of data to contend with, unless there was plans all along for second layer solutions to enable records to be deleted /pruned to facilitate money laundering and violation of laws put in place to prevent banking secrecy etc.
There's much more to it as well and I encourage anyone interested to go digging on their own in to this murky cesspit. Although I know very well what sort of stuff Epstein has been up to I have been out of the loop and haven't familiarised myself with everyone involved in his network that is coming to light.
Stay tuned for part 3 which will be an analysis of the shit show that is the Bitcoin Cash variant...
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

I googled this for 3 days still have no answer for this question!

quote from " "
New blocks will only be added to the block chain if their hash is at least as challenging as a difficulty value expected by the consensus protocol.
The target is the threshold below which a block header hash must be in order for the block to be valid, and nBits is the encoded form of the target threshold as it appears in the block header.
new difficulty is calculated every 2016th block.Imagine if the network just mined the 2015th block and have started mining the next one (the block with the new target difficulty). When this new block is mined we will be able to see what the new difficulty target is in the block header.

My question- Does the bitcoin network broadcast the new difficulty before the 2016th block is produced? or is it hidden until the new block with the new difficulty is mined?
If you have the answer I would like to hear as much detail as possible. Thanks!
Edit: wow that was fast! thanks to everyone!
submitted by abduraheem to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

If everyone should run full nodes then why POW?

Preamble: I always post my viewpoint on a sub with an opposing standpoint for the sole reason that the best way to learn is from critique and thus my choice of posting here. Please don’t confuse rebuttals with trolling, it's often just often just a misunderstanding on either or both party’s side. Please refrain from pointing out people or altcoins and evaluate premises on their own merits. Also please consider a comment before down voting.
So, as might be deduced I am against the notion that everyone should run a full node and that instead miners can be ‘trusted’ (due to economic incentives) to provide an honest chain on the one with most proof of work and that SPV is good enough for 99% of users. Hopefully the hypothetical scenario following will help to further (or weaken) my case and understanding. Note that this was a shower thought and might be crushed with a single comment (which will be good and what I’m here for).
Introducing Bitcoin with zero greenhouse gas emissions and improved security consensus rules:
Consider these hypothetical changes to Bitcoin’s consensus rules for a hypothetical upgrade to full nodes (note again this is very quick thoughts so over time this could be improved significantly).
So here we have a new and improved Bitcoin that is environmentally friendly and significantly more secure due to the fact that you can compound security by taking a hash that is buried under sChain's POW for as far back as you wish.
Looking forward to those spotting flaws in my preliminary thoughts on this (I am expecting a lot to be honest).
So in the hypothetical scenario that this POW leaching consensus model holds (after this initial suggestion is optimised to as good as it can be) then do we not have to rethink this every node should be validating all transactions idea?
EDIT: After some discussion I want to make some revisions (mainly to remove any POS'ish incentives the initial description might have created)... 1) There will be no rewards whatsoever for creating blocks 2) The block producers are chosen randomly from UTXO set based on sChain's block hashes
submitted by fiddley2000 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

By the power of CTOR! Xthinner is now working with BCH mainnet blocks

A few hours ago, I fixed the last showstopping bug in my Xthinner code and got it running between two of my ABC full nodes on mainnet. One node serves as a bridge to the rest of the world, receiving Compact Blocks and transmitting Xthinner. The other is connected to no other nodes except this bridge.
The first block transmitted by Xthinner was #577,310. My nodes had just started when that block was published, so it was transmitted with only 24 transactions in mempool out of 2865 total in the block. It worked nonetheless. Xthinner has worked on every block since then, with no failures, and with no block taking more than 1.5 networking round trips. Most non-tiny blocks have gotten about 99.0% compression after fetching missing transactions, or about 99.3% before fetching. In comparison, Compact Blocks usually gets about 96-97% edit: 98.5% compression. Eight blocks have been complete on arrival without any missing transaction fetching (0.5 round trips), and 24 blocks have required a round trip to fetch missing transactions. Edit: This missing transaction rate is quite high, and probably the result of the chained-nodes test setup. Each hop in a node chain adds up to 5 seconds of delay in transaction propagation, and this setup has 2 chain hops. I expect performance to improve in more normal configurations.
I will probably make an alpha code release soon so that people can play around with it. The code still has some known bugs and vulnerabilities, though, so don't run it on anything you want to stay running. There's still a lot of work to be done before the code is of high enough quality to be merged into Bitcoin ABC, so don't get too excited.
Here's the best-performing block so far:
2019-04-08 09:27:53.076818 received: xtrblk (1660 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:27:53.077210 Filling xtrblk with mempool size 841 2019-04-08 09:27:53.077644 xtrblk: 841 tx, 1 prefilled 2019-04-08 09:27:53.077707 Received complete xthinner block: 000000000000000002f914b0c6afb568bec86b9a5166a5023f466c5ee7100e90. 2019-04-08 09:27:53.136257 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000002f914b0c6afb568bec86b9a5166a5023f466c5ee7100e90 height=577332 version=0x20800000 log2_work=87.837579 tx=269896356 date='2019-04-08 09:27:30' progress=1.000000 cache=10.6MiB(79763txo) warning='40 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version' 
This was a 841 tx, 363 kB block transmitted in 1660 bytes. That's 99.54% compression or 15.79 bits/tx. Uncoincidentally, this was also one of the largest blocks so far, with 23 minutes elapsed since the prior block.
Bigger blocks get better compression because the header, coinbase, and checksum specification overhead is a smaller proportion of the whole, and sometimes also because the Xthinner algorithm can more consistently omit the initial bytes of the TXID.
Sizes of the xtrblk messages:
2019-04-08 06:17:48.394401 received: xtrblk (4511 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 06:34:40.219904 received: xtrblk (1249 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 06:50:25.290082 received: xtrblk (1209 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 06:51:49.082137 received: xtrblk (282 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:04:02.028427 received: xtrblk (416 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:09:44.603728 received: xtrblk (1235 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:15:32.338061 received: xtrblk (351 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:17:25.983502 received: xtrblk (839 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:19:38.947229 received: xtrblk (498 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:21:22.099113 received: xtrblk (404 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:37:20.573195 received: xtrblk (569 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:38:41.106193 received: xtrblk (1259 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:46:40.656947 received: xtrblk (764 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:52:40.203599 received: xtrblk (591 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:01:30.239679 received: xtrblk (776 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:26:06.212842 received: xtrblk (287 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:37:10.882075 received: xtrblk (2177 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:39:05.003971 received: xtrblk (392 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:40:27.191932 received: xtrblk (274 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:53:57.338920 received: xtrblk (1294 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:54:44.033299 received: xtrblk (344 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:04:55.541082 received: xtrblk (947 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:27:53.076818 received: xtrblk (1660 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:39:21.527632 received: xtrblk (878 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:48:57.831915 received: xtrblk (836 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:49:18.074036 received: xtrblk (243 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:52:09.949254 received: xtrblk (474 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 10:05:35.192227 received: xtrblk (451 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 10:12:37.671585 received: xtrblk (1317 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 10:12:40.761272 received: xtrblk (294 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 10:13:10.548404 received: xtrblk (278 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 10:17:06.108110 received: xtrblk (512 bytes) peer=0 
Sizes of the fetched missing transactions:
2019-04-08 06:17:48.410703 received: xtrtxn (842930 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 06:34:40.221133 received: xtrtxn (5691 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 06:50:25.291309 received: xtrtxn (517 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:04:02.029652 received: xtrtxn (3461 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:09:44.604922 received: xtrtxn (744 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:15:32.339450 received: xtrtxn (1155 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:17:25.984684 received: xtrtxn (3337 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:19:38.948412 received: xtrtxn (654 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:21:22.100418 received: xtrtxn (3510 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:37:20.574477 received: xtrtxn (3990 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:38:41.107558 received: xtrtxn (519 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 07:52:40.204659 received: xtrtxn (2364 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:01:30.240842 received: xtrtxn (275 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:26:06.214200 received: xtrtxn (274 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:39:05.005097 received: xtrtxn (273 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:53:57.340233 received: xtrtxn (514 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 08:54:44.034397 received: xtrtxn (1243 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:04:55.542438 received: xtrtxn (420 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:39:21.528842 received: xtrtxn (811 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:49:18.075155 received: xtrtxn (274 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 09:52:09.950762 received: xtrtxn (10478 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 10:05:35.193791 received: xtrtxn (8248 bytes) peer=0 2019-04-08 10:12:40.762645 received: xtrtxn (1741 bytes) peer=0 
As a reminder: Xthinner does not affect storage, RAM, or CPU requirements for full nodes in any way, and has very little effect on total network traffic, which is dominated by tx announcements and historical block uploads. Xthinner's compression only affects block propagation speed. Block propagation is the code path that is most sensitive to performance and latency for keeping Bitcoin decentralized while scaling, and has long been a sore point, so this optimization is worthwhile. But its effects are limited to that code path.
Edit 4/18/2019: I tracked down the cause of the high missing/colliding transaction rate and associated extra round trips to an off-by-one bug in my encoder. The code was checking how many bytes were needed to disambiguate from the 2nd-closest mempool match instead of the closest mempool match. Since fixing this bug a few hours ago, only 1 out of 27 block transmission attempts have required an extra round trip for tx fetching.
submitted by jtoomim to btc [link] [comments]

G. Maxwell just dropped a bomb on the bitcoin-devs mailing list. (what u think?)

G. Maxwell just dropped a bomb on the bitcoin-devs mailing list. (what u think?) submitted by Bitzuca to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A few questions about bitcoin mining

Newbie here.
I'm not yet familiar with bitcoin mining, just a bit interested. The bitcoin block header, as we all know, is consisted of the nonce, the timestamp, the Merkle root, nBits, and the hash of the previous block. Miners usually increment the nonce by 1, until they exhaust all 2^32 possibilities and find the solution.
However, I have read that it is very common for miners to exhaust all 2^32 combinations and not find a solution at all. As a result, they have to make slight changes to the timestamp and/or the Merkle root to calculate even more combinations.
Therefore, what is the probability of a miner exhausting 2^32 combinations without finding a valid nonce in a specific block? Does it have something to do with the bitcoin mining "difficulty" thingy? I'm so confused right now......
submitted by Palpatine88888 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Support SegWit - Choose Your Preferred Miner

submitted by BuyBTCuk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Let's discuss something tech-related for a change: Sidechains!

Okay rbitcoin, yeah yeah J Morgan yeah yeah blah blah boo hoo. Okay? Good.
So here's what I know:
  1. The original sidechains paper seems to have grown out of gmaxwell's ramblings about CoinWitness, which would entail adding a zk-SNARK verifier into Bitcoin Core. A zk-SNARK verifier would allow Bitcoin fullnodes to have a programmable verifier, with the data being verified (e.g. entire sidechain blocks) not needed to be provided to the verifier, just a tiny 288-byte transcript (the proof). Note that fullnodes don't even need to execute the programmed verifier themselves, just check the 288-byte proof that the program was honestly executed by someone else with a lot more processing power.
  2. CoinWitness was planned to use the vnTinyRAM, a virtual machine for running a von Neumann program. You could write a C code verifier and compile it to run on vnTinyRAM. RAM here is Random Access Machine, not Random Access Memory, BTW. Note however that vnTinyRAM has limited number of "clock cycles" i.e. instructions it could execute; it won't allow true Turing completeness, as it requires termination, and if you reach the cycle limit the verifier is treated as if it failed.
  3. CoinWitness could be used for a lot of different financial systems, not just sidechains! For example if you could program perfectly, you could set up a trustable Chaumian bank or a trustable mixer (well, trustable if every user was reviewing your code before they used it, LOL).
  4. zk-SNARKs are cool, but this rather nicely shows the importance of not depending on novel crypto.
  5. zk-SNARKs also require a trusted setup (i.e. someone generates some random data from a seed, and promises not to keep its seed, something like that), at least according to some treatments I've seen (don't know enough cryptography to know which ones are correct or if I'm missing something). Some newer papers seem to be using called "PCP" to skip the trusted setup, but increases the size of proofs and the load on verifiers. See also previous item for the importance of not depending on novel crypto.
  6. So... zk-SNARKs are out. The Blockstream sidechains paper thus focuses on SPV proofs. Blockstream's Elements sidechain includes SPV proofs, and uses SPV proofs for main->side transfers. In case you're curious, Elements uses fedpeg for side->main, since they were working with an unpatched mainchain Bitcoin.
  7. SPV proofs kinda suck. You need a mechanism to repeal them by showing a longer SPV proof that shows that the side->main transfer didn't actually occur. That mechanism should also be repealable by showing an even longer SPV proof that shows that by golly, yes the side->main transfer really did occur you dolt (to be specific: a withdrawproofverify UTXO is unlocked by an SPV proof, and must then be paid to a UTXO that is unlocked either by a timelock, or a reorgproof. The reorgproof is an even longer SPV proof that should pay back to a withdrawproofverify UTXO, and you would then retry with your even longer SPV proof of existence (withdrawproof) presumably the sidechain had extended by that time, which an attacker would have to counter with a yet longer SPV proof of non-existence (reorgproof), etc.). And so on.
  8. So, drivechains instead of SPV proofs. Drivechains use miner voting to determine if a side->main transfer did occur.
  9. Miner voting, yeah, that mechanism which prevented SegWit from activating until August this year. Miner voting is totes fine, guys.
  10. There are actually two drivechain proposals, one by Sergio Demian LerneRootstock (OP_COUNT_ACKS) and another by Paul Sztorc/Truthcoin (upvotes/downvotes on coinbase tx).
  11. Drivechains require merge mining, so every sidechain miner needs to be a mainchain miner.
  12. Paul Sztorc is proposing something about "blind" merge mining, which is basically that the sidechain miner is theoretically separate fro mthe mainchain miner, and pays the latter to put some hashes (presumably sidechain block hashes) on the chain. This style of sidechain miners doesn't have a way to affect miner voting, though, just the hash committed to in the merge-mine, so I don't see why he bothered.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments] mining 18 blocks today containing mostly 1 -> 64 -> -128 -> 256 -> 512 transactions

Who is This IP is mainly producing blocks with 2 base system pattern... even blocks with 1 transaction. Seems like a waste not to include more transaction and looks rather suspicious to me. Currently they got 3 of the past 4 blocks so they seem strong. Server located in Germany.
Is this the reason why Ive been waiting almost an hour for confirmation of my 0.0001 fee transaction?
UPDATE: Only 192 transactions has been confirmed in over 1,5 hour because of this pool.
submitted by nostr to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Unix Epoch "Y2K bug"?

I'm new to bitcoin, and have been reading the excellent Mastering Bitcoin O'Reilly book by A Antonopoulos and like, I have a really obvious question. Blockchain headers contain a 4-byte Unix timestamp (seconds since Jan 1, 1970). Unix timestamps will overflow on January 19, 2038 03:14:07 GMT, but the bitcoin network is supposed to be more or less operational (ie handing out more bitcoin to lucky miners) until 2140.
Ok so my question: what's going to happen to bitcoins mined before the epoch expiration? since this is in the block header, will it fuck up the chain? why didn't anyone think of this when they were putting the protocol together? or are people actively fixing this? is bitcoin as we know it fucked?
submitted by niftynei to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The BCH blockchain is 165GB! How good can we compress it? I had a closer look

Someone posted their results for compressing the blockchain in the telegram group, this is what they were able to do:
Note, bitcoin by its nature is poorly compressible, as it contains a lot of incompressible data, such as public keys, addresses, and signatures. However, there's also a lot of redundant information in there, e.g. the transaction version, and it's usually the same opcodes, locktime, sequence number etc. over and over again.
I was curious and thought, how much could we actually compress the blockchain? This is actually very relevant: As I established in my previous post about the costs of a 1GB full node, the storage and bandwidth costs seem to be one of the biggest bottlenecks, and that CPU computation costs are actually the cheapest part, as were able almost to get away with ten year old CPUs.
Let's have a quick look at the transaction format and see what we can do. I'll have a TL;DR at the end if you don't care about how I came up with those numbers.
Before we just in, don't forget that I'll be streaming today again building a SPV node, as I've already posted about here. Last time we made some big progress, I think! Check it out here It'll start at around 15:00 UTC!

Version (32 bits)

There's currently two transaction types. Unless we add new ones, we can compress it to 1 bit (0 = version 1; and 1 = version 2).

Input/output count (8 to 72 bits)

This is the number of inputs the transaction has (see section 9 of the whitepaper). If the number of inputs is below 253, it will take 1 byte, and otherwise 2 to 8 bytes. This nice chart shows that, currently, 90% of Bitcoin transactions only have 2 inputs, sometimes 3.
A byte can represent 256 different numbers. Having this as the lowest granularity for input count seems quite wasteful! Also, 0 inputs is never allowed in Bitcoin Cash. If we represent one input with 00₂, two inputs with 01₂, three inputs with 10₂ and everything else with 11₂ + current format, we get away with only 2 bits more than 90% of the time.
Outputs are slightly higher, 3 or less 90% of the time, but the same encoding works fine.

Input (>320 bits)

There can be multiple of those. It has the following format:

Output (≥72 bits)

There can be multiple of those. They have the following format:

Lock time (32 bits)

This is FF FF FF FF most of the time and only occasionally transactions will be time-locked, and only change the meaning if a sequence number for an input is not FF FF FF FF. We can do the same trick as with the sequence number, such that most of the time, this will be just 1 bit.


So, in summary, we have:
Nice table:
No. of inputs No. of outputs Uncompressed size Compressed size Ratio
1 1 191 bytes (1528 bits) 128 bytes (1023 bits) 67.0%
1 2 226 bytes (1808 bits) 151 bytes (1202 bits) 66.5%
2 1 339 bytes (2712 bits) 233 bytes (1861 bits) 68.6%
2 2 374 bytes (2992 bits) 255 bytes (2040 bits) 68.2%
2 3 408 bytes (3264 bits) 278 bytes (2219 bits) 68.0%
3 2 520 bytes (4160 bits) 360 bytes (2878 bits) 69.2%
3 3 553 bytes (4424 bits) 383 bytes (3057 bits) 69.1%
Interestingly, if we take a compression of 69%, if we were to compress the 165 GB blockchain, we'd get 113.8GB. Which is (almost) exactly the amount which 7zip was able to give us given ultra compression!
I think there's not a lot we can do to compress the transaction further, even if we only transmit public keys, signatures and addresses, we'd at minimum have 930 bits, which would still only be at 61% compression ratio (and missing outpoint and value). 7zip is probably also able to utilize re-using of addresses/public keys if someone sends to/from the same address multiple times, which we haven't explored here; but it's generally discouraged to send to the same address multiple times anyway so I didn't explore that. We'd still have signatures clocking in at 512 bits.
Note that the compression scheme I outlined here operates on a per transaction or per block basis (if we compress transacted satoshis per block), unlike 7zip, which compresses per blockchain.
I hope this was an interesting read. I expected the compression ratio to be higher, but still, if it takes 3 weeks to sync uncompressed, it'll take just 2 weeks compressed. Which can mean a lot for a business, actually.

I'll be streaming again today!

As I've already posted about here, I will stream about building an SPV node in Python again. It'll start at 15:00 UTC. Last time we made some big progress, I think! We were able to connect to my Bitcoin ABC node and send/receive our first version message. I'll do a nice recap of what we've done in that time, as there haven't been many present last time. And then we'll receive our first headers and then transactions! Check it out here:
submitted by eyeofpython to btc [link] [comments]

Blockchain/Bitcoin for beginners 9: Bitcoin difficulty, target, BITS - all you need to know fatal error no such file or directory code blocks IPV4 - CIDR block example Best Bitcoin Mining Site & Android/Iphone  No Fee + No Investment  Payment Proof! BITCOIN MINING trailer

Bitcoin uses: SHA256(SHA256(Block_Header)) but you have to be careful about byte-order. Hashing algorithm example [ edit ] For example, this python code will calculate the hash of the block with the smallest hash as of June 2011, Block 125552 . The target threshold is a 256-bit unsigned integer which a header hash must be equal to or below in order for that header to be a valid part of the block chain. However, the header field nBits provides only 32 bits of space, so the target number uses a less precise format called “compact” which works like a base-256 version of scientific 000000000000000000006b008620d99f1416f991f939fa0a41c398b0443b369c Time: 2020-07-22 14:47:55 00000000000000000004761db285f4d5b217d593fd7fe0d20ea73d207d61b3d3 Time: 2020-07-16 22:40:54 Bitcoin uses: SHA256(SHA256(Block_Header)) but you have to be careful about byte-order. For example, this python code will calculate the hash of the block with the smallest hash as of June 2011, Block 125552. The header is built from the six fields described above, concatenated together as little-endian values in hex notation:

[index] [1913] [1896] [155] [7338] [8267] [34] [9808] [5270] [1258] [3104]

Blockchain/Bitcoin for beginners 9: Bitcoin difficulty, target, BITS - all you need to know

A short video explaining what a block explorer is. For the complete text guide visit: Join our 7-day Bitcoin crash course absolutely free: Blockchain/Bitcoin for beginners 6: blocks and mining, content and creation of bitcoin blocks - Duration: 46:48. Matt Thomas 11,077 views 1] This solution is not for the standard header files like iostream.h, graphics.h, cstdlib.h, stdafx.h, stdio.h, stdl.h. You can try the same steps mentioned in video for these standard header file. Hey guys, thank you for watching how to mine free bitcoin video, in this video im showing my results how i generated 2 BTC in 2020 visit site : This bitcoin miner tool works ... Bitcoin 101 - Merkle Roots and Merkle Trees - Bitcoin Coding and Software - The Block Header by CRI. 24:18. Play next ... Learn how computers add numbers and build a 4 bit adder circuit by Ben ...