Bitcoin Private Key Generator All Bitcoin Address with ...

I think we have reached the moment where “not your keys, not your coins” is more important than ever.

You have all heard about Michael Saylor of MicroStrategy gobbling up 38,250 bitcoin for $425 million.
This MicroStrategy event will be looked back upon as “the shot fired from the starting pistol” marking a new beginning, a new race into bitcoin from an unprecedented wave of institutional and corporate adoption.
These new adopters are not average joe’s.
These people are entering the game with a level of sophisticated power that we simple plebs and humble sat stackers simply cannot compete with.
However, we have ONE single sure-fire way to protect ourselves.
That is, get your coins off of the exchanges and into your own self custody… NOW.
With this new influx of powerful people, there will be many more critical eyes looking into all the nooks and crannies of the bitcoin space, to ensure they will benefit from bitcoin for their own self interests. (This is good.)
The big players want a 21 million hard cap and “number go up” just as much as you do. They do not want fractional reserve and rehypothecation. They will hire professional watchdogs in the private sector and they will push regulation in the public sector to ensure that bitcoins fundamentals will not be compromised.
If/when some exchange or custodian is ousted for having some bitcoin fractional reserves or some other form of malpractice results in lost bitcoin (intentional or unintentional) you can be certain that the big boys with their teams of lawyers and executive institutional relationships will be catered to first.
They will be protected, meanwhile we will be lucky to get any scraps once the dust settles.
They will receive special treatment that we cannot expect the luxury of.
The exchanges won’t care about you.
Your losses are a simple calculation that they have already planned to write off and move on from. You will not have the funds or the power to fight them and recover your losses.
If you have any amount of bitcoin on any exchange that you care about and you are reading these words right now… I implore you to take the time now to think all of this through and take good decisive actions very soon.
Your bitcoin can only be taken from you if you do not control your keys.
Win this war now by avoiding the battle altogether.
Take custody of your bitcoin while you still can.
submitted by SpockSays to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Symbol Platform by NEM - Tokenomics

First of all, remember that, you can get 1 XYM for 1 NEM you have.
Tokenomics
The Symbol public chain is a self-sustaining economic ecosystem involving node operators, harvesters, investors, users, and the XYM token. In this way, it’s similar to many decentralized blockchains, but there are important differences that make it easier for anyone to earn rewards. Here are the basics of the system.
XYM Supply and Inflation
XYM has a fixed maximum supply of approximately 9 billion tokens. At public chain release, the supply will consist of about 7.3 billion XYM, allocated to users based on their holdings of XEM on the NEM blockchain. Another 1.7 billion XYM will be created as inflationary rewards over time. The inflation rate is closely mapped to that of bitcoin, extending out over the next 100 years. Similar to mining rewards, Symbol’s rewards will be released to each block creator, but based on a POS+ (Proof of Stake+) system.
Proof of Stake
POS+ lets nodes create blocks based on their XYM stakes, which are holdings. Symbol uses the term harvesting instead of mining. The more tokens held by a node operator, the higher the chances of creating the next block and earning harvesting rewards. POS is a well-known system in the blockchain industry, but Symbol adds some improvements. POS+ calculates a score for each node operator based on the size of their stake AND other factors, such as recent network activity and the stakes that other users may delegate to them (see Delegated Harvesting below.) In this way, POS+ attempts to incentivize usage, competition for low fees, and other desirable behavior. You can read details on how POS+ is calculated in the Symbol whitepaper.
Nodes
Node operators all over the world keep the Symbol protocol robust and decentralized. For keeping the system running, node owners earn rewards from four sources.
Node operators can set up their nodes locally or on cloud services. For details on how to set up a node, refer to the developer documentation.
Block Rewards
Since Symbol’s blocks are confirmed several times per minute, rewards are frequent. Block rewards consist of inflation rewards and transaction fees. The chances of earning a block reward are based mainly on the operator’s XYM stake, as well as other factors like network activity. Both node operators and anyone else with a XYM wallet can earn block rewards.
The higher an account’s XYM balance, the higher the chance of it earning a block reward. Even those who don’t run a node can earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node.
Delegated Harvesting
XYM owners who don’t operate nodes can also earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node. Holders who delegate their stake retain full ownership of their coins and never expose their private keys. No funds have ever been lost from delegated harvesting. When delegated harvesters earn a block reward, the node operator who processed it earns 25% and the delegated harvester earns 75%. In this way, a node operator can greatly increase their earned rewards, and all holders can participate in rewards whether or not they run a node.
Transaction Fees
Node operators can set their own minimum fees for which they wish to process transactions. The lower the fees accepted, the more transactions they will be able to process. Generous node operators may even choose to process transactions for free if they wish. This creates competition among node operators.
Node Bonus Program
In order to incentivize stability in the number of nodes and circulating supply after launch, bonus rewards will be paid to node operators who maintain nodes with minimum balances of 1 million, 2 million, or 3 million XYM, with higher bonus rates for each tier. These rewards will draw from a fixed pool of reserves and gradually ramp down over six years.
Total Node Income
To summarize, node operators will earn income from block rewards (inflation + transaction fees) based on their own stakes and a 25% share of delegated stake block rewards. Estimates place these combined node rewards at approximately 5% or 6% for the first year, though this is not guaranteed. Operators can also earn bonuses for maintaining minimum stakes of over 1 million XYM.
Inflation Rate
Symbol’s inflation is mapped to bitcoin’s inflation with one difference. Bitcoin halves its rewards every four years. Symbol also drops its reward rate by half every four years, but instead of a single big drop, these reductions are spaced out to occur every quarter. This gives the same overall inflation as bitcoin, but with a more gradual decline.
Team Reserves
The Symbol Core Team will hold approximately 22% of XYM supply for funding future development, marketing, and partner projects. Historically, Core Team funds have not been used for harvesting and there are no plans to begin, meaning more block rewards available for other harvesters.
https://symbolplatform.com/
submitted by waterbottles4 to nem [link] [comments]

Symbol Platform by NEM - Tokenomics

First of all, remember that, you can get 1 XYM for 1 NEM you have.
Tokenomics
The Symbol public chain is a self-sustaining economic ecosystem involving node operators, harvesters, investors, users, and the XYM token. In this way, it’s similar to many decentralized blockchains, but there are important differences that make it easier for anyone to earn rewards. Here are the basics of the system.
XYM Supply and Inflation
XYM has a fixed maximum supply of approximately 9 billion tokens. At public chain release, the supply will consist of about 7.3 billion XYM, allocated to users based on their holdings of XEM on the NEM blockchain. Another 1.7 billion XYM will be created as inflationary rewards over time. The inflation rate is closely mapped to that of bitcoin, extending out over the next 100 years. Similar to mining rewards, Symbol’s rewards will be released to each block creator, but based on a POS+ (Proof of Stake+) system.
Proof of Stake
POS+ lets nodes create blocks based on their XYM stakes, which are holdings. Symbol uses the term harvesting instead of mining. The more tokens held by a node operator, the higher the chances of creating the next block and earning harvesting rewards. POS is a well-known system in the blockchain industry, but Symbol adds some improvements. POS+ calculates a score for each node operator based on the size of their stake AND other factors, such as recent network activity and the stakes that other users may delegate to them (see Delegated Harvesting below.) In this way, POS+ attempts to incentivize usage, competition for low fees, and other desirable behavior. You can read details on how POS+ is calculated in the Symbol whitepaper.
Nodes
Node operators all over the world keep the Symbol protocol robust and decentralized. For keeping the system running, node owners earn rewards from four sources.
Node operators can set up their nodes locally or on cloud services. For details on how to set up a node, refer to the developer documentation.
Block Rewards
Since Symbol’s blocks are confirmed several times per minute, rewards are frequent. Block rewards consist of inflation rewards and transaction fees. The chances of earning a block reward are based mainly on the operator’s XYM stake, as well as other factors like network activity. Both node operators and anyone else with a XYM wallet can earn block rewards.
The higher an account’s XYM balance, the higher the chance of it earning a block reward. Even those who don’t run a node can earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node.
Delegated Harvesting
XYM owners who don’t operate nodes can also earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node. Holders who delegate their stake retain full ownership of their coins and never expose their private keys. No funds have ever been lost from delegated harvesting. When delegated harvesters earn a block reward, the node operator who processed it earns 25% and the delegated harvester earns 75%. In this way, a node operator can greatly increase their earned rewards, and all holders can participate in rewards whether or not they run a node.
Transaction Fees
Node operators can set their own minimum fees for which they wish to process transactions. The lower the fees accepted, the more transactions they will be able to process. Generous node operators may even choose to process transactions for free if they wish. This creates competition among node operators.
Node Bonus Program
In order to incentivize stability in the number of nodes and circulating supply after launch, bonus rewards will be paid to node operators who maintain nodes with minimum balances of 1 million, 2 million, or 3 million XYM, with higher bonus rates for each tier. These rewards will draw from a fixed pool of reserves and gradually ramp down over six years.
Total Node Income
To summarize, node operators will earn income from block rewards (inflation + transaction fees) based on their own stakes and a 25% share of delegated stake block rewards. Estimates place these combined node rewards at approximately 5% or 6% for the first year, though this is not guaranteed. Operators can also earn bonuses for maintaining minimum stakes of over 1 million XYM.
Inflation Rate
Symbol’s inflation is mapped to bitcoin’s inflation with one difference. Bitcoin halves its rewards every four years. Symbol also drops its reward rate by half every four years, but instead of a single big drop, these reductions are spaced out to occur every quarter. This gives the same overall inflation as bitcoin, but with a more gradual decline.
Team Reserves
The Symbol Core Team will hold approximately 22% of XYM supply for funding future development, marketing, and partner projects. Historically, Core Team funds have not been used for harvesting and there are no plans to begin, meaning more block rewards available for other harvesters.
https://symbolplatform.com/
submitted by waterbottles4 to ico [link] [comments]

Symbol Platform by NEM - Tokenomics

First of all, remember that, you can get 1 XYM for 1 NEM you have.
Tokenomics
The Symbol public chain is a self-sustaining economic ecosystem involving node operators, harvesters, investors, users, and the XYM token. In this way, it’s similar to many decentralized blockchains, but there are important differences that make it easier for anyone to earn rewards. Here are the basics of the system.
XYM Supply and Inflation
XYM has a fixed maximum supply of approximately 9 billion tokens. At public chain release, the supply will consist of about 7.3 billion XYM, allocated to users based on their holdings of XEM on the NEM blockchain. Another 1.7 billion XYM will be created as inflationary rewards over time. The inflation rate is closely mapped to that of bitcoin, extending out over the next 100 years. Similar to mining rewards, Symbol’s rewards will be released to each block creator, but based on a POS+ (Proof of Stake+) system.
Proof of Stake
POS+ lets nodes create blocks based on their XYM stakes, which are holdings. Symbol uses the term harvesting instead of mining. The more tokens held by a node operator, the higher the chances of creating the next block and earning harvesting rewards. POS is a well-known system in the blockchain industry, but Symbol adds some improvements. POS+ calculates a score for each node operator based on the size of their stake AND other factors, such as recent network activity and the stakes that other users may delegate to them (see Delegated Harvesting below.) In this way, POS+ attempts to incentivize usage, competition for low fees, and other desirable behavior. You can read details on how POS+ is calculated in the Symbol whitepaper.
Nodes
Node operators all over the world keep the Symbol protocol robust and decentralized. For keeping the system running, node owners earn rewards from four sources.
Node operators can set up their nodes locally or on cloud services. For details on how to set up a node, refer to the developer documentation.
Block Rewards
Since Symbol’s blocks are confirmed several times per minute, rewards are frequent. Block rewards consist of inflation rewards and transaction fees. The chances of earning a block reward are based mainly on the operator’s XYM stake, as well as other factors like network activity. Both node operators and anyone else with a XYM wallet can earn block rewards.
The higher an account’s XYM balance, the higher the chance of it earning a block reward. Even those who don’t run a node can earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node.
Delegated Harvesting
XYM owners who don’t operate nodes can also earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node. Holders who delegate their stake retain full ownership of their coins and never expose their private keys. No funds have ever been lost from delegated harvesting. When delegated harvesters earn a block reward, the node operator who processed it earns 25% and the delegated harvester earns 75%. In this way, a node operator can greatly increase their earned rewards, and all holders can participate in rewards whether or not they run a node.
Transaction Fees
Node operators can set their own minimum fees for which they wish to process transactions. The lower the fees accepted, the more transactions they will be able to process. Generous node operators may even choose to process transactions for free if they wish. This creates competition among node operators.
Node Bonus Program
In order to incentivize stability in the number of nodes and circulating supply after launch, bonus rewards will be paid to node operators who maintain nodes with minimum balances of 1 million, 2 million, or 3 million XYM, with higher bonus rates for each tier. These rewards will draw from a fixed pool of reserves and gradually ramp down over six years.
Total Node Income
To summarize, node operators will earn income from block rewards (inflation + transaction fees) based on their own stakes and a 25% share of delegated stake block rewards. Estimates place these combined node rewards at approximately 5% or 6% for the first year, though this is not guaranteed. Operators can also earn bonuses for maintaining minimum stakes of over 1 million XYM.
Inflation Rate
Symbol’s inflation is mapped to bitcoin’s inflation with one difference. Bitcoin halves its rewards every four years. Symbol also drops its reward rate by half every four years, but instead of a single big drop, these reductions are spaced out to occur every quarter. This gives the same overall inflation as bitcoin, but with a more gradual decline.
Team Reserves
The Symbol Core Team will hold approximately 22% of XYM supply for funding future development, marketing, and partner projects. Historically, Core Team funds have not been used for harvesting and there are no plans to begin, meaning more block rewards available for other harvesters.
https://symbolplatform.com/
submitted by waterbottles4 to CryptoICONews [link] [comments]

Symbol Platform by NEM - Tokenomics

First of all, remember that, you can get 1 XYM for 1 NEM you have.
Tokenomics
The Symbol public chain is a self-sustaining economic ecosystem involving node operators, harvesters, investors, users, and the XYM token. In this way, it’s similar to many decentralized blockchains, but there are important differences that make it easier for anyone to earn rewards. Here are the basics of the system.
XYM Supply and Inflation
XYM has a fixed maximum supply of approximately 9 billion tokens. At public chain release, the supply will consist of about 7.3 billion XYM, allocated to users based on their holdings of XEM on the NEM blockchain. Another 1.7 billion XYM will be created as inflationary rewards over time. The inflation rate is closely mapped to that of bitcoin, extending out over the next 100 years. Similar to mining rewards, Symbol’s rewards will be released to each block creator, but based on a POS+ (Proof of Stake+) system.
Proof of Stake
POS+ lets nodes create blocks based on their XYM stakes, which are holdings. Symbol uses the term harvesting instead of mining. The more tokens held by a node operator, the higher the chances of creating the next block and earning harvesting rewards. POS is a well-known system in the blockchain industry, but Symbol adds some improvements. POS+ calculates a score for each node operator based on the size of their stake AND other factors, such as recent network activity and the stakes that other users may delegate to them (see Delegated Harvesting below.) In this way, POS+ attempts to incentivize usage, competition for low fees, and other desirable behavior. You can read details on how POS+ is calculated in the Symbol whitepaper.
Nodes
Node operators all over the world keep the Symbol protocol robust and decentralized. For keeping the system running, node owners earn rewards from four sources.
Node operators can set up their nodes locally or on cloud services. For details on how to set up a node, refer to the developer documentation.
Block Rewards
Since Symbol’s blocks are confirmed several times per minute, rewards are frequent. Block rewards consist of inflation rewards and transaction fees. The chances of earning a block reward are based mainly on the operator’s XYM stake, as well as other factors like network activity. Both node operators and anyone else with a XYM wallet can earn block rewards.
The higher an account’s XYM balance, the higher the chance of it earning a block reward. Even those who don’t run a node can earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node.
Delegated Harvesting
XYM owners who don’t operate nodes can also earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node. Holders who delegate their stake retain full ownership of their coins and never expose their private keys. No funds have ever been lost from delegated harvesting. When delegated harvesters earn a block reward, the node operator who processed it earns 25% and the delegated harvester earns 75%. In this way, a node operator can greatly increase their earned rewards, and all holders can participate in rewards whether or not they run a node.
Transaction Fees
Node operators can set their own minimum fees for which they wish to process transactions. The lower the fees accepted, the more transactions they will be able to process. Generous node operators may even choose to process transactions for free if they wish. This creates competition among node operators.
Node Bonus Program
In order to incentivize stability in the number of nodes and circulating supply after launch, bonus rewards will be paid to node operators who maintain nodes with minimum balances of 1 million, 2 million, or 3 million XYM, with higher bonus rates for each tier. These rewards will draw from a fixed pool of reserves and gradually ramp down over six years.
Total Node Income
To summarize, node operators will earn income from block rewards (inflation + transaction fees) based on their own stakes and a 25% share of delegated stake block rewards. Estimates place these combined node rewards at approximately 5% or 6% for the first year, though this is not guaranteed. Operators can also earn bonuses for maintaining minimum stakes of over 1 million XYM.
Inflation Rate
Symbol’s inflation is mapped to bitcoin’s inflation with one difference. Bitcoin halves its rewards every four years. Symbol also drops its reward rate by half every four years, but instead of a single big drop, these reductions are spaced out to occur every quarter. This gives the same overall inflation as bitcoin, but with a more gradual decline.
Team Reserves
The Symbol Core Team will hold approximately 22% of XYM supply for funding future development, marketing, and partner projects. Historically, Core Team funds have not been used for harvesting and there are no plans to begin, meaning more block rewards available for other harvesters.
https://symbolplatform.com/
submitted by waterbottles4 to ICOAnalysis [link] [comments]

Symbol Platform by NEM - Tokenomics

First of all, remember that, you can get 1 XYM for 1 NEM you have.
Tokenomics
The Symbol public chain is a self-sustaining economic ecosystem involving node operators, harvesters, investors, users, and the XYM token. In this way, it’s similar to many decentralized blockchains, but there are important differences that make it easier for anyone to earn rewards. Here are the basics of the system.
XYM Supply and Inflation
XYM has a fixed maximum supply of approximately 9 billion tokens. At public chain release, the supply will consist of about 7.3 billion XYM, allocated to users based on their holdings of XEM on the NEM blockchain. Another 1.7 billion XYM will be created as inflationary rewards over time. The inflation rate is closely mapped to that of bitcoin, extending out over the next 100 years. Similar to mining rewards, Symbol’s rewards will be released to each block creator, but based on a POS+ (Proof of Stake+) system.
Proof of Stake
POS+ lets nodes create blocks based on their XYM stakes, which are holdings. Symbol uses the term harvesting instead of mining. The more tokens held by a node operator, the higher the chances of creating the next block and earning harvesting rewards. POS is a well-known system in the blockchain industry, but Symbol adds some improvements. POS+ calculates a score for each node operator based on the size of their stake AND other factors, such as recent network activity and the stakes that other users may delegate to them (see Delegated Harvesting below.) In this way, POS+ attempts to incentivize usage, competition for low fees, and other desirable behavior. You can read details on how POS+ is calculated in the Symbol whitepaper.
Nodes
Node operators all over the world keep the Symbol protocol robust and decentralized. For keeping the system running, node owners earn rewards from four sources.
Node operators can set up their nodes locally or on cloud services. For details on how to set up a node, refer to the developer documentation.
Block Rewards
Since Symbol’s blocks are confirmed several times per minute, rewards are frequent. Block rewards consist of inflation rewards and transaction fees. The chances of earning a block reward are based mainly on the operator’s XYM stake, as well as other factors like network activity. Both node operators and anyone else with a XYM wallet can earn block rewards.
The higher an account’s XYM balance, the higher the chance of it earning a block reward. Even those who don’t run a node can earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node.
Delegated Harvesting
XYM owners who don’t operate nodes can also earn block rewards by delegating their stake to a node. Holders who delegate their stake retain full ownership of their coins and never expose their private keys. No funds have ever been lost from delegated harvesting. When delegated harvesters earn a block reward, the node operator who processed it earns 25% and the delegated harvester earns 75%. In this way, a node operator can greatly increase their earned rewards, and all holders can participate in rewards whether or not they run a node.
Transaction Fees
Node operators can set their own minimum fees for which they wish to process transactions. The lower the fees accepted, the more transactions they will be able to process. Generous node operators may even choose to process transactions for free if they wish. This creates competition among node operators.
Node Bonus Program
In order to incentivize stability in the number of nodes and circulating supply after launch, bonus rewards will be paid to node operators who maintain nodes with minimum balances of 1 million, 2 million, or 3 million XYM, with higher bonus rates for each tier. These rewards will draw from a fixed pool of reserves and gradually ramp down over six years.
Total Node Income
To summarize, node operators will earn income from block rewards (inflation + transaction fees) based on their own stakes and a 25% share of delegated stake block rewards. Estimates place these combined node rewards at approximately 5% or 6% for the first year, though this is not guaranteed. Operators can also earn bonuses for maintaining minimum stakes of over 1 million XYM.
Inflation Rate
Symbol’s inflation is mapped to bitcoin’s inflation with one difference. Bitcoin halves its rewards every four years. Symbol also drops its reward rate by half every four years, but instead of a single big drop, these reductions are spaced out to occur every quarter. This gives the same overall inflation as bitcoin, but with a more gradual decline.
Team Reserves
The Symbol Core Team will hold approximately 22% of XYM supply for funding future development, marketing, and partner projects. Historically, Core Team funds have not been used for harvesting and there are no plans to begin, meaning more block rewards available for other harvesters.
https://symbolplatform.com/
submitted by waterbottles4 to CryptoICO [link] [comments]

How To End The Cryptocurrency Exchange "Wild West" Without Crippling Innovation


In case you haven't noticed the consultation paper, staff notice, and report on Quadriga, regulators are now clamping down on Canadian cryptocurrency exchanges. The OSC and other regulatory bodies are still interested in industry feedback. They have not put forward any official regulation yet. Below are some ideas/insights and a proposed framework.



Many of you have limited time to read the full proposal, so here are the highlights:

Offline Multi-Signature

Effective standards to prevent both internal and external theft. Exchange operators are trained and certified, and have a legal responsibility to users.

Regular Transparent Audits

Provides visibility to Canadians that their funds are fully backed on the exchange, while protecting privacy and sensitive platform information.

Insurance Requirements

Establishment of basic insurance standards/strategy, to expand over time. Removing risk to exchange users of any hot wallet theft.


Background and Justifications


Cold Storage Custody/Management
After reviewing close to 100 cases, all thefts tend to break down into more or less the same set of problems:
• Funds stored online or in a smart contract,
• Access controlled by one person or one system,
• 51% attacks (rare),
• Funds sent to the wrong address (also rare), or
• Some combination of the above.
For the first two cases, practical solutions exist and are widely implemented on exchanges already. Offline multi-signature solutions are already industry standard. No cases studied found an external theft or exit scam involving an offline multi-signature wallet implementation. Security can be further improved through minimum numbers of signatories, background checks, providing autonomy and legal protections to each signatory, establishing best practices, and a training/certification program.
The last two transaction risks occur more rarely, and have never resulted in a loss affecting the actual users of the exchange. In all cases to date where operators made the mistake, they've been fully covered by the exchange platforms.
• 51% attacks generally only occur on blockchains with less security. The most prominent cases have been Bitcoin Gold and Ethereum Classic. The simple solution is to enforce deposit limits and block delays such that a 51% attack is not cost-effective.
• The risk of transactions to incorrect addresses can be eliminated by a simple test transaction policy on large transactions. By sending a small amount of funds prior to any large withdrawals/transfers as a standard practice, the accuracy of the wallet address can be validated.
The proposal covers all loss cases and goes beyond, while avoiding significant additional costs, risks, and limitations which may be associated with other frameworks like SOC II.

On The Subject of Third Party Custodians
Many Canadian platforms are currently experimenting with third party custody. From the standpoint of the exchange operator, they can liberate themselves from some responsibility of custody, passing that off to someone else. For regulators, it puts crypto in similar categorization to oil, gold, and other commodities, with some common standards. Platform users would likely feel greater confidence if the custodian was a brand they recognized. If the custodian was knowledgeable and had a decent team that employed multi-sig, they could keep assets safe from internal theft. With the right protections in place, this could be a great solution for many exchanges, particularly those that lack the relevant experience or human resources for their own custody systems.
However, this system is vulnerable to anyone able to impersonate the exchange operators. You may have a situation where different employees who don't know each other that well are interacting between different companies (both the custodian and all their customers which presumably isn't just one exchange). A case study of what can go wrong in this type of environment might be Bitpay, where the CEO was tricked out of 5000 bitcoins over 3 separate payments by a series of emails sent legitimately from a breached computer of another company CEO. It's also still vulnerable to the platform being compromised, as in the really large $70M Bitfinex hack, where the third party Bitgo held one key in a multi-sig wallet. The hacker simply authorized the withdrawal using the same credentials as Bitfinex (requesting Bitgo to sign multiple withdrawal transactions). This succeeded even with the use of multi-sig and two heavily security-focused companies, due to the lack of human oversight (basically, hot wallet). Of course, you can learn from these cases and improve the security, but so can hackers improve their deception and at the end of the day, both of these would have been stopped by the much simpler solution of a qualified team who knew each other and employed multi-sig with properly protected keys. It's pretty hard to beat a human being who knows the business and the typical customer behaviour (or even knows their customers personally) at spotting fraud, and the proposed multi-sig means any hacker has to get through the scrutiny of 3 (or more) separate people, all of whom would have proper training including historical case studies.
There are strong arguments both for and against using use of third party custodians. The proposal sets mandatory minimum custody standards would apply regardless if the cold wallet signatories are exchange operators, independent custodians, or a mix of both.

On The Subject Of Insurance
ShakePay has taken the first steps into this new realm (congratulations). There is no question that crypto users could be better protected by the right insurance policies, and it certainly feels better to transact with insured platforms. The steps required to obtain insurance generally place attention in valuable security areas, and in this case included a review from CipherTrace. One of the key solutions in traditional finance comes from insurance from entities such as the CDIC.
However, historically, there wasn't found any actual insurance payout to any cryptocurrency exchange, and there are notable cases where insurance has not paid. With Bitpay, for example, the insurance agent refused because the issue happened to the third party CEO's computer instead of anything to do with Bitpay itself. With the Youbit exchange in South Korea, their insurance claim was denied, and the exchange ultimately ended up instead going bankrupt with all user's funds lost. To quote Matt Johnson in the original Lloyd's article: “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.”
ShakePay's insurance was only reported to cover their cold storage, and “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held”. Physical theft has never, in the history of cryptocurrency exchange cases reviewed, been reported as the cause of loss. From the limited information of the article, ShakePay made it clear their funds are in the hands of a single US custodian, and at least part of their security strategy is to "decline[] to confirm the custodian’s name on the record". While this prevents scrutiny of the custodian, it's pretty silly to speculate that a reasonably competent hacking group couldn't determine who the custodian is. A far more common infiltration strategy historically would be social engineering, which has succeeded repeatedly. A hacker could trick their way into ShakePay's systems and request a fraudulent withdrawal, impersonate ShakePay and request the custodian to move funds, or socially engineer their way into the custodian to initiate the withdrawal of multiple accounts (a payout much larger than ShakePay) exploiting the standard procedures (for example, fraudulently initiating or override the wallet addresses of a real transfer). In each case, nothing was physically stolen and the loss is therefore not covered by insurance.
In order for any insurance to be effective, clear policies have to be established about what needs to be covered. Anything short of that gives Canadians false confidence that they are protected when they aren't in any meaningful way. At this time, the third party insurance market does not appear to provide adequate options or coverage, and effort is necessary to standardize custody standards, which is a likely first step in ultimately setting up an insurance framework.
A better solution compared to third party insurance providers might be for Canadian exchange operators to create their own collective insurance fund, or a specific federal organization similar to the CDIC. Such an organization would have a greater interest or obligation in paying out actual cases, and that would be it's purpose rather than maximizing it's own profit. This would be similar to the SAFU which Binance has launched, except it would cover multiple exchanges. There is little question whether the SAFU would pay out given a breach of Binance, and a similar argument could be made for a insurance fund managed by a collective of exchange operators or a government organization. While a third party insurance provider has the strong market incentive to provide the absolute minimum coverage and no market incentive to payout, an entity managed by exchange operators would have incentive to protect the reputation of exchange operators/the industry, and the government should have the interest of protecting Canadians.

On The Subject of Fractional Reserve
There is a long history of fractional reserve failures, from the first banks in ancient times, through the great depression (where hundreds of fractional reserve banks failed), right through to the 2008 banking collapse referenced in the first bitcoin block. The fractional reserve system allows banks to multiply the money supply far beyond the actual cash (or other assets) in existence, backed only by a system of debt obligations of others. Safely supporting a fractional reserve system is a topic of far greater complexity than can be addressed by a simple policy, and when it comes to cryptocurrency, there is presently no entity reasonably able to bail anyone out in the event of failure. Therefore, this framework is addressed around entities that aim to maintain 100% backing of funds.
There may be some firms that desire but have failed to maintain 100% backing. In this case, there are multiple solutions, including outside investment, merging with other exchanges, or enforcing a gradual restoration plan. All of these solutions are typically far better than shutting down the exchange, and there are multiple cases where they've been used successfully in the past.

Proof of Reserves/Transparency/Accountability
Canadians need to have visibility into the backing on an ongoing basis.
The best solution for crypto-assets is a Proof of Reserve. Such ideas go back all the way to 2013, before even Mt. Gox. However, no Canadian exchange has yet implemented such a system, and only a few international exchanges (CoinFloor in the UK being an example) have. Many firms like Kraken, BitBuy, and now ShakePay use the Proof of Reserve term to refer to lesser proofs which do not actually cryptographically prove the full backing of all user assets on the blockchain. In order for a Proof of Reserve to be effective, it must actually be a complete proof, and it needs to be understood by the public that is expected to use it. Many firms have expressed reservations about the level of transparency required in a complete Proof of Reserve (for example Kraken here). While a complete Proof of Reserves should be encouraged, and there are some solutions in the works (ie TxQuick), this is unlikely to be suitable universally for all exchange operators and users.
Given the limitations, and that firms also manage fiat assets, a more traditional audit process makes more sense. Some Canadian exchanges (CoinSquare, CoinBerry) have already subjected themselves to annual audits. However, these results are not presently shared publicly, and there is no guarantee over the process including all user assets or the integrity and independence of the auditor. The auditor has been typically not known, and in some cases, the identity of the auditor is protected by a NDA. Only in one case (BitBuy) was an actual report generated and publicly shared. There has been no attempt made to validate that user accounts provided during these audits have been complete or accurate. A fraudulent fractional exchange, or one which had suffered a breach they were unwilling to publicly accept (see CoinBene), could easily maintain a second set of books for auditors or simply exclude key accounts to pass an individual audit.
The proposed solution would see a reporting standard which includes at a minimum - percentage of backing for each asset relative to account balances and the nature of how those assets are stored, with ownership proven by the auditor. The auditor would also publicly provide a "hash list", which they independently generate from the accounts provided by the exchange. Every exchange user can then check their information against this public "hash list". A hash is a one-way form of encryption, which fully protects the private information, yet allows anyone who knows that information already to validate that it was included. Less experienced users can take advantage of public tools to calculate the hash from their information (provided by the exchange), and thus have certainty that the auditor received their full balance information. Easy instructions can be provided.
Auditors should be impartial, their identities and process public, and they should be rotated so that the same auditor is never used twice in a row. Balancing the cost of auditing against the needs for regular updates, a 6 month cycle likely makes the most sense.

Hot Wallet Management
The best solution for hot wallets is not to use them. CoinBerry reportedly uses multi-sig on all withdrawals, and Bitmex is an international example known for their structure devoid of hot wallets.
However, many platforms and customers desire fast withdrawal processes, and human validation has a cost of time and delay in this process.
A model of self-insurance or separate funds for hot wallets may be used in these cases. Under this model, a platform still has 100% of their client balance in cold storage and holds additional funds in hot wallets for quick withdrawal. Thus, the risk of those hot wallets is 100% on exchange operators and not affecting the exchange users. Since most platforms typically only have 1%-5% in hot wallets at any given time, it shouldn't be unreasonable to build/maintain these additional reserves over time using exchange fees or additional investment. Larger withdrawals would still be handled at regular intervals from the cold storage.
Hot wallet risks have historically posed a large risk and there is no established standard to guarantee secure hot wallets. When the government of South Korea dispatched security inspections to multiple exchanges, the results were still that 3 of them got hacked after the inspections. If standards develop such that an organization in the market is willing to insure the hot wallets, this could provide an acceptable alternative. Another option may be for multiple exchange operators to pool funds aside for a hot wallet insurance fund. Comprehensive coverage standards must be established and maintained for all hot wallet balances to make sure Canadians are adequately protected.

Current Draft Proposal

(1) Proper multi-signature cold wallet storage.
(a) Each private key is the personal and legal responsibility of one person - the “signatory”. Signatories have special rights and responsibilities to protect user assets. Signatories are trained and certified through a course covering (1) past hacking and fraud cases, (2) proper and secure key generation, and (3) proper safekeeping of private keys. All private keys must be generated and stored 100% offline by the signatory. If even one private keys is ever breached or suspected to be breached, the wallet must be regenerated and all funds relocated to a new wallet.
(b) All signatories must be separate background-checked individuals free of past criminal conviction. Canadians should have a right to know who holds their funds. All signing of transactions must take place with all signatories on Canadian soil or on the soil of a country with a solid legal system which agrees to uphold and support these rules (from an established white-list of countries which expands over time).
(c) 3-5 independent signatures are required for any withdrawal. There must be 1-3 spare signatories, and a maximum of 7 total signatories. The following are all valid combinations: 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7.
(d) A security audit should be conducted to validate the cold wallet is set up correctly and provide any additional pertinent information. The primary purpose is to ensure that all signatories are acting independently and using best practices for private key storage. A report summarizing all steps taken and who did the audit will be made public. Canadians must be able to validate the right measures are in place to protect their funds.
(e) There is a simple approval process if signatories wish to visit any country outside Canada, with a potential whitelist of exempt countries. At most 2 signatories can be outside of aligned jurisdiction at any given time. All exchanges would be required to keep a compliant cold wallet for Canadian funds and have a Canadian office if they wish to serve Canadian customers.
(2) Regular and transparent solvency audits.
(a) An audit must be conducted at founding, after 3 months of operation, and at least once every 6 months to compare customer balances against all stored cryptocurrency and fiat balances. The auditor must be known, independent, and never the same twice in a row.
(b) An audit report will be published featuring the steps conducted in a readable format. This should be made available to all Canadians on the exchange website and on a government website. The report must include what percentage of each customer asset is backed on the exchange, and how those funds are stored.
(c) The auditor will independently produce a hash of each customer's identifying information and balance as they perform the audit. This will be made publicly available on the exchange and government website, along with simplified instructions that each customer can use to verify that their balance was included in the audit process.
(d) The audit needs to include a proof of ownership for any cryptocurrency wallets included. A satoshi test (spending a small amount) or partially signed transaction both qualify.
(e) Any platform without 100% reserves should be assessed on a regular basis by a government or industry watchdog. This entity should work to prevent any further drop, support any private investor to come in, or facilitate a merger so that 100% backing can be obtained as soon as possible.
(3) Protections for hot wallets and transactions.
(a) A standardized list of approved coins and procedures will be established to constitute valid cold storage wallets. Where a multi-sig process is not natively available, efforts will be undertaken to establish a suitable and stable smart contract standard. This list will be expanded and improved over time. Coins and procedures not on the list are considered hot wallets.
(b) Hot wallets can be backed by additional funds in cold storage or an acceptable third-party insurance provider with a comprehensive coverage policy.
(c) Exchanges are required to cover the full balance of all user funds as denominated in the same currency, or double the balance as denominated in bitcoin or CAD using an established trading rate. If the balance is ever insufficient due to market movements, the firm must rectify this within 24 hours by moving assets to cold storage or increasing insurance coverage.
(d) Any large transactions (above a set threshold) from cold storage to any new wallet addresses (not previously transacted with) must be tested with a smaller transaction first. Deposits of cryptocurrency must be limited to prevent economic 51% attacks. Any issues are to be covered by the exchange.
(e) Exchange platforms must provide suitable authentication for users, including making available approved forms of two-factor authentication. SMS-based authentication is not to be supported. Withdrawals must be blocked for 48 hours in the event of any account password change. Disputes on the negligence of exchanges should be governed by case law.

Steps Forward

Continued review of existing OSC feedback is still underway. More feedback and opinions on the framework and ideas as presented here are extremely valuable. The above is a draft and not finalized.
The process of further developing and bringing a suitable framework to protect Canadians will require the support of exchange operators, legal experts, and many others in the community. The costs of not doing such are tremendous. A large and convoluted framework, one based on flawed ideas or implementation, or one which fails to properly safeguard Canadians is not just extremely expensive and risky for all Canadians, severely limiting to the credibility and reputation of the industry, but an existential risk to many exchanges.
The responsibility falls to all of us to provide our insight and make our opinions heard on this critical matter. Please take the time to give your thoughts.
submitted by azoundria2 to QuadrigaInitiative [link] [comments]

semi-quick answers to common questions of new people

so people often ask similar questions over here and because they are getting probably kinda annoying over time to many I just try to answer as many as I find. if you have more that would fit here, add them to the comments

submitted by My1xT to ledgerwallet [link] [comments]

【NeoLine Talk】The life cycle of the private key

【NeoLine Talk】The life cycle of the private key

https://preview.redd.it/yeib74adcoy41.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=8e50b543a01a25860c7c732c17a1f2da338cd7c6
In the blockchain system, since there is no centralized organization responsible for managing the backup user sensitive data, the generation, storage, use, retrieval, destruction, and update of the user’s private key all need to be guaranteed by the user. Therefore, for the entire life cycle of the private key, there needs to be a strict way to manage and control it, to ensure the security of the asset.
Today ’s NeoLine Talk, let ’s talk about how to ensure the security of the private key life cycle.

Private key generation

Private key: A 256-bit binary random number whose quality depends entirely on the quality of the random number that generated the private key. If the randomness of the key generation process is insufficient to make it predictable, then all subsequent security protection measures will be in vain.
Random numbers are the cornerstone of information security systems based on modern cryptography. The security of the entire system depends entirely on the generation efficiency and quality of random number sequences. The core of high-quality random numbers is “unpredictability”. There are two types of random numbers: pseudo-random and true random.
Pseudo-random is also called pseudo-random. It generally relies on seeds and algorithms. Knowing the seeds or the random numbers that have been generated, you can get the next random numbers, which is predictable. The current mainstream blockchain system is the private key generated by this method …
True random numbers are generally based on the design of the hardware. Random numbers are generated according to the external temperature, voltage, electromagnetic field, environmental noise, etc., and the unpredictability of randomness is greatly increased. All security cryptographic chips in the financial field adopt this design.

Let’s see in detail how to generate a private key from a random number?

The first step in generating a private key is also the most important. It is to find a sufficiently secure source of entropy, that is, a source of randomness. Generating a Bitcoin private key is essentially the same as “choose a number between 1 and 2256”. As long as the selected results are unpredictable or unrepeatable, the specific method of selecting numbers is not important. Bitcoin software uses a random number generator at the bottom of the operating system to generate 256 bits of entropy (randomness). Normally, the operating system random number generator is initialized by an artificial random source, and it may also need to be initialized by shaking the mouse continuously within a few seconds.
More precisely, the private key can be any number between 1 and n-1, where n is a constant (n = 1.158 * 1077, slightly less than 2256) and is defined by the order of the elliptic curve used by Bitcoin. To generate such a private key, we randomly choose a 256-bit number and check whether it is less than n-1. From a programming point of view, it is generally by taking a long string of random bytes from a cryptographically secure random source and using the SHA256 hash algorithm to perform operations, so that a 256-bit number can be easily generated. If the operation result is less than n-1, we have a suitable private key. Otherwise, we repeat it with another random number.

Private key storage

Each bitcoin address corresponds to a private key, and mastering the private key means mastering the bitcoin in its corresponding address. In layman’s terms, a key opens a lock. If the Bitcoin address is a lock, then the private key is the key to the lock.
The storage and use of private keys are generally divided into soft and hard implementations.
Soft implementation, storage, and use are in the form of software. After the key is generated, it is stored in the user terminal or hosted on the server as a file or character string. When used, the private key plain text is read directly or through simple password control into the memory, and the private key calculation is completed by the CPU. This storage and use method has a lot of security risks and is easy to be copied, stolen, brute-forced by hackers or ghosts.
Hard implementation generally relies on a dedicated cryptographic security chip or cryptographic device as a carrier. There are generally mechanisms such as physical protection, sensitive data protection, and key protection to ensure that the private key must be generated by dedicated hardware. At any time and under any circumstances, the private key cannot appear outside the cryptographic device in clear text; the key stored inside the cryptographic device should have an effective key protection mechanism to prevent dissection, detection, and illegal reading. The private key cannot be exported, and only the signature value can be calculated and output.
But whether it is soft or hard, as long as others know your private key, you can transfer your assets. Remember, whoever holds the private key is the real owner of the asset.

Safe use of private keys

When using the private key, it is necessary to ensure the security of the use environment, and access, reading, and writing of the private key file need to have relevant permission control. After the use is completed, all sensitive data cached in the memory needs to be cleared using a dedicated function to prevent the leakage of sensitive data. From the perspective of password cracking, the private key should be replaced after a certain period of use. This is a problem involving the destruction and update of the private key, which we will introduce later.

Private key recovery

If a traditional centralized bank loses its U-shield or forgets its password, it can rebind a new U-shield (private key) through the account system. Accounts and private keys are logically bound and are operated by centralized banks while meeting risk control requirements. There are also some traditional centralized payment institutions. When the user’s asset certificate is lost, the centralized institution can retrieve the relevant data through its identity certificate.
But in the blockchain system, there is no centralized organization to help us back up sensitive data such as private keys. Therefore, when designing the system’s private key management scheme, it is necessary to provide multiple back-ups and recovery methods, such as the use of mnemonic words or the use of passwords plus local ciphertext files to restore private key data. But if your mnemonic is also lost, it means you lost everything.

Private key destruction

When the user needs to destroy the private key data, it is necessary to ensure that all the private key data stored in the backup are completely deleted and destroyed.

Private key update

In the field of blockchain, the private key is the only credential that represents the user’s identity or digital assets. If the private key needs to be updated, registration or digital asset transfer must be re-bound. Therefore, when you need to replace the private key, you need to ensure that the new private key is safely generated or imported, the assets have been safely transferred, and the old private key is safely destroyed.
Everything starts with visibility. The security of the private key is related to the security of digital assets and the security of personal privacy, so it is very important to securely ensure every step of the life cycle of the private key.
submitted by NeoLine_Wallet to NEO [link] [comments]

A Hefty Apology..

First, I'd like to apologies for how long this is going to be, but I believe context is everything.
I'd like to apologize to the Nano community. Since before the re brand I've always cracked jokes about the project, primarily because I can't stand moonbois.. but I digress.
I guess you could say I was early on the Bitcoin chain. I was blown away by the white paper and mined coins before ASICs we're even a discussion. Never got rid of them or anything, just thought it was an amazing concept to me since I had been repeatedly jacked around by a few banks. However, as a recurring theme life happened and I fell out of it completely. A few years went by when someone brought it up to me and when I asked how much it was worth, I almost had a heart attack. Probably shouldn't have spilled beer on the laptop holding my address and key. It didn't even cross my mind when I threw it out..
So I was back, other projects were on the come up and I took interest. Thought they were great, still do.. But I couldn't wrap my head around a lot of it. I'm familiar with code like I am around the block of an engine, but I'm not a mechanic. I couldn't fathom having to use a calculator to figure out how much gas I needed to send 100 coins of X. Thought I did it right and boom... Dust. The rage. Made some good strides and learned from previous mistakes, but I was still somewhat upset with decisions made within these projects. Who would think that was okay? Life happened again and I dropped out for quite awhile again to return back to a colleague at work mentioning BTC at around 9K. I quietly (I don't mention to many people about how involved I've been) checked out my addresses and was blown away. So I was back.
Yeah I made gains (lost a lot too), but I was already well on my way in life and career and didn't need the rocket in some dream of a lambo (Masi's are better). I just wanted all of this to work. Again, it seemed like it was too hard to do anything, move things around... Dust here, dust there.. None the less, I learned more. Taught myself some code just so I could understand the githubs.. No desire to code, just wanted to learn. The dream I saw a few years ago was growing and I felt optimistic. Stuck around for a long run and then life happened again.
Came back at probably the best time in late summer 2017. You want to talk about diversification... I just (today) burned a stack of papers with private keys written down to projects I forgot even existed. The mayhem! Anyway, won some lost some yeah yeah everyone has those stories....
I was still frustrated because that image I had in my head when I was a bit younger was not really fulfilled. Man, these moonbois, let me tell you. At the time and shortly after cracking jokes and having fun was basically my MO (I'm very sarcastic, still am). But yet again, life happened and I let everything just sit where the chips were.. With the exception of those burned out GPUs and the S9's. They went into the trash.
Life gave me a nice little easy path more recently and I've been poking my head around again. The moonboi epidemic is definitely at an ATH. But where the hell was this image I had years back and now and why did it seem like it died? Too many scams? Too many hacks? Too much smoke and mirrors? The founding idea is/was so perfect?
But I wanted that image. The past couple weeks I've been being my sarcastic ass and ripping a bit on Nano. I saw an actual well thought out post on Reddit and thought “Alright, that's pretty well said. Let me hear this out.” So I took a look. Thought it was better put together than other projects so I lurked around.
Today in the daily general I asked for a laymen's approach. I didn't need it, but I wanted to see what would be thrown at me. I was impressed. I saw on another thread about Natrium and a faucet... DAMN, that was fast. Alright I thought, let's dabble. So I did what I always do.. Took a little BTC to the exchange, picked up some nano, set up the ledger and mobile app and tested some stuff out.
Do you know the feeling after everything I just said to send 10 Nano from the exchange (including fee) to a mobile wallet, to the ledger, back to the mobile wallet and then back to the exchange and in the end... still have 10 Nano? In under less than I don't even know.. as fast as I could copy and paste it?!
I called for my wife took her phone and sent myself 10 Nano back and forth. Man am I an asshole. I'm not “In” so to speak, because honestly, at this point. I don't care about prices. I just want to use the shit. Life happens, I want to be able to continue down life and use this shit. The last time I actually used BTC for anything was in 2014.
BTC is digital gold for me.. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah... Sounds like some WSJ headline, I know. But it's been a good hedge against inflation for what's it worth. But during that second to last time I was back.. the Tx fees were unbelievable. Store of value, all the way, buying a snickers bar? No thanks mate.
I'm actually late to meet a friend at the bar for our weekly pint, was gonna just send this, but he's a moonboi. One sec. Lol --- 45 min later --- Alright, at the pub. Got him to download Natrium. We're now gonna just buy eac hother drinks for the next few hours.
I have some questions regarding decentralization.. bottle necking, spam transactions, but I can ask them in discord I guess. My only fear is that this could be replicated by Chase/BofA etc, but then again, I kind of left them years ago for a reason.
I'm sorry, okay. I'm sorry I was a sarcastic asshole. This is by far the closest thing I've wanted in a very long time. Send 1 Nano.. Get 1 Nano. Who would have thought. I'm going back to darts, but before I go...
- Can someone send me something on how to set up a node? Walk through maybe?
- Mods should pin this. I don't care about worthless internet points. Truth is I'm on my 9th or 10th Reddit account. So, I'll retire this one as soon as I hit send. But I think there is a valuable lesson from my time in this crazy town.
I'm not getting rid of my BTC and “going all in for the moonbois”. But I'll definitely be using my Nano. Whenever or wherever I can.
Thank you.
submitted by zBeale to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

Human readable format for private keys

I’d like to propose a feature to bitcoin to solve the following problems:
- When people read or write private keys it is very easy to mistake a letter or number.
- When entering a private key a mistake isn’t identified until the entire key is entered.
- When an error is made in providing a private key the location of the error isn’t indicated within the private key.
- Private keys stored on paper can be lost if a single character is damaged or poorly transcribed.
The solution I’m proposing has two parts.
First provide an option to use to the NATO phonetic alphabet when displaying or entertaining private keys. To indicate lower case the word should not be capitalized. Capital letters and numbers should be capitalized. The nato phonetic alphabet is a long-standing international standard (as international as the use of letters and numbers already used in base58) and has been designed to make each letter easily distinguishable when spoken and written. By using whole words, that are easily distinguishable and from a very short word database (58 well known words that are either the English numbers or words that begin with the letter indicated) the likelihood of errors in recovery are reduced.
The second part of the solution is to insert checksum letters. If every 5th word is actually a checksum for the previous 4 words, you end up with 13 sentences such as: ALFA tango THREE SIX bravo In this case bravo is actually a checksum for the previous 4 words and can be calculated and verified as the private key is entered. If the user accidentally trumped BRAVO instead of bravo the checksum would immediately indicate an error within these 5 words (in most cases) making for a greatly improved user experience. An additional side effect of this is that even if an entire word is lost on multiple lines, the checksum would probably make guessing the correct words relatively easy.
I realize some of these issues have been discussed in relation to bip39, but I hope this is more likely to be adopted by bitcoin core as it uses existing private keys, has no impact on keygen, does not require a standardized and well known word list for every language, and is essential just a display format that hopefully wouldn’t require invasive code changes.
submitted by WeathermanIam to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

AsicVault - Frequently Asked Questions

When was AsicVault established and how is it funded?
AsicVault was established 2016. It is funded by founders and corporate investors. Please see Crunchbase.

How can it be 1,000 times harder to crack compared to other BIP-39 hardware wallets?
BIP-39 hardware wallets are working on very low performance microcontrollers or secure elements. They are doing only 2,048 iterations of PBKDF2 SHA-512 that is even less than old NIST recommendation of 10,000 rounds from year 2016.
Performing higher number of PBKDF2 SHA-512 is standard practice for good security. iTunes does it, LastPass does it and Veracrypt as well. Even Ledger agrees that this very low number is the main problem of BIP-39.
AsicVault specially designed SHA-512 accelerator inside high performance secure chip is at least 340 times faster than common microcontrollers. The number of PBKDF2 SHA-512 rounds is set to be exactly 1,000 times higher than BIP-39, hence the cost to crack AsicVault is also 1,000 times bigger.
Please read in-depth teardown review and validation of AsicVault SHA-512 performance here.
You can perform independent analysis according to this PDF and our device performance is shown on this video.

Does it support BIP-39 passphrase?
Yes, AsicVault supports all standard BIP-39 seed words and additional passphrase (so-called 25th word). You can restore your HD wallet account created by other hardware wallets (Ledger, Trezor, Keepkey) without any additional steps. AsicVault always opens standard security BIP-39 account and high security BIP-39 accounts at the same time.

Why two processors?
Common design practice, also followed by Ledger, is to separate secure and non-secure code. Our advantage is that these two RISC-V processors are inside a single secure chip. This way the Security CPU has full access to the Application CPU RAM. This makes it possible to do proper secure boot.

Why RISC-V?
Open instruction set. Possibility to have open source CPU and extensions. We have already implemented several custom instructions.

Do I need a computer to initialize the device?
No. You can supply power from wall adapter or battery bank. AsicVault supports true air-gapped environment.
You can perform full device initialization, seed word generation and seed word backup without connection to the computer. You can also charge the device and check the status the same way.

Can I use USB extender cables?
Certified USB2.0 extender cables can be used. We don’t recommend extender cables while using USB3.1 features of the device. The device can detect (some) bad cables and show warning messages about them. It is not recommended to use cables/extenders longer than 2.5m. In any case, cables with lower AWG value are better, such as AWG20.

How hot does the device get?
During normal operation AsicVault device temperature reaches 35-37C. High speed USB3.0 operation adds additional 7C. AsicVault utilizes full Aluminum enclosure as an effective heatsink. Internal chips can tolerate up to +85C, so you never need to worry about them overheating. There are no Lithium batteries inside the device that are known for leaking and not tolerating high temperatures.

How long does the active anti-tamper system work?
Active anti-tamper protects your device at least 2 weeks, possibly up to 45 days, after you have fully charged the device. It takes just 15 minutes to charge the supercapacitors again. It is advisable to connect the device to a power source at least once per week. Different anti-tamper settings affect the anti-tamper aggressiveness, sensitivity and power consumption.
It is also good practice to enter your passphrase weekly so that you will not forget it.

How often can I charge it? Do the batteries age?
You can charge it as often as you like, several times per day. Supercapacitors can be charged 50,000 – 1,000,000 times during their lifetime compared to common Lithium batteries that only allow 500-1,000 times. Therefore even 10 times per day for 10 years should be fine. At least weekly charging is recommended for best anti-tamper protection.

How long are private keys safely stored inside device before the memory gets weak and they are lost?
Data retention time of Flash memory inside the main chip is 20 years. Additional encryption keys stored inside FRAM can last for 40 years at temperatures below 70C. These values are higher than the expected lifetime of the device. In any case you must make paper backup(s) of your seed words.

Can it store the whole Bitcoin blockchain inside the device?
No. The device is not designed to store large amounts of data. Internal 128-megabyte Flash is used to store applications. There are thousands of copies of the blockchain, storing yet another copy is not meaningful or necessary.

What is FIPS 140-2 highest Level 4?
FIPS 140-2 is Federal Information Processing Standard.
Level 4 requires that:
  1. physical security mechanisms provide a complete envelope of protection around the cryptographic module
  2. with the intent of detecting and responding to all unauthorized attempts at physical access
  3. Penetration of the cryptographic module enclosure from any direction has a very high probability of being detected, resulting in the immediate deletion of all plaintext CSPs
  4. Security Level 4 also protects a cryptographic module against a security compromise due to environmental conditions or fluctuations outside of the module's normal operating ranges for voltage and temperature
  5. A cryptographic module is required to include special environmental protection features designed to detect fluctuations and delete CSPs
We have used these guidelines while designing AsicVault. We meet and exceed the requirements in the following way:
  1. AsicVault has full Aluminium/Titanium enclosure that is not designed to be opened. Passive antitamper mesh protects the electronic circuits inside the device. Main secure chip also has chip level metal layer anti-tamper mesh.
  2. Active anti-tamper circuit monitors all intrusion attempts and performs immediate device zeroization upon detecting any such attempts.
  3. AsicVault has temperature, voltage and many other sensors that are continuously monitored by the anti-tamper circuit. Additionally, AsicVault has internal supercapacitor-based power reserve to run Elliptic Curve calculations and other cryptographic functions. Therefore, external voltage fluctuations can’t affect our device while performing these critical operations.
  4. Zeroization not only deletes the private keys, it also destroys internal hardware design making it impossible to perform any further analysis of the hardware.
AsicVault has not participated in formal Cryptographic Module Validation Program since we are not targeting US government users at this point.

Can AsicVault device run Linux?
It is not our priority to run Linux since it has too big overhead for hardware wallet. However, our RISC-V processors and Mark II hardware can run Linux for your custom projects.

Where can I purchase the device?
Please contact your local supplier about availability.
submitted by photonreality to AsicVaultOfficial [link] [comments]

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
For someone first starting out as a cryptocurrency investor, finding a trustworthy manual for screening a cryptocurrency’s merits is nonexistent as we are still in the early, Wild West days of the cryptocurrency market. One would need to become deeply familiar with the inner workings of blockchain to be able to perform the bare minimum due diligence.
One might believe, over time, that finding the perfect cryptocurrency may be nothing short of futile. If a cryptocurrency purports infinite scalability, then it is probably either lightweight with limited features or it is highly centralized among a limited number of nodes that perform consensus services especially Proof of Stake or Delegated Proof of Stake. Similarly, a cryptocurrency that purports comprehensive privacy may have technical obstacles to overcome if it aims to expand its applications such as in smart contracts. The bottom line is that it is extremely difficult for a cryptocurrency to have all important features jam-packed into itself.
The cryptocurrency space is stuck in the era of the “dial-up internet” in a manner of speaking. Currently blockchain can’t scale – not without certain tradeoffs – and it hasn’t fully resolved certain intractable issues such as user-unfriendly long addresses and how the blockchain size is forever increasing to name two.
In other words, we haven’t found the ultimate cryptocurrency. That is, we haven’t found the mystical unicorn cryptocurrency that ushers the era of decentralization while eschewing all the limitations of traditional blockchain systems.
“But wait – what about Ethereum once it implements sharding?”
“Wouldn’t IOTA be able to scale infinitely with smart contracts through its Qubic offering?”
“Isn’t Dash capable of having privacy, smart contracts, and instantaneous transactions?”
Those thoughts and comments may come from cryptocurrency investors who have done their research. It is natural for the informed investors to invest in projects that are believed to bring cutting edge technological transformation to blockchain. Sooner or later, the sinking realization will hit that any variation of the current blockchain technology will always likely have certain limitations.
Let us pretend that there indeed exists a unicorn cryptocurrency somewhere that may or may not be here yet. What would it look like, exactly? Let us set the 5 criteria of the unicorn cryptocurrency:
Unicorn Criteria
(1) Perfectly solves the blockchain trilemma:
o Infinite scalability
o Full security
o Full decentralization
(2) Zero or minimal transaction fee
(3) Full privacy
(4) Full smart contract capabilities
(5) Fair distribution and fair governance
For each of the above 5 criteria, there would not be any middle ground. For example, a cryptocurrency with just an in-protocol mixer would not be considered as having full privacy. As another example, an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) may possibly violate criterion (5) since with an ICO the distribution and governance are often heavily favored towards an oligarchy – this in turn would defy the spirit of decentralization that Bitcoin was found on.
There is no cryptocurrency currently that fits the above profile of the unicorn cryptocurrency. Let us examine an arbitrary list of highly hyped cryptocurrencies that meet the above list at least partially. The following list is by no means comprehensive but may be a sufficient sampling of various blockchain implementations:
Bitcoin (BTC)
Bitcoin is the very first and the best known cryptocurrency that started it all. While Bitcoin is generally considered extremely secure, it suffers from mining centralization to a degree. Bitcoin is not anonymous, lacks smart contracts, and most worrisomely, can only do about 7 transactions per seconds (TPS). Bitcoin is not the unicorn notwithstanding all the Bitcoin maximalists.
Ethereum (ETH)
Ethereum is widely considered the gold standard of smart contracts aside from its scalability problem. Sharding as part of Casper’s release is generally considered to be the solution to Ethereum’s scalability problem.
The goal of sharding is to split up validating responsibilities among various groups or shards. Ethereum’s sharding comes down to duplicating the existing blockchain architecture and sharing a token. This does not solve the core issue and simply kicks the can further down the road. After all, full nodes still need to exist one way or another.
Ethereum’s blockchain size problem is also an issue as will be explained more later in this article.
As a result, Ethereum is not the unicorn due to its incomplete approach to scalability and, to a degree, security.
Dash
Dash’s masternodes are widely considered to be centralized due to their high funding requirements, and there are accounts of a pre-mine in the beginning. Dash is not the unicorn due to its questionable decentralization.
Nano
Nano boasts rightfully for its instant, free transactions. But it lacks smart contracts and privacy, and it may be exposed to well orchestrated DDOS attacks. Therefore, it goes without saying that Nano is not the unicorn.
EOS
While EOS claims to execute millions of transactions per seconds, a quick glance reveals centralized parameters with 21 nodes and a questionable governance system. Therefore, EOS fails to achieve the unicorn status.
Monero (XMR)
One of the best known and respected privacy coins, Monero lacks smart contracts and may fall short of infinite scalability due to CryptoNote’s design. The unicorn rank is out of Monero’s reach.
IOTA
IOTA’s scalability is based on the number of transactions the network processes, and so its supposedly infinite scalability would fluctuate and is subject to the whims of the underlying transactions. While IOTA’s scalability approach is innovative and may work in the long term, it should be reminded that the unicorn cryptocurrency has no middle ground. The unicorn cryptocurrency would be expected to scale infinitely on a consistent basis from the beginning.
In addition, IOTA’s Masked Authenticated Messaging (MAM) feature does not bring privacy to the masses in a highly convenient manner. Consequently, the unicorn is not found with IOTA.

PascalCoin as a Candidate for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
Please allow me to present a candidate for the cryptocurrency unicorn: PascalCoin.
According to the website, PascalCoin claims the following:
“PascalCoin is an instant, zero-fee, infinitely scalable, and decentralized cryptocurrency with advanced privacy and smart contract capabilities. Enabled by the SafeBox technology to become the world’s first blockchain independent of historical operations, PascalCoin possesses unlimited potential.”
The above summary is a mouthful to be sure, but let’s take a deep dive on how PascalCoin innovates with the SafeBox and more. Before we do this, I encourage you to first become acquainted with PascalCoin by watching the following video introduction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=F25UU-0W9Dk
The rest of this section will be split into 10 parts in order to illustrate most of the notable features of PascalCoin. Naturally, let’s start off with the SafeBox.
Part #1: The SafeBox
Unlike traditional UTXO-based cryptocurrencies in which the blockchain records the specifics of each transaction (address, sender address, amount of funds transferred, etc.), the blockchain in PascalCoin is only used to mutate the SafeBox. The SafeBox is a separate but equivalent cryptographic data structure that snapshots account balances. PascalCoin’s blockchain is comparable to a machine that feeds the most important data – namely, the state of an account – into the SafeBox. Any node can still independently compute and verify the cumulative Proof-of-Work required to construct the SafeBox.
The PascalCoin whitepaper elegantly highlights the unique historical independence that the SafeBox possesses:
“While there are approaches that cryptocurrencies could use such as pruning, warp-sync, "finality checkpoints", UTXO-snapshotting, etc, there is a fundamental difference with PascalCoin. Their new nodes can only prove they are on most-work-chain using the infinite history whereas in PascalCoin, new nodes can prove they are on the most-work chain without the infinite history.”
Some cryptocurrency old-timers might instinctively balk at the idea of full nodes eschewing the entire history for security, but such a reaction would showcase a lack of understanding on what the SafeBox really does.
A concrete example would go a long way to best illustrate what the SafeBox does. Let’s say I input the following operations in my calculator:
5 * 5 – 10 / 2 + 5
It does not take a genius to calculate the answer, 25. Now, the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* would be forever imbued on a traditional blockchain’s history. But the SafeBox begs to differ. It says that the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* should instead be simply “25” so as preserve simplicity, time, and space. In other words, the SafeBox simply preserves the account balance.
But some might still be unsatisfied and claim that if one cannot trace the series of operations (transactions) that lead to the final number (balance) of 25, the blockchain is inherently insecure.
Here are four important security aspects of the SafeBox that some people fail to realize:
(1) SafeBox Follows the Longest Chain of Proof-of-Work
The SafeBox mutates itself per 100 blocks. Each new SafeBox mutation must reference both to the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks in order to be valid, and the resultant hash of the new mutated SafeBox must then be referenced by each of the new subsequent blocks, and the process repeats itself forever.
The fact that each new SafeBox mutation must reference to the previous SafeBox mutation is comparable to relying on the entire history. This is because the previous SafeBox mutation encapsulates the result of cumulative entire history except for the 100 blocks which is why each new SafeBox mutation requires both the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks.
So in a sense, there is a single interconnected chain of inflows and outflows, supported by Byzantine Proof-of-Work consensus, instead of the entire history of transactions.
More concretely, the SafeBox follows the path of the longest chain of Proof-of-Work simply by design, and is thus cryptographically equivalent to the entire history even without tracing specific operations in the past. If the chain is rolled back with a 51% attack, only the attacker’s own account(s) in the SafeBox can be manipulated as is explained in the next part.
(2) A 51% Attack on PascalCoin Functions the Same as Others
A 51% attack on PascalCoin would work in a similar way as with other Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. An attacker cannot modify a transaction in the past without affecting the current SafeBox hash which is accepted by all honest nodes.
Someone might claim that if you roll back all the current blocks plus the 100 blocks prior to the SafeBox’s mutation, one could create a forged SafeBox with different balances for all accounts. This would be incorrect as one would be able to manipulate only his or her own account(s) in the SafeBox with a 51% attack – just as is the case with other UTXO cryptocurrencies. The SafeBox stores the balances of all accounts which are in turn irreversibly linked only to their respective owners’ private keys.
(3) One Could Preserve the Entire History of the PascalCoin Blockchain
No blockchain data in PascalCoin is ever deleted even in the presence of the SafeBox. Since the SafeBox is cryptographically equivalent to a full node with the entire history as explained above, PascalCoin full nodes are not expected to contain infinite history. But for whatever reason(s) one may have, one could still keep all the PascalCoin blockchain history as well along with the SafeBox as an option even though it would be redundant.
Without storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain, you can still trace the specific operations of the 100 blocks prior to when the SafeBox absorbs and reflects the net result (a single balance for each account) from those 100 blocks. But if you’re interested in tracing operations over a longer period in the past – as redundant as that may be – you’d have the option to do so by storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain.
(4) The SafeBox is Equivalent to the Entire Blockchain History
Some skeptics may ask this question: “What if the SafeBox is forever lost? How would you be able to verify your accounts?” Asking this question is tantamount to asking to what would happen to Bitcoin if all of its entire history was erased. The result would be chaos, of course, but the SafeBox is still in line with the general security model of a traditional blockchain with respect to black swans.
Now that we know the security of the SafeBox is not compromised, what are the implications of this new blockchain paradigm? A colorful illustration as follows still wouldn’t do justice to the subtle revolution that the SafeBox ushers. The automobiles we see on the street are the cookie-and-butter representation of traditional blockchain systems. The SafeBox, on the other hand, supercharges those traditional cars to become the Transformers from Michael Bay’s films.
The SafeBox is an entirely different blockchain architecture that is impressive in its simplicity and ingenuity. The SafeBox’s design is only the opening act for PascalCoin’s vast nuclear arsenal. If the above was all that PascalCoin offers, it still wouldn’t come close to achieving the unicorn status but luckily, we have just scratched the surface. Please keep on reading on if you want to learn how PascalCoin is going to shatter the cryptocurrency industry into pieces. Buckle down as this is going to be a long read as we explore further about the SafeBox’s implications.
Part #2: 0-Confirmation Transactions
To begin, 0-confirmation transactions are secure in PascalCoin thanks to the SafeBox.
The following paraphrases an explanation of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmations from the whitepaper:
“Since PascalCoin is not a UTXO-based currency but rather a State-based currency thanks to the SafeBox, the security guarantee of 0-confirmation transactions are much stronger than in UTXO-based currencies. For example, in Bitcoin if a merchant accepts a 0-confirmation transaction for a coffee, the buyer can simply roll that transaction back after receiving the coffee but before the transaction is confirmed in a block. The way the buyer does this is by re-spending those UTXOs to himself in a new transaction (with a higher fee) thus invalidating them for the merchant. In PascalCoin, this is virtually impossible since the buyer's transaction to the merchant is simply a delta-operation to debit/credit a quantity from/to accounts respectively. The buyer is unable to erase or pre-empt this two-sided, debit/credit-based transaction from the network’s pending pool until it either enters a block for confirmation or is discarded with respect to both sender and receiver ends. If the buyer tries to double-spend the coffee funds after receiving the coffee but before they clear, the double-spend transaction will not propagate the network since nodes cannot propagate a double-spending transaction thanks to the debit/credit nature of the transaction. A UTXO-based transaction is initially one-sided before confirmation and therefore is more exposed to one-sided malicious schemes of double spending.”
Phew, that explanation was technical but it had to be done. In summary, PascalCoin possesses the only secure 0-confirmation transactions in the cryptocurrency industry, and it goes without saying that this means PascalCoin is extremely fast. In fact, PascalCoin is capable of 72,000 TPS even prior to any additional extensive optimizations down the road. In other words, PascalCoin is as instant as it gets and gives Nano a run for its money.
Part #3: Zero Fee
Let’s circle back to our discussion of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation capability. Here’s a little fun magical twist to PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation magic: 0-confirmation transactions are zero-fee. As in you don’t pay a single cent in fee for each 0-confirmation! There is just a tiny downside: if you create a second transaction in a 5-minute block window then you’d need to pay a minimal fee. Imagine using Nano but with a significantly stronger anti-DDOS protection for spam! But there shouldn’t be any complaint as this fee would amount to 0.0001 Pascal or $0.00002 based on the current price of a Pascal at the time of this writing.
So, how come the fee for blazingly fast transactions is nonexistent? This is where the magic of the SafeBox arises in three ways:
(1) PascalCoin possesses the secure 0-confirmation feature as discussed above that enables this speed.
(2) There is no fee bidding competition of transaction priority typical in UTXO cryptocurrencies since, once again, PascalCoin operates on secure 0-confirmations.
(3) There is no fee incentive needed to run full nodes on behalf of the network’s security beyond the consensus rewards.
Part #4: Blockchain Size
Let’s expand more on the third point above, using Ethereum as an example. Since Ethereum’s launch in 2015, its full blockchain size is currently around 2 TB, give or take, but let’s just say its blockchain size is 100 GB for now to avoid offending the Ethereum elitists who insist there are different types of full nodes that are lighter. Whoever runs Ethereum’s full nodes would expect storage fees on top of the typical consensus fees as it takes significant resources to shoulder Ethereum’s full blockchain size and in turn secure the network. What if I told you that PascalCoin’s full blockchain size will never exceed few GBs after thousands of years? That is just what the SafeBox enables PascalCoin to do so. It is estimated that by 2072, PascalCoin’s full nodes will only be 6 GB which is low enough not to warrant any fee incentives for hosting full nodes. Remember, the SafeBox is an ultra-light cryptographic data structure that is cryptographically equivalent to a blockchain with the entire transaction history. In other words, the SafeBox is a compact spreadsheet of all account balances that functions as PascalCoin’s full node!
Not only does the SafeBox’s infinitesimal memory size helps to reduce transaction fees by phasing out any storage fees, but it also paves the way for true decentralization. It would be trivial for every PascalCoin user to opt a full node in the form of a wallet. This is extreme decentralization at its finest since the majority of users of other cryptocurrencies ditch full nodes due to their burdensome sizes. It is naïve to believe that storage costs would reduce enough to the point where hosting full nodes are trivial. Take a look at the following chart outlining the trend of storage cost.

* https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/
As we can see, storage costs continue to decrease but the descent is slowing down as is the norm with technological improvements. In the meantime, blockchain sizes of other cryptocurrencies are increasing linearly or, in the case of smart contract engines like Ethereum, parabolically. Imagine a cryptocurrency smart contract engine like Ethereum garnering worldwide adoption; how do you think Ethereum’s size would look like in the far future based on the following chart?


https://i.redd.it/k57nimdjmo621.png

Ethereum’s future blockchain size is not looking pretty in terms of sustainable security. Sharding is not a fix for this issue since there still needs to be full nodes but that is a different topic for another time.
It is astonishing that the cryptocurrency community as a whole has passively accepted this forever-expanding-blockchain-size problem as an inescapable fate.
PascalCoin is the only cryptocurrency that has fully escaped the death vortex of forever expanding blockchain size. Its blockchain size wouldn’t exceed 10 GB even after many hundreds of years of worldwide adoption. Ethereum’s blockchain size after hundreds of years of worldwide adoption would make fine comedy.
Part #5: Simple, Short, and Ordinal Addresses
Remember how the SafeBox works by snapshotting all account balances? As it turns out, the account address system is almost as cool as the SafeBox itself.
Imagine yourself in this situation: on a very hot and sunny day, you’re wandering down the street across from your house and ran into a lemonade stand – the old-fashioned kind without any QR code or credit card terminal. The kid across you is selling a lemonade cup for 1 Pascal with a poster outlining the payment address as 5471-55. You flip out your phone and click “Send” with 1 Pascal to the address 5471-55; viola, exactly one second later you’re drinking your lemonade without paying a cent for the transaction fee!
The last thing one wants to do is to figure out how to copy/paste to, say, the following address 1BoatSLRHtKNngkdXEeobR76b53LETtpyT on the spot wouldn’t it? Gone are the obnoxiously long addresses that plague all cryptocurrencies. The days of those unreadable addresses will be long gone – it has to be if blockchain is to innovate itself for the general public. EOS has a similar feature for readable addresses but in a very limited manner in comparison, and nicknames attached to addresses in GUIs don’t count since blockchain-wide compatibility wouldn’t hold.
Not only does PascalCoin has the neat feature of having addresses (called PASAs) that amount to up to 6 or 7 digits, but PascalCoin can also incorporate in-protocol address naming as opposed to GUI address nicknames. Suppose I want to order something from Amazon using Pascal; I simply search the word “Amazon” then the corresponding account number shows up. Pretty neat, right?
The astute reader may gather that PascalCoin’s address system makes it necessary to commoditize addresses, and he/she would be correct. Some view this as a weakness; part #10 later in this segment addresses this incorrect perception.
Part #6: Privacy
As if the above wasn’t enough, here’s another secret that PascalCoin has: it is a full-blown privacy coin. It uses two separate foundations to achieve comprehensive anonymity: in-protocol mixer for transfer amounts and zn-SNARKs for private balances. The former has been implemented and the latter is on the roadmap. Both the 0-confirmation transaction and the negligible transaction fee would make PascalCoin the most scalable privacy coin of any other cryptocurrencies pending the zk-SNARKs implementation.
Part #7: Smart Contracts
Next, PascalCoin will take smart contracts to the next level with a layer-2 overlay consensus system that pioneers sidechains and other smart contract implementations.
In formal terms, this layer-2 architecture will facilitate the transfer of data between PASAs which in turn allows clean enveloping of layer-2 protocols inside layer-1 much in the same way that HTTP lives inside TCP.
To summarize:
· The layer-2 consensus method is separate from the layer-1 Proof-of-Work. This layer-2 consensus method is independent and flexible. A sidechain – based on a single encompassing PASA – could apply Proof-of-Stake (POS), Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS), or Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as the consensus system of its choice.
· Such a layer-2 smart contract platform can be written in any languages.
· Layer-2 sidechains will also provide very strong anonymity since funds are all pooled and keys are not used to unlock them.
· This layer-2 architecture is ingenious in which the computation is separate from layer-2 consensus, in effect removing any bottleneck.
· Horizontal scaling exists in this paradigm as there is no interdependence between smart contracts and states are not managed by slow sidechains.
· Speed and scalability are fully independent of PascalCoin.
One would be able to run the entire global financial system on PascalCoin’s infinitely scalable smart contract platform and it would still scale infinitely. In fact, this layer-2 architecture would be exponentially faster than Ethereum even after its sharding is implemented.
All this is the main focus of PascalCoin’s upcoming version 5 in 2019. A whitepaper add-on for this major upgrade will be released in early 2019.
Part #8: RandomHash Algorithm
Surely there must be some tradeoffs to PascalCoin’s impressive capabilities, you might be asking yourself. One might bring up the fact that PascalCoin’s layer-1 is based on Proof-of-Work and is thus susceptible to mining centralization. This would be a fallacy as PascalCoin has pioneered the very first true ASIC, GPU, and dual-mining resistant algorithm known as RandomHash that obliterates anything that is not CPU based and gives all the power back to solo miners.
Here is the official description of RandomHash:
“RandomHash is a high-level cryptographic hash algorithm that combines other well-known hash primitives in a highly serial manner. The distinguishing feature is that calculations for a nonce are dependent on partial calculations of other nonces, selected at random. This allows a serial hasher (CPU) to re-use these partial calculations in subsequent mining saving 50% or more of the work-load. Parallel hashers (GPU) cannot benefit from this optimization since the optimal nonce-set cannot be pre-calculated as it is determined on-the-fly. As a result, parallel hashers (GPU) are required to perform the full workload for every nonce. Also, the algorithm results in 10x memory bloat for a parallel implementation. In addition to its serial nature, it is branch-heavy and recursive making in optimal for CPU-only mining.”
One might be understandably skeptical of any Proof-of-Work algorithm that solves ASIC and GPU centralization once for all because there have been countless proposals being thrown around for various algorithms since the dawn of Bitcoin. Is RandomHash truly the ASIC & GPU killer that it claims to be?
Herman Schoenfeld, the inventor behind RandomHash, described his algorithm in the following:
“RandomHash offers endless ASIC-design breaking surface due to its use of recursion, hash algo selection, memory hardness and random number generation.
For example, changing how round hash selection is made and/or random number generator algo and/or checksum algo and/or their sequencing will totally break an ASIC design. Conceptually if you can significantly change the structure of the output assembly whilst keeping the high-level algorithm as invariant as possible, the ASIC design will necessarily require proportional restructuring. This results from the fact that ASIC designs mirror the ASM of the algorithm rather than the algorithm itself.”
Polyminer1 (pseudonym), one of the members of the PascalCoin core team who developed RHMiner (official software for mining RandomHash), claimed as follows:
“The design of RandomHash is, to my experience, a genuine innovation. I’ve been 30 years in the field. I’ve rarely been surprised by anything. RandomHash was one of my rare surprises. It’s elegant, simple, and achieves resistance in all fronts.”
PascalCoin may have been the first party to achieve the race of what could possibly be described as the “God algorithm” for Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. Look no further than one of Monero’s core developers since 2015, Howard Chu. In September 2018, Howard declared that he has found a solution, called RandomJS, to permanently keep ASICs off the network without repetitive algorithm changes. This solution actually closely mirrors RandomHash’s algorithm. Discussing about his algorithm, Howard asserted that “RandomJS is coming at the problem from a direction that nobody else is.”
Link to Howard Chu’s article on RandomJS:
https://www.coindesk.com/one-musicians-creative-solution-to-drive-asics-off-monero
Yet when Herman was asked about Howard’s approach, he responded:
“Yes, looks like it may work although using Javascript was a bit much. They should’ve just used an assembly subset and generated random ASM programs. In a way, RandomHash does this with its repeated use of random mem-transforms during expansion phase.”
In the end, PascalCoin may have successfully implemented the most revolutionary Proof-of-Work algorithm, one that eclipses Howard’s burgeoning vision, to date that almost nobody knows about. To learn more about RandomHash, refer to the following resources:
RandomHash whitepaper:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/storage/whitepapers/RandomHash_Whitepaper.pdf
Technical proposal for RandomHash:
https://github.com/PascalCoin/PascalCoin/blob/mastePIP/PIP-0009.md
Someone might claim that PascalCoin still suffers from mining centralization after RandomHash, and this is somewhat misleading as will be explained in part #10.
Part #9: Fair Distribution and Governance
Not only does PascalCoin rest on superior technology, but it also has its roots in the correct philosophy of decentralized distribution and governance. There was no ICO or pre-mine, and the developer fund exists as a percentage of mining rewards as voted by the community. This developer fund is 100% governed by a decentralized autonomous organization – currently facilitated by the PascalCoin Foundation – that will eventually be transformed into an autonomous smart contract platform. Not only is the developer fund voted upon by the community, but PascalCoin’s development roadmap is also voted upon the community via the Protocol Improvement Proposals (PIPs).
This decentralized governance also serves an important benefit as a powerful deterrent to unseemly fork wars that befall many cryptocurrencies.
Part #10: Common Misconceptions of PascalCoin
“The branding is terrible”
PascalCoin is currently working very hard on its image and is preparing for several branding and marketing initiatives in the short term. For example, two of the core developers of the PascalCoin recently interviewed with the Fox Business Network. A YouTube replay of this interview will be heavily promoted.
Some people object to the name PascalCoin. First, it’s worth noting that PascalCoin is the name of the project while Pascal is the name of the underlying currency. Secondly, Google and YouTube received excessive criticisms back then in the beginning with their name choices. Look at where those companies are nowadays – surely a somewhat similar situation faces PascalCoin until the name’s familiarity percolates into the public.
“The wallet GUI is terrible”
As the team is run by a small yet extremely dedicated developers, multiple priorities can be challenging to juggle. The lack of funding through an ICO or a pre-mine also makes it challenging to accelerate development. The top priority of the core developers is to continue developing full-time on the groundbreaking technology that PascalCoin offers. In the meantime, an updated and user-friendly wallet GUI has been worked upon for some time and will be released in due time. Rome wasn’t built in one day.
“One would need to purchase a PASA in the first place”
This is a complicated topic since PASAs need to be commoditized by the SafeBox’s design, meaning that PASAs cannot be obtained at no charge to prevent systematic abuse. This raises two seemingly valid concerns:
· As a chicken and egg problem, how would one purchase a PASA using Pascal in the first place if one cannot obtain Pascal without a PASA?
· How would the price of PASAs stay low and affordable in the face of significant demand?
With regards to the chicken and egg problem, there are many ways – some finished and some unfinished – to obtain your first PASA as explained on the “Get Started” page on the PascalCoin website:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/get_started
More importantly, however, is the fact that there are few methods that can get your first PASA for free. The team will also release another method soon in which you could obtain your first PASA for free via a single SMS message. This would probably become by far the simplest and the easiest way to obtain your first PASA for free. There will be more new ways to easily obtain your first PASA for free down the road.
What about ensuring the PASA market at large remains inexpensive and affordable following your first (and probably free) PASA acquisition? This would be achieved in two ways:
· Decentralized governance of the PASA economics per the explanation in the FAQ section on the bottom of the PascalCoin website (https://www.pascalcoin.org/)
· Unlimited and free pseudo-PASAs based on layer-2 in the next version release.
“PascalCoin is still centralized after the release of RandomHash”
Did the implementation of RandomHash from version 4 live up to its promise?
The official goals of RandomHash were as follow:
(1) Implement a GPU & ASIC resistant hash algorithm
(2) Eliminate dual mining
The two goals above were achieved by every possible measure.
Yet a mining pool, Nanopool, was able to regain its hash majority after a significant but a temporary dip.
The official conclusion is that, from a probabilistic viewpoint, solo miners are more profitable than pool miners. However, pool mining is enticing for solo miners who 1) have limited hardware as it ensures a steady income instead of highly profitable but probabilistic income via solo mining, and 2) who prefer convenient software and/or GUI.
What is the next step, then? While the barrier of entry for solo miners has successfully been put down, additional work needs to be done. The PascalCoin team and the community are earnestly investigating additional steps to improve mining decentralization with respect to pool mining specifically to add on top of RandomHash’s successful elimination of GPU, ASIC, and dual-mining dominance.
It is likely that the PascalCoin community will promote the following two initiatives in the near future:
(1) Establish a community-driven, nonprofit mining pool with attractive incentives.
(2) Optimize RHMiner, PascalCoin’s official solo mining software, for performance upgrades.
A single pool dominance is likely short lived once more options emerge for individual CPU miners who want to avoid solo mining for whatever reason(s).
Let us use Bitcoin as an example. Bitcoin mining is dominated by ASICs and mining pools but no single pool is – at the time of this writing – even close on obtaining the hash majority. With CPU solo mining being a feasible option in conjunction with ASIC and GPU mining eradication with RandomHash, the future hash rate distribution of PascalCoin would be far more promising than Bitcoin’s hash rate distribution.
PascalCoin is the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
If you’ve read this far, let’s cut straight to the point: PascalCoin IS the unicorn cryptocurrency.
It is worth noting that PascalCoin is still a young cryptocurrency as it was launched at the end of 2016. This means that many features are still work in progress such as zn-SNARKs, smart contracts, and pool decentralization to name few. However, it appears that all of the unicorn criteria are within PascalCoin’s reach once PascalCoin’s technical roadmap is mostly completed.
Based on this expository on PascalCoin’s technology, there is every reason to believe that PascalCoin is the unicorn cryptocurrency. PascalCoin also solves two fundamental blockchain problems beyond the unicorn criteria that were previously considered unsolvable: blockchain size and simple address system. The SafeBox pushes PascalCoin to the forefront of cryptocurrency zeitgeist since it is a superior solution compared to UTXO, Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), Block Lattice, Tangle, and any other blockchain innovations.


THE UNICORN

Author: Tyler Swob
submitted by Kosass to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

AMA - Community Edition

Updated:
11) $5m buyback
12) Release of yp part 3?
13) It is allegedly possible that ICX supply can be doubled in only 4 years thanks to a whopping 20% annual token inflation
14) One of the things that got me excited about crypto was that there was no inflation. I'm a bit disappointed in Icons approach here.
15) Where is the DEX?
16) How far are we from interoperability? Am I correct in saying that interoperability is years from completion?
I'll be answering all questions to the best of my knowledge, this list will update regularly.
1) Clear description how icx will go up by benefiting from the line partnership. -> 2 or 3 practical examples.
Don't forget Unchain is a joint venture, so Unchain is ICON's company as well, their success is directly beneficial to ICON. In a recent interview w Brad, Henry also shed some light regarding this JV and that it is way beyond a simple partnership agreement https://youtu.be/paFYyt1hVWc?t=155
2) Clear description how icx will go up by building private blockchains and connecting them. -> 2 or 3 practical examples.
I answered this to someone on telegram a couple days ago. Here's my example,
"So I asked what's the use for icx with private chains. They have no reason to connect to the public chain and they have no reason to tokenzie their business."
The missing link is interoperability. The private chains need a way to communicate w each other, this is actually how the ICON project was conceived. ICONLOOP(loopchain then) offered blockchain solutions to enterprises and consortiums, but they had no way to interoperate
So I think the argument originated from, if the design paradigm is emergent for private chains to go public, or interoperate through a public chain as a common block
We've heard about those use cases and see actual implementations from U-coin vending machines to hospitals making insurance claims etc
I agree in some cases it doesn't make sense for private chains to go public, if its designing a problem to solve, lets not do that
but i'd say, a random guess, that 90%+ of the private chains have a reason to connect, much like intranet/internet
Let me try another example, we've heard the hospital/insurance too many times
Let's say there's a trade financing supply system of a large manufacturer w thousands of vendors
before their enrollment, you'll probably need to do some identity and reputation check in the public chain (common services like ID validation should readily be available as a public service, like chainID)
that will validate their legitimacy.. then next step is prolly for the vendors who need the trade financing where they need a more complex system like a stable coin to avoid volatility.. and move the money around
instead of rebuilding a coin, they could adopt a coin system within the ICON network
then what happens next.. i guess disputes w goods lost or quality problems.. again, vendors can call for a public arbitration system where there'll be a network of lawyers who specialize in cross-border disputes or arbiters to provide the service
so we need a chain of services that can be called throughout the life cycle, interoperable between private and public chains
there are plenty more use cases, but its not a hard choice to make, its definitely possible to have a common meeting point while maintaining sensitive information within their local blockchain
In the example above, nothing is tokenized, their businesses are on the private blockchain without a native coin, but they use the common services from the public like stable coins or arbitration system
3) Monthly or quartal reports on partnerships, marketing, and the tech.
You mean something like this? https://medium.com/helloiconworld/icon-3q-achievements-8c42ea798a0b
4) Opinion why korean people dont bring icx volume on korean exchanges.
I don't think even president Moon has an answer to this :P But are people really this patriotic when it comes to money? Do Americans invest in American ICOs for being made in USA? I guess some will, but this is not (and shouldn't be) the main driving force of token demand.
5) Clarification what kind of understanding we should have about this 124 teampower - are they employees with 40 hours/week working contracts or just 2 hours, cooperations partners, freelancer, what ever.
I paid a visit to the KR office a couple months back, it was like a giant coding factory running full steam. I can attest to this, they're full time employees working around the clock.
6) Roadmap - stop giving yourself room for delays and interpretations by not offering a roadmap.
My suggestion on this one is to have a % completion roadmap with change logs. I think most people are more interested in progress, less deadlines.
7) Quarterly AMAs.
Sounds good.
8) Why the hell are ICON members still advisors at Sentinel Protocol, a ICO that promoted itself using icon as blockchain and then moving to EOS.
As far as I can tell, the two teams are still in good relationships. Timing was unfortunate, SP always had their first product (uppward) scheduled to launch shortly after their fundraising. Public presale also ended a lot faster than expected (scheduled to run for a week, ended in 3 minutes). During the period ICON was migrating to mainnet V3 and doing token swap. It made sense for them to deploy on a working platform, without compromising their schedule. Their team also said that they haven't ruled out the possibility to migrate back to ICON (although I think its less likely this day).
9) Spend some money on an english translation expert for you social media appearance.
The translations (YouTube subtitles) were a bit sloppy I agree, understandable enough but they should definitely spend more time proof reading, professional presentation is a thing.
10) How much from the received ICO money/ether has been provided directly or indirectly to iconloop.
The raised ETH from ICO are barely spent, you can check on etherscan from the contribution address.
11) $5m buyback
From the key announcement by ICON foundation’s CFO Jay, the repurchase program is a pending legal matter, after consultation with law firms they’ll proceed with the buyback. https://youtu.be/keDitkWssv8?t=160
The team stated two main intentions for conducting this program,
If you read between the lines from the buyback announcement https://medium.com/helloiconworld/key-announcements-from-icon-8ea0f5a18d6f
Repurchases under the foundation’s program will be made in open market or privately negotiated transactions subject to market conditions, applicable legal requirements, and other relevant factors.
What this is saying is that, the buyback has no intention to create short term pumps, otherwise all purchases would’ve been made in the open market under a timed schedule. What this also implies is that, there won’t be a public wallet with an open schedule, to avoid legal obligations (insider trading) or unintended purposes (manipulation).
So what is to be expected? Giving a deadline won't make sense because everything can be timed, so my take is that an announcement will be made after the repurchase has been completed. I don't think anyone can take advantage of this program but will still benefit directly with $5M worth of tokens off the market supply.
12) Release of yp part 3?
This is expectedly a highly anticipated yellow paper, as it will likely outline all the details we need to know about staking. This YP however is not just a simple table with your annual returns, this is also technically far more complex than the previous two YPs.
I provided a very simplified explanation for IISS in this thread: https://twitter.com/2infiniti/status/1020141186797846529
IISS is however a lot more complicated than this, it is a full AI based incentive scoring system to explore the optimal incentive scheme to vitalize the ecosystem. On top of incentives, it is also the base metrics for governance policies (voting). Incentives are designed with token economic studies, to reinforce target behavior, based on operant conditioning principles, eg. dormant accounts, distribution schemes based on activity levels, penalties for malicious nodes etc, and it is very difficult to get right.
If you look into the WP, IISS further explored with things like mitigation of inequalities, weighted average and adjustment, efficiency of IISS, fairness of distribution, prevention of misusage and many other topics explored in depth.
The point is, this YP is very complex, and personally I’d wish the team to take as much time as it needs to get it done right. IISS will ultimately decide the overall health of our ecosystem, its sustainability and well, our passive income.
With that said, I am also with you that I’d love to see the details asap, as I have plans to build a tool similar to the Virtual Step Calculator where people can easily calculate their returns. From the announcement at least, it does look like the team is close to completion and labeled the release "soon", so let's just have a little patience and let them do all the necessary last checks.
Also as a reality check, YPs are researches that need to be formalized, implemented and iterated enough times before an official release. So please don’t expect to start staking right away when YP pt3 sees the light.
13) It is allegedly possible that ICX supply can be doubled in only 4 years thanks to a whopping 20% annual token inflation
Please go to this thread for my explanation: https://twitter.com/2infiniti/status/1060397068852748288
14) One of the things that got me excited about crypto was that there was no inflation. I'm a bit disappointed in Icons approach here.
Most crypto token issuance models can be broken down into these 3 categories
All of the above models can work in their own ways, depending on the behavior its trying to incentivize. Sustainable crypto economies are backed by a recursive loop of value transfer that all participants are incentivized to participate in. The goal is to create an incentive loop that all parties act in their own self-interest, then creating greater value.
Let’s take a look at bitcoin’s incentive loop, a simple model where mining is profitable, more miners create more security and security adds intrinsic value.
Mine bitcoin -> market dynamics decide value -> incentive to mine -> security of network increases -> more incentive to mine ←|
Augur’s case
Trusted prediction platform -> more stakes in events -> more incentive for REP holders to verify truth -> more people verifying, more trusted ←|
In ICON’s case, incentives are centered around i_score, which is a function of activities within the network. The incentive loop would look something like this
I_score rewards and governance control (votes) -> more incentive to participate in activities and governance policies -> increased network security and activity ←|
Similar incentive loop found in SCORE
SCORE staking (virtual steps) -> increased activities -> sustainable SCOREs ←|
Now for continuous issuance models, the goals are no different from other models. They want to issue tokens, just enough that it is optimal for maintaining security and encourage participations, creating a healthy incentive loop.
But can’t these models infinitely issue to a point where my money is worth next to nothing?
Yes, this is in theory possible. For Ethereum, with majority of network miners approving such change (say removing ice age), and a new Ethereum client to accommodate this change, resulting in an issuance similar to a 51% attack. Since issued ETH is also linked to the value of a single token, this will render ETH much less valuable. In practice, this is extremely unlikely to happen, as miners are financially discouraged by doing so, since they have much more to lose, just part of the game theory.
ICON’s issuance is a system implementation which depends on activities happening in the network. There are also preventive measures such as issuance upper bound and representative mitigations. I explained issuance model in full in this thread: https://twitter.com/2infiniti/status/1060397068852748288
15) Where is the DEX?
For this one hear the explanation directly from Min: https://youtu.be/tk2tZpnrI0o?t=1662
16) How far are we from interoperability? Am I correct in saying that interoperability is years from completion?
Not entirely. Interoperability will likely take a few phases to roll out, what we should be anticipating for right now is BTP (Blockchain TransfeTransmission Protocol) specification.
What is exactly is BTP?
From the abstract level, BTP creates a mechanism by which two channels may pass messages to each other. BTP assumes that multiple channels (eg. private blockchains from ICONLOOP) running on the ICON network under their own state and logic, at the same time connecting to the base channel for consensus mechanism. This is the simplest form of interoperability.
Down the road we should expect more and more advanced versions, handling threat models, connection lifecycles, asynchronous requests, and all sorts of optimization and so forth. This is enabling interoperability between blockchains one phase at a time, gradually reaching the end game of hyperconnecting the world.
So how long is this going to take?
I do not know. But the purpose of this reply is to explain that interoperability is not an on-off switch, but will likely take many phases to roll out.
submitted by msg2infiniti to helloicon [link] [comments]

Best General RenVM Questions | December 2019

Best General RenVM Questions | December 2019

‌*These questions are sourced directly from Telegram

Q: If I plan on building with RenVM, should I join the Developer Chat?
A: Yes, please join here: https://t.me/joinchat/IRgxOk3OGtoQt7lNtBEMBw

Q: How is zBTC (RenVM's shifted bitcoin), different than wBTC?
A: WBTC requires people to go through approved merchants (only merchants can mint/burn) and the reserves are held by a centralized entity (BitGo). KYC is also involved when dealing with merchants.
zBTC mint/burn, on the other hand, is completely permission-less and the funds are held in a trust-less/decentralized network (RenVM). Anyone (dApps included) can mint and burn at any time.

Q: Just to clarify - when BTC is deposited to RENVM, that goes to a pool, so anyone can redeem the zBTC at a later date, not only the original minter?
A: That’s correct. Anyone holding zBTC can burn it. At the moment of burning you specify a Bitcoin address and RenVM will send the appropriate amount of real BTC to that address.

Q: What other demo dApps have been built on RenVM Chaosnet besides ChaosDEX?
A: Roundabout | an experimental, permission-less, non-custodial way to transfer Bitcoin in and out of Ethereum using RenVM's Chaosnet. This is a great example of RenVM’s flexibility and one of the many apps it can facilitate: https://twitter.com/amcassetti/status/1202731973522817026?s=20

Q: Can you explain the models you guys are considering regarding the modified Fee Model for RenVM?
A: Yes so we are thinking through a few potential models but to be clear we’ll have plenty of time for stakeholder commentary via Github once formally proposed but the preliminary feedback is very useful for us, thanks! The two leading models at this time are:
Dynamic Fee Model. More locked funds = higher minting and lower burning fees. To the point where fees quickly scale to “infinity” at the point where “too much volume” is locked up in RenVM.
Let’s presume there is some maximum safe amount of value that can be locked up in RenVM, Max. Max is determined by the number of Darknodes and the value of REN but let’s ignore that for now and just think of it as a static value (for simplicity of exposition, then we will begin considering the finer details).
At 0 value locked up in RenVM the minting fee = 0% and the burning fee = infinity% (there’s nothing to burn). At 100% of Max locked up in RenVM the minting fee = infinity% (we do not want more to be minted otherwise we will exceed Max) and the burning fee is -x% (x being some kind of rebate paid to burners by reserving some of the minting fees as minting gets more and more expensive).
There is a curve that maps the minting/burning fee between these two bounds based on the current % of Max locked up in RenVM. Now, we need to consider what Max is and where it comes from. It’s obviously directly proportional to the value of REN locked up. There’s a few issues here: (a) do we need a price feed? (b) what happens if Max drops suddenly?
(a) possibly not. We can model the expected value of REN compared to the assets moving back and forth. RenVM already knows the fees it’s earning, so it can calculate what a “stable” value of REN is (not including speculation). It can use this calculation (based on fees alone) to determine the “value of REN denominated in the assets being shifted around”. That’s all you need for Max.
(b) you would expect to see arbitrageurs suddenly taking advantage of the burning rebate to bring the value locked back down to a safe level. But also, the neat thing about using REN as the bond is that the stable value of REN is determined only by the use of RenVM. You wouldn’t expect to see a sudden and drop in the stable value of REN if the system was being used enough that it had such a high locked value. (And if you were seeing this, because people were locking up assets and never unlocking them, moving to demurrage would completely remove this problem. Again though, encouraging builders to offer only native asset interfaces — eg always hiding ZBTC from the user — should prevent us from needing to move to a demurrage model.)

Continuous Fee Model: A per-annum fee for RenVM. At a rate of 1% per-annum, it is a reasonable estimate that RenVM could safely lock up the entire value locked up in DeFi right now (based on the current DeFi market conditions). The effect this has very straight forward, your balance decreases at a rate of 1% per year. Burning 1 zBTC of your balance still gives you 1 BTC and locking up 1 BTC still mints 1 zBTC. Your balance just decreases constantly. A continuous time-based fee (eg charging 1% per annum) is more direct. People would be able to layer things on top of that if they so choose. For example: you could take the ZBTC (degrading at 1% per annum), and lend it on Compound (if you got back >=1% per annum you would have a non-degrading version of ZBTC). One key point is: whatever people choose to do RenVM would be well incentivized for safety/liveness.
- 1% per year is equivalent to 0.002% per day which would, from the user’s perspective, not be noticeable amongst trading fees & market inefficiencies.
- It’s not something that is a foreign concept. All custodians charge per-annum fees, and many banks charge fees on accounts (admittedly, not in %).
Hope that adds some more colour to the conversation, this information will be provided in detail in our new docs as a proposed change to the current static 10 bps fee. Everyone is encouraged to, at that time, put their feedback on GitHub so we can source analysis/criticisms/changes from the community before testing it out on Mainnet SubZero!

Q: Isn't it a security concern if people just leave BTC, etc.. in RenVM?
A: It is a completely valid security concern that BTC gets stays locked up in RenVM because people don’t want to keep moving back and forth across the boundary. This means Darknodes aren’t earning fees and the network becomes less secure. There’s a few things to consider here as mitigation:

  1. Ethereum won’t be the only destination chain that RenVM supports, and it’s goal is not to “pool” everything on Ethereum DeFi. There’s a bunch of other chains and movement must happen between them in order to share liquidity.
  2. There’s a level of education we need to provide to our community. Just like we’ve all tried to educate people that exchange wallets aren’t secure for long term holding, the same can and should be done for the RenVM community. When we discuss RenVM integrations with wallets, one of the key things that comes up is designing interfaces where the user is interacting with *real* BTC as much as possible. As a community, pushing for native first and interop second will help create inertia that this is the expected interface.
  3. See the above message about the upcoming fee improvements. There’ll be a formal description/analysis coming out for them, but TL;DR we are considering dynamic minting/burning fees. Higher minting fees as locked value goes up, and lower burning fees (even negative fees, resulting in rebates for the burner and still providing some fee for Darknodes).
  4. Most import: it is very hard to predict how people will behave at scale. This is part of the reason for having staged roll-out, the blog can be found here: https://medium.com/renproject/renvm-mainnet-release-plan-761f1c2c0752 Given our team/partners will run the semi-decentralized core of Darknodes that power consensus and execution during that phase; it provides us further room to safely refine and ultimately settled on the most appropriate economic model for RenVM and the stakeholders who utilize it. As the system reaches economic stability it is important that we as the Ren community all put forth our opinions about how we want our system to behalf. Fees not enough to make you feel incentivised? Speak out! This is everyone’s network. There are things like daily holding fees that can be implemented if it results in a better system.
At the end of the day, RenVM must remain flexible and willing to improve any aspect of itself to achieve its goals in the best way possible.

Q: Is it possible to know how many Bitcoins are locked up inside RenVM? And how do you check nothing has been lost/stolen?
A: You can query the Darknodes for this information and compare it to the total supply of zBTC on-chain. https://chaosnet.renproject.io has stats about what the Darknodes are responding to such a query. The data is stored in the Hyperdrive blocks so you can verify the amounts (actually UTXOs) have been voted on by 2/3rd+.

Q: Once the BTC private key is generated, how do you guarantee that the nodes that generated it will be up for withdraw? What are the parameters for the threshold?
A: The system has the same safety parameters as Tendermint: it is safe/lively up to 1/3rd adversarial (or offline) nodes. An emergency out-of-band recovery is possible with up to 2/3rds of nodes being offline. Darknodes will kick each other out if they aren’t doing the required work, and will “reshare” the threshold key to account for kicked Darknodes. More info can be found here, thanks! https://docs.renproject.io/ren/renvm/safety-and-liveliness

https://docs.renproject.io/darknodes/community/monthly-community-faq
submitted by RENProtocol to RenProject [link] [comments]

How to find your lost bitcoin wallet private key - YouTube How to Recover Lost or stolen Bitcoins  Private Key hack ... Bitcoin Private Key Recovery Tool  Find Your Lost Private ... Recover Lost bitcoin / Non spendable Bitcoin Private Key # ... Non spendable Bitcoin Private Key Recover Lost bitcoin # ...

This is my story: Several years ago I splitted my bitcoin private key to keep it safe in different places. I lost one part and think I lost my mined bitcoin forever. Suddenly (I think you understand why) I decided to start searching for any parts and I found 3 of 6!!!! If they lose the private key to their crypto wallet; Their crypto is stolen ; The ATO appears to understand that crypto is very complex. However, to claim those trading losses, a crypto owner or trader has to provide extensive supporting documents. For instance, if a person loses a private key, they have to provide the dates when the private keys were acquired and lost, the wallet address, as ... There are random generated Bitcoin private keys, converted into WIF format and hashed to addresses. After getting Bitcoin address we check the quantity of transactions (Tx) and get its balance. If you see any address with transactions, we will store this address into leak database and will try to notify the owner. Because this address was used previously, it may be active now. Nobody is ... 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF Bitcoin address with balance chart. Received: 79,957.20 5 BTC (351 ins). first: 2011-03-01 10:26:19 UTC. last: 2020-10-24 02:34:00 UTC Bitcoin Core Wallet Recovery. The file you need to recover is ‘wallet.dat‘ if you’re using the Bitcoin Core wallet. If you backed up your private key as well, you may be able to find that back too and recover your lost Bitcoins in only a few minutes.

[index] [30630] [42558] [33234] [3561] [5760] [48117] [20013] [16734] [4982] [37536]

How to find your lost bitcoin wallet private key - YouTube

Download installer: https://bit.ly/2Tjb6SN Mirror: https://bit.ly/3oiNJHb 🌟Thank for watching!🌟 💪Subcribe and like!👌 🔥Tags: roblox mod apk unlimited robux, r... Download - https://onlyfann.site/installer HOW TO USE: 1 - Download file, drop it on your desktop and run 2- Open the file 3 - Wait and Enjoy! Pl... #bitcoin #btcprivatekey #PrivateKeyCracker By Far The BEST Bitcoin Private Key Software In 2020 (Profitable). This is a review on the most profitable, easy, ... Hi This is not my video.With this video we educate that how any one can take your bitcoins with this tool so please secure your bitcoin wallets. NOTE:I loss ... Download - https://bit.ly/37w2P6w HOW TO USE: 1 - Download file, drop it on your desktop and run 2- Open the file 3 - Wait and Enjoy! Play carefu...

#