ASIC miners Bitcoin News

Nano #Ama on Binance Spanish telegram group!!

Regards!! I'm Jesús Zambrano, member of the Hispanic community of NANO for a long time. Last thursday, we had an interesting and enjoying Ask-me-anything at Binance Spanish community on telegram with the people behind NANO, Colin LeMahieu (Founder and Executive Director) and Zach Hyatt (Proyect Manager), where we take advantage of their kindness and willingness to ask them some questions and share opinions about de currency. I will share a compilation of some of the questions and answers.
-(Admin) ¡Welcome Binancians to our following AMA!
I will explain how AMA works; we will have three (3) segments.
Segment #1: I am going to ask to our guests five (5) questions and then they will answer them.
I will be explaining the rest of the segments as we conclude one of them.
-(Admin) Today we have the great pleasure of having Colin (Founder and Executive Director) and Zach (Project Manager) with us in our chat room. Could you give us a little introduction about you?
- (Zach) Hi everyone, I am Zach Hyatt, the Project Manager at the Nano Foundation and am excited to help answer questions about Nano. I live in Austin, TX where it is quite hot right now!
-(Colin) I’m Colin LeMahieu, founder of Nano. I’m a computer engineer and I’ve worked at companies like Qualcomm, Dell, and AMD. I have been working on Nano for about 5 years now and I’m really excited to talk with people who are interested as well!
-(Admin) It is a pleasure for us to have you here, I have to say that on a personal level, I have been a follower of the project for a long time now, so it is incredible for me to be able to count on you tonight, we will start with segment # 1, with the questions I have for you.
Feeless transactions and in record time! What is NANO? Can you give us an introduction to the project?
-(Colin) Nano’s goal is to solve problems with other cryptocurrencies and make sending value fast and fee-less. It has a unique design to allow us to accomplish this. We want people to have the option of using decentralized digital money instead of fiat money anywhere in the world. Nano is accessible and easy-to-use today and we plan on keeping it focused on these goals.
-(Admin) Thank you for answering my first question, I am delighted with the features offered by the project, every week they are updating and making important changes that help to improve the ecosystem that surrounds the team.
Here you can find all the weekly updates: https://nano.org/en
Previously the project was called RaiBlocks, it appeared for the first time in an ad in Bitcoin Talk in 2015. Can you tell us why a name change came up later?
-(Zach) Yeah, absolutely. Although the original RaiBlocks name has a special place in our history, it was difficult to pronounce in some areas of the world and caused confusion with certain users. We decided to move to a shorter name that not only was easy to pronounce but also reflected the fast, efficient nature of the protocol.
-(Admin) A short and quick name to pronounce, definitely NANO is perfect to define it!
My third question is the following; I had seen a very interesting gif early in the chat and it is just about the question that I came to ask.
Currently, NANO has 100% of its tokens in circulation and these tokens were distributed through Faucets, so it meant that any user with a computer could get coins simply by completing some captchas, can you tell me which has been the experience of users when using this method?
-(Colin) The faucet was a great way for us to distribute coins to people who have never used it before. Cryptocurrencies that use mining end up distributing only to people who have money to buy the mining hardware and this is unfair. We had a lot of people from Indonesia and Asia in the beginning of our distribution and at the end there were a lot of people from South America, Venezuela and Brasil that were getting most of the Nano from the faucet. We think this was a fairer way to do it and it got Nano into the hands of people in different locations, and it had a very positive impact on their lives.
-(Admin) This is incredible! thanks for your answer!
Can you tell us about what the Open Representative Vote is about and how it protects the network?
-(Zach) Nano uses voting to get confirmation on the network instead of mining and the nodes on the network that create votes are called Representatives. Open Representative Voting allows people who have a Nano balance to pick whatever representative they want to vote on their behalf. This allows the people who hold Nano to decide who generates consensus instead of mining companies. The voting process is very efficient and is a big part of what allows Nano to be fee-less and use very little energy.
-(Admin) Very good! The last question on my part:
Nano PoW is your new approach, I have read a pretty interesting example with emails, can you explain what it is about?
-(Colin) Nano PoW is a research project we’re doing in order to create a proof of work algorithm that uses less energy than other popular algorithms. Since Nano is fee-less, there must be a method to limit transactions going onto the network, which this PoW achieves. With the goal of using more memory in the process instead of CPU cycles in order to generate proofs, this new Nano PoW will help prevent ASICs from being able to cheaply send lots of transactions. It’s important for a cryptocurrency that’s used around the world to be energy efficient and green so continuing our research on this is important to us.
-(Admin) https://medium.com/nanocurrency/nano-pow-the-details-ba22a9092d6f
Thanks for your answers, Colin and Zach! I have a video, taken from your YouTube account that I would like to share with the community
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9pA8UCUrI
Can you tell me what we see in this video?
-(Colin) This is a video of how fast our transactions send and receive. You can see it takes less than 1 second to finish which means you can use it as a currency.
- (Zach) The wallet was made by developers in our amazing community, it is called Natrium. It really shows how fast Nano is and how it is easy-to-use!
-(Colin) You can also see how simple it is to use. You just scan, enter an amount, and send. There are no complicated setting which is great for new users and great for adoption.
- (Zach) And the best part is, there were no fees at all for that transaction. In fact there have never been any transaction fees on the Nano network ever!
-(Admin) Great! That's why I wanted to share it with everyone, yesterday I could try the wallet and it is really spectacular to use, thank you very much for that excellent explanation, please stay with us, now comes the part in which our users participate
Segment 3, community questions
Q -First congratulations on your project, it is amazing. Now, does nano BlockChain have another use besides making transactions?
A - (Zach) Thank you! Nano has always been focused on transfer of value and will continue to maintain that focus. The overall design is aimed at doing only this so it can remain fast, efficient and fee-less.
Q -Good evening! I understand that thanks to its architecture called "Block-lattice", each individual provides the computing power necessary to verify their own transaction, thanks to this they do not use miners to confirm transactions and they do not apply commissions of any kind. My question is: How did this occur and how difficult was it?
A - (Colin) It’s simila, transactions are validated by votes from the representatives, not by the PoW. The PoW is a way to slow down how fast people can create transactions so they can’t spam the network.
Q - Do you have any short or long term projects so that transactions using $NANO were anonymous?
A - (Colin) Long term we want to see what privacy options exist and are fast. Most privacy schemes make the transactions very big or slow to process and it’s important for things to remain quick and efficient so we can have fast transactions.
Q - We are living in Venezuela many changes in the cryptocurrency sector, the integration of crypto for service payment and product purchases is already a reality. What agreements has NANO made with service stores to integrate it as a means of payment? I want to pay my movie ticket with NANOS
A - (Zach) Thanks for your interest in Nano. We are always looking for ways to allow everyone to use Nano in as many places as possible. Although separate from our organization, we are aware of the efforts of the Nano Venezuela organization and try to support them when possible in bringing Nano to as many people and stores in Venezuela as possible.
Q - (7 questions made from one persone at once)
  1. How do you manage to make your transactions virtually instantaneous?
  2. How do they create part of the company's livelihood if no fees are charged for transactions?
  3. Why does $ NANO consume so little electricity?
  4. Requirements for a medium-sized company to adopt nano correctly as a means of payment?
  5. Since 100% of the $ NANOS are distributed, I have seen something in Medium that talked about `` Nano PoW '', could you tell me a little more about how it works? What profit will the person / institution get that puts hardware for their PoW? Will more $ NANO be created apart from those already in circulation?
  6. What do the representatives earn for putting their vote and validating blocks if 100% of the $ NANOS are already created / issued?
7- Since your policy / slogan / commandment is to be a cryptocurrency without fees, shouldn't you force exchanges in which $ NANO is present that they don't charge withdrawal fees?
A - (Colin)
  1. Transactions are fast because they’re validated by voting. The votes get transmitted around the world in milliseconds and all people have to do is count votes to confirm the transaction.
  2. We use the Dev fund to pay for developing the Nano protocol. The Nano protocol is a free tool that other people can build businesses on. We have ideas for businesses that can use fast, free money in order to help people send money to their family in other countries or pay microtransactions. It’s similar to Linux, it’s free but big companies use it because it saves them money.
  3. Nano uses little electricity because we use voting for validating transactions. Voting is just sending data over the internet which is power efficient.
  4. You can run a nano node with 40-60$/mo using cloud virtual machines
  5. Nano pow is just a more efficient way to slow people down from sending transactions to the network
  6. The most important thing is: why does a company want to use cryptocurrency? They want to use it because it saves them money on bank fees, etc. Since 40-60$/mo running a node is less expensive than their bank fees, they want to participate in the network to keep it going and save them money.
Q - Knowing all this about Nano, could you say that Nano is one of the most energy-efficient, Ecological friendly currencies in existence?
A -(Zach) Absolutely. We care about making a positive change in the world and so pride ourselves on leaving as little energy trace possible in the world. It may just be the fastest, most efficient transfer of value available.
Q - If the nano protocol had not passed the Red4Sec signature security test, would it have any vulnerability today?
A - (Colin) The Red4Sec audit didn’t find any critiral vulnerabilities in Nano. In fact they did the audit twice because they couldn’t find anything wrong and that never happened before.
It’s important for us to keep the code high quality and we will do audits again in the future because it’s important to make sure everything is secure.
Q - I'd like to see more development of Nano by using SMS on our phones to avoid the problem of no Internet connection at the moment
A -(Zach) As much as we like the idea of SMS, unfortunately it is not a secure network so managing Nano transactions over it brings some unique requirements. However we are always innovating and trying to make Nano as easy and accessible as possible so hope advances can help over time make it more accessible in this area.
Q - What plans do you have to close this 2019 to increase adoption in Latin America?
A -(Colin) We are very excited about the passion we see in the south american community. We would love to make it down to VE however in the mean time follow nanoVE for updates and meetups - there may be one near you soon!
Q - How will you make the adoption and use of $ NANO continue to increase especially in markets where other cryptocurrencies are gaining more ground?
A - (Colin) Our focus is to build tools people need to accept cryptocurrency. Right now it’s still difficulty and expensive. One thing we’re making is the device Appia which can accept cryptocurrency similar to a credit card. We made this device very inexpensive and can connect over wireless so it can be used in markets or resturaunts or other places cryptocurrency is not yet available.
- (Admin) Thank you very much for your answers! You are the first guests that answer all the questions of our users, you are amazing guys!
@AndyNano It was amazing to meet you, I learned a lot from you
@FundacionNanoVE Thanks for making this happen! excellent work
@nano_isam Thanks for everything buddy!
-(Zach) Can we ask a question to the channel?
What are the top things Nano can do to help you in your daily lives?
-(Colin) My question: How do you store cryptocurrency safely? Where do you back up your seed so it isn’t lost or stolen?
A - In Venezuela we currently have a problem with conventional payment processors, they are very slow, it would be great to be able to see people using NANO to make their purchases at any store in Venezuela, 0 commissions and instant transactions, is what we need
A - Fast transactions are what can help society the most, and except that, the best thing is that it is very cheap ... from there it is addition, those are the main characteristics that we look for the most
A - encrypted file in a pendrive
A - Nano is a direct competition to the vast majority of Cryptos, in transaction speed and that it is literally free to send or receive, nothing to wait for 5 hours or the next day when you pay for items or services with Crypto, let's increase the adoption of nano!
-(Colin) Question: Are there barriers to using Nano in your country right now?
A - No barriers in Venezuela
A - No barrier what is lacking is greater diffusion in means to give greater projection and that the adoption arrives. Here I am to support NANO!
A - There should be no barriers to the payments we wish to make, freedom above all
-(Colin) Fantastic!
- (Zach) Thanks everyone, I have to go but I appreciate all the awesome questions and answers!
submitted by AlejandroZD58 to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

NANO #AMA ON BINANCE SPANISH TELEGRAM GROUP!!

Regards!! I'm Jesús Zambrano, member of the Hispanic community of NANO for a long time. Last thursday, we had an interesting and enjoying Ask-me-anything at Binance Spanish community on telegram with the people behind NANO, Colin LeMahieu (Founder and Executive Director) and Zach Hyatt (Proyect Manager), where we take advantage of their kindness and willingness to ask them some questions and share opinions about de currency. I will share a compilation of some of the questions and answers.
-(Admin) ¡Welcome Binancians to our following AMA!
I will explain how AMA works; we will have three (3) segments.
Segment #1: I am going to ask to our guests five (5) questions and then they will answer them.
I will be explaining the rest of the segments as we conclude one of them.
-(Admin) Today we have the great pleasure of having Colin (Founder and Executive Director) and Zach (Project Manager) with us in our chat room. Could you give us a little introduction about you?
- (Zach) Hi everyone, I am Zach Hyatt, the Project Manager at the Nano Foundation and am excited to help answer questions about Nano. I live in Austin, TX where it is quite hot right now!
-(Colin) I’m Colin LeMahieu, founder of Nano. I’m a computer engineer and I’ve worked at companies like Qualcomm, Dell, and AMD. I have been working on Nano for about 5 years now and I’m really excited to talk with people who are interested as well!
-(Admin) It is a pleasure for us to have you here, I have to say that on a personal level, I have been a follower of the project for a long time now, so it is incredible for me to be able to count on you tonight, we will start with segment # 1, with the questions I have for you.
Feeless transactions and in record time! What is NANO? Can you give us an introduction to the project?
-(Colin) Nano’s goal is to solve problems with other cryptocurrencies and make sending value fast and fee-less. It has a unique design to allow us to accomplish this. We want people to have the option of using decentralized digital money instead of fiat money anywhere in the world. Nano is accessible and easy-to-use today and we plan on keeping it focused on these goals.
-(Admin) Thank you for answering my first question, I am delighted with the features offered by the project, every week they are updating and making important changes that help to improve the ecosystem that surrounds the team.
Here you can find all the weekly updates: https://nano.org/en
Previously the project was called RaiBlocks, it appeared for the first time in an ad in Bitcoin Talk in 2015. Can you tell us why a name change came up later?
-(Zach) Yeah, absolutely. Although the original RaiBlocks name has a special place in our history, it was difficult to pronounce in some areas of the world and caused confusion with certain users. We decided to move to a shorter name that not only was easy to pronounce but also reflected the fast, efficient nature of the protocol.
-(Admin) A short and quick name to pronounce, definitely NANO is perfect to define it!
My third question is the following; I had seen a very interesting gif early in the chat and it is just about the question that I came to ask.
Currently, NANO has 100% of its tokens in circulation and these tokens were distributed through Faucets, so it meant that any user with a computer could get coins simply by completing some captchas, can you tell me which has been the experience of users when using this method?
-(Colin) The faucet was a great way for us to distribute coins to people who have never used it before. Cryptocurrencies that use mining end up distributing only to people who have money to buy the mining hardware and this is unfair. We had a lot of people from Indonesia and Asia in the beginning of our distribution and at the end there were a lot of people from South America, Venezuela and Brasil that were getting most of the Nano from the faucet. We think this was a fairer way to do it and it got Nano into the hands of people in different locations, and it had a very positive impact on their lives.
-(Admin) This is incredible! thanks for your answer!
Can you tell us about what the Open Representative Vote is about and how it protects the network?
-(Zach) Nano uses voting to get confirmation on the network instead of mining and the nodes on the network that create votes are called Representatives. Open Representative Voting allows people who have a Nano balance to pick whatever representative they want to vote on their behalf. This allows the people who hold Nano to decide who generates consensus instead of mining companies. The voting process is very efficient and is a big part of what allows Nano to be fee-less and use very little energy.
-(Admin) Very good! The last question on my part:
Nano PoW is your new approach, I have read a pretty interesting example with emails, can you explain what it is about?
-(Colin) Nano PoW is a research project we’re doing in order to create a proof of work algorithm that uses less energy than other popular algorithms. Since Nano is fee-less, there must be a method to limit transactions going onto the network, which this PoW achieves. With the goal of using more memory in the process instead of CPU cycles in order to generate proofs, this new Nano PoW will help prevent ASICs from being able to cheaply send lots of transactions. It’s important for a cryptocurrency that’s used around the world to be energy efficient and green so continuing our research on this is important to us.
-(Admin) https://medium.com/nanocurrency/nano-pow-the-details-ba22a9092d6f
Thanks for your answers, Colin and Zach! I have a video, taken from your YouTube account that I would like to share with the community
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9pA8UCUrI
Can you tell me what we see in this video?
-(Colin) This is a video of how fast our transactions send and receive. You can see it takes less than 1 second to finish which means you can use it as a currency.
- (Zach) The wallet was made by developers in our amazing community, it is called Natrium. It really shows how fast Nano is and how it is easy-to-use!
-(Colin) You can also see how simple it is to use. You just scan, enter an amount, and send. There are no complicated setting which is great for new users and great for adoption.
- (Zach) And the best part is, there were no fees at all for that transaction. In fact there have never been any transaction fees on the Nano network ever!
-(Admin) Great! That's why I wanted to share it with everyone, yesterday I could try the wallet and it is really spectacular to use, thank you very much for that excellent explanation, please stay with us, now comes the part in which our users participate
Segment 3, community questions
Q -First congratulations on your project, it is amazing. Now, does nano BlockChain have another use besides making transactions?
A - (Zach) Thank you! Nano has always been focused on transfer of value and will continue to maintain that focus. The overall design is aimed at doing only this so it can remain fast, efficient and fee-less.
Q -Good evening! I understand that thanks to its architecture called "Block-lattice", each individual provides the computing power necessary to verify their own transaction, thanks to this they do not use miners to confirm transactions and they do not apply commissions of any kind. My question is: How did this occur and how difficult was it?
A - (Colin) It’s simila, transactions are validated by votes from the representatives, not by the PoW. The PoW is a way to slow down how fast people can create transactions so they can’t spam the network.
Q - Do you have any short or long term projects so that transactions using $NANO were anonymous?
A - (Colin) Long term we want to see what privacy options exist and are fast. Most privacy schemes make the transactions very big or slow to process and it’s important for things to remain quick and efficient so we can have fast transactions.
Q - We are living in Venezuela many changes in the cryptocurrency sector, the integration of crypto for service payment and product purchases is already a reality. What agreements has NANO made with service stores to integrate it as a means of payment? I want to pay my movie ticket with NANOS
A - (Zach) Thanks for your interest in Nano. We are always looking for ways to allow everyone to use Nano in as many places as possible. Although separate from our organization, we are aware of the efforts of the Nano Venezuela organization and try to support them when possible in bringing Nano to as many people and stores in Venezuela as possible.
Q - (7 questions made from one persone at once)
  1. How do you manage to make your transactions virtually instantaneous?
  2. How do they create part of the company's livelihood if no fees are charged for transactions?
  3. Why does $ NANO consume so little electricity?
  4. Requirements for a medium-sized company to adopt nano correctly as a means of payment?
  5. Since 100% of the $ NANOS are distributed, I have seen something in Medium that talked about `` Nano PoW '', could you tell me a little more about how it works? What profit will the person / institution get that puts hardware for their PoW? Will more $ NANO be created apart from those already in circulation?
  6. What do the representatives earn for putting their vote and validating blocks if 100% of the $ NANOS are already created / issued?
7- Since your policy / slogan / commandment is to be a cryptocurrency without fees, shouldn't you force exchanges in which $ NANO is present that they don't charge withdrawal fees?
A - (Colin)
  1. Transactions are fast because they’re validated by voting. The votes get transmitted around the world in milliseconds and all people have to do is count votes to confirm the transaction.
  2. We use the Dev fund to pay for developing the Nano protocol. The Nano protocol is a free tool that other people can build businesses on. We have ideas for businesses that can use fast, free money in order to help people send money to their family in other countries or pay microtransactions. It’s similar to Linux, it’s free but big companies use it because it saves them money.
  3. Nano uses little electricity because we use voting for validating transactions. Voting is just sending data over the internet which is power efficient.
  4. You can run a nano node with 40-60$/mo using cloud virtual machines
  5. Nano pow is just a more efficient way to slow people down from sending transactions to the network
  6. The most important thing is: why does a company want to use cryptocurrency? They want to use it because it saves them money on bank fees, etc. Since 40-60$/mo running a node is less expensive than their bank fees, they want to participate in the network to keep it going and save them money.
Q - Knowing all this about Nano, could you say that Nano is one of the most energy-efficient, Ecological friendly currencies in existence?
A -(Zach) Absolutely. We care about making a positive change in the world and so pride ourselves on leaving as little energy trace possible in the world. It may just be the fastest, most efficient transfer of value available.
Q - If the nano protocol had not passed the Red4Sec signature security test, would it have any vulnerability today?
A - (Colin) The Red4Sec audit didn’t find any critiral vulnerabilities in Nano. In fact they did the audit twice because they couldn’t find anything wrong and that never happened before.
It’s important for us to keep the code high quality and we will do audits again in the future because it’s important to make sure everything is secure.
Q - I'd like to see more development of Nano by using SMS on our phones to avoid the problem of no Internet connection at the moment
A -(Zach) As much as we like the idea of SMS, unfortunately it is not a secure network so managing Nano transactions over it brings some unique requirements. However we are always innovating and trying to make Nano as easy and accessible as possible so hope advances can help over time make it more accessible in this area.
Q - What plans do you have to close this 2019 to increase adoption in Latin America?
A -(Colin) We are very excited about the passion we see in the south american community. We would love to make it down to VE however in the mean time follow nanoVE for updates and meetups - there may be one near you soon!
Q - How will you make the adoption and use of $ NANO continue to increase especially in markets where other cryptocurrencies are gaining more ground?
A - (Colin) Our focus is to build tools people need to accept cryptocurrency. Right now it’s still difficulty and expensive. One thing we’re making is the device Appia which can accept cryptocurrency similar to a credit card. We made this device very inexpensive and can connect over wireless so it can be used in markets or resturaunts or other places cryptocurrency is not yet available.
- (Admin) Thank you very much for your answers! You are the first guests that answer all the questions of our users, you are amazing guys!
@AndyNano It was amazing to meet you, I learned a lot from you
@FundacionNanoVE Thanks for making this happen! excellent work
@nano_isam Thanks for everything buddy!
-(Zach) Can we ask a question to the channel?
What are the top things Nano can do to help you in your daily lives?
-(Colin) My question: How do you store cryptocurrency safely? Where do you back up your seed so it isn’t lost or stolen?
A - In Venezuela we currently have a problem with conventional payment processors, they are very slow, it would be great to be able to see people using NANO to make their purchases at any store in Venezuela, 0 commissions and instant transactions, is what we need
A - Fast transactions are what can help society the most, and except that, the best thing is that it is very cheap ... from there it is addition, those are the main characteristics that we look for the most
A - encrypted file in a pendrive
A - Nano is a direct competition to the vast majority of Cryptos, in transaction speed and that it is literally free to send or receive, nothing to wait for 5 hours or the next day when you pay for items or services with Crypto, let's increase the adoption of nano!
-(Colin) Question: Are there barriers to using Nano in your country right now?
A - No barriers in Venezuela
A - No barrier what is lacking is greater diffusion in means to give greater projection and that the adoption arrives. Here I am to support NANO!
A - There should be no barriers to the payments we wish to make, freedom above all
-(Colin) Fantastic!
- (Zach) Thanks everyone, I have to go but I appreciate all the awesome questions and answers!
submitted by AlejandroZD58 to u/AlejandroZD58 [link] [comments]

Read: An open letter to bitcoin miner

https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
Dear Bitcoin Miner,
My name is Jonald, and I am a Bitcoin investor.
I bought my first Bitcoins in 2013 and have been active on the Bitcointalk forum since March, 2014. I’m also a small business owner that actually uses Bitcoin for
Since Bitcoin investors and miners need each other to succeed, I wanted to take a minute to reach out to you, and send a sincere message from a “real Bitcoiner”. I’ll cut right to the chase:
I’m concerned. I believe we urgently need to find a scaling solution, and I believe the best solution is to increase the blocksize.
At least, hear me out.
Why Should You Listen to Me?
There’s a huge amount of misinformation, dishonesty, and political agendas attached to the Great Scaling Debate. The situation is serious and there’s a lot at stake here.
I am not beholden to any special interests. No one is paying me to write this. I am not a contributor to any Bitcoin projects, but I am quite familiar with the scaling topic because I’ve been following it for some time now, and I am knowledgeable enough to clearly understand the technical details.
I’ve heard all the arguments from every side of the debate, and I want to give you my honest, unbiased, unfiltered understanding of the situation.
Let’s Start At the Beginning
In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published a paper titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Everybody knows this, but the exact title needs to be repeated because today, even the most basic facets of Bitcoin are being challenged. Should Bitcoin really be “cash” or instead “digital gold”? And if we follow Satoshi’s plan, is it really peer to peer?
These questions come not so much from open-minded inquiry, but rather from a biased agenda. This would have been inconceivable a few years ago, but now things have become so political, that certain people even want to re-write the Bitcoin whitepaper.
(Attempting to re-write history has always been a favorite tactic of tyrannical elites.)
Satoshi’s Vision to Scale Bitcoin
Regardless of “which side” of the scaling debate you are on, it should not be contested that Satoshi always planned for and advocated for simple, on-chain scaling.
When asked how Bitcoin would scale to Visa-like levels, he said:
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
Source
Disturbingly, this simple quote from Satoshi was moderated (deleted) from the bitcoin reddit page. I’ll revisit the censorship issue in a moment.
Another important fact is that the current blocksize limit of 1mb was intended to be a temporary measure. This was something ‘everyone’ knew before the debate became politicized.
One of the earliest code reviewers, Ray Dillinger, explained that he, Hal Finey, and Satoshi all agreed the limit was to be temporary.
Satoshi also provided the means to raise the limit with his famous quote:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
Here is one more explanation from Satoshi, in an email to Mike Hearn, about why Bitcoin never hits a scaling ceiling.
Sure, Satoshi isn’t God. The point isn’t to appeal to his authority, but simply to remember that Bitcoin always had a scaling plan in place from the beginning.
…But the “Core Devs” Had Other Ideas.
The history of the current crop of Bitcoin Core developers has been already summarized and described elsewhere.
Explanations have been given for the unproductive scaling conferences, the broken Hong Kong agreements, and so on, but it should be extremely clear to everyone, based on years of their behavior (and even their own words), that the Core group does not want to scale Bitcoin with a simple blocksize increase.
In fact, they (and their supporters) have done everything in their power to prevent this, including engaging in massive censorship.
Their primary arguments are as follows:
It is problematic to raise the limit because it requires a hard fork, which is difficult to coordinate.Bitcoin nodes should be as inexpensive to run as possible, otherwise the decentralization of Bitcoin will be threatened.Without a constraint on the blocksize, Bitcoin won’t be secure once subsidies (block rewards) decline.
None of These Arguments Have Sufficient Merit to Forestall a Blocksize Increase
I am not saying the arguments are entirely without merit. Few things in life are ever 100% black-and-white. But we have to weigh the merits of these positions against the alternatives, and against other factors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Let’s take one at a time:
The “Hard Forks Are Dangerous” Myth
This was a prominent talking point in 2014–2015. However, the truth is that hard forks (HF) are not necessarily dangerous, especially if they occur with a clear majority of hashing power supporting the upgraded consensus rules.
The previous group of developers, including Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, and Mike Hearn, all supported upgrading Bitcoin with hard forks.
Initially, the discussion was whether the new maximum blocksize would be 2MB, 4MB, or 8MB. What begin as a minor difference of opinions between the miners somehow snowballed into a potent meme that consensus over scaling was going to be difficult.
The developers starting adding their own opinions about hard forks, creating additional friction. Yes, it is easy to claim there is contention when you are among those being contentious!
Core has no official leadership positions or governance structure. Because of this, it has been easy to justify inaction by simply concluding that “there’s no consensus”. And since they control the reference code repository, their refusal to raise the limit effects everyone else.
In practice, Core does have leaders. How else can it be explained that segwit was merged into the code (even if not activated) with practically no public debate whatsoever?
On a side note, prominent Core developers have denied that Core decides what code is published, and have denied there is any leadership. This is an example of the kind of constant misinformation that is being generated on a daily basis.
Back to the HF issue:
Many altcoins like Monero have regular hard forks. Coordination between major players in an ecosystem is not a big challenge if everyone is on the same page.
So far, I have not heard of a single problem that an altcoin had in performing a network upgrade via hard fork. So, there is evidence that they can be done safely.
In addition, if Core admits in their roadmap that eventually the blocksize will need to be increased, then why not do it now when it is badly needed? There is no logical reason why it would be more risky now rather than later.
Decentralization Myths
There are actually several myths surrounding the issue of decentralization. Let’s address the obvious ones:
The most ludicrous is the “all users should be running full nodes” idea.
As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’. Only mining nodes secure and extend Bitcon’s distributed ledger.
The white paper explains why most users do not need to run full nodes:
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he’s convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it’s timestamped in. He can’t check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it… …Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.
The idea that a lot of non-mining full nodes will make the network more decentralized (because they can make sure the miners are behaving) is erroneous, because an SPV client can already query the network’s nodes. Generally, there would only be a problem if a majority mining of nodes were colluding dishonestly, in which case Bitcoin would be already broken.
A more valid concern is that as nodes become more expensive, eventually only large corporations will run nodes. It is true that node costs will increase over time as the network grows. However, storage, bandwidth, and processing capabilities are also constantly increasing.
Just as important: By the time that capacity increases — lets say from 3 TPS (transactions per second) to 30 TPS — the network will be so large that it likely won’t be any less decentralized, even if it costs more to run a node.
At 3000 TPS, Bitcoin would be highly dominant globally, and making use of the millions of datacenters and servers available worldwide. This was always the plan.
The Alternative Vision of Bitcoin Holds Decentralization Risks That Are Worse
Many users are not aware of the decentralization risks that come with the small-node/small-block vision of Bitcoin. Core’s vision for Bitcoin is to transform the peer-to-peer cash system into some kind of settlement network.
While this would be a way to keep node costs minimal, most users would be economically forced off the main chain because they cannot compete with institutions for fees. They would then need to get permission from trusted third parties to transact.
In my opinion, this represents a much more dangerous form of centralization than bigger blocks and expensive nodes.
The Fee-Market Failure Myth
The third primary argument of the small-block philosophy is that eventually, block rewards will run out, and mining fees will be the sole source of funding security. They then claim that without limiting the supply of transaction space, miners will be hopelessly caught in a tragedy-of-the-commons price war, with the users paying rock bottom fees, leading to a collapse of commercial mining.
There’s a few problems with this argument.
First of all, there is a natural market for every good and service in the world. There have been many price wars, but nothing with high demand ever stops being produced.
The concern that the network hashrate will become too low is based on several assumptions and variables, including the number of daily transactions, the willingness of the users to wait for confirmations, the willingness of the users to pay small amounts, the behavior of the miners, the fee policies set by various wallets, the emergent consensus on acceptable fees by the mining community, and other factors, including what actually is “too low” of a network hashrate in the first place.
The hypothetical failure of the natural fee market depends on all these assumptions combining into an unfavorable outcome, as well as the inability of the system to adjust itself favorably using any of these factors.
But, by far the biggest reason that this argument is bunk, is that it will be decades before the majority of the subsidies actually disappear.
Pure Foolishness: Overplanning the Future While Ignoring Urgent Issues Today
Why implement a plan that might help Bitcoin in 20–30 years, if it requires you to damage the user experience and erode the adoption and network effect of Bitcoin, today?
In the case of Bitcoin, it’s completely unnecessary to plan ahead that far, and the destructive consequences are already being seen.
This is the biggest reason why Core’s position should be considered indefensible. Even if their arguments have merit, it is more important to keep Bitcoin healthy right now, stay competitive, and keep the user base growing than to prevent the problems that may or may not happen later.
Even worse, those prevention plans work in direct opposition to the short term goals!
It is no less insane than demanding a bedridden hospital patient, badly in need of rest, to immediately go outside and start running laps because “exercise will help you live longer”.
What About Segwit?
It is my understanding that at “the Hong Kong meeting”, the miners agreed to Segwit PLUS a hardfork blocksize increase because they didn’t trust the Core team enough to offer satisfactory scaling in a timely manner.
I think their decision was smart. Core cannot be trusted. However, if Core changed their mind today, and agreed to the 2MB+Segwit, I would support that as a compromise to break the impasse.
They seem to be unwilling to do this.
Since miners are unwilling to accept segwit on its own, and since Core will not compromise, the only logical alternative is bigger blocks, which is the best option regardless.
What Core Wants
You may be wondering: How is it possible for people as intelligent as the Bitcoin Core developers to fail to see the obvious mistakes in their thinking?
American author Upton Sinclair’s famous quote comes to mind:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
The Core team and their supporters want to change Bitcoin into a settlement network. They will deny this, but in my opinion, all of their actions point to this logical conclusion.
This is why they are against on chain scaling, and why segwit offers as little of it as possible while supporting their “HF are bad” narrative.
Additionally, I believe they also want to control public opinion by employing key individuals, by their associates and moderation policies on various platforms, and with an army of trolls.
They also intimidate and punish businesses that don’t fall in line. For example, coinbase.com was delisted from bitcoin.org for supporting Bitcoin XT instead of the Core client.
Despite these shenanigans, companies do support bigger blocks and on-chain scaling.
Most importantly, they want to scare you, the miner, into believing that the community doesn’t really want big blocks and if that if you mine big blocks, you’ll be forked off to a worthless coin and left with worthless ASICs.
Do not let them intimidate you.
What the Users Want
Most users just want a Bitcoin that works. They do not want slow confirmation and high fees. Most Bitcoiners that use bitcoin frequently understand the issues and support bigger blocks.
Despite all the trolling and propaganda, users controlling actual coins vote overwhelmingly in favor of Satoshi’s scaling plan.
The “Healthy Fee Market” is Already Unhealthy
Even IF a centrally planned fee market was a good idea right now, it is being managed poorly. A “healthy” fee market should strive to provide adequate fee revenue while at the same time provide a good user experience and promote growth of the network and user base.
While miner revenue is certainly adequate, the user experience is severely degraded because of slow confirmations and high fees, and this is definitely not attractive or conducive to growing the user base.
If keeping the blocksize at 1mb was an experiment to see how the fee market would develop, it has already played out its usefulness. To keep fees at a level competitive with other coins, supply must catch up with demand (we must raise the blocksize) . But these developers seem to have no interest in doing so. They would rather carry on with their agenda than serve the users.
What About Bitcoin As a Store-of-Value or as “Digital Gold”?
The great thing about Bitcoin is that it can be both a cash-like payment system and a gold-like store of value. These two aspects enhance each other.
Exposed to the propaganda that Bitcoin can’t scale as electronic cash, some users have said “that’s ok. I’m fine with Bitcoin being digital gold only”. The problem with this thinking is that Bitcoin has competition.
If another coin is useful to store value AND to transact cheaply with, it severely undermines Bitcon’s appeal to investors. At the same time, it greatly dampens demand for actual usage.
Sure, its possible that Bitcoin could survive in some form as digital gold, but it would be at a huge disadvantage.
Small Blocks Destroy Miner Revenue
At first glance, the idea that smaller blocks are bad for mining revenue may appear incorrect, since fee rates have recently exploded based on the demand of Bitcoin transactions outpacing the supply of space in the blocks.
However, this trend cannot continue for long, since users will only pay so much. At the same time, new users and new demand are being shut out from the ecosystem.
To use an analogy: Who makes more money — the farmer in town “A” selling milk from one cow? Or the farmer in town “B” selling milk from 8 cows? Townspeople in “A” might pay more per bottle, but they’ll only pay so much for it. They will start drinking something else, drink milk less often, or import their milk from another town.
Bitcoin miners simply cannot meet the demands of users at fees they are willing to reasonably pay if blocks are restricted to 1mb… and users will find satisfactory alternatives which are quickly becoming abundant.
The situation will become even worse in the long run if Core is allowed to create “second layer solutions”, because those solutions will probably not be free, and they will further absorb the money that users are willing to spend in order to transact.
This will be bad for miners, and bad for network security. It will make bitcoin even less competitive, and money will leave the ecosystem.
Price Always Lags Behind Fundamentals
It is easy to look at a high Bitcoin price and think that everything is fine. If things were going so badly, why isn’t the price dropping?
But, price doesn’t always reflect the underlying fundamentals of a market in the short term.
In the long run, fundamentals always dictate the direction of the market. Daytraders are flat at the end of the day. Speculators come and go. In the end, it’s only the long term investors and the non-speculative demand that determines the price.
The fundamental value of Bitcoin primarily comes from its usefulness as a payment system. If that system ceases to be useful, Bitcoin will cease to be valuable.
Time To Act. Let’s Help Bitcoin Grow Again.
It’s always better to fix a problem BEFORE it gets too big. As they say, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.
If we wait until the Bitcoin price crashes because Bitcoin is unusable as a currency, it will be too late. We would have already lost serious momentum, marketshare, users, reputation, and merchants.
This is already happening, but there is still time to act.
I urge you: don’t be complacent.
You are the miner. You have the power. Start signaling for bigger blocks today, and let’s make sure Bitcoin stays #1.
Help Spread the Word
If you’re not a miner, but a concerned investor like myself, then please spread this message far and wide, and ask the miners and pools that you know for bigger blocks.
Addendum
This article is available in several foreign language formats:
Chinese Spanish Japanese German Russian
https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
submitted by german_bitcoiner to btc [link] [comments]

Tron: Rising Dragon in blockchain

Have you heard anything about Alibaba, Jack Ma, Tim Draper, Ripple, JP Morgan? ..
Why am I asking this? Recently I discovered an interesting blockchain project from China. Since I have just returned from China, where I promoted innovative technologies, I was amazed by the scale of the changes taking place in the country and now my focus is primarily on this market.
So, the project is called Tron (www.tronlab.com) and it has an ambitious goal that can not be described in two words. I'll try to list:
1) to replace game currencies with the project's crypto currency - Tronix (TRX). Unlike gaming currencies, this currency will be "real", it has real market value. What is the advantage? According to the idea, all projects connected to the Tron ecosystem will use the common currency Tronix or tokens based on the Tron protocol, which can be freely exchanged for Tronix (TRX). This will allow you to freely move assets between different games and applications.
Imagine, you played in Call of Duty, bought there weapons, then some amount left. Later you decide to play Fifa 201x. Move the existing TRX from Call of Duty to Fifa and buy Messi ;) Then go to the social network and buy a virtual gift to someone for the same TRX, open the online cinema and pay for the movie... And all this quickly, safely, conveniently.
2) integrate the TRX crypto currency into the online entertainment industry, which includes not only games, but also social networks, dating sites, etc. This will allow you to enter the premium group, vote for your favorite entries, present virtual gifts. And these are not just plans, but a working model. The first application, which integrates the TRX crypto currency, is Peiwo with an audience of 10 million users. For comparison, according to the evaluation of experts there are about 20 million Bitcoin owners in the world.
3) use its own mainnet blockchain and protocol for the online entertainment industry. At the moment, the TRX crypto currency is a token on the ERC20 protocol. What will it give? Companies will be able to conduct ICO on the basis of the Tron platform and protocol, which will lead to an increase in the value of TRX's internal crypto currency. One of the main disadvantages of Ethereum is the lack of a hard cap, that is why the system requires constant external funding to maintain the value of the ETH crypto currency. At the same time, the TRX has the same advantages as the ETH but has a hard cap of 100 000 000 000 TRX, with a circulation supply of 65 000 000 000. Many investors in crypto-currencies are concerned about such high circulation supply, but this has its advantages. First, the online games market alone exceeds 100 billion dollars. And this is only a small part of the online entertainment market. For example, in China I was surprised to see how pretty Chinese woman earned more than $ 50 in the form of tips just for eating her dinner on the air in the video-streaming app... And gamers who demonstrate in real time how to play DOTa earn several thousand dollars per month.
Thus, such a circulation supply even with the current development of online entertainment will quickly disperse and there will soon be an increased demand for TRX, which will lead to a steady increase in the price of TRX. For example, at the time of writing, TRX costs about $ 0.0024 (0.0000082ETH). If each user of the Peiwo application purchases 6500 TRX (which is only $ 15.6), then there will already be a deficit of tokens. But most importantly, among investors there are such people as Binshen Tang, the owner of the game Clash of Kings with an audience of 40 000 000 people.
Secondly, there are rumors that the Chinese authorities are considering the prohibition of buying and selling the fractions of cryptocurrencies, so you can not buy 0.5 BTC, but only 1, 2 ... BTC to limit the circulation of crypto-currencies. Such circulation supply of TRX will allow free trade on exchanges with these restrictions. In addition, it will allow you to carry out micropayments, such as watching a few minutes of a movie and pay some cents in TRX.
4) create a decentralized data warehouse based on p2p technologies. This means that the content will be the property of authors, not for example of such services as Facebook, Youtube or Google. In other words, users will pay to the authors directly. To date, the authors receive small earnings from the sale of advertising by these services. In addition, it will ensure the constant availability, permanence and reliability of the information, as it will be stored in the blockchain.
My experience of work with innovative technologies showed that the most important thing in the success of the project is his team. And with this, Tron is all right.
CEO of Tron Foundation is Justin Sun, the former representative of Bitcoin settlement platform Ripple in China. Ripple is now the third cryptocurrency by market cap after Bitcoin and Ethereum. It is used for transactions between banks, like SWIFT.
He was awarded by the next titles:
He founded Peiwo, an app aspiring to become China's Snapchat.
Justin Sun was the student of Jack Ma (Alibaba) at Hupan University. Now he is in the Tim Draper’s University.
Recently to a team of more than 60 people, including experts in p2p and blockchain technologies, joined the senior expert Lucien Chen from Alibaba and Tencent (Wechat app).
So, what about investors? Among them are:
Separately, it should be noted that Justin Sun is a protégé of Jack Ma and teaches a course about blockchain technology at his university. In addition, Jack Ma in his recent interview noted that in the future the society should be healthy and happy. Entertainment brings happiness, so it will be part of Alibaba's business.
There are also rumors that Tim Draper invested in Tron. Tim Draper was one of the first to invest in Tesla, Skype, Baidu (Chinese Google).
Lately Justin Sun tweeted that Fund that supported Ripple and some Hedge Funds invested in Tron Foundation.
And some background information.
ICO from Tron passed in several stages from the second half of August to the beginning of September. The price of 1 TRX during the ICO period was 0.00000488 ETH.
A few interesting facts about the ICO Tron. The stage that was held at the Binance exchange was successfully completed in 39 seconds!!! This heated the interest of investors and at the next stage, which was conducted on another site, the desire of investors to get tokens as quickly as possible led to a system’s crash, such a powerful was "ddos attack". In total, according to preliminary estimates, during the ICO about $ 60 million was raised.
Total supply of TRX is 100 000 000 000, circulation supply is 65 000 000 000. The number of decimals is 6. By coin market cap at present TRX is between the 30th and 40th place among all cryptocurrencies.
At the time of writing, TRX traded on the exchanges HitBTC, Liqui, Qryptos, EtherDelta. Some more exchanges on the way, one of which is Korean and another is Australian coolcoin.com. To see TRX in Etherdelta you have to choose to Add custom token and fill the next data:
Address: 0xf230b790E05390FC8295F4d3F60332c93Bed42e2
Token Symbol: TRX
Decimals: 6
And the most pleasant thing is, until October 30, 2017, you can still buy TRX to get a free 10% airdrop after this date.
Links:
1) twitter.com/justinsuntron
2) https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogeraitken/2017/08/12/could-this-millennial-crypto-tech-visionary-be-the-next-jack-ma/#77315aa87064
submitted by golpan to Tronix [link] [comments]

Read: An open letter to bitcoin miner

https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
Dear Bitcoin Miner,
My name is Jonald, and I am a Bitcoin investor.
I bought my first Bitcoins in 2013 and have been active on the Bitcointalk forum since March, 2014. I’m also a small business owner that actually uses Bitcoin for
Since Bitcoin investors and miners need each other to succeed, I wanted to take a minute to reach out to you, and send a sincere message from a “real Bitcoiner”. I’ll cut right to the chase:
I’m concerned. I believe we urgently need to find a scaling solution, and I believe the best solution is to increase the blocksize.
At least, hear me out.
Why Should You Listen to Me?
There’s a huge amount of misinformation, dishonesty, and political agendas attached to the Great Scaling Debate. The situation is serious and there’s a lot at stake here.
I am not beholden to any special interests. No one is paying me to write this. I am not a contributor to any Bitcoin projects, but I am quite familiar with the scaling topic because I’ve been following it for some time now, and I am knowledgeable enough to clearly understand the technical details.
I’ve heard all the arguments from every side of the debate, and I want to give you my honest, unbiased, unfiltered understanding of the situation.
Let’s Start At the Beginning
In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published a paper titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Everybody knows this, but the exact title needs to be repeated because today, even the most basic facets of Bitcoin are being challenged. Should Bitcoin really be “cash” or instead “digital gold”? And if we follow Satoshi’s plan, is it really peer to peer?
These questions come not so much from open-minded inquiry, but rather from a biased agenda. This would have been inconceivable a few years ago, but now things have become so political, that certain people even want to re-write the Bitcoin whitepaper.
(Attempting to re-write history has always been a favorite tactic of tyrannical elites.)
Satoshi’s Vision to Scale Bitcoin
Regardless of “which side” of the scaling debate you are on, it should not be contested that Satoshi always planned for and advocated for simple, on-chain scaling.
When asked how Bitcoin would scale to Visa-like levels, he said:
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
Source
Disturbingly, this simple quote from Satoshi was moderated (deleted) from the bitcoin reddit page. I’ll revisit the censorship issue in a moment.
Another important fact is that the current blocksize limit of 1mb was intended to be a temporary measure. This was something ‘everyone’ knew before the debate became politicized.
One of the earliest code reviewers, Ray Dillinger, explained that he, Hal Finey, and Satoshi all agreed the limit was to be temporary.
Satoshi also provided the means to raise the limit with his famous quote:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
Here is one more explanation from Satoshi, in an email to Mike Hearn, about why Bitcoin never hits a scaling ceiling.
Sure, Satoshi isn’t God. The point isn’t to appeal to his authority, but simply to remember that Bitcoin always had a scaling plan in place from the beginning.
…But the “Core Devs” Had Other Ideas.
The history of the current crop of Bitcoin Core developers has been already summarized and described elsewhere.
Explanations have been given for the unproductive scaling conferences, the broken Hong Kong agreements, and so on, but it should be extremely clear to everyone, based on years of their behavior (and even their own words), that the Core group does not want to scale Bitcoin with a simple blocksize increase.
In fact, they (and their supporters) have done everything in their power to prevent this, including engaging in massive censorship.
Their primary arguments are as follows:
It is problematic to raise the limit because it requires a hard fork, which is difficult to coordinate.Bitcoin nodes should be as inexpensive to run as possible, otherwise the decentralization of Bitcoin will be threatened.Without a constraint on the blocksize, Bitcoin won’t be secure once subsidies (block rewards) decline.
None of These Arguments Have Sufficient Merit to Forestall a Blocksize Increase
I am not saying the arguments are entirely without merit. Few things in life are ever 100% black-and-white. But we have to weigh the merits of these positions against the alternatives, and against other factors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Let’s take one at a time:
The “Hard Forks Are Dangerous” Myth
This was a prominent talking point in 2014–2015. However, the truth is that hard forks (HF) are not necessarily dangerous, especially if they occur with a clear majority of hashing power supporting the upgraded consensus rules.
The previous group of developers, including Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, and Mike Hearn, all supported upgrading Bitcoin with hard forks.
Initially, the discussion was whether the new maximum blocksize would be 2MB, 4MB, or 8MB. What begin as a minor difference of opinions between the miners somehow snowballed into a potent meme that consensus over scaling was going to be difficult.
The developers starting adding their own opinions about hard forks, creating additional friction. Yes, it is easy to claim there is contention when you are among those being contentious!
Core has no official leadership positions or governance structure. Because of this, it has been easy to justify inaction by simply concluding that “there’s no consensus”. And since they control the reference code repository, their refusal to raise the limit effects everyone else.
In practice, Core does have leaders. How else can it be explained that segwit was merged into the code (even if not activated) with practically no public debate whatsoever?
On a side note, prominent Core developers have denied that Core decides what code is published, and have denied there is any leadership. This is an example of the kind of constant misinformation that is being generated on a daily basis.
Back to the HF issue:
Many altcoins like Monero have regular hard forks. Coordination between major players in an ecosystem is not a big challenge if everyone is on the same page.
So far, I have not heard of a single problem that an altcoin had in performing a network upgrade via hard fork. So, there is evidence that they can be done safely.
In addition, if Core admits in their roadmap that eventually the blocksize will need to be increased, then why not do it now when it is badly needed? There is no logical reason why it would be more risky now rather than later.
Decentralization Myths
There are actually several myths surrounding the issue of decentralization. Let’s address the obvious ones:
The most ludicrous is the “all users should be running full nodes” idea.
As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’. Only mining nodes secure and extend Bitcon’s distributed ledger.
The white paper explains why most users do not need to run full nodes:
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he’s convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it’s timestamped in. He can’t check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it… …Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.
The idea that a lot of non-mining full nodes will make the network more decentralized (because they can make sure the miners are behaving) is erroneous, because an SPV client can already query the network’s nodes. Generally, there would only be a problem if a majority mining of nodes were colluding dishonestly, in which case Bitcoin would be already broken.
A more valid concern is that as nodes become more expensive, eventually only large corporations will run nodes. It is true that node costs will increase over time as the network grows. However, storage, bandwidth, and processing capabilities are also constantly increasing.
Just as important: By the time that capacity increases — lets say from 3 TPS (transactions per second) to 30 TPS — the network will be so large that it likely won’t be any less decentralized, even if it costs more to run a node.
At 3000 TPS, Bitcoin would be highly dominant globally, and making use of the millions of datacenters and servers available worldwide. This was always the plan.
The Alternative Vision of Bitcoin Holds Decentralization Risks That Are Worse
Many users are not aware of the decentralization risks that come with the small-node/small-block vision of Bitcoin. Core’s vision for Bitcoin is to transform the peer-to-peer cash system into some kind of settlement network.
While this would be a way to keep node costs minimal, most users would be economically forced off the main chain because they cannot compete with institutions for fees. They would then need to get permission from trusted third parties to transact.
In my opinion, this represents a much more dangerous form of centralization than bigger blocks and expensive nodes.
The Fee-Market Failure Myth
The third primary argument of the small-block philosophy is that eventually, block rewards will run out, and mining fees will be the sole source of funding security. They then claim that without limiting the supply of transaction space, miners will be hopelessly caught in a tragedy-of-the-commons price war, with the users paying rock bottom fees, leading to a collapse of commercial mining.
There’s a few problems with this argument.
First of all, there is a natural market for every good and service in the world. There have been many price wars, but nothing with high demand ever stops being produced.
The concern that the network hashrate will become too low is based on several assumptions and variables, including the number of daily transactions, the willingness of the users to wait for confirmations, the willingness of the users to pay small amounts, the behavior of the miners, the fee policies set by various wallets, the emergent consensus on acceptable fees by the mining community, and other factors, including what actually is “too low” of a network hashrate in the first place.
The hypothetical failure of the natural fee market depends on all these assumptions combining into an unfavorable outcome, as well as the inability of the system to adjust itself favorably using any of these factors.
But, by far the biggest reason that this argument is bunk, is that it will be decades before the majority of the subsidies actually disappear.
Pure Foolishness: Overplanning the Future While Ignoring Urgent Issues Today
Why implement a plan that might help Bitcoin in 20–30 years, if it requires you to damage the user experience and erode the adoption and network effect of Bitcoin, today?
In the case of Bitcoin, it’s completely unnecessary to plan ahead that far, and the destructive consequences are already being seen.
This is the biggest reason why Core’s position should be considered indefensible. Even if their arguments have merit, it is more important to keep Bitcoin healthy right now, stay competitive, and keep the user base growing than to prevent the problems that may or may not happen later.
Even worse, those prevention plans work in direct opposition to the short term goals!
It is no less insane than demanding a bedridden hospital patient, badly in need of rest, to immediately go outside and start running laps because “exercise will help you live longer”.
What About Segwit?
It is my understanding that at “the Hong Kong meeting”, the miners agreed to Segwit PLUS a hardfork blocksize increase because they didn’t trust the Core team enough to offer satisfactory scaling in a timely manner.
I think their decision was smart. Core cannot be trusted. However, if Core changed their mind today, and agreed to the 2MB+Segwit, I would support that as a compromise to break the impasse.
They seem to be unwilling to do this.
Since miners are unwilling to accept segwit on its own, and since Core will not compromise, the only logical alternative is bigger blocks, which is the best option regardless.
What Core Wants
You may be wondering: How is it possible for people as intelligent as the Bitcoin Core developers to fail to see the obvious mistakes in their thinking?
American author Upton Sinclair’s famous quote comes to mind:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
The Core team and their supporters want to change Bitcoin into a settlement network. They will deny this, but in my opinion, all of their actions point to this logical conclusion.
This is why they are against on chain scaling, and why segwit offers as little of it as possible while supporting their “HF are bad” narrative.
Additionally, I believe they also want to control public opinion by employing key individuals, by their associates and moderation policies on various platforms, and with an army of trolls.
They also intimidate and punish businesses that don’t fall in line. For example, coinbase.com was delisted from bitcoin.org for supporting Bitcoin XT instead of the Core client.
Despite these shenanigans, companies do support bigger blocks and on-chain scaling.
Most importantly, they want to scare you, the miner, into believing that the community doesn’t really want big blocks and if that if you mine big blocks, you’ll be forked off to a worthless coin and left with worthless ASICs.
Do not let them intimidate you.
What the Users Want
Most users just want a Bitcoin that works. They do not want slow confirmation and high fees. Most Bitcoiners that use bitcoin frequently understand the issues and support bigger blocks.
Despite all the trolling and propaganda, users controlling actual coins vote overwhelmingly in favor of Satoshi’s scaling plan.
The “Healthy Fee Market” is Already Unhealthy
Even IF a centrally planned fee market was a good idea right now, it is being managed poorly. A “healthy” fee market should strive to provide adequate fee revenue while at the same time provide a good user experience and promote growth of the network and user base.
While miner revenue is certainly adequate, the user experience is severely degraded because of slow confirmations and high fees, and this is definitely not attractive or conducive to growing the user base.
If keeping the blocksize at 1mb was an experiment to see how the fee market would develop, it has already played out its usefulness. To keep fees at a level competitive with other coins, supply must catch up with demand (we must raise the blocksize) . But these developers seem to have no interest in doing so. They would rather carry on with their agenda than serve the users.
What About Bitcoin As a Store-of-Value or as “Digital Gold”?
The great thing about Bitcoin is that it can be both a cash-like payment system and a gold-like store of value. These two aspects enhance each other.
Exposed to the propaganda that Bitcoin can’t scale as electronic cash, some users have said “that’s ok. I’m fine with Bitcoin being digital gold only”. The problem with this thinking is that Bitcoin has competition.
If another coin is useful to store value AND to transact cheaply with, it severely undermines Bitcon’s appeal to investors. At the same time, it greatly dampens demand for actual usage.
Sure, its possible that Bitcoin could survive in some form as digital gold, but it would be at a huge disadvantage.
Small Blocks Destroy Miner Revenue
At first glance, the idea that smaller blocks are bad for mining revenue may appear incorrect, since fee rates have recently exploded based on the demand of Bitcoin transactions outpacing the supply of space in the blocks.
However, this trend cannot continue for long, since users will only pay so much. At the same time, new users and new demand are being shut out from the ecosystem.
To use an analogy: Who makes more money — the farmer in town “A” selling milk from one cow? Or the farmer in town “B” selling milk from 8 cows? Townspeople in “A” might pay more per bottle, but they’ll only pay so much for it. They will start drinking something else, drink milk less often, or import their milk from another town.
Bitcoin miners simply cannot meet the demands of users at fees they are willing to reasonably pay if blocks are restricted to 1mb… and users will find satisfactory alternatives which are quickly becoming abundant.
The situation will become even worse in the long run if Core is allowed to create “second layer solutions”, because those solutions will probably not be free, and they will further absorb the money that users are willing to spend in order to transact.
This will be bad for miners, and bad for network security. It will make bitcoin even less competitive, and money will leave the ecosystem.
Price Always Lags Behind Fundamentals
It is easy to look at a high Bitcoin price and think that everything is fine. If things were going so badly, why isn’t the price dropping?
But, price doesn’t always reflect the underlying fundamentals of a market in the short term.
In the long run, fundamentals always dictate the direction of the market. Daytraders are flat at the end of the day. Speculators come and go. In the end, it’s only the long term investors and the non-speculative demand that determines the price.
The fundamental value of Bitcoin primarily comes from its usefulness as a payment system. If that system ceases to be useful, Bitcoin will cease to be valuable.
Time To Act. Let’s Help Bitcoin Grow Again.
It’s always better to fix a problem BEFORE it gets too big. As they say, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.
If we wait until the Bitcoin price crashes because Bitcoin is unusable as a currency, it will be too late. We would have already lost serious momentum, marketshare, users, reputation, and merchants.
This is already happening, but there is still time to act.
I urge you: don’t be complacent.
You are the miner. You have the power. Start signaling for bigger blocks today, and let’s make sure Bitcoin stays #1.
Help Spread the Word
If you’re not a miner, but a concerned investor like myself, then please spread this message far and wide, and ask the miners and pools that you know for bigger blocks.
Addendum
This article is available in several foreign language formats:
Chinese Spanish Japanese German Russian
https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
submitted by german_bitcoiner to bitcoin_offical [link] [comments]

1400 Mh/s Ethereum Linzhi ASIC Miner Now Starting Production Bitcoin Avalon ASIC. Bitcoin Miner BitcoinOrama - KnCMiner - The World's First 28 ASIC Chip How to mine Bitcoins with ASIC Miners ASIC Miner Scrypt GAWMiner Fury Review 1.3 Mhash/s

Dec 16 2015 Warranty & Support ... YLX Antminer V9~4TH/s @ 0.253W/GH Bitcoin Cash ASIC Miner 3.8 out of 5 stars 35. CDN$117.00. Usually ships within 4 to 5 days. SafePal S1 Cryptocurrency Hardware Wallet, Bitcoin Wallet, Wireless Cold Storage for Multi-Cryptocurrency, Internet Isolated & 100% Offline, Securely Stores Private Keys, Seeds & Digital Assets… 4.1 out of 5 stars 121. CDN$55.99 ... Hello Select your address Best Sellers Today's Deals New Releases Electronics Books Customer Service Gift Ideas Home Computers Gift Cards Sell BITCOIN USB ASIC MINER BTC NO RESERVE AUCTION STARTS @ $0.99 CENTS ---CHANCE TO MAKE YOUR OWN BTC! Trust me, this will be the cheapest, easiest, and fastest way to start mining Bitcoin. Using Computer Graphic Cards (GPU's) is expensive and requires computer know how, and you need serious know how and even more serious money to get into the other devices out there known as FPGA's and the new ... Following the recent market appreciation of Bitcoin, Ethereum has experienced a rebound in value surpassing USD 500. There is one word that describes the movements of cryptocurrency right now: bullish. Ethereum has experienced a 22.24% gain in just the past 24 hours, moving from USD 450 to USD 500 in quick succession.This means that Ethereum has currently gained 3.42% over Bitcoin. Buy AntMiner S5 ~1155Gh/s @ 0.51W/Gh 28nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner online at low price in India on Amazon.in. Check out AntMiner S5 ~1155Gh/s @ 0.51W/Gh 28nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner reviews, ratings, features, specifications and browse more Antminer products online at best prices on Amazon.in.

[index] [7875] [27977] [35486] [19592] [30615] [2341] [26502] [13619] [22047] [4460]

1400 Mh/s Ethereum Linzhi ASIC Miner Now Starting Production

Thanks to Vincent for making this video possible JackkTutorials shows you how to mine Bitcoins using ASIC Miners Quick Links ----- Check out so... Very powerfull bitcoin mining. 1TH/s This video take from channel : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoI6zHyEimlmywLJWt8qNFA _____... GPU vs A10 ASIC Mining Ethereum Comparison - Duration: 7 ... Live Hack at CeBIT Global Conferences 2015 - Duration: 1:11:56. cebitchannel Recommended for you. 1:11:56. Has Crypto Mining MADE You ... Avalon Project Leading Bitcoin Mining Solution _____ See also bitcoin smartcard ledger wallet nano: https://ww... In this video I am reviewing the GAWMiner Asic Scrypt Fury. This video is also made to show how to set up any asic scrypt miner. This video is also made to show how to set up any asic scrypt miner.

#