Bitcoin Mining: Lohnt sich das Mining von Bitcoin noch ...

Multi Mining

This subreddit is dedicated to profit based coin mining pools.
[link]

Nutcoin

Nutcoin - The Anti Scarcity Stabilized Currency
[link]

Gridcoin 5.0.0.0-Mandatory "Fern" Release

https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research/releases/tag/5.0.0.0
Finally! After over ten months of development and testing, "Fern" has arrived! This is a whopper. 240 pull requests merged. Essentially a complete rewrite that was started with the scraper (the "neural net" rewrite) in "Denise" has now been completed. Practically the ENTIRE Gridcoin specific codebase resting on top of the vanilla Bitcoin/Peercoin/Blackcoin vanilla PoS code has been rewritten. This removes the team requirement at last (see below), although there are many other important improvements besides that.
Fern was a monumental undertaking. We had to encode all of the old rules active for the v10 block protocol in new code and ensure that the new code was 100% compatible. This had to be done in such a way as to clear out all of the old spaghetti and ring-fence it with tightly controlled class implementations. We then wrote an entirely new, simplified ruleset for research rewards and reengineered contracts (which includes beacon management, polls, and voting) using properly classed code. The fundamentals of Gridcoin with this release are now on a very sound and maintainable footing, and the developers believe the codebase as updated here will serve as the fundamental basis for Gridcoin's future roadmap.
We have been testing this for MONTHS on testnet in various stages. The v10 (legacy) compatibility code has been running on testnet continuously as it was developed to ensure compatibility with existing nodes. During the last few months, we have done two private testnet forks and then the full public testnet testing for v11 code (the new protocol which is what Fern implements). The developers have also been running non-staking "sentinel" nodes on mainnet with this code to verify that the consensus rules are problem-free for the legacy compatibility code on the broader mainnet. We believe this amount of testing is going to result in a smooth rollout.
Given the amount of changes in Fern, I am presenting TWO changelogs below. One is high level, which summarizes the most significant changes in the protocol. The second changelog is the detailed one in the usual format, and gives you an inkling of the size of this release.

Highlights

Protocol

Note that the protocol changes will not become active until we cross the hard-fork transition height to v11, which has been set at 2053000. Given current average block spacing, this should happen around October 4, about one month from now.
Note that to get all of the beacons in the network on the new protocol, we are requiring ALL beacons to be validated. A two week (14 day) grace period is provided by the code, starting at the time of the transition height, for people currently holding a beacon to validate the beacon and prevent it from expiring. That means that EVERY CRUNCHER must advertise and validate their beacon AFTER the v11 transition (around Oct 4th) and BEFORE October 18th (or more precisely, 14 days from the actual date of the v11 transition). If you do not advertise and validate your beacon by this time, your beacon will expire and you will stop earning research rewards until you advertise and validate a new beacon. This process has been made much easier by a brand new beacon "wizard" that helps manage beacon advertisements and renewals. Once a beacon has been validated and is a v11 protocol beacon, the normal 180 day expiration rules apply. Note, however, that the 180 day expiration on research rewards has been removed with the Fern update. This means that while your beacon might expire after 180 days, your earned research rewards will be retained and can be claimed by advertising a beacon with the same CPID and going through the validation process again. In other words, you do not lose any earned research rewards if you do not stake a block within 180 days and keep your beacon up-to-date.
The transition height is also when the team requirement will be relaxed for the network.

GUI

Besides the beacon wizard, there are a number of improvements to the GUI, including new UI transaction types (and icons) for staking the superblock, sidestake sends, beacon advertisement, voting, poll creation, and transactions with a message. The main screen has been revamped with a better summary section, and better status icons. Several changes under the hood have improved GUI performance. And finally, the diagnostics have been revamped.

Blockchain

The wallet sync speed has been DRASTICALLY improved. A decent machine with a good network connection should be able to sync the entire mainnet blockchain in less than 4 hours. A fast machine with a really fast network connection and a good SSD can do it in about 2.5 hours. One of our goals was to reduce or eliminate the reliance on snapshots for mainnet, and I think we have accomplished that goal with the new sync speed. We have also streamlined the in-memory structures for the blockchain which shaves some memory use.
There are so many goodies here it is hard to summarize them all.
I would like to thank all of the contributors to this release, but especially thank @cyrossignol, whose incredible contributions formed the backbone of this release. I would also like to pay special thanks to @barton2526, @caraka, and @Quezacoatl1, who tirelessly helped during the testing and polishing phase on testnet with testing and repeated builds for all architectures.
The developers are proud to present this release to the community and we believe this represents the starting point for a true renaissance for Gridcoin!

Summary Changelog

Accrual

Changed

Most significantly, nodes calculate research rewards directly from the magnitudes in EACH superblock between stakes instead of using a two- or three- point average based on a CPID's current magnitude and the magnitude for the CPID when it last staked. For those long-timers in the community, this has been referred to as "Superblock Windows," and was first done in proof-of-concept form by @denravonska.

Removed

Beacons

Added

Changed

Removed

Unaltered

As a reminder:

Superblocks

Added

Changed

Removed

Voting

Added

Changed

Removed

Detailed Changelog

[5.0.0.0] 2020-09-03, mandatory, "Fern"

Added

Changed

Removed

Fixed

submitted by jamescowens to gridcoin [link] [comments]

[ANN][ANDROID MINING][AIRDROP] NewEnglandcoin: Scrypt RandomSpike

New England
New England 6 States Songs: https://www.reddit.com/newengland/comments/er8wxd/new_england_6_states_songs/
NewEnglandcoin
Symbol: NENG
NewEnglandcoin is a clone of Bitcoin using scrypt as a proof-of-work algorithm with enhanced features to protect against 51% attack and decentralize on mining to allow diversified mining rigs across CPUs, GPUs, ASICs and Android phones.
Mining Algorithm: Scrypt with RandomSpike. RandomSpike is 3rd generation of Dynamic Difficulty (DynDiff) algorithm on top of scrypt.
1 minute block targets base difficulty reset: every 1440 blocks subsidy halves in 2.1m blocks (~ 2 to 4 years) 84,000,000,000 total maximum NENG 20000 NENG per block Pre-mine: 1% - reserved for dev fund ICO: None RPCPort: 6376 Port: 6377
NewEnglandcoin has dogecoin like supply at 84 billion maximum NENG. This huge supply insures that NENG is suitable for retail transactions and daily use. The inflation schedule of NengEnglandcoin is actually identical to that of Litecoin. Bitcoin and Litecoin are already proven to be great long term store of value. The Litecoin-like NENG inflation schedule will make NewEnglandcoin ideal for long term investment appreciation as the supply is limited and capped at a fixed number
Bitcoin Fork - Suitable for Home Hobbyists
NewEnglandcoin core wallet continues to maintain version tag of "Satoshi v0.8.7.5" because NewEnglandcoin is very much an exact clone of bitcoin plus some mining feature changes with DynDiff algorithm. NewEnglandcoin is very suitable as lite version of bitcoin for educational purpose on desktop mining, full node running and bitcoin programming using bitcoin-json APIs.
The NewEnglandcoin (NENG) mining algorithm original upgrade ideas were mainly designed for decentralization of mining rigs on scrypt, which is same algo as litecoin/dogecoin. The way it is going now is that NENG is very suitable for bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin hobbyists who can not , will not spend huge money to run noisy ASIC/GPU mining equipments, but still want to mine NENG at home with quiet simple CPU/GPU or with a cheap ASIC like FutureBit Moonlander 2 USB or Apollo pod on solo mining setup to obtain very decent profitable results. NENG allows bitcoin litecoin hobbyists to experience full node running, solo mining, CPU/GPU/ASIC for a fun experience at home at cheap cost without breaking bank on equipment or electricity.
MIT Free Course - 23 lectures about Bitcoin, Blockchain and Finance (Fall,2018)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63UUkfL0onkxF6MYgVa04Fn
CPU Minable Coin Because of dynamic difficulty algorithm on top of scrypt, NewEnglandcoin is CPU Minable. Users can easily set up full node for mining at Home PC or Mac using our dedicated cheetah software.
Research on the first forked 50 blocks on v1.2.0 core confirmed that ASIC/GPU miners mined 66% of 50 blocks, CPU miners mined the remaining 34%.
NENG v1.4.0 release enabled CPU mining inside android phones.
Youtube Video Tutorial
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOoPvAjzlE How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHnRJvJRzZg
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in macOS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7NLMeNSOQ
Decentralization and Community Driven NewEnglandcoin is a decentralized coin just like bitcoin. There is no boss on NewEnglandcoin. Nobody nor the dev owns NENG.
We know a coin is worth nothing if there is no backing from community. Therefore, we as dev do not intend to make decision on this coin solely by ourselves. It is our expectation that NewEnglandcoin community will make majority of decisions on direction of this coin from now on. We as dev merely view our-self as coin creater and technical support of this coin while providing NENG a permanent home at ShorelineCrypto Exchange.
Twitter Airdrop
Follow NENG twitter and receive 100,000 NENG on Twitter Airdrop to up to 1000 winners
Graphic Redesign Bounty
Top one award: 90.9 million NENG Top 10 Winners: 500,000 NENG / person Event Timing: March 25, 2019 - Present Event Address: NewEnglandcoin DISCORD at: https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Please complete above Twitter Bounty requirement first. Then follow Below Steps to qualify for the Bounty: (1) Required: submit your own designed NENG logo picture in gif, png jpg or any other common graphic file format into DISCORD "bounty-submission" board (2) Optional: submit a second graphic for logo or any other marketing purposes into "bounty-submission" board. (3) Complete below form.
Please limit your submission to no more than two total. Delete any wrongly submitted or undesired graphics in the board. Contact DISCORD u/honglu69#5911 or u/krypton#6139 if you have any issues.
Twitter Airdrop/Graphic Redesign bounty sign up: https://goo.gl/forms/L0vcwmVi8c76cR7m1
Milestones
Roadmap
NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/NENG_2020_Q3_report/NENG_2020_Q3_report.pdf
RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Hardfork Upgrade Proposal https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2020Q1_Report/Scrypt_RandomSpike_NENGv1.3.0_Hardfork_Proposal.pdf
NENG Security, Decentralization & Valuation
https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2019Q2_report/NENG_Security_Decentralization_Value.pdf
Whitepaper v1.0 https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/whitepaper_v1.0/NENG_WhitePaper.pdf
DISCORD https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Explorer
http://www.findblocks.com/exploreNENG http://86.100.49.209/exploreNENG http://nengexplorer.mooo.com:3001/
Step by step guide on how to setup an explorer: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/nengexplorer
Github https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin
Wallet
Android with UserLand App (arm64/armhf), Chromebook (x64/arm64/armhf): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.5
Linux Wallet (Ubuntu/Linux Mint, Debian/MX Linux, Arch/Manjaro, Fedora, openSUSE): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.3
MacOS Wallet (10.11 El Capitan or higher): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.2
Android with GNUroot on 32 bits old Phones (alpha release) wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0
Windows wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.3.0.1
addnode ip address for the wallet to sync faster, frequently updated conf file: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpumineblob/mastenewenglandcoin.conf-example
How to Sync Full Node Desktop Wallet https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/er6f0q/how_to_sync_full_node_desktop_wallet/
TWITTER https://twitter.com/newenglandcoin
REDDIT https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/
Cheetah CPU Miner Software https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpuminer
Solo Mining with GPU or ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52187727#msg52187727
How to Run Two Full Node in Same Desktop PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53581449#msg53581449
ASIC/GPU Mining Pools Warning to Big ASIC Miners Due to DynDiff Algo on top of Scrypt, solo mining is recommended for ASIC/GPU miners. Further more, even for mining pools, small mining pool will generate better performance than big NENG mining pool because of new algo v1.2.x post hard fork.
The set up configuration of NENG for scrypt pool mining is same as a typical normal scrypt coin. In other word, DynDiff on Scrypt algo is backward compatible with Scrypt algo. Because ASIC/GPU miners rely on CPU miners for smooth blockchain movement, checkout bottom of "Latest News" section for A WARNING to All ASIC miners before you decide to dump big ASIC hash rate into NENG mining.
(1) Original DynDiff Warning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708 (2) New Warning on RandomSpike Spike difficulty (244k) introduced in RandomSpike served as roadblocks to instant mining and provide security against 51% attack risk. However, this spike difficulty like a roadblock that makes big ASIC mining less profitable. In case of spike block to be mined, the spike difficulty immediately serve as base difficulty, which will block GPU/ASIC miners effectively and leave CPU cheetah solo miners dominating mining almost 100% until next base difficulty reset.
FindBlocks http://findblocks.com/
CRpool http://crpool.xyz/
Cminors' Pool http://newenglandcoin.cminors-pool.com/
SPOOL https://spools.online/
Exchange
📷
https://shorelinecrypto.com/
Features: anonymous sign up and trading. No restriction or limit on deposit or withdraw.
The trading pairs available: NewEnglandcoin (NENG) / Dogecoin (DOGE)
Trading commission: A round trip trading will incur 0.10% trading fees in average. Fees are paid only on buyer side. buy fee: 0.2% / sell fee: 0% Deposit fees: free for all coins Withdraw fees: ZERO per withdraw. Mining fees are appointed by each coin blockchain. To cover the blockchain mining fees, there is minimum balance per coin per account: * Dogecoin 2 DOGE * NewEnglandcoin 1 NENG
Latest News Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.5 Released for Android/Chromebook Upgrade with armhf, better hardware support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg55098029#msg55098029
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.4 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade / Chromebook Support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54977437#msg54977437
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.3 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54898540#msg54898540
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.2 Released for MacOS Upgrade with Catalina https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54839522#msg54839522
Jul 19, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.1 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54830333#msg54830333
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining, Ubuntu 20.04 support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54803639#msg54803639
Jul 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54777222#msg54777222
Jun 27, 2020 - Pre-Announce: NENG v1.4.0 Proposal for Mobile Miner Upgrade, Android Mining Start in July 2020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54694233#msg54694233
Jun 19, 2020 - Best Practice for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining mode https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54645726#msg54645726
Mar 15, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0.1 Released for better wallet syncing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54030923#msg54030923
Feb 23, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG Core v1.3.0 Relased, Hardfork on Mar 1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53900926#msg53900926
Feb 1, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike Proposal Published- NENG 1.3.0 Hardfork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53735458#msg53735458
Jan 15, 2020 - NewEnglandcoin Dev Team Expanded with New Kickoff https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53617358#msg53617358
Jan 12, 2020 - Explanation of Base Diff Reset and Effect of Supply https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/envmo1/explanation_of_base_diff_reset_and_effect_of/
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline_tradingbot version 1.0 is released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121953.msg53391184#msg53391184
Sept 1, 2019 - NewEnglandcoin (NENG) is Selected as Shoreline Tradingbot First Supported Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52331201#msg52331201
Aug 15, 2019 - Mining Update on Effect of Base Difficulty Reset, GPU vs ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52169572#msg52169572
Jul 7, 2019 - CPU Mining on macOS Mojave is supported under latest Cheetah_Cpuminer Release https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51745839#msg51745839
Jun 1, 2019 - NENG Fiat project is stopped by Square, Inc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51312291#msg51312291
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50714764#msg50714764
Apr 7, 2019 - Announcement of Fiat Project for all U.S. Residents & Mobile Miner Project Initiation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50506585#msg50506585
Apr 1, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50417196#msg50417196
Mar 27, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50332097#msg50332097
Mar 17, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50208194#msg50208194
Feb 26, 2019 - Community Project - NewEnglandcoin Graphic Redesign Bounty Initiated https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49931305#msg49931305
Feb 22, 2019 - Dev Policy on Checkpoints on NewEnglandcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49875242#msg49875242
Feb 20, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.1 Released to Secure the Hard Kork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49831059#msg49831059
Feb 11, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49685389#msg49685389
Jan 13, 2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner added support for CPU Mining on Mac https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49218760#msg49218760
Jan 12, 2019 - NENG Core v1.1.2 Released to support MacOS OSX Wallet https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49202088#msg49202088
Jan 2, 2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.1.0 is released for both Linux and Windows https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49004345#msg49004345
Dec 31, 2018 - Technical Whitepaper is Released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48990334#msg48990334
Dec 28, 2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.0.0 is released for Linux https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48935135#msg48935135
Update on Dec 14, 2018 - NENG Blockchain Stuck Issue https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48668375#msg48668375
Nov 27, 2018 - Exclusive for PC CPU Miners - How to Steal a Block from ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48258465#msg48258465
Nov 28, 2018 - How to CPU Mine a NENG block with window/linux PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48298311#msg48298311
Nov 29, 2018 - A Warning to ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708
Disclosure: Dev Team Came from ShorelineCrypto, a US based Informatics Service Business offering Fee for service for Coin Creation, Coin Exchange Listing, Blockchain Consulting, etc.
submitted by honglu69 to NewEnglandCoin [link] [comments]

Mining and Dogecoin - Some FAQs

Hey shibes,
I see a lot of posts about mining lately and questions about the core wallet and how to mine with it, so here are some facts!
Feel free to add information to that thread or correct me if I did any mistake.

You downloaded the core wallet

Great! After a decade it probably synced and now you are wondering how to get coins? Bad news: You don't get coins by running your wallet, even running it as a full node. Check what a full node is here.
Maybe you thought so, because you saw a very old screenshot of a wallet, like this (Version 1.2). This version had a "Dig" tab where you can enter your mining configuration. The current version doesn't have this anymore, probably because it doesn't make sense anymore.

You downloaded a GPU/CPU miner

Nice! You did it, even your antivirus system probably went postal and you started covering all your webcams... But here is the bad news again: Since people are using ASIC miners, you just can't compete with your CPU hardware anymore. Even with your more advanced GPU you will have a hard time. The hashrate is too high for a desktop PC to compete with them. The blocks should be mined every 1 minute (or so) and that's causing the difficulty to go up - and we are out... So definitly check what is your hashrate while you are mining, you would need about 1.5 MH/s to make 1 Doge in 24 hours!

Mining Doge

Let us start with a quote:
"Dogecoin Core 1.8 introduces AuxPoW from block 371,337. AuxPoW is a technology which enables miners to submit work done while mining other coins, as work on the Dogecoin block chain."
- langerhans
What does this mean? You could waste your hashrate only on the Dogecoin chain, probably find never a block, but when, you only receive about 10.000 Dogecoins, currently worth about $25. Or you could apply your hashrate to LTC and Doge (and probably even more) at the same time. Your change of solving the block (finding the nonce) is your hashrate divided by the hashrat in sum - and this is about the same for Doge and LTC. This means you will always want to submit your work to all chains available!

Mining solo versus pool

So let's face it - mining solo won't get you anywhere, so let's mine on a pool! If you have a really bad Hashrate, please consider that: Often you need about $1 or $2 worth of crypto to receive a payout (without fees). This means, you have to get there. With 100 MH/s on prohashing, it takes about 6 days, running 24/7 to get to that threshold. Now you can do the math... 1 MH/s = 1000 KH/s, if you are below 1 MH/s, you probably won't have fun.

Buying an ASIC

You found an old BTC USB-miner with 24 GH/s (1 GH/s = 1000 MH/s) for $80 bucks - next stop lambo!? Sorry, bad news again, this hashrate is for SHA-256! If you want to mine LTC/Doge you will need a miner using scrypt with quite lower numbers on the hashrate per second, so don't fall for that. Often when you have a big miner (= also loud), you get more Hashrate per $ spent on the miner, but most will still run on a operational loss, because the electricity is too expensive and the miners will be outdated soon again. Leading me to my next point...

Making profit

You won't make money running your miner. Just do the math: What if you would have bougth a miner 1 year ago? Substract costs for electricity and then compare to: What if you just have bought coins. In most cases you would have a greater profit by just buying coins, maybe even with a "stable" coin like Doges.

Cloud Mining

Okay, this was a lot of text and you are still on the hook? Maybe you are desperated enough to invest in some cloud mining contract... But this isn't a good idea either, because most of such contracts are scams based on a ponzi scheme. You often can spot them easy, because they guarantee way to high profits, or they fake payouts that never happened, etc.
Just a thought: If someone in a subway says to you: Give me $1 and lets meet in one year, right here and I give you $54,211,841, you wouldn't trust him and if some mining contract says they will give you 5% a day it is basically the same.
Also rember the merged mining part. Nobody would offer you to mine Doges, they would offer you to buy a hashrate for scrypt that will apply on multiple chains.

Alternative coins

Maybe try to mine a coin where you don't have ASICs yet, like Monero and exchange them to Doge. If somebody already tried this - feel free to add your thoughts!

Folding at Home (Doge)

Some people say folding at home (FAH - https://www.dogecoinfah.com/) still the best. I just installed the tool and it says I would make 69.852 points a day, running on medium power what equates to 8 Doges. It is easy, it was fun, but it isn't much.
Thanks for reading
_nformant
submitted by _nformant to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like. This thread itself had roughly 14-17 upvotes. Now 5-8. Proof that I'm being vote brigaded is that I have nearly 3 times the donuts in Ethtrader than I have comment and post karma, COMBINED! This is despite the fact that I rarely post there. Which shows that most people appreciate my posts, but the monero community wants to hide that and control the narrative!
If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
They refuse to allow discussions to take place naturally because their coin is not very good. Its very slow, you can only spend your funds once every 20 minutes (!!!), and its privacy was severely broken in the past, Monero Privacy Protections Aren't as Strong as They Seem | WIRED , and they are using intimidation and breaking the rules of reddit by massively downvoting my posts and comments to hide this information, like bullies and thugs would do.
Guess what guys? I don't care! TAKE MY COMMENT KARMA DOWN TO 0!! THAT JUST PROVES THAT YOU'RE LOSERS WHO CAN'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE MUST RELY ON CENSORSHIP AND COERCION. I WILL NEVER STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR COIN AND YOUR TOXIC COMMUNITY, SO DO YOUR WORST!
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to ethfinance [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like.
This thread itself had roughly 8-10 upvotes. Now 0-1. If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
They refuse to allow discussions to take place naturally because their coin is not very good. Its very slow, you can only spend your funds once every 20 minutes (!!!), and its privacy was severely broken in the past, Monero Privacy Protections Aren't as Strong as They Seem | WIRED , and they are using intimidation and breaking the rules of reddit by massively downvoting my posts and comments to hide this information, like bullies and thugs would do.
Guess what guys? I don't care! TAKE MY COMMENT KARMA DOWN TO 0!! THAT JUST PROVES THAT YOU'RE LOSERS WHO CAN'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE MUST RELY ON CENSORSHIP AND COERCION. I WILL NEVER STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR COIN AND YOUR TOXIC COMMUNITY, SO DO YOUR WORST!
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like.
This thread itself had roughly 5 upvotes before. Now 0-1. If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
Another proof that I'm being vote brigaded is that I have nearly 3 times more donuts (6,700) in Ethtrader than I have comment and post karma, COMBINED! 'Donuts' are like a separate karma system just for eth where you are rewarded by your participation level. This number comes about despite the fact that I rarely post here. Which shows that most people actually do appreciate my posts, but the monero community wants to hide that and control the narrative!
They refuse to allow discussions to take place naturally because their coin is not very good. Its very slow, you can only spend your funds once every 20 minutes (!!!), and its privacy was severely broken in the past, Monero Privacy Protections Aren't as Strong as They Seem | WIRED , and they are using intimidation and breaking the rules of reddit by massively downvoting my posts and comments to hide this information, like bullies and thugs would do.
Guess what guys? I don't care! TAKE MY COMMENT KARMA DOWN TO 0!! THAT JUST PROVES THAT YOU'RE LOSERS WHO CAN'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE MUST RELY ON CENSORSHIP AND COERCION. I WILL NEVER STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR COIN AND YOUR TOXIC COMMUNITY, SO DO YOUR WORST!
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to btc [link] [comments]

AES Crypt security audit (1 serious issue found)

I just learned about privacytools.io this afternoon and started poking around at some of the software I hadn't heard of before. One in particular caught my eye: AES Crypt. It's listed as "Worth Mentioning" under "File Encryption". I found some minor issues and one major issue.
I only looked at the Linux version, written in C. However, most of the issues I highlight are relevant to all versions since it's part of the file format.
Update: So apparently the major issue has been known since 2012, but they've decided not to address it. Therefore Privacy Tools should not be recommending this software.
Update 2: AES Crypt was removed

The Bad News

Let's start with the most serious issue. An unauthenticated field in encrypted files is trusted, and this allows a man-in-the-middle to manipulate the plaintext without being detected. I wrote up a little example scenario in my bug report, along with proof of concept you can try for yourself:
GitHub issue #23: Unauthenticated header data is trusted, making the plaintext malleable
Instead of using a proper padding scheme, the size of the final block is stored in a last_block_size field in the file. Despite being placed between the encrypted message and the authentication tag, it's not authenticated. This is a huge no-no and must be fixed before it would be reasonable to recommend this tool to anyone for any use.
It's not a problem with the code, but the file format itself. Therefore all versions are affected, and the fix will require a new file format (version 3?).
It could be fixed by including the last_block_size field when authenticating, but it would be much better to drop this field and use a standard padding scheme like PKCS#5. As a really minor bonus, this would also hide the exact file length from snoops.

Weak key derivation

The encryption key is derived from the user-entered password by iterating SHA-256 8,192 times. It's not a showstopper, but this is very weak, and puts a lot more stress on choosing good passphrases. It is salted with the IV, which helps protect against some kinds of attacks.
This is part of the file format since the passphrase is usable between implementations, so all versions are affected.
Recommendation: Switch to a memory-hard KDF like Argon2 or scrypt. Less good option: allow the number of iterations to be configured, or just use more iterations. It's very easy to parallelize SHA-256, especially thanks to all those hardware implementations designed for mining Bitcoin.

More complicated than necessary

The passphrase is used to encrypt yet another key, which is used to encrypt the message. This offers no additional protection, and it's not used for anything. The only reason you might want something like this is so that you can encrypt the file with more than one passphrase, allowing it to be decrypted with any individual passphrase. But that's not a feature of AES Crypt.
Worse, it actually weakens the format since it makes brute force attacks on the passphrase faster. No need to check guesses against the entire ciphertext, just the fixed-length key!
This is part of the file format so all versions are affected.
Recommendation: Get rid of this. It's not a big deal, it's just pointless.

Some cargo culting

Entropy read from the operating system (/dev/urandom, etc.) isn't entirely trusted for some reason, so it's hashed along with the current time and PID. That's not sufficient to accomplish anything useful. It doesn't hurt, but it's a strange thing to do.
This isn't part of the file format, so it's just a quirk of the Linux and Windows implementations.

Ambiguous licensing

I am unable to find any license governing the C Linux and Windows versions of the software. There's no LICENSE file, and the individual sources are not consistently marked. The AES implementation is embedded and marked as GPL, which suggests the entire source is GPL.
So at the moment a conservative take would be that AES Crypt is source available but not necessarily Open Source.

Perhaps some code quality issues?

There were a couple cases of undefined behavior. I submitted a patch to fix these. (Update: This patch was never accepted, and so AES Crypt still invokes undefined behavior each time it's used to encrypt data, making all its output suspect.)
The very second time I ran the aescrypt command after compiling it, I got a segmentation fault, which was pretty alarming. I submitted a patch to fix this, too (Update: also never accepted), but considering how quickly I found this, I wonder how many more issues are lingering. File name handling is a mess. Though, as a command line program, it's probably reasonable to consider the command line arguments trusted inputs.
I looked mostly at the code that does encryption and decryption, and that part is pretty solid. It does thorough error checking and is even careful to clean up before bailing out.

Variable-time comparison

The memcmp() function is used to verify the authentication tag, which takes a variable amount of time to complete. It's not significant for a command line application like this since it's never going to behave as an oracle for an attacker, but something to notice, especially if the code is reused in, say, a server implementation of AES Crypt.

The Good News

It's not well documented, but the encryption scheme is AES-256 in CBC mode, authenticated with encrypt-then-authenticate HMAC-SHA256. Except for the lack of padding, it's all solid stuff. The IV is generated and used properly, and the (pointless) intermediate key is also generated properly (C version, Linux and Windows).
The program makes consistent and reasonable attempts to sanitize memory holding sensitive information. Well done!
As I noted, the actual file parsing and crypto routines are, for the most part, robust with error checking and input validation. (Though, I did notice the upper four bits of last_block_size is allowed to hold any value with no impact on the result.)
If the padding issue is fixed with a new file format, then it's reasonable to recommend this tool with the caveat that the KDF is weak and so your passphrases must be especially strong.
Disclaimer: I wrote and maintain a similar open source tool called Enchive which is perhaps a "competitor" in this area.
submitted by skeeto to privacytoolsIO [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like.
If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like.
Proof that I'm being vote brigaded is that I have nearly 3 times more donuts in Ethtrader than I have comment and post karma, COMBINED! This is despite the fact that I rarely post here. Which shows that most people actually do appreciate my posts, but the monero community wants to hide that and control the narrative!
This thread itself had roughly 10-12 upvotes before. Now 2-4. If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Coinbase clears up misconceptions about ASICs, ASIC-resistance and how Proof of work works in new blogpost

Edit this post and my other cross-posts here are being heavily downvote brigaded by the very aggressive and forceful monero community. In the last couple days alone I have lost more than 100 comment karma, from over 1100 to 948, to these aggressive individuals seeking to manipulate the narrative, and 'lean on me' to stop posting information they don't like. This thread itself had roughly 8-10 upvotes. Now 3-5.
Further proof that I'm being vote brigaded is that I have nearly 3 times the donuts in Ethtrader than I have comment and post karma, COMBINED! This is despite the fact that I rarely post there. Which shows that most people appreciate my posts, but the monero community wants to hide that and control the narrative!
If you look at my comment karma by sub breakdown, visible in this comment here, you can clearly see that if you sum up my comment karma, I should have around ~2200. In dashpay alone I have 1300 comment karma. Yet if you hover over my username, I only have 906. This is due to vote brigading and is damning proof of it.
They refuse to allow discussions to take place naturally because their coin is not very good. Its very slow, you can only spend your funds once every 20 minutes (!!!), and its privacy was severely broken in the past, Monero Privacy Protections Aren't as Strong as They Seem | WIRED , and they are using intimidation and breaking the rules of reddit by massively downvoting my posts and comments to hide this information, like bullies and thugs would do.
Guess what guys? I don't care! TAKE MY COMMENT KARMA DOWN TO 0!! THAT JUST PROVES THAT YOU'RE LOSERS WHO CAN'T ACCEPT THE TRUTH AND THEREFORE MUST RELY ON CENSORSHIP AND COERCION. I WILL NEVER STOP TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR COIN AND YOUR TOXIC COMMUNITY, SO DO YOUR WORST!
https://blog.coinbase.com/how-coinbase-views-proof-of-work-security-f4ba1a139da0
There has been a lot of discussion both in btc and the greater cryptocurrency community alike about the importance of POW and how it relates to the economic incentives that undergrid the day-to-day operation of cryptocurrency networks. I believe because so many people do not truly understand the innovation of POW that they become easily confused and fall for scams like POS and ASIC-resistance. Luckily, Coinbase has explained some of their rationale behind their decisions to accept certain coins after a certain number of blockchain confirmations.
Different cryptocurrencies add to their blockchains in different ways. In cryptocurrencies that utilize proof of work, the blockchain is extended by a process known as mining. Miners bundle newly announced transactions together into data structures called blocks, which are added to the blockchain.
A miner attempts to add a block by solving a proof of work puzzle unique to the proposed block. If the miner can find a solution to the puzzle, the miner will announce the block and its solution to the rest of the network. The rest of the network will recognize the valid proof of work solution and consider the proposed block as the most recent addition to the blockchain. Notice that there is no permission required for a miner to produce a block, a fact that allows miners to enter and leave the network at will.
Seems pretty standard, right?
Claim one: It is a security feature for a particular coin’s mining operations to be the dominant application of the hardware used to mine that coin.
This is important as we have seen for smaller coins with larger coins with the same mining hardware. As we've seen with BCH, its possible for larger coins to 'attack' coins with less hashpower, which is why the fliippening is so important for us as a community. As soon as the market prices in the fact that BCH has a superior user experience to BTC, then the miners will 'flip' their hashrate to BCH and BTC will maintain a minority position.
I contend, however, that for this to happen, we first need accurate pricing mechanisms so that when we assess how the market is responding, we are not being mislead by exchange price manipulation which I contend is very heavy currently in this thread: The REAL reason for the price decline or the anatomy of a shakedown! Exchange price manipulation is behind the recent 'decline'. If we use fair value instead to price our coins, we can see an actual, objective comparison. For example, BCH is now only $294.9 to BTC's $9,068.75 or only 3%, but how much of this is exchange manipulation? According to fair value, BCH is actually worth $528.24 while traditional BTC is only worth $6,096.09 for a ratio of ~9% which is 3 times better than exchange price would have you believe!
Owners of the hardware lose the value of their investment if the primary application of the hardware loses value.
Hardware owners are incentivized to consider the long term success of the main application of their hardware. The longer the lifetime of their equipment, the more invested they become in the long-term success of the hardware’s primary application. At time of writing, Bitcoin ASICs are beginning to have significantly longer useful lifespans as efficiency increases of newer models are diminishing.
Another thing they point out is that ASIC resistance is a fool's game:
Algorithm changes to “brick ASICs” simply allow the massive general purpose computational resources of the entire world to mine, and potentially disrupt, a cryptocurrency at will. Coins that have implemented “ASIC-resistant” algorithms have been, empirically, very susceptible to 51% attacks for this very reason. Notable examples of ASIC-resistant coins that have been successfully 51% attacked include BTG, VTC, and XVG. To date, there is not a single case where a coin that dominates its hardware class has been subject to a 51% double spend attack.
As I pointed out earlier this year in this thread, Further evidence that, despite what's detractors desperately want you to believe, fair value is accurately tracking the wealth in the market in real time! Monero's fair value decreases by 40% as miners leave network, Monero also was under a unique, far worse form of 51% attack this year that nearly completely destroyed their community. As further evidence I was correct above, only fair value accurately reflected the change in Monero's worth. The price, on the other hand, remained sky-high. This is heavy evidence of exchange price manipulation and another reason why ASIC resistance doesn't work.
By actively forcing and keeping ASICs off the network, the monero community continued building an ASIC-free ecosystem and economy based on low-hash CPU and GPUs. Which meant that when an asic was actually developed as we know they always will be that economy would be destroyed. You went from a 'large' community of solo miners on CPUs and GPUs to a single entity getting the majority of the hashrate and bankrupting the entire community. This happened wtih every coin when they moved to ASICs. The difference with Monero? Monero's move to ASICs will have been artificially delayed until the community is so large that the introduction will BANKRUPT the majority of economic participants mining! This is worse than a traditional 51% attack and it succinctly summarizes why ASIC resistance is bad idea.
The main takeway:
No algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant
For any particular computational problem, hardware specialized to solving specifically that problem will always be more efficient than general purpose hardware. In addition to the advantages of writing application-level logic directly into the circuitry, specialized hardware does not need to be burdened by other requirements of general purpose hardware, such as security isolation, clock interrupts, context switching, and other tasks required to support multiple applications. Thus, no proof-of-work algorithm is ever ASIC-proof, merely ASIC-resistant.
Empirically, ASIC-resistant algorithms have repeatedly failed to prevent the development of ASICs. Prominent examples include scrypt (LTC), equihash (ZEC, BTG), ethhash (ETH), and cryptonite[sic] (XMR).
So the takeaways from this are:
  1. If we want to have accurate, objective pricing information, we must use fair value to levelize the supplies between different coins, and to remove false price influences like Tether, whale movements and the fact that exchanges price all coins in BTC, which allows BTC the uncanny ability to move and negatively affect the entire market.
  2. ASIC-resistance is and always has been a fool's game. ASICs are a natural progression of cryptocurrencies that have grown sufficiently in size and popularity, and 'resisting' this move is a form of arrested development akin to 'puberty-resistance' or 'potty-training-resistance'. Its just nonsensical.
In order to make money in cryptocurrencies, we have to keep our heads on straight and not be swept away by popular opinion without good cause. ASIC-resistance is a red-herring that does nothing be destroy the value on your chain. Luckily, most communities like ZCash, Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin accept and understand this basic fact. Thanks for reading!
submitted by thethrowaccount21 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Verge Currency Beginner's Guide

Verge Currency Beginner's Guide
A short Background
2008 was the worst financial crisis the world had experience since the great depression. The efforts of banks worldwide were not enough to prevent its occurrence. Shortly after, someone by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto offered an alternative solution. A digital currency that removes the need for a central bank. His proposal written in the Bitcoin white paper, is summarized below:
  • A secure, decentralized network.
  • A system with economic properties.
  • No need for banks or rule makers.
  • Instant transactions without a need of a third party or government approval.
  • Bringing financial services to the unbanked 2.5 billion people.
  • Total financial freedom. No one can freeze your accounts.
  • Low transaction costs. No ridiculously high transaction fees.
  • A currency with finite amount where no one can print money whenever they want.
Bitcoin
In 2009, when Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin, the network consisted of computers (in crypto terms, these are called Nodes) to approve transactions, movements of data along the chain. This allows for everyone willing to become a participant, creating a decentralized global network. Allowing for a decentralized currency, free of the control of politicians, or institutions.
The rules can only be changed if 51% of the network agrees on it. This way the network is completely democratized and resistant to hacking attacks.
Unlike today’s financial institutions, no one can freeze your account or prevent you sending money. You are the only person who truly holds your wealth.
It is an open source project. Anyone can see the code and offer or discuss changes with the community. On the other hand, anyone participating to the network with computational power gets incentives or pay, with a fractional amount of BTC.
Blockchain
The core of a secure decentralized network like Bitcoin, lies the Blockchain technology. To put it simply, the blockchain is like a series of Lego, connected to each other by linking information, called transactions. These transactions contain the following data sender, receiver and the unique signature of the sender.
The data will be converted into “hash” before being saved into a block. The bitcoin hash is generated using a set of cryptographic functions called sha256. This way the information is encrypted, is compressed and saved in the block.
Additionally, each block in the chain, contains the information from the block before it. This ensures that if someone tries to maliciously modify information in a block, all the block following this attempt will be changed, making it easier to spot.
Each block includes the information from the previous block. If someone wants to maliciously change the information in one block that change the complete result of all following blocks.
In this type of network there is only one blockchain, and all the information is kept in a public ledger which is shared amongst all the participating networks. For the blockchain to be valid, more than 50% of the participants (nodes and their computational power) must agree with it.
Bitcoin Today (2018)
Until today many, many, events have happened. The network has grown massively. The underlying code is improved in many ways. There are more and more developers and investors that have entered the cryptocurrency space.
Currently there are proposed changes being developed to the Bitcoin network that will make bitcoin rival the centralized networks of today (Visa, Mastercard), while significantly lowering the cost of these transaction.
Many alternative cryptocurrencies have been created along the way, improving some of the aspects of the bitcoin and focusing on certain applications, in the crypto-space, we call them altcoins.
WHY VERGE
The way that Bitcoin function, has severe flaws with regards to privacy:
  • Public Ledger: The transaction information is public, meaning, that transactions can be linked to a person.
  • IP Leakage: A persistent and motivated attacker will be able to associate your IP address with your bitcoin transaction.
Due to the above reasons, it was clear that there would be a need for a privacy coin. Different coins were then created that had this problem in mind. They were ‘too private’ in the sense that they completely by-passed the public ledger. The public ledger allows merchant to provide proof of transactions, which is important for bookkeeping.
Enter Verge Currency, formerly Dogecoindark; which offers transaction on the ledger, both public and private. Allowing the user to choose if the transactions are public or private.
VERGE CURRENCY
2014 saw the birth of Dogecoin Dark; in 2016, it was rebranded to Verge Currency.
Verge improves upon the original Bitcoin blockchain and aims to fulfill its initial purpose of providing individuals and businesses with a fast, efficient and decentralized way of making direct transactions while maintaining your privacy.
What is the Verge Currency Mission?
Verge Currency aims to empower people around the globe using blockchain in everyday life and makes it possible for people to engage in transactions quickly, efficiently and privately. With Verge, business and individuals now have flexible options for sending and receiving payments.
Verge Currency also offer helpful integrations and tools that enable them to handle large scale transactions between merchants and small-scale private payments.
Is Verge Currency a private company and how is it funded?
Following in the spirit of Bitcoin, Verge is an open-source software, and a community. It is not a company, never had an ICO. The development is entirely funded by the community and the developers. Currently Verge is looking into setting up an official Verge merchandise store, and an Official Verge mining pool, for multiple algorithms.
Tech
General technical capabilities of XVG blockchain:
Protocol PoW (Proof of Work)
Algorithms Scrypt, X17, Lyra2rev2, myr-groestl and blake2s
Max Coin Supply 16.5 billion XVG
Circulation Supply 15.2 billion XVG
Minable yes
Atomic Swaps Enabled
Tx (Transaction) Speed 5-10 Seconds
Tps (Transactions per sec.) 100 (Will be ~2000 with RSK)
Tx Fee 0.1 XVG
Privacy Options:
Tor + I2P Networks fully obfuscated IP address / User's Location is hidden
Stealth Addresses It enables users to anonymously receive funds to their wallet. Therefore third parties are no longer able to track receivers addresses, nor are they able to combine official wallet addresses with their stealth addresses.
RING CT Under development
See our blackpaper V5.0 for detailed information.
Development Updates
Marketing Updates

Wallets
Mining

Community
Verge is a community-driven project. The community is the pillar of Verge, from the past to the future, the community built Verge. The community or Vergefam connects everyone from around the world, regardless of cultural background. The common vision is to provide everyone access to financial freedom, and the choice of privacy while transacting.
Below you can find the Verge Telegram communities from around the world;
Official Telegram
🇧🇷 🇵🇹 Brasil/Portugal/
🇨🇦 Canada
🇳🇴 🇸🇪 🇩🇰 Norway/Sweden/Denmark
🇩🇪 🇦🇹 🇨🇭 🇱🇮 Germany/Austria/Switzerland/Liechtenstein
🇵🇹 Portugal
🇪🇸 Spain
🇱🇺 Netherlands
🇹🇷 Turkey
🇫🇷 France
Balkan
🇵🇾 Croatia
🇦🇱 🇽🇰 Albania/Kosovo
🇷🇴 Romania
🇭🇺 Hungary
🇷🇺 Russia
🇮🇳 India
🇲🇾 Malaysia
🇯🇵 Japan
🇰🇷 Korea
🇨🇳 China
🇿🇦 South Africa
🔌Wallet Support
🖥️ Mining support
Mass Adoption
Low fees, quick transactions, high volume in circulation, multiplatform support, Wraith protocol are the ingredients that make Verge perfectly positioned for mass adoption. Transact on the public ledger for everyday purchases or stay private if you wish so.
Getting Started
You can find the matching instructions as below:
See the following useful links:

Official Links
Vergecurrency.com
Verge Team
Roadmap
FAQ
Github
Block Explorer 1
Block Explorer 2
Network Status
Telegram
Twitter
Facebook
Discord
Youtube
Medium
Investfeed
Verge Zendesk
VergeFora
Last Edit: Latest development update links are added to the Tech section.
submitted by Desolatorbtc to vergecurrency [link] [comments]

Complete noob, hoping to hold on and get dragged along by the bandwagon.

I have a 6970. If i join a pool and run it when I'm not playing games, how do i know whther or not I'll make a slight profit on on the elctricity costs. I'm not looking at this from an investment point of view, but "have the capital, see what I can get out of it."
Thoughts?
submitted by companiondanger to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

howmanyconfs.com - How does the security of different Proof-of-Work blockchains compare to Bitcoin?

https://howmanyconfs.com
Original post in Bitcoin here: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/biokgy/howmanyconfscom_how_does_the_security_of/

https://github.com/lukechilds/howmanyconfs.com/raw/mastescreenshot.png

How are these values calculated?

It's easy to compare blockchain hashrates when the Proof-of-Work algorithm is the same. For example if Bitcoin has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s and Bitcoin Cash has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 2 PH/s, it's easy to see that for a given period of time the Bitcoin blockchain will have 20x (40/2) the amount of work securing it than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. Or to say that differently, you need to wait for 20x more Bitcoin Cash confirmations before an equivalent amount of work has been done compared to the Bitcoin blockchain. So 6 Bitcoin confirmations would be roughly equivalent to 120 Bitcoin Cash confirmations in the amount of work done.
However if the Proof-of-Work algorithms are different, how can we compare the hashrate? If we're comparing Bitcoin (SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s) against Litecoin (Scrypt @ 300 TH/s), the hashes aren't equal, one round of SHA-256 is not equivalent to one round of Scrypt.
What we really want to know is how much energy is being consumed to provide the current hash rate. Literal energy, as in joules or kilowatt hours. It would be great if we had a universal metric across blockchains like kWh/s to measure immutability.
However that's fairly hard to calculate, we need to know the average power consumption of the average device used to mine. For GPU/CPU mined Proof-of-Work algorithms this varies greatly. For ASIC mined Proof-of-Work algorithms it varies less, however it's likely that ASIC manufacturers are mining with next generation hardware long before the public is made aware of them, which we can't account for.
There's no automated way to get this data and no reliable data source to scrape it from. We'd need to manually research all mining hardware and collate the data ourself. And as soon as newer mining hardware comes out our results will be outdated.
Is there a simpler way to get an estimated amount of work per blockchain in a single metric we can use for comparisons?
Yeah, there is, we can use NiceHash prices to estimate the cost in $ to secure a blockchain for a given timeframe. This is directly comparable across blockchains and should be directly proportionate to kWh/s, because after all, the energy needs to be paid for in $.
How can we estimate this?
Now we have an estimated total Proof-of-Work metric measured in dollars per second ($/s).
The $/s metric may not be that accurate. Miners will mark up the cost when reselling on NiceHash and we're making the assumption that NiceHash supply is infinite. You can't actually rent 100% of Bitcoin's hashpower from NiceHash, there isn't enough supply.
However that's not really an issue for this metric, we aren't trying to calculate the theoretical cost to rent an additional 100% of the hashrate, we're trying to get a figure that allows us to compare the cost of the current total hashrate accross blockchains. Even if the exact $ value we end up with is not that accurate, it should still be proportionate to kWh/s. This means it's still an accurate metric to compare the difference in work done over a given amount of time between blockchains.
So how do we compare these values between blockchains?
Once we've done the above calculations and got a $/s cost for each blockchain, we just need to factor in the average block time and calculate the total $ cost for a given number of confirmations. Then see how much time is required on the other blockchain at it's $/s value to equal the total cost.
So to calculate how many Litecoin confirmations are equivalent to 6 Bitcoin confirmations we would do:
Therefore we can say that 240 Litecoin confirmations are roughly equal to 6 Bitcoin confirmations in total amount of work done.

Notes

$/s doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

The $/s values should not be taken as literal costs.
For example:
This is does not mean you could do a 51% attack on Bitcoin and roll back 6 blocks for a cost of $360,000. An attack like that would be much more expensive.
The $/s value is a metric to compare the amount of work at the current hashrate between blockchains. It is not the same as the cost to add hashrate to the network.
When adding hashrate to a network the cost will not scale linearly with hashrate. It will jump suddenly at certain intervals.
For example, once you've used up the available hashrate on NiceHash you need to add the costs of purchasing ASICs, then once you've bought all the ASICs in the world, you'd need to add the costs of fabricating your own chips to keep increasing hashrate.

These metrics are measuring "work done", not security.

More "work done" doesn't necessarily mean "more security".
For example take the following two blockchains:
Bitcoin Cash has a higher $/s value than Zcash so we can deduce it has more "work done" over a given timeframe than Zcash. More kWh/s are required to secure it's blockchain. However does that really mean it's safer?
Zcash is the dominant blockchain for it's Proof-of-Work algorithm (Equihash). Whereas Bitcoin Cash isn't, it uses the same algorithm as Bitcoin. In fact just 5% of Bitcoin's hashrate is equivalent to all of Bitcoin Cash's hashrate.
This means the cost of a 51% attack against Bitcoin Cash could actually be much lower than a 51% attack against Zcash, even though you need to aquire more kWh/s of work, the cost to aquire those kWh/s will likely be lower.
To attack Bitcoin Cash you don't need to acquire any hardware, you just need to convince 5% of the Bitcoin hashrate to lend their SHA-256 hashpower to you.
To attack Zcash, you would likely need to fabricate your own Equihash ASICs, as almost all the Equihash mining hardware in the world is already securing Zcash.

Accurately calculating security is much more complicated.

These metrics give a good estimated value to compare the hashrate accross different Proof-of-Work blockchains.
However to calculate if a payment can be considered "finalised" involves many more variables.
You should factor in:
If the cryptocurrency doesn't dominate the Proof-of-Work it can be attacked more cheaply.
If the market cap or trading volume is really low, an attacker may crash the price of the currency before they can successfully double spend it and make a profit. Although that's more relevant in the context of exchanges rather than individuals accepting payments.
If the value of the transaction is low enough, it may cost more to double spend than an attacker would profit from the double spend.
Ultimately, once the cost of a double spend becomes higher than an attacker can expect to profit from the double spend, that is when a payment can probably be considered "finalised".
submitted by dyslexiccoder to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

DOGECOIN & SCRYPT MINING WITH ANTMINER L3+ Beginner's guide to solo bitcoin and litecoin mining ... Profit Comparison Update Of All Asic Miner Cgminer Scrypt Mining Tuning (Overclocking) GPU Raise Hashrate Tutorial (Litecoin, Feathercoin, etc) ASIC BITPRO BITCOIN CLOUD MINING RIG

The Bitcoin.com mining pool has the lowest share reject rate (0.15%) we've ever seen. Other pools have over 0.30% rejected shares. Furthermore, the Bitcoin.com pool has a super responsive and reliable support team. Bitcoin mining is gainful for extensive tasks like the aforementioned quarrying pools, ... You will need a collection of materials to start mining the easiest scrypt Coin: A free private database is known as your coin wallet. Your coin wallet is secure storage for your profits and a network-wide ledger of transactions is also preserved. A free mining program package, similar to this one from ... How To Choose Litecoin Mining Hardware. Instead of Bitcoin's SHA-256 function, Charlie Lee adopted the Scrypt hash algorithm. He made this decision to avoid competition with Bitcoin miners. Not just that, but Scrypt is also a faster and easier algorithm. In comparison to SHA-256, Scrypt is any day better. Note that Scrypt can mine Litecoin and ... Best Bitcoin Mining Software Reviewed. By: Ofir Beigel Last updated: 8/23/20 If you’re thinking of getting into Bitcoin mining, one of the things you’re going to need is a software to run your mining hardware.In this post I’ll review the top Bitcoin mining software available on the market. Mining with a Scrypt ASIC vs SHA-256 Comparison. Bitcoin uses the SHA-256 algorithm to generate hashes that represent the data stored in blocks on the blockchain. As we mentioned above, SHA-256 is more complex to run, meaning that it’s highly accurate and secure, but also slow. This is why ten minutes are required to generate only one block on the Bitcoin blockchain. Mining using SHA-256 ...

[index] [20929] [8638] [22097] [11830] [43905] [16564] [5940] [2959] [36914] [22169]

DOGECOIN & SCRYPT MINING WITH ANTMINER L3+

Profit Comparison of All Asic Miners antminer d3,a5,E9plus, NEW MINER FOR DASH ANTMINER D3 bitcoin bitcoin wallet bitcoin mining crypto cryptocurrency cypto wallet cryptocurrency wallet crypto ... 4x 7950 Scrypt Coin Mining Rig in a Spotswood Case 43x ASICMiner Block Erupters 1x Redfury 1x Bi*Fury 2x Drillbit Thumbs 5x Drillbit Eight Boards in a Spotswood Case You can also mine Bitcoin on ... This is an update video to my dogecoin mining vid and a quick review of my new L3+ scrypt miner from bitmain Prohasing.com Earn free BTC with https://goo.gl/A9nsGL You can earn 4.08% annually with ... Newbie guide for those who want to try solo bitcoin and litecoin mining, using bfgminer and cgminer. The config files shown in the video are available in the... Jeff Bezos about Bitcoin Market, Investments and Much more Amazon US 17,724 watching Live now Noticias Telemundo, 29 de marzo 2020 Noticias Telemundo - Duration: 21:44.

#