r/Bitcoin - P2pool is hard forking soon to version 34 ...

Frequently Asked Questions

NOTICE

This post is a temporary resting place for FAQs while we wait for the release of VertDocs.

What is Vertcoin?

Vertcoin is a digital peer to peer currency focused on decentralization and ASIC resistance. Vertcoin is aiming to be easily accessible to the everyday user without extensive technical knowledge. Vertcoin has started to lower the barrier of entry with lots of video guides and the development of the One Click Miner (OCM).

Why does ASIC Resistance Matter?

ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) are dedicated mining devices that can only mine one algorithm. Coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin both made GPU mining obsolete when SHA-256 and Scrypt ASICs were created.
ASIC Resistance and How it Makes Vertcoin Decentralized
Vertcoin believes that ASIC resistance goes hand in hand with decentralization.
ASICs are made by companies like Bitmain and almost all the original sellers of ASICs sell on a preorder basis. When pre ordering an ASIC you are buying from a limited batch that the ASIC company has produced. Often times the batch will not be fully filled and the ASIC company will often have left over ASICs. When the ASIC company has left over ASICs they will put them to work mining. Soon enough the ASIC company will have a very large amount of unsold ASICs that are mining and slowly the ASIC company starts to own a large part of the network’s hashrate. When an ASIC company(s) starts to own a large majority of the hashrate the network can become very centralized after a while.
Having your network consist of a few large companies can be very dangerous as they could eventually get 51% hashing power and 51% attack your network, destabilizing the network. When your network is made out of a lot of smaller miners, like Vertcoin, it is much harder for your network to be 51% attacked, therefore increasing network security. By having centralized hashing power your coin effectively centralizing the network as the centralized hashing power can deny transactions and stop any activity they don’t want.

What Ways is Vertcoin Superior to Litecoin and Bitcoin?

Network Difficulty Adjustments with Kimoto Gravity Well
Vertcoin uses a difficulty adjustment called Kimoto Gravity Well which adjusts the difficulty every block, whereas Bitcoin and Litecoin’s difficulty changes every 2016 blocks. By adjusting the difficulty every block Vertcoin’s block time can stay consistent by adjusting for the fluctuation in network hash rate from hash rate renting and part time miners. If a large miner switches off Bitcoin or Litecoin mining the network could be slowed to a crawl until 2016 blocks are mined and the difficulty can change to adjust for the new network hash rate. We observed this happen to Bitcoin when Bitcoin Cash became more profitable than Bitcoin and Bitcoin’s network hash rate saw a steep fall off, slowing the network to a crawl. If this was to happen with Vertcoin the difficulty would adjust after 1 block was mined, allowing Vertcoin to always be profitable to mine.
Anyone can Meaningfully help Verify Transactions
In Proof-of-Work crypto currencies miners help secure the blockchain and get rewarded with the block reward. In ASIC mineable coins like Bitcoin and Litecoin you can’t meaningfully verify transactions unless you pay 1000-2000$ for a ASIC miner. When you mine with a CPU or GPU in a ASIC mineable coin you make no meaningful impact on the network. It is like trying to break concrete with a shovel while everyone else has a jackhammer.
Simple Upgrades Aren’t Held back by 1-2 Large Miners
In ASIC market people buy ASICs in batches in a preorder. With Bitcoin ASICs there is not enough demand for ASICs so the batch often doesn’t get sold out so now the manufacturer has spare ASICs. Now that the manufacturer has spare ASICs they will often start mining with them and eventually the ASIC company has one of the highest hash rates. If the ASIC company doesn’t want a certain upgrade to go through, for example SegWit, they can vote with their hash rate to hold back the upgrade forever or at least until people who want SegWit get more hash rate.
You Have a Say in Protocol Rules and Consensus
In Bitcoin you are a passive observer because you can only issue transactions and you have no part in the process after that. In Vertcoin you can be apart of the process for deciding the ordering of transactions and deciding what transactions get into blocks.
Block Rewards and Transaction Fees are Distributed Evenly
In Bitcoin and Litecoin the block rewards and transaction fees are often given to the large miners in China due to mining centralization created by ASICs. Vertcoin distributes its mining rewards to people all around the world thanks to the mining decentralization.

When will Atomic Swaps Be Ready?

Atomic Swaps can be done in two flavors: On-chain and Off-chain (via Lightning Network). On-chain swaps were actually done already using Blocknet, you can see it in use on Youtube. We're looking into doing it again using Interledger.
However our main focus is to do off-chain Atomic Swaps using Lightning Network technology. Because it has the same benefits as Lightning transactions: No network fees and instant transactions.
For off-chain swaps we need Lightning Network to be fully operational. It's difficult to give an ETA on that since we aren't the ones developing it. U/gertjaap posted a video on the current state of the Lightning Network for Vertcoin a while ago, which you can see here.
This was actually the "bleeding edge" of Lightning Network at the time. was able to use it on VTC's main net, meaning that our blockchain is ready for the good stuff. As you can see however, it can't yet be considered production ready (most users would want a little better UX than a command line app).
Now off-chain Atomic Swaps is a technique based on the same principles as Lightning Network, but adds an extra complexity for it being across chains. So it's basically the same as a "multi hop" Lightning payment, which is not yet built by any of the implementations. They're still working hard on making the single-hop payments robust. So in order for AS to be possible, LN has to be fully operational.
A timeline cannot be given at this time, because frankly we don't know. The implementation of Lightning Network we feel has the most potential is LIT, because it supports multiple currencies in its protocol (where LND is bitcoin-only at the time and requires significant work to support other currencies, which is an essential part of being able to work across multiple blockchains).
LIT is open source and there's nothing secretive about its progress, you can see the development on Github. We even have our lead dev James Lovejoy (u/jamesl22) close to the action and contributing to it where possible (and our team as well through testing it on the Vertcoin chain).
So we're not developing LN or AS ourselves, we're just ready with our blockchain technology whenever it becomes available.
If we have any real progress that has some substance, you can expect us to let the world know. We're not interested in fluffy marketing - we post something when we achieve real progress. And we are not keeping that secret.

How do I Choose the Right Vertcoin Wallet?

Deciding what Vertcoin wallet you should choose can be a difficult process. You can choose between three different wallets: Core, Electrum and Paper. Once you decide you can use the "How to Setup Your Vertcoin Wallets" video guide to assist you.

Core

The Core wallet is the wallet that most people should use. It will store the entire blockchain (~2GB) on your computer. The Core wallet is the only wallet that fully supports P2Pool mining. You will also have to use the Core wallet if you plan to run a P2Pool node or any Vertcoin related server.

Electrum

The Electrum wallet is a light wallet for Vertcoin. You do not have to download the blockchain on your computer, but you will still have your own private keys on your computer. This is recommended for people who don't need to store Vertcoins for very long and just need a quick but secure place to store them.

Paper

The Paper wallet is as the name implies, a physical paper wallet. When generating a paper wallet you will get a pdf that will need to print out. A paper wallet is normally used for long term storage since it is the safest way to store Vertcoins. A paper wallet can also be called "cold storage." Cold storage references the storage of your coins offline, preventing you from getting hacked over the internet.

Ledger Nano S

The Ledger Nano S is a hardware wallet designed by Ledger. A hardware wallet is similar to a paper wallet since it is normally used for cold storage. The hardware wallet is on par with the security of a paper wallet while being easy to use and setup. Note: You should never mine directly to a Ledger hardware wallet.

How do I start mining Vertcoin?

We have many guides available for you to use depending on your computer specifications.
Nvidia GPUs on Windows
Nvidia GPUs on Linux
AMD GPUs on Windows WARNING: Very unprofitable, AMD optimized miner is coming very soon.

Where can I get the One Click Miner (OCM)

You can get the latest version of the One Click Miner in the Vertcoin Discord. The download is pinned to the top of the #oneclick channel.

What do all the Numbers Mean on P2Pool’s Web Interface

I've seen a lot of confusion from new miners on public p2pool nodes, so here's a primer for the most common static node page style, for first time miners: https://imgur.com/K48GmMw

Active Miners on this Node

Address - This is the list of addresses currently mining on this node. If your address does not show up here, you are not mining on this node.
Hashrate
This is a snapshot of your hashrate as seen by the node. It will fluctuate up to 15% from the hashrate you are seeing on your mining software, but will average out to match the output in your mining software.
Rejected Hashrate
This is the amount of your hashing contribution that is rejected, both in hashrate and as a percentage of your total contribution. Running your own p2pool node minimizes this number. Mining on a node that is geographically close to reduce lag also minimizes this number. Ideally you would like it to be less than 1%, but most people seem happy keeping it under 3%.
Share Difficulty
This speaks for itself, it is the difficulty of the share being currently worked on. Bigger numbers are more difficult.
Time to Share
This is how long you need to mine before you will receive any payouts, or any "predicted payout." The lower your hashrate, the higher your time to share.
Predicted Payout
This is the reward you would receive if a block was found by p2pool right now. If it reads "no shares yet" then you have not yet been mining the requisite amount of time as seen in the previous "time to share" column.

Status

Network Hashrate
This is the total hashrate of all the miners mining vertcoin everywhere, regardless of where or how.
Global Pool Hashrate
This is the total hashrate of all the miners mining vertcoin on this p2pool network, be it the first network or the second network.
Local Pool Hashrate
This is the total hashrate of all the miners mining Vertcoin on this node.
Current Block Value
This is the reward that will be given for mining the current block. The base mining reward is currently 50 VTC per block, so any small decimal over that amount is transaction fees being paid by people using the network.
Network Block Difficulty
This is the difficulty of the block being mined. The higher the number, the higher the difficulty. This number rises as the "Network Hashrate" rises, so that blocks will always be found every 2.5 minutes. Inversely, this number falls when the "Network Hashrate" lowers as well.
Expected Time to Block
This is a guess at how much time will elapse between blocks being found by this p2pool network. This guess is accurate on average, but very inaccurate in the short term. Since you only receive a payout when the network finds a block, you can think of this as "Estimated Time to Payout."

Why is P2Pool Recommended Over Traditional Pools?

Decentralisation

P2Pool is peer to peer allowing a decentralized pool mining system. There are many nodes setup around the world that connect to each other too mine together. Many other coins have 1 very large pool that many miners connect to and sometimes the largest pool can have 51% or more of the network hash rate which makes the network vulnerable to a 51% attack. If P2Pool is the largest network then that prevents the Vertcoin network to be susceptible to a 51% attack as P2Pool is decentralized.

PPLNS Payout System

P2Pool uses a PPLNS (Pay Per Last N Shares) payout system which awards miners more the longer they mine, sort of like a loyalty system. A drawback to this system is that part time miners that aren't 24/7 won't be able to earn that much.

2 Networks

While Network 1 is catered towards 24/7 miners and people who have dedicated mining rigs, Vertcoin has a second P2Pool network where part time miners and miners under 100 MH/s can go to mine.

Mines Directly to Your Wallet

P2Pool mines directly to your wallet and cuts out the middleman. This reduces the likely hood that the pool will run away with your coins.

No Downtime

Since P2Pool is decentralized and has different nodes for you to choose from there will be no downtime because the P2Pool network does not die if one node goes down. You can setup a backup server in your miner so that you will have no downtime when mining.

Anonymity and Security

When using P2Pool you use a wallet address making your real identity anonymous, you are simply known by a random 34 letter string. Along with using a wallet address instead of a username there is no password involved P2Pool preventing the possibility of cracking your pool account (If you were on a traditional pool,) and stealing all your coins.

How do I Find a Nearby P2Pool Node

You can find the public p2pool nodes the the P2Pool Node Scanners. If you want to find a network 1 node go here. If you want to find a network 2 node go here.

How do I setup a P2Pool Node?

Linux P2Pool Setup
Windows P2Pool Setup (Text)
Windows P2Pool Setup (Video) This guide setups a network 2 node. When downloading Python download the 32bit version, not the 64bit. Downloading the 64bit version causes problems with the twisted install.
How do I setup a change my node to network 1 or network 2?
In the P2Pool startup script when you type the --network flag add vertcoin1 for network 1 and vertcoin2 for network 2 right after.

How do I Buy Vertcoin?

You can see a video guide on Youtube, "How to Buy Vertcoin with Fiat Using Bittrex and Coinbase"

How can I get help with "X problem?"

The quickest way for you to get help is for you to join the Vertcoin Discord Group. We almost always have knowledgable Vertans, whether that be developers or experienced Vertans, online to help you with whatever problems you may have.

How can I donate to the Developers?

You can donate to the dev fund at https://vertcoin.org/donate/. You can select what you want your funds to go to by donating to the corresponding address. You can also see how much funding is required and how much we have donated.

Where can I see what exchanges Vertcoin is on?

You can see what exchanges Vertcoin is listed on at CoinMarketCap. You can see what exchanges Vertcoin has applied to be on at this google docs spreadsheet.

Where can I see Vertcoin's Roadmap?

The Vertcoin developers currently have a trello board where you can see the goals and what the status of said goal is. You can also vote on what you want the Vertcoin developers to focus on next.

What is the Status of the AMD Optimized Miner?

The AMD Optimized Miner internal beta is aiming to be ready by the end of September. The AMD Optimized Miner is currently being developed by @turekaj on the Vertcoin Discord. He currently does not have a Reddit account and Discord is the only way you can contact him.

What Does Halving Mean?

Halving means that the block reward for miners will be split in half. Halving happens around every 4 years for Vertcoin or 840,000 blocks. This means around December miners will only receive 25 VTC per block instead of the current 50 VTC per block.
If you would like to add another question to this list please comment it and I will get around to adding it ASAP.
submitted by asianboygames to vertcoin [link] [comments]

Of Wolves and Weasels - Day 263 - Weekly Wrapup #31

Hey all, GoodShibe here!
This was your week in Dogecoin.
This Week's oWaW's
Announcements
Businesses accepting Dogecoin
Top images/memes of the week
Dogecoin in the News
Don't Miss
Did I miss anything? Of course I did! Please let me know in the comments and I'll add it!
It's 8:50AM EST and we've found 93.33% of our first 100 Billion DOGEs - only 6.67% until we've reached our soft cap! Our Global Hashrate is on the rise from ~726 to ~804 Gigahashes per second but our Difficulty is dropping from ~12610 to ~8625.
As always, I appreciate your support!
GoodShibe
submitted by GoodShibe to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Bi-weekly Digitalcoin News Thread [#2]

Hi Digitalcoin enthusiast, and welcome to the second edition of this bi-weekly news digest!
Some of you doubted that two weeks was long enough for anything of significance to happen in the Digitalcoin world. I hope that this news digest will prove you wrong ;)
In this issue, we're talking about important movements on the exchange front: some have fallen, many are rising. Fortunately, amidst all these changes, the overall availability of Digitalcoin is increasing. A constant and important factor in the downfall of exchanges seems to be security. Are your coins safe? Have you ever considered using a paper wallet?
Other important news that we'll be covering: a new version of the core Digitalcoin software, a major website overhaul, and the introduction of a stable Android wallet.
Happy Friday everyone!
Yours truly,
ThinkThrough (and spell check master FullMetalGurren)

What has happened in the past two weeks?

On the Reddit front
News of the world
New services

Upcoming

Big events in the next few weeks:

Most generous tippers (past 2 weeks)

Username | Tipped (dgc) | Received (dgc) | Net diff. | FullMetalGurren | 35.000000 | 1.000000 | + 34.000000 | happyfocker | 10.000000 | 0.000000 | + 10.000000 | earthmoonsun | 7.000000 | 0.000000 | + 7.000000 | techbytes1 | 3.000000 | 0.000000 | + 3.000000 | 
Source: http://www.reddit.com/dgctipbot/wiki/tips

/digitalcoin stats (past 2 weeks)

Source : http://www.reddit.com/digitalcoin/about/traffic/

Past editions

Did I miss something?

If I missed something, post it in the comments, I'll add it in to the post.
submitted by ThinkThrough to digitalcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 45, Issue 37 | Joshua | Feb 11 2015

Joshua on Feb 11 2015:
UNSUBSCRIBE
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:25 AM, <
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
Send Bitcoin-development mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-development-request at lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-development-owner at lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Bitcoin-development digest..."
Today's Topics:
  1. Re: Proposal for P2P Wireless (Bluetooth LE) transfer of
    Payment URI (Eric Voskuil)
  2. Proposal: Requiring a miner's signature in the block header
    (Hector Chu)
  3. Re: Proposal: Requiring a miner's signature in the block
    header (Natanael)
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:56:39 -0800
From: Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for P2P Wireless
 (Bluetooth LE) transfer of Payment URI 
To: M?rtin H?bo??tiak <martin.habovstiak at gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net>, Paul Puey
 <[paul at airbitz.co](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev)> 
Message-ID: <54DA4657.5080604 at voskuil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On 02/10/2015 09:16 AM, M?rtin H?bo??tiak wrote:
I'm not sure if I was clear enough. Handshake should be used to
establish authenticated AND encrypted communication using ECDH (or
just DH, but I think it's easier to use ECDH, since required functions
are already used in Bitcoin protocol), like RedPhone does. BTW
knowledge of verification string is useless to the attacker.
Yes, I think this was clear from your description.
Yes, the customer must verify it verbally and the merchant shouldn't
send the transaction before verification. Other possibility is that in
case of differing verification strings new address is generated, so
attacker doesn't know the address. But in this case, amount is leaked
and there is quite high probability it can be found in the Blockchain.
Yes, for each handshake the payment request would need to contain a
different address, mitigating some of the privacy loss.
Anyway, I don't believe the transaction can be made securely without
such interaction except with white-listing public keys, so I see no
reason why interaction should be problematic.
It can be done securely and privately by transfer of a shared secret
through a private channel.
We don't have such strict regulations but I agree that security is
important. Currently I think that verbal verification and manual
confirmation is the best way to achieve high security and reasonable
user-friendliness.
I think for a broadcast model (e.g. Bluetooth only) that is the only
want to ensure integrity and privacy. A narrow cast can use proximity to
establish trust.
2015-02-10 17:55 GMT+01:00 Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org>:
Martin,
I like your idea for the commit protocol in that it resolves the
vandalous address substitution attack. However, I don't see a way to
prevent privacy loss without adverse impact to the scenario.
Anyone could perform the handshake and thereby obtain the payment
request. Therefore to prevent inadvertent disclosure the customer must
visually confirm the "phrase" and then verbally tell the merchant to
proceed by sending the payment request.
One might argue that it's sufficient to preserve the integrity of the
transaction while suffering the privacy loss, especially given that a
hijacked handshake should never result in a completed transaction -
unless of course the hijacker pays.
But imagine someone purchasing their meds. HIPAA requires the checkout
queue to form behind a yellow line. That speaks directly to this
question.
e
On 02/06/2015 01:07 AM, M?rtin H?bo??tiak wrote:
2015-02-06 2:29 GMT+01:00 Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org>:
On 02/05/2015 04:36 PM, Martin Habov?tiak wrote:
I believe, we are still talking about transactions of physical
people in physical world. So yes, it's proximity based - people
tell the words by mouth. :)
Notice from my original comment:
A MITM can substitute the key. If you don't have verifiable
identity associated with the public key (PKI/WoT), you need
a shared secret (such as a secret phrase).
I said this could only be accomplished using a shared secret or a
trusted public key. Exchanging a value that is derived from a pair of
public keys is a distinction without a difference. The problem remains
that the parties must have a secure/out-of-band channel for
communicating this value.
The fact that they are face-to-face establishes this channel, but that
brings us back to the original problem, as it requires manual
verification - as in visual/audible scanning of the two values for
comparison. At that point the visual comparison of the address, or
some
value derived from it, is simpler.
I have never been against manual verification. What I'm trying to say
is let's just make manual verification easier and more secure.
Comparison of address is simpler for the coder but also simpler to
attack. It has these problems:
  • Addresses broadcasted in plaintext (privacy issue)
  • Amounts broadcasted in plaintext (privacy issue)
  • Address is long - takes lot of time to verify (user experience issue)
  • Address prefix can be brute-forced, if too short or used to make
"black hole" address if longer (vandalism issue)
Commit protocol can be used for both the encryption and the
authentication while user experience is not bad and everything is
still secure.
In case of RedPhone, you read those words verbally over not-yet-
verified channel relying on difficulty of spoofing your voice. Also
the app remembers the public keys, so you don't need to verify
second time.
This is reasonable, but wouldn't help in the case of an ad-hoc
connection between parties who don't know each other well.
I suggest you to try RedPhone (called Signal on iPhone) yourself.
It's free/open source, Internet-based and end-to-end encrypted. You
may find it useful some day. Also I'm willing to help you with
trying it after I wake up. (~8 hours: Send me private e-mail if
you want to.)
I appreciate the offer. I really don't trust any smartphone as a
platform for secure communication/data. But encrypting on the wire
does
of course shrink the attack surface and increase the attacker's cost.
e
D?a 6. febru?ra 2015 1:22:23 CET pou??vate? Eric Voskuil
<eric at voskuil.org> nap?sal:
On 02/05/2015 04:04 PM, M?rtin H?bo??tiak wrote:
That's exactly what I though when seeing the RedPhone code, but
after
I studied the commit protocol I realized it's actually secure and
convenient way to do it. You should do that too. :)
I was analyzing the model as you described it to me. A formal
analysis
of the security model of a particular implementation, based on
inference
from source code, is a bit beyond what I signed up for. But I'm
perfectly willing to comment on your description of the model if you
are
willing to indulge me.
Shortly, how it works:
The initiator of the connection sends commit message containing the
hash of his temporary public ECDH part, second party sends back
their
public ECDH part and then initiator sends his public ECDH part in
open. All three messages are hashed together and the first two
bytes
are used to select two words from a shared dictionary which are
displayed on the screen of both the initiator and the second party.
The parties communicate those two words and verify they match.
How do they compare words if they haven't yet established a secure
channel?
If an attacker wants to do MITM, he has a chance of choosing right
public parts 1:65536. There is no way to brute-force it, since that
would be noticed immediately. If instead of two words based on the
first two bytes, four words from BIP39 wordlist were chosen, it
would
provide entropy of 44 bits which I believe should be enough even
for
paranoid people.
How this would work in Bitcoin payment scenario: user's phone
broadcasts his name, merchant inputs amount and selects the name
from
the list, commit message is sent (and then the remaining two
messages), merchant spells four words he sees on the screen and
buyer
confirms transaction after verifying that words match.
So the assumption is that there exists a secure (as in
proximity-based)
communication channel?
e
2015-02-06 0:46 GMT+01:00 Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org>:
On 02/05/2015 03:36 PM, M?rtin H?bo??tiak wrote:
A BIP-70 signed payment request in the initial broadcast can
resolve the
integrity issues, but because of the public nature of the
broadcast
coupled with strong public identity, the privacy compromise is
much
worse. Now transactions are cryptographically tainted.
This is also the problem with BIP-70 over the web. TLS and other
security precautions aside, an interloper on the communication,
desktop,
datacenter, etc., can capture payment requests and strongly
correlate
transactions to identities in an automated manner. The payment
request
must be kept private between the parties, and that's hard to do.
What about using encryption with forward secrecy? Merchant would
generate signed request containing public ECDH part, buyer would
send
back transaction encrypted with ECDH and his public ECDH part. If
receiving address/amount is meant to be private, use commit
protocol
(see ZRTP/RedPhone) and short authentication phrase (which is
hard
to
spoof thanks to commit protocol - see RedPhone)?
Hi Martin,
The problem is that you need to verify the ownership of the public
key.
A MITM can substitute the key. If you don't have verifiable
identity
associated with the public key (PKI/WoT), you need a shared secret
(such
as a secret phrase). But the problem is then establishing that
secret
over a public channel.
You can bootstrap a private session over the untrusted network
using
a
trusted public key (PKI/WoT). But the presumption is that you are
already doing this over the web (using TLS). That process is
subject
to
attack at the CA. WoT is not subject to a CA attack, because it's
decentralized. But it's also not sufficiently deployed for some
scenarios.
e
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:54:15 +0000
From: Hector Chu <hectorchu at gmail.com>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Requiring a miner's signature
 in the block header 
To: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID:
 < 
CAAO2FKEFxC_byt4xVJb0S-7yy0M7M-Av7MHUH-RBDuri_GAFtw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
A proposal for stemming the tide of mining centralisation -- Requiring a
miner's signature in the block header (the whole of which is hashed), and
paying out coinbase to the miner's public key.
Please comment on whether this idea is feasible, has been thought of
before,
etc., etc. Thank you.
Motivation
Mining is centralising to a handful of pool operators. This is bad for a
number of political reasons, which we won't go into right now. But I have
always believed that some years down the line, they could hold the users
hostage and change the rules to suit themselves. For instance by
eliminating
the halving of the block reward.
Solution
Currently the block header is formed by the pool operator and distributed
for
hashing by the pooled miners. It is possible to divide the work among the
miners as the only thing that is used to search the hash space is by
changing
a nonce or two.
I propose that we require each miner to sign the block header prior to
hashing. The signature will be included in the data that is hashed.
Further,
the coinbase for the block must only pay out to the public key counterpart
of
the private key used to sign the block header.
A valid block will therefore have a signature in the block header that is
verified by the public key being paid by the coinbase transaction.
Ramifications
Work can no longer be divided among the pooled miners as before, without
sharing the pool's private key amongst all of them. If the pool does try to
take this route, then any of the miners may redeem the coinbase when it
matures. Therefore, all miners will use their own key pair.
This will make it difficult to form a cooperating pool of miners who may
not
trust each other, as the block rewards will be controlled by disparate
parties
and not by the pool operator. Only a tight clique of trusted miners would
be
able to form their own private pool in such an environment.
Attacks
Pooled hashpower, instead of earning bitcoins legitimately may try to break
the system instead. They may try a double-spending attack, but in order to
leverage the pool to its full potential the pool operator would again have
to
share their private key with the whole pool. Due to the increased
cooperation
and coordination required for an attack, the probability of a 51% attack is
much reduced.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:25:27 +0100
From: Natanael <natanael.l at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Requiring a miner's
 signature in the block header 
To: Hector Chu <hectorchu at gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID:
  Ref9mN7bJLg-odep3m5teZ7JWDLC+zknQdQQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Den 11 feb 2015 09:55 skrev "Hector Chu" <hectorchu at gmail.com>:
A proposal for stemming the tide of mining centralisation -- Requiring a
miner's signature in the block header (the whole of which is hashed), and
paying out coinbase to the miner's public key.
Please comment on whether this idea is feasible, has been thought of
before,
etc., etc. Thank you.
Motivation
Mining is centralising to a handful of pool operators. This is bad for a
number of political reasons, which we won't go into right now. But I have
always believed that some years down the line, they could hold the users
hostage and change the rules to suit themselves. For instance by
eliminating
the halving of the block reward.
[...]
I propose that we require each miner to sign the block header prior to
hashing. The signature will be included in the data that is hashed.
Further,
the coinbase for the block must only pay out to the public key
counterpart of
the private key used to sign the block header.
[...]
This will make it difficult to form a cooperating pool of miners who may
not
trust each other, as the block rewards will be controlled by disparate
parties
and not by the pool operator. Only a tight clique of trusted miners would
be
able to form their own private pool in such an environment.
People already trust things like cloud mining, so your solution with
increasing technical trust requirements won't help. But you will however
break P2Pool instead.
Also, note that threshold signatures (group signatures) could probably be
used by an actual distrusting pool's miners. There are already a proof of
concept for this implemented with secp256k1 that works with Bitcoin clients
silently. This wouldn't prevent such a pool from working.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is
your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
End of Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 45, Issue 37
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150211/57ec266d/attachment.html>
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-February/007403.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

BITCOIN: SOLO MINING VS MINING POOL! Bitcoin price analysis!- bitcoin may 29 Bitcoin spam attack on live Video guide: How to setup a Litecoin P2Pool on your own PC platform. How To Manually Adjust Difficulty Vertcoin One Click Miner Bitcoin mining output and difficulty adjustments

DiscusFish/P2Pool was recorded as the second largest bitcoin miner with a share of 16.49%. Officially called F2Pool, the pool, which is also known as DiscusFish, is run by bitcoin enthusiasts Wang ... You can use a local node with no issue. The p2pool instance will eventually increase the difficulty of the shares it asks of the miner if it is getting too many of them. 99% of those "accepted" shares are simply faked to keep the mining client happy anyway, the current share difficulty of the p2pool network is over 500k. The p2pool share chain. P2pool is basically a merge-mined sharechain that keeps track of which pool participants are owed what amount. Shares that are lucky enough are also valid Bitcoin blocks. Metadata that is only useful to p2pool and not to Bitcoin is hashed and then committed via an OP_RETURN in the coinbase transaction. Shares that do not meet the block difficulty threshold still get ... Proof of Work, “mining,” and P2Pool An overview of itcoin [s consensus model Paul (Pavlos) Georgiou — PGP: A4C02B7A9C233216725FDCFA5816243AF4D1B6BB 1 reduce share time, I have seen how a share time of 10 seconds results in a disaster with LEAF when I mined on the pool with 4Mh only. On the other hand, the cpuminer was not affected by the problem. set a high fee on the pool which gets then redistributed to the miners of the pool with the "patron sendmany" feature of p2pool. Bigger miners will ...

[index] [28381] [42947] [34519] [21606] [38989] [13047] [16846] [44138] [32723] [24310]

BITCOIN: SOLO MINING VS MINING POOL! Bitcoin price analysis!- bitcoin may 29

We discuss how mining in bitcoin works and the differences between SOLO MINING VS MINING POOLS. Hope this video brings you a lot of value! Let´s keep on learning! To read more with regards to Bitcoin wallet card, litecoin wallet card, please visit website the following: http://www.cryptocoinwalletcards.com/ Tags: asic ... Every 14 days the difficulty is adjusted. Most of the times it is increasing and since November 2017 it has exploded. What impact does this have on your mini... Caught Bitcoin spam attack on camera. Green = input, Red = output, Yellow = input+output, Blue = transaction bitcoin cash, bitcoin mining, bitcoin gold, bitcoin wallet, bitcoin live, bitcoin fork ... P2Pool is a good concept of mining cyptocurrency, which allow single miners work on their own pool, and the pools connect to others make a large minging matrix pool. PS: at this moment, official ...

#