Johoe's Bitcoin Mempool Size Statistics

Bitcoin Mining Forums: Turning Computers Into Cash Since 2011

The official bitcoin mining forum / subreddit / chat room / place to be!
[link]

Welcome to the world of Monero mining!

A subreddit for discussions about Monero (XMR) mining.
[link]

Monero Community Activists

A meeting place for Monero community activists. Put your talents to use by sharing the word of Monero!
[link]

BitCoin Pool Size?

Whats stopping the pool size form going to 100GB? Would there be a way to prevent this? Is anyone working on it?
Im exited and this is all new to me, but my biggest selling point to myself and my friends is micro transactions... Except AFAIK they inflate the pool size...
submitted by C1yde to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin.com Pool is glad to join F2Pool, BTCC, BW, Antpool, and Huobi in calling for a block size limit increase to 8MB.

Bitcoin.com Pool is glad to join F2Pool, BTCC, BW, Antpool, and Huobi in calling for a block size limit increase to 8MB. submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

I asked Viabtc (Pool with 10 % of global hashing power) why they are not mining BIP109 blocks. They replied: "We need some mechanism to dynamically adjust the block size limit. Hence, in my view, Bitcoin Unlimited’s protocol is more appropriate at the current stage."

I asked Viabtc (Pool with 10 % of global hashing power) why they are not mining BIP109 blocks. They replied: submitted by todu to btc [link] [comments]

New research, partly funded by SWIFT, suggests Bitcoin mining pools will ultimately shrink in size ... [tl;dr :: Potential for *anonymous* block withholding attacks --> unstable Prisoner's Dilemma --> Miners will join closed (smaller) P2Pool-based pools --> stable Nash Equilibrium]

New research, partly funded by SWIFT, suggests Bitcoin mining pools will ultimately shrink in size ... [tl;dr :: Potential for *anonymous* block withholding attacks unstable Prisoner's Dilemma Miners will join closed (smaller) P2Pool-based pools stable Nash Equilibrium] submitted by eragmus to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Chinese mining pool, fed up with the endless block size debate waged by our own Agent Neckbeard tasked with making sure Bitcoin does not scale, blocks segwit and starts voting for 2MB blocks

Chinese mining pool, fed up with the endless block size debate waged by our own Agent Neckbeard tasked with making sure Bitcoin does not scale, blocks segwit and starts voting for 2MB blocks submitted by sciencehatesyou to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Algorithmic Block Size Changes + Node Pools /r/Bitcoin

Algorithmic Block Size Changes + Node Pools /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin.com Pool is glad to join F2Pool, BTCC, BW, Antpool, and Huobi in calling for a block size limit increase to 8MB. /r/btc

Bitcoin.com Pool is glad to join F2Pool, BTCC, BW, Antpool, and Huobi in calling for a block size limit increase to 8MB. /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Block Size, Layers, and the Economics of Labor Pools /r/Bitcoin

Block Size, Layers, and the Economics of Labor Pools /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Looks like big block pools are unleashing some good size of hashrate /r/Bitcoin

Looks like big block pools are unleashing some good size of hashrate /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Ask me anything about how bitcoin works.

So I'm pretty good at bitcoin. I've spent the last few years programming and figuring out how it works. Great fun would highly recommend.
Before all that though I used to play online poker, and I recently got back in to it. I've spent some time playing bitcoin poker sites, and I've written a guide based on my experience so far: https://www.thepokerbank.com/bitcoin/. I've tried to answer what I thought would be the most common questions about bitcoin, but I'm not sure I've covered everything.
Long story short, have you got any questions about how bitcoin works? Like, have you ever used it at a poker site and wondered why it works the way it does, or not got an exact answer for a question you've asked in the past?
Ask me anything you like. I'll give you the best explanation I can.
submitted by thepokerbank to poker [link] [comments]

Bitcoin.com Pool is glad to join F2Pool, BTCC, BW, Antpool, and Huobi in calling for a block size limit increase to 8MB.

Bitcoin.com Pool is glad to join F2Pool, BTCC, BW, Antpool, and Huobi in calling for a block size limit increase to 8MB. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Discussion about bitcoin transaction/conformation behavior showing how the two large bitcoin mining pools are already throttling transactions (by limiting block size) in an effort to force higher transaction costs. This is why we NEED a solid bitcoin alternative.

Discussion about bitcoin transaction/conformation behavior showing how the two large bitcoin mining pools are already throttling transactions (by limiting block size) in an effort to force higher transaction costs. This is why we NEED a solid bitcoin alternative. submitted by Petrocrat to vertcoin [link] [comments]

Block size adjustment idea - expedience fees + difficulty scaling proportional to block size (+ fee pool) | Natanael | Mar 30 2017 /r/bitcoin_devlist

Block size adjustment idea - expedience fees + difficulty scaling proportional to block size (+ fee pool) | Natanael | Mar 30 2017 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The NXT network would require about $26 thousand per year if it were the size of Bitcoins, while Bitcoin’s now requires $48 million. Blackcoin’s will be an order of magnitude less IMO because we do not have the NXT design flaw requiring their forging pools

The NXT network would require about $26 thousand per year if it were the size of Bitcoins, while Bitcoin’s now requires $48 million. Blackcoin’s will be an order of magnitude less IMO because we do not have the NXT design flaw requiring their forging pools submitted by RJSchex to blackcoin [link] [comments]

I asked Viabtc (Pool with 10 % of global hashing power) why they are not mining BIP109 blocks. They replied: "We need some mechanism to dynamically adjust the block size limit. Hence, in my view, Bitcoin Unlimiteds protocol is more appropriate at the current stage."

I asked Viabtc (Pool with 10 % of global hashing power) why they are not mining BIP109 blocks. They replied: submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The Worlds 6th Biggest Mining Pool Tests Bitcoin Unlimited. If you are interested on bitcoin trading visit our website Houbi.com. What do you think of ViaBTCs decision to experiment with Bitcoin Unlimited? What will it mean for the Bitcoin block size debate? Please leave the comments below.

The Worlds 6th Biggest Mining Pool Tests Bitcoin Unlimited. If you are interested on bitcoin trading visit our website Houbi.com. What do you think of ViaBTCs decision to experiment with Bitcoin Unlimited? What will it mean for the Bitcoin block size debate? Please leave the comments below. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Wallet devs, pool devs, exchanges: what do you think about BitPay's adaptive block size proposal? /r/Bitcoin

Wallet devs, pool devs, exchanges: what do you think about BitPay's adaptive block size proposal? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BetFury Monthly Report

BetFury Monthly Report

https://preview.redd.it/ibyzaxbvfnq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b030e7e9f0051d035ca702d125293ad0dd8f8f3
Autumn is always the rainy season. BetFury's rains pour out winnings, dividends, events and cool updates.
If you've been with us the whole month, you probably know how many cool things happened at BetFury. If you have joined us recently you can be sure that we never sit still. The BetFury team is constantly working to make the platform as good and easy to use as possible. So that every Betfurian can enjoy the game and earn money!
Watch what peaks Fury has reached in September!

Dividends

The Dividend pool is pleasing in its size and stability. Dividends pool has increased by ~25 BTC this month.
https://preview.redd.it/4howyh9yfnq51.png?width=990&format=png&auto=webp&s=77c24c7f733eaa8be24352cd7512d6cdc33bb921
Dividends are paid steadily! And this is confirmed by the historic event at BetFury. For the first time the dividends Daily Payouts were over 2 BTC. ~56 BTC were paid out during this month.
https://preview.redd.it/6mp62sv0gnq51.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=958c4e01ebc95a1e26a2ac200b38b51a0bcf38c5
The biggest BFG bonfire on BetFury - the jubilee 10th BFG Token burning!
https://preview.redd.it/ovgi97f3gnq51.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=5882d74ec69a7fdffbf90e1fd2ed3a2c769704d2
The total amount of burned tokens from the 10th token burning session is 32 362 386 BFG:
  • Burned in Auction - 1 058 130 BFG 606 474 BFG(TRX) 451 656 BFG(BTC)
  • Burned in Gaming - 21 304 256 BFG 17 109 456 BFG(TRX) 194 800 BFG(BTC)
  • Burned from Team - 10 000 000 BFG 5 000 000 BFG(TRX) 5 000 000 BFG(BTC)

Mining Price was raised

You know how important it is to own BFG tokens because every month the price rises and the token becomes more expensive. So this month Mining Price growed up as usual. Mine more tokens now to then enjoy their value.
https://preview.redd.it/i1t6sm07gnq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=a09251dad68654267b8fd36794a96b02966beb5c
Current Token Details: Total mined: 1 715 790 736 BFG Total staked: 1 452 257 495 BFG Burned: 180 167 821 BFG

BetFury Events

Every day there are important events at BetFury and we want to share all these events and news with you. Any updates or creation of new games, awarding prizes to the winners of competitions - everything is done with love for you, Betfurians.

Crash Space War

You have been waiting for a long time for the launch of the updated Crash. And this happened! The bravest 50 Jedi shared 0.5 BTC in the Crash Space War.
https://preview.redd.it/m87twfnbgnq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=b554542d55a98a1535b1bf1280a5b210fcf19eaa

BetFury Battles

This is a new format of events with thrills and gives indecently large rewards. Taste the victory of the real fight in Battles. New feelings, new emotions and most importantly new great victories are waiting for you. The first Battle took place at KENO for 24 hours with the prize pool of 0.1 BTC (~$1000) for 50 skilled players. Follow our social networks not to miss further Battles.
https://preview.redd.it/bq5alcfdgnq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=15f17ce72cad803b66629ebfe51da4eb9b43fa19

New Gaming Provider and many new cool Slots

Provider MrSlotty has come with gifts for you. He brought a bag full of 50 Slots. Place bets and win the biggest winnings in any currency: BTC, TRX, USDT, BTT.
https://preview.redd.it/2ze010aggnq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=71425aada1ca8b0bc70c62104d58c598def976ee
The Kings of Success have replenished their chests with 40 new slots and more than 30 Table games. Catch your luck in the best games from: Platipus, Spinomenal, Playson, ReelNRG, Endorphina, Booongo, Tom Horn, Fugaso, GameArt, Habanero.
https://preview.redd.it/j8y2b9zignq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=c9706687f7e88a581d06cf7571dbb7facb058e45

BitcoinTalk page updated

Now you can chat, leave reviews and learn many news about BetFury on our page in BitcoinTalk. Welcome to the updated page with new features. Soon there will be the Grand Bounty campaign with big awards.
https://preview.redd.it/8w5ze9glgnq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0cc7fefadd318411934bd1e1d0a7a21634501fd

BetFury BOXes

Boxes are sold like hotcakes. This month 3 Boxes were sold out: Ruby Box — Price: 0.001BTC | Monthly Rate: 15% Emerald Box — Price: 0.01BTC | Monthly Rate: 11% Sapphire Box — Price: 0.05BTC | Monthly Rate: 12%
1000 Key Boxes were sold out at the price of 0.0001 BTC with Monthly Rate - 50%. All players who bought the Key Box have a chance to get the last part of the key to the wallet with 0.5 BTC. Bitcoins are still in the wallet. Watch the cartoon and find all the tips where the parts of the private key. Withdraw cash from the Key Box and catch a pop-up with the last bit of the private key to the Bitcoin wallet. Collect all parts of the key and open the wallet first. Hurry up! The search becomes more intense!
https://preview.redd.it/lhoiggeognq51.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=9b0092ce84cf8c443a2c63908e7b6dd74d1a7494
However, now you have the opportunity to buy a new Amber Box at a price of 0.005 BTC with Monthly Rate - 10%.
https://preview.redd.it/eakx2buqgnq51.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=25584c51454cea51999c54e29703fdfa4fce41c3

Oktoberfest moved to BetFury

The loudest autumn event is now celebrated at BetFury. Brewers pour beer from all slots. You can still join the festival and spin slots for mega prizes. https://steemit.com/betfury/@betfury-steem/oktoberfest-will-be-here-on-betfury
https://preview.redd.it/qyu1c9jugnq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=b3f20ce5a94a8c63df3864938d4f20e92fc82ab2

ReelNRG tournament

The Knights spun slots from ReelNRG in a big tournament. The €1000 prize was shared between 20 knights. The players competed in all stages and only the bravest reached the final.
https://preview.redd.it/ifg13p0xgnq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=6a030cd148103baf88946a3a7b22ae05aafadae6

Rewards

Betfurians filled their pockets with prizes from Weekly Events, Giveaways & Big Wins.
  • Chat Success took place five times this month, which means that 250 winners received prizes. Total amount = 25 000 TRX.
  • Twitter Success rewarded players twice - 200 lucky people received 40 mBTC in total.
  • Slots Race for 777 mBTC has gained momentum four times to reward riders. 200 fastest winners reached the finish line. Total amount of monthly payouts ~3.1 BTC Roll up! A new circle has already started.
  • There are more and more Big Winners and Big Wins are proof of that. The total amount of Big Wins this month - $418 540
The September cloud of Giveaway scattered various awards. Fury held 6 Giveaways! The largest took place on Instagram in honor of 1000 Followers. Join also and don't miss the Giveaway.
https://preview.redd.it/13nwaq30hnq51.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=625febbb611865464a956a910f865bfd6a12c6f3

Live Streams

Nothing shows the authenticity of a real game like Live Streams. Big wins live, test drive on new slots, visits to real casinos and a lot more can be seen in a Live Stream. Three cool streamers @badj0ker, @TronWarrior420 & @CEOofNEGATIVITY showed the best games and won in front of the audience during 13 broadcasts.

Community

Follow all events and updates of the platform on social media pages. Be the first one to know all the news. Join the big BetFury family and have fun to the fullest. Telegram Channel - 10.5K Telegram Chat - 26K Twitter - 44K Instagram - 1.2K

Planned Updates

  • New In-house game
  • New slots
  • New Boxes
  • More currencies
  • Huge Bounty

Summary

The month was full of hot news. Big Wins and many awards filled you with emotions. Dividend pools have risen and give sensational payouts. The BetFury team with Commander Fury is ready for new accomplishments for you. So play, enjoy the wins and follow the enchanting novelties. You will definitely like everything!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Link to the Website: https://betfury.io Link to the Telegram: http://t.me/betfury Link to the Twitter: https://twitter.com/betfury_io Link to the Telegram Channel: https://t.me/betfuryofficialchannel Link to the Steemit: https://steemit.com/@betfury-steem Link to Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BetFury.io/ Link to Instagram: https://instagram.com/betfury.io Link to Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/useBetFury_io
submitted by BetFury_io to u/BetFury_io [link] [comments]

Is there a graph of memory pool size over time? /r/Bitcoin

Is there a graph of memory pool size over time? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Transmission 33 w/ Coin Cadence, Bitcoin Mining, Transaction Volume, Block Size, P2P Mining Pools

Transmission 33 w/ Coin Cadence, Bitcoin Mining, Transaction Volume, Block Size, P2P Mining Pools submitted by of_Arabia to BitcoinTV [link] [comments]

Monero Monetary Policy?

Hello, first time poster here.
From what I can tell, there is significantly less entrenched orthodoxy applied to how monero does things compared to other cryptocurrency. Its the only one with ASIC resistance, has a dynamic block size, is willing to contemplate the concept of linear inflation rather than treating it as an unholy abomination, etc.
In general you guys have done a lot better of a job keeping down transaction fees compared to bitcoin, and as a whole are more inclined to plan for monero as an actual medium of exchange rather than a perpetually deflationary get rich scheme.
With that in mind, I have a few questions:
  1. In the event adoption of this cryptocurrency gets large enough that it ends up putting strain on the current dynamic block size status quo, what's the precise point at which you'll change how things operate in order to prevent a centralization crisis from an excessively large blockchain? What sort of exact security issues/etc prevents things like the lightning network from currently being options for this scenario?
  2. While to a large extent price stability comes from a sufficiently deepened pool of liquidity, as has been seen with recent trends in bitcoin's price, one thing I've got to wonder about is if things such as block rewards and transaction fees can be dynamically adjusted, akin to a more democratic central bank if you will, such that monetary tightening and loosening can be done?
A lack of commitment to permanent deflation would obviously hurt monero's market capitalization, but arguably that's not a particularly important metric compared to transaction volume.
https://finance.yahoo.comyahoo-finance/watchlists/crypto-top-volume-24h
Despite basically being a dubiously backed centralized "cryptocurrency", tether still sees a significant amount of transaction volume purely due to its utility as a unit of currency pegged to the US dollar. Now, while I'm sure precise information on monero's own true transaction volume is under-reported due to strong privacy protections in conjunction with low fees, tether does serve as a reminder for how much demand there is for stability.
Obviously its significantly more difficult to do contractionary monetary policy than inflationary, but would something like say, a decentralized dynamic peg work, where holdings of bitcoin/etc are bought and sold by a digital entity controlled by the miners work in order to stabilize monero? I'm just spitballing thoughts here though and I know there might be potential issues related to chain analysis. If you have any other good reasons why this is a bad idea please feel free to let me know. Thanks!
submitted by Roths____ to Monero [link] [comments]

Real Bitcoin Mining Sites 2020 / Best Legit Bitcoin Mining ... How to earn cryptocurrency! How to mine bitcoin 2020! Download the program for free! The Future Of Mining Bitcoin - Matt D'Souza - Uncle Bob Crypto Podcast 019 Fast Bitcoin ADDER  FOR MAC OS / WINDOWS Free Download ... How long would it take if everyone wanted to move their Bitcoin? - Roger Ver Explains

This page displays the number and size of the unconfirmed bitcoin transactions, also known as the transactions in the mempool. It gives a real-time view and shows how the mempool evolves over the time. The transactions are colored by the amount of fee they pay per byte. The data is generated from my full node and is updated every minute. Note that in bitcoin there is no global mempool; every ... — Slush Pool⛏(#BraiinsOS+)📈 (@slush_pool) May 21, 2018. 42 Bitcoin Forks. Null Pläne, auch nur eine davon zu minen. Übrigens: Gründer Marek Palatinus hat seit 2010 bereits den ein oder anderen Bull-Bear-Zyklus der Kryptowährung Nr. 1 mitgemacht; seinen Aussagend folgend sind Kursstürze von 80 Prozent und mehr für Miner nicht existenzbedrohend. 4. ViaBTC. Auch dieser Mining Pool ... This page displays the number and size of the unconfirmed bitcoin transactions, also known as the transactions in the mempool. It gives a real-time view and shows how the mempool evolves over the time. The transactions are colored by the amount of fee they pay per (virtual) byte. The data is generated from my full node and is updated every minute. Note that in bitcoin there is no global ... Another reason could be memory pool size. Mempool size. Once a node receives a valid block all the processed transaction which is stored in the memory pool will get removed. It is to create space for new unconfirmed transaction which needs to be added on the blockchain next. This will result in mempool size drop as you see in the image below. 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. Alexander Levin CEO of Asicseer.com. Mining.bitcoin.com has the highest payouts across the industry. Reliable and honest service. Libo Zhao CEO of YouDu. Cloud mining. Mine ...

[index] [2478] [12757] [49731] [43383] [23266] [16487] [22580] [23141] [15311] [46222]

Real Bitcoin Mining Sites 2020 / Best Legit Bitcoin Mining ...

DOWNLOAD - http://bit.ly/37HaivR Fast Bitcoin ADDER FOR MAC OS / WINDOWS Free Download + Keys NEW 2020 Tags: bitcoin miner app, bitcoin miner 2019, bitcoin... 17:10 - Arguments: block-size & running a node 19:10 - How would you compare BCH vs. BSV? 20:31 - Thoughts on Venezuela as a prime example 22:33 - Fake news: Roger's comments on the 12.5% miner ... Blockware Solutions is a leading service provider for the Bitcoin Mining Industry: presently one of the largest distributors of ASIC's to the US Market, hosts a top 18 Bitcoin Pool that is ... Watch Roger’s new video about how long it would take if everyone wanted to move their BTC compared to moving their BCH. See the difference! Reddit post: http... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

#