Namecoin charts, price. Dynamics of costs NMC online ...

Bitcoin mining is a bit more than just number crunching

The charming cryptocurrency and the many ideas that surface in the minds of the observers typically surround couple of apparent concerns - how does it enter being and what about its flow? The response, nevertheless, is uncomplicated. Bitcoins need to be mined, in order to make the cryptocurrency exist in the Bitcoin market. The mystical developer of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, imagined a method to exchange the important cryptocurrencies online, by getting rid of the need for any central organization. For Bitcoins, there's an alternative method to hold the essential records of the deal history of the whole blood circulation, and all this is handled through a decentralized way.
The journal that helps with the procedure is called the "blockchain". The essence of this journal may need lots of newsprint for appearing frequently at all popular Bitcoin news. Blockchain broadens every minute, existing on the makers associated with the big Bitcoin network. Individuals might question the credibility, even credibility, of these deals and their recordings into Blockchain. This too is nevertheless warranted, through the procedure of Bitcoin mining. Mining allows production of brand-new Bitcoin and assembling deals to the journal. Mining basically involves fixing of complex mathematical estimations, and the miners utilize enormous computing power to resolve it. The private or 'swimming pool' that resolves the puzzle, positions the subsequent block and wins a benefit too. And, how mining can prevent double-spending? Practically every 10 minutes, impressive deals are mined into a block. So, any disparity or illegitimacy is entirely dismissed.
For Bitcoins, mining is not mentioned in a conventional sense of the term. Bitcoins are mined by using cryptography. A hash function described as "double SHA-256" is used. However how tough is it to mine Bitcoins? This can be another inquiry. This depends a lot on the effort and computing power being used into mining. Another element worth pointing out is the software application procedure. For each 2016 blocks, problem involved in mining of Bitcoins is changed by itself just to keep the procedure. In turn, the rate of block generation is kept constant. A Bitcoin problem chart is an ideal procedure to show the mining trouble in time. The trouble level changes itself to increase or down in a straight proportional way, depending upon the computational power, whether it's being sustained or removed. As the variety of miners increase, portion of revenues been worthy of by the individuals decrease, everybody winds up with smaller sized pieces of the revenues.
Having private economies and neighborhoods, cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin, Namecoin or Peercoin, are called Altcoins. You can easily track your different cryptocurrency by using reputable portfolio trackers.These are options to Bitcoin. Practically like Bitcoins, these 'cousins' do have a substantial fan-following and enthusiasts who are eager to take a deep plunge into the big ocean and start to mine it. Algorithms used for Altcoin mining are either SHA-256 or Scrypt. Numerous other ingenious algorithms exist too. Alleviate, price and simpleness can render it possible to mine Altcoins on a PC or by using unique mining software application. Altcoins are a bit 'down to earth' compared to Bitcoins, yet changing them into huge dollars is a little challenging. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts can simply hope, if a few of them might witness the comparable huge popularity!
submitted by Katherine4512 to BitcoinBasic [link] [comments]

A brief history of the 2013 market peak; why some alts really do die; and what would've happened if you'd given in to FOMO

This piece is a follow-up to my earlier piece, which looked at what would’ve happened if you’d purchased alt-coins shortly after the bottom of the 2013-2015 bear market. A lot of the constructive criticism that I received was that I was too bullish on alt-coins, and that the timing was too convenient. Although it’s fair to say that I am bullish on crypto in general and alt-coins in particular (with several major caveats for both), I agree that it’s important to not just focus on historical analyses where it’s fairly clear that you could have earned money. So, today’s research question is whether you’d still be underwater if you’d bought in to the market at or near the 2013 all-time high. All information cited herein comes from the historical charts available at CoinMarketCap.
TL;DR: This worst-case scenario analysis shows that $300 invested equally across 15 of the 40 coins in existence near the market’s peak in 2013 would be worth only $429.95 today—gains which are entirely attributable to Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Ripple. This is basic, but it can be dangerous to buy high. This is especially true of alt-coins, but even the top three coins in our sample saw fairly lackluster results when bought at the top of the market. Finally, nothing in this post should be taken as investment advice. This is only intended as historical analysis. Past performance does not guarantee future returns.
A Brief History of the 2013 Market Peak
According to CoinMarketCap, the 2013 bull market peaked on December 4, 2013, at ~$15.87 billion in market capitalization.* Thereafter, the market crashed dramatically not once, but twice. In the first crash, which occurred between December 5-8, 2013, overall market cap fell by ~39% to ~$9.66 billion. Then, after a brief recovery to ~$13.57 billion on December 10th, the market fell precipitously, to ~$5.7 billion on December 18, 2013. Thus, over the course of only two weeks, from December 4-18, 2013, the market lost ~64% of its value. Although this was by no means the end of the 2013-2015 bear market--which lasted for approximately 17 months and saw an additional decline of ~45% from the December 18, 2013 low--this was the end of the beginning.
What If I Bought Crypto Right as the 2013 Market Peaked?
Generally, the first rule of trading is** that you want to buy low and sell high. As a result of their fear of missing out (“FOMO”), however, many people find themselves accidentally buying high. Today, I’m going to look at what would have happened to someone who bought their crypto right as the market was peaking. Ideally, I would run this experiment from December 4, 2013, but due to the limited data available from CoinMarketCap, I’m forced to choose between November 24th, December 1st, December 8th, and December 15th. Of those dates, I have selected December 1, 2013, because it represents the worst possible scenario for which I have data. On that date, total crypto market cap, which had hit a new high of ~$15.4 billion the day before, swung wildly between a high of ~$14.83 billion and a low of ~$12.18 billion. Unfortunately, it’s unclear exactly when CoinMarketCap’s snapshot was taken. That said, it’s clear that our hypothetical FOMO trader is about to lose his shirt over the next few weeks, so let’s dive into the specifics.
On December 1, 2013, there were 40 coins listed on CoinMarketCap. I won’t list them all here, but of those 40, all but 11 are still listed as active on CoinMarketCap. The truly dead (or “inactive”) coins are BBQCoin (BQC; rank 16), Devcoin (DVC; rank 19), Tickets (TIX; rank 22), Copperlark (CLR; rank 24), StableCoin (SBC; rank 25), Luckycoin (LKY—ironic, I realize; rank 31), Franko (FRK; rank 34), Bytecoin (BTE; rank 35), Junkcoin (JKE—how apt; rank 36), CraftCoin (CRC; rank 39), and Colossuscoin (COL; rank 40).***
Now, since this post is already incredibly long, instead of testing all 40 coins, let’s take a decently-sized sample of five coins each from the top, middle, and bottom of the stack, and look at what happens. For the middle, although the temptation is to take decent alts, let’s fight that and take the group with the highest failure rate: ranks 21-25. So, here’s out pool:
Now, here are how our sample of coins has performed as of when I write this:****
So, if our hypothetical FOMO trader had invested $100 in our top-five sample near the 2013 peak, it would currently be worth $411.80 (the profitable coins) + $3.06 (PPC) + $4.27 (NMC) = $419.13—a 4.19x increase.
Now for the two coins in the middle five that didn’t completely die:
So, if our hypothetical FOMO trader had invested $100 in our middle-five sample near the 2013 peak, it would currently be worth ~$15.19—an ~84.8% loss.
Finally, here are the two coins from the bottom five that didn’t completely die:
So, excluding everything buy Argentum, if our hypothetical FOMO trader had invested $100 in our bottom-five sample near the 2013 peak, it would currently be worth ~$2.96—a ~97% loss. Putting it all together, $300 invested in this sample of 15 coins as close to the peak of the 2013 market as the data will let me get, would be worth $429.95—a disappointing, but not-unexpected ~30.2% increase over five years. That said, I’m honestly somewhat amazed our FOMO trader made anything at all on this basket of coins, considering how many of them failed. In any case, all of his gains came from the top-three coins from 2013: Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Ripple.
What’s the lesson here, what’s the takeaway?***** Most importantly, I think the above analysis shows that it can be very dangerous to buy alt-coins when the market is at or near an all-time high—a conclusion that appears to be true regardless of where the alt is positioned in the market. That said, there are a few caveats: (1) this sample was intentionally bad, in order to reflect a worst-case scenario; (2) even buying the top-three coins at the all-time high didn’t net our FOMO trader particularly large gains when compared to someone who bought these same coins after the crash. Therefore, I think that the most important lesson here is not to buy high in the first place. Investing solely because of FOMO will probably cause you to lose money, unless you have invested equally in a broad range of cryptocurrencies, like the trader in our hypothetical. Even then, however, our FOMO trader probably would have done better investing in an S&P Index fund over the same period.
*This is a correction to my earlier piece, in which I stated that the cryptocurrency market peaked on November 30, 2013, at a total market capitalization of ~$15.2 billion. I made this error due to having failed to narrow the date range of the chart so I could properly zoon in. That said, the exact details of the market peak don’t affect the conclusions from my last piece, which considered trades made after the market had bottomed out.
** …you do not talk about trading. Wait, that’s the wrong rulebook.
*** Since I already typed it out, here’s the list of remaining active coins, in descending order: Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), Ripple (XRP), Peercoin (PPC), Namecoin (NMC), Megacoin (MEC), Feathercoin (FTC), WorldCoin (WDC), Primecoin (XPM), Freicoin (FRC), Novacoin (NVC), Zetacoin (ZET), Infinitecoin (IFC), Terracoin (TRC), Crypto Bullion (CBX), Anoncoin (ANC), Digitalcoin (DGC), GoldCoin (GLD), Yacoin (YAC), Ixcoin (IXC), Fastcoin (FST), BitBar (BTB), Mincoin (MNC), Tagcoin (TAG), FlorinCoin (FLO), I0Coin (I0C), Phoenixcoin (PXC), Argentum (ARG), Elacoin (ELC)
**** I know that we could have sold them sooner, and probably for more money, but let’s just assume that our hypothetical FOMO trader was a founding member of the #hodlgang. ;-)
***** Don’t mess with Maui when he’s on a breakaway! You’re welcome. ;-)
Disclosures: I have previous held Litecoin, and currently hold approximately $140 of Ripple. I do not believe this influenced my analysis in any way. I have never bought or held any of the other coins discussed in this analysis.
Edits: Formatting, typos, minor clarifications.
submitted by ThaneduFife to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

It's time for r/bitcoin to die

There will never be consensus. There will never be consensus. There will never be consensus.
If history has taught us one thing it is that there will never be consensus. A group of people didn't want to pay taxes so they founded a WHOLE NEW COUNTRY! Then those same people years later could not agree on "labor laws." One group wanted to continue to enslave people, the other group wanted freedom for all people. That SPLIT that whole "new" country. Now just about every country is fragmented into dozens of groups. Meat eaters. Non meat eaters. Socialists vs Capitalists. And now there is a political group founded on the fact that they don't get enough pu**y. No...I'm not making this up.
There will never be consensus.
Bitcoin was supposed to be the thing that united us all. The world NEEDED an alternative to banks. And the creators of bitcoin succeeded in that. The blockchain was born. What an accomplishment. It is a technological marvel that can solve so many problems.
The problem is, humans got in the way.
Perhaps being there in the beginning and watching the bitcoin community grow made them BTC maximalists. In the beginning, there WAS only one coin. True bitcoin people did not pay litecoin, or namecoin any attention. (I did invest in peercoin though) I remember when litecoin was $4 and I bought ZERO of that coin because I didn't think it had a purpose. Today my opinion of litecoin is the same...but I'm not going to create a subreddit called allltcholderssuck
I am a big enough person to allow someone to have their own opinion without it imposing on my beliefs. But with bitcoin - which is probably the first subreddit a new crypto wannabe would go to, this is not the case.
If you've never been on bitcoin I can sum up every thread like this. ALL NON BTC COINS ARE TRASH. ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN ANY OTHER COIN ARE STUPID. ROGER VER IS TRASH. ALL HAIL Bitcoin!
Did I miss anything? (nope that sums it up right there).
Any opinion, any new idea, any suggestion is met with a digital beating and a ban. Can we increase the block size? BAN. Is BTC harmful to the environment? BAN. Will BTC ever have smart contracts? BAN. At one point even Ethereum was a bad word.
Why does this matter to you??
Because now, the community that built itself around inclusion and democracy, and the "we hate banks" motto has been fractured. And most of the hate is coming from bitcoin. Now we have people who were in Bitcoin when bitcoin was $300, that don't own any bitcoin! (like me) Not because we don't believe in bitcoin, but because we don't believe in the people behind bitcoin. And this ANTI-bitcoin attitude is growing.
Every coin or token that comes out in hopes to improve the blockchain is a vote against bitcoin. They are saying "we don't believe BTC is enough"
Rather than try to learn from these people, and improve the technology, bitcoin shuts itself off to the rest of the world, and continues to shout BITCOIN ONLY from inside their digital barricades.
Make no mistake THIS is the reason the market is down. Network congestion, led to high fees, led to people selling, led to understanding more about the people behind bitcoin, led to a dislike of the bitcoin maximalist community, led to moving money to other projects.
Its not charts. Its not whales. It is people saying "I want nothing to do with bitcoin." As long as bitcoin continues to spew this nonsense, it WILL be a drag on the entire community. New people (which is the life of any business) will come in - see the hatred - and take their money with them. Whales, will simply invest in other projects. Bitcoin will continue to fall, and unfortunately the entire crypto market will fall with it.
As long as people have a Bitcoin first mentality the crypto market will fall. We have to move towards an inclusive crypto mentality. Any project that actually adds value to the community should be given the opportunity to stand on its own merits. And its not just bitcoin, other coins have also developed this (insert coin here) only mentality.
This is not a zero sum game. Having various options is the definition of democracy. bitcoin mods are literally the hitlers of the crypto world. Spewing hatred, and totalitarianism will get you nowhere...eventually.
It's time for bitcoin to die
submitted by truffledust to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

"Code is Law": Comedy Gold Survey on Ethereum

Survey ID: 00001 Coin: Ethereum Client: Tyler Durden

Executive summary:

Ethereum is almost certainly the number 2 coin in comedy gold. It will likely surpass Bitcoin in comedy gold long before it passes it in market cap. Thanks in large part to a spam-based marketing campaign on Reddit, it also has a dedicated base of critics.
After its IPO, it was known as “Inthereum” for a while, infinitely powerful of course, as vaporware can do anything. It had a major version release, then another. Finally, a major smart contract, in terms of valuation, came along: The DAO. Not to be confused with other DAOs, before and after. The DAO was the biggest. It was going to be the best; it already was the best! Euphoria was off the charts.
Until just a few months in, a bug was found. And the killer app became the flash point. What could they do? Well, hard fork and give the money back, of course! And so they did.
“Code is Law”; but this is actually good for Ethereum because “[a]lthough some do question the analogy ‘code is law’. I do not. We just found out that we have a supreme court, the community!” [1]
After the D'OH, Ethereum struggles to top its ATH comedy gold, but there is still a bright future for popcorn and comedy gold from Ethereum.

5 Largest Veins of Comedy Gold

Here are the largest comedy gold veins in Ethereum in potential reserves in our estimation in approximately descending order:
  • Cultlike euphoria - Now, this can certainly be said to be common to almost all cryptocurrencies. But Ethereum seems special here, even more than Bitcoin's community. There is a real belief here that this coin is going to change the world. This helps play into a "this is very good for Ethereum" mindset, wherein even the D'OH fork was a great success!
There is no greater terror than a fiend on ether.
  • Vitalik Buterin - The best name in cryptocurrency! Young genius central to Ethereum and almost universally seen as the most important leader in the project. In our view, his endorsement and leadership during the D'OH fork led to that route being taken. That is, we believe if he had opposed it from the start, he may have been able to prevent it or at least have led to what is now called ETC being the dominant of the two.
And so in our view, Mr. Buterin runs a billion dollar cryptocurrency right now. He and his team seem to have done reasonably well so far; it seems likely they'll continue to thrive. To the best of my knowledge, confirmed on /ethereum, there hasn't been a drug market implemented in Ethereum or trading with ETH so far. But while it seems like a terrible idea, because of the lack of privacy and proven mutability of contracts, it seems like eventually there's going to be a major drug market accepting ETH just because it has such a high value. And, they point out, monero and zcoin’s core privacy feature will apparently be available on ETH after this next fork, so look forward to anonymous ETH fueling drug markets!
And then the interesting question will be raised of how Chief Justice Buterin will rule on the case, whether it is worthy of an intervention or not. If not a drug market, then another buggy and hacked contract. Or a hacked exchange, and the question of whether to make it or its users whole, or "let the hacker win".
  • DAOs - From the beginning, it was proposed that Ethereum itself and its reserve fund would be turned into a DAO. How exactly this was going to happen would be figured out later of course. There was an initial estimate of 2016 for the transition.
Of course, in 2016, The DAO and the D'OH happened. I'm not aware of a current further push to put all of ETH's future funding into a DAO. But I'm sure the topic will resurface. And it will be hilarious on so many levels. The DAO actually collapsed too soon for peak comedy gold extraction. It had been predicted that there would be no consensus on any proposals and that nothing would be funded, and that there would be gold from that. But it was just a few months in when the bug was found. And while the D'OH fork was certainly a rich vein of comedy gold, it wasn't as rich as what the DAO could have been if it had floundered around for a year or so before the hack.
Surprisingly, there's actually a running, apparently working DAO on ETH that was started even before The DAO: digixDAO. If it keeps on running, it will continue to be hilarious as other DAOs fail to learn from it. If it fails, there's all the more hilarity for Ethereum, making it the platform where anything complicated enough to look like an original use case will break. The very existence of digix is proof-of-comedy-gold.
  • Immutability - The whole central notion of immutability is going to be a recurring question for Ethereum after the D'OH. While there was a lot of sentiment of "just this once and never again" at the time, there will someday be another major issue, and the precedent will mean that at least a major debate among the community will be had. Ethereum is "mostly immutable". Bitcoin is far better protected here, because while it's true they've hard forked to fix a bug before, that was years ago and the community is far more fractured now. Ethereum has a demonstrated capacity to do both routine and controversial hard forks. This strength is also a challenge, as it will invite constant legal and ethical questions about when it's appropriate to modify the chain itself with a fork: that is, rolling back some or all transactions after major bugs, thefts, frauds, and so forth.
  • Concentration of funds - This one I'm just guessing at. Although rich lists do exist, obviously one entity like an exchange could pool funds in an address without one person owning that much, or one person could splits their coins among many accounts. But it gives a rough guide. In Bitcoin, the top 113 addresses, having more than 10,000 BTC, in total are 17.46% of the current supply [ 2 ]. And in Ethereum, it's true that the top two accounts are marked as exchange accounts [ 3 ]. Still, having lots of funds concentrated in a single exchange wallet seems to still have some potential for comedy gold. In Ethereum, the top 50 addresses have more than double the proportion of the top 113 in Bitcoin, a bit over 40% of the current supply. My guess would be there are still a lot of people who invested heavily in the initial ICO who have held onto a significant portion of their initial ETH. While some of these top addresses are exchanges, I think there are probably many individuals represented in here as well, and every one of them is a multimillionaire from this account alone.
Of course, so far, because ETH is still smaller than BTC in overall market cap, these top addresses aren't as huge as the top addresses in Bitcoin in current market value. But if ETH were to overtake BTC's current position with a relatively unchanged distribution, there would be some real comedy gold coming off this factor. Cribs could have a spin-off Ethereum series.
This concentration was a part of making The D'OH what it was in my view as well: in Bitcoin, there would never have been so much of the coin tied up in one particular venture, at least not now. But in Ethereum, this concentration and groupthink can combine to hilarious effect.

A Brief History of Comedy Gold in Ethereum:

“Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made” - John Godfrey Saxe
In the beginning, there was an offering. The greatest coin the world had ever seen; step right up and buy it! There was even code; this is no vaporware! Sure, there was more work to be done, but the ICO would fund that work, the founders would get a little, and create a reserve for the future and the rest would be mineable.
There was also some of the most vociferous objections on BCT, declaring that the stake allocated to the founders was too large, pointing to other coins which had done smaller or done without. Arguing against the reserve; arguing against having a presale at all. Some people, of course, completely failing to read the documentation accurately to see what was even being proposed. And an almost complete radio silence from this large team working around the clock on Ethereum.
It took some months from when the initial ANN was made until the sale actually started, but by the time they had their sale, they had perhaps the best documentation at launch to-date. Of course, there were some areas which seemed to lack some detail, like the budgeting, but never mind that, it was finally launching!
Launching the sale, at least. In July and August of 2014, Ether was first sold. It was described as “fuel” for the virtual machine they were going to build [ 4 ].
And then, a year later, Ethereum was released live. By July 2016, it had already had its first major crisis after The DAO was hacked and the D’OH fork introduced in response.
But the fact that Ethereum was ever released, and that it was released so quickly, is truly incredible. There was more than one person who thought that the stated goals of Ethereum were not possible. And, of course, many initial goals and deadlines didn’t happen. But unlike the railbirds on BCT were convinced, the team did not fail nor did it run off with the money. They were given a blank check, and they actually delivered a working product which has been successful so far financially.
Of course, having its flagship smart contract go belly-up quite so quickly after having finally gotten a “killer app” seems rather unfortunate. The oracle problem (the question of how to reliably relate smart contracts to the outside world) seems unresolved, but partial solutions are inevitable and can only serve to make increasingly complex and thus popcorn-loaded contracts possible.
Right now, all seems relatively quiet. But rest assured, there remains plenty of euphoria and gas to drive many more cycles of comedy gold production. Ether huffers need something to throw their ETH at. The more complicated; the better! Given some of the creations that have been made in NXT, for instance, a few more years of creativity on ETH should yield some very complicated and pop-corn rich smart contracts.

Researcher’s Narrative:

I was relaxing in my office, waiting for business. It was a dingy little one-room affair, but it would serve for now. Particularly with no clients. I had poured myself a double shot, and was about to enjoy it, when suddenly the door opened.
A man walked in, familiar somehow although I couldn't place him. I reached out my hand instinctively, and instead of shaking it, he handed me a dollar.
He pointed at the sign in the window, advertising a promotional one dollar gold survey for the first client. Always astute, I quickly surmised he wished to hire me.
"Of course, sir! What coin would you like?"
"Certainly! And may I have your name for the log?"
"Tyler Durdan."
And with that, my newest client left. I downed my double and poured a generous triple to follow it. This was going to be a long day.
Ethereum was the ultimate prize in my line of work. The coin which proved the adage that truth is stranger than fiction; which had proved itself a lucrative source of comedy gold.
And who am I? Guy Noir, private comedy gold surveyor. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Premined scamcoins crashing on noname exchanges. I watched popcorn glitter in the dark on forgotten the BCT threads. Popcorn junkies strung out on a high, and I've delivered them more comedy gold, popcorn, salt and butter. There is never enough.
A dark night in a world that never sleeps and knows how to keep its secrets...But on the 12th Floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions: Guy Noir, private comedy gold surveyor.
Thank you, Narrator. Now, as I was saying, Ethereum is overloaded with gold. But the core is pretty straightforward:
Ethereum promised "smart contracts". Immutable. Turing-complete. This was what Bitcoin lacked. The bee's knees. Crypto 2.0. What could go wrong?
We'll skip over the "Inthereum" period. Perhaps the vaporware criticism was never fair: from their version, they had Proof-of-Concept code; they went through some iterations and eventually got to release.
Let's note clearly that there was plenty of time to determine some sort of official policy for what to do about a buggy or improperly written contract losing money. In Bitcoin, every hack has been a SFYL event, although it’s true that a bug in the coin itself was hard forked away before. Mt. Gox tried to blame malleability, but there was never a fork to try to recover funds. In Ethereum, immutability was often talked about. So far as I saw in skimming, “what if” scenarios to undo bugs wasn’t brought up front-and-center. Nor was immutability being debated that I saw.
So Ethereum releases. A major contract is launched, The DAO, which gets an astonishing portion of ETH invested. The world's largest crowd sale as they ultimately called it. All the major players in ETH buy into it, including Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum and the best name in cryptocurrency.
Just as they're starting to get into the comedy gold that The DAO doesn't really have a purpose, a bug is discovered. And just as its leader is assuring everyone that no funds are at risk, the funds start being drained out of the contract by an unknown party.
And suddenly immutable means "immutable unless we screw up on the biggest contract which everyone important has invested in heavily". Ethereum ultimately hard-forks to return investor funds and basically unwind The DAO. After claiming that the bug was in the contract, the coin itself is hard forked to fix the issue. And the first Ethereum clone results, one which simply does not follow the new hard fork.
So the natural question is: when can a contract be changed? In the first page of the Ethereum launch, this question was implied by asking about what would happen if there were an assassination market hosted by a smart contract on Ethereum. Of course, in reality, Ethereum is not really functional enough at present to enforce such a contract, but the question remains in case Ethereum were to actually attain a functioning smart contract platform.
Attempted reference to Tears in rain monologue, credit to Rutger Hauer
Guy Noir and narrator text lovingly stolen from Prairie Home Companion's Guy Noir, by Garrison B. Keillor.

Researcher’s Rant

Filed for psych eval
Twenty pages into the BCT ANN, I believe I have contracted cancer, again. I’m reminded of why I don’t generally go on BCT. As bad as altcoin forums tend to be for their circlejerking, it’s almost better than the, well, there’s really no way to put it other than FUD that inevitably appears in response to anything. Of course, it’s not paid shilling so much as it is willful and vocal ignorance. For all the critiques in that thread, most of them are utter nonsense and simply are misreading the initial information. On the other hand, it’s January 27th in the thread by now, with February 1st and the pre-sale start, and they don’t have their “prospectus” up yet. I also haven’t seen the change in mining rate yet.
Side note: eMunie; wtf? I guess I missed something? Either it’s gone through a namechange or it’s dead, because a quick coinmarketcap search didn’t find anything. A comedy gold mining project for another day.
Great; spoiler alert: fundraiser delayed apparently, so even more cancer to read through in that thread on the way to getting to a prospectus!
The first 44 pages of the thread was summarized thus: “I want to believe. Why are you not speaking to us? Throw me a bone. Just tell me what I want to hear, and I'll gladly throw my money in.” [ 5 ] Would that I had only had to read that quote rather than all 44 pages, and facing many more.
Pages and comments dragged on as I waded through the low-grade popcorn. When would this prospectus be released, so my torment would end? Oh god: a side-thread shows that by the time they get to April, there’s still no prospectus or presale date or estimate of when there may be a date [ 6 ]. It’s time to give up on reading through the cancerous mainthread on BCT and start jumping ahead pages to find the pre-sale and prospectus.
Okay, finally, in July, they release documents and start the sale [ 7 ]. Good enough.
I have mountains of links on my desk. Comedy gold is overflowing, but this is a survey expedition, not a mining operation. But by the time it’s surveyed, there’s always so much gold lined up to mine it gets hard to leave it behind and leave with the samples.
It’s time to hammer out some copy and close this file.
Folks, we hope you’ve enjoyed this descent into madness and comedy gold brought to you by the Comedy Gold Survey Company and our patron Tyler Durden. Do you need more comedy gold in your life? Of course you do! So please donate today; every $1 helps! I’ve added a new special: $5 lets you choose the next coin to be surveyed!
Thanks again to Tyler Durden, and I will now be re-watching Fight Club and questioning my sanity. Cheers y’all!
Edit: 3/26/2020: Removed a link to a comment per request from the user.
Footnotes and other links:
submitted by coinaday to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining - A Development That Involves a Bit More Than Number Crunching

The attractive cryptocurrency and therefore the varied thoughts that occur within the minds of the onlookers usually surround few obvious queries - however, will it inherit being and what about its circulation? the solution, however, is simple. Bitcoins must be deep-mined, so as to form the cryptocurrency exist within the Bitcoin market. The mysterious creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, visualized a way to exchange the dear cryptocurrencies on-line, by doing away with the need for any centralized establishment. For Bitcoins, there are an alternate thanks to holding the required records of the group action history of the complete circulation, and everyone this can be managed via a suburbanized manner.
The ledger that facilitates the method is thought because of the "blockchain". The essence of this ledger would possibly need heaps of newspaper for showing frequently in any respect common Bitcoin news. Blockchain expands each minute, existing on the machines concerned within the large Bitcoin network. Individuals could question the validity, even legitimacy, of those transactions and their recordings into Blockchain. This too is but even, through the method of Bitcoin mining. Mining allows the creation of latest Bitcoin and collecting transactions to the ledger. Mining basically entails finding of advanced mathematical calculations, and therefore the miners use huge computing power to resolve it. The individual or 'pool' that solves the puzzle, place the following block and wins a bequest too. And, however, mining will avoid double-spending? virtually every ten minutes, outstanding transactions are deep-mined into a block. So, any inconsistency or illegitimacy is totally dominated out.
For Bitcoins, mining isn't spoken of during an ancient sense of the term. Bitcoins are deep-mined by utilizing cryptography. A hash operate termed as "double SHA-256" is utilized. However troublesome is it to mine Bitcoins? this may be another question. This relies lots on the hassle and computing power being utilized into mining. Another issue value mentioning is that the packaging protocol. For every 2016 blocks, issue entailed in the mining of Bitcoins is adjusted by itself merely to take care of the protocol. In turn, the pace of block generation is unbroken consistent. A Bitcoin issue chart may be an excellent live to demonstrate the mining issue over time. The issue level adjusts itself to travel up or down during a directly proportional manner, looking at the processing power, whether or not it's being fuelled or set out. because the range of miners rises, the share of profits merited by the participants diminish, everybody finishes up with smaller slices of the profits.
Having individual economies and communities, cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin, Namecoin or Peercoin, are known as Altcoins. These are alternatives to Bitcoin. Virtually like Bitcoins, these 'cousins' do have a large fan-following and aficionados WHO are keen to require a deep plunge into the massive ocean and start to mine it. Algorithms utilized for Altcoin mining are either SHA-256 or Scrypt. Many alternative innovative algorithms exist too. Ease, affordability, and ease will render it possible to mine Altcoins on a computer or by using special mining package. Altcoins are a touch 'down to earth' compared to Bitcoins, nonetheless remodeling them into pile may be a very little troublesome. Cryptocurrency buffs will simply hope, if a number of them may witness the equivalent astronomical fame!
submitted by heiwhiteSEO to u/heiwhiteSEO [link] [comments]

The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part III: Decentralized team

You can read here part I (by americanpegaus). This is the post that motivated me to make the part II. Now i'm doing a third part, and there'll be a final 4th part. This is probably too much but i wasn't able to make it shorter. Some will be interested in going through all them, and maybe someone is even willing to make a summary of the whole serie :D.
Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology
Comentarios de interés:
-4: "No change, this is just a renaming. In the future, the binaries will have to be changed, as well as some URL, but that's all. By the way, this very account (monero) is shared by several user and is meant to make it easier to change the OP in case of vacancy of the OP. This idea of a shared OP comes from Karmacoin.
Some more things to come:
-5: “Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth). Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended. We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks. The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.”
[tacotime make public the bug in the emission curve: token creation is currently 2 times what was intended to be, see this chart BTC vs the actual XMR curve, as it was and it is now, vs the curve that was initially planned in yellow see chart]
-14: “Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea [halving current balances and then changing block target to 2 min with same block reward to solve the emission curve issue] is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.
Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems?
Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which might be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.
Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?”
-15: “You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin.
If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe.
To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen.”
[smooth tries to justify his proposal to solve the emission curve issue: halve every current balance and change block target to 2 min with same block reward]
-16: “This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.”
[eizh supports smooth’s plan]
-20: “So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.”
[random user supporting smooth’s idea]
-21: “Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?”
-22: “Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week.
This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.”
[smooth wants to be sure they can’t be stigmatized as “premine”]
-23: “No, not true [answering to "it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone"]. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.”
[good point made by a user that is battling “hard” with smooth and his proposal]
-28: “+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?”
-31: “I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote. Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people. Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.”
-32: “What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.”
[smooth stands for the project legitimacy despite the bugs]
-37: “Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me. Tongue Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention. Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless. edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?”
[this is eizh supporting the project too]
-43: “I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair. I'm an early adopter. This halves my money, and it's what I want to do. There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network. In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not. So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins. To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 264-1 atomic units to accommodate this. Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run. It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now. We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news. Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.”
[tacotime brings to the public for first time the tail emission proposal and writes what is my favourite sentence of the whole monero history: “Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use”]
-51: “I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.”
-59: “Hello! It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming. But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum. Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless. In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody. Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?”
[TFT appears after a couple days of inactivity]
-63: “In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:
The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.”
[And now he is back, TFT is all about merged mining]
-67: “We don't agree that a reverse split amounts to "taking" coins. I also wouldn't agree that a regular forward split would be "giving" coins. It's an exchange of old coins with new coins, with very nearly the exact same value. There is a very slight difference in value due to the way the reward schedule is capped, but that won't be relevant for years or decades. Such a change is entirely reasonable to fix an error in a in coin that has only existed for a week.”
-68: “There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins”
[TFT does not accept the unexpected emission curve as a bug]
-72: “You are wrong TFT. The original announcement described the coin as having a reward curve "close to Bitcoin's original curve" (those are your exact words). The code as implemented has a reward curve that is nothing like bitcoin. It will be 86% mined in 4 years. It will be 98% mined in 8 years. Bitcoin is 50% mined in 4 years, and 75% in 8 years.
With respect TFT, you did the original fork, and you deserve credit for that. But this coin has now gone beyond your initial vision. It isn't just a question of whether miners are on bitcointalk or not.
There is a great team of people who are working hard to make this coin a success, and this team is collaborating regularly through forum posts, IRC, PM and email. And beyond that a community of users who by and large have been very supportive of the efforts we've taken to move this forward.
Also, miners aren't the only stakeholders, and while a miner voting process is great, it isn't the answer to every question. Though I do agree that miners need to be on board with any hard fork to avoid a harmful split.”
[smooth breaks out publicily for first time against TFT]
-75: “I suppose that merged mining as a possible option is a good idea as soon as nobody is forced to use it. MM is a possibility to accept PoW calculated for some other network. It helps to increase a security of both networks and makes it possible for miners not to choose between two networks if they want both:
Important things to know about MM:
Actually the only change that goes with MM is that we are able to accept PoW from some other net with same hash-function. Each miner can decide his own other net he will merge mine BMR with.
And this is still very secure.
This way I don't see any disadvantage in merged mining. What disadvantages do you see in MM?”
[TFT stands for merged mining]
-77: “Merged mining essentially forces people to merge both coins because that is the only economically rational decision. I do not want to support the ninja-premined coin with our hash rate.
Merged mining makes perfect sense for a coin with a very low hash rate, otherwise unable to secure itself effectively. That is the case with coins that merge mine with bitcoin. This coin already has 60% of the hash rate of bytecoin, and has no need to attach itself to another coin and encourage sharing of hash rate between the two. It stands well on its own and will likely eclipse bytecoin very soon.
I want people to make a clear choice between the fair launched coin and the ninja-premine that was already 80% mined before it was made public. Given such a choice I believe most will just choose this coin. Letting them choose both allows bytecoin to free ride on what we are doing here. Let the ninja-preminers go their own way.”
[smooth again]
-85: “One of you is saying that there was no mistake in the emission formula, while the other is. I'm not asking which I should believe . . I'm asking for a way to verify this”
[those that have not been paying attention to the soap opera since the beginning do not understand anything at all]
-86: “The quote I posted "close to Bitcoin's original curve" is from the original announcement here:
I think there was also some discussion on the thread about it being desirable to do that.
At one point in that discussion, I suggested increasing the denominator by a factor of 4, which is what ended up being done, but I also suggested retaining the block target at 2 minutes, which was not done. The effect of making one change without the other is to double the emission rate from something close to bitcoin to something much faster (see chart a few pages back on this thread).”
[smooth answers just a few minutes later]
-92: “I'm happy the Bitmonero attracts so much interest.
I'm not happy that some people want to destroy it.
Here is a simple a clear statement about plans:
We have two kind of stakeholders we have respect: miders and coin owners.
Before any protocol changes we will ask miners for agreement. No changes without explicit agreement of miners is possible.
We will never take away or discount any coins that are already emitted. This is the way we respect coin owners.
All other issues can be discussed, proposed and voted for. I understand that there are other opinions. All decisions that aren't supported in this coin can be introduced in any new coin. It's ok to start a new fork. It's not ok to try to destroy an existsing network.”
[TFT is kinda upset – he can see how the community is “somehow” taking over]
-94: “Sounds like there's probably going to be another fork then. Sigh.
I guess it will take a few tries to get this coin right.
The problem with not adjusting existing coins is that it make this a premine/instamine. If the emission schedule is changed but not as a bug fix, then earlier miners got an unfair advantage over everyone else. Certainly there are coins with premines and instamines, but there's a huge stigma and such a coin will never achieve the level of success we see for this coin. This was carefully discussed during the team meeting, which was announced a day ahead of time, and everyone with any visible involvement with the coin, you included, was invited. It is unfortunate you couldn't make it to that meeting TFT.”
[smooth is desperate due to TFT lack of interest in collaboration, and he publicly speaks about an scission for first time]
-115: “Very rough website online, (in case you asked, the domain name was voted on IRC, like the crypto name and its code). Webdesigner, webmaster, writers... wanted.”
[Even though the lack of consensus and the obvious chaos, the community keeps going on: Monero already has his own site]
-152: “Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances.
We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine.
But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least).
This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period.
The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be.”
[smooth makes a proposal to solve the “emission curve bug” without changing users balances and without favoring the early miners]
-182: “We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"
Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.”
[tacotime announces an ongoing votation on IRC]
-184: “ change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block. controversial. not sure if necessary. can be difficult to implement. keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time. change final reward is simple. if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;”
-188: “Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.
We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.
In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).”
-190: “I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.
At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
  1. No GUI
  2. No web site
  3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
  4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
  5. No effective team behind it at launch
  6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.
I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).
We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.”
[smooth is disappointed]
-191: “The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. :) But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that.
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.”
[eizh tries to keep smooth on board]
-196: “BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now. If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.) Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.”
-198: “There's no point in fragmenting talent. If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.
Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.
If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.”
[tacotime also wants smooth on board]
-201: “My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.”
[tacotime opens the season: if merged mining is implemented, he will leave the ship]
-203: “Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.”
[eizh supports tacotime]
-204: “+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.”
[NoodleDoodle is also against merged mining]
This is basically everything worth reading in this thread. This thread was created in the wrong category, and its short life of about 2 days was pretty interesting. Merged mining was rejected and it ended up with the inactivity of TFT for +7 days and the creation of a new github repo the 30th of April. It is only 12 days since launch and a decentralized team is being built.
Basically the community had forked (but not the chain) and it was evolving and moving forward to its still unclear future.
These are the main takeaways of this thread:
  • The legitimacy of the "leaders" of the community is proven when they proposed and supported the idea of halving the balances for the greater good to solve the emission curve issue without any possible instamine accusation. Also their long-term goals and values rejecting merged-mining with a "primined scam"
  • It is decided that, as for now, it is “too late” to change the emission curve, and finally monero will mint 50% of its coin in ~1.3 years (bitcoin did it after 3.66 years) and 86% of its coins in 4 years (bitcoin does it in ~11 years) (was also voted here) (see also this chart)
  • It is decided that a “minimum subsidy” or “tail emission” to incentivize miners “forever” and avoid scaling fees will be added (it will be finally added to the code march 2015)
  • Merged mining is plainly rejected by the future “core team” and soon rejected by "everyone". This will trigger TFT inactivity.
  • The future “core team” is somehow being formed in a decentralized way: tacotime, eizh, NoodleDoodle, smooth and many others
And the most important. All this (and what is coming soon) is a proof of the decentralization of Monero. Probably comparable to Bitcoin first days. This is not a company building a for-profit project (even if on the paper it is not for-profit), this a group of disconnected individuals sharing a goal and working together to reach it.
Soon will be following a final part where i'll collect the bitcointalk logs in the current official announcement threads. There you'll be able to follow the decentralized first steps of develoment (open source pool, miner optimizations and exchanges, all surrounded by fud trolls, lots of excitmen and a rapidly growing collaborative community.
submitted by el_hispano to Monero [link] [comments]

Elliott Wave analyst's thoughts on Bitcoin

(NB: typos mine; crappy OCR software. If anyone wants to see the Eliott Wave he's discussing and I'll make it available.)
Bitcoin Bubble or Bitcoin Breakthrough? How about both?
by Elliott Prechter
December 20, 2013 in the Elliott Wave Theorist
EWT discussed Bitcoin for the first time in August 2010, when the currency traded at six cents. As far as we know, EWI was the first financial publisher to discuss it. Bitcoin was unknown to the general public and off private investors’ radar. Even the earliest adopters did not take it as seriously as they should have. The most notable example of this is the man who paid 10,000 BTC for a pizza. This pizza purchase is now famous (, and many continue to track its price in USD terms via the “Bitcoin Pizza Index," which recently hit an all-time high of over S12 million.
Fast forward to today, and the currency is regularly featured in financial news and social media. Bitcoin Magazine has become popular, Congress is holding hearings on the currency, Germany has defined its role in finance, China is ruling on its legality, and the business world is adopting it. The most prominent business to embrace Bitcoin is Virgin Galactic, one of the many creations of billionaire Richard Branson (
EWT readers were prepared for all this. When Bitcoin was still in the shadows, the August 2012 issue said,
Presuming bitcoin succeeds as the world’s best currency-and I believe it will-it should rise many more multiples in value over the years. -EWT, August 2012
The big question on the minds of investors is not what Bitcoin has achieved, but should they buy Bitcoins now? It’s amusing that so many people ignored Bitcoin upon hearing about it in 20 1 0, but now that its price has gone up 20,000 times, they want to invest. Notwithstanding the currency’s potential, this shift in attitude is a signal saying now is not the time to buy. Let’s look at four areas of evidence:
1) Optimism is off the charts. Past issues of The Elliott Wave Financial Forecast discussed people selling their homes and borrowing money to invest in Bitcoins. That was near the peak of wave Now the desire to buy has grown even more extreme. Bloggers are calling for Bitcoin to reach S1 million. . .soon. One young investor borrowed a million dollars from his father and without his knowledge invested it in Bitcoin ( The other day I walked into a convenience store wearing a Bitcoin T-shirt, and the owner asked me if he should invest now. I felt like I was living in 1929.
2) Investors have recently been rushing to buy a rash of 95 (at last count; see https://bitcointalk. org/index.php?topic=l34179.0) new clones of Bitcoin that have recently emerged: Litecoin, Namecoin, Zerocoin, BBQCoin, PPcoin, PrimeCoin, NovaCoin, FeatherCoin, TerraCoin, Devcoin, Megacoin, Mincoin, DigitalCoin, Anoncoin, Worldcoin, Freicoin, IxCoin... and more. (That they are clones is obvious from the lack of imagination in naming.) This rush of clones is reminiscent of the South Sea bubble of 1720 and the dot-com mania of 1999, when shares of zero-profit, copycat companies (and even fake ones) sold like hotcakes. Virtually every week now, the Bitcoin code is forked into a new coin that investors bid up. lt’s as if buyers feel the world will run out of cryptocurrency, which in fact is infinitely and freely duplicable.
3) The Elliott wave pattern from Bitcoin’s inception shows five waves up. The December ll Short Term Update noted that a major top was potentially in place: The peak [in Bitcoin] came 10 days after U.S. officials, ranging from an assistant attorney general with the Department of Justice to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, “spoke approvingly of the potential of virtual currencies." So, here again, the government is getting on board at the very tail end ofa long rise. Since we posted that comment, Bitcoin has fallen an additional 40%, bringing it down nearly 60% from its all-time high.
Will this prove to be just another brief, sharp correction or something larger? Take a look at the completed impulse pattern shown in Figure 3. The structure begins very near the inception of the currency three-plus years ago, when it was selling for a penny. Notice that wave @ is a triangle (see text, p.49), which typically comes in the fourth-wave position. Wave a thrust, carried to the all-time high of S 1242 on November 29. The reversal from that point should mark the start of the largest bear market to date in the currency. This forecast is in tune with the anticipated bear market in the broader stock averages, which have strongly correlated with Bitcoin’s pattern.
The chart is in log scale to show the returns one would have achieved in each impulse leg of the pattern. Wave Q) achieved a stunning 3 19ox gain. Wave ® achieved 59.3% (a Fibonacci 3/5) of the gain of wave Q). Wave ® (measured from the low of wave @) achieved 39.3% (a Fibonacci 2/5) of the gain of wave (D and 66.3% (a Fibonacci 2/3) of the gain of wave Therefore, while each upward move has been large, each successive wave has been decelerating in log terms relative to past waves, in each case by a Fibonacci multiple. Also notice that Bitcoin trades more like a commodity than a stock, with its blow-off tops and extended fifih waves. Most of the gain since early 20 12 has been within (5) of ® and the final wave all of which is probable retracement territory.
4) Most people involved in this mania seem oblivious to Bitcoin’s fundamentals. In my experience, raising these issues publicly earns scorn for spreading “FUD.” But there is a good reason-now widely ignored-that Bitcoin is beta software. Our August 2010 piece explained how Bitcoin operates, but it’s worth revisiting some details to understand just how out-of-touch investor expectations are with the reality of Bitcoin technology. Specifically, let's examine the limitations of Bitcoin’s blockchain.
The blockchain is the heart of Bitcoin. In its simplest form, the blockchain is a public ledger of all transactions that happen in the Bitcoin network. Each block is composed of individual records that track the ownership of each coin. The transactions “fit” together cryptographically. A block is created about once every 10 minutes by the network. Each block is then cryptographically linked to the previous blocks in the chain, forming a history of all transactions that-to Bitcoin’s credit-cannot be forged. To the extent that Bitcoin currency is real, it could be said that the blockchain is the Bitcoin currency.
Yet the core problem with the blockchain is that it grows over time and must be shared by every fiill Bitcoin node. Today it is nearing 13 GB in size. Now, 13 GB doesn't sound too large, but at the current rates of exponential growth the blockchain is projected to become over a terabyte in size in just three years. What's more, the amount of accompanying data required to handle just a fraction of Visa-level traffic would overwhelm even the fastest Internet connections. This technical hurdle makes the “Bitcoin is going to a million” commentary seem premature.
The hope for Bitcoin’s future lies in its open-source nature, allowing it to be improved, and Moore’s Law. Moore’s Law is colloquially used to signify the exponential increases in computer-hardware efficiency over time, including network capacity. But Moore’s law-which calls for a doubling of computer speed every two years-has hit a snag in recent years: the rate of improvement in performance has dramatically slowed, causing many experts to call for the end of the operation of Moore’s law. (For the record, Moore’s Law was never intended to refer to computer hardware performance, but the media have confused the term to the point where it is now generally used in this context. Originally, it was intended to refer to the increase in the number of transistors that are packed into microchips.)
The past four years have been an exciting ride for Bitcoin. But the evidence says the Bitcoin bull market is done for now. It would be best to put Bitcoin out of your mind for the duration of the deflationary wave that is curling toward the financial world. Due to the psychology surrounding Bitcoin, as well as its correlation with the stock indices, it is too risky to buy now. Due to its open-source nature, however, Bitcoin’s infrastructure should continue to improve over the years.
For the long run, I agree with Roger Ver, the CEO of memory dealers and one of Bitcoin’s earliest adopters, who recently said, “It is just getting started." But one could have said that about the U.S. stock market in 1966. It would have been visionary only if you were patient and willing to hold through a very deep valley. Our position is that Bitcoin will never again sell for 6 cents, as it did when EWT first wrote it up. But there will be another time to buy it for relative peanuts alongside stocks, real-estate, gold and silver. When the time comes, no one will be interested.
Elliott Prechter's primary task at EWI is working on EWA VES, our in-house artificial intelligence softwarefor analyzing Elliott waves.
submitted by Indy_Pendant to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

History of Bitcoin 2009-2018 (Git Visualization) - YouTube How Much Money Will You Make Bitcoin Mining What is Namecoin Bitcoin's First Fork - YouTube What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork What the Cryptocurrency Boom Missed: The NameCoin Story

NameCoin (NMC) - USD Historical Price Chart. Currency converter . About NameCoin (NMC) ... Bitcoin frees money – Namecoin frees DNS, identities, and other technologies. Namecoin was the first fork of Bitcoin and still is one of the most innovative “altcoins”. It was first to implement merged mining and a decentralized DNS. Namecoin was also the first solution to Zooko’s Triangle, the ... NameCoin Price Today & History Chart: NameCoin (NMC) is a native coin on the NameCoin blockchain used to pay for registration and transaction fees. Name coin is an experimental technology aims to improve security, privacy, speed and censorship resistance of the certain components of the internet such as DNS and identities. NameCoin is based on Bitcoin technology and is a key/value pair ... Namecoin. Namecoin is an experimental open-source technology which improves decentralization, security, censorship resistance, privacy, and speed of certain components of the Internet infrastructure such as DNS and identities. (For the technically minded, Namecoin is a key/value pair registration and transfer system based on the Bitcoin technology.) ... Namecoin price today is $0.449002 with a 24-hour trading volume of $43,295. NMC price is down -0.2% in the last 24 hours. It has a circulating supply of 16 Million coins and a max supply of 21 Million coins. The Namecoin price chart provides historical price values and exchange rate values for the last 6 months. Loading chart data... Sponsored Advertisement. Namecoin Price $0.0020. $0.00 (4.91 %) 24 hour change . Sponsored Advertisement. Sponsored Advertisement. Sponsored Advertisement. Bitcoin. Bitcoin Mining Bitcoin Mining Calculator Bitcoin Difficulty Chart Litecoin. Litecoin Mining Litecoin ...

[index] [30788] [25969] [35845] [46976] [40766] [39448] [12258] [37235] [47589] [45061]

History of Bitcoin 2009-2018 (Git Visualization) - YouTube

Graphical visualisation of the Bitcoin Github repository from 2009 to 2018. The tools used are Gource, Git, ffmpeg and Perl. My scripts : Namecoin is the second oldest cryptocurrency after Bitcoin, but it is more than that. It builds a naming system that is decentralised, trustless, secure and has human-readable names. What is Namecoin Bitcoin's First Fork BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http://youtu.... In this video Jason explains what NameCoin is. What is BitCoin: Dwolla: MtGox: BitCoin C... What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork Test Scanning Stainless Steel BITCOIN WALLET view Why the block...