List of ASIC Bitcoin Miner Manufacturers - Bitcoin Forum
Bitcoin kaufen ohne Anmeldung 2020 » BTC ohne ...
Bitmesage: Das Kommunikationsystem basierend auf Bitcoin ...
10 Best BitCoin Alternatives - Profitable Cryptocurrencies ...
I've been a fan of the blockchain for a few years now, but I have serious concerns about bitcoin itself. Care to calm my fears?
As the title mentions, I'm a huge fan of the blockchain. I think it's wonderful P2P tech, and it's already in use for amazing things like namecoin and even spin-off projects like bitmessage (doesn't use a blockchain, but similar tech for PoW and authentication). Even bitcoin, when it first popped up, seemed like amazing stuff. I definitely am a fan of trustless/p2p currency. However, I can't help but notice that bitcoin has a couple of obvious problems (namecoin shares them, but the problem isn't as bad, given it's not intended to be a currency and also has a base of value). The most obvious problem to me is one that seems to plague cryptocurrency in general: pre-mining. The idea that the early-adopters can become absurdly wealthy simply by getting there first. I read over on /buttcoin that Satoshi has 20% of the possible bitcoin? Is that true? That seems like it'd lead to massive wealth inequality once those coins do start moving. And there's certainly countless others with hundreds of thousands of bitcoin simply because they were handed out like candy at the beginning. For someone coming in, a single bitcoin is $400. Whereas early adopters got a few hundred with a couple of hours of mining on a laptop. How is that fair? The mining cap. This is another huge problem. At first I was fond of it, as it put a hard cap on inflation, meaning that the currency is deflationary instead. This is a good feature, but with an obvious flaw: it rewards early adopters, and it promotes hoarding bitcoin rather than spending it (the whole point of a currency!). Along with that, any coins that are 'destroyed' (namecoin does this), and/or lost, are essentially gone forever. Meaning that over time the amount of possible bitcion will reduce to nothing. This is not a valid long-term ideal. This simply doubles down on bitcoin's huge problem (massive inequality between early/late adopters). And lastly, the distribution of new coins. This is already a huge problem with fiat currency, and I'm baffled at why bitcoin copied this model of distributing wealth to 'bankers' (miners who manage the blockchain). Not only does it promote the rich-get-richer structure, not only does it reward those who got there earliest and stay there longest, but it also creates a continually rising paywall to actually get in on the action. There's no way to get bitcoin without working for someone else already in the system or spending potentially thousands of dollars to get a tiny amount of bitcoin that's mined. Though, to be fair, it's not just bitcoin's problem. It's all alt-coins who share these issues without changing stuff. There's also the issue of increasing computation demand, leading to waste and potentially harming the environment. Personally, I like something like uCoin, which implements the relative theory of money into a blockchain/bitcoin style structure. So... can anyone calm these fears that bitcoin will simply be yet another USD spin-off and run into the exact same problems of wealth concentration? Keep in mind, I do like the blockchain and similar tech. And I do like the goal of bitcoin itself. It's definitely a great first step. I just can't get around these glaring problems that seem to almost guarantee that bitcoin will die in the future.
This came in on the bitmessage, and since we're only talking about things that are up on the subreddit I figured I'd post this here first :) Any thoughts/comments/rebuttals? Hi, I'd like to give my opinion about the discussion you had about "Bitcoin theft" in episode 29 and I would like to start out that in my opinion such a thing doesn't exist. Everybody is (and/or should be) free to make any transaction on the Blockchain. The consensus between miners are (and should be) the judge and jury over the validity of this transaction. If somebody for some reason get a hold of a private key of an address that already contains Bitcoin, it should stay fully legal to make a transaction to any address I like. This should NOT be called a theft. As Satoshi himself said "The owner of a coin is just whoever has its private key." There are only two illegal ways to obtain Bitcoins. 1: Scamming somebody with a false promise and there are already laws for that. 2: Breaking and entering (either physical or by hacking) and there are already laws for that. However, in case of the 2nd way, if you obtain knowledge of a private key in the process, making the actual transaction should not be called theft. There is no central entity where you can claim ownership over a private key, unless you want to (ab)use intellectual property laws for this. This wouldn't make revenge actions equally legal. If exchanges just take blacklisted funds and return it to whom they feel are the rightful owner, they are basically scamming their customers with whom they have a contract. I wonder what your thoughts are about this type of reasoning. Thanks and keep up the good work.
What if bitmessage had a blockchain, mining and fees?
A day or two ago, a brand new messaging protocol was launched called Bitmessage. It is inspired by bitcoin and features public key cryptography for the sending and recieving messages on a public, distributed, open source network. There is no block chain, no mining and consequently no fees. To make it work, people have to pass other people's messages around for free. Personally, I question the viability of this approach. I feel like having a central blockchain would help. Could it be possible to re implement the bitmessage protocol to feature a blockchain, compiled by miners, who are paid with BTC fees for every bitmessage sent? So it would be just like bitcoin but rather than a private key being used to send coins, you use a private key to decrypt messages, and the sending fee pays for them to be archived anywhere, accessible everywhere, by the person who holds the corresponding private key. Miners could accept any amount of bitcoins they want in order to send a message and save it. People could even send a bitmessage to different miners, who would make it avalable to the reciever for long periods of time for a higher fee, or cheaper miners who would host it long term for extra BTC. I'm no software programmer and have no skills with code, but the Idea makes more sense to me than the bitmessage protocol proposed earlier. What do you think about this?
Voici le lien vers leur nouvelle page de présentation toute belle, toute neuve et en anglais : http://twister.net.co/ Et puis le papier plus technique (et toujours en anglais) : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.7152v1 Bon, je n'ai pas fini de lire le papier, ni eu l'occasion de jouer avec les code source fournis, les fêtes et le travail c'est prenant, bonne année o/. Du coup mon résumé sera partiel. Basiquement c'est un réseau social twitter like complètement décentralisé et chiffré, s'appuyant sur une blockchain à la Bitcoin et quelques outils développés pour Bittorent. L'accent est mit sur la facilité d'utilisation, ce qui pèche beaucoup dans ce genre de projets d'habitude il faut l'avouer. Ainsi, la blockchain utilisée sert a réserver les noms d'utilisateurs, permettant d'avoir un pseudonyme classique plutôt qu'une adresse aléatoire. D'après ce que j'ai compris pour l'instant, les messages ne sont pas enregistrés dans la blockchain, ils sont enregistrés grâce a une "Distributed Hash Table" (une base de donnée clé/valeur distribuée). Et grande nouveauté pour un protocole basé sur une blockchain, il n'y a pas de monnaie associée ! L'intérêt pour les mineurs de miner est que quand quelqu'un trouve un bloc, il a le droit d'envoyer un message "promoted" que tous les clients devraient afficher... De la publicité en peer to peer, je ne sais pas si c'est une première, mais ça peut être noté. J'ai quelques craintes quand a la viabilité de la chose dans la nature. Notamment rien n’empêche techniquement un client de ne pas afficher les message "promoted", réduisant l’intérêt de fournir de la puissance de calcul (une 51% pourrait entraîner des vols d'identité). Et puis il y a des proof of work un peut partout pour éviter le spam (à la façon Bitmessage), je n'ai jamais eu confiance en ce mécanisme, si on permet à un desktop de faire une opération en quelques secondes/minutes, je ne vois pas comment ça empêche complètement un botnet de spammer. Mais bon, le moyen le plus simple de savoir si ça marche c'est de tenter grandeur nature... Et au pire on se retrouve avec un réseau social qui ne fonctionne pas bien, c'est pas la fin du monde. Encore une foi, je n'ai pas bien fait mes devoirs, j'ai survolé rapidement le white paper et puis j'ai commencé ma journée de travail. Il peut donc y avoir des erreurs qui se glissent dans ce que j'ai compris de la bête. Bref, j'aimerai savoir ce que vous pensez de Twister. Techniquement est-ce viable ? A-t'on besoin d'un nouveau réseau social chiffré ? Personnellement, je pense que si il tiens ses promesses, grande facilité d'utilisation et grosse cryptographie, identi.ca et compagnie seront très vite aussi obsolètes que les page web sans css.
Potential design for a distributed marketplace I keep hearing about people wanting to move to a distributed architecture, so lets design it. Please point out where I'm wrong, and propose changes. Sellers create a bitcoin address they accept payment at. Sellers create a listing and sign that listing with the bitcoin address they just created. This listing is published via a bitmessage publically known marketplace chan. This solves the core problem, everyone can see listings without having to access a central server. To avoid spammers/scammers, sellers should have an initial cost or deposit, to create a selling account. This prevents a seller from creating a new account for every transaction which hinders accurate feedback. To do this sellers can provide a deposit, however this has a centralization effect even though many different parties can be used to hold a deposit. This piece probably needs the most additional work, however technically it is not required. Feedback can be given though bitmessage, either to the same chan or a different one. Feedback given for seller A from buyer B, should provide a reference to a bitcoin transaction from the buyers bitcoin address B to the sellers known address A (that matches a listing with the same bitcoin receive payment address). This feedback must be signed with the buyer's address B to help prevent fake feedback. This will not prevent sellers from creating fake buyers which provide them good feedback, however this is a problem in centralized systems also. Buyers could also provide a deposit in the same way sellers do to help prevent fake buyers. Perhaps a better way to discourage fake buyers may be to require a seemingly high fee in the transaction. Centralized systems normally take a percentage from the seller as a fee. This prevents a seller from creating fake buyer accounts because the seller would only get (100% - fee) of their coins sent to themselves from a fake buyer. A way to create a cost for each transaction is require a higher than normal bitcoin transaction fee (which goes to bitcoin miners). This wouldn't be required, but if a transaction was completed without this higher bitcoin transaction fee, then feedback from the transaction may not be considered valid. This gives an incentive to the seller to only accept transactions from buyers with this higher fee, or the transaction and feedback will be considered probably fake by others. In practice only new sellers may wish to require this higher fee while they build their reputation, and slowly lower it or potentially even remove it once they become trusted. This same method can be used for sellers, instead of providing a deposit the first transaction to a bitcoin address that they will accept payment on could include a transaction with a higher than normal fee. This creates the artificial cost to sellers and helps prevent fake seller accounts. However this is less optimal than the "providing a deposit" method above. By providing a deposit to a third party/parties, buyers have a potential way to get some of their money back from scammers. For the actual transaction escrows can be used with multisignature addresses (implemented today in the protocol). Similar to providing a deposit this has a centralization effect, though anyone or even multiple parties can be used as a mediator. Client side So from a client perspective buyers scrape the bitmessage channel for all current listings, and verify the bitcoin signature of each listing. Each seller's "cost" and "account age" is determined by scraping the blockchain for either the deposit transaction or high fee transaction. The client then scrapes the feedback channel verifying the feedback is signed by a bitcoin address and transaction that took place. It weights each feedback based on fees paid, and the number of verified transactions and feedback to other sellers (making it less likely it is a fake account). None of this is groundbreaking, I'm just combining multiple tools that already exist, but it seems to me like it could work. There is clearly more work to do in tumbling coins, perhaps between chains, and sellers may need to repost feedback. As a concept does this also seem possible to others?
Bitcoin frees money – Namecoin frees DNS, identities, and other technologies. What can Namecoin be used for? Protect free-speech rights online by making the web more resistant to censorship. Attach identity information such as GPG and OTR keys and email, Bitcoin, and Bitmessage addresses to an identity of your choice. Human-meaningful Tor .onion domains. Decentralized TLS (HTTPS) certificate ... Hi to everyone!Anyone using BitMessage? Ive just created a BitcoinScrypt chan there to share thoughts and tips in real-time. Chan name: BitcoinScrypt Chan address: BM ... Now is the best time to invest/mine your bitcoin now the price is down and the market value is high, why save your bitcoin? i advice any miner or investor to start investing now rather then losing all your coin, i will show and guide you through the crypto mining investment platform a they are good btc miners,i gain up to 1.5 btc per day and up to $ 6000 from ETH to month.A good business man ... Zuletzt aktualisiert am 04.06.2013 um 03: 55 Uhr Nachdem wir die Macht von Bitcoin gesehen haben, erleben wir jetzt eine neue Bewegung: Bitmessage, ein Protokoll, das einige der Ideen der digitalen Währungswelt in die Kommunikation umsetzt. Wie Bitcoin entstand aus der Notwendigkeit einer unregulierten Währung, das gleiche passiert mit Bitmessage, Lesen Sie mehr Merge Mining Pool, also known as mmpool, is a merge mining pool that allows mining bitcoins (BTC), Namecoin (NMC), ixcoin (IXC), i0coin (I0C), Devcoin (DVC) and Groupcoin. As of 2016-11-14, This announcment was found on their page: Merge mining is temporarily disabled, only bitcoins are being mined at the current time.
Bitmessage: Bitcoin based decentral, encrypted, P2P, trustless communications - Joachim de Koning
New Bitcoin Hack 100% Working 2020 Bitcoin Miner 2020 Bitcoin Mining Pool Unlimited Trick new bitcoin hack free 100% work Bitcoin Wallet Address Hack 2020 Btc script Three Myths of Behavior Change - What You Think You Know That You Don't: Jeni Cross at TEDxCSU - Duration: 18:31. TEDx Talks Recommended for you Moving Upstream S2 • E6 The Man Who Put Everything He Owns Into Bitcoin Moving Upstream - Duration: 9:59. Wall Street Journal 380,235 views. 9:59. What It Was Like MINING Cryptocurrency Full ... BUY A LEDGER NANO X or S To Keep Your Crypto Safe! http://www.ledgerwallet.com/r/f99b #XRP #Ripple #Crypto SUPPORT Me On PATREON! http://www.patreon.com/work... Get our free Bitcoin course here - https://chrisdunn.com/free-bitcoin-course This Bitcoin basics video series will explain Bitcoin for beginners. You'll lear...