Bram Cohen will mit grüner Coin "Chia" Bitcoin (BTC) ablösen
Bram Cohen will mit grüner Coin "Chia" Bitcoin (BTC) ablösen
Bram Cohen Wants His Green Cryptocurrency To Kill Bitcoin
Bram Cohen creates chia cryptocurrency which might bench ...
Improving on Bitcoin With BitTorrent Creator Bram Cohen ...
Bram Cohen Bitcoin News
Increasing Decentralization Through Built-in Pooling?
I've read a number of discussions lately about the decentralization of Bitcoin and Monero, along with the danger of having a few large mining pools. This led me to research some of the various ways other protocols are thinking about this problem and I came across one that I found quite interesting. "We're going to have a system where there are pools but they're only responsible for signing coinbase rewards and the individual miners in the pool are still in charge of making actual blocks, so you get the positive benefits of pooling (smoothing of rewards) without the negatives (pools having too much political power). It's advantageous to use the built-in pooling protocol instead of hacking something with the keys because the built-in protocol allows [miners] to work even when the pool is offline." -Bram Cohen This solution gives all transaction fees to the block creator but shares coinbase reward with other members of the pool. These systems are built in to the Chia Network protocol with "non-outsourceability" (I don't know what this is) in order to foster a multitude of pools. All of this is theoretical right now since Chia hasn't released any code or a test net, but I was curious what the XMR community thought and whether this might be something worth investigating further?
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
Creator of Bittorrent Thinks He Can Kill Bitcoin With Chia, a Burstcoin (BURST) Copycat
https://preview.redd.it/snvu0ixss9521.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=07d3a96392b8e6b13a827e387f1a8b272471595c https://cryptoiq.co/creator-of-bittorrent-thinks-he-can-kill-bitcoin-with-chia-a-burstcoin-burst-copycat/ Bram Cohen, the creator of the popular peer to peer torrenting software BitTorrent, is creating a cryptocurrency called Chia. This new cryptocurrency will use Proof of Capacity (PoC), an algorithm perfected by Burstcoin (BURST). Breaker incorrectly reports that PoC, which Cohen is calling Proof of Space, is a new algorithm developed by Cohen. Further, Breaker writes that Chia could kill Bitcoin. It is unlikely that Chia will even be competitive with Burstcoin(BURST), which has a $9 million market cap, let alone Bitcoin, as we’ll now explain. The crypto space is unfortunately filled with copycat devs who make copycat cryptocurrencies, and this Chia situation appears to be a good example. Burstcoin(BURST)has a strong community of Cypherpunks and has been using PoC since 2014. If Cohen truly cared about the adoption of PoC crypto, he should have jumped on the Burstcoin(BURST) boat instead of trying to create a different cryptocurrency that would compete with it. Chia is advertised as being a “green cryptocurrency,” similar to how stores often have an organic foods section. Green goods and services are big money in the current economy because slapping a green brand on something means environmental and health enthusiasts automatically flock to it. The greenness of Chia is entirely derived from PoC, which Burstcoin (BURST) has already been doing since 2014. Perhaps the Burstcoin (BURST) community should one-up Cohen and do a green advertising campaign before Chia launches since the method of branding is the only advantage that Chia has. Indeed, PoC is environmentally friendly and uses practically no electricity, which also makes Burstcoin (BURST) one of the only profitable cryptocurrencies to mine on personal computers. PoC cryptocurrencies read cryptographic hashes from a plot in a hard drive, rather than calculating new cryptographic hashes all the time like with Proof of Work (PoW). The miner who finds the answer the quickest in their hard drive gets the block reward. Since more hard drive space equals more answers, more hard drive space leads to more block rewards. The Burstcoin(BURST) mining network has 230,000 TB (230 PB) of hard drive space at this time, driven by a strong community. It seems unlikely Chia would ever exceed that number since people interested in PoC already mine Burstcoin (BURST), and would not abandon Burstcoin (BURST) for a copycat. Cohen incorrectly argues that miners would not continuously expand their mining operations with PoC. “The idea is that you’re leveraging this resource of storage capacity, and people already have ludicrous amounts of excess storage on their laptops, and other places, which is just not being utilized,” he said. “There is so much of that already that it should eventually reach the point where if you were buying new hard drives for the purpose of farming, it would lose you money”. The fact is that serious Burstcoin(BURST) miners regularly buy petabytesPB of new hard drive space to maximize revenue, and Chia miners would act no differently if Chia catches on. The one possible difference between Burstcoin (BURST) and Chia is that Cohen is trying to prevent a “re-mining from genesis” attack, where a miner could create an entirely new chain starting at the genesis block. If they had enough hard drive power to do this, perhaps they would fork the blockchain. To avoid this attack Cohen says Chia will also integrate “Proof of Time” (PoT). First off, Burstcoin (BURST) has never had issues with this sort of attack in its five years of existence. If someone has a tremendous amount of hard drive space and does PoC mining, it would be absolutely senseless to do this sort of attack since their entire mining farm would become worthless. If the point of the attack was to do a double spend, the coins gained in the double spend would become worthless too. Cohen is trying to prevent an attack that is extremely unlikely since attackers have no incentive to do it. The details about PoT are vague, with it being a parallel process to mining that takes the same amount of time no matter how much hard drive space is used. This would make Chia less efficient than Burstcoin (BURST) and therefore less competitive. Cohen is offering $100,000 to anyone who can develop PoT, making it clear it does not exist yet. Since PoT would probably make Chia less efficient, and it has not been developed yet, and it solves a non-existent problem, the PoT acronym is appropriate. Ultimately, Chia is branded as green money for a digital world, when the reality is Burstcoin (BURST) already is green money for a digital world. Burstcoin (BURST) has a strong reputation, has been continuously running for five 5 years, and has an extremely strong community. It seems unlikely Chia will ever become more popular than Burstcoin (BURST), and unlike the title of the Breaker article indicates, Chia certainly has no chance of killing Bitcoin.
Amir Taaki - Breaking Bitcoin presentation (transcript)
Below I transcribed Amir's talk from Breaking Bitcoin (see previous post here, start of presentation (youtube): here). Excuse the errors (will fix if you point me to them). What was most interesting for me:
Amir tries to influence the world (on global scale) by introducing high tech projects that will help ordinary people - he is collecting hackers to work on projects (CTRL-F "academy")
one of those projects is using Bitcoin in local economies (in combination with supplementary systems (CTRL-F "vouchers")
interesting background - Skinner vs Mumford; open source software movement
Amir: Thank you for having me here. I believe that ideas play an important role in shaping human history. What I want to talk about is how technology has been shaped by key ideas. In particular how certain mechanical ideas of human society got mixed up with with politics and technology. What I want to talk about is the free technology movement. It was a movement that showed great potential promise to liberate humanity. At the heart of it was a idea that technology offered a new way to construct a radially different kind of society that never before was possible in history, this movement was influenced by the visions of early scientists who believed in the power of computer technology not just to serve large industry and military but everybody to have access to this new power. Influenced of by the 60s counterculture, this movement went on to develop the first personal computers. But that's not the end of the story because this radical vision mutated into the idea of self-regulating systems which see human beings as object managed by computer algorithms. In this vision, the value of human ideas to transform the world was diminished into a strange kind of consensus where everybody satisfies their personal desires. We now find ourselves in a strange static dreamworld while dark forces are returning to threaten to penetrate our reality and all of the dreams of the techno-utopiasts play the role in creating this fake virtual world in which human beings driven by desires, devoid of all sense of higher purpose become slaves to algorithms and vast computer intelligences. What is interesting about this story is the significance it has for Bitcoin. A project which is created for the purpose of creating a decentralized peer-to-peer money that cannot be controlled by governments and central banks but which now finds itself monopolized by large mining cartels. A lack of vision to guide the project forwards and increasing irrelevance in a world facing a global breakup of power. Lastly I want to explain my project to revitalize the free technology movement to formulate a wider vision to restore back the potential of the technology to transform human society and train the next generation of revolutionary hackers dedicated to the cause of using the technology to support the cause of freedom. My aim here is to find sponsors, find the place for establishing our hacker Academy, to find partner organisations to develop new technology projects with and to find people ready to dedicate themselves in advancing the free technology movement. People ready to be at the forefront of writing history. At the heart of this story lies a conflict between two men in 1968. One of them is good B.F. Skinner, the other is good Lewis Mumford. It was one moment when two ideas about how technology could be used to advance human society first XXX ((unintelligible)) to take hold. There's a documentary from this time made in mid-60s called "Towards tomorrow". And in this documentary, it described two possible future visions for human society. In a society where old forms of authority were declining, what would be the way that we could organize masses of human beings in a future society. One of these visions for this society was a world managed by an elite group of technocrats, a specialized elite who managed a large population of passive human beings who constantly needed to be monitored and managed to be able to to keep them happy. B.F. Skinner described a new way of controlling and ordering people. He posed the question in this age of mass democracy and individualism the old forms of coercion was simply not possible and he put forth the idea of using reward. And he described an experiment where you have a cage with a pigeon inside and the pigeon can be trained to peck symbols, buttons, and depending on which symbol they peck, they get a pellet of food. In this way, by giving the pigeons the right reward for the correct behavior, they train the pigeon as a mechanical object. He then took this farther and he went to a mental hospital in San Bernardino in California and in the mental hospital, what they did is they gave the mental patients small reward every time they did a good behavior. With this reward, when it was a lunch time or a dinner time, the patients could sit at a nicer table. So, inside the mental hospital, they created a new ordered hierarchy from a system of reward in which people don't feel controlled but feel empowered. Skinner describes this model as a model for the future of humanity. What's really interesting about this video by Skinner is it there's something very eerily similar to what we see today in which there is a technocratic elite that has interest in politics only in managing human society to keep us happy to keep everything stable and to keep themselves rich. A lot of this was powered in the mid-80s with the fake consumer credit to reward us as a form of social management - much like the experiment with the hospital, the mental hospital. Lewis Mumford put forward an alternative vision for a society. In this video I'm going to show you - he first criticises Skinner and then he puts forward an alternative vision where everybody in the society is a participant. Everybody is an active human being deciding their destiny.
There were many forms the computer could have taken. In 1800s, the computer was proposed by Babbage. And popularized by Ada Lovelace. It was seen as a tool that would have huge social uses and that should be in the hands of many people, but when the computer was first developed during WWII - for cracking German codes for the military and for guiding ballistic missiles - computers became a very large centralized machine. By the 80s, communities of hackers started to emerge which started to be fascinated with these huge machines - which at the time you had to get the time slice, to get the appointment to get to get some time to use the machine - they started to get jobs near these computing devices, because they wanted to know how these machines could work. They started to build their own computers in their garages, in their houses and universities - and that was the birth of the personal computers, the reason why we now have laptops and telephones. What happened was: a lot of big companies started to come along and they started to invest a lot of capital. All of the hacker community - who up until that point had never seen money before in their life - to throw themselves at, at the proprietary industry. And whereas before the culture that had created this personal computers, this liberatory technology, really believed in power to use the technology to improve the humanity for the better, who really believed in free technology, in sharing techniques and code with each other - instead became siloed off. But there was one guy - Richard Stallman - he was just a guy - he found this ethically wrong. If enough people got together, we could give a challenge against the proprietary industry. He made that as a proposal to the community - that it doesn't have to be this way, if we together put our energies we can build our own operating system. A lot of people at that time thought that he was crazy or that his ideas weren't feasible. This is early video of Richard Stallman.
So, in 1991, the cryptography was classified as ammunitions and Philip Zimmermann wrote the first freely available encryption software for anybody to use and he uploaded it to the Internet. The American government arrested him and he was facing a decade in prison. What Philip Zimmerman did was to print the source code of PGP - of this encryption software - which he sold internationally, which is something that in America is protected under the First Amendment. And the American government was realizing that they couldn't continue with the case, they dropped the case. And since that time, because of the action of Philip Zimmermann, software became classified as a form of speech. And cryptography became widely available. It's now reason why cryptography is available everywhere. Also, in early 90s, Stallman has started to piece together his operating system. And by now a community a community of people has emerged around him. It was the birth of Linux - a really important piece of technology. Not just in the free technology world, but in general, in hi-tech space it place a very key role. And that was a rise of the whole bunch of movements: free software movement, hacker movement, crypto-anarchist movement. Movements were invigorated with creating a lot of new ideas and a lot of new concepts about how we could use the technology to shape the world around us. These were collective movements driven by the shared sense of purpose. Towards the end of the 90s (the baby boomer generation), the western society became overly optimistic. Something the Jean Baudrillard called 'the dead of society' and 'obsession with desert-like forms / with the simulacrum'. Stallman free software movement failed to capitalize on institutionalizing his movement. And what happen was what emerged was the open source movement. It was a movement that said: making this technology is not a question of freedom/ethics, it's simply when you have access to source code of a program it's more efficient, it's cheaper, it makes more quality code. I don't think that's true, but that was their argument. One of the main spokesmen was Eric Raymond who released a book called 'A cathedral and a bazaar'. In that book, Eric Raymond has described the open source development philosophy as open bazaar where everybody, dozens or hundreds of people, a wide number of people all collaborated in a horizontal manner. He coined an idea that given enough eyes all bugs are shallow. When we have a piece of source code, if there are enough people - all contributing a small amount of time and looking at the source code - then if there is a bug, that bug will be found. The idea that given a huge amount of people with a small amount of contribution of each, that we can develop projects and advance technology. Then what happened was the biggest event in the modern western history - which was the collapse of the twin towers, the twin idols of capitalism, perfect in a reflections, reaching into the skyline of New York - which realized our deepest most hidden desires to see the destruction of this passive lifeless world. And what it represented was the return of the real (of the) dark forces - that we ignored - back to penetrate into our reality. In early 2000s we saw a lot of optimism and momentum for change. We saw the Arab spring, we saw The occupy, we saw the orange revolutions. In the technology world, we saw a lot of advances, there was a huge amount of optimism for Linux on the desktop. Every year the people were saying: this is going be the year of the desktop. Everybody was waiting for that sudden single breakthrough. One of the major developments in technology world was the confrontation that took place between Hollywood and a Manhattan programmer called Bram Cohen. ((...)) He developed BitTorrent. The concept started with sites like Napster or Kazaa - that were centralized services that were shut down by authorities. Cohen came up with a concept: if enough people downloading files and seeding them at the same time - then the more people that download the file the more that file will become widely distributed in the network. So, that file will become shared in a self-regulating network. It was a big success and the movie studios didn't know what to do about this, they were completely powerless in face of this technology. The idea of creating a functional self-regulating system outside of power proved itself and it's something wildly popular among technologists. The next major development is the shutdown of the Pirate bay which led to the development of the Pirate party that at one point had double digits in elections and even entered into the EU parliament. There is huge momentum behind it. Wikipedia was also developed - the idea that given thousands and thousands of people all contributing small edits, one line at time, could build this huge knowledge resource . Around this movements started to emerge the new priests of this internet-centric decentralization technology - people like Yochai Benkler, academics who would go to conferences and sell this ideology to people. But something strange started to emerge. Wikipedia released statistics about edits on Wikipedia. We found that it was a small group of dedicated people that wrote the majority of Wikipedia, people who really believed in the project and spent all their time writing the majority of the articles on the website. When we started to look closer at these decentralized systems, what we observed was small groups of leaders surrounded by a wider community. In BitTorent, it wasn't that everybody was seeding in the network. Most people, after they downloaded, didn't continue to run the software. In fact, it was a small group of users, who wanted to challenge Hollywood and promote BitTorrent, who would leave their software running seeding torrents. In open source, we observed that there were small groups of dedicated developers in a project surrounded by wider community. And in fact, what Stallman has done was not just to write Linux and put that in the community, but he had written articles, he had written manifestos, he had put forward a vision and an ideology that pulled together enough people and drove this movement of hackers forwards. So what drove these projects for freedom was not a new model or a new technique. It was a vision that pulled together enough people to realize an idea. To understand why Occupy and Arab Spring and orange revolutions and the Pirate Party and a lot of these movements had a huge of amount of will and movement - fail, it's really instructive to understand what happened to Egypt. In Egypt, huge amounts of youths started to mobilize through Facebook and they started to go to this center in Cairo to front the military dictatorship. Huge amount of people died in that struggle. And after they threw out ((?)) the military dictatorship, the youth then sat down and said: "Okay, now what we are gonna do? What's next?". So they started to discuss. And into that, came a group of people, with a vision, with an ideology, that was well organized and able to pull together enough strands of the society behind them. But they could put their vision into power. And that was the Muslim Brotherhood. And then the same youth hood - that kicked out the military dictatorship - came back to the square to ask the military dictatorship to come back and rescue them from the Islamists. At the same time, Satoshi developed Bitcoin. I remember on Satoshi's early website he described it as a peer-to-peer form of money that cannot be controlled by central banks and governments. And it's something that attracted libertarians, cryptographers and hackers. Bitcoin is kind of a technology - free technology project - that was a little late to the party. Interestingly, it finds itself in the same place as the movements that preceded it. The fundamental problem with Bitcoin is not a problem of missing this or that technology, it's a problem of a lack of vision, a lack of how this technology is - And it's not just about Bitcoin - it's something to do with the wider technology movement. We have to understand the global situation now. Humanity is facing a future with a huge amount of suffering. We are facing the threats from terrorism, from immigration. There's the rise of new ideological movements - ISIS just went and took a city in southern Philippines for more than a month - which is right next to Indonesia, the biggest Muslim country in the world. And in Europe the new right movement is getting very strong, organizing training camps, becoming well-organized, getting into political power and well-funded. This is the reality of our situation now. We have to think about how this technologies that we make -, where do they situate themselves in the wider global context. In Rojava, there is also a really important movement with the ideology of democratic confederalism which is the way forward from anarchism. And offers a really good analysis of what is the current society and what is the crisis that we're facing. And how, in that place, revolutionaries from all over the world are going to learning the methodology and ideology of this movement. It's a new emerging movement outside of any one person's control, but new forces can be harnessed. What we have to understand is that anarchist movement and the hacker movement is something deeply connected. The problem with anarchism is that it failed in it's potential to advance humanity forward, it's simply an ideology that no longer is able to work. What we have in Rojava is a libertarian revolution of 5 million people. What is democratic confederalism? It's an ideological movement that opposes the state as a mechanical worldview and sees the nature as something that is divine, that seeks to restore the balance back between internal+subjective and external+material world. The freedom comes from reaching our destiny as human beings, not simply through pleasure seeking. (Liberalism is the destruction of the free society.) And the better humanity it's not simply a happier humanity but stronger freer humanity. The crisis in the West not simply an economic crisis, but social crisis - we're facing a deep cultural issue. All of the ideas in hacker movement - such as BitLaw, digital governance, cryptographic economy, decentralized organization, new economic models, new technical tools - unless we are able to take all of these concepts and put them into a plan, with a sense of direction, that we can put these into practice - then it's something that's going to be lost. Now, what's presenting itself is a massive opportunity for hackers to put their ideas into practice. So, right now we are building a hacker team. There's 3 tasks we have to do: study of all the ideas and concepts in technology. From this study we have to develop a long- term plan. And thirdly, we have to devote ourselves to build the technical base of this new emerging democratic confederalism movement, we have to create revolutionary hackers dedicated to the course. If we don't, then all of the technology we are making is outside of the society, it's a toy, and what is relevant in this world is not making new products to fill the spaces in the environment around us, but using technology to shape politics that influence the world around us. This revolution in North Syria or Rojava is the biggest opportunity in the entire history of modernity. Through this we can give direction to the hacker movement. One of our main projects is a Bitcoin project. We have a nation of 5 million people and - and - and there is a financial situation where they're under financial embargo, they use - , they don't have the financial infrastructure so they use paper money and Syrian Lira is inflating massively. Because there's embargo so you can't send money in and out. Also there is a project to create decentralized economy and there's a lot of real concrete uses for Bitcoin. And also the ideology of the revolutionary nation is in line with the vision and values of the Bitcoin. When we decide to look at deploying Bitcoin, what we realize is that Bitcoin is not ready and there's a lot of new things that need to be developed in Bitcoin, they should make it so it's able to be deployed on a scale of 5 million people. We are assembling a project to deploy Bitcoin as the national currency of Rojava. We want to create new products in practical use on a large scale. Products that solve real problems and serve the cause of freedom. Towards this goal, we're assembling a team of 20 hackers dedicated for two years. We're looking to establish links with companies and sponsors to make this happen. The first step is to establish a hacker's academy in Greece - to train groups of revolutionary self-sufficient hackers that we're going to deploy on projects. Our needs now: partners, sponsors, space, support. Our first plan is to setup exchange shops and localized wallets in Bitcoin where people come buy vouchers and use Bitcoin to create a local Bitcoin market. We have to create brochures, lots of information. Once this system gets bigger, then we also need to think of bigger financial infrastructure - so one of the things is paper wallets. At the moment, 100 thousands paper wallet cost $6000. Unfortunately the counterfeiting measures on the paper wallets aren't very well made. There needs to be a lot research done. There is a small USB device called ESP 12 which can be programmed with micro Python and C and it has on-board Wi-Fi, plus you can fit modules for radio. Through that you can create a large scale payments networks with cheap consumer devices that cost fie dollars each for people to transact bitcoins. There is also a big market for Bitcoin because sending money between Rojava and Istanbul currently costs 5 %. Later, we also can create plastic card system where we print cards and also establish payments network using radio systems. There needs to be a lot of development and investigations in Lightning Networks and other technologies. This is why I [want to ((?))] have a laboratory - if I take a group of people there - I can create all kinds of technology projects and a lot of concepts we've been theorizing for a long time. We can see that it works practically. There is also the project of the Pirates to create liquid democracy - there is a system of local councils in every neighborhood which - , a lot of these digital platforms that have been developed for many years - we can deploy them. There was also the economy being based on cooperatives - all of the ideas about economic management, about collective management of resources about using cryptography and currencies to manage cooperatives. These all things we can deploy - but what it's going to take is a group of people who's doing this research, who's going deep - not only in terms of developing new concepts - but looking back into the literature about what were - , what is the history of the movement, where we situated it and also what are the concepts and how we can apply them towards our goal. I'm gonna to finish my talk on that. Does anybody have questions?
Creator of Bittorrent Thinks He Can Kill Bitcoin With Chia, a Burstcoin (BURST) Copycat
https://preview.redd.it/rknht1mht9521.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=1026ea20c81f520ba749f7eb1d00ae9f72099cdf https://cryptoiq.co/creator-of-bittorrent-thinks-he-can-kill-bitcoin-with-chia-a-burstcoin-burst-copycat/ Bram Cohen, the creator of the popular peer to peer torrenting software BitTorrent, is creating a cryptocurrency called Chia. This new cryptocurrency will use Proof of Capacity (PoC), an algorithm perfected by Burstcoin (BURST). Breaker incorrectly reports that PoC, which Cohen is calling Proof of Space, is a new algorithm developed by Cohen. Further, Breaker writes that Chia could kill Bitcoin. It is unlikely that Chia will even be competitive with Burstcoin(BURST), which has a $9 million market cap, let alone Bitcoin, as we’ll now explain. The crypto space is unfortunately filled with copycat devs who make copycat cryptocurrencies, and this Chia situation appears to be a good example. Burstcoin(BURST)has a strong community of Cypherpunks and has been using PoC since 2014. If Cohen truly cared about the adoption of PoC crypto, he should have jumped on the Burstcoin(BURST) boat instead of trying to create a different cryptocurrency that would compete with it. Chia is advertised as being a “green cryptocurrency,” similar to how stores often have an organic foods section. Green goods and services are big money in the current economy because slapping a green brand on something means environmental and health enthusiasts automatically flock to it. The greenness of Chia is entirely derived from PoC, which Burstcoin (BURST) has already been doing since 2014. Perhaps the Burstcoin (BURST) community should one-up Cohen and do a green advertising campaign before Chia launches since the method of branding is the only advantage that Chia has. Indeed, PoC is environmentally friendly and uses practically no electricity, which also makes Burstcoin (BURST) one of the only profitable cryptocurrencies to mine on personal computers. PoC cryptocurrencies read cryptographic hashes from a plot in a hard drive, rather than calculating new cryptographic hashes all the time like with Proof of Work (PoW). The miner who finds the answer the quickest in their hard drive gets the block reward. Since more hard drive space equals more answers, more hard drive space leads to more block rewards. The Burstcoin(BURST) mining network has 230,000 TB (230 PB) of hard drive space at this time, driven by a strong community. It seems unlikely Chia would ever exceed that number since people interested in PoC already mine Burstcoin (BURST), and would not abandon Burstcoin (BURST) for a copycat. Cohen incorrectly argues that miners would not continuously expand their mining operations with PoC. “The idea is that you’re leveraging this resource of storage capacity, and people already have ludicrous amounts of excess storage on their laptops, and other places, which is just not being utilized,” he said. “There is so much of that already that it should eventually reach the point where if you were buying new hard drives for the purpose of farming, it would lose you money”. The fact is that serious Burstcoin(BURST) miners regularly buy petabytesPB of new hard drive space to maximize revenue, and Chia miners would act no differently if Chia catches on. The one possible difference between Burstcoin (BURST) and Chia is that Cohen is trying to prevent a “re-mining from genesis” attack, where a miner could create an entirely new chain starting at the genesis block. If they had enough hard drive power to do this, perhaps they would fork the blockchain. To avoid this attack Cohen says Chia will also integrate “Proof of Time” (PoT). First off, Burstcoin (BURST) has never had issues with this sort of attack in its five years of existence. If someone has a tremendous amount of hard drive space and does PoC mining, it would be absolutely senseless to do this sort of attack since their entire mining farm would become worthless. If the point of the attack was to do a double spend, the coins gained in the double spend would become worthless too. Cohen is trying to prevent an attack that is extremely unlikely since attackers have no incentive to do it. The details about PoT are vague, with it being a parallel process to mining that takes the same amount of time no matter how much hard drive space is used. This would make Chia less efficient than Burstcoin (BURST) and therefore less competitive. Cohen is offering $100,000 to anyone who can develop PoT, making it clear it does not exist yet. Since PoT would probably make Chia less efficient, and it has not been developed yet, and it solves a non-existent problem, the PoT acronym is appropriate. Ultimately, Chia is branded as green money for a digital world, when the reality is Burstcoin (BURST) already is green money for a digital world. Burstcoin (BURST) has a strong reputation, has been continuously running for five 5 years, and has an extremely strong community. It seems unlikely Chia will ever become more popular than Burstcoin (BURST), and unlike the title of the Breaker article indicates, Chia certainly has no chance of killing Bitcoin. comment
BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen on medium.com argues *against* a "simplistic plan" for scaling Bitcoin with "popular support" among "people who don't know any better" and want a "simple fix". He favors "people doing actual development who aren’t particularly good at talking". Here's why he's wrong.
TL;DR: https://medium.com/@bramcohen/whiny-ragequitting-cab164b1e88#.3svog9gfg Sorry Bram, but part of "real engineering work" often involves actually interacting with real users to solve their real problems, as quickly and as simply as possible (or as you prefer to dismissively put it in your essay: "people who don’t know any better" who are looking for a "simple fix"). This is why Bitcoin Classic is rapidly gaining consensus among major Bitcoin stakeholders, who are rejecting the needlessly slow & complicated roadmap from Core / Blockstream devs - who, as you yourself admit in your essay, "aren’t particularly good at talking" (or listening, for that matter). Experience on successful real projects in the real world has shown us (with Satoshi's initial release of Bitcoin being a case in point) that the fastest, simplest and most popular solutions are actually often the best. In the above essay, Bram Cohen, inventor of BitTorrent, makes the following arguments:
Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik, and Gavin Andresen ... are doing a good job of whipping up popular support ... They have a simplistic plan which appeals to people who don’t know any better or want to be told that technical problems can be made to magically go away with a simple fix. On the other side are the people doing actual development, who aren’t particularly good at talking to the press or whipping up support on reddit and have a plan which requires real engineering work moving forwards.
There are several things seriously wrong with the Bram Cohen's central argument above: (1) The first part of his statement above is obsolete and hence irrelevant. Mike and Gavin did indeed previously support BIP 101 (smoothly scaling from 8 MB to 8 GB max blocksize by doubling every 2 years for 20 years) - but in the past week, things have changed dramatically, and the community has moved on:
Mike is gone, and it's become clear that support for BIP 101 / XT has dried up;
Gavin and Jeff support Bitcoin Classic, which is not BIP 101.
So Bram's comparison of Core's current roadmap with a deprecated roadmap (BIP 101) is now irrelevant. All the buzz is around a recent new competing repo: Bitcoin Classic. (2) The second part of Bram's statement above is wrong because it is precisely the simplicity and "appealingness" of Bitcoin Classic which are its strengths. He dismisses those factors as if they were bad things - but they're actually good things. The main reason for the past year of impasse is that all previously proposed solutions weren't simple and appealing enough to gain any actual consensus (among the actual users themselves - I don't mean among the devs at a single, out-of-touch and ultimately replaceable team: Core / Blockstream). Bitcoin Classic's only initial change is to do an immediate bump to merely 2 MB - while also providing, long-term, a more democratic, transparent means of governance - based not on Core / Blockstream devs ACKing and NACKing pull-requests on the GitHub repo - but rather on a much more inclusive and deliberative multi-phase process. The fact of being simple and inclusive (which Bram erroneously dismisses as being "simplistic" and "popular" by which he presumably means "populist") is precisely why Bitcoin Classic has been rapidly gaining consensus among all stakeholders in the Bitcoin community: miners, users, devs and businesses: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/40rwoo/block_size_consensus_infographic_consensus_is/ https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4089aj/im_working_on_a_project_called_bitcoin_classic_to/ Bram can talk all he wants on medium.com about what might have been, and about how his favorite dev team knows better than actual users (who he insultingly dismisses as "people who don't know any better"). But figuring out how to safely and quickly and simply scale Bitcoin (which is the main issue right now) might not be the exclusive province of C/C++ devs who code in isolation all day. In fact, as we are now seeing, it turns out that there are other stakeholders in the Bitcoin space who might actually have better ideas on how to do this kind of scaling. So it's wrong (as well as being elitist) for Bram to dismissively insult such stakeholders as "people who don't know any better" - particularly because in many cases, what we're actually talking about here are major companies with annual revenues in the millions of dollars, with qualified dev teams of their own. To take just one obvious example: look at Coinbase. They were banned from /Bitcoin and bitcoin.org by Theymos for daring to announce that they were testing XT - in order to serve better serve their users under all possible scenarios in the future. Coinbase, as we know, also happens to be one of the major on-ramps for many new Bitcoin users, since they're a major US-registered financial institution. And Coinbase also happens to have the technical and engineering expertise to have written their own open-source fully-validating Bitcoin node from scratch based on Ruby and PostgreSQL. This is kind of Bitcoin stakeholders that Bram is insulting and dismissing when he talks about "people who don't know any better": a company which basically produced a clone of the full-node part of Core. And note that Coinbase wrote this from scratch in different langauges (Ruby and PostgreSQL), instead of inheriting (some would say "hijacking") Satoshi's orignal C/C++ codebase. So Bram is simply being rude and mean when he dismisses a major company like Coinbase as being merely "people who don't know any better". Bitcoin expertise is not confined to Core / Blockstream devs. In fact, there is new breed of Bitcoin experts emerging now - people who know more about the challenges Bitcoin faces today (eg, scaling and network topology) rather than the challenges Bitcoin faced in the past (eg, hasing and crypto). Two names are worth mentioning among this new wave of experts:
Dr Peter R. Rizun - who has also joined Bitcoin Classic now - and who has been terribly maligned and censored by Core / Blockstream:
Dr Peter R. Rizun, managing editor of the first peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal, is an important Bitcoin researcher. He has also been attacked and censored for months by Core / Blockstream / Theymos. Now, he has now been suspended (from all subreddits) by some Reddit admin(s). Why?
Miners produce a generic COMMODITY: transactions included in blocks on the chain. If certain miners refuse to produce ENOUGH of this commodity, then they CAN and WILL be REPLACED. (Important reminders from Cornell researcher Emin Gün Sirer)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/411yz7/miners_produce_a_generic_commodity_transactions/ Look, I really like the stuff that Pieter Wuille is doing with SegWit - and I also really like the stuff that Greg Maxwell could contribute with Confidential Transactions (but please just ignore the few posters in this search-link who worry that CT is "dangerous" because quantum computing might come along someday.). (Although I think that any such major upgrades should be done as a hard-fork, which is more explicit and thus safer than a soft-fork). So there is room for many types of devs in Bitcoin, and there is exciting work to be done long-term. But Bram's essay is really about scaling now. And Core / Blockstream has not provided any solutions available now, nor have they researched what users really want and need now. Thus it's understandable that users are gravitating towards a new dev team which can deliver a "simple fix" - in this case, Bitcoin Classic. And that's normal and healthy. (3) Finally, there's plenty of owners of major multi-million-dollar mining operations who Bram also dismisses as "people who don’t know any better", people who believe in "magic" or a "simple fix". At the same time, Bram inexplicably praises a bunch of devs who - as he himself admits - "aren't particularly good at talking" or "whipping up support" - while ignoring the fact that it is is precisely this lack of communication skills which got us into this whole mess. Core / Blockstream are screwing up the short-term and long-term project management of Bitcoin, because they have shown that they are totally incapable of coming up with a realistic roadmap which the community could actually support. (They may have their own reasons for the strange way they prioritized their roadmap, but we don't really know - there's lots of theories out there.) On the other hand, the people behind Bitcoin Classic (not mentioned by Bram here, as he focuses instead on the obsolete strawman of Mike Hearn / BIP 101), have proven themselves to be "particularly good at talking" (and more important: listening) to actual users and major businesses, in order figure out a a safe, reasonable and practical "simple fix" to satisfy users' needs and requirements now. Specifically, jtoomim (founder of Bitcoin Classic) has done extensive research, interacting with miners all over the world - on both sides of the Great Firewall of China. As it turns out (and as stated by Gavin, another lead dev on Bitcoin Classic) the Great Firewall of China, and the concentration of so much mining on the "other" side of it, is one of the main obstacles to simple "blocksize-based" scaling solutions. So Gavin previously experimented with 20 MB blocks, and more recently jtoomim experimented with 2-3 MB - in the field - producing empirical evidence that 2-3 MB blocks are feasible and acceptable to miners now. This is the very definition of a "simple fix", with massive "support" from the people who matter: the miners themselves. And this kind of research with users in the field is exactly what Bitcoin needs now - despite the fact that it might not a sexy enough engineering-based solution to satisfy Bram Cohen and the out-of-touch devs at Core / Blockstream, who have proven themselves time and time again to be unable and/or unwilling to do deliver a simple, popular scaling solution. So by isolating themselves in their bubble of censorship to focus on elegant engineering, and avoiding the messy public forums where open debate actually occurs - and openly scorning their users (Greg Maxwell calling /btc a "cesspool" and more recently supporting Luke-Jr's attempt to sabotage Bitcoin Classic by injecting a poison-pill pull request to change the PoW and kick all miners off the network, Peter Todd releasing RBF over massive protests and recently doing a gray-hat double-spend against major US-registered Bitcoin financial processor Coinbase) - Core / Blockstream have shown themselves to be arrogant and out of touch, and have alienated the Bitcoin community by being willing jeopardize the network as they chant their mantra that "there's no emergency yet". This is people are rejecting Core / Blockstream's so-called "scaling" roadmap (which unfortunately includes no "simple fix" - ie a minimal blocksize-based solution acceptable to the community - and instead relies on complicated, untested, fancy code such as SegWit and LN - which be might good later but which aren't ready now). It's too little and too late, too slow and too complicated (and possibly vaporware). Instead, people want the simpler, faster and field-tested solutions researched and developed by the devs over at the new repo: Bitcoin Classic. Bram Cohen is needlessly focusing in his essay on what used-to-be and what might-have-been and what could-be-someday. Meanwhile the researchers and developers at Bitcoin Classic, like Gavin and JToomim, have been focusing on the here-and-now. In this sense, the Bitcoin Classic researchers and developers are closer to Satoshi, with his preference for practical solutions which work "good enough" to be implemented now, instead of "perfect" solutions which are so complicated that they might never get implemented at all. Also recall that several major Core / Blockstream devs didn't believe Bitcoin would work:
Gregory Maxwell "mathematically proved" that Bitcoin would be "impossible" (ignoring a little thing like "complexity" - which shows that he might not be that well-rounded, since many mathematicians are indeed familiar with "complexity theory", involving termination, NP, and all that fun stuff).
Adam Back missed out on being an earlier adopter of Bitcoin even when tipped off by Satoshi (Adam had invented an earlier prototype called HashCash, but in his case he ignored how inflation might work - which shows that he also might not be that well-rounded, since many economists in the real world do indeed know how currency inflation works).
Peter Todd is an odd case, focusing on breaking things that aren't broken in order to petulantly prove a point (so he might be good in Testing or Threat Assessment, but he's probably not the kind of guy you want in Project Management).
These are the kinds of people Bram is arguing we should to support - people whose track record of being right on Bitcoin has been spotty at best, often because they're more interested in spending ages solving complicated engineering problems rather than in providing "simple fixes" for real users in the real world. Meanwhile, guys like Gavin, JGarzik, and JToomim - all of whom are involved with Bitcoin Classic - are operating more in the spirit of Satoshi - they've been working closely with real users in the real world, figuring out what they really need and want and getting ready to actually deliver it, soon - which is why consensus among users, miners, devs and businesses has been rapidly coalescing around the new competing repo Bitcoin Classic.
BlockTorrent: The famous algorithm which BitTorrent uses for SHARING BIG FILES. Which you probably thought Bitcoin *also* uses for SHARING NEW BLOCKS (which are also getting kinda BIG). But Bitcoin *doesn't* torrent *new* blocks (while relaying). It only torrents *old* blocks (while sync-ing). Why?
which was made by an independent minedev Jonathan Toomim jtoomim several months ago;
which is based on world-famous wildly-successful proven technology - the same technology used in BitTorrent (and which is also already used for only one part of the Bitcoin system: the initial sync-ing of old blocks to spin up a new full-node);
which could provide significant efficiencies in relaying new blocks;
which could also provide several other side benefits, possibly helping to mitigate two other current problems:
DDoS attacks by rogue nodes;
miners who refuse to mine "big enough" blocks;
and which has been mysteriously ignored this whole time by the "experts" at the legacy Core/Blockstream Bitcoin implementation (and the miners who follow them).
For initial block sync, [Bitcoin] sort of works [like BitTorrent] already. You download a different block from each peer. That's fine. However, a mechanism does not currently exist for downloading a portion of each [new] block from a different peer. That's what I want to add.
~ jtoomim The more detailed version of this "BlockTorrenting" proposal (as presented by jtoomim on the bitcoin_dev mailing list) is linked and copied / reformatted at the end of this OP. Meanwhile here are some observations from me as a concerned member of the Bitcoin-using public. Questions: Whoa?? WTF??? Bitcoin doesn't do this kind of "blocktorrenting" already?? But.. But... I thought Bitcoin was "p2p" and "based on BitTorrent"... ... because (as we all know) Bitcoin has to download giant files. Oh... Bitcoin only "torrents" when sharing one certain kind of really big file: the existing blockchain, when a node is being initialized. But Bitcoin doesn't "torrent" when sharing another certain kind of moderately big file (a file whose size, by the way, has been notoriously and steadily growing over the years to the point where the system running the legacy "Core"/Blockstream Bitcoin implementation is starting to become dangerously congested - no matter what some delusional clowns "Core" devs may say): ie, the world's most wildly popular, industrial-strength "p2p file sharing algorithm" is mysteriously not being used where the Bitcoin network needs it the most in order to get transactions confirmed on-chain: when a a newly found block needs to be shared among nodes, when a node is relaying new blocks. https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin+bitcoinxt+bitcoin_uncensored+btc+bitcoin_classic/search?q=blocktorrent&restrict_sr=on How many of you (honestly) just simply assumed that this algorithm was already being used in Bitcoin - since we've all been told that "Bitcoin is p2p, like BitTorrent"? As it turns out - the only part of Bitcoin which has been p2p up until now is the "sync-ing a new full-node" part. The "running an existing full-node" part of Bitcoin has never been implemented as truly "p2p2" yet!!!1!!! And this is precisely the part of the system that we've been wasting all of our time (and destroying the community) fighting over for the past few months - because the so-called "experts" from the legacy "Core"/Blockstream Bitcoin implementation ignored this proposal! Why? Why have all the so-called "experts" at "Core"/Blockstream ignored this obvious well-known effective & popular & tested & successful algorithm for doing "blocktorrenting" to torrent each new block being relayed? Why have the "Core"/Blockstream devs failed to p2p-ize the most central, fundamental networking aspect of Bitcoin - the part where blocks get propagated, the part we've been fighting about for the past few years? This algorithm for "torrenting" a big file in parallel from peers is the very definition of "p2p". It "surgically" attacks the whole problem of sharing big files in the most elegant and efficient way possible: right at the lowest level of the bottleneck itself, cleverly chunking a file and uploading it in parallel to multiple peers. Everyone knows torrenting works. Why isn't Bitcoin using it for its new blocks? As millions of torrenters already know (but evidently all the so-called "experts" at Core/Blocsktream seem to have conveniently forgotten), "torrenting" a file (breaking a file into chunks and then offering a different chunk to each peer to "get it out to everyone fast" - before your particular node even has the entire file) is such a well-known / feasible / obvious / accepted / battle-tested / highly efficient algorithm for "parallelizing" (and thereby significantly accelerating) the sharing of big files among peers, that many people simply assumed that Bitcoin had already been doing this kind of "torrenting of new-blocks" these whole past 7 years. But Bitcoin doesn't do this - yet! None of the Core/Blockstream devs (and the Chinese miners who follow them) have prioritized p2p-izing the most central and most vital and most resource-consuming function of the Bitcoin network - the propagation of new blocks! Maybe it took someone who's both a miner and a dev to "scratch" this particular "itch": Jonathan Toomim jtoomim.
A miner + dev who gets very little attention / respect from the Core/Blockstream devs (and from the Chinese miners who follow them) - perhaps because they feel threatened by a competing implementation?
A miner + dev who may have come up with the simplest and safest and most effective algorithmic (ie, software-based, not hardware-consuming) scaling proposal of anyone!
A dev who who is not paid by Blockstream, and who is therefore free from the secret, undisclosed corporate restraints / confidentiality agreements imposed by the shadowy fiat venture-capitalists and legacy power elite who appear to be attempting to cripple our code and muzzle our devs.
it has to able to upload a new block to (at least) 8 peers,
which places (at least) 8x more "demand" on the full-node's upload bandwidth.
The brilliant, simple proposed "blocktorrent" algorithm from jtoomim (already proven to work with Bram Cohen's BitTorrent protocol, and also already proven to work for initial sync-ing of Bitcoin full-nodes - but still un-implemented for ongoing relaying among full-nodes) looks like it would provide a significant performance improvement precisely at this tightest "bottleneck" in the system, the crucial central nexus where most of the "traffic" (and the congestion) is happening: the relaying of new blocks from "slower" full-nodes. The detailed explanation for how this helps "slower" nodes when uploading, is as follows. Say you are a "slower" node. You need to send a new block out to (at least) 8 peers - but your "upload" bandwidth is really slow. If you were to split the file into (at least) 8 "chunks", and then upload a different one of these (at least) 8 "chunks" to each of your (at least) 8 peers - then (if you were using "blocktorrenting") it only would take you 1/8 (or less) of the "normal" time to do this (compared to the naïve legacy "Core" algorithm). Now the new block which your "slower" node was attempting to upload is already "out there" - in 1/8 (or less) of the "normal" time compared to the naïve legacy "Core" algorithm.[ 1 ] ... [ 1 ] There will of course also be a tiny amount of extra overhead involved due to the "housekeeping" performed by the "blocktorrent" algorithm itself - involving some additional processing and communicating to decompose the block into chunks and to organize the relaying of different chunks to different peers and the recompose the chunks into a block again (all of which, depending on the size of the block and the latency of your node's connections to its peers, would in most cases be negligible compared to the much-greater speed-up provided by the "blocktorrent" algorithm itself). Now that your block is "out there" at those 8 (or more) peer nodes to whom you just blocktorrented it in 1/8 (or less) of the time - it has now been liberated from the "bottleneck" of your "slower" node. In fact, its further propagation across the net may now be able to leverage much faster upload speeds from some other node(s) which have "blocktorrent"-downloaded it in pieces from you (and other peers) - and which might be faster relaying it along, than your "slower" node. For some mysterious reason, the legacy Bitcoin implementation from "Core"/Blockstream has not been doing this kind of "blocktorrenting" for new blocks. It's only been doing this torrenting for old blocks. The blocks that have already been confirmed. Which is fine. But we also obviously need this sort of "torrenting" to be done for each new block is currently being confirmed. And this is where the entire friggin' "scaling bottleneck" is occurring, which we just wasted the past few years "debating" about. Just sit down and think about this for a minute. We've had all these so-called "experts" (Core/Blockstream devs and other small-block proponents) telling us for years that guys like Hearn and Gavin and repos like Classic and XT and BU were "wrong" or at least "unserious" because they "merely" proposed "brute-force" scaling: ie, scaling which would simply place more demands on finite resources (specifically: on the upload bandwidth from full-nodes - who need to relay to at least 8 peer full-nodes in order to be considered "useful" to the network). These "experts" have been beating us over the head this whole time, telling us that we have to figure out some (really complicated, unproven, inefficient and centralized) clever scaling algorithms to squeeze more efficiency out of existing infrastructure. And here is the most well-known / feasible / obvious / accepted / battle-tested algorithm for "parallelizing" (and thereby massively accelerating) the sharing of big file among peers - the BitTorrent algorithm itself, the gold standard of p2p relaying par excellence, which has been a major success on the Internet for decades, at one point accounting for nearly 1/3 of all traffic on the Internet itself - and which is also already being used in one part of Bitcoin: during the phase of sync-ing a new node. And apparently pretty much only jtoomim has been talking about using it for the actual relaying of new blocks - while Core/Blockstream devs have so far basically ignored this simple and safe and efficient proposal. And then the small-block sycophants (reddit users or wannabe C/C++ programmers who have beaten into submission and/or by the FUD and "technological pessimism" of the Core/Blockstream devs, and by the censorhip on their legacy forum), they all "laugh" at Classic and proclaim "Bitcoin doesn't need another dev team - all the 'experts' are at Core / Blockstream"... ...when in fact it actually looks like jtoomim (an independent minedev, free from the propaganda and secret details of the corporate agenda of Core/Blockstream - who works on the Classic Bitcoin implementation) may have proposed the simplest and safest and most effective scaling algorithm in this whole debate. By the way, his proposal estimates that we could get about 1 magnitude greater throughput, based on the typical latency and blocksize for blocks of around 20 MB and bandwidth of around 8 Mbps (which seems like a pretty normal scenario). So why the fuck isn't this being done yet? This is such a well-known / feasible / obvious / accepted / battle-tested algorithm for "parallelizing" (and thereby significantly accelerating) the sharing of big files among peers:
It's already being used for the (currently) 65 gigabytes of "blocks in the existing blockchain" itself - the phase where a new node has to sync with the blockchain.
It's already being used in BitTorrent - although the BitTorrent protocol has been optimized more to maximize throughput, whereas it would probably be a good idea to optimize the BlockTorrent protocol to minimize latency (since avoiding orphans is the big issue here) - which I'm fairly sure should be quite doable.
This algorithm is so trivial / obvious / straightforward / feasible / well-known / proven that I (and probably many others) simply assumed that Bitcoin had been doing this all along! But it has never been implemented. There is however finally a post about it today on the score-hidden forum /Bitcoin, from eragmus:
[bitcoin-dev] BlockTorrent: Torrent-style new-block propagation on Merkle trees
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/484nbx/bitcoindev_blocktorrent_torrentstyle_newblock/ And, predictably, the top-voted comment there is a comment telling us why it will never work. And the comment after that comment is from the author of the proposal, jtoomim, explaining why it would work. Score hidden on all those comments. Because the immature tyrant theymosstill doesn't understand the inherent advantages of people using reddit's upvoting & downvoting tools to hold decentralized, permissionless debates online. Whatever. Questions: (1) Would this "BlockTorrenting" algorithm from jtoomim really work? (2) If so, why hasn't it been implemented yet? (3) Specifically: With all the "dev firepower" (and $76 million in venture capital) available at Core/Blockstream, why have they not prioritized implementing this simple and safe and highly effective solution? (4) Even more specifically: Are there undisclosed strategies / agreements / restraints imposed by Blockstream financial investors on Bitcoin "Core" devs which have been preventing further discussion and eventual implementation of this possible simple & safe & efficient scaling solution? Here is the more-detailed version of this proposal, presented by Jonathan Toomim jtoomim back in September of 2015 on the bitcoin-dev mailing list (and pretty much ignored for months by almost all the "experts" there): https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011176.html
As I understand it, the current block propagation algorithm is this:
A node mines a block.
It notifies its peers that it has a new block with an inv. Typical nodes have 8 peers.
The peers respond that they have not seen it, and request the block with getdata [hash].
The node sends out the block in parallel to all 8 peers simultaneously. If the node's upstream bandwidth is limiting, then all peers will receive most of the block before any peer receives all of the block. The block is sent out as the small header followed by a list of transactions.
Once a peer completes the download, it verifies the block, then enters step 2.
(If I'm missing anything, please let me know.) The main problem with this algorithm is that it requires a peer to have the full block before it does any uploading to other peers in the p2p mesh. This slows down block propagation to:
O( p • log_p(n) )
n is the number of peers in the mesh,
p is the number of peers transmitted to simultaneously.
It's like the Napster era of file-sharing. We can do much better than this. Bittorrent can be an example for us. Bittorrent splits the file to be shared into a bunch of chunks, and hashes each chunk. Downloaders (leeches) grab the list of hashes, then start requesting their peers for the chunks out-of-order. As each leech completes a chunk and verifies it against the hash, it begins to share those chunks with other leeches. Total propagation time for large files can be approximately equal to the transmission time for an FTP upload. Sometimes it's significantly slower, but often it's actually faster due to less bottlenecking on a single connection and better resistance to packet/connection loss. (This could be relevant for crossing the Chinese border, since the Great Firewall tends to produce random packet loss, especially on encrypted connections.) Bitcoin uses a data structure for transactions with hashes built-in. We can use that in lieu of Bittorrent's file chunks.
A Bittorrent-inspired algorithm might be something like this:
(Optional steps to build a Merkle cache; described later)
A seed node mines a block.
It notifies its peers that it has a new block with an extended version of inv.
The leech peers request the block header.
The seed sends the block header. The leech code path splits into two.
(a) The leeches verify the block header, including the PoW. If the header is valid,
(a) They notify their peers that they have a header for an unverified new block with an extended version of inv, looping back to 2. above. If it is invalid, they abort thread (b).
(b) The leeches request the Nth row (from the root) of the transaction Merkle tree, where N might typically be between 2 and 10. That corresponds to about 1/4th to 1/1024th of the transactions. The leeches also request a bitfield indicating which of the Merkle nodes the seed has leaves for. The seed supplies this (0xFFFF...).
(b) The leeches calculate all parent node hashes in the Merkle tree, and verify that the root hash is as described in the header.
The leeches search their Merkle hash cache to see if they have the leaves (transaction hashes and/or transactions) for that node already.
The leeches send a bitfield request to the node indicating which Merkle nodes they want the leaves for.
The seed responds by sending leaves (either txn hashes or full transactions, depending on benchmark results) to the leeches in whatever order it decides is optimal for the network.
The leeches verify that the leaves hash into the ancestor node hashes that they already have.
The leeches begin sharing leaves with each other.
If the leaves are txn hashes, they check their cache for the actual transactions. If they are missing it, they request the txns with a getdata, or all of the txns they're missing (as a list) with a few batch getdatas.
Features and benefits
The main feature of this algorithm is that a leech will begin to upload chunks of data as soon as it gets them and confirms both PoW and hash/data integrity instead of waiting for a fully copy with full verification.
Inefficient cases, and mitigations
This algorithm is more complicated than the existing algorithm, and won't always be better in performance. Because more round trip messages are required for negotiating the Merkle tree transfers, it will perform worse in situations where the bandwidth to ping latency ratio is high relative to the blocksize. Specifically, the minimum per-hop latency will likely be higher. This might be mitigated by reducing the number of round-trip messages needed to set up the BlockTorrent by using larger and more complex inv-like and getdata-like messages that preemptively send some data (e.g. block headers). This would trade off latency for bandwidth overhead from larger duplicated inv messages. Depending on implementation quality, the latency for the smallest block size might be the same between algorithms, or it might be 300% higher for the torrent algorithm. For small blocks (perhaps < 100 kB), the BlockTorrent algorithm will likely be slightly slower.
Sidebar from the OP: So maybe this would discourage certain miners (cough Dow cough) from mining blocks that aren't full enough:
Why is [BTCC] limiting their block size to under 750 all of a sudden?
For large blocks (e.g. 8 MB over 20 Mbps), I expect the BlockTorrent algo will likely be around an order of magnitude faster in the worst case (adversarial) scenarios, in which none of the block's transactions are in the caches.
One of the big benefits of the BlockTorrent algorithm is that it provides several obvious and straightforward points for bandwidth saving and optimization by caching transactions and reconstructing the transaction order.
Future work: possible further optimizations
A cooperating miner [could] pre-announce Merkle subtrees with some of the transactions they are planning on including in the final block. Other miners who see those subtrees [could] compare the transactions in those subtrees to the transaction sets they are mining with, and can rearrange their block prototypes to use the same subtrees as much as possible. In the case of public pools supporting the getblocktemplate protocol, it might be possible to build Merkle subtree caches without the pool's help by having one or more nodes just scraping their getblocktemplate results. Even if some transactions are inserted or deleted, it [might] be possible to guess a lot of the tree based on the previous ordering. Once a block header and the first few rows of the Merkle tree [had] been published, they [would] propagate through the whole network, at which time full nodes might even be able to guess parts of the tree by searching through their txn and Merkle node/subtree caches. That might be fun to think about, but probably not effective due to O( n2 ) or worse scaling with transaction count. Might be able to make it work if the whole network cooperates on it, but there are probably more important things to do.
Leveraging other features from BitTorrent
There are also a few other features of Bittorrent that would be useful here, like:
prioritizing uploads to different peers based on their upload capacity,
banning peers that submit data that doesn't hash to the right value.
Sidebar from the OP: Hmm...maybe that would be one way to deal with the DDoS-ing we're experiencing right now? I know the DDoSer is using a rotating list of proxies, but still it could be a quick-and-dirty way to mitigate against his attack.
(It might be good if we could get Bram Cohen to help with the implementation.)
Using the existing BitTorrent algorithm as-is - versus tailoring a new algorithm optimized for Bitcoin
Another possible option would be to just treat the block as a file and literally Bittorrent it. But I think that there should be enough benefits to integrating it with the existing bitcoin p2p connections and also with using bitcoind's transaction caches and Merkle tree caches to make a native implementation worthwhile. Also, BitTorrent itself was designed to optimize more for bandwidth than for latency, so we will have slightly different goals and tradeoffs during implementation. Concerns, possible attacks, mitigations, related work One of the concerns that I initially had about this idea was that it would involve nodes forwarding unverified block data to other nodes. At first, I thought this might be useful for a rogue miner or node who wanted to quickly waste the whole network's bandwidth. However, in order to perform this attack, the rogue needs to construct a valid header with a valid PoW, but use a set of transactions that renders the block as a whole invalid in a manner that is difficult to detect without full verification. However, it will be difficult to design such an attack so that the damage in bandwidth used has a greater value than the 240 exahashes (and 25.1 BTC opportunity cost) associated with creating a valid header.
Related work: IBLT (Invertible Bloom Lookup Tables)
As I understand it, the O(1) IBLT approach requires that blocks follow strict rules (yet to be fully defined) about the transaction ordering. If these are not followed, then it turns into sending a list of txn hashes, and separately ensuring that all of the txns in the new block are already in the recipient's mempool. When mempools are very dissimilar, the IBLT approach performance degrades heavily and performance becomes worse than simply sending the raw block. This could occur if a node just joined the network, during chain reorgs, or due to malicious selfish miners. Also, if the mempool has a lot more transactions than are included in the block, the false positive rate for detecting whether a transaction already exists in another node's mempool might get high for otherwise reasonable bucket counts/sizes. With the BlockTorrent approach, the focus is on transmitting the list of hashes in a manner that propagates as quickly as possible while still allowing methods for reducing the total bandwidth needed.
The BlockTorrent algorithm does not really address how the actual transaction data will be obtained because, once the leech has the list of txn hashes, the standard Bitcoin p2p protocol can supply them in a parallelized and decentralized manner. Thoughts? -jtoomim
Introducing a POW through a soft-fork | Devrandom | Nov 01 2017
Devrandom on Nov 01 2017: Hi all, Feedback is welcome on the draft below. In particular, I want to see if there is interest in further development of the idea and also interested in any attack vectors or undesirable dynamics. (Formatted version available here: https://github.com/devrandom/btc-papers/blob/masteaux-pow.md )
Soft-fork Introduction of a New POW
Mitigate mining centralization pressures by introducing a POW that does
not have economies of scale
Introduce an intermediary confirmation point, reducing the impact of
mining power fluctuations Note however that choice of a suitable POW will require deep analysis. Some pitfalls include: botnet mining, POWs that seem ASIC resistant but are not, unexpected/covert optimization. In particular, unexpected/covert optimizations, such as ASCIBOOST, present a potential centralizing and destabilizing force.
Aux POW intermediate block
Auxiliary POW blocks are introduced between normal blocks - i.e. the chain alternates between the two POWs. Each aux-POW block points to the previous normal block and contains transactions just like a normal block. Each normal block points to the previous aux-POW block and must contain all transactions from the aux-POW block. Block space is not increased. The new intermediate block and the pointers are introduced via a soft-fork restriction.
Reward for aux POW miners
The reward for the aux POW smoothly increases from zero to a target value (e.g. 1/2 of the total reward) over time. The reward is transferred via a soft-fork restriction requiring a coinbase output to an address published in the aux-POW block.
Aux POW difficulty adjustment
Difficulty adjustments remain independent for the two POWs. The difficulty of the aux POW is adjusted based on the average time between normal block found to aux block found. Further details are dependent on the specific POW.
Heaviest chain rule change
This is a semi-hard change, because non-upgraded nodes can get on the wrong chain in case of attack. However, it might be possible to construct an alert system that notifies non-upgraded nodes of an upcoming rule change. All blocks are still valid, so this is not a hardforking change. The heaviest chain definition changes from sum of difficulty to sum of:
mainDifficulty ^ x * auxDifficulty ^ y
where we start at:
x = 1; y = 0
and end at values of x and y that are related to the target relative rewards. For example, if the target rewards are equally distributed, we will want ot end up at:
x = 1/2; y = 1/2
so that both POWs have equal weight. If the aux POW is to become dominant, x should end small relative to y.
Questions and Answers
What should be the parameters if we want the aux POW to have equal
weight? A: 1/2 of the reward should be transferred to aux miners and x = 1/2, y = 1/2.
What should be the parameters if we want to deprecate the main POW? A:
most of the reward should be transferred to aux miners and x = 0, y = 1. The main difficulty will tend to zero, and aux miners will just trivially generate the main block immediately after finding an aux block, with identical content.
Wasted bandwidth to transfer transactions twice? A: this can be
optimized by skipping transactions already transferred.
Why would miners agree to soft-fork away some of their reward? A: they
would agree if they believe that the coins will increase in value due to improved security properties.
After a block of one type is found, we can naively assume that POW will
become idle while a block of the other type is being mined. In practice, the spare capacity can be used to find alternative ("attacking") blocks or mine other coins. Is that a problem?
Is selfish mining amplified by this scheme for miners that have both
types of hardware?
SHA256 (i.e. use same POW, but introduce an intermediate block for faster
Proof of Space and Time (Bram Cohen)
evaluate POW candidates
evaluate difficulty adjustment rules
simulate miner behavior to identify if there are incentives for
[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list
The following post by belcher_ is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7mh8c2 The original post's content was as follows:
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until here we are today at $15000. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I don't comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited :P
History of Bitcoin: An analysis of where it's been, where it is, and where it's going.
What is Bitcoin? A brief history. Okay. So we know that cryptocurrencies are non-state issued currencies that seek to maintain value through scarcity (usually), security (hopefully), and easy transferability regardless of national borders (indubitably). Bitcoin does all of these things...but so do other cryptocurrencies. Why is Bitcoin special? Let's start with a bit of history. Beginning in the 1980s, a group of developers and activists formed a list serve and named themselves the Cypherpunks. This group was obsessed with societal privacy and anonymity. They believed that only complete privacy and security could guarantee a free and open society and that the government could not be relied upon to ensure it. Members of the group sought different modes to achieve this goal. Among others: Bram Cohen: BitTorrent -> Peer to Peer information sharing Nick Szabo: Bit Gold -> predecessor of Bitcoin, originator of smart contracts Julian Assange: WikiLeaks -> classified and secret document archive and disclosure Another person (?) on this list was "Satoshi Nakamoto" who, in his seminal whitepaper in 2009, outlined Bitcoin. Note that "Satoshi Nakamoto" is in quotation marks because his or her or their true identity is thus far unconfirmed. Regardless, Nakamoto's whitepaper conceptualized Bitcoin and in the process created the idea of the blockchain and solved the double spending problem. The double spending problem was something that had plagued digital currencies since they were first proposed. The problem, characterized by a digital currency's lack of physical permanence and resultant ability to be copied, forged, or otherwise falsified, prevent digital currency from progressing past the point of "internet money". Nakamoto managed to resolve double-spending this via implementation of the blockchain. Let me explain how: Traditional transactions are pretty straightforward. Party A gives Party B some number of dollars. Party B accepts this money without concern because, the possibility of counterfeiting not withstanding, he is pretty sure that the dollars that he is receiving are legitimate. Since dollars are physical, they can only be spent in one place at a time. Image 1 This works great when both parties are confident that the money being transacted can only be spent once as is the case with physical money. Digital money is intangible by its nature and therefore, double spending is a concern. Say that Party A has BitCash A. He wants to purchase goods from Party B and Party C. The goods to be purchased EACH cost BitCash A. If Party A is honest, he will only purchase one of the goods since he can't afford both. Party A is a bad dude, though, and decides to try to pull a fast one on Party B and Party C. Since BitCash is just internet money, it's easily reproducible and requires only a quick copy and paste to dupe the system. Party A sends BitCash A to Party B as well as to Party C. Someone is loses money (likely the whole network since this is a fatal flaw in the currency and indicates underlying unreliability). Image 2 For those of you wondering how credit cards and other digital systems alleviate this issue, they do it through a centralized ledger. In other words, a third party is needed to mediate transactions and to ensure that money only exists in one place at a time. While this works in the context of traditional banking, this system goes against the ethos of Bitcoin, which is predicated on decentralization, privacy, and anonymity. Additionally, the idea of trusting a third party to verify all transactions introduced a single point of potential failure, something that cryptocurrencies sought to avoid. The above issue remained unsolved until Nakamoto's invention of Bitcoin. Nakamoto introduced the idea of the blockchain, a constantly updated decentralized universal ledger that existed everywhere and nowhere, that was maintained by multiple parties on the network, and that was permanently reliable. Each transaction had to be verified by multiple parties (known as miners) as being legitimate before becoming irreversibly codified in the universal ledger known as the blockchain. Should a party seek to double spend, one of the transactions put forth would be rejected: either the one that was placed second, or the one that received fewer confirmations from the network. By relying on a second party system, the double spending problem was solved. Image 3 In the above case, Party A attempts to double spend his Bitcoin A to Party B and Party C. Both proposed transactions are sent to miners to verify. Only one of the two is accepted by the network and added to the blockchain. In this case, the Bitcoin A sent to Party B is confirmed as legitimate while the proposed transaction to Party C is rejected. Bitcoin A is NOT double spent. Party B ends up with Bitcoin A and Party C ends up with nothing. With the double spending problem and others worked out, Bitcoin became a viable mode for transaction. The first official Bitcoin transaction occurred on January 12, 2009 between Nakamoto and Hal Finney. Bitcoin ceased to be theoretical and entered the real world. Exchanges began carrying Bitcoin and facilitating its transfer between people. Over the next several years Bitcoin's value grew from fractions of a cent to over $11000 (as of 12/3/17). Image 4 Image 5 Image 6 In addition to its own growth, Bitcoin is also responsible for the rise of cryptocurrencies in general as the majority of cryptocurrencies today have used Bitcoin as their foundational model. Image 7 Controversies Bitcoin's ascent has been marred by several controversies both internal and external.
Advantages of Bitcoin over other cryptocurrencies I've broken down the major advantages of Bitcoin as follows: Image 8 Ubiquity/cachet: Ultimately, much of the advantage that Bitcoin possesses boils down to its place as the cryptocurrency leader. Odds are that when people say "cryptocurrency", they really mean Bitcoin. There's value to being at the top of the market and its position affords it a host of benefits. It has the largest user base of any of the cryptocurrencies which fuels its dollar value. Because it was first to market, and because of its users, it also has a robust development community working both internally and externally. One of the perks of investing in Bitcoin is the exposure that one gets to Bitcoin forks. Bitcoin Cash, a fork that occurred on August 1, 2017, is currently trading over $1600/coin. Every user of Bitcoin received Bitcoin Cash...just for holding Bitcoin. There have been other forks since, and there will continue to be forks in the future, all adding potential value to a Bitcoin investment. Furthermore, Bitcoin is relatively established and more robust to insults than other cryptocurrencies, making it a safer store of value. In order to be unseated as the clear crypto king, a new product would need to show up that is not only qualitatively better than Bitcoin, but better enough that it makes ditching the Bitcoin environment worth it. Technology: Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency to reliably show that digital money could be used for transactions and as stores of value. As mentioned above, most cryptocurrencies today use the Bitcoin white paper as their model. We know that the foundations of Bitcoin are comparatively sound and that it is stable. This stability has allowed a healthy ecosystem of development to take root. Interested in buying a hardware wallet for your Bitcoin? They exist. More interested in creating a free online wallet? Those exist. Interested in mining? It's easy, albeit expensive to get started. The technology being proven has allowed the adjacent technologies to thrive. Price: While most would consider an $11000 entry tag to be a massive barrier to entry and potentially stifling, it's actually a major boon to Bitcoin. The price tag attracts investors and users, which encourages development, which makes the product more functional, which attracts users, which increases price, etc. Bitcoin is worth something and makes it difficult to dismiss. Furthermore, its high price tempers volatility and manipulation. Unlike other currencies that are worth pennies or dollars, Bitcoin is able to weather large capital inflows and outflows and is less prone to overt market manipulation precisely because its market cap is so high. Risks Image 9 Internal Technology: While Bitcoin functions completely adequately today, it will need to scale tremendously to reach its potential. While the technology behind Bitcoin is impressive, it pales in comparison to established modes of exchange. VISA averages 2000 transactions per second and has a peak capacity of 56000 transactions per second. Bitcoin presently averages 7 transactions per second. Certain solutions are being explored, like the Lightning Network, but there are no guarantees that there will be successful implementation. As can be said with any technology, Bitcoin is fundamentally dependent on its underlying code. Thus far it has had only one major exposed flaw (which resulted in the accidental creation of 184 billion Bitcoin). Development: Mentioned above was the advantage conveyed by forks. They can provide additional value. This is a good thing. They can also create competitors. This is a bad thing. While it is unlikely that a Bitcoin offshoot will unseat Bitcoin outright, there is the risk of market cannibalization and confusion with each new iteration. Which is the real Bitcoin? External Legislative: Because Bitcoin can so ably provide for functions that were once strictly in the government domain, it is likely to become the target of governmental limits at some point. We've already seen China try to crack down on Bitcoin and it's reasonable to assume that other countries will follow suit. Despite this risk, however, Bitcoin has proven to be incredibly resilient and is still traded by the Chinese. Since the Chinese ban, Bitcoin's price has nearly doubled from $6000 to over $11000 today (12/3/17). Competitive: I mentioned earlier that one of Bitcoin's main advantages was that it was first to market. While this is a tremendous benefit today, it does not guarantee ongoing success. History is littered with famous "firsts to market" that were overtaken by savvy competitors. The World was the first ISP to market. Magnavox released the first video game console. You'd be hard pressed to find someone that equates ISPs with The World or video game consoles with Magnavox. Bitcoin is not on the precipice of being overtaken by another cryptocurrency. However, the risk of an existing competitor, or more likely a new competitor that doesn't yet exist, supplanting Bitcoin is always a possibility and investors should mitigate risk appropriately. Investment opportunities: Bitcoin provides the surest cryptocurrency investment for the reasons mentioned above. Its status as the cryptocurrency leader makes it the most stable investment in the arena. Furthermore, its cachet makes it an attractive investment to lay investors looking for exposure to this particular market which subsequently makes it an even more attractive investment. While many may balk at investing in something whose single unit is priced at more than $11000 and that has experienced explosive growth, I believe that Bitcoin still has opportunity for upward movement. The number I keep coming back to is $7.8T (trillion). That's the market cap for gold. I use this as a bench mark because I see Bitcoin supplanting gold as a storage of wealth from fiat currencies. As I've discussed, the blockchain provides permanence in a way that is akin to gold's physical permanence. The present market cap for ALL cryptocurrencies is $340B (billion). Bitcoin presently accounts for 55% of the cryptocurrency market cap with $188B. Assuming that over the next year growth slows over the next year and that Bitcoin loses some of its dominance, I still think that it's reasonable to project an approximate Bitcoin value of $50000. This assumes that the crypto market continues to grow, albeit at a slower relative pace and still does not approach gold's market cap. Image 10 This is bullish and I assume that no major stumbling blocks present themselves. I am drawn to the fact that market penetration is still relatively low and that institutional money has barely begun to enter the market. These two factors mean that organic growth can continue for the foreseeable future. Conclusion Bitcoin represents the present pinnacle of the cryptocurrency market. As an investment, it provides the best combination of stability and potential growth precisely because it is the market leader. Through its innovation of the blockchain, it has spurred the cryptocurrency explosion that we have witnessed over the last several years.
Bram Cohen released Bittorrent to the world in 2004, but, in early 2017, he stepped away from the company he built to focus on blockchain technology. A very technical paper was co-authored by Cohen and released in September 2017 titled “Beyond Hellman’s Time-Memory Trade-Offs with Applications to Proofs of Space,” that covered “Proofs of Space” as a blockchain consensus method. BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen has taken over as CEO of his current company, Chia Network, CoinDesk has learned. Co-founder Ryan Singer has stepped away from the company to focus on family priorities. Bram Cohen, BitTorrent’s inventor, was reported to have officially stepped away from the company in mid-August and has continued to pursue his own cryptocurrency project named Chia. However, it appears as though Tron is still interested in Cohen’s works. Bram Cohen will mit seiner grünen Kryptowährung “Chia” Bitcoin (BTC) vernichten . Cohens neueste Kreation, eine bekannte Kryptowährung namens “Chia”, die sich selbst als “grünes Geld für eine digitale Welt” bezeichnet, ist das Gegenteil von Bitcoin. Im Gegensatz zu Bitcoin, das den stromverbrauchenden Konsensmechanismus für arbeitsunabhängige Nachweise verwendet, verwendet ... Bram Cohen Jul 2, 2015 · 5 min read In Bitcoin there’s a practice roughly equivalent to accepting a check which hasn’t been committed by the block chain yet, known as accepting unconfirmed ...
Burstcoin Hard Drive Mining - Questions & Answers ... Bram Cohen, founder of ... 11:47. Consensus Algorithms, Blockchain Technology and Bitcoin UCL - by Andreas M. Antonopoulos - Duration: 1:24:22 ... Bram Cohen, creator of BitTorrent, talks about Proof of Space and Time, the consensus algorithm for his new Chia Network blockchain. Forget mining! There are new ways to farm crypto ZDNet - Duration: 9 ... Berkeley Bitcoin Meetup - Bram Cohen from Chia Network - Duration: 53:38. Blockchain at Berkeley 690 views. 53:38 . I ... Bram Cohen, founder and CEO of Chia Network, talks to ZDNet's Tonya Hall about building the developer community and new ways to farm, instead of mine, crypto. MORE TONYA HALL SHOW VIDEOS - https ... In part 2 of our conversation with Bram Cohen, Bram explains how his new cryptocurrency project Chia hopes to build on the blueprint of Bitcoin, but instead of using the energy-intensive proof-of ...