Lastupdated2018-01-29 This post is a collaboration with the Bitcoin community to create a one-stop source for Lightning Network information. There are still questions in the FAQ that are unanswered, if you know the answer and can provide a source please do so!
Lightning Network White Paper - The protocol has changed since this original paper, but covers the mid-level mechanics of the Lightning Network with an emphasis on the smart contracts that make it trustless
If you can answer please PM me and include source if possible. Feel free to help keep these answers up to date and as brief but correct as possible
Is Lightning Bitcoin?
Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.
Is the Lightning Network open source?
Yes, Lightning is open source. Anyone can review the code (in the same way as the bitcoin code)
Who owns and controls the Lightning Network?
Similar to the bitcoin network, no one will ever own or control the Lightning Network. The code is open source and free for anyone to download and review. Anyone can run a node and be part of the network.
I’ve heard that Lightning transactions are happening “off-chain”…Does that mean that my bitcoin will be removed from the blockchain?
No, your bitcoin will never leave the blockchain. Instead your bitcoin will be held in a multi-signature address as long as your channel stays open. When the channel is closed; the final transaction will be added to the blockchain. “Off-chain” is not a perfect term, but it is used due to the fact that the transfer of ownership is no longer reflected on the blockchain until the channel is closed.
Do I need a constant connection to run a lightning node?
Not necessarily, Example: A and B have a channel. 1 BTC each. A sends B 0.5 BTC. B sends back 0.25 BTC. Balance should be A = 0.75, B = 1.25. If A gets disconnected, B can publish the first Tx where the balance was A = 0.5 and B = 1.5. If the node B does in fact attempt to cheat by publishing an old state (such as the A=0.5 and B=1.5 state), this cheat can then be detected on-chain and used to steal the cheaters funds, i.e., A can see the closing transaction, notice it's an old one and grab all funds in the channel (A=2, B=0). The time that A has in order to react to the cheating counterparty is given by the CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) in the cheating transaction, which is adjustable. So if A foresees that it'll be able to check in about once every 24 hours it'll require that the CLTV is at least that large, if it's once a week then that's fine too. You definitely do not need to be online and watching the chain 24/7, just make sure to check in once in a while before the CLTV expires. Alternatively you can outsource the watch duties, in order to keep the CLTV timeouts low. This can be achieved both with trusted third parties or untrusted ones (watchtowers). In the case of a unilateral close, e.g., you just go offline and never come back, the other endpoint will have to wait for that timeout to expire to get its funds back. So peers might not accept channels with extremely high CLTV timeouts. -- Source
What Are Lightning’s Advantages?
Tiny payments are possible: since fees are proportional to the payment amount, you can pay a fraction of a cent; accounting is even done in thousandths of a satoshi. Payments are settled instantly: the money is sent in the time it takes to cross the network to your destination and back, typically a fraction of a second.
Does Lightning require Segregated Witness?
Yes, but not in theory. You could make a poorer lightning network without it, which has higher risks when establishing channels (you might have to wait a month if things go wrong!), has limited channel lifetime, longer minimum payment expiry times on each hop, is less efficient and has less robust outsourcing. The entire spec as written today assumes segregated witness, as it solves all these problems.
Can I Send Funds From Lightning to a Normal Bitcoin Address?
No, for now. For the first version of the protocol, if you wanted to send a normal bitcoin transaction using your channel, you have to close it, send the funds, then reopen the channel (3 transactions). In future versions, you and your peer would agree to spend out of your lightning channel funds just like a normal bitcoin payment, allowing you to use your lightning wallet like a normal bitcoin wallet.
Can I Make Money Running a Lightning Node?
Not really. Anyone can set up a node, and so it’s a race to the bottom on fees. In practice, we may see the network use a nominal fee and not change very much, which only provides an incremental incentive to route on a node you’re going to use yourself, and not enough to run one merely for fees. Having clients use criteria other than fees (e.g. randomness, diversity) in route selection will also help this.
What is the release date for Lightning on Mainnet?
Would there be any KYC/AML issues with certain nodes?
Nope, because there is no custody ever involved. It's just like forwarding packets. -- Source
What is the delay time for the recipient of a transaction receiving confirmation?
Furthermore, the Lightning Network scales not with the transaction throughput of the underlying blockchain, but with modern data processing and latency limits - payments can be made nearly as quickly as packets can be sent. -- Source
How does the lightning network prevent centralization?
How would the lightning network work between exchanges?
Each exchange will get to decide and need to implement the software into their system, but some ideas have been outlined here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges Note that by virtue of the usual benefits of cost-less, instantaneous transactions, lightning will make arbitrage between exchanges much more efficient and thus lead to consistent pricing across exchange that adopt it. -- Source
How do lightning nodes find other lightning nodes?
Does every user need to store the state of the complete Lightning Network?
According to Rusty's calculations we should be able to store 1 million nodes in about 100 MB, so that should work even for mobile phones. Beyond that we have some proposals ready to lighten the load on endpoints, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. -- Source
Would I need to download the complete state every time I open the App and make a payment?
No you'd remember the information from the last time you started the app and only sync the differences. This is not yet implemented, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a preliminary protocol working if that turns out to be a problem. -- Source
What needs to happen for the Lightning Network to be deployed and what can I do as a user to help?
Lightning is based on participants in the network running lightning node software that enables them to interact with other nodes. This does not require being a full bitcoin node, but you will have to run "lnd", "eclair", or one of the other node softwares listed above. All lightning wallets have node software integrated into them, because that is necessary to create payment channels and conduct payments on the network, but you can also intentionally run lnd or similar for public benefit - e.g. you can hold open payment channels or channels with higher volume, than you need for your own transactions. You would be compensated in modest fees by those who transact across your node with multi-hop payments. -- Source
Is there anyway for someone who isn't a developer to meaningfully contribute?
Sure, you can help write up educational material. You can learn and read more about the tech at http://dev.lightning.community/resources. You can test the various desktop and mobile apps out there (Lightning Desktop, Zap, Eclair apps). -- Source
Do I need to be a miner to be a Lightning Network node?
Do I need to run a full Bitcoin node to run a lightning node?
lit doesn't depend on having your own full node -- it automatically connects to full nodes on the network. -- Source LND uses a light client mode, so it doesn't require a full node. The name of the light client it uses is called neutrino
How does the lightning network stop "Cheating" (Someone broadcasting an old transaction)?
Upon opening a channel, the two endpoints first agree on a reserve value, below which the channel balance may not drop. This is to make sure that both endpoints always have some skin in the game as rustyreddit puts it :-) For a cheat to become worth it, the opponent has to be absolutely sure that you cannot retaliate against him during the timeout. So he has to make sure you never ever get network connectivity during that time. Having someone else also watching for channel closures and notifying you, or releasing a canned retaliation, makes this even harder for the attacker. This is because if he misjudged you being truly offline you can retaliate by grabbing all of its funds. Spotty connections, DDoS, and similar will not provide the attacker the necessary guarantees to make cheating worthwhile. Any form of uncertainty about your online status acts as a deterrent to the other endpoint. -- Source
How many times would someone need to open and close their lightning channels?
You typically want to have more than one channel open at any given time for redundancy's sake. And we imagine open and close will probably be automated for the most part. In fact we already have a feature in LND called autopilot that can automatically open channels for a user. Frequency will depend whether the funds are needed on-chain or more useful on LN. -- Source
Will the lightning network reduce BTC Liquidity due to "locking-up" funds in channels?
When setting up a Lightning Network Node are fees set for the entire node, or each channel when opened?
You don't really set up a "node" in the sense that anyone with more than one channel can automatically be a node and route payments. Fees on LN can be set by the node, and can change dynamically on the network. -- Source
Can Lightning routing fees be changed dynamically, without closing channels?
Yes but it has to be implemented in the Lightning software being used. -- Source
How can you make sure that there will be routes with large enough balances to handle transactions?
You won't have to do anything. With autopilot enabled, it'll automatically open and close channels based on the availability of the network. -- Source
How does the Lightning Network stop flooding nodes (DDoS) with micro transactions? Is this even an issue?
GAME OF NYANCAT, Episode 4... Thousands of Nyancoins to win this weekend, for free! Choose your kingdom, choose your job, and claim your share of the treasure: Let's make this the biggest game yet! (28 points, 274 comments)
I want to extend a huge thanks to Phecalfeliac who has successfully given us our very own tip bot! (nyantip) Please post in this topic so we can all tip you our thanks (with your own bot). (23 points, 80 comments)
We are going to 500 subscribers this weekend: I guarantee it. Nyancoin has exploded, and I just want you to look at how far you've come in just 7 days. (23 points, 34 comments)
Prepare to play... GAME OF NYANCAT. The Kingdom that wins will split a 1000 Nyancoin bounty, and all players are eligible for random tips. (22 points, 63 comments)
GAME OF NYANCAT, Episode 2 (1/27/14)... Play NOW for free and win free Nyancoins! Every player will get tipped coins, and the Kingdom that wins will split up to a 1,000 NYAN treasure! Let the quest begin! (21 points, 73 comments)
GAME OF NYANCAT, Episode 3 (1/28/14)... Play NOW for free and win free Nyancoins! Every player will get tipped coins, and the Kingdom that wins will split up to a 1,000 NYAN treasure! Let the quest begin! (20 points, 60 comments)
A generous Nekonaut just donated almost 1 BTC to Cryptsy Votes,that made us be the 7th place there.Our community must do something to help our little nyancoin added on Cryptsy,we deserve that!!If 1/5 of Nekonauts(nearly 200) donate 0.01BTC each to Cryptsy will let us achieve this goal! (18 points, 22 comments)
GAME OF NYANCAT, Episode 4... Thousands of Nyancoins to win this weekend, for free! Choose your kingdom, choose your job, and claim your share of the treasure: Let's make this the biggest game yet! by americanpegasus (28 points, 274 comments)
Nyancoin V 1.2 Out Now! Kimoto Gravity Well Implemented! MANDATORY UPDATE by nyancoin (28 points, 28 comments)
What is FLO? FLO is a cryptocurrency that introduces a worldwide public record for storing information. FLO coins are needed to pay for storage capacity, and coins are issued to reward participants for their work to secure and distribute information. FLO is used to send payments and store data. This encourages building applications because anyone has the ability to write data into FLO. How does FLO work? FLO is a network similar to bitcoin where the open ledger is secured by miners competing to find proof-of-work. FLO has its own ledger, called the FLO blockchain, that can be thought of as a digital public space for storing information.
40 second block generation allows for fast confirmations, but not too fast to cause problems with network synchronisation.
No pre-mine, super-blocks or zero-blocks at the start.
Quick difficulty adjustment should limit insta-mining in the first hours after launch.
A floData can be added to any coin transaction. This can be used to attach a simple message or reference to a transaction, or for any other purpose decided by the coin receiver and sender. floData is currently limited to 1040 characters. Both the GUI and RPC interface have been extended to implement this feature.* The floData field can be seen under the "Transactions" tab when you double click on a a transaction ("Transaction information"). Also available from the terminal by doing "listtransactions".
Note that floData is stored in the block-chain and are therefore public. If you want to send private information in your floData you should encrypt the message using a method agreed upon by the sender and receiver.
floData has minimal impact on the size of the block chain due to small size (relative to the size of a block in the chain) and the fact that it does not take up any extra space when not used in a transaction. Transaction costs (calculated on transaction size) also offset the impact of slightly larger transactions when floData is included.
Block target spacing: 40 seconds Difficulty retargets every blocks Block reward: 100 FLO, halving every 800,000 blocks (about 1 year) Maximum coins: 160 million FLONetwork port: 7312RPC port: 7313
The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part III: Decentralized team
You can read here part I (by americanpegaus). This is the post that motivated me to make the part II. Now i'm doing a third part, and there'll be a final 4th part. This is probably too much but i wasn't able to make it shorter. Some will be interested in going through all them, and maybe someone is even willing to make a summary of the whole serie :D. Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.0 Comentarios de interés: -4: "No change, this is just a renaming. In the future, the binaries will have to be changed, as well as some URL, but that's all. By the way, this very account (monero) is shared by several user and is meant to make it easier to change the OP in case of vacancy of the OP. This idea of a shared OP comes from Karmacoin. Some more things to come:
A website (URL will be monero.cc)
A GUI wallet
" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6362672#msg6362672) -5: “Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth). Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended. We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks. The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6363016#msg6363016) [tacotime make public the bug in the emission curve: token creation is currently 2 times what was intended to be, see this chart BTC vs the actual XMR curve, as it was and it is now, vs the curve that was initially planned in yellow see chart] -14: “Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026 I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea [halving current balances and then changing block target to 2 min with same block reward to solve the emission curve issue] is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it. Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems? Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which might be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up. Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364174#msg6364174) -15: “You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin. If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe. To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364242#msg6364242) [smooth tries to justify his proposal to solve the emission curve issue: halve every current balance and change block target to 2 min with same block reward] -16: “This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364257#msg6364257) [eizh supports smooth’s plan] -20: “So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364338#msg6364338) [random user supporting smooth’s idea] -21: “Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364348#msg6364348) -22: “Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week. This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364370#msg6364370) [smooth wants to be sure they can’t be stigmatized as “premine”] -23: “No, not true [answering to "it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone"]. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364382#msg6364382) [good point made by a user that is battling “hard” with smooth and his proposal] -28: “+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?” -31: “I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote. Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people. Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364531#msg6364531) -32: “What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364574#msg6364574) [smooth stands for the project legitimacy despite the bugs] -37: “Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me. Tongue Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention. Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless. edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364886#msg6364886) [this is eizh supporting the project too] -43: “I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair. I'm an early adopter. This halves my money, and it's what I want to do. There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network. In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not. So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins. To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 264-1 atomic units to accommodate this. Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run. It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now. We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news. Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366134#msg6366134) [tacotime brings to the public for first time the tail emission proposal and writes what is my favourite sentence of the whole monero history: “Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use”] -51: “I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366346#msg6366346) -59: “Hello! It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming. But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by bitcointalk.org people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum. Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless. In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody. Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368478#msg6368478) [TFT appears after a couple days of inactivity] -63: “In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:
miners supporting merged mining are to update their nodes and miners. New miners will issue blocks with modified minor_version field indicating they are ready to accept AuxPoW blocks. But no AuxPoW blocks will be issued before 75% of last 1000 blocks will have a positive vote (a changed minor_version).
miners not supporting will not update but will still be able to mine and accept blocks. In case of successful voting they will have to switch to new code. In case of voting failed they can stay on old version.
The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368720#msg6368720) [And now he is back, TFT is all about merged mining] -67: “We don't agree that a reverse split amounts to "taking" coins. I also wouldn't agree that a regular forward split would be "giving" coins. It's an exchange of old coins with new coins, with very nearly the exact same value. There is a very slight difference in value due to the way the reward schedule is capped, but that won't be relevant for years or decades. Such a change is entirely reasonable to fix an error in a in coin that has only existed for a week.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368861#msg6368861) -68: “There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368939#msg6368939) [TFT does not accept the unexpected emission curve as a bug] -72: “You are wrong TFT. The original announcement described the coin as having a reward curve "close to Bitcoin's original curve" (those are your exact words). The code as implemented has a reward curve that is nothing like bitcoin. It will be 86% mined in 4 years. It will be 98% mined in 8 years. Bitcoin is 50% mined in 4 years, and 75% in 8 years. With respect TFT, you did the original fork, and you deserve credit for that. But this coin has now gone beyond your initial vision. It isn't just a question of whether miners are on bitcointalk or not. There is a great team of people who are working hard to make this coin a success, and this team is collaborating regularly through forum posts, IRC, PM and email. And beyond that a community of users who by and large have been very supportive of the efforts we've taken to move this forward. Also, miners aren't the only stakeholders, and while a miner voting process is great, it isn't the answer to every question. Though I do agree that miners need to be on board with any hard fork to avoid a harmful split.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369137#msg6369137) [smooth breaks out publicily for first time against TFT] -75: “I suppose that merged mining as a possible option is a good idea as soon as nobody is forced to use it. MM is a possibility to accept PoW calculated for some other network. It helps to increase a security of both networks and makes it possible for miners not to choose between two networks if they want both:
BCN only miners will continue to mine BCN
BMMRO only miners will continue to mine BMMRO
merge miners will mine both at the same time (now some of them mine BCN only and other - BMR only)
Important things to know about MM:
MM doesn't imply that BMR is smaller or has a less hashpower. In case BMR will has more mining power than BCN it will simply accept less BCN blocks.
MM doesn't force BMR users to have BCN chain on their HDD - BCN chain isn't neede to verify blocks
MM doesn't require any specific parent chain. Miner decides himself which parent chain to use: BCN or any other chain supporting the same PoW method.
Actually the only change that goes with MM is that we are able to accept PoW from some other net with same hash-function. Each miner can decide his own other net he will merge mine BMR with. And this is still very secure. This way I don't see any disadvantage in merged mining. What disadvantages do you see in MM?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369255#msg6369255) [TFT stands for merged mining] -77: “Merged mining essentially forces people to merge both coins because that is the only economically rational decision. I do not want to support the ninja-premined coin with our hash rate. Merged mining makes perfect sense for a coin with a very low hash rate, otherwise unable to secure itself effectively. That is the case with coins that merge mine with bitcoin. This coin already has 60% of the hash rate of bytecoin, and has no need to attach itself to another coin and encourage sharing of hash rate between the two. It stands well on its own and will likely eclipse bytecoin very soon. I want people to make a clear choice between the fair launched coin and the ninja-premine that was already 80% mined before it was made public. Given such a choice I believe most will just choose this coin. Letting them choose both allows bytecoin to free ride on what we are doing here. Let the ninja-preminers go their own way.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369386#msg6369386) [smooth again] -85: “One of you is saying that there was no mistake in the emission formula, while the other is. I'm not asking which I should believe . . I'm asking for a way to verify this” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369874#msg6369874) [those that have not been paying attention to the soap opera since the beginning do not understand anything at all] -86: “The quote I posted "close to Bitcoin's original curve" is from the original announcement here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0 I think there was also some discussion on the thread about it being desirable to do that. At one point in that discussion, I suggested increasing the denominator by a factor of 4, which is what ended up being done, but I also suggested retaining the block target at 2 minutes, which was not done. The effect of making one change without the other is to double the emission rate from something close to bitcoin to something much faster (see chart a few pages back on this thread).” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369935#msg6369935) [smooth answers just a few minutes later] -92: “I'm happy the Bitmonero attracts so much interest. I'm not happy that some people want to destroy it. Here is a simple a clear statement about plans: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582670 We have two kind of stakeholders we have respect: miders and coin owners. Before any protocol changes we will ask miners for agreement. No changes without explicit agreement of miners is possible. We will never take away or discount any coins that are already emitted. This is the way we respect coin owners. All other issues can be discussed, proposed and voted for. I understand that there are other opinions. All decisions that aren't supported in this coin can be introduced in any new coin. It's ok to start a new fork. It's not ok to try to destroy an existsing network.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370324#msg6370324) [TFT is kinda upset – he can see how the community is “somehow” taking over] -94: “Sounds like there's probably going to be another fork then. Sigh. I guess it will take a few tries to get this coin right. The problem with not adjusting existing coins is that it make this a premine/instamine. If the emission schedule is changed but not as a bug fix, then earlier miners got an unfair advantage over everyone else. Certainly there are coins with premines and instamines, but there's a huge stigma and such a coin will never achieve the level of success we see for this coin. This was carefully discussed during the team meeting, which was announced a day ahead of time, and everyone with any visible involvement with the coin, you included, was invited. It is unfortunate you couldn't make it to that meeting TFT.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370411#msg6370411) [smooth is desperate due to TFT lack of interest in collaboration, and he publicly speaks about an scission for first time] -115: “Very rough website online, monero.cc (in case you asked, the domain name was voted on IRC, like the crypto name and its code). Webdesigner, webmaster, writers... wanted.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6374702#msg6374702) [Even though the lack of consensus and the obvious chaos, the community keeps going on: Monero already has his own site] -152: “Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances. We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine. But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least). This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period. The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6378032#msg6378032) [smooth makes a proposal to solve the “emission curve bug” without changing users balances and without favoring the early miners] -182: “We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward" Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379518#msg6379518) [tacotime announces an ongoing votation on IRC] -184: “ change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block. controversial. not sure if necessary. can be difficult to implement. keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time. change final reward is simple. if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379562#msg6379562) -188: “Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it. We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to. In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379871#msg6379871) [tacotime] -190: “I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin. At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
No web site
Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
No effective team behind it at launch
No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure. I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.). We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380065#msg6380065) [smooth is disappointed] -191: “The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. :) But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that. That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380235#msg6380235) [eizh tries to keep smooth on board] -196: “BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now. If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.) Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380778#msg6380778) -198: “There's no point in fragmenting talent. If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code. Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client. If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381866#msg6381866) [tacotime also wants smooth on board] -201: “My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381970#msg6381970) [tacotime opens the season: if merged mining is implemented, he will leave the ship] -203: “Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382097#msg6382097) [eizh supports tacotime] -204: “+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382177#msg6382177) [NoodleDoodle is also against merged mining] This is basically everything worth reading in this thread. This thread was created in the wrong category, and its short life of about 2 days was pretty interesting. Merged mining was rejected and it ended up with the inactivity of TFT for +7 days and the creation of a new github repo the 30th of April. It is only 12 days since launch and a decentralized team is being built. Basically the community had forked (but not the chain) and it was evolving and moving forward to its still unclear future. These are the main takeaways of this thread:
The legitimacy of the "leaders" of the community is proven when they proposed and supported the idea of halving the balances for the greater good to solve the emission curve issue without any possible instamine accusation. Also their long-term goals and values rejecting merged-mining with a "primined scam"
It is decided that, as for now, it is “too late” to change the emission curve, and finally monero will mint 50% of its coin in ~1.3 years (bitcoin did it after 3.66 years) and 86% of its coins in 4 years (bitcoin does it in ~11 years) (was also voted here) (see also this chart)
It is decided that a “minimum subsidy” or “tail emission” to incentivize miners “forever” and avoid scaling fees will be added (it will be finally added to the code march 2015)
Merged mining is plainly rejected by the future “core team” and soon rejected by "everyone". This will trigger TFT inactivity.
The future “core team” is somehow being formed in a decentralized way: tacotime, eizh, NoodleDoodle, smooth and many others
And the most important. All this (and what is coming soon) is a proof of the decentralization of Monero. Probably comparable to Bitcoin first days. This is not a company building a for-profit project (even if on the paper it is not for-profit), this a group of disconnected individuals sharing a goal and working together to reach it. Soon will be following a final part where i'll collect the bitcointalk logs in the current official announcement threads. There you'll be able to follow the decentralized first steps of develoment (open source pool, miner optimizations and exchanges, all surrounded by fud trolls, lots of excitmen and a rapidly growing collaborative community.
Announcing new LTC pool! stratum, getwork, sms/mail notify, and more!
Greetings fellow miners, I've been working with Bitcoins a while now, but I got tired, so I've started with Litecoins. But none of the existing pools offered all of the services I wanted, so I decided to setup my own. Currently I'm developing the frontend to provide a better user experience. Requests for popular or usefull features can also be added on demand. The pool is quite new and the first block is not yet found, but all calculations I've done indicates that the first block will be found in one week, with only myself mining. Currently, it's a PPLNS reward system, but I'm planning to make it possible to choose between PPLNS and PPS per pool worker. I also plan to rewrite the whole frontend in the future. The url is: https://coinpool.in Features:
Mmcfe forked frontend with my modifications
Stratum + getwork (w/longpool) protocol support
International SMS & Email notifications (Free sms, with a daily limit based on donation percentage)
Server located in both Western Europe and in the US
Available on TOR and I2P
In constant development (own development environment)
Only 0.7% fee
On demand and automatic payouts
IPv6 support on getwork protocol
IRC channels are available on Freenode (#coinpool.in) and I2P (#coinpool), and I will add forum if needed. I'll hope you join me! Best regards, Meeh https://coinpool.in
Repost for a nice not-so-new pool looking for hashrate !
Hello guys. I'm doing a repost of our old thread regarding Hypernova (https://hypernova.pw) : http://www.reddit.com/litecoinmining/comments/1dcvcv/ann_ltceuusrbpps_hypernova_your_brandnew_mining/ It's been quite 1 month since we announced our opening. We and our fellow users thought it might be a good idea to talk about it again since the pool's maturity increased and features added up to the list (like replacing proportional reward system with CPPSRB) Let me show you the main features ! A nice looking and efficient web interface We'red tired about these copy-paste pools using the mmcFE-litecoin project. We've wanted something beautiful, original and useful. Soak managed to bring you the best web interface he could. Use it on your computer, phone, phablet, android, iphone, ipad, refrigerator, lawn-mower... Starting everything from scratch was our choice - and our pride. Capped Pay Per Share with Recent Backpay Reward System We didn't find something else longer to spell. You may have already seen this reward system currently live on the Bitcoin mining pool Eligius. To be short : it's a system that tries to be close of the classic PPS reward system. The main difference is : the pool pays the miners with the solved blocks funds. The pool doesn't take risks on short/long rounds. When a round's unlucky and the pool can't pay anymore for the work, we shelve your shares for further backpay. As the formula calculating PPS price is based on a ~60% luck assumption (It is the same formula for every classic PPS pool), mathematically we should end up with more frequent lucky (with no shelves) rounds than unlucky. With that system the pool doesn't take the risk of being bankrupt. So what we have there is a nice compromise between PPLNS with high variance and PPS with null variance (which is balanced by higher fees and a risk of bankruptcy for the pool operators). Custom difficulty choosable per worker We heard that a bunch of you doesn't like vardiff or fixed diff pools. That's why we let you the choice. Either you're a tiny cpu miner or a cowboy with GPU farms, you're free to choose your worker difficulty from 8 to 128. Sweet pool efficiency We've worked hard on our infrastructure implementation and Stratum. Our general overall efficiency always have been above 99%. At the time I'm writing these lines it is at 99.47% accepted shares versus 0.53% rejected. We're aware about the latency challenge. That's why we opened 4 nodes around the world to ensure the lowest round trip time : mining.eu.hypernova.pw (Europe, France) mining.usa.hypernova.pw (USA, New York) mining.usa.dallas.hypernova.pw (USA, Dallas) mining.usa.la.hypernova.pw (USA, Los Angeles) A helpful and nice community We're always happy to help you. By mail on [email protected] or on IRC Freenode's channel #hypernova with the pool operators and our fellow miners. Keep in touch with us, we're nice people always trying to crunch our 7950 to the best ! 1% fee Using a nice PPS reward system with a good compromise allows us to lower the fee thus allowing to help us pay for the servers and infrastructure. API with JSON encoded values So you're the cowboy with a farm of 7950 ? Enjoy our API to monitor your rigs ! How to join us ? Give a shot to the website : https://hypernova.pw and create an account. Once you created a worker, point your miner toward your nearest node and shout us your best battle cry at #hypernova on Freenode ! EG (for cgminer) : cgminer -o stratum+tcp://mining.eu.hypernova.pw:3333 -u JohnDoe.myWorker -p 12345 --scrypt ... Help us to spread the word ! We've put online a page especially for that : https://hypernova.pw/spread/ with links to every of our threads and useful buttons for Facebook/TwitteGoogle spreading. Message for those that were with us from the beginning Thank you ! We're happy to see our project moving forward. We wouldn't have been that far without you supporting us. Thank you again and see you in the future. So far, 2130 Litecoins redistributed to our fellow miners. Still counting... ! Hope to see you soon on Hypernova.. And sorry for the noise :)
There are yield generator bots running at #joinmarket-segpit on freenode, feel free to try joining with them
Some highlights of what we need to think about:
Why? The main advantage to joinmarket is lower fees: savings of 30-50% are going to be common according to my napkin-level calculations (we could go into more detail if you like). The other advantages of segregated witness have been discussed at length elsewhere (malleability, soft forks etc)
New order types: swrelorder and swabsorder. This is a proposal, but to explain: current joinmarket bots will ignore order types they don't understand, so using a new ordertype creates the appropriate compatibility between new and old bots. Additionally, we cannot use the same ordertype transparently, since by their nature segregated witness signatures are different, and so our !sig message must be different.
Addresses: these bots will use P2SH addresses initially (so starting with '3' on mainnet). Keeping it high level, segwit outputs are different than existing P2PKH outputs, but can be "hidden" under P2SH, ensuring backward compatibility with wallets that already know how to spend to P2SH, even if they know nothing about segwit. Technically, according to the proposal, JM will use P2SH-P2WPKH (terminology from BIP141).
Wallets - the current code simply creates an entirely separate BIP32 tree for segwit outputs, and the user chooses to "look at" the normal (p2pkh) tree or segwit tree depending on command line flags. As belcher_ pointed out, it makes a lot more sense to have two "sub-trees" under the same master private key (at the very least, it's less confusing..); from the user POV it would just be a matter of choice whether to use segwit or not.
Transactions can have mixed segwit/non-segwit inputs and outputs, of course. But that raises: The obvious issue is about different addresses as markers. The first maker bot to use P2SH addresses stands out and has a trivial marker on his outputs and inputs. And let's say all the makers use P2SH - now we have an even worse problem for takers that don't! The obvious solution is: if you're a taker, and you use P2SH (which could be segwit, or could also just be ordinary multisig) in your wallet, then you respond to swrelorder and swabsorder only; that way, all your inputs and outputs are P2SH. One tiny problem: Joinmarket doesn't yet support P2SH inputs! :) So effectively, today, it becomes a partitioned joinmarket pit: segwit-enabled taker bots join with segwit-enabled maker bots, and the other non-segwit bots just ignore them. I think that works fine, and quite likely there would be a rapid migration, because segwit will be significantly cheaper. But, lots to think about before that :) If you'd like to help test, you'll need sipa's segwit branch built and then grab some segnet coins, run my segwit branch of joinmarket above, and use the channel mentioned above on freenode. Lastly, a note on timing: this is a way off! the PR of segwit into Core is apparently fairly imminent, but we are probably looking at some meaningful amount of time before this is available (and of course, it's not required) This is just a first effort (although it has "cleared" the issue of the underlying bitcoin code). Thoughts welcome on how to proceed, help even more so.
Disclaimer: My preferred plan for bitcoin is soft-forking segregated witness in asap, and scheduling a 2MB hardforked blocksize increase sometime mid-2017, and I think doing a 2MB hardfork anytime soon is pretty crazy. Also, I like micropayments, and until I learnt about the lightning network proposal, bitcoin didn't really interest me because a couple of cents in fees is way too expensive, and a few minutes is way too slow. Maybe that's enough to make everything I say uninteresting to you, dear reader, in which case I hope this disclaimer has saved you some time. :) Anyway there's now a good explanation of what segwit does beyond increasing the blocksize via accounting tricks or however you want to call it: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/  I'm hopeful that makes it a bit easier to see why many people are more excited by segwit than a 2MB hardfork. In any event hopefully it's easy to see why it might be a good idea to do segwit asap, even if you do a hardfork to double the blocksize first. If you were to do a 2MB hardfork first, and then apply segwit on top of that , I think there are a number of changes you'd want to consider, rather than just doing a straight merge. Number one is that with the 75% discount for witness data and a 2MB blocksize, you run the risk of worst-case 8MB blocks which seems to be too large at present . The obvious solution is to change the discount rate, or limit witness data by some other mechanism. The drawback is that this removes some of the benefits of segwit in reducing UTXO growth and in moving to a simpler cost formula. Not hard, but it's a tradeoff, and exactly what to do isn't obvious (to me, anyway). If IBLT or weak blocks or an improved relay network or something similar comes out after deploying segwit, does it then make sense to increase the discount or otherwise raise the limit on witness data, and is it possible to do this without another hardfork and corresponding forced upgrade? For the core roadmap, I think the answer would be "do segwit as a soft-fork now so no one has to upgrade, and after IBLT/etc is ready perhaps do a hard-fork then because it will be safer" so there's only one forced upgrade for users. Is some similar plan possible if there's an "immediate" hard fork to increase the block size, to avoid users getting hit with two hardforks in quick succession? Number two is how to deal with sighashes -- segwit allows the hash calculation to be changed, so that for 2MB of transaction data (including witness data), you only need to hash up to around 4MB of data when verifying signatures, rather than potentially gigabytes of data. Compare that to Gavin's commits to the 0.11.2 branch in Classic which include a 1.3GB limit on sighash data to make the 2MB blocksize -- which is necessary because the quadratic scaling problem means that the 1.3GB limit can already be hit with 1MB blocks. Do you keep the new limit once you've got 2MB+segwit, or plan to phase it out as more transactions switch to segwit, or something else? Again, I think with the core roadmap the plan here is straightforward -- do segwit now, get as many wallets/transactions switched over to segwit asap (whether due to all the bonus features, or just that they're cheaper in fees), and then revise the sighash limits later as part of soft-forking to increase the blocksize. Finally, and I'm probably projecting my own ideas here, I think a 2MB hardfork in 2017 would give ample opportunity to simultaneously switch to a "validation cost metric" approach, making fees simpler to calculate and avoiding people being able to make sigop attacks to force near-empty blocks and other such nonsense. I think there's even the possibility of changing the limit so that in future it can be increased by soft-forks , instead of needing a hard fork for increases as it does now. ie, I think if we're clever, we can get a gradual increase to 1.8MB-2MB starting in the next few months via segwit with a soft-fork, then have a single hard-fork flag day next year, that allows the blocksize to be managed in a forwards compatible way more or less indefinitely. Anyhoo, I'd love to see more technical discussion of classic vs core, so in the spirit of "write what you want to read", voila...  I wrote most of the text for that, though the content has had a lot of corrections from people who understand how it works better than I do; see the github pull request if you care --https://github.com/bitcoin-core/website/pull/67  https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/42mequ/jtoomim_192616_utc_my_plan_for_segwit_was_to_pull/  I've done no research myself; jtoomim's talk at Hong Kong said 2MB/4MB seemed okay but 8MB/9MB was "pushing it" -- http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/bip101-block-propagation-data-from-testnet/ and his talks with miners indicated that BIP101's 8MB blocks were "Too much too fast" https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cg9Qo9Vl5PdJYD4EiHnIGMV3G48pWmcWI3NFoKKfIzU/edit#gid=0 Tradeblock's stats also seem to suggest 8MB blocks is probably problematic for now: https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-6-data-propagation  https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2015-12-09/?msg=55794797&page=4
So on my first visit to #ethereum, I'm approached by Anlmazing...
[21:38] yo yo [21:38] banker [21:39] Can't use this command in this window [21:39] speculation about ... ? [21:39] *Anlmazing* Price [21:39] Can't use this command in this window [21:40] are you bag holder ? [21:40] *Anlmazing* What's a bag holder? [21:40] that means you have a lot ETH [21:40] like big chunks [21:40] :) [21:40] *Anlmazing* Ah... no, I have a lot of bitcoins. [21:41] *Anlmazing* Or... a lot... at least I think it's a lot. [21:41] *Anlmazing* I don't own a single Ether yet. [21:41] *Anlmazing* A bit scared to go in though, as I know there's no 21 million cap on Ether.. [21:41] My friend , go buy ETH [21:41] we will rise more and more [21:42] My advice if you want to make a profit also you can jump inside my pump group and make around 10-15% profit with 2-3h [21:42] I'm @ Operator and Moderator inside Ethereum [21:44] banker , how many BTC you have if i can ask [21:46] you there banker [21:48] why you don't invest in ETH ? [21:48] *Anlmazing* Sry, my youngest just threw up in bed. brb.... =/ [21:48] ok [21:56] *Anlmazing* There! :> [21:57] yes man [21:57] i'm here prepare orders for pump [21:58] Can't use this command in this window [21:58] *Anlmazing* Ok, so I'm kinda new to this. I'll by Ether for 10 BTC. [21:58] ok ,do you have ETH address [21:59] *Anlmazing* Probably. I just installed Ethereum-Wallet 0.5.0 [21:59] *Anlmazing* ...and sent 10 BTC to Kraken. Should be confirming now. [21:59] ok good , let me calculate 10 btc worth ETH [21:59] don't buy ETH there [21:59] you pay 10% more t [21:59] Can't use this command in this window [22:00] *Anlmazing* Oh, where should I buy? [22:00] i will offer you 650 ETH for 10 btc [22:01] *Anlmazing* How would you suggest we execute that trade in a trustless manner? [22:01] i'm @ Operator and i'm trusted man [22:02] == Anlmazing [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.22.214.171.124] [22:02] == realname : OneMiner1` [22:02] == server : sinisalo.freenode.net [SE] [22:02] == End of WHOIS [22:02] always here and helping people to get good price [22:02] == Anlmazing [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.126.96.36.199] [22:02] == realname : OneMiner1` [22:02] == server : sinisalo.freenode.net [SE] [22:02] == End of WHOIS [22:03] what is yours ETH addy [22:03] are you ok with price ? [22:04] *Anlmazing* I have no idea, as I said, I'm really new to Ethereum. Let me check... [22:04] *Anlmazing* (first time on this channel) [22:04] ok [22:06] *Anlmazing* So according to Kraken, your price is almost too good to be true [22:06] ?? [22:06] ok man, go thought Kraken [22:06] best luck [22:06] *Anlmazing* The other way around... [22:07] no problem my friend ,you will see who i'm [22:07] *Anlmazing* I.e. your price is much better [22:07] i'm someone who is create ETH with couple my friend [22:07] *NickServ* INFO Animazing [22:07] -NickServ- Information on Animazing (account Animazing): [22:07] -NickServ- Registered : Apr 19 15:28:43 2010 (5y 45w 5d ago) [22:07] -NickServ- Last addr : [email protected] [22:07] -NickServ- Last seen : now [22:07] -NickServ- Flags : HideMail [22:07] -NickServ- *** End of Info *** [22:07] i'm here from start [22:08] == Anlmazing [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.188.8.131.52] [22:08] == realname : OneMiner1` [22:08] == server : sinisalo.freenode.net [SE] [22:08] == End of WHOIS [22:08] but ok, i don't like to push people ,yours btc yours choice [22:08] :) [22:09] *Anlmazing* My biggest gripe however, is that the op Animazing doesn't spell his username with an l... [22:09] group nick my friend [22:11] *Anlmazing* Group nick? What's that? [22:11] i using 2 nick ,one for channel and one thought TOR browser [22:11] :) [22:11] i was connect thought ethpool [22:12] *Anlmazing* So can you send a private message to me from the Animazing account? [22:13] <`Animazing> yes [22:13] <`Animazing> sure [22:13] <`Animazing> :) [22:13] *Anlmazing* lol, ok, good luck with that [22:13] ? [22:14] ask around who i'm [22:14] and you will see
FAV "Flux Antimatter Vortex" is a algorithm that is used to calculate difficulty retargets for flux. If you don't understand difficulty, put simply difficulty keeps blocks from being mined too quickly or too slowly. The correct difficulty for flux will ensure that blocks are mined in a average of roughly 30 seconds. If there is a hashrate increase, the blocks will be mined faster, so the difficulty has to step upwards to compensate, and visa versa for decreases. Bitcoin retargets every 2016 bitcoin blocks. It takes the total time it took to mine them, and the time it should of taken to mine them (For bitcoin, every block is 10 minutes, so 144 blocks per day and 2016 for every two weeks) and calculates the appropriate difficulty change. Some alternative currencies "altcoins" have decreased the retarget interval so the difficulty adapts more often. Implementations of Kimoto Gravity Well make the calculation every block. FAV (or, "The Vortex") makes the difficulty calculation every block. It does so by using the previous 11 blocks and the corresponding times it took to mine them. It weighs them based on how recent they are, so the first block time gets divided by 1, the next by two, etc. (To deal with random flux [HA! flux... get it.... okay sorry] the adjustment step is limited so that the difficulty won't make a sweeping change due to a random fast or slow block, or even a attacker. For example, if the last 11 blocks were "perfect" [30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30] It would divide them by their depth in the chain. [30, 15, 10, 7.5, 6, 5, ~4.28, 3.75, ~3.33, 3, ~2.27] Add them. [~90] And compare them to a 'perfect' sequence. (In this case, the sequence is perfect). [~90] and [~90] The actual time is divided by the 'perfect' time. 90 / 90 = 1 And the difficulty (For example, 1.0) is multiplied by it. Please note that in the code making the difficulty number 'bigger' makes it easier. (The number of hashes theoretically required to mine the block decreases as the number of possible accepted hashes increases) This is the best I can explain it. For those who didn't understand my feeble attempts to break it down please meet me on IRC (#flux-talk @ freenode.net) and I'll do my best to explain.
Costs And Warnings. Running a Bitcoin full node comes with certain costs and can expose you to certain risks. This section will explain those costs and risks so you can decide whether you’re able to help the network. webchat.freenode.net #bitcoin. Other Bitcoin sites. Bitcoin Forum Bitcoin Stack Exchange Bitcoin Magazine. Download Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Core is the backbone of the Bitcoin network. Almost all Bitcoin wallets rely on Bitcoin Core in one way or another. If you have a fairly powerful computer that is almost always online, you can help the ... Bitcoin Calculator Usage. All you need in order to make the Bitcoin Calculator display a result is to supply the speed of your mining hardware. In this simplest form the calculator will use the current Bitcoin difficulty, block value and USD/BTC rate for the calculations. However, the accuracy of the Bitcoin mining calculator improves the more honest information you supply. Interpreting the ... Freenode IRC module - This module could be an integrated IRC client which connects to freenode for help and support with bitcoin. BitcoinWiki module - This module could connect to the bitcoin wiki. Calculator module - This module could allow calculations such as addition, subtraction and multiplication to save time when making transactions. Bitcoin adder 2020 free activation Maker Free Bitcoin and Ethereum bitcoin generator app BitMaker-generator-app best bitcoin mining software — best bitcoin mini Bitcoin Adder btc hacker bitcoin mining hack bitcoin generator hack toolbitcoin hack tool, Bitcoin hack working ITS new bitcoin adder cracked with the activation code Activtaion from filedropper btcoin tags paypal money adder,paypal ...
Do you want to earn money online, work from home, extra income online, and earn free bitcoins or crypto currencies? My #1 Recommendation To Make Money Online - Click Here Now ️https://www.get ... Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X IMPORTANT!! This method only illustrates how mining works. You will not make any money f... So is Bitcoin mining worth it in may 2019? is Bitcoin mining in anyway profitable? Or worth it? should purchase a bitcoin mining machine (antminer or ASIC) or build your first mini bitcoin mining ... What is Bitcoin? This short animated video is an introduction to Bitcoin. ----- This is not my work, but please feel free to make some donations to the creators of this video, and also see the ... Free Bitcoin only WiFi l'inventeur du bitcoin bitcoin mining, bitcoin mining calculator, bitcoin market, bitcoin mining software, bitcoin mining pool, bitcoi...