#1 Bitcoin Halving 2024 Countdown & Date ETA (BTC Clock)

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
For someone first starting out as a cryptocurrency investor, finding a trustworthy manual for screening a cryptocurrency’s merits is nonexistent as we are still in the early, Wild West days of the cryptocurrency market. One would need to become deeply familiar with the inner workings of blockchain to be able to perform the bare minimum due diligence.
One might believe, over time, that finding the perfect cryptocurrency may be nothing short of futile. If a cryptocurrency purports infinite scalability, then it is probably either lightweight with limited features or it is highly centralized among a limited number of nodes that perform consensus services especially Proof of Stake or Delegated Proof of Stake. Similarly, a cryptocurrency that purports comprehensive privacy may have technical obstacles to overcome if it aims to expand its applications such as in smart contracts. The bottom line is that it is extremely difficult for a cryptocurrency to have all important features jam-packed into itself.
The cryptocurrency space is stuck in the era of the “dial-up internet” in a manner of speaking. Currently blockchain can’t scale – not without certain tradeoffs – and it hasn’t fully resolved certain intractable issues such as user-unfriendly long addresses and how the blockchain size is forever increasing to name two.
In other words, we haven’t found the ultimate cryptocurrency. That is, we haven’t found the mystical unicorn cryptocurrency that ushers the era of decentralization while eschewing all the limitations of traditional blockchain systems.
“But wait – what about Ethereum once it implements sharding?”
“Wouldn’t IOTA be able to scale infinitely with smart contracts through its Qubic offering?”
“Isn’t Dash capable of having privacy, smart contracts, and instantaneous transactions?”
Those thoughts and comments may come from cryptocurrency investors who have done their research. It is natural for the informed investors to invest in projects that are believed to bring cutting edge technological transformation to blockchain. Sooner or later, the sinking realization will hit that any variation of the current blockchain technology will always likely have certain limitations.
Let us pretend that there indeed exists a unicorn cryptocurrency somewhere that may or may not be here yet. What would it look like, exactly? Let us set the 5 criteria of the unicorn cryptocurrency:
Unicorn Criteria
(1) Perfectly solves the blockchain trilemma:
o Infinite scalability
o Full security
o Full decentralization
(2) Zero or minimal transaction fee
(3) Full privacy
(4) Full smart contract capabilities
(5) Fair distribution and fair governance
For each of the above 5 criteria, there would not be any middle ground. For example, a cryptocurrency with just an in-protocol mixer would not be considered as having full privacy. As another example, an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) may possibly violate criterion (5) since with an ICO the distribution and governance are often heavily favored towards an oligarchy – this in turn would defy the spirit of decentralization that Bitcoin was found on.
There is no cryptocurrency currently that fits the above profile of the unicorn cryptocurrency. Let us examine an arbitrary list of highly hyped cryptocurrencies that meet the above list at least partially. The following list is by no means comprehensive but may be a sufficient sampling of various blockchain implementations:
Bitcoin (BTC)
Bitcoin is the very first and the best known cryptocurrency that started it all. While Bitcoin is generally considered extremely secure, it suffers from mining centralization to a degree. Bitcoin is not anonymous, lacks smart contracts, and most worrisomely, can only do about 7 transactions per seconds (TPS). Bitcoin is not the unicorn notwithstanding all the Bitcoin maximalists.
Ethereum (ETH)
Ethereum is widely considered the gold standard of smart contracts aside from its scalability problem. Sharding as part of Casper’s release is generally considered to be the solution to Ethereum’s scalability problem.
The goal of sharding is to split up validating responsibilities among various groups or shards. Ethereum’s sharding comes down to duplicating the existing blockchain architecture and sharing a token. This does not solve the core issue and simply kicks the can further down the road. After all, full nodes still need to exist one way or another.
Ethereum’s blockchain size problem is also an issue as will be explained more later in this article.
As a result, Ethereum is not the unicorn due to its incomplete approach to scalability and, to a degree, security.
Dash
Dash’s masternodes are widely considered to be centralized due to their high funding requirements, and there are accounts of a pre-mine in the beginning. Dash is not the unicorn due to its questionable decentralization.
Nano
Nano boasts rightfully for its instant, free transactions. But it lacks smart contracts and privacy, and it may be exposed to well orchestrated DDOS attacks. Therefore, it goes without saying that Nano is not the unicorn.
EOS
While EOS claims to execute millions of transactions per seconds, a quick glance reveals centralized parameters with 21 nodes and a questionable governance system. Therefore, EOS fails to achieve the unicorn status.
Monero (XMR)
One of the best known and respected privacy coins, Monero lacks smart contracts and may fall short of infinite scalability due to CryptoNote’s design. The unicorn rank is out of Monero’s reach.
IOTA
IOTA’s scalability is based on the number of transactions the network processes, and so its supposedly infinite scalability would fluctuate and is subject to the whims of the underlying transactions. While IOTA’s scalability approach is innovative and may work in the long term, it should be reminded that the unicorn cryptocurrency has no middle ground. The unicorn cryptocurrency would be expected to scale infinitely on a consistent basis from the beginning.
In addition, IOTA’s Masked Authenticated Messaging (MAM) feature does not bring privacy to the masses in a highly convenient manner. Consequently, the unicorn is not found with IOTA.

PascalCoin as a Candidate for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
Please allow me to present a candidate for the cryptocurrency unicorn: PascalCoin.
According to the website, PascalCoin claims the following:
“PascalCoin is an instant, zero-fee, infinitely scalable, and decentralized cryptocurrency with advanced privacy and smart contract capabilities. Enabled by the SafeBox technology to become the world’s first blockchain independent of historical operations, PascalCoin possesses unlimited potential.”
The above summary is a mouthful to be sure, but let’s take a deep dive on how PascalCoin innovates with the SafeBox and more. Before we do this, I encourage you to first become acquainted with PascalCoin by watching the following video introduction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=F25UU-0W9Dk
The rest of this section will be split into 10 parts in order to illustrate most of the notable features of PascalCoin. Naturally, let’s start off with the SafeBox.
Part #1: The SafeBox
Unlike traditional UTXO-based cryptocurrencies in which the blockchain records the specifics of each transaction (address, sender address, amount of funds transferred, etc.), the blockchain in PascalCoin is only used to mutate the SafeBox. The SafeBox is a separate but equivalent cryptographic data structure that snapshots account balances. PascalCoin’s blockchain is comparable to a machine that feeds the most important data – namely, the state of an account – into the SafeBox. Any node can still independently compute and verify the cumulative Proof-of-Work required to construct the SafeBox.
The PascalCoin whitepaper elegantly highlights the unique historical independence that the SafeBox possesses:
“While there are approaches that cryptocurrencies could use such as pruning, warp-sync, "finality checkpoints", UTXO-snapshotting, etc, there is a fundamental difference with PascalCoin. Their new nodes can only prove they are on most-work-chain using the infinite history whereas in PascalCoin, new nodes can prove they are on the most-work chain without the infinite history.”
Some cryptocurrency old-timers might instinctively balk at the idea of full nodes eschewing the entire history for security, but such a reaction would showcase a lack of understanding on what the SafeBox really does.
A concrete example would go a long way to best illustrate what the SafeBox does. Let’s say I input the following operations in my calculator:
5 * 5 – 10 / 2 + 5
It does not take a genius to calculate the answer, 25. Now, the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* would be forever imbued on a traditional blockchain’s history. But the SafeBox begs to differ. It says that the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* should instead be simply “25” so as preserve simplicity, time, and space. In other words, the SafeBox simply preserves the account balance.
But some might still be unsatisfied and claim that if one cannot trace the series of operations (transactions) that lead to the final number (balance) of 25, the blockchain is inherently insecure.
Here are four important security aspects of the SafeBox that some people fail to realize:
(1) SafeBox Follows the Longest Chain of Proof-of-Work
The SafeBox mutates itself per 100 blocks. Each new SafeBox mutation must reference both to the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks in order to be valid, and the resultant hash of the new mutated SafeBox must then be referenced by each of the new subsequent blocks, and the process repeats itself forever.
The fact that each new SafeBox mutation must reference to the previous SafeBox mutation is comparable to relying on the entire history. This is because the previous SafeBox mutation encapsulates the result of cumulative entire history except for the 100 blocks which is why each new SafeBox mutation requires both the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks.
So in a sense, there is a single interconnected chain of inflows and outflows, supported by Byzantine Proof-of-Work consensus, instead of the entire history of transactions.
More concretely, the SafeBox follows the path of the longest chain of Proof-of-Work simply by design, and is thus cryptographically equivalent to the entire history even without tracing specific operations in the past. If the chain is rolled back with a 51% attack, only the attacker’s own account(s) in the SafeBox can be manipulated as is explained in the next part.
(2) A 51% Attack on PascalCoin Functions the Same as Others
A 51% attack on PascalCoin would work in a similar way as with other Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. An attacker cannot modify a transaction in the past without affecting the current SafeBox hash which is accepted by all honest nodes.
Someone might claim that if you roll back all the current blocks plus the 100 blocks prior to the SafeBox’s mutation, one could create a forged SafeBox with different balances for all accounts. This would be incorrect as one would be able to manipulate only his or her own account(s) in the SafeBox with a 51% attack – just as is the case with other UTXO cryptocurrencies. The SafeBox stores the balances of all accounts which are in turn irreversibly linked only to their respective owners’ private keys.
(3) One Could Preserve the Entire History of the PascalCoin Blockchain
No blockchain data in PascalCoin is ever deleted even in the presence of the SafeBox. Since the SafeBox is cryptographically equivalent to a full node with the entire history as explained above, PascalCoin full nodes are not expected to contain infinite history. But for whatever reason(s) one may have, one could still keep all the PascalCoin blockchain history as well along with the SafeBox as an option even though it would be redundant.
Without storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain, you can still trace the specific operations of the 100 blocks prior to when the SafeBox absorbs and reflects the net result (a single balance for each account) from those 100 blocks. But if you’re interested in tracing operations over a longer period in the past – as redundant as that may be – you’d have the option to do so by storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain.
(4) The SafeBox is Equivalent to the Entire Blockchain History
Some skeptics may ask this question: “What if the SafeBox is forever lost? How would you be able to verify your accounts?” Asking this question is tantamount to asking to what would happen to Bitcoin if all of its entire history was erased. The result would be chaos, of course, but the SafeBox is still in line with the general security model of a traditional blockchain with respect to black swans.
Now that we know the security of the SafeBox is not compromised, what are the implications of this new blockchain paradigm? A colorful illustration as follows still wouldn’t do justice to the subtle revolution that the SafeBox ushers. The automobiles we see on the street are the cookie-and-butter representation of traditional blockchain systems. The SafeBox, on the other hand, supercharges those traditional cars to become the Transformers from Michael Bay’s films.
The SafeBox is an entirely different blockchain architecture that is impressive in its simplicity and ingenuity. The SafeBox’s design is only the opening act for PascalCoin’s vast nuclear arsenal. If the above was all that PascalCoin offers, it still wouldn’t come close to achieving the unicorn status but luckily, we have just scratched the surface. Please keep on reading on if you want to learn how PascalCoin is going to shatter the cryptocurrency industry into pieces. Buckle down as this is going to be a long read as we explore further about the SafeBox’s implications.
Part #2: 0-Confirmation Transactions
To begin, 0-confirmation transactions are secure in PascalCoin thanks to the SafeBox.
The following paraphrases an explanation of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmations from the whitepaper:
“Since PascalCoin is not a UTXO-based currency but rather a State-based currency thanks to the SafeBox, the security guarantee of 0-confirmation transactions are much stronger than in UTXO-based currencies. For example, in Bitcoin if a merchant accepts a 0-confirmation transaction for a coffee, the buyer can simply roll that transaction back after receiving the coffee but before the transaction is confirmed in a block. The way the buyer does this is by re-spending those UTXOs to himself in a new transaction (with a higher fee) thus invalidating them for the merchant. In PascalCoin, this is virtually impossible since the buyer's transaction to the merchant is simply a delta-operation to debit/credit a quantity from/to accounts respectively. The buyer is unable to erase or pre-empt this two-sided, debit/credit-based transaction from the network’s pending pool until it either enters a block for confirmation or is discarded with respect to both sender and receiver ends. If the buyer tries to double-spend the coffee funds after receiving the coffee but before they clear, the double-spend transaction will not propagate the network since nodes cannot propagate a double-spending transaction thanks to the debit/credit nature of the transaction. A UTXO-based transaction is initially one-sided before confirmation and therefore is more exposed to one-sided malicious schemes of double spending.”
Phew, that explanation was technical but it had to be done. In summary, PascalCoin possesses the only secure 0-confirmation transactions in the cryptocurrency industry, and it goes without saying that this means PascalCoin is extremely fast. In fact, PascalCoin is capable of 72,000 TPS even prior to any additional extensive optimizations down the road. In other words, PascalCoin is as instant as it gets and gives Nano a run for its money.
Part #3: Zero Fee
Let’s circle back to our discussion of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation capability. Here’s a little fun magical twist to PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation magic: 0-confirmation transactions are zero-fee. As in you don’t pay a single cent in fee for each 0-confirmation! There is just a tiny downside: if you create a second transaction in a 5-minute block window then you’d need to pay a minimal fee. Imagine using Nano but with a significantly stronger anti-DDOS protection for spam! But there shouldn’t be any complaint as this fee would amount to 0.0001 Pascal or $0.00002 based on the current price of a Pascal at the time of this writing.
So, how come the fee for blazingly fast transactions is nonexistent? This is where the magic of the SafeBox arises in three ways:
(1) PascalCoin possesses the secure 0-confirmation feature as discussed above that enables this speed.
(2) There is no fee bidding competition of transaction priority typical in UTXO cryptocurrencies since, once again, PascalCoin operates on secure 0-confirmations.
(3) There is no fee incentive needed to run full nodes on behalf of the network’s security beyond the consensus rewards.
Part #4: Blockchain Size
Let’s expand more on the third point above, using Ethereum as an example. Since Ethereum’s launch in 2015, its full blockchain size is currently around 2 TB, give or take, but let’s just say its blockchain size is 100 GB for now to avoid offending the Ethereum elitists who insist there are different types of full nodes that are lighter. Whoever runs Ethereum’s full nodes would expect storage fees on top of the typical consensus fees as it takes significant resources to shoulder Ethereum’s full blockchain size and in turn secure the network. What if I told you that PascalCoin’s full blockchain size will never exceed few GBs after thousands of years? That is just what the SafeBox enables PascalCoin to do so. It is estimated that by 2072, PascalCoin’s full nodes will only be 6 GB which is low enough not to warrant any fee incentives for hosting full nodes. Remember, the SafeBox is an ultra-light cryptographic data structure that is cryptographically equivalent to a blockchain with the entire transaction history. In other words, the SafeBox is a compact spreadsheet of all account balances that functions as PascalCoin’s full node!
Not only does the SafeBox’s infinitesimal memory size helps to reduce transaction fees by phasing out any storage fees, but it also paves the way for true decentralization. It would be trivial for every PascalCoin user to opt a full node in the form of a wallet. This is extreme decentralization at its finest since the majority of users of other cryptocurrencies ditch full nodes due to their burdensome sizes. It is naïve to believe that storage costs would reduce enough to the point where hosting full nodes are trivial. Take a look at the following chart outlining the trend of storage cost.

* https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/
As we can see, storage costs continue to decrease but the descent is slowing down as is the norm with technological improvements. In the meantime, blockchain sizes of other cryptocurrencies are increasing linearly or, in the case of smart contract engines like Ethereum, parabolically. Imagine a cryptocurrency smart contract engine like Ethereum garnering worldwide adoption; how do you think Ethereum’s size would look like in the far future based on the following chart?


https://i.redd.it/k57nimdjmo621.png

Ethereum’s future blockchain size is not looking pretty in terms of sustainable security. Sharding is not a fix for this issue since there still needs to be full nodes but that is a different topic for another time.
It is astonishing that the cryptocurrency community as a whole has passively accepted this forever-expanding-blockchain-size problem as an inescapable fate.
PascalCoin is the only cryptocurrency that has fully escaped the death vortex of forever expanding blockchain size. Its blockchain size wouldn’t exceed 10 GB even after many hundreds of years of worldwide adoption. Ethereum’s blockchain size after hundreds of years of worldwide adoption would make fine comedy.
Part #5: Simple, Short, and Ordinal Addresses
Remember how the SafeBox works by snapshotting all account balances? As it turns out, the account address system is almost as cool as the SafeBox itself.
Imagine yourself in this situation: on a very hot and sunny day, you’re wandering down the street across from your house and ran into a lemonade stand – the old-fashioned kind without any QR code or credit card terminal. The kid across you is selling a lemonade cup for 1 Pascal with a poster outlining the payment address as 5471-55. You flip out your phone and click “Send” with 1 Pascal to the address 5471-55; viola, exactly one second later you’re drinking your lemonade without paying a cent for the transaction fee!
The last thing one wants to do is to figure out how to copy/paste to, say, the following address 1BoatSLRHtKNngkdXEeobR76b53LETtpyT on the spot wouldn’t it? Gone are the obnoxiously long addresses that plague all cryptocurrencies. The days of those unreadable addresses will be long gone – it has to be if blockchain is to innovate itself for the general public. EOS has a similar feature for readable addresses but in a very limited manner in comparison, and nicknames attached to addresses in GUIs don’t count since blockchain-wide compatibility wouldn’t hold.
Not only does PascalCoin has the neat feature of having addresses (called PASAs) that amount to up to 6 or 7 digits, but PascalCoin can also incorporate in-protocol address naming as opposed to GUI address nicknames. Suppose I want to order something from Amazon using Pascal; I simply search the word “Amazon” then the corresponding account number shows up. Pretty neat, right?
The astute reader may gather that PascalCoin’s address system makes it necessary to commoditize addresses, and he/she would be correct. Some view this as a weakness; part #10 later in this segment addresses this incorrect perception.
Part #6: Privacy
As if the above wasn’t enough, here’s another secret that PascalCoin has: it is a full-blown privacy coin. It uses two separate foundations to achieve comprehensive anonymity: in-protocol mixer for transfer amounts and zn-SNARKs for private balances. The former has been implemented and the latter is on the roadmap. Both the 0-confirmation transaction and the negligible transaction fee would make PascalCoin the most scalable privacy coin of any other cryptocurrencies pending the zk-SNARKs implementation.
Part #7: Smart Contracts
Next, PascalCoin will take smart contracts to the next level with a layer-2 overlay consensus system that pioneers sidechains and other smart contract implementations.
In formal terms, this layer-2 architecture will facilitate the transfer of data between PASAs which in turn allows clean enveloping of layer-2 protocols inside layer-1 much in the same way that HTTP lives inside TCP.
To summarize:
· The layer-2 consensus method is separate from the layer-1 Proof-of-Work. This layer-2 consensus method is independent and flexible. A sidechain – based on a single encompassing PASA – could apply Proof-of-Stake (POS), Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS), or Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as the consensus system of its choice.
· Such a layer-2 smart contract platform can be written in any languages.
· Layer-2 sidechains will also provide very strong anonymity since funds are all pooled and keys are not used to unlock them.
· This layer-2 architecture is ingenious in which the computation is separate from layer-2 consensus, in effect removing any bottleneck.
· Horizontal scaling exists in this paradigm as there is no interdependence between smart contracts and states are not managed by slow sidechains.
· Speed and scalability are fully independent of PascalCoin.
One would be able to run the entire global financial system on PascalCoin’s infinitely scalable smart contract platform and it would still scale infinitely. In fact, this layer-2 architecture would be exponentially faster than Ethereum even after its sharding is implemented.
All this is the main focus of PascalCoin’s upcoming version 5 in 2019. A whitepaper add-on for this major upgrade will be released in early 2019.
Part #8: RandomHash Algorithm
Surely there must be some tradeoffs to PascalCoin’s impressive capabilities, you might be asking yourself. One might bring up the fact that PascalCoin’s layer-1 is based on Proof-of-Work and is thus susceptible to mining centralization. This would be a fallacy as PascalCoin has pioneered the very first true ASIC, GPU, and dual-mining resistant algorithm known as RandomHash that obliterates anything that is not CPU based and gives all the power back to solo miners.
Here is the official description of RandomHash:
“RandomHash is a high-level cryptographic hash algorithm that combines other well-known hash primitives in a highly serial manner. The distinguishing feature is that calculations for a nonce are dependent on partial calculations of other nonces, selected at random. This allows a serial hasher (CPU) to re-use these partial calculations in subsequent mining saving 50% or more of the work-load. Parallel hashers (GPU) cannot benefit from this optimization since the optimal nonce-set cannot be pre-calculated as it is determined on-the-fly. As a result, parallel hashers (GPU) are required to perform the full workload for every nonce. Also, the algorithm results in 10x memory bloat for a parallel implementation. In addition to its serial nature, it is branch-heavy and recursive making in optimal for CPU-only mining.”
One might be understandably skeptical of any Proof-of-Work algorithm that solves ASIC and GPU centralization once for all because there have been countless proposals being thrown around for various algorithms since the dawn of Bitcoin. Is RandomHash truly the ASIC & GPU killer that it claims to be?
Herman Schoenfeld, the inventor behind RandomHash, described his algorithm in the following:
“RandomHash offers endless ASIC-design breaking surface due to its use of recursion, hash algo selection, memory hardness and random number generation.
For example, changing how round hash selection is made and/or random number generator algo and/or checksum algo and/or their sequencing will totally break an ASIC design. Conceptually if you can significantly change the structure of the output assembly whilst keeping the high-level algorithm as invariant as possible, the ASIC design will necessarily require proportional restructuring. This results from the fact that ASIC designs mirror the ASM of the algorithm rather than the algorithm itself.”
Polyminer1 (pseudonym), one of the members of the PascalCoin core team who developed RHMiner (official software for mining RandomHash), claimed as follows:
“The design of RandomHash is, to my experience, a genuine innovation. I’ve been 30 years in the field. I’ve rarely been surprised by anything. RandomHash was one of my rare surprises. It’s elegant, simple, and achieves resistance in all fronts.”
PascalCoin may have been the first party to achieve the race of what could possibly be described as the “God algorithm” for Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. Look no further than one of Monero’s core developers since 2015, Howard Chu. In September 2018, Howard declared that he has found a solution, called RandomJS, to permanently keep ASICs off the network without repetitive algorithm changes. This solution actually closely mirrors RandomHash’s algorithm. Discussing about his algorithm, Howard asserted that “RandomJS is coming at the problem from a direction that nobody else is.”
Link to Howard Chu’s article on RandomJS:
https://www.coindesk.com/one-musicians-creative-solution-to-drive-asics-off-monero
Yet when Herman was asked about Howard’s approach, he responded:
“Yes, looks like it may work although using Javascript was a bit much. They should’ve just used an assembly subset and generated random ASM programs. In a way, RandomHash does this with its repeated use of random mem-transforms during expansion phase.”
In the end, PascalCoin may have successfully implemented the most revolutionary Proof-of-Work algorithm, one that eclipses Howard’s burgeoning vision, to date that almost nobody knows about. To learn more about RandomHash, refer to the following resources:
RandomHash whitepaper:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/storage/whitepapers/RandomHash_Whitepaper.pdf
Technical proposal for RandomHash:
https://github.com/PascalCoin/PascalCoin/blob/mastePIP/PIP-0009.md
Someone might claim that PascalCoin still suffers from mining centralization after RandomHash, and this is somewhat misleading as will be explained in part #10.
Part #9: Fair Distribution and Governance
Not only does PascalCoin rest on superior technology, but it also has its roots in the correct philosophy of decentralized distribution and governance. There was no ICO or pre-mine, and the developer fund exists as a percentage of mining rewards as voted by the community. This developer fund is 100% governed by a decentralized autonomous organization – currently facilitated by the PascalCoin Foundation – that will eventually be transformed into an autonomous smart contract platform. Not only is the developer fund voted upon by the community, but PascalCoin’s development roadmap is also voted upon the community via the Protocol Improvement Proposals (PIPs).
This decentralized governance also serves an important benefit as a powerful deterrent to unseemly fork wars that befall many cryptocurrencies.
Part #10: Common Misconceptions of PascalCoin
“The branding is terrible”
PascalCoin is currently working very hard on its image and is preparing for several branding and marketing initiatives in the short term. For example, two of the core developers of the PascalCoin recently interviewed with the Fox Business Network. A YouTube replay of this interview will be heavily promoted.
Some people object to the name PascalCoin. First, it’s worth noting that PascalCoin is the name of the project while Pascal is the name of the underlying currency. Secondly, Google and YouTube received excessive criticisms back then in the beginning with their name choices. Look at where those companies are nowadays – surely a somewhat similar situation faces PascalCoin until the name’s familiarity percolates into the public.
“The wallet GUI is terrible”
As the team is run by a small yet extremely dedicated developers, multiple priorities can be challenging to juggle. The lack of funding through an ICO or a pre-mine also makes it challenging to accelerate development. The top priority of the core developers is to continue developing full-time on the groundbreaking technology that PascalCoin offers. In the meantime, an updated and user-friendly wallet GUI has been worked upon for some time and will be released in due time. Rome wasn’t built in one day.
“One would need to purchase a PASA in the first place”
This is a complicated topic since PASAs need to be commoditized by the SafeBox’s design, meaning that PASAs cannot be obtained at no charge to prevent systematic abuse. This raises two seemingly valid concerns:
· As a chicken and egg problem, how would one purchase a PASA using Pascal in the first place if one cannot obtain Pascal without a PASA?
· How would the price of PASAs stay low and affordable in the face of significant demand?
With regards to the chicken and egg problem, there are many ways – some finished and some unfinished – to obtain your first PASA as explained on the “Get Started” page on the PascalCoin website:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/get_started
More importantly, however, is the fact that there are few methods that can get your first PASA for free. The team will also release another method soon in which you could obtain your first PASA for free via a single SMS message. This would probably become by far the simplest and the easiest way to obtain your first PASA for free. There will be more new ways to easily obtain your first PASA for free down the road.
What about ensuring the PASA market at large remains inexpensive and affordable following your first (and probably free) PASA acquisition? This would be achieved in two ways:
· Decentralized governance of the PASA economics per the explanation in the FAQ section on the bottom of the PascalCoin website (https://www.pascalcoin.org/)
· Unlimited and free pseudo-PASAs based on layer-2 in the next version release.
“PascalCoin is still centralized after the release of RandomHash”
Did the implementation of RandomHash from version 4 live up to its promise?
The official goals of RandomHash were as follow:
(1) Implement a GPU & ASIC resistant hash algorithm
(2) Eliminate dual mining
The two goals above were achieved by every possible measure.
Yet a mining pool, Nanopool, was able to regain its hash majority after a significant but a temporary dip.
The official conclusion is that, from a probabilistic viewpoint, solo miners are more profitable than pool miners. However, pool mining is enticing for solo miners who 1) have limited hardware as it ensures a steady income instead of highly profitable but probabilistic income via solo mining, and 2) who prefer convenient software and/or GUI.
What is the next step, then? While the barrier of entry for solo miners has successfully been put down, additional work needs to be done. The PascalCoin team and the community are earnestly investigating additional steps to improve mining decentralization with respect to pool mining specifically to add on top of RandomHash’s successful elimination of GPU, ASIC, and dual-mining dominance.
It is likely that the PascalCoin community will promote the following two initiatives in the near future:
(1) Establish a community-driven, nonprofit mining pool with attractive incentives.
(2) Optimize RHMiner, PascalCoin’s official solo mining software, for performance upgrades.
A single pool dominance is likely short lived once more options emerge for individual CPU miners who want to avoid solo mining for whatever reason(s).
Let us use Bitcoin as an example. Bitcoin mining is dominated by ASICs and mining pools but no single pool is – at the time of this writing – even close on obtaining the hash majority. With CPU solo mining being a feasible option in conjunction with ASIC and GPU mining eradication with RandomHash, the future hash rate distribution of PascalCoin would be far more promising than Bitcoin’s hash rate distribution.
PascalCoin is the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
If you’ve read this far, let’s cut straight to the point: PascalCoin IS the unicorn cryptocurrency.
It is worth noting that PascalCoin is still a young cryptocurrency as it was launched at the end of 2016. This means that many features are still work in progress such as zn-SNARKs, smart contracts, and pool decentralization to name few. However, it appears that all of the unicorn criteria are within PascalCoin’s reach once PascalCoin’s technical roadmap is mostly completed.
Based on this expository on PascalCoin’s technology, there is every reason to believe that PascalCoin is the unicorn cryptocurrency. PascalCoin also solves two fundamental blockchain problems beyond the unicorn criteria that were previously considered unsolvable: blockchain size and simple address system. The SafeBox pushes PascalCoin to the forefront of cryptocurrency zeitgeist since it is a superior solution compared to UTXO, Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), Block Lattice, Tangle, and any other blockchain innovations.


THE UNICORN

Author: Tyler Swob
submitted by Kosass to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Continue:Chinese Comments for《Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers.》

Yesterday,The article “Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers.” caused a lot debates here. For the further communication between China and west, I’ll conclude some informations about the article, then translate some of the Chinese comments & opinions on this article.
BitKan is a famous platform bases on China, we offer all the information in crypto currency industry, including market data, all news resources in the world, price monitor, P2P bitcoins exchange,etc. BitKan is available in multilingual versions and you can try it out and also join the heated discussion here:BITKAN
BItKan just here to offer an exchange of information. We are not Jiang Zhuo'er or in any way associated with him.
Here is the original article(Chinese Version): https://bitkan.com/news/topic/25747 Here is the original article(English Version): https://bitkan.com/news/topic/25778 Here is the discussion on reddit/bitcoin: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5egroc/why_against_segwit_and_core_jiang_zhuoer_who/ Here is the discussion on reddit/btc: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5eh2cc/why_against_segwit_and_core_jiang_zhuoer_who/
Let’s see what Chinese comments under the article (post on BitKan Chinese news page):
Against
独行
If the writer does not want to see him nailed up on the pillar of humiliation, go learn some economics, plow through Satoshi’s whitepaper again esp. the economic logics in it. Also the writer needs to learn coding so as to avoid a mentality of a liberal art student. TBH your article is getting dramatic. 1. 1) Core never said the block size will stay at 1 MB, SegWit is a robust strategy at this moment. 2. 2) Your so-called HK consensus is nothing but a paper with seals from a few pools, a one-sided opinion. It’s not consensus. 3. 3) What an interesting conspiracy theory, you sound like the rest of the world is against China. How sick is that? Bitcoin has no national boundaries.
lxq990061
Back in 1840 in San Francisco, miners got rich with gold. But many more joined the game later on and with more ppl leaving the west empty-handed. How tragic. This is history, just like the one happening with Bitcoin. It was the pubs and inns opened near the gold mines earned real money: like the platforms today. Devs at Core are just like the merchants back in the day sipping their tea and trash-talking. But Core is indeed stupid: an 8-year long decentralized system requires support from a 95%? Some serious shit in their head.
讨厌装逼犯
You guys trash talk everyday non-stop...be quiet! This kind of argument cannot convince anyone. Harsh words+personall attacks just make it more chaotic. Politics...parties...freedom...conspiracy: disgusting. And this kind of article? Who you can convince? This is not the day 1 of the debate. True decision makers already have it in their mind. You ordinary ppl can change nothing even if you are convinced. My guess is whoever writes this kind of story must be someone who enjoys being worshiped by ppl on top of the ranks of “revolution”. You just like to quench your own thirst for fame. Worst case has nothing to do with tech, it’s a match for computation power, capital and strength. System set that C.power decides so let it be. Bitcoin will take on its due course no matter what. The disgusting part is the incitation, the manipulation of ppl’s emotions, and cap everything “a matter of revolution”. We Chinese ppl know this too well. Scaling is no longer about tech, but winning. Is it meaningful? The shame is not with the devs, they (inl. Core and BU) contributed their wisdom and labor. The real shame is with you talkers who humiliate ppl. You are so good, why not show me your money? Bitcoin is a merely 10B system, go buy it. If you cannot, just don’t trash talk.
idgui.com
1) lots of companies and apps are waiting for segwit, and OP is not against segwit, then https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ why not implement it in the easiest way? SF is quite close , as long as enough miners support. HF egwit delivers community splitting risks. 2) LN can be decentralized enough should there be enough LN nodes. It won’t be concentrated on a handful of nodes. We can implement some limits on the main chain if we see an inclination toward centralization, such as higher tx fee for big nodes to limit big centralized LN node. 3) Main chain tx fee won’t be ridiculously high. If it does, miners get RICH, no? now we have 4% in tx fee, raise by 25 times you get more reward from it than the block reward. Then it’s acceptable even now, let alone future. Big amount tx are few. Small amount can be offchain, on LN or on sidechains. 4) SegWit has been thoroughly tests, and it’s a SF, compatible to previous nodes. There won’t be a major issue. Any code has risks, can you call BU risk-free? It depends on the level of risk. Segwit SF is acceptable, at most rolling back to 0.13.0, and segwit can increase little by little, not a sudden change. BU’s HF is different, with risks of splitting the entire ecosystem. 5) Miners have freedom of voting, but do consider the interests at large. You must represent the interests of the entire ecosystem, at least try to. We need decentralized nodes and unified ecosystem. SF segwit needs to be activated under consensus, and we can wait. HF needs even greater consensus or we risk losing it all. If we cannot have enough consensus for either HF or SF segwit, then we should let the SF segwit happen, since it has no risks of destruction.
Maybe I wrote it in bad order, let me edit it in the future. Don’t jump to conclusion OP. Segwit should be activated in the future.
Support
gjw
Core knows nothing about the spirit of contract. They ignore their public ann. a few months ago. A direct scaling is the simplest and most effective way of solving our urgent problem. Why roll out this thing that requires long-time testing? To have a worldwide success for Bitcoin, you need to provide ppl with access at low costs. It’s just like Internet. Core either has a vicious intention or has no faith in Bitcoin. If one day Bitcoin is being used by 9 digits of ppl, the main chain block size cannot be enough even at 100 MB. Micro payment still needs to go through something like LN. What’s the meaning of keeping the block size at 1MB? 7 years ago the block size was set at 1MB, what’s the hardware like 7 years ago? What the growth of bandwidth and storage in 7 years? 10 years or 20 years from now? The main battlefield of Bitcoin is in China. We Chinese ppl should not be satisfied with mining a few coins or gamble on a few exchanges. Take the responsibility and obligation of contribution. But, words are so much cheaper than codes. We need advanced devs for the main battlefield.
changyong
I appreciate Jiang Zhuo’er’s main points, they coincide with my opinions on the Chengdu blockchain conference: 1. scaling, segwit and LN should all be implemented. 2.it is highly wrong to make the main chain a settlement network 3. LN and the main chain are for different purposes and should not be inter-placeable. 4. main chain jam is driving towards LN Matthew Effect and monopolies. 5. miner decision is most rational and trust-worthy 6. tech and propaganda monopolies are endangering the whole system 7. SF increases long-term systemic debt and risks
A supplementary 8 points 1. blocksize cannot meet with the market demand for a long time---this is no less significant of a tech loophole. So a HF is a worthy action. 2. HF is an important instrument for Bitcoin to metabolize. Demonizing HF is suicidal. 3. The lack of incentives for devs and the centralization of tech are the paramount systemic risks at this moment 4. BU is a good start for competition, which will eliminate tech centralization. 5. HF scaling will not change the current landscape of profits and power, turning the main chain into a settlement network will. The latter carries great risks of Bitcoin failure. 6. Demonizing HF is a coverup for the changes and risks associated with the settlement network roadmap. 7. Democracy of Bitcoin requires ration, not loyalty and passion from the Bitcoiners, else, we are en route dictatorship. 8. For the sake of the wealth and energy you put into this, plz resort to reason, not blind worshipping and personal attacks.
myx
If you can compete with confidence, do compete under the same level of consensus. Bitcoin is the flapship of cryptos. An easy HF and an influential forked chain in the aftermath can be catastrophic. Miners can benefit in the short run after the spilitting. But in the long run, we all lose. A lowered threshold in anticipation of an easier fork is much worse than staying put. Based on Boss Jiang’s statement, 95% consensus can produce a 5% forked chain...then there will always be minority miners forking. In the end, the recognition of Bitcoin comes from users. Self-important forks by some miners are nothing but Alts. We have enough alts, no? So, 95%+ consensus is the only way to maintain unification. A coin without support from most of the users is an alt! Miners do get to decide, but the ultimate right is with the users’ recognition! If a 95%+ consensus is with a solution, then the rest minority do not matter. So, a solution without a high degree of consensus in a way is splitting the ecosystem. If BU dares not to bring up a 95% threshold, and in your own words, if a 51% HF is enough for a HF...you will end up splitting the ecosystem! Boss Jiang is a miner, and he feels he’s investing bigly, and he gets to decide. But in fact you are just for profit, not some Samaritan. Miners are just making profits on the most-recognized coin. Nothing to do with ethics. But a fair competition, by your own words, must be on the same criteria. Just like the 270 electoral votes in US presidential election. A common threshold. So, if BU wants to compete with segwit, do so under the same level of consensus. Any solution under a 95% consensus is just trolling for your own cowardice!
indexindex
The scaling debate involves 1)scaling for Bitcoin’s future and 2)breaking dev monopoly. Dev is the easiest part to control than hashing powers and users, literally the weakest part in the decentralization course of Bitcon. Spend 7 or 8 digits of USD on core devs, then you can control a multi-billion level product...that’s a good bargin for numerous capitals. Devs must realize that they can be abandoned should they do harm to Bitcoin in exchange of their own interests. Not just Core, but every dev team should understand this. BS’ investment must go burn, so as to make it a good example for future players.
Others
Tips: ID name “sfire” is the writer Jiang Zhuoer.
bikanyong to sfire
Hi Jiang I got 2 questions for you: 1. 1) apart from using high tx fee to chase tx to the LN, what’s the highlight of LN per se that draws tx? 2. 2) You mentioned LN will become a giant-dominated market based on Matthew Effect. Is our main chain facing the same risks?
sfire to bikanyong
Yes. LN is a secondary network with no need to broadcast network-wide. So LN has more frequent tx than the main chain. Small amount fast payment can be allowed. There is a price for not broadcasting network-wide: serious centralization risks (as seen in the article). So it can only be used for auxiliary purposes, but not as a foundation. The main chain is free from this risk becoz all miners on the main chain are equal. Gov may shut down 99% of the miners while the remaining 1% could still be handling tx. LN differentiates nodes with big ones and small ones. In the end, the big ones may end up huge and be banned by the gov. With the remaining allowed un-compliant small nodes, you cannot (very possibly) find a route of transfer in the LN, causing you failures in transfers.
bikanyongto sfire
You mean: Nodes on the main chain are equal, while in the LN, big nodes are more powerful than the small ones. Or put it another way: the nodes on the current main chain are inter-dependent, while they could get competitive against each other on the LN.---is it ok to put it like this?
sfire to bikanyong
It’s not that big nodes on the LN have more power, but connects more users. E.g. many ppl may, for the sake of their rate and service, connect to a giant “Coin-Pay or Coin-Pal” kind of node. If they want to transfer to users on another node called “Coin-Wechat”, they have to go through a route provided by “Coin-Pal”. Then, the giant node “Coin-Pal” bans you, leaving you in de facto ban from transfers to most ppl on the LN.
kok99999 to bikanyong
LN changes the topology of the network, and changes the whole game.
独行
Just becoz you need to enlarge the userbase, you need to scale up? It’s hilarious. The transfer of tx requires cost. No matter how wide is the highway, you don’t charge ppl, you will have a heave traffic. Via the market’s hand, only big amount tx are allowed on the chain---this does not affect the liquidity of onchain assets.
sfire to 独行
You can go offer some advice to the gov and ask them not to build up our infrastructure, since it’s so costy. Just charge ppl money, how convenient is that? Only luxury cars are allowed on the road....this does not affect the vitality of the city.
wz to 独行
What you are saying is not market’s hand. Leaving ppl with no choice is a market behavior? Free competition is the market’s hand.
无名 to 独行
No hard facts other than trashing ppl...no reasoning...these resemble your Core masters.
BTC专业工
I just wanna say: Hail to Multi-Party system! One-Party Dictatorship is doomed.
mellowtone
Support miners, support PoW and computational-power-consensus is the real consensus.
pyjx306
If tx fee goes up, I will quit.
savage
Since Core is so determined to castrate the main chain and revolution miners out, why did they set the 95% threshold? Core has no computation power, and they are so confident that miners will load their heads with enough shit and support Core?
sfire
It’s just a routine to set the 95% threshold for SF. If Core does not use the figure, the anti-Core voice will only grow, furthering their success rate down.
amo1998
95% could be of more complicated reasons. I think BS should have taken into consideration that they control at least 5% of the C.power. (S pool and BTCC pool). If I were BS, I’d have a contingency plan for worst-case scenario. Even 95% means we fail, we BS will not allow for a HF. We can also bash you from a moral high ground and accuse the onchain scailing side.
caitong
I cannot tell which one is better, HF first or SegWit first...both seemed to be practical and dangerous. But both sides have their own political agenda---that’s for sure. We avg. Joes prefer that, no matter what solution taken or risks what come along, just march on. We cannot stay here and die.
wz
No development=you will be taken by someone else. The network jam is significantly hindering its future. SegWit and LN cannot be replacements for a HF, Core knows that, but they still want to use them to replace a HF solution. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency out there. No user, no value.
yangzi666
Still, no matter what solution, if we have 2 chains and 2 Bitcoins, there will be chaos esp. for newbies. Miners and exchanges will take side and cause even greater chaos. Attention ppl: those were bashing Bitcoin with short positions all day long are now also in favor of THAT solution! Newton had it: I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people! HF is not a good solution at this moment. No matter which one, there must be no risk of forking into 2 chains---that qualifies an option on the table.
wz
SegWit and LN are not the replacement of a HF. Core has their own interests. You ostrich ppl just keep your heads in the sand, the risks won’t go away.
yangzi666 reply wz
1)I am no osrich. I will not be speaking here if I had my head in the sand, esp. at the risks of your bashings. 2)I oppose the risks of Bitcoin forking into 2 coins: you need to live longer to have the experience of humanity. 3)Seriously suggest you guys use some mild words, don’t be so dramatic. Just get your opinions clear no matter what you are proposing. Don’t just attack other ppl and their solutions. And plz don’t use harsh words. I believe we miners have wisdom. Given time, just wait and see the chart.
睿思通-专注比特币交易平台开发
Only miners, who invested millions-worth of personal wealth, the sunk cost, cannot leave like a bitcoiner, thus can be qualified as the Bitcoin’s safe guards.
nodouble
Scaling is what all users want. We just have different opinions on the solution we choose. It’s hard to judge Core’s manipulation, but they do oppose a simple direct scaling. They broke the deal with pools and manipulated the public opinion. You do see these as facts. You know about IT and finance, and probably with your butt on finance. You earn monopoly profits that others cannot touch. Bitcoin is the genius, the genesis of this sick market. Core’s segwit and LN are in fact copying financial sector’s monopoly nature to Bitcoin, and with an overly engineered tech threshold to solidify the position of interest groups like Blockstream. The scaling of the main chain, a market that naturally embraces users, will bring the disillusionment of LN, a market naturally forcing users. The conflict of opinions is in fact the fight of power of at a certain level. For Bitcoin, it’s Satoshi’s brilliant design and judgment that has it: we let the miners decide. This is also most reasonable in reality. Like you said, should we realize it, we are all happy.
idgui.com
1) I’m pro segwit and LN, segwit solves a lot of historical problems and improves efficiency; LN provides greater room for timely confirmations and high frequency tx. [reply] good, welcome for your choice on segwit+LN. It’s good improvement for the development of the ecosystem. Segwit has a good structure for app developments. LN can realized second-level confirmation and low tx fee that everyone wants.
2) Miners being trust-worthy don’t mean all miners can tell the future. Miners are trust-worthy because they see profits. They analyze the interests of all parties. Their behavioral pattern is predictable. [reply] There are short-term interests and long-term interests. Not all miners are limited to those before their eyes or those in their dreams. Only when interests short-term and long-term are consistent can they be predicted. But you cannot do that now. Also, different miners have different standards of judgement.
3) ETH HFed many times, not produced a forked chain only once, why? Because this very HF violates the basic principle of cryptocurrency: immutability of blockchain. That’s why ppl reject ETH and would welcome ETC. Then you have trades and markets and price and miners. Previously loyal miners can turn. That’s why I say Chandler’s statement was irrational. Just don’t talk about loyalty and friendship when it comes to cryptos, just talk about interests. [reply] There’re active and forced HFs. We had one in our history. Along with the later HFs of ETH, they are all bug-fixes that serves only good. But the in the ETH/ETC case, the HF was to find the stolen coins, not for a bug fix: an active HF. Active HF has great potential for splitting the ecosystem, and forced ones are safe. HF scaling is apparently an active HF. Blocksize limit is not an imperative bug fix target; and HF scaling is not necessarily good for everyone, at least it raise the bar to run a full node.
4) Landscape of interests: I’m saying the interests and decision-making patterns of all parties in the system (miners, corps, users, investors, devs) stay the same, not that all interests should remain the same. HF scaling produces no change to the original running mechanism, so the landscape does not change. Even if ETH forked into 2, their interests are in the same old landscape and an Alt relationship between each other. [reply] You are not aware of the dangers and harms of a split ecosystem. You should read some other articles first. A split is not just about simply see another Alt, it’s overwhelming.
END
Thanks for our translator David.
submitted by BitKan to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Continue:Chinese Comments for《Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers.》

Yesterday,The article “Why against SegWit and Core? Jiang Zhuo’er, who invested millions in mining, gives his answers.” caused a lot debates here. For the further communication between China and west, I’ll conclude some informations about the article, then translate some of the Chinese comments & opinions on this article.
BitKan is a famous platform bases on China, we offer all the information in crypto currency industry, including market data, all news resources in the world, price monitor, P2P bitcoins exchange,etc. BitKan is available in multilingual versions and you can try it out and also join the heated discussion here:BITKAN
BItKan just here to offer an exchange of information. We are not Jiang Zhuo'er or in any way associated with him.
Here is the original article(Chinese Version): https://bitkan.com/news/topic/25747 Here is the original article(English Version): https://bitkan.com/news/topic/25778 Here is the discussion on reddit/bitcoin: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5egroc/why_against_segwit_and_core_jiang_zhuoer_who/ Here is the discussion on reddit/btc: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5eh2cc/why_against_segwit_and_core_jiang_zhuoer_who/
Let’s see what Chinese comments under the article (post on BitKan Chinese news page):
Against
独行 If the writer does not want to see him nailed up on the pillar of humiliation, go learn some economics, plow through Satoshi’s whitepaper again esp. the economic logics in it. Also the writer needs to learn coding so as to avoid a mentality of a liberal art student. TBH your article is getting dramatic. 1. 1) Core never said the block size will stay at 1 MB, SegWit is a robust strategy at this moment. 2. 2) Your so-called HK consensus is nothing but a paper with seals from a few pools, a one-sided opinion. It’s not consensus. 3. 3) What an interesting conspiracy theory, you sound like the rest of the world is against China. How sick is that? Bitcoin has no national boundaries.
lxq990061 Back in 1840 in San Francisco, miners got rich with gold. But many more joined the game later on and with more ppl leaving the west empty-handed. How tragic. This is history, just like the one happening with Bitcoin. It was the pubs and inns opened near the gold mines earned real money: like the platforms today. Devs at Core are just like the merchants back in the day sipping their tea and trash-talking. But Core is indeed stupid: an 8-year long decentralized system requires support from a 95%? Some serious shit in their head.
讨厌装逼犯 You guys trash talk everyday non-stop...be quiet! This kind of argument cannot convince anyone. Harsh words+personall attacks just make it more chaotic. Politics...parties...freedom...conspiracy: disgusting. And this kind of article? Who you can convince? This is not the day 1 of the debate. True decision makers already have it in their mind. You ordinary ppl can change nothing even if you are convinced. My guess is whoever writes this kind of story must be someone who enjoys being worshiped by ppl on top of the ranks of “revolution”. You just like to quench your own thirst for fame. Worst case has nothing to do with tech, it’s a match for computation power, capital and strength. System set that C.power decides so let it be. Bitcoin will take on its due course no matter what. The disgusting part is the incitation, the manipulation of ppl’s emotions, and cap everything “a matter of revolution”. We Chinese ppl know this too well. Scaling is no longer about tech, but winning. Is it meaningful? The shame is not with the devs, they (inl. Core and BU) contributed their wisdom and labor. The real shame is with you talkers who humiliate ppl. You are so good, why not show me your money? Bitcoin is a merely 10B system, go buy it. If you cannot, just don’t trash talk.
idgui.com 1) lots of companies and apps are waiting for segwit, and OP is not against segwit, then https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ why not implement it in the easiest way? SF is quite close , as long as enough miners support. HF egwit delivers community splitting risks. 2) LN can be decentralized enough should there be enough LN nodes. It won’t be concentrated on a handful of nodes. We can implement some limits on the main chain if we see an inclination toward centralization, such as higher tx fee for big nodes to limit big centralized LN node. 3) Main chain tx fee won’t be ridiculously high. If it does, miners get RICH, no? now we have 4% in tx fee, raise by 25 times you get more reward from it than the block reward. Then it’s acceptable even now, let alone future. Big amount tx are few. Small amount can be offchain, on LN or on sidechains. 4) SegWit has been thoroughly tests, and it’s a SF, compatible to previous nodes. There won’t be a major issue. Any code has risks, can you call BU risk-free? It depends on the level of risk. Segwit SF is acceptable, at most rolling back to 0.13.0, and segwit can increase little by little, not a sudden change. BU’s HF is different, with risks of splitting the entire ecosystem. 5) Miners have freedom of voting, but do consider the interests at large. You must represent the interests of the entire ecosystem, at least try to. We need decentralized nodes and unified ecosystem. SF segwit needs to be activated under consensus, and we can wait. HF needs even greater consensus or we risk losing it all. If we cannot have enough consensus for either HF or SF segwit, then we should let the SF segwit happen, since it has no risks of destruction.
Maybe I wrote it in bad order, let me edit it in the future. Don’t jump to conclusion OP. Segwit should be activated in the future.
Support
gjw Core knows nothing about the spirit of contract. They ignore their public ann. a few months ago. A direct scaling is the simplest and most effective way of solving our urgent problem. Why roll out this thing that requires long-time testing? To have a worldwide success for Bitcoin, you need to provide ppl with access at low costs. It’s just like Internet. Core either has a vicious intention or has no faith in Bitcoin. If one day Bitcoin is being used by 9 digits of ppl, the main chain block size cannot be enough even at 100 MB. Micro payment still needs to go through something like LN. What’s the meaning of keeping the block size at 1MB? 7 years ago the block size was set at 1MB, what’s the hardware like 7 years ago? What the growth of bandwidth and storage in 7 years? 10 years or 20 years from now? The main battlefield of Bitcoin is in China. We Chinese ppl should not be satisfied with mining a few coins or gamble on a few exchanges. Take the responsibility and obligation of contribution. But, words are so much cheaper than codes. We need advanced devs for the main battlefield.
changyong I appreciate Jiang Zhuo’er’s main points, they coincide with my opinions on the Chengdu blockchain conference: 1. scaling, segwit and LN should all be implemented. 2.it is highly wrong to make the main chain a settlement network 3. LN and the main chain are for different purposes and should not be inter-placeable. 4. main chain jam is driving towards LN Matthew Effect and monopolies. 5. miner decision is most rational and trust-worthy 6. tech and propaganda monopolies are endangering the whole system 7. SF increases long-term systemic debt and risks
A supplementary 8 points 1. blocksize cannot meet with the market demand for a long time---this is no less significant of a tech loophole. So a HF is a worthy action. 2. HF is an important instrument for Bitcoin to metabolize. Demonizing HF is suicidal. 3. The lack of incentives for devs and the centralization of tech are the paramount systemic risks at this moment 4. BU is a good start for competition, which will eliminate tech centralization. 5. HF scaling will not change the current landscape of profits and power, turning the main chain into a settlement network will. The latter carries great risks of Bitcoin failure. 6. Demonizing HF is a coverup for the changes and risks associated with the settlement network roadmap. 7. Democracy of Bitcoin requires ration, not loyalty and passion from the Bitcoiners, else, we are en route dictatorship. 8. For the sake of the wealth and energy you put into this, plz resort to reason, not blind worshipping and personal attacks.
myx If you can compete with confidence, do compete under the same level of consensus. Bitcoin is the flapship of cryptos. An easy HF and an influential forked chain in the aftermath can be catastrophic. Miners can benefit in the short run after the spilitting. But in the long run, we all lose. A lowered threshold in anticipation of an easier fork is much worse than staying put. Based on Boss Jiang’s statement, 95% consensus can produce a 5% forked chain...then there will always be minority miners forking. In the end, the recognition of Bitcoin comes from users. Self-important forks by some miners are nothing but Alts. We have enough alts, no? So, 95%+ consensus is the only way to maintain unification. A coin without support from most of the users is an alt! Miners do get to decide, but the ultimate right is with the users’ recognition! If a 95%+ consensus is with a solution, then the rest minority do not matter. So, a solution without a high degree of consensus in a way is splitting the ecosystem. If BU dares not to bring up a 95% threshold, and in your own words, if a 51% HF is enough for a HF...you will end up splitting the ecosystem! Boss Jiang is a miner, and he feels he’s investing bigly, and he gets to decide. But in fact you are just for profit, not some Samaritan. Miners are just making profits on the most-recognized coin. Nothing to do with ethics. But a fair competition, by your own words, must be on the same criteria. Just like the 270 electoral votes in US presidential election. A common threshold. So, if BU wants to compete with segwit, do so under the same level of consensus. Any solution under a 95% consensus is just trolling for your own cowardice!
indexindex The scaling debate involves 1)scaling for Bitcoin’s future and 2)breaking dev monopoly. Dev is the easiest part to control than hashing powers and users, literally the weakest part in the decentralization course of Bitcon. Spend 7 or 8 digits of USD on core devs, then you can control a multi-billion level product...that’s a good bargin for numerous capitals. Devs must realize that they can be abandoned should they do harm to Bitcoin in exchange of their own interests. Not just Core, but every dev team should understand this. BS’ investment must go burn, so as to make it a good example for future players.
Others
Tips: ID name “sfire” is the writer Jiang Zhuoer.
bikanyong to sfire Hi Jiang I got 2 questions for you: 1. 1) apart from using high tx fee to chase tx to the LN, what’s the highlight of LN per se that draws tx? 2. 2) You mentioned LN will become a giant-dominated market based on Matthew Effect. Is our main chain facing the same risks?
sfire to bikanyong Yes. LN is a secondary network with no need to broadcast network-wide. So LN has more frequent tx than the main chain. Small amount fast payment can be allowed. There is a price for not broadcasting network-wide: serious centralization risks (as seen in the article). So it can only be used for auxiliary purposes, but not as a foundation. The main chain is free from this risk becoz all miners on the main chain are equal. Gov may shut down 99% of the miners while the remaining 1% could still be handling tx. LN differentiates nodes with big ones and small ones. In the end, the big ones may end up huge and be banned by the gov. With the remaining allowed un-compliant small nodes, you cannot (very possibly) find a route of transfer in the LN, causing you failures in transfers.
bikanyongto sfire You mean: Nodes on the main chain are equal, while in the LN, big nodes are more powerful than the small ones. Or put it another way: the nodes on the current main chain are inter-dependent, while they could get competitive against each other on the LN.---is it ok to put it like this?
sfire to bikanyong It’s not that big nodes on the LN have more power, but connects more users. E.g. many ppl may, for the sake of their rate and service, connect to a giant “Coin-Pay or Coin-Pal” kind of node. If they want to transfer to users on another node called “Coin-Wechat”, they have to go through a route provided by “Coin-Pal”. Then, the giant node “Coin-Pal” bans you, leaving you in de facto ban from transfers to most ppl on the LN.
kok99999 to bikanyong LN changes the topology of the network, and changes the whole game.
独行 Just becoz you need to enlarge the userbase, you need to scale up? It’s hilarious. The transfer of tx requires cost. No matter how wide is the highway, you don’t charge ppl, you will have a heave traffic. Via the market’s hand, only big amount tx are allowed on the chain---this does not affect the liquidity of onchain assets.
sfire to 独行 You can go offer some advice to the gov and ask them not to build up our infrastructure, since it’s so costy. Just charge ppl money, how convenient is that? Only luxury cars are allowed on the road....this does not affect the vitality of the city.
wz to 独行 What you are saying is not market’s hand. Leaving ppl with no choice is a market behavior? Free competition is the market’s hand.
无名 to 独行 No hard facts other than trashing ppl...no reasoning...these resemble your Core masters.
BTC专业工 I just wanna say: Hail to Multi-Party system! One-Party Dictatorship is doomed.
mellowtone Support miners, support PoW and computational-power-consensus is the real consensus.
pyjx306 If tx fee goes up, I will quit.
savage Since Core is so determined to castrate the main chain and revolution miners out, why did they set the 95% threshold? Core has no computation power, and they are so confident that miners will load their heads with enough shit and support Core?
sfire It’s just a routine to set the 95% threshold for SF. If Core does not use the figure, the anti-Core voice will only grow, furthering their success rate down.
amo1998 95% could be of more complicated reasons. I think BS should have taken into consideration that they control at least 5% of the C.power. (S pool and BTCC pool). If I were BS, I’d have a contingency plan for worst-case scenario. Even 95% means we fail, we BS will not allow for a HF. We can also bash you from a moral high ground and accuse the onchain scailing side.
caitong I cannot tell which one is better, HF first or SegWit first...both seemed to be practical and dangerous. But both sides have their own political agenda---that’s for sure. We avg. Joes prefer that, no matter what solution taken or risks what come along, just march on. We cannot stay here and die.
wz No development=you will be taken by someone else. The network jam is significantly hindering its future. SegWit and LN cannot be replacements for a HF, Core knows that, but they still want to use them to replace a HF solution. Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency out there. No user, no value.
yangzi666 Still, no matter what solution, if we have 2 chains and 2 Bitcoins, there will be chaos esp. for newbies. Miners and exchanges will take side and cause even greater chaos. Attention ppl: those were bashing Bitcoin with short positions all day long are now also in favor of THAT solution! Newton had it: I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people! HF is not a good solution at this moment. No matter which one, there must be no risk of forking into 2 chains---that qualifies an option on the table.
wz SegWit and LN are not the replacement of a HF. Core has their own interests. You ostrich ppl just keep your heads in the sand, the risks won’t go away.
yangzi666 reply wz 1)I am no osrich. I will not be speaking here if I had my head in the sand, esp. at the risks of your bashings. 2)I oppose the risks of Bitcoin forking into 2 coins: you need to live longer to have the experience of humanity. 3)Seriously suggest you guys use some mild words, don’t be so dramatic. Just get your opinions clear no matter what you are proposing. Don’t just attack other ppl and their solutions. And plz don’t use harsh words. I believe we miners have wisdom. Given time, just wait and see the chart.
睿思通-专注比特币交易平台开发 Only miners, who invested millions-worth of personal wealth, the sunk cost, cannot leave like a bitcoiner, thus can be qualified as the Bitcoin’s safe guards.
nodouble Scaling is what all users want. We just have different opinions on the solution we choose. It’s hard to judge Core’s manipulation, but they do oppose a simple direct scaling. They broke the deal with pools and manipulated the public opinion. You do see these as facts. You know about IT and finance, and probably with your butt on finance. You earn monopoly profits that others cannot touch. Bitcoin is the genius, the genesis of this sick market. Core’s segwit and LN are in fact copying financial sector’s monopoly nature to Bitcoin, and with an overly engineered tech threshold to solidify the position of interest groups like Blockstream. The scaling of the main chain, a market that naturally embraces users, will bring the disillusionment of LN, a market naturally forcing users. The conflict of opinions is in fact the fight of power of at a certain level. For Bitcoin, it’s Satoshi’s brilliant design and judgment that has it: we let the miners decide. This is also most reasonable in reality. Like you said, should we realize it, we are all happy.
idgui.com 1) I’m pro segwit and LN, segwit solves a lot of historical problems and improves efficiency; LN provides greater room for timely confirmations and high frequency tx. [reply] good, welcome for your choice on segwit+LN. It’s good improvement for the development of the ecosystem. Segwit has a good structure for app developments. LN can realized second-level confirmation and low tx fee that everyone wants.
2) Miners being trust-worthy don’t mean all miners can tell the future. Miners are trust-worthy because they see profits. They analyze the interests of all parties. Their behavioral pattern is predictable. [reply] There are short-term interests and long-term interests. Not all miners are limited to those before their eyes or those in their dreams. Only when interests short-term and long-term are consistent can they be predicted. But you cannot do that now. Also, different miners have different standards of judgement.
3) ETH HFed many times, not produced a forked chain only once, why? Because this very HF violates the basic principle of cryptocurrency: immutability of blockchain. That’s why ppl reject ETH and would welcome ETC. Then you have trades and markets and price and miners. Previously loyal miners can turn. That’s why I say Chandler’s statement was irrational. Just don’t talk about loyalty and friendship when it comes to cryptos, just talk about interests. [reply] There’re active and forced HFs. We had one in our history. Along with the later HFs of ETH, they are all bug-fixes that serves only good. But the in the ETH/ETC case, the HF was to find the stolen coins, not for a bug fix: an active HF. Active HF has great potential for splitting the ecosystem, and forced ones are safe. HF scaling is apparently an active HF. Blocksize limit is not an imperative bug fix target; and HF scaling is not necessarily good for everyone, at least it raise the bar to run a full node.
4) Landscape of interests: I’m saying the interests and decision-making patterns of all parties in the system (miners, corps, users, investors, devs) stay the same, not that all interests should remain the same. HF scaling produces no change to the original running mechanism, so the landscape does not change. Even if ETH forked into 2, their interests are in the same old landscape and an Alt relationship between each other. [reply] You are not aware of the dangers and harms of a split ecosystem. You should read some other articles first. A split is not just about simply see another Alt, it’s overwhelming.
END
Thanks for our translator David.
submitted by BitKan to btc [link] [comments]

Dr. Feng Cao: The history and Status of TPS in blockchain

Dr. Feng Cao: The history and Status of TPS in blockchain

https://preview.redd.it/44pmijsgm3u11.jpg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9298b9eb231d89a8f1842da78e03f49e17b6fd25

1. TPS Origin of Blockchain

TPS (Transaction Per Second) is not a new word, it is usually used in database to refer to the number of database transactions performed per second. It can be calculated by dividing the number of transactions processed per unit time by the length of time. There are already many ways to improve TPS in traditional database, and the transaction types include insert, delete, query and update. However, in the world of blockchain, all of transactions saved in blocks are hard to be tampered. Thus, what we can do for blockchain transactions only refers to insert and query.
In some ways, blockchain is a new type of distributed database system. The impossible triangle problem about decentralization (number of nodes), efficiency (TPS) and security in distributed systems, is the core issue in the design of blockchain system. Therefore, it makes no sense to simply talk about the TPS of the blockchain without considering decentralization and security. Some projects claim that they have solved the impossible triangle problem, it is just market propaganda in some ways. You don't have to take it seriously. A theorem is called a theorem because it couldn’t be broken so easily.
In traditional database, transactions are stored in various tables, and the number of rows in a table is usually unlimited. As long as there are better approaches to access data such as index and memory data writing, TPS could be well promoted. In the blockchain system, transactions are packaged in block and one block is chained after another. Also, the validity of transactions depends on the consensus of most nodes in system. Thus the TPS of the blockchain is limited by the block size (the number of transactions that can be packed in one block) and the time of block generation. The time of block generation is the sum of the time required for generating a new block and the time required for the nodes to reach consensus.
Since the Bitcoin blockchain was born in 2009, it has been widely criticized that TPS is not high enough. In particular, the POW consensus mechanism is too slow. It takes 10 minutes to generate a block (in fact, a block in 10 minutes is not a limitation of the POW mechanism itself, but an ingenious design for generating a new bitcoin). However, due to the small number of users at that time, the requirements for large-scale TPS were not so urgent. In 2013, Ethereum proposed a blockchain-based smart contract, which opened up a new imagination for the large-scale industry application of the blockchain. Ethereum 1.0 is still based on the improved POW algorithm which generate a block in 15 seconds. TPS seems like high enough for a long time. Even some people hold the view that TPS is not important for blockchain.

2. Isn’t TPS the core issue in blockchain?

All of this has changed with the industry application of blockchain technology. The proposal of Ethereum smart contract and the rise of consortium blockchains in 2015 opened the door for the industry application of blockchain. People attempt to apply blockchain to various industries, finance, supply chain, energy, medical, education, and e-commerce, etc. However, all of these industry applications have requirements for TPS, e.g., various financial services, booking train tickets online and e-commerce. Alibaba would announce a new system peak transaction number on Double 11 shopping carnival (Online promotion day of November 11th each year). It is TPS of their system. When we shopping online, no one can bear the phone without response for a while. The development of consortium blockchains and the application of the industry in 2016 have made many blockchain development teams realize the importance of TPS.
In addition to the TPS, the system response time (RT, Response Time) is also an important indicator that directly affects the user experience in blockchain applications. The TPS affects the system RT. When system is not overload, all transactions in the unit time of block generation can be packaged in one block and the system response time is equal to the time of block generation. However, when the system is overload, that is, all transactions in the unit time cannot be packaged in the same block, the system response time will increase exponentially with the number of new blocks that need to be generated.
The system confirmation time is another related indicator. In simple terms, it is the time to wait for the transaction to be confirmed. Taking online payment as an example, the system response time is the time required to initiate a deduction and the system confirmation time is the time required to complete deduction and the transaction confirmation. In the POW system, the transaction needs to wait for 6 blocks to get final confirmation. In order to enhance the user experience, some trading systems allow the confirmation of transactions in two blocks during small transactions, which is a tradeoff between the user experience and the finality of the transaction.
Although TPS has attracted the attention of practitioners in the application of the consortium blockchain, the impact is relatively limited, and has not caused a wide range of concerns. In 2017, ICO, a popular project, rose, usually attracted the attention of thousands of users around the world. In the same year, Status started a crowd sales, it raised a three-day jam in Ethereum. People can't stand the experience that the transaction is too late to confirm. The blockchain TPS bottleneck has once again become a hot spot in the industry.
In 2018, several public-chain projects were also launched. One of the important purposes was to enhance TPS and make large-scale blockchain applications possible. Blink of an eye, it’s the second half of 2018 now, EOS was born from the beginning of the nominal million-level TPS to the actual landing of 3000+TPS. TPS uselessness has once again risen. One of the arguments is that EOS's TPS is almost idle in normal time, and 10 is enough for usual use. When people can't find the application scenario, TPS is a pseudo-demand. Is it really the truth? In fact, on the contrary, blockchain application innovations are endless. Without a strong TPS support, any large-scale global application can only be a dream. The bottleneck of TPS limits the pace of innovation in blockchain applications. Just as we always need a higher performance computer, the pace of human social information and asset digitization can never be stopped.

3. Are we talking about the same TPS?

Corresponding to the opinion of the TPS is useless, the statement of millions of TPS is endless. Fans of various projects often compare the TPS of this project with another project. Are we really talking about TPS as the same TPS?
First of all, once we mention TPS, we can not ignore the blockchain network structure and the nodes’ software and hardware configuration. TPS can only be compared under the same network and node hardware environment. There are some blockchian network factors we should consider:
How many nodes in the system? Dozens, hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands?
How many nodes participate in consensus? Nodes that do not participate in the consensus in the system cannot contribute to the decentralization of the system.
What is the geographical distribution of these network nodes? Are they in a LAN, or are they distributed in a city, in a province, in a country or in several countries? Are they distributed intercontinental or distributed all over the world?
How does the node hardware and software configuration? Such as network bandwidth, memory capacity, whether the disk is SSD, disk IO speed, disk capacity, CPU frequency, number of CPU cores, operating system, etc.
In a word,the high TPS in a limited WAN is often hard to achieve in a global WAN. Because network delay often makes TPS greatly decreased or even nodes unable to reach consensus and stabilize blocks.
Second, where is the transaction set from for the test? Is it a manually generated data set or a real transaction set? What is the details of the transaction set? Such as the number of Tx(transactions), the complexity of Tx(asset transfer, smart contract calling, cross-chain, cross-sharding ), and the duration of time (a few minutes, hours, days, months or years?),etc.
Finally, what’s the statistical methods of TPS? In the same network with hardware, software and test environment, different statistical methods of TPS will lead to different test results. There are some different computational methods of TPS as below:
1) Normal window N: As the test progresses, continuously increases the window length N. Divide the number of all transactions processed by the current system by the current window length.
TPS = Sum(Tx) / N.
2) Segment window w: Segment the time axis by the window length w. Count the number of transactions processed in each window w, then divide it by the time window w.
TPS = Sum (Tx in window w) / w.
3) Sliding window sw: Slide the time axis by the window length w. Count the number of transactions processed in each sliding window sw, then divide by the time window sw.
TPS = Sum (Tx in sliding window sw) / sw.
If we set the same time window, we can continuously obtain a variety of different TPS, and we can further calculate the average TPS and peak TPS.

https://preview.redd.it/4kcxr1y6o3u11.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4bcfead142d5c5c3fed9cb8fc6cbf392d5ae34f
Take the above figure as an example. Suppose a point represents 100 transactions Tx.
1.Normal window(window length = 8)TPS value is

The average TPS is (62.5+56.25+66.67+75)/4 = 65.105, peak TPS is 75
  1. Segment window(window length = 8) TPS value is

The average TPS is (62.5+50+87.5+100)/4 = 75, peak TPS is 100
  1. Sliding window(window length = 8) TPS value is


The average TPS is
(62.5+62.5+62.5+62.5+75+75+75+62.5+50+37.5+37.5+37.5+37.5+50+62.5+75+87.5+100+100+100+100+100+100+100+100)/25 = 72.5, peak TPS is 100
Obviously, different window types result in different average TPS and peak TPS

https://preview.redd.it/lemyx2nto3u11.jpg?width=560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4b0e7affe19e947ec31df9b2d8eb16d65a4f413
We can infer that different window length would get slightly different results.

4. Approach to improve TPS

At present, it is a common urgent affair to improve TPS for every public chain system. Everyone is actively developing various algorithms to improve the system's TPS. Common methods are divided into the following categories:
- Increase the block size. This is the easiest and most effective way. By increasing the block size, more Tx could be packed in the same block. Under the premise that the time of block generation is given, more Tx are packaged, which means higher TPS. For example, the BCH is a block size expansion of the BTC. However, increasing blocks size will increase the communication cost between nodes in each consensus process. Thus block size can’t be expanded indefinitely.
- Increase the frequency of block generation. When the number of packed Tx in a single block is given, increasing the frequency of block generation can obviously improve the TPS. For example, a block is generated from 10 minutes increased to 15 seconds. However, increasing the frequency of block generation too much often sacrifices the stability of the system, especially in the case of large WAN delays.
- Use higher performance computers (nodes) such as dedicated mining machines. Replace time-consuming software calculations with hardware and accelerate hardware to achieve faster processing speeds, such as various bitcoin mining machines.
- Side chain, under chain and status channel. The side chain is a concept relative to the main chain. The main chain is often referred to the blockchain system that needs to be further improved performance and it is also difficult to change in the short term, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The basic idea of side chain and under-chain is to create a relatively high-speed or relatively low-security side chain, and put the small amount but high-frequency transactions on the side chain for quick confirmation, and then return to main chain when it is really necessary to settle. The status channel is the invention of Lightning Network, which is an independent channel established between the two accounts to achieve fast transaction. Besides, the transitivity of the channel makes blockchain become a network with various channels, so as to achieve rapid inter-transfer between any two accounts.
-Sharding. Sharding is a typical "divide and conquer" computational approach. The basic idea is to dynamically separate nodes in a blockchain network into several different fragments. All Tx received in the unit time are allocated to different groups. The sharding technique can be specifically classified as token level sharding and smart contract level sharding. Most sharding techniques can only be achieved at the token level. For the sharding of smart contracts, there are no particularly good solutions due to the more complicated state sharding problems. Some projects have proposed state sharding solutions in restricted environments.
- Native multi-chain. Native multi-chain is a typical parallelization method. Different from the traditional bitcoin and Ethereum single-chain structure, the structure of the multi-chain system usually contains one main chain and several sub-chains, and multiple chains can generate blocks at the same time, which makes the block calculation parallelized and greatly improves the TPS. Although the idea of the native multi-chain is easy to understand, in the real development process, we need to dedicate to solve the interoperability of the main chain and the sub-chain. Otherwise, the main chain can easily become the bottleneck of the multi-chain system and thus affecting the scalability of the multi-chain system.
- New consensus algorithm. Convert from POW to POS. Typical POS algorithms include algorithms of the DPOS and BFT. For example, EOS is based on the DPOS algorithm. The new generation of blockchain 3.0 systems often use BFT algorithm and its successors, such as Algorand, Definity, COSMOS/Tendermint, PCHAIN, etc. The traditional PBFT algorithm has the problem of high communication complexity, usually N2, which is often only applicable to the consortium blockchains scenario. At present, each new BFT algorithm often achieves the purpose of reducing communication cost by introducing dynamic or random. Although there is no need to wait for six blocks to achieve finality like the traditional POW algorithm because PBFT has the characteristics of real-time consensus within a single block, there is still a problem with PBFT that internal nodes need four-time consensus. COSMOS/Tendermint innovatively reduced the internal 4 consensus of the PBFT algorithm to 2 consensuses. PCHAIN's PDBFT further reduced the internal 4 consensus to 1 consensus, which greatly reduced the communication cost between nodes.

5. Prospect

The development of blockchain technology will continue to increase along with the blockchain refactoring the entire process of human society. With the emergence of a faster and more stable blockchain 3.0 system, we will usher in a new blueprint for the blockchain value of the Internet and the global village.

submitted by pchain_org to Pchain_Org_Official [link] [comments]

Musicoin Facts and FAQs

Musicoin Facts and FAQs
The following facts and answers to frequently asked questions are to be known by all members of the Musicoin Foundation, its ambassadors and representatives, so that they may communicate the information to focal groups and the general public.
FACTS
1) “Musicoin” refers to a blockchain-powered platform that connects music listeners and fans to free music streaming. Musicoin is also a cryptocurrency that is instantly paid to artists on the Musicoin platform every time one of their musical works are played on the platform.
2) Musicoin.org is the first blockchain-enabled streaming musical service open to the public that pays artists with cryptocurrency. The beta platform went online and mining began February 11, 2017.
3) Musicoin started without an Initial Coin Offering (ICO), pre-mine, or pre-allocation of funds for development. This means that the developers did not begin the project with a large allotment of coins with a cost basis of zero. This greatly reduces chances of coins being dumped or flooding the market.
4) Isaac Mao, Musicoin’s founder, believed it was important for musicians, listeners, miners, and investors to all start on an even play field. The project was initiated by music lovers, musicians, and developers.
5) The Musicoin blockchain is a fork of the Ethereum blockchain, specifically modified for music consumption. It is capable of executing smart contracts in a Turing-complete language and acts as a foundation for future layers of musical applications to be built on top of the Musicoin blockchain.
6) Like Ethereum, Musicoin’s total coin supply is uncapped, generating 1.5 million coins per day. This coin emission scheme is designed to facilitate Musicoin in building a global ecosystem that aspires to power and fairly compensate all economic activities related to the creation, distribution and consumption of music globally via its native cryptocurrency..
7) On May 22, 2017, Musicoin became an official member of the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA). Musicoin developers continue to work closely with Ethereum developers in integrating technologies that will be beneficial for the Musicoin platform going forward.
8) Musical works in the Musicoin system are governed by “smart contracts” that the rights holder may divide and distribute to others if necessary. For example, a three-piece band could design a smart contract which pays each band member equally per play, or choose to allot a greater or lesser percentage of the payout for certain members.
9) There are over 3,500 verified musicians and labels on the Musicoin system. (February 2018)
10) Musicoin has over 35,000 registered users. (February 2018)
11) An average of 10,000-12,000 songs a day are currently played on the Musicoin platform. (February 2018)
12) Listeners can share Musicoin tracks via embedded social media players, like on Twitter. This means that listeners can trigger instant payouts to artists without even entering the Musicoin platform.
13) If irregular activity is detected in any account (profile) such as fraud due to a high number of plays from a same IP address, the account will be subject to scrutiny, and possibly lead to suspension.
FAQs
1) Can I upload someone else’s work to Musicoin and still get paid?
No. Artists on the Musicoin platform are vetted to ensure that only original material is submitted, and that they clearly demonstrate rights ownership. Musicoin also cannot host material containing copyrighted samples or cover songs unless the rights holder has specific permission to allow the work in the Musicoin system.
2)Where can I buy and sell Musicoins?
Currently, Musicoins can be traded on Bittrex and Cryptopia, although we are actively looking to get listed on more exchanges.
3) What can I buy with Musicoins?
Musicoins can be sold on exchanges for Bitcoin, which can then be exchanged for fiat currencies (legal government tender) or other cryptocurrencies. However, our Global Ambassador Program has representatives tasked to encourage Musicoin as a form of payment, such as ticket, merchandise, or food sales at venues and festivals. We hope one day Musicoins can purchase everyday items useful in one’s life.
4) How much is a Musicoin worth?
The cost of Musicoin fluctuates with market demands. Visit Coinmarketcap for the current aggregated price.
5) How much is a play worth?
*Each play on the Musicoin platform currently awards the artist one Musicoin. *
6) How do you prevent fraud/abuse?
All musician accounts on the Musicoin platform must be verified by our team in order to validate the artist/band’s legitimacy. The verified accounts are also monitored by the system for unusual behavior, such as mass replays from the same IP address. Any user noticing fraud, abuse, or comment spamming occuring on the Musicoin platform or online, should email [email protected] or [email protected] immediately with details.
7) What is UBI (Universal Basic Income) in regards to Musicoin?
Under the UBI model, all streaming on our platform is free of charge, thanks to a 15.9% portion of the miner’s block rewards being set aside for artist compensation. The UBI system was rolled out in the third quarter of 2017.
8) What is mining, and what are block rewards?
Mining is the process that Musicoins (and other “proof-of-work” cryptocurrencies) are generated. Miners use GPUs (Graphics Processing Units) to solve complex mathematical algorithms (“blocks”) in the Musicoin blockchain. When it is solved, the miner receives block rewards (paid in Musicoin) and moves on towards trying to solve the next block. Also, when blocks are solved, all the transactions which occurred during during that round of calculations are verified and written to the permanent blockchain ledger.
9) Where can I find Musicoin’s road map?
To find out where Musicoin has been and where it’s going, view our roadmap at https://medium.com/@musicoin/roadmap-of-musicoin-blockchain-4a65620fefce
10) Where are people discussing Musicoin online?
Our official forum can be found at forum.musicoin.org. Active discussion also occurs on Musicoin’s subreddit (reddit.com/musicoin).
11)How do I get verified as an artist?
Artists must submit all of their social media/artist-related accounts on their profile so that we easily verify their identity and their music activity. Their chances of getting verified depends on their number of social media channels, as well as demonstrating how involved they were in the past with music content creation.
12) How users delete their Musicoin account?
Contact [email protected] with a delete request.
13) Why do some artists have an equal amount of plays, but a different amount of Musicoins?
Users are able to tip artists additional Musicoin from their own personal wallets by hitting the clap icon on the platform. Tips can be as little as 1 Musicoin up to 1000, which can make a big difference in the artist’s income.
14) Why do I see less/more money in my profile’s wallet than before?
Because the price of Musicoin fluctuates due to the demands of the open market, its value is constantly changing. Even with price fluctuations, Musicoin artists receive compensation well above other streaming platforms.
15) Can I shorten my url of musicoin?
Yes; you can find a link shortener at http://jam.dj
16) Can I use music from other musicians to make my own mixes as a DJ?
Yes. Please visit musicoin.dj for more details.
17) I cannot upload my music? Why?
It may be that the codec is not correct. Reconvert your original file to .mp3 with another audio editor. Musicoin only accepts .mp3 files, though they may be of any bitrate.
18) I’m a developer. Can I work for Musicoin?
If you have extraordinary skills you can apply to be part of our team. Please send your credentials and areas of interest to Varunram Ganesh at [email protected].
19) How can I get involved with or promote Musicoin?
We have liaisons all over the world representing Musicoin and assigned a wide variety of tasks. Contact us at [email protected]
20) Can I upload a remix I created to Musicoin?
Remixes and cover songs can only be submitted after exhibiting explicit permission from the rights holder of the original.
21) Where do my files go when I upload them?
Musicoin uses a distributed file system called the Interplanetary File System.
22)Will Musicoin be a paid service in the future?
No, Musicoin is and always will be a free streaming music service.
23) What is Pay Per Play (PPP)?
PPP is a smart contract on the Musicoin blockchain that enforces and executes licensing terms to reward a certain fixed amount of Musicoin.
24) Can I use Musicoins as a payment method in my shop/platform?
Eventually; although we have not designed a shopping cart yet, we hope to make Musicoin a viable payment method for all music-related shops/platforms in the future.
25) How Musicoin is protecting my music from copyright infringements?
The Musicoin team reviews all incoming uploads in order to prevent copyright infringement. However, no system of review can be 100% accurate due to the fundamental underpinnings of copyright law. If you believe a track on the Musicoin system infringes on someone's copyright, please report the track by clicking the "Report Abuse" button which will alert the team to take further action.
26) Can record labels sign up to Musicoin?
Yes.
27) Do you have to pay taxes on the earnings you receive on Musicoin?
Different countries have varying approaches to how much tax is expected and how they collect cryptocurrency-based earnings. Please consult your local tax advisor for further details.
28) Is it easy to set up a smart contract on Musicoin so earnings go to the right people?
Yes, very. Before you upload a track onto Musicoin you have the opportunity to set various payment parameters. For example, if you own 100 percent of the musical work, then you simply keep the payout allotment default, which is ‘1’. If a 50/50 split is necessary, then the other musician to receive the 50% will need to sign up to Musicoin and get added to the contract. Both musicians should be set to ‘0.5’. You can also adjust the percentages later.
29) How can artists delete songs from their account?
If artists want to delete their song that can be done in profile edit section (musicoin.org/nav/profile) by choosing "Delete" in the options menu, which is to the right of the song.
submitted by jamesdpitley to musicoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Hack 30 BTC Free Bitcoin Mining Blockchain Script Hack Giveaway Inside a Bitcoin mine that earns $70K a day - YouTube Bitcoin Mining 2019 - Should We Mine Bitcoin? - YouTube Bitcoin Farming Guide  Escape From Tarkov - YouTube How To Mine 1 Bitcoin in 10 Minutes - Blockchain BTC Miner ...

The bitcoin network will undergo a fork in November 16th that will result in two blockchains with their corresponding tokens. BTCJam will only support the current blockchain and will continue to refer to it as Bitcoin after the fork. We ceased operations in May 25, 2017 and no new features will be added, as a result the other blockchain, referred as Segwit2x, will not be supported. If you ... How To Earn 13 Free Bitcoin Per Day On Telegram Without Investing How To Get Bitcoin On Testnet . Verifying Bitcoin Core Testnet Transactions On Blockcypher Stack Bitcoin Online Kaufen Schweiz. Verbot Fur Bitcoin Geldautomaten In Der Schweiz Steiger Legal Earn Bitcoins Now Ethereum Faucet Offerwalls. Bitcoin Faucet Auto Collector Gray Scale Investment Ethereum How To Get Bitcoin Atm Machine. 5 ... DISCLAIMER Kindly notice! Hashgains do not give you any trading advice. Before availing our services, do your research and get answers to your questions in order to find out whether cryptocurrency mining is legal in your state, country, province or not. Once fully installed each miner should generate $22.53 according to the NiceHash mining calculator. This works out to $473,130/month for bitcoin. For litecoin the profits are $19.65 totaling $351,340 per month. With over $824,470 per month in monthly profit it's not hard to see why the valuation blossomed on this news. Situs Mining Bitcoin ini memberikan 3000/10.000/30.000 Satoshi setiap 24 Jam sekali, walaupun hanya satu hari sekali, jelas sekali Situs Mining Bitcoin Gratis ini memberikan cukup banyak Faucet Satoshi/Bitcoin, jika setiap hari anda melakukan claim secara teratur. maka akan banyak sekali Faucet yang Didapatkan.

[index] [30200] [27583] [29482] [14609] [12501] [3006] [7822] [2594] [22880] [22461]

Bitcoin Hack 30 BTC Free Bitcoin Mining Blockchain Script Hack Giveaway

Coinbase Wallet: https://www.coinbase.com/join/5a87ecac52a16c066e6760c3 Blockchain wallet: https://blockchain.info/fr/wallet/#/login Coinpaiments Wallet: htt... What it really takes to mine a Bitcoin in 10 Minutes. Firstly I'll show you a special free method to mine Bitcoin and send funds directly to your wallet in 1... This video goes over my 7 day 1 week Bitcoin Mining experiment. I let my computer Mine for Bitcoin for a week straight, to see how much money I could generat... The Long-awaited bitcoin mining calculator is now here don't read below or else If you turn on the 🔔 i will be very happy please im begging you ---[👌]-[socia... Follow mOE at: ☻http://www.twitch.tv/m0e_tv ☻https://www.facebook.com/m0etv ☻https://twitter.com/m0E_tv ☻https://instagram.com/m0e_tv Intro By PubFX http...

https://mining.dersbuckrili.ml