What Will Bitcoin Difficulty Adjustment Mean For BTC Prices?

Vertcoin Mining AMA

What is Vertcoin?

Vertcoin was created in 2014. It is a direct hedge against long term mining consensus centralization on the Bitcoin mining network. Vertcoin achieves its mining consensus solely through Graphics Cards as they are the most abundant / widely available consensus devices that produce a reasonable amount of hashrate. This is done using a mining algorithm that deliberately geared against devices like ASICs, FPGAs and CPUs (due to botnets) making them extremely inefficient. Consensus distribution over time is the most important aspect of a blockchain and should not be taken lightly. It is critical that you understand what blockchain specifications mean/do to fully understand Vertcoin.

Mining Vertcoin

When users of our network send each other Vertcoin, their transactions are secured by a process called mining. Miners will compose a so-called block out of the pending transactions, and need to perform a large number of computations called hashes in order to produce the Proof-of-Work. With this Proof-of-Work, the block is accepted by the network and the transactions in it become confirmed.
Mining is essentially a race. Whoever finds a valid Proof-of-Work and gets the block propagated over more than half of the Vertcoin network first, wins this race and is allowed to reward themselves with the block reward. The block reward is how new Vertcoin come in circulation. This block reward started at 50 VTC when Vertcoin was launched, and halves every four years. The current block reward is 25 VTC.
Vertcoin's One Click Miner: https://github.com/vertcoin-project/One-Click-Minereleases
Learn more about mining here: https://vertcoin.org/mine/
Specification List:
· Launch date: Jan 11, 2014
· Proof-Of-Work (Consensus Mechanism)
· Total Supply: 84,000,000 Vertcoin
· Preferred Consensus Device: GPU
· Mining Algorithm: Lyra2REv3 (Made by Vertcoin)
· Blocktime: 2.5 minutes
· SegWit: Activated
· Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm: Kimoto Gravity Well (Every Block)
· Block Halving: 4 year interval
· Initial Block Reward: 50 coins
· Current Block Reward: 25 coin
More spec information can be found here: https://vertcoin.org/specs-explained/

Why Does Vertcoin Use GPUs Then?

ASIC’s (Manufactuer Monopoly)
If mining were just a spade sure, use the most powerful equipment which would be an ASIC. The problem is ASICs are not widely available, and just happen to be controlled by a monopoly in China.
So, you want the most widely available tool that produces a fair amount of hashrate, which currently manifests itself as a Graphics Card.
CPUs would be great too but unfortunately there are viruses that take over hundreds of thousands of computers called Botnets (they’re almost as bad as ASICs).

Mining In Pools

Because mining is a race, it’s difficult for an individual miner to acquire enough computational power to win this race solo. Therefore there’s a concept called pool-mining. With pool-mining, miners cooperate in finding the correct Proof-of-Work for the block, and share the block reward based on the work contributed. The amount of work contributed is measured in so-called shares. Finding the Proof-of-Work for a share is much easier than finding it for a block, and when the cooperating miners find the Proof-of-Work for the block, they distribute the reward based on the number of shares each miner found. Vertcoin always recommends using P2Pool to keep mining as decentralized as possible.
How Do I Get Started?
If you want to get started mining, check out the Mine Vertcoin page.

Vertcoin just forked to Lyra2REv3 and we are currently working on Verthash

Verthash is and was under development before we decided to hard fork to Lyra2REv3. While Verthash would’ve resulted in the same effect for ASICs (making them useless for mining Vertcoin), the timeline was incompatible with the desire to get rid of ASICs quickly. Verthash is still under development and tries to address the outsourcability problem.
Verthash is an I/O bound algorithm that uses the blockchain data as input to the hashing algorithm. It therefore requires miners to have all the blockchain data available to them, which is currently about 4 GB of data. By making this mining data mandatory, it will become harder for auto profit switching miners — like the ones that rent out their GPU to Nicehash — because they will need to keep a full node running while mining other algorithms for the moment Verthash becomes more profitable — the data needs to be available immediately since updating it can take a while.
Over the past month, we have successfully developed a first implementation of Verthash in the Vertcoin Core code base. Within the development team we have run a few nodes on Testnet to test the functionality — and everything seems to work properly. The next step is to build out the GPU miners for AMD and Nvidia. This is a NOETA at the moment, since we’re waiting on GPU developers which are in high demand. Once the miners are ready, we’ll be releasing the Vertcoin 0.15 beta that hardforks the testnet together with the miners for the community to have a testrun. Given the structural difference between Lyra2RE and Verthash, we’ll have to run the testnet for a longer period than we did with the Lyra2REv3 hard fork. We’ll have to make sure the system is reliable before hardforking our mainnet. So the timeline will be longer than with the Lyra2REv3 hard fork.
Some people in the community have voiced concerns about the fact that Verthash development is not being done “out in the open”, i.e.: the code commits are not visible on Github. The main two reasons for us to keep our cards to our chest at this stage are: (1) only when the entire system including miners has been coded up can we be sure the system works, we don’t want to release preliminary stuff that doesn’t work or isn’t secure. Also (2) we don’t want to give hardware manufacturers or mining outsourcing platforms a head start on trying to defeat the mechanisms we’ve put in place.

Links and Resources

· Twitter: https://twitter.com/Vertcoin
· Donations: vertcoin.org/donate
· Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/vertcoin
· Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/vertcoin/
· Official Website: https://vertcoin.org/
· Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vertcoin
· Vertcoin Talk: https://soundcloud.com/vertcoin-talk
· Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/vertcoin
submitted by Canen01 to gpumining [link] [comments]

CRYPTOCURRENCY BITCOIN

CRYPTOCURRENCY BITCOIN
Bitcoin Table of contents expand: 1. What is Bitcoin? 2. Understanding Bitcoin 3. How Bitcoin Works 4. What's a Bitcoin Worth? 5. How Bitcoin Began 6. Who Invented Bitcoin? 7. Before Satoshi 8. Why Is Satoshi Anonymous? 9. The Suspects 10. Can Satoshi's Identity Be Proven? 11. Receiving Bitcoins As Payment 12. Working For Bitcoins 13. Bitcoin From Interest Payments 14. Bitcoins From Gambling 15. Investing in Bitcoins 16. Risks of Bitcoin Investing 17. Bitcoin Regulatory Risk 18. Security Risk of Bitcoins 19. Insurance Risk 20. Risk of Bitcoin Fraud 21. Market Risk 22. Bitcoin's Tax Risk What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a digital currency created in January 2009. It follows the ideas set out in a white paper by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto, whose true identity is yet to be verified. Bitcoin offers the promise of lower transaction fees than traditional online payment mechanisms and is operated by a decentralized authority, unlike government-issued currencies.
There are no physical bitcoins, only balances kept on a public ledger in the cloud, that – along with all Bitcoin transactions – is verified by a massive amount of computing power. Bitcoins are not issued or backed by any banks or governments, nor are individual bitcoins valuable as a commodity. Despite it not being legal tender, Bitcoin charts high on popularity, and has triggered the launch of other virtual currencies collectively referred to as Altcoins.
Understanding Bitcoin Bitcoin is a type of cryptocurrency: Balances are kept using public and private "keys," which are long strings of numbers and letters linked through the mathematical encryption algorithm that was used to create them. The public key (comparable to a bank account number) serves as the address which is published to the world and to which others may send bitcoins. The private key (comparable to an ATM PIN) is meant to be a guarded secret and only used to authorize Bitcoin transmissions. Style notes: According to the official Bitcoin Foundation, the word "Bitcoin" is capitalized in the context of referring to the entity or concept, whereas "bitcoin" is written in the lower case when referring to a quantity of the currency (e.g. "I traded 20 bitcoin") or the units themselves. The plural form can be either "bitcoin" or "bitcoins."
How Bitcoin Works Bitcoin is one of the first digital currencies to use peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments. The independent individuals and companies who own the governing computing power and participate in the Bitcoin network, also known as "miners," are motivated by rewards (the release of new bitcoin) and transaction fees paid in bitcoin. These miners can be thought of as the decentralized authority enforcing the credibility of the Bitcoin network. New bitcoin is being released to the miners at a fixed, but periodically declining rate, such that the total supply of bitcoins approaches 21 million. One bitcoin is divisible to eight decimal places (100 millionths of one bitcoin), and this smallest unit is referred to as a Satoshi. If necessary, and if the participating miners accept the change, Bitcoin could eventually be made divisible to even more decimal places. Bitcoin mining is the process through which bitcoins are released to come into circulation. Basically, it involves solving a computationally difficult puzzle to discover a new block, which is added to the blockchain and receiving a reward in the form of a few bitcoins. The block reward was 50 new bitcoins in 2009; it decreases every four years. As more and more bitcoins are created, the difficulty of the mining process – that is, the amount of computing power involved – increases. The mining difficulty began at 1.0 with Bitcoin's debut back in 2009; at the end of the year, it was only 1.18. As of February 2019, the mining difficulty is over 6.06 billion. Once, an ordinary desktop computer sufficed for the mining process; now, to combat the difficulty level, miners must use faster hardware like Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC), more advanced processing units like Graphic Processing Units (GPUs), etc.
What's a Bitcoin Worth? In 2017 alone, the price of Bitcoin rose from a little under $1,000 at the beginning of the year to close to $19,000, ending the year more than 1,400% higher. Bitcoin's price is also quite dependent on the size of its mining network since the larger the network is, the more difficult – and thus more costly – it is to produce new bitcoins. As a result, the price of bitcoin has to increase as its cost of production also rises. The Bitcoin mining network's aggregate power has more than tripled over the past twelve months.
How Bitcoin Began
Aug. 18, 2008: The domain name bitcoin.org is registered. Today, at least, this domain is "WhoisGuard Protected," meaning the identity of the person who registered it is not public information.
Oct. 31, 2008: Someone using the name Satoshi Nakamoto makes an announcement on The Cryptography Mailing list at metzdowd.com: "I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party. The paper is available at http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf." This link leads to the now-famous white paper published on bitcoin.org entitled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System." This paper would become the Magna Carta for how Bitcoin operates today.
Jan. 3, 2009: The first Bitcoin block is mined, Block 0. This is also known as the "genesis block" and contains the text: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks," perhaps as proof that the block was mined on or after that date, and perhaps also as relevant political commentary.
Jan. 8, 2009: The first version of the Bitcoin software is announced on The Cryptography Mailing list.
Jan. 9, 2009: Block 1 is mined, and Bitcoin mining commences in earnest.
Who Invented Bitcoin?
No one knows. Not conclusively, at any rate. Satoshi Nakamoto is the name associated with the person or group of people who released the original Bitcoin white paper in 2008 and worked on the original Bitcoin software that was released in 2009. The Bitcoin protocol requires users to enter a birthday upon signup, and we know that an individual named Satoshi Nakamoto registered and put down April 5 as a birth date. And that's about it.
Before Satoshi
Though it is tempting to believe the media's spin that Satoshi Nakamoto is a solitary, quixotic genius who created Bitcoin out of thin air, such innovations do not happen in a vacuum. All major scientific discoveries, no matter how original-seeming, were built on previously existing research. There are precursors to Bitcoin: Adam Back’s Hashcash, invented in 1997, and subsequently Wei Dai’s b-money, Nick Szabo’s bit gold and Hal Finney’s Reusable Proof of Work. The Bitcoin white paper itself cites Hashcash and b-money, as well as various other works spanning several research fields.
Why Is Satoshi Anonymous?
There are two primary motivations for keeping Bitcoin's inventor keeping his or her or their identity secret. One is privacy. As Bitcoin has gained in popularity – becoming something of a worldwide phenomenon – Satoshi Nakamoto would likely garner a lot of attention from the media and from governments.
The other reason is safety. Looking at 2009 alone, 32,489 blocks were mined; at the then-reward rate of 50 BTC per block, the total payout in 2009 was 1,624,500 BTC, which at today’s prices is over $900 million. One may conclude that only Satoshi and perhaps a few other people were mining through 2009 and that they possess a majority of that $900 million worth of BTC. Someone in possession of that much BTC could become a target of criminals, especially since bitcoins are less like stocks and more like cash, where the private keys needed to authorize spending could be printed out and literally kept under a mattress. While it's likely the inventor of Bitcoin would take precautions to make any extortion-induced transfers traceable, remaining anonymous is a good way for Satoshi to limit exposure.
The Suspects
Numerous people have been suggested as possible Satoshi Nakamoto by major media outlets. Oct. 10, 2011, The New Yorker published an article speculating that Nakamoto might be Irish cryptography student Michael Clear or economic sociologist Vili Lehdonvirta. A day later, Fast Company suggested that Nakamoto could be a group of three people – Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry – who together appear on a patent related to secure communications that were filed two months before bitcoin.org was registered. A Vice article published in May 2013 added more suspects to the list, including Gavin Andresen, the Bitcoin project’s lead developer; Jed McCaleb, co-founder of now-defunct Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox; and famed Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.
In December 2013, Techcrunch published an interview with researcher Skye Grey who claimed textual analysis of published writings shows a link between Satoshi and bit-gold creator Nick Szabo. And perhaps most famously, in March 2014, Newsweek ran a cover article claiming that Satoshi is actually an individual named Satoshi Nakamoto – a 64-year-old Japanese-American engineer living in California. The list of suspects is long, and all the individuals deny being Satoshi.
Can Satoshi's Identity Be Proven?
It would seem even early collaborators on the project don’t have verifiable proof of Satoshi’s identity. To reveal conclusively who Satoshi Nakamoto is, a definitive link would need to be made between his/her activity with Bitcoin and his/her identity. That could come in the form of linking the party behind the domain registration of bitcoin.org, email and forum accounts used by Satoshi Nakamoto, or ownership of some portion of the earliest mined bitcoins. Even though the bitcoins Satoshi likely possesses are traceable on the blockchain, it seems he/she has yet to cash them out in a way that reveals his/her identity. If Satoshi were to move his/her bitcoins to an exchange today, this might attract attention, but it seems unlikely that a well-funded and successful exchange would betray a customer's privacy.
Receiving Bitcoins As Payment
Bitcoins can be accepted as a means of payment for products sold or services provided. If you have a brick and mortar store, just display a sign saying “Bitcoin Accepted Here” and many of your customers may well take you up on it; the transactions can be handled with the requisite hardware terminal or wallet address through QR codes and touch screen apps. An online business can easily accept bitcoins by just adding this payment option to the others it offers, like credit cards, PayPal, etc. Online payments will require a Bitcoin merchant tool (an external processor like Coinbase or BitPay).
Working For Bitcoins
Those who are self-employed can get paid for a job in bitcoins. There are several websites/job boards which are dedicated to the digital currency:
Work For Bitcoin brings together work seekers and prospective employers through its websiteCoinality features jobs – freelance, part-time and full-time – that offer payment in bitcoins, as well as Dogecoin and LitecoinJobs4Bitcoins, part of reddit.comBitGigs
Bitcoin From Interest Payments
Another interesting way (literally) to earn bitcoins is by lending them out and being repaid in the currency. Lending can take three forms – direct lending to someone you know; through a website which facilitates peer-to-peer transactions, pairing borrowers and lenders; or depositing bitcoins in a virtual bank that offers a certain interest rate for Bitcoin accounts. Some such sites are Bitbond, BitLendingClub, and BTCjam. Obviously, you should do due diligence on any third-party site.
Bitcoins From Gambling
It’s possible to play at casinos that cater to Bitcoin aficionados, with options like online lotteries, jackpots, spread betting, and other games. Of course, the pros and cons and risks that apply to any sort of gambling and betting endeavors are in force here too.
Investing in Bitcoins
There are many Bitcoin supporters who believe that digital currency is the future. Those who endorse it are of the view that it facilitates a much faster, no-fee payment system for transactions across the globe. Although it is not itself any backed by any government or central bank, bitcoin can be exchanged for traditional currencies; in fact, its exchange rate against the dollar attracts potential investors and traders interested in currency plays. Indeed, one of the primary reasons for the growth of digital currencies like Bitcoin is that they can act as an alternative to national fiat money and traditional commodities like gold.
In March 2014, the IRS stated that all virtual currencies, including bitcoins, would be taxed as property rather than currency. Gains or losses from bitcoins held as capital will be realized as capital gains or losses, while bitcoins held as inventory will incur ordinary gains or losses.
Like any other asset, the principle of buying low and selling high applies to bitcoins. The most popular way of amassing the currency is through buying on a Bitcoin exchange, but there are many other ways to earn and own bitcoins. Here are a few options which Bitcoin enthusiasts can explore.
Risks of Bitcoin Investing
Though Bitcoin was not designed as a normal equity investment (no shares have been issued), some speculative investors were drawn to the digital money after it appreciated rapidly in May 2011 and again in November 2013. Thus, many people purchase bitcoin for its investment value rather than as a medium of exchange.
However, their lack of guaranteed value and digital nature means the purchase and use of bitcoins carries several inherent risks. Many investor alerts have been issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and other agencies.
The concept of a virtual currency is still novel and, compared to traditional investments, Bitcoin doesn't have much of a long-term track record or history of credibility to back it. With their increasing use, bitcoins are becoming less experimental every day, of course; still, after eight years, they (like all digital currencies) remain in a development phase, still evolving. "It is pretty much the highest-risk, highest-return investment that you can possibly make,” says Barry Silbert, CEO of Digital Currency Group, which builds and invests in Bitcoin and blockchain companies.
Bitcoin Regulatory Risk
Investing money into Bitcoin in any of its many guises is not for the risk-averse. Bitcoins are a rival to government currency and may be used for black market transactions, money laundering, illegal activities or tax evasion. As a result, governments may seek to regulate, restrict or ban the use and sale of bitcoins, and some already have. Others are coming up with various rules. For example, in 2015, the New York State Department of Financial Services finalized regulations that would require companies dealing with the buy, sell, transfer or storage of bitcoins to record the identity of customers, have a compliance officer and maintain capital reserves. The transactions worth $10,000 or more will have to be recorded and reported.
Although more agencies will follow suit, issuing rules and guidelines, the lack of uniform regulations about bitcoins (and other virtual currency) raises questions over their longevity, liquidity, and universality.
Security Risk of Bitcoins
Bitcoin exchanges are entirely digital and, as with any virtual system, are at risk from hackers, malware and operational glitches. If a thief gains access to a Bitcoin owner's computer hard drive and steals his private encryption key, he could transfer the stolen Bitcoins to another account. (Users can prevent this only if bitcoins are stored on a computer which is not connected to the internet, or else by choosing to use a paper wallet – printing out the Bitcoin private keys and addresses, and not keeping them on a computer at all.) Hackers can also target Bitcoin exchanges, gaining access to thousands of accounts and digital wallets where bitcoins are stored. One especially notorious hacking incident took place in 2014, when Mt. Gox, a Bitcoin exchange in Japan, was forced to close down after millions of dollars worth of bitcoins were stolen.
This is particularly problematic once you remember that all Bitcoin transactions are permanent and irreversible. It's like dealing with cash: Any transaction carried out with bitcoins can only be reversed if the person who has received them refunds them. There is no third party or a payment processor, as in the case of a debit or credit card – hence, no source of protection or appeal if there is a problem.
Insurance Risk
Some investments are insured through the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Normal bank accounts are insured through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to a certain amount depending on the jurisdiction. Bitcoin exchanges and Bitcoin accounts are not insured by any type of federal or government program.
Risk of Bitcoin Fraud
While Bitcoin uses private key encryption to verify owners and register transactions, fraudsters and scammers may attempt to sell false bitcoins. For instance, in July 2013, the SEC brought legal action against an operator of a Bitcoin-related Ponzi scheme.
Market Risk
Like with any investment, Bitcoin values can fluctuate. Indeed, the value of the currency has seen wild swings in price over its short existence. Subject to high volume buying and selling on exchanges, it has a high sensitivity to “news." According to the CFPB, the price of bitcoins fell by 61% in a single day in 2013, while the one-day price drop in 2014 has been as big as 80%.
If fewer people begin to accept Bitcoin as a currency, these digital units may lose value and could become worthless. There is already plenty of competition, and though Bitcoin has a huge lead over the other 100-odd digital currencies that have sprung up, thanks to its brand recognition and venture capital money, a technological break-through in the form of a better virtual coin is always a threat.
Bitcoin's Tax Risk
As bitcoin is ineligible to be included in any tax-advantaged retirement accounts, there are no good, legal options to shield investments from taxation.
SPONSORED
Start with ¥3000 trading bonus
Trade forex and CFDs on stock indices, commodities, metals and energies with alicensed and regulated broker. For all clients who open their first real account, XM offers a¥3000 trading bonus to test the XM products and services without any initial deposit needed. Learn more about how you can trade from your PC and Mac, or from a variety of mobile devices.
Compare Investment Accounts
Advertiser Disclosure
Related Terms
Satoshi
The satoshi is the smallest unit of the bitcoin cryptocurrency. It is named after Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the protocol used in block chains and the bitcoin cryptocurrency.
Chartalism Chartalism is a non-mainstream theory of money that emphasizes the impact of government policies and activities on the value of money.
Satoshi Nakamoto The name used by the unknown creator of the protocol used in the bitcoin cryptocurrency. Satoshi Nakamoto is closely-associated with blockchain technology.
Bitcoin Mining, Explained Breaking down everything you need to know about Bitcoin Mining, from Blockchain and Block Rewards to Proof-of-Work and Mining Pools.
Understanding Bitcoin Unlimited Bitcoin Unlimited is a proposed upgrade to Bitcoin Core that allows larger block sizes. The upgrade is designed to improve transaction speed through scale.
Blockchain Explained
A guide to help you understand what blockchain is and how it can be used by industries. You've probably encountered a definition like this: “blockchain is a distributed, decentralized, public ledger." But blockchain is easier to understand than it sounds.
Top 6 Books to Learn About Bitcoin About UsAdvertiseContactPrivacy PolicyTerms of UseCareers Investopedia is part of the Dotdash publishing family.The Balance Lifewire TripSavvy The Spruceand more
By Satoshi Nakamoto
Read it once, go read other crypto stuff, read it again… keep doing this until the whole document makes sense. It’ll take a while, but you’ll get there. This is the original whitepaper introducing and explaining Bitcoin, and there’s really nothing better out there to understand on the subject.
“What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party

submitted by adrian_morrison to BlockchainNews [link] [comments]

How to get $100 million in VC funding to build an industry that makes $300 million profit without spending a dime

Yesterday I received an unexpected gift: a link to a copy of the slides of the presentation that 21inc gave to investors, apparently between October and December 2014, when they were still calling themselves "21E6".
(The sender asked to remain anonymous, and I am not sure about the copyright status of the file; so I would rather not repost it here yet. But it seems that several other people, including some of the 21inc competitors, have got a copy too; so anyone who is really interested can probably get it too.)
The slides don't have much new factual information, and basically confirm what we already guessed about the 21inc business plans. But they show that we severely underestimated their chutzpah and hype. Here are some random highlights (as far as I can decipher from the slides):
They had three relevant mining rig designs in the plans, that would require funding:
Codename Qty TH/s kW Cost Deploy Turnoff Profit($) --------------- ---- ---- --- ---- ------------ ----------- ----------- CyrusOne(v2), 7904 2.0 1.3 --- (already on) Apr 2015 ~23,000,000 IO(v1v3) 3250 5.2 1.3 2000 Jan 2015 Aug 2016 ~24,000,000 Brownfield(v3) 1900 5.5 1.3 2450 Mar 2015 > Nov 2017 ~20,000,000 
The "TH/s", "Cost", and "kW" columns are per "system", i.e. a mining unit containing many chips. The last column is the expected profit to be made from each set of mining hardware over its expected lifetime. (The slides have some other details that do not seem to be important.)
The first line is the hardware that they were mining with at the time of the presentation; that must be why the "Cost" (as far as investors are concerned) is given as zero.
The second line seems to be an upgrade of their previous mining hardware from v1 chips (which gave 2.7 PH/s total at the time) to v3 chips (which would give 17 PH/s) .
In reality, we have seen that their share of hashpower dwindled through all of 2015, and (AFAIK) they haven't mined a single block in the last six months. Were they still mining with CyrusOne on extra-life, or were they using the upgraded IO which was turned off prematurely? What happened to Brownfield?
However, their mining operations were secondary; the meat of their plan was the embedded chip, called BitSplit at the time.
The BitSPlit chip (as we suspected) was hard-wired to send 75% of the block reward to the 21inc wallet, whose address was burned in the silicon, and 25% to the user's wallet.
By my calculations, assuming 50 GH/s and no increase in the difficulty, the BitSplit would mine one block in 570 years, on average, and collect less than 2 BTC of reward in that time. So, of course, the chip was hard-wired to mine into a pool run by 21inc, that would spread the user's 25% of those 2 BTC (expected) into a daily regular trickle of a couple thousand satoshis. Their own mining operations would provide the BTC needed for the pool payouts of all the millions of chips that they expected to be running out there.
They projected to release 3 versions:
Model Qty GH/s W Cost Deploy Profit($) --------------- ---------- ---- -- ---- ------------ ------------ USB hub-charger 250,000 38 15 $35 Mar 2015 ~8,000,000 Embedded chip 1,000,000 63 15 $8 Aug 2015 ~103,000,000 BitSplit Inside 10,000,000 20 5 $0 Oct 2015 ~292,000,000 
The "Qty" is the expected number of units sold. The last column, IIUC, is the profit that 21inc expected to make from the 75% cut of the BTC produced by all the chips, over their expected lifetime.
In the above "USB hub-charger" model was a USB charging unit, roughly 3 x 2 x 1 inches, with 2 USB outputs and a mining chip inside, produced by 21inc themselves "to seed the market".
The second line, which I called "Embedded chip", seems to refer to discrete BitSplit chips provided by 21inc and included in consumer devices (like routers etc.) by OEM manufacturers.
The "BitSplit Inside" model would be the BitSplit integrated into the chipsets of other manufacturers, and manufactured by them. Its cost is listed as "$0" (for 21inc) because they expected those manufacturers to shoulder the cost of manufacturing and integrating the mining chip.
Apparently the market-seeding "USB hub-charger" was later replaced by the "Bitcoin Computer" (aka the PiTato). In one slide it is called "multifunctional BitSplit device", and depicted as a sleek shiny black box, the size of a cigarette pack, with a power cable and 2-3 USB or similar outputs. If that is supposed to be the PiTato, presumably they had not yet realized that a 15 w computer would need a cooling fan with a miniature wind tunnel on top.
In the last two entries, the manufacturers (not the device owners!) would be rewarded with the 25% slice of the BTC mined by those embedded chips. As an example, the slides say that a manufacturer who produced one quarter of the embedded BitSplits would get the 25% cut on the BTC yield of those chips, that was estimated to be between 2 and 4 million dollars per year of revenue in 2015--2018. Those numbers are based on the following predicted mean BTC prices: $350 for 2015, $1000 for 2016, $2200 for 2017, and $5500 for 2018.
So, their main business plan was fantastic: the OEM and chipset makers would pay the costs of producing and integrating the chips, the consumers would pay the cost of operating them, and 21inc would get 75% of all BTC mined by them, expected to be worth 400 million dollars.
It makes sense to invest 100 million in that plan, right?
EDIT1: Sentence order, typos.
EDIT2: See also this comment below about other sources of this info and this comment about a fatal flaw of the PiTato mining chip.
EDIT3: See also this comment with the data from slide 2, "At a glance"
submitted by jstolfi to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Good news for the Dexes! Joint Statement on Broker-Dealer Custody of Digital Asset Securities

Source: https://www.finra.org/newsroom/2019/joint-statement-broker-dealer-custody-digital-asset-securities

Joint Statement on Broker-Dealer Custody of Digital Asset Securities

WASHINGTON – Market participants have raised questions concerning the application of the federal securities laws and the rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) to the potential intermediation—including custody—of digital asset securities1 and transactions. In this statement, the staffs of the Division of Trading and Markets (the “Division”) and FINRA (collectively, the “Staffs”)—drawing upon key principles from their historic approach to broker-dealer regulation and investor protection—have articulated various considerations relevant to many of these questions, particularly under the SEC’s Customer Protection Rule applicable to SEC-registered broker-dealers.2
As a threshold matter, it should be recognized by market participants that the application of the federal securities laws, FINRA rules and other bodies of laws to digital assets, digital asset securities and related innovative technologies raise novel and complex regulatory and compliance questions and challenges. For example, and as discussed in more detail below, the ability of a broker-dealer to comply with aspects of the Customer Protection Rule is greatly facilitated by established laws and practices regarding the loss or theft of a security, that may not be available or effective in the case of certain digital assets.
The Staffs are aware of, and encourage and support, efforts to address these issues such that compliance with the Customer Protection Rule and other federal securities laws and FINRA rules is reasonably practicable. In recent months, the Staffs have been engaged with industry participants regarding how industry participants believe a particular custody solution for digital asset securities would meet the possession or control standards prescribed in the SEC’s Customer Protection Rule. The Staffs have found these discussions to be very informative and appreciate market participants’ ongoing engagement on these issues. The Staffs encourage and support innovation and look forward to continuing our dialogue as market participants work toward developing methodologies for establishing possession or control over customers’ digital asset securities. Contact information for Commission and FINRA staffs is provided at the end of this statement.
Importance of the Customer Protection Rule
Entities seeking to participate in the marketplace for digital asset securities must comply with the relevant securities laws.3 An entity that buys, sells, or otherwise transacts or is involved in effecting transactions in digital asset securities for customers or its own account is subject to the federal securities laws, and may be required to register with the Commission as a broker-dealer and become a member of and comply with the rules of a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”), which in most cases is FINRA. Importantly, if the entity is a broker-dealer, it must comply with broker-dealer financial responsibility rules,4 including, as applicable, custodial requirements under Rule 15c3-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which is known as the Customer Protection Rule.
The purpose of the Customer Protection Rule is to safeguard customer securities and funds held by a broker-dealer, to prevent investor loss or harm in the event of a broker-dealer’s failure, and to enhance the Commission’s ability to monitor and prevent unsound business practices. Put simply, the Customer Protection Rule requires broker-dealers to safeguard customer assets and to keep customer assets separate from the firm’s assets, thus increasing the likelihood that customers’ securities and cash can be returned to them in the event of the broker-dealer’s failure. The requirements of the Customer Protection Rule have produced a nearly fifty year track record5 of recovery for investors when their broker-dealers have failed. This record of protecting customer assets held in custody by broker-dealers stands in contrast to recent reports of cybertheft,6 and underscores the need to ensure broker-dealers’ robust protection of customer assets, including digital asset securities.
Various unregistered entities that intend to engage in broker-dealer activities involving digital asset securities are seeking to register with the Commission and have submitted New Membership Applications (“NMAs”) to FINRA. Additionally, various entities that are already registered broker-dealers and FINRA members are seeking to expand their businesses to include digital asset securities services and activities. Under FINRA rules, a firm is prohibited from materially changing its business operations (e.g., engaging in material digital asset securities activities for the first time) without FINRA’s prior approval of a Continuing Membership Application (“CMA”).7
The NMAs and CMAs currently before FINRA are diverse: Some of the NMAs and CMAs cover proposed business models that would not involve the broker-dealer engaging in custody of digital asset securities. On the other hand, some NMAs and CMAs include the custodying of digital asset securities, and therefore implicate the Customer Protection Rule, among other requirements.
Some of these entities have met with the Staffs to discuss how they propose to custody digital asset securities in order to comply with the broker-dealer financial responsibility rules. These discussions have been informative. The specific circumstances where a broker-dealer could custody digital asset securities in a manner that the Staffs believe would comply with the Customer Protection Rule remain under discussion, and the Staffs stand ready to continue to engage with entities pursuing this line of business.
Noncustodial Broker-Dealer Models for Digital Asset Securities
As noted, some entities contemplate engaging in broker-dealer activities involving digital asset securities that would not involve the broker-dealer engaging in custody functions. Generally speaking, noncustodial activities involving digital asset securities do not raise the same level of concern among the Staffs, provided that the relevant securities laws, SRO rules, and other legal and regulatory requirements are followed.8The following are examples of some of the business activities of this type that have been presented or described to the Staffs.
Considerations for Broker-Dealer Custody of Digital Asset Securities
Whether a security is paper or digital, the same fundamental elements of the broker-dealer financial responsibility rules apply. The Staffs acknowledge that market participants wishing to custody digital asset securities may find it challenging to comply with the broker-dealer financial responsibility rules without putting in place significant technological enhancements and solutions unique to digital asset securities. As the market, infrastructure, and law applicable to digital asset securities continue to develop, the Staffs will continue their constructive engagement with market participants and to gather additional information so that they may better respond to developments in the market10while advancing the missions of our respective organizations: for the SEC, to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation; and for FINRA, to provide investor protection and promote market integrity.
The Customer Protection Rule
Overview
A broker-dealer seeking to custody digital asset securities must comply with the Customer Protection Rule. As noted, the rule is designed principally to protect customers of a registered broker-dealer from losses and delays in accessing their securities and cash that can occur if the firm fails. The rule requires the broker-dealer to safeguard customer securities and cash entrusted to the firm, as discussed below. If the broker-dealer fails, customer securities and cash should be readily available to be returned to customers.11 In the event the broker-dealer were to be liquidated under SIPA, the SIPA trustee would be expected to step into the shoes of the broker-dealer and expected to be able to transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of assets in accordance with SIPA.12
Among its core protections for customers, Rule 15c3-3 requires a broker-dealer to physically hold customers’ fully paid and excess margin securities or maintain them free of lien at a good control location.13 Generally, a broker-dealer may custody customer securities with a third-party custodian (e.g., the Depository Trust Company or a clearing bank),14 and uncertificated securities, such as mutual funds, may be held at the issuer or at the issuer’s transfer agent.15 In either case, there is a third party that controls the transfer of the securities. This traditional securities infrastructure (including, for example, related laws of property and security) also has processes to reverse or cancel mistaken or unauthorized transactions.
Considerations for Digital Asset Securities
There are many significant differences in the mechanics and risks associated with custodying traditional securities and digital asset securities. For instance, the manner in which digital asset securities are issued, held, and transferred may create greater risk that a broker-dealer maintaining custody of them could be victimized by fraud or theft, could lose a “private key” necessary to transfer a client’s digital asset securities, or could transfer a client’s digital asset securities to an unknown or unintended address without meaningful recourse to invalidate fraudulent transactions, recover or replace lost property, or correct errors. Consequently, a broker-dealer must consider how it can, in conformance with Rule 15c3-3, hold in possession or control digital asset securities.
In particular, a broker-dealer may face challenges in determining that it, or its third-party custodian, maintains custody of digital asset securities.16 If, for example, the broker-dealer holds a private key, it may be able to transfer such securities reflected on the blockchain or distributed ledger. However, the fact that a broker-dealer (or its third party custodian) maintains the private key may not be sufficient evidence by itself that the broker-dealer has exclusive control of the digital asset security (e.g., it may not be able to demonstrate that no other party has a copy of the private key and could transfer the digital asset security without the broker-dealer’s consent).17 In addition, the fact that the broker-dealer (or custodian) holds the private key may not be sufficient to allow it to reverse or cancel mistaken or unauthorized transactions. These risks could cause securities customers to suffer losses, with corresponding liabilities for the broker-dealer, imperiling the firm, its customers, and other creditors.
The Books and Records and Financial Reporting Rules
Overview
The broker-dealer recordkeeping and reporting rules18 require a broker-dealer, among other things, to make and keep current ledgers reflecting all assets and liabilities,19 as well as a securities record reflecting each security carried by the broker-dealer for its customers and all differences determined by the count of customer securities in the broker-dealer’s possession or control compared to the result of the count with the broker-dealer’s existing books and records.20 The financial responsibility rules also require that broker-dealers routinely prepare financial statements,21 including various supporting schedules particular to broker-dealers, such as Computation of Net Capital under Rule 15c3-1 and Information Relating to the Possession or Control Requirements under Rule 15c3-3 under the Exchange Act.22
The books, records, and financial reporting requirements are designed to ensure that a broker-dealer makes and maintains certain business records to assist the firm in accounting for its activities. These rules also assist securities regulators in examining for compliance with the federal securities laws and as such are an integral part of the financial responsibility program for broker-dealers.
Considerations for Digital Asset Securities
The nature of distributed ledger technology, as well as the characteristics associated with digital asset securities, may make it difficult for a broker-dealer to evidence the existence of digital asset securities for the purposes of the broker-dealer’s regulatory books, records, and financial statements, including supporting schedules. The broker-dealer’s difficulties in evidencing the existence of these digital asset securities may in turn create challenges for the broker-dealer’s independent auditor seeking to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence when testing management’s assertions in the financial statements during the annual broker-dealer audit.23 We understand that some firms are considering the use of distributed ledger technology with features designed to enable firms to meet recordkeeping obligations and facilitate prompt verification of digital asset security positions (e.g., regulatory nodes or permissioned distributed ledger technologies). Broker-dealers should consider how the nature of the technology may impact their ability to comply with the broker-dealer recordkeeping and reporting rules.
Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970
Overview
Generally, a broker-dealer that fails and is unable to return the customer property that it holds would be liquidated in accordance with SIPA. Under SIPA, securities customers have a first priority claim to cash and securities held by the firm for securities customers. Customers also are eligible for up to $500,000 in protection (of which up to $250,000 can be used for cash claims) if the broker-dealer is missing customer assets. These SIPA protections apply to a “security” as defined in SIPA and cash deposited with the broker-dealer for the purpose of purchasing securities.24 They do not apply to other types of assets, including, importantly, assets that are securities under the federal securities laws but are excluded from the definition of “security” under SIPA.25
Considerations for Digital Asset Securities
In the case of a digital asset security that does not meet the definition of “security” under SIPA, and in the event of the failure of a carrying broker-dealer, SIPA protection likely would not apply and holders of those digital asset securities would have only unsecured general creditor claims against the broker-dealer’s estate.26 Further, uncertainty regarding when and whether a broker-dealer holds a digital asset security in its possession or control creates greater risk for customers that their securities will not be able to be returned in the event of a broker-dealer failure.27 The Staffs believe that such potential outcomes are likely to be inconsistent with the expectations of persons who would use a broker-dealer to custody their digital asset securities.
Control Location Applications
As a related matter, the Staffs have received inquiries from broker-dealers, including ATSs, wishing to utilize an issuer or transfer agent as a proposed “control location” for purposes of the possession or control requirements under the Customer Protection Rule. As described to the Staffs, this would involve uncertificated securities where the issuer or a transfer agent maintains a traditional single master security holder list, but also publishes as a courtesy the ownership record using distributed ledger technology. While the issuer or transfer agent may publish the distributed ledger, in these examples, the broker-dealers have asserted that the distributed ledger is not the authoritative record of share ownership. To the extent a broker-dealer contemplates an arrangement of this type, the Division will consider whether the issuer or the transfer agent can be considered a satisfactory control location pursuant to an application under paragraph (c)(7) of Rule 15c3-3.28
As noted, the Staffs encourage and support innovation in the securities markets and look forward to continuing to engage with investors and industry participants as the marketplace for digital asset securities develops. To contact Commission staff for assistance, please visit the Commission’s FinHub webpage or contact Thomas K. McGowan, Associate Director, at (202) 551-5521 or Raymond Lombardo, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-5755. To contact FINRA staff for assistance, please visit FINRA’s FinTech webpage or contact Kosha Dalal, Associate Vice President and Associate General Counsel, FINRA, (202) 728-6903.
1 For the purposes of this statement, the term “digital asset” refers to an asset that is issued and transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain technology, including, but not limited to, so-called “virtual currencies,” “coins,” and “tokens.” A digital asset may or may not meet the definition of a “security” under the federal securities laws. For the purposes of this statement, a digital asset that is a security is referred to as a “digital asset security.”
2 This statement represents staff views of the Division of Trading and Markets and FINRA. This statement is not a rule, regulation, guidance, or statement of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) or FINRA, and the Commission and FINRA’s Board have neither approved nor disapproved its content. This statement does not alter or amend applicable law and has no legal force or effect.
3 For purposes of this statement, the Staffs use the term “entities” to refer to both firms and individuals.
4 The financial responsibility rules include Rule 15c3-1 (the net capital rule), Rule 15c3-3 (the customer protection rule), Rule 17a-3 (the record making rule), Rule 17a-4 (the record retention rule), Rule 17a-5 (the financial reporting rule), and Rule 17a-13 (the quarterly securities count rule) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). This statement does not address all federal securities laws that may be implicated by a broker-dealer seeking to maintain custody of digital asset securities. Further, this statement does not address other securities laws or rules that may apply to digital asset securities.
5 Rule 15c3-3 was adopted by the Commission in 1972. See Broker-Dealers; Maintenance of Certain Basic Reserves, Exchange Act Release No. 9856 (Nov. 10, 1972), 37 Fed. Reg. 25224 (Nov. 29, 1972).
6 For example, one blockchain forensic analysis firm estimated that approximately $1.7 billion worth of bitcoin and other digital assets had been stolen in 2018, of which approximately $950 million resulted from cyberattacks on bitcoin trading platforms. The estimate of total losses in 2018 is 3.6 times higher than the estimate of such losses in 2017. See CipherTrace, Cryptocurrency Anti-Money Laundering Report, 2018 Q4, at 3 (Jan. 2019) (available at: https://ciphertrace.com/crypto-aml-report-2018q4/).
7 Firms can discuss with FINRA whether a contemplated change in business operations such as engaging in digital asset securities activities may require the filing of a CMA through the materiality consultation process.
8 These business models and transactions must comply with other provisions of the securities laws or regulations. The Staffs offer no views about whether such business models would be in compliance with other securities laws or regulations.
9 Entities that perform functions to facilitate the clearance and settlement of transactions in digital asset securities may be required to register as a clearing agency under Section 17A of the Exchange Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
10 See, e.g., Statement on Digital Asset Securities Issuance and Trading, Division of Corporation Finance, Division of Investment Management, and Division of Trading and Markets, Commission (Nov. 16, 2018) (available at: https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/digital-asset-securites-issuuance-and-trading); see also e.g., Engaging on Non-DVP Custodial Practices and Digital Assets, letter issued by staff, Division of Investment Management, Commission, dated Mar. 12, 2019 (available at: https://www.sec.gov/investment/engaging-non-dvp-custodial-practices-and-digital-assets).
11 See Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 70072 (July 30, 2013), 78 Fed. Reg. 51824, 51826 (Aug. 21, 2013). In addition, if the broker-dealer is liquidated in a formal proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”), the securities and cash held by the broker-dealer for its customers would be isolated and readily identifiable as “customer property” and, consequently, available to be distributed to customers ahead of other creditors. Id.
12 See 15 U.S.C. 78fff-1 (setting forth the powers and duties of a SIPA trustee).
13 See paragraphs (b) and (c) of Rule 15c3-3. An entity’s designation as a good control location is based, in part, on its ability to maintain exclusive control over customer securities. See, e.g., paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 15c3-3 (deeming a “bank” as defined in Section 3(a)(6) of the Exchange Act to be a good control location so long as, among other things, the bank has acknowledged that customer securities “are not subject to any right, charge, security interest, lien or claim of any kind in favor of a bank or any person claiming through the bank” and the securities are in the custody or control of the bank).
14 See paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(5) of Rule 15c3-3.
15 The Commission often receives applications under paragraph (c)(7) of Rule 15c3-3 to designate an issuer or the transfer agent of various types of uncertificated securities as a control location. The Division has delegated authority to “find and designate as control locations for purposes of Rule 15c3-3(c)(7) [under the Exchange Act] certain broker-dealer accounts which are adequate for the protection of customer securities.” See 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(10)(i). The Commission has stated that mutual funds in particular may be held at the issuer or the issuer’s transfer agent. See, e.g., Broker-Dealer Reports, Exchange Act Release No. 70073 (July 30, 2013), 78 Fed. Reg. 51910, 51951 (Aug. 21, 2013) (stating that “[g]enerally, mutual funds issue securities only in book-entry form. This means that the ownership of securities is not reflected on a certificate that can be transferred but rather through a journal entry on the books of the issuer maintained by the issuer’s transfer agent. A broker-dealer that holds mutual funds for customers generally holds them in the broker-dealer’s name on the books of the mutual fund”). See also Form Custody for Broker-Dealers, 17 CFR 249.639 (providing broker-dealers with a field to indicate that they custody mutual fund securities with a transfer agent). The Division has also previously issued no-action letters regarding the maintenance of certain other uncertificated securities at the transfer agent. See, e.g., letter to Fantex Brokerage Services, LLC from Mark M. Attar, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated Dec. 19, 2014 (providing that the staff would not recommend enforcement action if a broker-dealer treats a transfer agent for uncertificated securities as a good control location, under certain circumstances). These prior no-action letters do not address whether blockchain or distributed ledger technology, in connection with the maintenance of the single master security holder list, establishes control of uncertificated securities by the issuer (or transfer agent).
16 See, e.g., paragraph (d) of Rule 15c3-3 (requiring that, not later than the next business day, a broker-dealer, as of the close of the preceding business day, shall determine the quantity of fully paid securities and excess margin securities in its possession or control and the quantity of such securities not in its possession or control).
17 Cf. supra note 13.
18 See generally Rules 17a-3, 17a-4, and 17a-5.
19 See paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a-3.
20 See paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a-3.
21 See generally Rule 17a-5.
22 See paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of Rule 17a-5.
23 See generally PCAOB Auditing Standard 1105, Audit Evidence (describing sufficient appropriate audit evidence and stating that audit evidence consists of information that supports and corroborates management’s assertions regarding the financial statements and information that contradicts such assertions).
24 The SIPA definition of “security” is different than the federal securities laws definitions. See 15 U.S.C. 78lll(14) (excluding from the SIPA definition of “security” an investment contract or interest that is not the subject of a registration statement with the Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933). This means there may be digital assets that are: (1) securities under the federal securities laws and SIPA, and thus are protected by SIPA; (2) securities under the federal securities laws, but not under SIPA, and thus not protected by SIPA; or (3) not securities under the federal securities laws and therefore not protected by SIPA.
25 If a broker-dealer holds securities that are not protected by SIPA, the broker-dealer must nevertheless comply with the physical possession or control requirements under Rule 15c3-3 with respect to those securities.
26 Generally, in a SIPA liquidation, assets not included in customer property (other than customer name securities) are liquidated and paid out to general creditors on a pro rata basis. See 15 U.S.C. 78fff-2(c); 15 U.S.C. 78fff(b).
27 See supra note 16.
28 See paragraph (c)(7) of Rule 15c3-3.
submitted by godsslave to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I’ve been researching privacy coins deeply and feel I’ve reached a sufficient findings to merit sharing my stance re SUMO.

By Taylor Margot. Everyone should read this!
THE BASICS
SUMOkoin is a fork of MONERO (XMR). XMR is a fork of Bytecoin. In my opinion, XMR is hands down the most undervalued coin in the top 15. Its hurdle is that people do not know how to price in privacy to the price of a coin yet. Once people figure out how to accurately assess the value privacy into the value of a coin, XMR, along with other privacy coins like SUMOkoin, will go parabolic.
Let’s be clear about something. I am not here to argue SUMOkoin is superior to XMR. That’s not what this article is about and frankly is missing the point. I don’t find the SUMOkoin vs. XMR debate interesting. From where I stand, investing in SUMOkoin has nothing to do with SUMOkoin overtaking XMR or who has superior tech. If anything, I think the merits of XMR underline the value of SUMOkoin. What I do find interesting is return on investment (“ROI”).
Imagine SUMO was an upcoming ICO. But you knew ahead of time that they had a proven product-market fit and an awesome, blue chip code base. That’s basically what you have in SUMO. Most good ICOs raise over 20mil (meaning their starting market cap is $20 mil) but after that, it’s a crapshoot. Investing in SUMO is akin to getting ICO prices but with the amount of information associated with more established coins.
Let me make one more thing clear. Investing is all about information. Specifically it’s about the information imbalance between current value and the quality of your information. SUMO is highly imbalanced.
The fact of the matter is that if you are interested in getting the vision and product/market fit of a $6 billion market cap coin for $20 mil, you should keep reading.
If you are interested in arguing about XMR vs. SUMOkoin, I point you to this infographic
Background
I’m a corporate tech & IP lawyer in Silicon Valley. My practice focuses on venture capital (“VC)”) and mergers & acquisitions (“M&A”). Recently I have begun doing more IP strategy. Basically I spend all day every day reviewing cap tables, stock purchase agreements, merger agreements and patent portfolios. I’m also the CEO of a startup (Scry Chat) and have a team of three full-time engineers.
I started using BTC in 2014 in conjunction with Silk Road and TOR. I recently had a minor conniption when I discovered how much BTC I handled in 2014. My 2017 has been good with IOTA at sub $0.30, POWR at $0.12, ENJIN at $0.02, REQ at $0.05, ENIGMA at $0.50, ITC (IoT Chain) and SUMO.
My crypto investing philosophy is based on betting long odds. In the words of Warren Buffet, consolidate to get rich, diversify to stay rich. Or as I like to say, nobody ever got rich diversifying.
That being said I STRONGLY recommend you have an IRA and/or 401(k) in place prior to venturing into crypto. But when it comes to crypto, I’d rather strike out dozens of times to have a chance at hitting a 100x home run. This approach is probably born out of working with VCs in Silicon Valley who do the same only with companies, not coins. I view myself as an aggressive VC in the cryptosphere.
The Number 1 thing I’ve taken away from venture law is that it pays to get in EARLY.
Did you know that the typical founder buys their shares for $0.00001 per share? So if a founder owns 5 million shares, they bought those shares for $50 total. The typical IPO goes out the door at $10-20 per share. My iPhone calculator says ERROR when it tries to divide $10/0.00001 because it runs out of screen real estate.
At the time of this writing, SUMO has a Marketcap of $18 million. That is 3/10,000th or 1/3333th. Let that sink in for a minute. BCH is a fork of BTC and it has the fourth largest market cap of all cryptos. Given it’s market cap, I am positive SUMO is the best value proposition in the Privacy Coin arena at the time of this writing. *
ROI MERITS OF SUMOkoin
So what’s so good about SUMOkoin? Didn’t you say it was just a Monero knock-off?
1) Well, sort of. SUMO is based on CryptoNote and was conceived from a fork of Monero, with a little bit of extra privacy thrown in. It would not be wrong to think SUMO is to Litecoin as XMR is to Bitcoin.
2) Increased Privacy. Which brings us to point 2. SUMO is doing several things to increase privacy (see below). If Monero is the King of Privacy Coins, then SUMO is the Standard Bearer fighting on the front lines. Note: Monero does many of these too (though at the time of fork XMR could not). Don’t forget Monero is also 5.8 billion market cap to SUMO’s 18 million.
a) RingCT. All transactions since genesis are RingCT (ring confidential transactions) and the minimum “mixin” transactions is 13 (12 plus the original transaction). This passes the threshold to statistically resist blockchain attacks. No transactions made on the SUMO blockchain can ever be traced to the actual participants. Nifty huh? Monero (3+1 mixins) is considering a community-wide fork to increase their minimum transactions to 6, 9, or 12. Not a bad market signal if you’re SUMOkoin eh?
b) Sub-addresses. The wallet deploys disposable sub-addresses to conceal your real sumo wallet address even from senders (who typically would need to know your actual address to send currency). Monero also does this.
3) Fungibility aka “Digital Cash” aka Broad Use Case. “Fungibility” gets thrown about a bunch but basically it means ‘how close is this coin to cash in terms of usage?’ SUMO is one of a few cryptos that can boast true fungibility — it acts just like physical cash i.e. other people can never trace where the money came from or how many coins were transferred. MONERO will never be able to boast this because it did not start as fungible.
4) Mining Made Easy Mode. Seeing as SUMO was a fork, and not an ICO, they didn’t have to rewrite the wheel. Instead they focused on product by putting together solid fundamentals like a great wallet and a dedicated mining app. Basically anyone can mine with the most intuitive GUI mining app out there. Google “Sumo Easy Miner” – run and mine.
5) Intuitive and Secure Wallet. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, yet in this day and age, apparently it is not a prereq. They have a GUI wallet plus those unlimited sub-addresses I mentioned above. Here’s the github if you’d like to review: https://github.com/sumoprojects/SumoGUIWallet The wallet really is one of the best I have seen (ENJIN’s will be better). Clear, intuitive, idiot proof (as possible).
6) Decentralization. SUMO is botnet-proof, and therefore botnet mining resistant. When a botnet joins a mining pool, it adjusts the mining difficulty, thereby balancing the difficulty level of mining.
7) Coin Emission Scheme. SUMO’s block reward changes every 6-months as the following “Camel” distribution schema (inspired by real-world mining production like of crude oil, coal, etc. that is often slow at first, then accelerated in before decline and depletion). MONERO lacks this schema and it is significant. Camel ensures that Sumokoin won’t be a short-lived phenomena. Specifically, since Sumo is proof-of-work, not all SUMO can be mined. If it were all mined, miners would no longer be properly incentivized to contribute to the network (unless transaction fees were raised, which is how Bitcoin plans on handling when all 21 million coins have been mined, which will go poorly given that people already complain about fees). A good emission scheme is vital to viability. Compare Camel and Monero’s scheme if you must: https://github.com/sumoprojects/sumokoin/blob/mastescripts/sumokoin_camel_emission_cal.cpp vs. https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/242/how-was-the-monero-emission-curve-chosen/247.
8) Dev Team // Locked Coins // Future Development Funds. There are lots of things that make this coin a ‘go.’ but perhaps the most overlooked in crypto is that the devs have delivered ahead of schedule. If you’re an engineer or have managed CS projects, you know how difficult hitting projected deadlines can be. These guys update github very frequently and there is a high degree of visibility. The devs have also time-locked their pre-mine in a publicly view-able wallet for years so they aren’t bailing out with a pump and dump. The dev team is based in Japan.
9) Broad Appeal. If marketed properly, SUMO has the ability to appeal to older individuals venturing into crypto due to the fungibility / similarities to cash. This is not different than XMR, and I expect it will be exploited in 2018 by all privacy coins. It could breed familiarity with new money, and new money is the future of crypto.
10) Absent from Major Exchanges. Thank god. ALL of my best investments have happened off Binance, Bittrex, Polo, GDAX, etc. Why? Because by the time a coin hits a major exchange you’re already too late. Your TOI is fucked. You’re no longer a savant. SUMO is on Cryptopia, the best jenky exchange.
11) Marketing. Which brings me to my final point – and it happens to be a weakness. SUMO has not focused on marketing. They’ve instead gathered together tech speaks for itself (or rather doesn’t). So what SUMO needs a community effort to distribute facts about SUMO’s value prop to the masses. A good example is Vert Coin. Their team is very good at disseminating information. I’m not talking about hyping a coin; I’m talking about how effectively can you spread facts about your product to the masses.
To get mainstream SUMO needs something like this VertCoin post: https://np.reddit.com/vertcoin/comments/7ixkbf/vertbase_a_vertcoin_to_usd_exchange/
MARKET CAP DISCUSSION
For a coin with using Monero’s tech, 20 million is minuscule. For any coin 20 mil is nothing. Some MC comparisons [as of Jan 2, 2017]:
Let’s talk about market cap (“MC”) for a minute.
It gets tossed around a lot but I don’t think people appreciate how important getting in as early as possible can be. Say you buy $1000 of SUMO at 20 mil MC. Things go well and 40 million new money gets poured into SUMO. Now the MC = 60 million. Your ROI is 200% (you invested $1,000 and now you have 3,000, netting 2,000).
Now let’s says say you bought at 40 million instead of 20 million. $20 mill gets poured in until the MC again reaches 60 mil. Your ROI is 50% (you put in $1,000, you now have 1,500, netting 500).
Remember: investing at 20 mil MC vs. 40 mil MC represents an EXTREMELY subtle shift in time of investment (“TOI”). But the difference in net profit is dramatic. the biggest factor is that your ROI multiplier is locked in at your TOI — look at the difference in the above example. 200% ROI vs. 50% ROI. That’s huge. But the difference was only 20 mil — that’s 12 hours in the crypto world.
I strongly believe SUMO can and will 25x in Q1 2018 (400m MC) and 50x by Q4 2018 reach. There is ample room for a tricked out Monero clone at 1 bil MC. That’s 50x.
Guess how many coins have 500 mil market caps? 58 as of this writing. 58! Have many of these coins with about ~500 mil MC have you heard of?
MaidSafeCoin?
Status?
Decred?
Veritaseum?
DRAGONCHAIN ARE YOU KIDDING ME
THE ROLE OF PRIVACY
I want to close with a brief discussion of privacy as it relates to fundamental rights and as to crypto. 2018 will be remembered as the Year of Privacy Coins. Privacy has always been at the core of crypto. This is no coincidence. “Privacy” is the word we have attached to the concept of possessing the freedom to do as you please within the law without explaining yourself to the government or financial institution.
Discussing privacy from a financial perspective is difficult because it has very deep political significance. But that is precisely why it is so valuable.
Privacy is the right of billions of people not to be surveilled. We live in a world where every single transaction you do through the majority financial system is recorded, analyzed and sold — and yet where the money goes is completely opaque. Our transactions are visible from the top, but we can’t see up. Privacy coins turn that upside down.
Privacy is a human right. It is the guarantor of American constitutional freedom. It is the cornerstone of freedoms of expression, association, political speech and all our other freedoms for that matter. And privacy coins are at the root of that freedom. What the internet did for freedom of information, privacy coins will do for freedom of financial transactions.
POST SCRIPT: AN ENGINEER’S PERSPECTIVE
Recently a well respected engineer reached out to me and had this to say about SUMO. I thought I’d share.
"I’m messaging you because I came at this from a different perspective. For reference, I started investing in Sumo back when it was around $0.5 per coin. My background is in CS and Computer Engineering. I currently research in CS.
When I was looking for a coin to invest in, I approached it in a completely different way from what you described in your post, I first made a list of coins with market caps < 20m, and then I removed all the coins that didn’t have active communities.
Next, because of my background, I read through the code for each of the remaining coins, and picked the coins which had both frequent commits to GitHub (proving dev activity), and while more subjective, code that was well written. Sumo had both active devs, and (very) well written code.
I could tell that the people behind this knew what they were doing, and so I invested.
I say all of this, because I find it interesting how we seem to have very different strategies for selecting ‘winners’ but yet we both ended up finding Sumo."

Legal Disclaimer:
THIS POST AND ANY SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS BY THE AUTHOR DO NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL OR FINANCIAL ADVICE AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL OR FINANCIAL ADVICE OR RELIED UPON. NO REFERENCES TO THIS POST SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL OR FINANCIAL ADVICE. THIS POST REPRESENTS THE LONE OPINION OF A NON-SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR.
submitted by MaesterEmi to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Link Collection - All Recent Core Team Communications (incl. Roadmap)

Last updated: Mar 29th, 2018

2 important things first:

General Note

Table of contents

  1. Communications
  2. Guides & Instructional links
  3. Key people to follow on Twitter
  4. Dash Core is hiring
  5. Quarterly Summaries
  6. Notable Core Team Proposals
  7. Dash Whitepapers
  8. Dash Technology Peer-reviewed
  9. Addendum: Misconceptions on Dash cleared up

Communications

  1. The birth of Dash's Governance: Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain
  2. 'We're Doing the Planning That Takes Us to 1 Billion" - Ryan Taylor, Dash Director of Finance
  3. The philosophy behind the DASH reward split by (now) Dash Core CEO Ryan Taylor
  4. Dash's Ryan Taylor at TNABC Bitcoin Miami 2017 (Best presentation on Dash so far!)
  5. What is DASH & Where Is It Going? 2017 DASH Open House
  6. Hong Kong | Research and Planning - by Evan Duffield
  7. Dash Roadmap to Evolution
  8. How To Enable On-Chain Scaling by Evan Duffield
  9. DFN - Interview with Evan on Dash's Roadmap
  10. Open Letter From Evan and Ryan Regarding Dash Marketing
  11. Wachsman PR - Q2 project closure report
  12. Interview With The Crypto Show! - Evan Duffield
  13. Dash Improvement Proposal No. 1 - DIP001
  14. Important information regarding wallet backups
  15. Dash Labs Network Update
  16. Copay Wallet going into closed Alpha Testing
  17. 1st Annual Dash Conference: London Keynote Professional HQ Recording
  18. DASH – DIGITAL CASH by Robert Wiecko at SWITCH! 2017
  19. Crucial information to all proposal owners: Do NOT use multisig addresses as payout destinations!
  20. Interview With Ryan Taylor, The CEO Of Dash Core Team
  21. Ryan Taylor at the World Blockchain Forum
  22. Ryan Taylor interview with Crypto Trader (MSNBC Africa)
  23. Dash Core Community Update
  24. Dash Core 12.2 Release
  25. Dash CEO Ryan Taylor: „Dash is in many ways a better Bitcoin“
  26. Update from Dash Core on Business Development
  27. How DASH is resistant to retargeting issues
  28. Dash presentation at the Euro Finance Tech in Frankfurt by essra
  29. Link collection of Dash's 2017 achievements
  30. What Is a DAO and Why Is It Revolutionary?
  31. Dash: The First DAO
  32. Welcome Bradley Zastrow - Director of Global Business Development
  33. Interview with Ryan Taylor, IR4 Podcast #12 (January 2018)
  34. Chuck Williams at Anarchapulco 2018 on Dash
  35. Dash Force Podcast E42 with Chuck Williams on Dash Evolution
  36. Evolution Demo #1 - The First Dash DAP
  37. Dash Force Podcast E43 - Feat. Fernando Gutierrez (Dash Core CMO)
  38. Our New Approach to Communications with the Community
  39. Dash Community Q&A - March 29th, 2018

Guides & Instructional links

  1. Dash Developer Documentation
  2. Upgrade Instructions for Masternodes (12.2)
  3. Upgrade Instructions for End Users (12.2)
  4. Upgrade Instructions for Masternodes (12.1)
  5. Upgrade Instructions for End Users (12.1)
  6. Paper Wallet Setup Guide
  7. Trezor Guide for Masternode Operators
  8. 8 Steps to a Successful Proposal
  9. Masternode Boot Camp by solarguy2003
  10. DASH 101 Video Series

Key people to follow on Twitter

  1. Ryan Taylor, CEO of Dash Core Inc.
  2. Fernando Gutierrez, CMO of Dash Core Inc.
  3. Bradley Zastrow, Chief of Business Development at Dash Core Inc.
  4. Andy Freer, CTO of Dash Core Inc.
  5. Chuck Williams, Head of UX Development at Dash Core Inc.
  6. Robert Wiecko, PM of Dash Core Inc.
  7. Joel Valenzuela, Dash Force
  8. Mark Mason, Dash Force
  9. Amanda B. Johnson
  10. Scott Farnsworth, The Dash Racer

Dash Core is hiring!

  1. Internship at Dash Labs
  2. DashLabs - Trezor Engineer
  3. GPU Accelerator Project
  4. DevOps Engineer @ Dash
  5. Infrastructure Manager @ Dash
  6. Sr. Backend Developer Role @ Dash

2017 Quarterly Summaries from Dash Core

  1. Dash Core Team Q1 2017 Summary Call
  2. Dash Core Team Q2 2017 Summary Call
  3. Dash Core Team Q3 2017 Summary Call
  4. Dash Core Team Q4 2017 Summary Call

2016 Quarterly Summaries from Dash Core

  1. Q1 2016
  2. Q2 2016
  3. Q3 2016
  4. Q4 2016

Notable Core Team proposals:

  1. Dash sponsored Blockchain Research in Arizona State University
  2. Conferences - The Trading Show
  3. Money 20/20 in London
  4. Conferences - BTC & Blockchain International Summit
  5. Dash Conference 2017 (London)
  6. Blockchain & Bitcoin Conference (Stockholm)

Dash Whitepapers

  1. Original Dash Whitepaper
Note: Previously the Evolution Whitepapers were linked in this section. These papers were written back in 2015 and are outdated, because Dash Evolution has seen a massive re-design and has been developed much further than those papers could have predicted. A new version will be posted here and elsewhere as soon as it is available.

Dash Technology Peer-reviewed

  1. Dash PrivateSend Peer Review by Kristov Atlas and Core Team's Response
  2. Dash Governance Peer Review by IOHK and Dash Core Team's Response

Addendum: Misconceptions on Dash cleared up

  1. What has Dash to offer other than features any other coin could just copy?
  2. InstantXploit? Cool Name, No Threat
  3. "Lazy Masternode" attack theory thoroughly debunked (see my comment)
  4. Hardware vs Software scaling - Why SegWit is not the savior of cryptocurrency
  5. How solid is PrivateSend, really? and Broken privacy promises vs Dash
  6. Dash has better wealth distribution than almost all top cryptos
  7. How is Dash NOT a ponzi scheme?
  8. PSA: DASH is not a CryptoNote clone - DashCOIN is
  9. Discussion/clarification on Dash's opensource approach
  10. Evil Masternode tyrants ruling over us?! and Masternodes in Dash = The rich get richer?
  11. Has Dash's development steadily declined over the past few months?
  12. The major advantage of optional privacy
  13. Ridiculous comments on Dash - by Kurt Robinson
  14. The Dash Masternode Network: A Response to Critics - by Eric Sammons
  15. Analysis of the first day in mining Dash by Ryan Taylor, (then) Director of Finance at Dash Core:
  16. How to Prevent the Hostile Takeover of a Blockchain: Eric Sammons on Dash Governance
  17. Official clarification on the "Instamine" issue (Fastmine actually)
  18. Evan Duffield has no more than 256,000 Dash and will give away 80% of that to fund DAOs within DASH. Follow-up: Part of the funds has already been used to found the Dash Labs research arm in Hong Kong. The lab is fully maintained through Duffield's private funding. No Treasury proposal for it exists.
  19. 10 Stupid Things People Say About Dash And How To Respond
  20. Sporks: One of the foundations of Dash's success
  21. There is no so called "Master Private Key" in Dash and there never has been. Sporks (explained above) have no relation to user funds, as the source code easily proves.
  22. Trolls vs. Users: The Limited Importance of Online Communities
  23. Dash PrivateSend and usage of denomination inputs
  24. Valuable link list from Dash Force member Mastermined
  25. "But Dash PrivateSend has a much smaller ambiguity set! Its privacy is broken!!!"
  26. Succinct refutation on Masternodes "artifically" blowing up the price & Evan Duffield being the only miner at launch
  27. Bitcoin Cash vs Dash
  28. "Dash rebranded from Darkcoin to distance itself from its dark history!!" -> Not at all. Nothing about its history is "dark" and more importantly this thread called "The Birth of Darkcoin" is stickied by Evan Duffield himself on the official main forum.
  29. "Evan Duffield lied about the launch time so he would get an unfair advantage at mining!" -> Quotes from the original launch thread on Bitcointalk: "Awesome! We'll be launching soon. Things are looking good." and "Launch is being moved to 11PM EST!". As the genesis block proves launch took place at 03:54:41 AM (UTC) on Jan. 19th, 2014 or 10:54:41 PM (EST), Jan. 18th, 2014. So if anything it was 5 minutes early.
  30. "But Litecoin is superior to Dash!!" - Really? Let's compare - Here's another sober look at the facts on this issue.
  31. Why Dash is not prone to cluster analysis attacks
  32. How "centralized" is Dash, really? & Which project is actually centralized here?
  33. From the day Dash started trading until late April 2014 anyone had the chance to buy Dash for less than 1 USD
  34. Dash Core developer MooCowMoo on alleged Masternode centralization and PrivateSend
  35. Why Masternodes have no incentive to vote in a proposal to pay themselves a large sum of Dash
  36. What is Dash's competitive edge?
  37. Why saying "Dash is a company" is false: Dash Core Inc., a company based in Scottsdale, Arizona is not the decentralized network called Dash. The network, consistent of over 4.5k globally distributed, decentralized Masternodes decided to hire and fund the company Dash Core Inc. to develop said network. This is the distinguishing property of Dash being a DAO, so it's understandable people have difficulty grasping the concept. Similarly Dash does not have a CEO, while Dash Core Inc. -obviously- has.
  38. Dash does not and never had a "dev tax": Dash has a Treasury and its distribution is being voted on each month. Only those funds that have been approved by the Masternode network go to proposal owners. The Treasury is capped at 10% of the accumulated block reward of one month. There is no central authority non-requested or non-approved funds go to and there never has been. Those funds are simply not created. So you can have months in which only 8% of the budget is being paid out, with the remaining 2% going to nobody due to not being mined.
  39. "B-but Evan Duffield can roll back the last 24 hours of the blockchain with the flick of a button!" Complete bullshit. The key in question refers to requiring a Masternode to re-validate its pre-existing blockchain in order to ensure it's on the right chain. Masternodes have nothing do with putting or removing transactions into or from the blockchain, only the miners can do that, thus claiming someone can "roll back the blockchain" in Dash is a malicious lie and a desperate attempt to make Dash look centralized when it's not. In short: No such button exists, ever existed or will ever exist.
  40. Why the total coin supply was changed or "The 84 million coin"-Question

General notes:

The Dash community is well aware that during most of its history this project has been under attack by competitors, many of which are trying to portray Dash (among many other things) as a failure. This is oxymoronic, because nobody hates on failures, especially not for 4 successful years in a row.
If you want a quick history lesson, here's a comment I made on where the Dash hate originated from back in 2014
Another, longer history lesson
Remain skeptical towards sensational accusations without evidence. Our community is helpful, knowledgeable and more than happy to answer any questions, as we have done many times on this subreddit. Still, we're all only human, have limited resources and we're just one project among many (always among the top, though!). Stakeholders and investors of other projects will always have an agenda to smear what they perceive as competition (I have yet to see our community actively go after other projects, though).
Just remember the Bullshit Asymmetry: "The amount of energy required to refute bullshit is at least an order of magnitude larger than to produce it." So it would be very unjust to expect a refutation on the spot all of the time. Prefer taking the initiative by asking the community directly about the claim you're confronted with. This community has proven many times to possess the integrity required to admit to technological shortcomings, but at the same time we'll never hesitate to call out illegitimate claims and accusations, of which there are many, for what they are.
The most common and most empty attack is "Dash is a scam".
More importantly you have to ask the critic just this one question: Who was scammed? The answer usually consists of complete silence or attempts to change the topic. This may sound all very defensive to someone who has never experienced the kind of FUD Dash has faced over the years, but the falsehoods we've refuted above are still being perpetuated by a very lonely but also very loud minority.

Not an ICO project

Regarding Dash's finances: Despite what many people assume influenced by the ICO insanity of the recent past, Dash did not have an ICO and Dash does not depend on 3rd party funding/investors. It is self funded from the blockchain and thus an entirely independent organization that does exactly what it wants, not what any angel investors want us to do. Dash is the first currency in history to achieve that.

Quick incomplete rundown of Dash's features

In fact Dash pioneered almost every single one of its features making it one of the most prolific innovators in the cryptocurrency space. Before Dash invented them, none of these features existed:
To re-iterate a previous point:
Dash has been copied by several dozen other projects either completely or through selected features indicating a strong approval of its technology within the wider cryptocurrency industry. The most copied feature by far is the Masternode system and the financial self-reliance it provides.
submitted by Basilpop to dashpay [link] [comments]

Agreement with Satoshi – On the Formalization of Nakamoto Consensus

Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2018/400
Date: 2018-05-01
Author(s): Nicholas Stifter, Aljosha Judmayer, Philipp Schindler, Alexei Zamyatin, Edgar Weippl

Link to Paper


Abstract
The term Nakamoto consensus is generally used to refer to Bitcoin's novel consensus mechanism, by which agreement on its underlying transaction ledger is reached. It is argued that this agreement protocol represents the core innovation behind Bitcoin, because it promises to facilitate the decentralization of trusted third parties. Specifically, Nakamoto consensus seeks to enable mutually distrusting entities with weak pseudonymous identities to reach eventual agreement while the set of participants may change over time. When the Bitcoin white paper was published in late 2008, it lacked a formal analysis of the protocol and the guarantees it claimed to provide. It would take the scientific community several years before first steps towards such a formalization of the Bitcoin protocol and Nakamoto consensus were presented. However, since then the number of works addressing this topic has grown substantially, providing many new and valuable insights. Herein, we present a coherent picture of advancements towards the formalization of Nakamoto consensus, as well as a contextualization in respect to previous research on the agreement problem and fault tolerant distributed computing. Thereby, we outline how Bitcoin's consensus mechanism sets itself apart from previous approaches and where it can provide new impulses and directions to the scientific community. Understanding the core properties and characteristics of Nakamoto consensus is of key importance, not only for assessing the security and reliability of various blockchain systems that are based on the fundamentals of this scheme, but also for designing future systems that aim to fulfill comparable goals.

References
[AAC+05] Amitanand S Aiyer, Lorenzo Alvisi, Allen Clement, Mike Dahlin, Jean-Philippe Martin, and Carl Porth. Bar fault tolerance for cooperative services. In ACM SIGOPS operating systems review, volume 39, pages 45–58. ACM, 2005.
[ABSFG08] Eduardo A Alchieri, Alysson Neves Bessani, Joni Silva Fraga, and Fab´ıola Greve. Byzantine consensus with unknown participants. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems, pages 22–40. SpringerVerlag, 2008.
[AFJ06] Dana Angluin, Michael J Fischer, and Hong Jiang. Stabilizing consensus in mobile networks. In Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems, pages 37–50. Springer, 2006.
[AJK05] James Aspnes, Collin Jackson, and Arvind Krishnamurthy. Exposing computationally-challenged byzantine impostors. Department of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, Tech. Rep, 2005.
[AMN+16] Ittai Abraham, Dahlia Malkhi, Kartik Nayak, Ling Ren, and Alexander Spiegelman. Solidus: An incentive-compatible cryptocurrency based on permissionless byzantine consensus. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.02916, Dec 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-06.
[AS98] Yair Amir and Jonathan Stanton. The spread wide area group communication system. Technical report, TR CNDS-98-4, The Center for Networking and Distributed Systems, The Johns Hopkins University, 1998.
[Bag00] Walter Bagehot. The english constitution, volume 3. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1900. ¨
[Ban98] Bela Ban. Design and implementation of a reliable group communication toolkit for java, 1998.
[BBRTP07] Roberto Baldoni, Marin Bertier, Michel Raynal, and Sara Tucci-Piergiovanni. Looking for a definition of dynamic distributed systems. In International Conference on Parallel Computing Technologies, pages 1–14. Springer, 2007.
[Bit] Bitcoin community. Bitcoin-core source code. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin. Accessed: 2015-06-30.
[BJ87] Ken Birman and Thomas Joseph. Exploiting virtual synchrony in distributed systems. volume 21. ACM, 1987.
[BMC+15] Joseph Bonneau, Andrew Miller, Jeremy Clark, Arvind Narayanan, Joshua A Kroll, and Edward W Felten. Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2015.
[BO83] Michael Ben-Or. Another advantage of free choice (extended abstract): Completely asynchronous agreement protocols. In Proceedings of the second annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 27–30. ACM, 1983.
[BPS16a] Iddo Bentov, Rafael Pass, and Elaine Shi. The sleepy model of consensus. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/918.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.
[BPS16b] Iddo Bentov, Rafael Pass, and Elaine Shi. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/919.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.
[BR09] Franc¸ois Bonnet and Michel Raynal. The price of anonymity: Optimal consensus despite asynchrony, crash and anonymity. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Distributed computing, pages 341–355. Springer-Verlag, 2009.
[Bre00] EA Brewer. Towards robust distributed systems. abstract. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, page 7, 2000.
[BSAB+17] Shehar Bano, Alberto Sonnino, Mustafa Al-Bassam, Sarah Azouvi, Patrick McCorry, Sarah Meiklejohn, and George Danezis. Consensus in the age of blockchains. arXiv:1711.03936, 2017. Accessed:2017-12-11.
[BT16] Zohir Bouzid and Corentin Travers. Anonymity-preserving failure detectors. In International Symposium on Distributed Computing, pages 173–186. Springer, 2016.
[Can00] Ran Canetti. Security and composition of multiparty cryptographic protocols. Journal of CRYPTOLOGY, 13(1):143–202, 2000.
[Can01] Ran Canetti. Universally composable security: A new paradigm for cryptographic protocols. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2001. Proceedings. 42nd IEEE Symposium on, pages 136–145. IEEE, 2001.
[CFN90] David Chaum, Amos Fiat, and Moni Naor. Untraceable electronic cash. In Proceedings on Advances in cryptology, pages 319–327. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1990.
[CGR07] Tushar D Chandra, Robert Griesemer, and Joshua Redstone. Paxos made live: an engineering perspective. In Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 398–407. ACM, 2007.
[CGR11] Christian Cachin, Rachid Guerraoui, and Luis Rodrigues. Introduction to reliable and secure distributed programming. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011.
[CKS00] Christian Cachin, Klaus Kursawe, and Victor Shoup. Random oracles in constantinople: Practical asynchronous byzantine agreement using cryptography. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 123–132. ACM, 2000.
[CL+99] Miguel Castro, Barbara Liskov, et al. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. In OSDI, volume 99, pages 173–186, 1999.
[CL02] Miguel Castro and Barbara Liskov. Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 20(4):398–461, 2002.
[CNV04] Miguel Correia, Nuno Ferreira Neves, and Paulo Verissimo. How to tolerate half less one byzantine nodes in practical distributed systems. In Reliable Distributed Systems, 2004. Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE International Symposium on, pages 174–183. IEEE, 2004.
[Coo09] J. L. Coolidge. The gambler’s ruin. Annals of Mathematics, 10(4):181–192, 1909.
[Cri91] Flaviu Cristian. Reaching agreement on processor-group membrship in synchronous distributed systems. Distributed Computing, 4(4):175–187, 1991.
[CT96] Tushar Deepak Chandra and Sam Toueg. Unreliable failure detectors for reliable distributed systems. volume 43, pages 225–267. ACM, 1996.
[CV17] Christian Cachin and Marko Vukolic. Blockchain con- ´sensus protocols in the wild. arXiv:1707.01873, 2017. Accessed:2017-09-26.
[CVL10] Miguel Correia, Giuliana S Veronese, and Lau Cheuk Lung. Asynchronous byzantine consensus with 2f+ 1 processes. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM symposium on applied computing, pages 475–480. ACM, 2010.
[CVNV11] Miguel Correia, Giuliana Santos Veronese, Nuno Ferreira Neves, and Paulo Verissimo. Byzantine consensus in asynchronous message-passing systems: a survey. volume 2, pages 141–161. Inderscience Publishers, 2011.
[CWA+09] Allen Clement, Edmund L Wong, Lorenzo Alvisi, Michael Dahlin, and Mirco Marchetti. Making byzantine fault tolerant systems tolerate byzantine faults. In NSDI, volume 9, pages 153–168, 2009.
[DDS87] Danny Dolev, Cynthia Dwork, and Larry Stockmeyer. On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus. volume 34, pages 77–97. ACM, 1987.
[Dei] Wei Dei. b-money. http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt. Accessed on 03/03/2017.
[DGFGK10] Carole Delporte-Gallet, Hugues Fauconnier, Rachid Guerraoui, and Anne-Marie Kermarrec. Brief announcement: Byzantine agreement with homonyms. In Proceedings of the twentysecond annual ACM symposium on Parallelism in algorithms and architectures, pages 74–75. ACM, 2010.
[DGG02] Assia Doudou, Benoˆıt Garbinato, and Rachid Guerraoui. Encapsulating failure detection: From crash to byzantine failures. In International Conference on Reliable Software Technologies, pages 24–50. Springer, 2002.
[DGKR17] Bernardo David, Peter Gazi, Aggelos Kiayias, and Alexan- ˇder Russell. Ouroboros praos: An adaptively-secure, semisynchronous proof-of-stake protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/573, 2017. Accessed: 2017-06-29.
[DLP+86] Danny Dolev, Nancy A Lynch, Shlomit S Pinter, Eugene W Stark, and William E Weihl. Reaching approximate agreement in the presence of faults. volume 33, pages 499–516. ACM, 1986.
[DLS88] Cynthia Dwork, Nancy Lynch, and Larry Stockmeyer. Consensus in the presence of partial synchrony. volume 35, pages 288–323. ACM, 1988.
[DN92] Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor. Pricing via processing or combatting junk mail. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 139–147. Springer, 1992.
[Dol81] Danny Dolev. Unanimity in an unknown and unreliable environment. In Foundations of Computer Science, 1981. SFCS’81. 22nd Annual Symposium on, pages 159–168. IEEE, 1981.
[Dou02] John R Douceur. The sybil attack. In International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, pages 251–260. Springer, 2002.
[DSU04] Xavier Defago, Andr ´ e Schiper, and P ´ eter Urb ´ an. Total order ´ broadcast and multicast algorithms: Taxonomy and survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 36(4):372–421, 2004.
[DW13] Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2013.
[EGSvR16] Ittay Eyal, Adem Efe Gencer, Emin Gun Sirer, and Robbert van Renesse. Bitcoin-ng: A scalable blockchain protocol. In 13th USENIX Security Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI’16). USENIX Association, Mar 2016.
[ES14] Ittay Eyal and Emin Gun Sirer. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin ¨ mining is vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 436–454. Springer, 2014.
[Fin04] Hal Finney. Reusable proofs of work (rpow). http://web.archive.org/web/20071222072154/http://rpow.net/, 2004. Accessed: 2016-04-31.
[Fis83] Michael J Fischer. The consensus problem in unreliable distributed systems (a brief survey). In International Conference on Fundamentals of Computation Theory, pages 127–140. Springer, 1983.
[FL82] Michael J FISCHER and Nancy A LYNCH. A lower bound for the time to assure interactive consistency. volume 14, Jun 1982.
[FLP85] Michael J Fischer, Nancy A Lynch, and Michael S Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. volume 32, pages 374–382. ACM, 1985.
[Fuz08] Rachele Fuzzati. A formal approach to fault tolerant distributed consensus. PhD thesis, EPFL, 2008.
[GHM+17] Yossi Gilad, Rotem Hemo, Silvio Micali, Georgios Vlachos, and Nickolai Zeldovich. Algorand: Scaling byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/454, 2017. Accessed: 2017-06-29.
[GKL15] Juan Garay, Aggelos Kiayias, and Nikos Leonardos. The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2015, pages 281–310. Springer, 2015.
[GKL16] Juan A. Garay, Aggelos Kiayias, and Nikos Leonardos. The bitcoin backbone protocol with chains of variable difficulty. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1048.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-06.
[GKP17] Juan A. Garay, Aggelos Kiayias, and Giorgos Panagiotakos. Proofs of work for blockchain protocols. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/775, 2017. http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/775.
[GKQV10] Rachid Guerraoui, Nikola Knezevi ˇ c, Vivien Qu ´ ema, and Marko ´ Vukolic. The next 700 bft protocols. In ´ Proceedings of the 5th European conference on Computer systems, pages 363–376. ACM, 2010.
[GKTZ12] Adam Groce, Jonathan Katz, Aishwarya Thiruvengadam, and Vassilis Zikas. Byzantine agreement with a rational adversary. pages 561–572. Springer, 2012.
[GKW+16] Arthur Gervais, Ghassan O Karame, Karl Wust, Vasileios ¨ Glykantzis, Hubert Ritzdorf, and Srdjan Capkun. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/555.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-08-10.
[GL02] Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch. Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. volume 33, pages 51–59. ACM, 2002.
[GRKC15] Arthur Gervais, Hubert Ritzdorf, Ghassan O Karame, and Srdjan Capkun. Tampering with the delivery of blocks and transactions in bitcoin. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 692–705. ACM, 2015.
[Her88] Maurice P Herlihy. Impossibility and universality results for wait-free synchronization. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM Symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 276–290. ACM, 1988.
[Her91] Maurice Herlihy. Wait-free synchronization. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 13(1):124–149, 1991.
[HKZG15] Ethan Heilman, Alison Kendler, Aviv Zohar, and Sharon Goldberg. Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15), pages 129–144, 2015.
[Hoe07] Jaap-Henk Hoepman. Distributed double spending prevention. In Security Protocols Workshop, pages 152–165. Springer, 2007.
[HT94] Vassos Hadzilacos and Sam Toueg. A modular approach to fault-tolerant broadcasts and related problems. Cornell University Technical Report 94-1425, 1994.
[IT08] Hideaki Ishii and Roberto Tempo. Las vegas randomized algorithms in distributed consensus problems. In 2008 American Control Conference, pages 2579–2584. IEEE, 2008.
[JB99] Ari Juels and John G Brainard. Client puzzles: A cryptographic countermeasure against connection depletion attacks. In NDSS, volume 99, pages 151–165, 1999.
[KMMS01] Kim Potter Kihlstrom, Louise E Moser, and P Michael MelliarSmith. The securering group communication system. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 4(4):371–406, 2001.
[KMMS03] Kim Potter Kihlstrom, Louise E Moser, and P Michael MelliarSmith. Byzantine fault detectors for solving consensus. volume 46, pages 16–35. Br Computer Soc, 2003.
[KMTZ13] Jonathan Katz, Ueli Maurer, Bjorn Tackmann, and Vassilis ¨ Zikas. Universally composable synchronous computation. In TCC, volume 7785, pages 477–498. Springer, 2013.
[KP15] Aggelos Kiayias and Giorgos Panagiotakos. Speed-security tradeoff s in blockchain protocols. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1019.pdf, Oct 2015. Accessed: 2016-10-17.
[KP16] Aggelos Kiayias and Giorgos Panagiotakos. On trees, chains and fast transactions in the blockchain. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/545.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-06.
[KRDO16] Aggelos Kiayias, Alexander Russell, Bernardo David, and Roman Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1c14/549f7ba7d6a000d79a7d12255eb11113e6fa.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-20.
[Lam84] Leslie Lamport. Using time instead of timeout for fault-tolerant distributed systems. volume 6, pages 254–280. ACM, 1984.
[Lam98] Leslie Lamport. The part-time parliament. volume 16, pages 133–169. ACM, 1998.
[LCW+06] Harry C Li, Allen Clement, Edmund L Wong, Jeff Napper, Indrajit Roy, Lorenzo Alvisi, and Michael Dahlin. Bar gossip. In Proceedings of the 7th symposium on Operating systems design and implementation, pages 191–204. USENIX Association, 2006.
[LSM06] Brian Neil Levine, Clay Shields, and N Boris Margolin. A survey of solutions to the sybil attack. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, 7, 2006.
[LSP82] Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease. The byzantine generals problem. volume 4, pages 382–401. ACM, 1982.
[LSZ15] Yoad Lewenberg, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. Inclusive block chain protocols. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 528–547. Springer, 2015.
[LTKS15] Loi Luu, Jason Teutsch, Raghav Kulkarni, and Prateek Saxena. Demystifying incentives in the consensus computer. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 706–719. ACM, 2015.
[Lyn96] Nancy A Lynch. Distributed algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
[Mic16] Silvio Micali. Algorand: The efficient and democratic ledger. http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-09.
[Mic17] Silvio Micali. Byzantine agreement, made trivial. https://people.csail.mit.edu/silvio/SelectedApr 2017. Accessed:2018-02-21.
[MJ14] A Miller and LaViola JJ. Anonymous byzantine consensus from moderately-hard puzzles: A model for bitcoin. https://socrates1024.s3.amazonaws.com/consensus.pdf, 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.
[MMRT03] Dahlia Malkhi, Michael Merritt, Michael K Reiter, and Gadi Taubenfeld. Objects shared by byzantine processes. volume 16, pages 37–48. Springer, 2003.
[MPR01] Hugo Miranda, Alexandre Pinto, and Luıs Rodrigues. Appia, a flexible protocol kernel supporting multiple coordinated channels. In Distributed Computing Systems, 2001. 21st International Conference on., pages 707–710. IEEE, 2001.
[MR97] Dahlia Malkhi and Michael Reiter. Unreliable intrusion detection in distributed computations. In Computer Security Foundations Workshop, 1997. Proceedings., 10th, pages 116–124. IEEE, 1997.
[MRT00] Achour Mostefaoui, Michel Raynal, and Fred´ eric Tronel. From ´ binary consensus to multivalued consensus in asynchronous message-passing systems. Information Processing Letters, 73(5-6):207–212, 2000.
[MXC+16] Andrew Miller, Yu Xia, Kyle Croman, Elaine Shi, and Dawn Song. The honey badger of bft protocols. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/199.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2017-01-10.
[Nak08a] Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, Dec 2008. Accessed: 2015-07-01.
[Nak08b] Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper, 2008.
[Nar16] Narayanan, Arvind and Bonneau, Joseph and Felten, Edward and Miller, Andrew and Goldfeder, Steven. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies. https://d28rh4a8wq0iu5.cloudfront.net/bitcointech/readings/princeton bitcoin book.pdf?a=1, 2016. Accessed: 2016-03-29.
[Nei94] Gil Neiger. Distributed consensus revisited. Information processing letters, 49(4):195–201, 1994.
[NG16] Christopher Natoli and Vincent Gramoli. The blockchain anomaly. In Network Computing and Applications (NCA), 2016 IEEE 15th International Symposium on, pages 310–317. IEEE, 2016.
[NKMS16] Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE, 2016.
[PS16a] Rafael Pass and Elaine Shi. Fruitchains: A fair blockchain. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/916.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.
[PS16b] Rafael Pass and Elaine Shi. Hybrid consensus: Scalable permissionless consensus. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/917.pdf, Sep 2016. Accessed: 2016-10-17.
[PS17] Rafael Pass and Elaine Shi. Thunderella: Blockchains with optimistic instant confirmation. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/913, 2017. Accessed:2017-09-26.
[PSL80] Marshall Pease, Robert Shostak, and Leslie Lamport. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. volume 27, pages 228–234. ACM, 1980.
[PSs16] Rafael Pass, Lior Seeman, and abhi shelat. Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/454.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-08-01.
[Rab83] Michael O Rabin. Randomized byzantine generals. In Foundations of Computer Science, 1983., 24th Annual Symposium on, pages 403–409. IEEE, 1983.
[Rei96] Michael K Reiter. A secure group membership protocol. volume 22, page 31, 1996.
[Ric93] Aleta M Ricciardi. The group membership problem in asynchronous systems. PhD thesis, Cornell University, 1993.
[Ros14] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009, 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.
[RSW96] Ronald L Rivest, Adi Shamir, and David A Wagner. Time-lock puzzles and timed-release crypto. 1996.
[Sch90] Fred B Schneider. Implementing fault-tolerant services using the state machine approach: A tutorial. volume 22, pages 299–319. ACM, 1990.
[SLZ16] Yonatan Sompolinsky, Yoad Lewenberg, and Aviv Zohar. Spectre: A fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/1159, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-20.
[SSZ15] Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06183.pdf, 2015. Accessed: 2016-08-22.
[SW16] David Stolz and Roger Wattenhofer. Byzantine agreement with median validity. In LIPIcs-Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, volume 46. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2016.
[Swa15] Tim Swanson. Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger systems. http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf, Apr 2015. Accessed: 2017-10-03.
[SZ13] Yonatan Sompolinsky and Aviv Zohar. Accelerating bitcoin’s transaction processing. fast money grows on trees, not chains, 2013.
[SZ16] Yonatan Sompolinsky and Aviv Zohar. Bitcoin’s security model revisited. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.09193, 2016. Accessed: 2016-07-04.
[Sza14] Nick Szabo. The dawn of trustworthy computing. http://unenumerated.blogspot.co.at/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.html, 2014. Accessed: 2017-12-01.
[TS16] Florian Tschorsch and Bjorn Scheuermann. Bitcoin and ¨ beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. In IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, volume PP, pages 1–1, 2016.
[VCB+13] Giuliana Santos Veronese, Miguel Correia, Alysson Neves Bessani, Lau Cheuk Lung, and Paulo Verissimo. Efficient byzantine fault-tolerance. volume 62, pages 16–30. IEEE, 2013.
[Ver03] Paulo Ver´ıssimo. Uncertainty and predictability: Can they be reconciled? In Future Directions in Distributed Computing, pages 108–113. Springer, 2003.
[Vuk15] Marko Vukolic. The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: ´ Proof-of-work vs. bft replication. In International Workshop on Open Problems in Network Security, pages 112–125. Springer, 2015.
[Vuk16] Marko Vukolic. Eventually returning to strong consistency. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a6a1/b70305b27c556aac779fb65429db9c2e1ef2.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-08-10.
[XWS+17] Xiwei Xu, Ingo Weber, Mark Staples, Liming Zhu, Jan Bosch, Len Bass, Cesare Pautasso, and Paul Rimba. A taxonomy of blockchain-based systems for architecture design. In Software Architecture (ICSA), 2017 IEEE International Conference on , pages 243–252. IEEE, 2017.
[YHKC+16] Jesse Yli-Huumo, Deokyoon Ko, Sujin Choi, Sooyong Park, and Kari Smolander. Where is current research on blockchain technology? – a systematic review. volume 11, page e0163477. Public Library of Science, 2016.
[ZP17] Ren Zhang and Bart Preneel. On the necessity of a prescribed block validity consensus: Analyzing bitcoin unlimited mining protocol. http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/686, 2017. Accessed: 2017-07-20.
submitted by dj-gutz to myrXiv [link] [comments]

Welcome to the FLO subreddit! Here you can learn about FLO and its use as a worldwide public record in many blockchain-based applications

FLO: a worldwide public record

http://flo.cash

What is FLO?
FLO is a cryptocurrency that introduces a worldwide public record for storing information. FLO coins are needed to pay for storage capacity, and coins are issued to reward participants for their work to secure and distribute information.
FLO is used to send payments and store data. This encourages building applications because anyone has the ability to write data into FLO.
How does FLO work?
FLO is a network similar to bitcoin where the open ledger is secured by miners competing to find proof-of-work. FLO has its own ledger, called the FLO blockchain, that can be thought of as a digital public space for storing information.

Download

0.15.1.1
Release files https://github.com/floblockchain/flo/releases

Features

Technical Specifications

Block target spacing: 40 seconds
Difficulty retargets every blocks
Block reward: 100 FLO, halving every 800,000 blocks (about 1 year)
Maximum coins: 160 million FLONetwork port: 7312RPC port: 7313

Mining Information

See our mining guide here: https://forum.flo.cash/t/mining-guide-antminer-l3/36

Block explorers

http://flocha.in/
http://network.flo.cash/

Exchanges

Bittrex https://bittrex.com/Market/Index?MarketName=BTC-FLO
Nova https://novaexchange.com/market/BTC_FLO/
OpenBazaar https://openbazaar.org/
Komodo https://komodoplatform.com/decentralized-exchange/
Blocknet https://www.blocknet.co/block-dx/
Indacoin https://indacoin.com/
Thecoin.pw Exchange https://trade.thecoin.pw
Coin swap services https://coinswitch.co/http://changenow.io

Social

Twitter http://twitter.com/FLOblockchain
Telegram https://t.me/FLOblockchain
Alexandria Rocket Chat https://chat.alexandria.io
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDAELSdJelys5VkE1FuXo2A
Medium Blog https://medium.com/flo-cash
Reddit http://www.reddit.com/FLOblockchain
IRC channel Join #florincoin on http://webchat.freenode.net/
FLO Slack https://florincoin.slack.com/shared_invite/MTgzNDk0MzYxMjY5LTE0OTQ4MTgzMDEtNGIwYzI4NjkwNw

Merchants

http://cryptocloudhosting.org/order
https://cointopay.com/

Notable Partnerships:

California Institute of Technology- https://etdb.caltech.edu/
Overstock's tZERO - https://www.tzero.com/
Open Index Protocol Working Group- https://github.com/oipwg / http://oip.wiki/
Medici Ventures- www.mediciventures.com

Apps running on top of the FLO blockchain:

https://flo.cash/dapps.html
OIP apps
Open Index Protocol - https://oip.wiki/
Alexandria - https://alexandria.io/browse
California Institute of Technology - https://etdb.caltech.edu/browse
Medici Ventures - https://www.mediciventures.com/
Block Header - https://t.me/blockheader
FLO native apps
Overstock's tZERO - https://www.tzero.com/
Shared Secret - http://www.sharedsecret.net/
Notarize with Flotorizer - http://flotorizer.net/
World Mood - http://worldmood.io/
Aterna Love - https://github.com/metacoin/aternaloveXcertify - https://github.com/akhil2015/Xcertify

Links

Official web site http://www.flo.cash
Github links for Alexandria, OIP, Ranchi, and FLO
https://github.com/floblockchain
https://github.com/oipwg
https://github.com/dloa
https://github.com/RanchiMall
FLO Foundation http://flo.foundation
Roadmap https://trello.com/b/jFlPhrzW/florincoin-roadmap
Florincoin and Alexandria presentation @ BitDevs NYC 5/24/17 https://twitter.com/Official_Florin/status/867614281868726273
Florincoin @ CryptoCurrency Convention NYC 4/9/14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U7MXAYCXGc
Florin article @ bitcoinist http://bitcoinist.net/exclusive-qa-with-joseph-fiscella-florincoin-and-decentralized-applications/
Blockchain bootstrap from http://cryptochainer.com/dihttps://mega.nz/#!u15HSADT!nstJ67-mKnWZbMPwddeRJoxEnNneS_94yTfLHoeNQyg
FLO market data read from FLO blockchain visualised http://iquidus.io:5000/
The Decentralized Library of Alexandria - San Diego Bitcoin Meetup 08/15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiZnjM7Y7Cs
Blocktech Project Alexandria v0.4 alpha Intro and Walkthrough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_u-ndscZjY
Alexandria v0.5.1 alpha demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcuj_xILct0
FLO History
Launched June 17th 2013, the first coin with a metadata field on the blockchain for the purpose of building blockchain applications.
2013 * Jun 17th: FLO released with no pre-mine and no ICO https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236742.0 * Jul 9th: Florincoin is the 61st coin added to Cryptsy, the first major altcoin exchange * Sep 9th: Created the first block explorer, florinexchange.com/explorer, an open source explorer which is later replaced with https://florincoin.info * Nov 27th: Coordinated with Skyangel on a hard-fork (required update) to increase the transaction comment size to 528 bytes https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236742.msg3731680#msg3731680 * Dec 10th: Started work on new website * Dec 16th: Songs of Love, a charity for children based in NYC, beings accepting FLO donations to make customized songs for children in need
2014 * Feb 1st: Created the FLO twitter account https://twitter.com/floblockchain (Originally @Official_Florin) * Feb 1st: Created a website, Aterna Love, to store valentine's day messages in the blockchain. Those messages still exist today * Feb 12th: Promoted FLO at the bitcoin center in NYC, with interview by Naomi Brockwell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbeYJID7Ewg * Mar 2nd: Launched new florincoin.org website * Mar 20th: Florincoin subreddit created https://reddit.com/floblockchain (originally /florincoin) * Apr 9th: Presentation about Florincoin at the 1st Cryptocurrency Convention at the scholastic auditorium in NYC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giUL0Wiaz1M * Apr 12th: skyangel releases Florin v0.6.5.13, a hard fork at block 426000, causing FLO to start adjusting difficulty every block https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236742.msg6191701#msg6191701 * Jun 21st: skyangel releases Florin v0.8.7.2, up to date with the latest Litecoin codebase https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236742.msg7440510#msg7440510 * Jun 22nd: bitcoinist.net article: exclusive Q&A with Joseph Fiscella http://bitcoinist.com/exclusive-qa-with-joseph-fiscella-florincoin-and-decentralized-applications/ * Sep 20th: Alexandria team meets in San Diego to work on the project as a team for the first time * Oct 4th: Inside Bitcoins Las Vegas conference with the Alexandria Booth
2015 * Jan 1st: FLO and Alexandria mentioned in a chapter about blockchain applications in Melanie Swan's book Blockchain: A Blueprint for a New Economy http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920037040.do * Mar 3rd: Released the first golang SDK for Florincoin, foundation, on github: - https://github.com/metacoin/foundation - https://github.com/metacoin/flojson * Mar 11th: FLO is open for trading on Bittrex * Mar 11th: FLO is open for trading on Poloniex * Apr 17th: Alexandria 0.4 walkthrough video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_u-ndscZjY * Jun 10th: n-o-d-e.net interview with Alexandria https://n-o-d-e.net/alexandria.html * Jun 25th: Alexandria historian is born and begins recording historic data on the blockchain * Jun 29th: VICE article about Alexandria released: Could Cyberwar Cause a Library of Alexandria Event? https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ae3p4p/could-cyberwar-cause-a-library-of-alexandria-event * Aug 5th: LA times article about Blockchain Technology Group / Alexandria http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cutting-edge-blockchain-20150809-story.html * Sep 24th: CoinTelegraph article about Alexandria https://cointelegraph.com/news/a-glimpse-into-the-future-of-decentralized-media * Dec 9th: Alexandria v0.5.1 alpha demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcuj_xILct0 * Dec 16th: Alexandria booth at Inside Bitcoins San Diego https://i.imgur.com/zZWi31F.jpg
2016 * Mar 25th: FLO 0.10.4.0 released by Bitspill and the Alexandria team, as well as a pool mining historian blocks https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236742.msg14314984#msg14314984 * Apr 8th: FLO used to store Libertarian Party votes in blockchain https://www.coindesk.com/libertarian-party-texas-logs-votes-presidential-electors-blockchain/ * May 3rd: Alexandria meetup in NYC (video URL missing) * Jun 19th: FLO 0.10.4.4 recommended update to latest Litecoin codebase * Nov 27: Alexandria presentation at DAppHack Berlin 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwqkmK9aTXs
2017 * May 15th: FLO meetup in NYC, Telegram channel created https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236742.1560 * May 25th: FLO/Alexandria presentation lived streamed from BitDevs NYC: https://twitter.com/FLOblockchain/status/867614281868726273 * July 12th: Introducing Alexandria and the Open Index Protocol https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@m3ta/introducing-alexandria-and-the-open-index-protocol * July 28th: Amy's blog post about the Alexandria team's visit to San Diego https://medium.com/@amyellajames/build-faster-51712d0ed51d * Aug 20th: Valentin Jesse creates a FLO touchbar app for the 2017 MacBookPro https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236742.msg21047455#msg21047455 * Nov 29th: New logo and new website concept released and revealed to community in the rebranding initiative https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236742.msg25431477#msg25431477 * Dec 22nd: New website launched: https://flo.cash * Dec 22nd: Flotorizer launched at flotorizer.net, Medium article written by Davi Ortega describing the creation of a FLO blockchain application as a non-programmer https://medium.com/@ortega_science/flotorizer-an-experiment-on-blockchain-for-noobs-5dfb3aa6bbd2 * Dec 24th: FLO Community Update https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@m3ta/flo-community-update-december-2017 * Dec 31st: SharedSecret.net, the first blockchain-based implementation of Shamir's Secret Sharing algorithm, is live (again created by Davi Ortega)
2018 * Jan 13th: Live-streaming FLO dev on twitch.tv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAbk8FrbF7k * Jan 18th: FLO python SDK released https://github.com/metacoin/flo-python-sdk * Jan 18th: FLO added to brainwalletX https://github.com/brainwalletX/brainwalletX.github.io/pull/5/files * Jan 18th: FLO C# SDK released https://github.com/adreno-abhi/Flo-CSharp-SDK * Feb 23th: FLO partners with YBF Ventures http://ybfventures.com/worlds-first-web-3-0-hub-ybf-mesh/ * Mar 20th: FLO releases version 0.15 with segwit support, up-to-date with current Bitcoin and Litecoin codebases: https://github.com/floblockchain/flo/releases * May 1st: SPV wallet floj is open-sourced by Alexandria and Medici teams https://github.com/floj-org/floj * July 17th: FLO summit 2018 held in San Diego https://twitter.com/FLOblockchain/status/1018858384534179842 * July 26th: Website updated with dapps dashboard https://twitter.com/flo_development/status/1022534376226213890
submitted by metacoin to floblockchain [link] [comments]

Updated FAQs for newcomers

TL:DR: Don't bother mining if you want to get rich yo. You're way too late to the party.
Welcome to the exciting and often stressful world of bitcoin! You are wondering what looks like a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rich quick. Of course you guys probably heard about this "mining" process but what is this?
Simply put, a bitcoin mining machine that performs complicated calculations and when deemed correct by the network, receives a block which contains 25 bitcoins (XBT). This is how bitcoins are generated. So your brain instantly thinks, "Holy shit, how can I get on this gold rush?"
Before you proceed further, I would like to explain the concept of mining further. Bitcoin is limited 21m in circulation. It is coded to release a certain number of blocks at a certain time frame, ie: this year the network will release close to 500,000 bitcoins. What this means is that the more people (or specifically the amount of mining power) mine, the less each person gets. The network tries to keep to this time frame through the process of difficulty adjustments which makes the calculations harder and this happens every 2 weeks. So every 2 weeks, you get less bitcoins with the same hash rate (mining power) based on what the difficulty changes are. Recently, the changes have been pretty staggering, jumping 226% in 2 months. You can see the difficulty changes here.
Now, why are these changes so large?
A bit of a simple history. Bitcoin's algorithm runs on SHA-256. This algorithm can be solved using many hardware, from CPU to GPU and dedicated hardware (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). When bitcoin first started, mining on CPU was a trivial process, you can pretty much earn 50 XBT (the block size then) every few hours between Q1 and Q2 of 2010.
In late 2010, due to the difficulty increase that is reducing the effectiveness of CPU mining, people started to harness GPU mining. Only AMD GPU's architecture design are better optimized for bitcoin mining so this is what the community used. Immediate improvements of more than 10x was not uncommon.
In time of course, GPUs reached their limit and people started to build dedicated. In the same vein as the CPU to GPU transition, similar performance increase was common. These ASICs can only perform SHA-256 calculation so they can be highly optimized. Their performance mainly depends on the die size of the chips exactly like CPU chips.
In general, think of bitcoin mining's technological advancement no different to mining gold. Gold panning (CPUs) vs pickaxes (GPUs) vs machinery (ASICs) and we are still in the ASIC mining race.
ASIC mining started with ASICMiner and Avalon being first to the market, both producing 130nm and 110nm chips. The technology are antiquated in comparison to CPUs and GPUs which are now 22nm with 14nm slated for Q1 next year by Intel but they are cheap to manufacture and with performance gains similar to the CPU to GPU transition, they were highly successful and popular for early adopters. At that point in time since there were less competing manufacturers and the low batch runs of their products, miners became really rich due to the slow increase in difficulty.
The good days came to an end mid August with an unprecedented 35% increase in difficulty. This is due to existing manufacturers selling more hardware and many other players coming onto the market with better hardware (smaller die). Since die shrinking knowledge and manufacturing process are well known along with a large technological gap (110nm vs 22nm), you get an arms race. Current ASIC makers are closing in on our technological limit and until everyone catches up, the difficulty jumps will be high because it is just too easy to get a performance increase. Most newer products run at 28nm and most chips are not well optimized, so it will be around another 6 to 9 months before we see hit a hard plateau with 22nm or 14nm chips. The estimated time frame is because manufacturing chips at 22nm or 14nm is a more difficult and expensive task. In the meantime most manufacturers will probably settle at 28nm and we will reach a soft plateau in about 3 months.
Now, you might ask these questions and should have them answered and if you have not thought about them at all, then you probably should not touch bitcoin until you understand cause you are highly unprepared and probably lose lots of money.
No. If you have to ask, please do not touch bitcoin yet. You will spend more on electricity cost than mining any substantial bitcoin. Seriously. At all. A 7990 would produce a pitiful 0.02879 XBT (USD $14 @ $500/XBT exchange rate) for the next 30 days starting 23 Nov 2013 at 35% difficulty increase.
And if you think you can mine on your laptop either on a CPU or GPU, you are probably going to melt it before you even get 0.01 XBT.
Probably not because you probably forgot that GPUs and CPUs produce a ton of heat and noise. You can try but I see no point earning < $20 bucks per month.
No, because your machine will probably not mine as much as buying bitcoins. This situation is called the opportunity cost. While you can still make money if XBT rise in value, it is a fallacy.
IE: if you start mining on 1 Dec 2013, a KnC Jupiter running at 450Gh/sec (KnC lies as not all chips run at 550Gh/sec) will yield you a total revenue of 9.5189 XBT with a profit of 0.7859 XBT in profit by 30th Jan 2014 at a constant difficulty increase of 35%. The opportunity cost is: 8.5910 XBT @ USD $580/XBT with USD $5,000 which is the cost of a KnC Jupiter. This is the best you can earn and it's a bloody optimistic assumption because:
The only circumstances where you will earn money is when XBT exchange rates is so high that it makes the opportunity cost pales in comparison. Unfortunately this is not the case. If XBT stabilized at 900/XBT today (20 Nov 2013) then we might have a good case.
The risk is just generally not worth it. Unless you have at least a hundred thousand and can make a contract with a manufacturer for a lower cost, do not bother. Just wait until the arms race is over then you can start mining.
Okay, go buy an AsicMiner USB Block Erupter. They are cheap and pretty fun to have.
Sure, just read the answer below on who NOT to go for. You are doing bitcoin a service by securing the network and you have our (the users') gratitude.
You can check out the manufacturers and their products below along with a calculator here.
If you still insist on buying, do not to go for BFL. Their track record is horrid and borderline scammish. KnC fucked up a lot with defective boards and chips. Personally, I think CoinTerra is the best choice.
Alternatively, you can go on the secondary market to buy a delivered product. You can get a better deal there if you know how to do your "return on investment (ROI)" calculation. Personally, I will go for a 45%-50% difficulty increase for the next 3 months for my calculations and a 2% pool fee.
However, most products on ebay are sold at a cost much higher than it should. bitcointalk.org is a cheaper place because everyone knows what are the true value is so you will find less options. If you are unclear or need assistance, please post a question.
I actually do not use any of the pools recommended to the left because I think they lack features.
My favourite is Bitminter (Variable fees based on features used; max 2%). It has all advanced features for a pool, very responsive and helpful owner on IRC. Variable fees is good for those who do not need a large feature set, even with all features turned on, it is still cheap.
Eligius (0% fees) has high value for money but lacks features. It has anonymous mining which might be attractive to certain subset of people but not for others. Many other community member and I disagree highly with the opinions of the owner on the direction of bitcoin. I do use his pool for now but I do so only because I share my miners with a few partners and anonymous mining allows us to monitor the machines without using an account. Bitminter uses only OpenID which is problematic for me.
BTC Guild (3% fees) is another big pool and is fully featured and does charge a premium for their fees. That said, they are the most stable of the lot. I do use them but do so only because my hoster uses them for monitoring. I try not to use them because a pool with a very large hash rate (they are the largest) presents a large vulnerability to bitcoin's network if compromised.
All of them pay out transaction fees.
submitted by Coz131 to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Die traurige Bitcoin Wahrheit - Traden, Fakten, Mining, Zukunft, - DOKU Deutsch 2014 sk2.eu ✔✔✔ CryptoCurrency Mining Difficulty Log Jan 27 2020 Hash Rates & difficulty for CryptoCurrency Will Bitcoin Recover Bitcoins Are Dumb CryptoCurrency Mining Difficulty Log Jan 30 2020 Hash Rates & difficulty for CryptoCurrency

BetMoose is a global betting exchange where you earn money by predicting real life future events and outcomes. Use bitcoin to bet anonymously. Jan. 28, 2014, 4:53 p.m. btc-e has been disabled on Bitcoin Charts until problems with accessing their API has been resolved. Kraken added. Jan. 8, 2014, 7:52 p.m. We've just added Kraken to bitcoincharts. btc-e USD restored. Jan. 4, 2014, 10:45 a.m. As of today btc-e USD is back. Please keep in mind that the data feed from btce is still ... Bitcoin Difficulty Increase. Difficulty on the bitcoin network is a measure of how problematic it is to find a hash below a given target. Valid blocks must have a hash below the global block difficulty target. There is also a share difficulty which applies to mining pools and their ability to find a hash that is lower than the global target. But Williams sees the broader market wising up to Bitcoin’s limitations and taking back control in 2014. Bitcoin is not a stock, a bond or even a legal entity. No board or directors oversees it. Bitcoin difficulty is also expected to undergo an imminent increase of 8% or so this week if it hasn’t already (charts are lagging a day or so). LongHash has been looking into the trends to see if there is any correlation between these metrics and bitcoin prices.

[index] [2300] [37484] [7790] [38026] [7768] [11946] [6864] [12922] [6819] [25198]

Die traurige Bitcoin Wahrheit - Traden, Fakten, Mining, Zukunft, - DOKU Deutsch 2014 sk2.eu ✔✔✔

The Impact of the Bitcoin - https://www.bitcoin.com The rise of the bitcoin as a virtual currency is prompting both excitement and concerns around the world. This program examines the 2 sides of ... For more info regarding bitcoin paper wallet, please visit web site below: http://www.cryptocoinwalletcards.com/ Tags: asic bitcoin miner, asic bitcoin miner... #Mining #BitCoin #Cryptocurrency Welcome to the 13th episode of CCMDL , January 27 2020 We go over talk a little about the difficulty of Ethereum , Bitcoin, Monero & LiteCoins difficulty for ... Bitcoins Wallet wird man auf einen Handy nicht so leicht benutzten können mit 30 oder 40 GB Blockchain ;)/ oder wie soll das gehen? Auch hab ich keine Lust auf Dauer auf meinen PC 40GB dazu zu ... http://bitcoinpoet.com Bitcoin is a software-based payment system described by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 and introduced as open-source software in 2009. Payme...

#