DigiByte (DGB) SHA-256 Mining Pools

PetroDollar (P$) Community

The PetroDollar (P$): Bringing the gold standard back to the world's oil industry.
[link]

Myriad - A coin for everyone.

Myriad (XMY) is a Multi-PoW consensus protocol secured by 5 mining algorithms. Each one suits different hardware.
[link]

Has anyone done an analysis on the correlation between the increases in Bitcoin mining difficulty and the value of the top 5 Altcoin SHA256d clones?

My hunch is that over time more 'profit motive' based miners will fall off the Bitcoin mining wagon and dedicate their hashing power (and faith) to other altcoin crypto-currencies. Which in turn could increase the price per unit of those coins.
TL;DR It might not be a bad idea to have an investment in a basket of SHA256d altcoins, the ones that have a great community backing them.
submitted by coolcityboy to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

DigiByte Mining Pool - Official Launch - 50,000 DGB Giveaway!

DigiByte Mining Pool - Official Launch - 50,000 DGB Giveaway!

https://preview.redd.it/1hlax7cksas51.png?width=2000&format=png&auto=webp&s=6893e01650cfdd3a778df5705a0382ad8b382488
I have been working hard on the front-end of my pool for the past couple of months. Anyone who saw v1.0 will be shocked to see the progress it's made. It now has a fantastic front-end with detailed charts, graphs, and user stats, all in a sleek Bootstrap 4.0 layout.
Miners....come join us at https://Luckyblocks.ninja
I wanted to offer support for all Algo's, and initially, I did. But after talking with DigiByte developers, and taking their advice this was changed to support only Scrypt and SHA256D. Until ProgPOW is implemented GPU mining is pointless, so this ultimately is why I chose Scrypt and SHA256D.
Another feature of the pool is BTC and LTC Solo Mining for any of you guys out there that have some gear that's not profitable to mine with anymore and just want to play the blockchain lottery. Wouldn't it be nice to wake up with 6.25 Bitcoin in your wallet one morning?
General Pool Features are:
  • Asic-Boost Supported
  • Ultra-efficient handcrafted code
  • Transaction fees paid to miners
  • VarDiff & Static Diff Supported
  • Anonymous mining to your wallet
  • Solo Mining
  • No withdraw fees
  • No registration
  • No pool wallets
Ready to join up? Head over to https://Luckyblocks.ninja to get started.
PS - Did I mention we're going to give one lucky miner 50,000 DigiByte?
Want to know more about the Giveaway? https://Luckyblocks.ninja/faq
submitted by WeDontServeYourKind to Digibyte [link] [comments]

Ethereum 's Top 7 Mining Tools in 2020

If there is a cryptocurrency that has acquired popularity close to Bitcoin, then it is Ethereum. It is among the leading crypto-currencies when it comes to market capitalization. Ethereum is not just a cryptocurrency, but it is also a blockchain system that is useful in creating decentralised applications. Since Ethereum Blockchain is used by most companies now, it is gaining popularity among Ethereum miners and developers.
Ethereum mining is a great way to make more cash. Benefiting from cryptocurrencies in p is a perfect option. Since many applications for Blockchain depend on Ethereum. Ethereum mining is going to be lucrative, as its price is expected to grow. The Ethereum minimum can be simplified with the use of the best Ethereum software. There are some apps like that on the market, and we've got the seven best for you here.
7 Ethereum 's Best Apps:
ETHminer- This is an Ethereum mining application which is supported on Linux , Windows, and Mac. It is also possible to use the Ethash algorithm, luke Ellaisma, Musicoin Ethereum Classic, Metaverse, It is a command-line program that allows you to construct shortcut commands using a Windows cmd / batch file or Linux Bash script.
The next software on our list is CGMiner-A, which was published in 2011. It is one of the common choices and has compatibility with GPU, FPGA, and ASIC. It is open-source software and can cause advanced detection of blocks.
It is written in C; Ethereum developers are able to save a hash rate without delay using this Ethereum mining programme. On Linux , Windows, and Mac, this program is open.
BitMinter- The graphical interface is transparent and it links easily to the Bitminter mining pool. This software was launched in 2011 and has more than 450,000 user accounts registered. The Java Network Launch Protocol (JNLP) is the foundation of its operations. Linux, Windows and Mac are also compatible with this programme.
Claymore- This is one of the most powerful mining applications for Ethereum, and without delaying the mining pace, you can scale up the hash rate. You can also mine other cryptocurrencies like Lbry, Pascal, Siacoin, and Decred using this Ethereum mining programme. This software is Linux and Windows compatible and not Mac compatible.
WinETH- If you are looking for an Ethereum mining app that is fast and simple to use, then this is the one for you. It is comparable to WinETH, but it has a simpler Interface and a smarter algorithm that makes it easy to use for Ethereum miners.
Minergate-It was the first mining app for Ethereum to deliver merged mining. You can use this app to concurrently mine two separate coins without impacting the main coin's hash rate. In addition, this coin will also tell you about the market's most valuable coins.
This programme can be used by Ethereum miners to mine other coins, including Zcash, Liteoin, Monero.
BFGMiner- This programme is written in C and operates on various Linux, Windows and Mac operating systems. You will mine crypto coins and have both SHA256D and Scrypt on its algorithm. It also offers you total support for tracking.
Conclusion- These are some of the popular mining applications for Ethereum that you can use. If you would like to know more about the creation of Ethereum, or Ethereum mining, If you wish to know more about Ethereum development, or Ethereum mining, or you want to enroll for Ethereum certification, connect with Blockchain Council today.
submitted by Blockchain_org to BlockchainStartups [link] [comments]

[MINING] Can anyone help with this? "stratum_subscribe timed out ...retry after 10 seconds"

Hi everyone,
Just as a disclaimer for the beginning, I'm not investing in Bitcoin, I'm not doing this for any profit or reason, it's more for my own interest.
I'm trying to do some mining on my Raspberry Pi 3, and I have set up a wallet, got a pool account with Slush Pool, and installed or the libraries and software needed to run. As far as I am aware I have ran the right code. However, when I run it, I get this:
 ./cpuminer --algo sha256d --url stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.slushpool.com:3333 --user CENSORED --pass CENSORED ** cpuminer-multi 1.3.7 by [email protected] ** [2020-05-18 21:25:38] Starting Stratum on stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.slushpool.com:3333 [2020-05-18 21:25:38] 4 miner threads started, using 'sha256d' algorithm. [2020-05-18 21:26:08] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:26:08] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:26:48] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:26:48] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:27:28] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:27:28] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:28:08] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:28:08] ...retry after 10 seconds [2020-05-18 21:28:48] stratum_subscribe timed out [2020-05-18 21:28:48] ...retry after 10 seconds 
Anyone have any idea on how to sort this out? Thanks
submitted by SwagBee to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Huobi Pool is merge-mining Myriadcoin Please Update Your Mining Node.

The Huobi sha256d pool appears to be merge-mining Myriadcoin (as signed in the auxpow coinbase "/Huobi/"). It is urgent that you update your Myriadcoin node as consensus rules are changing. You risk mining a forked chain. Here is the link:
https://www.reddit.com/myriadcoin/comments/9l0apt/myriadcoin_01440/
Please notify your mining pool operator at your earliest convenience.
submitted by cryptapus to HuobiGlobal [link] [comments]

Pure PoW is DEAD

When I was 16, camping out in an airport waiting to board my first International flight to England I began chatting with a U.S. Airforce pilot who had camped up beside my group. Asking him what it was like to fly at mach speeds he replied in a very sober expression, “you have to be alert at all times. You see a mountain or some obstacle appear on the horizon, you better adjust now or you’re going to slam into it.” Maybe he was adding dramatic effect, I’ve never flown at mach speeds at low altitudes, but I never forgot it and the analogy it carries...especially so fitting for technology and progress.
This past week in cryptocurrency shined an important (and hopefully sobering) light on a “mountain” that appeared on our industries horizon...and has actually been visible to us for far too long already: Pure Proof of Work’s inevitable fate.
By pure, I mean consensus algorithms that use nothing but the original Bitcoin proof of work consensus model without updates or algorithm changes to address its weaknesses relative to the ever expanding technology used to hash it. This means Bitcoin, today’s Ethereum, Zcash, Ethereum Classic, and other coins that comprise most of the value in the top 100 cryptocurrencies. The original, unmodified form of basic PoW that most of these coins use is dead. This demise may not be fully appreciated today, but as sure as a mach-speed plane, unable to turn in time is doomed to collide with a mountain in its path, these blockchains must soon either accept their lack of security in today’s world or fork and upgrade to more effective solutions, some of which have been pioneered by smaller projects that don’t command as much hash power and therefore already had to face and address their need for extra security.
I believe it’s actually irresponsible to deny it and assume economics, hash power, market, sentiment or even self-preservation of network participants will be protection enough.
Because Bitcoin is the biggest (by market cap) of the pure PoW cryptocurrencies in existence today, I’ll establish my arguments using BTC, but the same goes for all pure PoW cryptos.
1 - Economics Bitcoin is often defended because it has the largest market cap of all cryptocurrencies and commands most of the capable hash worldwide that might be used to attack it. It is a “store of value” with proponents of this argument relying on few factors, limited supply combined with sentiment being one of the most prominent. They believe that this limited supply will inevitably drive the price up and, somehow, bitcoin will remain unequivocally secured and established.
Bitcoin has serious limitations in its adherence to the pure PoW model, and though the realities of competition has kept it free from major 51% attacks, I predict that it’s only a matter of time before it cannot command the majority of hash power that may be used to attack it. Lack of acceptance that consensus must use more than just PoW, even when checkpoints are an already accepted as necessary augmentation, leaves Bitcoin open to a catastrophic failure at some point in the future, which would affect the short term value of every cryptocurrency, even those that have addressed and solved the most glaring security challenges of a pure PoW model. Some projects have developed and are now using more advanced, more secure technology than pure PoW, and still remain fully decentralized. This is now an area where altcoins are leading, as they fill the security vacuum. With altcoins also having smart contracts and advanced currency capabilities and being potential stores of value as well, the landscape visible on the horizon in front of us looks quite different from the smooth sailing we have seen behind us with respect to projects relying on PoW and PoW alone. I’m not suggesting that Bitcoin should try to be everything that every other altcoin is becoming, but to rely on its single function as an argument of it’s security and sustainability while refraining from important technical advancements to secure its future, is foolish. The calculator is an important, valuable, and useful tool, yet people understood that it should be part of a more multifunction solution and now carry one around inside their smartphone.
The argument supporting Bitcoin’s status quo as a pure PoW blockchain and claiming it is perfect as is for whatever particular reason, is often combined with the following and includes an argument resting on self-preservation. In other words, why would anyone be nefarious and ruin their own wealth and store of value given the enormous hash power and cost it would take to attack Bitcoin? Bitcoin, then, relies on theoretical protection with idealistic boundaries.
2 - Hash Power and Hardware Capabilities This is sort of a 2 in 1 argument. Bitcoin is considered by many, the most secure blockchain in terms of pure hash power. In other words, more hash power is directed at Bitcoin than any other cryptocurrency and, there are limits to sha256d hashing speeds, economically and in hardware capabilities therefore it would be too expensive to attack Bitcoin and by the same token, make no sense to the attacker to do any wrong in this case (self preservation).
To assume technology, A: is limited to what we know now and B: will remain within these bounds for long, is just ignorant. What happens when sha256d can be hashed faster, when hardware innovations change the cost and capabilities involved? How do we know it isn’t possible now? What’s more, will Bitcoin always hold its position as the “special” coin due to its leading network hashpower that simply will never experience a world where there is enough available hash power from other sources to use for a 51% attack? The argument that Bitcoin will remain special is not an argument that its technology can protect it, especially with its roots as a project that grew from a figurative David with its sights set on the Goliath of the banking industry.
Look at the enormous hash power presently directed at Bitcoin and ask, what happens if that hash power is suddenly directed at another, less special coin, as part of a 51% attack? Is that other coin ready to defend in some way against that event? And how does this then impact Bitcoin? I would submit that at the end of the analysis, if the only thing protecting Bitcoin and its current technology from being doublespent to death is the fact that it is uniquely “special” because it is biggest, then as it unarguably becomes centralized among the largest Bitcoin participants and/or institutions, in an ironic way, refusal to improve technology could create exactly the systemic centralization that Satoshi was trying to prevent.
Even so, the idea that Bitcoin can always and forever remain the largest cryptocurrency and “special” as such, ignores historical realities that teach us differently. Remember “alta-vista”, the pre-Google winner of the search engine wars? Remember AOL? MySpace? The economics of bitcoin as people understand them today, the economics involved in mining pure PoW, the sentiment and value assigned to bitcoin and any coin now, can change as rapidly as Bitcoin emerged, even unexpectedly to the masses.
The ETC attack of only a few days ago just put the entire Cryptocurrency industry on notice. Any project without an active solution in place of immunity or at least a defense against a 51% hash attack is in trouble. I would argue that even though it will likely still take some time for market dynamics to enable an attacker to reasonably mount a 51% attack on the largest pure PoW cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, without new defense against such an attack, it is a question of when, not if.
The other day I identified a small handful of projects that have developed and are using defenses against 51% hash attacks, only one of which has a provable solution of hash attack immunity in place.
It’s important to note, any solution that can be seen as real progress over the Bitcoin protocol must be one that is decentralized. While some cryptocurrencies solve the 51% hash attack problem with a fully centralized approach, that truly misses the point of the original Bitcoin paper. Centralized databases are a different technology altogether, and implementing a centralized solution to a decentralized technology changes it entirely, in which case it’s more akin to just trying to brand your centralized database with the latest catch phrases to gain attention, support or funding.
Here’s a short list I identified of projects who have developed a defense or a complete solution to 51% hash attacks. To my knowledge, all of these solutions are now active on the respective project main networks, with the exception of Litecoin Cash, which is running on testnet at this time.:
As an industry, we need to face the fact that pure PoW is an incomplete solution to decentralized blockchain security in this age of cheap, fungible compute power. Pure PoW-only systems must evolve, and it’s time we look beyond to understand what are the best solutions that have evolved to address that fact. If you are part of a crypto project, no matter how large, you ignore the notice provided by the ETC attack at your own peril and the peril of your network participants.
My request is this… if you know of a project with a 51% hash attack solution, please provide some information below. If you totally disagree with the main point of this post, please provide a reasoned argument to prove me wrong or explain why pure PoW systems will remain viable indefinitely. As an industry, it’s time we see the blunt reality and apply innovation. Those who don’t will be reduced to interesting historical experiments.
submitted by ethadvisor to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Can quantum computers threaten bitcoin's cryptography in the future?

I believe bitcoin is in it for the long haul, when people talk about it's weaknesses, cryptography is rarely mentioned because it's really strong, and that's true at least for traditional computers.
Quantum computers in this day and age do exist but are nowhere as practical or viable to be used to attack the bitcoin network or it's crypto.
But some time in the distant or maybe near future, may it be 50 years or 80 years, how will bitcoin be able to hypothetically handle brute force attacks using the sheer power of quantum computation?
Can it evolve with the technology and develop quantum computer resistant cryptography?
submitted by HariSeldon4 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Pure PoW is DEAD

When I was 16, camping out in an airport waiting to board my first International flight to England I began chatting with a U.S. Airforce pilot who had camped up beside my group. Asking him what it was like to fly at mach speeds he replied in a very sober expression, “you have to be alert at all times. You see a mountain or some obstacle appear on the horizon, you better adjust now or you’re going to slam into it.” Maybe he was adding dramatic effect, I’ve never flown at mach speeds at low altitudes, but I never forgot it and the analogy it carries...especially so fitting for technology and progress.
This past week in cryptocurrency shined an important (and hopefully sobering) light on a “mountain” that appeared on our industries horizon...and has actually been visible to us for far too long already: Pure Proof of Work’s inevitable fate.
By pure, I mean consensus algorithms that use nothing but the original Bitcoin proof of work consensus model without updates or algorithm changes to address its weaknesses relative to the ever expanding technology used to hash it. This means Bitcoin, today’s Ethereum, Zcash, Ethereum Classic, and other coins that comprise most of the value in the top 100 cryptocurrencies. The original, unmodified form of basic PoW that most of these coins use is dead. This demise may not be fully appreciated today, but as sure as a mach-speed plane, unable to turn in time is doomed to collide with a mountain in its path, these blockchains must soon either accept their lack of security in today’s world or fork and upgrade to more effective solutions, some of which have been pioneered by smaller projects that don’t command as much hash power and therefore already had to face and address their need for extra security.
I believe it’s actually irresponsible to deny it and assume economics, hash power, market, sentiment or even self-preservation of network participants will be protection enough.
Because Bitcoin is the biggest (by market cap) of the pure PoW cryptocurrencies in existence today, I’ll establish my arguments using BTC, but the same goes for all pure PoW cryptos.
1 - Economics Bitcoin is often defended because it has the largest market cap of all cryptocurrencies and commands most of the capable hash worldwide that might be used to attack it. It is a “store of value” with proponents of this argument relying on few factors, limited supply combined with sentiment being one of the most prominent. They believe that this limited supply will inevitably drive the price up and, somehow, bitcoin will remain unequivocally secured and established.
Bitcoin has serious limitations in its adherence to the pure PoW model, and though the realities of competition has kept it free from major 51% attacks, I predict that it’s only a matter of time before it cannot command the majority of hash power that may be used to attack it. Lack of acceptance that consensus must use more than just PoW, even when checkpoints are an already accepted as necessary augmentation, leaves Bitcoin open to a catastrophic failure at some point in the future, which would affect the short term value of every cryptocurrency, even those that have addressed and solved the most glaring security challenges of a pure PoW model. Some projects have developed and are now using more advanced, more secure technology than pure PoW, and still remain fully decentralized. This is now an area where altcoins are leading, as they fill the security vacuum. With altcoins also having smart contracts and advanced currency capabilities and being potential stores of value as well, the landscape visible on the horizon in front of us looks quite different from the smooth sailing we have seen behind us with respect to projects relying on PoW and PoW alone. I’m not suggesting that Bitcoin should try to be everything that every other altcoin is becoming, but to rely on its single function as an argument of it’s security and sustainability while refraining from important technical advancements to secure its future, is foolish. The calculator is an important, valuable, and useful tool, yet people understood that it should be part of a more multifunction solution and now carry one around inside their smartphone.
The argument supporting Bitcoin’s status quo as a pure PoW blockchain and claiming it is perfect as is for whatever particular reason, is often combined with the following and includes an argument resting on self-preservation. In other words, why would anyone be nefarious and ruin their own wealth and store of value given the enormous hash power and cost it would take to attack Bitcoin? Bitcoin, then, relies on theoretical protection with idealistic boundaries.
2 - Hash Power and Hardware Capabilities This is sort of a 2 in 1 argument. Bitcoin is considered by many, the most secure blockchain in terms of pure hash power. In other words, more hash power is directed at Bitcoin than any other cryptocurrency and, there are limits to sha256d hashing speeds, economically and in hardware capabilities therefore it would be too expensive to attack Bitcoin and by the same token, make no sense to the attacker to do any wrong in this case (self preservation).
To assume technology, A: is limited to what we know now and B: will remain within these bounds for long, is just ignorant. What happens when sha256d can be hashed faster, when hardware innovations change the cost and capabilities involved? How do we know it isn’t possible now? What’s more, will Bitcoin always hold its position as the “special” coin due to its leading network hashpower that simply will never experience a world where there is enough available hash power from other sources to use for a 51% attack? The argument that Bitcoin will remain special is not an argument that its technology can protect it, especially with its roots as a project that grew from a figurative David with its sights set on the Goliath of the banking industry.
Look at the enormous hash power presently directed at Bitcoin and ask, what happens if that hash power is suddenly directed at another, less special coin, as part of a 51% attack? Is that other coin ready to defend in some way against that event? And how does this then impact Bitcoin? I would submit that at the end of the analysis, if the only thing protecting Bitcoin and its current technology from being doublespent to death is the fact that it is uniquely “special” because it is biggest, then as it unarguably becomes centralized among the largest Bitcoin participants and/or institutions, in an ironic way, refusal to improve technology could create exactly the systemic centralization that Satoshi was trying to prevent.
Even so, the idea that Bitcoin can always and forever remain the largest cryptocurrency and “special” as such, ignores historical realities that teach us differently. Remember “alta-vista”, the pre-Google winner of the search engine wars? Remember AOL? MySpace? The economics of bitcoin as people understand them today, the economics involved in mining pure PoW, the sentiment and value assigned to bitcoin and any coin now, can change as rapidly as Bitcoin emerged, even unexpectedly to the masses.
The ETC attack of only a few days ago just put the entire Cryptocurrency industry on notice. Any project without an active solution in place of immunity or at least a defense against a 51% hash attack is in trouble. I would argue that even though it will likely still take some time for market dynamics to enable an attacker to reasonably mount a 51% attack on the largest pure PoW cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, without new defense against such an attack, it is a question of when, not if.
The other day I identified a small handful of projects that have developed and are using defenses against 51% hash attacks, only one of which has a provable solution of hash attack immunity in place.
It’s important to note, any solution that can be seen as real progress over the Bitcoin protocol must be one that is decentralized. While some cryptocurrencies solve the 51% hash attack problem with a fully centralized approach, that truly misses the point of the original Bitcoin paper. Centralized databases are a different technology altogether, and implementing a centralized solution to a decentralized technology changes it entirely, in which case it’s more akin to just trying to brand your centralized database with the latest catch phrases to gain attention, support or funding.
Here’s a short list I identified of projects who have developed a defense or a complete solution to 51% hash attacks. To my knowledge, all of these solutions are now active on the respective project main networks, with the exception of Litecoin Cash, which is running on testnet at this time.:
As an industry, we need to face the fact that pure PoW is an incomplete solution to decentralized blockchain security in this age of cheap, fungible compute power. Pure PoW-only systems must evolve, and it’s time we look beyond to understand what are the best solutions that have evolved to address that fact. If you are part of a crypto project, no matter how large, you ignore the notice provided by the ETC attack at your own peril and the peril of your network participants.
My request is this… if you know of a project with a 51% hash attack solution, please provide some information below. If you totally disagree with the main point of this post, please provide a reasoned argument to prove me wrong or explain why pure PoW systems will remain viable indefinitely. As an industry, it’s time we see the blunt reality and apply innovation. Those who don’t will be reduced to interesting historical experiments.
submitted by ethadvisor to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Why mine other crypto currencies?

Is it not better to just mine bitcoin only since its value is a lot higher than ethereum and other currencies?
submitted by Pyro_Woof to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

[dev] Very developer update

Dear Shibes,
I have the honor of updating you this time with news from the development front, as both u/rnicoll and u/langer_hans are occupied. I’ll try to keep it as to-the-point as possible.
Last week we started to have interactions with the Namecoin development team, as they found u/rnicoll’s gem libdohj and that with all the work he did there and on bitcoinj, he actually did the majority of altcoins a huge favor, as most coins can now very easily, without having to hack bitcoinj, create a java wallet for their coin.
Returning the favor, the Namecoin devs alerted us to the impeding BIP9 implementation in Bitcoin (and therefore becoming a protocol standard that other coins will copy) that conflicts with the auxpow standard that both Namecoin and Dogecoin implement. We’ve quickly looked at BIP9 before, and shortly discussed it, but at that time it seemed to be far on the horizon and a proposal that was very likely to get shot down. However, now that Bitcoin Core wants to introduce Segregated Witness in the short term, BIP9 is very likely to also get implemented short term, and the conflict, unfortunately, remains.
Both Namecoin and Dogecoin have to do something: we need to update the standard to make sure that coins we allow in our auxpow proofs (sha256d coins for Namecoin and scrypt coins for Dogecoin), cannot influence the rules that decide whether a block is valid or not, or we could see an artificial drop in hashrate, putting us at risk of losing security “by accident”. Until so far the bad news, on to the good news.
The good news is that we have been working together with the Namecoin devs on a solution and we know what to do: we’ll change our rules a little bit, so that other coins cannot influence the proof of work validation on our end anymore, without breaking their own. That way, we can be assured that as long as other coins like Litecoin do not hard-fork (when they do that, we need to check ourselves in any case) we will have a working security model. I’m currently reviewing code that is developed by the Namecoin devs, to help them and in the same time have something good that we can take from them: it’s great work as a team with another coin as awesome as Namecoin, too!
The roadmap for Dogecoin is now:
We’re still discussing some details of how we’re going to implement the hard-fork, which mechanism we’ll use to determine the fork moment and when that exactly will take place. We will get back with a proposal on that soon.
So what does this mean for Dogecoin:
  1. We want to make sure that the hard-fork only triggers if more than 95% of the miners are migrated. This is more secure as it means the maximum amount of hashpower we’ll lose is 5%.
  2. We will keep working with Namecoin to make sure that we have a standardized implementation. This helps with transparency and custom implementations (most pools nowadays have custom implementations for “SPV mining”)
What does this mean for shibes:
  1. For now, keep building and fueling your rockets and training for zero gravity environments, this is not a major change like we had before, but it is one that forces an update for everyone, and important enough to do so.
  2. Once we release, you’ll have to update your wallets. We will absolutely notify you and you’ll have a lot of time to do so (many months.)
  3. We will remind you often. Like every other week. And of course whenever we meet you on IRC, per email, on the street and even on reddit, any chance we get, really :-)
To the moon!
submitted by patricklodder to dogecoin [link] [comments]

I was just given an Antminer U2 Bitcoin ASIC miner. Now what?

So I've been doing a lot of research and reading on bitcoin and was going to buy some bitcoin but a friend of mine gave me an Antminer U2 to mine with. THIS ONE
My questions is what should I do with? It seems that this single miner isn't powerful enough to mine bitcoin on my own so i've looked into pooling using something like BitMinter but it still seems that I will hardly get any bitcoin even if I let it run 24/7. However if I do use BitMinter how do I get bitcoin from there to my wallet... Do I take this address 16AqPMxWdBA9nFCgumMWXqhc2nkBJdAC9i (my address) and simply copy it to the 'Send to BTC address' location and press send?
Is there any other kind of bitcoin like dogecoin or whatever that would be more worth my time to mine and then later trade for bitcoin? If so how do i do that? Or should I not even bother with other currency's like dogecoin.
I have my wallet setup using multibit as i'm not too worried about being anonymous and the amount of bitcoin i'd have at any given time would not be anymore than the amount i'm willing to lose.
I also realize that using a miner is probably not cost efficient but i'm very hesitant to give my banking info to some website to trade USD for bitcoin.
Thanks in advance!
submitted by ball_gag3 to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

New to Primecoin

Whats it all about?
submitted by NeonDisease to primecoin [link] [comments]

So you’ve got your miner working, busy hashing away … but what is it really doing?

Posted for eternity @ https://vertcoin.easymine.online/articles/mining
Your miner is repeatedly hashing (see below for detail about a hash) a block of data, looking for a resulting output that is lower than a predetermined target. Each time this calculation is performed, one of the fields in the input data is changed, and this results in a different output. The output is not able to be determined until the work is completed – otherwise why would we bother doing the work in the first place?
Each hash takes a block header (see more below, but basically this is a 80-byte block of data). It runs this through the hashing function, and what comes out is a 32-byte output. For each, we usually represent that output in hexadecimal format, so it looks something like:
5da4bcb997a90bec188542365365d8b913af3f1eb7deaf55038cfcd04f0b11a0 
(that’s 64 hexadecimal characters – each character represents 4-bits. 64 x 4 bits = 256bit = 32 bytes)
The maximum value for our hash is:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 
And the lowest is:
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
The goal in Proof-of-Work systems is to look for a hash that is lower than a specific target, i.e. starts with a specific number of leading zeros. This target is what determines the difficulty.
As the output of the hash is indeterminate, we look to statistics and probability to estimate how much work (i.e. attempts at hashing) we need to complete to find a hash that is lower than a specific target. So, we can therefore assume that to find a hash that starts with a leading zero will take, on average, 16 hashes. To find one that will start with two leading zeros (00), we’re looking at 256 hashes. Four leading zeros (0000) will take 65,536 hashes. Eight leading zeros (00000000) takes 4,294,967,296 hashes. So on and so on, until we realize that it will take 2 ^ 256 (a number too big for me to show here) attempts at hitting our minimum hash value.
Remember – this number of hashes is just an estimate. Think of it like rolling a dice. A 16-sided dice. And then rolling it 64 times in a row. And hoping to strike a specific number of leading zeros. Sometimes it will take far less than the estimate, sometimes it will take far more. Over a long enough time period though (with our dice it may take many billions of years), the averages hold true.
Difficulty is a measure used in cryptocurrencies to simply show how much work is needed to find a specific block. A block of difficulty 1 must have a hash smaller than:
00000000FFFF0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
A block of difficulty 1/256 (0.00390625) must have a hash lower than:
000000FFFF000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
And a block of difficulty 256 must have a hash lower than:
0000000000FFFF00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
So the higher the difficulty, the lower the hash must be; therefore more work must be completed to find the block.
Take a recent Vertcoin block – block # 852545, difficulty 41878.60056944499. This required a hash lower than:
000000000001909c000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
The achieve finding this, a single miner would need to have completed, on average 179,867,219,848,013 hashes (calculated by taking the number of hashes needed for a difficulty 1 block - 4,294,967,296 or 2 ^ 32 or 16 ^ 8 – and multiplied by the difficulty). Of course, our single miner may have found this sooner – or later – than predicted.
Cryptocurrencies alter the required difficulty on a regular basis (some like Vertcoin do it after every block, others like Bitcoin or Litecoin do it every 2016 blocks), to ensure the correct number of blocks are found per day. As the hash rate of miners increases, so does the difficulty to ensure this average time between blocks remains the same. Likewise, as hash rate decreases, the difficulty decreases.
With difficulties as high as the above example, solo-mining (mining by yourself, not in a pool) becomes a very difficult task. Assume our miner can produce 100 MH/s. Plugging in this into the numbers above, we can see it’s going to take him (on average) 1,798,673 seconds of hashing to find a hash lower than the target – that’s just short of 21 days. But, if his luck is down, it could easily take twice that long. Or, if he’s lucky, half that time.
So, assuming he hit’s the average, for his 21 days mining he has earned 25 VTC.
Lets take another look at the same miner, but this time he’s going to join a pool, where he is working with a stack of other miners looking for that elusive hash. Assume the pool he has joined does 50 GH/s – in that case he has 0.1 / 50 or 0.2% of the pool’s hash rate. So for any blocks the pool finds he should earn 0.2% of 25 VTC = 0.05 VTC. At 50 GH/s, the pool should expect to spend 3,597 seconds between finding blocks (2 ^ 32 * difficulty / hashrate). So about every hour, our miner can expect to earn 0.05 VTC. This works out to be about 1.2 VTC per day, and when we extrapolate over the estimated 21 days of solo mining above, we’re back to 25 VTC.
The beauty of pooled-mining over solo-mining is that the time between blocks, whilst they can vary, should be closer to the predicted / estimated times over a shorter time period. The same applies when comparing pools – pools with a smaller hash rate will experience a greater variance in time between blocks than a pool with a greater hash rate. But in the end, looking back over a longer period of time, earnings will be the same.
Hashes
A Hash is a cryptographic function that can take an arbitrary sized block of data and maps it to a fixed sized output. It is a one-way function – only knowing the input data can one calculate the output; the reverse action is impossible. Also, small changes to the input data usually result in significant changes to the output value.
For example, take the following string:
“the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” 
If we perform a SHA256 hash of this, it results in:
05c6e08f1d9fdafa03147fcb8f82f124c76d2f70e3d989dc8aadb5e7d7450bec 
If we change a single character in the input string (in this case we will replace the ‘o’ in ‘over’ to a zero), the resulting hash becomes:
de492f861d6bb8438f65b2beb2e98ae96a8519f19c24042b171d02ff4dfecc82 
Blocks
A block is made up of a header, and at least one transaction. The first transaction in the block is called the Coinbase transaction – it is the transactions that creates new coins, and it specifies the addresses that those coins go to. The Coinbase transaction is always the first transaction in a block, and there can only be one. All other transactions included in a block are transactions that send coins from one wallet address to another.
The block header is an 80-byte block of data that is made up of the following information in this order:
  • Version – a 32-bit/4-byte integer
  • Previous Block’s SHA256d Hash – 32 bytes
  • Merkle Hash of the Transactions – 32 bytes
  • Timestamp - a 32-bit/4-byte integer the represents the time of the block in seconds past 1st January 1970 00:00 UTC
  • nBits - a 32-bit/4-byte integer that represents the maximum value of the hash of the block
  • Nonce - a 32-bit/4-byte integer
The Version of a block remains relatively static through a coin’s lifetime – most blocks will have the same version. Typically only used to introduce new features or enforce new rules – for instance Segwit adoption is enforced by encoding information into the Version field.
The Previous Blocks’ Hash is simple a doubled SHA256 hash of the last valid blocks header.
The Merkle Hash is a hash generated by chaining all of the transactions together in a hash tree – thus ensuring that once a transaction is included in a block, it cannot be changed. It becomes a permanent record in the blockchain.
Timestamp loosely represents the time the block was generated – it does not have to be exact, anywhere within an hour each way of the real time will be accepted.
nBits – this is the maximum hash that this block must have in order to be considered valid. Bitcoin encodes the maximum hash into a 4-byte value as this is more efficient and provides sufficient accuracy.
Nonce – a simple 4-byte integer value that is incremented by a miner in order to find a resulting hash that is lower than that specified by nBits.
submitted by nzsquirrell to VertcoinMining [link] [comments]

How can I make test-net?

I've tried to make test-net for mining pool test. There's no information or seed node for testnet. and find reddit and add testnet node to conf, but, testnode ip is very old , not working now. Is there latest information for make testnet? thanks,
(update)
my config also have a testnet=1 addnode=nz.nutty.one:20888 from searched community .
-- here's logs --
2018-03-12 13:38:46 Bitcoin version v0.14.2.5-6ad93ba 2018-03-12 13:38:46 InitParameterInteraction: parameter interaction: -whitelistforcerelay=1 -> setting -whitelistrelay=1 2018-03-12 13:38:46 Assuming ancestors of block ff983c72147a81ac5b8ebfc68b62b39358cac4b8eb5518242e87f499b71c6a51 have valid signatures. 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Default data directory /home/nomp/.myriadcoin 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using data directory /home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using config file /home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/myriadcoin.conf 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using at most 125 automatic connections (1024 file descriptors available) 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using 32 MiB out of 32 requested for signature cache, able to store 1048576 elements 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using 2 threads for script verification 2018-03-12 13:38:49 scheduler thread start 2018-03-12 13:38:49 HTTP: creating work queue of depth 16 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Config options rpcuser and rpcpassword will soon be deprecated. Locally-run instances may remove rpcuser to use cookie-based auth, or may be replaced with rpcauth. Please see share/rpcuser for rpcauth auth generation. 2018-03-12 13:38:49 HTTP: starting 4 worker threads 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using BerkeleyDB version Berkeley DB 4.8.30: (April 9, 2010) 2018-03-12 13:38:49 Using wallet wallet.dat 2018-03-12 13:38:49 init message: Verifying wallet... 2018-03-12 13:38:51 CDBEnv::Open: LogDir=/home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet/database ErrorFile=/home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet/db.log 2018-03-12 13:38:51 Bound to [::]:10898 2018-03-12 13:38:51 Bound to 0.0.0.0:10898 2018-03-12 13:38:51 Cache configuration: 2018-03-12 13:38:51 * Using 2.0MiB for block index database 2018-03-12 13:38:51 * Using 8.0MiB for chain state database 2018-03-12 13:38:51 * Using 440.0MiB for in-memory UTXO set (plus up to 286.1MiB of unused mempool space) 2018-03-12 13:38:51 init message: Loading block index... 2018-03-12 13:38:51 Opening LevelDB in /home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet/blocks/index 2018-03-12 13:38:59 Opened LevelDB successfully ... 2018-03-12 13:43:39 keypool added key 100, size=100 2018-03-12 13:43:42 keypool added key 101, size=101 2018-03-12 13:43:43 keypool reserve 1 2018-03-12 13:43:44 keypool keep 1 2018-03-12 13:43:50 wallet 282608ms 2018-03-12 13:43:50 setKeyPool.size() = 100 2018-03-12 13:43:50 mapWallet.size() = 0 2018-03-12 13:43:50 mapAddressBook.size() = 1 2018-03-12 13:43:51 UpdateTip: new best=0000017ce2a79c8bddafbbe47c004aa92b20678c354b34085f62b762084b9788 height=0 version=0x00000002 algo=0 (sha256d) log2_work=17.678071 tx=1 date='2014-02-20 06:06:33' progress=0.000003 cache=0.0MiB(0tx) 2018-03-12 13:43:51 mapBlockIndex.size() = 1 2018-03-12 13:43:51 Failed to open mempool file from disk. Continuing anyway. 2018-03-12 13:43:51 nBestHeight = 0 2018-03-12 13:43:51 torcontrol thread start 2018-03-12 13:43:51 AddLocal(x.x.2x.x:10898,1) 2018-03-12 13:43:51 Discover: IPv4 enp3s0: 175.2x.x.x 2018-03-12 13:43:51 init message: Loading addresses... 2018-03-12 13:43:51 ERROR: Read: Failed to open file /home/nomp/nomp_chaindata/myriadcoin-test/testnet/peers.dat 2018-03-12 13:43:51 Invalid or missing peers.dat; recreating 2018-03-12 13:43:52 init message: Loading banlist... ... 2018-03-12 13:55:05 addcon thread start 2018-03-12 13:55:05 opencon thread start 2018-03-12 13:55:05 dnsseed thread start 2018-03-12 13:55:05 net thread start 2018-03-12 13:55:05 connect() to 75.19.27.27:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:06 connect() to 75.19.27.28:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:16 Loading addresses from DNS seeds (could take a while) 2018-03-12 13:55:17 3 addresses found from DNS seeds 2018-03-12 13:55:17 dnsseed thread exit 2018-03-12 13:55:17 connect() to 75.19.27.27:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:18 connect() to 75.19.27.28:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:22 connect() to 75.19.27.27:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 13:55:23 connect() to 75.19.27.28:20888 failed after select(): Connection refused (111) 2018-03-12 1 ....
same forever until today. can't encrease test node heights.
submitted by trustfarmhub to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

List of solutions we have against ASICs and 51% attacks. Which do you think is best?

  1. Merge Mining An brought up by the creator of Litecoin, one of the Doge devs brought up the idea of merge mining with Digibyte. Merged mining allows a miner to mine for more than one block chain at the same time. The benefit is that every hash the miner does contributes to the total hash rate of both (all) currencies, and as a result they are all more secure. You can learn more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Both communities are linked leading to a larger community. Low risk as merge mining has been successfully tried before. Increase hashing power. Miners would get both Litecoin/Digibyte and Doge when mining.
Cons: High likelihood that Litecoin or Digibyte miners will dump their Doge and vice versa. Still susceptible to a 51% attack by a large ASIC scrypt farm. All risk lies on Doge and not Litecoin when implementing the required fork.
  1. Change to Scrypt-N algorithm. Current coin used by Vertcoin you can read more about it here...ok you can in all seriousness look more into it here or here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Benefits GPU miners (significant portion of the Doge community is made up of GPU miners).
Cons: Short term solution. Scrypt-n ASICs will probably be developed in the future leading us to where we are now. Scrypt-n can also damage GPU over time.
  1. Change to SHA-256 algorithm. SHA-256 is the mining algorithm that Bitcoin uses. Not much to say here.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases.
Cons: Little innovation. GPU miners can no longer mine Doge.
  1. Change Doge from pure PoW (proof of work) to PoW/PoS hybrid. Coins like Peercoin, Mintcoin and Blackcoin follow this system. You can learn a little more about the how the system works here or here
Pros: Attacker would need 51% of all Dogecoins to do a 51% attack. Significantly energy efficient. GPU mining is no longer necessary. Dogecoin owners will gain coins simply by leaving them in their wallet;.
Cons: Changing from pure PoW to PoW/PoS has (to my knowledge) never been tried before. Can encourage hoarding.
  1. Change to X11 algorithm. This algorithm was brought up in the comments. I don't know much about it but it is very interesting! I'm currently reading up on it here, here and in /hirocoin
Pros: Potential 51% attack decreases. Energy efficient. Lower GPU temperature for miners. More fair to laptop miners and people with lower end tech.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scypt to X11 as its never been done before. Higher risk of 51% attack by a botnet.
  1. Change to Multi-Algo algorithm. Also brought up in the comments. Multi-Algo uses SHA-256, Scrypt, Groestl, Skein and Qubit as one algorithm. In use by Myriadcoin. You can read more on it here and in /myriadcoin.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (I don't even know if its possible).
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to Multi-Algo as its never been done before.
  1. Change to HVC algorithm. Brought up in the comments. Similar to Multi-Algo in that it has multiple algorithms in one. Currently used by Heavycoin. You can read more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (Just like Multi-Algo, I am not sure if its even possible). More secure.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to HVC as its never been done before.
If you have any more solutions please let me know. If there is something you want to add to a con or pro or a correction let me know as well. I would like this post to drum up discussion. Thank you for participating.
submitted by kanada_kid to dogecoin [link] [comments]

First Day Of Mining

Hello! As you can see its my first day of mining but Im really confused on how to check If I could make profit. I have tried the calculator but the truth is I don't know half the thinks it asks for. If you need to know any other things please ask. I have AMD FX-6300 and aSapphire Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB. Last I checked It was 400 khash/s Thanks you!
submitted by pkbausman to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

/u/mojolama has graciously agreed to update our infographic! we need help.

the image is here: http://i.imgur.com/Eqmn6EE.jpg
Please post ideas on how we can make the infographic better. we want it to be succinct and highlighting major myriadcoin talking points.
what needs to be changed to the current one:
  1. 30 second block processing - it's now 60 seconds. how does it compare to bitcoin? is it 10 minutes per block?
  2. skein scrypt groestl qubit sha256d pie chart needs to read SHA256d, Scrypt, Myr-Groestl, Skein, or Yescrypt
  3. projects in the works: remove SMS wallet and PolyMyr :( is Yescrypt the result of 3 click mining? what else do we put in the projects part?
  4. change website to www.myriadcoin.org and add www.reddit.com/myriadcoin twitter @myriadcoin facebook https://www.facebook.com/themyriadplatform/
BTW i created a stocktwits.com account for @myriadcoin please follow that too so we can get investors on board. also please like and follow the @myriadcoin twitter and facebook pages if you haven't already.
finally, even if you can't post or comment or you're too shy, please upvote posts in the reddit page as much as you can. helps with the metrics. thanks!
submitted by keepmyshirt to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

Added function to mine Cryptos on the Raspberry Pi.

LucasJones CPU - Multi miner available to install from this new guide.
Support for:
Although the Pi is not a suitable miner (for economic reasons), it may be of interest to those who are unfamiliar with the process and wish to try mining first hand.
I should help with understanding how nodes, miners and users interact on these networks.
Plus it's just spare unused CPU so why not make a bit or two :)
submitted by shermand100 to pinode [link] [comments]

A letter from the Myriad team to the community by a dedicated miner.

What is the myriad project ?
It is a crypto currency like bitcoin but that's about all it has in common with bitcoin. I dare to say myriad's concept is better than bitcoin's, or any other coin for that matter, it's a big step in the future of the phenomenon known as crypto currency. These are not just words and marketing, Myriad proves its superiority every passing day. Allow me to explain how and why: Myriad is the first coin to implement the concept of multi-hashing, meaning, myriad does not run on a single algorythm or a chunk of algorythms chained together, it runs on 5 parallel algorythms. They are: sha256d, scrypt, skein, groestl and qubit.
What does this mean ?
It means that each algorythm works independently from the others to secure the network while using the same blockchain. It also means that each algorythm can be mined individually providing ALL miners a fair chance of generating coins. Myriad welcomes everyone, asic users, gpu users and cpu users. This not only makes the network more secure, it also ensures a fair and wide distribution of the generated coins avoiding one of the other big problems bitcoin is facing: most coins being generated by industrial mining farms controlled by rich investors. Another proven fact is that the concept of multi-hashing also provides much better protection against 51% attacks because while an attacker could gain 51% of one single algorythm it's highly improbable that he could gain 51% of the hashing power for all algorythms so if any one algorythm suffers a fork the other for will be working with the remaining 49% of the attacked algorythm to keep the network secure and your transactions safe (this has recently been proven when cryptopool.eu owning over 51% of the scrypt hashing power forked and the networks reaction was PERFECT) . This is also the best security against multipools attack because they can only target one algorythm they can only aquire 20% of the total coins since the coins are split up equally between algorythms and each algorythm gets TOTAL COINS / 5 .
Other advantages the Myriad project has to offer include, but are not limited to:
The list of features the Myriad project has to offer is too large to include in one email while avoiding making it a long and boring email but it is becoming increasingly clear that Myriad is a big step twards the future and the possibilities are amazing when thinking about new ways and services that Myriad can bring to the crypto world.
As I've already described it in the thread (excuse the plastic representation):
Myriad is a rose in a sea of rotting carcases , a fresh water lake in the middle of the sahara. It's being held back because it is hard to notice it when 20 hyped premined scam ipo coins emerge daily, but users who do notice it tend to stick around because as it happened to vertcoin people will eventually learn about myriad and see that it trully is the concept to unite the whole mining comunity under one coin, a huge step forward for the crypto currency world.
In conclusion, no matter who you are and what hardware you have you are welcome to mine Myriad and I assure you it will be profitable no matter what technical inovations come to the market. Investors and crypto currency enthusiasts MYR offers more security and decentralization than any other coin in existence, even bitcoin, making it a very promising investment and considering the price and trading volume getting involved in Myriad right now is as good as getting involved from the begining. The community is blossoming day by day and we are all guided by the same principles, progress and fairness to each and every individual.
Thank you for reading,
A crypto currency miner who supports progress.
PS:
List of TODOS and projects that are in development or are being considered for MYR:
-implementing an RPC command that returns network hashrate per algorythm
-algorythm switching mining software for a algo-profit-switching pool
-algo-profit-switching pool
-andoid wallet
-implementation of a 100% proven CPU algorythm (right now qubit and groestl are CPU friendly but not CPU dedicated so while CPU miners can still mine competing with GPUS on fair grounds they still do not have an exclusive algorythm)
-adding a metalayer to Myriad (similar to xcp)
and the list is evergrowing.
submitted by bordb to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

We have 30 seconds of advertising time on an upcoming Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast. Adam B. Levine asked for bullet points for the items we believe are top priority for Myriad.

List everything you think we should air on the advertisement.
I'm not clear how lenient Adam B. Levine will be with what is presented. He may read it verbatum, he may pick and choose what to present for our advertisement.
Regardless, I'd like the community to brainstorm with me.
I think it should be mostly what multi-PoW is and the implications it has for decentralized mining. I think we should focus the least on current projects we have going. (Reasoning: Bitcoiners are least familiar with multi-PoW and most familiar with the type of projects cryptocurrencies have going for them. What would impress them most? Multi-POW.)
EDIT: I think it's vital to include these bullet points that 8bitcoder originally had on the announcement thread regarding how Myriadcoin works:
So we have:
1) What is Myriad? It is the first multiple-proof-of-work cryptocurrency in which 5 algorithms "compete" to solve blocks on the same blockchain (SHA256d, Scrypt, Skein, Qubit, and Myriad-Groestl).
2) How does it work?
3) Implications?
4) Learn more and join the community
submitted by neuroMode to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

Quark phylosophy or why does it differ from bitcoin.

Fundamental ideas of any cryptocurrency could be considered anarchic and anti-government. Bitcoin and its descendants supplant the function of money creation and monetary policy from the state, the function of money transfer and account control from banks and place them in the hands of individual. The deal between economic agents could be executed without middleman or any kind of regulation (apart from rules of math and double-spend prevention) be it a trade on a basaar or large intercontinental service. Noone is able to prevent, tax, regulate, enforce sanctions on a deal against the will of its participants - what could be more libertarian!
But many Satoshi’s ideas governing Bitcoin and blindly copied by its forks are questionable. It seems that many of institutional decisions were taken by a programmer not an economist and their hardly predictable economic consequences now are slowing down the cryptocurrency development. For example the Bitcoin “monetary policy” is the rule of halving of mining reward. Each 4 years amount of newly created bitcoins is designed to halve as it was in 2013 when the 50 bitcoins rewarded each 10 minutes reduced to 25. Thus the descending geometrical progression forms and its sum is a finite number equals 21 million bitcoins.
Bitcoiners advocate that Bitcoin is a deflationary monetary system which is wrong. For example number of new coins to be created in 2014 is roughly equals 365 [days] * 24*6 [blocks each day] * 25 [BTC for each block] = 1,314,000 BTC. Money mass in 2014 could be estimated as 13,500,000 so we observe a 9.5% inflation. Worth noting that this estimate of bitcoin money mass includes dormant coins which sit still for 3 years or more. If drop them, inflation could reach 15-20%. In case of younger coins such as litecoin the inflation is certainly double-digit and could reach 50% and more.
For an economist miners are agents who perform seigniorage - issuing new coins and selling them taking profit from the margin between cost of production and market price. From the economist’s point of view there is no difference between central bank or government mint and distributed community of miners. They are still extracting seigniorage rent from anyone using cryptocoin and taxing society with inflation. From ideological side of the problem there is a huge difference between crony elites and masses but pure economy like pure physics doesn’t distinguish right from wrong and fair from unfair. The consequences are the same -- long-term price and stability deteriorating from inflation. Double-digit inflation alone doesn’t mean the unusability of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. They still are the cheapest, fastest and just monetary system ever invented. But large long-term inflation is completely unnecessary evil which brings depression and future day uncertainty.
Quark uses another distribution model with aggressive coin generation at the very beginning and a low mining reward and hence inflation in perspective. Quark implements a 247 million coins base money with steady 1 million annual generation without halving, thus the inflation rate equals roughly 0.4%. This logic is desiged to solve 2 problems: low down the burden of inflation tax on society and provide a long-term sustainability in terms of mining reward and transaction fees. In future (2040 and further) Bitcoin block reward will drop significantly but mining reward must be paid since basically it represents a cost of maintenance of the whole system. Without mining reward transactions would not confirm and the whole payment system die. It is supposed that this reward will come mostly from transaction fees. This assumption doesn’t stand even the slightest critics. If exists another cryptocurrency without transaction fee then what’s the point in paying the fees in Bitcoin? It is reasonable to perform the transaction in another cryptocoin system without fees, isn’t it? Quark does not implement forced transaction fees.
Many claim that Quark monetary decision as unfair and extremely benefiting the earliest adopters. We have 2 points regarding this. At first, any cryptocurrency extremely benefits early adopters and one could reasonably estimate that Bitcoin did it an order of magnitude more than any other cryptocurrency. And still somehow it is argued that Quark is more unfair to late adopters than Bitcoin. At the very least it is questionable and need to be proven. Secondly, as we noticed before, the laws of economy don’t distinguish fair from unfair but they do distinguish feasible and working system from naive and crippled one. For this reason we could face an alternative between fair and working system - a hard but an obvious choice.
The second Satoshi’s decision we are to consider is an average block time. Blocks are a blockchain structure using to sign transaction and make them irreversible. Block time could be considered as a time frame in which an average transaction will be signed and guaranteed from double-spend attempts. So why a 10 minutes timeframe was chosen? This put the severe constraints on cryptocurrency adoption. Imagine you are forced to wait 10 minutes on a cash desc in a grocery store or a ticket office in cinema while miners would solve the blocks for you. This is completely unacceptable and cut the entire sectors of economy from the usage of cryptocurrencies. Apparently the usage will be limited to internet trade where time doesn’t cost much or to large deals such as buying a car or house where security of transactions is more important than waiting time.
Quark put the average block time at 30 seconds. This timeframe is much more acceptable even for a daytrade. In case of large deal the users should simply wait for more than 1 block to receive larger level of security and stronger guarantee from reversing the transaction and attempts to double-spend. Lesser block time introduces the ability for sellers and buyers to choose their own security/waiting time trade-off while in cryptocoins with larger block time it has been chosen for us. We respect Satoshi, but won’t let him to diminish our freedom to transact and trade.
We just can not pass the mining algorithm problem. This is an amazing example of how a pure technical decision could affect the whole cryptocoin economy on enormous scale. Bitcoin’s SHA256d algo leaded to ASIC mining, monopolisation of mining by a small family of ASIC produces and a complete fail of initial idea of a “crowd central bank”. As for 2014 Fall ASIC-miners clans are engaging in a damping war on attrition. Difficulty skyrockets to a unsustainable level, forcing small mining incentives to close. Then came the market manipulations like dumping 30k BTCs on the early October 2014. This struggle severely hurts the confidence in cryptocoins and depletes crypto economy. The end of the war will likely be a winner-takes-all scenario with extreme monopolisation of the market.
And all of this is a consequence of a single choosing of main mining algorithm. We can’t blame Satoshi for it, he couldn’t know the consequences. We can’t blame Gavin Andersen and his team for not switching to another algo as it would inevitably impose the danger of crashing the whole system in blockchain fork. But we could learn from their mistakes and build a system in which such a line of events is simply impossible.
Quark has 9 rounds of hashing and 3 different algorithms. We can’t say that it’s impossible to create an ASIC chip for solving these complex hashes but we do state that it will be an order of magnitude more complex and expensive. For now, an ordinary CPUs are producing as much hashes as GPUs of the same price, which could be considered as a prove of the complexity and viability.
Besides, there is a risk of compromising of SHA256 hash function since noone knows what the future will bring us. But in Quark even if one of hashing algos compromised there would be a 5 more. If you had an alternative of putting your money to a chest with 1 lock and 6 locks, what would you choose?
As a conclusion we could say that the Quark is an evolutionary step ahead in a field of cryptocurrency development. Maybe a small one but still a step. While writing Bitcoin code Satoshi could not know how his creation would behave in a real complex economy with millions of participants and billions at stake. But we do know it, we do see it and we must draw the conclusions from his mistakes.
The whole Quark project could be seen as a work on the bugs which the real world and the real economy identified in cryptocurrencies.
submitted by br0nevik to QuarkCoin [link] [comments]

Compilation of all the solutions we have against ASICs and 51% attacks. Which do you think is best? (originally by /u/kanada_kid - re-posting for visibility)

This post by kanada_kid, which was posted 5 days ago, is a very nice compilation of all the solutions to any problems which dogecoin is facing.
Unfortunately, the post didn't get much upvotes and got buried soon.
ORIGINAL POST HERE
Shibes, please go through this post and let's take some time to study and further discuss this among ourselves.
Newbie shibes, if you don't understand something, no problem. Please always feel free to ask anything. We are here to explain you everything in the simplest way possible. But please do go through this. You and us decide the future of our coin :)

THE ORIGINAL POST STARTS HERE:

  • Merge Mining
An brought up by the creator of Litecoin, one of the Doge devs brought up the idea of merge mining with Digibyte. Merged mining allows a miner to mine for more than one block chain at the same time. The benefit is that every hash the miner does contributes to the total hash rate of both (all) currencies, and as a result they are all more secure. You can learn more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Both communities are linked leading to a larger community. Low risk as merge mining has been successfully tried before. Increase hashing power. Miners would get both Litecoin/Digibyte and Doge when mining.
Cons: High likelihood that Litecoin or Digibyte miners will dump their Doge and vice versa. Still susceptible to a 51% attack by a large ASIC scrypt farm. All risk lies on Doge and not Litecoin when implementing the required fork.
  • Change to Scrypt-N algorithm
Current coin used by Vertcoin you can read more about it here...ok you can in all seriousness look more into it here or here.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack decreases. Benefits GPU miners (significant portion of the Doge community is made up of GPU miners).
Cons: Short term solution. Scrypt-n ASICs will probably be developed in the future leading us to where we are now. Scrypt-n can also damage GPU over time.
  • Change to SHA-256 algorithm.
SHA-256 is the mining algorithm that Bitcoin uses. Not much to say here.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases.
Cons: Little innovation. GPU miners can no longer mine Doge.
  • Change Doge from pure PoW (proof of work) to PoW/PoS hybrid.
Coins like Peercoin, Mintcoin and Blackcoin follow this system. You can learn a little more about the how the system works here or here
Pros: Attacker would need 51% of all Dogecoins to do a 51% attack. Significantly energy efficient. GPU mining is no longer necessary. Dogecoin owners will gain coins simply by leaving them in their wallet;.
Cons: Changing from pure PoW to PoW/PoS has (to my knowledge) never been tried before. Can encourage hoarding.
  • Change to X11 algorithm.
This algorithm was brought up in the comments. I don't know much about it but it is very interesting! I'm currently reading up on it here, here and in /hirocoin
Pros: Potential 51% attack decreases. Energy efficient. Lower GPU temperature for miners. More fair to laptop miners and people with lower end tech.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scypt to X11 as its never been done before. Higher risk of 51% attack by a botnet.
  • Change to Multi-Algo algorithm.
Also brought up in the comments. Multi-Algo uses SHA-256, Scrypt, Groestl, Skein and Qubit as one algorithm. In use by Myriadcoin. You can read more on it here and in /myriadcoin.
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (I don't even know if its possible).
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to Multi-Algo as its never been done before.
  • Change to HVC algorithm.
Brought up in the comments. Similar to Multi-Algo in that it has multiple algorithms in one. Currently used by Heavycoin. You can read more here
Pros: Potential of 51% attack significantly decreases (Just like Multi-Algo, I am not sure if its even possible). More secure.
Cons: Risk in switching from Scrypt to HVC as its never been done before.
If you have any more solutions please let me know. If there is something you want to add to a con or pro or a correction let me know as well. I would like this post to drum up discussion. Thank you for participating.
submitted by sklite to dogecoin [link] [comments]

BITCOIN Mining is DYING, Start MINING LITECOIN with Home Built LITECOIN MINING RIG How To Setups USB Gekkoscience NewPac Bitcoin Mining - YouTube How To Mine Bitcoin The Easy Way Best Mining Mobo? ASRock BTC+ H110 Mother Board Review- Mining Dudes How to setup Gridseed 5 chip Scrypt Asic Miner using ...

The Bitcoin.com mining pool has the lowest share reject rate (0.15%) we've ever seen. Other pools have over 0.30% rejected shares. Furthermore, the Bitcoin.com pool has a super responsive and reliable support team. Bitcoin Mining Calculator; Bitcoin Cash Mining Calculator; Ethereum Mining Calculator; Ethereum Classic Mining Calculator; Zcash Mining Calculator; Litecoin Mining Calculator; Live Crypto Price; Tools. Exchange & Pool; Video; Social Post; Support; Contact Us; 0 Shopping Cart. You have 0 item(s) in your cart My Account . My Wishlist; Login; Home / Asic Miner / Bitcoin / SHA256 Miner. Product ... Sha256 mining pools ... 1 X16s 21 Bcd 1 Skunk 9 Myr-gr 31 Sha256 X21s 5 Lyra2vc0ban 0 X22i 3 Bmw512 3 Pipe 1 Lyra2v3 3 Argon2d250 4 X17 16 Sha256d 11 Bitcore 1 Neoscrypt-xaya 1 Qubit 11 Exosis 1 Phi 1 X16rt 3 Dedal 1 X13 21 Blake2s 16 Blockstamp 1 Yescrypt 12 Progpow 0 Equihash144 4 Quark 39 Yespower 7 Balloon 2 Argon2d-dyn 2 Yescryptr16 7 Equihash192 6 Astralhash 2 Jeonghash 1 Groestl 2 ... List of known Bitcoin Atom pools (BCA) SHA-256 PoW algorithm. Live hashrate distribution, pool fees & minimum payment comparison. Mining Pools & Block Explorer Die Mining-Erweiterungen wurden angekündigt, nachdem die Community Monate damit verbracht hatte, ein meist überlegenes offenes Standardprotokoll für das Mining (Getblocktemplate) zu entwickeln. Da die Erweiterung des Stratum-Mining-Projekts von einem großen Mining-Pool unterstützt wurde, litt die GBT-Akzeptanz und das dezentrale Mining wird häufig vernachlässigt, während das Stratum ...

[index] [11844] [9840] [49591] [39055] [38341] [49601] [321] [28573] [20260] [5488]

BITCOIN Mining is DYING, Start MINING LITECOIN with Home Built LITECOIN MINING RIG

Created By : Redfeather @ : http://grephaxs.com This is Redfeather from Grep Haxs in this video we will be showing you how to mine Bitcoin the easy way if yo... Bi•Fury - Fastest USB ASIC Bitcoin Miner in the world! - Duration: 1:03. FP IT Management 276,738 views. 1:03. Live Bitcoin Trading With DeriBot on Deribit (BTCUSD Perpetual Futures) DeriBot Backup 376 watching Live now Professor Eric Laithwaite: Magnetic River 1975 - Duration: 18:39. BITCOIN Mining is DYING, Start MINING LITECOIN with Home Built LITECOIN MINING RIG The era of Bitcoin mining on the GPU is dead. A year ago, a single Radeon graphics card could crank out a ... Instruction book: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81lOfu4a6VL.pdf Driver usb: https://zadig.akeo.ie/ Forum Gekko Newpac: https://bitcointalk...

#