CoinGecko: Preise und Marktkapitalisierung in Krypto-Währung
CoinGecko: Preise und Marktkapitalisierung in Krypto-Währung
EOS Price Index — CoinDesk 20
Long Subtraction Calculator with Regrouping
Bitcoin Blasted Through $11,000 After Bullish Triangle ...
How To End The Cryptocurrency Exchange "Wild West" Without Crippling Innovation
In case you haven't noticed the consultation paper, staff notice, and report on Quadriga, regulators are now clamping down on Canadian cryptocurrency exchanges. The OSC and other regulatory bodies are still interested in industry feedback. They have not put forward any official regulation yet. Below are some ideas/insights and a proposed framework.
Typical securities frameworks will cost Canadians millions of dollars (ie Sarbanes-Oxley estimated at $5m USD/yr per firm). Implementation costs of this proposal are significantly cheaper.
Canadians can maintain a diverse set of exchanges, multiple viable business models are still fully supported, and innovation is encouraged while keeping Canadians safe.
Many of you have limited time to read the full proposal, so here are the highlights:
Effective standards to prevent both internal and external theft. Exchange operators are trained and certified, and have a legal responsibility to users.
Regular Transparent Audits
Provides visibility to Canadians that their funds are fully backed on the exchange, while protecting privacy and sensitive platform information.
Establishment of basic insurance standards/strategy, to expand over time. Removing risk to exchange users of any hot wallet theft.
Background and Justifications
Cold Storage Custody/Management After reviewing close to 100 cases, all thefts tend to break down into more or less the same set of problems: • Funds stored online or in a smart contract, • Access controlled by one person or one system, • 51% attacks (rare), • Funds sent to the wrong address (also rare), or • Some combination of the above. For the first two cases, practical solutions exist and are widely implemented on exchanges already. Offline multi-signature solutions are already industry standard. No cases studied found an external theft or exit scam involving an offline multi-signature wallet implementation. Security can be further improved through minimum numbers of signatories, background checks, providing autonomy and legal protections to each signatory, establishing best practices, and a training/certification program. The last two transaction risks occur more rarely, and have never resulted in a loss affecting the actual users of the exchange. In all cases to date where operators made the mistake, they've been fully covered by the exchange platforms. • 51% attacks generally only occur on blockchains with less security. The most prominent cases have been Bitcoin Gold and Ethereum Classic. The simple solution is to enforce deposit limits and block delays such that a 51% attack is not cost-effective. • The risk of transactions to incorrect addresses can be eliminated by a simple test transaction policy on large transactions. By sending a small amount of funds prior to any large withdrawals/transfers as a standard practice, the accuracy of the wallet address can be validated. The proposal covers all loss cases and goes beyond, while avoiding significant additional costs, risks, and limitations which may be associated with other frameworks like SOC II. On The Subject of Third Party Custodians Many Canadian platforms are currently experimenting with third party custody. From the standpoint of the exchange operator, they can liberate themselves from some responsibility of custody, passing that off to someone else. For regulators, it puts crypto in similar categorization to oil, gold, and other commodities, with some common standards. Platform users would likely feel greater confidence if the custodian was a brand they recognized. If the custodian was knowledgeable and had a decent team that employed multi-sig, they could keep assets safe from internal theft. With the right protections in place, this could be a great solution for many exchanges, particularly those that lack the relevant experience or human resources for their own custody systems. However, this system is vulnerable to anyone able to impersonate the exchange operators. You may have a situation where different employees who don't know each other that well are interacting between different companies (both the custodian and all their customers which presumably isn't just one exchange). A case study of what can go wrong in this type of environment might be Bitpay, where the CEO was tricked out of 5000 bitcoins over 3 separate payments by a series of emails sent legitimately from a breached computer of another company CEO. It's also still vulnerable to the platform being compromised, as in the really large $70M Bitfinex hack, where the third party Bitgo held one key in a multi-sig wallet. The hacker simply authorized the withdrawal using the same credentials as Bitfinex (requesting Bitgo to sign multiple withdrawal transactions). This succeeded even with the use of multi-sig and two heavily security-focused companies, due to the lack of human oversight (basically, hot wallet). Of course, you can learn from these cases and improve the security, but so can hackers improve their deception and at the end of the day, both of these would have been stopped by the much simpler solution of a qualified team who knew each other and employed multi-sig with properly protected keys. It's pretty hard to beat a human being who knows the business and the typical customer behaviour (or even knows their customers personally) at spotting fraud, and the proposed multi-sig means any hacker has to get through the scrutiny of 3 (or more) separate people, all of whom would have proper training including historical case studies. There are strong arguments both for and against using use of third party custodians. The proposal sets mandatory minimum custody standards would apply regardless if the cold wallet signatories are exchange operators, independent custodians, or a mix of both. On The Subject Of Insurance ShakePay has taken the first steps into this new realm (congratulations). There is no question that crypto users could be better protected by the right insurance policies, and it certainly feels better to transact with insured platforms. The steps required to obtain insurance generally place attention in valuable security areas, and in this case included a review from CipherTrace. One of the key solutions in traditional finance comes from insurance from entities such as the CDIC. However, historically, there wasn't found any actual insurance payout to any cryptocurrency exchange, and there are notable cases where insurance has not paid. With Bitpay, for example, the insurance agent refused because the issue happened to the third party CEO's computer instead of anything to do with Bitpay itself. With the Youbit exchange in South Korea, their insurance claim was denied, and the exchange ultimately ended up instead going bankrupt with all user's funds lost. To quote Matt Johnson in the original Lloyd's article: “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.” ShakePay's insurance was only reported to cover their cold storage, and “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held”. Physical theft has never, in the history of cryptocurrency exchange cases reviewed, been reported as the cause of loss. From the limited information of the article, ShakePay made it clear their funds are in the hands of a single US custodian, and at least part of their security strategy is to "decline to confirm the custodian’s name on the record". While this prevents scrutiny of the custodian, it's pretty silly to speculate that a reasonably competent hacking group couldn't determine who the custodian is. A far more common infiltration strategy historically would be social engineering, which has succeeded repeatedly. A hacker could trick their way into ShakePay's systems and request a fraudulent withdrawal, impersonate ShakePay and request the custodian to move funds, or socially engineer their way into the custodian to initiate the withdrawal of multiple accounts (a payout much larger than ShakePay) exploiting the standard procedures (for example, fraudulently initiating or override the wallet addresses of a real transfer). In each case, nothing was physically stolen and the loss is therefore not covered by insurance. In order for any insurance to be effective, clear policies have to be established about what needs to be covered. Anything short of that gives Canadians false confidence that they are protected when they aren't in any meaningful way. At this time, the third party insurance market does not appear to provide adequate options or coverage, and effort is necessary to standardize custody standards, which is a likely first step in ultimately setting up an insurance framework. A better solution compared to third party insurance providers might be for Canadian exchange operators to create their own collective insurance fund, or a specific federal organization similar to the CDIC. Such an organization would have a greater interest or obligation in paying out actual cases, and that would be it's purpose rather than maximizing it's own profit. This would be similar to the SAFU which Binance has launched, except it would cover multiple exchanges. There is little question whether the SAFU would pay out given a breach of Binance, and a similar argument could be made for a insurance fund managed by a collective of exchange operators or a government organization. While a third party insurance provider has the strong market incentive to provide the absolute minimum coverage and no market incentive to payout, an entity managed by exchange operators would have incentive to protect the reputation of exchange operators/the industry, and the government should have the interest of protecting Canadians. On The Subject of Fractional Reserve There is a long history of fractional reserve failures, from the first banks in ancient times, through the great depression (where hundreds of fractional reserve banks failed), right through to the 2008 banking collapse referenced in the first bitcoin block. The fractional reserve system allows banks to multiply the money supply far beyond the actual cash (or other assets) in existence, backed only by a system of debt obligations of others. Safely supporting a fractional reserve system is a topic of far greater complexity than can be addressed by a simple policy, and when it comes to cryptocurrency, there is presently no entity reasonably able to bail anyone out in the event of failure. Therefore, this framework is addressed around entities that aim to maintain 100% backing of funds. There may be some firms that desire but have failed to maintain 100% backing. In this case, there are multiple solutions, including outside investment, merging with other exchanges, or enforcing a gradual restoration plan. All of these solutions are typically far better than shutting down the exchange, and there are multiple cases where they've been used successfully in the past. Proof of Reserves/Transparency/Accountability Canadians need to have visibility into the backing on an ongoing basis. The best solution for crypto-assets is a Proof of Reserve. Such ideas go back all the way to 2013, before even Mt. Gox. However, no Canadian exchange has yet implemented such a system, and only a few international exchanges (CoinFloor in the UK being an example) have. Many firms like Kraken, BitBuy, and now ShakePay use the Proof of Reserve term to refer to lesser proofs which do not actually cryptographically prove the full backing of all user assets on the blockchain. In order for a Proof of Reserve to be effective, it must actually be a complete proof, and it needs to be understood by the public that is expected to use it. Many firms have expressed reservations about the level of transparency required in a complete Proof of Reserve (for example Kraken here). While a complete Proof of Reserves should be encouraged, and there are some solutions in the works (ie TxQuick), this is unlikely to be suitable universally for all exchange operators and users. Given the limitations, and that firms also manage fiat assets, a more traditional audit process makes more sense. Some Canadian exchanges (CoinSquare, CoinBerry) have already subjected themselves to annual audits. However, these results are not presently shared publicly, and there is no guarantee over the process including all user assets or the integrity and independence of the auditor. The auditor has been typically not known, and in some cases, the identity of the auditor is protected by a NDA. Only in one case (BitBuy) was an actual report generated and publicly shared. There has been no attempt made to validate that user accounts provided during these audits have been complete or accurate. A fraudulent fractional exchange, or one which had suffered a breach they were unwilling to publicly accept (see CoinBene), could easily maintain a second set of books for auditors or simply exclude key accounts to pass an individual audit. The proposed solution would see a reporting standard which includes at a minimum - percentage of backing for each asset relative to account balances and the nature of how those assets are stored, with ownership proven by the auditor. The auditor would also publicly provide a "hash list", which they independently generate from the accounts provided by the exchange. Every exchange user can then check their information against this public "hash list". A hash is a one-way form of encryption, which fully protects the private information, yet allows anyone who knows that information already to validate that it was included. Less experienced users can take advantage of public tools to calculate the hash from their information (provided by the exchange), and thus have certainty that the auditor received their full balance information. Easy instructions can be provided. Auditors should be impartial, their identities and process public, and they should be rotated so that the same auditor is never used twice in a row. Balancing the cost of auditing against the needs for regular updates, a 6 month cycle likely makes the most sense. Hot Wallet Management The best solution for hot wallets is not to use them. CoinBerry reportedly uses multi-sig on all withdrawals, and Bitmex is an international example known for their structure devoid of hot wallets. However, many platforms and customers desire fast withdrawal processes, and human validation has a cost of time and delay in this process. A model of self-insurance or separate funds for hot wallets may be used in these cases. Under this model, a platform still has 100% of their client balance in cold storage and holds additional funds in hot wallets for quick withdrawal. Thus, the risk of those hot wallets is 100% on exchange operators and not affecting the exchange users. Since most platforms typically only have 1%-5% in hot wallets at any given time, it shouldn't be unreasonable to build/maintain these additional reserves over time using exchange fees or additional investment. Larger withdrawals would still be handled at regular intervals from the cold storage. Hot wallet risks have historically posed a large risk and there is no established standard to guarantee secure hot wallets. When the government of South Korea dispatched security inspections to multiple exchanges, the results were still that 3 of them got hacked after the inspections. If standards develop such that an organization in the market is willing to insure the hot wallets, this could provide an acceptable alternative. Another option may be for multiple exchange operators to pool funds aside for a hot wallet insurance fund. Comprehensive coverage standards must be established and maintained for all hot wallet balances to make sure Canadians are adequately protected.
Current Draft Proposal
(1) Proper multi-signature cold wallet storage. (a) Each private key is the personal and legal responsibility of one person - the “signatory”. Signatories have special rights and responsibilities to protect user assets. Signatories are trained and certified through a course covering (1) past hacking and fraud cases, (2) proper and secure key generation, and (3) proper safekeeping of private keys. All private keys must be generated and stored 100% offline by the signatory. If even one private keys is ever breached or suspected to be breached, the wallet must be regenerated and all funds relocated to a new wallet. (b) All signatories must be separate background-checked individuals free of past criminal conviction. Canadians should have a right to know who holds their funds. All signing of transactions must take place with all signatories on Canadian soil or on the soil of a country with a solid legal system which agrees to uphold and support these rules (from an established white-list of countries which expands over time). (c) 3-5 independent signatures are required for any withdrawal. There must be 1-3 spare signatories, and a maximum of 7 total signatories. The following are all valid combinations: 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7. (d) A security audit should be conducted to validate the cold wallet is set up correctly and provide any additional pertinent information. The primary purpose is to ensure that all signatories are acting independently and using best practices for private key storage. A report summarizing all steps taken and who did the audit will be made public. Canadians must be able to validate the right measures are in place to protect their funds. (e) There is a simple approval process if signatories wish to visit any country outside Canada, with a potential whitelist of exempt countries. At most 2 signatories can be outside of aligned jurisdiction at any given time. All exchanges would be required to keep a compliant cold wallet for Canadian funds and have a Canadian office if they wish to serve Canadian customers. (2) Regular and transparent solvency audits. (a) An audit must be conducted at founding, after 3 months of operation, and at least once every 6 months to compare customer balances against all stored cryptocurrency and fiat balances. The auditor must be known, independent, and never the same twice in a row. (b) An audit report will be published featuring the steps conducted in a readable format. This should be made available to all Canadians on the exchange website and on a government website. The report must include what percentage of each customer asset is backed on the exchange, and how those funds are stored. (c) The auditor will independently produce a hash of each customer's identifying information and balance as they perform the audit. This will be made publicly available on the exchange and government website, along with simplified instructions that each customer can use to verify that their balance was included in the audit process. (d) The audit needs to include a proof of ownership for any cryptocurrency wallets included. A satoshi test (spending a small amount) or partially signed transaction both qualify. (e) Any platform without 100% reserves should be assessed on a regular basis by a government or industry watchdog. This entity should work to prevent any further drop, support any private investor to come in, or facilitate a merger so that 100% backing can be obtained as soon as possible. (3) Protections for hot wallets and transactions. (a) A standardized list of approved coins and procedures will be established to constitute valid cold storage wallets. Where a multi-sig process is not natively available, efforts will be undertaken to establish a suitable and stable smart contract standard. This list will be expanded and improved over time. Coins and procedures not on the list are considered hot wallets. (b) Hot wallets can be backed by additional funds in cold storage or an acceptable third-party insurance provider with a comprehensive coverage policy. (c) Exchanges are required to cover the full balance of all user funds as denominated in the same currency, or double the balance as denominated in bitcoin or CAD using an established trading rate. If the balance is ever insufficient due to market movements, the firm must rectify this within 24 hours by moving assets to cold storage or increasing insurance coverage. (d) Any large transactions (above a set threshold) from cold storage to any new wallet addresses (not previously transacted with) must be tested with a smaller transaction first. Deposits of cryptocurrency must be limited to prevent economic 51% attacks. Any issues are to be covered by the exchange. (e) Exchange platforms must provide suitable authentication for users, including making available approved forms of two-factor authentication. SMS-based authentication is not to be supported. Withdrawals must be blocked for 48 hours in the event of any account password change. Disputes on the negligence of exchanges should be governed by case law.
Continued review of existing OSC feedback is still underway. More feedback and opinions on the framework and ideas as presented here are extremely valuable. The above is a draft and not finalized. The process of further developing and bringing a suitable framework to protect Canadians will require the support of exchange operators, legal experts, and many others in the community. The costs of not doing such are tremendous. A large and convoluted framework, one based on flawed ideas or implementation, or one which fails to properly safeguard Canadians is not just extremely expensive and risky for all Canadians, severely limiting to the credibility and reputation of the industry, but an existential risk to many exchanges. The responsibility falls to all of us to provide our insight and make our opinions heard on this critical matter. Please take the time to give your thoughts.
A Glance at the Heart: Proof-of-Authority Technology in the UMI Network
https://preview.redd.it/vhvj6v093df51.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00c0c223d9758edec8ed49a8cb9024f96d3ee343 Greetings from the UMI Team! Our Whitepaper describes in detail the key pros and cons of the two mechanisms which the great majority of other cryptocurrencies are based on: ● Proof-of-Work (PoW) — mining technology. Used in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero, etc. ● Proof-of-Stake (PoS) and its derivatives — forging technology. Used in Nxt, PeerCoin, NEO, PRIZM, etc. As a result of a careful analysis of PoW and PoS, which are designed to fight against centralization, there came a conclusion that they both fail to perform their main mission and, in the long run, they lead to the network centralization and poor performance. For this reason, we took a different approach. We use Proof-of-Authority (PoA) algorithm coupled with master nodes, which can ensure the UMI network with decentralization and maximum speed. The Whitepaper allows you to understand the obvious things. This article will give you a clear and detailed explanation of the technology implemented in the UMI network. Let's glance at the heart of the network right now. Proof-of-Authority: How and Why It Emerged It's been over a decade since the first transaction in the Bitcoin network. Over this time, the blockchain technology has undergone some qualitative changes. It's down to the fact that the cryptocurrency world seeing the emerging Proof-of-Work defects in the Bitcoin network year after year has actively searched for ways to eliminate them. PoW decentralization and reliability has an underside of low capacity and scalability problem that prevents the network from rectifying this shortcoming. Moreover, with the growing popularity of Bitcoin, greed of miners who benefit from high fees resulting from the low network throughput has become a serious problem. Miners have also started to create pools making the network more and more centralized. The “human factor” that purposefully slowed down the network and undermined its security could never be eliminated. All this essentially limits the potential for using PoW-based cryptocurrencies on a bigger scale. Since PoW upgrade ideas came to nothing, crypto community activists have suggested cardinally new solutions and started to develop other protocols. This is how the Proof-of-Stake technology emerged. However, it proved to be excellent in theory rather than in practice. Overall, PoS-based cryptocurrencies do demonstrate a higher capacity, but the difference is not as striking. Moreover, PoS could not fully solve the scalability issue. In the hope that it could cope with the disaster plaguing all cryptocurrencies, the community came up with brand new algorithms based on alternative operating principles. One of them is the Proof-of-Authority technology. It was meant to be an effective alternative with a high capacity and a solution to the scalability problem. The idea of using PoA in cryptocurrencies was offered by Gavin Wood — a high-profile blockchain programmer and Ethereum co-founder. Proof-of-Authority Major Features PoA's major difference from PoW and PoS lies in the elimination of miner or forger races. Network users do not fight for the right to be the first to create a block and receive an award, as it happens with cryptocurrencies based on other technologies. In this case blockchain's operating principle is substantially different — Proof-of-Authority uses the “reputation system” and only allows trusted nodes to create blocks. It solves the scalability problem allowing to considerably increase capacity and handle transactions almost instantly without wasting time on unnecessary calculations made by miners and forgers. Moreover, trusted nodes must meet the strict capacity requirements. This is one the main reasons why we have selected PoA since this is the only technology allowing to fully use super-fast nodes. Due to these features, the Proof-of-Authority algorithm is seen as one of the most effective and promising options for bringing blockchain to various business sectors. For instance, its model perfectly fits the logistics and supply chain management sectors. As an outstanding example, PoA is effectively used by the Microsoft Azure cloud platform to offer various tools for bringing blockchain solutions to businesses. How the UMI Network Gets Rid of the Defects and Incorporates the Benefits of Proof-of-Authority Method Any system has both drawbacks and advantages — so does PoA. According to the original PoA model, each trusted node can create a block, while it is technically impossible for ordinary users to interfere with the system operation. This makes PoA-based cryptocurrencies a lot more centralized than those based on PoW or PoS. This has always been the main reason for criticizing the PoA technology. We understood that only a completely decentralized product could translate our vision of a "hard-to-hit", secure and transparent monetary instrument into reality. Therefore, we started with upgrading its basic operating principle in order to create a product that will incorporate all the best features while eliminating the defects. What we’ve got is a decentralized PoA method. We will try to explain at the elementary level: - We've divided the nodes in the UMI network into two types: master nodes and validator nodes. - Only master nodes have the right to create blocks and confirm transactions. Among master node holders there's the UMI team and their trusted partners from across the world. Moreover, we deliberately keep some of our partners — those who hold master nodes — in secret in order to secure ourselves against potential negative influence, manipulation, and threats from third parties. This way we ensure maximum coherent and reliable system operation. - However, since the core idea behind a decentralized cryptocurrency rules out any kind of trust, the blockchain is secured to prevent master nodes from harming the network in the event of sabotage or collusion. It might happen to Bitcoin or other PoW- or PoS-based cryptocurrencies if, for example, several large mining pools unite and perform a 51% attack. But it can’t happen to UMI. First, the worst that bad faith master node holders can do is to negligibly slow down the network. But the UMI network will automatically respond to it by banning such nodes. Thus, master nodes will prevent any partner from doing intentional harm to the network. Moreover, it will not be able to do this, even if most other partners support it. Nothing — not even quantum computers — will help hackers. Read our post "UMI Blockchain Six-Level Security" for more details. - A validator node can be launched by any participant. Validator nodes maintain the network by verifying the correctness of blocks and excluding the possibility of fakes. In doing so they increase the overall network security and help master nodes carry out their functions. More importantly, those who hold validator nodes control those who hold master nodes and confirm that the latter don't violate anything and comply with the rules. You can find more details about validator nodes in the article we mentioned above. - Finally, the network allows all interested users to launch light nodes (SPV), which enables viewing and sending transactions without having to download the blockchain and maintain the network. With light nodes, any network user can make sure if the system is operating properly and doesn't have to download the blockchain to do this. - In addition, we are developing the ability to protect the network in case 100% of the master nodes (10,000 master nodes in total) are "disabled" for some reason. Even this is virtually impossible, we've thought ahead and in the worst-case scenario, the system will automatically move to PoS. By doing so, it will be able to continue processing transactions. We're going to tell you about this in our next publications. Thus, the UMI network uses an upgraded version of this technology which possesses all its advantages with drawbacks eliminated. This model is truly decentralized and maximum secured. Another major drawback of PoA-based cryptos is no possibility to grant incentives to users. PoA doesn't imply forging or mining which allow users to earn cryptocurrency while generating new coins. No reward for maintaining the network is the main reason why the crypto community is not interested in PoA. This is, of course, unfair. With this in mind, the UMI team has found the best solution — the unique staking smart-contract. It allows you to increase the number of your coins up to 40% per month even with no mining or forging meaning the human factor cannot have a negative impact on the decentralization and network performance. New-Generation Proof-of-Authority The UMI network uses an upgraded version of PoA technology which possesses all its advantages with drawbacks virtually eliminated. This makes UMI a decentralized, easily scalable, and yet the most secure, productive, profitable and fair cryptocurrency, working for the sake of all people. The widespread use of UMI can change most aspects of society in different areas, including production, commerce, logistics, and all financial arrangements. We are just beginning this journey and thrilled to have you with us. Let's change the world together! Best regards, UMI Team!
Review and Prospect of Crypto Economy-Development and Evolution of Consensus Mechanism (2)
https://preview.redd.it/a51zsja94db51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=99e8080c9e9b1fb5e11cbd70f915f9cb37188f81 Foreword The consensus mechanism is one of the important elements of the blockchain and the core rule of the normal operation of the distributed ledger. It is mainly used to solve the trust problem between people and determine who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining the effective unification of the system in the blockchain system. Thus, it has become an everlasting research hot topic in blockchain. This article starts with the concept and role of the consensus mechanism. First, it enables the reader to have a preliminary understanding of the consensus mechanism as a whole; then starting with the two armies and the Byzantine general problem, the evolution of the consensus mechanism is introduced in the order of the time when the consensus mechanism is proposed; Then, it briefly introduces the current mainstream consensus mechanism from three aspects of concept, working principle and representative project, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the mainstream consensus mechanism; finally, it gives suggestions on how to choose a consensus mechanism for blockchain projects and pointed out the possibility of the future development of the consensus mechanism. Contents First, concept and function of the consensus mechanism 1.1 Concept: The core rules for the normal operation of distributed ledgers 1.2 Role: Solve the trust problem and decide the generation and maintenance of new blocks 1.2.1 Used to solve the trust problem between people 1.2.2 Used to decide who is responsible for generating new blocks and maintaining effective unity in the blockchain system 1.3 Mainstream model of consensus algorithm Second, the origin of the consensus mechanism 2.1 The two armies and the Byzantine generals 2.1.1 The two armies problem 2.1.2 The Byzantine generals problem 2.2 Development history of consensus mechanism 2.2.1 Classification of consensus mechanism 2.2.2 Development frontier of consensus mechanism Third, Common Consensus System Fourth, Selection of consensus mechanism and summary of current situation 4.1 How to choose a consensus mechanism that suits you 4.1.1 Determine whether the final result is important 4.1.2 Determine how fast the application process needs to be 4.1.2 Determining the degree to which the application requires for decentralization 4.1.3 Determine whether the system can be terminated 4.1.4 Select a suitable consensus algorithm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages 4.2 Future development of consensus mechanism Last lecture review: Chapter 1 Concept and Function of Consensus Mechanism plus Chapter 2 Origin of Consensus Mechanism Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 1) Figure 6 Summary of relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms 📷 https://preview.redd.it/9r7q3xra4db51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=bae5554a596feaac948fae22dffafee98c4318a7 Source: Hasib Anwar, "Consensus Algorithms: The Root Of The Blockchain Technology" The picture above shows 14 relatively mainstream consensus mechanisms summarized by a geek Hasib Anwar, including PoW (Proof of Work), PoS (Proof of Stake), DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake), LPoS (Lease Proof of Stake), PoET ( Proof of Elapsed Time), PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance), SBFT (Simple Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DBFT (Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance), DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), Proof-of-Activity (Proof of Activity), Proof-of- Importance (Proof of Importance), Proof-of-Capacity (Proof of Capacity), Proof-of-Burn ( Proof of Burn), Proof-of-Weight (Proof of Weight). Next, we will mainly introduce and analyze the top ten consensus mechanisms of the current blockchain. 》POW -Concept: Work proof mechanism. That is, the proof of work means that it takes a certain amount of computer time to confirm the work. -Principle: Figure 7 PoW work proof principle 📷 https://preview.redd.it/xupacdfc4db51.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=3b6994641f5890804d93dfed9ecfd29308c8e0cc The PoW represented by Bitcoin uses the SHA-256 algorithm function, which is a 256-bit hash algorithm in the password hash function family: Proof of work output = SHA256 (SHA256 (block header)); if (output of proof of work if (output of proof of work >= target value), change the random number, recursive i logic, continue to compare with the target value. New difficulty value = old difficulty value* (time spent by last 2016 blocks /20160 minutes) Target value = maximum target value / difficulty value The maximum target value is a fixed number. If the last 2016 blocks took less than 20160 minutes, then this coefficient will be small, and the target value will be adjusted bigger, if not, the target value will be adjusted smaller. Bitcoin mining difficulty and block generation speed will be inversely proportional to the appropriate adjustment of block generation speed. -Representative applications: BTC, etc. 》POS -Concept: Proof of stake. That is, a mechanism for reaching consensus based on the holding currency. The longer the currency is held, the greater the probability of getting a reward. -Principle: PoS implementation algorithm formula: hash(block_header) = Coin age calculation formula: coinage = number of coins * remaining usage time of coins Among them, coinage means coin age, which means that the older the coin age, the easier it is to get answers. The calculation of the coin age is obtained by multiplying the coins owned by the miner by the remaining usage time of each coin, which also means that the more coins you have, the easier it is to get answers. In this way, pos solves the problem of wasting resources in pow, and miners cannot own 51% coins from the entire network, so it also solves the problem of 51% attacks. -Representative applications: ETH, etc. 》DPoS -Concept: Delegated proof of stake. That is, currency holding investors select super nodes by voting to operate the entire network , similar to the people's congress system. -Principle: The DPOS algorithm is divided into two parts. Elect a group of block producers and schedule production. Election: Only permanent nodes with the right to be elected can be elected, and ultimately only the top N witnesses can be elected. These N individuals must obtain more than 50% of the votes to be successfully elected. In addition, this list will be re-elected at regular intervals. Scheduled production: Under normal circumstances, block producers take turns to generate a block every 3 seconds. Assuming that no producer misses his order, then the chain they produce is bound to be the longest chain. When a witness produces a block, a block needs to be generated every 2s. If the specified time is exceeded, the current witness will lose the right to produce and the right will be transferred to the next witness. Then the witness is not only unpaid, but also may lose his identity. -Representative applications: EOS, etc. 》DPoW -Concept: Delayed proof of work. A new-generation consensus mechanism based on PoB and DPoS. Miners use their own computing power, through the hash algorithm, and finally prove their work, get the corresponding wood, wood is not tradable. After the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, you can go to the burning site to burn the wood. This can achieve a balance between computing power and mining rights. -Principle: In the DPoW-based blockchain, miners are no longer rewarded tokens, but "wood" that can be burned, burning wood. Miners use their own computing power, through the hash algorithm, and finally prove their work, get the corresponding wood, wood is not tradable. After the wood has accumulated to a certain amount, you can go to the burning site to burn the wood. Through a set of algorithms, people who burn more wood or BP or a group of BP can obtain the right to generate blocks in the next event segment, and get rewards (tokens) after successful block generation. Since more than one person may burn wood in a time period, the probability of producing blocks in the next time period is determined by the amount of wood burned by oneself. The more it is burned, the higher the probability of obtaining block rights in the next period. Two node types: notary node and normal node. The 64 notary nodes are elected by the stakeholders of the dPoW blockchain, and the notarized confirmed blocks can be added from the dPoW blockchain to the attached PoW blockchain. Once a block is added, the hash value of the block will be added to the Bitcoin transaction signed by 33 notary nodes, and a hash will be created to the dPow block record of the Bitcoin blockchain. This record has been notarized by most notary nodes in the network. In order to avoid wars on mining between notary nodes, and thereby reduce the efficiency of the network, Komodo designed a mining method that uses a polling mechanism. This method has two operating modes. In the "No Notary" (No Notary) mode, all network nodes can participate in mining, which is similar to the traditional PoW consensus mechanism. In the "Notaries Active" mode, network notaries use a significantly reduced network difficulty rate to mine. In the "Notary Public Activation" mode, each notary public is allowed to mine a block with its current difficulty, while other notary public nodes must use 10 times the difficulty of mining, and all normal nodes use 100 times the difficulty of the notary public node. Figure 8 DPoW operation process without a notary node 📷 https://preview.redd.it/3yuzpemd4db51.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=f3bc2a1c97b13cb861414d3eb23a312b42ea6547 -Representative applications: CelesOS, Komodo, etc. CelesOS Research Institute丨DPoW consensus mechanism-combustible mining and voting 》PBFT -Concept: Practical Byzantine fault tolerance algorithm. That is, the complexity of the algorithm is reduced from exponential to polynomial level, making the Byzantine fault-tolerant algorithm feasible in practical system applications. -Principle: Figure 9 PBFT algorithm principle 📷 https://preview.redd.it/8as7rgre4db51.png?width=567&format=png&auto=webp&s=372be730af428f991375146efedd5315926af1ca First, the client sends a request to the master node to call the service operation, and then the master node broadcasts other copies of the request. All copies execute the request and send the result back to the client. The client needs to wait for f+1 different replica nodes to return the same result as the final result of the entire operation. Two qualifications: 1. All nodes must be deterministic. That is to say, the results of the operation must be the same under the same conditions and parameters. 2. All nodes must start from the same status. Under these two limited qualifications, even if there are failed replica nodes, the PBFT algorithm agrees on the total order of execution of all non-failed replica nodes, thereby ensuring security. -Representative applications: Tendermint Consensus, etc. Next Lecture: Chapter 3 Common Consensus Mechanisms (Part 2) + Chapter 4 Consensus Mechanism Selection and Status Summary CelesOS As the first DPOW financial blockchain operating system, CelesOS adopts consensus mechanism 3.0 to break through the "impossible triangle", which can provide high TPS while also allowing for decentralization. Committed to creating a financial blockchain operating system that embraces supervision, providing services for financial institutions and the development of applications on the supervision chain, and formulating a role and consensus ecological supervision layer agreement for supervision. The CelesOS team is dedicated to building a bridge between blockchain and regulatory agencies/financial industry. We believe that only blockchain technology that cooperates with regulators will have a real future. We believe in and contribute to achieving this goal. 📷Website https://www.celesos.com/ 📷Telegram https://t.me/celeschain 📷Twitter https://twitter.com/CelesChain 📷Reddit https://www.reddit.com/useCelesOS 📷Medium https://medium.com/@celesos 📷Facebook https://www.facebook.com/CelesOS1 📷Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1Xsd8wU957D-R8RQVZPfGA
Bitcoin 11 Years - Achievements, Lies, and Bullshit Claims So Far - Tooootally NOT a SCAM !!!!
That's right folks, it's that time again for the annual review of how Bitcoin is going: all of those claims, predictions, promises .... how many have turned out to be true, and how many are completely bogus ??? Please post / link this on Bitcoin (I am banned there for speaking the truth, so I cannot do it) ... because it'a way past time those poor clueless mushrooms were exposed to the truth. Anyway, without further ado, I give you the Bitcoin's Achievements, Lies, and Bullshit Claims So Far ... . Bitcoin Achievements so far:
It has spawned a cesspool of scams (2000+ shit coin scams, plus 100's of other scams, frauds, cons).
Many 1,000's of hacks, thefts, losses.
Illegal Use Cases: illegal drugs, illegal weapons, tax fraud, money laundering, sex trafficking, child pornography, hit men / murder-for-hire, ransomware, blackmail, extortion, and various other kinds of fraud and illicit activity.
Legal Use Cases: Steam Games, Reddit, Expedia, Stripe, Starbucks, 1000's of merchants, cryptocurrency conferences, Ummm ????? The few merchants who "accept Bitcoin" immediately convert it into FIAT after the sale, or require you to sell your coins to BitPay or Coinbase for real money, and will then take that money. Some of the few who actually accept bitcoin haven't seen a customer who needed to pay with bitcoin for the last six months, and their cashiers no longer know how to handle that.
Contributing significantly to Global Warming.
Wastes vasts amounts of electricity on useless, do nothing work.
Exponentially raises electricity prices when big miners move into regions where electricity was cheap.
It’s the first "currency" that is not self-sustainable. It operates at a net loss, and requires continuous outside capital to replace the capital removed by miners to pay their costs. It’s literally a "black hole currency."
It created a new way for people living too far from Vegas to gamble all their life savings away.
Spawned "blockchain technology", a powerful technique that lets incompetent programmers who know almost nothing about databases, finance, programming, or blockchain scam millions out of gullible VC investors, banks, and governments.
Increased China's foreign trade balance by a couple billion dollars per year.
Helped the FBI and other law enforcement agents easily track down hundreds of drug traffickers and drug users.
Wasted thousands if not millions of man-hours of government employees and legislators, in mostly fruitless attempts to understand, legitimize, and regulate the "phenomenon", and to investigate and prosecute its scams.
Rekindled the hopes of anarcho-capitalists and libertarians for a global economic collapse, that would finally bring forth their Mad Max "utopia".
Added another character to Unicode (no, no, not the "poo" 💩 character ... that was my first guess as well 🤣)
Provides an easy way for malware and ransomware criminals to ply their trade and extort hospitals, schools, local councils, businesses, utilities, as well as the general population.
~~Bitcoin is "striking fear into the hearts of bankers, precisely because Bitcoin eliminates the need for banks. ~~, Mark Yusko, billionaire investor and Founder of Morgan Creek Capital, https://www.bitcoinprice.com/predictions/
"A bitcoin miner in every device and in every hand."
"All the indicators are pointing to a huge year and bigger than anything we have seen before."
"Bitcoin is communism and democracy working hand in hand."
"Bitcoin is freedom, and we will soon be free."
"Bitcoin isn't calculated risk, you're right. It's downright and painfully obvious that it will consume global finance."
"Bitcoin most disruptive technology of last 500 years"
"Bitcoin: So easy, your grandma can use it!"
"Creating a 4th Branch of Government - Bitcoin"
"Future generations will cry laughing reading all the negativity and insanity vomited by these permabears."
"Future us will thank us."
"Give Bitcoin two years"
"HODLING is more like being a dutiful guardian of the most powerful economic force this planet has ever seen and getting to have a say about how that force is unleashed."
"Cut out the middleman"
"full control of your own assets"
"reduction in wealth gap"
"cannot print money out of thin air"
"Why that matters? Because blockchain not only cheaper for them, it'll be cheaper for you and everyone as well."
"If you are in this to get rich in Fiat then no. But if you are in this to protect your wealth once the current monetary system collapse then you are protected and you'll be the new rich."
"Theres the 1% and then theres the 99%. You want to be with the rest thats fine. Being different and brave is far more rewarding. No matter your background or education."
"NO COINERS will believe anything they are fed by fake news and paid media."
"I know that feeling (like people looking at you as in seeing a celebrity and then asking things they don't believe until their impressed)."
"I literally walk round everyday looking at other people wondering why they even bother to live if they don't have Bitcoin in their lives."
"I think bitcoin may very well be the best form of money we’ve ever seen in the history of civilization."
"I think Bitcoin will do for mankind what the sun did for life on earth."
"I think the constant scams and illegal activities only show the viability of bitcoin."
"I think we're sitting on the verge of exponential interest in the currency."
"I'm not using hyperbole when I say Satoshi found the elusive key to World Peace."
"If Jesus ever comes back you know he's gonna be using Bitcoin"
"If this idea was implemented with The Blockchain™, it would be completely flawless! Flawless I tell you!"
"If you're the minimum wage guy type, now is a great time to skip food and go full ramadan in order to buy bitcoin instead."
"In a world slipping more and more into chaos and uncertainty, Bitcoin seems to me like the last solid rock defeating all the attacks."
"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any filthy statist's blessing, but because I am enlightened by own intelligence."
"Is Bitcoin at this point, with all the potential that opens up, the most undervalued asset ever?"
"It won't be long until bitcoin is an everyday household term."
"It's the USD that is volatile. Bitcoin is the real neutral currency."
"Just like the early Internet!"
"Just like the Trojan Horse of old, Bitcoin will reveal its full power and nature"
"Ladies if your man doesnt have some bitcoin then he cant handle anything and has no danger sex appeal. He isnt edgy"
"let me be the first to say if you dont have bitcoin you are a pussy and cant really purchase anything worldwide. You have no global reach"
"My conclusion is that I see this a a very good thing for bitcoin and for users"
"No one would do such a thing; it'd be against their self interests."
"Ooh lala, good job on bashing Bitcoin. How to disrespect a great innovation."
"Realistically I think Bitcoin will replace the dollar in the next 10-15 years."
"Seperation of money and state -> states become obsolete -> world peace."
"Some striking similarities between Bitcoin and God"
"THANK YOU. Better for this child to be strangled in its crib as a true weapon for crypto-anarchists than for it to be wielded by toxic individuals who distort the technology and surrender it to government and corporate powers."
"The Blockchain is more encompassing than the internet and is the next phase in human evolution. To avoid its significance is complete ignorance."
"The bull run should begin any day now."
"The free market doesn't permit fraud and theft."
"The free market will clear away the bad actors."
"The only regulation we need is the blockchain."
"We are not your slaves! We are free bodies who will swallow you and puke you out in disgust. Welcome to liberty land or as that genius called it: Bitcoin."
"We do not need the bankers for Satoshi is our saviour!"
"We have never seen something so perfect"
"We must bring freedom and crypto to the masses, to the common man who does not know how to fight for himself."
"We verified that against the blockchain."
"we will see a Rennaisnce over the next few decades, all thanks to Bitcoin."
"Well, since 2006, there has been a infinite% increase in price, so..."
"What doesn't kill cryptocurrency makes it stronger."
"When Bitcoin awake in normally people (real people) ... you will have this result : No War. No Tax. No QE. No Bank."
"When I see news that the price of bitcoin has tanked (and thus the market, more or less) I actually, for-real, have the gut reaction "oh that’s cool, I’ll be buying cheap this week". I never knew I could be so rational."
"Where is your sense of adventure? Bitcoin is the future. Set aside your fears and leave easier at the doorstep."
"Yes Bitcoin will cause the greatest redistribution of wealth this planet has ever seen. FACT from the future."
"You are the true Bitcoin pioneers and with your help we have imprinted Bitcoin in the Canadian conscience."
"You ever try LSD? Perhaps it would help you break free from the box of state-formed thinking you have limited yourself..."
"Your phone or refrigerator might be on the blockchain one day."
The banks can print money whenever they way, out of thin air, so why can't crypto do the same ???
Central Banks can print money whenever they way, out of thin air, without any consequences or accounting, so why can't crypto do the same ???
It's impossible to hide illegal, unsavory material on the blockchain
It's impossible to hide child pornography on the blockchain
All Bitccoins are the same, 100% identical, one Bitcoin cannot be distinguished from any other Bitcoin.
The price of Bitcoin can only go up because of scarcity / 21 million coin limit. (Bitcoin is open source, anyone can create thir own copy, and there are more than 2,000+ Bitcoin copies / clones out there already).
immune to government regulation
"a world-changing technology"
"a long-term store of value, like gold or silver"
"To Complex to Be Audited."
"Old Auditing rules do not apply to Blockchain."
"Old Auditing rules do not apply to Cryptocurrency."
Bitcoin now at $16,600.00. Those of you in the old school who believe this is a bubble simply have not understood the new mathematics of the Blockchain, or you did not cared enough to try. Bubbles are mathematically impossible in this new paradigm. So are corrections and all else", John McAfee, 7 Dec 2017 @ 5:09 PM,https://mobile.twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/938938539282190337
2013-11-27: ""What is a Citadel?" you might wonder. Well, by the time Bitcoin became worth 1,000 dollar [27-Nov-2013], services began to emerge for the "Bitcoin rich" to protect themselves as well as their wealth. It started with expensive safes, then began to include bodyguards, and today, "earlies" (our term for early adapters), as well as those rich whose wealth survived the "transition" live in isolated gated cities called Citadels, where most work is automated. Most such Citadels are born out of the fortification used to protect places where Bitcoin mining machines are located. The company known as ASICminer to you is known to me as a city where Mr. Friedman rules as a king.", u/Luka_Magnotta, aka time traveler from the future, 31-Aug-2013, https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1lfobc/i_am_a_timetraveler_from_the_future_here_to_beg/
2018-12: Listen up you giggling cunts... who wants some?...you? you want some?...huh? Do ya? Here's the deal you fuckin Nerds - Butts are gonna be at30 grandor more by next Christmas  - If they aren't I will publicly administer an electronic dick sucking to every shill on this site and disappear forever - Until then, no more bans or shadow bans - Do we have a deal? If Butts are over 50 grand me and Lammy get to be mods. Deal? Your ole pal - "Skully"u/10GDeathBoner, 3-Feb-2018 https://www.reddit.com/Buttcoin/comments/7ut1ut/listen_up_you_giggling_cunts_who_wants_someyou/
2018-12: "Bitcoin could be at$40,000by the end of 2018, it really easily could", Mike Novogratz, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner, ex-hedge fund manager of the Fortress Investment Group and a longstanding advocate of cryptocurrency, 21-Sep-2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lC1anDg2KU
2018-12: Bitcoin will end 2018 at the price point of$50,000, Ran Neuner, host of CNBC’s show Cryptotrader and the 28th most influential Blockchain insider according to Richtopia,https://www.bitcoinprice.com/predictions/
A better anti-reorg algorithm using first-seen times to punish secret/dishonest mining
Bitcoin currently allows a malicious miner with at least 51% of the network hashrate to arbitrarily rewrite blockchain history. This means that transactions are reversible if they belong to a miner with a hashrate majority, and such transactions are subject to double-spend attempts. Bitcoin SV's miners have repeatedly threatened to perform this attack against exchanges using BCH by mining a secret, hidden chain which they only publish after they have withdrawn funds in a different currency from the exchange. It would be nice if we could prevent these secret mining re-org attacks. Yesterday, I came up with a new algorithm for making secret re-org attacks very expensive and difficult to pull off. This new algorithm is designed to avoid the permanent chainsplit vulnerabilities of ABC 0.18.5 while being more effective at punishing malicious behavior. The key to the new algorithm is to punish exactly the behavior that indicates malice. First, publishing a block after another block at the same height has arrived on the network suggests malice or poor performance, and the likelihood of malice increases as the delay increases. A good algorithm would penalize blocks in proportion to how much later they were published after the competing block. Second, building upon a block that was intentionally delayed is also a sign of malice. Therefore, a good algorithm would discount the work done by blocks based not only on their own delays, but the delays that were seen earlier in that chain as well. Since the actions at the start of the fork are more culpable (as they generate the split), we want to weight those blocks more heavily than later blocks. I wrote up an algorithm that implements these features. When comparing two chains, you look at the PoW done since the fork block, and divide that PoW by a penalty score. The penalty score for each chain is calculated as the sum of the penalty scores for each block. Each block's penalty score is equal to the apparent time delay of that block relative to its sibling or cousin, divided by 120 seconds, and further divided by the square of that block's height from the fork. This algorithm has some desirable properties:
It provides smooth performance. There are no corners or sharp changes in its incentive structure or penalty curve.
It converges over very long time scales. Eventually, if one chain has more hashrate than the other and that is sustained indefinitely, the chain with the most hashrate will win by causing the chain penalty score for the slower (less-PoW) chain to grow.
The long-term convergence means that variation in observed times early in the fork will not cause permanent chainsplits.
Long-term convergence means that nodes can follow the standard most-PoW rule during initial block download and get the same results unless an attack is underway, in which case the node will only temporarily disagree.
Over intermediate time scales (e.g. hours to weeks), the penalty given to secret-mining deep-reorg chains is very large and difficult to overcome even with a significant hashrate advantage. The penalty increases the longer the attack chain is kept secret. This makes attack attempts ineffective unless they are published within about 20 minutes of the attack starting.
Single-block orphan race behavior is identical to existing behavior unless one of the blocks has a delay of at least 120 seconds, in which case that chain would require a total of 3 blocks to win (or more) instead of just 2.
As the algorithm strongly punishes hidden chains, finalization becomes much safer as long as you prevent finalization from happening while there are known competitive alternate chains. However, this algorithm is still effective without finalization.
I wrote up this algorithm into a Python sim yesterday and have been playing around with it since. It seems to perform quite well. For example, if the attacker has 1.5x as much hashrate as the defenders (who had 100% of the hashrate before the fork), mine in secret for 20 minutes before publishing, and if finalization is enabled after 10 blocks when there's at least a 2x score advantage, then the attacker gets an orphan rate of 49.3% on their blocks and is only able to cause a >= 10 block reorg in 5.2% of cases, and none of those happen blindly, as the opposing chain shows up when most transactions have about 2 confirmations. If the attacker waits 1 hour before publishing, the attack is even less effective: 94% of their blocks are orphaned, 95.6% of their attempts fail, 94.3% of the attacks end with defenders successfully finalizing, and only 0.6% of attack attempts result in a >= 10 block reorg. The code for my algorithm and simulator can be found on my antiReorgSim Github repository. If you guys have time, I'd appreciate some review and feedback. To run it:
git clone https://github.com/jtoomim/antiReorgSim.git cd antiReorgSim python reorgsim.py # use pypy if you have it, as it's 30x faster
Thanks! Special thanks to Jonald Fyookball and Mark Lundeberg for reviewing early versions of the code and the ideas. I believe Jonald is working on a Medium post based on some of these concepts. Keep an eye out for it. Edit: I'm working on an interactive HTML visualization using Dash/Python! Here's a screenshot from a preliminary version in which convergence (or attacker victory, if you prefer) happens after 88.4 hours. In this scenario, the attacker wins because of the rule in Note 5. Edit 2: An alpha website version of the simulator is up! The code is all server-side for the simulation, so it might get overloaded if too many people hit it at the same time, but it might be fine. Feel free to play around with it! Note 1: This time delay is calculated by finding the best competing chain's last block with less work than this one and the first block with more work than this one and interpolating the time-first-seen between the two. The time at which the block was fully downloaded and verified is used as time-first-seen, not the time at which the header was received nor the block header's timestamp. Note 2: An empirical constant, intended to be similar to worst-case block propagation times. Note 3: A semi-empirical constant; this balances the effect of early blocks against late blocks. The motivation for squaring is that late blocks gain an advantage for two multiplicative reasons: First, there are more late blocks than early blocks. Second, the time deltas for late blocks are larger. Both of these factors are linear versus time, so canceling them out can be done by dividing by height squared. This way, the first block has about as much weight as the next 4 blocks; the first two blocks have as much weight as the next 9 blocks; and the first (n) blocks have about as much weight as the next (n+1)2 blocks. Any early advantage can be overcome eventually by a hashrate majority, so over very long time scales (e.g. hours to weeks), this rule is equivalent to the simple Satoshi most-PoW rule, as long as the hashrate on each chain is constant. However, over intermediate time scales, the advantage to the first seen blocks is large enough that the hashrate will likely not remain constant, and hashrate will likely switch over to whichever chain has the best score and looks the most honest. Note 4: The calculation doesn't actually use height, as that would be vulnerable to DAA manipulation. Instead, the calculation uses pseudoheight, which uses the PoW done and the fork block's difficulty to calculate what the height would be if all blocks had the fork block's difficulty. Note 5: If one chain has less PoW than the other, the shorter chain's penalty is calculated as if enough blocks had been mined at the last minute to make them equal in PoW, but these fictional blocks do not contribute to the actual PoW of that chain.
First, let’s look at some of the issues facing Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus that led to the development of PoS.
Excessive energy consumption — In 2017, many concerns were raised over the amount of electricity used by the bitcoin network (Largest PoW blockchain). Since then the energy consumption has increased by over 400%, to the point where 1 single transaction on this network has the same carbon footprint of 736,722 Visa transactions or consumes the same amount of electricity as over 20 U.S. households.
Varying Electricity Costs — The profit of any miner on the network is tied to two costs, the initial startup cost to obtain the hardware and infrastructure, and more critically, the running cost of said equipment in relation to electricity usage. Electricity costs can vary from fractions of a cent per kWh to over 50 cents (USD) and in some cases it is free. When a user may only be earning $0.40 USD per hour then this will clearly rule out certain demographics based purely on electricity costs, reducing the potential for complete decentralization.
Reduced decentralization — Due to the high cost of the mining equipment, those with large financial bases setup mining farms, either for others to rent out individual miners or entirely for personal gains. This results in large demographic hotspots on the network reducing the decentralized aspect to a point where it no longer accomplishes this aspect.
Conflicted interests — The requirements of running miners on the network are purely based on having possession of the hardware, electricity and internet connection. There are no limits to the amount a miner can earn, nor do they need to hold any stake in the network, and thus there is very little incentive for them to vote on upgrades that may benefit the network but reduce their rewards.
I want to take this moment to mention a potential benefit to PoW that I have not seen anyone mention previously. It is a very loose argument so don’t take this to heart too strongly. Consistent Fiat Injection — The majority of miners will be paying for their electricity in fiat currency. At a conservative rate of $0.1 USD per kWh, the network currently uses 73.12 TWh per year. This equates to an average daily cost of over $20 million USD. This means every day around $20 million of fiat currency is effectively being injected into the bitcoin network. Although this concept is somewhat flawed in the sense that the same amount of bitcoin will be released each day regardless of how much is spent on electricity, I’m looking at this from the eyes of the miners, they are reducing their fiat bags and increasing their bitcoin bags. This change of bags is the essence of this point which will inevitably encourage crypto spending. If the bitcoin bags were increased but fiat bags did not decrease, then there would be less incentive to spend the bitcoin, as would see in a staking ecosystem. https://preview.redd.it/8dtqt6e204c41.png?width=631&format=png&auto=webp&s=065aedde87b55f0768968307e59e62a35eac949d
Different approaches have been taken to tackle different issues the PoS protocol faces. Will Little has an excellent article explaining this and more in PoS, but let me take an excerpt from his piece to go through them:
Coin-age selection — Blockchains like Peercoin (the first PoS chain), start out with PoW to distribute the coins, use coin age to help prevent monopolization and 51% attacks (by setting a time range when the probability of being selected as a node is greatest), and implement checkpoints initially to prevent NoS problems.
Randomized block selection — Chains like NXT and Blackcoin also use checkpoints, but believe that coin-age discourages staking. After an initial distribution period (either via PoW or otherwise), these chains use algorithms to randomly select nodes that can create blocks.
Ethereum’s Casper protocol(s) — Being already widely distributed, Ethereum doesn’t have to worry about the initial distribution problem when/if it switches to PoS. Casper takes a more Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) approach and will punish nodes by taking away (“slashing”) their stake if they do devious things. In addition, consensus is formed by a multi-round process where every randomly assigned node votes for a specific block during a round.
Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) — Invented by Dan Larimer and first used in Bitshares (and then in [aelf,] Steem, EOS, and many others), DPoS tackles potential PoS problems by having the community “elect” delegates that will run nodes to create and validate blocks. Bad behavior is then punished by the community simply out-voting the delegated nodes.
Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance (DBFT) — Similar to DPoS, the NEO community votes for (delegates) nodes, but instead of each node producing blocks and agreeing on consensus, only 2 out of 3 nodes need to agree on what goes in every block (acting more like bookkeepers than validators).
Masternodes — First introduced by DASH, a masternode PoS system requires nodes to stake a minimum threshold of coins in order to qualify as a node. Often this comes with requirements to provide “service” to a network in the form of governance, special payment protocols, etc…
Proof of Importance (POI) — NEM takes a slightly different approach by granting an “importance calculation” to masternodes staking at least 10,000 XEM. This POI system then rewards active nodes that act in a positive way over time to impact the community.
In order to understand how one can earn money from these networks, I’ll break them down into 3 categories: Simple staking, Running nodes, and Voting. Simple Staking - This is the simplest of the 3 methods and requires almost no action by the user. Certain networks will reward users by simply holding tokens in a specified wallet. These rewards are generally minimal but are the easiest way to earn. Running a node - This method provides the greatest rewards but also requires the greatest action by the user and most likely will require ongoing maintenance. Generally speaking, networks will require nodes to stake a certain amount of tokens often amounting to thousands of dollars. In DPoS systems, these nodes must be voted in by other users on the network and must continue to provide confidence to their supporters. Some companies will setup nodes and allow users to participate by contributing to the minimum staking amount, with a similar concept to PoW mining pools. Voting - This mechanism works hand in hand with running nodes in relation to DPoS networks. Users are encouraged to vote for their preferred nodes by staking tokens as votes. Each vote will unlock a small amount of rewards for each voter, the nodes are normally the ones to provide these rewards as a portion of their own reward for running a node.
Aelf’s DPoS system
The aelf consensus protocol utilizes a form of DPoS. There are two versions of nodes on the network, active nodes & backup nodes (official names yet to be announced). Active nodes run the network and produce the blocks, while the backup nodes complete minor tasks and are on standby should any active nodes go offline or act maliciously. These nodes are selected based upon their number of votes received. Initially the top 17 nodes will be selected as active nodes, while the next 100 will stand as the backup ones, each voting period each node may change position should they receive more or less votes than the previous period. In order to be considered as a node, one must stake a minimum amount of ELF tokens (yet to be announced). https://preview.redd.it/47d3wqe604c41.png?width=618&format=png&auto=webp&s=062a6aa6186b826d400a0015d4c91fd1a4ed0b65 In order to participate as a voter, there is no minimum amount of tokens to be staked. When one stakes, their tokens will be locked for a designated amount of time, selected by the voter from the preset periods. If users pull their tokens out before this locked period has expired no rewards are received, but if they leave them locked for the entire time frame they will receive the set reward, and the tokens will be automatically rolled over into the next locked period. As a result, should a voter decide, once their votes are cast, they can continue to receive rewards without any further action needed. Many projects have tackled with node rewards in order to make them fair, well incentivized but sustainable for everyone involved. Aelf has come up with a reward structure based on multiple variables with a basic income guaranteed for every node. Variables may include the number of re-elections, number of votes received, or other elements. As the system matures, the number of active nodes will be increased, resulting in a more diverse and secure network. Staking as a solution is a win-win-win for network creators, users and investors. It is a much more resource efficient and scalable protocol to secure blockchain networks while reducing the entry point for users to earn from the system.
Before we dive into this topic, one should understand the basics of Blockchain technology. A well-distributed blockchain consists of thousands of different nodes that individually support the network’s decentralization and security. These nodes are by itself supported by miners, basically computers who use their processing power to solve mathematical equations. All these nodes and mining computers are connected and together make up for a distributed datacenter we know as a blockchain. The way of reaching consensus about the given rules within the protocol varies per blockchain. The oldest and most commonly used version is the Proof-Of-Work blockchain, invented by Satoshi Nakamoto. Given the fact thousands of people and institutions around the world support these networks, it’s hard to breach the security. In theory, it is possible, however. What is a 51% attack? A blockchain is hard to hack into, it’s not as simple to crack as a regular database that usually hides behind admin access gained with a couple passwords. In order to breach a blockchain, you’d have to perform a 51% attack. This simply means that you would have to gain access over more than 50% hashrate of the network, thus 51% attack. Hashrate is another word for mining power. The moment one sole entity is in charge of more than half of the network, this party can now change its consensus protocol. By doing so, you could reverse the blockchain years back in time causing many transactions to never have occurred, allow more Bitcoin to be created or destroy parts of the entire supply. This means you could cause chaos. The chances of a 51% attack are not that high, but in history, it has happened before. Ethereum Classic One of the most famous 51% attacks was on the original Ethereum protocol, Ethereum Classic. After a major hack in the early days of the Ethereum network, the team we now know responsible for Ethereum took control of the network and reversed the attack. To frustration of the core team of Ethereum, that went on to build further on Ethereum Classic, the version that was never forked or whatsoever. Having a smaller market cap would make it less expensive for a single entity to take control of the network and that is what happened. $1.1 million in ETC was double spent during the attack, causing many major exchanges to halt the trading of the coin. Prices went down but eventually recovered and the hackers eventually got away with it. Verge This project has suffered multiple attacks over the years. After claiming to be the number one privacy coin, the project called for many haters to come to their front doors. Back in 2018 however, Verge suffered from more than one attack. It started with a hacker found a way of integrating malicious software into the mining protocol. With their new version of the protocol, they could mine multiple blocks per minute on the verge blockchain, gaining them control over network hashrates and move XVG to their wallets. At the peak of the second attack, the hackers were mining 25 blocks per minute, or roughly 8250 XVG or $950 every single minute. Reports say over $1.7 million in XVG was stolen in the three attacks. The team behind Verge called it nothing but a DDoS attack. Afterward, a hard fork occurred and now a multi-algorithm style of mining is utilized to minimize the probability of another 51% attack. How can it happen? You might be wondering, how is this possible? You plug in thousands of mining rigs and there you have it, you just gained control of the network. This, however, is a very expensive operation. Doing this for the Bitcoin blockchain would cost you around 1 Billion dollars, that amount much lower for smaller coins though. Ever heard of Monero? That’d cost you roughly $25,000 according to calculations by Exaking. These are theoretical examples, in practice, many of these projects have built-in warning signs and detectors to go against these kinds of attacks. It is, however, important to be aware of this possibility. You can not just blindly trust any blockchain out there to be a hundred percent safe.
A short Background 2008 was the worst financial crisis the world had experience since the great depression. The efforts of banks worldwide were not enough to prevent its occurrence. Shortly after, someone by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto offered an alternative solution. A digital currency that removes the need for a central bank. His proposal written in the Bitcoin white paper, is summarized below:
A secure, decentralized network.
A system with economic properties.
No need for banks or rule makers.
Instant transactions without a need of a third party or government approval.
Bringing financial services to the unbanked 2.5 billion people.
Total financial freedom. No one can freeze your accounts.
Low transaction costs. No ridiculously high transaction fees.
A currency with finite amount where no one can print money whenever they want.
Bitcoin In 2009, when Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin, the network consisted of computers (in crypto terms, these are called Nodes) to approve transactions, movements of data along the chain. This allows for everyone willing to become a participant, creating a decentralized global network. Allowing for a decentralized currency, free of the control of politicians, or institutions. The rules can only be changed if 51% of the network agrees on it. This way the network is completely democratized and resistant to hacking attacks. Unlike today’s financial institutions, no one can freeze your account or prevent you sending money. You are the only person who truly holds your wealth. It is an open source project. Anyone can see the code and offer or discuss changes with the community. On the other hand, anyone participating to the network with computational power gets incentives or pay, with a fractional amount of BTC. Blockchain The core of a secure decentralized network like Bitcoin, lies the Blockchain technology. To put it simply, the blockchain is like a series of Lego, connected to each other by linking information, called transactions. These transactions contain the following data sender, receiver and the unique signature of the sender. The data will be converted into “hash” before being saved into a block. The bitcoin hash is generated using a set of cryptographic functions called sha256. This way the information is encrypted, is compressed and saved in the block. Additionally, each block in the chain, contains the information from the block before it. This ensures that if someone tries to maliciously modify information in a block, all the block following this attempt will be changed, making it easier to spot. Each block includes the information from the previous block. If someone wants to maliciously change the information in one block that change the complete result of all following blocks. In this type of network there is only one blockchain, and all the information is kept in a public ledger which is shared amongst all the participating networks. For the blockchain to be valid, more than 50% of the participants (nodes and their computational power) must agree with it. Bitcoin Today (2018) Until today many, many, events have happened. The network has grown massively. The underlying code is improved in many ways. There are more and more developers and investors that have entered the cryptocurrency space. Currently there are proposed changes being developed to the Bitcoin network that will make bitcoin rival the centralized networks of today (Visa, Mastercard), while significantly lowering the cost of these transaction. Many alternative cryptocurrencies have been created along the way, improving some of the aspects of the bitcoin and focusing on certain applications, in the crypto-space, we call them altcoins. WHY VERGE The way that Bitcoin function, has severe flaws with regards to privacy:
Public Ledger: The transaction information is public, meaning, that transactions can be linked to a person.
IP Leakage: A persistent and motivated attacker will be able to associate your IP address with your bitcoin transaction.
Due to the above reasons, it was clear that there would be a need for a privacy coin. Different coins were then created that had this problem in mind. They were ‘too private’ in the sense that they completely by-passed the public ledger. The public ledger allows merchant to provide proof of transactions, which is important for bookkeeping. Enter Verge Currency, formerly Dogecoindark; which offers transaction on the ledger, both public and private. Allowing the user to choose if the transactions are public or private. VERGE CURRENCY 2014 saw the birth of Dogecoin Dark; in 2016, it was rebranded to Verge Currency. Verge improves upon the original Bitcoin blockchain and aims to fulfill its initial purpose of providing individuals and businesses with a fast, efficient and decentralized way of making direct transactions while maintaining your privacy. What is the Verge Currency Mission? Verge Currency aims to empower people around the globe using blockchain in everyday life and makes it possible for people to engage in transactions quickly, efficiently and privately. With Verge, business and individuals now have flexible options for sending and receiving payments. Verge Currency also offer helpful integrations and tools that enable them to handle large scale transactions between merchants and small-scale private payments. Is Verge Currency a private company and how is it funded? Following in the spirit of Bitcoin, Verge is an open-source software, and a community. It is not a company, never had an ICO. The development is entirely funded by the community and the developers. Currently Verge is looking into setting up an official Verge merchandise store, and an Official Verge mining pool, for multiple algorithms. Tech General technical capabilities of XVG blockchain:
PoW (Proof of Work)
Scrypt, X17, Lyra2rev2, myr-groestl and blake2s
Max Coin Supply
16.5 billion XVG
15.2 billion XVG
Tx (Transaction) Speed
Tps (Transactions per sec.)
100 (Will be ~2000 with RSK)
Tor + I2P Networks
fully obfuscated IP address / User's Location is hidden
It enables users to anonymously receive funds to their wallet. Therefore third parties are no longer able to track receivers addresses, nor are they able to combine official wallet addresses with their stealth addresses.
Community Verge is a community-driven project. The community is the pillar of Verge, from the past to the future, the community built Verge. The community or Vergefam connects everyone from around the world, regardless of cultural background. The common vision is to provide everyone access to financial freedom, and the choice of privacy while transacting. Below you can find the Verge Telegram communities from around the world;
Mass Adoption Low fees, quick transactions, high volume in circulation, multiplatform support, Wraith protocol are the ingredients that make Verge perfectly positioned for mass adoption. Transact on the public ledger for everyday purchases or stay private if you wish so. Getting Started You can find the matching instructions as below:
For those of you who don’t know VanEck and SolidX have submitted their 3rd ETF proposal for Bitcoin. I highly encourage you read the proposal so you can understand how it may affect the prices of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. There was a massive public misperception of what the BTC futures would do to price which, in my opinion, led to the incredible rise and fall in Bitcoin’s price. Also, I would like to supply some topics you could present to SEC during their call for public comments. Here is the ETF proposal as submitted on June 5, 2018. This initial document is what I have used to base the following post on. Here is a slightly updated proposal that the SEC has requested public comment on dated June 26, 2018. ETF vs Futures A Bitcoin ETF increases Bitcoin scarcity and liquidity which is bullish for price whereas BTC futures contracts has no direct effect on BTC markets with the exception of removing longs. Since Bitcoin futures removes longs they are bearish for price. Let me explain. The futures contracts introduced in late 2017 are cash settled, they do not directly result in ANY buying or selling of Bitcoin. They are contractually enforced bets on the outcome of price. Because they do not result in the buying (demand) or selling (supply) of Bitcoin they do not affect price directly. Before futures existed if a US investor wanted to go long on Bitcoin they had to buy Bitcoin (increase demand), there was no other option. However, with the creation of futures contracts Bitcoin bulls gained a new option for going long: Bitcoin futures. It is somewhat understandable why an investor would go from buying actual Bitcoin via frequently hacked and regularly overloaded crypto exchanges to highly regulated legacy exchanges that don’t carry the risk of losing Bitcoin to a hack and have clear tax laws. Unfortunately this resulted in a loss of demand for Bitcoin as some investors moved from the physical market to the derivatives market. Also, the public did not understand the supply and demand implications of the Bitcoin Futures contracts resulting in the price runup and subsequent crash upon their opening. The proposed Bitcoin ETF, on the other hand, will result in the buying and selling of actual Bitcoin. This means anyone with a brokerage account will have the ability to buy and sell Bitcoin indirectly through the ETF. It will have major implications for supply and demand and, subsequently, price. I implore you to read the top link but for the lazy I will discuss some topics I find interesting in the proposed ETF. Summary p.8-11, 53-57 Each share of the XBTC ETF initially represents 25 Bitcoins. This value will decrease as BTC are sold to pay fees associated with the fund. Shares will be created and redeemed in baskets of 5 shares by “Authorized Participants” using cash OR Bitcoin. This means any brokerage firm can buy or sell the shares in the ETF which represent actual Bitcoin. These brokerages can then offer the ETF shares to their customers allowing any average Joe and grandma to (indirectly) buy Bitcoin. Here we can see the major implications of a BTC ETF. While it will not necessarily increase adoption it will increase liquidity. The ETF allows for the most technologically naive investor to buy Bitcoin. It also increases market efficiency as “smart money” can buy and sell shares to the SolidX trust using cash or Bitcoin, in other words, smart money can arbitrage. Interestingly, the ETF plans to do all transactions in the OTC markets… Settlement via OTC markets p.39-42 The Bitcoin ETF plans to do all of its buying and selling of Bitcoin via OTC markets. If this is not possible they will look to general cryptocurrency exchange markets for settlement, specifically GDAX, BitStamp, Gemini, iBit, BitFlyer, Kraken (p.41-42). As they plan to buy Bitcoin in chunks of $500,000 or more they do not want to singlehandedly alter the spot price of Bitcoin. This is why they plan to use OTC markets. They have not named the OTC markets they plan to use. Price Determination p.60 The price of Bitcoin will be calculated at the end of every trading day by the MIVS OTC Bitcoin Index (MVBTCO) which primarily aggregates price from several, yet to be named, OTC markets (p. 60-61). It would be nice to know who these OTC markets are but essentially the price of Bitcoin will be determined at the end of each trading day by aggregating the price across multiple markets. This will reduce issues with price discrepancy across exchanges. At the end of the day Net Asset Value of the ETF is determined by multiplying Bitcoin price (obtained by the MVBTCO) by the number of Bitcoins held by the ETF and finally adding the value of any cash held (p.60-61). Great Discussion of Risk The proposers have a great discussion of risk, including the risks inherent to the security of blockchain (p.13-17) such as early investors (Satoshi?) dumping all their Bitcoin, 51% attacks, and collusion of miners. They need to elaborate more on my favorite risk: forks. Bitcoin will fork again. One of these forks, like BCash, will be successful from a financial standpoint. Who at the ETF decides which is the real Bitcoin? Will they sell one of the forked coins, add it to the valuation of XBTC, or offer a new ETF...XXXBTC anyone? If you want to comment to the SEC, this is one area that needs clarification. No one wants their BTC ETF to decide to hold Bitcoin Diamond because of a bad executive decision. Another risk is big after hours swings as Bitcoin is traded 24x7x365 but the ETF will only be traded during market hours. This isn’t a new risk but it leaves ETF holders vulnerable to market swings at times of zero liquidity. A final risk is regulation and they have a great discussion of changing regulatory status on pages 27-28. They seem equally frustrated by the lack of clear regulatory guidance. They have a good understanding of how Bitcoin works but look at p.36 for a comical depiction of a Bitcoin Miner. While the XBTC ETF does not increase adoption directly it will indirectly benefit the crypto space. The increased visibility of Bitcoin and blockchain in general will give the public comfort in the space. They will no longer think Bitcoin is just for buying fentanyl and other drugs. With increased comfort will come increased research and investment. Hopefully the ETF is fuel for the next leg of innovation is this transformative space.
DISCLAIMER This Whitepaper is for Era Swap Network. Its purpose is solely to provide prospective community members with information about the Era Swap Ecosystem & Era Swap Network project. This paper is for information purposes only and does not constitute and is not intended to be an offer of securities or any other financial or investment instrument in any jurisdiction. The Developers disclaim any and all responsibility and liability to any person for any loss or damage whatsoever arising directly or indirectly from (1) reliance on any information contained in this paper, (2) any error, omission or inaccuracy in any such information, or (3) any action resulting therefrom Digital Assets are extremely high-risk, speculative products. You should be aware of the risks involved and fully consider before participating in Digital assets whether it’s appropriate for you. You should only participate if you are an experienced investor with sophisticated knowledge of financial markets and you fully understand the risks associated with digital assets. We strongly advise you to take independent professional advice before making any investment or participating in any way. You should check what rules and protections apply to your respective jurisdictions before investing or participating in any way. The Creators & community will not compensate you for any losses from trading, investment or participating in any way. You should read whitepaper carefully before participating and consider whether these products are right for you. TABLE OF CONTENT · Abstract · Introduction to Era Swap Network · Development Overview · Era Swap Utility Platform · Alpha-release Development Plan · Era Swap Network Version 1: Specification · Bunch Structure: 10 · Converting ES-ERC20 to ES-Na: · Conclusion: · Era Swap Ecosystem · Social Links Abstract The early smart contracts of Era Swap Ecosystem like TimeAlly, Newly Released Tokens, Assurance, BetDeEx of Era Swap Ecosystem, are deployed on Ethereum mainnet. These smart contracts are finance-oriented (DeFi), i.e. most of the transactions are about spending or earning of Era Swap tokens which made paying the gas fees in Ether somewhat intuitive to the user (withdrawal charges in bank, paying tax while purchasing burgers) but transactions that are not token oriented like adding a nominee or appointee voting also needs Ether to be charged. As more Era Swap Token Utility platform ideas kept appending to the Era Swap Main Whitepaper, more non-financial transaction situations arise like updating status, sending a message, resolving a dispute and so on. Paying extensively for such actions all day and waiting for the transaction to be included in a block and then waiting for enough block confirmations due to potential chain re-organizations is counter-intuitive to existing free solutions like Facebook, Gmail. This is the main barrier that is stopping Web 3.0 from coming to the mainstream. As alternatives to Ethereum, there are few other smart contract development platforms that propose their own separate blockchain that features for higher transaction throughput, but they compromise on decentralization for improving transaction speeds. Moreover, the ecosystem tools are most advancing in Ethereum than any other platform due to the massive developer community. With Era Swap Network, the team aims to achieve scalability, speed and low-cost transactions for Era Swap Ecosystem (which is currently not feasible on Ethereum mainnet), without compromising much on trustless asset security for Era Swap Community users. Introduction to Era Swap Network Era Swap Network (ESN) aims to solve the above-mentioned problems faced by Era Swap Ecosystem users by building a side-blockchain on top of Ethereum blockchain using the Plasma Framework. Era Swap Network leverages the Decentralisation and Security of Ethereum and the Scalability achieved in the side-chain, this solves the distributed blockchain trilema. In most of the other blockchains, blocks are a collection of transactions and all the transactions in one block are mined by a miner in one step. Era Swap Network will consist of Bunches of Blocks of Era Swap Ecosystem Transactions. Decentralization Layer 2 Scalable and Secure A miner mines all the blocks in a bunch consequently and will commit the bunch-root to the ESN Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum mainnet. Development Overview Initially, we will start with a simple Proof-of-Authority (PoA) based consensus of EVM to start the development and testing of Era Swap Ecosystem Smart Contracts as quickly as possible on the test-net. We will call this as an alpha-release of ESN test-net and only internal developers will work with this for developing smart contracts for Era Swap Ecosystem. User’s funds in a Plasma implementation with a simple consensus like PoA are still secured as already committed bunch-roots cannot be reversed. Eventually, we want to arrive on a more control-decentralized consensus algorithm like Proof-of-Stake (PoS) probably, so that even if the chain operator shuts down their services, a single Era Swap Ecosystem user somewhere in the world can keep the ecosystem alive by running software on their system and similarly more people can join to decentralize the control further. In this PoS version, we will modify the Parity Ethereum client in such a way, that at least 50% of transaction fees collected will go to the Luck Pool of NRT Smart Contract on Ethereum mainnet and rest can be kept by miner of the blocks/bunch of blocks if they wish. After achieving such an implementation, we will release this as a beta version to the community for testing the software on their computers with Kovan ERC20 Era Swaps (Ethereum test-net). Era Swap Decentralised Ecosystem Following platforms are to be integrated:
Era Swap Token Contract (adapted ERC20 on Ethereum) The original asset will lie on Ethereum to avoid loss due to any kind of failure in ESN.
Plasma Manager Contract (on Ethereum) To store ESN bunch headers on Ethereum.
Reverse Plasma Manager Contract (on ESN) Bridge to convert ES to ES native and ES native to ES. User deposits ES on Mainnet Plasma, gives proof on ESN and gets ES native credited to their account in a decentralised way.
NRT Manager Contract (on Ethereum or on ESN) If it is possible to send ES from an ESN contract to luck pool of NRT Manager Contract on Ethereum, then it’s ok otherwise, NRT Manager will need to be deployed on ESN for ability to add ES to luck pool.
Era Swap Wallet (React Native App for managing ESs and ES natives) Secure wallet to store multiple private keys in it, mainly for managing ES and ES native, sending ES or ES native, also for quick and easy BuzCafe payments.
TimeAlly (on Ethereum or on ESN) On whichever chain NRT Manager is deployed, TimeAlly would be deployed on the same chain.
Assurance (on Ethereum or on ESN) On whichever chain NRT Manager is deployed, TimeAlly would be deployed on the same chain.
DaySwappers (on ESN) KYC manager for platform. For easily distributing rewards to tree referees.
TimeSwappers (on ESN) Freelance market place with decentralised dispute management.
SwappersWall (on ESN) Decentralised social networking with power tokens.
BuzCafe (on ESN) Listing of shops and finding shops easily and quick payment.
BetDeEx (on ESN) Decentralised Prediction proposals, prediction and results.
DateSwappers (on ESN) Meeting ensured using cryptography.
ComputeEx (on Ethereum / centralised way) Exchange assets.
Era Swap Academy (on ESN / centralised way) Learn. Loop. Leap. How to implement ES Academy is not clear. One idea is if content is constantly being modified, then subscription expired people will only have the hash of old content while new content hash is only available to people who have done Dayswapper KYC and paid for the course. Dayswapper KYC is required because this way people won’t share their private keys to someone else.
Value of Farmers (tbd) The exchange of farming commodities produced by farmers in VoF can be deposited to warehouses where the depositors will get ERC721 equivalent tokens for their commodities (based on unique tagging).
DeGameStation (on ESN) Decentralised Gaming Station. Games in which players take turns can be written in Smart Contract. Games like Chess, Poker, 3 Patti can be developed. Users can come to DeGameStation and join an open game or start a new game and wait for other players to join.
Alpha-release Development Plan
Deploying Parity Node customized according to Era Swap Whitepaper with PoA consensus.
Setting up Plasma Smart Contracts.
Creating a bridge for ERC20 Swap from Ethereum test-net to ESN alpha test-net.
Alpha Version Era Swap Network Version 1 : Specification The Version 1 release of ESN plans to fulfill the requirements for political decentralisation and transparency in dApps of Era Swap Ecosystem using Blockchain Technology. After acquiring sufficient number of users, a version 2 construction of ESN will be feasible to enable administrative decentralization, such that the Era Swap Ecosystem will be run and managed by the Era Swap Community and will no longer require the operator to support for it's functioning. Era Swap Network (ESN) Version 1 will be a separate EVM-compatible sidechain attached to Ethereum blockchain as it’s parent chain. ESN will achieve security through Plasma Framework along with Proof-of-Authority consensus for faster finality. The idea behind plasma framework is to avoid high transaction fees and high transaction confirmation times on Ethereum mainnet by instead doing all the ecosystem transactions off-chain and only post a small information to an Ethereum Smart Contract which would represent hash of plenty of ecosystem transactions. Also, to feature movement of Era Swap Tokens from Ethereum blockchain to ESN using cryptographic proof, reverse plasma of Ethereum on ESN will be implemented. Also, submitting hash of each ESN blocks to ESN Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum would force ESN to have a block time equal to or more than Ethereum’s 15 second time as well as it would be very much costly for operator to post lot of hashes to an Ethereum Smart Contract. This is why, merkle root of hashes of bunch of blocks would instead be submitted to ESN Plasma Smart Contact on Ethereum. Actors involved in the ESN:
Block Producer Nodes Lesser the number of nodes, quicker is the block propagation between block producers which can help quick ecosystem transactions. We find that 7 block producers hosted on different could hosting companies and locations reduces the risk of single point of failure of Era Swap Ecosystem and facilitates 100% uptime of dApps. Block Producer Nodes will also be responsible to post the small information to the Blockchain.
Block Listener Nodes Rest of the nodes will be Block Listeners which will sync new blocks produced by the block producer nodes. Plenty of public block listener nodes would be setup in various regions around the world for shorter ping time to the users of Era Swap Ecosystem. Users would submit their Era Swap Ecosystem transactions to one of these public nodes, which would relay them to rest of the Era Swap Network eventually to the block producer nodes which would finalize a new block including the user transaction.
Bunch Committers This will be an instance in the block producers which will watch for new blocks confirmed on ESN and will calculate bunch merkle roots and will submit it to ESN Plasma Smart Contract. This instance will also post hash of new Ethereum blocks to ESN (after about 10 confirmations) for moving assets between both the blockchain.
Users These will be integrating with dApps which would be connected to some public ESN nodes or they can install a block listner node themselves. They can sign and send transactions to the node which they are connected to and then that node will relay their transactions to block producer nodes who would finalise a block including their transaction.
A Bunch Structure in Smart Contract will consist of the following: • Start Block Number: It is the number of first ESN block in the bunch. • Bunch Depth: It is Merkle Tree depth of blocks in the bunch. For e.g. If bunch depth is 3, there would be 8 blocks in the bunch and if bunch depth is 10, there would be 1024 blocks in the bunch. Bunch depth of Bunches on ESN Plasma Contract is designed to be variable. During the initial phases of ESN, it would be high, for e.g. 15, to avoid ether expenditure and would be decreased in due course of time. • Transactions Mega Root: This value is the merkle root of all the transaction roots in the bunch. This is used by Smart Contract to verify that a transaction was sent on the chain. • Receipts Mega Root: This value is the merkle root of all the receipt roots in the bunch. This is used to verify that the transaction execution was successful. • Timestamp: This value is the time when the bunch proposal was submitted to the smart contract. After submission, there is a challenge period before it is finalised.
Converting ES-ERC20 to ERC-NA and BACK
On Ethereum Blockchain, the first class cryptocurrency is ETH and rest other tokens managed by smart contracts are second class. On ESN, there is an advancement to have Era Swaps as the first class cryptocurrency. This cryptocurrency will feature better user experience and to differentiate it from the classic ERC20 Era Swaps, it will be called as Era Swap Natives (ES-Na). According to the Era Swap Whitepaper, maximum 9.1 Million ES will exist which will be slowly released in circulation every month. Era Swaps will exist as ES-ERC20 as well as in form of ES-Na. One of these can be exchanged for the other at 1:1 ratio. Following is how user will convert ES-ERC20 to ES-Na:
User will give allowance to a Deposit Smart Contract, and following that call deposit method to deposit tokens to the contract.
On transaction confirmation, user will paste the transaction hash on a portal which will generate a Proof of Deposit string for the user. This string is generated by fetching all the transactions in the Ethereum Block and generating a Transaction Patricia Merkle Proof to prove that user’s transaction was indeed included in the block and the Receipts Patricia Merkle Proof to confirm that the user’s transaction was successful.
Using the same portal, user will submit the generated proofs to a Smart Contract on ESN, which would release funds to user. Though, user will have to wait for the Etheruem block roots to be posted to ESN after waiting for confirmations which would take about 3 minutes. Once, it’s done user’s proofs will be accepted and will receive exact amount of ES- Na on ESN.
Following is how user will convert ES-Na to ES-ERC20:
ES-Na being first class cryptocurrency, user will simply send ES-Na to a contract.
User will paste the transaction hash on a portal which will generate a Proof of Deposit for the user. Again ES-Na being first class cryptocurrency, Transaction Patricia Merkle Proof is enough to prove that user’s transaction was indeed included in the block. Another thing which will be generated is the block inclusion proof in the bunch.
User will have to wait for the bunch confirmation to the Plasma Smart Contract and once it’s done, user can send the proof to the Plasma Smart Contract to receive ES-ERC20.
Since the blocks are produced and transactions are validated by few block producers, it exposes a possibility for fraud by controlling the block producer nodes. Because ESN is based on the Plasma Model, when failure of sidechain occurs or the chain halts, users can hard exit their funds directly from the Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum by giving a Proof of Holdings.
HOld ES Tokens Swapping with New ES Tokens
The old ES Tokens will be valueless as those tokens will not be accepted in ESN because of NRT (New Released Tokens) and TimeAlly contracts on mainnet which is causing high gas to users, hence reducing interactions. Also, there was an event of theft of Era Swap Tokens and after consensus from majority of holders of Era Swap Tokens; it was decided to create a new contract to reverse the theft to secure the value of Era Swap Tokens of the community. Below is the strategy for swapping tokens: TimeAlly and TSGAP: Majority of Era Swap Community have participated in TimeAlly Smart Contract in which their tokens are locked for certain period of time until which they cannot move them. Such holders will automatically receive TimeAlly staking of specific durations from the operator during initialization of ESN. Liquid Tokens: Holders of Liquid Era Swap Tokens have to transfer the old tokens to a specified Ethereum wallet address managed by team. Following that, team will audit the token source of the holder (to eliminate exchange of stolen tokens) and send new tokens back to the wallet address.
Post-Genesis Tokens Return Program
Primary asset holding of Era Swap tokens will exist on Ethereum blockchain as an ERC20 compatible standard due to the highly decentralised nature of the blockchain. Similar to how users deposit tokens to an cryptocurrency exchange for trading and then withdraw the tokens back, users will deposit tokens to ESN Contract to enter Era Swap Ecosystem and they can withdraw it back from ESN Contract for exiting from ecosystem network. The design of the token system will be such that, it will be compatible with the future shift (modification or migration of ESN version 1) to ESN version 2, in which an entirely new blockchain setup might be required. To manage liquidity, following genesis structure will be followed:
1.17 billion (Circulating Supply)
Locked in Smart Contract
7.93 billion (pending NRT releases)
Though it looks like there are 9.1 * 2 = 18.2 Billion ES, but the cryptographic design secures that at any point in time at least a total of 9.1 billion ES (ES-ERC20 + ES-Na) will be locked. To unlock ES-Na on ESN, an equal amount of ES-ERC20 has to be locked on Ethereum and vice-versa. 9.1 billion ES-ERC20 will be issued by ERC20 smart contract on Ethereum Blockchain, out of which the entire circulating supply (including liquid and TimeAlly holdings) of old ES will be received to a team wallet. TimeAlly holdings of all users will be converted to ES-Na and distributed on ESN TimeAlly Smart Contract by team to the TimeAlly holders on their same wallet address. Liquid user holdings will be sent back to the users to the wallet address from which they send back old ES tokens (because some old ES are deposited on exchange wallet address). ES-Na will be issued in the genesis block to an ESN Manager Smart Contract address. It will manage all the deposits and withdrawals as well as NRT releases.
Following are identified risks to be taken care of during the development of ESN: Network Spamming: Attackers can purchase ES from the exchange and make a lot of transactions between two accounts. This is solved by involving gas fees. A setting of 200 nanoES minimum gas price will be set, which can be changed as per convenience. DDoS: Attackers can query public nodes for computationally heavy output data. This will overload the public node with requests and genuine requests might get delayed. Block producers RPC is private, so they will continue to produce blocks. To manage user’s denial of service, the provider in dApps needs to be designed in such a way such that many public nodes will be queried simple information (let’s say latest block number) and the one which response quickly to user will be selected. AWS is down: To minimize this issue due to cloud providers down, there will be enough nodes on multiple cloud providers to ensure at least one block producer is alive. User deposit double spending: User deposits ES on Ethereum, gets ES-Na on ESN. Then the issue happens that there are re-org on ETH mainnet and the user’s transaction is reversed. Since ETH is not a fixed chain and as per PoW 51% attack can change the blocks. As Ethereum is now enough mature and by statistics forked blocks are at most of height 2. So it is safe to consider 15 confirmations. Exit Game while smooth functioning: User starts a hard exit directly from Plasma Smart Contract on Ethereum, then spends his funds from the plasma chain too. To counter this, the exit game will be disabled, only when ESN halts, i.e. fails to submit block header within the time the exit game starts. This is because it is difficult to mark user’s funds as spent on ESN. Vulnerability in Ecosystem Smart Contracts: Using traditional methods to deploy smart contracts results in a situation where if a bug is found later, it is not possible to change the code. Using a proxy construction for every ecosystem smart contract solves this problem, and changing a proxy can be given to a small committee in which 66% of votes are required, this is to prevent a malicious change of code due to compromising of a single account or similar scenario. ChainID replay attacks: Using old and traditional ways to interact with dApps can cause loss to users, hence every dApp will be audited for the same.
The CoinDesk 20 provides real-time prices, news, videos and educational content on the digital assets moving the crypto market, from BTC to TRX. Bitcoin Cash. BNB Binance Coin. EOS EOS. XRP XRP. XLM Lumens. LINK Chainlink. DOT Polkadot. YFI Yearn.finance. Suggested Currencies. USD US Dollar. IDR Indonesian Rupiah. TWD New Taiwan Dollar. EUR Euro . KRW South Korean Won. JPY Japanese Yen. RUB Russian Ruble. CNY Chinese Yuan. Fiat Currencies. AED United Arab Emirates Dirham. ARS Argentine Peso. AUD Australian Dollar. BDT Bangladeshi Taka ... Gavin Andresen. Gavin Andresen – Former chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation and lead developer of the core Bitcoin code wrote back in 2012 that miners on the network would “quickly figure out a rule or rules to reject” a 51% attack.. According to Andresen, a simple line of code could be added to Bitcoin that would stop a 51% attack in its tracks: The CoinDesk 20 filters from thousands of cryptocurrencies and digital assets to define a market-critical group, including BTC, ETH, XRP, LTC, BCH and EOS. If you have 2 bitcoin and the selling price is $10,000, then the total sale amount is $10,000 x 2 = $20,000. Next, subtract how much you paid for the crypto plus any fees you paid to sell it. (In tax speak, this total is called the basis.) Finally, you’ll get what’s known as a realized gain — your profit after you sell. Total sale amount – basis = realized gain. Realized gains vs ...
Maximum daily profits proved using my crypto trade calculator Net Profit: $671.88 ROI: 38.98% Must watch video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc9TwWJZoWM&l... Bitcoin 101 - The Nightmare of a 51% Attack - Part 1 - Calculating the Costs - Duration: 16:12. CRI 17,050 views. 16:12 . This is what happens when you reply to spam email James Veitch ... Is Bitcoin (BTC) Mining Profitable in 2019? Bitcoin Mining estimation using Mining Calculator For Bitcoin Mining Malaysia. When the bitcoin miner manufacturer, Bitmain, first released its latest ... In this tutorial, you will learn to use a Bitcoin calculator. The main function of a Bitcoin calculator is to compute how much processing power it will take to generate Bitcoins with a given ... In today's episode, I explain Tradingshot's Bitcoin Golden 51%-49% Rule and why it indicates now is a good time to buy bitcoin all at once as opposed to dollar cost averaging.