Your Financial Freedom BitcoinZ

[ANN][ANDROID MINING][AIRDROP] NewEnglandcoin: Scrypt RandomSpike

New England
New England 6 States Songs:
Symbol: NENG
NewEnglandcoin is a clone of Bitcoin using scrypt as a proof-of-work algorithm with enhanced features to protect against 51% attack and decentralize on mining to allow diversified mining rigs across CPUs, GPUs, ASICs and Android phones.
Mining Algorithm: Scrypt with RandomSpike. RandomSpike is 3rd generation of Dynamic Difficulty (DynDiff) algorithm on top of scrypt.
1 minute block targets base difficulty reset: every 1440 blocks subsidy halves in 2.1m blocks (~ 2 to 4 years) 84,000,000,000 total maximum NENG 20000 NENG per block Pre-mine: 1% - reserved for dev fund ICO: None RPCPort: 6376 Port: 6377
NewEnglandcoin has dogecoin like supply at 84 billion maximum NENG. This huge supply insures that NENG is suitable for retail transactions and daily use. The inflation schedule of NengEnglandcoin is actually identical to that of Litecoin. Bitcoin and Litecoin are already proven to be great long term store of value. The Litecoin-like NENG inflation schedule will make NewEnglandcoin ideal for long term investment appreciation as the supply is limited and capped at a fixed number
Bitcoin Fork - Suitable for Home Hobbyists
NewEnglandcoin core wallet continues to maintain version tag of "Satoshi v0.8.7.5" because NewEnglandcoin is very much an exact clone of bitcoin plus some mining feature changes with DynDiff algorithm. NewEnglandcoin is very suitable as lite version of bitcoin for educational purpose on desktop mining, full node running and bitcoin programming using bitcoin-json APIs.
The NewEnglandcoin (NENG) mining algorithm original upgrade ideas were mainly designed for decentralization of mining rigs on scrypt, which is same algo as litecoin/dogecoin. The way it is going now is that NENG is very suitable for bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin hobbyists who can not , will not spend huge money to run noisy ASIC/GPU mining equipments, but still want to mine NENG at home with quiet simple CPU/GPU or with a cheap ASIC like FutureBit Moonlander 2 USB or Apollo pod on solo mining setup to obtain very decent profitable results. NENG allows bitcoin litecoin hobbyists to experience full node running, solo mining, CPU/GPU/ASIC for a fun experience at home at cheap cost without breaking bank on equipment or electricity.
MIT Free Course - 23 lectures about Bitcoin, Blockchain and Finance (Fall,2018)
CPU Minable Coin Because of dynamic difficulty algorithm on top of scrypt, NewEnglandcoin is CPU Minable. Users can easily set up full node for mining at Home PC or Mac using our dedicated cheetah software.
Research on the first forked 50 blocks on v1.2.0 core confirmed that ASIC/GPU miners mined 66% of 50 blocks, CPU miners mined the remaining 34%.
NENG v1.4.0 release enabled CPU mining inside android phones.
Youtube Video Tutorial
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 1 How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 2
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in macOS
Decentralization and Community Driven NewEnglandcoin is a decentralized coin just like bitcoin. There is no boss on NewEnglandcoin. Nobody nor the dev owns NENG.
We know a coin is worth nothing if there is no backing from community. Therefore, we as dev do not intend to make decision on this coin solely by ourselves. It is our expectation that NewEnglandcoin community will make majority of decisions on direction of this coin from now on. We as dev merely view our-self as coin creater and technical support of this coin while providing NENG a permanent home at ShorelineCrypto Exchange.
Twitter Airdrop
Follow NENG twitter and receive 100,000 NENG on Twitter Airdrop to up to 1000 winners
Graphic Redesign Bounty
Top one award: 90.9 million NENG Top 10 Winners: 500,000 NENG / person Event Timing: March 25, 2019 - Present Event Address: NewEnglandcoin DISCORD at:
Please complete above Twitter Bounty requirement first. Then follow Below Steps to qualify for the Bounty: (1) Required: submit your own designed NENG logo picture in gif, png jpg or any other common graphic file format into DISCORD "bounty-submission" board (2) Optional: submit a second graphic for logo or any other marketing purposes into "bounty-submission" board. (3) Complete below form.
Please limit your submission to no more than two total. Delete any wrongly submitted or undesired graphics in the board. Contact DISCORD u/honglu69#5911 or u/krypton#6139 if you have any issues.
Twitter Airdrop/Graphic Redesign bounty sign up:
NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation
RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Hardfork Upgrade Proposal
NENG Security, Decentralization & Valuation
Whitepaper v1.0
Step by step guide on how to setup an explorer:
Android with UserLand App (arm64/armhf), Chromebook (x64/arm64/armhf):
Linux Wallet (Ubuntu/Linux Mint, Debian/MX Linux, Arch/Manjaro, Fedora, openSUSE):
MacOS Wallet (10.11 El Capitan or higher):
Android with GNUroot on 32 bits old Phones (alpha release) wallet:
Windows wallet:
addnode ip address for the wallet to sync faster, frequently updated conf file:
How to Sync Full Node Desktop Wallet
Cheetah CPU Miner Software
Solo Mining with GPU or ASIC
How to Run Two Full Node in Same Desktop PC
ASIC/GPU Mining Pools Warning to Big ASIC Miners Due to DynDiff Algo on top of Scrypt, solo mining is recommended for ASIC/GPU miners. Further more, even for mining pools, small mining pool will generate better performance than big NENG mining pool because of new algo v1.2.x post hard fork.
The set up configuration of NENG for scrypt pool mining is same as a typical normal scrypt coin. In other word, DynDiff on Scrypt algo is backward compatible with Scrypt algo. Because ASIC/GPU miners rely on CPU miners for smooth blockchain movement, checkout bottom of "Latest News" section for A WARNING to All ASIC miners before you decide to dump big ASIC hash rate into NENG mining.
(1) Original DynDiff Warning: (2) New Warning on RandomSpike Spike difficulty (244k) introduced in RandomSpike served as roadblocks to instant mining and provide security against 51% attack risk. However, this spike difficulty like a roadblock that makes big ASIC mining less profitable. In case of spike block to be mined, the spike difficulty immediately serve as base difficulty, which will block GPU/ASIC miners effectively and leave CPU cheetah solo miners dominating mining almost 100% until next base difficulty reset.
Cminors' Pool
Features: anonymous sign up and trading. No restriction or limit on deposit or withdraw.
The trading pairs available: NewEnglandcoin (NENG) / Dogecoin (DOGE)
Trading commission: A round trip trading will incur 0.10% trading fees in average. Fees are paid only on buyer side. buy fee: 0.2% / sell fee: 0% Deposit fees: free for all coins Withdraw fees: ZERO per withdraw. Mining fees are appointed by each coin blockchain. To cover the blockchain mining fees, there is minimum balance per coin per account: * Dogecoin 2 DOGE * NewEnglandcoin 1 NENG
Latest News Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.5 Released for Android/Chromebook Upgrade with armhf, better hardware support
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.4 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade / Chromebook Support
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.3 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.2 Released for MacOS Upgrade with Catalina
Jul 19, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.1 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining, Ubuntu 20.04 support
Jul 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation
Jun 27, 2020 - Pre-Announce: NENG v1.4.0 Proposal for Mobile Miner Upgrade, Android Mining Start in July 2020
Jun 19, 2020 - Best Practice for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining mode
Mar 15, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0.1 Released for better wallet syncing
Feb 23, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG Core v1.3.0 Relased, Hardfork on Mar 1
Feb 1, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike Proposal Published- NENG 1.3.0 Hardfork
Jan 15, 2020 - NewEnglandcoin Dev Team Expanded with New Kickoff
Jan 12, 2020 - Explanation of Base Diff Reset and Effect of Supply
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline_tradingbot version 1.0 is released
Sept 1, 2019 - NewEnglandcoin (NENG) is Selected as Shoreline Tradingbot First Supported Coin
Aug 15, 2019 - Mining Update on Effect of Base Difficulty Reset, GPU vs ASIC
Jul 7, 2019 - CPU Mining on macOS Mojave is supported under latest Cheetah_Cpuminer Release
Jun 1, 2019 - NENG Fiat project is stopped by Square, Inc
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto
Apr 7, 2019 - Announcement of Fiat Project for all U.S. Residents & Mobile Miner Project Initiation
Apr 1, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange
Mar 27, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange
Mar 17, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange
Feb 26, 2019 - Community Project - NewEnglandcoin Graphic Redesign Bounty Initiated
Feb 22, 2019 - Dev Policy on Checkpoints on NewEnglandcoin
Feb 20, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.1 Released to Secure the Hard Kork
Feb 11, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork
Jan 13, 2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner added support for CPU Mining on Mac
Jan 12, 2019 - NENG Core v1.1.2 Released to support MacOS OSX Wallet
Jan 2, 2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.1.0 is released for both Linux and Windows
Dec 31, 2018 - Technical Whitepaper is Released
Dec 28, 2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.0.0 is released for Linux
Update on Dec 14, 2018 - NENG Blockchain Stuck Issue
Nov 27, 2018 - Exclusive for PC CPU Miners - How to Steal a Block from ASIC Miners
Nov 28, 2018 - How to CPU Mine a NENG block with window/linux PC
Nov 29, 2018 - A Warning to ASIC Miners
Disclosure: Dev Team Came from ShorelineCrypto, a US based Informatics Service Business offering Fee for service for Coin Creation, Coin Exchange Listing, Blockchain Consulting, etc.
submitted by honglu69 to NewEnglandCoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Token Full Review
Bitcoin Token Full Review Was up guys I want to talk about Bitcoin Token and all of its cool features like the Masternode, Staking Wallet and even owning your own full node using a Raspberry Pi, Plus some managed to create a Mining Rig or somewhat of a "Staking Rig" for BTCT. Oh and here's the links to what you see in this video =))
** Bitcoin Token Main Website **
** Bitcoin Token Ann Page **
** Bitcoin Token CoinMarketCap & CoinGecko **
**Bitcoin Token Block Explorer **
** Bitcoin Token Medium Page **
** Bitcoin Token Telegram **
** Bitcoin Token Twitter Page **
Keyword: Marketing, Online Marketing, Sales, Promoting, Content Creation, Promoter, Crypto, Cryptocurrency, Blockchain, P2P, Peer to Peer, Block Explorer, Genesis Block, Asic miners, PoW, Proof of Work, PoS, Proof of Stake, MN, MasterNode, Bitcoin, BTC, Ethereum, ETH, ERC20, Smart Contracts, MetaMask, ETHplorer, Altcoins, ICO, Crypto Faucets, Bounty Contest, Crypto Airdrops, Bitpay, Bitcoin Token, BTCT
#Bitcoin #Blockchain #Cryptocurrency
submitted by Beekeyyy to u/Beekeyyy [link] [comments]

Constructing an Opt-In alternative reward for securing the blockchain

Since a keyboard with a monero logo got upvoted to the top I realized I should post various thoughts I have and generate some discussion. I hope others do the same.
Monero is currently secured by a dwindling block reward. There is a chance that the tail emission reward + transaction fees to secure the blockchain could become insufficient and allow for a scenario where it is profitable for someone to execute a 51% attack.
To understand this issue better, read this:
In Game Theory, Tragedy of the Commons is a market failure scenario where a common good is produced in lower quantities than the public desires, or consumed in greater quantities than desired. One example is pollution - it is in the public's best interest not to pollute, but every individual has incentive to pollute (e.g. because burning fossil fuel is cheap, and individually each consumer doesn't affect the environment much). The relevance to Bitcoin is a hypothetical market failure that might happen in the far future when the block reward from mining drops near zero. In the current Bitcoin design, the only fees miners earn at this time are Transaction fees. Miners will accept transactions with any fees (because the marginal cost of including them is minimal) and users will pay lower and lower fees (in the order of satoshis). It is possible that the honest miners will be under-incentivized, and that too few miners will mine, resulting in lower difficulty than what the public desires. This might mean various 51% attacks will happen frequently, and the Bitcoin will not function correctly. The Bitcoin protocol can be altered to combat this problem - one proposed solution is Dominant Assurance Contracts. Another more radical proposal (in the sense that the required change won't be accepted by most bitcoiners) is to have a perpetual reward that is constant in proportion to the monetary base. That can be achieved in two ways. An ever increasing reward (inflatacoin/expocoin) or a constant reward plus a demurrage fee in all funds that caps the monetary base (freicoin). This scenario was discussed on several threads: - Tragedy of the Commons - Disturbingly low future difficulty equilibrium - Stack Exchange Currently there is no consensus whether this problem is real, and if so, what is the best solution. 

I suspect that least contentious solution to it is not to change code, emission or artificially increase fees (which would actually undermine the tail emission and lead to other problems, I believe: but rather use a Dominant Assurance Contract that makes it rational for those who benefit from Monero to contribute to the block reward.

Dominant assurance contracts
Dominant assurance contracts, created by Alex Tabarrok, involve an extra component, an entrepreneur who profits when the quorum is reached and pays the signors extra if it is not. If the quorum is not formed, the signors do not pay their share and indeed actively profit from having participated since they keep the money the entrepreneur paid them. Conversely, if the quorum succeeds, the entrepreneur is compensated for taking the risk of the quorum failing. Thus, a player will benefit whether or not the quorum succeeds; if it fails he reaps a monetary return, and if it succeeds, he pays only a small amount more than under an assurance contract, and the public good will be provided.
Tabarrok asserts that this creates a dominant strategy) of participation for all players. Because all players will calculate that it is in their best interests to participate, the contract will succeed, and the entrepreneur will be rewarded. In a meta-game, this reward is an incentive for other entrepreneurs to enter the DAC market, driving down the cost disadvantage of dominant assurance contract versus regular assurance contracts.
Monero doesn't have a lot of scripting options to work with currently so it is very hard for me to understand how one might go about creating a Dominant Assurance Contract using Monero, especially in regards to paying out to a miner address.
This is how it could work in Bitcoin:
This scheme is an attempt at Mike Hearn's exercise for the reader: an implementation of dominant assurance contracts. The scheme requires the use of multisignature transactions, nLockTime and transaction replacement which means it won't work until these features are available on the Bitcoin network.
A vendor agrees to produce a good if X BTC are raised by date D and to pay Y BTC to each of n contributors if X BTC are not raised by date D, or to pay nY BTC if X BTC are raised and the vendor fails to produce the good to the satisfaction of 2 of 3 independent arbitrators picked through a fair process
The arbitrators specify a 2-of-3 multisignature script to use as an output for the fundraiser with a public key from each arbitrator, which will allow them to judge the performance on actually producing the good
For each contributor:
The vendor and the contributor exchange public keys
They create a 2-of-2 multisignature output from those public keys
With no change, they create but do not sign a transaction with an input of X/n BTC from the contributor and an input of Y BTC from the vendor, with X/n+Y going to the output created in 3.2
The contributor creates a transaction where the output is X+nY to the address created in step 2 and the input is the output of the transaction in 3.3, signs it using SIGHASH_ALL | SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY, with version = UINT_MAX and gives it to the vendor
The vendor creates a transaction of the entire balance of the transaction in 3.3 to the contributor with nLockTime of D and version < UINT_MAX, signs it and gives it to the contributor
The vendor and contributor then both sign the transaction in 3.3 and broadcast it to the network, making the transaction in 3.4 valid when enough contributors participate and the transaction in 3.5 valid when nLockTime expires
As date D nears, nLockTime comes close to expiration.
If enough (n) people contribute, all of the inputs from 3.4 can combine to make the output valid when signed by the vendor, creating a valid transaction sending that money to the arbitrators, which only agree to release the funds when the vendor produces a satisfactory output
If not enough people ( Note that there is a limit at which it can be more profitable for the vendor to make the remaining contributions when D approaches
Now the arbitrators have control of X (the payment from the contributors) + nY (the performance bond from the vendor) BTC and pay the vendor only when the vendor performs satisfactorily
Such contracts can be used for crowdfunding. Notable examples from Mike Hearn include:
Funding Internet radio stations which don't want to play ads: donations are the only viable revenue source as pay-for-streaming models allow undercutting by subscribers who relay the stream to their own subscribers
Automatically contributing to the human translation of web pages

Monero has these features:
  1. Multisig
  2. LockTime (but it is much different then BTCs)
  3. A possibility to do MoJoin (CoinJoin) like transactions, even if less then optimally private. There is hope that the MoJoin Schemes will allow for better privacy in the future:
I have a draft writeup for a merged-input system called MoJoin that allows multiple parties to generate a single transaction. The goal is to complete the transaction merging with no trust in any party, but this introduces significant complexity and may not be possible with the known Bulletproofs multiparty computation scheme. My current version of MoJoin assumes partial trust in a dealer, who learns the mappings between input rings and outputs (but not true spends or Pedersen commitment data).

Additionally, Non-Interactive Refund Transactions could also be possible in Monero's future.
I can't fully workout how all of these could work together to make a DAC that allows miners to put up and payout a reward if it doesn't succeed, or how we could make it so *any* miner who participated (by putting up a reward) could claim the reward if it succeeded. I think this should really be explored as it could make for a much more secure blockchain, potentially saving us if a "crypto winter" hits where the value of monero and number of transactions are low, making for a blockchain that is hard to trust because it would be so cheap to perform a 51% attack.

I am still skeptical of Dominant Assurance Contracts, despite success in an initial test
it still remains questionable or at least confusing:
submitted by Vespco to Monero [link] [comments]

My investment thesis in Monero (XMR)

I wanted to share some of the reasons why I invested in Monero. I did a lot of due diligence and have been following Monero since 2013 or 2014 somewhere around that time back when smooth and all them were on bitcointalk. Here is the thesis I came up with. I do not trade any other coins besides BTC and XMR, so I will only discuss this ratio.
Lightning Network changes economics of cryptocurrency – I like to think of Bitcoin as currently the king in crypto space. Lightning Network is probably one of the biggest infrastructure developments in the cryptocurrency industry. People will be able to effortlessly and cheaply swap between different coins, and this is actually not a good thing for Bitcoin. Scarcity is big part of why people are interested in cryptocurrency, a digital gold, but Lightning Network challenges the features a good coin will have. Lightning Network is not limited to Bitcoin only, it’s more like a ecosystem infrastructure for many different coins to interoperate. Bitcoin has scarcity, purchasing power, liquidity, and security, but so does Monero. Although, Monero offers things Bitcoin doesn’t, like fungibility, a adaptive blocksize, and privacy. So consider this, if Lightning Network allows you to get into whatever coin you want through atomic swaps, it makes more sense to hold your wealth in a truly fungible currency and swap to Bitcoin when you need it. Monero has scarcity, and one can argue a longer-term vision through constant inflation. It has roughly the same amount of coins as Bitcoin and offers the same utility if not more. So the fact that Lightning Network allows cryptocurrency users to swap in and out of different coins so easily introduces the need for a solid base currency which is truly fungible. Monero’s blockchain is secure, decentralized, fungible, has scarcity of tokens, and is private. It provides all the utility that Bitcoin does, plus more.
Although, I have heard arguments that Lightning Network is difficult to implement for Monero, but I am sure developers will be able to figure out a way to make it work.
Bitcoin’s problems – We are probably at the beginning of this, but it won’t be long until miners become regulated to start whitelisting or blacklisting certain transactions. Blockchain analysis companies are becoming increasingly powerful, working with governments and etc. There is not anything wrong with law enforcement, but coin taint introduces a liability to accept/decline certain coins. Monero eliminates that burden for all users. Consider this, you are a crypto trader, and doing trades OTC. You sell your crypto for something like BTC or any other transparent coin. What if the coins you receive are marked as tainted? And you can’t spend them? You can literally lose all your purchasing power because nobody wants to accept your coins because they will have the same trouble spending them. Yes, Bitcoin is introducing things like Shnorr signatures and privacy increasing schemes, but blockchain analysis companies currently can still see when people mix their coins. Why do you think exchanges will freeze some coins and not others. The lack of fungibility can turn into a large problem for someone who is using it as a store of value. With Monero you don’t have to worry about counterparty declining your coins, whereas if you’re in a taint coin, it's harder to get into a fungible coin. Why would XMR holders sell for a coin that may be declined at merchants? From a hodl perspective, XMR actually has better incentives to hold for the investor. Almost like higher standards for what you will accept to sell your XMR.
BTC/XMR Ratio – I currently think XMR is greatly undervalued to Bitcoin compared to the utility it provides. Let’s look at some numbers. Bitcoin and XMR have a very similar maximum coin supply. Supply is such a important factor in holding crypto's but alot of people don't acknowledge it much. Monero has a similar total coin supply to Bitcoin, with ongoing emission to fund miners. Compared to premined coins like Ethereum, Stellar, etc, I feel like Monero is a real true and honest coin vs the premines that initial distribution wasn't the most fair. Being around 0.02btc/xmr, I feel like Monero is really undervalued compared to Bitcoin. Granted both have similar total supply, both are decentralized, and Monero is truly fungible, you'd think it would be much higher btc/xmr price. People may argue that Bitcoin is the most accepted cryptocurrency, but it goes back to my argument of the Lightning Network that hey, you can swap into Bitcoin whenever you want, then scarcity, utility, and liquidity is the main features you're looking for.
Long Term Hold – Monero to me is very much a long term hold. We haven’t seen fungibility become a major problem yet in Bitcoin, but it will definitely come. Monero has excellent developers, a great community, and great features of a cryptocurrency. Considering BTC is valued at $128b, and Monero is around $2.5b, I have no doubt that Monero’s market cap will increase in the future. Crypto is inherently a risky store of value, for many reasons, but I think Monero is just as secure to hold value in as Bitcoin.
submitted by Chakra_Scientist to xmrtrader [link] [comments]

Bitgrin - WHO I AM - introduction for new miners & investors

Bitgrin - WHO I AM - introduction for new miners & investors

Bitgrin is a privacy focused cryptocurrency on a protocol level based on MimbleWimble and a fork of GRIN coin.
This is about freedom from censorship and the banker regime.
The technology of Grin meets the economics of Bitcoin, for the worlds first
- private,
- scalable,
- decentralized currency with sound economic model (limited supply)

If you're not clear on what i mean by scalability: Bitcoin has a 240 GB blockchain. Ethereum has a 1TB blockchain. BitGrin will stay below 1GB due to the way old transactions get compressed and pruned
that means i can put a full node on your phone, not just a light wallet but a true full node

Bitgrin mainnet launched the 8th of February 2019

Ticker: XBG
Block time: ~60s
Block reward: 4.5 XBG
Next Halvening: Block 2,102,400
Supply: 21,000,000

We dont need a central authority declaring stuff official, we need grass-roots support

Emission Schedule:
Latest Kingfish releases :
Explore :

Discord :
Twitter :
Reddit :


Purpose of MimbleWimble is that no one can see your coins or who you sent them too, while still knowing coins are valid.
This is a huge deal in privacy, and we wish that Bitcoin had that from beginning.

But looks like we have a 2nd chance now. Grin failed that in our eyes with horrible economics


Our team is anonymous that won't change
We've got a small team who has been in blockchain dev since around 2011 as well as application developers, good at making things user friendly.
This all started because we were working on the Kingfish wallet which was a Grin wallet, and some miner software for Grin. The tech was very cool, but then this emission schedule and the attitude of the core devs made us realize their priorities wrong.
So Kingfish partners joined bitgrin team. Many of us on the original team were not happy with the economic decisions.
We're actually pretty active in Grin Core team chat.


BitGrin is a store of value, designed to be easy to use
Bitgrin share the same halvening schedule as BTC. Half as many rewards every 4 years. 4.5 coins per block, and then 2.25 after halving, and so on.

So theres really 3 things we bring to the table
  1. We create an economic incentive for folks to hold there coins with halvenings. This means the coin acts more as a store of value.
  2. We create a dev fee so we don't have to be like the Grin team and beg for donations. We'll take modest salaries to keep things running clean
  3. We are building super simple user friendly tools on top of the protocol so that in time the average user can simply pull out a phone and work with XBG coins

BitGrin makes transactions completely private, hiding the amount of coins a user owns, how many have been sent, and to whom they were sent.

Transactions are blinded, which means no-one can prove that coins have been sent at all!

BitGrin is private by design, even the developers don't know who is sending or receiving coins.

But how does it all actually work?
BitGrin is governed by the laws of mathematics, exploiting some very simple properties of addition and multiplication.
Elliptic curve cryptography is at the root of what keeps BitGrin (and Bitcoin) secure. The standard is also used by countless military, banking, and even government operations. Elliptic curve cryptography is a method of utilizing a secure curve to produce privately known numbers These extremely large numbers are nearly impossible to guess, but can be proven to have been generated by someone with knowledge of their private key.

Let me walk you through the process.
First, a user picks a really, really, really large number. Then they multiply it with the starting point on the curve.
The resulting coordinates on the curve are your public key and that really, really big number is your private key!
You can now securely encrypt values utilizing your private key, and publicly share your encrypted messages along with your public key. Other users in the world can *prove* that you must have knowledge of the correct private key, without them knowing what it is.

And this is the bedrock of almost all cryptography. It keeps the whole world secure!
The trick here is that it's pretty easy to get the coordinates of your public key, but it's nearly impossible to discover another user's private key.

A simple analogy for elliptic curve cryptography
Knowing just the public key is like knowing the location of an indestructible box, with the world's most complicated lock. Without the private key, it is impossible to access it's contents.
This is where, for example, Bitcoin's security model ends.
BitGrin, on the other hand, goes a few steps further.
BitGrin hides your even your *public* key. So now no one even knows *where* your indestructible box is.
This means that no one can see how many coins you have, who you are sending coins to, or how many you have received.
All of this is accomplished using just a few additional mathematical tricks.

How Bitcoin transactions work
To further explain, let's first talk about how Bitcoin transactions work.
Lett’s say you, a Bitcoin user, want to send some funds to another user. You would announce publicly to the network your public key, the amount of coins you would like to send, and proof that demonstrates you are indeed the owner of these coins.
You can see the problem here.
If someone goes through the history of the blockchain, they can clearly see who you received the coins from, who you are sending them to, how many were sent, and even how many you have.
You don't really want people knowing all of that information, do you?
Do you share your bank statements with everyone? Of course not.
Now... How can we fix this? How can we make transactions more private?

How BitGrin transactions work
Let's go over a BitGrin transaction...
BitGrin transactions are completely different than Bitcoin transactions, You can think of them as just a blank credit card with no name, just the number, and everyone who knows this number can spend money with it.
What the blockchain holds is just a list of these "cards", while obscuring the amounts in them, and who is in possession of them, or even who had contents in them prior.

Let's say for example I want to send you three BitGrin.
What we need to do now is prove that I own a credit card (or multiple cards) with the total of at least 3 coins.
We also need to create a new card for you. One whose number is only known by you.
First, I send you a message via a secure channel in between our wallets.
"Hey, I want to send you 3 coins. Here's proof I own at least 3. I'll also pay the fee."
You receive the message and you can compute your part of what it takes to make a new card. Then you send me back the proof that you know the new credit card number,
while not revealing the number to me, by using a special type of encryption.
Next, you send me a very very big number you choose to obscure the amount of coins by moving them by this amount on the elliptical curve.
Then, add to it a public key of the credit card number, made with another operation on the graph.
This will prove you own the coins, without either user revealing their private keys.

Finally, I add the number of coins to the very big number you chose.

We can prove the number of coins didn't change because 5-5 is 0. This is validated by the network to prevent coins from being created out of thin air.
And 5 plus the BigNumber, minus 5 plus the BigNumber, is also zero. By adding a hidden big number known only to us, we hide the amount from everyone else.
I combined all these details together into one large commitment, and then submit it to the BitGrin network.
Now the network needs to validate that no new coins were created and that your new card is valid. This is all done with simple mathematics, and is completely secure.
You now received your money! While it may sound like a long process, all of it is done within less than 1 second from the BitGrin wallet.
Want to spice things up? Generate invoices, transact using QR codes or send it by pigeons!

We're not done yet. This is not all that BitGrin improves.
As you may know, BitCoin transactions can take a very long time to be confirmed, and running a Bitcoin node is a very computer-intensive process.
BitGrin on the other hand is both fast, and extremely scalable! The majority of spent transactions get removed, making the blockchain much smaller than traditional blockchains.
This is done by miners in every block, as well as the entire blockchain over time.

Soon, everyone will be able to download the entire blockchain and synchronize it within seconds or minutes, even on a low powered mobile device or a payment terminal at the local checkout.

With further work and research, BitGrin will improve even more, enabling truly private, scalable digital cash to see mass adoption.


- Goal to be simple for end user
Crypto is super hard to use, keeping your money private is impossible. Bitgrin solves those problems making the latest scientific breakthroughs in cryptography, usable by everyone, all while being built on robust bitcoin economics. Bitgrin paves the road to mass adoption
there is a lot of confusion about what crypto is for many folks think it is a way to make money by buying new coins and selling as they mature
ignoring the central idea of decentralized money.
Grin folks invented a better BTC, and then proceeded to apply infinite inflation for reasons I can't explain it's decentralized, lightweight, and fast
but you can't just mint 1 new coin every second, thats not sound monetary policy even USD doesnt do anything that extreme
and yet the buying power of USD falls, even with their small inflation schedule and we already know a schedule that seems to work: the Bitcoin schedule
so why not use this in combination with the lightweight blockchain approach of Grin?
Lightning Network doesnt solve BTC problems, because settlement is important, and scale means fees.
Bitgrin solves all of these problems by offering a truly lightweight settlement layer, with no arbitrary P2P layer on top

__________A few words about others MW coins_____________
Grin has Grin economics: infinite coins forever which is kind of insane, Grin could have easily just limited their supply but they refuse to do that.
Our key differentiator is our economically sound emission schedule
Beam and BitGrin are working towards the same kind of thing, or at least our goals are more in line than they are with the Grin team. Our approaches are pretty different, from a technology perspective though. I fully expect all three projects to coexist and hopefully make each other better
Being “non corporate” isn’t necessarily good. To some degree it’s useful to have profits, a core team, etc
But if it’s too corporate (Beam) then your whole organization is susceptible to issues of centralization such as being shut down by the government.
The decentralized nature of the software prevents that to some extent, but nothing beats being driven by a team of anonymous contributors. That is true censorship resistance. It’s a feature, not a bug.
But we don’t need them to lose for us to win, we can win together, I believe a symbiotic mutually beneficial relationship is ideal with the Grin team.


1M coins are put in to height-locked contracts
about 20k released per month, starting next March 2018
so at launch, dev team has 0 coins
10% for 4 yrs, which amounts to 4% of total supply over time
Just a reminder that the dev fee is quite modest. It’s not like we are holding 90% of the supply like ICOs like to do
1mln pub const DEV_FEE_TOTAL: u64 = 1_000_000; // 1M coins to match Satoshi's Bitcoin holdings >> line 58
Payouts are staggered over 4 years by the smart contract
I think as far as the community goes, what you would WANT is developers who are paid for success in the same terms they would expect success as buyers/miners.


It took a lot of work to know what to change, and to understand GRIN codebase and then the generatioin of the genesis block wasnt documented
or it was, but it was incorrect.
Getting seed nodes up and running, making the miners work thousands of little details
BitGrin in particular also has rollback protection
Uses block hash checks to make sure the chain stays stable
BitGrin in particular also has rollback protection
Uses block hash checks to make sure the chain stays stable
Also worth noting this is something added by us. Grin doesn’t support block hash checking
It’s not possible to rewrite any meaningful amount of the chain through a 51% attack. Those attacks are quite limited in exclusively abusing double spend
The team is currently working on porting the entire codebase to be web friendly for web wallets, and offline/non-interactive transactions using BitGrin addresses
basically we want to include a tx pool so users dont need to share ips/files, and can simply use disposable "addresses".
A major improvement with we call XBGJS. This will include tools for other devs to make working with BitGrin easier
Adding non-interactive transactions will be a major improvement

It's compatible with all grin miners
so any grin miner that works with Grin will also work with BitGrin

Community will make those decisions when it comes to it, there is time till end of 2019.
We can fork in to a different PoW, as needed.

There are ongoing discussion about it on discord

We dont need a central authority declaring stuff official, we need grass-roots support

Emission Schedule:
Latest Kingfish releases :
Explore :

Discord :
Twitter :
Reddit :


There is no coin other than bitgrin that has true privacy, scalability, and limited supply it doesn't exist.

I say the more the merrier, this is about growing MW and it’s ecosystem, not about one coin “beating” the other.

But either way competition is healthy, let’s see where this road leads.

Competition is needed for innovation to keep up at a high pace.

Aren't you as excited about that as we are? Join us. Let's change the world !
submitted by Akyr35 to xbg [link] [comments]

SegWit would make it HARDER FOR YOU TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR BITCOINS. SegWit deletes the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) deleted the "chain of (legal) title" for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) in the foreclosure fraud / robo-signing fiasco

Summary (TL;DR)

Many people who study the financial crisis which started in 2008 know about "MERS", or "Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems" - a company / database containing over 62 million mortgages.
(The word "mortgages" may be unfamiliar to some non-English speakers - since it is not a cognate with most other languages. In French, they say "hypothèques", or "hipotecas" in Spanish, "Hypotheken" in German, etc).
The goal of MERS was to "optimize" the process of transferring "title" (legal ownership) of real-estate mortgages, from one owner to another.
But instead, in the 2010 "foreclosure crisis", MERS caused tens of billions of dollars in losses and damages - due to the "ususual" way it handled the crucial "ownership data" for real-estate mortgages - the data at the very heart of the database.
How did MERS handle this crucial "ownership data" for real-estate mortgages?
The "brilliant" idea behind MERS to "optimize" the process of conveying (transferring) mortgages was to separate - and eventually delete - all the data proving who transferred what to whom!
Hmm... that sounds vaguely familiar. What does that remind me of?
SegWit separating and then deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for bitcoins sounds a lot like MERS separating and then deleting the "chain of (legal) title" for mortgages.
So, SegWit and MERS have a lot in common:
Of course, the "experts" (on Wall Street, and at AXA-owned Blockstream) present MERS and SegWit as "innovations" - as a way to "optimize" and "streamline" vast chains of transactions reflecting ownership and transfer of valuable items (ie, real-estate mortgages, and bitcoins).
But, unfortunately, the "brilliant bat-shit insane approach" devised by the "geniuses" behind MERS and SegWit to do this is to simply delete the data which proved ownership and transfer of these items - information which is essential for legal purposes (in the case of mortgages), or security purposes (in the case of bitcoins).
So, the most pernicious aspect of SegWit may be that it encourages deleting all of Bitcoin's cryptographic security data - destroying the "chain of signatures" which (according to the white paper) are what define what a "bitcoin" actually is.
Wow, deleting signatures with SegWit sounds bad. Can I avoid SegWit?
Yes you can.
To guarantee the long-term cryptographic, legal and financial security of your bitcoins:


MERS = "The dog ate your mortgage's chain of title".
SegWit = "The dog ate your bitcoin's chain of signatures."
Wall Street-backed MERS = AXA-backed SegWit
It is probably no coincidence that:
How is AXA related to Blockstream?
Insurance multinational AXA, while not a household name, is actually the second-most-connected "fiat finance" firm in the world.
AXA's former CEO Pierre Castries was head of the secretive Bilderberg Group of the world's ultra-rich. (Recently, he moved on to HSBC.)
Due to AXA's massive exposure to derivatives (bigger than any other insurance company), it is reasonable to assume that AXA would be destroyed if Bitcoin reaches trillions of dollars in market cap as a major "counterparty-free" asset class - which would actually be quite easy using simple & safe on-chain scaling - ie, just using bigger blocks, and no SegWit.
So, the above facts provide one plausible explanation of why AXA-owned Blockstream seems to be quietly trying to undermine Bitcoin...
Do any Core / Blockstream devs and supporters know about MERS - and recognize its dangerous parallels with SegWit?
It would be interesting to hear from some of the "prominent" Core / Blockstream devs and supporters listed below to find out if they are aware of the dangerous similarities between SegWit and MERS:
Finally, it could also be interesting to hear from:
Core / Blockstream devs might not know about MERS - but AXA definitely does
While it is likely that most or all Core / Blockstream devs do not know about the MERS fiasco... is 100% certain that people at AXA (the main owners of Blockstream) do know about MERS.
This is because the global financial crisis which started in 2008 was caused by:
The major financial media and blogs (Naked Capitalism, Zero Hedge, Credit Slips, Washington's Blog, etc.) covered MERS extensively:
So people at all the major "fiat finance firms" such as AXA would of course be aware of CDOs, MBSs and MERS - since these have been "hot topics" in their industry since the start of the global financial crisis in 2008.
Eerie parallels between MERS and SegWit
Read the analysis below of MERS by legal scholar Christopher Peterson - and see if you notice the eerie parallels with SegWit (with added emphasis in bold, and commentary in square brackets):
Loans originated with MERS as the original mortgagee purport to separate the borrower’s promissory note, which is made payable to the originating lender, from the borrower’s conveyance of a mortgage, which purportedly is granted to MERS. If this separation is legally incorrect - as every state supreme court looking at the issue has agreed - then the security agreements do not name an actual mortgagee or beneficiary.
The mortgage industry, however, has premised its proxy recording strategy on this separation, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that “the note and mortgage are inseparable.” [Compare with the language from Satoshi's whitepaper: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures."]
If today’s courts take the Carpenter decision at its word, then what do we make of a document purporting to create a mortgage entirely independent of an obligation to pay? If the Supreme Court is right that a “mortgage can have no separate existence” from a promissory note, then a security agreement that purports to grant a mortgage independent of the promissory note attempts to convey something that cannot exist.
Many courts have held that a document attempting to convey an interest in realty fails to convey that interest if the document does not name an eligible grantee. Courts around the country have long held that “there must be, in every grant, a grantor, a grantee and a thing granted, and a deed wanting in either essential is absolutely void.”
The parallels between MERS and SegWit are obvious and inescapable.
Note that I am not arguing here that SegWit could be vulnerable to attacks from a strictly legal perspective. (Although that may be possible to.)
I am simply arguing that SegWit, because it encourages deleting the (cryptographic) signature data which defines "bitcoins", could eventually be vulnerable to attacks from a cryptographic perspective.
But I heard that SegWit is safe and tested!
Yeah, we've heard a lot of lies from Blockstream, for years - and meanwhile, they've only succeeded in destroying Bitcoin's market cap, due to unnecessarily high fees and unnecessarily slow transactions.
Now, in response to those legal-based criticisms of SegWit in the article from nChain, several so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" have tried to rebut that those arguments from nChain were somehow "flawed".
But if you read the rebuttals of these "Bitcoin legal experts", they sound a lot like the clueless "experts" who were cheerleading MERS for its "efficiency" - and who ended up costing tens billions of dollars in losses when the "chain of title" for mortgages held in the MERS database became "clouded" after all the crucial "ownership data" got deleted in the name of "efficiency" and "optimization".
In their attempt to rebut the article by nChain, these so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" use soothing language like "optimization" and "pragmatic" to try to lull you into believing that deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for your bitcoins will be just as safe as deleting the "chain of (legal) notes" for mortgages:
The (unsigned!) article on CoinDesk attempting to rebut Nguyen's article on nChain starts by stating:
Nguyen's criticisms fly in the face of what has emerged as broad support for the network optimization, which has been largely embraced by the network's developers, miners and startups as a pragmatic step forward.
Then it goes on to quote "Bitcoin legal experts" who claim that using SegWit to delete Bitcoin's cryptographic signatures will be just fine:
Marco Santori, a fintech lawyer who leads the blockchain tech team at Cooley LLP, for example, took issue with what he argued was the confused framing of the allegation.
Santori told CoinDesk:
"It took the concept of what is a legal contract, and took the position that if you have a blockchain signature it has something to do with a legal contract."
Stephen Palley, counsel at Washington, DC, law firm Anderson Kill, remarked similarly that the argument perhaps put too much weight on the idea that the "signatures" involved in executing transactions on the bitcoin blockchain were or should be equivalent to signatures used in digital documents.
"It elides the distinction between signature and witness data and a digital signature, and they're two different things," Palley said.
"There are other ways to cryptographically prove a transaction is correctly signed other than having a full node," said BitGo engineer Jameson Lopp. "The assumption that if a transaction is in the blockchain, it's probably valid, is a fairly good guarantee."
Legal experts asserted that, because of this design, it's possible to prove that the transaction occurred between parties, even if those involved did not store signatures.
For this reason, Coin Center director Jerry Brito argued that nChain is overstating the issues that would arise from the absence of this data.
"If you have one-time proof that you have the bitcoin, if you don't have it and I have it, logically it was signed over to me. As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine," he said.
There are several things you can notice here:
  • These so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" are downplaying the importance of signatures in Bitcoin - just like the "experts" behind MERS downplayed the importance of "notes" for mortgages.
  • Satoshi said that a bitcoin is a "chain of digital signatures" - but these "Bitcoin legal experts" are now blithely asserting that we can simply throw the "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - and we can be "fairly" certain that everything will "probably" be ok.
  • The "MERS = SegWit" argument which I'm making is not based on interpreting Bitcoin signatures in any legal sense (although some arguments could be made along those lines).
  • Instead, I'm just arguing that any "ownership database" which deletes its "ownership data" (whether it's MERS or SegWit) is doomed to end in disaster - whether that segregated-and-eventually-deleted "ownership data" is based on law (with MERS), or cryptography (with SegWit).
Who's right - Satoshi or the new "Bitcoin experts"?
You can make up your own mind.
Personally, I will never send / receive / store large sums of money using any "SegWit" bitcoin addresses.
This, is not because of any legal considerations - but simply because I want the full security of "the chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - which, according to the whitepaper, is the very definition of what a bitcoin "is".
Here are the words of Satoshi, from the whitepaper, regarding the "chain of digital signatures":
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Does that "chain of digital signatures" sound like something you'd want to throw in the trash??
  • The "clever devs" from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of so-called "Bitcoin legal experts) say "Trust us, it is safe to delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of bitcoins". They're pushing "SegWit" - the most radical change in the history of Bitcoin. As I have repeatedly discussed, SegWit weakens Bitcoin's security model.
  • The people who support Satoshi's original Bitcoin (and clients which continue to implement it: Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Classic - all supporting "Bitcoin Cash" - ie "Bitcoin" without SegWit) say "Trust no one. You should never delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of your bitcoins."
  • Satoshi said:

We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.

  • So, according to Satoshi, a "chain of digital signatures" is the very definition of what a bitcoin is.
  • Meanwhile according to some ignorant / corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of "Bitcoin legal experts") now suddenly it's "probably" "fairly" safe to just throw Satoshi's "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - all in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" - because they're so very clever.
Who do you think is right?
Finally, here's another blatant lie from SegWit supporters (and small-block supporters)
Let's consider this other important quote from Satoshi's whitepaper above:
A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Remember, this is what "small blockers" have always been insisting for years.
They've constantly been saying that "blocks need to be 1 MB!!1 Waah!1!" - even though several years ago the Cornell study showed that blocks could already be 4 MB, with existing hardware and bandwidth.
But small-blockers have always insisted that everyone should store the entire blockchain - so they can verify their own transactions.
But hey, wait a minute!
Now they turn around and try to get you to use SegWit - which allows deleting the very data which insisted that you should download and save locally to verify your own transactions!
So, once again, this exposes the so-called "arguments" of small-blocks supporters as being fake arguments and lies:
  • On the one hand, they (falsely) claim that small blocks are necessary in order for everyone to be run "full nodes" because (they claim) that's the only way people can personally verify all their own transactions. By the way, there are already several errors here with what they're saying:
    • Actually "full nodes" is a misnomer (Blockstream propaganda). The correct terminology is "full wallets", because only miners are actually "nodes".
    • Actually 1 MB "max blocksize" is not necessary for this. The Cornell study showed that we could easily be using 4 MB or 8 MB blocks by now - since, as everyone knows, the average size of most web pages is already over 2 MB, and everyone routinely downloads 2 MB web pages in a matter of seconds, so in 10 minutes you could download - and upload - a lot more than just 2 MB. But whatever.
  • On the other hand, they support SegWit - and the purpose of SegWit is to allow people to delete the "signature data".
    • This conflicts with their argument the everyone should personally verify all their own transactions. For example, above, Coin Center director Jerry Brito was saying: "As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine."
    • So which is it? For years, the "small blockers" told us we needed to all be able to personally verify everything on our own node. And now SegWit supporters are telling us: "Naah - you can just rely on someone else's node."
    • Plus, while the transactions are still being sent around on the wire, the "signature data" is still there - it's just "segregated" - so you're not getting any savings on bandwidth anyways - you'd only get the savings if you delete the "signature data" from storage.
    • Storage is cheap and plentiful, it's never been the "bottleneck" in the system. Bandwidth is the main bottleneck - and SegWit doesn't help that at all, because it still transmits all the data.
So if you're confused by all the arguments from small-blockers and SegWitters, there's a good reason: their "arguments" are total bullshit and lies. They're attempting to contradict and destroy:
  • Satoshi's original design of Bitcoin as a "chain of digital signatures":
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership."
  • Satoshi's plan for scaling Bitcoin by simply increasing the goddamn blocksize:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
  • The the notorious mortgage database MERS, pushed by clueless and corrupt Wall Street bankers, deleted the "chain of (legal) title" which had been essential to show who conveyed what mortgages to whom - leading to "clouded titles", foreclosure fraud, and robo-signing.
  • The notorious SegWit soft fork / kludge, pushed by clueless and corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs, allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" which is essential to show who sent how many bitcoins to whom - which could lead to a catastrophe for people who foolishly use SegWit addresses (which can be avoided: unsafe "SegWit" bitcoin addresses start with a "3" - while safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses start with a "1").
  • Stay safe and protect your bitcoin investment: Avoid SegWit transactions.
[See the comments from me directly below for links to several articles on MERS, foreclosure fraud, robo-signing, "clouded title", etc.]
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Decred Journal – September 2018

Note: you can read this on GitHub (link), Medium (link) or old Reddit (link).


Final version 1.3.0 of the core software was released bringing all the enhancements reported last month to the rest of the community. The groundwork for SPV (simplified payment verification) is complete, another reduction of fees is being deployed, and performance stepped up once again with a 50% reduction in startup time, 20% increased sync speed and more than 3x faster peer delivery of block headers (a key update for SPV). Decrediton's integrations of SPV and Politeia are open for testing by experienced users. Read the full release notes and get the downloads on GitHub. As always, don't forget to verify signatures.
dcrd: completed several steps towards multipeer downloads, improved introduction to the software in the main README, continued porting cleanups and refactoring from upstream btcd.
Currently in review are initial release of smart fee estimator and a change to UTXO set semantics. The latter is a large and important change that provides simpler handling, and resolves various issues with the previous approach. A lot of testing and careful review is needed so help is welcome.
Educational series for new Decred developers by @matheusd added two episodes: 02 Simnet Setup shows how to automate simnet management with tmux and 03 Miner Reward Invalidation explains block validity rules.
Finally, a pull request template with a list of checks was added to help guide the contributors to dcrd.
dcrwallet: bugfixes and RPC improvements to support desktop and mobile wallets.
Developers are welcome to comment on this idea to derive stakepool keys from the HD wallet seed. This would eliminate the need to backup and restore redeem scripts, thus greatly improving wallet UX. (missed in July issue)
Decrediton: bugfixes, refactoring to make the sync process more robust, new loading animations, design polishing.
Politeia: multiple improvements to the CLI client (security conscious users with more funds at risk might prefer CLI) and security hardening. A feature to deprecate or timeout proposals was identified as necessary for initial release and the work started. A privacy enhancement to not leak metadata of ticket holders was merged.
Android: update from @collins: "Second test release for dcrandroid is out. Major bugs have been fixed since last test. Latest code from SPV sync has been integrated. Once again, bug reports are welcome and issues can be opened on GitHub". Ask in #dev room for the APK to join testing.
A new security page was added that allows one to validate addresses and to sign/verify messages, similar to Decrediton's Security Center. Work on translations is beginning.
Overall the app is quite stable and accepting more testers. Next milestone is getting the test app on the app store.
iOS: the app started accepting testers last week. @macsleven: "the test version of Decred Wallet for iOS is available, we have a link for installing the app but the builds currently require your UDID. Contact either @macsleven or @raedah with your UDID if you would like to help test.".
Nearest goal is to make the app crash free.
Both mobile apps received new design themes.
dcrdata: v3.0 was released for mainnet! Highlights: charts, "merged debits" view, agendas page, Insight API support, side chain tracking, Go 1.11 support with module builds, numerous backend improvements. Full release notes here. This release featured 9 contributors and development lead @chappjc noted: "This collaboration with @raedahgroup on our own block explorer and web API for @decredproject has been super productive.".
Up next is supporting dynamic page widths site wide and deploying new visual blocks home page.
Trezor: proof of concept implementation for Trezor Model T firmware is in the works (previous work was for Model One).
Ticket splitting: updated to use Go modules and added simnet support, several fixes.
docs: beginner's guide overhaul, multiple fixes and cleanups. added 3rd party wallets, removed inactive PoW pools and removed web wallet.
@Richard-Red is building a curated list of Decred-related GitHub repositories.
Welcome to new people contributing for the first time: @klebe, @s_ben, @victorguedes, and PrimeDominus!
Dev activity stats for September: 219 active PRs, 197 commits, 28.7k added and 18.8k deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)


Hashrate: started and ended the month around 75 PH/s, hitting a low of 60.5 and a new high of 110 PH/s. BeePool is again the leader with their share varying between 23-54%, followed by F2Pool 13-30%, Coinmine 4-6% and Luxor 3-5%. As in previous months, there were multiple spikes of unidentified hashrate.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 98 DCR (+2.4). The price varied between 95.7 and 101.9 DCR. Locked DCR amount was 3.86-3.96 million DCR, or 45.7-46.5% of the supply.
Nodes: there are 201 public listening nodes and 325 normal nodes per Version distribution: 5% are v1.4.0(pre) dev builds (+3%), 30% on v1.3.0 (+25%), 42% on v1.2.0 (-20%), 15% on v1.1.2 (-7%), 6% on v1.1.0. More than 76% of nodes run v1.2.0 and higher and therefore support client filters. Data as of Oct 1.


Obelisk posted two updates on their mailing list. 70% of Batch 1 units are shipped, an extensive user guide is available, Obelisk Scanner application was released that allows one to automatically update firmware. First firmware update was released and bumped SC1 hashrate by 10-20%, added new pools and fixed multiple bugs. Next update will focus on DCR1. It is worth a special mention that the firmware source code is now open! Let us hope more manufacturers will follow this example.
A few details about Whatsminer surfaced this month. The manufacturer is MicroBT, also known as Bitwei and commonly misspelled as Bitewei. Pangolinminer is a reseller, and the model name is Whatsminer D1.
Bitmain has finally entered Decred ASIC space with their Antminer DR3. Hash rate is 7.8 TH/s while pulling 1410 W, at the price of $673. These specs mean it has the best GH/W and GH/USD of currently sold miners until the Whatsminer or others come out, although its GH/USD of 11.6 already competes with Whatsminer's 10.5. Discussed on Reddit and bitcointalk, unboxing video here.


Meet our 17th voting service provider: It is operated by @david, has 2% fee and supports ticket splitting. Reddit thread is here.
For a historical note, the first VSP to support ticket splitting was
@matheusd started tests on testnet several months ago. I contacted him so we could integrate with the pool in June this year. We set up the machine in July and bought the first split ticket on mainnet, using the decredbrasil pool, on July 19. It was voted on July 30. After this first vote on mainnet, we opened the tests to selected users (with more technical background) on the pool. In August we opened the tests to everyone, and would call people who want to join to the #ticket_splitting channel, or to our own Slack (in Portuguese, so mostly Brazilian users). We have 28 split tickets already voted, and 16 are live. So little more than 40 split tickets total were bought on decredbrasil pool. (@girino in #pos-voting)
KuCoin exchange listed DCBTC and DCETH pairs. To celebrate their anniversary they had a 99% trading fees discount on DCR pairs for 2 weeks.
Three more wallets integrated Decred in September:
ChangeNow announced Decred addition to their Android app that allows accountless swaps between 150+ assets.
Coinbase launched informational asset pages for top 50 coins by market cap, including Decred. First the pages started showing in the Coinbase app for a small group of testers, and later the web price dashboard went live.


The birth of a Brazilian girl was registered on the Decred blockchain using OriginalMy, a blockchain proof of authenticity services provider. Read the full story in Portuguese and in English.


Advertising report for September is ready. Next month the graphics for all the ads will be changing.
Marketing might seem quiet right now, but a ton is actually going on behind the scenes to put the right foundation in place for the future. Discovery data are being analyzed to generate a positioning strategy, as well as a messaging hierarchy that can guide how to talk about Decred. This will all be agreed upon via consensus of the community in the work channels, and materials will be distributed.
Next, work is being done to identify the right PR partner to help with media relations, media training, and coordination at events. While all of this is coming up to speed, we believe the website needs a refresher reflecting the soon to be agreed upon messaging, plus a more intuitive architecture to make it easier to navigate. (@Dustorf)


We'll begin shortly reviewing conferences and events planned for the first half of 2019. Highlights are sure to include The North American Bitcoin Conference in Miami (Jan 16-18) and Consensus in NYC (May 14-16). If you have suggestions of events or conferences Decred should attend, please share them in #event_planning. In 2019, we would like to expand our presence in Europe, Asia, and South America, and we're looking for community members to help identify and staff those events. (@Dustorf)


August issue of Decred Journal was translated to Russian. Many thanks to @DZ!
Rency cryptocurrency ratings published a report on Decred and incorporated a lot of feedback from the community on Reddit.
September issue of Chinese CCID ratings was published (snapshot), Decred is still at the bottom.
Featured articles:

Community Discussions

Community stats:
Comm systems news: Several work channels were migrated to Matrix, #writers_room is finally bridged.
Twitter: why decentralized governance and funding are necessary for network survival and the power of controlling the narrative; learning about governance more broadly by watching its evolution in cryptocurrency space, importance of community consensus and communications infrastructure.
Reddit: yet another strong pitch by @solar; question about buyer protections; dcrtime internals; a proposal to sponsor hoodies in the University of Cape Town; Lightning Network support for altcoins.
Chats: skills to operate a stakepool; voting details: 2 of 3 votes can approve a block, what votes really approve are regular tx, etc; scriptless script atomic swaps using Schnorr adaptor signatures; dev dashboard, choosing work, people do best when working on what interests them most; opportunities for governments and enterprise for anchoring legal data to blockchain; terminology: DAO vs DAE; human-friendly payments, sharing xpub vs payment protocols; funding btcsuite development; Politeia vote types: approval vote, sentiment vote and a defund vote, also linking proposals and financial statements; algo trading and programming languages (yes, on #trading!); alternative implementation, C/C++/Go/Rust; HFTs, algo trading, fake volume and slippage; offline wallets, usb/write-only media/optical scanners vs auditing traffic between dcrd and dcrwallet; Proof of Activity did not inspire Decred but spurred Decred to get moving, Wikipedia page hurdles; how stakeholders could veto blocks; how many votes are needed to approve a proposal; why Decrediton uses Electron; CVE-2018-17144 and over-dependence on single Bitcoin implementation, btcsuite, fuzz testing; tracking proposal progress after voting and funding; why the wallet does not store the seed at all; power connectors, electricity, wiring and fire safety; reasonable spendings from project fund; ways to measure sync progress better than block height; using Politeia without email address; concurrency in Go, locks vs channels.
#support is not often mentioned, but it must be noted that every day on this channel people get high quality support. (@bee: To my surprise, even those poor souls running Windows 10. My greatest respect to the support team!)


In September DCR was trading in the range of USD 34-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0063. On Sep 6, DCR revisited the bottom of USD 34 / BTC 0.0054 when BTC quickly dropped from USD 7,300 to 6,400. On Sep 14, a small price rise coincided with both the start of KuCoin trading and hashrate spike to 104 PH/s. Looking at coinmarketcap charts, the trading volume is a bit lower than in July and August.
As of Oct 4, Decred is #18 by the number of daily transactions with 3,200 tx, and #9 by the USD value of daily issuance with $230k. (source: onchainfx)
Interesting observation by @ImacallyouJawdy: while we sit at 2018 price lows the amount locked in tickets is testing 2018 high.

Relevant External

ASIC for Lyra2REv2 was spotted on the web. Vertcoin team is preparing a new PoW algorithm. This would be the 3rd fork after two previous forks to change the algorithm in 2014 and 2015.
A report titled The Positive Externalities of Bitcoin Mining discusses the benefits of PoW mining that are often overlooked by the critics of its energy use.
A Brief Study of Cryptonetwork Forks by Alex Evans of Placeholder studies the behavior of users, developers and miners after the fork, and makes the cases that it is hard for child chains to attract users and developers from their parent chains.
New research on private atomic swaps: the paper "Anonymous Atomic Swaps Using Homomorphic Hashing" attempts to break the public link between two transactions. (bitcointalk, decred)
On Sep 18 Poloniex announced delisting of 8 more assets. That day they took a 12-80% dive showing their dependence on this one exchange.
Circle introduced USDC markets on Poloniex: "USDC is a fully collateralized US dollar stablecoin using the ERC-20 standard that provides detailed financial and operational transparency, operates within the regulated framework of US money transmission laws, and is reinforced by established banking partners and auditors.".
Coinbase announced new asset listing process and is accepting submissions on their listing portal. (decred)
The New York State Office of the Attorney General posted a study of 13 exchanges that contains many insights.
A critical vulnerability was discovered and fixed in Bitcoin Core. Few days later a full disclosure was posted revealing the severity of the bug. In a bitcointalk thread btcd was called 'amateur' despite not being vulnerable, and some Core developers voiced their concerns about multiple implementations. The Bitcoin Unlimited developer who found the bug shared his perspective in a blog post. Decred's vision so far is that more full node implementations is a strength, just like for any Internet protocol.

About This Issue

This is the 6th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub, Medium and Reddit. Past issues are available here.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room on Matrix or Slack.
Contributions are also welcome: some areas are adding content, pre-release review or translations to other languages.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Dustorf, jz, Haon, oregonisaac, raedah and Richard-Red.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

Lisk Highlights Weekly roundup March 2nd 2019. The week in which we were selected by Bitpanda!

Hello everybody. The LISK project and it's enthusiasts are always busy, and this week past has certainly been no exception.
Seeing is believing, so here is a recap of the highlights and interesting items from the past week on the LISK subreddit and beyond.....

Lisk Sidechain Project Presents at a workshop organized by a head of Volksbank.

Christian Junger, CEO of the MADANA project recently delivered a presentation on blockchain technology, its banking use cases, and how decentralization can strengthen privacy. What was extra special about this presentation was the audience; a consortium of heads of banks. Christian was essentially driving home to these leaders the message that the technology we use today isn’t designed for privacy, it is designed for the opposite - to be found and traced!
Volkbank, who organised the workshop are the biggest German bank consortium comprising of 1,099 independent credit unions.
Presentations such as this one are a good way to build bonds that will last long past MADANA's main sale and on into the release of the MADANA product. Who knows, maybe some of these banking leaders might even be interested in the MADANA product for their own uses also!

Lisk Sidechain Project Team to Review and Strategise in London this March.

Chief R&D Officer and Co-founder of GNY (bringing Machine Learning to Lisk), Richard Jarritt informed the project's followers on the GNY telegram that there is to be a team meetup in London this March. He said "the GNY team will be flying all members into London during march, which is a planned week of intensive development and strategy meetings, as we open up github later in the month and lay out the rest of 2019". The GNY team members are decentralised currently with work being done in Europe, The US, and Asia. The GNY codebase is operational, and they are currently combining it with the machine learning, which is what the team has been working on daily. Thomas Lorenc, Chief Technology Officer / Lead Data Scientist on the project is this week testing stability of the GNY Machine learning code within Javascript with node.js.
Richard Jarritt, replied to a query from a community member regarding the reason the code migrated from python (common ML coding language) to JavaScript. He said "it was written in python, and we had planned to run a translation inside the chain, but we altered our plans to the more elegant solution of having everything in javascript. This should should in theory add more stability". There are many libraries for ML written in python that modern ML systems used. We have had to also translate the catalog of code we require to run the system. Its been a multi stage task."

Lisk in space?

My sources tell me that one of the highlights of the first Lisk Center Utrecht meetup was the quirky presentation delivered by Blockchain030. Titled "Crypto in Space", it proposed a hypothetical situation where there exists a colony on the Moon or Mars, and how that would work moneywise? Blockchain030 founders Susanne Pieterse and Marc Buma speculated that having physical coins or banknotes in space would be way too unwieldy an undertaking, and questioned "would you leave your money on another planet?"
They discussed three different scenarios that illustrated how cryptocurrencies and blockchain can be used by future interplanetery colonists. One of the more offbeat scenarios was a blockchain based on Mars, with miners/validation situated on the red planet, but outworlders could also participate and create accounts. The pros would be that could provide a way for people that live on Mars to generate an income. Mars would become a Tax haven, especially if exchange to/from Earth coins would be possible. Complicating factors of course would be how to power the miners/validation on Mars, the question of and how successful digital currencies would be in a very small population as would be on Mars initially.
A pair of the slides from the presentation can be seen HERE.
On Monday the 28th January 2019, Lisk Center Utrecht (LCU) inked a partnership agreement with these interesting folks from Blockchain030. Blockchain030 is THE hub for blockchain technology within the Utrecht region. Their goal is to exchange knowledge, collaboration and business consultancy through meetings. Lisk center Utrecht's aim similarly is to create awareness for blockchain initiatives and help people through sharing knowledge, networking and collaborations. By Lisk Center Utrecht facilitating a physical location for designers, developers etc. to work together it will help many blockchain initiatives to grow their projects from a central hub. LCU is over 200 square metres of private office space with around 40 places available.... and all 100% free to users. These two partners wiill mesh together really well in my opinion. It is expected that the founders of Blockchain030 (Marc Buma , Eric van Riet Paap and Susanne Pieterse) will regularly be present in the LCU.
You can read more about Blockchain030 HERE on their official website. I would advise using a browser with a translate function when viewing it if you do not speak Dutch.

Lisk's Good Month for Exchange Announcements.

You may remember how back in late January I wrote about Lisk getting the green light to move from the main mass market section of the KuCoin exchange to their KuCoin Plus Trading Area. Once tokens are promoted then KuCoin users can assume that these projects are well performing, are solid, and have less risk than the tokens traded in the main market. To be upgraded, projects had to meet three separate criteria.
  1. Tokens must be ranked in the top 40 on
  2. The project needs to rank in the top 10% for trading volume out of all projects listed on KuCoin for two months consecutively
  3. The project must also be highly rated by KuCoin’s internal review system
Now as well as the KuCoin upgrade Lisk has also received an upgrade from the Binance exchange. They have been awarded the V Label badge on the profile of their Binance Info page. This signals to the customer that Binance Info has determined the authenticity of the project team related to the Lisk project. Once a token listing receives the V Label badge, Binance users can assume that this project is legit, and in theory should be less risky than the tokens traded without the label. Great news for Lisk's profile on the exchange I feel.
The final piece of good news that I have to pass on is one I am sure you have heard about already, but it bears repeating for those who have not heard the news yet..... Lisk will be available to trade on Bitpanda from March 7th.
In a public twitter poll to select Bitpanda's latest listing Lisk garnered 44% of the vote versus 26% for Dogecoin, 23% for Basic Attention Token, and 7% for Golem. Bitpanda is an Austrian based cryptocurrency exchange catering mostly to Europe with a user base of over 900000. This listing is great news for Lisk; more eyes on us and more liquidity. Great stuff.
That's it for the recap of the weeks highlights. I hope it brought you up to speed with all the weeks good news.
These highlight posts also go out daily on the….
LISK Highlights exclusive Telegram group
LISK Highlights Twitter
The highlights are also included in my weekly roundup on the LISK Highlights Medium account and the Bitcoin talk forum's LISK thread, so keep an eye out for them on these outlets also.
Keep the faith Liskers! 👍
submitted by John_Muck to Lisk [link] [comments]

Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero) - Reformatted for Reddit

Original post by rethink-your-strategy on here
This post has been reformatted to share on Reddit. What once was common knowledge, is now gone. You want a quality history lesson? Share this like wildfire.
August 15, 2014, 08:15:37 AM


I'd like to start off by stating categorically that the cryptography presented by CryptoNote is completely, entirely solid. It has been vetted and looked over by fucking clever cryptographers/developers/wizards such as gmaxwell. Monero have had a group of independent mathematicians and cryptographers peer-reviewing the whitepaper (their annotations are here, and one of their reviews is here), and this same group of mathematicians and cryptographers is now reviewing the implementation of the cryptography in the Monero codebase. Many well known Bitcoin developers have already had a cursory look through the code to establish its validity. It is safe to say that, barring more exotic attacks that have to be mitigated over time as they are invented/discovered, and barring a CryptoNote implementation making rash decisions to implement something that reduces the anonymity set, the CryptoNote currencies are all cryptographically unlinkable and untraceable.
Two other things I should mention. I curse a lot when I'm angry (and scams like this make me angry). Second, where used my short date format is day/month/year (smallest to biggest).
If you find this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.

The Alleged CryptoNote/Bytecoin Story

CryptoNote is a new cryptocurrency protocol. It builds on some of the Bitcoin founding principles, but it adds to them. There are aspects of it that are truly well thought through and, in a sense, quite revolutionary. CryptoNote claim to have started working on their project years ago after Bitcoin's release, and I do not doubt the validity of this claim...clearly there's a lot of work and effort that went into this. The story as Bytecoin and CryptoNote claim it to be is as follows:
They developed the code for the principles expressed in their whitepaper, and in April, 2012, they released Bytecoin. All of the copyright messages in Bytecoin's code are "copyright the CryptoNote Developers", so clearly they are one and the same as the Bytecoin developers. In December 2012, they released their CryptoNote v1 whitepaper. In September 2013, they released their CryptoNote v2 whitepaper. In November 2013, the first piece of the Bytecoin code was first pushed to Github by "amjuarez", with a "Copyright (c) 2013 amjuarez" copyright notice. This was changed to "Copyright (c) 2013 Antonio Juarez" on March 3rd, 2014. By this juncture only the crypto libraries had been pushed up to github. Then, on March 4th, 2014, "amjuarez" pushed the rest of the code up to github, with the README strangely referring to "cybernote", even though the code referred to "Cryptonote". The copyrights all pointed to "the Cryptonote developers", and the "Antonio Juarez" copyright and license file was removed. Within a few days, "DStrange" stumbled across the website when trying to mine on the pool (a pool for the-other-Bytecoin, BTE, not the-new-Bytecoin, BCN), and the rest is history as we know it. By this time Bytecoin had had a little over 80% of its total emission mined.

Immediate Red Flags

The first thing that is a red flag in all of this is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, is a known entity. "Antonio Juarez" is not a known entity, "DStrange" is not a known entity, none of the made up names on the Bytecoin website exist (they've since removed their "team" page, see below), none of the made up names on the CryptoNote website exist (Johannes Meier, Maurice Planck, Max Jameson, Brandon Hawking, Catherine Erwin, Albert Werner, Marec Plíškov). If they're pseudonyms, then say so. If they're real names, then who the fuck are they??? Cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are well known - they have published papers or at least have commented on articles of interest. Many of them have their own github repos and Twitter feeds, and are a presence in the cryptocurrency community.
The other immediate red flag is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, had heard of Bytecoin. Those that had heard of it thought it was the crummy SHA-256 Bitcoin clone that was a flop in the market. Bytecoin's claim that it had existed "on the deep web" for 2 years was not well received, because not a single vendor, user, miner, drug addict, drug seller, porn broker, fake ID card manufacturer, student who bought a fake ID card to get into bars, libertarian, libertard, cryptographer, Tor developer, Freenet developer, i2p developer, pedophile, or anyone else that is a known person - even just known on the Internet - had ever encountered "Bytecoin" on Tor. Ever. Nobody.

Indisputable Facts

Before I start with some conjecture and educated guesswork, I'd like to focus on an indisputable fact that obliterates any trust in both Bytecoin's and CryptoNote's bullshit story. Note, again, that I do not doubt the efficacy of the mathematics and cryptography behind CryptoNote, nor do I think there are backdoors in the code. What I do know for a fact is that the people behind CryptoNote and Bytecoin have actively deceived the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community, and that makes them untrustworthy now and in the future. If you believe in the fundamentals in CryptoNote, then you need simply use a CryptoNote-derived cryptocurrency that is demonstrably independent of CryptoNote and Bytecoin's influence. Don't worry, I go into this a little later.
So as discussed, there were these two whitepapers that I linked to earlier. Just in case they try remove them, here is the v1 whitepaper and the v2 whitepaper mirrored on This v1/v2 whitepaper thing has been discussed at length on the Bytecoin forum thread, and the PGP signature on the files has been confirmed as being valid. When you open the respective PDFs you'll notice the valid signatures in them:
signature in the v1 whitepaper
signature in the v2 whitepaper
These are valid Adobe signatures, signed on 15/12/2012 and 17/10/2013 respectively. Here's where it gets interesting. When we inspect this file in Adobe Acrobat we get a little more information on the signature
Notice the bit that says "Signing time is from the clock on the signer's computer"? Now normally you would use a Timestamp Authority (TSA) to validate your system time. There are enough public, free, RFC 3161 compatible TSAs that this is not a difficult thing. CryptoNote chose not do this. But we have no reason to doubt the time on the signature, right guys? crickets
See these references from the v1 whitepaper footnotes? Those two also appear in the v2 whitepaperth. Neither of those two footnotes refer to anything in the main body of the v1 whitepaper's text, they're non-existent (in the v2 whitepaper they are used in text). The problem, though, is that the Bitcointalk post linked in the footnote is not from early 2012 (proof screenshot is authentic:
May 5, 2013. The footnote is referencing a post that did not exist until then. And yet we are to believe that the whitepaper was signed on 12/12/2012! What sort of fucking fools do they take us for?
A little bit of extra digging validates this further. The document properties for both the v1 whitepaper as well as the v2 whitepaper confirms they were made in TeX Live 2013, which did not exist on 12/12/2012. The XMP properties are also quite revealing
XMP properties for the v1 whitepaper
XMP properties for the v2 whitepaper
According to that, the v1 whitepaper PDF was created on 10/04/2014, and the v2 whitepaper was created on 13/03/2014. And yet both of these documents were then modified in the past (when they were signed). Clearly the CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are so advanced they also have a time machine, right?
Final confirmation that these creation dates are correct are revealed those XMP properties. The properties on both documents confirm that the PDF itself was generated from the LaTeX source using pdfTeX-1.40.14 (the pdf:Producer property). Now pdfTeX is a very old piece of software that isn't updated very often, so the minor version (the .14 part) is important.
pdfTeX 1.40.14 pushed to source repo on Feb 14, 2014
This version of pdfTeX was only pushed to the pdfTeX source repository on February 14, 2014, although it was included in a very early version of TeX Live 2013 (version 2013.20130523-1) that was released on May 23, 2013. The earliest mentions on the Internet of this version of pdfTeX are in two Stack Exchange comments that confirm its general availability at the end of May 2013 (here and here).
The conclusion we draw from this is that the CryptoNote developers, as clever as they were, intentionally deceived everyone into believing that the CryptoNote whitepapers were signed in 2012 and 2013, when the reality is that the v2 whitepaper was created in March, 2014, and the v1 whitepaper haphazardly created a month later by stripping bits out of the v2 whitepaper (accidentally leaving dead footnotes in).
Why would they create this fake v2 whitepaper in the first place? Why not just create a v1 whitepaper, or not even version it at all? The answer is simple: they wanted to lend credence and validity to the Bytecoin "2 years on the darkweb" claim so that everyone involved in CryptoNote and Bytecoin could profit from the 2 year fake mine of 82% of Bytecoin. What they didn't expect is the market to say "no thank you" to their premine scam.

And Now for Some Conjecture

As I mentioned earlier, the Bytecoin "team" page disappeared. I know it exists, because "AtomicDoge" referred to it as saying that one of the Bytecoin developers is a professor at Princeton. I called them out on it, and within a week the page had disappeared. Fucking cowards.
That was the event that triggered my desire to dig deeper and uncover the fuckery. As I discovered more and more oddities, fake accounts, trolling, and outright falsehoods, I wondered how deep the rabbit hole went. My starting point was DStrange. This is the account on Bitcointalk that "discovered" Bytecoin accidentally a mere 6 days after the first working iteration of the code was pushed to Github, purely by chance when mining a nearly dead currency on a tiny and virtually unheard of mining pool. He has subsequently appointed himself the representative of Bytecoin, or something similar. The whole thing is so badly scripted it's worse than a Spanish soap opera...I can't tell who Mr. Gonzales, the chief surgeon, is going to fuck next.
At the same time as DStrange made his "fuck me accidental discovery", another Bitcointalk account flared up to also "accidentally discover this weird thing that has randomly been discovered": Rias. What's interesting about both the "Rias" and "DStrange" accounts are their late 2013 creation date (October 31, 2013, and December 23, 2013, respectively), and yet they lay dormant until suddenly, out of the blue, on January 20th/21st they started posting. If you look at their early posts side by side you can even see the clustering: Rias, DStrange.
At any rate, the DStrange account "discovering" Bytecoin is beyond hilarious, especially with the Rias account chiming in to make the discovery seem natural. Knowing what we unmistakably do about the fake CryptoNote PDF dates lets us see this in a whole new light.
Of course, as has been pointed out before, the Bytecoin website did not exist in its "discovered" form until sometime between November 13, 2013 (when it was last captured as this random picture of a college girl) and February 25, 2014 (when it suddenly had the website on it as "discovered"). This can be confirmed by looking at the captures on Wayback Machine:*/
The CryptoNote website, too, did not exist in its current form until after October 20, 2013, at which time it was still the home of an encrypted message project by Alain Meier, a founding member of the Stanford Bitcoin Group and co-founder of BlockScore. This, too, can be confirmed on Wayback Machine:*/
~It's hard to ascertain whether Alain had anything to do with CryptoNote or Bytecoin. It's certainly conceivable that the whitepaper was put together by him and other members of the Stanford Bitcoin Group, and the timeline fits, given that the group only formed around March 2013. More info on the people in the group can be found on their site, and determining if they played a role is something you can do in your own time.~
Update: Alain Meier posted in this thread, and followed it up with a Tweet, confirming that he has nothing to do with CryptoNote and all the related...stuff.

Batshit Insane

The Bytecoin guys revel in creating and using sockpuppet accounts. Remember that conversation where "Rias" asked who would put v1 on a whitepaper with no v2 out, and AlexGR said "a forward looking individual"? The conversation took place on May 30, and was repeated verbatim by shill accounts on Reddit on August 4 (also, screenshot in case they take it down).
Those two obvious sockpuppet/shill accounts also take delight in bashing Monero in the Monero sub-reddit (here are snippets from WhiteDynomite and cheri0). Literally the only thing these sockpuppets do, day in and day out, is make the Bytecoin sub-reddit look like it's trafficked, and spew angry bullshit all over the Monero sub-reddit. Fucking batshit insane - who the fuck has time for that? Clearly they're pissy that nobody has fallen for their scam. Oh, and did I mention that all of these sockpuppets have a late January/early February creation date? Because that's not fucking obvious at all.
And let's not forget that most recently the sockpuppets claimed that multi-sig is "a new revolutionary technology, it was discovered a short time ago and Bytecoin already implemented it". What the actual fuck. If you think that's bad, you're missing out on the best part of all: the Bytecoin shills claim that Bytecoin is actually Satoshi Nakamoto's work. I'm not fucking kidding you. For your viewing pleasure...I present to you...the Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus:
Seriously. Not only is this insulting as fuck to Satoshi Nakamoto, but it's insulting as fuck to our intelligence. And yet the fun doesn't stop there, folks! I present to you...the centerpiece of this Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus exhibit...
Of course! How could we have missed it! The clues were there all along! The CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are actually aliens! Fuck me on a pogostick, this is the sort of stuff that results in people getting committed to the loony bin.
One last thing: without doing too much language analysis (which is mostly supposition and bullshit), it's easy to see common grammar and spelling fuck ups. My personal favorite is the "Is it true?" question. You can see it in the Bytecoin thread asking if it's Satoshi's second project, in the Monero thread asking if the Monero devs use a botnet to fake demand, and in the Dashcoin thread confirming the donation address (for a coin whose only claim is that they copy Bytecoin perfectly, what the fuck do they need donations for??).

Layer After Layer

One of the things that happened soon after the Bytecoin "big reveal" was a string of forks popping up. The first was Bitmonero on April 18. Fantomcoin was launched May 6. Quazarcoin was launched May 8. HoneyPenny was announced on April 21, although only launched as Boolberry on May 17. duckNote was launched on May 30. MonetaVerde as launched June 17.
Now for some reason unbeknownst to anyone with who isn't a retarded fuckface, the Bytecoin code was pushed up to SourceForge on 08/04/2014 (the "Registered" date is at the bottom of the page). I have no idea why they did this, maybe it's to try and lend credence to their bullshit story (oh hey, look how old Bytecoin is, it's even on Sourceforge!)
Coincidentally, and completely unrelated (hurr durr), Quazarcoin, Fantomcoin, and Monetaverde are all also on Sourceforge. This gives us a frame of reference and a common link between them - it's quite clear that at least these three are run by the same team as CryptoNote. There is further anecdotal evidence that can be gathered by looking at the shill posts in the threads (especially the way the Moneteverda shills praise merge mining, in a way that is nearly fucking indistinguishable from the Bytecoin praise for multi-sig technology).
QuazarCoin is a special case and deserves a little attention. Let's start with OracionSeis, who launched it. He's well known on Bitcointalk for selling in-game currencies. In that same thread you'll notice this gem right at the end from Fullbuster: "Hey,OracionSeis is no longer under my use so please come into this thread! thank you !" Click through to his new link and Fullbuster clarifies: "Hello, I may look new around here but i've sold my first account and created new one and i have an intention to keep the same services running as my first account did." So now that we know that OracionSeis is a fucking bought account, we can look at his actions a little more critically.
On May 7, just when Monero was being taken back by the community (see below), OracionSeis out of the blue decided to take it overelaunch it himself. This included a now-defunct website at, and a since-abandoned Github. The community pushed back hard, true to form, with hard-hitting statements such as "To reiterate, this is not the original devs, and thus not a relaunch. OP, fuck you for trying this. This should warrant a ban." A man after my own heart. OracionSeis caved and decided to rename it to...QuazarCoin, which launched on May 8. To recap: bought account, launched by trying to "relaunch" Monero, got fucked up, renamed it to QuazarCoin. Clearly and undeniably goes in our pile of fuckface coins.
The other three are a little more interesting. Let's start with ~fuckNote~duckNote. It's hard to say if duckNote is a CryptoNote/Bytecoin project. The addition of the HTML based wallet is a one-trick pony, a common thread among most of the CryptoNote/Bytecoin controlled coins, but that could also be the result of a not-entirely-retarded developer. Given the shill posts in the duckNote thread I'm going to flag it as possibly-controlled-by-the-fuckface-brigade.
And now we come to ~HoneyPenny~ ~MoneyPenny~ ~HoneyBerry~ ~Boolean~ Boolberry. This is an interesting one. This was "pre-announced" on April 21, although it was only released with the genesis block on May 17. This puts it fourth in line, after Fantomcoin and Quazarcoin, although fucktarded proponents of the shittily-named currency insist that it was launched on April 21 because of a pre-announcement. Fucking rejects from the Pool of Stupidity, some of them. At any rate, "cryptozoidberg" is the prolific coder that churned out a Keccak-derived PoW (Wild Keccak) in a month, and then proceeded to add completely fucking retarded features like address aliasing that requires you to mine a block to get an address (lulz) and will never cause any issues when "google" or "obama" or "zuckerberg" want their alias back. Namecoin gets around this by forcing you to renew every ~200 - 250 days, and besides, nobody is making payments to microsoft.bit. This aliasing system is another atypical one-trick-pony that the CryptoNote developers push out and claim is monumental and historical and amazing.
There's also the matter of cryptozoidberg's nickname. In the Bytecoin code there's the BYTECOIN_NETWORK identifiert, which according to the comment is "Bender's nightmare" (hurr durr, such funny, 11100111110001011011001210110110 has a 2 in it). Now this may be a little bit of conjecture, yo, but the same comment appears twice in the "epee" contributed library, once in the levin signature, and again in the portable storage signature. The contexts are so disconnected and different that it would be a fucking stretch to imagine that the same person did not write both of these. We can also rule out this being a Bytecoin-specific change, as the "Bender's nightmare" comments exist in the original epee library on githubw (which is completely unused anywhere on the planet except in Bytecoin, most unusual for a library that has any usefulness, and was first committed to github on February 9, 2014).
We know from the copyright that Andrey N. Sabelnikov is the epee author, and we can say with reasonable certainty that he was involved in Bytecoin's creation and is the dev behind Boolberry. Sabelnikov is quite famous - he wrote the Kelihos botnet code and worked at two Russian security firms, Microsoft took him to court for his involvement (accusing him of operating the botnet as well), and then settled with him out of court on the basis of him not running the botnet but just having written the code. Kelihos is a botnet that pumped out online pharmacy spam (you know the fucking annoying "Y-ou Ne3D Vi-4Gra!?" emails? those.) so it's good to see he transitioned from that to a cryptocurrency scam. Regardless of BBR's claim to have "fixed" CryptoNote's privacy (and the fake fight on Bitcointalk between the "Bytecoin devs" and cryptozoidberg), it's clear that the link between them is not transparent. BBR is either the brainchild of a spam botnet author that worked on Bytecoin, or it's the CryptoNote developers trying to have one currency distanced from the rest so that they have a claim for legitimacy. I think it's the second one, and don't want to enter into a fucking debate about it. Make up your own mind.
Which brings us to the oddest story of the bunch: Bitmonero. It's pretty clear, given its early launch date and how unfamiliar anyone was with creating a genesis block or working in completely undocumented code, that thankful_for_today is/was part of the CryptoNote developers. He made a fatal error, though: he thought (just like all the other cryptocurrencies) that being "the dev" made him infallible. Ya know what happened? He tried to force his ideas, the community politely said "fuck you", and Bitmonero was forked into Monero, which is leading the pack of CryptoNote-based coins today. Let me be perfectly fucking clear: it doesn't matter that the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers know their code and can push stuff out, and it doesn't matter that Sabelnikov can shovel bullshit features into his poorly named cryptocurrency, and it doesn't matter that Monetaverde is "green" and has "merged mining". Nobody working behind these cryptocurrencies is known in the cryptocurrency community, and that alone should be a big fucking red flag. Monero is streets ahead, partly because of the way they're developing the currency, but mostly because the "core devs" or whatever they're called are made up of reasonably well-known people. That there are a bunch of them (6 or 7?) plus a bunch of other people contributing code means that they're sanity checking each other.
And, as we saw, this has fucking infuriated the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers. They're so angry they waste hours and hours with their Reddit accounts trawling the Monero sub-reddit, for what? Nobody has fallen for their scam, and after my revelation today nobody fucking will. Transparency wins, everything else is bullshit.
As pointed out by canonsburg, when the Bytecoin/CryptoNote people realised they'd lost the fucking game, they took a "scorched earth" approach. If they couldn't have the leading CryptoNote coin...they'd fucking destroy the rest by creating a shit-storm of CryptoNote coins. Not only did they setup a thread with "A complete forking guide to create your own CryptoNote currency", but they even have a dedicated website with a fuckton of JavaScript. Unfortunately this plan hasn't worked for them, because they forgot that nobody gives a fuck, and everyone is going to carry on forking Bitcoin-based coins because of the massive infrastructure and code etc. that works with Bitcoin-based coins.
There are a bunch of other useless CryptoNote coins, by the way: Aeon, Dashcoin, Infinium-8, OneEvilCoin. We saw earlier that Dashcoin is probably another CryptoNote developer driven coin. However, this entire group is not really important enough, nor do they have enough potential, for me to give a single fuck, so make up your own mind. New CryptoNote coins that pop up should be regarded with the utmost caution, given the bullshit capabilities that we've already seen.

All Tied Up in a Bow

I want to cement the relationship between the major CryptoNote shitcoins. I know that my previous section had a lot of conjecture in it, and there's been some insinuation that I'm throwing everyone under the bus because I'm raging against the machine. That's not my style. I'm more of a Katy Perry fan..."you're going to hear me roar". There were some extra links I uncovered during my research, and I lacked the time to add it to this post. Thankfully a little bit of sleep and a can of Monster later have given me the a chance to add this. Let's start with an analysis of the DNS records of the CN coins.
If we look at the whois and DNS records for,,,,,,,, and, we find three common traits, from not-entirely-damming to oh-shiiiiiiit:
  1. There's a lot of commonality with the registrar (NameCheap for almost all of them), the DNS service (HurricaneElectric's Free DNS or NameCheap's DNS), and with the webhost (LibertyVPS,, etc.)
  2. All of the CN domains use WhoisGuard or similar private registration services.
  3. Every single domain, without exception, uses Zoho for email. The only outlier is that uses Namecheap's free email forwarding, but it's safe to disregard this as the emails probably just forward to the CryptoNote developers' email.
The instinct may be to disregard this as a fucking convenient coincidence. But it isn't: Zoho used to be a distant second go Google Apps, but has since fallen hopelessly behind. Everyone uses Google Apps or they just use mail forwarding or whatever. With the rest of the points as well, as far-fetched as the link may seem, it's the combination that is unusual and a dead giveaway of the common thread. Just to demonstrate that I'm not "blowing shit out of proportion" I went and checked the records for a handful of coins launched over the past few months to see what they use. mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: Amazon AWS, open registration through NameCheap mail:, hosting: behind CloudFlare, open registration through Gandi mail: Google Apps, hosting: MODX Cloud, hidden registration (DomainsByProxy) through GoDaddy mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: behind BlackLotus, open registration through NameCheap mail: no MX records, hosting: Google User Content, open registration through Wix mail:, hosting: behind CloudFlare, closed registration (ContactPrivacy) through mail: HostGator, hosting: HostGator, open registration through HostGator
There's no common thread between them. Everyone uses different service providers and different platforms. And none of them use Zoho.
My next check was to inspect the web page source code for these sites to find a further link. If you take a look at the main CSS file linked in the source code for,,,,,,, and, we find a CSS reset snippet at the top. It has a comment at the top that says "/* CSS Reset /", and then where it resets/sets the height it has the comment "/ always display scrollbars */". Now, near as I can find, this is a CSS snipped first published by Jake Rocheleau in an article on WebDesignLedger on October 24, 2012 (although confusingly Google seems to think it appeared on cnippetz first, but checking shows that it was only added to that site at the beginning of 2013). It isn't a very popular CSS reset snippet, it got dumped in a couple of gists on Github, and translated and re-published in an article on a Russian website in November, 2012 (let's not go full-blown conspiritard and assume this links "cryptozoidberg" back to this, he's culpable enough on his own).
It's unusual to the point of being fucking impossible for one site to be using this, let alone a whole string of supposedly unrelated sites. Over the past few years the most popular CSS reset scripts have been Eric Meyer's "Reset CSS", HTML5 Doctor CSS Reset, Yahoo! (YUI 3) Reset CSS, Universal Selector ‘’ Reset, and Normalize.css, none of which contain the "/ CSS Reset /" or "/ always display scrollbars */" comments.
You've got to ask yourself a simple question: at what point does the combination of all of these fucking coincidental, completely unusual elements stop being coincidence and start becoming evidence of a real, tenable link? Is it possible that,,,,,,,, and just happen to use similar registrars/DNS providers/web hosts and exactly the fucking same wildly unpopular email provider? And is it also possible that,,,,,, and just happen to use the same completely unknown, incredibly obscure CSS reset snippet? It's not a conspiracy, it's not a coincidence, it's just another piece of evidence that all of these were spewed out by the same fucking people.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Don't take the last section as any sort of push for Monero. I think it's got potential (certainly much more than the other retarded "anonymous" coins that "developers" are popping out like street children from a cheap ho), and I hold a bit of XMR for shits and giggles, so take that tacit endorsement with a pinch of fucking salt.
The point is this: Bytecoin's 82% premine was definitely the result of a faked blockchain. CryptoNote's whitepaper dates were purposely falsified to back up this bullshit claim. Both Bytecoin and CryptoNote have perpetuated this scam by making up fake website data and all sorts. They further perpetuate it using shill accounts, most notably "DStrange" and "Rias" among others.
They launched a series of cryptocurrencies that should be avoided at all cost: Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, and Monetaverde. They are likely behind duckNote and Boolberry, but fuck it, it's on your head if you want to deal with scam artists and botnet creators.
They developed amazing technology, and had a pretty decent implementation. They fucked themselves over by being fucking greedy, being utterly retarded, being batshit insane, and trying to create legitimacy where there was none. They lost the minute the community took Monero away from them, and no amount of damage control will save them from their own stupidity.
I expect there to be a fuck-ton of shills posting in this thread (and possibly a few genuine supporters who don't know any better). If you want to discuss or clarify something, cool, let's do that. If you want to have a protracted debate about my conjecture, then fuck off, it's called conjecture for a reason you ignoramus. I don't really give a flying fuck if I got it right or wrong, you're old and ugly enough to make up your own mind.
tl;dr - CryptoNote developers faked dates in whitepapers. Bytecoin faked dates in fake blockchain to facilitate an 82% premine, and CryptoNote backed them up. Bytecoin, Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, Monetaverde, Dashcoin are all from the same people and should be avoided like the fucking black plague. duckNote and Boolberry are probably from them as well, or are at least just fucking dodgy, and who the fuck cares anyway. Monero would have been fucking dodgy, but the community saved it. Make your own mind up about shit and demand that known people are involved and that there is fucking transparency. End transmission.
Just a reminder that if you found this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.
submitted by OsrsNeedsF2P to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

BitCore Mining Guide - Rare TimeTravel10 POW Algo - Speculative Coin Mining == NEW COIN== BITSPACE - Mining and Review tutorial How to start mining HUSH coin HUSH on pool BITCOIN MINING SETUP - CRYPTOCURRENCY ASIC MINING BASICS - Bitcoin Talk and Stories Bitcoin Minning without effort 2019 easy to make free ...

Litecoin, oder auch Silver Coin, ist die bekannteste Hard Fork von Bitcoin. Litecoin basiert auf dem Scrypt Algorithmus, welcher sehr arbeitsspeicherintensiv ist, es dem Coin aber auch erlaubt durch günstigere Hardware gemined zu werden.In diesem Artikel erklären wir euch wie ihr die beste Hardware auswählt, euer Set-Up konfiguriert und eure Reise in die Kryptowelt antretet. There are cases where some miners might fail in some systems. I such cases, NPlusMiner will ignore this miner after a count of failure. Default value for max failure is 3 and can be changes in Config.json. "MaxMinerFailure": 3 - set to 0 to deactivate autoban. Bans are only valid for a session. NPlusMiner will retry the miner on restart. Pause ... google plus. facebook. What Is Solo Mining & How It Works For The Miners In The Bitcoin Network? Solo mining is a solo process where the miner completely does his task of mining operations without any helping hand. This process is mainly done alone without joining a pool. These blocks are mined and generated in a way to the task completed by the miners credit. This is a small brief on Solo ... - Bitcoin has all transactions publicly available. - decentralized GPU mining (ASIC miners are banned, hardforks to prevent ASIC miners are allowed) - Decentralized development / All contributors are volunteers - Big blocks -> blocks are similar to BCH . Active Community. Our community is active and we are always developing. You can follow us in social networks, on the forum, as well as Slack ... Bitcoin Discussion General discussion about the Bitcoin ecosystem that doesn't fit better elsewhere. News, the Bitcoin community, innovations, the general environment, etc. Discussion of specific Bitcoin-related services usually belongs in other sections.

[index] [48265] [13027] [38009] [18799] [7348] [17376] [29687] [30951] [23122] [25923]

BitCore Mining Guide - Rare TimeTravel10 POW Algo - Speculative Coin Mining

In this video I will show you how to mine Bitcoin directly to your Faucethub with Tomos CPU miner. I've tested few CPU miners for various coins, and this one is far more profitable, at least for ... bitcoin news bitcoin stock bitcoin cash bitcoin wallet bitcoin mining bitcoin address bitcoin account bitcoin app bitcoin address lookup bitcoin analysis bit... BITCOIN MINING SETUP - CRYPTOCURRENCY ASIC MINING BASICS I am covering Realtime Bitcoin, Altcoin and Cryptocurrency News while throwing in a Dash of humor, and life experiences. This is a great ... Bitspace is my newest cool new project! I'm mining it.. I'm staking it... IM LOVING IT! Take a peek and see what you think! BITSPACE ANN: https://bitcointalk... How to mine Zdash (ZDASH) on pool Explained in details how to mine Zdash (ZDASH) coin on pool. Useful Links: Official Website: Bitcointalk Forum: How to mine HUSH coin (HUSH) on pool Explained in ...