Mining Calculator Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dash and Monero

Pure PoW is DEAD

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

Pure PoW is DEAD

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

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

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

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

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

An open letter from the myriad to ... everyone.

Hi there,
I̶'̶m̶ ̶D̶a̶n̶i̶e̶l̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶M̶y̶r̶i̶a̶d̶C̶o̶i̶n̶ ̶D̶e̶v̶e̶l̶o̶p̶e̶r̶s̶.̶
I'm you, when you first started your internet venture, just some guy with a vision and limited ways to achieve it.
What's Myriad you say ?
It's a cryptocurrency who decided to part from the flock of copycat coins that started to spawn recently. We decided to take Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto's vision even further by creating a concept that goes a step beyond bitcoin's--towards a better decentralization, fairer distribution and better security.
How you ask ?
Easy! (from an outside point of view): instead of a mono proof-of-work driven network, we've created a multiple proof-of-work network meaning. Rather than solving just one type of mathematical problem like bitcoin's sha256d schema to sustain the network, our miners (users that use their computers to sustain the network while getting a reward) have the option to chose from five different algorithms. They can use just about any type of hardware to mine without the fear that someone with enough money to buy a lot of specialized hardware can control the network and get all the coins.
In short, ASICs (specialized hardware), GPUs (video cards) and CPUs (processors) each have at least one algorithm that's more friendly to them than the others.
We believe that this will ultimately be the best way to move forward as it ensures a more secure network as a wider array of hardware is employed to secure it, wider distribution and decentralization along with a larger coin total are also another great effect of this schema. Moved by our love of the cryptocurrency concept, we've dedicated all of our time and efforts towards tech-wise projects and less on marketing because we believe cryptocurrencies are not an asset or a commodity that needs to be promoted and advertised.
We believe it's supposed to be, as the name says, a currency; and because of that we've provided our users with a mobile wallet (Android for now), an Electrum lightwallet (fast secure and multifunctional wallet), an application that calculates which algorithm is more profitable and switches to it for miners, and a merchant integration platform via coinpayments.net (soon to be added to moolah.io too).
There are many other projects in the works but I don't like to talk about them until they're ready to be released as I don't want to come across as one to hype our project without a solid basis.
As of now we are a very young project (3 months old) and due to lack of potential for short term gains and our complete and utter refusal to partake in gimmicks and other questionable actions that result in artificial price rises, our community is very small and most people ignore us.
Why am I writing this letter?
Because although we'll keep trying to regardless of your answer, without outside help, it's becoming increasingly difficult to get noticed and give our concept a fair chance against others that rely on gimmicks, scams, lies and unfulfilled promises to promote their alternative coin concepts.
Besides all that I also think writing a letter such as this will ultimately prove to be a better choice than proposing some bribe, media stunt, or other eye-catching tricks.
Why should you help us?
Because at some point in life YOU WERE US. Perhaps you made it on your own, but I'm pretty sure that a helping hand would have sped things up and made your life a little bit better, perhaps you had a stroke of luck and someone helped and now you are here.
Are you still reading this?
Oh man, you must really be bored, or... genuinely interested in what I wrote so far, in which case I'm genuinely happy and I'd like to sincerely thank you.
What can you do to help us?
Integrate Myriad with your services. Do you run a media/social/news platform? An article about our concept would be great. Give us a shout out on Twitter (@myriadcoin), join us on Reddit (/myriadcoin), visit our Facebook page (http://facebook.com/themyriadplatform), come chat with us on bitcointalk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=483515), tell some of your friends (the ones that understand crypto currency :) ) about us.
I'm not asking you to blindly believe what I just wrote: visit our bitcointalk thread, read the first post, see what we've achieved so far, ask around, and draw your own conclusions.
If you reading this last line I'd like to thank you on behalf of your development team and community for having the patience to read such a long letter and tell you that whether you decide to reach out and lend us a helping hand is up to you, I've done the best I can: ask for help.
Thank you,
D̶a̶n̶i̶e̶l̶
Any and all of the Myriadcoin community members.
submitted by bordb to myriadcoin [link] [comments]

George Levy - What is a SHA-256 Cryptographic Hash ... Why I'm Allocating My Genesis Mining SHA-256 to Litecoin Forget Mining BITCOIN, Start MINING LITECOIN with Home Built LITECOIN MINING RIG Earning Passive Income Mining Bitcoin Over $2,000 A Month ... Sha-256 Bitcoin Mining Is Back At Hashflare  Update: Roi 170 Days Fees Included

SHA-256 is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA. SHA stands for Secure Hash Algorithm. Cryptographic hash functions are mathematical operations run on digital data; by comparing the computed "hash" (the output from execution of the algorithm) to a known and expected hash value, a person can determine the data's integrity. SHA-256 hash calculator. SHA-256 produces a 256-bit (32-byte) hash value. Data. SHA-256 hash. Calculate SHA256 hash # What is SHA-256? The SHA (Secure Hash Algorithm) is one of a number of cryptographic hash functions. A cryptographic hash is like a signature for a data set. If you would like to compare two sets of raw data (source of the file, text or similar) it is always better to hash it ... Veles-sha256d (VLS-sha256d) This website is made possible and remain free by displaying online advertisements to our users. Please consider supporting us by pausing your ad blocker or whitelisting this website. Bitcoin mining calculator for SHA-256: Price 12,977.79$, 19.9973T difficulty, 144.1406 EH/s network hashrate, 6.2500 BTC block reward. Bitcoin mining pools list and list of best mining software. Bitcoin Cash mining calculator for SHA-256: Price 272.71$, 352.1565G difficulty, 2.1635 EH/s network hashrate, 6.2500 BCH block reward. Bitcoin Cash mining pools list and list of best mining software.

[index] [35681] [875] [3285] [41821] [30636] [10606] [45201] [1190] [1993] [19225]

George Levy - What is a SHA-256 Cryptographic Hash ...

SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE HOW MUCH - http://shorturl.at/arBHL FutureBit MoonLander 2 - https://bitcoinmerch.com/collections/new-arrivals/products/futurebit-moonland... UPDATE: Maintenance fee is not covered. They charge that separately. ROI around 170 days fees included. The sha-256 one year Bitcoin mining contracts are back at Hashflare. The current ROI is 132 ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue Hashflare SHA-256(Bitcoin Mining) price increased . is it last chance to invest? HashFlare With the increasing interest in Bitcoin cloud, buying ... This is Hack Jack. In this video you will know how to calculate SHA-256 hash, also about what is it and additionally how to by-pass evilzone.org register ver...

#