libbitcoin: Asynchronous C++ Bitcoin library, full node and querying server
libbitcoin is a community of developers building the open source library, tools and implementation necesary for a free, independent and vibrant Bitcoin. In this way we are helping to build a better future. libbitcoin believes in the revoltionary promise of Satoshi's original protocol. The libbitcoin development project aims to create an extendable, scalable and configurable architecture, along with useful software. Making Bitcoin super-pluggable, highly configurable and easy to interact with.
Vite - A Next Generation High-performance Decentralized Application Platform
Vite is a next-generation reactive Blockchain that adopts a message-driven, asynchronous architecture and a DAG-based ledger. The goal for Vite’s design is to provide a reliable public platform for industrial dApps, with features of ultra-high throughput and scalability.
Thought of an interesting application of the Bitcoin architecture for something else, how (much) to make it a reality?
Don't worry, I'm not trying to get rich quick selling yet another crypto currency or anything. As the title says, what I'm after is basically a fork of the original program for another (entirely not for profit) application of the technology. What I'm after is:
Limited wallet sizes (and corresponding tweaking of mining rewards)
Some simple protocols for wallet creation
Some extra information in the block chain
Otherwise basically bitcoin.
I've read in some places that a fork can be written in a day. That said, I've had a friend who worked on Crypto investment tell me I'd need to budget a hundred large at least. Not knowing the code, I have no idea how deep these tweaks will go. Perhaps my friend is right, I dunno. Is this an insane project? Where do I go next? I can code a bit- how much would I need to know to code it myself? Could I find devs as a maths teacher with a dumb idea? How much would that kind of thing cost?
can a voting system be implemented using the bitcoin/blockchain architecture?
Imagine for a second that you could somehow anonymize bitcoin wallets, and that you could create a parallel network not with the intention of money, but the intention of democratic voting. You'd then give each voter a certified wallet address (which wouldn't be tied to your identity, however it'd be a certified wallet address), and then depending on how many votes you'd need to make for a certain electoral event, you'd be handed a certain amount of "voting currency". so let's say you're doing city elections, or state elections, the voting app or website, would let you vote just like any other voting app/website, but instead of votes going to a centralized system, what you'd be doing would be sending specific amounts of the voting currency that was allocated to your wallet to addresses that are mapped to the different votes you are to make. as a consequence, all votes would be replicated and validated in a distributed fashion, and everyone could check in real time how many votes are being allocated to each voting option. does anybody see holes in my logic? I believe in a true democracy of 2014, with today's technology, and with a repurposed Bitcoin architecture, we don't need a senate, or representatives, we could take on all the issues ourselves, immediatly. Legislation, Budgets and politics in general would move forward way faster, and we wouldn't live in a moneytocracy anymore (even though the voting system would run on an idea first created for currency, funny)
The attempted come back of CoinEx, China's forked-Bitcoin exchange
Written by Shuyao Kong Published bydecrypt.co An interview with Haipo Yang, a crypto OG who’s trying to reposition his Bitcoin Cash-based CoinEx exchange. And more, in this week’s da bing. https://preview.redd.it/h5f3i3lldv051.jpg?width=3200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09b8696303ae5c6170753cc438929ebe520d4605 Haipo Yang, founder of ViaBTC, one of the largest mining pools in the world, and CoinEx, a crypto exchange known for its focus on Bitcoin Cash-based trading, is a well-known but relatively quiet character in China’s crypto circle. Typically, Yang doesn’t talk that much about his journey launching the mining pool, nor about CoinEx, which launched in December 2017. And he almost never speaks about his fervent support for BCH, a hard fork of Bitcoin, and his now even more enthusiastic belief in BSV. Yet that’s changing of late. Yang has been more active in recent months, participating in interviews about CoinEx and tweeting more frequently on Weibo, China’s Twitter. He’s been making controversial statements predicting the death of BTC, while supporting BCH and BSV on social media. Recently, Yang told me that as a developer rather than a business person, he’s never been comfortable speaking in public. However he’s making an effort now to help publicize his renovation of CoinEx. So, for this week’s da bing, I decided to chat with him and get a peek into the mind of a veteran crypto entrepreneur who’s trying to make a personal, as well as a platform, comeback.
CoinEx’s golden opportunity
The first hard fork of Bitcoin occurred in August, 2017 and created a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin Cash. The fork was prompted by partisans, including Yang, who wanted bigger block sizes on the blockchain — the basic idea was that bigger blocks would enable more transactions per second and make Bitcoin Cash something people would actually use to buy things, rather than Bitcoin’s more commonly perceived use as a store of value. Yang added a tremendous amount of value to the mining scene in China. As a technical founder with has years of experience in big tech firms such as Tencent, Yang is proud of his #buidl skills. He developed most of the code in the early days of VicBTC, which became one of the biggest mining pools to this day. Not satisfied with owning just a mining pool,Yang conceived of CoinEx, which was born in December of that year, specifically to carry on the mission of the newly forked Bitcoin Cash blockchain. As he got swept up in Bitcoin Cash enthusiasm, he even said that “BCH is bitcoin.” CoinEx’s strategy was BCH-focused from day one; BCH was its base currency, meaning you could use it to buy and sell other currencies, such as Ethereum and Litecoin. Interestingly, Jihan Wu, the co-founder of Bitcoin Exchange — himself a famous BCH supporter — was a big investor in the exchange. That made me wonder why he, Yang, and many other OG crypto miners, were so passionate about BCH. Was it just about bigger block sizes? “Bigger block size means more users and use cases,” Yang explained. The move to bigger block sizes was attractive to miners because they would facilitate more transactions. Miners make money on transaction fees, as well as mining blocks. Likewise, the network would arguably be more useful to people, who were looking for digital cash for every day use. That especially resonated with many early hardcore Bitcoiners. Said Yang: “We really believe that Bitcoin should be a P2P cash vehicle rather than a store of value.” This view probably sounds outdated to people who believe that Bitcoin’s value as cash is long gone, with solutions such as Lightning Network fulfilling that role. Instead, the new narrative for Bitcoin resides in its value, rather than utility. Yet Yang believed that the forked network would create far more opportunity “We could invite influential companies to establish nodes and contribute to the network. This cannot be done with the original Bitcoin architecture,” he said.
But from its inception, CoinEx struggled with adoption and was dwarfed by the bigger exchanges. Part of that had to do with the fact that BCH and “Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision,” another Bitcoin hard fork, were both controversial. Critics pointed out that these networks are centralized in a few big mining pools, and 51% attacks are not out of the question. So over time, though Yang’s exchange still maintains strong support for BCH and BSV, it began to add support for all the major currencies. Finally, in January of this year, it announced a major upgrade, of… well, just about everything. It started to offer futures trading, leveraged trading, options trading, and over 100 token projects available to traders. It even rolled out its own blockchain, “CoinEx Chain” to support a new DEX, “CoinEx DEX.” https://preview.redd.it/3okoy5mudv051.png?width=1432&format=png&auto=webp&s=7099249da4a95db873d268f2dfc95d8db93a368e The seemingly sudden publicity of CoinEx should not come as a surprise, then. As BCH/BSV was being marginalized, Yang shifted his focus. He’s now trying to ride the wave of building a bigger, more dynamic exchange. “Crypto exchanges are where value is discovered,” Yang told me.
Building an exchange isn’t done overnight, nor is re-building one. CoinEx is still competing with the giants such as Binance. However Yang thinks his exchange will thrive by zigging when his competitors zag. As usual, CoinEx is taking a slightly different route, he told me. Like what? “We will be listing 小币种,” he said, using the expression for “small token projects.” I cannot help but wonder if these “small token projects” are simply shitcoins, the trading of which is certainly not new. Indeed, Yang said that he’s banking on the success of his new, public blockchain. “We are building a CoinEx Chain, a layer one protocol for DEX alone. Using our public blockchain, anyone can issue any token, at any time,” he said. He described the blockchain as “a real decentralized, token-issuance and transaction platform.” This is the core of Yang’s plan and vision. He believes that centralized exchanges will be a bottleneck for crypto adoption because it contradicts crypto’s nature as a completely free and open infrastructure. Essentially anyone should be able to launch a token and trade it with anyone. Only by building DEXes can we achieve full decentralization, he says.
The Religious nature of Bitcoin, and forked Bitcoin
It’s his belief that Bitcoin should adhere to Satoshi’s original vision that led Yang to send yet another controversial tweet last week, which I will translate: “The early days of Bitcoin expansion are similar to religion. The religious fervor brings prosperity to the industry.” By extension, Yang believes that the next generation of Bitcoin should provoke a similar “religious” fervor. That’s why he has slowly become more of a BSV advocate than a fan of Bitcoin Cash. Yang believes that “BSV has more religious connotations, despite its negative image.” (As most crypto people know, the controversial Craig Wright, who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, led the hard fork which created BSV. Consequently it is often met with skepticism and derision.) “The early days of Bitcoin expansion are similar to religion,” said Yang. “The religious fervor brings prosperity to the industry.” Crypto is famous for its tribalism. Many people choose one camp over another not for practical reasons but because of simple faith. Talking to Yang and reading his tweet brings a historic texture to the Bitcoin narrative. But crypto cannot survive on religion alone. One has to build. Hash might have been worshipped in the old days but now the crypto religion is all about the size of the congregation. Original article Click here to register on CoinEx!
Hello, in my free time I'm working on a game using the Bitcoin architecture, which is called (initially) BitNova. This is an Ogame clone (Open Source), where players earn Satoshi (although the game is F2P, without micropayments). If you have questions - ask! ;) https://www.zapread.com/Post/Detail/6881/bitnova-announcement/
Litecoin trading does not have any complicated mechanisms, and technical analysis is good not only for intraday trading, but also for trading over longer distances. Beginners will greatly benefit from Trade-mate.io automatic trading service, providing features such as:
Smart trade, where trailing ladder is available, i.e. take-profit and stop-loss are automatically rearranged as the price changes
Autotrade. You can subscribe to other traders and channels with signals and copy trades.
"Panic sell" button that allows you to sell all cryptocurrencies at once.
Sign up for Trade-mate.io to evaluate all the benefits of the service. In your personal account, you can track detailed statistics of your cryptocurrency portfolio and trade on several exchanges at the same time. Trade-mate.io works with three major exchanges: Binance, BitMEX and Poloniex.
It is best for Litecointrading to use classic indicators, especially trend ones. Th cryptocurrency is quite volatile, which allows you to make a profit in a growing market. This strategy is based on buying on pullbacks and selling high. To improve the effectiveness of the strategy, it is recommended to use several indicators to get a more detailed picture of the state of the market. https://preview.redd.it/lzidouk7ue641.png?width=751&format=png&auto=webp&s=4ff3dcfca3cba8602c3432be6d9fda33dfa7f3c4 You can determine the necessary levels with the help of standard SMA and RSI indicators, which work perfectly together. It is also important to define the boundaries of the upward channel in order to more accurately determine levels where the price rebounds. The only strategy that does not work well when trading cryptocurrency is scalping - large spreads kill it.
If I was to think of one thing that wasn’t as big nine years ago and that has incredible potential... I’d personally say Bitcoin. I’m not even invested in it and don’t have enough saved so that even if it went up to 10million from 14 thousand or whatever that I’d barely benefit... however... if it was to take over as the primary currency then it would change the structure of our entire society. No more banks creating money and the rich living of interest for generations, which I can imagine is just scraping the surface. I’m sure there will still be issues such as bitcoin billionaires taking control, but I think it’s set up in a way that wealth would distribute more evenly over time even though the current wealthy are trying to perpetuate their government wealth in bitcoin. I’ve been trying to think of what else could define the last nine years... Games like no mans sky simulating an entire universe on servers using mathematics and lines of code is pretty cool, but that’s something I imagine every intelligent civilization would do at some point. I’m thinking more like what defines humanity that if another intelligent civilization existed, it might not do at this point of evolution. I believe there is something in common between things like Bitcoin, architecture, video games, music and everything else we have been doing as humans these last nine years, but I haven’t figured it out yet. I just think Bitcoin is the most obvious. WikiLeaks is probably up there too, there’s a common theme of overthrowing governments between the two. Do our games reflect that though? Our architecture? Our music? Hip hop has blown up which I honestly don’t know enough about to say it’s specifically about overthrowing the government. However from what I see a big part of it has been overcoming oppression, which could be a better way of linking it with WikiLeaks and bitcoin. In architecture, building taller and taller buildings could be seen as a way to overcome the oppression of gravity in a tower of Babylon like style. Even the blowing up of Satanism where I am(Canada), it’s a religion about overcoming the oppression of religions, which of course goes with their belief of separation of church and state. Not to mention stand up comedians trying to show how wrong we have been in the belief that we have freedom of speech. Anyways... that’s kind of what I’ve been seeing. I’m not looking for anyone to agree. Like I said I haven’t figured it out yet. What I’m looking for is your opinions on what defined humanities last 9 years, and if you can’t think of anything specifically, then what you disagree with about what I think, and finally if you really do agree then feel free to add to, simplify or reformulate the concept of “overcoming oppression”.
CryptoNote v 2.0 Nicolas van Saberhagen October 17, 2013 1 Introduction “Bitcoin”  has been a successful implementation of the concept of p2p electronic cash. Both professionals and the general public have come to appreciate the convenient combination of public transactions and proof-of-work as a trust model. Today, the user base of electronic cash is growing at a steady pace; customers are attracted to low fees and the anonymity provided by electronic cash and merchants value its predicted and decentralized emission. Bitcoin has effectively proved that electronic cash can be as simple as paper money and as convenient as credit cards. Unfortunately, Bitcoin suffers from several deficiencies. For example, the system’s distributed nature is inflexible, preventing the implementation of new features until almost all of the net- work users update their clients. Some critical flaws that cannot be fixed rapidly deter Bitcoin’s widespread propagation. In such inflexible models, it is more efficient to roll-out a new project rather than perpetually fix the original project. In this paper, we study and propose solutions to the main deficiencies of Bitcoin. We believe that a system taking into account the solutions we propose will lead to a healthy competition among different electronic cash systems. We also propose our own electronic cash, “CryptoNote”, a name emphasizing the next breakthrough in electronic cash. 2 Bitcoin drawbacks and some possible solutions 2.1 Traceability of transactions Privacy and anonymity are the most important aspects of electronic cash. Peer-to-peer payments seek to be concealed from third party’s view, a distinct difference when compared with traditional banking. In particular, T. Okamoto and K. Ohta described six criteria of ideal electronic cash, which included “privacy: relationship between the user and his purchases must be untraceable by anyone” . From their description, we derived two properties which a fully anonymous electronic cash model must satisfy in order to comply with the requirements outlined by Okamoto and Ohta: Untraceability: for each incoming transaction all possible senders are equiprobable. Unlinkability: for any two outgoing transactions it is impossible to prove they were sent to the same person. Unfortunately, Bitcoin does not satisfy the untraceability requirement. Since all the trans- actions that take place between the network’s participants are public, any transaction can be unambiguously traced to a unique origin and final recipient. Even if two participants exchange funds in an indirect way, a properly engineered path-finding method will reveal the origin and final recipient. It is also suspected that Bitcoin does not satisfy the second property. Some researchers stated ([33, 35, 29, 31]) that a careful blockchain analysis may reveal a connection between the users of the Bitcoin network and their transactions. Although a number of methods are disputed , it is suspected that a lot of hidden personal information can be extracted from the public database. Bitcoin’s failure to satisfy the two properties outlined above leads us to conclude that it is not an anonymous but a pseudo-anonymous electronic cash system. Users were quick to develop solutions to circumvent this shortcoming. Two direct solutions were “laundering services”  and the development of distributed methods [3, 4]. Both solutions are based on the idea of mixing several public transactions and sending them through some intermediary address; which in turn suffers the drawback of requiring a trusted third party. Recently, a more creative scheme was proposed by I. Miers et al. : “Zerocoin”. Zerocoin utilizes a cryptographic one-way accumulators and zero-knoweldge proofs which permit users to “convert” bitcoins to zerocoins and spend them using anonymous proof of ownership instead of explicit public-key based digital signatures. However, such knowledge proofs have a constant but inconvenient size - about 30kb (based on today’s Bitcoin limits), which makes the proposal impractical. Authors admit that the protocol is unlikely to ever be accepted by the majority of Bitcoin users . 2.2 The proof-of-work function Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto described the majority decision making algorithm as “one- CPU-one-vote” and used a CPU-bound pricing function (double SHA-256) for his proof-of-work scheme. Since users vote for the single history of transactions order , the reasonableness and consistency of this process are critical conditions for the whole system. The security of this model suffers from two drawbacks. First, it requires 51% of the network’s mining power to be under the control of honest users. Secondly, the system’s progress (bug fixes, security fixes, etc...) require the overwhelming majority of users to support and agree to the changes (this occurs when the users update their wallet software) .Finally this same voting mechanism is also used for collective polls about implementation of some features . This permits us to conjecture the properties that must be satisfied by the proof-of-work pricing function. Such function must not enable a network participant to have a significant advantage over another participant; it requires a parity between common hardware and high cost of custom devices. From recent examples , we can see that the SHA-256 function used in the Bitcoin architecture does not posses this property as mining becomes more efficient on GPUs and ASIC devices when compared to high-end CPUs. Therefore, Bitcoin creates favourable conditions for a large gap between the voting power of participants as it violates the “one-CPU-one-vote” principle since GPU and ASIC owners posses a much larger voting power when compared with CPU owners. It is a classical example of the Pareto principle where 20% of a system’s participants control more than 80% of the votes. One could argue that such inequality is not relevant to the network’s security since it is not the small number of participants controlling the majority of the votes but the honesty of these participants that matters. However, such argument is somewhat flawed since it is rather the possibility of cheap specialized hardware appearing rather than the participants’ honesty which poses a threat. To demonstrate this, let us take the following example. Suppose a malevolent individual gains significant mining power by creating his own mining farm through the cheap hardware described previously. Suppose that the global hashrate decreases significantly, even for a moment, he can now use his mining power to fork the chain and double-spend. As we shall see later in this article, it is not unlikely for the previously described event to take place. 2.3 Irregular emission Bitcoin has a predetermined emission rate: each solved block produces a fixed amount of coins. Approximately every four years this reward is halved. The original intention was to create a limited smooth emission with exponential decay, but in fact we have a piecewise linear emission function whose breakpoints may cause problems to the Bitcoin infrastructure. When the breakpoint occurs, miners start to receive only half of the value of their previous reward. The absolute difference between 12.5 and 6.25 BTC (projected for the year 2020) may seem tolerable. However, when examining the 50 to 25 BTC drop that took place on November 28 2012, felt inappropriate for a significant number of members of the mining community. Figure 1 shows a dramatic decrease in the network’s hashrate in the end of November, exactly when the halving took place. This event could have been the perfect moment for the malevolent individual described in the proof-of-work function section to carry-out a double spending attack . Fig. 1. Bitcoin hashrate chart (source: http://bitcoin.sipa.be) 2.4 Hardcoded constants Bitcoin has many hard-coded limits, where some are natural elements of the original design (e.g. block frequency, maximum amount of money supply, number of confirmations) whereas other seem to be artificial constraints. It is not so much the limits, as the inability of quickly changing them if necessary that causes the main drawbacks. Unfortunately, it is hard to predict when the constants may need to be changed and replacing them may lead to terrible consequences. A good example of a hardcoded limit change leading to disastrous consequences is the block size limit set to 250kb1. This limit was sufficient to hold about 10000 standard transactions. In early 2013, this limit had almost been reached and an agreement was reached to increase the limit. The change was implemented in wallet version 0.8 and ended with a 24-blocks chain split and a successful double-spend attack . While the bug was not in the Bitcoin protocol, but rather in the database engine it could have been easily caught by a simple stress test if there was no artificially introduced block size limit. Constants also act as a form of centralization point. Despite the peer-to-peer nature of Bitcoin, an overwhelming majority of nodes use the official reference client  developed by a small group of people. This group makes the decision to implement changes to the protocol and most people accept these changes irrespective of their “correctness”. Some decisions caused heated discussions and even calls for boycott , which indicates that the community and the developers may disagree on some important points. It therefore seems logical to have a protocol with user-configurable and self-adjusting variables as a possible way to avoid these problems. 2.5 Bulky scripts The scripting system in Bitcoin is a heavy and complex feature. It potentially allows one to create sophisticated transactions , but some of its features are disabled due to security concerns and some have never even been used . The script (including both senders’ and receivers’ parts) for the most popular transaction in Bitcoin looks like this: OP DUP OP HASH160 OP EQUALVERIFY OP CHECKSIG. The script is 164 bytes long whereas its only purpose is to check if the receiver possess the secret key required to verify his signature. Read the rest of the white paper here: https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf
How would transactions take place if miners leave the network?
While I understand the incentives involved in a bitcoin transaction validation; I want to hypothesise a scenario where bitcoin is unattractive to people, and they stop their mining processes. In this case, how would transactions continue to get processed between bitcoin holders? Can this be a valid scenario to judge the robustness of the network? One explanation I have is that this is where the cap on number of bitcoins comes into play. Chiefly, transaction fees paid by users will drive validation and “mining” in the traditional sense will stop. The incentives would derive value from the currency; more attractive the currency; better the value for validation. I have been reading up on the bitcoin architecture recently, and I guess I may have missed some important points. What are some other aspects to this? EDIT: Thanks to everyone who helped me understand this better.
Hashrates (an indicator of computational power reqd. for updating the chain) would also move with demand making the returns on cost less volatile (in event of a price collapse)
Highly diversified mining pools make this a “black-swan” event in any case lending increasing credibility to the network.
The production cost lends an inherent value to the chain (correctness?) which acts as incentive.
I've spent a lot of time recently checking out other projects and developments rather than just reading about iota. I wanted to make sure I wasn't just living in my own bubble of iota excitement. When I look at other projects and what their supporters are talking about I am completely amazed, I can't believe it! The lightning network on bitcoin has been released in one incarnation or another on bitcoin's mainnet recently and there's a lot of really intelligent people who are talking about this being such a ground-breaking advancement. These people are involved in this area, they have knowledge and intellect that far outweighs mine and.... I just don't see it at all. It's a complicated workaround and it will always have a degree of inconvenience because it only masks the core problem that is bitcoin's architecture. Iota will have flash channels and I understand that there is a time and a place for off chain transfers. The instances where this type of exchange will be useful will grow with use cases just like it will for iota itself. Iota is free and hopefully scalable however and that means nobody is forced to use flash channels unless it makes sense. I feel like there are so many really clever people knocking around in cryptocurrency land, people who really understand how to build this stuff, and yet they are way off in the way they see DLT growing. Do I have some form of narcissistic complex? Or is lightning really not that big of a deal at all. Why do you think supposedly innovative people have no desire to actually innovate and build something much better that shitty old bitcoin from the start rather than stew over how to overcome it's massive flaws. More importantly why are all these people not looking at projects like iota and thinking 'nice. Somebody is trying to actually drag us forward and making a really good go of it' I get they might be sceptical of it's success, but do people not realise that of course you have to overcome tough and previously unanswered problems to progress in literally any field? I dunno this became a rant about something else. Does anybody actually see a threat anywhere else?
https://www.moonmath.win The approach I'm taking to draw the bands probably requires a full conversation again. I think the answer I'll give you here will lead to more questions, so I'll try to anticipate that some. In many places I'll slip in and out of metaphors to save time. I'll probably fail to make it clear when that's happening, but if I were to be accurate and specific all the time I feel it would be uncomfortable to read. The images on the site are rendered pragmatically as an SVG using D3 (that's why you can zoom in so much without degrading resolution and it's also why the image sizes are so incredibly small). The data that D3 uses to draw on the SVG canvas is generated using an algorithm that creates a few different CSV files. Band lines are determined by data in a CSV file, but visual band width is somewhat arbitrary; band width is just brush width that effectively fills in space between lines. The band lines connect points of data that are calculated and stuck into a csv I talked about earlier. So, the charts are a fancy way to draw specific data as a graph. The fluctuations that make the chart's bands look a bit shabby deviate subtly from day to day because the images are drawn using data that changes. The waviness you're seeing is kind of like a hash; No two rainbow charts are ever exactly identical but they appear to be identical if you're not looking closely. The crux to drawing azop 's original rainbow charts are the compounding rates of interest. Specifically, compounding daily periodic rates (CDPR) are observed to project exponential growth that's apparent in the rainbows. azop set rates by fiddling with his CDPR equation. If memory serves, that rate fluctuated between 0.29% and 0.35% CDPR He'd fit the data manually by offsetting the starting price of the projection. He did all this using MS Excel. Let's pause and think about a rate of growth that's between 0.29% and 0.35% every day. It's Absurd! That's why I include doubling rate in days in the moon math table. You can't look at the charts and tables on the moon math site and think about them clearly if you're not considering the implications in human terms. A CDPR of 0.3% doubles a principal investment in less than 8 months. 0.3% is a conservative CDPR for bitcoin. In the last runup we'd observe rates over 2.0%. 2% CDPR doubles the principal every 36 days. In contrast, Moon Math has a table that determines CDPR and projects the rainbow using those derived rates. The chart most like azop 's observations is the one in the top left. That chart draws the rainbow chart using a calculated CDPR. That CDPR is the "2012 CDPR" and uses the start date value of January 1 2012. The end date is the end of the previous day. The start price and end price are the relevant closing prices. I manually adjust the offset of azop's rainbow charts so they closely reflect his most recent post (November 2017). If I didn't do that the price projection would move with price fluctuations up and down the rainbow dramatically enough to make comparison to azop's charts silly. So, after major price adjustments I adjust the starting price offset so that charts visually match the latest post at azopstability.com. I could adjust the algorithm to do this for me, but I haven't got around to figuring out how best do that mathematically yet. Bands are determined by finding the highest deviation from the model price and using that to determine a exponentially increasing bands; they appear evenly spaced only because they're projected onto a log scale. The log equation that's cast over the price determines band lines and width using basically the same method I described above with 1 exception: there's no starting price offset and it's never tweaked. The yellow band has a much higher R-squared value as compared to azop's CDPR projections on the rainbow chart. It's also a much older prediction for price performance. You can generate a log equation that has a better R-squared value today, but it's not going to be as good as the original observation made in 2014 by Trolololo. By now it should be clear that moon math is less a technical analysis of bitcoin's price and more an overview of a couple famous predictions by bitcoin TA enthusiasts. The predictions these enthusiasts made were observed by many people when they originated and they continue to provoke discussion in bitcoin's TA community and beyond. One problem we find in these predictions is that they're not actually predictive; there is no efficacy. If you look at the width of a rainbow it seems to encapsulate any possible value for the price at any given time. So, these data are most interesting when the price is approaching an extreme. These models exist for participants to observe and reflect on the market; Does the market price fit the narrative then and now? Is the identity of bitcoin consistent with the narrative that the market is implying? Is the continuity of bitcoin's architecture consistent with the market and network effects it was designed to capitalize on? These charts provide a visual reference that we can use for our personal debates about the ephemeral nature of markets and value as they relate to bitcoin's design and price performance.
Towards Reference Architecture for Cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Architectural Analysis Abstract: Bit coin is a new protocol with a potential to revolutionize financial system. Bit coin has a complex structure, where several interacting components build a peer-to-peer currency and a payment system without relying on any trusted third party. Bit coin is continually improved by an open source ... PayPal bringt Bitcoin zu den Massen und immer mehr Unternehmen und Investmentfonds haben mit dem Hodln begonnen. Dabei wird es nie mehr als 21 Millionen BTC geben. Wieso das so ist, hat Satoshi Nakamoto seinerzeit noch selbst vorgerechnet. Bitcoin. 23. Oktober 2020. Von Daimler bis Samsung Massenadaption bis 2025? Warum kein Weg an Token vorbeigeht. Auch wenn Token, die auf einer Blockchain ... The Bitcoin architecture is designed such that every 10 minutes, a Miner is able to validate transactions conducted in the last 10 minutes and is rewarded with bitcoins. Every 10 minutes on average, a miner(s) is able to validate the transactions of the past 10 minutes and is rewarded with new bitcoins .The Blockchain (BC) is shared by all nodes & is updated by the miners. The BC maintains an ... The Metaverse DNA global team reported significant progress on the DNA (Dualchain Network Architecture) Blockchain initiative during the month of March, closing the first quarter of 2020 with ... Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Satoshi Nakamoto [email protected] www.bitcoin.org Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still ...
Bitcoin Q&A: Assumptions of centralized architectures ...
Fifth lecture of the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies online course. For the accompanying textbook, including the free draft version, see: http://bitc... The lecture took place in the Inside Bitcoins Tel Aviv 2014 conference, organized by the Israeli Bitcoin Association and Buzz Productions, on October 19-20, 2014. Slides (for the entire conference ... A brief introduction to the three architecture choices that define a coin and it's ledger system. Bitcoin, Litecoin, Woodcoin, and Fiat are described in addition to other coins public and private. Will tech titans join open-source? Will they adapt or break up? Statism and centralization often operate on the same assumptions about human nature. Are cent... An academic lecture by Andreas M. Antonopoulos explaining the consensus algorithm, "Proof of Work", used by bitcoin and many other blockchains. Andreas is a ...