Bitcoin XT - EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki

How do I view the Bitcoin XT client historical data? /r/bitcoinxt

How do I view the Bitcoin XT client historical data? /bitcoinxt submitted by coincrazyy to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

PSA: if you don't want either ABC's or nChain's changes in November, you can just use BitcoinUnlimited or BitcoinXT

Both BitcoinABC and nChain/CSW/"Satoshi's Vision" are proposing hardfork changes for November's upgrade: BitcoinABC is proposing implementing a new opcode as well as a new canonical transaction ordering, while nChain is proposing raising the maximum block cap to 128MB and reenabling the disabled original Bitcoin opcodes.
Many people seem to be viewing the November upgrade as if these are the only two options. If you don't like nChain's plan you might feel forced to go along with ABC's plan, or if you don't like ABC's plan you might think going along with nChain's changes is the only option.
But that's not the case! Bitcoin Cash has several independent implementations from different development teams. The BitcoinUnlimited client will allow you to selectively enable any, all, or none of the various proposals, while the BitcoinXT client will only enable new features if a majority of mining support appears to be behind them.
With Bitcoin Cash, you have a choice, and not just a false dichotomy either. If you think both ABC and nChain are headed in directions they should not, you don't have to feel like you are forced to choose what you believe is "the lesser of two evils." BitcoinUnlimited and BitcoinXT both allow you to take a "play it safe, wait and see" approach.
submitted by WalterRothbard to btc [link] [comments]

Hello, future of /r/bitcoinxt

Would anyone out there who might still be reading this sub mind if we close it down and redirect to /btc? Bitcoin Cash encompasses the vision that the bitcoin XT client held. We have a lot of spam bots in this sub now, and it's kinda annoying to be removing them especially if there isn't anyone using this sub anymore. If there are any real users left here please let me know what you think.
submitted by peoplma to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Cost to "sabotage" the blocksize hardfork? Just $200,000 per day.

With an nVersion supermajority rule (as proposed by Gavin in January) the hardfork can occur with just 80% of the pre-fork mining capacity on Bitcoin-XT (w/support for a larger blocks) and 20% of the mining still occurring on the side where the 1MB blocksize limit is enforced yet.
We know from experience with pool hopping and altcoin mining that miners will switch to whichever chain provides the best return. "Sabotaging" the hardfork should be possible then by simply subsidizing mining on the original chain (where the 1MB blocksize limit is still enforced) with the intention of attracting enough hashing power to it such that it causes "catastrophic consensus failure" (i.e., two persistent chains), or just as bad -- causing the original chain to eventually overtake the hardfork chain.
So let's calculate the cost of performing this attack. Even if there was nobody else that wanted to buy these newly mined post-fork bitcoins (BTCs mined by those following the protocol of Bitcoin Core v0.10.x and earlier), the attacker could offer to pay above the spot rate for the newly mined Bitcoin-XT (BTX) coins. With 20% of the hashing capacity on the 1MB limit side, that means there would be ~30 blocks per-day on that chain. The block reward subsidy is 25 bitcoins per-block. If this were to happen today, with an exchange rate of $230, the attacker pays $172,500 for the day to buy every bitcoin mined on that 1MB side of the fork. To give an incentive to get miners to switch, let's say the attacker commits to paying 15% above the spot price that the Bitcoin-XT mined-coins (BTXs) are fetching. So that means the attacker pays ~$267 per bitcoin. And that brings the attacker's cost to ~$200,000/day.
Of course, if hashing capacity returns to the original chain then the result is that blocks mined there will start occurring at a faster rate. If the attacker still remains the only buyer of these bitcoins from the 1MB limit blockchain the per-day cost of supporting this attack does rise -- up to a maximum of ~$500,000 per day at which time the attacker's "goal" has been reached -- the hardfork fails with less than 50% of combined hashing capacity.
Of course, I'm making some assumptions that favor my argument. For my numbers to work, I'm presuming the hashing capacity post-fork is essentially the same as it was pre-fork. If instead a KNCMiner, for example, were to blast new hashes that had previously been kept offline so that these hashes now mine the hardfork side, they do have the ability to make this attack more expensive. I'm also projecting today's exchange rate as the rate for the post-hardfork Bitcoin-XT mined coins. Nobody today knows if those will trade higher or lower (or much, much lower even) than the $230 level today's bitcoin trades at. I've also not made any guess as to how many days this attack would need to be be performed before it either succeeds or fails (i.e., hashing capacity on the 1MB side drops and the original chain dies). I will say that if more than just a trivial amount of hashing does return to the original chain then I do sincerely believe the confidence in the hardfork succeeding drops real fast as a result.
So, ... you still want to hand over your private keys to this Bitcoin-XT client by "upgrading" to it? (or worse, keep your coins at an exchange, custodial E-Wallet (like Coinbase), etc. when the hardfork occurs?) I've just explained why there are 200,000 reasons it just might not be a good idea.
submitted by sgornick to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin core client and bitcoinXT client thats how we should call both client to avoid ambiguity/semantic trickery

Thats a proposal but I think we should all be very carefull to always call bitcoin core and bitcoinXT bitcoin core client and bitcoinXT client or reference implementation as Gavin say.
I think lots of the debate is poluted with semantic trickery and bitcoin core dev team take advantage of it as the name bitcoin core is ambiguous and it tend to imply that bitcoin core= bitcoin.
I know it's a pain, it takes longer to write but that ambiguity its bad for the debate lets call a client a client! And that what bitcoin core is!
submitted by Ant-n to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Fresh ideas for a better Bitcoin-(XT)

I have some fresh ideas for the upcoming Bitcoin-XT.
I am sure my ideas will never happen with the current Bitcoin-Core Team.
While I was several times trying to note some issues for instance in the IRC channel, I got harsh answers based on the motto "when average Joe doesn't understand he should not use bitcoins". In my opinion this is a terrible, unprofessional attitude and I personally hope we will have some more professionalism with Bitcoin-XT.
It is simply not enough to be a really good programmer, but to NOT understand economic basics of how an internet based product being successful. And it seems like a part of the programmer don't understand beside Gavin, Mike, Jeff as far as I can judge based on their behavior.
So what do you think about following:
  1. GIT-Admin-Access for well known economist. The idea is to have someone in the team to beacon from another point of view than programmer do.
  2. Poll like integration for Bitcoin clients. A possibility for everyone with Bitcoin to vote on important decisions. Vote faking could be prevented with a stake like system. So your vote will be proportional to your stake. Similar to share holder system.
  3. Possibility to reward Developer, maybe through a fund.
  4. Letter of Manifest which have to be signed from every member with GIT-Admin-Access. Which includes stuff like: A - Programmer and all guys with GIT-Access will always respect the opinion of the Bitcoin-User majority. B - The absolute number of bitcoins ever produced can't be changed.
  5. Bitcoin-XT client should ask on installing if you want the full version or the light version. The light version should work without the need of downloading the complete blockchain. In general the whole system should be optimized for non nerds / average Joe.
submitted by yumein to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How-to: Sabotage a hard fork (Just subsidize mining on the original chain)

It's not a hard concept to follow.
If miners truly send their hashing capacity to where it produces the greatest revenue, then there's a path that ensures success (and profit) from successfully attacking the hard fork.
Let's say you have 30,000 bitcoins today (i.e., pre-fork coins).
The sabotage attack against Bitcoin-XT can successfully occur by subsidizing mining on the original chain. Such an attach costs ~$315K / day in the beginning (assuming the worst case scenario of there being absolutely no market or other buyers for coins mined on the original chain after the hardfork.)
The hard fork occurs when 75% of the hashing capacity of recent blocks is on Bitcoin-XT which also means ~25% is still mining the original chain. Let's assume that after the hard fork the exchanges are all on big blocks/Bitcoin-XT and trading occurs at today's exchange rate (~$350).
So you taint your 30,000 pre-fork coins with some newly mined coin (using Bitcoin-XT client) and quickly sell them through the exchanges and get back ~10M of dollars/fiat, bitgold, etc. So regardless of where the exchange rate heads you haven't lost any value in the attack at this point other than the $315K/day for the first couple of days.
Then when the big blocks/Bitcoin-XT chain fails to remain being the longest chain (as the result of your "sabotage / mining incentive" attack), you still have your 30,000 BTCs (bitcoins) spendable on the original chain. And you still have the ~$10M of dollars/fiat, bitgold, etc. If after the attack those bitcoins are still worth even $50 then that will essentially fully offset the mining subsidy payout you made for the several days of the attack. If after the attack those bitcoins are instead worth $100, you just made profit worth $1.5M from the attack. If those bitcoins become worth $200 each you made profited $4.5M worth. If those bitcoins revert to the pre-fork value of $350 each, you profited $9M worth -- nearly doubling your money.
submitted by sgornick to btc [link] [comments]

Why is Core so worried about public disclosure of the CVE-2018-17144 vulnerability? Because when a bug was disclosed in competing client Bitcoin XT back in 2015, they exploited it.

Why is Core so worried about public disclosure of the CVE-2018-17144 vulnerability? Because when a bug was disclosed in competing client Bitcoin XT back in 2015, they exploited it. submitted by theantnest to btc [link] [comments]

“Interesting that @DavidShares stands by his choice to not list Bitcoin SV as a client of Bitcoin Cash on /r/btc when it is currently mining a large percentage of the blocks. Weird how close this mirrors how XT was viewed in /r/Bitcoin way back.”

“Interesting that @DavidShares stands by his choice to not list Bitcoin SV as a client of Bitcoin Cash on /btc when it is currently mining a large percentage of the blocks. Weird how close this mirrors how XT was viewed in /Bitcoin way back.” submitted by spy_22 to btc [link] [comments]

/u/Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support RBF

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3ul1kb/peter_todds_rbf_replacebyfee_goes_against_one_of/cxfwz1r
My Thoughts On Opt-In Replace-by-Fee - by Peter__R
When I read about Todd's "opt-in" replace-by-fee, my initial thought was that it was harmless because it was optional. This morning, I think it will do damage to Bitcoin's reputation as a payment system. Here's how...
Firstly, it's important to understand what the "opt-in" means. The "opt-in" isn't on a node-by-node basi[s]; it's on a transaction-by-transaction basis. What this means is that if an attacker "opts-in" on a payment to a vendor, and later tries to double spend that payment, that all the nodes and miners running Blockstream's implementation of the protocol will work to facilitate the double spend attack.
So why will this cause problems? There are several ways:
1. Local Bitcoins
Core has just made it very easy for scammers to operate on Local Bitcoins: the scammer will simply trade bitcoins for cash and then double spend it a bit later. The newbie buying the coins won't understand that "since this TX was flagged for double-spending, he should have waited for a confirmation." Instead of double-spending being a low-probabiliy attack that required a knowledgable person to even attempt, Core is making it easy and reliable for your average run-of-the-mill scammer.
The idea that Bitcoin now has a payment type to make double-spending easier will not make sense to newbies. In fact, it makes no sense to me! We can unstick stuck transactions with child-pays-for-parent, after all.
2. Merchants Running Custom Payment Systems
The same problem will happen at merchants running their own payment systems: many won't get around to upgrading to detect these transactions (they might not even realize they need to). After they get scammed a few times, they will be more reluctant to accept Bitcoin at all. Explaining to them that "well you should have noted that the transaction was double-spendable" would just seem ridiculous: "you're telling me that Bitcoin now facilitates double spending!?"
3. Extra Work for Payment Processors
Payment processors like Bitpay will get around to making sure they can detect the double-spendable transactions. However, this means they'll need to put engineers on the job and take them off of other projects. In other words, Core has effectively forced these payment processors to spend more money to support a "feature" that there was no demand for anyways.
The Good News
There is a silver lining to this! Once industry wraps their heads around how silly this "opt-in RBF" is, then I think we'll see more backlash. Perhaps this will be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support any form of RBF.
Why Did Core Add "Opt-in" Replace By Fee?
My hunch is that Blockstream already realized that this would cause damage to Bitcoin's reputation as a payment system, and that by selling it as "optional" they could allow the damage to occur without taking the blame ("it was the free market at work!"). When the problems I described above start to happen, it will give them more ammunition to say "We told you we need Lightning Network because Bitcoin isn't reliable as a payment network!"
Peter__R
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT is now the #2 client. HUGE spike in nodes in the past hour!!

submitted by priuspilot to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Interesting that @DavidShares stands by his choice to not list Bitcoin SV as a client of Bitcoin Cash on /r/btc when it is currently mining a large percentage of the blocks. Weird how close this mirrors how XT was viewed in /r/Bitcoin way back.

Interesting that @DavidShares stands by his choice to not list Bitcoin SV as a client of Bitcoin Cash on /btc when it is currently mining a large percentage of the blocks. Weird how close this mirrors how XT was viewed in /Bitcoin way back. submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Interesting that @DavidShares stands by his choice to not list Bitcoin SV as a client of Bitcoin Cash on /r/btc when it is currently mining a large percentage of the blocks. Weird how close this mirrors how XT was viewed in /r/Bitcoin way back.

Interesting that @DavidShares stands by his choice to not list Bitcoin SV as a client of Bitcoin Cash on /btc when it is currently mining a large percentage of the blocks. Weird how close this mirrors how XT was viewed in /Bitcoin way back. submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

/r/BitcoinAll supports XT/Unlimited/SV clients and recommends all hobby miners (like myself) to use pools that run this software (Bitcoin.com, SV POOL). Say no to Amaury Coin/Yang Coin. Believe in Satoshi's Vision. Run Bitcoin.

submitted by coincrazyy to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Banned from /r/bitcoin for mentioning Bitcoin XT exists. We need more support for alt-clients to challenge Core's hedgemony

The censorship in /bitcoin is outrageous. It has gotten to the point that even mentioning an alternative client to Bitcoin Core results in censorship and bans. It's the very same censorship and bans that are present in mass media which is supported by special interests, and in our case, Blockstream and certain members of the "core dev" group.
If we are to fight against client centralization, a single small group limiting the protocol through ultimate commit access, we need to promote alt-clients.
submitted by livinincalifornia to btc [link] [comments]

05-09 11:33 - 'As theymos clearly points out in that post, he didn't outright ban talking about block size, but he did clearly ban people for mentioning the xt client, and to this day this ban is in effect under the rule: / - Promot...' by /u/Blood4TheSkyGod removed from /r/Bitcoin within 227-237min

'''
As theymos clearly points out in that post, he didn't outright ban talking about block size, but he did clearly ban people for mentioning the xt client, and to this day this ban is in effect under the rule:
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Blood4TheSkyGod
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Most Bitcoin Clients Affected By GLIBC DNS Vulnerability (Includes Core, Classic, and XT)

Most Bitcoin Clients Affected By GLIBC DNS Vulnerability (Includes Core, Classic, and XT) submitted by shrinknut to btc [link] [comments]

Control of the bitcoin network and clients like Bitcoin XT

I don't have the technical background, yet, to understand all the details of how the bitcoin network works but: I have read that Bitcoin XT has a blacklist function which gets it's blacklist from a source outside the bitcoin network. Regardless if people trust TOR, I propose as a rule that parties outside the bitcoin network should not have any control of the operation of the network.
Does anyone agree or am I wrong in understanding how Bitcoin XT works? Maybe what I read is wrong in which case hope someone can point to better sources about it.
submitted by doctorwhony to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Banned from /r/bitcoin for mentioning Bitcoin XT exists. We need more support for alt-clients to challenge Core's hedgemony /r/btc

Banned from /bitcoin for mentioning Bitcoin XT exists. We need more support for alt-clients to challenge Core's hedgemony /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

/u/Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't suppo /r/btc

Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't suppo /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Control of the bitcoin network and clients like Bitcoin XT /r/bitcoinxt

Control of the bitcoin network and clients like Bitcoin XT /bitcoinxt submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Why i’m bullish on Zilliqa (long read)

Edit: TL;DR added in the comments
 
Hey all, I've been researching coins since 2017 and have gone through 100s of them in the last 3 years. I got introduced to blockchain via Bitcoin of course, analyzed Ethereum thereafter and from that moment I have a keen interest in smart contact platforms. I’m passionate about Ethereum but I find Zilliqa to have a better risk-reward ratio. Especially because Zilliqa has found an elegant balance between being secure, decentralized and scalable in my opinion.
 
Below I post my analysis of why from all the coins I went through I’m most bullish on Zilliqa (yes I went through Tezos, EOS, NEO, VeChain, Harmony, Algorand, Cardano etc.). Note that this is not investment advice and although it's a thorough analysis there is obviously some bias involved. Looking forward to what you all think!
 
Fun fact: the name Zilliqa is a play on ‘silica’ silicon dioxide which means “Silicon for the high-throughput consensus computer.”
 
This post is divided into (i) Technology, (ii) Business & Partnerships, and (iii) Marketing & Community. I’ve tried to make the technology part readable for a broad audience. If you’ve ever tried understanding the inner workings of Bitcoin and Ethereum you should be able to grasp most parts. Otherwise, just skim through and once you are zoning out head to the next part.
 
Technology and some more:
 
Introduction
 
The technology is one of the main reasons why I’m so bullish on Zilliqa. First thing you see on their website is: “Zilliqa is a high-performance, high-security blockchain platform for enterprises and next-generation applications.” These are some bold statements.
 
Before we deep dive into the technology let’s take a step back in time first as they have quite the history. The initial research paper from which Zilliqa originated dates back to August 2016: Elastico: A Secure Sharding Protocol For Open Blockchains where Loi Luu (Kyber Network) is one of the co-authors. Other ideas that led to the development of what Zilliqa has become today are: Bitcoin-NG, collective signing CoSi, ByzCoin and Omniledger.
 
The technical white paper was made public in August 2017 and since then they have achieved everything stated in the white paper and also created their own open source intermediate level smart contract language called Scilla (functional programming language similar to OCaml) too.
 
Mainnet is live since the end of January 2019 with daily transaction rates growing continuously. About a week ago mainnet reached 5 million transactions, 500.000+ addresses in total along with 2400 nodes keeping the network decentralized and secure. Circulating supply is nearing 11 billion and currently only mining rewards are left. The maximum supply is 21 billion with annual inflation being 7.13% currently and will only decrease with time.
 
Zilliqa realized early on that the usage of public cryptocurrencies and smart contracts were increasing but decentralized, secure, and scalable alternatives were lacking in the crypto space. They proposed to apply sharding onto a public smart contract blockchain where the transaction rate increases almost linear with the increase in the amount of nodes. More nodes = higher transaction throughput and increased decentralization. Sharding comes in many forms and Zilliqa uses network-, transaction- and computational sharding. Network sharding opens up the possibility of using transaction- and computational sharding on top. Zilliqa does not use state sharding for now. We’ll come back to this later.
 
Before we continue dissecting how Zilliqa achieves such from a technological standpoint it’s good to keep in mind that a blockchain being decentralised and secure and scalable is still one of the main hurdles in allowing widespread usage of decentralised networks. In my opinion this needs to be solved first before blockchains can get to the point where they can create and add large scale value. So I invite you to read the next section to grasp the underlying fundamentals. Because after all these premises need to be true otherwise there isn’t a fundamental case to be bullish on Zilliqa, right?
 
Down the rabbit hole
 
How have they achieved this? Let’s define the basics first: key players on Zilliqa are the users and the miners. A user is anybody who uses the blockchain to transfer funds or run smart contracts. Miners are the (shard) nodes in the network who run the consensus protocol and get rewarded for their service in Zillings (ZIL). The mining network is divided into several smaller networks called shards, which is also referred to as ‘network sharding’. Miners subsequently are randomly assigned to a shard by another set of miners called DS (Directory Service) nodes. The regular shards process transactions and the outputs of these shards are eventually combined by the DS shard as they reach consensus on the final state. More on how these DS shards reach consensus (via pBFT) will be explained later on.
 
The Zilliqa network produces two types of blocks: DS blocks and Tx blocks. One DS Block consists of 100 Tx Blocks. And as previously mentioned there are two types of nodes concerned with reaching consensus: shard nodes and DS nodes. Becoming a shard node or DS node is being defined by the result of a PoW cycle (Ethash) at the beginning of the DS Block. All candidate mining nodes compete with each other and run the PoW (Proof-of-Work) cycle for 60 seconds and the submissions achieving the highest difficulty will be allowed on the network. And to put it in perspective: the average difficulty for one DS node is ~ 2 Th/s equaling 2.000.000 Mh/s or 55 thousand+ GeForce GTX 1070 / 8 GB GPUs at 35.4 Mh/s. Each DS Block 10 new DS nodes are allowed. And a shard node needs to provide around 8.53 GH/s currently (around 240 GTX 1070s). Dual mining ETH/ETC and ZIL is possible and can be done via mining software such as Phoenix and Claymore. There are pools and if you have large amounts of hashing power (Ethash) available you could mine solo.
 
The PoW cycle of 60 seconds is a peak performance and acts as an entry ticket to the network. The entry ticket is called a sybil resistance mechanism and makes it incredibly hard for adversaries to spawn lots of identities and manipulate the network with these identities. And after every 100 Tx Blocks which corresponds to roughly 1,5 hour this PoW process repeats. In between these 1,5 hour, no PoW needs to be done meaning Zilliqa’s energy consumption to keep the network secure is low. For more detailed information on how mining works click here.
Okay, hats off to you. You have made it this far. Before we go any deeper down the rabbit hole we first must understand why Zilliqa goes through all of the above technicalities and understand a bit more what a blockchain on a more fundamental level is. Because the core of Zilliqa’s consensus protocol relies on the usage of pBFT (practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance) we need to know more about state machines and their function. Navigate to Viewblock, a Zilliqa block explorer, and just come back to this article. We will use this site to navigate through a few concepts.
 
We have established that Zilliqa is a public and distributed blockchain. Meaning that everyone with an internet connection can send ZILs, trigger smart contracts, etc. and there is no central authority who fully controls the network. Zilliqa and other public and distributed blockchains (like Bitcoin and Ethereum) can also be defined as state machines.
 
Taking the liberty of paraphrasing examples and definitions given by Samuel Brooks’ medium article, he describes the definition of a blockchain (like Zilliqa) as: “A peer-to-peer, append-only datastore that uses consensus to synchronize cryptographically-secure data”.
 
Next, he states that: "blockchains are fundamentally systems for managing valid state transitions”. For some more context, I recommend reading the whole medium article to get a better grasp of the definitions and understanding of state machines. Nevertheless, let’s try to simplify and compile it into a single paragraph. Take traffic lights as an example: all its states (red, amber, and green) are predefined, all possible outcomes are known and it doesn’t matter if you encounter the traffic light today or tomorrow. It will still behave the same. Managing the states of a traffic light can be done by triggering a sensor on the road or pushing a button resulting in one traffic lights’ state going from green to red (via amber) and another light from red to green.
 
With public blockchains like Zilliqa, this isn’t so straightforward and simple. It started with block #1 almost 1,5 years ago and every 45 seconds or so a new block linked to the previous block is being added. Resulting in a chain of blocks with transactions in it that everyone can verify from block #1 to the current #647.000+ block. The state is ever changing and the states it can find itself in are infinite. And while the traffic light might work together in tandem with various other traffic lights, it’s rather insignificant comparing it to a public blockchain. Because Zilliqa consists of 2400 nodes who need to work together to achieve consensus on what the latest valid state is while some of these nodes may have latency or broadcast issues, drop offline or are deliberately trying to attack the network, etc.
 
Now go back to the Viewblock page take a look at the amount of transaction, addresses, block and DS height and then hit refresh. Obviously as expected you see new incremented values on one or all parameters. And how did the Zilliqa blockchain manage to transition from a previous valid state to the latest valid state? By using pBFT to reach consensus on the latest valid state.
 
After having obtained the entry ticket, miners execute pBFT to reach consensus on the ever-changing state of the blockchain. pBFT requires a series of network communication between nodes, and as such there is no GPU involved (but CPU). Resulting in the total energy consumed to keep the blockchain secure, decentralized and scalable being low.
 
pBFT stands for practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance and is an optimization on the Byzantine Fault Tolerant algorithm. To quote Blockonomi: “In the context of distributed systems, Byzantine Fault Tolerance is the ability of a distributed computer network to function as desired and correctly reach a sufficient consensus despite malicious components (nodes) of the system failing or propagating incorrect information to other peers.” Zilliqa is such a distributed computer network and depends on the honesty of the nodes (shard and DS) to reach consensus and to continuously update the state with the latest block. If pBFT is a new term for you I can highly recommend the Blockonomi article.
 
The idea of pBFT was introduced in 1999 - one of the authors even won a Turing award for it - and it is well researched and applied in various blockchains and distributed systems nowadays. If you want more advanced information than the Blockonomi link provides click here. And if you’re in between Blockonomi and the University of Singapore read the Zilliqa Design Story Part 2 dating from October 2017.
Quoting from the Zilliqa tech whitepaper: “pBFT relies upon a correct leader (which is randomly selected) to begin each phase and proceed when the sufficient majority exists. In case the leader is byzantine it can stall the entire consensus protocol. To address this challenge, pBFT offers a view change protocol to replace the byzantine leader with another one.”
 
pBFT can tolerate ⅓ of the nodes being dishonest (offline counts as Byzantine = dishonest) and the consensus protocol will function without stalling or hiccups. Once there are more than ⅓ of dishonest nodes but no more than ⅔ the network will be stalled and a view change will be triggered to elect a new DS leader. Only when more than ⅔ of the nodes are dishonest (66%) double-spend attacks become possible.
 
If the network stalls no transactions can be processed and one has to wait until a new honest leader has been elected. When the mainnet was just launched and in its early phases, view changes happened regularly. As of today the last stalling of the network - and view change being triggered - was at the end of October 2019.
 
Another benefit of using pBFT for consensus besides low energy is the immediate finality it provides. Once your transaction is included in a block and the block is added to the chain it’s done. Lastly, take a look at this article where three types of finality are being defined: probabilistic, absolute and economic finality. Zilliqa falls under the absolute finality (just like Tendermint for example). Although lengthy already we skipped through some of the inner workings from Zilliqa’s consensus: read the Zilliqa Design Story Part 3 and you will be close to having a complete picture on it. Enough about PoW, sybil resistance mechanism, pBFT, etc. Another thing we haven’t looked at yet is the amount of decentralization.
 
Decentralisation
 
Currently, there are four shards, each one of them consisting of 600 nodes. 1 shard with 600 so-called DS nodes (Directory Service - they need to achieve a higher difficulty than shard nodes) and 1800 shard nodes of which 250 are shard guards (centralized nodes controlled by the team). The amount of shard guards has been steadily declining from 1200 in January 2019 to 250 as of May 2020. On the Viewblock statistics, you can see that many of the nodes are being located in the US but those are only the (CPU parts of the) shard nodes who perform pBFT. There is no data from where the PoW sources are coming. And when the Zilliqa blockchain starts reaching its transaction capacity limit, a network upgrade needs to be executed to lift the current cap of maximum 2400 nodes to allow more nodes and formation of more shards which will allow to network to keep on scaling according to demand.
Besides shard nodes there are also seed nodes. The main role of seed nodes is to serve as direct access points (for end-users and clients) to the core Zilliqa network that validates transactions. Seed nodes consolidate transaction requests and forward these to the lookup nodes (another type of nodes) for distribution to the shards in the network. Seed nodes also maintain the entire transaction history and the global state of the blockchain which is needed to provide services such as block explorers. Seed nodes in the Zilliqa network are comparable to Infura on Ethereum.
 
The seed nodes were first only operated by Zilliqa themselves, exchanges and Viewblock. Operators of seed nodes like exchanges had no incentive to open them for the greater public. They were centralised at first. Decentralisation at the seed nodes level has been steadily rolled out since March 2020 ( Zilliqa Improvement Proposal 3 ). Currently the amount of seed nodes is being increased, they are public-facing and at the same time PoS is applied to incentivize seed node operators and make it possible for ZIL holders to stake and earn passive yields. Important distinction: seed nodes are not involved with consensus! That is still PoW as entry ticket and pBFT for the actual consensus.
 
5% of the block rewards are being assigned to seed nodes (from the beginning in 2019) and those are being used to pay out ZIL stakers. The 5% block rewards with an annual yield of 10.03% translate to roughly 610 MM ZILs in total that can be staked. Exchanges use the custodial variant of staking and wallets like Moonlet will use the non-custodial version (starting in Q3 2020). Staking is being done by sending ZILs to a smart contract created by Zilliqa and audited by Quantstamp.
 
With a high amount of DS; shard nodes and seed nodes becoming more decentralized too, Zilliqa qualifies for the label of decentralized in my opinion.
 
Smart contracts
 
Let me start by saying I’m not a developer and my programming skills are quite limited. So I‘m taking the ELI5 route (maybe 12) but if you are familiar with Javascript, Solidity or specifically OCaml please head straight to Scilla - read the docs to get a good initial grasp of how Zilliqa’s smart contract language Scilla works and if you ask yourself “why another programming language?” check this article. And if you want to play around with some sample contracts in an IDE click here. The faucet can be found here. And more information on architecture, dapp development and API can be found on the Developer Portal.
If you are more into listening and watching: check this recent webinar explaining Zilliqa and Scilla. Link is time-stamped so you’ll start right away with a platform introduction, roadmap 2020 and afterwards a proper Scilla introduction.
 
Generalized: programming languages can be divided into being ‘object-oriented’ or ‘functional’. Here is an ELI5 given by software development academy: * “all programs have two basic components, data – what the program knows – and behavior – what the program can do with that data. So object-oriented programming states that combining data and related behaviors in one place, is called “object”, which makes it easier to understand how a particular program works. On the other hand, functional programming argues that data and behavior are different things and should be separated to ensure their clarity.” *
 
Scilla is on the functional side and shares similarities with OCaml: OCaml is a general-purpose programming language with an emphasis on expressiveness and safety. It has an advanced type system that helps catch your mistakes without getting in your way. It's used in environments where a single mistake can cost millions and speed matters, is supported by an active community, and has a rich set of libraries and development tools. For all its power, OCaml is also pretty simple, which is one reason it's often used as a teaching language.
 
Scilla is blockchain agnostic, can be implemented onto other blockchains as well, is recognized by academics and won a so-called Distinguished Artifact Award award at the end of last year.
 
One of the reasons why the Zilliqa team decided to create their own programming language focused on preventing smart contract vulnerabilities is that adding logic on a blockchain, programming, means that you cannot afford to make mistakes. Otherwise, it could cost you. It’s all great and fun blockchains being immutable but updating your code because you found a bug isn’t the same as with a regular web application for example. And with smart contracts, it inherently involves cryptocurrencies in some form thus value.
 
Another difference with programming languages on a blockchain is gas. Every transaction you do on a smart contract platform like Zilliqa or Ethereum costs gas. With gas you basically pay for computational costs. Sending a ZIL from address A to address B costs 0.001 ZIL currently. Smart contracts are more complex, often involve various functions and require more gas (if gas is a new concept click here ).
 
So with Scilla, similar to Solidity, you need to make sure that “every function in your smart contract will run as expected without hitting gas limits. An improper resource analysis may lead to situations where funds may get stuck simply because a part of the smart contract code cannot be executed due to gas limits. Such constraints are not present in traditional software systems”. Scilla design story part 1
 
Some examples of smart contract issues you’d want to avoid are: leaking funds, ‘unexpected changes to critical state variables’ (example: someone other than you setting his or her address as the owner of the smart contract after creation) or simply killing a contract.
 
Scilla also allows for formal verification. Wikipedia to the rescue: In the context of hardware and software systems, formal verification is the act of proving or disproving the correctness of intended algorithms underlying a system with respect to a certain formal specification or property, using formal methods of mathematics.
 
Formal verification can be helpful in proving the correctness of systems such as: cryptographic protocols, combinational circuits, digital circuits with internal memory, and software expressed as source code.
 
Scilla is being developed hand-in-hand with formalization of its semantics and its embedding into the Coq proof assistant — a state-of-the art tool for mechanized proofs about properties of programs.”
 
Simply put, with Scilla and accompanying tooling developers can be mathematically sure and proof that the smart contract they’ve written does what he or she intends it to do.
 
Smart contract on a sharded environment and state sharding
 
There is one more topic I’d like to touch on: smart contract execution in a sharded environment (and what is the effect of state sharding). This is a complex topic. I’m not able to explain it any easier than what is posted here. But I will try to compress the post into something easy to digest.
 
Earlier on we have established that Zilliqa can process transactions in parallel due to network sharding. This is where the linear scalability comes from. We can define simple transactions: a transaction from address A to B (Category 1), a transaction where a user interacts with one smart contract (Category 2) and the most complex ones where triggering a transaction results in multiple smart contracts being involved (Category 3). The shards are able to process transactions on their own without interference of the other shards. With Category 1 transactions that is doable, with Category 2 transactions sometimes if that address is in the same shard as the smart contract but with Category 3 you definitely need communication between the shards. Solving that requires to make a set of communication rules the protocol needs to follow in order to process all transactions in a generalised fashion.
 
And this is where the downsides of state sharding comes in currently. All shards in Zilliqa have access to the complete state. Yes the state size (0.1 GB at the moment) grows and all of the nodes need to store it but it also means that they don’t need to shop around for information available on other shards. Requiring more communication and adding more complexity. Computer science knowledge and/or developer knowledge required links if you want to dig further: Scilla - language grammar Scilla - Foundations for Verifiable Decentralised Computations on a Blockchain Gas Accounting NUS x Zilliqa: Smart contract language workshop
 
Easier to follow links on programming Scilla https://learnscilla.com/home Ivan on Tech
 
Roadmap / Zilliqa 2.0
 
There is no strict defined roadmap but here are topics being worked on. And via the Zilliqa website there is also more information on the projects they are working on.
 
Business & Partnerships
 
It’s not only technology in which Zilliqa seems to be excelling as their ecosystem has been expanding and starting to grow rapidly. The project is on a mission to provide OpenFinance (OpFi) to the world and Singapore is the right place to be due to its progressive regulations and futuristic thinking. Singapore has taken a proactive approach towards cryptocurrencies by introducing the Payment Services Act 2019 (PS Act). Among other things, the PS Act will regulate intermediaries dealing with certain cryptocurrencies, with a particular focus on consumer protection and anti-money laundering. It will also provide a stable regulatory licensing and operating framework for cryptocurrency entities, effectively covering all crypto businesses and exchanges based in Singapore. According to PWC 82% of the surveyed executives in Singapore reported blockchain initiatives underway and 13% of them have already brought the initiatives live to the market. There is also an increasing list of organizations that are starting to provide digital payment services. Moreover, Singaporean blockchain developers Building Cities Beyond has recently created an innovation $15 million grant to encourage development on its ecosystem. This all suggests that Singapore tries to position itself as (one of) the leading blockchain hubs in the world.
 
Zilliqa seems to already take advantage of this and recently helped launch Hg Exchange on their platform, together with financial institutions PhillipCapital, PrimePartners and Fundnel. Hg Exchange, which is now approved by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), uses smart contracts to represent digital assets. Through Hg Exchange financial institutions worldwide can use Zilliqa's safe-by-design smart contracts to enable the trading of private equities. For example, think of companies such as Grab, Airbnb, SpaceX that are not available for public trading right now. Hg Exchange will allow investors to buy shares of private companies & unicorns and capture their value before an IPO. Anquan, the main company behind Zilliqa, has also recently announced that they became a partner and shareholder in TEN31 Bank, which is a fully regulated bank allowing for tokenization of assets and is aiming to bridge the gap between conventional banking and the blockchain world. If STOs, the tokenization of assets, and equity trading will continue to increase, then Zilliqa’s public blockchain would be the ideal candidate due to its strategic positioning, partnerships, regulatory compliance and the technology that is being built on top of it.
 
What is also very encouraging is their focus on banking the un(der)banked. They are launching a stablecoin basket starting with XSGD. As many of you know, stablecoins are currently mostly used for trading. However, Zilliqa is actively trying to broaden the use case of stablecoins. I recommend everybody to read this text that Amrit Kumar wrote (one of the co-founders). These stablecoins will be integrated in the traditional markets and bridge the gap between the crypto world and the traditional world. This could potentially revolutionize and legitimise the crypto space if retailers and companies will for example start to use stablecoins for payments or remittances, instead of it solely being used for trading.
 
Zilliqa also released their DeFi strategic roadmap (dating November 2019) which seems to be aligning well with their OpFi strategy. A non-custodial DEX is coming to Zilliqa made by Switcheo which allows cross-chain trading (atomic swaps) between ETH, EOS and ZIL based tokens. They also signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a (soon to be announced) USD stablecoin. And as Zilliqa is all about regulations and being compliant, I’m speculating on it to be a regulated USD stablecoin. Furthermore, XSGD is already created and visible on block explorer and XIDR (Indonesian Stablecoin) is also coming soon via StraitsX. Here also an overview of the Tech Stack for Financial Applications from September 2019. Further quoting Amrit Kumar on this:
 
There are two basic building blocks in DeFi/OpFi though: 1) stablecoins as you need a non-volatile currency to get access to this market and 2) a dex to be able to trade all these financial assets. The rest are built on top of these blocks.
 
So far, together with our partners and community, we have worked on developing these building blocks with XSGD as a stablecoin. We are working on bringing a USD-backed stablecoin as well. We will soon have a decentralised exchange developed by Switcheo. And with HGX going live, we are also venturing into the tokenization space. More to come in the future.”
 
Additionally, they also have this ZILHive initiative that injects capital into projects. There have been already 6 waves of various teams working on infrastructure, innovation and research, and they are not from ASEAN or Singapore only but global: see Grantees breakdown by country. Over 60 project teams from over 20 countries have contributed to Zilliqa's ecosystem. This includes individuals and teams developing wallets, explorers, developer toolkits, smart contract testing frameworks, dapps, etc. As some of you may know, Unstoppable Domains (UD) blew up when they launched on Zilliqa. UD aims to replace cryptocurrency addresses with a human-readable name and allows for uncensorable websites. Zilliqa will probably be the only one able to handle all these transactions onchain due to ability to scale and its resulting low fees which is why the UD team launched this on Zilliqa in the first place. Furthermore, Zilliqa also has a strong emphasis on security, compliance, and privacy, which is why they partnered with companies like Elliptic, ChainSecurity (part of PwC Switzerland), and Incognito. Their sister company Aqilliz (Zilliqa spelled backwards) focuses on revolutionizing the digital advertising space and is doing interesting things like using Zilliqa to track outdoor digital ads with companies like Foodpanda.
 
Zilliqa is listed on nearly all major exchanges, having several different fiat-gateways and recently have been added to Binance’s margin trading and futures trading with really good volume. They also have a very impressive team with good credentials and experience. They don't just have “tech people”. They have a mix of tech people, business people, marketeers, scientists, and more. Naturally, it's good to have a mix of people with different skill sets if you work in the crypto space.
 
Marketing & Community
 
Zilliqa has a very strong community. If you just follow their Twitter their engagement is much higher for a coin that has approximately 80k followers. They also have been ‘coin of the day’ by LunarCrush many times. LunarCrush tracks real-time cryptocurrency value and social data. According to their data, it seems Zilliqa has a more fundamental and deeper understanding of marketing and community engagement than almost all other coins. While almost all coins have been a bit frozen in the last months, Zilliqa seems to be on its own bull run. It was somewhere in the 100s a few months ago and is currently ranked #46 on CoinGecko. Their official Telegram also has over 20k people and is very active, and their community channel which is over 7k now is more active and larger than many other official channels. Their local communities also seem to be growing.
 
Moreover, their community started ‘Zillacracy’ together with the Zilliqa core team ( see www.zillacracy.com ). It’s a community-run initiative where people from all over the world are now helping with marketing and development on Zilliqa. Since its launch in February 2020 they have been doing a lot and will also run their own non-custodial seed node for staking. This seed node will also allow them to start generating revenue for them to become a self sustaining entity that could potentially scale up to become a decentralized company working in parallel with the Zilliqa core team. Comparing it to all the other smart contract platforms (e.g. Cardano, EOS, Tezos etc.) they don't seem to have started a similar initiative (correct me if I’m wrong though). This suggests in my opinion that these other smart contract platforms do not fully understand how to utilize the ‘power of the community’. This is something you cannot ‘buy with money’ and gives many projects in the space a disadvantage.
 
Zilliqa also released two social products called SocialPay and Zeeves. SocialPay allows users to earn ZILs while tweeting with a specific hashtag. They have recently used it in partnership with the Singapore Red Cross for a marketing campaign after their initial pilot program. It seems like a very valuable social product with a good use case. I can see a lot of traditional companies entering the space through this product, which they seem to suggest will happen. Tokenizing hashtags with smart contracts to get network effect is a very smart and innovative idea.
 
Regarding Zeeves, this is a tipping bot for Telegram. They already have 1000s of signups and they plan to keep upgrading it for more and more people to use it (e.g. they recently have added a quiz features). They also use it during AMAs to reward people in real-time. It’s a very smart approach to grow their communities and get familiar with ZIL. I can see this becoming very big on Telegram. This tool suggests, again, that the Zilliqa team has a deeper understanding of what the crypto space and community needs and is good at finding the right innovative tools to grow and scale.
 
To be honest, I haven’t covered everything (i’m also reaching the character limited haha). So many updates happening lately that it's hard to keep up, such as the International Monetary Fund mentioning Zilliqa in their report, custodial and non-custodial Staking, Binance Margin, Futures, Widget, entering the Indian market, and more. The Head of Marketing Colin Miles has also released this as an overview of what is coming next. And last but not least, Vitalik Buterin has been mentioning Zilliqa lately acknowledging Zilliqa and mentioning that both projects have a lot of room to grow. There is much more info of course and a good part of it has been served to you on a silver platter. I invite you to continue researching by yourself :-) And if you have any comments or questions please post here!
submitted by haveyouheardaboutit to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin XT: What Is It and Why Was It Released? BÜYÜK KRİZ KOPACAK! ALTIN - BİTCOİN - DOLAR - YouTube Transmission 45 - Bitcoin XT , Bitcoin Core, Forks, Blocksize Discussion How to buy bitcoins for beginners 2017 - YouTube NEWS: Spreadcoin incentives. Alt clients' 12%. Sex shares on Counterparty.

Bitcoin XT is an implementation of a full node client network Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin (BTC). XT corresponds to the original vision of Bitcoin: simple, reliable, low-cost transactions for everyone in the world. Initially, Bitcoin XT was a simple set of patches on top of Bitcoin Core, now Bitcoin XT is an independently developed client of the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin XT. Bitcoin XT is a Bitcoin client that differs from the core specifications. The basis of Bitcoin XT is the increase of maximum block sizes as described in BIP101, among other changes.. BitcoinXT is not compatible with the existing BitcoinQT core system. Bitcoin XT is a fork of Bitcoin Core, the reference client for the bitcoin network.In mid-2015, the concept achieved significant attention within the bitcoin community amid a contentious debate among core developers over increasing the block size cap. The current reference implementation for bitcoin contains a computational bottleneck.. This averages to a daily maximum of around 300,000 ... Bitcoin XT was a fork of Bitcoin Core, the reference client for the bitcoin network. Skip to content. Menu. Home; Sample Page; Uncategorized Posted on October 4, 2020 October 4, 2020. Bitcoin Regrets: How Much Would $100 Be Worth Today? Bitcoin Regrets: How Much Would $100 Be Worth Today? Mining gives legitimacy to Satoshi Nakamoto’s imaginative and prescient, enabling a decentralised and ... Bitcoin XT was a fork of Bitcoin Core, the reference client for the bitcoin network. Skip to content. Menu. Home; Sample Page; Blockchain. by admin Posted on June 3, 2020. Blockchain. There is rarely a ripe second to join the blockchain movement as an insider. Even the most skilled builders like Vitalik Buterin are studying as they progress and the possibilities of succeeding are excessive ...

[index] [23973] [11900] [35148] [34896] [20793] [46027] [40523] [21890] [34161] [41119]

Bitcoin XT: What Is It and Why Was It Released?

bitcoin bitcoin how to buy what bitcoin mining what bitcoin bitcoin how to mine bitcoin price bitcoin to usd bitcoin to inr bitcoin price chart bitcoin value... Genel piyasa analizleri ve makalevari sohbetler #ALTIN #BİTCOİN #DOLAR #GÜMÜŞ ALTIN KAPININ ANAHTARI BİTCOİN KİTABIM PDF VERSİYONU VE TEMEL TEKNİK ANALİZ VİD... Subscribe For More Videos.....Like & Share ..... Thanks For Watching... bitcoin bitcoin how to buy what bitcoin mining what bitcoin bitcoin how to mine bi... This market trading analysis applies to various exchanges, including Bitmex and Binance. Tackling questions like if Bitcoin can reach 20k again and if we wil... BitcoinXT and Bitcoin Unlimited with almost 12% of network. There's been Startcoin, gold, and silver on Lamassu ATMs -- soon Dash? LeChat tokens via Counterparty. 32C3's lectures posted. Check out ...

#