Bitcoin Basics: What Is an SPV Wallet?

Electrum - Simply the best thin Bitcoin client

The best, cutting edge thin Bitcoin wallet.
[link]

Bitcoin Wallet

Everything about bitcoin wallets.
[link]

Flowee the Hub

Flowee community. https://flowee.org
[link]

Bitcoin SPV nodes

On whitepaper in section 7 Reclaiming disk space and 8 Simplified payment verification, we can find a description of light nodes that can verify transactions and run even on a mobile phone, is there such a node already available for BTC or BCH? What nodes are these? Where to download it?
submitted by walerikus to btc [link] [comments]

Testing Summa’s bitcoin-spv on Nervos

Testing Summa’s bitcoin-spv on Nervos submitted by -nervos- to NervosNetwork [link] [comments]

Bitcoin SPV code library?

I am looking for a library for bitcoin simplified payment verification (SPV). I need such libraries both for BTC and BCH.
I need to monitor verified transactions in block and incoming transactions too (0-conf).
The programming language doesn't matter too much, I guess.
Please give recommendations.
Thank you
submitted by siko1991 to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin SPV code library?

I am looking for a library for bitcoin simplified payment verification (SPV). I need such libraries both for BTC and BCH.
I need to monitor verified transactions in block and incoming transactions too (0-conf).
The programming language doesn't matter too much, I guess.
Please give recommendations.
Thank you
submitted by siko1991 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin SPV code library? /r/Bitcoin

Bitcoin SPV code library? /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin SPV code library? /r/btc

Bitcoin SPV code library? /btc submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Is something similar to a Bitcoin SPV client/node possible with Monero?

I'm curious if something like the lightweight SPV nodes for Bitcoin are possible with Monero. I believe the whole chain has to be scanned in Monero with knowledge of your viewKey in order to find out which transactions are "yours" (that you can spend), so this makes me think an SPV-type client would be more difficult to implement. Maybe it is possible with bloom filters? Is there any technical documentation that can help me find out more about this?
submitted by throughnothing to Monero [link] [comments]

[Question] Is samourai wallet a privacy based bitcoin spv wallet or pki wallet...if so why....

Hi just want to know if samourai wallet is a spv privacy based bitcoin wallet or pki privacy based bitcoin wallet..if so why did they take this approach compared to the other......
submitted by newbe567890 to Samourai [link] [comments]

Get Details of Bitcoin SPV Security- Simplified Payment Verification

Get Details of Bitcoin SPV Security- Simplified Payment Verification submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Get Details of Bitcoin SPV Security- Simplified Payment Verification

Get Details of Bitcoin SPV Security- Simplified Payment Verification submitted by risingfeed to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Ethereum contract for bitcoin SPV client

Ethereum contract for bitcoin SPV client submitted by BitcoinAll to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

tBTC an erc20 wrapped version of BTC, like erc20 wBTC; but is trustless and does not require a centralised party to mint wrapped btc like wBTC

I found this article on /Ethereum though it didnt go into the specs of how this works:
https://np.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/ftqdna/bitcoin_to_ethereum_bridge_raises_77_million_in/
https://decrypt.co/24336/bitcoin-to-ethereum-bridge-raises-7-7-million-in-token-sale?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sm
as the article says wrapped bitcoin has been done before e.g. wBTC but wBTC requires a centralised party to mint wBTC from BTC held by this party; making it out of the question as its centralised.
did some digging there is a whitepaper , but i wanted more details on the tBTC implementation.
I went on their github and looked at the readme on some projects; found a few interesting things, though not an entire explanation.
https://github.com/keep-network/tbtc
tBTC is a trustlessly Bitcoin-backed ERC-20 token.
The goal of the project is to provide a stronger 2-way peg than federated sidechains like Liquid, expanding use cases possible via today’s Bitcoin network, while bringing superior money to other chains.
This repo contains the Solidity smart contracts and specification.
https://github.com/keep-network/tbtc
tbtc.js provides JS bindings to the tBTC system. The tBTC system is a bonded, multi-federated peg made up of many deposits backed by single-use BTC wallets to enable their value’s corresponding usage on the Ethereum chain, primarily through the minting of a TBTC ERC20 token whose supply is guaranteed to be backed by at least 1 BTC per TBTC in circulation.
finally this is the best:
https://tbtc.network/developers/tbtc-technical-system-overview
here is the first few pargarphs
2020-04-01 tBTC incorporates novel design features that carry important implications for users. This piece explains four of these: TDT receipts, multiple lot sizes, Keep's random beacon, and threshold signatures.
TBTC Deposit Token (TDT) The TBTC Deposit Token (TDT) is a non-fungible token that is minted when a user requests a deposit. A TDT is a non-fungible ERC-721 token that serves as a counterpart to TBTC. It represents a claim to a deposit's underlying UTXO on the Bitcoin blockchain.
TBTC deposits can be locked or unlocked. A locked deposit can only be redeemed by the deposit owner with the corresponding TDT. Each TDT is unique to the deposit that mints it and carries the exclusive right for up to a 6 month term to redeem the deposit.
also this paragraph addresses creating wallets with the created tokens
Random Beacon for Signer Selection
The Keep network requires a trusted source of randomness to select tBTC signers. This takes the form of a BLS Threshold Relay.
When a request comes in to create a signing group, the tBTC system uses a random seed from a secure decentralized random beacon to randomly select signing group members from the eligible pool of signers. These signers coordinate a distributed key generation protocol that results in a public ECDSA key for the group, which is used to produce a wallet address that is then published to the host chain. This completes the signer selection phase.
my take away from this is that by using side chains that a trustless, not fedeared like liquid bitcoin sidechains sold by blockstream. it uses NFT erc-721 tokens as representation of the bitccoin UTXO from the bitcoin blockchain, store it in a wallet and mint it into tBTC. given this is all smart contracts generating wallets and minting the tBTC, it does away with the need of a centralised party to provide the funds of BTC to create a wrapped erc20 version on ethereum and so should be trustles.
perhaps erc20 token trading is the way to go forward. just requires wrapping of exisitng tokens. this looks promising for DeXs and DeFi if it happens.
also opens the possibiliy of multicollateral Dai (MCD) using tBTC in addition to eth and BAT. though personally i think btc should not be used in MCD.
any thoughts on this? or if my understanding is off.
thanks
edit: got some more info from px403
I talked to James a bit about tBTC in Osaka, so I have a vague idea of how it works, so I might be able to explain it in a somewhat coherent way.
Basically, the magic here is they reimplemented Bitcoin's SPV as an Ethereum smart contract, effectively letting them query the current state of the Bitcoin network, including validity of payments, directly in contract. Using this, they built an auction system where people can at any time claim ETH by paying BTC, or claim BTC by paying ETH. By design the spread is wide, so this isn't actually intended to be a high volume exchange, but what you do get is a pretty good price oracle.
From the price oracle, I think there were doing some Maker style CDPs or something, where people could lock up their BTC on the Bitcoin network to redeem tBTC, and any of the locked BTC could be reclaimed by burning tBTC or something.
Sorry it's not a complete picture of what's going on, but I think that's the general gist of what they're doing.
submitted by Neophyte- to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Build Unstoppable Apps on Bitcoin

I represent a team of open-source blockchain engineers.
About a year we embarked on a journey to create a decent looking wallet for Bitcoin... After some research and tests with existing tools it became clear that creating decentralized wallets on native platforms (Swift / Kotlin) was fairly difficult due to a lack of properly designed/coded libraries specifically for decentralized wallet implementation.
Our core requirements were:
- fully decentralized implementation - well coded and maintained - easy to refactor and build on top
As surprising as it may sound but there is not much to choose from ... So, long story short, we decided to build these libraries on our own. After about 6-7 months of active development the Bitcoin SPV libraries for Kotlin and iOS are now available for public use.
Bitcoin SPV Kit (Swift) - https://github.com/horizontalsystems/bitcoin-kit-ios Bitcoin SPV Kit (Android) - https://github.com/horizontalsystems/bitcoin-kit-android
If you're thinking to build a wallet, exchange or any other decentralized/unstoppbale/unblockable app on top of Bitcoin network these are the libraries you need. Horizontal Systems, @ https://github.com/horizontalsystems/
submitted by esengulov to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"While it's true to an extent that Bitcoin Core faces scaling challenges in terms of transaction fees, Bitcoin Cash, EOS, Monero & others are already poised to solve these issues." -Jeff Berwick

Jeff Berwick (a famous libertarian & founder of The Dollar Vigilante) said that in a recent video where he was talking about Paul Krugman.
It's nice to see someone so influential calling the BTC chain by its proper name and also recognising the value of Bitcoin Cash.
It's also interesting to see that famous economists like Paul Krugman telling false stories about Bitcoin (BCH) inspired by the failures of Bitcoin Core.
In the NYT article that Jeff referenced in his video, Paul Krugman said:
Set against this history, the enthusiasm for cryptocurrencies seems very odd, because it goes exactly in the opposite of the long-run trend. Instead of near-frictionless transactions, we have high costs of doing business [1], because transferring a Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency unit requires providing a complete history of past transactions [2]. Instead of money created by the click of a mouse, we have money that must be mined [3] — created through resource-intensive computations.
And these costs aren’t incidental, something that can be innovated away [3]. As Brunnermeier and Abadi point out, the high costs — making it expensive to create a new Bitcoin, or transfer an existing one — are essential to the project of creating confidence in a decentralized system [1].
(emphasis added)
Responding to the numbered points:
  1. He's talking about Bitcoin Core (BTC), not Bitcoin (Satoshi's invention) and not the entire crypto currency industry.
  2. Cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, do not require providing a complete history of past transactions. Bitcoin SPV wallets (the intended, primary mechanism of user interaction with Bitcoin) need only know about block headers and just the latest UTXO (unspent transaction output). They don't need to track any given transaction all the way back to the block that originally mined the coin into existence. They certainly don't need to be concerned with other people's transactions. This appears to be one of the reasons why Satoshi designed Bitcoin such that every UTXO must be completely (not partially) spent in a transaction. The idea that the average user should run a non-mining full node and be concerned with other people's transactions is a contrived narrative of people like Greg Maxwell in Bitcoin Core.
  3. Firstly: some cryptocurrencies (like Ethereum) have created money "at the click of a mouse". Not all Ethereum in existence was mined. Some were created as an initial starting balance at Ethereums inception. Secondly: Bitcoin was deliberately designed by Satoshi to avoid mouse-click-money-creation so that central-planner economists like Paul Krugman could not deliberately or unwittingly manipulate massive economies or cause hyper inflation (a common occurrence for countries employing mouse-click-money-creation strategies). It's a desirable feature of Bitcoin; not a requirement of of all cryptocurrencies.
submitted by hapticpilot to btc [link] [comments]

5 billion Bitcoin users: SPV and token standards the top priorities to achieve - CoinGeek

submitted by eatmybitcorn to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

5 billion Bitcoin users: SPV and token standards the top priorities to achieve - CoinGeek

5 billion Bitcoin users: SPV and token standards the top priorities to achieve - CoinGeek submitted by eatmybitcorn to bsv [link] [comments]

5 billion Bitcoin users: SPV and token standards the top priorities to achieve

5 billion Bitcoin users: SPV and token standards the top priorities to achieve submitted by thacypha to bitcoinsv [link] [comments]

Envisioning Counterparty with Hybridized Proof-of-Burn / Proof-of-Stake

Backstory

A couple days ago, some Bitcoin Cash contributors started airing a new OP_RETURN-based colored coin scheme called the Simple Ledger Protocol (SLP).
For whatever reason, colored coin authors tend to get all "holier than thou" on competing OP_RETURN systems, which they never fail to see as inferior to their own scheme (e.g. "This Time It's Different- Because Reasons"). We've heard it all a million times before.
Unsurprisingly, as I'm reading the SLP proposal document, it became clear the authors were trying to act like their solution was somehow a "major advancement" in OP_RETURN colored coin systems.
To be frank: I just couldn't let this one stand. The SLP authors were trying to make Bitcoin Cash Great Again by doing all the same things that were done in Bitcoin-land circa 2013-2014. And they were mistakenly criticising other OP_RETURN systems while seemingly missing the point entirely. Namely that all of today's OP_RETURN systems fundamentally fail to be adequate blockchain tech.
As someone who has been around the Bitcoin 2.0 space from the very beginning, I'd seen this story before. Suffice to say, based on my lengthy criticism, at least one of the SLP proposal's authors has since recanted.
But fair's fair, and it's ultimately the case Counterparty itself does NOT escape this same criticism. Today, my feedback to the Counterparty community is the same as the feedback given to the SLP authors: all OP_RETURN systems, to include Counterparty, share the very same serious fundamental issue.
This issue is a lack of miner validation.
In short, miner validation is what separates the wheat from the chaff in this industry.
Without miner validation, your "blockchain" has no notion of accumulated hashrate, which means it has no quantitative way of converging on a shared global state. It should be self-evident that without a way to quantitatively converge on a shared global state, there's little to no reason to use a blockchain at all. Just use Git! Either way when you disagree on the proper ledger state, you'll have to resolve things entirely on a (centralized) human level.
Taking Bitcoin as an example, if there are two competing versions of the Bitcoin blockchain A and B, users can compare the accumulated PoW (X) of blockchain A against blockchain B. Put simply, if AX > BX, then A is the "correct" blockchain.
But today's OP_RETURN schemes, including Counterparty, lack miner validation, and lack the ability to make accumulated hashrate comparisons. Meaning, if Alice's view of the Counterparty blockchain differs from Bob's, there's no quantitative way for them to agree on what is the longest valid chain. In the words of btcsuite author and Decred lead developer Dave Collins:
one of the primary shortcomings of tokenization schemes based on OP_RETURN is what amounts to there not being a single, unambiguous, source of truth
When push comes to shove, the "proper" view of any OP_RETURN transaction graph, ledger, blockchain - whatever you want to call it - comes down to what the biggest "economic nodes" say it is. In many cases, it's the centralized developer team's word against the users'. Or it's Poloniex's word against the developers' (see: Tether USDT rollback incident on Omni).
This lack of miner validation, the fatal flaw of yesteryear's OP_RETURN schemes, has everything to do with Counterparty's failure to see meaningful adoption.
Frankly, Counterparty and all other OP_RETURN systems are second-rate consensus systems today. I've summed this up here and here.
The bottom line is the status quo technology in use by Counterparty is FUBAR.
If you, like I do, want Counterparty to ever be worth anything to the real world, we absolutely must implement some form of miner validation in Counterparty.

Enter Proof-of-Burn

Thankfully, unlike basic OP_RETURN colored coin systems which are practically incapable of resolving this fundamental issue with lack of miner validation, there is at least some sliver of hope for Counterparty in particular. Our saving grace comes down to how we initialized our ledger: Proof-of-Burn (PoB).
Due to the PoB ledger initialization event, Counterparty can implement permissionless miner validation on its blockchain, without forking Bitcoin, and without consulting the PoW miners. Importantly, we can implement miner validation to Counterparty by burning bitcoins to mine Counterparty blocks.
From a theoretical standpoint, PoB miners are the Counterparty equivalent of Bitcoin PoW miners. Basically, instead of burning electricity to mine Bitcoin blocks, you'd burn bitcoins to mine Counterparty blocks. Just as with Bitcoin PoW mining, with Counterparty PoB mining, the "winning" PoB miner would validate all the Counterparty OP_RETURN transactions included in the latest Bitcoin block, assemble these transactions into a Counterparty block, and then add the block to the Counterparty blockchain.

The Need for Hybridizing PoB/PoS

It needs to be stated Counterparty's interests are fully aligned with Bitcoin's interests. Bitcoin does NOT benefit from Ethereum running as a separate and distinct blockchain ecosystem which does not depend on Bitcoin in any way shape or form. There can be no doubt that because Ethereum exists as a separate, directly competing ecosystem, Ethereum's success has damaged Bitcoin's brand and diluted Bitcoin's success. Not to mention Ethereum's very existence challenges or even destroys the narrative that Bitcoin is THE universal ledger.
An entire book could be written on this topic. But long story short, the pitiful reality is major BTC stakeholders like Greg Maxwell hate Counterparty and want for its total annihilation each day.
Sadly this has the practical side effect of ruining the potential of pure PoB mining for Counterparty: if pure PoB mining were implemented we'd be 51% attacked in short order and our blockchain would be completely destroyed. Granted, that's not much worse than the current situation, so we don't have a whole lot to lose here.
This is only to point out, realistically, it isn't good enough to implement pure PoB mining. Pure PoB mining will be gamed by large BTC hodlers who are by and large out to destroy Counterparty (for unjustifiable reasons).
Because of this, implementing PoB mining alone would be tantamount to surrendering Counterparty's sovereignty to Bitcoin Core loyalists. And we know this is certain to result in our system's total destruction.
Hence, if Counterparty wants to ever implement miner validation, which it does, then we need to protect our interests as XCP stakeholders by hybridizing PoB with Proof-of-Stake (PoS).
Specifically, the Decred developers have come up with a novel hybrid PoW/PoS construction which is expressly designed to protect the interests of "hodlers" against the interests of PoW miners.
The importance of adopting such a hybrid approach is even greater for Counterparty given the state of affairs between us and Bitcoin Core supporters.
Instead of implementing pure PoB mining, we need to hybridize PoB with PoS per Decred. In short, in a hybridized PoB/PoS consensus system, XCP hodlers will cryptographically lock XCP on the Counterparty blockchain for up to 5 months in exchange for "tickets", which are non-transferrable Counterparty blockchain assets representative of locked XCP.
As per Decred, in each Counterparty block, 5 tickets will be randomly selected from the Counterparty ticket pool. At least 3 of the 5 tickets selected will have to vote in favor of the block proposed by the PoB miners in order for the PoB block to be added to the Counterparty blockchain. This way, it will become extremely cost prohibitive to 51% attack the Counterparty blockchain.
In addition, we get one nice side benefit of hybridizing PoB with PoS, which is the creation of a formal system of on-chain governance for Counterparty; also per Decred. Instead of holding "Counterparty Foundation" votes or one-off elections, we could write hard forking code into the Counterparty codebase which lies dormant pending a stakeholder vote.
In summary, I propose a fundamental departure from Counterparty's aging (and worthless) consensus model of what is essentially "Git plus token hype" to one where PoB miners validate OP_RETURN transactions, group them into blocks, and then propose those blocks to XCP stakeminers per Decred. XCP stakeminers would have the final say over whether to add the block to the Counterparty chain, and would use the votes as a means of governing system upgrades.

Counterparty NEEDS A Hybrid PoB/PoS Consensus System

A hybrid PoB/PoS consensus system roughly inspired by Decred would get Counterparty industry-leading on-chain governance, true SPV support, and a proper consensus system with a notion of accumulated "hashrate".
In addition, the on-chain governance component will enable Counterparty to adopt new features with User-Activated Hard Fork voting. This could pre-empt the need for developing an Ethereum-style VM. Regardless, hybridizing PoB with PoS is just plain necessary for Counterparty to survive given how many large BTC hodlers want to wipe us off the map.
Without miner validation, Counterparty will remain an irrelevant project. With it, we could enter a future where regular Bitcoin SPV wallets store Counterparty assets with equivalent SPV support. A future where anyone can mine XCP from any old computer just by burning BTC, or by staking XCP. Where Counterparty can be seamlessly upgraded through UAHFs.
While this entire concept is for now just a rumination in my head, implementing this hybrid PoB/PoS consensus system for Counterparty could make us into a feature-rich modern coin with formal on-chain governance. Hybrid PoB/PoS has never been done before, and will create an unprecedented blockchain ecosystem. However, this is all theoretical, and it involves making a multitude of fundamental changes to Counterparty, and so I wanted to open this idea up for discussion.
submitted by insette to counterparty_xcp [link] [comments]

Cortex Storage Layer

Cortex can use any key-value storage system, such as IPFS and libtorrent, to save the model. The abstraction layer of Cortex’s data storage does not depend on any specific distributed storage solution. Distributed hash tables or IPFS can be used to solve storage problems. For different devices, Cortex adopts different strategies: • The full node always stores the blockchain data model • The mobile phone node takes a Bitcoin SPV mode, with only a small full-size model Cortex is only responsible for consensus inference, and does not store any training sets. To help contract authors filter the model and avoid over-fitting data model cheats, contract authors can submit test sets to the Project Company, which publishes the model results. A call from the contract level will be queued in the memory pool, waiting for the block, and will be packaged into the block as a confirmed transaction. The data is broadcast to the full node during caching, including the mining pool. For models and data that exceed Cortex’s current storage limits, such as medical hologram data, which could be dozens of GBs, communities would have to wait for Cortex updating protocols for storage limits and additional support in future. Cortex is able to cover the vast majority of AI applications such as pictures, voices, texts, short videos, etc. For Cortex’s full nodes, it requires more storage space than existing Bitcoin and Ethereum to keep cached data test sets and data models. Taking into account Moore’s Law, storage prices will continue to decline, and thus will not constitute too much of an obstacle. For each data model, annotation information is created within the Metadata for retrieval of on-chain calls. The format of Metadata is expressed
submitted by cengiz0589 to Cortex_Official [link] [comments]

Anyone want to help me make a Multibit / Electrum-like wallet?

And by help I mean that I write down how it could work and then you write the code? :)
Yes, we all know the GUI is coming out. And yes, full nodes are better than electrum-style nodes yada yada yada. And I forget if I already wrote about this idea but whatever.
But we need options, right? And whose got all this time for blockchain synchronizing anyhoo. I need my money and I need it now!
In an oversimplified nutshell, electrum / multibit / SPV-style bitcoin wallets/clients work by connecting to remote nodes. The details differ, but in general they connect to a small group of nodes and check that the nodes all agree. This provides some type of trust to the client. And yeah, they do this headers thing, but the headers things is a small advantage compared to what we can do with the extant Monero client / daemon / network architecture.
We can do the same thing really easily with Monero. We just create a wallet (or a simplewallet wrapper) that connects to multiple nodes. Sure, the remote nodes need to be open to this, but we could fund a small fleet of Officially Unofficial Trusted Nodes, or just use the nodes in the monerworld node network, or a combination.
For anyone who has tried using a remote node, you may be thinking "well the problem is synchronizing. It takes forever" Yeah. It does. But you don't need to synchronize from scratch. I've never actually used multibit / electrum, but I started to dig into how it actually works and the damn things usually assume that a user is creating a new wallet. What does that mean for Monero? That we don't need to scan the entire chain. Hell, apparently if you do need to import keys into a bitcoin SPV style, you need to tell it a date to start scanning the chain... so it probably takes a while to sync.
So, perhaps simple?
  1. Simple simple GUI.
  2. The wallet connects to multiple nodes. How this is done is in the details. Perhaps multiple simplewallet instances? That'll be heavy CPU load. One thing that could be cool is if we split the burden of any synchronizing that is needed. I.e., simplewallet cnxn 1 dloads 1/10th of the chain, cnxn 2 downloads another tenth, and there's some overlap to check for validity etc etc. That could speed things up.
  3. Multiple broadcast - this is the cool part. The user could send the transaction to all of the connected nodes at once. This will get the transaction across the network faster.
Manic thoughts, too much coffee.
submitted by gingeropolous to Monero [link] [comments]

Proof-of-burn based SPV support in upcoming Stack token is a HUGE innovation

Blockstack's new approach enables long-awaited SPV support for metacoins:
Light clients can independently validate if the mine transactions were included in the underlying blockchain, for example by using the Bitcoin SPV protocol, and independently calculate the total money burned. Light clients can repeat this process for a set of public Blockstack nodes and pick the state view with the most amount of money burned as the “correct” one. In this mechanism, you only need one honest public node in the set of queried public nodes to converge on the longest/correct blockchain and state view.
This is HUGE. It means great things for the future of metacoins. It'd be interesting to see different takes on implementing, e.g. a hybrid PoW/PoS system could have its stakeminers record votes on-chain in lieu of burning coins.
submitted by insette to blockstack [link] [comments]

[Announcement] Doughwallet — iOS dogecoin wallet (also: beta testers wanted)

Fellow iOS shibes!
I've got a little teaser for you just before christmas[1] :)
During the last few weeks I spent some time adopting the awesome bitcoin SPV wallet "breadwallet" [2] by Aaron Voisine . It's an SPV wallet[3], meaning your private keys are created on your device and stay on your device and the App solely interacts with the dogecoin p2p network with no server to rely on. Given Apple's secure sandbox, this might be the most secure hotwallet for dogecoin.
I'm looking for beta testers who want to try the app before AppStore release in real life conditions (such as in the subway or with dogecoin merchants) to iron out the last kinks before public release. I've prepared a beta tester application form[4], be aware there are only 1000 slots :) Beta test will start this year hopefully, but definitely after the iTunes Connect hiatus ending von December 29th.
Source code will be available under MIT license (same as breadwallet) shortly after release, I need to get a few proper code reviews beforehand to somewhat assure that your dogecoins are safe and I didn't make a stupid mistake.
I'll be demoing the App tonight at Bangkok Satoshi Square[5], and on request at the 31rd Chaos Communication Congress[6] in Hamburg (only on request, don't have a ticket yet, but if there are shibes to talk dogecoin with, I might just go for a day or so).
tl;dr: Proper dogecoin SPV wallet for iOS is coming soon, beta testers wanted!
[1] https://www.doughwallet.net/
[2] https://github.com/voisine/breadwallet
[3] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Thin_Client_Security#Simplified_Payment_Verification_.28SPV.29
[4] http://goo.gl/CrzuJy
[5] http://www.meetup.com/Bangkok-Satoshi-Square/
[6] http://events.ccc.de/category/31c3/
submitted by peritus1000 to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Blockchain/Bitcoin for beginners 7: Blockchain header: Merkle roots and SPV transaction verification Bitcoin Diamond in an SPV Wallet SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar: SPV Nodes in JavaScript with Ryan Charles Tom Harding - A Billion SPV Wallets 'SPV' and Why It's Important to Bitcoin Scaling... and ...

Bitcoin SV price today is $173.80 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $1,365,097,510 USD. Bitcoin SV is up 5.99% in the last 24 hours. The current CoinMarketCap ranking is #11, with a market cap of $3,224,240,980 USD. It has a circulating supply of 18,551,914 BSV coins and a max. supply of 21,000,000 BSV coins. SPV, der alternative Ansatz, beinhaltet, dass ein Client nur alle Blockheader am Anfang herunterlädt und dann “ die Transaktionen von vollen Knoten nach Bedarf anfordert“. Beim Verarbeiten oder Validieren einer Transaktion kann der Client den Merkle-Zweig für einen gegebenen Merkle-Stamm anfordern, um zu überprüfen, ob die Transaktion tatsächlich in einem Block ist. Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) is described in section 8 of the Bitcoin whitepaper.It allows a transaction recipient to prove that the sender has control of the source funds of the payment they are offering without downloading the full Block chain, by utilising the properties of Merkle proofs.This does not guarantee that the funds have not been previously spent, this assurance is ... SPV Channels offer encrypted persistent messaging channels between any Bitcoin participants. Seamlessly integrating offline and direct communications to break down the technical barrriers to enabling the direct peer to peer interactions that Satoshi described as fundamental to the operations of the Bitcoin network. Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) – using Bitcoin without running a full network node. By default, upon receiving a new transaction a node must validate it: in particular, verify that none of the transaction's inputs have been previously spent. To carry out that check the node needs to access the blockchain.

[index] [9085] [10616] [49008] [1360] [13675] [17589] [15271] [42464] [14877] [42613]

Blockchain/Bitcoin for beginners 7: Blockchain header: Merkle roots and SPV transaction verification

Help keep the train running! [email protected] Neither Kurt Wuckert Jr. nor Jon has built an SPV Bitcoin wallet, or given birth -- but that's no... SPV wallets are the industry leader right now for secure crypto storage. Not only are they free, but they will keep your coins safe as well! - http://electru... Using a concept called a Merkle tree - in this video I break it down in depth with a simple example and show how a SPV node (Simple Payment Verification) node that does not keep a full copy of the ... Guests Craig Wright and Ari Kuqi discuss simplified payment verification (SPV) in Bitcoin services. Why is it a contentious issue among developers? Host: Kurt Wuckert Jr. (@kurtwuckertjr) Recorded ... Bitcoin: Lightweight/SPV/Thin Node - Part20 - Duration: 7:20. Ken Shamir Recommended for you. 7:20. Bitcoin 101 - Multi-Signature Addresses pt1 - Coding This Major Security Improvement - Duration ...

#