I had a lot of fun with Jo_Bones insane vomit yesterday, that retarded chimp is a special one for sure. He inspired me to write some satire of his delusional CSWesque rant. I list some hilarious quotes from him at the end as well from the comment chain. The original delusional rant If all governments could agree on any single thing at any point in time, it would be an unprecedented moment in history. A "unicorn moonshot" so to speak. If the unicorn moonshot were to manifest as every government suddenly desiring to throw their already digital currencies into complete disarray and chose a technically inferior and non-compliant product in the process, then you can bet your ass they would use BSV for their fiscal policies. At the moment, here is what came up when I googled Central Banks for the first time today. Here's what came up when I googled fractional reserves. I then googled what reconciled means, and after my eyes rolled back in to my head out of sheer inability to digest the information I was reading, I decided BSV was the blockchain to solve all of this because I personally think this thing is an awesome high-school comp sci project. If every central bank suddenly decided to relinquish state control of their monetary policy, and instead decided that the security model of 7 amateur software developers paid by an ex-felon hiding in Antigua who controls the #11 cryptocurrency on coinmarketcap was the answer, we could have the opportunity to use a strictly worse version of our current banking software and IT infrastructure. Instant transactions between bank accounts you own? Screw that, welcome to 10 minute block times! Did you fat finger that bill payment to the wrong sender? Too bad, it's gone forever! Welcome to immutability! It's a feature not a bug! If you extrapolate how bad this is, suddenly taxes would be lower because digital monetary transactions would come to a screeching halt. Can't pay taxes on money you don't have, right? Suck that statists! The world would benefit from one giant economy of scale even though that phrase makes no sense in this context, and in reality is another buzzword I just simply don't have the time to try to understand. I forgot to Google that one I guess. This means prices around the globe would be out of control because we'd have to revert to a primal barter system! My chicken for your box of peaches! The possibilities to fuck over literally the entire world are endless! Additionally, there would now be a high degree of transparency to how poorly BSV scales, since blocks take hours to propagate at 1GB sizes and that would only represent the hourly transactions of a town of 10,000 people, which would inevitably lead everyone to understand what 99.99% (AKA the non-mentally retarded "subset" of the population) already know. In the comments I decided to change potential use cases from the utter nonsense I listed above to a couple different things. https://www.reddit.com/bsv/comments/j9u2jt/a_single_global_economy_of_scale/g8ppeq7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 Here I am demonstrating that I know currency lives in a database today:
The point is that they centrally issue and control their own tokens on the bitcoin network. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this. They already issue tokens on their own network. It’s just a different database.
Here I am 7 comments later saying those databases don't allow for digital cash when I just stated they did.
Your SQL databases don’t really allow for digital cash.
Shit maybe token issuance on BSV won't work time to pivot to:
But bank transfers still take days between Europe and Asia and have high fees precisely because all the banks maintain their own networks.
Think of the possibilities guys. You totally can't do this today, right?
so they can (for example) sell a YouTube video directly to the whole world, for their native national token... on the bitcoin network.
Crap, maybe there are some good points there. At least Bitcoin can push transactions out in seconds despite having a 10 minute block time! And wait until you see the block times if anyone ever does try to send a billion tx in a second!
These hashes cost bitcoin, but you can sell billions of them per second.
What do you mean risks of minority hash rate on BSV? Nobody has ever done a 51% attack and not been arrested! THEY'LL LOSE THEIR MINING EQUIPMENT!
Except that it’s illegal to attack another chain, and it’s public, and traceable and the punishment would be your company loses all its mining equipment.
I'm running out of use cases since they're getting shot down so fast. Here's a good one. Why pay $80 a month for internet in 1 transaction, when you can pay for internet 1.7trillion times every month for every data packet you get?
And the advantage of sending 0.0011p to someone might be that they’re providing a service to you, like a data packet.
But think of all the UnIqUe AnD gReAt FeAtUrEs on BSV. Really cutting edge stuff that SQL Server doesn't have due to being obsolete in the 90s, like the ability to append only instead of modify data elements! Also, watch the blockchain desync if you ever tried 1billion tx/sec!
The network scales to handle billions of TX/sec and the ledger is append only so it matches the criteria for keeping accurate records and/or updating them as needs be.
Time to pivot again since I'm being dismantled at every turn. What haven't I mentioned yet?
you haven’t solved the issue of the US dollar being the worlds default currency on which global trade relies.
Here is me doing my best Craig Wright technobabble nonsense impression. I know this is technically English but the words being strung together make no sense!
Once again you’ve really missed the point of all this. A data commodity that comes about through consensus of the network on ‘what value is’ contains a fraction of every part of the global economy.
Time to revert to some Craig Wright technobabble bullshit again:
Those in charge of producing dollars ultimately have an unfair advantage over those who don’t and they can game the system. That’s a peer to peer internet model where producers get paid directly by consumers for the data they consume and miners get paid according to how fast and how efficiently and how accurately they can deliver the data.
Have I mentioned the fact I don't understand that blockchains are literally distributed databases?
Finally, you can send any kind of data in a bitcoin transaction. Not just fiat currencies issued by a government but audio, video, text, a webpage, etc.
These days, when we think of a proof of work cryptocurrency, we think of miners and people mining it and getting hashes per second etc. Its interesting to note that the term "mining" is sort of a colloquial term that was implemented to help explain what is happening in a proof of work currency. Indeed, the original term in bitcoin was "generating", as can be seen in the original bitcoin client... the command was something like "generate=1". So along the way, it got called mining, and hashes / sec became a thing, because miners are performing hash functions. RandomX is kinda different. A hash is performed on some input data to generate a random program, the program is executed, and then a hash of the program and its output is executed. The hash at the end is done to prove that the work was done. The program in the middle is the bulk of the work. indeed, as hyc has mentioned before, randomx is one of the only (maybe the only) proof of work functions that does computational work that is simply computational, and then uses a cryptographic hash to prove that the work was done. Ultimately, calling it mining is fine. We all know what it means. Everyone else thats already in cryptocurrency knows what it means. But even though its a colloquial term, newcomers to the space kinda... don't get it. They only get it if you say "its like gold mining". Even though that makes no sense whatsoever. I think, in reality, for newcomers, they just hear "its like goldmining" and then just stop there. Maybe eventually they'll figure out how proof of work actually secure the blockchain, maybe they won't. But calling it "mining" definitely doesn't help. So, should we call it something different? Is is "block solving"? Is it "programs per second". Is it "generating computational proof"? Here is a bike shed, lets paint it!
Mining tax proposal could have been a great plan, but orphaning suggestion makes it a disaster
As I said before, the miners run the network and as such they are responsible for the software which runs it. This only makes sense that they fund development. Since it looked for me that they were in agreement to donate the %% of their mining profits to the development fund, I was very happy to see that they came together for a common goal. Until someone pointed this paragraph to me:
To ensure participation and include subsidization from the whole pool of SHA-256 mining, miners will orphan BCH blocks that do not follow the plan. This is needed to avoid a tragedy of the commons.
If that sounds like an abuse, that's because it is:
First off, this is an unprecedented move for "big guys" to bully minority. Completely in poor taste too. If it looks like a gang taking over blockchain, that's because it is.
If the development tax is mandatory, then as rightfully pointed out before, why does an entity controlled by specific people receive the funds? Who they report to? What's their responsibilities are? Who oversees that entity? If they embezzle the funds, who goes to jail? I don't think this was well thought through. Forcing every miner fund the entity they didn't choose is dictatorship.
Lets imagine, plan succeeds. What next? It would demonstrate that miners could successfully come into collusion to 50% attack the network. That means network is no longer bitcoin as per Satoshi's whitepaper. The vision behind the bitcoin was that 50% attack is not easily attainable, in out case 50% attack becomes a commonplace.
What happens when a government entity takes notice that miners can work together to fuck up the network? For example, what prevents SEC from requiring that protocol is altered to undo the transactions they deem illegal, or what if a court mandates that certain funds must be moved despite no private key? All of this becomes now possible because the miners provably have majority, organizations responsible for development and mining are clearly identified, and easy to find.
So, this plan allows for gaining a little more funds by making an unethical move. Sure there will be more BCH collected, but how much that BCH will cost once the price plummets? And plummet it will because who wants to use the tainted blockchain.
That would be a disaster. BCH community must take a stand that 50% attack is NEVER EVER EVER acceptable. All of that is also aggravated by the fact that the 50% attack is completely unnecessary. If majority of the miners are already on board with the plan, what prevents them from executing it without 50% attack, and make the fund a voluntary thing? There will be a little less funds, so what. If more that 50% hash rate is already secured for that plan, then at minimum half of the funds would still be available. And all of that would be done without any dick moves.
This sub is a mess and needs to get out of the anger stage: How to move forward from the crash if you're a bagholder
Back in December 2017 I did a valuation attempt of Bitcoin on this sub and got around 5K with some grossly optimistic assumptions. Its taken a long time but finally gone down below that. You've probably heard many people tell you it would eventually happen back in December 2017 and to reduce expose to crypto (including me), but when you're hyped up on 20% gains every week its hard to be cautious or engage in defensive measures. To many the last quarter of 2017 and into early 2018 was like a beach party with coke and Victoria Secret models. Who wants to listen to someone tell you about how you're gonna crash hard with a headache the next morning? With this latest crash, Bitcoin's price is back to roughly mid October 2017, which is roughly when the mainstream mania started. Many on this sub entered after October 2017 and hence are now left holding heavy bags. Many are down 80% or even 90%. Here is the current losses from ATH for the top cryptos:
Loss from ATH
Who do we blame?
At a time like this its easy to get angry, to look at someone to blame. Whether Roger Ver and the hash wars, whether BAAKT delay, whether whales or SEC or institutions, everyone has their favorite boogeyman. No one thing is the reason why the market is down 80%. The reality is that Bitcoin (and all other crypto by extension) was ovevalued even by grossly overoptimistic measures. Its not BAKKT or the whales trying to get your coins for cheap. The same people who were buying at near peak bubble thinking they were getting into the chance of a lifetime are prone to look for someone to blame for their losses, when it was actually their fault for buying near the end of a mania. Nobody wants to admit that it was their own greed, lack of research and irrational behavior that lead to the gross overvaluation of all cryptocurrency.
Is it over yet?
The $6K consolidation was likely a result of the market coiling tighter and tighter around the mining breakeven point for some of the smaller miners. The big firms in China are profitable mining below 6K, but many smaller ones in the US and Europe aren't. You can actually see the total hash rate going down. Once it broke it was a big fall straight down. Bitcoin is mined at 12.5 BTC. per block at 10 minute blocks, which comes out to around 1800 BTC every day. This 1800 BTC has to be absorbed by every day, which means the following at different price levels:
Daily net buying needed to absorb mined coins
At the current price, at least theoretically $8.4 million in demand is needed to cover the mining output. Of course the miners don't immediately dump it all, but it shows why miners have an incentive to keep the price high and try to incite FOMO with a BGD. I can also see that after this latest drop, the "buy the dip" sentiment had substantially gone down, at least compared to the other fast drops in price. This is especially discouraging those who were waiting for the "November bull run", which never came. Its clear to more people now that this probably isn't just downward correction that will reverse, but a multiyear bear market. This is why the bounce has been so weak compared to earlier in the year. Compare that to the last two big 2 day drops:
March 29 - April 1st (drop from 8K to 6K): Within 2 days it bounced back up to 7.5K
June 22-24 (drop from 6.8K to 5.8K): Within 2 days it bounced back to 6.3K
The weakness of this current bounce says it all, people are no longer optimistic that BAKKT or ETF or any other catalyst will lead to a bull run that they can cash out quick. It may be a period of stagnation followed by further drops as big holders take profits. I also think that the FED tightening with rate hikes is leading to a lot more volatility not only in stocks, but crypto as well. Right now asset deflation seems to be a global macro risk as cheap credit dries up, and Bitcoin surely isn't immune from this. My personal view is that at this point we may see further declines, but calling what's going to happen next is always dangerous. A whale (especially a big mining operation) with a series of large orders to clear out the order book on Bitfinex could give us a BGD out of nowhere at any time and take us back to 6K, it would be interesting to see how the market reacts to something like that. But I'm not betting on it leading to any sustained rally past 10K. Quite the opposite. So what's a crypto shrimp to do? I'll split my thoughts into two, for those who are still in the green and those in the loss.
If you're still in the green
If you're still in profit, this is a great time to consider how much more downward selling you can take and also how you can hedge downward risk. If you're someone who purchased when Bitcoin was below $1000, you should calculate your compounded annual ROI and decide if that return is good enough for you. For equities, the long term average is about 10% per year, 20-30% in a good bull market. Its your decision, but taking out profits that exceed principal and reinvesting the principal is not at all a bad idea. For those who invested before Bitcoin reached $1K (April 2017) the current price is still an insane return that no other asset class can match. Another important thing is to think about how you can hedge the risk of downward movement. This is where derivative exchanges are very useful, although you do need to do some research on how derivatives work and how to not get liquidated. If you have substantial holdings, the effort to learn this is worth it. The basic idea is that you can buy short contracts that increase in value as Bitcoin goes down, proportional to the amount of leverage you put to finance the contract. If managed correctly, you can protect your entire stack with a portion as leverage. Its something commonly done by miners, who short Bitcoin with derivatives to hedge their holdings.
If you're in the loss
The untold reality is that HODL is a meme told to newbies to prevent panic selling during a downturn while the smart money cashes out in a more orderly fashion. But does that mean you shouldn't hold if you're already down massively? Well that depends on your own life situation, how much you've invested, and if you don't need the money for the next few years. Mathematically, whether it drops to 4.5K or 3K from the reference of 6K is highly meaningful, its a drop of 25% or 50%. But if your reference starting point is much higher, then it really doesn't matter all that much. A drop from 17K to 4.5K is a 74% loss while down to 3K it would be 82%, massive losses either way. In that sense if this is money you don't need, it makes sense to simply have it stored in a wallet and forget about it for a few years. Who cares if it drops further after a certain point if you don't plan to take it out for a while? Its like in equities markets where people with massive losses don't sell, but instead move the loss position into their retirement fund where they don't plan to take it out for a long time and thus are giving it time to rebound back. But what if its money you need? What if like many out there you took out loans hoping to catch a run to 50K? If you have high interest debt (credit cards...etc), focus on paying that down first. Credit cards generally have high interest and many compound daily, so pay down the debt first rather than trying to pay your debts off with a crypto bull run that may take years to materialize. This is also a good learning opportunity. It is worrying how few people who hold crypto have a clue what any of this even is or how it works. I've always recommended this video to explain how Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) actually work. A good thing to do during catastrophic losses is to honestly access why you got suckered into buying high in the first place. Most people here are young, and this is a valuable lesson in why you shouldn't follow the herd. Everyone is a genius in a bull market, everyone is chasing the next hype. Crypto tends to attract people looking for a get-rich-quick-without-effort crowd, but it takes some mental effort to understand this beyond the buzzwords. Take the time to understand the fundamental reasons why an asset has value and what factors would drive its rise once the hype dies down. What makes Bitcoin valuable, what makes some of the other cryptoassets valuable? If those fundamentals in some way changes, so should your opinion. Its also a great opportunity to help in its adoption by using it. The irony of it all is that people demand that they get rich because of the hard work of buying a bunch of crypto in an exchange and transferring it to their wallet, without any understanding what they're buying into. Also don't be angry. Don't look to blame. Look to learn and improve next time you invest.
Burstcoin (BURST): A Dark Horse That Could Become A Major Cryptocurrency, The King of Proof of Capacity
https://preview.redd.it/nt1qbc9cq4221.png?width=572&format=png&auto=webp&s=d867a4c98e7ab7e9c37c7dc23cc7fb251a5ecec7 https://cryptoiq.co/burstcoin-burst-a-dark-horse-that-could-become-a-major-cryptocurrency-the-king-of-proof-of-capacity/ Currently the cryptocurrency space is flooded with copycat coins and initial coin offering (ICO) tokens, most of which are moving steadily down the ranks on CoinMarketCap as the bear market of 2018 continues. This bear market is weeding out cryptocurrencies that have little long term potential, and cryptocurrencies that have strong communities and unique technology are rising to the top. Burstcoin (BURST) is one such cryptocurrency that is rising to the top, like cream in a glass of fresh milk. This is because the Burstcoin community is filled with diehard Cypherpunks, and BURST is the king of Proof of Capacity. Back in the middle of October 2018 BURST was at #248 on CoinMarketCap, which was before the ‘nuclear’ bear market took effect, where the support level was broken due to the Bitcoin Cash hard fork, Bakkt delaying the launch of physical Bitcoin futures, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiating its first civil enforcement penalties against ICOs. BURST has decreased in price like every other cryptocurrency, but is rising relative to other cryptocurrencies, and as of 3 December 2018 sits at #199 on CoinMarketCap with a market cap of USD 13.5 million. This increase in the price of BURST relative to other cryptocurrencies is due to Burstcoin’s unique technology. Burstcoin is the king of Proof of Capacity, a mining algorithm that uses the hard drive, versus raw computational power like with Proof of Work, and is much more energy efficient than Proof of Work. Proof of Capacity works by writing cryptographic hashes to an allotted segment of a hard drive called a plot. This plot is then read during mining to find the correct cryptographic hash, and whoever finds the cryptographic hash the fastest receives the block reward. More hard drive space dedicated to the plot equals more cryptographic hashes available, making it easier to find an answer and earn the BURST block reward. Currently 1TB generates 1-2 BURST per day, and even though this is only equivalent to about a penny, it is all profit since reading the plot file requires a negligible amount of energy, and BURST miners can use their computer for other activities without impediment. Compare this to Proof of Work, which slows down personal computers and costs more electricity than the cryptocurrency it mines. BURST is one of the only cryptocurrencies that can be profitably mined on personal computers. Further, unlike with Proof of Work where specialized mining equipment is required like application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), anyone with a computer or even mobile phone can mine BURST, and if they decide to stop mining BURST they can simply delete their plot file and use the hard drive space for other things. This is unlike ASICs, which cannot be used for anything but mining, so if someone decides to stop mining they lose all the money invested into the ASIC. The ease of mining and negligible energy usage has led to the formation of a strong BURST mining community, with over 200,000 TB securing the BURST network. This is equivalent to hundreds of thousands of personal computers. The expansive mining community gives BURST value, and some of these miners are blockchain developers, and they have been building a full suite of technology based on the Burstcoin blockchain. CloudBurst immutably stores files directly on the Burstcoin blockchain, for a small 1-time fee. Real blockchain storage is a rarity in the cryptocurrency world. The file will be stored as long as the Burstcoin blockchain exists, which is the foreseeable future and beyond considering the expansive BURST mining community. Cloudburst would be useful if you lost your computer and all of your backups in a natural disaster like a hurricane, and is a more secure solution than cloud storage like Google. Also, the Burstcoin wallet can be used to easily issue cryptocurrencies that are based off of the Burstcoin blockchain, and there is a decentralized exchange built-in to the wallet to trade these crypto assets. Cryptocurrency scalability is a problem even for major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, but Burstcoin has tackled and solved this problem with the launch of the Dymaxion. The scalability of the Dymaxion is so powerful that it can handle all the non-cash transactions in the world. This is done via the utilization of tangle-based lightning networks on top of the Burstcoin blockchain. Transactions done via the Dymaxion are instant, with no fees and practically no energy expenditure. The Dymaxion gives Burstcoin the room to grow as much as it needs to. When people look for the cryptocurrencies that will survive long term, it can be confusing due to the 2,000+ cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap. However, it is clear that cryptocurrencies with truly unique and useful technology, as well as strong communities will always be around and gain value long term relative to all the ICOs and copycats. Bitcoin is the king of SHA-256, Litecoin is the king of Scrypt, Ethereum is the king of blockchain-based dApps, Dogecoin is the king of the shibes on Reddit, Dash is the King of X11, Monero is the king of privacy coins, IOTA is the king of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), and Burstcoin is the king of Proof of Capacity. These kings of cryptocurrency will definitely be the winners and survivors when the fallout from the ICO apocalypse is over. This is for educational purposes only and is not investment advice. We are not paid by BURST to write this article.
Burstcoin: A Diamond In The Rough That Will Prosper Long Term
https://preview.redd.it/jbn4w5oaut021.png?width=1380&format=png&auto=webp&s=05048e92518ac6c2ba88cb0a4a91165528671104 http://genesisblocknews.com/burstcoin-a-diamond-in-the-rough-that-will-prosper-long-term/ There are currently 2,074 cryptocurrencies on CoinMarketCap, most of which are copycats, driven by pure ICO greed, or just shitcoins in general. As the napalm of SEC enforcement and investor capitulation burns through the crypto space, most of the cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap will probably be decimated and relegated to the history books. Burstcoin (BURST) sits way back at #223 on CoinMarketCap, with its market cap near USD 10 million, but it is a diamond in the rough. BURST is truly decentralized, launched with zero ICO nor premine, and uses the unique Proof of Capacity mining algorithm. Therefore, GenesisBlockNews believes BURST will easily survive this ongoing crypto armageddon, and will prosper long term. I first wrote about BURST for BitcoinNews, when I interviewed Burstcoin developer Daniel Jones. You can listen to the interview with Daniel about Burstcoin at this link. At that time BURST was at #248 on CoinMarketCap, and that was during the stable period before this nuclear bear market started. BURST has crawled 25 places up the CoinMarketCap ranks since then, during the worst crypto market conditions in recent memory, showing its grit. This is due to the merits of BURST. BURST uses Proof of Capacity mining, where mining is done with hard drives instead of raw computational power like with Proof of Work. A 1-time hashing cycle is done, which is called plotting, which fills the hard drive with a tremendous amount of cryptographic hashes and proves the capacity of the hard drive. This plot is read during mining to find the correct cryptographic hash, and whoever finds the answer the quickest in their plot gets the block reward. More hard drive space equals more answers, and therefore more hard drive space increases BURST profits when mining. On average every 4 minutes a block is found, and the block reward is around 750 and decreasing at the rate of 5% per month. The block reward started at 10,000 when BURST launched in 2014, and when mining is done there will be 2.158 billion BURST total. Proof of Capacity mining uses practically no electricity, making BURST one of the only profitable cryptocurrencies to mine on personal computers. Even if BURST mining only earns about 1-2 BURST per day on a 1 TB hard drive, that is pure profit, versus mining Bitcoin, Litecoin, or Dogecoin, where energy expenses far outweigh mining revenue when using a personal computer. Since any computer can mine BURST, as long as it has hard drive space, the BURST network is highly decentralized. Currently there is an astonishing 300,000 TB, which is 300 PB, securing the BURST network. That’s equivalent to the hard drive space of hundreds of thousands of personal computers. Beyond the merits of being decentralized, having a unique algorithm, being profitable for mining and easy to use on personal computers, and having zero premine, the BURST development community is comprised of some of the best blockchain developers. BURST has direct on-chain storage via Cloudburst, which has the ability to immutably store files. As long as BURST exists, files stored with Cloudburst will never be deleted. BURST has built-in smart contract technology that can be used to launch any sort of dApp that one can imagine, and an exchange integrated into the BURST wallet to launch and trade crypto assets. Also, BURST seems to have solved the cryptocurrency scalability problem with The Dymaxion, which is layers of tangle-based Lightning Networks. This allows for infinite transactions at zero fees, while using practically zero energy. GenesisBlockNews believes BURST will emerge as a survivor no matter how many cryptocurrencies crash and burn during this nuclear bear market. Due to its merits and attributes, BURST is in a strong position to become a major cryptocurrency in the long term, and seems to be ridiculously under priced at the current value of half a cent per BURST.
Technical Cryptonight Discussion: What about low-latency RAM (RLDRAM 3, QDR-IV, or HMC) + ASICs?
The Cryptonight algorithm is described as ASIC resistant, in particular because of one feature:
A megabyte of internal memory is almost unacceptable for the modern ASICs.
EDIT: Each instance of Cryptonight requires 2MB of RAM. Therefore, any Cryptonight multi-processor is required to have 2MB per instance. Since CPUs are incredibly well loaded with RAM (ie: 32MB L3 on Threadripper, 16 L3 on Ryzen, and plenty of L2+L3 on Skylake Servers), it seems unlikely that ASICs would be able to compete well vs CPUs. In fact, a large number of people seem to be incredibly confident in Cryptonight's ASIC resistance. And indeed, anyone who knows how standard DDR4 works knows that DDR4 is unacceptable for Cryptonight. GDDR5 similarly doesn't look like a very good technology for Cryptonight, focusing on high-bandwidth instead of latency. Which suggests only an ASIC RAM would be able to handle the 2MB that Cryptonight uses. Solid argument, but it seems to be missing a critical point of analysis from my eyes. What about "exotic" RAM, like RLDRAM3 ?? Or even QDR-IV?
QDR-IV SRAM is absurdly expensive. However, its a good example of "exotic RAM" that is available on the marketplace. I'm focusing on it however because QDR-IV is really simple to describe. QDR-IV costs roughly $290 for 16Mbit x 18 bits. It is true Static-RAM. 18-bits are for 8-bits per byte + 1 parity bit, because QDR-IV is usually designed for high-speed routers. QDR-IV has none of the speed or latency issues with DDR4 RAM. There are no "banks", there are no "refreshes", there are no "obliterate the data as you load into sense amplifiers". There's no "auto-charge" as you load the data from the sense-amps back into the capacitors. Anything that could have caused latency issues is gone. QDR-IV is about as fast as you can get latency-wise. Every clock cycle, you specify an address, and QDR-IV will generate a response every clock cycle. In fact, QDR means "quad data rate" as the SRAM generates 2-reads and 2-writes per clock cycle. There is a slight amount of latency: 8-clock cycles for reads (7.5nanoseconds), and 5-clock cycles for writes (4.6nanoseconds). For those keeping track at home: AMD Zen's L3 cache has a latency of 40 clocks: aka 10nanoseconds at 4GHz Basically, QDR-IV BEATS the L3 latency of modern CPUs. And we haven't even begun to talk software or ASIC optimizations yet.
CPU inefficiencies for Cryptonight
Now, if that weren't bad enough... CPUs have a few problems with the Cryptonight algorithm.
AMD Zen and Intel Skylake CPUs transfer from L3 -> L2 -> L1 cache. Each of these transfers are in 64-byte chunks. Cryptonight only uses 16 of these bytes. This means that 75% of L3 cache bandwidth is wasted on 48-bytes that would never be used per inner-loop of Cryptonight. An ASIC would transfer only 16-bytes at a time, instantly increasing the RAM's speed by 4-fold.
AES-NI instructions on Ryzen / Threadripper can only be done one-per-core. This means a 16-core Threadripper can at most perform 16 AES encryptions per clock tick. An ASIC can perform as many as you'd like, up to the speed of the RAM.
CPUs waste a ton of energy: there's L1 and L2 caches which do NOTHING in Cryptonight. There are floating-point units, memory controllers, and more. An ASIC which strips things out to only the bare necessities (basically: AES for Cryptonight core) would be way more power efficient, even at ancient 65nm or 90nm designs.
QDR-IV and RLDRAM3 still have latency involved. Assuming 8-clocks of latency, the naive access pattern would be:
This isn't very efficient: the RAM sits around waiting. Even with "latency reduced" RAM, you can see that the RAM still isn't doing very much. In fact, this is why people thought Cryptonight was safe against ASICs. But what if we instead ran four instances in parallel? That way, there is always data flowing.
Cryptonight #1 Read
Cryptonight #2 Read
Cryptonight #3 Read
Cryptonight #4 Read
Cryptonight #1 Write
Cryptonight #2 Write
Cryptonight #3 Write
Cryptonight #4 Write
Cryptonight #1 Read #2
Cryptonight #2 Read #2
Cryptonight #3 Read #2
Cryptonight #4 Read #2
Cryptonight #1 Write #2
Cryptonight #2 Write #2
Cryptonight #3 Write #2
Cryptonight #4 Write #2
Notice: we're doing 4x the Cryptonight in the same amount of time. Now imagine if the stalls were COMPLETELY gone. DDR4 CANNOT do this. And that's why most people thought ASICs were impossible for Cryptonight. Unfortunately, RLDRAM3 and QDR-IV can accomplish this kind of pipelining. In fact, that's what they were designed for.
As good as QDR-IV RAM is, its way too expensive. RLDRAM3 is almost as fast, but is way more complicated to use and describe. Due to the lower cost of RLDRAM3 however, I'd assume any ASIC for CryptoNight would use RLDRAM3 instead of the simpler QDR-IV. RLDRAM3 32Mbit x36 bits costs $180 at quantities == 1, and would support up to 64-Parallel Cryptonight instances (In contrast, a $800 AMD 1950x Threadripper supports 16 at the best). Such a design would basically operate at the maximum speed of RLDRAM3. In the case of x36-bit bus and 2133MT/s, we're talking about 2133 / (Burst Length4 x 4 read/writes x 524288 inner loop) == 254 Full Cryptonight Hashes per Second. 254 Hashes per second sounds low, and it is. But we're talking about literally a two-chip design here. 1-chip for RAM, 1-chip for the ASIC/AES stuff. Such a design would consume no more than 5 Watts. If you were to replicate the ~5W design 60-times, you'd get 15240 Hash/second at 300 Watts.
Depending on cost calculations, going cheaper and "making more" might be a better idea. RLDRAM2 is widely available at only $32 per chip at 800 MT/s. Such a design would theoretically support 800 / 4x4x524288 == 95 Cryptonight Hashes per second. The scary part: The RLDRAM2 chip there only uses 1W of power. Together, you get 5 Watts again as a reasonable power-estimate. x60 would be 5700 Hashes/second at 300 Watts. Here's Micron's whitepaper on RLDRAM2: https://www.micron.com/~/media/documents/products/technical-note/dram/tn4902.pdf . RLDRAM3 is the same but denser, faster, and more power efficient.
Hybrid Cube Memory
Hybrid Cube Memory is "stacked RAM" designed for low latency. As far as I can tell, Hybrid Cube memory allows an insane amount of parallelism and pipelining. It'd be the future of an ASIC Cryptonight design. The existence of Hybrid Cube Memory is more about "Generation 2" or later. In effect, it demonstrates that future designs can be lower-power and give higher-speed.
The overall board design would be the ASIC, which would be a simple pipelined AES ASIC that talks with RLDRAM3 ($180) or RLDRAM2 ($30). Its hard for me to estimate an ASIC's cost without the right tools or design. But a multi-project wafer like MOSIS offers "cheap" access to 14nm and 22nm nodes. Rumor is that this is roughly $100k per run for ~40 dies, suitable for research-and-development. Mass production would require further investments, but mass production at the ~65nm node is rumored to be in the single-digit $$millions or maybe even just 6-figures or so. So realistically speaking: it'd take ~$10 Million investment + a talented engineer (or team of engineers) who are familiar with RLDRAM3, PCIe 3.0, ASIC design, AES, and Cryptonight to build an ASIC.
Current CPUs waste 75% of L3 bandwidth because they transfer 64-bytes per cache-line, but only use 16-bytes per inner-loop of CryptoNight.
Low-latency RAM exists for only $200 for ~128MB (aka: 64-parallel instances of 2MB Cryptonight). Such RAM has an estimated speed of 254 Hash/second (RLDRAM 3) or 95 Hash/second (Cheaper and older RLDRAM 2)
ASICs are therefore not going to be capital friendly: between the higher costs, the ASIC investment, and the literally millions of dollars needed for mass production, this would be a project that costs a lot more than a CPU per-unit per hash/sec.
HOWEVER, a Cryptonight ASIC seems possible. Furthermore, such a design would be grossly more power-efficient than any CPU. Though the capital investment is high, the rewards of mass-production and scalability are also high. Data-centers are power-limited, so any Cryptonight ASIC would be orders of magnitude lower-power than a CPU / GPU.
EDIT: Greater discussion throughout today has led me to napkin-math an FPGA + RLDRAM3 option. I estimated roughly ~$5000 (+/- 30%, its a very crude estimate) for a machine that performs ~3500 Hashes / second, on an unknown number of Watts (Maybe 75Watts?). $2000 FPGA, $2400 RLDRAM3, $600 on PCBs, misc chips, assembly, etc. etc. A more serious effort may use Hybrid Cube Memory to achieve much higher FPGA-based Hashrates. My current guess is that this is an overestimate on the cost, so -30% if you can achieve some bulk discounts + optimize the hypothetical design and manage to accomplish the design on cheaper hardware.
"the most important source of miner revenue, the block subsidy, will have to be replaced by an entirely new source of revenue"
Indeed, and it is miner revenue that plays the critical role in bitcoin's security. Work on this topic tends to come in two flavors. Flavor 1 is full of mathematical splendor built upon assumptions that are too simplistic to make realistic predictions (e.g., assuming an arbitrary amount of hash power can be easily rented and thus predicting that double-spends should be occurring all the time [yet they rarely do]). Flavor 2 is better grounded in empirical fact but often limited to qualitative reasoning alone. This paper has the best features of both: it succeeds in incorporating the most-important real-world factors but in a way that still results in a rigorous model that permits quantitative reasoning about the system's security properties. Key to the model is the concept of miner-extractable value (MEV). This is the total value that a miner can extract by "not mining honestly" as it were (e.g., reorging the chain or other shenanigans permitted by the protocol). If the MEV is big enough, then a miner can earn more profit by attacking than by mining honestly. The paper is unique by incorporating the term p(postAttackPrice) in the model. If p(postAttackPrice) = 95%, it means the price of a bitcoin fell to 95% of its pre-attack price as a direct result of the attack. Interestingly, in the authors' model, only MEV and the miners' revenue are discounted by this term. The miners' cost remains fixed, as these costs are tied to consuming real-world resources like electricity and transistors. This means the expected value of the attack becomes negative very quickly with even small changes in postAttackPrice. (Aside: Does this highlight an important difference between proof-of-work (PoW) and proof-of-stake (PoS)? In a proof-of-stake system, the costs are denominated in the same "units" as the rewards, since there is no tether to the physical world via mining. And so the terms in the equations related to the miners' costs might scale with p(postAttackPrice) too, thereby weakening the security model compared to PoW.) The authors' then describe how, based on their research, ~50% of the cost of mining is due to fixed infrastructure costs (a term in their model called "commitment") rather marginal costs. Since a decrease in postAttackPrice applies over the entire lifetime of this infrastructure, even a slight decrease can impose a big cost on the miner, making dishonest mining unprofitable if detected. (Aside: although the authors consider the security of confirmed transactions in their model, the arguments related to the infrastructure commitment and postAttackPrice apply similarly to miner-assisted fraud for unconfirmed transactions. Proposals such as subchains, STORM and double-spend proofs that bring visibility to miner shenanigans thus increase unconfirmed transaction security by providing the market with the information it needs to react (e.g., to drive down postAttackPrice)). Finally, the authors include a term in their model that reflects the fact that the users could temporarily suspend Nakamoto consensus and fork to a different chain where the miners' infrastructure commitment has no value. This isn't new (it's often called the "nuclear option") but it's also incorporated into their quantitative model. In terms of solutions moving forward, the authors talk about constraining the amount of block space produced to derive maximal transaction fee revenue from the users. This is a topic explored in depth by Nicola Dimitri in a recent peer-reviewed paper from the spring of 2019 that the authors may not be aware of: https://ledgerjournal.org/ojs/index.php/ledgearticle/view/145/153 The authors also discuss the controversial option of ceasing the reward halvings in the future in order to maintain sufficient miner revenue for security. I agree this is a discussion we need to have. The point driven home by the authors is that, whether through transaction fees or inflation, security must be paid for somehow. And it's not yet clear what methods provide the best value for the network as a whole. I do find it odd -- and a testament to how religious the cryptocurrency space is -- that the authors were brave enough to discuss increasing bitcoin's inflation head on, yet only skirted around the taboo topic of increasing the block size limit. It is very easy to see that by scaling bitcoin on-chain, for example to 50,000 tx/sec each paying $0.02 in transaction fees, would result in $1000 per second of miner revenue even without any subsidy -- 5 times more than the ~$200 per second the miners earn today. If bitcoin (BTC) discourse is actually at the point where an increase in the inflation schedule is on the table while an increase in the block size limit remains off the table, then BTC is doomed. Ironically, the authors discuss that one way to erode confidence in the system is by limiting transaction throughput:
"one way to achieve this [erode user trust in the system] would be to establish a mining monopoly and stop processing any transaction at all"
which, depending on the lens through which one is looking, is nearly the situation BTC finds itself in today. Overall I think this was a really well written paper that both bitcoin newbies and veterans will enjoy.
Clearing up some misconceptions (including my own) [WARNING: LONG, MATH]
I've been reviewing NAV's code for the past couple months in my spare time and have seen a few things pass for granted which I had assumed were edicts from the NAV team, but as it turns out, they were not. I'll just cover them in sections below. This is going to get long, and hopefully you like math. I'm sorry, in advance.
Coins do not gain weight with age
tldr; section title This is the big one, and the reason I wanted to review NAV's code in the first place. I had been treating this unofficial medium article like it was the bible, and it mentions that coins are weighted with age and size. No other documentation I could find indicated any differently (honestly, there's not really other documentation, in the first place) and so, having not finished looking into the code, I presumed that was simply true. It is not, however. I'm not even sure where this idea came from, besides that article, because no NAV team announcements I've seen have said this, but maybe I'm just not looking back far enough.
So how DOES it work?
tldr; values are hashed together and compared against a target. That target is adjusted based only on how many NAV are staking For those who haven't looked into how NAV picks the next group of staking coins (like I hadn't), the way it works is that a bunch of publicly available values (such as the time of the block you want to make, the time and hash of the transaction that represents your coinstake, and a few others) are hashed twice through SHA256 to create a random number. The actual values input are less important, what is important for NAV's purposes is that they are available to everyone, reasonably unique, and can be verified by other nodes on the blockchain. The output is, mathematically speaking, reproducible, but also completely random. This value is then checked against a target value that changes based on how fast the network is making blocks. If the network is making blocks around once every three seconds? The target value gets harder (smaller). If the network is making blocks around once every minute? The target value gets easier (larger). The target value just gets adjusted until the network is sitting comfortably at 30 second blocks. So far this is the same way Bitcoin keeps their block time consistent. However, PoS currencies then usually make an adjustment to that target value to increase your chances to win. In NAV's case, they multiply the target value by the number of coins you are staking. This means that a group of 1000 coins is 1000 times more likely to stake than a group of 1 coin. To use more accessible numbers, since the values NAV is using are huge, this would be like saying the base odds are that you have to roll a 2 or below on a 100-sided die to win the coinstake. For one roll, you have a 2% chance. For two rolls, you have a 3.95% chance, for three rolls you have a 5.88% chance, for ten you have a 18.29% chance. For n rolls, a 1 - (98^n)/(100^n) chance. To simplify this somewhat, and encourage larger groups, NAV simply says that if you have 10 coins, your chances are 10 * 2%, or 20%. It's a bit more, but it's close. It's worth noting that, using this system, if you have 50 coins, you have a 100% chance to win every roll, whereas pure single-roll odds only give you a 63.58% chance. The reason this isn't really a problem is that, in this example, there would only be 50 coins in existence, and you probably don't even have access to half of them. Additionally, if you are winning too quickly, NAV will start handing you a 200 sided die, then a 400 sided die, until you are only winning one in 30 -- and this is assuming you're the only one playing. With a table of people, you will get a larger die until only one of you is winning one roll in 30.
tldr; if coins gained weight with age it might be an actual security concern. This way is not The problem with Proof of Stake Age (PoSA) is that, if implemented poorly, it can create opportunities for very cheap attacks. You may have heard of a 51% attack (or majority attack) before. This is where any single entity in the Bitcoin network gains more than 50% of the hashing power. At 51% the chances of them mounting a successful network control attack are now greater than half, which presents a potential danger to the network.
tldr; you need lots of fancy computers that you get to keep after You need a lot of hashing power, which means a lot of computers, which means a lot of financial capital. Or, you need to combine with another organization or pool to combine your hashing power. This was actually a concern once in Bitcoin, but fortunately was resolved to no ill-effect, and ghash.io agreed to cut down their processing. In a PoW system, however, after you have executed your attack, you still have all of your computers, and can use them for something else. The financial capital you have invested is kept, and you never had to invest a single penny into the coin.
tldr; you need lots of coins that you probably spent a lot of money on, which are probably worth very little after In PoS currencies, a 51% attack is still possible, but in this case you would need to have more than half of the staking coins. As of a few days ago, the network weight was hovering around ~18-22 million NAV, so for NAV, you would need ~10-12 million coins to have the requisite 51% of coins. The base assumption for a PoS currency, however, is that, once you have that many coins, you're pretty invested in the network, and it is directly detrimental to you to attempt to attack it. When you execute your attack, you will likely greatly damage trust in the coin, and lose a large portion of your investment. At least, this is the theory.
tldr; you need a little bit of money and a lot of time You just need to wait. The most simplistic form of PoSA is in the form: adjusted_target = coins * time * base_target. If left uncapped, the time adjustment can allow a single coin stake to outweigh the entire network. Even with a cap of three months (for a total of 7776000 age-weight), you could use a mere 797 individual 0.01 NAV stakes (7.97 NAV total) to outweigh the combined base weight of all 62 million NAV in existence. You want good actors to have the most weight on the network, but in a PoSA currency, good actors are constantly losing their weight when their time resets, whereas bad actors can get more weight for doing nothing.
tldr; you need a little bit of money and to somehow create a bunch of coins with the same hashing window There are some currencies, such as VeriCoin, which have attempted to address this in novel ways, using what they call Proof of Stake Time. They create an ideal window during which your coins gain weight, but after which they return to base levels. This should theoretically encourage people to keep a server running, so they can always catch that window when it happens, which is partially randomized (to prevent someone from simply making a bunch of 0.01 coinstakes at the same time and just waiting for the window). I'm not sure how battle-tested this is, and I can think of a few potential vectors for attack that might exist, depending on implementation, but it does present an interesting and promising approach to the problem of how to encourage everyone on the network to participate, instead of just large stake holders with good odds.
So how likely is it for me to actually get a stake with ___ NAV
tldr; at current network weights it's likely that 1000 NAV will stake around once a week, and 1 NAV will stake once every 17 years. Since NAV is neither PoSA nor PoST (which I would stress isn't a bad thing, because pure PoS is comparatively simple and has known -- and addressed -- vectors of attack. It's also not necessarily a good thing; it's mostly just a thing), you're basically just as likely to stake today as you are tomorrow. Theoretically, every second should present a new opportunity to win a stake, but in practice this ends up not quite working out because there are other people on the network. Every time you accept a new block, you cut off all of the seconds before it forever. In practice, it's probably easiest to just look at the total weight of the network, and your weight, and extrapolate from there. We'll take for granted that NAV will have 30 second block times for this calculation. If you've got Python you can follow along:
>>> # 2 blocks/min * 60 min/hr * 24 hday * 365 days/year ... TOTAL_STAKES_IN_YEAR = 1051200 >>> # 60 sec/min * 60 min/hr * 24 hday * 365 day/yr ... SECONDS_IN_YEAR = 31536000 >>> # the number of coins you are staking ... stake = 1.0 >>> # The total number of coins on the network ... network_weight = 18701284.96584108 >>> my_stakes_per_year = (stake / network_weight) * TOTAL_STAKES_IN_YEAR 0.05621004128433283 >>> seconds_between_stakes = SECONDS_IN_YEAR / my_stakes_per_year 561038548.9752324
For those keeping track, this means that a 1 NAV stake is expected to take approximately 17.79 years to see a return in the current network (and, even then, only if you happen to be online at exactly the right time and nobody else stakes it first). Coincidentally, this is where that "expected time to stake" number comes from, which I've seen people asking about. I didn't actually look that one up in the code, so I'm not sure how their exact equation differs from mine, but I arrived at the exact same numbers they did, so it's likely similar (and probably more concise, because I am both a verbose writer and programmer, if you hadn't noticed). A 1000 NAV stake, using what I am calling network math for ease of reference, is expected to take around 6.49 days. My suspicion is that the reason this is sometimes more sporadic is that going by the target alone, and testing every second, a 1000 NAV stake should be getting a hit around once every 8 hours. I generated a file of 31536000 hashes (one for each second in the year), using the rules NAV uses to create hashes, and came up with the following table.:
*Assumes a target of 0x1a183258. I forget which block I pulled this from, but it's still around there. This unpacks to a value of: 0x0000000000001832580000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Calc wins : Mathematical calculation for how many hashes you should win, given the target Hash wins : This was pulled from the file with a year's worth of random hashes. N-M Wins : The number of wins network math says you should get Hash time : The average time between wins in the randomized file for the given NAV amount N-M time : The amount of time network math says you should wait between wins NAV : Calc wins : Hash wins : N-M wins : Hash time : N-M time 1 : 1.05 : 1 : 0.05 : ~1 year : 17.79 years 5 : 5.29 : 7 : 0.28 : 41.66 days : 3.56 years 10 : 10.59 : 10 : 0.56 : 34.27 days : 1.78 years 50 : 52.95 : 44 : 2.81 : 7.49 days : 129.87 days 100 : 105.89 : 107 : 5.62 : 3.42 days : 64.94 days 200 : 211.79 : 212 : 11.24 : 41.24 hours : 32.47 days 500 : 529.48 : 532 : 28.11 : 16.39 hours : 12.99 days 1000 : 1058.97 : 1050 : 56.21 : 8.33 hours : 6.49 days 2000 : 2117.93 : 2109 : 112.42 : 4.15 hours : 3.25 days 5000 : 5294.83 : 5326 : 281.05 : 98.62 minutes : 1.30 days 1000000 : 1058966.42 : 1058455 : 56210.04 : 29.79 seconds : 9.35 minutes
So obviously, a bit of disparity between the target-based times and the network calculated times. I would guess this has to do with other people on the network cutting you off from time values, and orphaned transactions where you did get the right value, but somebody else made a weightier one, but this is where my ability to really verify exactly what is happening starts dwindling. The disparity in N-M wins and Calc wins indicates that the target is currently too easy, and should adjust upwards, because right now coins on the network are 18.84 times weightier (calc wins column / n-m wins column) in hashing power than they should be based on the total network weight. But this is also where the whole "50 groups of 1 coin has a 63.58% chance to hit 2/100 whereas 1 group of 50 coins has a 100% chance to hit 100/100" thing comes into play. Since the network is largely broken up into groups of, on average, 1500 coins, we're actually looking at ~12467.52 groups of 1500 coins vying to win any given block. Given the target, a group of 1500 coins should have a 0.0050369...% chance to win any given coinstake ((target * 150000000000) / maximum_hash_value). This means that the chance that at least one of the 12467.52 staking groups will match for a given second is 1 - (1 - 0.000050369...)^12467.52 = 0.4663, or 46.63%. This places the actual amount that coins are overweight a bit closer to 13.989 times. (network should have ~1/30 chance (3.33...%) to win any given second, 46.63 / 3.33...% = 13.989). However, as mentioned, the software itself can get in the way of that, so this might just be due to a quirk of how the NAV software searches for matches, since it will abandon any seconds prior to the most recently accepted block. If you were cut off from 13 seconds in every 100, that would account for the weight disparity. In any case, I would probably trust the network math times over the pure math ones, if you're just trying to get a feel for how long you'll likely wait between stakes. What this really translates to is that, although a 1 NAV stake will probably have one second out of the year that will hash in it's favour, even running 24/7 you're likely to miss 17 of those before you actually have all the right conditions to win. Interestingly, I did manage to find one 9.99 NAV stake that won after only 5 days; so it can happen. But it's all still random.
How does this affect my staking rewards?
tldr; it doesn't Fortunately, NAV pays out the amount you should receive down to the second. Let's take this block at random. 1119.84133642 NAV coinstake, generated 3.82575342 NAV. The time of the previous transaction that created that coinstake was 1514741456 (see the "Raw Transaction" tab). The time of the current transaction is 1514741456. that's all we need to go on.
>>> SECONDS_IN_DAY = 86400 >>> DAYS_IN_YEAR = 365 >>> CENT = 1000000 # .01 NAV >>> COIN = 100000000 # 1.0 NAV >>> REWARD_PERCENT = 5 * CENT # will be 4 * CENT with community fund >>> # All NAV amounts in satoshi (navtoshi? natoshi?) ... stake = 111984133642 >>> # time of this stake ... stake_time = 1516896224 >>> # time of the transaction that made this stake >>> stake_prev_time = 1514741456 >>> # I'm not 100% positive why it converts to cent/seconds first, ... # but this is what the code does, so we need to as well if we ... # want to be accurate ... cent_seconds = (stake * (stake_time - stake_prev_time)) // CENT 241299827679 >>> # Now they undo the cent_seconds for some reason? I'm not sure. ... # This does, however, create a minimum coin stake for any given time. ... # 1 NAV, for instance, will not generate anything if it stakes until ... # it is exactly one day old (with a whopping 0.00013698 NAV). ... # The minimum NAV stake you can get a reward from if you get lucky ... # and stake at the end of two hours is 11 NAV. ... coin_day = ((cent_seconds * CENT) // COIN) // SECONDS_IN_DAY 27928 >>> stake_reward = (coin_day * REWARD_PERCENT) // DAYS_IN_YEAR 382575342
note: // is a floor division. For example, 3 / 2 = 1.5, 3 // 2 = 1 And we come out the other end with exactly 3.82575342 NAV. Those are the only variables that affect your payout for staking. You then also get whatever the fees happen to be. There's not any magic to it, and so far as I can tell there's also not a limit. If you legitimately wait those 17 years for your 1 NAV to stake, your eventual payout will be on the order of 0.84 NAV. Anyways, that's pretty much all there is to your payout; it's very direct.
So is it worth it for me to stake?
tldr; personal preference Honestly, this is entirely up to you. If you're in the "month or more" camp of coinstakers, it's probably not worth your while to be running 24/7 unless you're just really into securing the network (which, to be fair, I am all about that, so feel free). But with the blockchain at the small size it is right now, and if you're going to be using your computer anyways, it probably doesn't hurt to just run it in the background and see if you get lucky. Like pointed out, the actual amount you get is not affected by any of this. All that this means is that it is harder to predict exactly when you will get a stake. If you're concerned about financially supporting the staking, then NavTechServers has created this handy calculator to help out. From a mathematical standpoint, it's ironically much more likely for small coinstakers to get stakes if they are running 24/7, but from a financial standpoint, you're probably not getting enough to care to, so it's up to your preferences.
Cold Staking is not staking while offline
tldr; there is no magic that will allow blocks to be created without nodes on the network I've also seen a bit of confusion over what cold staking is likely to bring, and want to ensure people aren't upset when it does get rolled out. Specifically the misconception that staking with offline coins is the same thing as staking while offline. It is physically impossible to generate a block without something connected to the network, and you only get staking rewards once you have generated a block, because the blockchain doesn't really have the tools to tell who is online and participating beyond "who made this block." All that cold staking means is that the private keys to use your NAV to buy things or move their address are not on the server doing the staking. In general, this is accomplished via a smart contract and a secondary set of keys that is given permission to use your coins, but only for staking. If those keys are used for moving the a coin from one account to another, then the smart contract will flag it as an incorrect usage. This means that if someone hacks into your server, the only thing they could steal are the keys that permit them to stake your blocks. This is much easier to correct than someone stealing your private keys and moving your NAV to a separate address. Particl's overview of their cold staking system is a good read to get some baseline expectations. Most implementations of cold staking do open up the possibility to sign your coins over to someone else to stake, which opens up the entirely new 51% attack vector of asking people to just GIVE you their network weight. But given that I have just recently explained to you all why one person owning a majority of the coin staking weight on the network is dangerous, I shouldn't have to tell you why this would be a bad idea, right? RIGHT??
In any case, that's about it. Chances are the answer to the question "am I staking" is "yes", so long as the wallet tells you that it's staking. Unfortunately (but also fortunately), waiting longer only increases your chances insofar as you are trying more, but when you do eventually stake, you will be paid out based on how long you have waited, so there's not much lost. I could go into much more depth about all this but this was about as concise as I could get it while still showing most of my work. I'd also be happy to address any other questions that arise from this, and obviously if somebody who knows better finds anything wrong with any of the details here let me know. If you wanted to get into this more in-depth, I've created a Python script which explains some of the technical aspects more thoroughly (including how to unpack the compact target number into the full value being checked in the code), and allows you to get hands-on with real block values. You can download it here. Happy hodling, everybody.
Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.
I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom. …Only problem: much of what they say is wrong. There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other. Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.
“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”
This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up. I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080. I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.
“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."
Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC. Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go! Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered. Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy! Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.
“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”
PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita. PS Family Sharing. Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console. In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system). PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game. Need I say more?
“Gaming is more expensive on console.”
Part one, the Software This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks. Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new. Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount. Part 2: the Subscription Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right? Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly. Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee. Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts. Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
2 free PS4 games, every month
2 free PS3 games, every month
1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72freegames every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month. In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still. All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts. Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst. Part 3, the Systems
Xbox and PS2: $299
Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off. Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short. The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total. And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention. Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware. Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually. Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines). Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway. Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.
“PC is leading the VR—“
Let me stop you right there. If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold. Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone. If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC. Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR. …Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.
“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”
This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam? GTA V
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis. But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right? No. Not even close. iRacing
CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
Memory: 8 GB RAM
GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games. Subnautica
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting? Low-end PCs. What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers. Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars. I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:
“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”
This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading. Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners). Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle. These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up. Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that. Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance. Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X. Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…
“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”
The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time. For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
1.35 GHz base clock
2 GB VRAM
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs. Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
1.29 GHz base clock
4 GB VRAM
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part. But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance. The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
1.5 GHz base clock
3 GB VRAM
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much. Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story! Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
1.5 GHz base clock
6 GB VRAM
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story. I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99. Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say... 94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh. Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
1.6 GHz base clock
8 GB VRAM
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world? Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story. You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option. In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X. On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
800 MHz base clock
8 GB VRAM
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
911 MHz base clock
8 GB VRAM
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here. It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games. …That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7. The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.
“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”
Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team. This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough. On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder. Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them. Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion. Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.
“There are more PC gamers.”
The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million. Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent. For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales. But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million. This isn’t uncommon, by the way. Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total. EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.
This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform. I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across. I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, thisisn’t “anti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer. Cheers.
https://voteflux.org/pdf/Redefining%20Democracy%20-%20Kaye%20&%20Spataro%201.0.2.pdf This paper is not block chain per se, it's about a new form of democracy that results in decentralising government to voters, keeping democracy in tact and in fact, improving it. It's called Issue Based Direct Democracy (IBDD) The people who authored this article are developing a blockchain based voting application. which can implement the ideas of IBDD, at the moment it's just used for facilitating voting. Max was on the original Ethereum team and contributed on the scalability and smart contract side. Nathan is the CEO of SecureVote. The way the protocol works is quite novel. I'd also like to mention this is not a shill post, as the only way to gain exposure to this company is to invest in it. there are no tokens to buy unless you want to buy Ethereum (this will be explained) The paper looks at our current democratic system, notes its flaws e.g. corruption. looks at the 3 main types of democracy and grabs the best ideas from all of them. Which gives us IDBB. Since this is a cryptotechnology sub, ill divulge what i know about the blockchain implementation of the protocol. I was briefly involved with https://secure.vote/ in Sydney. I was able to chat to Max and discuss the protocol. Privacy of mine was a huge concern with this protocol so I wanted to know more about how it worked e.g. homomorphic encryption, zeroproofs, ECDH etc. When I first heard about it, I figured it was just a dApp running on eth, neo etc. which highlighted other concerns. The implementation is nothing like that. It's been a while since I discussed this with Max, and i do not have a white paper, it was him speaking to me, telling me how the protocol worked. Max is brilliant at what he does. The conversation was basically a white paper explained to me in an hour. its hard to remember everything from a conversation. He speaks fast and is very knowledgeable. High level overview of how this blockchain protocol works
The protocol is made of a few components, the blockchain layer is called the Blockchain Agnostic Scalability Layer (BASL). The component which provides privacy of who votes for whom is called Copperfield (double oblivious shuffle for voting) which is the anonymisation algorithm. Here's a high level diagram: https://i.imgur.com/FmODTH0.png
A high PoW chain is used to anchor off, in doing so, this protects their own blockchain. BTC was used in their architecture/anchoring stress test /Bitcoin/comments/5xkvc1/psa_were_running_a_stress_test_of_our_blockchain/ - only about 6 months later swapped to Ethereum because it's a much nicer dev experience and confirmation times are more reasonable. I asked about casper as Eth is moving to PoS, he said he can just use another PoW chain.
Block hashes downloaded from PoW chain (either stored in OP_RETURN with a tag on BTC, or in a smart contract on ETH) and then used to get blocks and sync the chain. It is then represented as data to facilitate voting. a DAG is spun up for each election, These DAGs form their own blockchain and the consensus algorithm is permissionless (public) so there's no centralisation needed.
As for Copperfield, privacy is maintained with a protocol Inspired by coinshuffle, the idea of an oblivious shuffle was extended and Copperfield was created. The coin shuffle protocol can actually be baked right into BTC right now if the developers agreed on it: https://petsymposium.org/2014/papers/Ruffing.pdf. The paper should give some context with how Copperfield works along with this diagram posted above https://i.imgur.com/FmODTH0.png
Depending on the type of vote/democracy a DAG might be thrown away if it's not needed for future consensus. Since all the block hashes of that DAG were committed to some public chain it can be archived and re-validated at any later point, but the data doesn't need to be actively maintained.
The stress test was 18k votes / sec (able to be audited live from a desktop pc) but they claim it could be bumped up to 150k votes / sec on a desktop (though that requires 10 mb/s downlink consistently) The https://voteflux.org/ party in Australia is trying to promote the ideas of IBDD. I asked Max if he would like to do an AMA on this subreddit and he is interested. I certainly am, i hope you all are also. EDIT: If you have any questions for Max in his AMA, please list them here. it will give him some time to prepare. Allways_Wrong already asked some good ones, so you're not always_wrong ;) e.g.
What happens if SecureVote the company goes bankrupt / disappears? Will the protocol live on? This concern was raised with ripple, but the ILP lives on without the company behind it.
Another of course is fleshing out this protocol works, how are public keys assigned to voters
i forgot to mention but voting is done in an app, or a website, so following on from the point above, there would need to be some know your voter (KYV) protocol? so that there is no fraud.
How to prevent users voting twice e.g. identity fraud
Burstcoin: A Diamond In The Rough That Will Prosper Long Term
https://preview.redd.it/1ry4lf0eut021.png?width=1380&format=png&auto=webp&s=0059c743f940353797fa0aa246ff71ddcdd37f3b http://genesisblocknews.com/burstcoin-a-diamond-in-the-rough-that-will-prosper-long-term/ There are currently 2,074 cryptocurrencies on CoinMarketCap, most of which are copycats, driven by pure ICO greed, or just shitcoins in general. As the napalm of SEC enforcement and investor capitulation burns through the crypto space, most of the cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap will probably be decimated and relegated to the history books. Burstcoin (BURST) sits way back at #223 on CoinMarketCap, with its market cap near USD 10 million, but it is a diamond in the rough. BURST is truly decentralized, launched with zero ICO nor premine, and uses the unique Proof of Capacity mining algorithm. Therefore, GenesisBlockNews believes BURST will easily survive this ongoing crypto armageddon, and will prosper long term. I first wrote about BURST for BitcoinNews, when I interviewed Burstcoin developer Daniel Jones. You can listen to the interview with Daniel about Burstcoin at this link. At that time BURST was at #248 on CoinMarketCap, and that was during the stable period before this nuclear bear market started. BURST has crawled 25 places up the CoinMarketCap ranks since then, during the worst crypto market conditions in recent memory, showing its grit. This is due to the merits of BURST. BURST uses Proof of Capacity mining, where mining is done with hard drives instead of raw computational power like with Proof of Work. A 1-time hashing cycle is done, which is called plotting, which fills the hard drive with a tremendous amount of cryptographic hashes and proves the capacity of the hard drive. This plot is read during mining to find the correct cryptographic hash, and whoever finds the answer the quickest in their plot gets the block reward. More hard drive space equals more answers, and therefore more hard drive space increases BURST profits when mining. On average every 4 minutes a block is found, and the block reward is around 750 and decreasing at the rate of 5% per month. The block reward started at 10,000 when BURST launched in 2014, and when mining is done there will be 2.158 billion BURST total. Proof of Capacity mining uses practically no electricity, making BURST one of the only profitable cryptocurrencies to mine on personal computers. Even if BURST mining only earns about 1-2 BURST per day on a 1 TB hard drive, that is pure profit, versus mining Bitcoin, Litecoin, or Dogecoin, where energy expenses far outweigh mining revenue when using a personal computer. Since any computer can mine BURST, as long as it has hard drive space, the BURST network is highly decentralized. Currently there is an astonishing 300,000 TB, which is 300 PB, securing the BURST network. That’s equivalent to the hard drive space of hundreds of thousands of personal computers. Beyond the merits of being decentralized, having a unique algorithm, being profitable for mining and easy to use on personal computers, and having zero premine, the BURST development community is comprised of some of the best blockchain developers. BURST has direct on-chain storage via Cloudburst, which has the ability to immutably store files. As long as BURST exists, files stored with Cloudburst will never be deleted. BURST has built-in smart contract technology that can be used to launch any sort of dApp that one can imagine, and an exchange integrated into the BURST wallet to launch and trade crypto assets. Also, BURST seems to have solved the cryptocurrency scalability problem with The Dymaxion, which is layers of tangle-based Lightning Networks. This allows for infinite transactions at zero fees, while using practically zero energy. GenesisBlockNews believes BURST will emerge as a survivor no matter how many cryptocurrencies crash and burn during this nuclear bear market. Due to its merits and attributes, BURST is in a strong position to become a major cryptocurrency in the long term, and seems to be ridiculously under priced at the current value of half a cent per BURST.
Die Hash-Rate des Mining-Systems in Tera-Hashes (Billionen Hashes) pro Sekunde. Den Anschaffungspreis des Mining-Geräts. Reguläre PCs sind nicht geeignet, Bitcoin-Miner wie der Antminer liegen ... Bitcoin (BTC) Hashrate Breaks Above 170 Exahashes Per Sec for The First Time Ever, Prints New All-Times High Facebook Twitter Telegram Copy URL In October, 2020, all crucial metrics of miners’ activity are on fire in flagship blockchain. If you are trying to programmatically calculate this for software you are writing probably best to take an average every minute or so. As in most cases, the formula is built right into the unit -- num of hashes per (ie divided by) num of seconds. Actually it's Mh/s (1,000,000 hash/sec) usually now so more like (Num hashes / 1,000,000) / sec The Bitcoin hashrate is number of possible solutions (hashes) being generated per second. As of January 2020, the Bitcoin hashrate peaked at 131 EH/s. Bitcoin mining also generates new Bitcoin. When a Bitcoin miner finds the correct hash to solve the next Bitcoin block, the miner is rewarded with Bitcoin. Currently, 6.25 Bitcoin are created when a block is solved. Bitcoin Mining Guide. To ... Hashrate (Hash per second, h/s) is an SI-derived unit representing the number of double SHA-256 computations performed in one second in the bitcoin network for cryptocurrency mining. Hashrate is also called as hashing power. It is usually symbolized as h/s (with an appropriate SI prefix).
Bitcoin Mining Up To 5000 TH/s Using Fake Hashing Rates
The implementation completes 1 hash per cycle, so running at 100mhz it computes 100 million hashes/sec. ... Pt 2 Bitcoin Mining, BFL ASIC vs FPGA vs GPU vs CPU - Duration: 28:50. mjlorton 63,625 ... The number of trials a mining rig can perform per second represents its “hashing power” (measured by hash/s). Simply put, hashing power is the processing power of the network. Currently ... my name is Farman Ali is video main maine bataya hai kay kon kon se hardware aap use kar saktay ho apni mining machine main umeed karta ho aap ko yeh video p... Basically, a miner's computer spits out hashes at a rate of megahashes per second (MH/s), gigahashes per second (GH/s), or even terahashes per second (TH/s) depending on the unit, guessing all ... 🔴 BITCOIN LIVE 🔴 Money Printer Still BRRR'ing. Ep.1005. Crypto Technical Analysis Mitch Ray 1,298 watching Live now