Bitcoin Confirmations: What Is It & How To Check It?
3 Things to Know about Bitcoin Confirmations (2020 Updated)
Bitcoin Confirmations How many confirmations required?
Bitcoin Confirmations - All you need to know about block ...
[OC] Which front offices and agents are the 3 major newsbreakers connected to? I went through 6000+ tweets to find out!
If this sounds somewhat familiar, that's because I did a 2019-2020 version and posted it back in March. In terms of changes from that post:
I've expanded the timeline to tweets from September 27, 2018. This is the first official day where each of Shams, Woj and Haynes were at their own respective companies. Shams moved to the Athletic from Yahoo in August, and Haynes moved from ESPN to Yahoo in September.
I've also expanded the criteria on when a tweet could possibly be linked to an agent
TL;DR Tracked tweetsof Woj, Shams and Haynes from 2018-2020 to see whether any of them report on a certain team or a certain agent's players more than their counterparts.Here is the main graphconcerning a reporter's percentage of tweets per team separated into three periods (2019 season, 2020 offseason, 2020 season). Here is aseparate graphwith the Lakers and Warriors, because Haynes's percentages would skew the first graph. During times like the NBA trade deadline or the lifting of the NBA free-agency moratorium, it’s not uncommon to see Twitter replies to (or Reddit comments about) star reporters reference their performance relative to others. Woj is the preeminent scoop hound, but he is also notorious for writing hit pieces on LeBron (sources say it’s been widely rumoured that the reason for these is that Woj has always been unable to place a reliable source in LeBron’s camp). On the other end of the spectrum, it has been revealed that in exchange for exclusive intel on league memos and Pistons dealings, Woj wrote puff pieces on then-GM Joe Dumars (see above Kevin Draper link). Last summer, Woj was accused of being a Clippers shill on this very discussion board for noticeably driving the Kawhi Leonard free agency conversation towards the team. This is the reason I undertook this project: to see whether some reporters have more sources in certain teams (and certain agencies) than other reporters. First I’ll explain the methodology, then present the data with some initial comments.
To make this manageable on myself, I limited myself to tracking the 3 major national reporters: Shams Charania of the Athletic, Chris Haynes of Yahoo Sports and the aforementioned Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN.
I didn’t use beat reporters, as most (if not all) of their sources would be concentrated on their local team
Others that I considered but ultimately decided not to track:
Brian Windhorst of ESPN (double-dipping in ESPN)
Zach Lowe of ESPN (I consider him more of an analyst)
Marc Spears of ESPN (harder to sift through Twitter feeds, as he posts a lot more unrelated/non-news-breaking content)
Marc Stein of the New York Times (same as Spears)
Kevin O'Connor of The Ringer (same as Lowe)
The time period I initially tracked for was from January 1, 2020 to the end of the regular season March, but after finding a Twitter scraping tool on GitHub called Twint, I was able to easily retrieve all tweets since September 27, 2018. However, a month ago, Twitter closed their old API endpoints, and Twint ceased to work. I used vicinitas.io but the data loading became more time-consuming. Therefore, the tweets are up to the date of October 15 2020. How I determined information was by manually parsing text tweets by the reporter (no retweets):
This means I did not include images or multimedia appearances such as television, radio or podcasts. The rationale for this is that I simply don’t have the time to listen/watch and record all the instances of providing information through sources on these mediums.
Now, I didn’t take every single text tweet:
I didn’t include direct statements, be they from players or front office folks
I separated them, along with podcast guests in another tab
I didn’t include the summary tweet that Woj & Shams love to do: “Story filed to/Story on [employer]:..” because it doesn’t add anything apart from a link to a story (also, I personally don’t want to be called an ESPN/Yahoo/Athletic shill)
If the tweet added a reporter’s own analysis to someone else’s tweet, it was not included
If it was new information, the tweet was retained
Tweets that related solely to retired players were not included: mainly Haynes reporting Dwyane Wade joining CAA, as well as the unfortunate passing of Kobe Bryant on January 26
I grouped multiple tweets about the same subject delivered around the same time frame (such as trades) into one, as doing otherwise would arbitrarily inflate totals
There’s no hard and fast rule for whether or not to group tweets
For example, the big 4-team trade that created the Pocket Rockets was grouped in full
On the other hand, the Miami-Memphis trade was split up because the full details came like a day later
Sometimes, I used my judgment to determine whether a tweet’s underlying information would have come from a source, and therefore whether I should include that tweet or not
For example, consider the All-Star tweets: Haynes and Shams both posted the All-Star starters, but looking at the time signatures led me to believe that this was simply relaying the information from the TNT reveal
On the other hand, both Shams and Haynes posted tweets disclosing the All-Star Reserves before the TNT reveal
Next, I had to assign possible teams to each tweet:
Items such as changes to the league calendar, the naming of All-Star Reserves and salary cap projections were immediately attached to an NBA source
Injuries and trades were fairly straightforward, assigning these tweets to the participating teams
Items such as league mandated fines/suspensions, invitations to All-Star competitions and game protests were credited to both a general NBA source, as well as the related team(s)
Direct sources from agents or mentions of specific agents were attributed as a catch-all “Agent”
In the former, team was not included: examples include Matisse Thybulle’s agent on not being selected for the Rising Stars Game or Royce O’Neale’s agents confirming his contract extension with the Jazz
In the latter, team was included: examples include two Knicks switching their agent to Rich Paul
New addition: anything related to a player's status with a team were also attributed to agents (qualifying offers, extensions, option decisions, waivers, and contracts/deals)
I then found which agents correspond to which players (big shoutout to realgm.com and the Wayback Machine)
Rumours were slightly more difficult
As we know very well, league sources is an exceedingly vague term
Instead of attempting to pinpoint a rival executive with a motive to make a comment, I took the “Occam’s Razor” approach and assumed that the teams involved had someone talk to the reporter
When it was impossible to even determine a participant team, it was the general “NBA” source to the rescue
Chris Haynes has the highest percentage of tweets relating to the Detroit Pistons in all three periods. He also reports on far more Portland news than Shams or Woj.
Shams' Brooklyn edge is evident. The Athletic was also the outlet that Kevin Durant felt comfortable talking to about his positive coronavirus test. As well, Shams reported on Spencer Dinwiddie's quest to tokenize his contract (similar to bitcoin).
Adrian Wojnarowski has increased his percentage of tweets regarding the LA Clippers period-over-period, but so have the other two reporters.
It's surprising that Dallas's numbers are so low, considering they're a good team with an international superstar.
My hypothesis from my previous post is that Shams and Woj each have capable Mavericks deputies in the Tims (Cato and MacMahon, respectively) and decide to leave that market alone
Shams does have the highest percentage of Mavericks tweets in all three seasons however.
Now, you'll notice that there's two teams missing from the above graph: the Golden State Warriors and the Los Angeles Lakers. Here's the graphs for those two teams. As you can see, they would skew the previous graph far too much. During the 2019 NBA season, 27% of Chris Haynes's qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Warriors, and 14% of his qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Lakers.
Here's the top 10 agents in terms of number of potential tweets concerning their clients.
Woj has the most tweets directly connected to agents by far. It wasn't uncommon to see "Player X signs deal with Team Y, Agent Z of Agency F tells ESPN." The agents that go to Woj (and some of their top clients):
Mark Bartelstein of Priority Sports (Bradley Beal, Kyle Lowry, Gordon Hayward)
Jeff Schwartz and Sam Goldfeder of Excel Sports (Khris Middleton, Nikola Jokic, CJ McCollum and Kevin Love)
Steven Heumann and Austin Brown of Creative Artists Agency (Andrew Wiggins, Chris Paul, Donovan Mitchell and Zion Williamson)
One thing I found very intriguing: 15/16 of tweets concerning an Aaron Turner client were reported on by Shams. Turner is the head of Verus Basketball, whose clients include Terry Rozier, Victor Oladipo and Kevin Knox. Shams also reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Sam Permut of Roc Nation. Permut is the current agent of Kyrie Irving, after Irving fired Jeff Wechsler near the beginning of the 2019 offseason. Permut also reps the Morris brothers and Trey Burke. As for Chris Haynes, he doesn't really do much agent news (at least not at the level of Woj and Shams). However, he reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Aaron Goodwin of Goodwin Sports Management, who reps Damian Lillard and DeMar DeRozan. Here are the top 10 free agents from Forbes, along with their agent and who I predict will be the first/only one to break the news.
Most Likely Reporter
Too close to call, leaning Shams
Too close to call, leaning Shams
Alexander Raskovic, Jason Ranne
Limited data, but part of Wasserman, whose players are predominantly reported on by Woj
Thanks for reading! As always with this type of work, human error is not completely eliminated. If you think a tweet was mistakenly removed, feel free to drop me a line and I’ll try to explain my thought process on that specific tweet! Hope y’all enjoyed the research!
Ultimate glossary of crypto currency terms, acronyms and abbreviations
You've probably been hearing a lot about Bitcoin recently and are wondering what's the big deal? Most of your questions should be answered by the resources below but if you have additional questions feel free to ask them in the comments. It all started with the release of the release of Satoshi Nakamoto's whitepaper however that will probably go over the head of most readers so we recommend the following videos for a good starting point for understanding how bitcoin works and a little about its long term potential:
Limited Supply - There will only ever be 21,000,000 bitcoins created and they are issued in a predictable fashion, you can view the inflation schedule here. Once they are all issued Bitcoin will be truly deflationary. The halving countdown can be found here.
Open source - Bitcoin code is fully auditable. You can read the source code yourself here.
Accountable - The public ledger is transparent, all transactions are seen by everyone.
Decentralized - Bitcoin is globally distributed across thousands of nodes with no single point of failure and as such can't be shut down similar to how Bittorrent works. You can even run a node on a Raspberry Pi.
Censorship resistant - No one can prevent you from interacting with the bitcoin network and no one can censor, alter or block transactions that they disagree with, see Operation Chokepoint.
Push system - There are no chargebacks in bitcoin because only the person who owns the address where the bitcoins reside has the authority to move them.
Low fee scaling - On chain transaction fees depend on network demand and how much priority you wish to assign to the transaction. Most wallets calculate on chain fees automatically but you can view current fees here and mempool activity here. On chain fees may rise occasionally due to network demand, however instant micropayments that do not require confirmations are happening via the Lightning Network, a second layer scaling solution currently rolling out on the Bitcoin mainnet.
Borderless - No country can stop it from going in/out, even in areas currently unserved by traditional banking as the ledger is globally distributed.
Portable - Bitcoins are digital so they are easier to move than cash or gold. They can even be transported by simply memorizing a string of words for wallet recovery (while cool this method is generally not recommended due to potential for insecure key generation by inexperienced users. Hardware wallets are the preferred method for new users due to ease of use and additional security).
Bitcoin.org and BuyBitcoinWorldwide.com are helpful sites for beginners. You can buy or sell any amount of bitcoin (even just a few dollars worth) and there are several easy methods to purchase bitcoin with cash, credit card or bank transfer. Some of the more popular resources are below, also check out the bitcoinity exchange resources for a larger list of options for purchases.
Here is a listing of local ATMs. If you would like your paycheck automatically converted to bitcoin use Bitwage. Note: Bitcoins are valued at whatever market price people are willing to pay for them in balancing act of supply vs demand. Unlike traditional markets, bitcoin markets operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Preev is a useful site that that shows how much various denominations of bitcoin are worth in different currencies. Alternatively you can just Google "1 bitcoin in (your local currency)".
Securing your bitcoins
With bitcoin you can "Be your own bank" and personally secure your bitcoins OR you can use third party companies aka "Bitcoin banks" which will hold the bitcoins for you.
If you prefer to "Be your own bank" and have direct control over your coins without having to use a trusted third party, then you will need to create your own wallet and keep it secure. If you want easy and secure storage without having to learn computer security best practices, then a hardware wallet such as the Trezor, Ledger or ColdCard is recommended. Alternatively there are many software wallet options to choose from here depending on your use case.
If you prefer to let third party "Bitcoin banks" manage your coins, try Gemini but be aware you may not be in control of your private keys in which case you would have to ask permission to access your funds and be exposed to third party risk.
Note: For increased security, use Two Factor Authentication (2FA) everywhere it is offered, including email! 2FA requires a second confirmation code to access your account making it much harder for thieves to gain access. Google Authenticator and Authy are the two most popular 2FA services, download links are below. Make sure you create backups of your 2FA codes.
As mentioned above, Bitcoin is decentralized, which by definition means there is no official website or Twitter handle or spokesperson or CEO. However, all money attracts thieves. This combination unfortunately results in scammers running official sounding names or pretending to be an authority on YouTube or social media. Many scammers throughout the years have claimed to be the inventor of Bitcoin. Websites like bitcoin(dot)com and the btc subreddit are active scams. Almost all altcoins (shitcoins) are marketed heavily with big promises but are really just designed to separate you from your bitcoin. So be careful: any resource, including all linked in this document, may in the future turn evil. Don't trust, verify. Also as they say in our community "Not your keys, not your coins".
Where can I spend bitcoins?
Check out spendabit or bitcoin directory for millions of merchant options. Also you can spend bitcoin anywhere visa is accepted with bitcoin debit cards such as the CashApp card. Some other useful site are listed below.
Mining bitcoins can be a fun learning experience, but be aware that you will most likely operate at a loss. Newcomers are often advised to stay away from mining unless they are only interested in it as a hobby similar to folding at home. If you want to learn more about mining you can read more here. Still have mining questions? The crew at /BitcoinMining would be happy to help you out. If you want to contribute to the bitcoin network by hosting the blockchain and propagating transactions you can run a full node using this setup guide. If you would prefer to keep it simple there are several good options. You can view the global node distribution here.
Just like any other form of money, you can also earn bitcoins by being paid to do a job.
You can also earn bitcoins by participating as a market maker on JoinMarket by allowing users to perform CoinJoin transactions with your bitcoins for a small fee (requires you to already have some bitcoins.
The following is a short list of ongoing projects that might be worth taking a look at if you are interested in current development in the bitcoin space.
One Bitcoin is quite large (hundreds of £/$/€) so people often deal in smaller units. The most common subunits are listed below:
one bitcoin is equal to 100 million satoshis
1,000 per bitcoin
used as default unit in recent Electrum wallet releases
1,000,000 per bitcoin
colloquial "slang" term for microbitcoin (μBTC)
100,000,000 per bitcoin
smallest unit in bitcoin, named after the inventor
For example, assuming an arbitrary exchange rate of $10000 for one Bitcoin, a $10 meal would equal:
For more information check out the Bitcoin units wiki. Still have questions? Feel free to ask in the comments below or stick around for our weekly Mentor Monday thread. If you decide to post a question in /Bitcoin, please use the search bar to see if it has been answered before, and remember to follow the community rules outlined on the sidebar to receive a better response. The mods are busy helping manage our community so please do not message them unless you notice problems with the functionality of the subreddit. Note: This is a community created FAQ. If you notice anything missing from the FAQ or that requires clarification you can edit it here and it will be included in the next revision pending approval. Welcome to the Bitcoin community and the new decentralized economy!
Ok, so I apologize in advance for grammar errors/format errors because I'm typing this out quickly. So recently I got a job offer from a company off of indeed and the job pays well and seemed easy enough so I accepted the offer. However, they sent me a follow of email, and here is what a part of the email said: " As a company, we strive to offer the most seamless and convenient payment methods for the services we provide. In essence, we use Bitcoin for most payments as it is more secure for all parties and the services we provide including domain names, hostings, servers, and databases. Bitcoin is a free-floating and market responsive currency. The fact that it is not controlled by banks means that entities have more control and lower fees are charged.You have the responsibility of working with clients to provide the necessary solutions to their needs. Our 7-day orientation period will equip you with skills and knowledge on how to handle the clients including SMEs. Once contacted by customers, you are supposed to take the orders, key them into the database, execute and transfer the order to the sales department. To serve customers, you will need have sufficient Bitcoin balance in your account.PerfecTech Internationalwill offer you with money through e-Transfer Interac system. You will also receive your salary every Friday at 6pm to this bank account. To do this, you will need to provide your account details including: Holder name, Your bank name, Your email address associated with the account, your phone number, Have you ever used electronic (interac) transfer?, do you have active online banking? No cost is incurred to receive Bitcoins and you may control the amount of fee incurred when spending. A large proportion of wallets incorporate reasonable default fees. Higher fees could foster speedy transaction confirmation.It is recommended that you seek ways of customizing the approach to every customer to safeguard satisfaction. Ensure that you market any innovative new products to customers on a regular basis to enhance satisfaction in increase referral and/or return. Once you have provided the details, I am going to send you your personal Bitcoin wallet." This just seems a bit shady in my opinion, and I wanted to get other peoples' opinions on it so confirm legitimacy. Thanks in advance to anyone who helps out.
Fill out the spreadsheet. There is a separate Google form for each campaign. After you have filled out Google forms go to the General spreadsheet and find your data. If you find your name in the spreadsheet, publish a post in this thread confirming your participation.
Follow the requirements of the selected campaign carefully, taking into account all the important points.
Publish your Weekly Report in this thread every week until MONDAY UTC 23:59 The reports are checked on TUESDAY.
Get BFG tokens and use it for your own pleasure: stake and get daily dividends, bid in auction to get crypto, play In-house games and hold to exchange in the future.
Participants can’t change their BetFury account nickname after registration.
Check twice your nickname before registering for the campaign.
KYC is not required for the Bounty campaign.
Multiple accounts, fraud and spam are not allowed. You will be immediately disqualified from the Bounty program. Please note that any offensive or inappropriate behavior will result in immediate disqualification from the campaign.
@Manager_BetFury and the project team reserve the right to change the terms of the campaign at any time.
The submission form for articles and videos will be closed 3 days before the end of the Bounty.
Accounts with negative (red) trust are not allowed to participate in the Bounty.
The budget can be reallocated between campaigns in case of a shortage of coins for payments in one of them.
Please check all links in your Weekly Report a few times to make sure they actually lead to your articles, Tweets, Retweets, Posts, Reposts, comments, video. Payments to all members are made every 2 weeks to the internal BetFury wallet.
If you have any questions - write our Bounty manager in the Bounty chat.
**Award:** $3 in tokens for the week = 95 BFG(TRX) + 95 BFG(BTC) *Monthly Bonus + Quarterly Bonus **Do you own a Telegram group? Tell about BetFury in your Telegram group/Channel and earn! **Publish only 3 posts per week in your Group/Channel, that is focused on cryptocurrency, blockchain, gambling, crypto faucets. Posts must remain in the feed until the end of the Bounty campaign. A prerequisite is to make a post about the Bounty every two weeks. You can insert your referral link into the post. **Awards:** 300+ subscribers: $1 per week in tokens = 35 BFG(TRX) + 35 BFG(BTC) 500+ subscribers: $2 per week in tokens = 65 BFG(TRX) + 65 BFG(BTC) 1 000+ subscribers: $5 per week in tokens = 160 BFG(TRX) + 160 BFG(BTC) 10 000+ subscribers: $15 per week in tokens = 490 BFG(TRX) + 490 BFG(BTC) *Monthly Bonus + Quarterly Bonus
**Awards are determined according to the quality of the video:** High quality: $100 in tokens = 3 250 BFG(TRX) + 3 250 BFG(BTC) Excellent quality: $50 in tokens = 1,625 BFG(TRX) + 1,625 BFG(BTC) Normal quality: $20 in tokens = 650 BFG(TRX) + 650 BFG(BTC) *Quarterly Bonus
**Awards are determined according to the quality of the video:** Professional quality: $30 in tokens = 975 BFG(TRX) + 975 BFG(BTC) Excellent quality: $15 in tokens = 485 BFG(TRX) + 485 BFG(BTC) Normal quality: $5 in tokens = 160 BFG(TRX) + 160 BFG(BTC) *Quarterly Bonus
You can insert your referral link into this part of your signature code and get additional bonuses from participating in the campaign. Instruction **Awards:** Jr Member: $2 per week in tokens = 75 BFG(TRX) + 75 BFG(BTC) Member: $5 per week in tokens = 165 BFG(TRX) + 165 BFG(BTC) Full Member: $10 per week in tokens = 325 BFG(TRX) + 325 BFG(BTC) Sr Member: $30 per week in tokens = 975 BFG(TRX) + 975 BFG(BTC) Hero and Legendary: $40 per week in tokens = 1300 BFG(TRX) + 1300 BFG(BTC) The avatar is here. Signatures are here. *Monthly Bonus + Quarterly Bonus *Topics for YouTube videos, articles / reviews / comparisons / posts:
What makes BetFury unique? The main advantages of the platform.
Features of mining at BetFury. Opportunities and prospects for BFG token holders.
Comparison with other projects in the field of gambling.
Acquaintance with the BetFury platform: how to enter, deposit/withdraw, placing bets in In-house games and slots, mining and staking BFG token.
Promotional campaigns and contests on BetFury: current events / personal experience of participation / accrual of winnings / withdrawal of funds.
BetFury: advantages over traditional games.
How does the dividend system and cashback work at BetFury?
Games at BetFury:In-house, Slots, Table Games, Live Games.
Ability to place bets on BetFury: TRX, USDT, BTT, BFG, SUN, BTC + dividends pools.
BetFury benefits: Min bet, Daily tasks, Jackpots, Cashback, Dividends, Rank system.
Instacoin UK - Last Chance (up to end of Oct) to get a free £10 worth of Bitcoin (same day) for £100 Bitcoin purchase
Instacoin UK , a popular cryptocurrency exchange, are updating their referral scheme from 1st November 2020. The referral amount will be adjusted to a £5 bonus for any purchase over £50. Currently it is a £10 bonus for any purchase of £100 or over. Instacoin UK is a website which allows you to purchase Bitcoin with your Visa / MasterCard or via a bank transfer. They have been around a while used by lots of beermoneyuk users already. Instacoin UK are going to honor the £10 bonus scheme for any new customer signing that sign up and purchase £100 of Bitcoin or over until the end of the month. You get the free £10 worth of Bitcoin immediately after purchase! The whole process (including receiving your £100 back in your bank account) should take less than an hour. The Process Sign up via my referral link. Referral link: https://instacoin.uk/ref?code=54C9787 £10 bonus Non-refferal link: https://instacoin.uk/ No bonus Steps:
Sign up with the referral link above
Verify your account (driver's licence, passport or gov issued I.D)
Click buy at the top of the dashboard and select BTC, with a purchase amount of £100
Enter the Bitcoin wallet address you want the money paying to.
Pay using by Visa / MasterCard or bank transfer.
You're done! The £100 of BTC will reach your bitcoin wallet usually within 15 minutes or so.
The £10 bonus you receive in the form of a code in your email after the £100 of BTC is sent. Click the email link, enter the code, provide your wallet address again and you'll receive your £10 of BTC for free :)
Once the £110 worth of Bitcoin is in your wallet you are free to do whatever you want with it. I sent mine to my BlockFi account for savings. You can also get an additional £10 reward for every person you refer up to the end of the month, after this it is £5! Any referral bonuses are given to you at the end of the month). Let me know if you have any questions. UPDATE 24.10.20: There is some confusion about the referral amount as being £5 or £10. InstaCoin UK have confirmed That is you sign up with an exsisting customers link (like mine), and complete a £100 purchase before the end of October, you will receive £10 in free Bitcoin credited to your account. My Referral link for the free £10: https://instacoin.uk/ref?code=54C9787 UPDATE 28.10.20: Here is a copy of the email I have just received from InstaCoin. I can verify that the mempool is super busy at the moment:
We have received a number of support tickets regarding the delay in BTC confirmations. Rather than reply to everyone individually we would like to address this issue as a whole and give a quick explanation to all our users about why this is occuring: Sometimes, for a variety of reasons, there will be a spike in the number of BTC transactions that are waiting to be confirmed. That will cause a delay in confirmation times, and increases the price of fees required for a transaction to be included in a block. You can see the current number of unconfirmed transactions here: https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count?timespan=1week. Transaction fees directly influence how long you will have to wait for transactions to confirm. At InstaCoin, we broadcast all our transactions with a Regular fee. This fee is covered on our side. It is usually around 0.0001 BTC or £1. Up until the last few days, there has never been an issue with confirmation times. With a high priority fee, it is likely that transactions will get confirmed quicker by miners. Currently, we are looking at a 0.001BTC/£10 fee to push through transactions at a normal rate. As you can imagine, this is not an expense InstaCoin can cover and we also believe our users would not want to pay this fee either. We believe the best solution is the one we are currently employing. The delays are frustrating and we feel that frustration too but the current mempool (waiting room) is unprecedented and we will return back to normal ways soon. The important takeaway we want our users to have from this is that, from our side, the BTC is sent out instantly to your wallet and usually this would get confirmed in a short space of time. At this moment things are taking a bit longer, but the end-point is that you will 100% receive this BTC eventually.
Also remember to complete your sign up and deposist before the end of the month to be certain of getting the free £10 in Bitcoin. My sign up link again is: https://instacoin.uk/ref?code=54C9787 Sign up code: 54C9787 If you have any questions just let me know.
Just ordered from ExpressPCT and FuzzyDuck. Will update.
I will keep posting once I get the tracking numbers. Paid with Zelle for ExpressPCT (Waklert) and BitCoin for FuzzyDuck (not moda but anyway). 09/29 Completed payment for both vendors around 10:30 pm. 09/30 ExpressPCT took about 12 hours to recognize the payment via Zelle and sent a payment confirmation email around 11:30 am. 10/01 Received order confirmation email with a tracking code from FuzzyDuck. The staff (Amy) attached a screenshot of the original email sent to me and explained that some of the emails they sent to Gmail accounts bounced back. 10/03 Received shipment confirmation email with a tracking code from ExpressPCT saying " Your order has been picked up by DHL eCommerce on October 4, 2020 (Singapore time)." 10/07 No update from both vendors yet : ( Both of my packages haven't moved. 10/18 ExpressPCT (Waklert) - No update so far. I am kind of disappointed at this point : ( FuzzyDuck - "Processed at transit facility: Frankfurt Flughafen, Germany" 10/20 ExpressPCT (Waklert) - [SINGAPORE, Singapore] Departed from Transit Facility FuzzyDuck - Departed USPS Regional Facility. Your item departed our USPS facility in [JERSEY CITY NJ] NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER on October 20, 2020 10/21 FuzzyDuck - Now the package is 20 minutes away from my home and will be delivered tomorrow! 10/22 FuzzyDuck - Received my package in the mailbox and it came intact.
Ledger Live adds Coin control: Here's why that matters.
Ledger Live version 2.11.1 (download link) adds Coin control for power users. The coin control feature gives advanced users more granular control over their wallets. It enables them to change how and which coins are selected when making transactions. This increases their ability to manage their privacy and the network fees they will have to pay to spend their account balance. More control over your coins
How does it work?
The account balance for Bitcoin and its derivatives consists of all the unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) in the account. You can think of UTXOs as the coins in a regular wallet. When you receive money, you collect coins in your wallet. Then, when you want to make a payment, you get to choose which coins you pick from your wallet. Do you pick the largest coins first? Or do you want to spend all the smaller value coins to lighten up your wallet? Similar considerations can be made when creating a Bitcoin or Bitcoin derivative (altcoin) transaction. Before the Coin Control feature was released, all transactions involving Bitcoin (and altcoins) automatically selected their coins using the First-In-First-Out (FIFO) algorithm. This strategy includes the oldest coin in the account, and when the amount is not sufficient the second-oldest coin is added, and so forth. As of Ledger Live version 2.11.1, users are able to make use of a dedicated Coin Control tool to choose the coin selection strategy and the coins that may be spent.
Click on Send, choose an account to debit, and enter a recipient address. Click on Continue.
Enter an amount and click on Advanced options. You will then see: - The currently selected, default coin selection strategy: Oldest coins first (FIFO). - A toggle to enable Replace-By-Fee (RBF). - A toggle to include coins from unconfirmed, replaceable transactions.
Click on Coin control. The coin control modal opens.
Select a Coin selection strategy from the dropdown menu: - Oldest coins first (FIFO). This is the default strategy that spends the oldest coins first. - Minimize fees (optimize size). This strategy tries to minimize the byte size of the transaction by spending the lowest number of UTXOs. This results in a low network fee. - Minimize future fees (merge coins), This strategy includes the maximum number of inputs so that a potential future price rise does not make smaller UTXOs economically unspendable. If the price of a crypto asset increases too much, small UTXOs may become worth less than the cost of the network fees to spend them.
Select which coins may not be included in the selection by unticking their checkbox. The SELECTED indicator shows which coins will be included in the transaction. By changing the selection strategy and/or coins to include, the user has precise control over which coins end up being spent. The Coins to spend and Change to return indicators show how much is spent from and returned to the account.
Click on Done to return to the Send flow to verify and send the transaction.
The following statuses can be displayed for a coin:
Coins received in a transaction with 0 confirmations without RBF enabled: PENDING
Coins received in a transaction with 0 confirmations with RBF enabled: REPLACEABLE
Coins received in a transaction with 1337 confirmations: 1337 CONFIRMATIONS
By enabling the toggle Include coins from unconfirmed, replaceable transactions, replaceable transactions can be selected in the Coin control screen.
The Privacy use case
One of the main use cases for Coin control is to protect one’s privacy. UTXOs are, unfortunately, not perfectly fungible due to their unique history on the blockchain. Therefore, users may want to spend coins from different sources without mixing them together, because this would indicate to an outside observer of the blockchain that these addresses belong to the same account. For instance, if one were to spend coins bought on a KYC exchange, which are associated with the user’s identity, together with coins bought anonymously using cash, the anonymous coins could be linked to the user’s identity. Another example would be that you would like to prevent spending a high-value coin for smaller purchases because this would unnecessarily show the person you’re paying how much you have. This is similar to not showing the boulanger how much is on your bank account when buying a baguette.
Let us know what you think!
We are excited to release this new feature because we think it will fulfill real needs of an important part of our users. This version of Ledger Live marks an important milestone, but we will continue working on more features that our community wants. So, we invite you to try out Coin control in Ledger Live and let us know what you think! All feedback is welcome on this thread, on ledgerwallet, and you can send suggestions or get help through our official contact form. We'd like to close out by underlining our commitment to the Bitcoin community, and our willingness to build the best wallet ecosystem for newbies as well as for power users.
Disclaimer: This is sort of my own arbitrary editing, so there could be some misunderstandings. I root for the spread of good spirits and transparency of IF. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 2:45 So why don't we just copy Avalanche? Well that's pretty simple ... 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 2:47 1. It doesn't scale very well with the amount of nodes in the network that have no say in the consensus process but are merely consensus consuming nodes(i.e. sensors, edge devices and so on). If you assume that the network will never have more than a few thousand nodes then thats fine butif you want to build a DLT that can cope with millions of devices then it wont work because of the message complexity. 2. If somebody starts spamming conflicts, then the whole network will stop to confirm any transactions and will grind to a halt until the conflict spamming stops.Avalanche thinks that this is not a huge problem because an attacker would have to spend fees for spamming conflicts which means that he couldn't do this forever and would at some point run out of funds. IOTA tries to build a feeless protocol and a consensus that stops to function if somebody spams conflicts is really not an option for us. 3. If a medium sized validator goes offline due to whatever reason, then the whole network will again stop to confirm any transactionsbecause whenever a query for a nodes opinion can not be answered they reset the counter for consecutive successful voting rounds which will prevent confirmations. Since nodes need to open some ports to be available for queries it is super easy to DDOS validators and again bring the network confirmations to 0. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:05 4. Avalanche still processes transactions in "chunks/blocks"by only applying them after they have gone through some consensus process (gathered enough successfull voting rounds),which means that the nodes will waste a significant amount of time where they "wait" for the next chunk to be finished before the transactions are applied to the ledger state. IOTA tries to streamline this process by decoupling consensus and the booking of transactions by using the "parallel reality based ledger state" which means that nodes in IOTA will never waste any time "waiting" for decisions to be made. This will give us much higher throughput numbers. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:11 5. Avalanche has some really severe game theoretic problems where nodes are incentivized to attach their transactions to the already decided parts of the DAG because then things like conflict spam won't affect these transactions as badly as the transactions issued by honest nodes.If however every node would follow this "better and selfish" tip selection mechanism then the network will stop to work at all. Overall the "being able to stop consensus" might not be too bad since you can't really do anything really bad (i.e. double spend) which is why we might not see these kind of attacks in the immediate future but just wait until a few DeFi apps are running on their platform where smart contracts are actually relying on more or less real time execution of the contracts. Then there might be some actual financial gains to be made if the contract halts and we might see alot of these things appear (including selfish tip selection). Avalanche is barely a top 100 project and nobody attacks these kind of low value networks unless there is something to be gained from such an attack. Saying that the fact that its live on mainnet and hasn't been attacked in 3 weeks is a proof for its security is completely wrong. Especially considering that 95% of all stake are controlled by avalanche itself If you control > 50% of the voting power then you essentially control the whole network and attacks can mostly be ignored I guess there is a reason for avalanche only selling 10% of the token supply to the public because then some of the named problems are less likely to appear 📷 Navin Ramachandran [IF]어제 오후 3:21 I have to say that wtf's suggestion is pretty condescending to all our researchers. It seems heavy on the troll aspect to suggest that we should ditch all our work because iota is only good at industrial adoption. Does wtf actually expect a response to this? Or is this grand standing? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:22 The whole argument of "why don't you just use X instead of trying to build a better version" is also a completely idiotic argument. Why did ETH write their own protocol if Bitcoin was already around? Well because they saw problems in Bitcoins approach and tried to improve it. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:27 u/NavinRamachandran [IF] Its like most of his arguments ... remember when he said we should implement colored coins in 2nd layer smart contracts instead of the base layer because they would be more expressive (i.e. turing complete) completely discarding that 2nd layer smart contracts only really work if you have a consensus on data and therefore state for which you need the "traceability" of funds to create these kind of mini blockchains in the tangle? Colored coins "enable" smart contracts and it wouldnt work the other way round - unless you have a platform that works exactly like ETH where all the nodes validate a single shared execution platform of the smart contracts which is not really scalable and is exactly what we are trying to solve with our approach. 📷 Navin Ramachandran [IF]어제 오후 3:28 Always easier to criticise than build something yourself. But yet he keeps posting these inflammatory posts. At this point is there any doubt if he is making these comments constructively? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:43 If he at least would try to understand IOTAs vision ... then maybe he wouldn't have to ask things like "Why don't you just copy a tech that only works with fees" 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 4:35 u/Shaar
I thought this would only be used to 'override' finality, eg if there were network splits. But not in normal consensus
That is not correct. Every single transaction gets booked on arrival using the parallel reality based ledger state. If there are conflicts then we create a "branch" (container in the ledger state) that represents the perception that this particular double spend would be accepted by consensus. After consensus is reached, the container is simply marked as "accepted" and all transactions that are associated with this branch are immediately confirmed as well. This allows us to make the node use all of its computing ressources 24/7 without having to wait for any kind of decision to be made and allows us to scale the throughput to its physical limits. That's the whole idea of the "parallel reality based ledger state" instead of designing a data structure that models the ledger state "after consensus" like everybody else is doing it is tailored to model the ledger state "before consensus" and then you just flip a flag to persist your decision. The "resync mechanism" also uses the branches to measure the amount of approval a certain perception of the ledger state receives. So if my own opinion is not in line with what the rest of the network has accepted (i.e. because I was eclipsed or because there was a network split), then I can use the weight of these branches to detect this "being out of sync" and can do another larger query to re-evaluate my decision.(수정됨)
Also what happens in IOTA if DRNG notes would fall out, does the network continue if no new RNGs appear for a while? Or will new nodes be added sufficiently fast to the DRNG committee that no one notices?
Its a comittee and not just a single DRNG provider. If a few nodes fail then it will still produce random numbers. And even if the whole comittee fails there are fallback RNG's that would be used instead 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 4:58 And multiverse doesn't use FPC but only the weight of these branches in the same way as blockchain uses the longest chain wins consensus to choose between conflicts. So nodes simply attach their transactions to the transactions that they have seen first and if there are conflicts then you simply monitor which version received more approval and adjust your opinion accordingly. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 5:07 We started integrating some of the non-controversial concepts (like the approval reset switch) into FPC and are currently refactoring goshimmer to support this We are also planning to make the big mana holders publish their opinion in the tangle as a public statement, which allows us to measure the rate of approval in a similar way as multiverse would do it So its starting to converge a bit but we are still using FPC as a metastability breaking mechanism Once the changes are implemented it should be pretty easy to simulate and test both approaches in parallel 📷 Serguei Popov [IF]어제 오후 5:53
So the ask is that we ditch all our work and fork Avalanche because it has not been attacked in the month or so it has been up?
u/NavinRamachandran [IF] yeah, that's hilarious. Avalanche consensus (at least their WP version) is clearly scientifically unsound. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 9:43 u/wtfmaybe you should research avalanche before proposing such a stupid idea and you will see that what I wrote is actually true 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 9:44 paying fees is what "protects" them atm and simply the fact that nobody uses the network for anything of value yet we cant rely on fees making attack vectors "inattractive" 📷 Serguei Popov [IF]어제 오후 10:17
well (1.) very obviously the metastability problems are not a problem in practice,
putting "very obviously" before questionable statements very obviously shows that you are seeking a constructive dialogue📷(to make metastability work, the adversary needs to more-or-less know the current opinion vectors of most of the honest participants; I don't see why a sufficiently well-connected adversary cannot query enough honest nodes frequently enough to achieve that)
(2.) .... you'd need an unpredictable number every few tens/hundreds milliseconds, but your DRNG can only produce one every O(seconds).
the above assumption (about "every few tens/hundreds milliseconds") is wrong
We've had this discussion before, where you argued that the assumptions in the FPC-BI paper (incl. "all nodes must be known") are not to be taken 100% strictly, and that the results are to be seen more of an indication of overall performance.
Aham, I see. So, unfortunately, all that time that I invested into explaining that stuff during our last conversation was for nothing. Again, very briefly. The contents of the FPC-BI paper is not "an indication of overall performance". It rather shows (to someone who actually read and understood the paper) why the approach is sound and robust, as it makes one understand what is the mechanism that causes the consensus phenomenon occur.
Yet you don't allow for that same argument to be valid for the "metastability" problem in avalanche,
Incorrect. It's not "that same argument". FPC-BI is a decent academic paper that has precisely formulated results and proofs. The Ava WP (the probabilistic part of it), on the other hand, doesnotcontain proofs of what they call results. More importantly, they don't even show a clear path to those proofs. That's why their system is scientifically unsound.
even when there's a live network that shows that it doesn't matter.
No, it doesn't show that it doesn't matter. It only shows that it works when not properly attacked. Their WP doesn't contain any insight on why those attacks would be difficult/impossible. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 10:56 That proposal was so stupid - Avalanche does several things completely different and we are putting quite a bit og effort into our solution to pretty much fix all of Avalanches shortcomings If we just wanted to have a working product and dont care about security or performance then we could have just forked a blockchaib I am pretty confident that once we are done - its going to be extremely close to the besttheoretical thresholds that DLTs will ever be able to achieve for an unsharded baselayer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 📷 Bas어제 오전 2:43 Yesterday I was asked how a reasonably big company no one has heard of could best move forward implementing Access for thousands of locations worldwide. (Sorry for the vagueness, it’s all confidential.) They read the article and want to implement it because it seems to fit a problem they’re currently trying to solve. Such moves will vastly increase the utility of protocols like IOTA, and is what the speculation is built on. I do not think you can overestimate what impact Access is going to have. It’s cutting out the middleman for simple things; no server or service needed. That’s huge. So yes, I think this space will continue to growu/Coinnave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 📷 Angelo Capossele [IF]2020.10.02. In short: we are planning a new v0.3.0 release that should happen very soon. This version will bring fundamental changes to the structure of the entire codebase (but without additional features) so that progressing with the development will be easier and more consistent. We have also obtained outstanding results with the dRNG committee managed by the GoShimmer X-Team, so that will also be integral part of v0.3.0. After that, we will merge the Value Tangle with the Message Tangle, so to have only one Tangle and make the TSA and the orphanage easier to manage. And we are also progressing really well with Mana, that will be the focus after the merge. More or less this is what is going to happen this month. We will release further details with the upcoming Research Status Update📷
This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/ Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners? And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess. First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
You the HODLer should be the one who controls where your money goes. Your keys, your coins.
You the HODLer should be able to coordinate and make contracts with other people regarding your funds.
You the HODLer should be able to do the above without anyone watching over your shoulder and judging you.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so). So, how does Taproot affect those principles?
Taproot and Your /Coins
Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash). (technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input). However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits! Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh? With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save! And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well! (P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1) Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service! So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win! (even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot) And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!
Taproot and Your Contracts
No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade. So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust. Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade. However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade. In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address. Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants). But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer). Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos). (technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).
Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo
Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code. This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded. And you can do that, with HTLCs, today. Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Privacy. Everyone scraping the Bitcoin blockchain can see any HTLCs, and preimages used to claim them.
This can be mitigated by using offchain techniques so HTLCs are never published onchain in the happy case. Lightning would probably in practice be the easiest way to do this offchain. Of course, there are practical limits to what you can pay on Lightning. If you are buying something expensive, then Lightning might not be practical. For example, the "software" you are activating is really the firmware of a car, and what you are buying is not the software really but the car itself (with the activation of the car firmware being equivalent to getting the car keys).
Even offchain techniques need an onchain escape hatch in case of unresponsiveness! This means that, if something bad happens during payment, the HTLC might end up being published onchain anyway, revealing the fact that some special contract occurred.
And an HTLC that is claimed with a preimage onchain will also publicly reveal the preimage onchain. If that preimage is really the activation key of a software than it can now be pirated. If that preimage is really the activation key for your newly-bought cryptographic car --- well, not your keys, not your car!
Trust requirement. You are trusting the developer that it gives you the hash of an actual valid activation key, without any way to validate that the activation key hidden by the hash is actually valid.
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar". Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you. Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige). (Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key). So:
Privacy: PTLCs are private even if done onchain. Nobody else can learn what the private key behind the public key is, except you who knows the adaptor signature that when combined with the complete onchain signature lets you know what the private key of the activation key is. Somebody scraping the blockchain will not learn the same information even if all PTLCs are done onchain!
Lightning is still useful for reducing onchain use, and will also get PTLCs soon after Taproot is activated, but even if something bad happens and a PTLC has to go onchain, it doesn't reveal anything!
Trust issues can be proven more easily with a public-private keypair than with a hash-preimage pair.
For example, the developer of the software you are buying could provide a signature signing a message saying "unlock access to the full version for 1 day". You can check if feeding this message and signature to the program will indeed unlock full-version access for 1 day. Then you can check if the signature is valid for the purported pubkey whose private key you will pay for. If so, you can now believe that getting the private key (by paying for it in a PTLC) would let you generate any number of "unlock access to the full version for 1 day" message+signatures, which is equivalent to getting full access to the software indefinitely.
For the car, the manufacturer can show that signing a message "start the engine" and feeding the signature to the car's fimrware will indeed start the engine, and maybe even let you have a small test drive. You can then check if the signature is valid for the purported pubkey whose privkey you will pay for. If so, you can now believe that gaining knowledge of the privkey will let you start the car engine at any time you want.
(pedantry: the signatures need to be unique else they could be replayed, this can be done with a challenge-response sequence for the car, where the car gathers entropy somehow (it's a car, it probably has a bunch of sensors nowadays so it can get entropy for free) and uses the gathered entropy to challenge you to sign a random number and only start if you are able to sign the random number; for the software, it could record previous signatures somewhere in the developer's cloud server and refuse to run if you try to replay a previously-seen signature.)
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script. (technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)
Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable?? Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not. It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash. When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key. So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key. (public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL) And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions. So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort. Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers. For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
Current quantum computers can barely crack prime factorization problem for primes of 5 bits.
The 256-bit elliptic curve use by Bitcoin is, by my (possibly wrong) understanding, equivalent to 4096-bit primes, so you can see a pretty big gap between now (5 bit primes) and what is needed (4096 bit primes).
A lot of financial non-Bitcoin systems use the equivalent of 3072-bit primes or less, and are probably easier targets to crack than the equivalent-to-4096-bit-primes Bitcoin.
Quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin are still far off.
Pay-to-public-key-hash is not as protective as you might think.
We will probably see banks get cracked before Bitcoin, so the banking system is a useful canary-in-a-coal-mine to see whether we should panic about being quantum vulnerable.
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).
If you are a singlesig HODL-only Bitcoin user, Taproot will not affect you positively or negatively. Importantly: Taproot does no harm!
If you use or intend to use multisig, Taproot will be a positive for you.
If you transact onchain regularly using typical P2PKH/P2WPKH addresses, you get a minor reduction in feerates since multisig users will likely switch to Taproot to get smaller tx sizes, freeing up blockspace for yours.
If you are using multiparticipant setups for special systems of trade, Taproot will be a positive for you.
Remember: Lightning channels are multipartiicpiant setups for special systems of lightning-fast offchain trades!
I Wanna Be The Taprooter!
So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!
If you have developer experience especially in C, C++, or related languages
Review the Taproot code! There is one pull request in Bitcoin Core, and one in libsecp256k1. I deliberately am not putting links here, to avoid brigades of nontechnical but enthusiastic people leaving pointless reviews, but if you are qualified you know how to find them!
But I am not a cryptographeBitcoin Core contributomathematician/someone as awesome as Pieter Wuille
That's perfectly fine! The cryptographers have been over the code already and agree the math is right and the implementation is right. What is wanted is the dreary dreary dreary software engineering: are the comments comprehensive and understandable? no misspellings in the comments? variable names understandable? reasonable function naming convention? misleading coding style? off-by-one errors in loops? conditions not covered by tests? accidental mixups of variables with the same types? missing frees? read-before-init? better test coverage of suspicious-looking code? missing or mismatching header guards? portability issues? consistent coding style? you know, stuff any coder with a few years of experience in coding anything might be able to catch. With enough eyes all bugs are shallow!
If you are running a mining pool/mining operation/exchange/custodial service/SPV server
Be prepared to upgrade!
One of the typical issues with upgrading software is that subtle incompatibilities with your current custom programs tend to arise, disrupting operations and potentially losing income due to downtime. If so, consider moving to the two-node setup suggested by gmax, which is in the last section of my previous post. With this, you have an up-to-date "public" node and a fixed-version "private" node, with the public node protecting the private node from any invalid chainsplits or invalid transactions. Moving to this setup from a typical one-node setup should be smooth and should not disrupt operations (too much).
If you are running your own fullnode for fun or for your own wallet
Be prepared to upgrade! The more nodes validating the new rules (even if you are a non-mining node!), the safer every softfork will be!
If you are using an SPV wallet or custodial wallet/service (including hardware wallets using the software of the wallet provider)
Contact your wallet provider / SPV server and ask for a statement on whether they support Taproot, and whether they are prepared to upgrade for Taproot! Make it known to them that Taproot is something you want!
But I Hate Taproot!!
Raise your objections to Taproot now, or forever hold your peace! Maybe you can raise them here and some of the devs (probably nullc, he goes everywhere, even in rbtc!) might be able to see your objections! Or if your objections are very technical, head over to the appropriate pull request and object away!
Maybe you simply misunderstand something, and we can clarify it here!
Or maybe you do have a good objection, and we can make Taproot better by finding a solution for it!
Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together. The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set. For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three (There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework. The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain. For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three (There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements. Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here (There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look
Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created
Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.
Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.
All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅ https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518
Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.
Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.
Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.
Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅ https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846
Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.
Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once. If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three
Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.
With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅ https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd
Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.
Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots. However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.
A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional
Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now. https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575
The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.
The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.
Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.
Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅. https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373
Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.
With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.
Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.
Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅. https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc
Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.
Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.
A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.
All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅. https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415
The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.
Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.
AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself. There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well. Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.
That is with each following block that is found; the number of confirmations for your transaction increases. Since the block time of Bitcoin is 10 minutes to get 3 confirmations it will take about 30 minutes and to get 6 confirmations it will take 60 minutes. Okay, now how to check the confirmation status for your transaction. Number of Bitcoin Confirmations . A regular bitcoin client will show the transaction as “n / unconfirmed” until its size in the chain becomes 6 blocks. Users and cryptocurrency exchanges that accept bitcoins as payment set their threshold in the number of required blocks until the payment is confirmed. To find out how many checks are required to process the transaction and how long to wait ... Bitcoin Confirmations are the number of blocks added to the blockchain that the Bitcoin network has accepted after a particular transaction has been made. Broadly speaking, the more blocks that are added – more confirmations there are – the more secure a transaction is. How do Bitcoin Confirmations work? When a user wishes to send bitcoins to another user they provide the address (public ... Number of Confirmations. The classic bitcoin client will show a transaction as "n/unconfirmed" until the transaction is 6 blocks deep. Merchants and exchanges who accept bitcoins as payment can and should set their own threshold as to how many blocks are required until funds are considered confirmed. When potential loss due to double spending as nominal, as with very inexpensive or non ... To check the number of confirmations for a transaction, paste the ID into a block explorer like blockchain.info: Press enter and then you’ll see more details about your transaction: Try a New Wallet. If your wallet is sending transactions that get stuck, you may be using an old wallet that doesn’t calculate fees properly. Try one of these:
How to get Transaction id or Bitcoin Pqyment confirmation ...
The number of confirmations is the number of blocks that have been added to the blockchain after a transaction is confirmed. For example, if a transaction is in one block, it has 1 confirmation ... For more tips like these visit http://bodymindsuccess.com/bitcoin or subscribe to our channel Do you need a real peer to peer electronic cash system? Tired of high fees and long waits for confirmations? You want a bitcoin that can be used as cash, something that follows the original vision ... You probably would have exchanged your bitcoins for USDT, so you fixed the profit and almost after 6 months you would buy bitcoin for $ 6000, increasing the number of your coins by 3 times. How to buy Bitcoins with a paysafecard. Watch in full screen mode to see all the details. What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http://youtu.be/oBkhPhu3_B4 T...