Bitcoin Developer Explains The Extreme Measures He Takes ...
Bitcoin Developer Explains The Extreme Measures He Takes ...
Bitcoin Calculator - Convert Bitcoin into any World Currency
Jameson Lopp :: Professional Cypherpunk
Allcryptosites.com - The World's Best Cryptocurrency Sites ...
Bitcoin Mining Resources - Jameson Lopp
⚡ Lightning Network Megathread ⚡
Lastupdated2018-01-29 This post is a collaboration with the Bitcoin community to create a one-stop source for Lightning Network information. There are still questions in the FAQ that are unanswered, if you know the answer and can provide a source please do so!
Lightning Network White Paper - The protocol has changed since this original paper, but covers the mid-level mechanics of the Lightning Network with an emphasis on the smart contracts that make it trustless
If you can answer please PM me and include source if possible. Feel free to help keep these answers up to date and as brief but correct as possible
Is Lightning Bitcoin?
Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.
Is the Lightning Network open source?
Yes, Lightning is open source. Anyone can review the code (in the same way as the bitcoin code)
Who owns and controls the Lightning Network?
Similar to the bitcoin network, no one will ever own or control the Lightning Network. The code is open source and free for anyone to download and review. Anyone can run a node and be part of the network.
I’ve heard that Lightning transactions are happening “off-chain”…Does that mean that my bitcoin will be removed from the blockchain?
No, your bitcoin will never leave the blockchain. Instead your bitcoin will be held in a multi-signature address as long as your channel stays open. When the channel is closed; the final transaction will be added to the blockchain. “Off-chain” is not a perfect term, but it is used due to the fact that the transfer of ownership is no longer reflected on the blockchain until the channel is closed.
Do I need a constant connection to run a lightning node?
Not necessarily, Example: A and B have a channel. 1 BTC each. A sends B 0.5 BTC. B sends back 0.25 BTC. Balance should be A = 0.75, B = 1.25. If A gets disconnected, B can publish the first Tx where the balance was A = 0.5 and B = 1.5. If the node B does in fact attempt to cheat by publishing an old state (such as the A=0.5 and B=1.5 state), this cheat can then be detected on-chain and used to steal the cheaters funds, i.e., A can see the closing transaction, notice it's an old one and grab all funds in the channel (A=2, B=0). The time that A has in order to react to the cheating counterparty is given by the CheckLockTimeVerify (CLTV) in the cheating transaction, which is adjustable. So if A foresees that it'll be able to check in about once every 24 hours it'll require that the CLTV is at least that large, if it's once a week then that's fine too. You definitely do not need to be online and watching the chain 24/7, just make sure to check in once in a while before the CLTV expires. Alternatively you can outsource the watch duties, in order to keep the CLTV timeouts low. This can be achieved both with trusted third parties or untrusted ones (watchtowers). In the case of a unilateral close, e.g., you just go offline and never come back, the other endpoint will have to wait for that timeout to expire to get its funds back. So peers might not accept channels with extremely high CLTV timeouts. -- Source
What Are Lightning’s Advantages?
Tiny payments are possible: since fees are proportional to the payment amount, you can pay a fraction of a cent; accounting is even done in thousandths of a satoshi. Payments are settled instantly: the money is sent in the time it takes to cross the network to your destination and back, typically a fraction of a second.
Does Lightning require Segregated Witness?
Yes, but not in theory. You could make a poorer lightning network without it, which has higher risks when establishing channels (you might have to wait a month if things go wrong!), has limited channel lifetime, longer minimum payment expiry times on each hop, is less efficient and has less robust outsourcing. The entire spec as written today assumes segregated witness, as it solves all these problems.
Can I Send Funds From Lightning to a Normal Bitcoin Address?
No, for now. For the first version of the protocol, if you wanted to send a normal bitcoin transaction using your channel, you have to close it, send the funds, then reopen the channel (3 transactions). In future versions, you and your peer would agree to spend out of your lightning channel funds just like a normal bitcoin payment, allowing you to use your lightning wallet like a normal bitcoin wallet.
Can I Make Money Running a Lightning Node?
Not really. Anyone can set up a node, and so it’s a race to the bottom on fees. In practice, we may see the network use a nominal fee and not change very much, which only provides an incremental incentive to route on a node you’re going to use yourself, and not enough to run one merely for fees. Having clients use criteria other than fees (e.g. randomness, diversity) in route selection will also help this.
What is the release date for Lightning on Mainnet?
Would there be any KYC/AML issues with certain nodes?
Nope, because there is no custody ever involved. It's just like forwarding packets. -- Source
What is the delay time for the recipient of a transaction receiving confirmation?
Furthermore, the Lightning Network scales not with the transaction throughput of the underlying blockchain, but with modern data processing and latency limits - payments can be made nearly as quickly as packets can be sent. -- Source
How does the lightning network prevent centralization?
How would the lightning network work between exchanges?
Each exchange will get to decide and need to implement the software into their system, but some ideas have been outlined here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges Note that by virtue of the usual benefits of cost-less, instantaneous transactions, lightning will make arbitrage between exchanges much more efficient and thus lead to consistent pricing across exchange that adopt it. -- Source
How do lightning nodes find other lightning nodes?
Does every user need to store the state of the complete Lightning Network?
According to Rusty's calculations we should be able to store 1 million nodes in about 100 MB, so that should work even for mobile phones. Beyond that we have some proposals ready to lighten the load on endpoints, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. -- Source
Would I need to download the complete state every time I open the App and make a payment?
No you'd remember the information from the last time you started the app and only sync the differences. This is not yet implemented, but it shouldn't be too hard to get a preliminary protocol working if that turns out to be a problem. -- Source
What needs to happen for the Lightning Network to be deployed and what can I do as a user to help?
Lightning is based on participants in the network running lightning node software that enables them to interact with other nodes. This does not require being a full bitcoin node, but you will have to run "lnd", "eclair", or one of the other node softwares listed above. All lightning wallets have node software integrated into them, because that is necessary to create payment channels and conduct payments on the network, but you can also intentionally run lnd or similar for public benefit - e.g. you can hold open payment channels or channels with higher volume, than you need for your own transactions. You would be compensated in modest fees by those who transact across your node with multi-hop payments. -- Source
Is there anyway for someone who isn't a developer to meaningfully contribute?
Sure, you can help write up educational material. You can learn and read more about the tech at http://dev.lightning.community/resources. You can test the various desktop and mobile apps out there (Lightning Desktop, Zap, Eclair apps). -- Source
Do I need to be a miner to be a Lightning Network node?
Do I need to run a full Bitcoin node to run a lightning node?
lit doesn't depend on having your own full node -- it automatically connects to full nodes on the network. -- Source LND uses a light client mode, so it doesn't require a full node. The name of the light client it uses is called neutrino
How does the lightning network stop "Cheating" (Someone broadcasting an old transaction)?
Upon opening a channel, the two endpoints first agree on a reserve value, below which the channel balance may not drop. This is to make sure that both endpoints always have some skin in the game as rustyreddit puts it :-) For a cheat to become worth it, the opponent has to be absolutely sure that you cannot retaliate against him during the timeout. So he has to make sure you never ever get network connectivity during that time. Having someone else also watching for channel closures and notifying you, or releasing a canned retaliation, makes this even harder for the attacker. This is because if he misjudged you being truly offline you can retaliate by grabbing all of its funds. Spotty connections, DDoS, and similar will not provide the attacker the necessary guarantees to make cheating worthwhile. Any form of uncertainty about your online status acts as a deterrent to the other endpoint. -- Source
How many times would someone need to open and close their lightning channels?
You typically want to have more than one channel open at any given time for redundancy's sake. And we imagine open and close will probably be automated for the most part. In fact we already have a feature in LND called autopilot that can automatically open channels for a user. Frequency will depend whether the funds are needed on-chain or more useful on LN. -- Source
Will the lightning network reduce BTC Liquidity due to "locking-up" funds in channels?
When setting up a Lightning Network Node are fees set for the entire node, or each channel when opened?
You don't really set up a "node" in the sense that anyone with more than one channel can automatically be a node and route payments. Fees on LN can be set by the node, and can change dynamically on the network. -- Source
Can Lightning routing fees be changed dynamically, without closing channels?
Yes but it has to be implemented in the Lightning software being used. -- Source
How can you make sure that there will be routes with large enough balances to handle transactions?
You won't have to do anything. With autopilot enabled, it'll automatically open and close channels based on the availability of the network. -- Source
How does the Lightning Network stop flooding nodes (DDoS) with micro transactions? Is this even an issue?
More lies incoming: "54% of reachable Bitcoin ABC (bcash) nodes are running on Hangzhou Alibaba virtual servers in China"
Jameson Lopp tweeted this: "54% of reachable Bitcoin ABC (bcash) nodes are running on Hangzhou Alibaba virtual servers in China. Compare that to 2% of reachable Bitcoin nodes running on Hangzhou Alibaba servers." (He's talking about Bitcoin Cash, not about bcash, an easy mistake to make /s) When asked about sources, he said: "I had to do some manual counting on bitnodes with a network filter: https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=Hangzhou+Alibaba …" Of course non-mining nodes don't even help the network (1, 2) But, even taking that aside - is the actual number 54% real?? Was it really calculated or "manual counting" means massaging the numbers? Ok, let's go to https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=NODE_CASH now, let's actually count the nodes (pastebin with all nodes list below):
So... Not 54%, but only 31%... Just like.. almost two times less.. who cares? The rest?
San Mateo, United States
Ashburn, United States
Dallas, United States
San Jose, United States
London, United Kingdom
Fremont, United States
Boardman, United States
Newark, United States
Mountain View, United States
Atlanta, United States
Korea, Republic of
Moscow, Russian Federation
.... 272 locations in total! You can check the results here and count yourself and see that those IPs are in the original link. https://pastebin.com/jJCg0D3R But facts aren't really that interesting, are they? FUD is always much more fun! "Centralization! China coin!! Pump and dump" /s EDIT: I also explain here (to best of my understanding) why this is not an issue at all, not at 54%, not at 31%. EDIT2: Misspelled Jameson Lopp's name
Constantinople is planned upcoming hard fork of Ethereum main net, believed to roll out Q4 this year, although no timeline has officially been given.
Majority of EIPs planned to be included in Constantinople have strong support among devs and community, however there are three contentious propositions that need to be discussed. Those are: 1) Difficulty Bomb delay, 2) Ether issuance reduction, and 3) ASIC resistance. As with every problem there are many points of view and issues, but for quick gist of it here is short summary: Difficulty Bomb will soon take effect, gradually prolonging block time until Ethereum will virtually come to a halt. To secure block time of 15 s, delaying Difficulty Bomb is proposed, as has already been done in Byzantium hard fork. However delaying Difficulty Bomb would greatly affect Ether issuance. Therefore block mining reward reduction has been proposed (from 3 to 2, 1 or 0.5 Ether). But issuance reduction decreases mining profitability, cutting out smaller miners and favoring ASIC, resulting in centralization and lesser network security. To mitigate this issue ASIC resistance has been proposed to eliminate mining cartels.
Here is list of previous discussions around mentioned issues:
1) Difficulty Bomb:
Function of Difficulty Bomb is to make mining impossible and force transition from POW to POS. If Difficulty Bomb is not delayed Ethereum will come to a halt before Casper is ready for deployment.
Although general sentiment is in favor to delay Difficulty Bomb, there is also proposition for its elimination.
Question remains how far into the future push Difficulty Bomb?
2) Issuance reduction:
Prior POS was delayed Vitalik Buterin calculated projected circulation supply to less than 96,000,000 Ether by November 2018. Because of POS delay, Difficulty Bomb was postponed with Byzantium hard fork resulting in circulation supply of over 101,000,000 Ether as of today.
Eric Conner compares Bitcoin and Ethereum issuance and points out Ethereum is currently overpaying network security compared to Bitcoin. A reduction in block reward to 2 ETH is proposed, however further reduction to 1 ETH is not advised as per his analysis
Proposition and debate on block reward reduction to 1 ETH (also discussion on ASIC resistance)
Albeit small sample, coin voters are in favor of reduction to 1 ETH.
3) ASIC resistance
Great discussion overview about ASIC resistance by Hudson Jameson. General consensus at the time was in favor of ASIC resistance. But prevailing sentiment among devs was to ignore ASIC issue, as Casper release was scheduled just few months away, making ASIC irrelevant. Unfortunately, just few weeks after this discussion it came to light that Casper is delayed to year 2020.
How much ASIC mining is presented in Ethereum is currently unknown. Monero hash rate dropped by 80% after implementation of ASIC resistance.
What to do?
Voice your opinion! Read, research and participate in discussion! Devs are in final stages of selecting EIPs for Constantinople hard fork. Next Devs Call is on 24th of August.
I am strongly against eliminating Difficulty Bomb, however I am in favor of delaying it to no later than 30th July 2019. I also think Ethereum is overpaying network security, therefore I support block reward reduction to 1 ETH coupled with implementation of ASIC resistance. If ASIC resistance is rejected, I would like to see community discuss block reward reduction to 1.5 or 2 ETH with block time of 30s.
Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20190825 (market index 33 — fear state)
https://preview.redd.it/aiyjpcwg1mi31.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=81c735602cf4302328c609c0a4dfc7a2b1e1c86d Encrypted calendar has been updated to 31st Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission issues warning on encrypted trading investment scam According to the Bangkok Post, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a warning on a new type of investment scam in which victims were lured to invest in self-proclaimed legitimate digital currency trading websites. Special Investigations spokesperson Woranan Silam conveyed to the public a warning from the SEC on Saturday that FX Trading Corporation was not authorized to conduct its promotional digital currency transactions. The spokesperson said that several other companies and websites have also been involved in fraud, most of which claim to be foreign companies operating outside of Thailand. Casa Chief Technology Officer Jameson Lopp sends a Twitter article saying he is considering running for the US president Bitcoinist news, Bitcoin core developer and Casa CTO Jameson Lopp sent a Twitter article saying they are considering running for the US president. Lopp said: “If I can be elected, I will give each citizen a value of $1,000 per month. This is feasible because we will never run out of dollars. In the long run, the economic benefits will benefit the United States because we will eventually It has the most bitcoin.” The first reaction of the Twitter community to Jameson Lopp’s tweets was that this might be a scam, but there were some interesting messages in the reply below. Xsquared Ventures partner Brad Mills tried to mathematically calculate Lopp’s proposal: “Every year (due to the distribution of bitcoin spending) $ 3.9 trillion. At the end of your first term, US Treasury bonds will reach $ 37 trillion The market value of Bitcoin will reach $18 trillion in the fourth year, nearly $1 million per bitcoin. This is actually mathematically feasible considering government spending.” Facebook is negotiating with members of the Libra Association and expects more support According to the Financial Times, as regulatory pressures increase, supporters of Facebook’s cryptocurrency project Libra are becoming more and more nervous. According to previous reports, three anonymous supporters of the Libra Association are currently considering launching the project. Facebook is currently negotiating with member companies of many associations that are willing to pay up to $10 million to participate in the project. These companies include Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and Uber. A source from one of the companies said, “It is difficult for those partners who want to be considered law-abiding to openly support the Libra project.” At the same time, Facebook is said to be disappointed that these companies have not publicly supported the project. More than 99% of ransomware is traded using BTC The ransomware has become one of the world’s biggest security threats. More than 99% of ransomware has been traded using BTC. So far, the price of BTC has risen to more than 10,000 US dollars. The ransomware attack against enterprises in the last year or two has also come. The more data, according to Malwarebytes statistics, the global TO B ransomware attack has increased by 363% since June 2018, while the price of BTC has also risen linearly. Hackers are now looking at the digital currency market, mainly through the following One way to attack digital currency: 1. Attack by ransomware and directly extort BTC. 2. Steal the victim’s digital currency wallet through malicious programs. 3. Attack through digital currency website vulnerabilities and steal digital currency. https://preview.redd.it/e7537x3m1mi31.png?width=473&format=png&auto=webp&s=cd30dd9c3c1eede9f4ad6e554c9ee9e06696cb3e
Encrypted project calendar（August 25, 2019）
CHX/Own:The Own project will launch the SillyCoin Valley game product on August 25.
Encrypted project calendar（August 26, 2019）
ICX/ICON:ICON(ICX)ICONists will vote for P-Reps and receive ICX awards starting August 26.MBL/Moviebloc:MovieBloc will share details about the MovieBloc service and wallet features in MovieBloc Service Preview 2 on August 26th.ETHOS/ETHOS Token:ETHOS Token (ETHOS) BitMart The first ETHOS Token Trading Contest will be closed on August 26, and participating users can divide 50,000 ETHOS.
Encrypted project calendar（August 27, 2019）
MAID/MaidSafeCoin:MaidSafeCoin Internet Coin (MAID) will host the 2019 Turing Festival in Edinburgh from August 27th to 29th.SC/Siacoin:Siacoin (SC) Pluralsight LIVE was held in Salt Lake City from August 27th to 29th, 2019.
Encrypted project calendar（August 28, 2019）
NULS/NULS:The NULS 2.0 Beta hackathon will be held from July 8th to August 28th, 2019.ZLA/Zilla:ZILLA (ZLA)’s complimentary $3,500 GD Token event will end on August 28.
Encrypted project calendar（August 29, 2019）
ICX/ICON:ICON(ICX)ICON will meet with HPB_Global in Korea on August 29th, and Asian Market Business Director Daniel Kwak will deliver a speech and will answer questions with participants.TYPE/Typerium:A 100-day countdown from Typerium will end on August 29th, and the project officially calls SecondComing.ONE/Harmony:The first phase of the Pangea project launched by Harmony is over, and the second phase will begin on August 29.KICK/KickCoin:KickCoin will be exchanged for KickToken for an exchange time of August 29, which will receive nearly 150% of the reward.
Encrypted project calendar（August 30, 2019）
XDCE/XinFin Network:2019 TraceFinancial webinar will be held on August 30thWAX/WAX Token:WAX TokenSwap (WAX) to August 30, ERC-20 WAX Token token converted to WAX Token CutoffUGAS/Ultrain:Ultrain community news, after the main network mapping starts on August 7, all UGAS holders must complete the registration of the Ultrain main wallet account by August 30th.
Encrypted project calendar（August 31, 2019）
ADX/AdEx:ADEX (ADX) will release the Validator Stack version 2.0 in AugustDADI/DADI:DADI will release the network CLI on August 31, with Stargates to support network services; and release Self Onboarding on the same day to allow the network to be more open.MITH/Mithril:The Mithril (MITH) team decided to implement the first MITH token destruction program on August 31.COS/Contentos:Contentos test network v0.5 “Jupiter” will be launched on August 31, this is the last version of the test before the main online line, alternate release.
Encrypted project calendar（September 01, 2019）
XLM/Stellar:Stellar (XLM) will conduct equity awards in binance on September 1st
Currencies of Social Organisation: The Future of Money (Sherryl Vint)
so, was reading Davies, William (ed.) - Economic Science Fictions (2018) the other day, and thought i'd share the entire chapter Currencies of Social Organisation: The Future of Money from part I: The Science and Fictions of the Economy. bit long, but worth the while. oh, and, how does it relate to holochain, some might ask again. read up. it quickly becomes self-evident. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Presented with the prospect of its own eternity, capitalism – or anyway, financial capitalism – simply explodes. Because if there’s no end to it, there’s absolutely no reason not to generate credit – that is, future money – infinitely." David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years Perhaps the first thing that comes to mind when thinking aboutscience fiction and money is the different kinds of currencies that are imagined for future worlds: the poscreds of Philip K. Dick’s Ubik, a currency required for every minute transaction such that the door becomes not an item you own but, rather, a provider of services for which you must continually pay, leaving protagonist Joe Chip trapped in his own apartment until someone pays his door to open; the bars of gold-pressed latinum used by the avaricious Ferengi on Star Trek, the only thing that cannot be replicated in this post-scarcity world, useless other than as an atavistic marker of wealth; the reputation- based currency of whuffie in Cory Doctorow’s Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, used to replace the social role money plays in creating a hierarchy in another post-scarcity world. The inventiveness of SF writers creating objects or systems of account that might serve as money is matched by its actual history and the wide range of items that have served as currency, from large stone wheels called Rai used as money on the island of Yap, to the split tally sticks of medieval English practice, to coinage and the ideal that a gold standard is the ‘real’ value of money, to slips of paper inscribed with various authentications and, finally, to the electronic signals used to store and transmit denominations of value. It turns out that, although most of the world uses money on a daily basis and has done so for almost as long as there have been records of human civilisation, it is not very clear what money actually is. How does money work? What is the underlying relationship among some underlying thing of ‘actual’ value (gold, land, the goods and services produced by a nation), the tokens of that value (coins, banknotes, electronic account balances) and the entity guaranteeing that said tokens are, basically, the same as that underlying thing of value (the King, the Bitcoin algorithm, the European Union). Reading about the history of money turns out to be surprisingly like reading science fiction: the kind of money a society has tells us a lot about the kind of human sociality that is possible in that world. Most definitions of money agree that it needs to be three things: a medium of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. The ‘store of value’ requirement tends to be overlooked in science fiction extrapolations, confusing whether money is simply a way of keeping ‘score’ of who owes what to whom or whether money is itself something of inherent value (even if it has no ‘use value’, such as gold), such that it will continue to be accepted even through periods of massive social and political disruption. More importantly, however, commentators agree that changes to this configuration of value, accounting, exchange practices and objects- serving-as-money are deeply consequential for the surrounding social order. Jack Weatherford argues in The History of Money, for example, that new forms of money destroy old forms of governance that were premised on the prior system of economics. 2 His book takes us through a number of such transitions: from a tributary economy of empire based on commodity money that was destabilised by the invention of coinage; through the invention of a system of banking and paper notes that disrupted and undermined the feudal system of medieval Europe by opening a path for power based on wealth (stocks and bonds) rather than on heredity (land); to the prediction that our contemporary system of electronic transfer will have similarly transformative effects on the future. Although science fiction has often imagined new objects or systems serving as currency in the future, it has seldom worked through the cultural power of money as an engine of social control, preferring to either posit post-scarcity societies of human fulfilment, such as Star Trek’s benevolent Federation of Planets or Iain M. Banks’ Culture universe, or else envisage worlds of ever-deepening capitalist uneven development that polarises humanity between lush zones of privilege and apocalyptic zones of deprivation that are, crucially, simultaneously produced by the same forces – the Sprawl of William Gibson’s cyberpunk trilogy, the orbiting gated community of Elysium (Neill Blomkamp), the privatised air of Rose Montero’s Bruna Husky series or the future of privatised food and seed corporation governance in Paolo Bacigalupi’s The Windup Girl. Although science fiction is frequently set in the future, it is always about its present moment of production. Thus, rather than predicting future kinds of money and sociality inherent in this coming shift, the more important thing science fiction can do is to help make visible – through estranging extrapolation that denatures what we take to be natural – how money functions in our present. In Money: The Unauthorized Biography, Felix Martin argues that we misrecognise money in its classic definition. Instead of thinking of it as a unit of exchange or store of value, he argues that money is a ‘social technology’ composed of three central elements: a denominating unit of value; a system of indebtedness and credits; and the possibility that debts can be transferred to another creditor. It is this third element that is the most crucial, and he contends that, ‘whilst all money is credit, not all credit is money’. Money is a social technology of transferable credit, ‘a set of ideas and practices which organise what we produce and consume, and the way we live together’. Martin goes on to explain that to arrive at this idea it was necessary first to develop one of a universal standard of value, a concept of economic value that is detached from any particular social organisation in which a debt might be incurred. Debt thereby becomes not a social exchange between people as part of a larger social structure of mutual obligations but simply a unit of account that might be transferred to another creditor and mean exactly the same thing, as if the value measured by money was a physical property in the world instead of a measure of human social structures and decisions. This idea of abstract and universal value opens the door to some of the more deleterious effects of the social technology of money. As Martin acknowledges, ‘[T]the choice of monetary standard is always a political one – because the standard itself represents nothing but a decision as to what is a fair distribution of wealth, income, and the risks of economic uncertainty.’ For Martin, the decision to view money as a thing rather than a social technology – which he dates to the Enlightenment and John Locke, with his insistence that the value of the coinage had to be the ‘material’ value of the metal, not the nominal value designated by the sovereign – was the first step in what would eventually become our 2008 financial crisis. In the Lockean understanding of money as a thing with inherent and universal worth, a centuries-long question regarding the degree to which money should be allowed to structure how we live with one another was short-circuited, taken out of the realm of ethical debate and put into that of natural ‘fact’. We treat money as a mathematical truth rather than a social choice with often disastrous consequences, reducing ‘vital questions of moral and political justice to the mechanical application of objective scientific truths’. 7 With this understanding of money, Western societies came to see a myriad of complex human social relationships through the single and narrow framework of economic self-interest. In its role as a genre that defamiliarises the present by exaggerating it into an imagined future, science fiction can serve a vital role in reminding us that money is a social technology, not a thing. For example, Andrew Niccol’s film In Time (2009) posits a world in which the unit of account is simply time: one works not for dollars or credits but for minutes, hours, days and, ultimately, years of one’s life. One of the things it immediately makes clear is how ridiculous the fiction is that capitalists and workers (that is, sellers of labour-power) meet at the market in any manner that remotely resembles an exchange among equals: the capitalist can always wait another day for a more favourable negotiation but the worker, who needs to sell his or her labour-power to continue to live, cannot. Niccol shows the social costs of inflation, which makes a cup of coffee cost more ‘minutes’ than it did the day before, creating dilemmas for workers who can stretch the working day only so far to accommodate the change. More and more of one’s time is spent working – that is, accumulating minutes to live – but at some point the number of currency minutes needed to sustain life exceeds the time needed to accumulate them, and the most economically vulnerable simply die. The rich, in contrast, are seemingly immortal, since their time simply existing continues to accumulate ever more minutes through the crucial fact that what they own is capital, not mere labour-power. Time is a problematic image for currency, of course: it can function well as a unit of account and perhaps even can serve as a medium of exchange (people gamble minutes, hours and years; people give one another minutes, and such economic support is, quite literally, life support), but it is difficult to imagine how time can be a store of value. This is where the film’s attempt to critique the discrepancy between the one-percent and everyone else falls apart: a disaffected one-percenter with centuries of life but no purpose (Matt Bomer) decides to give his years to protagonist Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), who uses this unexpected luxury (of time that need not be productive) to penetrate the echelons of the wealthiest citizens – tolls to these inner zones are paid in weeks, then months, then years – and attempt to destroy the system of lives held in thrall to generating money. The image the film uses to convey this revolutionary overthrow is a raid on a ‘bank’ that has an accumulated stockpile of time, time that is simply sitting there unused while people expire due to its lack. Salas forms a partnership with the disaffected daughter of one of the bank’s major stockholders (Amanda Seyfried), and together they steal and freely distribute this vast quantity of ‘unused’ time, thereby ending the structures of precarity lived by those struggling to ensure they have enough ‘time’ to live another day. Rather than critiquing the limitations of imagining time as a currency, I want to focus instead on what this image makes visible: that money is a social technology, that it always is, as Martin argues, a political tool that structures the way we live collectively and what we as a society have decided is a fair distribution of wealth and risk. By so directly linking the ability to secure a wage to the chances to continue to exist, In Time lays bare an underlying logic of neoliberal capitalism that is otherwise obscured by a discourse that naturalises the market and attempts to compel us to believe that we must accommodate ourselves to its dictates rather than recognise that its very functioning is a creation of human choice. If time in the film functioned as do other currencies, of course, Salas’s heroic gesture would simply contribute to inflation, the collapse of the ‘buying power’ of a unit of time. Despite this limitation, however, In Time points us towards the fundamental injustice of an economic system that extends some people’s lives and capacities while it shortens others. The underlying issue is the relationship between creditors (those with time to spare) and debtors (those whose very lives are in bondage to an economic system). David Graeber’s masterful Debt: The First 5,000 Years is actually another history of money, despite its title. One of his most powerful claims is that we more properly understand the social technology of money as a system of debt rather than one of credit. Whereas, for Martin, money is transferrable credit, Graeber points out that this is simultaneously a transformation of the social obligations that humans have to one another into specifically economic obligations, creating a society that, taken to its logical extreme, results in a world in which all social exchange is financialised debt. Graeber begins his book with an account of the massive social disruption caused by International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans to developing nations, indebtedness that required countries ‘to abandon price supports on basic foodstuffs, or even policies of keeping strategic food reserves, and abandon free health care and free education’ in the name of prioritising the obligation to pay back debt, leading to ‘the collapse of all the most basic supports for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people on earth’. Whereas for Martin the transferability of credit is essential to making it function as money, for Graeber it is precisely the way credit (that is, indebtedness) becomes transferable that creates the social chaos of a society that is thus premised on inequality. For Graeber, debt can become transferable only when it becomes ‘simple, cold, and impersonal’, detached from any larger social context of mutual support and purely a ‘precisely quantified’ sum for which ‘one does not need to calculate the human effects; one needs only calculate principal, balances, penalties, and rates of interest’. He traces the history of debt – and social crises of indebtedness – from the beginnings of recorded human civilisation through to the IMF crises and beyond, connecting the 2008 financial crisis and bank bailouts to the same fundamental mechanisms of inequality that always structure an economy based on money: just as governments spent money to repay IMF loans rather than to offer social services to their population, so too did governments pay to protect the wealthy few who own bank bonds at the expense of other taxpayers. This was a crisis created by the seemingly endless generation of new forms of credit, new ways to make money out of records of debt, a specific form of money as capital – that is, as money that must continually grow. Only the power of the US military, Graeber argues, holds the world economic system together based on a fear of reprisal: ‘[T]he last thirty years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a giant machine designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures.’ Here his discussion of the history of debt begins to sound a lot like discussions of the SF imagination. In recent years critics such as Fredric Jameson and writers such as Kim Stanley Robinson have deplored the failure of the utopian imagination, our inability to imagine alternatives beyond the social order created by capitalism. For Graeber, the disappearance of hope has to do with the crushing circumstances of chronic indebtedness, a cycle that has recurred throughout history and for which, until modern times, a solution existed. This solution is an amnesty on debt, a decision to simply reset all accounts and start over whenever the burden of debt on one segment of the population became so heavy as to debilitate its chances to thrive and also to destabilise the entire social order premised on class difference between debtors and debtees. Graeber links debt forgiveness to an ancient biblical Law of the Jubilee, which ‘stipulated that all debts would be automatically cancelled “in the Sabbath year” (that is, after seven years had passed), and that all who languished in bondage owing to such debts would be released’. Martin dates the idea of periodic debt forgiveness as a way to manage the socially deleterious effects of indebtedness even earlier, arguing that records of this ‘Mesopotamian practice of proclaiming a clean slate when the burden of debt became socially unsupportable are almost as old as the earliest evidence for interest-bearing debt itself – dating from the reign of Enmetana of Lagash in around 2,400 BC’. Graeber ends his book with a call for a contemporary Jubilee on international and consumer debt, arguing that it would be helpful ‘not just because it would relieve so much genuine human suffering, but also because it would be our way of reminding ourselves that money is not ineffable, that paying one’s debts is not the essence of morality, that all these things are human arrangements and that if democracy is to mean anything, it is the ability to all agree to arrange things in a different way’. The best kind of SF vision of the future of money may thus be an idea taken from the distant past, a period proximate enough to the emergence of money and its new social structures that people remained capable of recognising it as a social policy, not a fact of nature. While science fiction has often imagined post-scarcity societies that thereby eliminate indebtedness, very little has imagined the future of monetary policy and banking. A notable exception is the work of Charles Stross, especially his novel Neptune’s Brood, which uses a passage from Graeber’s book as its epigraph. Stross imagine the future of capitalist social organisation as mutated to accommodate trading across the vast distances of space colonisation and at the high speeds of computer consciousness. Taking his cues from the fact that much of the derivative market consists of trades done by algorithms and software, often requiring an advanced degree in physics to be understood, Stross posits a future of artificial humanoid beings whose ethos is shaped by an ecology of capital treated as if it were nature. Most of the critical discussion about the novel focuses on Stross’s idea of slow, medium, and fast money. Fast money is what we are accustomed to: ‘Cash is fast money. We use it for immediate exchanges of value. Goods and labor: You sell, I buy.’ Medium money is something that more durably stores its value, and is not reliant on the vagaries of governments and fiscal policy like fast money, as in: ‘Cathedrals and asteroids and debts and durable real estate and bonds backed by the honorable reputation of traders in slow money.’ And, finally, slow money is the kind of money required to finance interstellar trade and colonisation in a world without faster-than-light (FTL) travel: ‘Slow money is a medium of exchange designed to outlast the rise and fall of civilizations. It is the currency of world-builders, running on an engine of debt that can only be repaid by the formation of new interstellar colonies, passing the liability ever onward into the deep future.’The details of the novel’s adventure plot – featuring a forensic accountant hero – show us how such a society, continually passing along debt, would be filled with avarice and exploitation, with only the most instrumental of interpersonal relations. The novel is a careful and thorough figuration of the end extreme of capitalism. A vision of the future anticipated in the epigraph from Graeber above, a future of ever more overwhelming indebtedness, the flip side of money understood as transferable credit. The ultimate horizon of the novel is the reinvention of the Jubilee, the ‘systemwide rest of the financial system entailing nullification of all debts’. Its characters, shaped by capitalism as a necessary fact of life, struggle to imagine the possibility of such a Jubilee. The accountant protagonist, Krina, for example, is shocked when she hears of someone functioning as a debt termination officer, exclaiming: ‘[M]atters should never reach the stage where they need to terminate a bad debt! Far better to stir it up with a bunch of lumpen credit properties and shuffle it off to a long-term investment trust for toxic assets.’ So how does Stross create the conditions for a Jubilee in Neptune’s Brood when no one is power has any incentive to forgive the debs that are the foundation of their social structure? The transformation happens because of the discovery of a kind of matter transmission that enables the equivalent of FTL travel, meaning all financial exchanges can happen at the speed of fast money, and so the accumulated stockpiles of wealth that are slow money are suddenly rendered meaningless. Indebtedness is thereby wiped out when the value of this currency collapses, since a vast slow money debt can now be paid with a pittance of fast money. Obviously Stross’s solution cannot easily be translated into our world, because we do not denominate our currencies in this way nor trade at interstellar distances. Yet I think it still holds a lesson for us that only the displacements of science fiction thinking can capture. The collapse of the slow money economy completely transforms existing power relations, and it is also devastating for those who have accumulated vast holdings in this debt-based currency. At the same time, however, freedom from debt for others opens up so many more possibilities as to where the resources and energy might go that the positive elements of change are equally powerful to the disruptive ones. The transition is enabled in part by a branch of humanoids whose neural architecture has been transformed to communicate mental states through light, a post-human redesign intended to make them more effective workers (bypassing the slowness of language). This transformation also changed their social order, however, in ways that ultimately sidelined money and property: ‘They’re still individuals, but the border between self and other is thinner. And they don’t hate. They own property but they don’t have strong social hierarchies – top-down control is a dangerous liability to a team trying to trap a runaway natural nuclear reactor – they’re instinctive mutualists. They understand money and debt and credit and so on, but they don’t feel a visceral need to own: What they owe doesn’t define their identity.’ A different kind of human sociality plants the seed for a different relationship to property and money, which ultimately opens the door to detaching human futures from the tyranny of debt. If, as Martin argues, money is a social technology, ‘a set of ideas and practices which organise what we produce and consume, and the way we live together’, then science fiction can make visible the kind of social engineering done by the capitalist technology of money. As a social technology, the tool of money can be oriented towards other kinds of ideas and practices, other kinds of social orders, other kinds of subjectivities. Both In Time and Neptune’s Brood offer exaggerated and extrapolated visions of the society the current technology of money creates, focusing on the human suffering that is produced by keeping this technology in place. Science fiction has always been about the idea that social arrangements might be otherwise, about extrapolating known technologies towards novel ends. Stross gives us a tantalising hint of the possible future of a debt Jubilee, of one way we might reinvent the technology of money.
Vitalik Buterin: If Bitcoin Is a Pocket Calculator, Ethereum Is a Smartphone
Vitalik Buterin: If Bitcoin Is a Pocket Calculator, Ethereum Is a Smartphone
In a recent interview, while talking about the motivation behind Ethereum (ETH), the second most valuable cryptocurrency in the world, its creator Vitalik Buterin said that if you think of Bitcoin as a pocket calculator, then Ethereum is like a smartphone. https://preview.redd.it/zbtmhpzi0zj21.jpg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b8576fe27447baceffec50aa289b4dc34023d81b The Russian-Canadian programmer's comments during a video interview with Business Insider that was released on Thursday (February 28th). Vitalik started by explaining how he got into the crypto space: "So, I first got into the crypto space back when it was just called the Bitcoin space, around 2011. I thought it was something really interesting. I started getting into the community more and more. I co-founded Bitcoin Magazine." Next, he explained that after doing some Bitcoin-related work for around two years, he eventually quit college/university to focus on Bitcoin full-time. A short time later, came the realization that there were more things you could do with blockchain technology than just using it to create a "single peer-to-peer currency." So, he came up with the main idea behind Ethereum, "this idea of a blockchain with a built-in programming language." He then explained what was the biggest problem with Bitcoin that he was trying to solve with Ethereum: "Just too limited functionality. Think of the difference between a pocket calculator and a smartphone, where a pocket calculator does one thing, and it does one thing well, but really people want to do these other things. And if you have a smartphone, then on the smartphone, you have a pocket calculator as an app, you have play music as an app, you have a web browser, and pretty much everything else. So, basically, taking that same idea of increasing the power of the system by making it more general-purpose, and applying it to blockchains." On February 19th, as reported by CryptoGlobe, Vitalik revealed some details about his financial standing, including which cryptocurrencies he holds and his major corporate shareholdings, and these showed that the vast majority of his crypto holdings are in Ether (ETH). Ethereum Foundation's Hudson Jameson made a post called "AMA about Ethereum Leadership and Accountability" on the "ethereum" subreddit. The purpose of this post was to encourage all those in a leadership position in the Ethereum community, especially the people who are "actively involved in protocol decision-making" to disclose which cryptoassets they hold and where their income comes in order for others to be able to see if there were any potential conflicts of interests. In this thread, Vitalik revealed the following information about his current financial standing:
"Non-ethereum-ecosystem tokens: BCH, BTC, DOGE, ZEC; total value < 10% the value of my ETH"
"Non-ETH ethereum ecosystem tokens: KNC, MKR, OMG, REP, total value <10% the value of my ETH"
"Revenue in the last 12 months other than ethereum foundation salary: a few advisor tokens (included in above)"
Vitalik also disclosed his non-financial interests: "friends in the ecosystems represented by the above projects, as well as some non-token ethereum ecosystem orgs (eg. L4, Plasma Group, EthGlobal, EDCON) and non-token non-ethereum orgs (mainly professional cryptography and economics circles)."
The threat of "51% attacks" has become a reality
At night ZenCash underwent a 4-hour "51% attack". The hacker managed to roll back 38 transactions and steal $ 550 thousand before the mining pools managed to inform the developer, and that one- the exchangers. According to the 51Crypto service, which uses a public algorithm to calculate the cost of attacks, the organization of the attack costed only $ 30 thousand. This is the 6th "51%" attack on cryptocurrencies over the past 2 months. Earlier, Bitcoin Gold ($ 18.6 million), Verge (twice $ 1.76 million and $ 0.8 million), Monacoin ($ 90,000 loss) and Electroneum (claim there was no damage) were attacked earlier. The high vulnerability of all PoW-cryptocurrencies was repeatedly warned by Bitcoin developers Jameson Lopp and Peter Todd. At one time, the developers proceeded from the assumption that it would be economically unprofitable for miners to make "51% attacks". However, these expectations turned out to be too idealistic, and now developers will have to spend part of the profits to protect digital assets. Join our Telegram channel & subscribe to our newsletter to be the first to read news of blockchain and crypto industries
Bitcoin Core 0.10.0 released | Wladimir | Feb 16 2015
Wladimir on Feb 16 2015: Bitcoin Core version 0.10.0 is now available from: https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.10.0/ This is a new major version release, bringing both new features and bug fixes. Please report bugs using the issue tracker at github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues The whole distribution is also available as torrent: https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.10.0/bitcoin-0.10.0.torrent magnet:?xt=urn:btih:170c61fe09dafecfbb97cb4dccd32173383f4e68&dn;=0.10.0&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80%2Fannounce&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr;=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&ws;=https%3A%2F%2Fbitcoin.org%2Fbin%2F Upgrading and downgrading How to Upgrade If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), then run the installer (on Windows) or just copy over /Applications/Bitcoin-Qt (on Mac) or bitcoind/bitcoin-qt (on Linux). Downgrading warning Because release 0.10.0 makes use of headers-first synchronization and parallel block download (see further), the block files and databases are not backwards-compatible with older versions of Bitcoin Core or other software:
Blocks will be stored on disk out of order (in the order they are
received, really), which makes it incompatible with some tools or other programs. Reindexing using earlier versions will also not work anymore as a result of this.
The block index database will now hold headers for which no block is
stored on disk, which earlier versions won't support. If you want to be able to downgrade smoothly, make a backup of your entire data directory. Without this your node will need start syncing (or importing from bootstrap.dat) anew afterwards. It is possible that the data from a completely synchronised 0.10 node may be usable in older versions as-is, but this is not supported and may break as soon as the older version attempts to reindex. This does not affect wallet forward or backward compatibility. Notable changes Faster synchronization Bitcoin Core now uses 'headers-first synchronization'. This means that we first ask peers for block headers (a total of 27 megabytes, as of December 2014) and validate those. In a second stage, when the headers have been discovered, we download the blocks. However, as we already know about the whole chain in advance, the blocks can be downloaded in parallel from all available peers. In practice, this means a much faster and more robust synchronization. On recent hardware with a decent network link, it can be as little as 3 hours for an initial full synchronization. You may notice a slower progress in the very first few minutes, when headers are still being fetched and verified, but it should gain speed afterwards. A few RPCs were added/updated as a result of this:
getblockchaininfo now returns the number of validated headers in addition to
the number of validated blocks.
getpeerinfo lists both the number of blocks and headers we know we have in
common with each peer. While synchronizing, the heights of the blocks that we have requested from peers (but haven't received yet) are also listed as 'inflight'.
A new RPC getchaintips lists all known branches of the block chain,
including those we only have headers for. Transaction fee changes This release automatically estimates how high a transaction fee (or how high a priority) transactions require to be confirmed quickly. The default settings will create transactions that confirm quickly; see the new 'txconfirmtarget' setting to control the tradeoff between fees and confirmation times. Fees are added by default unless the 'sendfreetransactions' setting is enabled. Prior releases used hard-coded fees (and priorities), and would sometimes create transactions that took a very long time to confirm. Statistics used to estimate fees and priorities are saved in the data directory in the fee_estimates.dat file just before program shutdown, and are read in at startup. New command line options for transaction fee changes:
-txconfirmtarget=n : create transactions that have enough fees (or priority)
so they are likely to begin confirmation within n blocks (default: 1). This setting is over-ridden by the -paytxfee option.
-sendfreetransactions : Send transactions as zero-fee transactions if possible
(default: 0) New RPC commands for fee estimation:
estimatefee nblocks : Returns approximate fee-per-1,000-bytes needed for
a transaction to begin confirmation within nblocks. Returns -1 if not enough transactions have been observed to compute a good estimate.
estimatepriority nblocks : Returns approximate priority needed for
a zero-fee transaction to begin confirmation within nblocks. Returns -1 if not enough free transactions have been observed to compute a good estimate. RPC access control changes Subnet matching for the purpose of access control is now done by matching the binary network address, instead of with string wildcard matching. For the user this means that -rpcallowip takes a subnet specification, which can be
a single IP address (e.g. 22.214.171.124 or fe80::0012:3456:789a:bcde)
a network/CIDR (e.g. 126.96.36.199/24 or fe80::0000/64)
a network/netmask (e.g. 188.8.131.52/255.255.255.0 or fe80::0012:3456:789a:bcde/ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff)
An arbitrary number of -rpcallow arguments can be given. An incoming connection will be accepted if its origin address matches one of them. For example: | 0.9.x and before | 0.10.x | |--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | -rpcallowip=192.168.1.1 | -rpcallowip=192.168.1.1 (unchanged) | | -rpcallowip=192.168.1.* | -rpcallowip=192.168.1.0/24 | | -rpcallowip=192.168.* | -rpcallowip=192.168.0.0/16 | | -rpcallowip=* (dangerous!) | -rpcallowip=::/0 (still dangerous!) | Using wildcards will result in the rule being rejected with the following error in debug.log:
Error: Invalid -rpcallowip subnet specification: *. Valid are a single IP (e.g. 184.108.40.206), a network/netmask (e.g. 220.127.116.11/255.255.255.0) or a network/CIDR (e.g. 18.104.22.168/24).
REST interface A new HTTP API is exposed when running with the -rest flag, which allows unauthenticated access to public node data. It is served on the same port as RPC, but does not need a password, and uses plain HTTP instead of JSON-RPC. Assuming a local RPC server running on port 8332, it is possible to request:
In every case, EXT can be bin (for raw binary data), hex (for hex-encoded binary) or json. For more details, see the doc/REST-interface.md document in the repository. RPC Server "Warm-Up" Mode The RPC server is started earlier now, before most of the expensive intialisations like loading the block index. It is available now almost immediately after starting the process. However, until all initialisations are done, it always returns an immediate error with code -28 to all calls. This new behaviour can be useful for clients to know that a server is already started and will be available soon (for instance, so that they do not have to start it themselves). Improved signing security For 0.10 the security of signing against unusual attacks has been improved by making the signatures constant time and deterministic. This change is a result of switching signing to use libsecp256k1 instead of OpenSSL. Libsecp256k1 is a cryptographic library optimized for the curve Bitcoin uses which was created by Bitcoin Core developer Pieter Wuille. There exist attacks against most ECC implementations where an attacker on shared virtual machine hardware could extract a private key if they could cause a target to sign using the same key hundreds of times. While using shared hosts and reusing keys are inadvisable for other reasons, it's a better practice to avoid the exposure. OpenSSL has code in their source repository for derandomization and reduction in timing leaks that we've eagerly wanted to use for a long time, but this functionality has still not made its way into a released version of OpenSSL. Libsecp256k1 achieves significantly stronger protection: As far as we're aware this is the only deployed implementation of constant time signing for the curve Bitcoin uses and we have reason to believe that libsecp256k1 is better tested and more thoroughly reviewed than the implementation in OpenSSL.  https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/161.pdf Watch-only wallet support The wallet can now track transactions to and from wallets for which you know all addresses (or scripts), even without the private keys. This can be used to track payments without needing the private keys online on a possibly vulnerable system. In addition, it can help for (manual) construction of multisig transactions where you are only one of the signers. One new RPC, importaddress, is added which functions similarly to importprivkey, but instead takes an address or script (in hexadecimal) as argument. After using it, outputs credited to this address or script are considered to be received, and transactions consuming these outputs will be considered to be sent. The following RPCs have optional support for watch-only: getbalance, listreceivedbyaddress, listreceivedbyaccount, listtransactions, listaccounts, listsinceblock, gettransaction. See the RPC documentation for those methods for more information. Compared to using getrawtransaction, this mechanism does not require -txindex, scales better, integrates better with the wallet, and is compatible with future block chain pruning functionality. It does mean that all relevant addresses need to added to the wallet before the payment, though. Consensus library Starting from 0.10.0, the Bitcoin Core distribution includes a consensus library. The purpose of this library is to make the verification functionality that is critical to Bitcoin's consensus available to other applications, e.g. to language bindings such as [python-bitcoinlib](https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-bitcoinlib) or alternative node implementations. This library is called libbitcoinconsensus.so (or, .dll for Windows). Its interface is defined in the C header [bitcoinconsensus.h](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.10/src/script/bitcoinconsensus.h). In its initial version the API includes two functions:
bitcoinconsensus_verify_script verifies a script. It returns whether the indicated input of the provided serialized transaction
correctly spends the passed scriptPubKey under additional constraints indicated by flags
bitcoinconsensus_version returns the API version, currently at an experimental 0
The functionality is planned to be extended to e.g. UTXO management in upcoming releases, but the interface for existing methods should remain stable. Standard script rules relaxed for P2SH addresses The IsStandard() rules have been almost completely removed for P2SH redemption scripts, allowing applications to make use of any valid script type, such as "n-of-m OR y", hash-locked oracle addresses, etc. While the Bitcoin protocol has always supported these types of script, actually using them on mainnet has been previously inconvenient as standard Bitcoin Core nodes wouldn't relay them to miners, nor would most miners include them in blocks they mined. bitcoin-tx It has been observed that many of the RPC functions offered by bitcoind are "pure functions", and operate independently of the bitcoind wallet. This included many of the RPC "raw transaction" API functions, such as createrawtransaction. bitcoin-tx is a newly introduced command line utility designed to enable easy manipulation of bitcoin transactions. A summary of its operation may be obtained via "bitcoin-tx --help" Transactions may be created or signed in a manner similar to the RPC raw tx API. Transactions may be updated, deleting inputs or outputs, or appending new inputs and outputs. Custom scripts may be easily composed using a simple text notation, borrowed from the bitcoin test suite. This tool may be used for experimenting with new transaction types, signing multi-party transactions, and many other uses. Long term, the goal is to deprecate and remove "pure function" RPC API calls, as those do not require a server round-trip to execute. Other utilities "bitcoin-key" and "bitcoin-script" have been proposed, making key and script operations easily accessible via command line. Mining and relay policy enhancements Bitcoin Core's block templates are now for version 3 blocks only, and any mining software relying on its getblocktemplate must be updated in parallel to use libblkmaker either version 0.4.2 or any version from 0.5.1 onward. If you are solo mining, this will affect you the moment you upgrade Bitcoin Core, which must be done prior to BIP66 achieving its 951/1001 status. If you are mining with the stratum mining protocol: this does not affect you. If you are mining with the getblocktemplate protocol to a pool: this will affect you at the pool operator's discretion, which must be no later than BIP66 achieving its 951/1001 status. The prioritisetransaction RPC method has been added to enable miners to manipulate the priority of transactions on an individual basis. Bitcoin Core now supports BIP 22 long polling, so mining software can be notified immediately of new templates rather than having to poll periodically. Support for BIP 23 block proposals is now available in Bitcoin Core's getblocktemplate method. This enables miners to check the basic validity of their next block before expending work on it, reducing risks of accidental hardforks or mining invalid blocks. Two new options to control mining policy:
-datacarrier=0/1 : Relay and mine "data carrier" (OP_RETURN) transactions
if this is 1.
-datacarriersize=n : Maximum size, in bytes, we consider acceptable for
"data carrier" outputs. The relay policy has changed to more properly implement the desired behavior of not relaying free (or very low fee) transactions unless they have a priority above the AllowFreeThreshold(), in which case they are relayed subject to the rate limiter. BIP 66: strict DER encoding for signatures Bitcoin Core 0.10 implements BIP 66, which introduces block version 3, and a new consensus rule, which prohibits non-DER signatures. Such transactions have been non-standard since Bitcoin v0.8.0 (released in February 2013), but were technically still permitted inside blocks. This change breaks the dependency on OpenSSL's signature parsing, and is required if implementations would want to remove all of OpenSSL from the consensus code. The same miner-voting mechanism as in BIP 34 is used: when 751 out of a sequence of 1001 blocks have version number 3 or higher, the new consensus rule becomes active for those blocks. When 951 out of a sequence of 1001 blocks have version number 3 or higher, it becomes mandatory for all blocks. Backward compatibility with current mining software is NOT provided, thus miners should read the first paragraph of "Mining and relay policy enhancements" above. 0.10.0 Change log Detailed release notes follow. This overview includes changes that affect external behavior, not code moves, refactors or string updates. RPC:
f923c07 Support IPv6 lookup in bitcoin-cli even when IPv6 only bound on localhost
b641c9c Fix addnode "onetry": Connect with OpenNetworkConnection
Bitcoin Breakout: Eat My Dust Amazon, Apple, Facebook And Google; PayPal Just Gave 346 Million People A New Way To Buy Bitcoin—But There’s A Nasty Catch Use a Bitcoin mining calculator to get an idea. The calculator calculates the profitability of bitcoin mining. You simply just need to enter your hardware’s hash rate (Gh/s), its power use in watts, and your electricity cost in dollars per kilowatt-hour. Further, it enters current bitcoin difficulty, bitcoin block reward, and bitcoin price automatically. 1.2 What makes hardware better than ... Bitcoin history for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Bitcoin price chart since 2009 to 2019. The historical data and rates of BTC ... Bitcoin Difficulty Estimator Blockchain Stats Bitcoin Visuals Coin Dance Glassnode Studio Network Stats p2sh.info utxo-stats Yogh Outputs.today Bitinfocharts Bitcoincharts Bitcoinops Bitcoinity Datamish Look into bitcoin charts Fee calculator Johoe’s Bitcoin Mempool Statistics Liquid issued assets Liquid Horse Luke Jr’s Bitcoin Node Script ... Jameson Lopp enjoys building technology that empowers individuals; he is currently focused upon the evolution of Bitcoin and the crypto asset ecosystem. He is passionate about sharing his knowledge with others and is receptive to interviews and speaking engagements.
Bitcoin Stories: Jameson Lopp, Cofounder of Casa (Episode ...
Jameson Lopp, is very well known in the Bitcoin space for his wide expertise on security, technology and privacy. He is maintaining and curating a Bitcoin resources page with links to valuable ... Bitcoin Core developer and ex-contributor to BitGo Jameson Lopp is regarded as one of the leading experts in the sphere of cryptowallet safety. He is also known for an educational website https ... I interviewed Jameson Lopp, Cofounder of Casa. We talk bitcoin self custody and the importance of sovereignty. Sponsors: Unocoin.com and Paycase.com John Jameson joins the show this morning talking bitcoin at $11,000, where will blockchain technology take us, and what to expect from cryptocurrencies in the months and years to come! How to protect your Crypto from getting hacked: Jameson lopp Jameson Lopp is a Bitcoin engineer, who was the subject of a Swatting incident, and as of November 2018 he was the chief technology ...