Merged mining specification - Bitcoin Wiki

Aeon

Aeon (AEON) is a private, secure, untraceable currency. You are your bank, you control your funds, and nobody can trace your transfers.
[link]

Groestlcoin 6th Anniversary Release

Introduction

Dear Groestlers, it goes without saying that 2020 has been a difficult time for millions of people worldwide. The groestlcoin team would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone our best to everyone coping with the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19. Let it bring out the best in us all and show that collectively, we can conquer anything.
The centralised banks and our national governments are facing unprecedented times with interest rates worldwide dropping to record lows in places. Rest assured that this can only strengthen the fundamentals of all decentralised cryptocurrencies and the vision that was seeded with Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper over 10 years ago. Despite everything that has been thrown at us this year, the show must go on and the team will still progress and advance to continue the momentum that we have developed over the past 6 years.
In addition to this, we'd like to remind you all that this is Groestlcoin's 6th Birthday release! In terms of price there have been some crazy highs and lows over the years (with highs of around $2.60 and lows of $0.000077!), but in terms of value– Groestlcoin just keeps getting more valuable! In these uncertain times, one thing remains clear – Groestlcoin will keep going and keep innovating regardless. On with what has been worked on and completed over the past few months.

UPDATED - Groestlcoin Core 2.18.2

This is a major release of Groestlcoin Core with many protocol level improvements and code optimizations, featuring the technical equivalent of Bitcoin v0.18.2 but with Groestlcoin-specific patches. On a general level, most of what is new is a new 'Groestlcoin-wallet' tool which is now distributed alongside Groestlcoin Core's other executables.
NOTE: The 'Account' API has been removed from this version which was typically used in some tip bots. Please ensure you check the release notes from 2.17.2 for details on replacing this functionality.

How to Upgrade?

Windows
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.
OSX
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), run the dmg and drag Groestlcoin Core to Applications.
Ubuntu
http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=441.0

Other Linux

http://groestlcoin.org/forum/index.php?topic=97.0

Download

Download the Windows Installer (64 bit) here
Download the Windows Installer (32 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Windows binaries (32 bit) here
Download the OSX Installer here
Download the OSX binaries here
Download the Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the Linux binaries (32 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (64 bit) here
Download the ARM Linux binaries (32 bit) here

Source

ALL NEW - Groestlcoin Moonshine iOS/Android Wallet

Built with React Native, Moonshine utilizes Electrum-GRS's JSON-RPC methods to interact with the Groestlcoin network.
GRS Moonshine's intended use is as a hot wallet. Meaning, your keys are only as safe as the device you install this wallet on. As with any hot wallet, please ensure that you keep only a small, responsible amount of Groestlcoin on it at any given time.

Features

Download

iOS
Android

Source

ALL NEW! – HODL GRS Android Wallet

HODL GRS connects directly to the Groestlcoin network using SPV mode and doesn't rely on servers that can be hacked or disabled.
HODL GRS utilizes AES hardware encryption, app sandboxing, and the latest security features to protect users from malware, browser security holes, and even physical theft. Private keys are stored only in the secure enclave of the user's phone, inaccessible to anyone other than the user.
Simplicity and ease-of-use is the core design principle of HODL GRS. A simple recovery phrase (which we call a Backup Recovery Key) is all that is needed to restore the user's wallet if they ever lose or replace their device. HODL GRS is deterministic, which means the user's balance and transaction history can be recovered just from the backup recovery key.

Features

Download

Main Release (Main Net)
Testnet Release

Source

ALL NEW! – GroestlcoinSeed Savior

Groestlcoin Seed Savior is a tool for recovering BIP39 seed phrases.
This tool is meant to help users with recovering a slightly incorrect Groestlcoin mnemonic phrase (AKA backup or seed). You can enter an existing BIP39 mnemonic and get derived addresses in various formats.
To find out if one of the suggested addresses is the right one, you can click on the suggested address to check the address' transaction history on a block explorer.

Features

Live Version (Not Recommended)

https://www.groestlcoin.org/recovery/

Download

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/mnemonic-recovery/archive/master.zip

Source

ALL NEW! – Vanity Search Vanity Address Generator

NOTE: NVidia GPU or any CPU only. AMD graphics cards will not work with this address generator.
VanitySearch is a command-line Segwit-capable vanity Groestlcoin address generator. Add unique flair when you tell people to send Groestlcoin. Alternatively, VanitySearch can be used to generate random addresses offline.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic addresses generated by regular groestlcoin clients, then VanitySearch is the right choice for you to create a more personalized address.
VanitySearch is a groestlcoin address prefix finder. If you want to generate safe private keys, use the -s option to enter your passphrase which will be used for generating a base key as for BIP38 standard (VanitySearch.exe -s "My PassPhrase" FXPref). You can also use VanitySearch.exe -ps "My PassPhrase" which will add a crypto secure seed to your passphrase.
VanitySearch may not compute a good grid size for your GPU, so try different values using -g option in order to get the best performances. If you want to use GPUs and CPUs together, you may have best performances by keeping one CPU core for handling GPU(s)/CPU exchanges (use -t option to set the number of CPU threads).

Features

Usage

https://github.com/Groestlcoin/VanitySearch#usage

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020

Groestlcoin EasyVanity 2020 is a windows app built from the ground-up and makes it easier than ever before to create your very own bespoke bech32 address(es) when whilst not connected to the internet.
If you're tired of the random, cryptic bech32 addresses generated by regular Groestlcoin clients, then Groestlcoin EasyVanity2020 is the right choice for you to create a more personalised bech32 address. This 2020 version uses the new VanitySearch to generate not only legacy addresses (F prefix) but also Bech32 addresses (grs1 prefix).

Features

Download

Source

Remastered! – Groestlcoin WPF Desktop Wallet (v2.19.0.18)

Groestlcoin WPF is an alternative full node client with optional lightweight 'thin-client' mode based on WPF. Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) is one of Microsoft's latest approaches to a GUI framework, used with the .NET framework. Its main advantages over the original Groestlcoin client include support for exporting blockchain.dat and including a lite wallet mode.
This wallet was previously deprecated but has been brought back to life with modern standards.

Features

Remastered Improvements

Download

Source

ALL NEW! – BIP39 Key Tool

Groestlcoin BIP39 Key Tool is a GUI interface for generating Groestlcoin public and private keys. It is a standalone tool which can be used offline.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux :
 pip3 install -r requirements.txt python3 bip39\_gui.py 

Source

ALL NEW! – Electrum Personal Server

Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server aims to make using Electrum Groestlcoin wallet more secure and more private. It makes it easy to connect your Electrum-GRS wallet to your own full node.
It is an implementation of the Electrum-grs server protocol which fulfils the specific need of using the Electrum-grs wallet backed by a full node, but without the heavyweight server backend, for a single user. It allows the user to benefit from all Groestlcoin Core's resource-saving features like pruning, blocks only and disabled txindex. All Electrum-GRS's feature-richness like hardware wallet integration, multi-signature wallets, offline signing, seed recovery phrases, coin control and so on can still be used, but connected only to the user's own full node.
Full node wallets are important in Groestlcoin because they are a big part of what makes the system be trust-less. No longer do people have to trust a financial institution like a bank or PayPal, they can run software on their own computers. If Groestlcoin is digital gold, then a full node wallet is your own personal goldsmith who checks for you that received payments are genuine.
Full node wallets are also important for privacy. Using Electrum-GRS under default configuration requires it to send (hashes of) all your Groestlcoin addresses to some server. That server can then easily spy on your transactions. Full node wallets like Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server would download the entire blockchain and scan it for the user's own addresses, and therefore don't reveal to anyone else which Groestlcoin addresses they are interested in.
Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can also broadcast transactions through Tor which improves privacy by resisting traffic analysis for broadcasted transactions which can link the IP address of the user to the transaction. If enabled this would happen transparently whenever the user simply clicks "Send" on a transaction in Electrum-grs wallet.
Note: Currently Groestlcoin Electrum Personal Server can only accept one connection at a time.

Features

Download

Windows
Linux / OSX (Instructions)

Source

UPDATED – Android Wallet 7.38.1 - Main Net + Test Net

The app allows you to send and receive Groestlcoin on your device using QR codes and URI links.
When using this app, please back up your wallet and email them to yourself! This will save your wallet in a password protected file. Then your coins can be retrieved even if you lose your phone.

Changes

Download

Main Net
Main Net (FDroid)
Test Net

Source

UPDATED – Groestlcoin Sentinel 3.5.06 (Android)

Groestlcoin Sentinel is a great solution for anyone who wants the convenience and utility of a hot wallet for receiving payments directly into their cold storage (or hardware wallets).
Sentinel accepts XPUB's, YPUB'S, ZPUB's and individual Groestlcoin address. Once added you will be able to view balances, view transactions, and (in the case of XPUB's, YPUB's and ZPUB's) deterministically generate addresses for that wallet.
Groestlcoin Sentinel is a fork of Groestlcoin Samourai Wallet with all spending and transaction building code removed.

Changes

Download

Source

UPDATED – P2Pool Test Net

Changes

Download

Pre-Hosted Testnet P2Pool is available via http://testp2pool.groestlcoin.org:21330/static/

Source

submitted by Yokomoko_Saleen to groestlcoin [link] [comments]

We are letting P2POOL die

The hashrate is fluctuating between 130 - 160 TH/s. Few blocks are found, so payments are very irregular. Has the Bitcoin community given up on P2POOL?
submitted by carcc to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

EasyMine: WTF Happened?

UPDATE: VTC mining on Easymine back to normal, payouts have resumed. Zero fees for the rest of the month.
Here's a more detailed response to https://old.reddit.com/vertcoin/comments/96z77t/psa_easy_mine_problem/ - bear with me and put on your nerd hat for a few mins.
The stratum server for all EasyMine pools is node-merged-pool - a merge mining fork of node-stratum-pool. See my repo here @ https://github.com/nzsquirrell/node-merged-pool
This is what miners connect to for work and to submit valid shares on the search for blocks. The information that is exchanged in hex digits, and the data coming back from the miner includes the time, the job, ExtraNonce2 and nonce (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Stratum_mining_protocol#mining.submit). All of these fields are used to notify the server of valid work exceeding a specific difficulty.
Hex digits are not case-sensitive. So 'FF00AA11' is the same as 'ff00aa11'. Both equate to decimal 4278233617. So for the purposes of construction a block header, it doesn't matter if the hex digits are uppercase, lowercase, or a mixture of both - it all works out the same, and produces the same hash. Hold this thought.
The stratum server knows what shares each miner has submitted, it keeps a track of all of the data in an array. It checks every time that work is submitted that the same work hasn't been submitted before whilst searching for the next block. If it was submitted, then the new submission is rejected as duplicate work.
Now, where this has all gone wrong is that the way the data is stored in this array was a string containing the four fields mentioned above. Strings are case-sensitive and when making comparisons 'FF00AA11' != 'ff00aa11', as well as 'ff00aA11' and 'ff00AA11' and so on.... This allowed our attacker to submit the same work many many times, altering only the case of the hex digits (he was doing it to the nonce, but the other fields are also susceptible to the attack), so the logic to check for duplicate work wasn't firing, the shares were valid (as they produced a valid hash above difficulty), and our attacker was faking most of his hash-rate. A lot. A shit-ton of it.
I have fixed this in my fork of node-stratum-pool - the fix is very easy, we just make all the characters lower case before testing for duplicate shares. See https://github.com/nzsquirrell/node-merged-pool/commit/9d068535d042516835f565a859852c7cf715da98 for my fix.
My big concern is that the other forks I've seen for node-stratum-pool are susceptible to the attack, and quite possibly other pool software is too possibly even p2pool? I've not looked. If someone can check and let me know and I'll update this. p2pool has been confirmed as resilient to this type of attack.
So, Who-The-F&*k did this. This is what I have so far:
He's used the following VTC and NIX addresses:
I've seen connections coming in from the following IP addresses:
He is still attacking EasyMine, but it's not having any effect now. Actually the server keeps banning him now as it's detecting that he's submitting too many invalid shares. Take that.
The path forward
I have a big mess to clean up, he's made off with about 652 VTC and about 3576 NIX, essentially stolen from you miners. I will see what I can do to recover some of this (not all of it has been paid to him yet), but there is going to be a substantial shortfall. Mr Attacker, feel free to PM me and we can arrange a settlement :)
Payouts on both the VTC & NIX pools are suspended until i can clean this up, I hope this won't take more than a couple of days.
Thanks.
submitted by nzsquirrell to vertcoin [link] [comments]

Blockstream Co-founder Luke-jr banning Mastercoin and Counterparty transactions, adding blacklists to Gentoo bitcoind by default.

submitted by historian1111 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

P2Pool upgrade for segwit compatibility

In order for P2Pool to produce segwit blocks an upgrade is needed. Forrest Voight (forrestv), the P2Pool creator, has been inactive in the project for years so an unofficial upgrade is provided by me:
https://github.com/veqtrus/p2pool/releases/tag/16.1-segwit
GPG public key

Background

In a few days segwit is activating so every mining pool needs to upgrade. This also applies to P2Pool. With P2Pool though being a decentralized mining protocol this is more complex than simply updating your mining software as P2Pool forms its own blockchain, the "sharechain", which is used to track payouts to miners. Any change to how P2Pool works which affects the validity of each share, as is the case with any upgrade to the chain being mined i.e. Bitcoin, requires coordination from the majority of P2Pool miners.
Last year I posted a pull request to the main P2Pool repository with a patch to enable segwit compatibility. After testing on my part the patch was included in the Vertcoin P2Pool and has been working with great success making P2Pool among the largest Vertcoin pools. In fact after P2Pool's rise in popularity a second P2Pool network was introduced for smaller miners.
Meanwhile big block populist Jonathan Toomim (jtoomim) has made a P2Pool fork and increased the share size limit from 50 kB per 30 seconds to 1 MB. While an increase was reasonable and in fact I included one in the segwit patch (to 100 kB) before him the excessive increase on jtoomim's fork is compatible with the BU vision campaigned by him and contradicts the decentralized nature of P2Pool. Now jtoomim has merged my segwit patch and made it a requirement [edit: albeit it can be manually overriden] to use btc1 (segwit2x) misleading users that his fork is a segwit upgrade.
submitted by veqtrus to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Dev] The devs are doing very dull, safe things

I've got 15 minutes spare at lunch, so this is going to be very quick and quite rough:
PoW change: We're intending to stick with Scrypt mining through to the 600k block at least, because we want miners to have confidence in investing in hardware. No plans past then, but it's more negotiable at least. Really not moving to X11; it's eleven random algorithms glued together, 5 of them with ASIC implementations already, and all 11 have FPGA implementations, it would be a highly costly move that is likely to give us much worse problems than those we face now, when X11 ASICs hit.
Merged mining: There was an informal community poll, it went poorly. Needs p2pool as a pre-requisite, or all that happens is we add in functionality no-one actually uses. It's been pointed out that p2pool only really makes sense for significant miners (low powered miners are unlikely to get payouts), but for those who can use p2pool, please consider doing so.
PoS: Still under consideration long term, but we'd much rather see the price stabilise high enough that we can sustain PoW, than incur the risk of moving. Also security concerns stemming from PoS meaning that coins have to be kept in hot wallets (as opposed to in paper wallets or similar. I'd hope it's clear why we have security concerns in light of issues such as DogeVault (no, I haven't heard anything more in weeks either).
PoSV/PoT: Keeping an eye on them
Generally, the developers are focusing on integrating Bitcoin client improvements, and we're now taking a clear lead on this compared to other altcoins. You can see this clearly reflected in the source code metrics on Coin Gecko, where did I mention we're the 2nd highest coin. Reference client 1.7.2 is progressing nicely and will be another non-required update. We have a number of developers working actively on the code, and an in-depth cross-checking process to ensure the results are of the high quality and stability you would expect from software dealing with $31mil of digital assets. We're working on making a rock solid platform for a currency, not a get rich quick scheme, and I hope you can appreciate this takes time.
Also Twitch is coming.
submitted by rnicoll to dogecoin [link] [comments]

It is raining on Slush pool today. 11 new blocks in the last 9 hours. 8th BIP101 block mined as well.

It is raining on Slush pool today. 11 new blocks in the last 9 hours. 8th BIP101 block mined as well. submitted by anti-fragile to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Serious, long] My thoughts on what next for Dogecoin

There’s been a lot of discussion in recent days about the decreasing price of Dogecoin, as well as the risk of a 51% attack from Wafflepool or similar. I wanted to do a wrap-up of the discussions happening amongst the developers of the last few weeks, partly to illustrate that we are looking at options, but mostly to talk about what is happening. Please note that this is all rapidly changing. Dogecoin is actually moving at breakneck speed for a project of its size, especially as we still have a relatively limited core team. This is part of why we don’t write posts very often, as they become out of date so quickly as new arguments and facts are presented.
Lets talk about 51% attacks first. The theory is that if anyone has over 51% of the total hashing power of the network, they can form a blockchain of their own which is considered “more valid” than the blockchain most users are on. This is because cryptocurrency blockchains are secured through proof of work, and therefore more work on a chain makes it, in essence, more valid. This risks an attacker spending coins on one chain, then releasing their own private, longer, blockchain. That latter blockchain replaces the original blockchain, and the coins they spent on the original blockchain are effectively returned to them as if the transactions never happened.
It’s important to understand this because I hear suggestions that Wafflepool shouldn’t accept over 51% of the network hashrate, and unfortunately all this would do is hide the risk. Having one pool own over 51% of the network hashrate is not a problem if it’s actually being used to mine, but instead if it’s used to create a personal blockchain. The other issue raised is one of price; we’ve been steadily dropping since around early February. The core of my answers here is that you need to consider demand vs supply. What happened back in February was that we saw a surge in demand beyond sustainable levels, likely in a form of tulip mania. As supply continued (mining), and demand dropped-off, our price has dropped. This has been worsened by a succession of bad news affecting Bitcoin (MtGox and other exchanges struggling, uncertainty of China and Russia, etc.), which both directly brings down our price, as well as undermining confidence in the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem. It has been suggested (and I can believe this, but have not done my own analysis) that as multipools continue to dominate Dogecoin mining, and they tend to sell coins directly, that they are further reducing the price. Specifically, given that while there is demand for further coins from miners, as they have already expended resources on mining hardware they cannot then purchase the cheap coins the mining pools are producing.
Lastly, there’s the question of ASICs; these are specialised mining devices which are significantly faster than CPU/GPU mining hardware, and typically cheaper to run due to reduced power and space requirements. Their introduction into mining at the moment leaves vastly disproportionate mining power in the hands of a few (there’s one individual with a hashrate of around 20GH/s, for example), and in time is likely to make mining on commodity hardware infeasible.
We’ve had a lot of suggestions for what to do; change proof of work algorithm, add multiple proof of work algorithms, move to proof of stake, merge-mine with Litecoin, have DigiShield merge-mine with us. We’ve considered everything, and then some; I’m not sure how much discussion has happened in total, but I’ve spent over a dozen hours looking at these issues on IRC. In virtually all cases, the majority of people with the skills to implement these changes have rejected them as too high risk and/or having other significant drawbacks. In summary:
The best suggestion we have so far is to out-do the multipools directly, by working on open source multipool software which is more DOGE-friendly. As I understand it two key approaches are being considered for improving DOGE-friendliness; either by directly exchanging other coins to DOGE, or through improved trading algorithms which result in less sharp shocks to the price. For very large mining farms such as SFire’s, it’s hoped this will cause them to separate from the mining pools (which they pay fees to) and go solo. This reduces fees for the miner, as well as reducing the ability for DDoS attacks to be targeted at them, and for us it reduces risk of a 51% attack, improves confidence in the coin security, and enables us to better mitigate impact of people mining huge quantities to sell.
Meanwhile, the main focus is on making Dogecoin (and cryptocurrencies in general) a viable way of moving value around. The 1.7 client (beta release is imminent, and in fact if you’re comfortable compiling it yourself, the code is available from https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/tree/v1.7.0-Beta-1 ) is a major re-write of Dogecoin Core to base it on the Bitcoin Core 0.9 client (with Scrypt added in, of course). This gives us significant performance improvements, as well as a better underlying architecture. To repeat; this will not be a required update, although it will be strongly encouraged as it’s a huge leap forward technologically. One of the features which is currently not working in 1.7, but will be for release, is the Bitcoin payment protocol, which massively improves the payment request/receiving process for merchants. Fundamentally 1.7 is intended to prove we have the technical skills to maintain a stable, useful coin, and help drive/support adoption.
Once 1.7 is done, my immediate priority is technical documentation; we have a security specialist currently working on a guide to cryptocurrency security (setup, risks, best practices, etc.), to help give merchants and exchanges an in-depth understanding of how to securely use cryptocurrency. I’ll be addressing the need for formal standards in Dogecoin, and preparing RFCs for the “dogecoin:” URI and relay network protocol for submission to the IETF (and IANA for the URI).
Lastly; there was a post recently about the need for multi-signature addresses; I’d like to add my own “hell yes!” to that, although obviously I have to prioritise. If anyone else can look at these, that would be fantastic.
For anyone wanting a more permanent link, there's a copy of this on my blog ( http://jrn.me.uk/wp/what-next-for-dogecoin-mid-april-2014/ ), however posting as full text here as probably easier for most people, and I'm not sure my server would survive a reddit hug!
Edit: It's been pointed out that there's no verification of the problems with Blackcoin, and the source alleging problems has a serious credibility issue. Have removed the reference now.
submitted by rnicoll to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Merged Mining: Analysis of Effects and Implications

Date: 2017-08-24
Author(s): Alexei Zamyatin, Edgar Weippl

Link to Paper


Abstract
Merged mining refers to the concept of mining more than one cryptocurrency without necessitating additional proof-of-work effort. Merged mining was introduced in 2011 as a boostrapping mechanism for new cryptocurrencies and countermeasures against the fragmentation of mining power across competing systems. Although merged mining has already been adopted by a number of cryptocurrencies, to this date little is known about the effects and implications.
In this thesis, we shed light on this topic area by performing a comprehensive analysis of merged mining in practice. As part of this analysis, we present a block attribution scheme for mining pools to assist in the evaluation of mining centralization. Our findings disclose that mining pools in merge-mined cryptocurrencies have operated at the edge of, and even beyond, the security guarantees offered by the underlying Nakamoto consensus for extended periods. We discuss the implications and security considerations for these cryptocurrencies and the mining ecosystem as a whole, and link our findings to the intended effects of merged mining.

Bibliography
[1] Coinmarketcap. http://coinmarketcap.com/. Accessed 2017-09-28.
[2] P2pool. http://p2pool.org/. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[3] M. Ali, J. Nelson, R. Shea, and M. J. Freedman. Blockstack: Design and implementation of a global naming system with blockchains. http://www.the-blockchain.com/docs/BlockstackDesignandImplementationofaGlobalNamingSystem.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-03-29.
[4] G. Andersen. Comment in "faster blocks vs bigger blocks". https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673415.msg7658481#msg7658481, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[5] G. Andersen. [bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts... https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011157.html, 2015. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[6] L. Anderson, R. Holz, A. Ponomarev, P. Rimba, and I. Weber. New kids on the block: an analysis of modern blockchains. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.06530.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-07-04.
[7] E. Androulaki, S. Capkun, and G. O. Karame. Two bitcoins at the price of one? double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In CCS, 2012.
[8] A. Back, M. Corallo, L. Dashjr, M. Friedenbach, G. Maxwell, A. Miller, A. Poelstra, J. Timón, and P. Wuille. Enabling blockchain innovations with pegged sidechains. http://newspaper23.com/ripped/2014/11/http-_____-___-_www___-blockstream___-com__-_sidechains.pdf, 2014. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[9] A. Back et al. Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure. http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf, 2002. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[10] S. Barber, X. Boyen, E. Shi, and E. Uzun. Bitter to better - how to make bitcoin a better currency. In Financial cryptography and data security, pages 399–414. Springer, 2012.
[11] J. Becker, D. Breuker, T. Heide, J. Holler, H. P. Rauer, and R. Böhme. Can we afford integrity by proof-of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency. In WEIS. Springer, 2012.
[12] I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/919.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[13] Bitcoin Community. Bitcoin developer guide- transaction data. https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#term-merkle-tree. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[14] Bitcoin Community. Bitcoin protocol documentation - merkle trees. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#Merkle_Trees. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[15] Bitcoin community. Bitcoin protocol rules. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules. Accessed: 2017-08-22.
[16] V. Buterin. Chain interoperability. Technical report, Tech. rep. 1. R3CEV, 2016.
[17] W. Dai. bmoney. http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[18] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2013.
[19] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Bitcoin transaction malleability and mtgox. In Computer Security-ESORICS 2014, pages 313–326. Springer, 2014.
[20] Dogecoin community. Dogecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/dogecoin/
[27] A. Gervais, G. Karame, S. Capkun, and V. Capkun. Is bitcoin a decentralized currency? volume 12, pages 54–60, 2014.
[28] A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. Wüst, V. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, and S. Capkun. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 3–16. ACM, 2016.
[29] I. Giechaskiel, C. Cremers, and K. B. Rasmussen. On bitcoin security in the presence of broken cryptographic primitives. In European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS), September 2016.
[30] J. Göbel, H. P. Keeler, A. E. Krzesinski, and P. G. Taylor. Bitcoin blockchain dynamics: The selfish-mine strategy in the presence of propagation delay. Performance Evaluation, 104:23–41, 2016.
[31] E. Heilman, A. Kendler, A. Zohar, and S. Goldberg. Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15), pages 129–144, 2015.
[32] Huntercoin developers. Huntercoin reference implementation. https://github.com/chronokings/huntercoin. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[33] B. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols, Apr. 8 2008. US Patent 7,356,696; Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[34] M. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. In Secure Information Networks, pages 258–272. Springer, 1999.
[35] A. Judmayer, N. Stifter, K. Krombholz, and E. Weippl. Blocks and chains: Introduction to bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and their consensus mechanisms. Synthesis Lectures on Information Security, Privacy, & Trust, 9(1):1–123, 2017.
[36] A. Juels and J. G. Brainard. Client puzzles: A cryptographic countermeasure against connection depletion attacks. In NDSS, volume 99, pages 151–165, 1999.
[37] A. Juels and B. S. Kaliski Jr. Pors: Proofs of retrievability for large files. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 584–597. Acm, 2007.
[38] H. Kalodner, M. Carlsten, P. Ellenbogen, J. Bonneau, and A. Narayanan. An empirical study of namecoin and lessons for decentralized namespace design. In WEIS, 2015.
[39] G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, and S. Capkun. Double-spending fast payments in bitcoin. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 906–917. ACM, 2012.
[40] G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, M. Roeschlin, A. Gervais, and S. Čapkun. Misbehavior in bitcoin: A study of double-spending and accountability. volume 18, page 2. ACM, 2015.
[41] A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 357–388. Springer, 2017.
[42] S. King. Primecoin: Cryptocurrency with prime number proof-of-work. July 7th, 2013.
[43] T. Kluyver, B. Ragan-Kelley, F. Pérez, B. E. Granger, M. Bussonnier, J. Frederic, K. Kelley, J. B. Hamrick, J. Grout, S. Corlay, et al. Jupyter notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In ELPUB, pages 87–90, 2016.
[44] Lerner, Sergio D. Rootstock plattform. http://www.the-blockchain.com/docs/Rootstock-WhitePaper-Overview.pdf. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[45] Y. Lewenberg, Y. Bachrach, Y. Sompolinsky, A. Zohar, and J. S. Rosenschein. Bitcoin mining pools: A cooperative game theoretic analysis. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 919–927. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2015.
[46] Litecoin community. Litecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[47] I. Maven. Apache maven project, 2011.
[48] G. Maxwell. Comment in "[bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts...". https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011198.html, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[49] S. Meiklejohn, M. Pomarole, G. Jordan, K. Levchenko, D. McCoy, G. M. Voelker, and S. Savage. A fistful of bitcoins: characterizing payments among men with no names. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Internet measurement conference, pages 127–140. ACM, 2013.
[50] S. Micali. Algorand: The efficient and democratic ledger. http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-09.
[51] A. Miller, A. Juels, E. Shi, B. Parno, and J. Katz. Permacoin: Repurposing bitcoin work for data preservation. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2014 IEEE Symposium on, pages 475–490. IEEE, 2014.
[52] A. Miller, A. Kosba, J. Katz, and E. Shi. Nonoutsourceable scratch-off puzzles to discourage bitcoin mining coalitions. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 680–691. ACM, 2015.
[53] B. Momjian. PostgreSQL: introduction and concepts, volume 192. Addison-Wesley New York, 2001.
[54] Myriad core developers. Myriadcoin reference implementation. https://github.com/myriadcoin/myriadcoin. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[55] S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, Dec 2008. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[56] S. Nakamoto. Merged mining specification. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification, Apr 2011. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[57] Namecoin Community. Merged mining. https://github.com/namecoin/wiki/blob/masteMerged-Mining.mediawiki#Goal_of_this_namecoin_change. Accessed: 2017-08-20.
[58] Namecoin community. Namecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[59] A. Narayanan, J. Bonneau, E. Felten, A. Miller, and S. Goldfeder. Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton University Press, 2016.
[60] K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE, 2016.
[61] K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint. 2014.
[62] R. Pass, L. Seeman, and A. Shelat. Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 643–673. Springer, 2017.
[63] D. Pointcheval and J. Stern. Security arguments for digital signatures and blind signatures. Journal of cryptology, 13(3):361–396, 2000.
[64] Pseudonymous("TierNolan"). Decoupling transactions and pow. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179598.0, 2013. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[65] P. R. Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.
[66] K. Rosenbaum. Weak blocks - the good and the bad. http://popeller.io/index.php/2016/01/19/weak-blocks-the-good-and-the-bad/, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[67] K. Rosenbaum and R. Russell. Iblt and weak block propagation performance. Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong (6 December 2015), 2015.
[68] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.4980, 2011.
[69] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009, 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.
[70] R. Russel. Weak block simulator for bitcoin. https://github.com/rustyrussell/weak-blocks, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[71] A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 515–532. Springer, 2016.
[72] Sathoshi Nakamoto. Comment in "bitdns and generalizing bitcoin" bitcointalk thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[73] O. Schrijvers, J. Bonneau, D. Boneh, and T. Roughgarden. Incentive compatibility of bitcoin mining pool reward functions. In FC ’16: Proceedings of the the 20th International Conference on Financial Cryptography, February 2016.
[74] B. Sengupta, S. Bag, S. Ruj, and K. Sakurai. Retricoin: Bitcoin based on compact proofs of retrievability. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, page 14. ACM, 2016.
[75] N. Szabo. Bit gold. http://unenumerated.blogspot.co.at/2005/12/bit-gold.html, 2005. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[76] M. B. Taylor. Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, page 16. IEEE Press, 2013.
[77] Unitus developers. Unitus reference implementation. https://github.com/unitusdev/unitus. Accessed: 2017-08-22.
[78] M. Vukolić. The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: Proof-of-work vs. bft replication. In International Workshop on Open Problems in Network Security, pages 112–125. Springer, 2015.
[79] P. Webb, D. Syer, J. Long, S. Nicoll, R. Winch, A. Wilkinson, M. Overdijk, C. Dupuis, and S. Deleuze. Spring boot reference guide. Technical report, 2013-2016.
[80] A. Zamyatin. Name-squatting in namecoin. (unpublished BSc thesis, Vienna University of Technology), 2015.
submitted by dj-gutz to myrXiv [link] [comments]

On the nature of 51% attacks and pronged cutlery

Sorry everyone, this one’s going to be very serious again, and I'm going to start with administrivia. First of all, a few people have mistake me for lead developer recently; I'm not, I'm just the one that’s more vocal and therefore gets attention. langer_hans is lead developer, and has been working on the coin much longer than I have.
Quick reminders of a couple of things; for new shibes getting started with the main client, you can download a blockchain bootstrap file which helps you get going faster. So Chain is hosting instructions, and copies of the bootstrap.dat are hosted by themselves and Moolah (see links on that page). We've also seen a few people asking about the 1.7 release; yes it’s out, no you don’t have to upgrade, but it does seem a lot faster to us, so we would encourage upgrading. Also there is a mailing list for announcements of upcoming client releases at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dogecoin-releases which I would recommend subscribing to.
So, yesterday lleti asked about an idea to see if there was community support for it. A developer asking does not mean something is going to be done. Even if it was done, it does not mean you have to follow (I’ll talk about that in a moment). Feedback to date has been overwhelmingly negative, though, so consider the idea abandoned.
A few people asked have why the idea was suggested; the intent would be to remove sharp shocks from the mining schedule, and spread it over a longer period of time in order to give adoption of Dogecoin a chance to catch up. One thing I'm not sure was clear was that there was consideration of changing block time to reduce the resulting inflation. As said, we’re not seeing community support for it.
Talking of adoption; /dogecoin has just ticked over 87,000 subscribers. Some Dogecoin users don’t read the subreddit, some subreddit readers don’t use the coin, but lets use that as an estimate for user base. That’s huge for a coin that’s 6 months old, and tiny in terms of an Internet service. And it’s worth remembering Bitcoin is 5 years old, Litecoin 2 years. Peercoin, almost 2 years. That’s the coins we’re in the midst of right now. The developers are cautious of making big technical changes because we want to stabilise the coin so the more cautious companies can know the coin is rock solid, and encourage them to get involved.
So, everyone’s been all about the price this week, and while I hate talking price with you guys, I need to as background on a lot of other stuff. So, the DOGE/BTC price is down, yes. DOGE/USD also a bit, but much less. DOGE/DOGE still solid, though. We’re Dogecoin, though, the price shouldn't matter… well, agreed, but it’s worrying people, and in particular there’s a lot of people worrying the price drops will lead to a 51% attack. So lets talk about 51% attacks, and lets also talk forks.
A 51% attack is where someone gains control of over 50% of the hashrate of the network, and maliciously uses that hashrate to make their own private blockchain which grows faster than the default blockchain. The malicious part is really important here; it’s an attack, not something that happens accidentally. In doing this, they can spend money on the current blockchain, then release their private blockchain. The network sees the longer blockchain and moves to it as part of the fork handling code (note the fork, it’s important). This effectively reverses the spending of Dogecoin that they’ve done.
Note that this is only really an attack on exchanges, as the attacker has to get their Dogecoin into another form (i.e. Bitcoin) before the transaction reverses, or the whole thing has no effect. So far, no exchange has communicated any serious concern about a 51% attack on Dogecoin to myself, and I am unaware of them having done so to any other developer.
The concern over price is raised because as Dogecoin rewards per block diminish over time (which they continue to do for the next 6 months or so), the payments to miners become less valuable (in USD/BTC terms) unless the price goes up. Many of our miners are here to support the coin (with thanks to /DogecoinDefenseForce), but some are just here for the money, and people worry that losing them will make it easy to 51% attack the coin.
So how does one a get enough mining power to 51% attack a coin? I mean, our hashrate is in the 40-50GH/s range, how do you get 51% of that (or more, if it’s a group not currently mining us)? Well, a hacked mining pool is the main scenario that worries people; it’s considered unlikely any mining pool would decide to attack their own funding source (and the big pools are making big money through entirely legal means). When Bitcoin had the same problem back in January, there was a major push to adopt what is called p2pool, which is a distributed alternative to conventional mining pools. There’s been a few issues with p2pool and Dogecoin which is part of why it’s not more widely used, but I’d really like to see more people looking at it, and talk to the developers about what (if anything) it needs for wider adoption. Ideally I’d like to get all new miners picking up p2pool, so if anyone wants to help with tutorials that would be awesome.
A number of other ideas (apart from p2pool adoption) have been proposed; change proof of work, change to proof of stake now, change to proof of stake later, merged mining, multi-protocol mining… all of these have something in common, they require that we fork the coin.
Now, a deliberate planned and controlled fork is quite different to a 51% attack fork, but that does not mean that it’s risk free. One scenario would be a disagreement with the developers over path the coin is taking (as we’re seeing with the tapering suggestion), and the community not updating, leaving the developers on their own very small fork.
Other scenarios could include significant numbers of exchanges stuck on the wrong “prong” of the fork for an extended period of time. We've had at least one exchange get “stuck” for days or weeks on every fork so far, causing significant confusion and distress to those trying to send coins to or receive coins from the exchange. Same for merchants, who might report not receiving coins if they or the sender are on different forks.
Although unlikely, it’s also possible that the fork would introduce a serious bug. There are a number of coins which have been PoW at launch and intended to move to PoS shortly afterwards, and failed to actually switch. Certainly any such change is not without its risks.
Lastly, on a personal note, I'm going to be focusing primarily on co-ordination and communication from here on in, rather than working on the code base directly. I’d like to give a shout-out to our many other developers, there are far too many people now involved to name them all, but langer_hans as lead developer, leofidus-ger, patricklodder have all worked extensively on the 1.7 client. Go give them a hug! If any of the community want to get involved with development, please do swing by #dogecoin-dev on IRC Freenode and we can help get you started.
submitted by rnicoll to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Flux: Revisiting Near Blocks for Proof-of-Work Blockchains

Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2018/415
Date: 2018-05-29
Author(s): Alexei Zamyatin∗, Nicholas Stifter, Philipp Schindler, Edgar Weippl, William J. Knottenbelt∗

Link to Paper


Abstract
The term near or weak blocks describes Bitcoin blocks whose PoW does not meet the required target difficulty to be considered valid under the regular consensus rules of the protocol. Near blocks are generally associated with protocol improvement proposals striving towards shorter transaction confirmation times. Existing proposals assume miners will act rationally based solely on intrinsic incentives arising from the adoption of these changes, such as earlier detection of blockchain forks.
In this paper we present Flux, a protocol extension for proof-of-work blockchains that leverages on near blocks, a new block reward distribution mechanism, and an improved branch selection policy to incentivize honest participation of miners. Our protocol reduces mining variance, improves the responsiveness of the underlying blockchain in terms of transaction processing, and can be deployed without conflicting modifications to the underlying base protocol as a velvet fork. We perform an initial analysis of selfish mining which suggests Flux not only provides security guarantees similar to pure Nakamoto consensus, but potentially renders selfish mining strategies less profitable.

References
[1] Bitcoin Cash. https://www.bitcoincash.org/. Accessed: 2017-01-24.
[2] P2pool. http://p2pool.org/. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[3] G. Andersen. Comment in ”faster blocks vs bigger blocks”. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673415.msg7658481#msg7658481, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[4] G. Andersen. [bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts... https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011157.html, 2015. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[5] E. Androulaki, S. Capkun, and G. O. Karame. Two bitcoins at the price of one? double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In CCS, 2012.
[6] J. Becker, D. Breuker, T. Heide, J. Holler, H. P. Rauer, and R. Bohme. ¨ Can we afford integrity by proof-of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency. In WEIS. Springer, 2012.
[7] I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/919.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.
[8] Bitcoin community. OP RETURN. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP\RETURN. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[9] Bitcoin Wiki. Merged mining specification. [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged\](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged)) mining\ specification. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[10] Blockchain.info. Hashrate Distribution in Bitcoin. https://blockchain.info/de/pools. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[11] Blockchain.info. Unconfirmed bitcoin transactions. https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[12] J. Bonneau, A. Miller, J. Clark, A. Narayanan, J. A. Kroll, and E. W. Felten. Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2015.
[13] V. Buterin. Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper, 2014. Accessed: 2016-08-22.
[14] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2013.
[15] J. R. Douceur. The sybil attack. In International Workshop on Peer-toPeer Systems, pages 251–260. Springer, 2002.
[16] I. Eyal, A. E. Gencer, E. G. Sirer, and R. Renesse. Bitcoin-ng: A scalable blockchain protocol. In 13th USENIX Security Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI’16). USENIX Association, Mar 2016.
[17] I. Eyal and E. G. Sirer. Majority is not enough: Bitcoin mining is vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 436–454. Springer, 2014.
[18] J. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos. The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. In Advances in Cryptology-EUROCRYPT 2015, pages 281–310. Springer, 2015.
[19] A. E. Gencer, S. Basu, I. Eyal, R. Renesse, and E. G. Sirer. Decentralization in bitcoin and ethereum networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC). Springer, 2018.
[20] A. Gervais, G. Karame, S. Capkun, and V. Capkun. Is bitcoin a decentralized currency? volume 12, pages 54–60, 2014.
[21] A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. Wust, V. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, ¨ and S. Capkun. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/555.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-08-10.
[22] M. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. In Secure Information Networks, pages 258–272. Springer, 1999.
[23] A. Judmayer, A. Zamyatin, N. Stifter, A. G. Voyiatzis, and E. Weippl. Merged mining: Curse or cure? In CBT’17: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology, Sep 2017.
[24] G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, M. Roeschlin, A. Gervais, and S. Capkun. ˇ Misbehavior in bitcoin: A study of double-spending and accountability. volume 18, page 2. ACM, 2015.
[25] A. Kiayias, A. Miller, and D. Zindros. Non-interactive proofs of proof-of-work. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2017/963, 2017. Accessed:2017-10-03.
[26] A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 357–388. Springer, 2017.
[27] Y. Lewenberg, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Inclusive block chain protocols. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 528–547. Springer, 2015.
[28] Litecoin community. Litecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin. Accessed: 2018-05-03.
[29] G. Maxwell. Comment in ”[bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts...”. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011198.html, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[30] S. Micali. Algorand: The efficient and democratic ledger. http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-09.
[31] S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, Dec 2008. Accessed: 2015-07-01.
[32] Namecoin community. Namecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[33] Narayanan, Arvind and Bonneau, Joseph and Felten, Edward and Miller, Andrew and Goldfeder, Steven. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies. https://d28rh4a8wq0iu5.cloudfront.net/bitcointech/readings/princeton bitcoin book.pdf?a=1, 2016. Accessed: 2016-03-29.
[34] K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE, 2016.
[35] K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint. 2014.
[36] R. Pass and E. Shi. Fruitchains: A fair blockchain. http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/916.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-11-08.
[37] C. Perez-Sol ´ a, S. Delgado-Segura, G. Navarro-Arribas, and J. Herrera- ` Joancomart´ı. Double-spending prevention for bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions. http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/394, 2017. Accessed: 2017-06-
[38] Pseudonymous(”TierNolan”). Decoupling transactions and pow. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179598.0, 2013. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[39] P. R. Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.
[40] K. Rosenbaum. Weak blocks - the good and the bad. http://popeller.io/ index.php/2016/01/19/weak-blocks-the-good-and-the-bad/, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[41] K. Rosenbaum and R. Russell. Iblt and weak block propagation performance. Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong (6 December 2015), 2015.
[42] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009, 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.
[43] R. Russel. Weak block simulator for bitcoin. https://github.com/rustyrussell/weak-blocks, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[44] A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06183.pdf, 2015. Accessed: 2016-08-22.
[45] E. B. Sasson, A. Chiesa, C. Garman, M. Green, I. Miers, E. Tromer, and M. Virza. Zerocash: Decentralized anonymous payments from bitcoin. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2014 IEEE Symposium on, pages 459–474. IEEE, 2014.
[46] Satoshi Nakamoto. Comment in ”bitdns and generalizing bitcoin” bitcointalk thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[47] Y. Sompolinsky, Y. Lewenberg, and A. Zohar. Spectre: A fast and scalable cryptocurrency protocol. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2016/1159, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-20.
[48] Y. Sompolinsky and A. Zohar. Secure high-rate transaction processing in bitcoin. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 507–527. Springer, 2015.
[49] Suhas Daftuar. Bitcoin merge commit: ”mining: Select transactions using feerate-with-ancestors”. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7600. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[50] M. B. Taylor. Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, page 16. IEEE Press, 2013.
[51] F. Tschorsch and B. Scheuermann. Bitcoin and beyond: A technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. In IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, volume PP, pages 1–1, 2016.
[52] P. J. Van Laarhoven and E. H. Aarts. Simulated annealing. In Simulated annealing: Theory and applications, pages 7–15. Springer, 1987.
[53] A. Zamyatin, N. Stifter, A. Judmayer, P. Schindler, E. Weippl, and W. J. Knottebelt. (Short Paper) A Wild Velvet Fork Appears! Inclusive Blockchain Protocol Changes in Practice. In 5th Workshop on Bitcoin and Blockchain Research, Financial Cryptography and Data Security 18 (FC). Springer, 2018.
[54] F. Zhang, I. Eyal, R. Escriva, A. Juels, and R. Renesse. Rem: Resourceefficient mining for blockchains. http://eprint.iacr.org/2017/179, 2017. Accessed: 2017-03-24.
submitted by dj-gutz to myrXiv [link] [comments]

The Hardfork that Bitcoin REALLY Needs! (Not blocksize related)

We’re all witnessing an extreme amount of new hashing power increasing the difficulty to heights never seen before. This might seem like a good thing, more hashing power securing the Bitcoin network… But wait, have a look at the hashrate distribution: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
There are a total of 5 GIANT pools controlling ~82% of the TOTAL hashrate and increasing. I miss the times when people were running ASICs of their own and mining was truly decentralized. Right now, there is an unintentional incentive for miners to centralize. This has to change if Bitcoin is to become the solid foundation securing not only transactions on its own blockchain, but every layer that’s going to be relying on Bitcoin in the future (merged-mined sidechains, DNS-records, smart contracts and paymentchannels etc).
The proposal to eliminate the unintentional incentive to centralize mining is to integrate a P2Pool fashioned mining protocol that would distribute the block reward to both big and small miners giving each their fair share. This solution would benefit EVERYONE in the Bitcoin community EXCEPT for the 5 biggest mining pools as they would have to share some of their reward with smaller miners. This has been thought of as a major roadblock to integrating this change because the biggest miners won’t mine on the new version because it’s giving them less reward.
This topic has been suggested before but it never gained any traction due to the issue raised above. But in fact this is not really an issue. Imagine if the update was rolled with the consensus of the entire community except for the few biggest miners refusing to adopt it and still stubbornly mining on the old version. Their so beloved block reward would be worthless and they’d be forced to update. This is exactly the same reason why miners don’t create more than 25 new bitcoins per block even if they wanted to do so. Because they know that the rest of the Bitcoin community would consider their blocks worthless, that’s why they obey the rules of consensus.
tl;dr
submitted by Kalle303 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Question] For Namecoin to be able to be merged mined next to Bitcoin, did something have to be adjusted to Bitcoin or was namecoin able to implement merged mining without any "permission".

submitted by libertariandictator to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Vertcoin's Recent Decisions. The damage hasn't been done yet, please join me in stopping the madness!

Foreword
Alright, I’ve been sitting on the sidelines about most of the dealings with Vertcoin because I felt like a lot of the sensible voices were loud enough on their own. Many people have stepped up to the plate and developed amazing products that benefit Vertcoin at no addition expense to the original development team. I’ve seen and helped test/brainstorm some incredible projects. Vert.geek.nz was a great example: a project that promoted p2pool mining while still allowing miners to reap the benefit of merged mining. Before nzsquirrell brought us this product we were all forced to either solo mine or to switch to a mining pool that support merged coins (namely SimpleVert at the time). V2p was another amazing product. There's the One Click Miner that's being developed right now... There are a lot more, but my point is that people were able to see a need for a new service, and build that service without any voting or public funding or whatever. And they did an amazing job because they thought things through. With input from multiple sources, and a slow, steady brainstorming session, they were able to develop something that really couldn’t have been made better.
Democracy in Action
Alternatively, Vertcoin itself is being left to an absolutely ridiculous voting process right now that WILL destroy the coin, and here’s why: The democratic process doesn’t work. If you build a system by which the majority can make these kinds of decisions, you create an environment based purely on mob mentality. If I can convince a large enough group of people that a certain idea is better than another, I win. This is extremely bad if you’re trying to gather interest from investors as well because it creates too much variance in coin value and feature sets (the idea of changing the also they would probably like, since that’s something Vertcoin has been about since the beginning, changing the inner workings of the coin simply to combat a single “problem” is VERY BAD if you want to attract investors because they see these moves as signs of weakness).
Development
Now, I’ll come back to the VertVote process later, because I think the most important thing to talk about right now is the decision-making process on the part of our developers.
The VTC dev team has done numerous things that don’t make sense to a number of users lately, and they need to be addressed. First, the website update. We’ve beat this horse to a pulp, and I understand that, but I think people still need to keep this in mind. When the new site was released, there wasn’t any input from the community. There wasn’t any play-testing or public brainstorming done to help promote discussion that might have found issues with this site. For example, the “Mining” page still doesn’t have a single mining pool listed, which leaves a user to go out and find a solid pool on their own. This isn’t easy, especially for someone who doesn’t even know how cryptocurrencies work (the primary audience for a site like this should be users with no crypto experience). The same goes for the “Details” page. There’s plenty of technical information, but that doesn’t mean anything to a regular person. They don’t know what an algorithm is, or what block times/re