Bitcoin Mining Screensaver Helps Raise Funds for Charities
Bitcoin Mining Screensaver Helps Raise Funds for Charities
Change.org Launches Screensaver That ... - Bitcoin Insider
Change.org Launches Screensaver That Mines Crypto for ...
Mining screensaver (sort of) : Bitcoin
Pay Attention to These 7 Bitcoin Scams - TheStreet
Givecoin.info Announces Partnership with Do A Bit of Good: World's First Bitcoin-Mining Screensaver!
Givecoin, the first altcoin aimed at crowdfunding charitable organizations with the efficiency and accountability of cryptocurrency technology, is excited to initiate it’s recent partnership with doabitofgood.com with a donation of 200,000 GIVE. These will be distributed in 100 GIVE increments to the wallets of new users to donate to non-profit organizations that are signed up within the system, which is also compatible with Bitcoin and various other altcoins. Do a Bit of Good’s patent-pending technology, a personal screensaver that both mines and donates coins while active, in executive director David Duccini's words “puts crowdfunding on autopilot”. The system is one of the first in a wave of new technologies that ‘sit on top of’ the Bitcoin protocol: tapping into new applications and uses of cryptocurrency while making it as user friendly as possible. “We first conceived the idea for Givecoin while discussing the recent flood of new altcoins in the cryptocurrency market—literally dozens popping up per day, but very few that were more than clones of each other branded with a new name,” said Givecoin’s co-founder Mike Paszkiewicz. “This led us to consider ways in which we could use the attributes of cryptocurrency to do something both unique and beneficial for charities worldwide.” Advantages over traditional methods of giving include the ability to send micro-donations, fees several magnitudes less costly than credit/debit and wiring, and psuedoanonymity: dollar for dollar organizations receive every ‘bit’ of the contribution to their bottom line. Givecoin also implements the power efficient “X11” hashing suite. “When we were contacted by doabitofgood.com’s Executive Director David Duccini, I was amazed at the ingenuity and simplicity of his platform. Our goal seemed one and the same: to show average people and businesses that crypto technology is nothing to be apprehensive about…that in fact it can be used to ‘do a bit of good’ for those in need and improve the bottom line for every non-profit willing to take a few simple steps.” Lead developer Dan Korczak commented, “…the same skeptical sentiment existed in the early days of the internet: the average person was wary of the technology because it was clunky, confusing, and lacked user friendliness and support. The internet in fact still runs on the same TCP/IP protocol from those days, but the average web surfer knows nothing of it because interfaces and applications have been developed over the years to provide an effortless and seamless experience.” Do A Bit of Good gives hope toward a steady mainstream adoption of Bitcoin, Givecoin, and other coins as property, financial instruments, and a means of charitable giving. “Six months ago I wouldn’t have chalked my grandmother up as a cryptocurrency miner, but with their platform the day has arrived where she could set up the screen saver program and start donating herself,” said Paszkiewicz. In addition to the recent partnership between the two, the Givecoin Foundation is currently donating ‘early adopter bounties’ to the first 20 charities who reach out interested in accepting Givecoin. Interested non-profit and charitable organizations can submit a form at givecoin.info. All media inquiries and interested organizations can be addressed through: [email protected] Home Page: www.givecoin.info Facebook: www.facebook.com/givecoincryptocurrency Twitter: www.twitter.com/give_coin
Preventing double-spends is an "embarrassingly parallel" massive search problem - like Google, [email protected], [email protected], or PrimeGrid. BUIP024 "address sharding" is similar to Google's MapReduce & Berkeley's BOINC grid computing - "divide-and-conquer" providing unlimited on-chain scaling for Bitcoin.
TL;DR: Like all other successful projects involving "embarrassingly parallel" search problems in massive search spaces, Bitcoin can and should - and inevitably will - move to a distributed computing paradigm based on successful "sharding" architectures such as Google Search (based on Google's MapReduce algorithm), or [email protected], [email protected], or PrimeGrid (based on Berkeley's BOINC grid computing architecture) - which use simple mathematical "decompose" and "recompose" operations to break big problems into tiny pieces, providing virtually unlimited scaling (plus fault tolerance) at the logical / software level, on top of possibly severely limited (and faulty) resources at the physical / hardware level. The discredited "heavy" (and over-complicated) design philosophy of centralized "legacy" dev teams such as Core / Blockstream (requiring every single node to download, store and verify the massively growing blockchain, and pinning their hopes on non-existent off-chain vaporware such as the so-called "Lightning Network" which has no mathematical definition and is missing crucial components such as decentralized routing) is doomed to failure, and will be out-competed by simpler on-chain "lightweight" distributed approaches such as distributed trustless Merkle trees or BUIP024's "Address Sharding" emerging from independent devs such as u/thezerg1 (involved with Bitcoin Unlimited). No one in their right mind would expect Google's vast search engine to fit entirely on a Raspberry Pi behind a crappy Internet connection - and no one in their right mind should expect Bitcoin's vast financial network to fit entirely on a Raspberry Pi behind a crappy Internet connection either. Any "normal" (ie, competent) company with $76 million to spend could provide virtually unlimited on-chain scaling for Bitcoin in a matter of months - simply by working with devs who would just go ahead and apply the existing obvious mature successful tried-and-true "recipes" for solving "embarrassingly parallel" search problems in massive search spaces, based on standard DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING approaches like Google Search (based on Google's MapReduce algorithm), or [email protected], [email protected], or PrimeGrid (based on Berkeley's BOINC grid computing architecture). The fact that Blockstream / Core devs refuse to consider any standard DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING approaches just proves that they're "embarrassingly stupid" - and the only way Bitcoin will succeed is by routing around their damage. Proven, mature sharding architectures like the ones powering Google Search, [email protected], [email protected], or PrimeGrid will allow Bitcoin to achieve virtually unlimited on-chain scaling, with minimal disruption to the existing Bitcoin network topology and mining and wallet software. Longer Summary: People who argue that "Bitcoin can't scale" - because it involves major physical / hardware requirements (lots of processing power, upload bandwidth, storage space) - are at best simply misinformed or incompetent - or at worst outright lying to you. Bitcoin mainly involves searching the blockchain to prevent double-spends - and so it is similar to many other projects involving "embarrassingly parallel" searching in massive search spaces - like Google Search, [email protected], [email protected], or PrimeGrid. But there's a big difference between those long-running wildly successful massively distributed infinitely scalable parallel computing projects, and Bitcoin. Those other projects do their data storage and processing across a distributed network. But Bitcoin (under the misguided "leadership" of Core / Blockstream devs) instists on a fatally flawed design philosophy where every individual node must be able to download, store and verify the system's entire data structure. And it's even wore than that - they want to let the least powerful nodes in the system dictate the resource requirements for everyone else. Meanwhile, those other projects are all based on some kind of "distributed computing" involving "sharding". They achieve massive scaling by adding a virtually unlimited (and fault-tolerant) logical / software layer on top of the underlying resource-constrained / limited physical / hardware layer - using approaches like Google's MapReduce algorithm or Berkeley's Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) grid computing architecture. This shows that it is a fundamental error to continue insisting on viewing an individual Bitcoin "node" as the fundamental "unit" of the Bitcoin network. Coordinated distributed pools already exist for mining the blockchain - and eventually coordinated distributed trustless architectures will also exist for verifying and querying it. Any architecture or design philosophy where a single "node" is expected to be forever responsible for storing or verifying the entire blockchain is the wrong approach, and is doomed to failure. The most well-known example of this doomed approach is Blockstream / Core's "roadmap" - which is based on two disastrously erroneous design requirements:
Core / Blockstream support convoluted, incomplete off-chain scaling approaches such as the so-called "Lightning Network" - which lacks a mathematical foundation, and also has some serious gaps (eg, no solution for decentralized routing).
Instead, the future of Bitcoin will inevitably be based on unlimited on-chain scaling, where all of Bitcoin's existing algorithms and data structures and networking are essentially preserved unchanged / as-is - but they are distributed at the logical / software level using sharding approaches such as u/thezerg1's BUIP024 or distributed trustless Merkle trees. These kinds of sharding architectures will allow individual nodes to use a minimum of physical resources to access a maximum of logical storage and processing resources across a distributed network with virtually unlimited on-chain scaling - where every node will be able to use and verify the entire blockchain without having to download and store the whole thing - just like Google Search, [email protected], [email protected], or PrimeGrid and other successful distributed sharding-based projects have already been successfully doing for years. Details: Sharding, which has been so successful in many other areas, is a topic that keeps resurfacing in various shapes and forms among independent Bitcoin developers. The highly successful track record of sharding architectures on other projects involving "embarrassingly parallel" massive search problems (harnessing resource-constrained machines at the physical level into a distributed network at the logical level, in order to provide fault tolerance and virtually unlimited scaling searching for web pages, interstellar radio signals, protein sequences, or prime numbers in massive search spaces up to hundreds of terabytes in size) provides convincing evidence that sharding architectures will also work for Bitcoin (which also requires virtually unlimited on-chain scaling, searching the ever-expanding blockchain for previous "spends" from an existing address, before appending a new transaction from this address to the blockchain). Below are some links involving proposals for sharding Bitcoin, plus more discussion and related examples.
[Brainstorming] "Let's Fork Smarter, Not Harder"? Can we find some natural way(s) of making the scaling problem "embarrassingly parallel", perhaps introducing some hierarchical (tree) structures or some natural "sharding" at the level of the network and/or the mempool and/or the blockchain?
"Braiding the Blockchain" (32 min + Q&A): We can't remove all sources of latency. We can redesign the "chain" to tolerate multiple simultaneous writers. Let miners mine and validate at the same time. Ideal block time / size / difficulty can become emergent per-node properties of the network topology
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4su1gf/braiding_the_blockchain_32_min_qa_we_cant_remove/ Some kind of sharding - perhaps based on address sharding as in BUIP024, or based on distributed trustless Merkle trees as proposed earlier by u/thezerg1 - is very likely to turn out to be the simplest, and safest approach towards massive on-chain scaling. A thought experiment showing that we already have most of the ingredients for a kind of simplistic "instant sharding" A simplistic thought experiment can be used to illustrate how easy it could be to do sharding - with almost no changes to the existing Bitcoin system. Recall that Bitcoin addresses and keys are composed from an alphabet of 58 characters. So, in this simplified thought experiment, we will outline a way to add a kind of "instant sharding" within the existing system - by using the last character of each address in order to assign that address to one of 58 shards. (Maybe you can already see where this is going...) Similar to vanity address generation, a user who wants to receive Bitcoins would be required to generate 58 different receiving addresses (each ending with a different character) - and, similarly, miners could be required to pick one of the 58 shards to mine on. Then, when a user wanted to send money, they would have to look at the last character of their "send from" address - and also select a "send to" address ending in the same character - and presto! we already have a kind of simplistic "instant sharding". (And note that this part of the thought experiment would require only the "softest" kind of soft fork: indeed, we haven't changed any of the code at all, but instead we simply adopted a new convention by agreement, while using the existing code.) Of course, this simplistic "instant sharding" example would still need a few more features in order to be complete - but they'd all be fairly straightforward to provide:
A transaction can actually send from multiple addresses, to multiple addresses - so the approach of simply looking at the final character of a single (receive) address would not be enough to instantly assign a transaction to a particular shard. But a slightly more sophisticated decision criterion could easily be developed - and computed using code - to assign every transaction to a particular shard, based on the "from" and "to" addresses in the transaction. The basic concept from the "simplistic" example would remain the same, sharding the network based on some characteristic of transactions.
If we had 58 shards, then the mining reward would have to be decreased to 1/58 of what it currently is - and also the mining hash power on each of the shards would end up being roughly 1/58 of what it is now. In general, many people might agree that decreased mining rewards would actually be a good thing (spreading out mining rewards among more people, instead of the current problems where mining is done by about 8 entities). Also, network hashing power has been growing insanely for years, so we probably have way more than enough needed to secure the network - after all, Bitcoin was secure back when network hash power was 1/58 of what it is now.
This simplistic example does not handle cases where you need to do "cross-shard" transactions. But it should be feasible to implement such a thing. The various proposals from u/thezerg1 such as BUIP024 do deal with "cross-shard" transactions.
(Also, the fact that a simplified address-based sharding mechanics can be outlined in just a few paragraphs as shown here suggests that this might be "simple and understandable enough to actually work" - unlike something such as the so-called "Lightning Network", which is actually just a catchy-sounding name with no clearly defined mechanics or mathematics behind it.) Addresses are plentiful, and can be generated locally, and you can generate addresses satisfying a certain pattern (eg ending in a certain character) the same way people can already generate vanity addresses. So imposing a "convention" where the "send" and "receive" address would have to end in the same character (and where the miner has to only mine transactions in that shard) - would be easy to understand and do. Similarly, the earlier solution proposed by u/thezerg1, involving distributed trustless Merkle trees, is easy to understand: you'd just be distributing the Merkle tree across multiple nodes, while still preserving its immutablity guarantees. Such approaches don't really change much about the actual system itself. They preserve the existing system, and just split its data structures into multiple pieces, distributed across the network. As long as we have the appropriate operators for decomposing and recomposing the pieces, then everything should work the same - but more efficiently, with unlimited on-chain scaling, and much lower resource requirements. The examples below show how these kinds of "sharding" approaches have already been implemented successfully in many other systems. Massive search is already efficiently performed with virtually unlimited scaling using divide-and-conquer / decompose-and-recompose approaches such as MapReduce and BOINC. Every time you do a Google search, you're using Google's MapReduce algorithm to solve an embarrassingly parallel problem. And distributed computing grids using the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) are constantly setting new records searching for protein combinations, prime numbers, or radio signals from possible intelligent life in the universe. We all use Google to search hundreds of terabytes of data on the web and get results in a fraction of a second - using cheap "commodity boxes" on the server side, and possibly using limited bandwidth on the client side - with fault tolerance to handle crashing servers and dropped connections. Other examples are [email protected], [email protected] and PrimeGrid - involving searching massive search spaces for protein sequences, interstellar radio signals, or prime numbers hundreds of thousands of digits long. Each of these examples uses sharding to decompose a giant search space into smaller sub-spaces which are searched separately in parallel and then the resulting (sub-)solutions are recomposed to provide the overall search results. It seems obvious to apply this tactic to Bitcoin - searching the blockchain for existing transactions involving a "send" from an address, before appending a new "send" transaction from that address to the blockchain. Some people might object that those systems are different from Bitcoin. But we should remember that preventing double-spends (the main thing that the Bitcoin does) is, after all, an embarrassingly parallel massive search problem - and all of these other systems also involve embarrassingly parallel massive search problems. The mathematics of Google's MapReduce and Berkeley's BOINC is simple, elegant, powerful - and provably correct. Google's MapReduce and Berkeley's BOINC have demonstrated that in order to provide massive scaling for efficient searching of massive search spaces, all you need is...
an appropriate "decompose" operation,
an appropriate "recompose" operation,
the necessary coordination mechanisms
...in order to distribute a single problem across multiple, cheap, fault-tolerant processors. This allows you to decompose the problem into tiny sub-problems, solving each sub-problem to provide a sub-solution, and then recompose the sub-solutions into the overall solution - gaining virtually unlimited scaling and massive efficiency. The only "hard" part involves analyzing the search space in order to select the appropriate DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operations which guarantee that recomposing the "sub-solutions" obtained by decomposing the original problem is equivalent to the solving the original problem. This essential property could be expressed in "pseudo-code" as follows:
(DECOMPOSE ; SUB-SOLVE ; RECOMPOSE) = (SOLVE)
Selecting the appropriate DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operations (and implementing the inter-machine communication coordination) can be somewhat challenging, but it's certainly doable. In fact, as mentioned already, these things have already been done in many distributed computing systems. So there's hardly any "original work to be done in this case. All we need to focus on now is translating the existing single-processor architecture of Bitcoin to a distributed architecture, adopting the mature, proven, efficient "recipes" provided by the many examples of successful distributed systems already up and running like such as Google Search (based on Google's MapReduce algorithm), or [email protected], [email protected], or PrimeGrid (based on Berkeley's BOINC grid computing architecture). That's what any "competent" company with $76 million to spend would have done already - simply work with some devs who know how to implement open-source distributed systems, and focus on adapting Bitcoin's particular data structures (merkle trees, hashed chains) to a distributed environment. That's a realistic roadmap that any team of decent programmers with distributed computing experience could easily implement in a few months, and any decent managers could easily manage and roll out on a pre-determined schedule - instead of all these broken promises and missed deadlines and non-existent vaporware and pathetic excuses we've been getting from the incompetent losers and frauds involved with Core / Blockstream. ASIDE: MapReduce and BOINC are based on math - but the so-called "Lightning Network" is based on wishful thinking involving kludges on top of workarounds on top of hacks - which is how you can tell that LN will never work. Once you have succeeded in selecting the appropriate mathematical DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operations, you get simple massive scaling - and it's also simple for anyone to verify that these operations are correct - often in about a half-page of math and code. An example of this kind of elegance and brevity (and provable correctness) involving compositionality can be seen in this YouTube clip by the accomplished mathematician Lucius Greg Meredith presenting some operators for scaling Ethereum - in just a half page of code: https://youtu.be/uzahKc_ukfM?t=1101 Conversely, if you fail to select the appropriate mathematical DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operations, then you end up with a convoluted mess of wishful thinking - like the "whitepaper" for the so-called "Lightning Network", which is just a cool-sounding name with no actual mathematics behind it. The LN "whitepaper" is an amateurish, non-mathematical meandering mishmash of 60 pages of "Alice sends Bob" examples involving hacks on top of workarounds on top of kludges - also containing a fatal flaw (a lack of any proposed solution for doing decentralized routing). The disaster of the so-called "Lightning Network" - involving adding never-ending kludges on top of hacks on top of workarounds (plus all kinds of "timing" dependencies) - is reminiscent of the "epicycles" which were desperately added in a last-ditch attempt to make Ptolemy's "geocentric" system work - based on the incorrect assumption that the Sun revolved around the Earth. This is how you can tell that the approach of the so-called "Lightning Network" is simply wrong, and it would never work - because it fails to provide appropriate (and simple, and provably correct) mathematical DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operations in less than a single page of math and code. Meanwhile, sharding approaches based on a DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operation are simple and elegant - and "functional" (ie, they don't involve "procedural" timing dependencies like keeping your node running all the time, or closing out your channel before a certain deadline). Bitcoin only has 6,000 nodes - but the leading sharding-based projects have over 100,000 nodes, with no financial incentives. Many of these sharding-based projects have many more nodes than the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin network currently has about 6,000 nodes - even though there are financial incentives for running a node (ie, verifying your own Bitcoin balance. [email protected] and [email protected] each have over 100,000 active users - even though these projects don't provide any financial incentives. This higher number of users might be due in part the the low resource demands required in these BOINC-based projects, which all are based on sharding the data set. [email protected]
As part of the client-server network architecture, the volunteered machines each receive pieces of a simulation (work units), complete them, and return them to the project's database servers, where the units are compiled into an overall simulation. In 2007, Guinness World Records recognized [email protected] as the most powerful distributed computing network. As of September 30, 2014, the project has 107,708 active CPU cores and 63,977 active GPUs for a total of 40.190 x86 petaFLOPS (19.282 native petaFLOPS). At the same time, the combined efforts of all distributed computing projects under BOINC totals 7.924 petaFLOPS.
Using distributed computing, [email protected] sends the millions of chunks of data to be analyzed off-site by home computers, and then have those computers report the results. Thus what appears an onerous problem in data analysis is reduced to a reasonable one by aid from a large, Internet-based community of borrowed computer resources. Observational data are recorded on 2-terabyte SATA hard disk drives at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, each holding about 2.5 days of observations, which are then sent to Berkeley. Arecibo does not have a broadband Internet connection, so data must go by postal mail to Berkeley. Once there, it is divided in both time and frequency domains work units of 107 seconds of data, or approximately 0.35 megabytes (350 kilobytes or 350,000 bytes), which overlap in time but not in frequency. These work units are then sent from the [email protected] server over the Internet to personal computers around the world to analyze. Data is merged into a database using [email protected] computers in Berkeley. The [email protected] distributed computing software runs either as a screensaver or continuously while a user works, making use of processor time that would otherwise be unused. Active users: 121,780 (January 2015)
PrimeGrid is a distributed computing project for searching for prime numbers of world-record size. It makes use of the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing (BOINC) platform. Active users 8,382 (March 2016)
A MapReduce program is composed of a Map() procedure (method) that performs filtering and sorting (such as sorting students by first name into queues, one queue for each name) and a Reduce() method that performs a summary operation (such as counting the number of students in each queue, yielding name frequencies).
How can we go about developing sharding approaches for Bitcoin? We have to identify a part of the problem which is in some sense "invariant" or "unchanged" under the operations of DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE - and we also have to develop a coordination mechanism which orchestrates the DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operations among the machines. The simplistic thought experiment above outlined an "instant sharding" approach where we would agree upon a convention where the "send" and "receive" address would have to end in the same character - instantly providing a starting point illustrating some of the mechanics of an actual sharding solution. BUIP024 involves address sharding and deals with the additional features needed for a complete solution - such as cross-shard transactions. And distributed trustless Merkle trees would involve storing Merkle trees across a distributed network - which would provide the same guarantees of immutability, while drastically reducing storage requirements. So how can we apply ideas like MapReduce and BOINC to providing massive on-chain scaling for Bitcoin? First we have to examine the structure of the problem that we're trying to solve - and we have to try to identify how the problem involves a massive search space which can be decomposed and recomposed. In the case of Bitcoin, the problem involves:
sequentializing (serializing) APPEND operations to a blockchain data structure
in such a way as to avoid double-spends
Can we view "preventing Bitcoin double-spends" as a "massive search space problem"? Yes we can! Just like Google efficiently searches hundreds of terabytes of web pages for a particular phrase (and [email protected], [email protected], PrimeGrid etc. efficiently search massive search spaces for other patterns), in the case of "preventing Bitcoin double-spends", all we're actually doing is searching a massive seach space (the blockchain) in order to detect a previous "spend" of the same coin(s). So, let's imagine how a possible future sharding-based architecture of Bitcoin might look. We can observe that, in all cases of successful sharding solutions involving searching massive search spaces, the entire data structure is never stored / searched on a single machine. Instead, the DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operations (and the coordination mechanism) a "virtual" layer or grid across multiple machines - allowing the data structure to be distributed across all of them, and allowing users to search across all of them. This suggests that requiring everyone to store 80 Gigabytes (and growing) of blockchain on their own individual machine should no longer be a long-term design goal for Bitcoin. Instead, in a sharding environment, the DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operations (and the coordination mechanism) should allow everyone to only store a portion of the blockchain on their machine - while also allowing anyone to search the entire blockchain across everyone's machines. This might involve something like BUIP024's "address sharding" - or it could involve something like distributed trustless Merkle trees. In either case, it's easy to see that the basic data structures of the system would remain conceptually unaltered - but in the sharding approaches, these structures would be logically distributed across multiple physical devices, in order to provide virtually unlimited scaling while dramatically reducing resource requirements. This would be the most "conservative" approach to scaling Bitcoin: leaving the data structures of the system conceptually the same - and just spreading them out more, by adding the appropriately defined mathematical DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operators (used in successful sharding approaches), which can be easily proven to preserve the same properties as the original system. Conclusion Bitcoin isn't the only project in the world which is permissionless and distributed. Other projects (BOINC-based permisionless decentralized [email protected], [email protected], and PrimeGrid - as well as Google's (permissioned centralized) MapReduce-based search engine) have already achieved unlimited scaling by providing simple mathematical DECOMPOSE and RECOMPOSE operations (and coordination mechanisms) to break big problems into smaller pieces - without changing the properties of the problems or solutions. This provides massive scaling while dramatically reducing resource requirements - with several projects attracting over 100,000 nodes, much more than Bitcoin's mere 6,000 nodes - without even offering any of Bitcoin's financial incentives. Although certain "legacy" Bitcoin development teams such as Blockstream / Core have been neglecting sharding-based scaling approaches to massive on-chain scaling (perhaps because their business models are based on misguided off-chain scaling approaches involving radical changes to Bitcoin's current successful network architecture, or even perhaps because their owners such as AXA and PwC don't want a counterparty-free new asset class to succeed and destroy their debt-based fiat wealth), emerging proposals from independent developers suggest that on-chain scaling for Bitcoin will be based on proven sharding architectures such as MapReduce and BOINC - and so we should pay more attention to these innovative, independent developers who are pursuing this important and promising line of research into providing sharding solutions for virtually unlimited on-chain Bitcoin scaling.
Also, I have other awesome news! Thanks to this incredible community, first FFS by XMR.RU-teammate fully funded! Thanks to same Mr.Pickles (@v1docq47), now Monerujo has Russian language! --- Who we are? Group of Monero enthusiasts from Ukraine and Russia. What are we doing? We spread the word about Monero for the whole CIS. You can support us: XMR: 42CxJrG1Q8HT9XiXJ1Cim4Sz18rM95UucEBeZ3x6YuLQUwTn6UWo9ozeA7jv13v8H1FvQn9dgw1Gw2VMUqdvVN1T9izzGEt BTC: 1FeetSJ7LFZeC328FqPqYTfUY4LEesZ5ku As far as I know, no one of XMR.RU-guys owns Lambo, probably because we have this thread. You can see for what all donations are spent on. ;-) --- Cheers!
Difficult to fundraise $3 000? Let's collect easily $5 000 000 a year! DOGECOIN 2.0 ideation.
Decentralization and democratization. Doge 4 Family House fundraising is struggling to raise Ð1,500,000. Where the heck are 110,000,000,000 dogecoins? Fundraiser asks for only 1 dogecoin in 73333. What is going wrong? As of today, yearly mined dogecoins are worth around 5 million USD! Why so difficult to gather just $3 thousand? I've joined dogecoin community around half a year after dogecoins' birth, i.e. it was too late to mine with a home computer as asics were coming into the market. Asics and merged mining with litecoin centralized dogecoin and took away a lot of fun from average shibies and reserved this space for rather rich people or mining enterprises, huge warehouses filled with electronic equipment doing nothing important for humanity - wasteful calculations. What are asics? They are specialized chips able to quickly solve a very narrow class of problems. Apart of mining, asics designed for mining can only be used as heaters or collectibles. While mining, they solve meaningless problems. There is no use of these computations apart of creating dogecoins, litecoins or bitcoins. Daily electricity usage (only bitcoin network) exceeds 1 million USD daily. The cost of equipment to match bitcoin network hashrate I have estimated to cost currently between 100 and 500 million USD. If dogecoin would be valued close to 1Ð = 1$, dogecoin mining network would be as costly and seeping as much electricity. All these money and resources for garbage calculations. This is basically wrong. As I was unable to mine, I have bought some dogecoins on the market. I won some in design competitions here on reddit/dogecoin, I tipped and I've been tipped quite a lot. I gave up tobacco in favour of electric cigs and doing other similar savings and altogether I have collected close to one million dogecoins. Well, over 90 000 left in dogetipbot were burnt in 'Wow Such Business' by Mohland, some disappeared on some websites that... disappeared. My bad. Last month I decided to review my 'investments'. I have sold most of my dogecoins I had left in my wallet and Shibe Poker site and bought some other coins, especially gridcoins. As an investment - I could point to some other coins that seem to have higher potential to bring a good return. But I like Gridcoin Research. This coin is based on mixed Proof of Stake and Proof of Research. The latter one is basically a variant of Proof of Work. Now it's almost a week since I've started mining cryptocurrency for the first time in my life! And it's quite exciting. Preliminary estimations show that I won't make any good return on mining gridcoin. Electricity here is expensive. Buying and holding - if it would take off 'to the moon' one day - would be much more profitable. Return will roughly cover only mining electricity costs (or not fully), at least in my case. But! But I like it! I can be a part of the system, unlike in dogecoin nowadays. I take part in scientific research. Years ago I had a special screensaver and my AMD Athlon desktop was crunching numbers for [email protected] project. Now I can continue this project or start any other ranging from mathematical problems to mapping new territories in our bodies, from discovering the shape of our Milky Way to finding cures for illnesses. While Dogecoin is aiming for the Moon, Gridcoin is reaching far further away (from asteroids, through Milky Way to distant galaxies) and far closer (researching our own genome, gut bacteria, Zika cure, treatment for common childhood cancers). Mining power of our home computers that is meaningful for humanity. Which is Wow? Much amaze? So science!
Here goes my proposal for DOGECOIN 2.0. It's only ideation, I know it would need a huge amount of work and it would be difficult, but first we need a direction and then we can research feasibility. 1) Migration from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake + Proof of Research (or other useful Proof of Work that is non Asic based) = taking new coins from whales only back to community, empowering shibes. Surely, those who are cleverer, working harder, can and want to invest more money will get higher share is rewards. At least their mining rigs would do a meaningful job and average John Doe will be still relevant with his all purpose desktop computer. 2) Reward scheme. There is 5 billion extra supply a year plus mining fees. For simplicity I will assume just for this draft there is 5 billion coins to share but in more detailed plan we should add mining fees, too. 2a) 20% (1 billion Ð ~ 2 million $) for Non Profit. A list of eligible organizations / projects would be proposed, voted and whitelisted. 2b) 1% (50 million Ð ~ 100 thousand $) for DEV fund 2c) 1% (50 million Ð ~ 100 thousand $) for Dogecoin Foundation (marketing, maintaining list of non profit projects and checking those projects - or it could be part of 2a) above 2d) 39% (1.75 billion Ð) for Proof of Stake (interest) 2e) 39% (1.75 billion Ð) for Proof of Work (non Asic - like gridcoins' Proof of Research) (mining) Coins collected as fees should be assigned proportionately or some other way to above funds. Would dogecoin reach current litecoin market cap, above sums would reach $20 million/year for non profit projects, $1 million/year for development etc. At some point shares could be adjusted.
Inflation, or more precisely dogecoin supply growth which is 5 billion a year, or currently less than 5% a year is by some shibes regarded as a brake for market value growth. It was discussed several times.
Current total supply means there is in existence only ~15 dogecoins per living human
How much gold is in possession of humans? Estimates start from 155 000 tonnes. This gives lower number of at least 20g per person. Current value of 20g gold bar is $861.
Many other coins have currently higher supply growth and still higher market capitalization
Extra supply can help in dogecoin redistribution and adoption = growth in value.
There seems nothing fundamentally wrong with keeping current supply growth rate as it is.
Due to excellent job devs are doing I have retrieved some coins from dogeparty. Just quote ‘Much Humanity, So Earth, Such Fun’ in your reply to get a tip. Over 1000 dogecoins from my retrieved dogeparty funds are up for grabs!
Such a huge change could cause a hard fork with both forks alive, i.e. old and new dogecoins would coexist. Is it something to be afraid of? As recent story of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash shows, such a scenario is possible, what is more - does not effect badly either new or old fork. Thus I would take it a step further and deliberately leave old dogecoin and start a new one. Proposed changes would bring back decentralization and democratization and empower community, allow collect easily substantial amounts of money for non profit projects, secure development and potentially put into good use thousands to millions of our home computers. I expect this would lead to greater adoption and rise in value - for those looking to 1Ð = 1$. If Dogecoin 1.0 was aiming To The Moon, for Dogecoin 2.0 let's aim For Humanity, For Earth, For Fun!
Giveaway ended. Final remarks.
It seems at the end sodogetip or dogecoin network couldn't cope with sending coins even though balance is still big enough and some errors occurred. such error: currency4world's balance must wait for pending tips to be confirmed before sending this tip amount [help] Might try to resend later or it might clear itself.djgeki noticed I wrote veify instead verify and confused bot ;)
Disappointed there was no discussion about my ideas.
Disappointed by GoodShibe patronizing comments and no value added to discussion
Post was many times downvoted - thanks to all who upvoted - it's at +2 at the moment
Cryptocurrency Mining Screensaver Helps Raise Funds for Charities
Cryptocurrency mining has a very negative reputation these days. Electricity usage concerns have been highlighted by numerous studies. There is also the emerging cryptojacking threat to keep in mind. However, Change.org and TraceLocke Brazil give crypto mining a better reputation through a screensaver which supports charities.
Mining for Charitable Reasons
Cryptocurrency can play a big role in the charity and donation industry. Its global nature and low fees make for an attractive model to help those in need. A new screensaver which uses Monero mining for social good is making the rounds. It is a project created by Change.org and TraceyLocke Brazil, a marketing firm. Combining convenience with cryptocurrency donations is an option that many people can get behind. The screensaver uses up a bit of idle CPU power. Once it is active, it will begin mining Monero for the Change.org Foundation. Although not much money will be generated per machine, several thousand people installing it can still make a difference. It will all depend on how popular this screensaver effort turns out to be in the long run. https://preview.redd.it/xttaj5lxhha11.jpg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c8dc0ee5fef48a5acf9070d72fc72175c2f6145d Change.org hopes to have thousands of computers around the world run this screensaver. The longer it remains active, the more money will be generated on behalf of the Change.org Foundation, which states its purpose by saying: We believe sustainable, positive social change can only occur when citizens are empowered to raise their voices. We support people, many with direct experience of the injustice and inequality, to lead campaigns tackling issues affecting their countries and communities. Recognizing there are movements and issues that transcend borders and affect multiple regions, we coordinate a series of international projects, with a current focus on women’s rights and democratic participation. A Positive Spin on Crypto Mining Initiatives like this help redeem the concept of mining cryptocurrency. This business model has received a lot of negative attention over the past year and a half. Growing concerns over the electricity being wasted on mining have made media headlines. Some regions welcome Bitcoin miners with open arms. Canada and Iceland are two countries which stand out. Japan is also looking to attract more crypto miners in the coming months. All of these countries provide access to cheap and abundant renewable energy. For mining operators, it offers new opportunities to explore. This screensaver venture can prove to be successful. It is open source software which can be adopted by other NGOs. A new wave of positive cryptocurrency mining ventures can be introduced because of this approach by Change.org and TraceyLocke Brazil. Bringing more positive attention to cryptocurrency is always highly desirable. Source
Welcome to the Daily Crypto News Update. Please use this thread as a quick overview of recent crypto news posted for the past 24 hours, and join for all crypto discussions! Please read the disclaimer and rules before participating
Disclaimer: The content of the thread and news should not be relied upon as advice or recommendations of any kind. Use this thread for informational purposes only. It will be your responsibility to take the risk trading based on the recent crypto news. Remember the golden rule - Past results are no indication of future performance. Rules: The subreddit and Reddit rules are still in force here. Please keep the discussion related to cryptocurrency news only and do not use this thread to solve your technical issues on Bitsgap platform.
The possibility of using the mining power of a crypto currency to solve real life problems has been put forward by various people. SETI relies in part on a network of private individuals called “SETI at home”. Similar to bitcoin these individuals contribute to the computer power of a network that analyzes the huge amount of raw data that SETI discovers every day. “SETI at home” is software that is installed on your computer. This software takes the form of a screensaver. It starts working once your computer stays inactive for a period of time. I am not saying that SETI-coin could become something as huge as Bitcoin, but considering all the altcoins out there, it would be as far as I know the first altcoin using the power of mining to contribute to real life problems. I am not a software developer, from what I hear it would be possible to create such a coin but I can’t be sure about it. I write this post to simply share an idea that crossed my mind, explore the possibilities of cryptocurrencies and see if it grabs some attention from more knowledgeable people on this subject.
So, I mentioned in an earlier thread that I was running my bitcoin miner as a screensaver, and a couple of people asked how I was doing that and if they could do it, too. Unfortunately, I had actually created my own custom screensaver program to do it. Fortunately, I decided to clean it up a bit and present it here for you guys! It's not actually a bitcoin screensaver, though. It's actually a general-purpose command-line screensaver. It runs a list of commands or .bat files (one at a time), so in order to use it for bitcoin mining, you'll need to know how to start your miner from the command prompt with whatever options you need. I use Windows 7 and poclbm and it works great. I can't guarantee it will work for any setup but mine. Here's a link to the screensaver: http://dl.dropbox.com29782458/CommandSaver.scr I'm releasing it for free; you can distribute it as much as you want. As I said, it wasn't originally intended for release, so it may still have a few bugs or quirks in it. If you find any, or have any questions, I'll try to stick around and respond. Oh, and if you like it, my bitcoin address is: 18fr1BkoLNHt6znt1v5ByRod6Y9q3sWQ35
I made a screensaver for bitcoin mining (and any other command line programs) here a couple weeks ago, but a lot of people were wary of a closed-source program from an anonymous guy. So I've open-sourced it! This is my first open source project so I'm a bit nervous, but hopefully it will let you guys check it out without fear. Please let me know of any bugs or suggestions. One guy in the previous thread said he had trouble when the screen saver couldn't find a program, but I couldn't reproduce his issues and he hasn't responded yet. http://dl.dropbox.com29782458/CommandSaver.zip
I think I can look up most of the tutorials on how to actually mine by myself, my question concerns the security of my Wallet/My PC. If I should move this question to a computer-oriented subreddit, just tell me so please. I'm someone who never was into PC's that much, only in the recent years have I started reading up on the hardware and have recently built my own PC. However, I have no idea about any form of software. I have never spoken any programming language, I was never into software details. What I want to do now is get into Bitcoins, but before I do that, I need advice on how to actually make my PC safe for mining. What I already do: -) I use firefox with the NoScript addon -) I'm running an anti-virus programm (Avira). This is supposed to keep keyloggers and all sorts of trouble away, I am unsure of how well this works. -) I'm not (and never was) one of those people who click every add, open every email, visit porn websites unprotected, download screensavers from the net, or all sorts of other shinenigans. -) I DO however know that no protection is perfect, and I might already have smaller worms/viruses/trojans on my PC without my knowledge. My questions are: -) Are there any good tutorials on how I can keep my PC monitored regularly? How can I see all the different processes running on my CPU right now, determine their origin and their cause/what they're good for? There HAS to be a better option than Windows Task Manager, for I am aware that not every process is neccessarily listed there. -) Is there a good firewall I can use, that is also somewhat easy to configure? I don't want it to go off on every website I visit. Additional info: I plan on using an offline wallet later on. People told me "GPU mining is dead, bro", and even if this is most likely the case, can I still mine with it? Even if the outcome is small as ****? I want to successfully mine one single complete BitCoin, even if it takes me a year to do so. I just want to say "I was there." Thanks in advance.
I'm currently using a version of phoenix with my Radeon 6790 to mine bitcoins at around 340 mhashs I would love to pair this up with my screensaver as so both electric sheep and phoenix (which I have as a bat file) would run. I've tried adding electric sheep to the phoenix bat file, but there isn't a .exe for electric sheep per say... Any ideas?
Mining Screensaver [open source update] I made a screensaver for bitcoin mining (and any other command line programs) here a couple weeks ago, but a lot of people were wary of a closed-source program from an anonymous guy. So I've open-sourced it! This is my first open source project so I'm a bit nervous, but hopefully it will let you guys ... Bitcoin scams have been famously criminal and public in nature. With no bank as a middleman in exchange, things become more complicated; so hackers and con men have had a heyday. While currently mining at 5 cents is profitable, after the halving, even large farms will have to pay roughly one BTC to mine one whole coin. Breakeven for Amateur Mining at $10,000 per Bitcoin. When calculating the mining of one BTC, the prediction takes into account possible price fluctuations in various breakeven scenarios. “The Mining Screensaver” will pool the computing power of the program’s users, with all XMR generated being automatically transferred to the Change.org Foundation. Also Read: ... Traceylocke Brazil, to launch a screensaver that mines bitcoin whilst users’ computers sit idly. Download Screen Saver Bitcoin for free. This project is an user-mode application which fires bitcoin miner together with screen saver. If you are like me, you don't want to mine while you are using computer;
Watch Me Make $330 In 30 Minutes - Coinbase Earn Money ...
What is a mining pool and why is it best to mine Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies on mining pools? Here is our review and explanation of mining pools, how ... If you've ever wondered how Bitcoin really works and what the potential risks are, you're in the right place. Subscribe to TheHub http://goo.gl/87YJzG Have y... Bitcoin mining 2020 (The basics of how to mine bitcoin) - Duration: 6:15. CoinCasso Recommended for you. ... Screen saver fix - Duration: 1:57. The Cable Doctor Recommended for you. Watch Me Make $330 In 30 Minutes - Coinbase Earn! ₿₿₿₿ Create a Coinbase Account: https://www.coinbase.com/join/560ee0e70c80e251ea000192 ⭐Blockchain Basics: ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Download: https://anonfiles.com/j4m326Lco7 -------------------------------...