Proof of Work (PoW) Consensus Algorithm Explained – Changelly
Proof of Work (PoW) Consensus Algorithm Explained – Changelly
Proof of work - Bitcoin Wiki
Proof-of-work (PoW). All about cryptocurrency - BitcoinWiki
Consensus Algorithms: Proof of Work — Bitpanda Academy
Bitcoin: Proof of work (video) | Bitcoin | Khan Academy
We have all heard of Bitcoin some of us even Litecoin so what exactly is CASH. Cash (code:CASH) sometimes refereed to as crypto-cash, cash-coin or digital cash. Is a currency much like Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin but utilizes a combined proof-of-stake (PoS) and Proof-of-Work (PoW) system. CASH was created by a small team determined to improve upon the Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC) and Dogecoin (DOGE) algorithms and create something unique and sustainable.
The original Bitcoin proof-of-work algorithm is relatively easy to understand. If you read the original paper it is clear that the cryptography is sound, and is also patently clear that the whole thing is going to be slow, ludicrously expensive, and will incentivise the wrong things (deflationary HODLing, 50% attacks, etc). But with proof-of-stake I honestly have no idea what is going on because I could never understand the algorithms. Is it actually cryptographically sound like proof-of-work or is it just a vaporware daydream by wannabe rentists? What is the current state of the art in proof-of-stake? If it is sound, what does it rely on, and where is it more vulnerable to breaking?
@BinanceResearch: RT @BinanceResearch: Bitcoin Cash (BCH) saw its block mining rewards being halved to 6.25 #BCH per block. #halving Learn about #BitcoinCash, a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency based on a Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm and the differences between $BCH and $BTC. 🔽 https://t.co/iHN6d6GlBk
@binance: RT @BinanceResearch: Bitcoin Cash (BCH) saw its block mining rewards being halved to 6.25 #BCH per block. #halving Learn about #BitcoinCash, a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency based on a Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm and the differences between $BCH and $BTC. 🔽 https://t.co/iHN6d6GlBk
@BinanceResearch: Bitcoin Cash (BCH) saw its block mining rewards being halved to 6.25 #BCH per block. #halving Learn about #BitcoinCash, a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency based on a Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm and the differences between $BCH and $BTC. 🔽 https://t.co/iHN6d6GlBk
It's about time Bitcoin was associated to biomedical research
Introducing Bitsolve, no it's not a alt coin. This is, however, a work in progress, and is constructed to provide a direction, if not, a potential architecture to how we can use Bitcoin technology to accomplish goals that directly contribute to the betterment and understanding of human health. Edits, correction, improvements are the goals for this post. Be explicit. BitSolve: An open source incentivized decentralized free-market peer-2- peer architecture that harnesses the computational power of the world in order to solve complex and/or large-scale biological problems while providing real-time monetary compensation in bitcoin to anyone with a CPU. The computational resources required to solve biological problems are hard to over-estimate. Since the 1990s, bioinformatics and computational biology have emerged as crucial elements in solving problems in virtually every field of biology. Such needs are predicted to increase as dataset generation explodes due to technologies such as next-generation sequencing, high-throughput proteomics, metabolomics and epigenomics. Furthermore, scientists are beginning to appreciate holistic approaches in modeling biological systems such as whole cell, and organ level dynamics via integrating several datasets from multiple sub-cellular technologies that utilize computationally intensive algorithms. There is an enormous amount of computation power that is currently inaccessible to the life scientist. This power is available not in laboratories or institutions, but rather in personal computers in homes and hands (smart phones, tablets) that belong to people all around the world. These computers are often idle or are underperforming because of computationally trivial activities such as web browsing, checking e-mail or typing into a word processor. There would be an exponential boost in computation power available to life scientists if such CPU power could be harnessed for solving biological problems. Furthermore, as each individual would upgrade their hardware for their own private use, this would free scientists from this task, freeing them to focus on hypothesis testing and the scientific questions at hand. BitSolve would enable any scientist in any part of the world to ask sophisticated questions from an ever more increasing dataset without ever having to worry about updating hardware or statistical software. Distributed computational architectures are not entirely novel, not even for biological analysis. However, previous systems have had one major flaw: they have relied on the voluntary donation of computation resources by individuals at home. As individuals have had zero monetary incentive to lend their power, many of them have been reluctant to do so. We propose a system called BitSolve that provides a direct monetary incentive to anyone in the world with a computational unit and an internet connection, where individuals get paid directly and immediately for devoting their computer's CPU time over the internet. Such a system could have additional benefits as well. For instance, it would allow individuals and scientists to bid for a CPU poweprice that would drive down the price of computation power in a free market environment. This would encourage third world citizens to participate in the network due to their relatively lower electricity costs. BitSolve will thus enable truly global participation on an even competitive plane, where the mere ownership of a device with a computational unit will simultaneously be a revenue source for the owner, and a cheap and ample computational source for researchers. How does it work? The architecture would be a piece of software that anyone could download. The software would be coded in a cross-platform programming language such as C++, Java, QT etc, so that it could be run on most desktops, laptops, smart phones, and tablets. Once the software is run, the user's computational unit becomes part of a network of computers running the same software. Anyone running the software can choose to become a “CPU giver” or a “CPU requester.” It is important to note that, nowhere during the process is there a need for entering any personal information, making this a relatively friction free adoption technology. A CPU giver: A CPU giver is someone whom has downloaded the software and agrees on renting out their CPU for a certain time on an agreed upon price. A “CPU giver” would ask for a certain price for example x BTC/min or at a market price. The software would determine the market price of the “CPU giver” after running a test on the CPU to estimate the available resources and then strike a price based on the real-time market exchange. The “CPU giver” could then leave the computational unit, which, if selected in the market, would conduct parts of an analysis, broadcast the completion of analysis, and after receiving confirmation from the network of true completion, would receive funds from the CPU requester that would directly be transferred to the CPU giver's wallet. All of this would happen automatically and without the need for a third party. A CPU requester: A CPU requester is someone who is seeking computational power in the network and has funds in bitcoin allotted for the required analysis. The CPU requester would have a statistical algorithm to be conducted with a certain dataset. After choosing the dataset and copying the R script to the software, the CPU requester then chooses the price that they are willing to pay for the analysis. “CPU givers” that have fast CPUs would ask for a high price, and those with slower CPUs would ask for a lower one. In other words, if CPU requesters wants the analysis conducted in a small amount of time, they would pay a higher price, whereas, they would bid for a lower price if the analysis can be run in a longer period of time. The software would also include a real time CPU/price exchange market that would serve as a reference for bidding. Once the price is chosen, the information is broadcasted across the network and CPU givers are chosen automatically (corresponding with asking prices). The request is then processed and the parts of the data are analyzed securely. Once the analysis is complete, the network using existing Bitcoin proof-of-work algorithm verifies the completion, and the payment of bitcoin is made from the CPU requester to the CPU giver. The results are then returned to the requester and operation is complete. Can you describe the software? The software would have four main components 1. R Statistical package (http://www.r-project.org/): R is the open source, statistical engine that would be the interface for the analyst to program their analysis. R is also the most widely used and rapidly evolving statistical platform used by life scientists due in part to its open source and thus free nature. 2. MutliThreader:Java based open source interpreter that converts the R program into smaller portions that can be sent to separate computers in the network to conduct the analysis and also handles the peer-2-peer communication. 3. A Bitcoin (http://bitcoin.org/en/) (open-source) client that would handle the real-time financial transactions. 4. Java based open source exchange system and handles the bidding for CPU by price for the CPU requester and the bidding of CPU by price for the CPU giver. 5. Java based open source allocation for integrating other types of computation not applicable to R for future expansion. * Note the specific software requirements are not mandatory but use the framework of what is possible in 2013. We also acknowledge that some parts of the systems can be implemented with software such as mastercoin (open-source) and colored coins(open-source). The two essential parts would be a bitcoin client and R statistical software. Why Peer-2-peer and not distributed? Is there a difference? Past architectures that have sought to harness the computational power of personal computers have been distributed from one to many, as in one laboratory aims to distribute their software to many individuals to conduct their analysis exclusively and specifically.(Pande Lab, Stanford). A peer-2- peer united open source system, would entail that any one that uses the free software can act as a CPU “giver” as well as a CPU “requester”. More importantly, because the entire process does not require personal information, the bidding process for CPU time would be free of considerations regarding project scope or vocational seniority. Due to this “freedom,” a graduate student in Boston, could program his personalized analysis of black hole dynamics to run on super computers in Stanford by bidding a higher price, while on the same market a precocious 15 year old in Korea, could bid a lower price to have his father's farm optimization algorithm run on slower and thus cheaper smart phones in India. The diversity in juxtapositions is intentional and should highlight that although this paper discusses the benefits with the life scientist in mind, the implementation does not limit, and to a certain degree, demands context and identity free analysis. This provision is primarily meant to ensure swift and diverse advancement of the software and to have enough CPU 'requesters' to implicate free market dynamics that will lower the prices and thus ensure highest value for CPU speed per houprice. It may be useful to note this will be the first time CPU speed/price will self stabilize on a global level to an optimal value that will be devoid of price inflation due to taxes associated with local governments and geographical distance to the CPU manufacturer etc. Peer-2-peer is extremely robust. Since previous distributed systems have had one governing computational node that does all its CPU requesting, they have been vulnerable to attacks and other security risks. Since this system is peer-2-peer, anonymous, and decentralized, there would never be a target to attack in the first place, ensuring security and robustness. Taking the system down would only be attainable by compromising the Internet in its entirety. Can you explain how the monetary compensation works? Bitcoin is a revolutionary technology. It is a completely decentralized, peer- 2-peer, open source, Internet currency/asset. Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or banks. The network collectively carries out the managing of transactions and the issuing of bitcoins. Bitcoin's unique and groundbreaking properties make new applications for financial transactions that were virtually non-existent with legacy technologies now possible. This project would not be possible if monetary compensation of CPU givers entailed entering personal data, bank information etc. This would carry significant friction for scaling and in some countries wouldn't be possible even in theory because of high numbers of unbanked individuals and archaic financial systems. The only friction in this model is where anyone requesting a CPU would first need to exchange their local currency into bitcoin, which can be done in several online bitcoin exchanges that accept a plethora of local currencies. Since the ratio of CPU givers to CPU requesters is expected to be very high, this is unlikely to cause major problems in scaling now or in the future. CPU givers would only be required to download the software and run it in order to start accepting monetary compensation. It is also useful to note that the bitcoin network itself may be used as a source for computational power, although this would carry with it limited diversity in the type of computation possible.
The current proposal is to implement Bitcoin's proof-of-work algorithm with sha3/keccak hashing, however other algorithm proposals are welcome. Known downsizes of Bitcoin's PoW:
limited speed (could be mitigated by a lightning network equivalent)
no guaranteed transaction order fairness
pptyx proposed hashgraphs, as described in this paper, that claims to be fast and fair, however they are patented and therefor not compatible with AGPLv3 (at least to my knowledge). Maybe there is a similar free algorithm.
Alright everyone, I want to open this can of worms and get a feel for the general sentiment of PoW vs. PoS based on the current mining landscape. But first, my observations: Bitcoin mining is undeniably following a trend toward greater centralization. Just years ago, Bitcoiners expressed concern over the rise of ASICs and the fall of casual miners. Now that problem has grown exponentially, with massive Chinese mining operations that must spend $60,000 monthly on electricity alone. Pretty soon those will be the only types of operations that remain profitable in the face of rising difficulty and declining revenue (revenue declines when Bitcoin price falls). This is a symptom of Bitcoin's proof-of-work algorithm. It rewards those who invest in greater and greater computational power, and punishes those who do not. Where will this trend take us in one year? Two years? Three? Eventually I can envision Bitcoin mining being dominated not by 3 major pools, but by 3 individual operations if the trend continues. Three warehouses in China filled with thousands of ASICs. Is this the centralized, and frankly insecure, future that Bitcoin is headed towards? Proof-of-stake, on the other hand, is often touted as energy-efficient because it doesn't require using computational power to mint new coins or secure the network. If this is true, why haven't more Bitcoiners started looking into proof-of-stake coins as an energy-efficient alternative? It seems like we should be aiming for the most efficient system possible, instead of settling for the one that is pretty good but not as great as it could be. So this brings up the question: If proof-of-stake is an all-around more efficient means of securing a block chain (and there may be arguments against that premise, which I certainly want to hear) then which PoS coin is the best to consider as a true Bitcoin successor? It must have fair initial distribution (in order to avoid a "central bank" type situation, and also to prevent network attacks) as well as a dedicated and creative development team/community that could eventually grow to rival Bitcoin's. While Bitcoiners may be opposed to entertaining such a debate, I think it's important to hash out these issues if our goal is truly to create to best possible monetary system the world has ever seen. So, is there any way to save Bitcoin from creeping centralization? And if not, which PoS coin has the best chance to prove itself worthy of becoming the King of Crypto?
1st and 3rd Thursdays are Toastmasters meetings, so I don't have much time to write today.
The regularity of bubbles
jtsnau argues that there are no markets that are as regular as bitcoins, so the bitcoin bubble cycle is not realistic because no market has such predictable behavior. I ask him: why would bitcoins would not be expected to have such precision? Bitcoins are obviously different than stocks. The fundamentals that determine the value of bitcoins are far more technical and regular than those that determine the value of stocks. Stocks always have a CEO, and a board of directors, and employees. People are impossible to predict, and the same person often reacts in two different ways when faced with the same situation again. Meanwhile, bitcoins rely to a much greater degree on math, programming, and universal laws. Computers always react the same way each time something happens. With a larger machine-based influence, we would expect bitcoins to have regular bubbles because machines follow specific rules and patterns more often than humans do.
New proofs of work
There are a lot of papers floating around suddenly about replacing the bitcoin proof of work algorithm with some sort of signature scheme where the Coinbase transaction needs to be signed with the private key of the recipient. Proponents claim that this would decentralize the network by putting pools out of business. However, in the same papers, they acknowledge that they want to preserve existing ASICs as the prime miners in the bitcoin network. So long as ASICs remain the primary miners, eliminating pooled mining makes bitcoins even more centralized. The immediate effect of pools being eliminated would be the difficulty falling dramatically, and the price of ASICs falling as well. The only way to remain competitive in such a market would be to have huge amounts of money and huge numbers of ASICs. In a poolless world, you can't just connect one ASIC through your home network and expect to make money. The rapid obsolescence of ASICs guarantees that anyone with a single ASIC will see it go obsolete before any blocks are found, resulting in a total loss. The only people who would be able to mine if pooled mining were eliminated using the signature method would be people who own lots of ASICs, and the number of those people would decline, resulting in a worse situation where huge corporations are vying for dominance, rather than groups of individuals.
I believe the upcoming auction is so important to the price of bitcoins that I started a new countdown to it below. People are going to be shocked when this auction closes.
The Middlecoin pool, along with some others, is making a critical error in its mining algorithm that is resulting in decreased payouts for miners. Yesterday, we were able to earn $15/Mh/day during testing. I don't think they are cheating; my brother seems to agree that they simply haven't implemented their mining software right.
And suddenly, I got the idea, can we use UASF (User Activated Soft-Fork) to implement POWA (Prove of Work Additions), i.e. hybrid PoW? I think it's the future of our Bitcoin consensus system, what do you think, folks?
Proof of work (PoW) is a piece of information that is complex (time-consuming, expensive) to produce to satisfy particular conditions.Verification of that information however should be as easy as possible. The purpose of PoW (Proof-of-work algorithm) is to check if calculations were indeed conducted during creation of a new block of cryptocurrency. Proof of Work is the consensus algorithm of the Bitcoin blockchain. It is called “Proof of Work” because it requires some type of work - usually computer processing - from participating nodes (miners) in the Bitcoin network. The most widely used proof-of-work scheme is based on SHA-256 and was introduced as a part of Bitcoin. Some other hashing algorithms that are used for proof-of-work include Scrypt, Blake-256, CryptoNight, HEFTY1, Quark, SHA-3, scrypt-jane, scrypt-n, and combinations thereof. Now aside from Bitcoin, which is a very recent user of these types of proof of work schemes, these schemes have been proposed in the past for other applications. For example, proof of work schemes have been proposed for doing things like deterring denial-of-service attacks, or DoS attacks. Proof-of-Work - what it is? Proof-of-Work or PoW is the original consensus algorithm in the Blockchain network. In Blockchain this algorithm is used to confirm transactions and create new blocks in the chain. With PoW, miners compete with each other to complete transactions in the network and get a reward.
Bitcoin uses the hashcash proof-of-work function. This both serves the purpose of disseminating new coins in a decentralized manner as well as motivating people to provide security for the system. This video delves into the proof of work algorithms that made way for the cryptocurrencies. This video tries to understand the fundamental design principles involved in the Cryptocurrency world. How BTC Work : Bitcoin uses the hashcash Proof of Work function as the Bitcoin mining core. All bitcoin miners whether CPU, GPU, FPGA or ASICs are expending their effort creating hashcash proofs ... An academic lecture by Andreas M. Antonopoulos explaining the consensus algorithm, "Proof of Work", used by bitcoin and many other blockchains. Andreas is a UCL alum. This talk was presented in ... BITCOIN [ Clase 3]: Minería en Bitcoin/ Proof of Work - Funciones Hash- Arbol Merkle (2018) - Duration: 12:34. Tech con Catalina 4,546 views. 12:34.