How To Fix [Reverse] Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transactions

How will 'unconfirmed transaction' pool ever reverse trend? /r/Bitcoin

How will 'unconfirmed transaction' pool ever reverse trend? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read)
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size
gmaxwell's summary of the debate
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big)
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs
jratcliff on the layering

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] mailing list with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed.
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%.
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical)
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size with transcript
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin someone's notes: reddit discussion
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010)
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this
luke-jr's summary
Another jratcliff thread

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: transcript:
Backlogs arent that bad
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently
Full blocks are fine
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that.


What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript
Segwit is not too complex
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths:
Segwit is bigger blocks
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income
Witness discount creates aligned incentives
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell
Reddit thread with discussion
Simplified explaination by jonny1000
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story)
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email)
Other calculations show less
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost
Luke's summary of the entire situation
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely
Asicboost discovery made the price rise
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier and and
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control:

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? with and


bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science)
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners
Routing blog post by rusty and reddit comments
Lightning protocol rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet video
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet
Lightning tradeoffs
Beer sold for testnet lightning and
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions
Lightning centralization doesnt happen
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees and

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement
maaku on the cash question
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013
maaku: hard forks are really bad

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens:
and this example from 2017 btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation
old version
older version
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future
Flexible transactions are bugged
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k employees are moderators of btc
miners don't control stuff like the block size
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth
BU's lying propaganda poster

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
Other funding stuff
A serious bug in BU
A summary of what's wrong with BU:

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017
BU devs calling it as disaster also btc deleted a thread about the exploit
Summary of incident
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
Again a few days later

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it
luke's view
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
UASF coin is more valuable
All the links together in one place
p2sh was a uasf
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148
Committed intolerant minority
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating

Fighting off 2x HF
b2x is most of all about firing core

Misinformation / sockpuppets
three year old account, only started posting today
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked:


Good article that covers virtually all the important history
Interesting post with some history pre-2015
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 my summary
History from summer 2015
Brief reminders of the ETC situation
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it)
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit
hard fork proposals from some core devs
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project
blockstream is one of the good guys
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster
Nice graphic
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy
Fairly cool propaganda poster
btc tankman
asicboost discovery meme
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain
stuff that btc believes
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome)
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF | | | | | | | | | | | |
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

On RBF and 0-Conf, why they don't work together.

Seems like there are a lot of questions about 0-Conf and RBF.
Today I want to talk about the difference between the two and why they don't work together.
An unconfirmed transaction also known as a "0-Conf," is a transaction that has been broadcasted and seen by the network but not yet confirmed in a block.
For many merchants, because of the way BCH works, these transactions are often considered acceptable even if they haven't yet been confirmed. This is in part due to the "first seen, first safe rule" originally imposed by Satoshi, the efficacy of which he talks about, here:
Interestingly enough, Bitpay, since they accept 0-Conf for BCH, does provide exactly what he described there: "Good enough checking in something like ten seconds or less." Excellent!
Now Imagine a sliding scale with security on one end and convenience on the other. Each merchant must choose where he wants to fall on the line. A merchant selling houses or cars would probably trade some convenience for extra security, making their buyer wait around for at least one confirmation, or more!
While a clever coffee shop owner would probably trade some security for convenience - allowing 0-Conf for his relatively small value transactions.
Key point: It is up to each individual to decide what level of risk is acceptable to them.
Because Bitcoin Cash keeps the first seen first safe rule, and RBF doesn't work on Bitcoin Cash, many merchants accept unconfirmed BCH payments with a high degree of confidence.
As a buyer and seller, I personally accept unconfirmed BCH payments, which has not failed me yet.
I do this for even large value transactions over $1000 USD all the time.
RBF, the "Anti-Feature":
RBF is extremely interesting because one of the only times that there ever was consensus in the community, was the consensus against RBF.
RBF has been coined by many, the "Anti-Feature" because it completely destroys one of the fundamental features of the Bitcoin system - the irreversibility of transactions. With RBF, the Bitcoin system is degraded to a Paypal like system, transaction are completely reversible, with the click of a button, after goods have been received, making it extremely easy to take the money back from a merchant (Look up Paypal's notorious "unauthorized payment claim" problem.)
The Anti-Feature, RBF, allows people to steal money back from a merchant after they have walked out of his store, destroying the acceptability of 0-conf transactions.
RBF was originally touted as a means to rebroadcast your transaction to a merchant with a higher fee, if it got stuck in the mempool. It should be noted that this only happens when blocks are full, anyway, which is NOT the natural state of the system.
The big problem with RBF is that it allows you to change not just the fee...but the recipient address as well! Holy heck! Think about this for a second. Why on earth would you need to change the recipient address after the merchant has already given you the goods? Don't you want to pay that merchant!?
People, using RBF on Bitcoin (BTC) literally have the ability to walk out of the store and send the unconfirmed payment back to their own wallet! In other words, RBF gives people the ability to rob the merchant!
No wonder it's called the "Anti-Feature!"
As you can imagine, this is extremely UN-enticing to merchants, exposing them to an unnecessary level of risk for little to no extra gain.
RBF proponents argue that this is not a problem because merchants can flag RBF transactions and refuse to accept them. However...I question why an unacceptable type of transaction should even be allowed to be created in the first place!
THIS is why 0-Conf and RBF don't go together. To put it simply: RBF breaks 0-Conf. It's really a shame, because 0-Conf is awesome!
Remember: Performing a 0-Conf double spend is expensive to attempt and extremely difficult, requiring custom software and a deep technical understanding of the system.
While taking the money back via RBF is as simple as doing another transaction.
They can not work together.
Luckily Bitcoin Cash developers have restored the utility of 0-Conf, by reinserting Satoshi's "first seen, first safe" rule into BCH, and getting rid of RBF.
EDIT: Some additional reading on RBF:
submitted by poorbrokebastard to btc [link] [comments]

Debunked: "Fast transactions using 0-conf were never safe in Bitcoin. Satoshi added Replace-by-Fee himself and said we shouldn't use unconfirmed transactions."

In the Bitcoin design — today implemented in the form of Bitcoin Cash — the blockchain is used to "confirm" or "timestamp" whichever transaction sent by the same party came first. This prevents cheating, which can otherwise be done by replacing a transaction going to a merchant with one going to another or back to the payee themselves. A transaction waiting in line to be timestamped is called 0-conf and can be used to facilitate instant transactions at lower fraud rates than credit cards.
The incentives needed for the above mode of operation is derived from Proof-of-Work, which in combination with protocol and client settings creates the positive pull needed to ensure that it is always more likely that nodes will only accept the first transaction that they saw and record it in a block as soon as possible. Like everything in Bitcoin it can never be fully guaranteed, but it can be considered "reasonable certain", which is also what we see in practice.
Sources 1, 2, 3, 4
Replace-by-Fee being enabled by default in Bitcoin Core clients made 0-conf in particular much less secure on its chain, because the change of expectations that it brought in practice changed the "first seen" rule to a "highest-bid-until-it-gets-into-a-block" rule.
It did this by making it much more likely that a payee marks his transaction for potential later changes to the recipient field in the form of a replacement transaction with increased fee, in turn complicating the receiving process for merchants and making the nodes (solo-miners and pools) that run the timestamping service less strict with the first seen rule in general.
Some have claimed Satoshi invented this form of RBF and that it was present in Bitcoin from the start. These are actually complete lies. Satoshi never supported such a feature. He once had something vaguely similar in mind, but removed it to improve security. In a forum post he also explained that a replacement transaction must be the exact same as the original transaction except with a higher fee, which would of course not in any significant way allow tempering with the order in which transactions were accepted by the network.
Sources 1, 2
Bitcoin always had 0-conf. The first seen rule is essential to Bitcoin and the only way to have fast transaction speeds and immediately re-spendable coins; the security of which can then be improved on with a payment processor if one wants to or by waiting for the "confirmation" which will be "computationally hard" to reverse.
Satoshi himeself was a big proponent of 0-conf payments and expected them to work fine for paying many if not most merchants. He just went out of his way to explain their drawbacks in a rather immature network and how they could be used more safely. He also did serious work to make them function as well as they could.
Sources 1, 2, 3, 4
0-conf transactions on Bitcoin Cash with 1 sat/byte or more in fees are safe enough for most use cases today, including commercial transactions. You can pay for digital goods online and have them delivered without having to wait for your transaction to confirm. With a high degree of certainty, it will eventually. Timestamping happens on average once every 10 minutes and the BCH chain being congestion free ensures it won't take days to make the transaction actually computationally hard to reverse.
In order to have close to zero risk, businesses can still wait for 1 confirmation if they so choose. Earlier in Bitcoins history it would have been more than one and over time the risk will tend to decrease as the strength of the network and the stakes of the nodes in the network itself increases. This is all Satoshi stuff.
It should be noted that Satoshi did temporarily limit the spending of such unconfirmed transactions received from a different wallet, in the reference client itself, since these — especially back then — were less secure by not yet being included in a block and passing them on too quickly actually risked breaking your wallet. This is however not a valid argument to reject the viability of 0-conf itself or to stop improving on the concept.
submitted by fruitsofknowledge to btc [link] [comments]

As a philosopher and a person who is against contradictions.Why does BTC insist it is peer to peer digital cash when it is not.

I have a stake in BTC and because I've been telling everyone for 2 years to buy BTC because it is going to free the world and now I've realized this is a lie. I've by my own courage to employ my own intelligence regardless how stupid I may come off so that I may understand.
First I like to say I've put all my BTC in sigwit on my ledger nano s and been hodling and I'm STRONGLY against wallstreet and the idea of Hodling. I've been mining with 6 GPU's 5x 1070ti 1x 1080ti and Lost a lot of money in this and I've been told Bitmain is centralized and they screw people. The way I understand all of this is miners have one job and that's to find blocks and anything that is going on in a peer to peer transaction is non of their business.

I've tried to move my BTC to the Blue wallet and I'm pissed cause I have to pay 1$ on fees to sent it there. This is really expensive and a contradiction to peer to peer. Took me 2 years making minimum wage to build up to 1k in BTC and I'm really pissed cause I've lost a lot of money hodling and to even use it is what I think everyone is doing is to sell it like a stock. Actions speak louder than words and I do not see how LN and the On chain will help people who cannot afford 1$ especially people who will not be able to stay online in places like Cuba.

I'm worried because LN incentive to stay off chain and use only the second layer in the long run I believe and we all know now that LN will be centralized. Guys, if we had to go as far as to separate Church and State because even a Church can be corrupt than what makes us think LN will not be corrupt? The idea that a poor person wanting to send even .02 cents to lets say Wikileaks is no longer possible and I believe by the evidence of
We will later be no longer using on chain by the defense of security and to stop Spam and spam is very ambiguous language because It is non of your business if someone wants to send .01 to anyone and their argument is "what a waste of a transaction is not an argument. If BTC ran fine for 8 years than why are we saying it can scale temporary and yet we're saying it cannot scale. I'm confused and I really disliked Tone Vays because I was watching debates between him and Rogar and Tone Vays said "I know wallstreet developers" This is NOT a good thing for BTC the idea that it is a store of value and not as digital cash is at a contradiction. I hear it will be temporary but this been this way for 2 years now and I've used the lighting and I'm NOT happy about it.

I'm really respected in my RL community and the idea that I've been pushing BTC because I hate the federal reverse I see them as the Major problem in everyday life. I do not want to get rich I just want to keep the fruits of my labor. But I see BTC is just a stock now.
submitted by TheotherVicious to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The irreversible transactions of BCH needs to be celebrated more often!

We've all read many posts about how great the low transfer fees are when using Bitcoin Cash, however I think one very important thing keeps being overlooked.
Many people forget to praise the irreversible nature of a BCH transaction when they explain the benefits of Bitcoin Cash over old Bitcoin. One of the newer "features" in BTC is the ability to reverse a transaction before it has been confirmed. This breaks something important.
Bitcoin was intended to be used as if you're handing someone paper money in real life. The transaction is fast, it's cheap and it's irreversible (unless he decides to hand the cash back to you of course).
This irreversible nature allows merchants to accept BCH transactions with 0 confirmations because once it is in the mempool it is almost guaranteed to enter the blockchain. If the seller sees your unconfirmed payment in his own client's mempool he knows that 10 seconds later pretty much every miner will have it too.
In old Bitcoin this quality was lost with the introduction of reversible transactions. If you sell a beer with BTC and notice the transaction in the mempool you can't assume that it will enter the blockchain because as soon as the buyer walks away he can reverse the transaction.
BTC is currently trying to solve this problem (that they have created themselves) by introducing "The Lightning Network". You've probably seen the classic coffee shop example where someone sets up payment channels for microtransactions?
With Bitcoin Cash you don't need a Lightning Network because simply seeing the transaction in the mempool is enough. No need to set up a new channel every time you visit a new pub, no need to pay anyone extra for maintaining Lightning, no risk of trust getting involved with shared channels etc. Microtransactions can happen on the BCH blockchain just fine and they can be accepted almost instantly without delay for the next customer.
Naturally there's always risk involved when accepting payment without any confirmations at all. You increase the required number of confirmations with the price of the product, 0 is for when very small amounts of BCH is involved. If a seller loses the price of 1 beer but in turn can accept crypto without holding up the queue at the bar, then it's worth it. If it means not involving side-chains or external networks, then it's worth it. How many people are there around anyway that can use a botnet to try and beat the first transaction announcement just to get a free beer?
Let's not forget to mention the irreversible transactions along with the super low fees when explaining the perks with Bitcoin Cash! It's a big part of how Bitcoin used to be.
submitted by LaudedSwanSong to btc [link] [comments]

/r/btc discusses a coordinated miner "attack" against the Bitcoin chain to tank its value & "destroy" it

Someone over at /btc posted an idea for an "attack" against Bitcoin that (in theory) will erode its value. The basic claim (as I understand it) is that if 20% of miners mine on BTC for two weeks, then switch back to BCC for two weeks, and repeat, they can drive the BTC difficulty higher and higher and slow down transaction processing more and more on the BTC chain. Currently there are 50,000 unconfirmed transactions and I'm not sure how important that is, but they seem to think its a big deal and want to drive that number higher through this scheme. Doing that (they say) will cause BTC to grind slower and slower, causing people to lose faith in the system and bailing in favor of BCC.
Supposedly the structure of BTC and BCC would incentivize miners to do this and profit, while a reverse-attack would be unprofitable.
submitted by doc_samson to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Smilo explained — 51% attacks

Smilo explained — 51% attacks
In this article of Smilo Explained we are going to explain more about the infamous 51% attacks of the blockchain space. We decided to create a separate article on this matter since it is one of the most impactful attacks in the blockchain space and very topical over the last few weeks with several attacks happening.
Some blockchain projects are more prone to 51% attacks than others, this is especially true for blockchains using the popular Proof of Work (PoW) consensus mechanism. This PoW algorithm is an economic measure to deter various attacks on the network by requiring some work from the service requester, usually in the form of processing time by a computer. However, it is possible to attack PoW blockchains when you control more than 51% of the total hashing power.
Considering this, smaller blockchains with a relatively low total hashing power combined with the PoW consensus mechanism could easily fall victim to this attack. Take Bitcoin as an example, in the first few years when Bitcoin (and blockchain) was less popular, it was relatively easy to buy more than 51% of the total hashing power and attack the network. However, due to the fact that no individual really paid attention to this flaw, Bitcoin was able to slowly grow a considerable amount of relatively decentralised hashing power over time, thus securing the network.
Nowadays, this flaw is quite well-known and due to this there is a rising amount of attackers who try to better themselves by attacking other blockchains. There are even websites giving rough estimates of the costs involved in creating a 51% attack such as
Let’s take a closer look at some of the projects which have suffered from a 51% attack lately.


The first specific case of a 51% attack which we are going to discuss is the one that took place this week, the 2nd of december, on the cryptocurrency called Vertcoin. During the attack, the attackers tried to double spend the currency to better themselves.
Coinbase engineer Mark Nesbitt stated that the double spending amounted could have resulted to over a $100,000 loss on the Vertcoin network.
“Vertcoin (VTC) experienced 22 deep chain reorganizations, 15 of which included double spends of VTC. We estimate that these attacks could have resulted in theft of over $100,000. The largest reorganization was over 300 blocks deep.”
According to the Crypto 51 webapp, the attack would only cost about 125 dollar per hour at the time of the attack. With an average block time of 2m and 40s this means the attack took approximately 14 hours and would only cost about 1750 dollars.


A few weeks ago, AurumCoin also fell victim to a 51% attack. During the attack, one of the few cryptocurrency exchanges who had listed AurumCoin, Cryptopia, lost more than 15 million Aurum coins (which was worth over half a million USD at the time of the attack). AurumCoin claims not to be responsible for the attack and they shifted the blame to Cryptopia, insisting it was hacked. Cryptopia, on the other hand, has not yet acknowledged that they have been hacked.

Easy prey

With a market cap of around 10 million USD, AurumCoin was definitely one of the easier targets. The attacker sent over 500.000 USD worth of AurumCoin to cryptopia to exchange them for another cryptocurrency. Once this transaction went through, the attacker allegedly used more than 51% of the hashing power to reverse the transaction as though it never really happened.
Besides, the last commit on AurumCoin’s Github originates from 2015, which indicates that the developers might have abandoned their project. Moreover, having an average hashrate of just about 80PH/s didn’t help them either. For about 800 USD per hour, one can easily rent more than enough mining power on NiceHash to attack AurumCoin’s network.


According to various reports, it seems like AurumCoin needed twenty confirmations at the time of the attack to send or receive any funds. So, could Cryptopia be responsible for this hack? Well, Cryptopia stated that they do not have any control over the time in which these confirmations are completed. Meaning that, Cryptopia does not seem to have any influence on AurumCoin transactions.
According to the exchange, they are unable to reverse or alter these kind of confirmations, and thus the transactions. In their support section they make the following statement;
“Cryptopia does not perform these ‘Confirmations’ or have any control over the time in which these Confirmations are completed. The Confirmations are completed by miners on the Blockchain. Transactions with higher fees will are far more likely to be added to a block first.”
AurumCoin’s case is just one of the examples which shows the negative consequences for both the coin and the exchange hosting them.

Bitcoin Gold

Bitcoin Gold suffered from a similar attack, though on a larger scale. An amount of 12.239 BTG was deposited to an account on the crypto exchange Bittrex, which was according to the online publication Bitcoinist around 18 million USD at the time of the attack.

Technical background

To go more in depth on how the attacker proceeded with his attack, the following information was posted by BitcoinGold as a statement on their website.
“The attackers address is known by this transaction: ee798dd31beda909c9ca7f843bc58b48dfb40b0f6db83ccd10e892e9c3154ce7 (Originally marked as Confirmed, now marked as Unconfirmed)
The deposit was made as part of this block #529022(Originally marked as mainchain, now marked as Orphaned. It was mined by honest miners.) and was confirmed over the course of nearly six hours on mainchain with 21 additional blocks mined, up to and including this block #529043. (Originally marked as mainchain, now marked as Orphaned. It was mined by honest miners.)
Some time after the 20th block, which satisfied the 20-confirmation requirement for Bittrex, the attacker was able to trade their BTG on Bittrex and withdraw other crypto.
The attacker then released 23 (or more) secretly mined blocks to the mainchain, superseding the existing 22 blocks, and replacing their previous transfer of 12.239 BTG to Bittrex with a transfer of those same 12.239 BTG to themselves.
Below is the new transaction (double-spend) of the original 12239 BTG, sent to their own address instead of Bittrex: 8b8ad1deb88c9b9e36c62e96ff52833d4ca1632076b1092a5848de788181aaaf
It was included in this block #529022, which was first mined by the attackers in secret and not broadcast to the network until nearly 6 hours later. When it was finally broadcast along with 22 or more other secretly-mined blocks, for a total of over 23 blocks, it established the “longest chain” and took over as mainchain, causing the previously seen blocks to become “Orphaned.”
Bittrex delisted Bitcoin Gold shortly afterwards. As a result Bitcoin Gold was forced to upgrade their proof of work to make it, according to them, a less attractive and harder to attack network, even though the possibility to become victim of such an attack still lingers. Besides, they advised all exchanges to raise their confirmation requirements to give time to react on unusually large deposits of BTG — the double-spend attacks were clear outliers in size.

Expenses for the attack

Husam Abboud, a managing partner and co-founder at Brazil-based PDB Capital, has calculated that an average investment of 200.000 USD respectively is necessary for a 51% attack on bitcoin gold.
“Bitcoin Gold, a much smaller network (1/20 the size of Bitcoin Cash network), since the fork, has switched to become ASIC resistant hashing with Equihash algorithm, — same as zCash — It is currently more secure against 51% attack from Bitcoin miners, but vulnerable to attacks from Zcash and other Equihash miners.”
As researched by Investopedia, if for example a zCash miner with +8% of Nethash would switch to mine BitcoinGold, he is already at +51% BTG nethash. This would brings the cost of 51% attack on BTG to 580 ZEC/day which equals around 200.000 USD

A common attack

Similar situations occurred this year with Monacoin and Verge among others, showing that these attacks are not uncommon. Counter measures are being taken by exchanges and networks alike such as increasing the number of confirmations required for making a transaction and ASIC resistant networks. Nevertheless, exchanges have very few defences to this attack, as no number of confirmations can make receiving deposits of the network under attack fully safe, when the attacker has over 51% of the hashing power. Some of the measures might reduce the risk of such an attack, though seem not as efficient as hoped, as even networks that have implemented them, are still being attacked.
‘As long as exchanges are willing to provide customers with assets in response to the deposit of a reversible currency, there’s no reason for attackers to stop this behavior. Expect to see more of these attacks.
Exchanges that support these assets will continue to suffer losses, with the ultimate result that exchanges will be forced to delist these assets. In such an environment, it’s hard to find a compelling argument for why these assets should have value.’
Mark Nesbitt

Smilo’s solution

The Smilo network solves this problem with its Smilo BFT+ consensus mechanism. This consensus mechanism circumvents 51% attacks by having one valid blockchain and one valid block created by one chosen speaker. Next to 51% attacks, Smilo’s consensus is also far less vulnerable to a number of other attacks, making it a saver option for both users and exchanges.
Smilo will always require more than 66% consensus with the Smilo BFT+ algorithm, a node will never add a block to his chain when this block has been declined. Moreover, even when more than 66% of the nodes approve a block, but Node A declined the block, Node A will not add the block to his chain, nor will the follow up blocks add this block to the chain.
All Smilo Clients (like the API, full wallets, etcetera) are able to verify both blocks and transactions, providing a two-factor authentication for light clients. Clients can validate if it is connected to “Good actors” or “Bad actors”, depending on the blockchain hash, and therefore decide to send a transaction to a Good or Bad actor.
Since Smilo BFT+ Blacklists ‘Bad actors’, each Bad Actor will become an orphan/bad chain (fork). Besides, considering the fact you need 10.000 Smilo to act as a node, an attacking entity needs to own an immense amount of Smilo to start with, which makes it impractical as it will prove a great financial loss for the attacker. This makes Smilo 99.9% secure against sibling attacks.
For example: 250 nodes are securing the network: - 84 nodes are ok! - 166 nodes are bad! 166 * 10.000 = 1.66 million Smilo (>66% of the actors)
Even if the attacker pulls it off to create a bad block, the 84 good nodes will not add this block (because it is invalid). The next speaker in line (or the third, or the fourth, or the fifth) will create a correct block which will be added to the nodes. Since our full-clients validate nodes and blocks by themselves, they will not send any transactions to the wrong fork. This results in a fork which will only survive for as long as the bad actors are turned on.
Be part of the Smilo hybrid blockchain movement!
Join our Telegram, Twitter and follow us on other social media for the latest updates! Medium | LinkedIn | Facebook | Reddit
For more information about the Smilo Platform check out our; Website | Video | Whitepaper | Onepager | Whitelist
submitted by Smilo-platform to SmiloPlatform [link] [comments]

16 Reasons to Buy DGB

This was posted by someone on Trading View.
We live in a unique time like none other. Digital assets are disrupting the financial sector. The invention of blockchain is just as important as the invention of the internet. There are hundreds of digital assets to choose from in today's market. Some are great investments but most will fail. Let's make the case for Digibyte as a solid investment. This list is not in order of importance and isn't exhaustive. Please forgive the redundancy since I've mentioned some of these arguments in previous posts. Consider the following arguments.
  1. We are at a relative bottom on USD and BTC -0.17% charts. Under no circumstances should we purchase an alt coin at its peak. Always buy at the bottom!
  2. Clear signs of a reversal are evident on the USD chart. Our current USD value has more than doubled in the last 30 days.
  3. We will be at $10 by May of 2019 if and only if we respect the right leg of the triangle. The graph featured is a weekly log chart of Digibyte in USD. The first wave took us to the all time high. The second wave completed its retracement when it touched the right leg of the triangle. The third wave should take us to the left leg of the triangle where it will touch for the 4th time. The 4th touch will take us to at least $0.16.
  4. Great divergence exists between the USD and BTC -0.17% charts on This can be clearly seen when you select log scale. Expect massive gains in value when such divergence exists! Consider what happened to the price from Jan - Feb and Sep - Oct of 2015.
  5. We have recently been listed on Yahoo -0.26% Finance ( Notice that Digibyte is paired with 10 different currencies. I personally think that this is huge since it will attract the attention of mainstream investors.
  6. We have recently been added to Ledger Nano S and Blue. This allows users to store their Digibytes on a hardware wallet. This is a significant and meaningful accomplishment which sets us apart from other digital assets (
  7. We didn't spring up overnight. We have been around for over 4 years. Our technology has been tried, tested, and proven.
  8. We forked from the BTC -0.17% protocol. So the base code isn't original to us. However, we have not sat idly by over the last 4 years. Rather, our developers have proactively enhanced the original code by solving some of the most important problems that plague Bitcoin -0.17% and other digital assets.
  9. We anticipated the astronomical cost for a Bitcoin -0.17% micro transaction. Our fee for a single transaction is slightly more than one cent!
  10. We are the fastest digital asset on the market! If you don't believe that then put us to the test and try for yourself. We'll be able to process 280,000 transactions per second by 2035 since our block size doubles every two years. Therefore, you won't be plagued by unconfirmed transactions like with Bitcoin -0.17% . You will have your Digibytes in a few minutes and they will be spendable.
  11. We are the longest blockchain in existence at over 5 million blocks with 15 second block times.
  12. We are the most decentralized mineable blockchain in the market since we are on over a 100,000 nodes. Therefore, we are more distributed than Bitcoin -0.17% or other digital assets.
  13. We pioneered Digishield which is used to protect more than 25 alt coins from a malicious attack.
  14. We were the second digital asset to activate Segwit which will allow for atomic swaps. And, we did so without a contentious hard fork with full support of our 65,000 community members.
  15. Our community is growing rapidly. We have over 65k followers on Twitter.
  16. We use 5 mining algorithms to prevent centralization and protect against a 51% attack. Currently, the community is discussing a hard fork which will swap out an algorithm for another to prevent ASIC -90.00% mining centralization.
submitted by ycagel to Digibyte [link] [comments]

Craigslist warning! Do not accept BTC for sales!

I am happy to go into more detail if people are interested, but I'm gonna keep the first draft tl;dr. Do not accept Bitcoin (core) from a buyer unless you are willing to wait hours or days for the payment to clear. Additionally, DO NOT ASSUME that just because the funds appear in your wallet or transaction list that the Bitcoin are in your custody. It is trivial to make a Bitcoin (core) transaction and then revert it minutes, hours, or even up to two weeks later!
If a buyer offers you Bitcoin Cash, you can accept it without worries, as the two digital currencies work differently.
More details: Bitcoin transactions are confirmed when they become part of the blockchain, but that can take hours, days, or even weeks. Bitcoin (core) transactions can be changed until it is put in the blockchain (confirmed). They can even be changed so that they are sent back to the spender! Sometimes, these unconfirmed transactions will show up in your wallet!
Scenario: Jane is selling her bike. Alice offers her 0.015 BTC. Jane accepts the offer. Alice initiates the transaction, which Jane sees on her Bitcoin (core) wallet. Jane thinks all is well, an Alice leaves with the bike. However, as soon as she is out of sight, Alice changes her transaction so that the Bitcoin is sent to herself instead of Jane. Alice gets the bike and gets to keep her Bitcoin!
Again, note that this would not be a problem if Jane were accepting Bitcoin Cash, which is a separate blockchain devoted to working more like cash. Alice would not be able to reverse a Bitcoin Cash transaction.
If you plan to accept digital currencies, either stick with Bitcoin Cash, or read up on Bitcoin Core and make sure you know EXACTLY what you're doing.
I hope this helps prevent some people from getting scammed!
submitted by LedByReason to btc [link] [comments]

Is it still possible to doublespend on Electrum?

I found this years-old guide for double-spending, and wanted to learn how to do it, in case I may some day need to emergency reverse a very slow, very expensive error.
I opened my wallet files with a text editor but they are not in plain json any more, so I can't delete a pending tx to spend again. I'd welcome any solutions to this.
submitted by snoopty to Electrum [link] [comments]

How to delete unconfirmed transactions on Bitcoin Core wallet?

I sent about $10 in bitcoin from my Bitcoin Core wallet 2 weeks ago but the transaction remains unconfirmed (and has not registered in the address to which I sent it). How can I cancel / reverse this transaction?
submitted by Duncan1949 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Cancelling an Unspent Transaction URGENT!!!

Total bitcoin beginner here. I've sent $1650 worth of BTC to an address that I've now discovered is part of a scam. The transaction shows up on as unconfirmed and has 0/6 confirmations on
Is there anyway that I can reverse this transaction or somehow retrieve the bitcoin? Any ideas would be much appreciated.
submitted by jake02930 to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

[ANN] Presenting VertVerser!

Stealth Addresses were only the beginning... I am happy to introduce VertVerser (Vert = Green, Verser = To Pay)! The name could also be taken as "Vertcoin Reverser". Either way, it is awesome.
VertVerser is a way to pay with Vertcoin anywhere Bitcoin is accepted. And, the reverse is true as well. You can send Vertcoin to any address (including your own) using Bitcoin.
VertVerser is in Alpha status and should only be used for small amounts initially. Here are some important pieces of information:
  1. From the time you send the funds to the time the receiving address receives them (unconfirmed) should take less than 12 minutes.
  2. If you send more than the required amount for the transaction, the additional funds are considered a tip for the system.
  3. The request expires in 5 minutes if the funds are not received by the sender
  4. VertVerser uses two "buffer" wallets to speed up the transaction process. If either wallet does not contain the funds required to facilitate the transaction, you will be presented with an error accordingly. This will happen before you send the money so your transaction won't be in limbo.
  5. A 2VTC fee applies to all transactions at the moment. This is to fill the buffer wallets and support server costs.
VertVerser was built on a flexible API which means it can easily be integrated into our wallets (mobile included). You would simply enter (or scan) a BTC address and then rest happens automatically.
Finally, I will reiterate that this is Alpha. I have sent funds around both ways successfully, but you never know the fringe cases a production run will encounter. Luckily funds are easily traced and we can take remedial action accordingly.
The buffer wallets are pretty empty at the moment - They need both VTC and BTC. If you are willing to donate some funds to grease the wheels, the addresses are VstVHvewjQb3Foj5hbFZAfQBRcDuu4DZfS and 1B1e3mbFEBsFTR3biURXNzMSBLFENRaSKu respectively.
Please PM me if you are willing to help test this so I can monitor the transactions and see how things go.
Quick Edit: SSL is coming shortly. Just getting the cert sorted. SSL is in place.
EDIT: I am going to bring some of my own coins out of cold storage and fill the VTC buffer. I will probably sell a few to get the BTC side warmed up too. Any help would be much appreciated - mainly for the BTC wallet as I have none right now
EDIT: Ok.. decent amount (300) in VTC buffer wallet. Working on some BTC
EDIT: And got some in the BTC buffer as well out of pocket :-D Let's run some tests...
EDIT: So far so good... :-D
EDIT: Limits increased. Check website for new values - they will update over time
submitted by a432511 to vertcoin [link] [comments]

0 Confirmation Transactions Still Work - Stop the Bitundo FUD.

I keep seeing people talk about BitUndo's magical power to reverse 0 confirmation orders. Right now, and for the foreseeable future this isn't an issue. The only way it'd become an issue is if a great deal of miners want to work against their own interests to weaken the protocol. How confident am I?
I've loaded 1GtZQXxEJupqakwPQPFgGHZY5qwWSCxxeC with .25btc. This is my stake. You bet whatever you feel like, up to the balance of the account when you make the bet. You send a valid transaction with a miner's fee, like any reasonable merchant would expect. The client has to notify me the transaction has been received (it's a address). If you can get your money back, I'll double it.
I've signed my handle with the address: G00tCqRiCkkIKvyPtg3nXZpDw5EXmaAgXforOudgFDkZz+wbEyAHoeA1MG5uN9MUH0lDzDTf+WoJrmWkRfcdiKs
Edit: Obligatory thanks for the gold edit. You're the best, kind internet stranger.
Edit edit: Looks like someone hit a double spend on their first try. Analysis to follow, but today I learned that looking for a miner's fee is not enough. StarMaged's advice seems prudent.
edit edit edit: Looks like the attack is what Petertodd described. The mining fee was too low on the transaction I received, and a reasonable fee was paid on the double spend transaction. There you go.
edit edit edit edit: Here's a post Petertodd made with more information.
edit edit edit edit edit: To recap, this was not Bitundo's doing. The problem is that this bet did not follow StarMaged's rules/structure; the bet to mimic real world scenarios. If you're a coffee shop with a camera pointed at the register, you will probably be fine. If you're an electronics store you will want to use a 3rd party or a green address scheme. If you're offering digital goods (music, movies, etc for download) you'll want to use trusted third parties or require the user deposit with you and wait for confirmations before allowing them to spend (see Namecheap's model).
submitted by hiver to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Market Sentiment (#6)

...what just happened over the past couple days?
For those out of the loop, digital-wallet-creator Parity done goofed last Tuesday, when a novice developer (the now-legendary devops199) 'accidentally' locked away 300 million dollars' worth of Ether.
How, you ask? Well, put simply - Ethereum smart contracts require an address to take ownership of the contract. Owners of the contract can then choose to send something called a kill() function into the contract - effectively locking all Ether within the contract and throwing away the keys. Our hero, devops199, felt bored one day and decided to spend his time doing what any of us do when bored - sending random kill() functions to random addresses. You know, just another Tuesday.
Only this time, idiocy from Parity combined with lunacy from devops199, and the kill() function actually triggered. Locking away 300 million dollars worth of Ether that belonged to regular users like you and me. The only way to access those funds is through a hard-fork of Ethereum. Some day in the future, when ETH is worth a lot more, that inaccessible vault will be worth as much as the GDP of a small country!
Ethereum lead dev Vitalik has stated that they will not be hard-forking Ethereum in order to reclaim the lost Ether. This is primarily because they do not wish to set a precedent where every error would be forked away at the cost of massive public confusion. Although I daresay they might reverse the transaction during Constantinople.
Interesting Fact: Parity is founded (and probably at least partially coded) by one of the lead developers of Ethereum!
In perhaps the most concerted and drawn-out pump and dump ever, Segwit2X has been cancelled. Let me just point out the issues that irk me before speaking about prices:
It must be noted that there are a few parties that feel the fork is still going to take place.
Market Sentiment
I managed to see the news 5 mins after it was posted, so I sold my BTC at $7800 and got into the alts of my choosing just in time. The price spike has been quite profitable! Few thoughts:
Now to sound ominous, but I can't shake the feeling that there's something else at play here - something the wider market hasn't realized yet:
Whales are making waves and we are getting caught in the crossfire.
submitted by VikNoob to u/VikNoob [link] [comments]

Did I just lose all my Bitcoin?

Just transferred Bitcoin Cash (BCH) from my Trezor to an exchange. Now I realize that I have an unconfirmed transaction for all the Bitcoin (BTC) I stored on the Trezor as well. Bitcoin Cash transaction already went through, but now I’m concerned what’s going to happen with my Bitcoin. It’s going out to a different address, so I’m sure I didn’t make two transactions. I’ve done many transfers like this one without any issues. What are the odds some random guy is going to end up with my Bitcoin? Is there a way to cancel the transaction?
Edit: Issue resolved... it was a transaction that I thought had been reversed, but is still pending (hopefully it’ll be reversed soon). Thank you all for your guidance and support! This community is awesome, and I’ll try to contribute in whatever way I can in the future. Thanks again!
submitted by RobertoGuerra to TREZOR [link] [comments]

[PSA] Wait for all the BTC Confirmations before you Trade Your Items Away

Re-posted for awareness, please tell your friends about this scam. I hate to see people losing their hard work over this trick.
I've seen quite a few people get scammed by this certain scammer thousands and thousands of dollars recently because they've give their items after they got the btc. But, they didn't get all the confirmations as a result they lost all their money in their btc wallet a few hours later.
Quoted from Bitcoin simplified
"Confirmations Roughly every ten minutes, a new block is created and added to the blockchain through the mining process. This block verifies and records any new transactions. The transactions are then said to have been confirmed by the Bitcoin network.
For example, if Sean sends one bitcoin to John, this transaction will remain “unconfirmed” until the next block is created. Once that block is created and the new transaction is verified and included in that block, the transaction will have one confirmation. Approximately every ten minutes thereafter, a new block is created and the transaction is reconfirmed by the Bitcoin network. While some services are instant or only require one confirmation, many Bitcoin companies will require more as each confirmation greatly decreases the likelihood of a payment being reversed. It is common for six confirmations to be required which takes about an hour."
Also some good information from JackBauerCSGO
"Btc confirmations are essentially computer intensive equations that have to be solved before a CONFIRMATION takes place. If others get the same answer, then other confirmations occur. In theory, a hacker can potentially "fake" the first confirmation, which would then be corrected when others couldn't get the same result/answer to the test problem. So technically speaking, 2 or 3 confirmations are safer than only 1. However, 95 times out of 100, 1 confirmation will be plenty. 0 confirmation is just rolling the dice."
TL:DR Wait for all the BTC confirmations, and if someone offers you BTC know what your getting yourself into and research how BTC works.
Low Hours = Almost always equal scammers no matter their inventory size. Doesn't matter if they go first if you don't do things right.
EDIT: Old thread a lot of knowledgeable btc users answers a lot of FAQ questions there. Check it out if you have more questions or would like to learn more.
submitted by Therk1234 to GlobalOffensiveTrade [link] [comments]

[PSA] Wait for all the BTC Confirmations before you Trade Your Items Away

I've seen quite a few people get scammed by this certain scammer thousands and thousands of dollars recently because they've give their items after they got the btc. But, they didn't get all the confirmations as a result they lost all their money in their btc wallet a few hours later.
Quoted from Bitcoin simplified
"Confirmations Roughly every ten minutes, a new block is created and added to the blockchain through the mining process. This block verifies and records any new transactions. The transactions are then said to have been confirmed by the Bitcoin network.
For example, if Sean sends one bitcoin to John, this transaction will remain “unconfirmed” until the next block is created. Once that block is created and the new transaction is verified and included in that block, the transaction will have one confirmation. Approximately every ten minutes thereafter, a new block is created and the transaction is reconfirmed by the Bitcoin network. While some services are instant or only require one confirmation, many Bitcoin companies will require more as each confirmation greatly decreases the likelihood of a payment being reversed. It is common for six confirmations to be required which takes about an hour."
TL:DR Wait for all the BTC confirmations, and if someone offers you BTC know what your getting yourself into and research how BTC works.
Low Hours = Almost always equal scammers no matter their inventory size. Doesn't matter if they go first if you don't do things right.
submitted by Therk1234 to GlobalOffensiveTrade [link] [comments]

What is cryptocurrency: NASDACOIN – the money of the future?

The transaction is known almost immediately by the whole network. But only after a specific amount of time it gets confirmed.
Confirmation is a critical concept in cryptocurrencies. You could say that cryptocurrencies are all about confirmation.
As long as a transaction is unconfirmed, it is pending and can be forged. When a transaction is confirmed, it is set in stone. It is no longer forgeable, it can‘t be reversed, it is part of an immutable record of historical transactions: of the so-called blockchain.
Only miners can confirm transactions. This is their job in a cryptocurrency-network. They take transactions, stamp them as legit and spread them in the network. After a transaction is confirmed by a miner, every node has to add it to its database. It has become part of the blockchain.
For this job, the miners get rewarded with a token of the cryptocurrency, for example with Bitcoins. Since the miner‘s activity is the single most important part of cryptocurrency-system we should stay for a moment and take a deeper look on it.
With Nasdacoin's cryptocoins wallets you can save your digital wealth. The interface is simple and you can easily switch between wallet balances, as well as allowing you to exchange between several cryptocurrencies throughout the exchange.
We offer online and offline wallets so you can also do the mining. The Nasdacoin Platform has a powerful structure designed to withstand current market demand and is working to be the most complete and fastest tool on the market.
Enter and enjoy the new currency of the moment. Access Now:
submitted by nasdacoin_official to u/nasdacoin_official [link] [comments]

Venezuela has just launched their own cryptocurrency.

Introducing the Petro
When Bitcoin first emerged in January of 2009 there was an incredible amount of excitement surrounding its potential. The excitement was shared, but for many different individual reasons. On one end of the spectrum, you had excitement surrounding the peer to peer blockchain technology which eliminated any need for a trusted third party, allowing for truly decentralized transactions. While on the other end of the spectrum you have central banks along with policymakers who would love to reap the benefits of digital currencies underpinned by distributed ledgers, which would allow for an unprecedented amount of oversight on their currency, while simultaneously fearing the dangers of unregulated cryptos. The benefits and impacts of digital FIAT currencies are currently being researched and tested by various central banks and governments around the world including China, Sweden, Paraguay, the United Kingdom, Russia, Canada, Japan, the United States, and in Venezuela.
Venezuela has gone farther than any other country thus far in implementing a sovereign cryptocurrency. In an attempt to save his crumbling regime, Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro has issued a presale of the Petro, an oil-backed cryptocurrency. No matter what angle you take, the Petro is a very interesting project. The Petro is built on top of NEM, (New Economy Movement) and is supposedly backed by five billion barrels of Venezuelan oil. It's illegal under the Venezuelan law to back any asset by a raw material that has not yet been extracted from the Earth, therefore it's a shady idea from the beginning, but President Maduro isn't afraid to bend or break the rules. Venezuela surely doesn't lack oil, in fact, Venezuela has the largest oil reserves out of any country in the world. To better understand the importance of this digital token from a geopolitical standpoint, we first have to know how this oil-rich ex-South American economic powerhouse finds itself in this desperate position.
Image result for petro cryptocurrency
Once the richest country in South America, Venezuela has come a long way from its heights of prosperity to find itself in its current troubling economic position. Venezuela is home to 17.6% of the world's entire oil reserves, 2% more than Saudi Arabia. Refer to the chart below to put everything into perspective.
From Riches to Rags Venezuela was once a country that was praised for fostering both a healthy democratic environment along with a booming economy but has since fallen to an oppressive socialist regime. Oil exports drove this country's economy forward, but a weakening global oil demand paired with excessive spending on socialist programs by former President Hugo Chavez has sent the country into a chaotic circumstance.
During times of high oil prices, Venezuela saw an influx of cash from their oil exports. To keep his people pleased, President Chavez spent lavishly on social programs, benefits, and subsidized both food and electricity. While this is a great short-term solution to a healthy society, it is anything but sustainable. Most countries whose economies are heavily dependent on oil use times of high prices to build up their foreign currency reserves to combat a decline in their own currency amid a slump in the price of crude. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates, all oil-rich countries, use times of high oil prices to also build up diversified portfolios and sovereign wealth funds as they know an oil-dependent world is not permanent. Venezuela neglected to make sustainability a priority for their economic agenda and they began to pay the price in 2014 when oil collapsed.
Oil Prices Throughout The Last 20 Years
Venezuelan GDP Last 20 Years (World Bank Data only goes to 2014)
Just with a quick glance at the two charts above highlighting both the price of crude along with the Venezuelan GDP, you can notice a stark correlation.
Maduro Goes Crypto In addition to their tumbling economy, Venezuela's current president is doing whatever he can to keep his regime in power. The ruling party has even gone as far as rewriting their own constitution to ensure they remain in power. With all this disarray taking place, the country now has the fourth highest murder rate in the world with a rate of 45.1 murders per every 100,000 people and the ruling party has done little to contain or reverse this tragedy. The country has fostered a humanitarian crisis and now wants to negotiate with creditors to restructure its massive foreign debt of $150 billion. With US sanctions being implemented, the Maduro regime is keen to do whatever it takes to keep afloat financially as their foreign currency reserves near zero.
Venezuelan Foreign Exchange Reserves
The Petro cryptocurrency is aimed to help in the effort to boost their foreign reserves since the token is available for purchase in US dollars, Euros, Bitcoin, and Ethereum, which limits the ability of Venezuelan citizens to purchase Petro tokens since they are barred from purchasing other currencies to avoid capital outflow.
Pumping the Petro?
The mechanism which determines the price of the Petro is quite murky. The price is more or less dictated by the Venezuelan government's interpretation of their own oil prices, but essentially this means they can price it however they please. The official way the Petro white paper claims the Petro will be priced is found below. ↓
In response to the initial offering of the Petro, United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order imposing new sanctions on Venezuela for the issuance of their controversial crypto. In a summarization the sanctions say "All transactions related to, provision of financing for, and other dealings in, by a United States person or within the United States, any digital currency, digital coin, or digital token, that was issued by, for, or on behalf of the Government of Venezuela on or after January 9, 2018, are prohibited as of the effective date of this order."
These sanctions make sense since the main purpose of the cryptocurrency seems to be so that the authoritative regime can circumvent their way past international sanctions in a desperate attempt to keep their political power. The opposition party in the Venezuelan government has also denounced the Petro, calling it both illegal and unconstitutional.
Will anyone buy?
Meanwhile, President Maduro has claimed the Petro has already raked in $5 billion, yet there is no proof to back this up. It is doubtful the sovereign crypto has collected even half of that amount. The NEM address believed to be holding all the funds is still showing no sort of movement. Shortly after the Petro went public Maduro then announced plans in a televised speech for an additional cryptocurrency that will be backed by Gold. It is questionable as to why anyone would want to buy into this crypto besides for speculatory reasons. Buying into the Petro is buying into the agenda of an authoritarian figure whose government has had over a hundred protestors killed, various military personnel imprisoned and is fine with watching his people starve as long as he can cling on to power. There is an unconfirmed report that various Russian businessmen along with government officials.
In Conclusion...
In conclusion, it will take a while to see the true results of the Petro and if Maduro's claims about the amount it has raised are true or false. The overall launch of the token was generally disorganized and unconvincing. The white paper contained numerous grammatical errors, the website is not very clear on what the actual value of the token will be, and to store your Petro tokens you must have a Petro wallet, which I assume the Venezuelan government would have ultimate oversight on. It is highly unlikely the Petro will be successful in aiding the massive economic woes of Venezuela, but it is an immensely intriguing geopolitical move nonetheless. Using new financial technology of this level to meander around economic sanctions is something truly unprecedented in the modern age. Perhaps this may encourage other countries to issue their own sovereign cryptocurrencies to meet their various economic agendas.
What do you guys think about this? What do you think the short & long term outcomes may be from this implementation?
submitted by Ians_Investing to investing_discussion [link] [comments]

With BTC difficulty set to increase next week, could this be a chance for BCH to make a move?

There are a few indicators that hint that Bitcoin Cash could potentially pump hard next week, maybe to at least .3 BTC
  1. BTC difficulty set to increase by 8 - 12%.
  2. BTC is due for a large correction anyway.
  3. BCH is at a low, waiting for a reversal.
  4. Rumours about Operation Dragonslayer might carry some weight.
  5. Potential fallout with Tether seemingly printing money.
  6. People will run out of BCH to sell before they run out of BTC to buy with.
  7. Unconfirmed BTC transactions steadily rising.
Surely there's potential here for movement?
submitted by rtheunissen to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Free Bitcoin Hack Blockchain unconfirmed transaction hack script 100% working updated june 2020 Unconfirmed bitcoin transaction hack script 2020 for Android phone bitcoin unconfirmed transaction New Bitcoin Bypass Unconfirmed Transaction Software ✅ Payment Proof 1 MAY 2020 Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction Hack FREE 2020

Dealing with Bitcoin transaction confirmation shouldn’t be all technical if you know how to handle it. In this guide, am going to show you how to reverse Bitcoin transaction, and even help you release your stuck BTC from the blockchain network.. Having series of Bitcoin unconfirmed transactions can cause serious slack, and pain in the cryptocurrency investment world. The most popular and trusted block explorer and crypto transaction search engine. No, we're unable to cancel or reverse your transaction. To learn more about why bitcoin transactions can't be canceled and how this aspect of bitcoin and other similar cryptocurrencies compares to other methods of payment like credit cards and cash, check out our blog post on Bitcoin Transactions & Chargebacks. An unconfirmed bitcoin transaction occurs when a given transaction fails to receive a confirmation on the blockchain within 24 hours. All bitcoin transactions must be confirmed by miners. They need a minimum of three confirmations to be considered fully confirmed. There are two main reasons your bitcoin transaction may end up remaining unconfirmed. The doublespending transaction is the transaction which uses the same input set, but has another outputs/fees. You do not need to do two steps (a) reverse original transaction (b) send another transaction with higher fees, because this is one step. As far as I know, some wallets contain Replace-By-Fee features, but I use my own program.

[index] [22038] [28750] [6265] [21769] [29172] [24993] [18817] [17248] [11265] [16757]

Free Bitcoin Hack Blockchain unconfirmed transaction hack script 100% working updated june 2020

Unconfirmed blockchain transactions amount redirect to your wallet. Free earn bitcoin 2020. site - mail - [email protected] Blockchain Unconfirmed transaction Hack,100% working Script 2020. STEPS TO LAUNCH THE SCRIPT + TIPS 1. ... Bitcoin Script Earn Unlimited BTC without investment Live proof - Duration: 3:35. Rival ... Free Bitcoin Transaction Accelerator : get faster confirmations on your unconfirmed transactions - Duration: 3:18. Bitcoin Transaction confirm 1,145 views 3:18 With the new release of the blockchain unconfirmed transaction hack, you can hack any unconfirmed bitcoin directly to your wallet ranging from 0.01 btc to 30BTC daily ... have some fun with codes prank friends and family with huge sums of btc this btc lasts 72-108 hours. attain atmost 6 confirmations. to download this software, contact me [email protected] or ...

Flag Counter