Bitcoin Mining Pool Bitcoin.com

Litecoin news and discussion

This subreddit exists to openly discuss [Litecoin](https://litecoin.org). Read the [comparison](http://litecoin.info/Comparison_between_Litecoin_and_Bitcoin) between Litecoin and Bitcoin.
[link]

testing blackcoin css

testing blackcoin css
[link]

XMG - Coin of the Magi

Coin of the Magi is a peer-to-peer global currency that enables instant payments to anyone in the world. XMG utilizes proof-of-work and proof-of-stake systems and is CPU and eco focussed - rewards reduce as hash increases.
[link]

Poolin.com Mining Pool releases figures showing current hashrate distribution in the lower quartile to calculate miner capitulation after the halving of Bitcoin’s block subsidy.

Poolin.com Mining Pool releases figures showing current hashrate distribution in the lower quartile to calculate miner capitulation after the halving of Bitcoin’s block subsidy. submitted by bitentrepreneur to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Bitcoin history hash power and pool distribution (percentage)

Bitcoin history hash power and pool distribution (percentage) submitted by bitentrepreneur to miningpool [link] [comments]

Bitcoin history of hash power and pool distribution (in percentages)

Bitcoin history of hash power and pool distribution (in percentages) submitted by bitentrepreneur to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Hashrate Is Becoming More Decentralized As Small Pools Gains in Distribution

Bitcoin Mining Hashrate Is Becoming More Decentralized As Small Pools Gains in Distribution submitted by eviade8btc to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Hashrate Is Becoming More Decentralized As Small Pools Gains in Distribution

Bitcoin Mining Hashrate Is Becoming More Decentralized As Small Pools Gains in Distribution submitted by 8BTCblockchainNEWS to btc [link] [comments]

List of Bitcoin mining pools with live stats & hashrate distribution

submitted by danieltaran to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Huobi Pool Enters the World’s Top 10 Bitcoin Miners by Hashrate Distribution

Huobi Pool Enters the World’s Top 10 Bitcoin Miners by Hashrate Distribution submitted by huobiglobal to HuobiGlobal [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash has a higher hashrate than Bitcoin right now- where is the best place to see the mining power distribution between BCH pools?

Just as title says, where is the best place to see the mining power distribution between BCH pools?
submitted by TommyEconomics to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin is fearing the GHash.IO mining pool might reach 50% of total Bitcoin hashing distribution. What does Peercoin have to fear?

Bitcoin is fearing the GHash.IO mining pool might reach 50% of total Bitcoin hashing distribution. What does Peercoin have to fear? submitted by _CapR_ to peercoin [link] [comments]

02-13 16:43 - 'Take a look at the distribution in blockchair.com / It's very easy for 3 or 4 mining pools to pull this off / By the way, Bitcoin Cash and BCash are different cryptos: [link]' by /u/GoodCrossing removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1-11min

'''
Take a look at the distribution in blockchair.com
It's very easy for 3 or 4 mining pools to pull this off
By the way, Bitcoin Cash and BCash are different cryptos: [link]1
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: GoodCrossing
1: https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

⛏ Bitcoin Gold Mining Pool. Help to distribute Hashing Power. ⛏

submitted by Irie81 to BitcoinGoldHQ [link] [comments]

BitcoinPRO (BTP) - SHA256 POW + POS [ Wallet & Pool added] Free Distribution to bitcoin holders

BitcoinPRO (BTP) - SHA256 POW + POS [ Wallet & Pool added] Free Distribution to bitcoin holders submitted by BitcoinPROTeam to altcoinmining [link] [comments]

BitcoinPRO (BTP) - SHA256 POW + POS [ Wallet & Pool added] Free Distribution to bitcoin holders

BitcoinPRO (BTP) - SHA256 POW + POS [ Wallet & Pool added] Free Distribution to bitcoin holders submitted by BitcoinPROTeam to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash has a higher hashrate than Bitcoin right now- where is the best place to see the mining power distribution between BCH pools? /r/Bitcoincash

Bitcoin Cash has a higher hashrate than Bitcoin right now- where is the best place to see the mining power distribution between BCH pools? /Bitcoincash submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

10-03 15:37 - 'Cool idea! I think Blocktrail doesn't have that on this API. Another idea might be the distribution of mining pools.' by /u/SimplGy removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1-6min

'''
Cool idea! I think Blocktrail doesn't have that on this API. Another idea might be the distribution of mining pools.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: SimplGy
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Mapping bitcoin pool hashrate distributions

Mapping bitcoin pool hashrate distributions submitted by oreganoofcorti to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin - Fighting or cooperating?

How would you describe the bitcoin network that makes it work correctly/properly? Are the people maintaining the network fighting with each other or are they cooperating?
submitted by cryptohoney to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Nano now has a Nakamoto Coefficient of 5, and Bitcoin has a Nakamoto Coefficient of 3

Nakamoto Coefficient
The minimum number of consensus influencing parties that can form a majority (i.e. >50%)
Bitcoin Charts
Bitcoin hashrate 3 months ago
Bitcoin hashrate now
(Note that BTC.com and AntPool are both Bitmain)
Source:
https://btc.com/stats/pool
Nano Charts
Nano representatives 3 months ago
Nano representatives now
Source:
https://nanocharts.info/p/01/vote-weight-distribution
Bitcoin appears to be getting more centralized over time, while Nano appears to be getting more decentralized. Thoughts?
submitted by Qwahzi to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

All the hype, but no liquidity? Why there is so much hype surrounding Honeyswap despite many trading pairs still lacking liquidity.

Hello everyone. This question was asked in another subreddit so I figured I'd copy/paste my response in the official Honey subreddit for all newcomers to read.
Honeyswap has only been in existence since early September. There has never been any marketing and according to the early developers and community, people stumbled upon Honeyswap organically and flooded the Discord within a few weeks of launching.
What really happened is that Reddit began a competition called the Reddit Bake-Off, which was a contest to see which blockchain-based team/project could develop a temporizing scaling solution for the current version of Ethereum. The ultimate goal of the Bake-Off was to enable Reddit to launch Reddit-wide tokenization, with specific ERC-20 tokens for each subreddit.
As the Bake-Off ensued, two tokens were minted on the Rinkeby Ethereum Testnet in order to experiment with Reddit-based tokenization on two subreddits: Moons were created for CryptoCurrency and Bricks were created for FortNiteBR. These "tokens" were distributed by the subreddit mods and deposited into users' Reddit Vault (a new feature you can see on your phone Reddit app).
Shortly after beginning the experiment with CryptoCurrency and FortNiteBR, in which people began receiving Moons and Bricks for their upvotes, a community member created two coins on the xDai network, called xMOON and xBRICK, and subsequently developed a bridge that enabled transfer of tokens from the Rinkeby Ethereum Testnet to the xDai network. In essence, users were now able to transfer their Moons and Bricks to the xDai network and convert them into xMOON and xBRICK, respectively. The kicker? These xDai assets were tradable on Honeyswap.
What happened next will be remembered as a special moment in both 1Hive/Honeyswap's history and also in the history of cryptocurrency at large: Users on Reddit realized that the thousands of tokens they had received now had value. Tons of money poured into Honeyswap in a short period of time, and Moons were trading for roughly $0.20 cents at their all-time high. The FortNiteBR sub hasn't even fully embraced this yet. But they will.
Anyway, couple of weeks later the Honeycomb launched, which is a farming initiative that incentivized liquidity providers to keep their funds staked in Honeyswap liquidity pools. This brought even more people to Honeyswap.
With the Bitcoin/main market bull run just beginning, there are a few key things to take note of that should make you very excited about the future of Honeyswap:
submitted by fatal_music to HNY [link] [comments]

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Polkadot

Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Avalanche

Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)

Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche

A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look

Scalability

Cosmos

Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created

Polkadot

Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.

Avalanche

Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.

Results

All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518

Decentralisation

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.

Polkadot

Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.

Results

Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846

Latency

Cosmos

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Polkadot

Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three

Avalanche

Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.

Results

With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd

Shared Security

Cosmos

Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.

Polkadot

Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.

Avalanche

A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional

Results

Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575

Current Adoption

Cosmos

The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.

Polkadot

The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.

Avalanche

Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.

Results

Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.

Polkadot

With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.

Avalanche

Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.

Results

Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc

Interoperability

Cosmos

Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.

Avalanche

A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.

Results

All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415

Tokenomics

Cosmos

The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.

Polkadot

Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.

Avalanche

AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] Sure China owns all the Bitcoin nodes, and only needs 4 to censor the network at will... but BTC isn't centralised

[ 🔴 DELETED 🔴 ] Topic originally posted in Bitcoin by optfhpns [link]
optfhpns your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

Hulk.Finance: A Combination of DeFi and High Frequency Trading

DeFi continues to push the limits of blockchain technology. Whether its staking a native token for a second token from the same ecosystem, locking liquidity for an eternity to promote liquidity providing and the benefits of locking tokens, or simply creating new tokenomics that can be tested and studied, DeFi is exploring all avenues to produce the next breakout token such as YFI. Hulk.finance has stepped in to do just that.

Hulk.finance (Contract Address: 0xE1f8CD01aB04b51d02C6fb2BCA61B03fB5e33B99**)** is an ERC20 token which plans to utilize a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) format that will be community governed in order to promote high frequency trading in a manner only DeFi can bring to the table. As stated on their website, “Our project connects a high-yield partner HFT (High Frequency Trading) fund that has successfully worked from the beginning of 2020 and has year-to-date yields of more than 40%. The fund size is more than 70 millions USD and they operate on several cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance and Bithumb with their API robots. What is good — automated trading does not require continuous uptrend of the Bitcoin price. We have seen good results during Bitcoin breakouts and breakdowns. We want to have the same yields from our investments. But there is a problem — they work with an entrance barrier of 1,000,000 USDT, like many private banking services or high-yield ETFs. Our basic idea is to make a kind of DeFi staking pool and put it under the management of the HFT fund. We will develop all infrastructure for connecting finance flows, deposits, and withdrawals.

The HULK total supply is 100,000 Tokens. Distribution breakdown is as follows:

The project is new but already has a road-map to help guide their lofty ambitions. The first step begins with the formation of the pre-sale and Liquidity pool on Uniswap which is currently ongoing. Secondly, they will distribute Hulk tokens via staking farms. As described in their website they “will run staking farms for farming 80,000 HULKs*. You will need to stake appropriate tokens on the selected farms to get your share of rewards in HULKs. Farm 1 will farm rewards of 60,000* HULKs within 15 days, staking token — ETH-HULK LP Uniswap V2. Farm 2 will farm rewards of 10,000 HULKs within 15 days, staking token — USDN. Farm 3 will farm rewards of 10,000 HULKs within 15 days, staking token — Token Y. Token Y will be announced prior to the farms’ launch. Genesis farming time will be 15 days, after that farming rate will be settled on the level of 15th day. We implement halving every three days, so early farmers will get more HULKs. View on Etherscan. In order to support the price of the token from dumping, we will take a 5% commission for the sale of tokens, when holders sell it on Uniswap, burn 4% and add 1% to the community grants account. The burnt amount will be added to farming pools after 15 days of initial farming. So, for example, if someone sold 20,000 HULKs, we will take 1,000 tokens, burn 800 of them and they will be re-minted on day 16. 200 tokens will be sent to the community grants address. The total supply is 100,000 tokens.”

The third step includes the staking pool. The staking pool will be open for everyone on the following terms and conditions.


Funds from the staking pool will be transferred to the HFT fund for trading operations.

Lastly, the Vault concept is descriptive. “We want to share revenue from HFT fund among HULK holders that stake their tokens in HULK Vault. HFT fund will send revenue from its operation once a month, on the first day of the following month. Current concept: Monthly revenue from HFT operations will be shared between HULK tokens staked in the vault according to the time of staking divided on 720 hours. Example: You stake your 500 HULK tokens in Vault for 20 days (480 hours). Your HULK/hours equal to 500*480=240,000. Total HULK/hours in Vault in this month — 60,000,000. Your share in this month = 0,4%. HFT fund has earned 4% on staking pool funds this month. After payout of their 1,25% (15%/12) per month to USDT stakers, the remaining part is 10,000,000 USDT x 2,75% = 275,000 USD. Your profit share 0.4% of 275,000 = 1100 USDT will be sent as USDT to your address, connected with a Vault.”

All of the above described by the tokens creators seems very complicated, but many tokens are already trying to accomplish this without access to an already built fund which can execute trades on a daily basis. Also due in part is the projects commitment to becoming a DAO by allowing holders to vote on key project decisions and development to make the ecosystem more effective and manageable. Decentralization is the most trustworthy base of contract/cryptocurrency ownership. It creates a unique and secure environment free from direct outside influence due to the filter of the entire community being involved. The developers have said that the voting system for the project will be done within the first 30 days of project launch.

With lofty ambition and high expectations, the project looks to capitalize on the DeFi boom by hedging their fund against the market and giving holders a share of the pie. It will be interesting to see how successful and sustainable the project can be, but we will find out soon enough.

Pertinent Hulk.Finance Links:



(I write articles and reviews for legitimate, interesting, up and coming cryptocurrency projects. Feel free to PM me to review your project. Thank you!)

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. The sole purpose of this post/article is to provide and create an informative and educated discussion regarding the project in question. Invest at your own risk.
submitted by Chrisc9234 to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

Talking Logistics: Chris Jones on Pool Distribution What is Bitcoin? (v1) - YouTube how to make money from bitcoin mining  bitcoin GPU mining  bitcoin [Part 1]How to make your own bitcoin litecoin dogecoin mining pool wallet configuration BTC pool live withdrawal 2500 pesos(scam or legit)

Hash Rate Distribution (last 26 hours) Poolin ~ 40.3 TH/s: F2Pool ~ 36.2 TH/s: ViaBTC ~ 31.3 TH/s: Antpool ~ 23.1 TH/s: LitecoinPool.org ~ 15.2 TH/s: BTC.com ~ 14.8 TH/s: Huobi ~ 12.3 TH/s: Easy2Mine ~ 11.1 TH/s : LTC.top ~ 8.2 TH/s: LaKd2Pa578... ~ 7.8 TH/s: Show all pools... 2009Pool ~ 2.9 TH/s: LaYPLuQEan... ~ 1.6 TH/s: ProHashing ~ 0.4 TH/s: P2Pool ~ 0.4 TH/s: Total ~ 205.8 TH/s ... Bitcoin Mining Pool Hash Rate Distribution. Bitcoin Mining Pool Options. For a fully decentralized pool, we highly recommend p2pool and Multipool.us. The following pools are believed to be currently fully validating blocks with Bitcoin Core 0.11 or later: BTCC: BTCC is a Bitcoin exchange, wallet, and mining pool located in China. Its mining pool currently controls around 15% of the network ... Following the third bitcoin halving on May 11, 2020, there’s been a big shift in mining pool distribution, as far as hashrate is concerned. At the time of publication, there’s around 100-115 ... Bitcoin Cash Pool Distribution by Countries. The number one location of Bitcoin Cash mining pool servers is China. Other countries with heavily distributed servers are the USA, Canada, the UK, Spain, Finland, and Austria. This is perhaps due to cheap electricity costs, as mining activity can be costly and usually takes place near the pool. Centralization of BCH Mining Pools. The mining power ... May 2020: Hashrate distribution by mining pool. Image credit: blockchain.com. SlushPool. Pros: Established medium+ pool, score-based method reduces risk of cheating, user-friendly dashboard. Cons: 2% fee may be too much for some people. Announced in 2010, SlushPool was the very first Bitcoin mining pool and undoubtedly led the way for many other mining pools to come. Founded by SatoshiLabs ...

[index] [51342] [47291] [42572] [13358] [26168] [50895] [21951] [8292] [45197] [38687]

Talking Logistics: Chris Jones on Pool Distribution

Binance Pool has received mixed responses from the crypto community, with some commentators expressing concerns that Binance's pool will result in a further centralization of Bitcoin ( BTC ) hash ... Bitcoin Cash BCH has a new mining pool lead initiative to enable a 12.5% block reward fee starting in May 2020. This new development fee would be sent to a Hong Kong based entity that will ... Adrian Gonzalez with Talking Logistics interviews Descartes’ Chris Jones on the history of pool distribution, common misconceptions about the model today, an... VIETNAMCOIN In this video I'm doing something a bit different. This will be a 3 part series on building your own bitcoin mining pool using open source software for fun and for profit. I am using ... Learn about Bitcoin with the most watched Bitcoin video. More information: Start Guide - https://www.weusecoins.com Mining Guide - https://www.bitcoinmining....

#