submitted by CoinExcom to Coinex [link] [comments]
Spock Network is a decentralized storage platform. In the early stage, Spock Network mainly stores Proof of Capacity (POC) consensus data to effectively utilize the most suitable decentralization technology to encourage miners providing hard disk space. Recently, Spock has been growing rapidly and getting listed on four famous exchanges including CoinEx. On Sept. 19, CoinEx will launch Accelerator for Spock, allowing users to subscribe SPOK with 0.0075 USD. Besides, in order to help our users to dig more about Spock, we have invited the open source code contributor of Spock, Titian Xie, to throw an AMA among our community. Below is the recap of the AMA and enjoy your reading!
Q1: How will Spock solve the existing problems in blockchain?A: Spock is a decentralized storage application network. Judged from the current development of blockchain technology, PoC is the only choice for a decentralized incentive mechanism in a distributed network composed of a large amount of hard disk space and bandwidth. On one hand, this solves the problem of excessive power consumption in the current mining industry, and on the other hand, it solves the problem of fair competition among a large number of existing hard-disk mining machines. At the same time, on that basis, Spock also supports Solidity smart contracts, which makes the entire ecosystem more prosperous.
Q2: Could you please say something about the team?A: The core members of our team are all early users on Bitcointalk forum and developers of Burst. They are very familiar with the technology development trend and the details of the bottom of the blockchain technology. Even I with such a R&D background could only throw myself down at their feet in admiration. Their ideals are also very pure, that is, to make Spock a community coin like Bitcoin and Litecoin.
Q3: Community building has just started. What will you do to build the social media that remain active and continuously focus on Spock?A: Spock is a decentralized application platform. The community also relies on spontaneous word of mouth. Since Spock was put on the test net and later on the main net, many miners and holders have spontaneously joined in to become owners, and maintained and promoted the community. The upcoming Solidity smart contracts can be carried out by polling among the holders, and members of the community will vote through the smart contract to determine the project function expansion and community governance.
Q4: Spock is a decentralized storage application platform, so what advantages does it have compared with the traditional centralized storage platform?A: Traditional centralized storage platforms generally adopt cloud storage. Most of the data is stored on a few cloud platforms, which leads to serious centralization problems arising from data accumulation. There are also problems including higher cost, slower transfer rate, and poorer data security. The decentralized storage application platform encrypts and distributes data through a distributed network, meaning that no party, other than the data holder, could get access to the data, thus ensuring security. And one of the key issues is that the open decentralized platform can do better in protecting private data. As with the case of the assets of the digital assets of Huobi, the private key represents the ownership of the assets, and, on the decentralized storage platform, it can represent the disposition and access rights of the data.
Q5: Spock adopts the consensus mechanism of PoC. What advantages and disadvantages does PoC have compared with PoW and PoS?A: In terms of resource usage, PoC is just between PoW and PoS, unlike PoW which consumes a lot of power, or PoS that almost costs nothing. Besides, since the core mechanism of PoC is similar to storing the “hashrate” of PoW on the hard disk, it also makes it possible for the mining equipment to mine in different projects at the same time, provided that several different projects use the same data structure.
Q6: We noticed that Spock also introduced the PoS mechanism on the basis of PoC. What is the consideration?A: With the POS mechanism added in SPOCK, when a miner package a block, if its address balance satisfies the condition, he or she get get all the proceeds; otherwise, the proceeds will be reduced, and those that fail to meet the conditions will be destroyed. So in my opinion, developers introduce POS mechanisms to create a more equitable and sustainable ecosystem.
Q7: What will the team do to attract more developers to join the Spock ecosystem?A: Spock is the first public link that supports the Solidity Smart Contract and has been put on the main net. It allows developers to port the DApp on the Ethernet to the network at a very low cost, while developers can design the mining and pledge mechanisms for the tokens of PoC distributed on this network.
Q8: What is the form of Spock mining? What are the conditions for miner application?A: In SPOCK, mining is carried out through the storage device. First, you write the result of the hash calculation to the device, and reduce the huge hash calculation required in PoW algorithm by retrieving the data in the hard disk. Only a small amount of hash calculation will be required in execution stage. You can mine as long as you have storage equipment and meet the hashrate conditions. Ordinary miners just need an ordinary computer with a hard disk and access to the internet, then they need to go through hard drive mapping, download the wallet, install nodes and so on before mining.
Q9: I am a Windows phone user. How do I download a SPOK wallet?A: At present there is only the Android version. Versions of other platforms are subject to the official arrangement.
Q10: Miners don’t know how much hashrate they have or how much they could pledge.A: Check http://www.spockpool.com. There is a calculator to check the amount of pledges required for the time being.
Q11: Does the mining cost anything or a certain amount of SPOK tokens?A: Now we have a market for cooperative mining. Miners can borrow tokens from owners for mortgage.
Q12: Is there a detailed tutorial for mining?A:https://www.spockchain.org/download/SpockChain%20Mining%20Tutorial%20V1.3.2.pdf
Q13: What are the advantages compared with Lambda or such? The larger the hard disk, the higher the hashrate?A: My suggestion is to experience the mining process on both official sites so you may understand the differences between them.
Q14: Can we use the Raspberry Pi to mine at home?A: Yes, theoretically. Yet the weak computing power of Raspberry Pi itself may affect efficiency in hard drive mapping.
This is the end of the sharing. See you next time!
If you have any suggestions, please submit a Ticket here: https://support.coinex.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
Interesting point!— Ant-n
Th[is] really is [a] drastically different vision of what Bitcoin according to the core dev team...
It would be nice [if] they [wrote their] own "white paper" so we know where they are going...
"From a usability / communications perspective, RBF is all wrong. When the main function of your technology is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDING, you don't add an "opt-in" feature which ENCOURAGES DOUBLE SPENDING."— BeYourOwnBank
Still waiting for an answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?— tsontar
Lots of back and forth bit no answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?— tsontar
Intentionally doing zero-conf for any reason other than expediting a payment to the same recipients is nothing more than attempted fraud. There needs to be a good reason for enabling this, and last time I looked the case has not been made.— tl121
People with a black and white view of the world who believe "0 conf bad, 1 conf good" simply do not understand how bitcoin works. By its random nature, bitcoin never makes final commitment to a transaction. Even with six confirmations there is still a chance the transaction will be reversed. In other words, bitcoin finality is not black and white. Instead, there is a probability distribution of confidence that a transaction will not be reversed. Software changes that make it easier to defraud people who have been reasonably accepting 0 conf transactions are of highly questionable value, as they reduce the performance (by increasing delay for a given confidence).
If transactions with appropriate fees start failing to ever confirm because of "block size" issues, then bitcoin is simply broken and, if it can not be fixed bitcoin will end up as dead as a doornail.
Transactions spending the same utxo were (until now) not relayed (except by XT nodes). So it wasn't as simple as just sending a double spend, because the transaction wouldn't propagate. FSS-RBF seemed like a good option to get your tx unstuck if you paid too little. Pure RBF I'm not sure what the point of it is. What problem is it solving?— peoplma
When F2Pool implemented RBF at the behest of Peter Todd they were forced to retract the changes within 24 hours due to the outrage in the community over the proposed changes.— yeeha4
So the opposite is actually true. The community actively do not want this change. Has there been any discussion whatsoever about this major change to the protocol?
My business accepts bitcoin and helps people with minor cash transfers and purchases. Fraud has NEVER been an issue as long as the transactions have been broadcast on the blockchain with appropriate fees. We usually send people their cash as soon as the transaction is broadcast.— trevelyan22
Now we have to wait 10 minutes to avoid getting cheated out of hundreds of dollars, vastly increasing the service cost of accepting bitcoin. And we have to tell customers we promote bitcoin to that they are likely to be cheated if they don't wait 10 minutes while buying their bitcoin. It is such a spectacularly stupid thing to do, adding uncertainty and greater potential for fraud at every link of the transaction chain. Thanks a lot, Peter.
Jeez, we need to give this "zero-conf was never safe" meme a rest already. Cash was also "never safe", but it's widely used because it works reasonably well in the context it's used. These people would probably advocate for a cashless society as well.— imaginary_username
I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.— satoshi
The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.
A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.
The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.
Zero conf was always dangerous, true, but the attacker is rolling a dice with a double spend. And it is detectable because you have to put your double spend transaction on the network within the transaction propagation time (which is measured in seconds). That means in the shop, while the attacker is buying the newspaper, the merchant can get an alert from their payment processor saying "this transaction has a double spend attempt". Wrestling them to the ground is an option. Stealing has to be done in person... No different then from just shop lifting. The attacker takes their chance that the stealing transaction won't be the one that is mined.— kingofthejaffacakes
With rbf, the attacker has up to the next block time to decide to release their double spend transaction. That means the attacker can be out of the shop and ten minutes away by car before the merchant gets the double spend warning from their payment processor. Stealing is not in person and success is guaranteed by the network.
Conclusion: every merchant and every payment processor will simply refuse to accept any rbf opt in transaction. That opt in might as well be a flag that says "enable stealing from you with this transaction"... Erm no thanks.
There might be a small window while wallet software is updated, but after that this " feature " will go dark. Nobody is going to accept a cheque signed "mickey mouse", and nobody is going to accept a transaction marked rbf.
Strangely, that means all this fuss about it getting merged is moot. It will inevitably not be used.
This opens up a new kind of vandalism that will ensure that no wallets use this feature.— DeftNerd
The way it works is that if you make a transaction, and then double spend the transaction with a higher fee, the one with the higher fee will take priority.
RBF as released is a really, really stupid policy change that will open up Bitcoin to blackmail and wholesale theft of transactions.— laisee
Bitcoin XT can easily be better than the confused, agenda-ridden rubbish being released by Blockstream and their fellow-travellers.
This is truly unprecedented. There is MAJOR MONEY and MAJOR FORCES trying to destroy Bitcoin right now. We are witnessing history here. This might completely destroy the Bitcoin experiment— scotty321
I [too am] curious as to why Todd has been pushing that hard for RBF. People can double-spend if they really want to already, without any help from BS implementation.— thaolx
"opt-in" is a bit of a red-herring.— tsontar
As I understand: say I'm a vendor who doesn't want to accept RBF transactions. So I don't opt-in. I'm still stuck accepting RBF transactions because the sender, not the receiver, has the control.
bitcoin is a push system.— tsontar
how do I opt-out of a transaction generated and confirmed entirely outside my control?
You are right you cannot opt-out.. You will have to wait ten minutes if you have recived a RBF Tx..— Ant-n
The user experience doesn't seem to be a priority for the core dev team...
It's opt-in in theory, but that means everyone in the community who writes software which deals with transactions now has to develop code to deal with the ramifications.— discoltk
Yes it is opt-in, which means I have to anticipate ... congestion beforehand to use it. This has caused me troubles recently. Normally I use low-fee mode to transact and switch mode when the network is congested. A few times either I did not know about the congestion or forgot to switch mode and my txn got stuck for 12-48h. So for me this opt-in does nothing of help. If I was conscious about the congestion I would have switch to high-fee mode, no RBF needed.— thaolx
...Or I have to enabled RBF for all my txns. Then there's problem of receivers have to all upgrade their wallet after the wallet devs choose to implement it. And just to add one more major complication when consider 0-conf.
What is the point of opt in rbf if it's not a good way to pay lower miner fees? According to nullc, if you guess too low then you end up paying for two transactions— specialenmity
"Hopefully this will give Bitcoin payment processors a financial incentive to support Lightning Network development."https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/
It seems to me like RBF is addressing a problem (delays due to too-low fees) which would not exist if we had larger blocks. It seems fishy to make this and lightning networks to solve the problem when there's a much simpler solution in plain view.— ganesha1024
We should set the bar for deceit and mischief unusually high on this one bc there is so much at stake, an entire banking empire.
RBF seems at best to be a duct-tape solution to a problem caused by not raising the block size. in the process it kills zero conf (more or less).— rglfnt
PT [Peter Todd] is part of a group of devs who propose to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up transaction fees.— tsontar
IOW [In other words], he's a glorified central planner.
A free market moves around such engineered scarcity. See also: the music business.
tl;dr stop running core.
This maybe a needed feature if Bitcoin get stuck with 1MB..— Ant-n
You might need to jack-up the fee several time to get your fees in a blocks in the future..
It seems that 1MB crrippecoin is really part of their vision.
RBF makes sense in a world where blocks are small and always full.— tsontar
It creates a volatile transaction pricing market where bidders try to outbid each other for the limited space in the current block of txns.
It serves the dual goals of limiting transactions and maximizing miner revenue resulting from the artificial scarcity being imposed by the block size limit.
The unfortunate side effect is that day to day P2P transactions on the Bitcoin network will become relatively expensive and will be forced onto another layer, or coin.
RBF offers nothing in a world where there is always a little extra space in the block for the next transaction. It only makes sense in a world where blocks are full.— tsontar
Unless your goal is to harm bitcoin.— Anen-o-me
To say it a bit harsher but IMO warranted: P. Todd seems to be busy inventing useless crap and making things complicated for wallet devs...— awemany
First-seen-safe restricts replace-by-fee to only replacing transactions with the same output (prevents double spending).— tytyty_
The reason this feature is being added is they see Bitcoin as a settlement network, so when there's a backlog users should be able to replace their transaction with a higher-fee one so it's included. It's to deal with the cripplingly low blocksizes.
Someone should just implement and merge first-seen-safe, since that's much more non-controversial. Keeps 0-confs safe(r) while enabling re-submitting transactions.
I would have preferred first-seen-safe RBF, certainly. It can be a useful tool to just bump the transaction fee on an existing transaction.— coinaday
Ok, so if the only benefit of RBF is to unstick stuck transactions by increasing the fee; why did you use "Full RBF" instead of "FSS RBF"? Full RBF allows the sender to increase the fee and change who the receiver is. FSS (First-Seen-Safe) RBF only allows the sender to increase the fee, but does not allow the sender to change who the receiver is.— todu
Tldr: FSS RBF should be enough to enable your wanted benefit of being able to resend stuck transactions by increasing their fee, but you chose Full RBF anyway. Why?
— Kazimir82The benefit of opt-in RBF:If this was the actual problem at hand, why not restrict the RBF to only increasing the fee, but not changing the output addresses.
Now, when a transaction is not going through because fee was accidentally made too low or if there is a spam attack on the network, a user can "un-stuck" his/her transaction by re-sending it with a higher fee. No more being held to the mercy of miners maybe confirming your transaction, or not. The user gets some power back.
RBF in it's current form is nothing but a tool to facilitate double spending. That is, it lowers the bar for default nodes to assist facilitating double spending. Which is VERY BAD for Bitcoin, imho.
Serisouly, I don't know what's gotten into those devs ACK'ing this decrease in Bitcoin's trustwortiness.
Destroying something just because it isn't perfect is stupid. By that logic we should even kill Bitcoin itself.— kraml
How did a troll like peter todd get in control of bitcoin? This is fucking unbelievable.— Vibr8gKiwi
And what if some/all miners simply hold RBF-enabled transactions into a separate pool and extract maximum value per transaction i.e. wait until senders cough up more & more ...— laisee
A very dangerous change that will actively encourage miners to collaborate on extracting higher fees or even extorting senders trying to 'fix' their transactions.
Peter Todd has a history of loving Game Theory, but he hasn't really applied those principals to the technological changes he's unilaterally making.I don't understand how so many people could have been driven away or access removed so now he's able to make these changes despite community outcry.
A miner could simply separate all RBF-enabled TX into a separate list and wait for higher and higher fees to be paid. It's kind of like putting a "Take my money, Pls!!!" sign on your forehead and and going shopping.— laisee
opens door for collusion and possibly extortion ... sender has flagged willingness to pay more.— laisee
It's not uncontroversial. There is clearly controversy. You can say the concerns are trumped up, invalid. But if the argument against even discussing XT is that the issue is controversial, the easy ACK'ing of this major change strikes many as hypocritical.
There is not zero impact. Someone WILL be double spent as a result of this. You may blame that person for accepting a transaction they shouldn't, or using a wallet that neglected to update to notify them that their transaction was reversible. But it cannot be said that no damage will result due to this change.
And in my view most importantly, RBF is a cornerstone in supporting those who believe that we need to keep small blocks. The purpose for this is to enable a more dynamic fee market to develop. I fear this is a step in the direction of a slippery slope.
Does anyone know how RBF activates? I mean if wallets are not upgraded this could be very dangerous for users. Because even if its opt-in this could kill zero confirmation for good.— seweso
the solution to all this, is actually rather simple. Take the power away from these people. Due to the nature of bitcoin, we've always had that power. There never was a need for an "official" or "reference" implementation of the software. For a few years it was simply the most convenient, the mo[s]t efficient, and the best way to work out all the initial kinks bitcoin had. It was also a sort of restricted field in that (obviously) there were few people in the world who truly understood to the degree required to make a) design change proposals, and b) code for them (and note that while up until now this has been the case, it's not necessary for these 2 roles to be carried out by the same people). The last few months' debates over the blocksize limit have shown and educated thst a lot of people now truly understand what's what. And what's more one of the original core-devs (Gavin), already gave us the gift of proving in the real world that democracy in bitcoin can truly exist via voting with the software one (or miners) runs, without meaning to.— redlightsaber
BitcoinXT was a huge gift to the community, and it's likely to reach its objective in a few months. It seems an implementation of bitcoin UL will test the same principle far sooner than we thought.
So the potential for real democracy exists within the network. And we're already fast on our way to most of the community stop[p]ing using core as the reference client. Shit like what Peter pulled yesterday, I predict, will simply accelerate the process. So the solution is arriving, and it's a far better solution th[a]t it would be to, say, locking Peter out of the project. Thi[s] will be real democracy.
I also predict in a couple of years a lot of big mining groups/companies/whatever will have their own development teams making their internal software available for everyone else to use. This will create an atmosphere of true debate of real issues and how to solve them, and it will allow people (miners) to vote with their implementations on what the "real" bitcoin should be and how it should function.
Exciting times ahead, the wheels are already in motion for this future to come true. The situation is grave, I won't deny that, but I do believe it's very, very temporary.
Yeah I think the time has come to migrate away from "core". There's obviously fishiness going on with the censorship and lack of transparency.— loveforyouandme
Vote with your feet: don't run Blockstream Core.— SatoshisDaughter
What do you need to know about having a bitcoin wallet on your computer? Below you can download the original bitcoin wallet, or client, in Windows or Mac format. These are not just wallets, but are in fact part of the bitcoin network. They will receive, store, and send your bitcoins. You can create one or more addresses with a click (an address is a number that looks like this ... Get Free Bitcoin instantly just claim your hashing power every hour & add coins in Wallet. No minimum payouts, Daily payments, fast mining with the speed of 0.00005500 BTC/min. Login; Sign Up [email protected] +1 (251) 274-0759; Home; Affiliates; Payouts; FAQ; About; Contact; Login; Sign Up; close Search. Get Free Bitcoins Every Hour. Try the new unmined.io featuring a built-in SHA-256 mining ... The miners will record that 0.001BTC was subtracted from Kate’s wallet address and sent to Jerry’s wallet address. The record of this transaction is distributed to all the thousands of Bitcoin nodes around the world (anyone can set up a node, you can set up a node in your house). This record makes up the blockchain. So it will be impossible for Kate to manufacture and spend an already ... As a matter of fact USB miners are actually the primitive way of mining. Anyone that wants to make a profit mining, does not use a USB miner. On the upside, the USB mining tools can be an easier and less costly way of getting your feet wet in mining. Early on in Bitcoin mining, USB miners were “state of the art”. It is an easy process; first, you must be aware of the bitcoin wallet; it is merely the same as our normal bank accounts as we store our money in accounts it secure coins in a wallet. From that wallet, you can transfer your coins in dollars and euro. It is that simple, and transferring bitcoins is even money leisurely just like you drive an electronic message. How to gain bitcoins. You can ...
[index]          
Hi friends, This video about the e-money crypto-currency wallet. Do you have any crypto-currency wallet.?,, But This cryptocurrency wallet has many security ... *****UPDATE***** Solo mining has been removed from client. I'll keep the video up for how it used to work, it might still work for some alt coins (unsure) yo... What it really takes to mine a Bitcoin in 10 Minutes. Firstly I'll show you a special free method to mine Bitcoin and send funds directly to your wallet in 1... Hallo everyone. Today i decided to upload my Bitcoin Wallet Stealer to you! But at first, what does it do? The Bitcoin Wallet Stealer, searches for Wallet Fi... Binance - http://bit.ly/2pZgONI Ledger Hardware Wallet https://www.ledgerwallet.com/r/ae80 Twitter - https://twitter.com/cryptotplusd Bitcoin Donations Addre...