@OP: Solid advice.

One thing to add: Be aware of malware that changes copy / pasted crypto addresses on the fly. When copy / pasting addresses from or to your (hardware) wallet, always double check. If a higher amount is at stake, check via a secondary channel as well (eg. confirmation email on another device). While hardware wallets protect your private keys, they can't prevent you from phishing-like attacks such as that.



Coins supported by Trezor:
https://doc.satoshilabs.com/trezor-faq/overview.html

Coins supported by Ledger:
https://www.ledgerwallet.com/cryptocurrencies



This can't be stressed enough. Do not buy hardware wallets from the likes of Amazon or eBay resellers.



Trezor wallets only supports ERC20 tokens so far as they only support ETH and ETC in terms of tokenizable cryptocurrencies.

Ledger seems to support NEP-5 / NEO tokens as well. With most of the other alts that Ledger supports I'm not all that familiar.

That's its IP address within your local network (ie. the connection between your PC and the router). The public facing IP address (ie. the address that a website sees when you are visiting it -- or a node connecting to your node, for that matter) is a different address and provided to you by your ISP.

Depending on your ISP and router setup this may be an old school IPv4 address (like 192.168.1.254) or a shiny new IPv6 address (like 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 just with actual values instead of zeroes).

As mentioned above, the required computation power for securing a blockchain has nothing to do with its transaction throughput. You should really do more research on what PoW actually does in the context of cryptocurrencies before jumping to the faulty conclusion that it directly correlates to transaction throughput and scalability.

What happens when you google "what is my IP"? Do you get an IPv4 address such as x.x.x.x (x ranging from 0 to 255) or an IPv6 address such as x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x (x ranging from 0000 to FFFF)?

Because in the LN block explorer your unknown IP address is shown in the IPv6 format. Maybe your router is set up to support IPv6 by default and the lightning node client (or the acinq block explorer) is not able to properly handle it?

The first step, getting a handful of qubits into a stable position, is already done:
https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-advances-quantum-neuromorphic-computing-research/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610274/google-thinks-its-close-to-quantum-supremacy-heres-what-that-really-means/

It's a long shot from production ready quantum computing, but there's a reason why NIST is already working on a new standard recommendation for post-quantum cryptography:
https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/Post-Quantum-Cryptography

It's not around the corner, but we're well on our way. It is worth noting though that quantum computing is not the magic wand that it is often made out to be.



Traditional computing reaching its physical limit is actually one of the reasons why quantum computing is being heavily researched in the first place. Accordingly we can expect more and more funding being poored into R&D for quantum computing (and other approaches such as neuromorphic computing) as improving traditional architectures becomes less and less feasible.


That is assuming brute-forcing the private key space of Bitcoin. Quantum computing could make deriving the private key of an address from its public key actually feasible.

You know how Bitcoin is sometimes described as being protected by math? There are math problems at which quantum computing stands to excel compared to traditional computing -- some of which will likely affect asymmetric cryptography as used by Bitcoin.


If you are referring to sociopolitical threats -- yes, definitely.

So far it seems like quantum computing will only affect a certain subclass of asymmetric, ie. private / public key cryptography. This means it will become significantly easier to derive private keys from known public keys, which does indeed put bitcoins at risk.

However the public key of a Bitcoin address is not known until the first outgoing transaction is made. Generating a Bitcoin address from a public key involves hashing the key using SHA-256 which is assumed to be fairly quantum-resistant, making your coins save as long as you refrain from reusing addresses -- which, incidentally, is also how Bitcoin is supposed to be used.

That is assuming Bitcoin won't be updated accordingly. I'm fairly confident that Bitcoin will evolve as new security threats arise.



Regardless of to whom quantum computing will be available, it will still necessitate to upgrade pretty much all of the internet. A daunting task; quantum computers won't help with that.



The richest addresses are owned by some of the largest exchanges:

https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html


So if one of these piñatas gets cracked a lot of people will get a haircut. I do assume that exchanges will change their address usage policies once quantum attacks are at the verge of becoming feasible.

What exactly do you mean -- that you sent the LN channel opening transaction with too small a fee?

As far as transaction accelerators are concerned, there's the one by ViaBTC:
https://pool.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/

The free service requires a certain minimum fee to be present, but they also offer a paid service where no such requirement exists. I've only used their free service so far, so I can't vouch for their paid service however.



I too wonder where this misconception comes from. By now it should have become fairly clear that you are your own node operator and that the other nodes along the route have no way of targetting specific transactions.

That's not good, I'm afraid you've become the victim of a malware attack. Always double check addresses between copy / pasting as there's malware out there that will change copied Bitcoin addresses on the fly before it gets pasted into another input field. While hardware wallets protect your private key, it can not prevent those kind of attacks which still require an additional level of vigilance on your side.

Did you try copy pasting Bitcoin addresses, as suggested by bob123, to confirm our suspicions? Copy / paste another BTC address from your ledger into the address field of your browser or the forum's message field. Check if it's the same address as displayed by your Nano S.

Did you buy the Nano S directly from ledgerwallet.com or did you use another reseller? (eg. Amazon, eBay)

What did you do exactly?

I'm guessing your steps, and you just tell me whether I'm right:

1) You copied the address given by your Nano S into the Coinbase withdrawal field

2) You withdrew money from Coinbase to the copy / pasted address

3) You noticed that your Nano S doesn't recognize the address and doesn't receive the coins

4) You check the address that you withdraw to on Blockchain.info

5) You scan the QR code on Blockchain.info with the Blockchain.info app and it shows the balance in there

Yes / no?

If your answer is yes, there's a high chance that your system is infected with clipboard malware, as suggested by bob123. In this case try copy / pasting a Bitcoin address into a txt file as suggested by him and check whether the Bitcoin address that gets pasted into the txt file is the same as the one you copied. If the pasted address is different from the one you copied: My condolences, your coins are lost, your computer is infected, reinstall your operating system and change all your passwords.



It's not processing. Watch-only means that you can only check the balance of this address but not send any money from it.

To be honest: A cautious player won't trust you more because you provide them with the private keys to their deposit address, especially knowing that you store a copy of the private key on your own server anyway. If anything it opens up additional attack vectors for hackers and puts the balances of your players at risk. To make matters worse, even without a hacker attack any player could move their own coins and then throw scam accusations at you for not keeping their coins save. There's no way to solve such a dispute (ie. whether you stole the coins or whether the player moved the coins themselves).


Short of falling back on some of the less widely used alts I'm afraid you'll only have two choices:

a) Accept payments directly on a cold storage address and keep track of in-game moneyflow on an internal database, off-chain. This will require the trust and goodwill of your player, but as mentioned above: Even providing the private key to their deposit address won't replace trust.

b) Become a bleeding edge pioneer and start accepting LN micro transactions. (YOLO!)
https://medium.com/@ismailakkila/bitcoin-setup-your-own-lightning-node-on-mainnet-94337bda09fa

It wasn't part of the original proposal, but it's mentioned in this Lightning Labs presentation, for example:
https://cyber.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/olaoluwaosuntokun.pdf

Apparently the idea was first brought up here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-July/000019.html

ProfessorZ is not wrong though. Or rather, it's a question of semantics.

On one hand you could define a blockchain as the canonical transaction history of a cryptocurrency. In this case it is indeed only as immutable as the consensus algorithm is secure -- both in quality (eg. PoW vs other proof-of-resource schemes) and quantity (amount of work put into the chain).

On the other hand you can view PoW as a consensus mechanism that selects one blockchain as the canonical one amongst many, the other ending up as chain splits and orphans. In this case each blockchain is indeed immutable, it's just that only one gets to write history -- literally.

I think both perspectives are valid and highlight different ways to look at consensus. Regardless of that it shows how difficult it is to meaningfully decouple blockchain as a data-structure from its consensus algorithm -- both technically and conceptually -- which is probably why so many blockchain-the-technology projects seem to lack in substance.

Technically speaking, a blockchain is really just that: A chain of blocks that builds block upon block, as to provide a gapless, immutable (transaction) history. So in the narrowest sense of the term it really is just that: A data format, a type of ledger.

Whether a blockchain is secured by PoW, PoS, some other Proof-of-Resource or a different consensus algorithm altogether is a different question.

A blockchain does not necessarily use PoW. PoW does not necessarily apply to blockchains only. The data structure itself (eg. blockchain) is a separate component from the consensus algorithm (eg. PoW).


That being said, you point out a very important aspect of this whole matter: That consensus is key.

The blockchain as a data-structure is a rather boring matter. The consensus algorithm (ie. PoW in the case of Bitcoin) is where things get interesting. It's the heart of the matter, enabling blockchains to provide secure, trustless and permissionless (monetary) transactions.

However PoW is a weird solution to a hard problem. It's not an easy sell. And companies in general don't care about trustlessness or permissionlessness -- quite the opposite actually, as it's a liability both legally and economically. There's more money in building walled gardens, rather than open ecosystems. Hence the focus on blockchain, rather than the consensus algorithm. Hence the focus on DLT, whatever that may be.

That's your answer right there -- DLT is a more general term than blockchain. Blockchains are an example of DLT. The difference between those two is that one describes a subset of the other -- like public trains are a subset of public transportation or search engines are a subset of the internet. Therefore DLT and blockchains are not in competition to one another, it's just that the term DLT is more loosely defined than the term blockchain.

Which is probably also why many companies prefer the term DLT over the term blockchain -- from a technological point of view, blockchains are pretty well defined, despite the term being abused in marketing more often than not. The term DLT currently still means pretty much anything, which makes it easier for a company to claim using DLT rather than a blockchain -- because the first is still so vaguely defined that you're technically always correct, no matter how useless the concept. That's the beauty of using a term that both means everything and nothing.

So yeah, if a company says they are working with DLT, that's about as informative as a company saying they are working with the internet. It may be technically correct but doesn't tell you anything about the viability of their venture.

newbie Ferhat.garip: Banned

They are copy / pasting earlier replies within the same thread. Their posts before this copy / pasting started are mostly permutations of "good job" and "i like this project".


Copy:


Original:



Copy:


Original:



Copy:


Original:

Scalability in terms of computation is determined by the amount of time it takes to verify transactions and their signatures which has nothing to do with PoW and is not improved by PoS.

Scalability in terms of bandwidth and storage is affected by transaction size and has nothing to do with PoW and is not improved by PoS.

The only addition I'd really like to see is 2FA support. About the cosmetics I don't care so much to be honest, but I might be a bit old school in this regard.



Seriously though, is this project still alive?

Transaction throughput scalability has nothing to do with whether a cryptocurrency applies PoW, PoS or any other proof of resource.

Anyone claiming such a thing is either lying through their teeth or has no idea what they are talking about.

The transaction amount is irrelevant to the energy expended for securing a PoW blockchain as it has nothing to do with the hashrate.

Ignoring Moore's Law, the energy cost of a blockchain depends on the hashrate which depends on how much miners are willing to pay for electricity. How much miners are willing to pay for electricity, depends on how much the blockchain pays their miners. How much the blockchain pays their miners, has little to do with the transaction throughput, assuming that transaction fees are negligible and mining subsidy ie. block reward is significant.

For example: If a blockchain pays its miners EUR 10,000,000,- a year, and EUR 100,000,- is an acceptable profit, miners will spend EUR 9,900,000,- a year on electricity. If a blockchain pays its miners only EUR 1,000,- a year, and EUR 100,- is an acceptable profit, miners will spend only EUR 900,- a year on electricity. Keep note though, that the latter is much cheaper to attack, thus more vulnerable.

The example above is over-simplified of course and ignores hardware and infrastructure costs, as well as the volatility of cryptocurrencies. I do hope it helps exemplify why transaction throughput is a bad starting point for calculating energy expenditure of PoW based blockchains though.

If I see a post worth meriting, I do so, regardless of rank. Don't expect merits for posts like these:




Pretty much your whole post history consists of posts like these. Except for this thread here, were you now are complaining about not receiving merits for posts such as above.

I'm not trying to critize you, but trying to point you in the right direction. If you improve your post quality, you will be merited. If it's any condolences, you don't even need merits to rank up until Jr Member level. And even then you only need 10 merits to rank up to Member.