As you can read above, the first phase of the network is bootstrapped using a PoS implementation and NoM will be using its own protocol.

The community support is crucial for the growth of such an ambitious project; Zenon is currently based on its own blockchain implementation in order to avoid depending on 3rd party implementations (e.g. ERC-20 tokens) in a transparent manner.

You can create coins using BTC directly in the wallet.

The distribution cycles are starting with block 1440.
Expect to receive your created ZNN by the end of the following cycle.

https://zenon.network
 
https://t.me/zenonnetwork

https://twitter.com/Zenon_Network

This topic has been moved here.

A newly started PoW coin can have a different hashing algorithm implemented; for example, Bitcoin uses SHA-256d, Litecoin uses Scrypt, Ethereum uses Ethash, Dash uses X11, Zcash uses Equihash, and so on. The attack depends on your hashpower with regard to a specific hashing algorithm.

The main topic is the discussion around advantages and disadvantages of different types of distributed ledger technologies; but to do so, one need to understand the inner workings and principles of the underlying technology.


For example Radix; they have a distributed ledger secured by their consensus protocol called Tempo; whitepaper link here: https://papers.radixdlt.com/tempo/

Making assumptions like them about synchronized clocks and timely network behavior can unexpectedly turn into vulnerabilities that can undermine the network's security and stability.

I want to bring into discussion the following paper, "On Stake and Consensus" link here: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

More specifically, chapter 3.4 "No Universal Time":

[...] there is no well-defined clock time in a distributed system. Network latency gives a finite speed of information propagation, which we know from special relativity means different observers cannot agree on the time-ordering of events that occur closely in time [...]

With respect to the time-ordering mechanism that is mentioned in earlier posts to prevent double-spend attacks;

[...] Network latency is not something that can be bounded in an adversarial setting. An attacker may be able to slow systems by arbitrary amounts using denial-of-service measures, and may be able to physically partition the network by other means. In relativistic terms, this means that there is no amount of waiting that will assure somebody that they are no longer spacelike separated from other participants in the network [...]

How this can affect the finality of transactions and how does Radix address network partitioning?

[...] Users who are new to the network or have been offline recently need access to historical data.   But  there  is  no  way  to  verify  after-the-fact  what  order  transactions  occurred  in,  so they cannot be assured that the transactions they are receiving actually occurred before any conflicting ones [...]

This can impact the permissionless property of Radix as an open, public cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin is "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" - re-read the whitepaper; Bitcoin uses a blockchain architecture, a consensus protocol based on PoW (known as Nakamoto consensus) and an incentivization mechanism to maintain an open, permissionless and public distributed ledger of transactions within a peer-to-peer network of nodes without identities that tolerates byzantine adversaries. I recommend further reading here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/454.pdf


This IS an oversimplification.


Your statement is invalid; blockchain is resistant against modifications that do not follow the consensus rules.

It is a special type of blockchain in the way it uses PoW for security, is open and permissionless and has a built-in incentivization mechanism to sustain it; the "special" adjective I used is to describe the underlying cryptoeconomic layer; there are also other blockchain implementations in the form of different cryptocurrencies.



The data structure is called hashed linked list;


The immutability property is given by the consensus protocol; in Bitcoin's case it's the Nakamoto consensus protocol; do some research before commeting without undestanding the points in the post.

I would like to bring this twitter post from Hal Finney into the discussion: https://twitter.com/halfin/status/1153096538

"Thinking about how to reduce CO2 emissions from a widespread Bitcoin implementation"

Please note the date of the tweet, 27 Jan 2009.

The problem is that there is a misconception about PoW impacting the climate on a large scale. For example, mining gold and other ores can be much more energy intensive; more insights you can get from this article (several months old): https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-04/bitcoin-vs-gold-which-ones-bubble-how-much-energy-do-they-really-consume although there are other reports with more recent information on the internet

A distributed ledger (aka DLT, the abbreviation for distributed ledger technology, also known as shared ledger) is a ledger replicated across a peer-to-peer network that runs a consensus protocol to synchronize digital data.

One definition of the blockchain can be the following: a decentralzied, immutable ledger secured by a consensus protocol that enables trustless transfer of value.

Bitcoin is a special kind of blockchain that enables furthermore permissionless access and provides an incentivization mechanism to sustain and secure the network. The cryptoeconomic layer involves a token in form of a cryptocurrency - bitcoin - that is provided by the network itself to miners that secure it and further to users that proliferate it.

Nowadays more and more DLTs have a cryptoeconomic layer in order to achieve openess, permissionless, trustless transfer of value while maintaining decentralization, censorship-resistance (security) and immutability.

Actually, as far as I know, in Bitcoin there are already implemented some mechanisms that can detect network partitioning; the downside is the fact a large portion of the hashpower is geographically located in areas susceptible to network partitioning behind strong firewalls - this can affect decentralization because not always the longest chain/with most accumulated hashpower is the *true* chain, as one can remember what happened in early 2013: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/

I think that the advantage of PoW over PoS in large scale implementations is indeed the fact that it uses raw processing power (translated in hashpower) and electricity; this way, the coin gets a real value, being backed by the amount of energy and equiment involved in securing the blockchain, while making it more resilient to larger attackers such as nation states.


Every complex system has trade-offs, but for the moment PoW has shown its advantages in open, permissionless blockchains due to the robustness of the consensus protocol and its inherent simplicity that greatly reduces the attack surface.

The corners of the triangle are scalability, security and decentralization; for example bitcoin leans towards security and decentralization and less towards scalability.

Proof of Work has many interesting properties. Bitcoin uses a specific PoW puzzle based on SHA-256 hash function in order enforce the miner's commitment of hashing power solely to the security of the bitcoin blockchain; also PoW is more resilient in the context of some attack vectors such as Sybil attacks; it also has some downsides of course, but some of them can be refuted from an economical perspective - bitcoin is backed by raw processing power.


Some variations of the PoS model that do not have inherently mathematical proofs and usually are inspired from real world scenarios.

The problems arise from the architecture so that's why some concepts should be discussed and treated not only from an implementation perspective, but from real world scenarios as well.

Cubesats is a viable option but the difficult part is getting them into orbit. There is more competition now in the space industry and the economical entry barrier is lower that is very good from a network decentralization perspective

Whatever you do, consider medication only as a last resort, but most important figure what actually keeps you awake. A worry, a medical issure and try fix the root of the problem.