...will be launched on the 1st of August. Are you happy with this?

Cast your votes (to spend time while waiting for the opening)

All main Qora threads are locked. What did happen to Qora developer? He visits the account but doesn't post and there is no progress in Qora development, it seems.

Does anyone know if GadgetCoin is still being developed? After altcoinUK disappeared I lost the last link to it.

Does anyone know what happened to this guy? His twitter account (https://twitter.com/niftynikel) is inactive. Does he continue his work of pumping altcoins? Maybe under another identity?

Here is some info about him - http://aitpspringfield.org/meetinginfo.php?id=49&ts=1399924881

And a video with his face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6zPFRN8md4

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4ghzhv/governmentals_1100_eth_jackpot_payout_is_stuck/

As the operator of http://ethereumpyramid.com I am of course watching the "competition" closely. ;-) One of the more popular contracts (by transaction count) is GovernMental (Website: http://governmental.github.io/GovernMental/ Etherscan: http://etherscan.io/address/0xf45717552f12ef7cb65e95476f217ea008167ae3 ). Probably in part of the large jackpot of about 1100 ETH.

The timer on the jackpot ran out and the lucky winner can now claim it. However, as part of paying out the jackpot, the contract clears internal storage with these instructions:

creditorAddresses = new address[](0);
creditorAmounts = new uint[](0);
This compiles to code which iterates over the storage locations and deletes them one by one. The list of creditors is so long, that this would require a gas amount of 5057945, but the current maximum gas amount for a transaction is only 4712388.

So: PonziGovernmental is stuck for the moment and 1100 ETH are in limbo.

Can miners help by lowering requirements or something?

[Special note to law-enforcement agents:]

From http://sphincs.cr.yp.to (SPHINCS: practical stateless hash-based signatures):

Special note to law-enforcement agents: The word "state" is a technical term in cryptography. Typical hash-based signature schemes need to record information, called "state", after every signature. Google's Adam Langley refers to this as a "huge foot-cannon" from a security perspective. By saying "eliminate the state" we are advocating a security improvement, namely adopting signature schemes that do not need to record information after every signature. We are not talking about eliminating other types of states. We love most states, especially yours! Also, "hash" is another technical term and has nothing to do with cannabis.

 

Check https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0okwaw and https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/492fse/serenity_poc2_ethereum_blog/d0oik7j, please. Are those centralization concerns legit? I suspect that any real criticism will be shadowbanned on sites controlled by Ethereum marketing team, so I'm asking here.

[Our resultsshow that approximation has the potential to increase miningprofits by 30%.]

http://rakeshk.crhc.illinois.edu/dac_16_cam.pdf claims an interesting thing:

Bitcoin is the most popular cryptocurrency today. A bedrock
of the Bitcoin framework is mining, a computation intensive
process that is used to verify Bitcoin transactions for profit.
We observe that mining is inherently error tolerant due to its
embarrassingly parallel and probabilistic nature. We exploit
this inherent tolerance to inaccuracy by proposing approximate
mining circuits that trade off reliability with area and
delay. These circuits can then be operated at Better Than
Worst-Case (BTWC) to enable further gains. Our results
show that approximation has the potential to increase mining
profits by 30%.

Any thoughts on how it might change Bitcoin if at all?

Maybe some of you heard about Iota and its resistance to quantum computers. Here are some recent news - https://www.deepdotweb.com/2016/02/08/nsa-switches-to-quantum-resistant-cryptography/. A funny part:

According the NSA, the following isn’t safe to use:
...
SHA-256

Can we trust that article on www.deepdotweb.com?

http://market24hclock.com

Read http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1231/RAND_RR1231.pdf and find 10 similarities with Hearn's actions and methods of cryptocoin discreditation.

Our team is designing a general-purpose processor that will have protected memory. Code residing in that memory can only be rewritten or executed, not read. We are looking for review of the following scheme:

The processor has a private key of the processor manufacturer stored in ROM.
Alice can store (an)other private key(s) in the processor, she needs physical access to the hardware for that.
Bob can purchase the processor from Alice and add his own key(s) too.
Charlie can encrypt code with public keys of Bob, Alice and the manufacturer and ask Bob to execute the code.
None of the parties except Charlie can decrypt the code.
The result of execution can be encrypted with symmetric encryption algorithm of Charlie's choice, the code itself can contain the algorithm and the key, so only Charlie will be able to decrypt the result.

Do you see security holes in this scheme assuming that at least one of the manufacturer, Alice and Bob won't corrupt?

As it's known, any hash function output bit can be represented as a polynomial of input bits. If the degree of this polynomial is low then mining ASICs can get a speedup by analyzing first N bits of the hash before doing actual hashing. A double hashing increases degree of the polynomial reducing speedup or even making it negative. Does anyone know if doubling is enough to make it unprofitable to do N-bit analysis (for any N) in mining hardware, or maybe triple hashing should be done?

[Iota]

https://www.iota.org
https://twitter.com/iotatoken

Iota

Iota is a brand new and novel micro-transaction cryptotoken optimized for the Internet-of-Things (IoT). Unlike the complex and heavy blockchains of Bitcoin and the like, which were designed with other uses in mind, Iota is created to be as lightweight as possible, hence the name "Iota" with emphasis on the ‘IoT’ part.

The number of connected devices that will permeate our modern landscape in the coming decade is estimated to be 50 billion(!) Each of these are designed to make the world a better and more seamless place for us. Tied to this fantastic promise are of course a ton of obstacles to be overcome, of which one major one is micro-transactions. These connected IoT devices must be able to automatically pay miniscule amounts to one another in a frictionless manner without having to compromise on product design by introducing additional hardware. This is why Iota was conceived.

While it was developed as a solution to scalability issues faced in IoT, the underlying protocol is agnostic and can be applied in any other use-cases that utilize micro-transactions.

In order to achieve these audacious goals Iota’s design diverged radically from blockchain cryptocurrencies. It still retains the core principle ideas of the distributed consensus blockchain, but in order to be able to scale to the size of the coming Internet-of-Things ecosystem with tens of billions of devices that are connected to each other, it needed to be very lightweight and efficient. This problem is solved by Iota’s core innovation: the tangle.

Tangle

A Tangle is a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG).



Tangle vs Blockchain

Iota’s blockchain solves the following problems of its blockchain cousin:

Centralization of control
As history shows, small miners form big groups to reduce variation of the reward. This leads to concentration of power (computational and political) in hands of few pool operators and gives them ability to apply wide spectrum of policies (filtering, postponing) on certain transactions. Although there are no known cases where pool operators abused their power, there have been several instances where the opportunity were present. This possibility in a monetary system powering a multibillion (in USD) industry is completely unacceptable.

“Obsolete” cryptography
Although large scale quantum computers do not exist yet, future oriented companies have already begun initiating the steps towards quantum-resistant cryptography. From a security point of view it makes perfect sense to assume that hardware capable of cracking classical cryptoalgorithms may appear in the very near future, so preparation is the only defense.

Inability to conduct micropayments
Transaction fees are used to cover miner expenses and mitigate spam-attacks. They also set a threshold on the minimum amount of a payment below which money transfers become inexpedient.

Partition intolerance
Blockchain-based currencies are unable to survive long-sustained partitioning of the network because this may lead to reversal of a large number of transactions. It is also impossible to initiate an intentional partitioning in cases when it is required.

Discrimination of participants
Existing cryptocurrencies are heterogeneous systems with clear separation of roles (transaction issuers, transaction approvers). Such systems create unavoidable discrimination of some of their elements which in turn creates conflicts and makes all elements spend resources on conflict resolution.

Scalability limits
Some cryptocurrencies have hard limits on the maximum transaction rate and this limits cannot be removed in a decentralized manner. A magic number of a limit set before the launch cannot satisfy requirements of a system unless it is set by a person with extraordinary prediction skill. A too low value may hinder growth of the userbase, a too high value may open system to different kinds of attacks.

High requirements for hardware
Bitcoin-derived cryptocurrencies use its original script-based approach which allows implementation of a wide range of use-cases. Other currencies use an approach similar to one used by banks but add extra features. They both substantially raise requirements for hardware because of complex transaction processing logic.

Unlimited data growth
Storing of all state transitions leads to fast growth of data while does not increase stored balance information significantly. This inefficiency cannot be removed even with data pruning technique and high popularity of the currency may lead to its collapse.


Tangle-blockchain interoperability

Iota does not seek to replace the blockchain entirely, it also acts as a supplementation to the current blockchain ecosystem by acting as a oracle for smart contract platforms like Ethereum and Rootstock. Additionally it increases security of blockchains by enabling the ability to include checkpoints for transactions.



special thanks to: Jimmy2011 and Kushti for reviews.

Also worth noting: Sergio_Demian_Lerner's thread about DAG in crypto here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.0



http://cointelegraph.com/news/115508/iota-a-blockchain-less-gasp-token-for-the-internet-of-things



If you did not claim your iotas in the automatic claiming period contact @David over at https://slack.iotatoken.com where you will be given further instructions to manually claim your tokens. Tokens not claimed by 11th of July 2017 will be forfeited and considered donations.



A little FAQ section
On necessity to have quantum-resistant algorithms: Look here - http://9to5google.com/2015/11/11/google-planning-a-watershed-quantum-computing-announcement-december-8/
On resource requirements: A cheap microcontroller and 16 KiB RAM should be enough for payments once payment channels with peers are established
On IoT market capitalization: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/in_the_news/by_2025_internet_of_things_applications_could_have_11_trillion_impact
On supported platforms: Most of popular OSes with help of http://www.jwrapper.com
On hardware support: Included


WARNING: https://twitter.com/comefrombeyond is an imposter who will likely try to conduct a scam.

[A smallnumber of fixed or standardized groups are used by millionsof servers; performing precomputation for a single 1024-bitgroup would allow passive eavesdropping on 18% of popularHTTPS sites, and a second group would allow decryptionof traffic to 66% of IPsec VPNs and 26% of SSH servers. Aclose reading of published NSA leaks shows that the agency’sattacks on VPNs are consistent with having achieved sucha break.]

Imperfect Forward Secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice - the best paper of ACM CCS 2015 is pretty interesting:

We investigate the security of Diffie-Hellman key exchange as
used in popular Internet protocols and find it to be less secure
than widely believed. First, we present Logjam, a novel flaw
in TLS that lets a man-in-the-middle downgrade connections
to “export-grade” Diffie-Hellman. To carry out this attack,
we implement the number field sieve discrete log algorithm.
After a week-long precomputation for a specified 512-bit
group, we can compute arbitrary discrete logs in that group
in about a minute. We find that 82% of vulnerable servers use
a single 512-bit group, allowing us to compromise connections
to 7% of Alexa Top Million HTTPS sites. In response, major
browsers are being changed to reject short groups.

We go on to consider Diffie-Hellman with 768- and 1024-bit
groups. We estimate that even in the 1024-bit case, the computations
are plausible given nation-state resources. A small
number of fixed or standardized groups are used by millions
of servers; performing precomputation for a single 1024-bit
group would allow passive eavesdropping on 18% of popular
HTTPS sites, and a second group would allow decryption
of traffic to 66% of IPsec VPNs and 26% of SSH servers. A
close reading of published NSA leaks shows that the agency’s
attacks on VPNs are consistent with having achieved such
a break. We conclude that moving to stronger key exchange
methods should be a priority for the Internet community.

This raises a question: Are you sure that Bitcoin-related websites visited by you are not monitored by NSA? Or maybe you don't care?

If the fork happens there will be people using old Bitcoin for the same reason why they use SHA256 altcoins (even with the risk of being raped by Bitcoin ASIC owners). The poll is created to gauge percentage of such people. It may give some hints on how lower XT price will be (because of inflated supply).

[Move your bitcoins to a wallet controlled only by YOU.]

A lot of people own bitcoins but only few understand how Bitcoin XT drama will unfold and what should be done to survive the aftermath. Both the sides (Mike+Gavin tandem VS other coredevs) are bad guys. They have economic (and psychological) incentive to push their plan through and they do NOT care about us. We, ordinary bitcoiners, should help each other so below you will find a guide how to save your money.


1. Move your bitcoins to a wallet controlled only by YOU. If it's a webwallet like BlockChain.Info it's still strongly recommended to download original Satoshi's wallet software and start downloading 40 GiB of the blockchain. If you leave your coins somewhere on the Internet you may be unable to double them once the fork happens.

2. Wait for the fork. Try to enjoy this time, the price will likely go down and down and down, but as long as it's above 50% of the price you paid you are safe. While you have nothing to do install software which works with Bitcoin XT.

3. After the fork find someone who owns coins not existing on the both blockchains and ask them to send few satoshis to your account, do it for the both blockchains. Those lucky owners of coins that don't exist on the other blockchain will likely be miners or guys who managed to get their transaction not included into the other chain. I expect that the market will react to the fork by selling such special coins slightly more expensive than their face value.

4. Find exchanges that work with different blockchains and send your coins TWICE by combining your original coins with coins obtained on the previous step. This will prevent a transaction on one blockchain from inclusion into the other blockchain.

5. Sell your bitcoins on the both exchanges for fiat and watch market reaction. Once the market decides which blockchain wins send fiat money to the corresponding exchange and buy bitcoins. If you are a skilled trader you may try to exchange BTC for LTC or another altcoin instead of fiat. Do it at your own risk, I don't dare to predict how altcoin markets will react to the fork.


PS: Once again, it is very important: your bitcoins must be controlled only by you when the fork happens, otherwise the wallet hoster will do the explained trick by himself and will feed you with a legit looking excuse.


Edit: Maybe it's not the best strategy, see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157679.msg12197629#msg12197629...

[Stellar]

https://forum.stanford.edu/events/2015davidmarzieresinfo.php

This talk presents the Stellar consensus protocol, the first provably safe federated Byzantine agreement protocol. Unlike prior Byzantine agreement protocols, which presuppose unanimous agreement on system membership, a federated protocol allows the set of participating organizations to grow organically over time. Using consensus, organizations cement one another's commitments into a public history that bad actors cannot rewrite or fork. Applications of the technology include timestamping documents, preventing certificate authorities from issuing fraudulent duplicate certificates, and efficiently securing transaction settlement in digital markets.
 
The Stellar protocol gives individual participants control over whom to trust and how much to trust them. It follows the paradigm established by Internet routing, in which an organization's importance is determined not by any central authority but by individual, pairwise peering arrangements. Compared to other decentralized consensus mechanisms, such as the proof-of-work and proof-of-stake schemes popular in digital currencies, federated consensus decouples trust from resource ownership and requires no assumptions about the rational behavior of attackers. The protocol presented forms the backbone of the next-generation Stellar financial network, a decentralized digital marketplace in which people can efficiently exchange currencies and send money.

Any comments?