Worldcoin? Isn't that the one created by Sam Altman (the founder of OpenAI)? I wouldn't call it a "privacy coin", especially when it used to collect biometric data from users.
He didn't claim it as a privacy coin, but as a fairly distributed coin. I strongly disagree however, since worldcoin founders can allocate arbitrary amounts to themselves, with or without making up fake identities. Not even the original Worldcoin project (with ticker WDC) has privacy features. Only GRIN and Monero have.
The chart at [1] compares privacy features (and scalability) of various coins. Zcash offers the most, but (like Monero) at significant cost in scalability. [1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart/8114 |
|
|
|
https://bitvmx.org/> Secure, Extensible, Open-Source BitVMX is a new framework to optimistically execute arbitrary programs in Bitcoin based on the N-party disputable computation paradigm pioneered by BitVM. BitVMX framework provides the foundations to run any CPU on Bitcoin, with a focus to run a fully-compliant RISC-V processor programmable using a standard compilation toolchain. > Our vision is to create a secure, extensible, open-source, peer-reviewed and sidechain-agnostic framework that can be used to develop blockchain bridges, aggregator oracles, and SNARK/STARK verifiers. As soon as BitVMX is able to run a SNARK verifier, a myriad of new use cases can be brought to Bitcoin, from ZK-rollups to crazy use cases such as Zero Knowledge Contingent Payments (i.e. autonomous bug bounties paid for disclosure of vulnerabilities). > How Does BitVMX Work ...
|
|
|
|
if you look at forum.grim.mw there's less trolling
As you would expect on a moderated Grin forum. I just created a moderated Grin topic at [1] where one can also enjoy troll free Grin discussion... [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5493511.0 |
|
|
|
SBB generates secure and anonymous receiving wallets, ensuring confidentiality in transactions.
The established notion of confidential transactions [1] requires hiding the amounts involved. Since SBB doesn't hide amounts, it has no confidentiality. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Confidential_transactions |
|
|
|
|
One thing that sets Grin apart from other cryptocurrencies is its design for decentralization.
One (anonymous) author came up with the unique Mimblewimble design.
Another (anonymous) author started the original implementation in Rust.
Another author came up with the unique graph theoretic, memory hard yet trivially verifiable, Proof of Work.
Other anonymous and less anonymous authors helped the implementation.
All 4 hard-forks were pre-planned before launch and executed at *exact* multiples of a half-year height.
None of its creators got any portion of the supply, and (unlike all other coins) early miners were disadvantaged by huge difficulty.
Its soft total supply gets evenly distributed to miners in the first 100 years, not giving a huge advantage to early miners like *every* single other coin.
No one can make any consensus changes unless there's near-universal consensus.
|
|
|
|
Nobody trusts a coin with failed trasnactions and full of wallet bugs since genesis block. All wallet developers left GRIN.
Nobody trusts a poster contradicting himself. Over the years that have passed Grin has made many innovations and improved itself.
now has multiple wallets working properly.
|
|
|
|
No coins can achieve it because all of them has a centralized control over the chain through the team that hold most of the coin supply which affects the voting for the development.
With 100% of coins being mined, and difficulty starting sky high, "the team" can do no better than mine like others, or buy on the open market like others. PoW coins have no voting for development anyway. Only non-controversial consensus changes should be made, just as with bitcoin. Is there even a cryptocurrency that is simpler than Bitcoin? I don't think it gets any simpler than this.
It can get simpler: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5309951.0The most we can have is equal opportunity
Exactly; and a fixed reward, like one coin per second forever, is the most equal of opportunities, even across generations. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is certainly unique in being the first cryptocurrency.
But other coins can have unique qualities that Bitcoin can never adopt.
One such quality is simplicity. Although Bitcoin may be far less complex than some other chain like Ethereum, it still contains a nontrivial amount of complexity in itself, as witnessed by the over 10,000 lines of code in libbitcoin-consensus.
Learning all the Bitcoin consensus rules in detail is quite a challenge, one that not many people have undertaken.
A lot of complexity resides in its Bitcoin Script language, even though none of that is needed to support
the vast majority of transactions. Even things like multisig, atomic swaps, discreet log contracts, and bidirectional payment channels can be implemented with just Schnorr signatures and timelocks.
Consensus rules can only ever grow in complexity, since they must be used to verify the full transaction history.
Another such quality is fair distribution. While Bitcoin had a relatively fair one, with no premine, it still did not decentralize wealth as much as one might like. Or rather, as future generations might like, since each successive generation only gets to mine 1/32 time as much as the previous one.
Of course, the huge advantage given to early miners/adopters, and lack of dilution, is great for speculation. But perhaps less so for actual use as currency.
Only one cryptocurrency combines a unique focus on simplicity with a uniquely fair coin distribution of 1 coin per second forever.
It also happens to feature a unique spam resistance; only a few bytes of arbitrary data can be inscribed into the chain with each transaction.
Of course, its uniquely high dilution (in initial decades) also make it uniquely uninteresting for the readers in this forum, that are almost exclusively interested only in speculation.
|
|
|
|
How is deterministically assigning prime numbers to four buckets going to solve the task?
Not 4 buckets, but 48 buckets, since primes > 7 cannot be divisible by 2,3,5,7, leaving only 1 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71 73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113 121 127 131 137 139 143 149 151 157 163 167 169 173 179 181 187 191 193 197 199 209 as possible remainders modulo 2*3*5*7 = 210. |
|
|
|
After igno, no serious development.Period.
Only a troll would state such utter falsehood with such certainty... There have been many major changes since Igno left in Aug 2019, including two new PoW, a new DAA, a new fee model, hardware wallet support, a new syncing mechanism, and a mw mixnet prototype. |
|
|
|
Use of the apparent difficult has been proposed many times before-- it and other schemes that result in a unique value for each block which is calcuable by the block finder immediately lead to a withholding attack
The withholding attack also reduces bitcoin's stochastic finality: a tx 6 blocks deep still has about a 1% chance of being reorged. One has to wait much longer before a tx can be considered finalized. The scheme has other downsides as well: Anytime two blocks are found in short succession, with the later one having a lower hash, it causes the earlier to be reorged, when that earlier one has already been relayed across most of the network, wasting bandwidth and causing unnecessarily many small reorgs. |
|
|
|
I started mining grin on a gpu about a year ago, and now I have five g1 minis running. The thing I love most about grin is the supply curve and the distribution in general. There is no more fair launch in cryptocurrency, not even bitcoin, and it's not even close. Besides that it is more lightweight than bitcoin and more private.
Indeed; Grin ensured the fairest launch ever by 1) having a widely announced launch 2) having optimized GPU miners available for its cuckaroo29 PoW long in advance 3) inscribing the genesis block with a recent Bitcoin block hash (Bitcoin block 558,653) 4) having an astronomically high starting difficulty (22x larger for block 1 than for block 61) 5) having the same block subsidy at launch as at any later time. The first mined block took well over an hour, and the average block time in the first day well over its 1 minute target, with the mining rewards on that first day amounting to less than 0.0024% of the soft total supply. Clearly nobody had any advantage at launch. Neither the creators, nor the miners. |
|
|
|
|
Kaspa is more like Pow v0.1 because they don' t even support full verification.
You cannot verify the whole tx history from genesis like you can with Bitcoin, because the early tx history is not preserved.
|
|
|
|
It has a lot of coins in circulation and they keep increasing, which makes some people worry about its value and scarcity.
Grin has 903 times fewer coins in circulation that Doge while increasing 167 times slower, which makes Grin orders of magnitude scarcer than Doge. It has some security and scalability issues that need to be fixed.
Grin is the most scalable coin in existence, leaving a footprint of only about 100 bytes for a historical transaction, while Bitcoin leaves about 400 bytes and Monero/Zcash leave over 2000 bytes. It has a more stable and predictable supply and inflation rate, which makes it more attractive as a store of value.
This is laughable in the extreme. Grin is one coin per second forever, the most stable and predictable supply rate possible. Monero's supply curve is so complicated that you need to compute it block by block to figure out the supply at some height. This is further complicated by a change in block interval at some time in history. Only since its recent tail emission did it get less complicated and almost as simple as Grin. It has more features and innovations that enhance its privacy and security, such as Ring Signatures, Stealth Addresses, Bulletproofs,
Of these, Grin only lacks Ring Signatures, which does make Monero much harder to trace, but also makes its chain much more bloated (20x larger footprint per historical tx). and RandomX.
A super complicated PoW that's expensive to verify, compared to Grin's simple Cuckatoo32+ that can be trivially verified. Yet it requires >= 1GB to mine. Both GRIN and Monero have their pros and cons, and they are not directly comparable. It depends on your personal preference and risk appetite which one you want to invest in.
Neither is meant for investing in. Some articles with accurate comparisons between Grin and Monero: https://phyro.github.io/grinvestigation/why_grin.htmlhttps://www.reddit.com/r/grincoin/comments/mu88ow/comment/gv6dddu/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 |
|
|
|
At the beginning of my crypto journey, I remember Grin coin gaining attention, being considered the new Bitcoin with unknown developers, and so on. However, currently, there is no news about the Mimblewimble technology or the project overall.
You must not have been reading the Grin Forum at https://forum.grin.mw/ |
|
|
|
I hope GRIN stays a PoW coin forever.
Not only will Grin stay PoW forever (the memory hard and instantly verifiable cuckatoo32+), but it will also stay, since the time of launch, the ultimately fair 1 Grin per second forever |
|
|
|
- Many other cryptocurrencies that offer similar features to Grin. This may make it difficult to distinguish Grin from these coins.
Grin easily stands out from the tens of thousands of other blockchains in being 1) the ONLY one with a fair emission: every generation gets the same share of supply All else being equal, later generations would prefer to adopt a blockchain that hasn't already handed out nearly all supply to earlier generations. 2) the ONLY one focussing on simplicity and elegance in design. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5309951.msg60800901 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
