Bitcoin Hashrate Chart - BitInfoCharts

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
For someone first starting out as a cryptocurrency investor, finding a trustworthy manual for screening a cryptocurrency’s merits is nonexistent as we are still in the early, Wild West days of the cryptocurrency market. One would need to become deeply familiar with the inner workings of blockchain to be able to perform the bare minimum due diligence.
One might believe, over time, that finding the perfect cryptocurrency may be nothing short of futile. If a cryptocurrency purports infinite scalability, then it is probably either lightweight with limited features or it is highly centralized among a limited number of nodes that perform consensus services especially Proof of Stake or Delegated Proof of Stake. Similarly, a cryptocurrency that purports comprehensive privacy may have technical obstacles to overcome if it aims to expand its applications such as in smart contracts. The bottom line is that it is extremely difficult for a cryptocurrency to have all important features jam-packed into itself.
The cryptocurrency space is stuck in the era of the “dial-up internet” in a manner of speaking. Currently blockchain can’t scale – not without certain tradeoffs – and it hasn’t fully resolved certain intractable issues such as user-unfriendly long addresses and how the blockchain size is forever increasing to name two.
In other words, we haven’t found the ultimate cryptocurrency. That is, we haven’t found the mystical unicorn cryptocurrency that ushers the era of decentralization while eschewing all the limitations of traditional blockchain systems.
“But wait – what about Ethereum once it implements sharding?”
“Wouldn’t IOTA be able to scale infinitely with smart contracts through its Qubic offering?”
“Isn’t Dash capable of having privacy, smart contracts, and instantaneous transactions?”
Those thoughts and comments may come from cryptocurrency investors who have done their research. It is natural for the informed investors to invest in projects that are believed to bring cutting edge technological transformation to blockchain. Sooner or later, the sinking realization will hit that any variation of the current blockchain technology will always likely have certain limitations.
Let us pretend that there indeed exists a unicorn cryptocurrency somewhere that may or may not be here yet. What would it look like, exactly? Let us set the 5 criteria of the unicorn cryptocurrency:
Unicorn Criteria
(1) Perfectly solves the blockchain trilemma:
o Infinite scalability
o Full security
o Full decentralization
(2) Zero or minimal transaction fee
(3) Full privacy
(4) Full smart contract capabilities
(5) Fair distribution and fair governance
For each of the above 5 criteria, there would not be any middle ground. For example, a cryptocurrency with just an in-protocol mixer would not be considered as having full privacy. As another example, an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) may possibly violate criterion (5) since with an ICO the distribution and governance are often heavily favored towards an oligarchy – this in turn would defy the spirit of decentralization that Bitcoin was found on.
There is no cryptocurrency currently that fits the above profile of the unicorn cryptocurrency. Let us examine an arbitrary list of highly hyped cryptocurrencies that meet the above list at least partially. The following list is by no means comprehensive but may be a sufficient sampling of various blockchain implementations:
Bitcoin (BTC)
Bitcoin is the very first and the best known cryptocurrency that started it all. While Bitcoin is generally considered extremely secure, it suffers from mining centralization to a degree. Bitcoin is not anonymous, lacks smart contracts, and most worrisomely, can only do about 7 transactions per seconds (TPS). Bitcoin is not the unicorn notwithstanding all the Bitcoin maximalists.
Ethereum (ETH)
Ethereum is widely considered the gold standard of smart contracts aside from its scalability problem. Sharding as part of Casper’s release is generally considered to be the solution to Ethereum’s scalability problem.
The goal of sharding is to split up validating responsibilities among various groups or shards. Ethereum’s sharding comes down to duplicating the existing blockchain architecture and sharing a token. This does not solve the core issue and simply kicks the can further down the road. After all, full nodes still need to exist one way or another.
Ethereum’s blockchain size problem is also an issue as will be explained more later in this article.
As a result, Ethereum is not the unicorn due to its incomplete approach to scalability and, to a degree, security.
Dash
Dash’s masternodes are widely considered to be centralized due to their high funding requirements, and there are accounts of a pre-mine in the beginning. Dash is not the unicorn due to its questionable decentralization.
Nano
Nano boasts rightfully for its instant, free transactions. But it lacks smart contracts and privacy, and it may be exposed to well orchestrated DDOS attacks. Therefore, it goes without saying that Nano is not the unicorn.
EOS
While EOS claims to execute millions of transactions per seconds, a quick glance reveals centralized parameters with 21 nodes and a questionable governance system. Therefore, EOS fails to achieve the unicorn status.
Monero (XMR)
One of the best known and respected privacy coins, Monero lacks smart contracts and may fall short of infinite scalability due to CryptoNote’s design. The unicorn rank is out of Monero’s reach.
IOTA
IOTA’s scalability is based on the number of transactions the network processes, and so its supposedly infinite scalability would fluctuate and is subject to the whims of the underlying transactions. While IOTA’s scalability approach is innovative and may work in the long term, it should be reminded that the unicorn cryptocurrency has no middle ground. The unicorn cryptocurrency would be expected to scale infinitely on a consistent basis from the beginning.
In addition, IOTA’s Masked Authenticated Messaging (MAM) feature does not bring privacy to the masses in a highly convenient manner. Consequently, the unicorn is not found with IOTA.

PascalCoin as a Candidate for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
Please allow me to present a candidate for the cryptocurrency unicorn: PascalCoin.
According to the website, PascalCoin claims the following:
“PascalCoin is an instant, zero-fee, infinitely scalable, and decentralized cryptocurrency with advanced privacy and smart contract capabilities. Enabled by the SafeBox technology to become the world’s first blockchain independent of historical operations, PascalCoin possesses unlimited potential.”
The above summary is a mouthful to be sure, but let’s take a deep dive on how PascalCoin innovates with the SafeBox and more. Before we do this, I encourage you to first become acquainted with PascalCoin by watching the following video introduction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=F25UU-0W9Dk
The rest of this section will be split into 10 parts in order to illustrate most of the notable features of PascalCoin. Naturally, let’s start off with the SafeBox.
Part #1: The SafeBox
Unlike traditional UTXO-based cryptocurrencies in which the blockchain records the specifics of each transaction (address, sender address, amount of funds transferred, etc.), the blockchain in PascalCoin is only used to mutate the SafeBox. The SafeBox is a separate but equivalent cryptographic data structure that snapshots account balances. PascalCoin’s blockchain is comparable to a machine that feeds the most important data – namely, the state of an account – into the SafeBox. Any node can still independently compute and verify the cumulative Proof-of-Work required to construct the SafeBox.
The PascalCoin whitepaper elegantly highlights the unique historical independence that the SafeBox possesses:
“While there are approaches that cryptocurrencies could use such as pruning, warp-sync, "finality checkpoints", UTXO-snapshotting, etc, there is a fundamental difference with PascalCoin. Their new nodes can only prove they are on most-work-chain using the infinite history whereas in PascalCoin, new nodes can prove they are on the most-work chain without the infinite history.”
Some cryptocurrency old-timers might instinctively balk at the idea of full nodes eschewing the entire history for security, but such a reaction would showcase a lack of understanding on what the SafeBox really does.
A concrete example would go a long way to best illustrate what the SafeBox does. Let’s say I input the following operations in my calculator:
5 * 5 – 10 / 2 + 5
It does not take a genius to calculate the answer, 25. Now, the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* would be forever imbued on a traditional blockchain’s history. But the SafeBox begs to differ. It says that the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* should instead be simply “25” so as preserve simplicity, time, and space. In other words, the SafeBox simply preserves the account balance.
But some might still be unsatisfied and claim that if one cannot trace the series of operations (transactions) that lead to the final number (balance) of 25, the blockchain is inherently insecure.
Here are four important security aspects of the SafeBox that some people fail to realize:
(1) SafeBox Follows the Longest Chain of Proof-of-Work
The SafeBox mutates itself per 100 blocks. Each new SafeBox mutation must reference both to the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks in order to be valid, and the resultant hash of the new mutated SafeBox must then be referenced by each of the new subsequent blocks, and the process repeats itself forever.
The fact that each new SafeBox mutation must reference to the previous SafeBox mutation is comparable to relying on the entire history. This is because the previous SafeBox mutation encapsulates the result of cumulative entire history except for the 100 blocks which is why each new SafeBox mutation requires both the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks.
So in a sense, there is a single interconnected chain of inflows and outflows, supported by Byzantine Proof-of-Work consensus, instead of the entire history of transactions.
More concretely, the SafeBox follows the path of the longest chain of Proof-of-Work simply by design, and is thus cryptographically equivalent to the entire history even without tracing specific operations in the past. If the chain is rolled back with a 51% attack, only the attacker’s own account(s) in the SafeBox can be manipulated as is explained in the next part.
(2) A 51% Attack on PascalCoin Functions the Same as Others
A 51% attack on PascalCoin would work in a similar way as with other Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. An attacker cannot modify a transaction in the past without affecting the current SafeBox hash which is accepted by all honest nodes.
Someone might claim that if you roll back all the current blocks plus the 100 blocks prior to the SafeBox’s mutation, one could create a forged SafeBox with different balances for all accounts. This would be incorrect as one would be able to manipulate only his or her own account(s) in the SafeBox with a 51% attack – just as is the case with other UTXO cryptocurrencies. The SafeBox stores the balances of all accounts which are in turn irreversibly linked only to their respective owners’ private keys.
(3) One Could Preserve the Entire History of the PascalCoin Blockchain
No blockchain data in PascalCoin is ever deleted even in the presence of the SafeBox. Since the SafeBox is cryptographically equivalent to a full node with the entire history as explained above, PascalCoin full nodes are not expected to contain infinite history. But for whatever reason(s) one may have, one could still keep all the PascalCoin blockchain history as well along with the SafeBox as an option even though it would be redundant.
Without storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain, you can still trace the specific operations of the 100 blocks prior to when the SafeBox absorbs and reflects the net result (a single balance for each account) from those 100 blocks. But if you’re interested in tracing operations over a longer period in the past – as redundant as that may be – you’d have the option to do so by storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain.
(4) The SafeBox is Equivalent to the Entire Blockchain History
Some skeptics may ask this question: “What if the SafeBox is forever lost? How would you be able to verify your accounts?” Asking this question is tantamount to asking to what would happen to Bitcoin if all of its entire history was erased. The result would be chaos, of course, but the SafeBox is still in line with the general security model of a traditional blockchain with respect to black swans.
Now that we know the security of the SafeBox is not compromised, what are the implications of this new blockchain paradigm? A colorful illustration as follows still wouldn’t do justice to the subtle revolution that the SafeBox ushers. The automobiles we see on the street are the cookie-and-butter representation of traditional blockchain systems. The SafeBox, on the other hand, supercharges those traditional cars to become the Transformers from Michael Bay’s films.
The SafeBox is an entirely different blockchain architecture that is impressive in its simplicity and ingenuity. The SafeBox’s design is only the opening act for PascalCoin’s vast nuclear arsenal. If the above was all that PascalCoin offers, it still wouldn’t come close to achieving the unicorn status but luckily, we have just scratched the surface. Please keep on reading on if you want to learn how PascalCoin is going to shatter the cryptocurrency industry into pieces. Buckle down as this is going to be a long read as we explore further about the SafeBox’s implications.
Part #2: 0-Confirmation Transactions
To begin, 0-confirmation transactions are secure in PascalCoin thanks to the SafeBox.
The following paraphrases an explanation of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmations from the whitepaper:
“Since PascalCoin is not a UTXO-based currency but rather a State-based currency thanks to the SafeBox, the security guarantee of 0-confirmation transactions are much stronger than in UTXO-based currencies. For example, in Bitcoin if a merchant accepts a 0-confirmation transaction for a coffee, the buyer can simply roll that transaction back after receiving the coffee but before the transaction is confirmed in a block. The way the buyer does this is by re-spending those UTXOs to himself in a new transaction (with a higher fee) thus invalidating them for the merchant. In PascalCoin, this is virtually impossible since the buyer's transaction to the merchant is simply a delta-operation to debit/credit a quantity from/to accounts respectively. The buyer is unable to erase or pre-empt this two-sided, debit/credit-based transaction from the network’s pending pool until it either enters a block for confirmation or is discarded with respect to both sender and receiver ends. If the buyer tries to double-spend the coffee funds after receiving the coffee but before they clear, the double-spend transaction will not propagate the network since nodes cannot propagate a double-spending transaction thanks to the debit/credit nature of the transaction. A UTXO-based transaction is initially one-sided before confirmation and therefore is more exposed to one-sided malicious schemes of double spending.”
Phew, that explanation was technical but it had to be done. In summary, PascalCoin possesses the only secure 0-confirmation transactions in the cryptocurrency industry, and it goes without saying that this means PascalCoin is extremely fast. In fact, PascalCoin is capable of 72,000 TPS even prior to any additional extensive optimizations down the road. In other words, PascalCoin is as instant as it gets and gives Nano a run for its money.
Part #3: Zero Fee
Let’s circle back to our discussion of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation capability. Here’s a little fun magical twist to PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation magic: 0-confirmation transactions are zero-fee. As in you don’t pay a single cent in fee for each 0-confirmation! There is just a tiny downside: if you create a second transaction in a 5-minute block window then you’d need to pay a minimal fee. Imagine using Nano but with a significantly stronger anti-DDOS protection for spam! But there shouldn’t be any complaint as this fee would amount to 0.0001 Pascal or $0.00002 based on the current price of a Pascal at the time of this writing.
So, how come the fee for blazingly fast transactions is nonexistent? This is where the magic of the SafeBox arises in three ways:
(1) PascalCoin possesses the secure 0-confirmation feature as discussed above that enables this speed.
(2) There is no fee bidding competition of transaction priority typical in UTXO cryptocurrencies since, once again, PascalCoin operates on secure 0-confirmations.
(3) There is no fee incentive needed to run full nodes on behalf of the network’s security beyond the consensus rewards.
Part #4: Blockchain Size
Let’s expand more on the third point above, using Ethereum as an example. Since Ethereum’s launch in 2015, its full blockchain size is currently around 2 TB, give or take, but let’s just say its blockchain size is 100 GB for now to avoid offending the Ethereum elitists who insist there are different types of full nodes that are lighter. Whoever runs Ethereum’s full nodes would expect storage fees on top of the typical consensus fees as it takes significant resources to shoulder Ethereum’s full blockchain size and in turn secure the network. What if I told you that PascalCoin’s full blockchain size will never exceed few GBs after thousands of years? That is just what the SafeBox enables PascalCoin to do so. It is estimated that by 2072, PascalCoin’s full nodes will only be 6 GB which is low enough not to warrant any fee incentives for hosting full nodes. Remember, the SafeBox is an ultra-light cryptographic data structure that is cryptographically equivalent to a blockchain with the entire transaction history. In other words, the SafeBox is a compact spreadsheet of all account balances that functions as PascalCoin’s full node!
Not only does the SafeBox’s infinitesimal memory size helps to reduce transaction fees by phasing out any storage fees, but it also paves the way for true decentralization. It would be trivial for every PascalCoin user to opt a full node in the form of a wallet. This is extreme decentralization at its finest since the majority of users of other cryptocurrencies ditch full nodes due to their burdensome sizes. It is naïve to believe that storage costs would reduce enough to the point where hosting full nodes are trivial. Take a look at the following chart outlining the trend of storage cost.

* https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/
As we can see, storage costs continue to decrease but the descent is slowing down as is the norm with technological improvements. In the meantime, blockchain sizes of other cryptocurrencies are increasing linearly or, in the case of smart contract engines like Ethereum, parabolically. Imagine a cryptocurrency smart contract engine like Ethereum garnering worldwide adoption; how do you think Ethereum’s size would look like in the far future based on the following chart?


https://i.redd.it/k57nimdjmo621.png

Ethereum’s future blockchain size is not looking pretty in terms of sustainable security. Sharding is not a fix for this issue since there still needs to be full nodes but that is a different topic for another time.
It is astonishing that the cryptocurrency community as a whole has passively accepted this forever-expanding-blockchain-size problem as an inescapable fate.
PascalCoin is the only cryptocurrency that has fully escaped the death vortex of forever expanding blockchain size. Its blockchain size wouldn’t exceed 10 GB even after many hundreds of years of worldwide adoption. Ethereum’s blockchain size after hundreds of years of worldwide adoption would make fine comedy.
Part #5: Simple, Short, and Ordinal Addresses
Remember how the SafeBox works by snapshotting all account balances? As it turns out, the account address system is almost as cool as the SafeBox itself.
Imagine yourself in this situation: on a very hot and sunny day, you’re wandering down the street across from your house and ran into a lemonade stand – the old-fashioned kind without any QR code or credit card terminal. The kid across you is selling a lemonade cup for 1 Pascal with a poster outlining the payment address as 5471-55. You flip out your phone and click “Send” with 1 Pascal to the address 5471-55; viola, exactly one second later you’re drinking your lemonade without paying a cent for the transaction fee!
The last thing one wants to do is to figure out how to copy/paste to, say, the following address 1BoatSLRHtKNngkdXEeobR76b53LETtpyT on the spot wouldn’t it? Gone are the obnoxiously long addresses that plague all cryptocurrencies. The days of those unreadable addresses will be long gone – it has to be if blockchain is to innovate itself for the general public. EOS has a similar feature for readable addresses but in a very limited manner in comparison, and nicknames attached to addresses in GUIs don’t count since blockchain-wide compatibility wouldn’t hold.
Not only does PascalCoin has the neat feature of having addresses (called PASAs) that amount to up to 6 or 7 digits, but PascalCoin can also incorporate in-protocol address naming as opposed to GUI address nicknames. Suppose I want to order something from Amazon using Pascal; I simply search the word “Amazon” then the corresponding account number shows up. Pretty neat, right?
The astute reader may gather that PascalCoin’s address system makes it necessary to commoditize addresses, and he/she would be correct. Some view this as a weakness; part #10 later in this segment addresses this incorrect perception.
Part #6: Privacy
As if the above wasn’t enough, here’s another secret that PascalCoin has: it is a full-blown privacy coin. It uses two separate foundations to achieve comprehensive anonymity: in-protocol mixer for transfer amounts and zn-SNARKs for private balances. The former has been implemented and the latter is on the roadmap. Both the 0-confirmation transaction and the negligible transaction fee would make PascalCoin the most scalable privacy coin of any other cryptocurrencies pending the zk-SNARKs implementation.
Part #7: Smart Contracts
Next, PascalCoin will take smart contracts to the next level with a layer-2 overlay consensus system that pioneers sidechains and other smart contract implementations.
In formal terms, this layer-2 architecture will facilitate the transfer of data between PASAs which in turn allows clean enveloping of layer-2 protocols inside layer-1 much in the same way that HTTP lives inside TCP.
To summarize:
· The layer-2 consensus method is separate from the layer-1 Proof-of-Work. This layer-2 consensus method is independent and flexible. A sidechain – based on a single encompassing PASA – could apply Proof-of-Stake (POS), Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS), or Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as the consensus system of its choice.
· Such a layer-2 smart contract platform can be written in any languages.
· Layer-2 sidechains will also provide very strong anonymity since funds are all pooled and keys are not used to unlock them.
· This layer-2 architecture is ingenious in which the computation is separate from layer-2 consensus, in effect removing any bottleneck.
· Horizontal scaling exists in this paradigm as there is no interdependence between smart contracts and states are not managed by slow sidechains.
· Speed and scalability are fully independent of PascalCoin.
One would be able to run the entire global financial system on PascalCoin’s infinitely scalable smart contract platform and it would still scale infinitely. In fact, this layer-2 architecture would be exponentially faster than Ethereum even after its sharding is implemented.
All this is the main focus of PascalCoin’s upcoming version 5 in 2019. A whitepaper add-on for this major upgrade will be released in early 2019.
Part #8: RandomHash Algorithm
Surely there must be some tradeoffs to PascalCoin’s impressive capabilities, you might be asking yourself. One might bring up the fact that PascalCoin’s layer-1 is based on Proof-of-Work and is thus susceptible to mining centralization. This would be a fallacy as PascalCoin has pioneered the very first true ASIC, GPU, and dual-mining resistant algorithm known as RandomHash that obliterates anything that is not CPU based and gives all the power back to solo miners.
Here is the official description of RandomHash:
“RandomHash is a high-level cryptographic hash algorithm that combines other well-known hash primitives in a highly serial manner. The distinguishing feature is that calculations for a nonce are dependent on partial calculations of other nonces, selected at random. This allows a serial hasher (CPU) to re-use these partial calculations in subsequent mining saving 50% or more of the work-load. Parallel hashers (GPU) cannot benefit from this optimization since the optimal nonce-set cannot be pre-calculated as it is determined on-the-fly. As a result, parallel hashers (GPU) are required to perform the full workload for every nonce. Also, the algorithm results in 10x memory bloat for a parallel implementation. In addition to its serial nature, it is branch-heavy and recursive making in optimal for CPU-only mining.”
One might be understandably skeptical of any Proof-of-Work algorithm that solves ASIC and GPU centralization once for all because there have been countless proposals being thrown around for various algorithms since the dawn of Bitcoin. Is RandomHash truly the ASIC & GPU killer that it claims to be?
Herman Schoenfeld, the inventor behind RandomHash, described his algorithm in the following:
“RandomHash offers endless ASIC-design breaking surface due to its use of recursion, hash algo selection, memory hardness and random number generation.
For example, changing how round hash selection is made and/or random number generator algo and/or checksum algo and/or their sequencing will totally break an ASIC design. Conceptually if you can significantly change the structure of the output assembly whilst keeping the high-level algorithm as invariant as possible, the ASIC design will necessarily require proportional restructuring. This results from the fact that ASIC designs mirror the ASM of the algorithm rather than the algorithm itself.”
Polyminer1 (pseudonym), one of the members of the PascalCoin core team who developed RHMiner (official software for mining RandomHash), claimed as follows:
“The design of RandomHash is, to my experience, a genuine innovation. I’ve been 30 years in the field. I’ve rarely been surprised by anything. RandomHash was one of my rare surprises. It’s elegant, simple, and achieves resistance in all fronts.”
PascalCoin may have been the first party to achieve the race of what could possibly be described as the “God algorithm” for Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. Look no further than one of Monero’s core developers since 2015, Howard Chu. In September 2018, Howard declared that he has found a solution, called RandomJS, to permanently keep ASICs off the network without repetitive algorithm changes. This solution actually closely mirrors RandomHash’s algorithm. Discussing about his algorithm, Howard asserted that “RandomJS is coming at the problem from a direction that nobody else is.”
Link to Howard Chu’s article on RandomJS:
https://www.coindesk.com/one-musicians-creative-solution-to-drive-asics-off-monero
Yet when Herman was asked about Howard’s approach, he responded:
“Yes, looks like it may work although using Javascript was a bit much. They should’ve just used an assembly subset and generated random ASM programs. In a way, RandomHash does this with its repeated use of random mem-transforms during expansion phase.”
In the end, PascalCoin may have successfully implemented the most revolutionary Proof-of-Work algorithm, one that eclipses Howard’s burgeoning vision, to date that almost nobody knows about. To learn more about RandomHash, refer to the following resources:
RandomHash whitepaper:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/storage/whitepapers/RandomHash_Whitepaper.pdf
Technical proposal for RandomHash:
https://github.com/PascalCoin/PascalCoin/blob/mastePIP/PIP-0009.md
Someone might claim that PascalCoin still suffers from mining centralization after RandomHash, and this is somewhat misleading as will be explained in part #10.
Part #9: Fair Distribution and Governance
Not only does PascalCoin rest on superior technology, but it also has its roots in the correct philosophy of decentralized distribution and governance. There was no ICO or pre-mine, and the developer fund exists as a percentage of mining rewards as voted by the community. This developer fund is 100% governed by a decentralized autonomous organization – currently facilitated by the PascalCoin Foundation – that will eventually be transformed into an autonomous smart contract platform. Not only is the developer fund voted upon by the community, but PascalCoin’s development roadmap is also voted upon the community via the Protocol Improvement Proposals (PIPs).
This decentralized governance also serves an important benefit as a powerful deterrent to unseemly fork wars that befall many cryptocurrencies.
Part #10: Common Misconceptions of PascalCoin
“The branding is terrible”
PascalCoin is currently working very hard on its image and is preparing for several branding and marketing initiatives in the short term. For example, two of the core developers of the PascalCoin recently interviewed with the Fox Business Network. A YouTube replay of this interview will be heavily promoted.
Some people object to the name PascalCoin. First, it’s worth noting that PascalCoin is the name of the project while Pascal is the name of the underlying currency. Secondly, Google and YouTube received excessive criticisms back then in the beginning with their name choices. Look at where those companies are nowadays – surely a somewhat similar situation faces PascalCoin until the name’s familiarity percolates into the public.
“The wallet GUI is terrible”
As the team is run by a small yet extremely dedicated developers, multiple priorities can be challenging to juggle. The lack of funding through an ICO or a pre-mine also makes it challenging to accelerate development. The top priority of the core developers is to continue developing full-time on the groundbreaking technology that PascalCoin offers. In the meantime, an updated and user-friendly wallet GUI has been worked upon for some time and will be released in due time. Rome wasn’t built in one day.
“One would need to purchase a PASA in the first place”
This is a complicated topic since PASAs need to be commoditized by the SafeBox’s design, meaning that PASAs cannot be obtained at no charge to prevent systematic abuse. This raises two seemingly valid concerns:
· As a chicken and egg problem, how would one purchase a PASA using Pascal in the first place if one cannot obtain Pascal without a PASA?
· How would the price of PASAs stay low and affordable in the face of significant demand?
With regards to the chicken and egg problem, there are many ways – some finished and some unfinished – to obtain your first PASA as explained on the “Get Started” page on the PascalCoin website:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/get_started
More importantly, however, is the fact that there are few methods that can get your first PASA for free. The team will also release another method soon in which you could obtain your first PASA for free via a single SMS message. This would probably become by far the simplest and the easiest way to obtain your first PASA for free. There will be more new ways to easily obtain your first PASA for free down the road.
What about ensuring the PASA market at large remains inexpensive and affordable following your first (and probably free) PASA acquisition? This would be achieved in two ways:
· Decentralized governance of the PASA economics per the explanation in the FAQ section on the bottom of the PascalCoin website (https://www.pascalcoin.org/)
· Unlimited and free pseudo-PASAs based on layer-2 in the next version release.
“PascalCoin is still centralized after the release of RandomHash”
Did the implementation of RandomHash from version 4 live up to its promise?
The official goals of RandomHash were as follow:
(1) Implement a GPU & ASIC resistant hash algorithm
(2) Eliminate dual mining
The two goals above were achieved by every possible measure.
Yet a mining pool, Nanopool, was able to regain its hash majority after a significant but a temporary dip.
The official conclusion is that, from a probabilistic viewpoint, solo miners are more profitable than pool miners. However, pool mining is enticing for solo miners who 1) have limited hardware as it ensures a steady income instead of highly profitable but probabilistic income via solo mining, and 2) who prefer convenient software and/or GUI.
What is the next step, then? While the barrier of entry for solo miners has successfully been put down, additional work needs to be done. The PascalCoin team and the community are earnestly investigating additional steps to improve mining decentralization with respect to pool mining specifically to add on top of RandomHash’s successful elimination of GPU, ASIC, and dual-mining dominance.
It is likely that the PascalCoin community will promote the following two initiatives in the near future:
(1) Establish a community-driven, nonprofit mining pool with attractive incentives.
(2) Optimize RHMiner, PascalCoin’s official solo mining software, for performance upgrades.
A single pool dominance is likely short lived once more options emerge for individual CPU miners who want to avoid solo mining for whatever reason(s).
Let us use Bitcoin as an example. Bitcoin mining is dominated by ASICs and mining pools but no single pool is – at the time of this writing – even close on obtaining the hash majority. With CPU solo mining being a feasible option in conjunction with ASIC and GPU mining eradication with RandomHash, the future hash rate distribution of PascalCoin would be far more promising than Bitcoin’s hash rate distribution.
PascalCoin is the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
If you’ve read this far, let’s cut straight to the point: PascalCoin IS the unicorn cryptocurrency.
It is worth noting that PascalCoin is still a young cryptocurrency as it was launched at the end of 2016. This means that many features are still work in progress such as zn-SNARKs, smart contracts, and pool decentralization to name few. However, it appears that all of the unicorn criteria are within PascalCoin’s reach once PascalCoin’s technical roadmap is mostly completed.
Based on this expository on PascalCoin’s technology, there is every reason to believe that PascalCoin is the unicorn cryptocurrency. PascalCoin also solves two fundamental blockchain problems beyond the unicorn criteria that were previously considered unsolvable: blockchain size and simple address system. The SafeBox pushes PascalCoin to the forefront of cryptocurrency zeitgeist since it is a superior solution compared to UTXO, Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), Block Lattice, Tangle, and any other blockchain innovations.


THE UNICORN

Author: Tyler Swob
submitted by Kosass to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

A reminder why CryptoNote protocol was created...

CryptoNote v 2.0 Nicolas van Saberhagen October 17, 2013
1 Introduction
“Bitcoin” [1] has been a successful implementation of the concept of p2p electronic cash. Both professionals and the general public have come to appreciate the convenient combination of public transactions and proof-of-work as a trust model. Today, the user base of electronic cash is growing at a steady pace; customers are attracted to low fees and the anonymity provided by electronic cash and merchants value its predicted and decentralized emission. Bitcoin has effectively proved that electronic cash can be as simple as paper money and as convenient as credit cards.
Unfortunately, Bitcoin suffers from several deficiencies. For example, the system’s distributed nature is inflexible, preventing the implementation of new features until almost all of the net- work users update their clients. Some critical flaws that cannot be fixed rapidly deter Bitcoin’s widespread propagation. In such inflexible models, it is more efficient to roll-out a new project rather than perpetually fix the original project.
In this paper, we study and propose solutions to the main deficiencies of Bitcoin. We believe that a system taking into account the solutions we propose will lead to a healthy competition among different electronic cash systems. We also propose our own electronic cash, “CryptoNote”, a name emphasizing the next breakthrough in electronic cash.
2 Bitcoin drawbacks and some possible solutions
2.1 Traceability of transactions
Privacy and anonymity are the most important aspects of electronic cash. Peer-to-peer payments seek to be concealed from third party’s view, a distinct difference when compared with traditional banking. In particular, T. Okamoto and K. Ohta described six criteria of ideal electronic cash, which included “privacy: relationship between the user and his purchases must be untraceable by anyone” [30]. From their description, we derived two properties which a fully anonymous electronic cash model must satisfy in order to comply with the requirements outlined by Okamoto and Ohta:
Untraceability: for each incoming transaction all possible senders are equiprobable.
Unlinkability: for any two outgoing transactions it is impossible to prove they were sent to the same person.
Unfortunately, Bitcoin does not satisfy the untraceability requirement. Since all the trans- actions that take place between the network’s participants are public, any transaction can be unambiguously traced to a unique origin and final recipient. Even if two participants exchange funds in an indirect way, a properly engineered path-finding method will reveal the origin and final recipient.
It is also suspected that Bitcoin does not satisfy the second property. Some researchers stated ([33, 35, 29, 31]) that a careful blockchain analysis may reveal a connection between the users of the Bitcoin network and their transactions. Although a number of methods are disputed [25], it is suspected that a lot of hidden personal information can be extracted from the public database.
Bitcoin’s failure to satisfy the two properties outlined above leads us to conclude that it is not an anonymous but a pseudo-anonymous electronic cash system. Users were quick to develop solutions to circumvent this shortcoming. Two direct solutions were “laundering services” [2] and the development of distributed methods [3, 4]. Both solutions are based on the idea of mixing several public transactions and sending them through some intermediary address; which in turn suffers the drawback of requiring a trusted third party. Recently, a more creative scheme was proposed by I. Miers et al. [28]: “Zerocoin”. Zerocoin utilizes a cryptographic one-way accumulators and zero-knoweldge proofs which permit users to “convert” bitcoins to zerocoins and spend them using anonymous proof of ownership instead of explicit public-key based digital signatures. However, such knowledge proofs have a constant but inconvenient size - about 30kb (based on today’s Bitcoin limits), which makes the proposal impractical. Authors admit that the protocol is unlikely to ever be accepted by the majority of Bitcoin users [5].
2.2 The proof-of-work function
Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto described the majority decision making algorithm as “one- CPU-one-vote” and used a CPU-bound pricing function (double SHA-256) for his proof-of-work scheme. Since users vote for the single history of transactions order [1], the reasonableness and consistency of this process are critical conditions for the whole system.
The security of this model suffers from two drawbacks. First, it requires 51% of the network’s mining power to be under the control of honest users. Secondly, the system’s progress (bug fixes, security fixes, etc...) require the overwhelming majority of users to support and agree to the changes (this occurs when the users update their wallet software) [6].Finally this same voting mechanism is also used for collective polls about implementation of some features [7].
This permits us to conjecture the properties that must be satisfied by the proof-of-work pricing function. Such function must not enable a network participant to have a significant advantage over another participant; it requires a parity between common hardware and high cost of custom devices. From recent examples [8], we can see that the SHA-256 function used in the Bitcoin architecture does not posses this property as mining becomes more efficient on GPUs and ASIC devices when compared to high-end CPUs.
Therefore, Bitcoin creates favourable conditions for a large gap between the voting power of participants as it violates the “one-CPU-one-vote” principle since GPU and ASIC owners posses a much larger voting power when compared with CPU owners. It is a classical example of the Pareto principle where 20% of a system’s participants control more than 80% of the votes.
One could argue that such inequality is not relevant to the network’s security since it is not the small number of participants controlling the majority of the votes but the honesty of these participants that matters. However, such argument is somewhat flawed since it is rather the possibility of cheap specialized hardware appearing rather than the participants’ honesty which poses a threat. To demonstrate this, let us take the following example. Suppose a malevolent individual gains significant mining power by creating his own mining farm through the cheap hardware described previously. Suppose that the global hashrate decreases significantly, even for a moment, he can now use his mining power to fork the chain and double-spend. As we shall see later in this article, it is not unlikely for the previously described event to take place.
2.3 Irregular emission
Bitcoin has a predetermined emission rate: each solved block produces a fixed amount of coins. Approximately every four years this reward is halved. The original intention was to create a limited smooth emission with exponential decay, but in fact we have a piecewise linear emission function whose breakpoints may cause problems to the Bitcoin infrastructure.
When the breakpoint occurs, miners start to receive only half of the value of their previous reward. The absolute difference between 12.5 and 6.25 BTC (projected for the year 2020) may seem tolerable. However, when examining the 50 to 25 BTC drop that took place on November 28 2012, felt inappropriate for a significant number of members of the mining community. Figure 1 shows a dramatic decrease in the network’s hashrate in the end of November, exactly when the halving took place. This event could have been the perfect moment for the malevolent individual described in the proof-of-work function section to carry-out a double spending attack [36]. Fig. 1. Bitcoin hashrate chart (source: http://bitcoin.sipa.be)
2.4 Hardcoded constants
Bitcoin has many hard-coded limits, where some are natural elements of the original design (e.g. block frequency, maximum amount of money supply, number of confirmations) whereas other seem to be artificial constraints. It is not so much the limits, as the inability of quickly changing them if necessary that causes the main drawbacks. Unfortunately, it is hard to predict when the constants may need to be changed and replacing them may lead to terrible consequences.
A good example of a hardcoded limit change leading to disastrous consequences is the block size limit set to 250kb1. This limit was sufficient to hold about 10000 standard transactions. In early 2013, this limit had almost been reached and an agreement was reached to increase the limit. The change was implemented in wallet version 0.8 and ended with a 24-blocks chain split and a successful double-spend attack [9]. While the bug was not in the Bitcoin protocol, but rather in the database engine it could have been easily caught by a simple stress test if there was no artificially introduced block size limit.
Constants also act as a form of centralization point. Despite the peer-to-peer nature of Bitcoin, an overwhelming majority of nodes use the official reference client [10] developed by a small group of people. This group makes the decision to implement changes to the protocol and most people accept these changes irrespective of their “correctness”. Some decisions caused heated discussions and even calls for boycott [11], which indicates that the community and the developers may disagree on some important points. It therefore seems logical to have a protocol with user-configurable and self-adjusting variables as a possible way to avoid these problems.
2.5 Bulky scripts
The scripting system in Bitcoin is a heavy and complex feature. It potentially allows one to create sophisticated transactions [12], but some of its features are disabled due to security concerns and some have never even been used [13]. The script (including both senders’ and receivers’ parts) for the most popular transaction in Bitcoin looks like this: OP DUP OP HASH160 OP EQUALVERIFY OP CHECKSIG. The script is 164 bytes long whereas its only purpose is to check if the receiver possess the secret key required to verify his signature.
Read the rest of the white paper here: https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf
submitted by xmrhaelan to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Clearing up some confusion about cryptocurrencies, mining and when prices will go down.

I spend my last 6 months in a lot of cryptocurrency Reddits and informed myself about the topic. I read a lot of misinformation in the non crypto Reddits every day and because of that I am making this post to clear some things up and explain everything. Sorry for the wall of text, there will be a tldr; at the end
The Ethereum network pays out people who mine for them in Ethereum. The total daily amount of Ethereum giving out is more or less constant for now which means that if only a single person mines he gets everything, if a million person mine with the same hash power behind them everyone gets 1/1,000,000 of the reward, the reward itself does NOT increase, only the price of the ETH can increase.
Normally people would buy more GPUs until they reach a point of only a small profit compared to the energy costs and it would a reach a point of balance between total network hashrate and profit in USD (like it was in the last 3-4 years). The problem is that the price spiked multiple times way too fast and GPU manufacturing can't keep up which causes GPU prices to spike and delays this point of balance which results in MASSIVE profits for everyone who mines because the hashing power "supply" is capped. We are talking about 100$ a month with a SINGLE RX 480 right now (80$+ with power cost included).
Actually quite soon (yay). This is sadly a truth that not many miners know of (not to mention some are delusional... you will find them in the comments) and very few people think about. Even the popular Youtube channels have no idea about this. Before I come to the end of GPU mining first there are some numbers.
The current network hashrate is about 191TH/s and a total daily reward paid of 31,239,969$ in the last 24 hours. Because a single RX 480 gets about 28MH/s (pretty much average), we have about 6,821,428 GPUs mining ONLY Ethereum right now. If you every wondered how much money you need for a global GPU shortage the answer is about 30 million dollar daily.
Ok ok... the thing is the Ethereum network doesn't need your GPU power. It only uses it as a spam filter to make it harder to manipulate the network. You would need over 50% of the total hashrate to reliably fake transactions, think of it as a giant google captcha. You can easily replace that captcha with another one and this is exactly what Ethereum does in the near future. Proof of stake means instead of wasting GPU power you just stake your Ethereum and the more of your Ethereum you invest the more voting rights and rewards you get. If you are caught trying to cheat your whole money gets confiscated and donated to everyone else depending on their voting rights. Full proof of stake will probably be implemented late 2018 but just to be fair it already got delayed multiple times so there is no clear 100% date for it yet.
This is where the misconception starts. There is actually a second point of balance in all of this. All cryptocurrencies will always divide all the hashing power between them until they all reach about the same profit (people always switch to what gives the most profit). It may seem like there are a lot of profitable cryptocurrencies to mine but that is actually an illusion. Many of the smaller coins would be unprofitable after a few thousand GPUs because their total $ reward giving out daily is pretty small. The thing is nobody mines something that gives less profit so they switch. To sum it up Ethereum is basically the minimum payment job and everyone who goes below that wont find anyone willing to do the job until they get more profitable than Ethereum.
Now what happens if 6.8 MILLION RX 480 are jobless after a single update? They will all start mining something else. The problem is Ethereum has a GIANT majority in hashrate and all other mineable cryptocurrencies combined can't be profitable after Ethereum switches even if their prices spike by 10x.
OH HELL YEAH IT IS THAT BAD! Every heard of Monero? It is the cryptocurrency that caused the RX Vega shortage. Any idea on how much daily rewards they give out? A giant 1,504,249$ in the last 24 hours. Yes that is 20.7 times less and we are talking about the second biggest mineable coin out there. As soon as Ethereum fires all the miners everything will collapse and profit will turn NEGATIVE for a while unless you have free power. Q4 2018 is the end of mining for probably ever. Because the Ethereum code is open source and everyone can use it there will most likely be more coins that follow proof of stake after that (there already are some that already have it) so mining will most likely never come back.
There are many benefits. It consumes A LOT less power, it is most likely faster and people who hodl Ethereum get more Ethereum for just having it. Free interest rate hype! But the most important thing about this is that miners control the currency and every update to it. Sadly they don't have the same interests as people who want the crypto to succeed and improve. For example Bitcoin's block size is kept at 1mb even though increasing it was always the plan since 2009. Why? It's very simple. You can only fit X amount of transactions in 1mb and if it gets more than that only people who pay more get their transactions in faster which means more fews are being paid to the miners. While they make a fortune the currency suffers with spikes to 50$ for a SINGLE transaction (currently it's 18$). If the power goes to the ones having the currency they are directly interested in the well being of the currency which is better for everyone.
We will get the biggest GPU mass sell off in the history of the technology itself. I wouldn't be surprised to find a RX 480 for 100$ in December. Miners already made the price of the GPU back multiple times, they don't care about the price if they get at least something. This will be a GREAT time for buying GPUs. It already happened once in 2013? when ASIC miners got introduced for Bitcoin mining and all R9 290(x) got dumped on the market because they went from awesome miners to completely useless overnight. This time will be much bigger though because of the sheer amount of GPUs used for mining.
AMD did ramp up production last time with the r9 290(x) and got completely rekt. They couldn't sell the GPUs anymore and the used r9 290(x) were way too cheap to compete with. This time they are smarter and they just make as much as they can without investing too much while basically selling everything they produce for almost a whole year. Nvidia is about the same right now, they are just making bank without risking much. If you ever wondered why the 1070ti exists, it is basically a mining only GPU. The 1080 is horrible for Ethereum mining because of GDDR5X timings but the 1070ti has the same GPU power with GDDR5 non x. They only made this for more profit when selling to miners.... yet no reviewer called them out for this to my knowledge.
GPU prices will crash hard and the used market will have laughable low prices. These GPUs actually run undervolted, underclocked and at a low temperature the whole time because the bottleneck is the memory speed which means they are in EXCELLENT condition. Maybe their BIOS got flashed for better memory timing but you can just switch to the second BIOS or flash it back to normals. These will the GREAT to buy. Note that r9 290(x) and 390(x) GPUs should be avoided because they have such an overkill memory setup that their GPU core is the bottleneck (-> overclocked, overvolted and run at 90c+).
Well they will have a problem. Nobody will buy a 1180 if they can get a GTX 1080 for 200$ compared to something like 600$. Especially if Nvidia releases the 1180 while mining is still a thing. I guess they will wait with the 1180 or release a 1280 shortly after mining died with a really competitive price (if AMD can't compete they will just compete with themself...). Just think of the GTX 970 which got released with a 299$ MSRP and got actually sold at that price!
This got way longer than expected... well I hope you learned something. Just comment if you want to correct something or have a question. Most of these are assumptions based on thinking so none of this has to happen but is in my opinion very likely to happen.
tldr; Because Ethereum has almost all of the GPU power behind it and will fire all the miners in around Q4 2018 with the switch to proof of stake there will be a huge excess of GPU power and prices will crash hard.
edit: if you only care about numbers and facts and want a better distinction between assumptions and facts read my other comment https://www.reddit.com/pcmasterrace/comments/7rqkmo/clearing_up_some_confusion_about_cryptocurrencies/dsyzg6b/
submitted by Karavusk to pcmasterrace [link] [comments]

DD on Crypto. Just kidding Allin AMD

Alright, I keep seeing you fucks talk about how "Bitcoin is going to make Nvidia/AMD go to the moon". I'm going to walk all you fucks through bitcoin, crypto currencies, and how they effect the GPU market.
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a decentralized ledger. That's pretty much it. A set number of bitcoin is generated per block, and each block is solved when a resulting hash is found for the corresponding proof of work. The difficulty is adjusted periodically based on a formula, meaning that as hash rate rises and falls, the number of bitcoins produced per day is roughly the same.
What does Bitcoin have to do with AMD and Nvidia?
Fucking nothing. Bitcoin is mined on proprietary hardware called Application-specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs). Neither AMD or Nvidia produce these.
Why does everyone keep talking about Bitcoin and AMD then?
Because they're fucking retarded and you're listening to retards. Bitcoin runs on the SHA-256 Hashing Function which people have custom hardware for. The Crypto driving GPU sales is ETHEREUM, NOT BITCOIN
What the fuck is Ethereum then?
Don't worry about it. It's for smug assholes who are too edgy for Bitcoin. All you need to know is it runs on a different Hashing function than Bitcoin, so if you weren't a retard you'd probably realize that the proprietary hardware I talked about earlier won't work with it. Currently Ethereum is being mined the same way Bitcoin was when it first started; on GPUs.
When are you going to tell me what to buy
Shut the fuck up, learn something or kill your self.
How many GPUs are being used to mine currently?
Currently the Ethereum Hash Rate is 73,000 GH/s. For upcoming earnings, we should instead look at the period from April to June. April 1st shows a network hash rate of 16,500 GH/s, and June 31st shows 59,200 GH/s, meaning the network hash rate increased by 42,700 GH/s for this upcoming earnings report quarter.
I've linked a decent benchmark for GPU hashrate . You should notice that all of these are quoted in MH/s, versus the Network reporting in GH/s; there are ALOT of fucking GPUs running on the network. A top of the line 1080 puts out about 20-25 MH/s, a good Radeon card does about 30. As a rough estimate, lets assume that the average card mining Ethereum currently produces about 25 MH/s. 42,700GH/s / 25MH/s means that there are 1.7 MILLION more GPUs currently mining ethereum than there were at the beginning of Q1. Based on my personal observations being involved in this, AMD is actually taking a majority market share of the sold cards just due to their superior performance compared to Nvidia's 1080s, and I'd estimate that About 50-60% of the cards currently mining Ethereum are AMD Radeons.
What does this all mean?
AMD are selling their highest margin video cards faster than they can produce them, and at ~250$ a pop with 50%-60% market capture AMD will have sold roughly 200-300 million dollars more in video cards than they did last quarter. AMD quarterly revenue last reported was just under 1 Billion. This is a 20-30% increase in revenue from last quarter, where Ethereum Hash Rate only increased by about 10,000GH/s. Even assuming a modest 30% margin for their video cards, AMD will still have almost 60 million in unexpected earnings this quarter due to crypto mining, which translates to about .06-.1 per share in earnings.
tl;dr
Ethereum will make AMD beat revenue by 20-30%. BUY AMD YOU CUCKS.
submitted by Askmeaboutmyautism to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.

I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom.
…Only problem: much of what they say is wrong.
There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other.
Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.

“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up.
I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080.
I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.

“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."

Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC.
Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go!
Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered.
Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy!
Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.

“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”

PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita.
PS Family Sharing.
Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console.
In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system).
PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game.
Need I say more?

“Gaming is more expensive on console.”

Part one, the Software
This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks.
Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
So does this mean you have to pay full retail for this racing experience? Nope, because disk prices.
Just Cause 3, an insane open-world experience that could essentially be summed up as “break stuff, screw physics.” And it’s a good example of where the Steam price is lower than PSN and XBL:
Not by much, but still cheaper on Steam, so cheaper on PC… Until you look at the disk prices.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new.
Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount.
Part 2: the Subscription
Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right?
Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly.
Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee.
Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts.
Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
  • 2 free PS4 games, every month
  • 2 free PS3 games, every month
  • 1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
  • Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
  • access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72 free games every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month.
In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still.
All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts.
Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst.
Part 3, the Systems
  • Xbox and PS2: $299
  • Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
  • Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off.
Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short.
The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total.
And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention.
Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware.
Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually.
Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines).
Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway.
Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.

“PC is leading the VR—“

Let me stop you right there.
If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold.
Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone.
If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC.
Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR.
…Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.

“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”

This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam?
GTA V
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11)
Just Cause 3
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)
Fallout 4
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent
Overwatch
  • CPU: Intel Core i3 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8650
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 460, ATI Radeon™ HD 4850, or Intel® HD Graphics 4400
Witcher 3
  • Processor: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz / AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis.
But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right?
No. Not even close.
iRacing
  • CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds
  • CPU: Intel Core i3-4340 / AMD FX-6300
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB / AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games.
Subnautica
  • CPU: Intel Haswell 2 cores / 4 threads @ 2.5Ghz or equivalent
  • Memory: 4GB
  • GPU: Intel HD 4600 or equivalent - This includes most GPUs scoring greater than 950pts in the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark
Rust
  • CPU: 2 ghz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • DirectX: Version 11 (they don’t even list a GPU)
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting?
Low-end PCs.
What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers.
Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars.
I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:

“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading.
Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4 Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners).
Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle.
These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up.
Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that.
Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance.
Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X.
Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…

“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”

The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time.
For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
  • 1.8 TFLOP
  • 1.35 GHz base clock
  • 2 GB VRAM
  • $110
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs.
Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
  • 2.1 TFLOP
  • 1.29 GHz base clock
  • 4 GB VRAM
  • $140 retail
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part.
But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance.
The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
  • 3.0 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 3 GB VRAM
  • $200 retail
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much.
Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story!
Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
  • 3.9 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 6 GB VRAM
  • $250 retail
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story.
I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99.
Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say...
94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh.
Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
  • 9.0 TFLOP
  • 1.6 GHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $500 retail
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world?
Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story.
You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option.
In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X.
On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
  • 1.84 TFLOP
  • 800 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $300 retail
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
  • 4.2 TFLOP
  • 911 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $400 retail
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here.
It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games.
…That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7.
The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.

“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”

Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team.
This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough.
On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder.
Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them.
Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion.
Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.

“There are more PC gamers.”

The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million.
Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent.
For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales.
But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million.
This isn’t uncommon, by the way.
Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total.
EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.

"Modding is only on PC."

Xbox One is already working on it, and Bethesda is helping with that.
PS4 isn't far behind either. You could argue that these are what would be the beta stages of modding, but that just means modding on consoles will only grow.

What’s the Point?

This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform.
I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across.
I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, this isn’tanti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer.
Cheers.
submitted by WhyyyCantWeBeFriends to unpopularopinion [link] [comments]

Discord Log from Ravencoin Open Developer Meeting - Oct 19, 2018

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:03 PM
Hello Everybody, sorry we're getting started a couple of minutes late today.Today we wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of the Bug Bounty program and discuss it.Has everybody seen the information at https://github.com/RavenProject/Ravencoin/wiki?GitHubRavenProject/RavencoinProject staging tree. Contribute to RavenProject/Ravencoin development by creating an account on GitHub.📷

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:06 PM

Yes. I'm working on it...📷1

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:07 PM

I have seen that @Hans_Schmidt Thank you for really digging into the code. You have found some really good ones.Did you get an address posted in the issues so we can reward you for your efforts?

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:08 PM

Yes I sent it to Tron and blondfrogs. Thanks.

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:08 PM

I got hans address, and updated the wiki accordingly

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:09 PM

Nice! thanks guys, we'll get that sent out today.

brianmct - Today at 2:09 PM

Wow that's a lot of RVN!

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:09 PM

The next one is proving harder to find. That is a good thing 📷

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:09 PM

Please @Scotty and @Hans_Schmidt look at the wiki, and make sure the address next to the issues you created is the correct address where you would like payment.(edited)

MSFTserver-mine more @ MinerMore - Today at 2:09 PM

just a heads up im renaming this channel to just development meetings

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:09 PM

We feel it's worth the amount for sure to find and fix those type of issues.

brianmct - Today at 2:10 PM

Probably shouldn't keep the addresses on the wiki, since it's publicly editable?

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:10 PM

@MSFTserver-mine more @ MinerMore okay

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:11 PM

We will look into the github wiki permissionsand verify addresses before sending payment

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:11 PM

Thats a good point, and reach out to the individuals directly to ensure it's their correct address.

brianmct - Today at 2:12 PM

Actually it's not publicly editable. My bad. Still good to confirm directly though

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:12 PM

Yes

brianmct - Today at 2:12 PM

Probably have people put their address on the issue when reporting it

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:12 PM

^^

brianmct - Today at 2:12 PM

Don't want any MITM attacks :P

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:13 PM

No we don't.

Chatturga - Today at 2:13 PM

Putting a public address out there is asking to get sent certain asset tokens when it goes live. 📷📷1

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:13 PM

Any questions about the issues that were found thus far?

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:14 PM

I verified that my address is correct.

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:14 PM

Thanks

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:15 PM

Will you send a dust send first to verify (for bitcoin we do that as standard procedure for large amounts)

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:15 PM

Yes, that is the process we follow also

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:15 PM

sounds good

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:16 PM

Just an FYI some of the developers were at the Free State Blockchain conference last week.We also spoke at the MIT Business schoolIt was great to see our community members there!

UserJonPizza™FlyToTheNorthRaven - Today at 2:17 PM

Are you guys 100% on the 31st? Ik prob been asked a million times but...

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:18 PM

Thanks to all that helped with the conference.📷1

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:18 PM

The current code base will start voting on the 31st.

Chatturga - Today at 2:18 PM

Yes Its in the code.

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:18 PM

Any other questions about the Bug Bounty?

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:19 PM

What's the plan for next formal release?

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:20 PM

Should be early next week, we are planning a 2.1.1 release, with the latest bug fixes in it.We thought we would give it a couple more days to see if any additional bugs are found.

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:21 PM

Agreed, there will be one more binary release before the end of the month.

[Master] Roshii - Today at 2:21 PM

Sorry late again

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:21 PM

I'm not pushing for the release, just asking. I prefer to have a few days to see if I can get my next attack attempt to work

SpyderDev - Today at 2:22 PM

@[Master] Roshii - were your ears burning?

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:22 PM

Yep. You got it, keep attacking the chain!

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:23 PM

Yes please we would encourage everybody to help us find additional chain splitting or consensus defects.Other defects are also welcome, just not part of the bounty at this point.

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:24 PM

It would be helpful to know if someone is methodically verifying that the fixes work and also cover the minor variations, because I am not doing that.

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:25 PM

Yes. I am personally verifying all bug fixes, and so are the other developers

SpyderDev - Today at 2:25 PM

We are also creatimg tests for them.

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:25 PM

Like I payed unique asset creation into the wrong burn address. But there are other variations. Your fix looks like it covers it all.

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:26 PM

That is correct. We appreciate the bugs found and expand off of them to fix all other small variations of them.

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:26 PM

Great. I focus on new angles.

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:26 PM

Prefect!

SpyderDev - Today at 2:26 PM

Please

Chatturga - Today at 2:27 PM

test 

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:27 PM

@Tron isn't able to be here but he wanted me to share this.
Hi All. I’m sorry I’m not able to make it to this development discussion. I’ve been invited to be on a Cryptocurrency and ICO/STO panel at the Federal Bar Council Fall Retreat. I've been informed that many of the attendees are judges from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which is the Circuit Court for the state of NY. These presidentially appointed judges are just below the US Supreme Court and before whom the SEC and CFTC would be mere litigants. I’m on the panel with some heavyweight crypto and securities attorneys and my role will be talking primarily about the technology (blockchain, tokenized assets, smart contracts, etc.) while allowing the other distinguished panelists to address the legal aspects of this new technology. This is an amazing opportunity to introduce the audience to the best aspects of crypto-currencies and crypto-assets. 
📷4

Pathfinder - Today at 2:28 PM

wow that's awesome

SpyderDev - Today at 2:28 PM

We are all hoping @Tron will not get arrested.

mapple - Today at 2:28 PM

yesand yes to the not arrested :))

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:29 PM

I told him the mask thing was probably a bad idea for that event...

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:29 PM

The Raven mask or the Guy Falkes?

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:29 PM

We need a Tron with judges Meme @PathfinderYes to both.

Skan - Today at 2:29 PM

ITS A TRAP

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:30 PM

LOL

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:30 PM

A Tron Trap?

mapple - Today at 2:30 PM

i was asked on telegram a few days ago about timeframes for all phases (currently announced) to be completed - are there estimates I've missed?I've properly looked through githubi've not lol

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:31 PM

We are hoping to complete the remaining phases by the end of Q1 but have provided no hard dates.

mapple - Today at 2:32 PM

OK - so march 2019 estimate if anyone asks again would be fair at the moment

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:33 PM

One of the topics I would like to cover for all our web developers is the ravencoin.com website.

gwrg - Today at 2:33 PM

Does it include Phase 7 which was added recently?

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:34 PM

That's not been fully thought through to this point so it's not likely.I wanted to make sure you all knew that Ravencoin.com is a community website, the source is posted and web developers are free to submit pull requests to make changes.

Vincent - Today at 2:35 PM

Chatturga had mentioned a plan to somehow modify the asset creation cost in the future...is that part of the qtr 1 plan?

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:36 PM

We'll be watching closely how the asset creation and RVN burn goes once it goes live.

Chatturga - Today at 2:37 PM

I did say that the rate is 500 RVN for now so that actual data can be gathered, which can then be applied to proposed changes. Speculative data just isnt enough.(edited)

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:37 PM

Anywho... The source for the Website is at https://github.com/RavenProject/ravenproject.github.ioGitHubRavenProject/ravenproject.github.ioRaven Project Website. Contribute to RavenProject/ravenproject.github.io development by creating an account on GitHub.📷

Pathfinder - Today at 2:37 PM

https://i.imgflip.com/2kieyw.jpg📷

SpyderDev - Today at 2:38 PM

LOL

Pathfinder - Today at 2:38 PM

Tron's in there. Just have to look hard (like finding Waldo)

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:38 PM

@Pathfinder You are the best, I'm just saying....

Vincent - Today at 2:38 PM

i understand but pure economics will go into play. i will not harp on it here...there is plenty of time for this

Skan - Today at 2:38 PM

Ok good to know @ website, will spread that info

Vincent - Today at 2:38 PM

obvious my soapbox

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:39 PM

Thanks Skan!📷1Any questions about Ravencoin.com?

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:40 PM

I come to these meetings for @Pathfinder memes(edited)

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:40 PM

SO DO I!If I say no will you delete your post?(edited)📷Actually, if we don't have any further questions about the website that would be a great topic.

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:43 PM

1

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:43 PM

@[Master] Roshii has been hard at work adding asset support to the mobile wallets.📷3You'll be able to see, transfer, receive assets.You'll also be able to create them right on your phone.

mapple - Today at 2:44 PM

awesome for small business use cases

Vincent - Today at 2:45 PM

will that only include RVN created assets or other currencies as well?

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:46 PM

The RVN wallets only support RVN and soon will support RVN assets.📷2Agreed!Any other questions about Mobile support?

russ - Today at 2:48 PM

any web wallets that support assets yet?

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:48 PM

That's a good question!

Chatturga - Today at 2:49 PM

@traysi -[MM Sysop]- Might be able to answer that.

Pathfinder - Today at 2:49 PM

https://i.imgflip.com/2kifzg.jpg📷

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:49 PM

That's amazing.I think Pathfinder could get paid to make memes for a company...@Under Has done some great work migrating web based bitcoin tools to Raven.I would love to see a web dev kit that allowed web/mobile developers to easily incorporate Raven into their projects.

SpyderDev - Today at 2:51 PM

When is the meme bounty program?

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:51 PM

Just wondering- is anyone tracking use of post-2.04 client use on the mainnet? It would be good to know if the non-asset stuff is continuing to work without issues on main.

[Master] Roshii - Today at 2:52 PM

@RavencoinDev I have some ideas for mobile integration kit

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:52 PM

Everything seems to be in order on Mainnet.

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:52 PM

Awesome @[Master] RoshiiLet's open it up for General Q&A for the last 10 minutes. Anybody have a question they have been dying to ask?

Under - Today at 2:53 PM

I’d really like to know about the build system.The solution I use is pretty reliable.

cade - Today at 2:53 PM

What would you like to know about it?

Under - Today at 2:54 PM

I’d be glad to train you up on mine

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:54 PM

We are working to incorporate the work that you have put in there. Still struggling with the Mac build part of it.

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 2:54 PM

Do you track wallet version usage on main. Any idea how many people are using newer versions?

cade - Today at 2:54 PM

The current build system we're using is based on what you've doneJust modified to fit into our CI process

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 2:55 PM

@Hans_Schmidt We don't have a rolling tally but you can use the explores to view node versions.

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:55 PM

We do check what's being run on the network periodically but don't have a dashboard type view into the version data.

Vincent - Today at 2:55 PM

is the burn rate going to be tracked and charted on the asset explorer?

Under - Today at 2:55 PM

Rather than incorporating it, it vanilla in a vanilla Ubuntu 18 box works pretty well. CI like Travis could run on a fully gitian build, which I’m glad to work on too

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:56 PM

@Vincent There was talk of creating an RPC call that would show how much has been burned and for what purpose.Anybody want to take a shot at writing that?

Under - Today at 2:56 PM

I’m in the process !Lol

Vincent - Today at 2:56 PM

be a great stat to watch

russ - Today at 2:56 PM

http://ravencoin.asset-explorer.net/stats @Vincentburn and creation rate

Vincent - Today at 2:56 PM

nice

RavencoinDev - Today at 2:57 PM

Sweet, thanks @russ

russ - Today at 2:57 PM

@Scotty made it📷1top notch

cade - Today at 2:58 PM

@Under We have processes and tools that are in use within our organization and we leverage those tools for all of our projects. We have taken the awesome work you've done and tailored it to fit within our toolsets.📷2

Under - Today at 2:59 PM

I can understand that, but I’d counter that the process I describe is simply a copy of bitcoins and allows for it to be replicated in a larger community of developer outside of the Medici teamIt makes the build process trustless and decentralized if it can be replicated by anyone.But I get why you have your ways of doing it.

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 3:00 PM

If you drop the burn address into the web explorer, it tells you how much went there.

Vincent - Today at 3:00 PM

charts are nicer📷2📷1

RavencoinDev - Today at 3:01 PM

I would like a burned endpoint that coinmarketcap can easily call to use in their circulating supply metric.

Vincent - Today at 3:01 PM

burn and rewards can only go one way.... 📷

RavencoinDev - Today at 3:02 PM

Alright, thank you all for being here today. Thank you for your support and for all your effort on Ravencoin platform!

Neo-Geo - Today at 3:02 PM

While we are aware of the dev team’s commitment to ASIC resistance, are there any assurances that RVN dev will find a solution to stay GPU exclusive for optimal decentralization? Monero’s commitment to fork every 6 months (currently on CryptoNightV8) has been wildly successful in keeping AMD’s cards pointing predominantly at their network. RVN is quickly replacing Ethereum as the defacto coin to mine for Nvidia owners (the world’s most popular video card), but the rise of FPGAs can ruin the incentive for GPU miners and lead to hash centralization.📷2

Vincent - Today at 3:02 PM

as a noob...glad to be part of this...great job by all

cade - Today at 3:03 PM

@Under We will be releasing our build process to the community

RavencoinDev - Today at 3:03 PM

Yes @Neo-Geo we are committed to ASIC resistance and we are watching Monero closely.Thanks again everybody. Now go find some BUGS!

Under - Today at 3:04 PM

Cool thanks guys

[Dev] Blondfrogs - Today at 3:04 PM

BTW. QT wallet GUI update is coming. hahahah. have a good day everyone📷1

russ - Today at 3:05 PM

📷

mxL86 (MinerMore.com) - Today at 3:05 PM

Noicee

Hans_Schmidt - Today at 3:05 PM

CU later

Pathfinder - Today at 3:05 PM

thank you everyone!
submitted by Chatturga to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

To arms Bitcoin community! Help us to complete this mining installation for the Zürich MoneyMuseum. We are not asking for funds. Only your expertise needed! 20$ tip if you give us the relevant clue to solve or mitigate our main problem. Nice pictures of the exhibition inside as well…

Edit:
A big thank you to all people who helped us we can now mine true pps with diff1! The people in this thread which have helped most have been awarded. I want to mention also the operator of btcmp.com denis2342 and Luke-Jr.
Actually looking at the miner screen in the Linux terminal helped a lot ;-). The pool constantly resigned to stratum with variable difficulty. We can now mine true pps with diff1. Getwork with long polling seems to be default after disabling stratum...
We will probably post again, when there is a video of the installation in action...
Again many thanks. Learned a lot.
Edit: Thank you for all the answeres so far! We will try different things now and report back. Tip bounty will be distrubuted as soon as we found out what finally does the trick. Ths could take a few days. The offerd tip will be distributed and very likeley a few others as well.
First of all, let me tell you that the Bitcoin Exhibition at the Zürich MoneyMuseum is most likely the biggest and most diverse of it’s kind. Please read more about the museum and the exhibition below.
Help us solve the following problem we experience with our “Muscle Powered Proof of Work” installation:
Me and a friend have invested a lot of time to build an installation for the Museum. It is basically a 10GHash/s miner and RapberryPi which is powered by a hand generator (Maxon DC motor with planetary gear). Here are some pictures of the installation, although not entirely put together yet. There are still some changes planned.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0qcvl3wu4romhnt/AAAYF08lnVAy6W6KEepE7e2Ua?dl=0
Now let’s get to the core of our problem:
We are mining at the getwork diff1 pool btcmp.com as it is a true pps pool with getwork diff1. The visitors in the museum can power the generator for 2-3min and see directly how many Satoshis the "network" (actually pool but we don't want to confuse the visitors to much at that point) has given the museum for their work. This all works well so far but one problem remains. Sometimes the pool does not get a share from us for more than 40 seconds or even more than 60 in some cases. I have calculated that with 8.4 GHash/s we should find a share about every 0.5 seconds in average (diff1). I think when the pool gets a share it gets all the hashes as it then accounts for several Satoshis. Statistically we get per minute what we should get in theory. We would very much like to lower the time between the accepted shares by the pool, however. This would help to make the overall experience much smoother for the visitors.
Please look at this screenshot from MinePeon and answer some questions:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lb1jei4trc9kqe5/MinePeonScreenshot.png?dl=0
We see that we get a lot of diff1 hashes. However, only 11 shares/packages have been accepted. The Is there a possibility to set the miner SW so it submits to the pool as soon as a share is found? It seems to send them in packages which sometimes have 4-5 seconds in between but sometimes a much as 80 seconds. I would like to submit packages of hashes much more often. How can this be influenced?
What exactly are the Getworks (GW)?
What exactly are the Accepted ones (Acc)? This is where the TipBounty is. Help us to get a better Acc/diff1 ratio. Best would be 1:1.
What exactly are the rejected ones (Rej)?
What exactly are the discarded ones (Disc)?
What exactly are the difficulty one hashes (diff1)?
Now some of these questions seem very very basic but it is important for us to understand what these are and how we can influence these. We have a 1:1 correlation between the Acc and the pool side acknowledgement of shares/packages. So whenever the MinePeon shows one more for this value the pool value for last submitted share goes to “moments ago”.
Does the miner SW have a setting where we can set after how many diff1 hashes a package of hashes is sent to the pool? If no, do you have another idea why so few are sent? Ideally we would set it so the diff1 hashes are sent every 5 seconds or so, probably even more often.
Is stratum with fixed diff1 possible? If so, would it be better to use stratum?
Are there critical settings if we should know of? (we have tried --request-diff and --no-submit-stale)
We are using BFGMiner on MinePeon if that matters. We could switch to CGMiner if that would help. Any help is very much appreciated. The museum is doing a great job explaining Bitcoin basics. We had special focus on interactive learning and have several things to underline this.
I hope to hear back from you so we can improve our installation. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have further questions. We are both not mining experts.
Thanks for reading and AMA.
SimonBelmond
Current features of the Bitcoin exhibition at the Zürich MoneyMuseum:
Current Features:
  • Life screen with various stats/charts/parameters/transactions…
  • Printed infographics.
  • Muscle powered PoW: Hand generator with 5v and 3.5-5A output, Raspberry Pi, MinePeon, 5x Antminer U2+ plus a screen to show the hash-rate at the pool and/or in MinePeon web interface. This screen will not be hand powered. This installation will complement their coining die (go to 1:27 to see what I mean).
  • The Bitcoin mining evolution (CPU, GPU, FPGA, ASIC)
  • A few short (2-3 minutes) interviews.
  • Other wallets, Trezor, PiperWallet
  • ATM Prototype, functional
  • MoneyMuseum Bit-Cards
  • PiperWallet to use.
  • Casascius and other physical Bitcoins, Wallets (also some commemorative coins), Paper wallet like one out of the first Bitcoin (A)TM ever
  • Bitcoin Quiz
  • 12 Picture tours
    • Bitcoin for beginners
    • Bitcoin advanced
    • Debunking 13 Bitcoin myths
    • What you definitely have to know
    • The history of Bitcoin
    • Bitcoin und traditional forms of money
    • Alternatives to Bitcoin
    • Citations about Bitcoin
    • How do I open an account?
    • How do I get Bitcoin?
    • Bitcoin community and economy
    • Bitcoin as a platform
I see this as a good opportunity for Bitcoin, so let’s embrace it. I am especially excited to compare the traditional forms of money which used proof of work to the new money which also uses proof of work. I think in that context it will be much easier for the visitors to value this concept.
A lot of schools and other groups book guided tours at the museum. It is open on every Friday from December 05. On. Entry is free of charge.
Edit:Markdown, typos
submitted by SimonBelmond to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part IV: Monero "as it is now"

You can read here part III.
You can read this whole story translated into Spanish here
This is part IV, the last but not least.
Monero - A secure, private, untreceable cryptocurrency
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0
Notable comments in this thread:
-201: “I would like to offer 1000 MRO to the first person who creates a pool”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6422665#msg6422665)
[tacotime offers bounty to potential pool developer. Bytecoin devs haven’t released any code for pools, and the only existent pool, minergate (in the future related to BCN interests) was closed source]
-256: “Adam back seems to like CryptoNote the better than Zerocash https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/453493394472697856”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6440769#msg6440769)
-264: “update on pools: The NOMP guy (zone117x) is looking to fork his open source software and get a pool going, so one should hopefully be up soon.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6441302#msg6441302)
-273: “Update on GUI: othe from VertCoin has notified me that he is working on it.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6442606#msg6442606)
-356: “Everyone wanting a pool, please help raise a bounty with me here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=589533.0
And for the GUI:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=589561.0”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6461533#msg6461533)
[5439 MRO + 0.685 BTC + 5728555.555 BCN raised for pool and 1652 XMR, 121345.46695471 BCN for the GUI wallet. Though this wallet was "rejected" as official GUI because wallet still has to be polished before building a GUI]
-437: “Yes, most Windows users should see a higher hashrate with the new build. You can thank NoodleDoodle. ”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6481202#msg6481202)
-446: “Even faster Windows binaries have just been uploaded. Install for more hash power! Once again, it was NoodleDoodle.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6483680#msg6483680)
-448: “that almost doubled my hashrate again! GREAT STUFF !!!”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6484109#msg6484109)
-461: “Noodle only started optimization today so there may be gains for your CPU in the future.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6485247#msg6485247)
[First day of miner optimization by NoodleDoodle, it is only May 1st]
-706: “The unstoppable NoodleDoodle has optimized the Windows build again. Hashrate should more than double. Windows is now faster than Linux. :O”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6549444#msg6549444)
-753: “i here tft is no longer part of the project. so is he forking or relaunching bytecoin under new name and new parameters (merged mining with flatter emission curve.) also. what is the end consensus for the emission curve for monero. will it be adjusted."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6561345#msg6561345)
[May, 5th 2014. TFT is launching FANTOMCOIN, a clone coin which its "only" feature was merged mining]
-761: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6561941#msg6561941) [May, 5th 2014 – eizh on emission curve and tail emission]
-791: “As promised, I did Russian translation of main topic.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6565521#msg6565521)
[one among dozens of decentralized and “altruist” collaborators of Monero in minor tasks]
-827: image
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6571652#msg6571652)
-853: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6575033#msg6575033)
[some are not happy that NoodleDoodle had only released the built binaries, but not the source code]
-950: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6593768#msg6593768)
[Rias, an account suspected to be related to the Bytecoin scam, dares to tag Monero as “instamine”]
-957: “It's rather bizarre that you're calling this an "instamine" scam when you're so fervently supporting BCN, which was mined 80% before entering the clearnet. Difficulty adjustments are per block, so there is no possibility of an instamine unless you don't publish your blockchain (emission is regular at the preset interval, and scales adequately with the network hash rate). What you're accusing monero of is exactly what ByteCoin did.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6594025#msg6594025
[Discussion with rias drags on for SEVERAL posts]
-1016: “There is no "dev team". There is a community of people working on various aspects of the coin.
I've been keeping the repo up to date. NoodleDoodle likes to optimise his miner. TFT started the fork and also assists when things break. othe's been working on a GUI. zone117x has been working on a pool.
It's a decentralized effort to maintain the fork, not a strawman team of leet hackers who dwell in the underbellies of the internet and conspire for instamines.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6596828#msg6596828)
-1023: “Like I stated in IRC, I am not part of the "dev team", I never was. Just so happens I took a look at the code and changed some extremely easy to spot "errors". I then decided to release the binary because I thought MRO would benefit from it. I made this decision individually and nobody else should be culpable”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6597057#msg6597057)
[Noodledoodle gets rid of the instaminer accusations]
-1029: “I decided to relaunch Monero so it will suit all your wishes that you had: flatter emission curve, open source optimized miner for everybody from the start, no MM with BCN/BMR and the name. New Monero will be ready tomorrow”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6597252#msg6597252)
[people trying to capitalize mistakes is always there.]
-1030: "Pull request has been submitted and merged to update miner speed
It appears from the simplicity of the fix that there may have been deliberate crippling of the hashing algorithm from introduction with ByteCoin."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6597460#msg6597460
[tacotime “officially” raises suspects of possible voluntarily crippled miner]
-1053: "I don't mind the 'relaunch' or the merge-mining fork or any other new coin at all. It's inevitable that the CryptoNote progresses like scrypt into a giant mess of coins. It's not undesirable or 'wrong'. Clones fighting out among themselves is actually beneficial for Monero. Although one of them is clearly unserious and trolling by choosing the same name.
Anyway, this sudden solidarity with BCN or TFT sure is strange when none of these accounts were around for the discussions that took place 3 weeks ago. Such vested interests with no prior indications. Hmm...? "
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6599013#msg6599013
[eizh points out the apparent organized fudding]
-1061: "There was no takeover. The original developer (who himself did a fork of bytecoin and around a dozen lines of code changes) was non-responsive and had disappeared. The original name had been cybersquatted all over the place (since the original developer did not even register any domain name much less create a web site), making it impossible to even create a suitably named web site. A bunch of us who didn't want to see the coin die who represented a huge share of the hash power and ownership of the coin decided to adopt it. We reached out to the original developer to participate in this community effort and he still didn't respond over 24 hours, so we decided to act to save the coin from neglect and actively work toward building the coin."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6599798#msg6599798)
[smooth defends legitimacy of current “dev team” and decisions taken]
-1074: “Zerocash will be announced soon (May 18 in Oakland? but open source may not be ready then?).
Here is a synopsis of the tradeoffs compared to CyptoNote: […]"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6602891#msg6602891)
[comparison among Zerocash y Cryptonote]
-1083: "Altcoin history shows that except in the case of premine (Tenebrix), the first implementation stays the largest by a wide margin. We're repeating that here by outpacing Bytecoin (thanks to its 80% mine prior to surfacing). No other CN coin has anywhere near the hashrate or trading volume. Go check diff in Fantom for example or the lack of activity in BCN trading.
The only CN coin out there doing something valuable is HoneyPenny, and they're open source too. If HP develops something useful, MRO can incorporate it as well. Open source gives confidence. No need for any further edge."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6603452#msg6603452)
[eizh reminds everyone the “first mover” advantage is a real advantage]
-1132: "I decided to tidy up bitmonero GitHub rep tonight, so now there is all valuable things from latest BCN commits & Win32. Faster hash from quazarcoin is also there. So BMR rep is the freshest one.
I'm working on another good feature now, so stay tuned."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6619738#msg6619738)
[first TFT apparition in weeks, he somehow pretends to still be the "lead dev"]
-1139: "This is not the github or website used by Monero. This github is outdated even with these updates. Only trust binaries from the first post."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6619971#msg6619971)
[eizh tries to clarify the community, after tft interference, which are the official downloads]
-1140: “The faster hash is from NoodleDoodle and is already submitted to the moner-project github (https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero) and included in the binaries here.
[trying to bring TFT back on board] It would be all easier if you just work together with the other guys, whats the problem? Come to irc and talk like everyone else?
[on future monero exchangers] I got confirmation from one."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6619997#msg6619997)
[8th may 2014, othe announces NoodleDoodle optimized miner is now open source, asks TFT to collaborate and communicates an exchanger is coming]
-1146: "I'll be impressed if they [BCN/TFT shills] manage to come up with an account registered before January, but then again they could buy those.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6620257#msg6620257)
[smooth]
-1150: “Ring signatures mean that when you sign a transaction to spend an output (coins), no one looking at the block chain can tell whether you signed it or one of the other outputs you choose to mix in with yours. With a mixing factor of 5 or 10 after several transactions there are millions of possible coins all mixed together. You get "anonymity" and mixing without having to use a third party mixer.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6620433#msg6620433)
[smooth answering to “what are ring signatures” in layman terms]
-1170: "Someone (C++ skilled) did private optimized miner a few days ago, he got 74H/s for i5 haswell. He pointed that mining code was very un-optimized and he did essential improvements for yourself. So, high H/S is possible yet. Can the dev's core review code for that?"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6623136#msg6623136)
[forums are talking about an individual or group of individuals with optimized miners - may 9th 2014]
-1230: "Good progress on the pool reported by NOMP dev zone117x. Stay tuned, everyone.
And remember to email your favorite exchanges about adding MRO."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6640190#msg6640190)
-1258: "This is actually as confusing to us as you. At one point, thankful_for_today said he was okay with name change: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.msg6368600#msg6368600
Then he disappeared for more than a week after the merge mining vote failed.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6645981#msg6645981)
[eizh on the TFT-issue]
-1358: “Jadehorse: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=263597
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=263597;sa=showPosts
Trustnobody: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=264292
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=264292;sa=showPosts
You guys should really just stop trying. It is quite transparent what you are doing. Or if you want to do it, do it somewhere else. Everyone else: ignore them please."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6666844#msg6666844)
[FUD campaign still ongoing, smooth battles it]
-1387: "The world’s first exchange for Monero just opened! cryptonote.exchange.to"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6675902#msg6675902)
[David Latapie announces an important milestone: exchanger is here]
-1467: "image"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6686125#msg6686125)
[it is weird, but tft appears again, apparently as if he were in a parallel reality]
-1495: “http://monero.cc/blog/monero-price-0-002-passed/”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6691706#msg6691706)
[“trading” milestone reached: monero surpassed for first time 0.002 btc price]
-1513: "There is one and only one coin, formerly called Bitmonero, now called Monero. There was a community vote in favor (despite likely ballot stuffing against). All of the major stakeholders at the time agreed with the rename, including TFT.
The code base is still called bitmonero. There is no reason to rename it, though we certainly could have if we really wanted to.
TFT said he he is sentimental about the Bitmonero name, which I can understand, so I don't think there is any malice or harm in him continuing to use it. He just posted the nice hash rate chart on here using the old name. Obviously he understands that they are one and the same coin."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6693615#msg6693615)
[Smooth clears up again the relation with TFT and BMR. Every time he appears it seems to generate confusion on newbies]
-1543: "Pool software is in testing now. You can follow the progress on the pool bounty thread (see original post on this thread for link)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6698097#msg6698097)
-1545: "[on the tail emission debate] I've been trying to raise awareness of this issue. The typical response seems to be, "when Bitcoin addresses the problem, so will we." To me this means it will never be addressed. The obvious solution is to perpetually increase the money supply, always rewarding miners with new coins.
Tacotime mentioned a hard fork proposal to never let the block reward drop below 1 coin:
Code: if (blockReward < 1){ blockReward = 1; }
I assume this is merely delaying the problem, however. I proposed a fixed annual debasement (say 2%) with a tx fee cap of like 0.001% of the current block reward (or whatever sounds reasonable). That way we still get the spam protection without worrying about fee escalation down the road."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6698879#msg6698879)
[Johnny Mnemonic wants to debate tail emission. Debate is moved to the “Monero Economy” thread]
-1603: “My GOD,the wallet is very very wierd and too complicated to operate, Why dont release a wallet-qt as Bitcoin?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6707857#msg6707857)
[Newbies have hard times with monero]
-1605: "because this coin is not a bitcoin clone and so there isnt a wallet-qt to just copy and release. There is a bounty for a GUI wallet and there is already an experimental windows wallet..."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6708250#msg6708250)
-1611: "I like this about Monero, but it seems it was written by cryptographers, not programmers. The damned thing doesn't even compile on Arch, and there are several bugs, like command history not working on Linux. The crypto ideas are top-notch, but the implementation is not."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6709002#msg6709002)
[Wolf0, a miner developer, little by little joining the community]
-1888: "http://198.199.79.100 (aka moneropool.org) successfully submitted a block. Miners will be paid for their work once payments start working.
P.S. This is actually our second block today. The first was orphaned. :/"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6753836#msg6753836)
[May 16th: first pool block]
-1927: "Botnets aren't problem now. The main problem is a private hi-performance miner"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6759622#msg6759622)
-1927: "Evidence?"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6759661#msg6759661)
[smooth about the private optimized miner]
-1937: “[reference needed: smooth battling the weak evidence of optimized miner] Yes, I remember that. Some person on the Internet saying that some other unnamed person said he did something hardly constitutes evidence.
I'm not even doubting that optimized asm code could make a big difference. Just not sure how to know whether this is real or not. Rumors and FUD are rampant, so it is just hard to tell."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760040#msg6760040)
[smooth does not take the "proof" seriously]
-1949: "image
One i5 and One e5 connected to local pool:
image"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760624#msg6760624)
[proof of optimized miner]
-1953: "lazybear are you interested in a bounty to release the source code (maybe cleaned up a bit?) your optimized miner? If not, I'll probably play around with the code myself tomorrow and see if I can come up with something, or maybe Noodle Doodle will take an interest."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760699#msg6760699)
[smooth tries to bring lazybear and his optimized miner on board]
-1957: "smooth, NoodleDoodle just said on IRC his latest optimizations are 4x faster on Windows. Untested on Linux so far but he'll push the source to the git repo soon. We'll be at 1 million network hashrate pretty soon."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760814#msg6760814)
[eizh makes publics NoodleDoodle also has more miner optimizations ready]
-1985: “Someone (not me) created a Monero block explorer and announced it yesterday in a separate thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=611561.0”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6766206#msg6766206)
[May 16th, 2014: a functional block explorer]
-2018: “Noodle is doing some final tests on Windows and will begin testing on Linux. He expects hashrate should increase across all architectures. I can confirm a 5x increase on an i7 quad-core + Windows 7 64-bit.
Please be patient. These are actual changes to the program, not just a switch that gets flicked on. It needs testing.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6770093#msg6770093)
[eizh has more info on last miner optimization]
-2023: “Monero marketcap is around $300,000 as of now”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6770365#msg6770365)
-2059: I was skeptical of this conspiracy theory at first but after thinking about the numbers and looking back at the code again, I'm starting to believe it.
These are not deep optimizations, just cleaning up the code to work as intended.
At 100 H/s, with 500k iterations, 70 cycles per L3 memory access, we're now at 3.5 GHz which is reasonably close. So the algorithm is finally memory-bound, as it was originally intended to be. But as delivered by the bytecode developers not even close.
I know this is going to sound like tooting our own horn but this is another example of the kind of dirty tricks you can expect from the 80% premine crowd and the good work being done in the name of the community by the Monero developers.
Assuming they had the reasonable, and not deoptimized, implementation of the algorithm as designed all along (which is likely), the alleged "two year history" of bytecoin was mined on 4-8 PCs. It's really one of the shadiest and sleaziest premines scams yet, though this shouldn't be surprising because in every type of scam, the scams always get sneakier and more deceptive over time (the simple ones no longer work)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6773168#msg6773168)
[smooth blowing the lid: if miner was so de-optimized, then BCN adoption was even lower than initially thought]
-2123: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6781481#msg6781481)
[fluffypony first public post in Monero threads]
-2131: "moneropool.org is up to 2KHs, (average of 26Hs per user). But that's still only 0.3% of the reported network rate of 575Khs.
So either a large botnet is mining, or someone's sitting quietly on a much more efficient miner and raking in MRO."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6782192#msg6782192)
[with pools users start to notice that “avg” users account for a very small % of the network hashrate, either botnets or a super-optimized miner is mining monero]
-2137: “I figure its either:
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6782852#msg6782852)
-2192: “New source (0.8.8.1) is up with optimizations in the hashing. Hashrate should go up ~4x or so, but may have CPU architecture dependence. Windows binaries are up as well for both 64-bit and 32-bit."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6788812#msg6788812)
[eizh makes official announce of last miner optimization, it is may 17th]
-2219: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6792038#msg6792038)
[wolf0 is part of the monero community for a while, discussing several topics as botnet mining and miner optimizations. Now spots security flaws in the just launched pools]
-2301: "5x optimized miner released, network hashrate decreases by 10% Make your own conclusions. :|"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6806946#msg6806946)
-2323: "Monero is on Poloniex https://poloniex.com/exchange/btc_mro"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6808548#msg6808548)
-2747: "Monero is holding a $500 logo contest on 99designs.com now: https://99designs.com/logo-design/contests/monero-mro-cryptocurrency-logo-design-contest-382486"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6829109#msg6829109)
-2756: “So... ALL Pools have 50KH/s COMBINED.
Yet, network hash is 20x more. Am i the only one who thinks that some people are insta mining with prepared faster miners?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6829977#msg6829977)
-2757: “Pools aren't stable yet. They are more inefficient than solo mining at the moment. They were just released. 10x optimizations have already been released since launch, I doubt there is much more optimization left.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6830012#msg6830012)
-2765: “Penalty for too large block size is disastrous in the long run.
Once MRO value increases a lot, block penalties will become more critical of an issue. Pools will fix this issue by placing a limit on number and size of transactions. Transaction fees will go up, because the pools will naturally accept the most profitable transactions. It will become very expensive to send with more than 0 mixin. Anonymity benefits of ring signatures are lost, and the currency becomes unusable for normal transactions.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6830475#msg6830475)
-2773: "The CryptoNote developers didn't want blocks getting very large without genuine need for it because it permits a malicious attack. So miners out of self-interest would deliberately restrict the size, forcing the network to operate at the edge of the penalty-free size limit but not exceed it. The maximum block size is a moving average so over time it would grow to accommodate organic volume increase and the issue goes away. This system is most broken when volume suddenly spikes."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6830710#msg6830710)
-3035: "We've contributed a massive amount to the infrastructure of the coin so far, enough to get recognition from cryptonote, including optimizing their hashing algorithm by an order of magnitude, creating open source pool software, and pushing several commits correcting issues with the coin that eventually were merged into the ByteCoin master. We also assisted some exchange operators in helping to support the coin.
To say that has no value is a bit silly... We've been working alongside the ByteCoin devs to improve both coins substantially."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6845545#msg6845545)
[tacotime defends the Monero team and community of accusations of just “ripping-off” others hard-work and “steal” their project]
-3044: "image"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6845986#msg6845986)
[Monero added to coinmarketcap may 21st 2014]
-3059: "You have no idea how influential you have been to the success of this coin. You are a great ambassador for MRO and one of the reasons why I chose to mine MRO during the early days (and I still do, but alas no soup for about 5 days now)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6846509#msg6846509)
[random user thanks smooth CONSTANT presence, and collaboration. It is not all FUD ;)]
-3068: "You are a little too caught up in the mindset of altcoin marketing wars about "unique features" and "the team" behind the latest pump and dump scam.
In fact this coin is really little more than BCN without the premine. "The team" is anyone who contributes code, which includes anyone contributing code to the BCN repository, because that will get merged as well (and vice-versa).
Focus on the technology (by all accounts amazing) and the fact that it was launched in a clean way without 80% of the total world supply of the coin getting hidden away "somewhere." That is the unique proposition here. There also happens to be a very good team behind the coin, but anyone trying too hard to market on the basis of some "special" features, team, or developer is selling you something. Hold on to your wallet."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6846638#msg6846638)
[An answer to those trolls saying Monero has no innovation/unique feature]
-3070: "Personally I found it refreshing that Monero took off WITHOUT a logo or a gui wallet, it means the team wasn't hyping a slick marketing package and is concentrating on the coin/note itself."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6846676#msg6846676)
-3119: “image
[included for the lulz]
-3101: "[…]The main developers are tacotime, smooth, NoodleDoodle. Some needs are being contracted out, including zone117x, LucasJones, and archit for the pool, another person for a Qt GUI, and another person independently looking at the code for bugs."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6848006#msg6848006)
[the initial "core team" so far, eizh post]
-3123: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6850085#msg6850085)
[fluffy steps-in with an interesting dense post. Don’t dare to skip it, worthwhile reading]
-3127: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6850526#msg6850526)
[fluffy again, worth to read it too, so follow link, don’t be lazy]
-3194: "Hi guys - thanks to lots of hard work we have added AES-NI support to the slow_hash function. If you're using an AES-NI processor you should see a speed-up of about 30%.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6857197#msg6857197)
[flufflypony is now pretty active in the xmr topic and announces a new optimization to the crippled miner]
-3202: "Whether using pools or not, this coin has a lot of orphaned blocks. When the original fork was done, several of us advised against 60 second blocks, but the warnings were not heeded.
I'm hopeful we can eventually make a change to more sane 2- or 2.5-minute blocks which should drastically reduce orphans, but that will require a hard fork, so not that easy."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6857796#msg6857796)
[smooth takes the opportunity to remember the need of bigger target block]
-3227: “Okay, optimized miner seems to be working: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=619373”
[wolf0 makes public his open source optimized miner]
-3235: "Smooth, I agree block time needs to go back to 2 minutes or higher. I think this and other changes discussed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.msg6701490#msg6701490) should be rolled into a single hard fork and bundled with a beautiful GUI wallet and mining tools."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6861193#msg6861193)
[tail emission, block target and block size are discussed in the next few messages among smooth, johnny and others. If you want to know further about their opinions/reasonings go and read it]
-3268: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6862693#msg6862693)
[fluffy dares another user to bet 5 btc that in one year monero will be over dash in market cap. A bet that he would have lost as you can see here https://coinmarketcap.com/historical/20150524/ even excluding the 2M “instamined” coins]
-3283: "Most of the previous "CPU only" coins are really scams and the developers already have GPU miner or know how to write one. There are a very few exceptions, almost certainly including this one.
I don't expect a really dominant GPU miner any time soon, maybe ever. GPUs are just computers though, so it is certainly possible to mine this on a GPU, and there probably will be a some GPU miner, but won't be so much faster as to put small scale CPU miners out of business (probably -- absent some unknown algorithmic flaw).
Everyone focuses on botnets because it has been so long since regular users were able to effectively mine a coin (due to every coin rapidly going high end GPU and ASIC) that the idea that "users" could vastly outnumber "miners" (botnet or otherwise) isn't even on the radar.
The vision here is a wallet that asks you when you want to install: "Do you want to devote some of you CPU power to help secure the network. You will be eligible to receive free coins as a reward (recommended) [check box]." Get millions of users doing that and it will drive down the value of mining to where neither botnets nor professional/industrial miners will bother, and Satoshi's original vision of a true p2p currency will be realized.
That's what cryptonote wants to accomplish with this whole "egalitarian mining" concept. Whether it succeeds I don't know but we should give it a chance. Those cryptonote guys seem pretty smart. They've probably thought this through better than any of us have."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6863720#msg6863720)
[smooth vision of a true p2p currency]
-3318: "I have a screen shot that was PMed to me by someone who paid a lot of money for a lot of servers to mine this coin. He won't be outed by me ever but he does in fact exist. Truth."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6865061#msg6865061)
[smooth somehow implies it is not botnets but an individual or a group of them renting huge cloud instances]
-3442: "I'm happy to report we've successfully cracked Darkcoin's network with our new quantum computers that just arrived from BFL, a mere two weeks after we ordered them."
[fluffy-troll]
-3481: “Their slogan is, "Orphaned Blocks, Bloated Blockchain, that's how we do""
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6878244#msg6878244)
[Major FUD troll in the topic. One of the hardest I’ve ever seen]
-3571: "Tacotime wanted the thread name and OP to use the word privacy instead of anonymity, but I made the change for marketing reasons. Other coins do use the word anonymous improperly, so we too have to play the marketing game. Most users will not bother looking at details to see which actually has more privacy; they'll assume anonymity > privacy. In a world with finite population, there's no such thing as anonymity. You're always "1 of N" possible participants.
Zero knowledge gives N -> everyone using the currency, ring signatures give N -> your choice, and CoinJoin gives N -> people who happen to be spending around the same amount of money as you at around the same time. This is actually the critical weakness of CoinJoin: the anonymity set is small and it's fairly susceptible to blockchain analysis. Its main advantage is that you can stick to Bitcoin without hard forking.
Another calculated marketing decision: I made most of the OP about ring signatures. In reality, stealth addressing (i.e. one-time public keys) already provides you with 90% of the privacy you need. Ring signatures are more of a trump card that cannot be broken. But Bitcoin already has manual stealth addressing so the distinguishing technological factor in CryptoNote is the use of ring signatures.
This is why I think having a coin based on CoinJoin is silly: Bitcoin already has some privacy if you care enough. A separate currency needs to go way beyond mediocre privacy improvements and provide true indistinguishably. This is true thanks to ring signatures: you can never break the 1/N probability of guessing correctly. There's no additional circumstantial evidence like with CoinJoin (save for IP addresses, but that's a problem independent of cryptocurrencies)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6883525#msg6883525)
[Anonymity discussions, specially comparing Monero with Darkcoin and its coinjoin-based solution, keep going on]
-3593: "Transaction fees should be a fixed percentage of the block reward, or at the very least not be controllable by the payer. If payers can optionally pay more then it opens the door for miner discrimination and tx fee bidding wars."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6886770#msg6886770)
[Johnny Mnemonic is a firm defender of fixed fees and tail emission: he see the “fee market” as big danger to the usability of cryptocurrencies]
-3986: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6930412#msg6930412)
[partnership with i2p]
-4373: “Way, way faster version of cpuminer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=619373”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6993812#msg6993812)
[super-optimized miner is finally leaked to the public. Now the hashrate is 100 times bigger than originally with crippled miner. The next hedge for "cloud farmers" is GPU mining]
-4877: “1. We have a logo! If you use Monero in any of your projects, you can grab a branding pack here. You can also see it in all its glory right here:
logo […] 4. In order to maintain ISO 4217 compliance, we are changing our ticker symbol from MRO to XMR effective immediately."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7098497#msg7098497)
[Jun 2nd 2014]
-5079: “First GPU miner: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638915.0”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7130160#msg7130160)
[4th June: Claymore has developed the first CryptoNight open source and publicly available GPU miner]
-5454: "New update to my miner - up to 25% hash increase. Comment and tell me how much of an increase you got from it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=632724"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7198061#msg7198061)
[miner optimization is an endless task]
-5464: "I have posted a proposal for fixed subsidy:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.msg7202538#msg7202538"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7202776#msg7202776)
[Nice charts and discussion proposed by tacotime, worth reading it]
-5658: "- New seed nodes added. - Electrum-style deterministic wallets have been added to help in the recovery of your wallet should you ever need to. It is enabled by default."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7234475#msg7234475)
[Now you can recover your wallet with a 24 word seed]
-5726: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7240623#msg7240623)
[Bitcoin Pizza in monero version: a 2500 XMR picture sale (today worth ~$20k)]
-6905: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7386715#msg7386715)
[Monero missives: CryptoNote peer review starts whitepaper reviewed)]
-7328: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7438333#msg7438333)
[android monero widget built]
This is a dense digest of the first several thousand messages on the definitive Monero thread.
A lot of things happened in this stressful days and most are recorded here. It can be summarized in this:
  • 28th April: Othe and zone117x assume the GUI wallet and CN pools tasks.
  • 30th April: First NoodleDoodle's miner optimization.
  • 11th May: First Monero exchanger
  • 13th May: Open source pool code is ready.
  • 16th May: First pool mined block.
  • 19th May: Monero in poloniex
  • 20th May: Monero +1100 bitcoin 24h trading volume in Poloniex.
  • 21st May: New official miner optimization x4 speed (accumulated optimization x12-x16). Open source wolf0's CPU miner released.
  • 25th May: partnership with i2p
  • 28th May: The legendary super-optimized miner is leaked. Currently running x90 original speed. Hedge of the "cloud farmers" is over in the cpu mining.
  • 2nd June: Monero at last has a logo. Ticker symbol changes to the definitive XMR (former MRO)
  • 4th June: Claymore's open source GPU miner.
  • 10th June: Monero's "10,000 bitcoin pizza" (2500 XMR paintig). Deterministic seed-based wallets (recover wallet with a 24 word seed)
  • March 2015 – tail emission added to code
  • March 2016 – monero hard forks to 2 min block and doubles block reward
There basically two things in here that can be used to attack Monero:
  • Crippled miner Gave unfair advantage to those brave enough to risk money and time to optimize and mine Monero.
  • Fast curve emission non-bitcoin-like curve as initially advertised and as it was widely accepted as suitable
Though we have to say two things to support current Monero community and devs:
  • The crippled miner was coded either by Bytecoin or CryptoNote, and 100% solved within a month by Monero community
  • The fast curve emission was a TFT miscalculation. He forgot to consider that as he was halving the block target he was unintentionally doubling the emission rate.
submitted by el_hispano to Monero [link] [comments]

Free BTC Mining latest Site 2020  Legit Site  Limited ... BITCOIN HASHRATE PLUMMETS! YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT BTC PRICE DID LAST TIME Bitcoin HASH RATE skyrockets! Cryptocurrency Bucks the Trend!! Oobit Pass  Crypto and Bitcoin News Does bitcoin hash rate Matter? Crypto Marketer Answers Bitcoin Hash Rate Dropped 25% - Effecting The Price?

Top 10 Cryptocurrency Hashrate Charts for 2020 (BEAM) Beam Hashrate Chart (BTC) Bitcoin Hashrate Chart (DASH) Dash Hashrate Chart ... Bitcoin. Bitcoin Mining Bitcoin Mining Calculator Bitcoin Difficulty Chart Litecoin. Litecoin Mining ... Average hashrate (hash/s) per day 789.523 Khash/s +1.88% in 24 hours Share: btc eth ltc xmr bch xrp bsv zec etc dash btg doge vtc rdd ftc blk nvc nmc Bitcoin price and hashrate, 2010-2018 Last updated 26 Feb 2020 Hash Price is revenue generated by miners on a per tera-hash basis. It provides clues into the hardware miners are using, we can clearly see the shift between the GPU and ASIC era of mining. And the slowing race to the bottom with the latest generation of ASIC hardware. Hash Rate Units. When Satoshi gave the world Bitcoin back in 2009, it was easy enough to measure hashrate in hashes per second because the computing power on the Bitcoin network was still relatively low.

[index] [27283] [27017] [3021] [31517] [23089] [15912] [8009] [34882] [6293] [16086]

Free BTC Mining latest Site 2020 Legit Site Limited ...

Mine More $ & Keep Re-Sale VALUE With These Instead! https://geni.us/wwYNKF My Favorite GPU... sometimes https://geni.us/b1Yi Red Panda Mining NEW Merch! ... Bitcoin: Hash rate and price analysis ... Bitcoin will be the new store of value and crypto will be the new technology evolution and I want to be a part of that trough this channel. I will be sharing my ideas about the future of Bitcoin ... Last time bitcoin hash rate took a nosedive to a new low, bitcoin price turned bullish. This is what btc price charts tell us! #Bitcoin #btc Headlines: Over the years I've learned the best indicators to use on Tradingview based on my style of trading for Bitcoin. I like to use multiple indicators for confirm... Bitcoin's halving (block reward) is fast approaching, and we examine the recently increases hash rate metrics. Oobit Releases A Coinbase-Powered “Skyscanner” For Bitcoin.

#