|submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]|
|submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]|
|submitted by BitcoinMagazine to Bitcoin [link] [comments]|
|submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]|
|submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]|
|submitted by HarmonicWavelength to Bitcoin [link] [comments]|
What's the difference between blacklisting and making the coins unmovable? Isn't that exactly what blacklisting is?Blacklisting means not accepting transactions from address X.
The point is that they centrally issue and control their own tokens on the bitcoin network. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this. They already issue tokens on their own network. It’s just a different database.Here I am 7 comments later saying those databases don't allow for digital cash when I just stated they did.
Your SQL databases don’t really allow for digital cash.Shit maybe token issuance on BSV won't work time to pivot to:
But bank transfers still take days between Europe and Asia and have high fees precisely because all the banks maintain their own networks.Think of the possibilities guys. You totally can't do this today, right?
so they can (for example) sell a YouTube video directly to the whole world, for their native national token... on the bitcoin network.Crap, maybe there are some good points there. At least Bitcoin can push transactions out in seconds despite having a 10 minute block time! And wait until you see the block times if anyone ever does try to send a billion tx in a second!
These hashes cost bitcoin, but you can sell billions of them per second.What do you mean risks of minority hash rate on BSV? Nobody has ever done a 51% attack and not been arrested! THEY'LL LOSE THEIR MINING EQUIPMENT!
Except that it’s illegal to attack another chain, and it’s public, and traceable and the punishment would be your company loses all its mining equipment.I'm running out of use cases since they're getting shot down so fast. Here's a good one. Why pay $80 a month for internet in 1 transaction, when you can pay for internet 1.7trillion times every month for every data packet you get?
And the advantage of sending 0.0011p to someone might be that they’re providing a service to you, like a data packet.But think of all the UnIqUe AnD gReAt FeAtUrEs on BSV. Really cutting edge stuff that SQL Server doesn't have due to being obsolete in the 90s, like the ability to append only instead of modify data elements! Also, watch the blockchain desync if you ever tried 1billion tx/sec!
The network scales to handle billions of TX/sec and the ledger is append only so it matches the criteria for keeping accurate records and/or updating them as needs be.Time to pivot again since I'm being dismantled at every turn. What haven't I mentioned yet?
you haven’t solved the issue of the US dollar being the worlds default currency on which global trade relies.Here is me doing my best Craig Wright technobabble nonsense impression. I know this is technically English but the words being strung together make no sense!
Once again you’ve really missed the point of all this. A data commodity that comes about through consensus of the network on ‘what value is’ contains a fraction of every part of the global economy.Time to revert to some Craig Wright technobabble bullshit again:
Those in charge of producing dollars ultimately have an unfair advantage over those who don’t and they can game the system.
That’s a peer to peer internet model where producers get paid directly by consumers for the data they consume and miners get paid according to how fast and how efficiently and how accurately they can deliver the data.
Finally, you can send any kind of data in a bitcoin transaction. Not just fiat currencies issued by a government but audio, video, text, a webpage, etc.And finally:
It’s very smart. Unlike you.My transformation is complete.
”While some may prefer that Bitcoin ABC did not implement this improvement, this announcement is not an invitation for debate. The decision has been made and will be activated at the November upgrade.”I find it funny how the article is a lengthy belaboring of the point, all the way until the very end where he at last forcibly “tells us” what’s going to happen whether we like it or not.
”The Coinbase Rule improvement is as follows: All newly mined blocks must contain an output assigning 8% of the newly mined coins to a specified address.”
Full article: https://medium.com/bitcoin-abc/bitcoin-abcs-plan-for-the-november-2020-upgrade-65fb84c4348f
submitted by kjonesatjaagnet to JAAGNet [link] [comments]
Image: Tom Adams - Unsplash
A New York law firm is trying to test blockchain projects’ decentralization claims against their perhaps not-quite-so-distributed realities.
Called the “Ketsal Open Standards” rubric, the toolkit, developed by the Ketsal law firm and revealed exclusively to CoinDesk, proposes using hard, measurable data points to either bolster or burst a blockchain’s decentralized credentials.
It’s the latest contribution to a long-raging debate in crypto: when, and how, is something truly decentralized?
Finding that key, said toolkit co-creator and Ketsal partner Josh Garcia, can help investors, security researchers and even securities regulators root out blockchain projects’ sometimes bogus claims.
“It’s a tool to push along an informed discussion on what you’re talking about when you’re saying, ‘my network is decentralized.’”
“Now you can push back” with evidence the assertion is demonstrably false, he said.
Garcia and co-author Jenny Leung’s Open Standards is hardly the first decentralization measurement toolkit. But a review by CoinDesk shows it to be one of the most robust.
Thirty-three data points probe the hard facts behind blockchain decentralization. Many are obvious. For example, the focus network’s node count – a decentralized network should have plenty – and its underlying code’s licensure status – open source or bust – are clear benchmarks.
But others appear to be more novel. Ketsal’s framework proposes weighing the network’s GitHub statistics, measuring inter-node communication times, determining how large a stake of the cryptocurrency rests in wallets (and with the big-investing whales) – and even the theoretical cost of mounting a 51% attack, among others.
Compiling these statistics can help researchers better understand a blockchain’s in-the-moment distribution even if reaching an up-down verdict on its decentralization is impossible, said Garcia.
“It’s not an answer to the question, ‘What is decentralization,’ but it’s a way to find that answer,” he said. “If people can decide whether or not some of these metrics are valid,” they can use their chosen set to test for the type of decentralization they’re looking at.
Providing a broad selection of diverse metrics is critical, he said, because of the political, computational and economic analysts searching for a “decentralization” particular to them. A securities regulator concerned with the Howey Test would likely choose different data points than a security researcher probing the network for holes.
But different analysts also might hone in on similar points. For one, mining power concentration, or the concentration of miners whose computational efforts cryptographically secure proof-of-work blockchains, is a critical benchmark for any decentralization hawk.
If all the key miners are geographically concentrated or grouped into a single pool, a blockchain may face mounting centralization and security risks, according to Ketsal. Just four pools mined 58% of Bitcoin blocks in the past year, the rubric shows.
Garcia said his team spent months compiling all the relevant data points from the world’s best-known blockchain network. Bitcoin’s resilience as well as the consensus agreement that it is decentralized make it an ideal case study, and Garcia said it’s the obvious benchmark to hold other projects against.
“If you do the same exact chart for another blockchain network, and you compare it side by side to Bitcoin … you know how far off you are from [decentralization]” he said.
Originally published by Danny Nelson | October 21, 2020 Coindesk
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis.
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the networkIt is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
April 30, 2020 | There’s more than just the sound of thousands of vacuumssubmitted by 1TMine to u/1TMine [link] [comments]
It is very easy to just silo the arcane bitcoin mining process as just a bunch of machines computing mathematical algorithms. Although for the most part this is true, and the veracity of this is not far off from the real truth, but what we see on the surface is not identical to what we see below the surface. Understanding bitcoin mining goes beyond the USB enabled ASIC miners we are accustomed to see on every thumbnail article we come across related to this industry.
It’s easy to understand why newbies halt their understanding of bitcoin mining to just state-of-the-art supercomputers with cool flickering neon green lights.
The following below is taken from the masterpiece of a novel, “Mastering Bitcoin”, by the great Andreas Antonopolous. As elegant as it sounds, its best to restate Andreas’ explanation of emergent consensus.
“Satoshi Nakamoto’s main invention is the decentralized mechanism for emergent consensus. Emergent, because consensus is not achieved explicitly — there is no election or fixed moment when consensus occurs. Instead, consensus is an emergent artifact of the asynchronous interaction of thousands of independent nodes, all following simple rules. All the properties of bitcoin, including currency, transactions, payments, and the security model that does not depend on central authority or trust, derive from this invention.
Bitcoin’s decentralized consensus emerges from the interplay of four processes that occur independently on nodes across the network:
“A mining node is listening for transactions, trying to mine a new block and also listening for blocks discovered by other nodes. The arrival of this block signifies the end of the competition for block 277,315 and the beginning of the competition to create block 277,316. During the previous 10 minutes, while Jing’s node was searching for a solution to block 277,315, it was also collecting transactions in preparation for the next block. By now it has collected a few hundred transactions in the memory pool. Upon receiving block 277,315 and validating it, Jing’s node will also check all the transactions in the memory pool and remove any that were included in block 277,315. Whatever transactions remain in the memory pool are unconfirmed and are waiting to be recorded in a new block. Jing’s node immediately constructs a new empty block, a candidate for block 277,316. This block is called a candidate block because it is not yet a valid block, as it does not contain a valid proof of work. The block becomes valid only if the miner succeeds in finding a solution to the proof-of-work algorithm.
These specialized machines are connected to his mining node over USB. Next, the mining node running on Jing’s desktop transmits the block header to his mining hardware, which starts testing trillions of nonces per second.”
That is essentially the process of what a miner machine and a mining node is going through each every second it is hooked up to the network. Of course this is just a high level overview with a bland taste but one could go more in depth by reading the book mentioned.
1.Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies 1st Edition, by Andreas M. Antonopoulos, O’Reilly Media; 1 edition (December 20, 2014)
https://preview.redd.it/lr1w0ukh2ik51.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b413e6e6b2e94d2e9522571040151826b7874e77submitted by UMITop to u/UMITop [link] [comments]
With UMI staking, anyone anywhere in the world can generate new coins at the rate of up to 40 % a month, or up to 5,669 % a year, with no risk of falling victim to fraudsters. It means new opportunities for humanity which never existed before. However, many people who are used to miserable interests on bank deposits and financial pyramids that last a few months at most cannot understand what makes this possible. How can you safely earn up to 40 % a month with no risk of losing it all?
Sceptics cannot wrap their minds around this which makes them suspect there’s a catch to it. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that you can find various myths about UMI's “deadly issue” on forums and social networks. The most popular among them say that you simply cannot ensure long-term operation with this kind of “super-high income” and no one has any idea what will happen to this cryptocurrency in 10 or more years. Here's a forecast from sceptics, briefly: “deposits” with this percentage are simply impossible, it will inevitably cause hyperinflation, UMI cryptocurrency will devalue, and will share the fate of currencies in some of the less fortunate countries, such as Zimbabwe or Venezuela.
To counter these allegations, we've prepared a detailed article with arguments dispelling all these myths, nullifying all “forecasts” and putting the lid on this issue. Here we go!
What's the value behind the forecasts?
First of all, 10 or more years is too much of a long term, and forecasting so far in advance is simply impossible. Don't take us wrong here: it's not just about cryptocurrencies; it's about anything in the world. There was a time when people thought pagers, faxes, and landline phones had cheerful prospects, but look at what happened to them. They have been replaced by smartphones and the Internet accessible to all which no one believed was possible in the first place. New technologies emerge out of the blue and transform the world beyond recognition. The old — something everyone is used to — is replaced with something new and more
convenient. Something better.
10 years ago people believed in developing bank technologies, but then, all of a sudden, Bitcoin was created and transformed people's understanding of financial payments. It turned out anyone in the world can make payments with no intermediaries and generate new digital money. It's true that Bitcoin is not perfect, but millions use it all over the world. This number is also growing fast with each passing day.
Do you remember forecasts made for Bitcoin when it first appeared? Both ordinary people and respected world-class experts predicted it would soon die. No one believed it could last for even 10 years.
Typical article predicting the end of Bitcoin from respected mass media. Source.
Here're some graphic examples from the leading world-class mass media:
“That's the End of Bitcoin.” Forbes, 2011, BTC price — $15.
“Bitcoin is headed to the ash heap.” USA Today, 2015, BTC price — $208.
“R.I.P., Bitcoin. It’s time to move on.” The Washington Post, 2016, BTC price — $382.
“Stay away from bitcoin and ethereum — they are complete garbage.” This is garbage." MarketWatch, 2017, BTC price — $2,345.
“Is Bitcoin Going To Zero?” Forbes, 2018, BTC price — $3,432.
In 2020, the BTC price is almost $12,000. The respected mass media have “declared Bitcoin dead” over 400 times (!!!) referring to its lack of backing, high issue rate, super-high price growth, and the like — just like the skeptics “declaring UMI dead” right now. However, despite all the discouraging forecasts, Bitcoin continues to successfully grow and rapidly gain in popularity.
Over 12 years, Bitcoin has been declared dead 381 times, but it only grows stronger with each passing year. Source.
All of the above is proof that you shouldn't put blind trust in various forecasts, even coming from respected sources. Forecasts are mere opinions and arguments, but no one can know for
sure what will happen in 10, 100, or 1,000 years. No expert can know that. Similarly, no one knows what will happen to UMI many years from now.
UMI can solve any issues on the fly
We cannot know the future, but we did all we could to make our coin last forever. Most existing cryptocurrencies have a very important problem — they cannot support high-quality growth and rapidly become obsolete.
To explain this, we'd like to quote our Whitepaper:
"Despite the apparition of new technology solutions, the Bitcoin blockchain still holds only about 2,000 transactions, and it takes about 10 minutes to create a block. In 11 years, developers still did not manage to come to an agreement and implement a solution that would allow scaling the system and upgrade performance.
Most other cryptocurrencies face a similar problem. They are launched and keep operating in an almost initial state even after numerous innovative solutions become available. For example, the Ethereum network has been attempting to switch to the PoS algorithm for over two years now, but due to code complexity, security threats, and issues of reaching consensus, this causes great inconvenience."
Screenshot of a page in the UMI Whitepaper. Have you read it? It answers a lot of questions. Link.
Bitcoin itself is technically obsolete. This is besides the fact that it has a load of other problems. For instance, BTC is supposed to completely stop coin mining in 2140, meaning miners will lose motivation to support the network. What happens then? The hope is that the main source of income for miners will be transfer fees, but will they want to maintain powerful equipment for a reward in the form of small fees? If fees are big, will people want to pay those? Will they find a different solution? Will users just leave the Bitcoin ecosystem and join more high-tech cryptocurrencies like UMI?
When we designed UMI, we accounted for all these issues and launched a promising project with a conveniently scalable ecosystem. Even if UMI faces some challenges in the future, we will make amendments as the network grows. We will act as appropriate judging from the project's current status. They will be based on the situation and the current state of the project.
It's true that upgrade decisions have been and are being made by all leading crypto projects, including Bitcoin and Ethereum, but UMI supports really safe and rapid innovation. The network can be easily modified and scaled with cutting edge technology solutions. While other cryptocurrencies simply become obsolete, we can handle all kinds of challenges on the fly. The UMI network will grow and improve to be always up to date, keep up with the times, and prevent problems in 10, 100, or 1,000 years.
At this point, the UMI network is in excellent shape, and the smart contract offers you relevant and actionable staking opportunities. We've thought out every detail, and the brisk growth of our community proves it best of all.
There is no "deadly inflation"
And, lastly, let's bring an issue with supposedly too-high emission to a close. UMI is typically accused of paying a too high reward for staking — as much as 40% a month, or 5,669% a year — which no one and nothing else in this world can pay. Eventually, it might end up with inflation as it happened in Zimbabwe and Venezuela, etc.,
Let us look at real facts. Those who consider a 40% monthly growth impossible should look at bitcoin again as the most outstanding example which has proven that nothing is impossible. Imagine how many times your deposit would have grown if 10 years ago you had bought bitcoins or inexpensive mining equipment producing a reward of 50 BTC several times a day.
Please consider the following:
In March 2010, BitcoinMarket.com started operating as the first bitcoin exchange, and 1 BTC cost a lot less than a cent — $0.003.
At the time of writing this article, the price for 1BTC was about $12,000.
It means those who bought bitcoins 10 years ago have increased their "deposit" by nearly 400,000,000% (!!!). Four hundred million percent in ten years! This is a real fact.
Those who bought bitcoins when the price was a few cents or dollars also achieved the perfect result by increasing their "deposit" by thousand or million times.
Well, now the percentage in UMI staking doesn't seem so crazy, does it? The only difference
is that BTC "deposit" grows in line with the BTC price while UMI deposit growth is ensured the growth of the number of UMI coins, which in turn doesn't prevent the price from surging. In fact, both cases demonstrate a multiple growth of the "deposit".
All of the above is proof that the reason for inflation in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc is a bad economy, not a high emission. In late March. roughly speaking, in one day, the FED (U.S. Federal Reserve System) released 2.2 trillion dollars to support the economy during the coronavirus pandemic. Similar financial injections are regular in the USA, the country which is the most advanced world's economy.
These facts indicate that UMI has no "deadly issue" at all and, unlike the USA, it doesn't "print" anything.
Here is bare statistics form the UMI blockchain:
The UMI cryptocurrency was launched on June 1. Since the launch, it's been 3 months.
18,000,000 UMI coins were initially issued.
In total, there are now about 18,800,000 UMI coins.
In other words, in three months, the total number of UMI coins increased by only 4.4%. Does it look like "deadly inflation"?
In 3 months, the number of UMI coins has shown a few percent increase. Source.
Let's move on:
We'd like to reiterate that the total number of UMI coins is almost 18,800,000.
There are about 14,500,000 coins on the genesis address today.
Almost 4,000,000 coins are involved in staking.
Thus, only 300,000 UMI (!)are freely circulated on the market. The remaining 18,500,000 coins are either used in staking or have not yet been released to the market.
The number of coins stored on the genesis address at the time of writing the article. Source.
In real fact, UMI has no super-high emission. This fact has been proven. For a three-month period, which is a quarter of a year, the number of UMI has hardly changed and equals about 1.5% of the total number of coins on the market.
The truth is that UMI economy depends on a lot of factors. For example, burning 50,000 coins to create a structure. However, from a more general point of view, the UMI economic model itself is designed to encourage people to "save" rather than sell UMI coins. This is a crucial point that allows us to make progress, even with a high emission.
Moreover, it will take a billion-dollar staking structure that will be able to provide the highest possible emission on the UMI network a lot of years to appear. While it doesn't happen, all these forecasts can be regarded as irrelevant for today. Keep in mind that a 40% monthly profit will be available to the most successful structures and only after many years of development. To have your coins increased by 40% per month, your structure must have over 50 (!) times more coins than the number of coins initially generated by the network. And since this structure will do everything possible for the benefit of the UMI cryptocurrency, even 40% per month will not pose a risk to UMI's sustainable development.
Conclusions are as follows:
UMI offers no kind of "killing sky-high returns". Please don't take this myth seriously. UMI is growing. The current smart contract offers reasonable and up-to-date opportunities for UMI staking and poses no problem. If, however, a problem arises — we have all the tools to find an immediate solution. All these negative forecasts are not worth a brass farthing. They always have been and always will be. At all times and in all places. But they are highly unlikely to come true. Bitcoin outsmarted the most reputable and shrewd financial analysts. Why don't UMI, which is a lot more advanced than bitcoin, try to do the same?
UMI is a decentralized, strong, and high-tech network. It can exist the way it is now forever. But as it grows, it will improve to be always up to date, keep up with the times and prevent any problems. We are contributing to a great thing — we're creating a free economic system that will profitable for the entire human family. This is an opportunity to overcome social inequality and make regular people financially independent. So let's make every effort to make things go well. Ignore all evil-wishers and their predictions. Just join other users and go towards your dream. Then we will certainly succeed in it all.
Sincerely yours, UMI team
Interactive Demonstration: This Is How You Mine Some Bitcoin. By Toph Tucker Toph Tucker, Allison McCann Allison McCann January 13, 2014. Suppose you’re buying an Ellsworth 2-drawer Night Stand ... Ich bin ein Blockchain, Bitcoin, Ethereum Enthusiast und betreibe neben diesen Blog auch noch einige Services und einen Youtube Channel im Bereich Blockchain & Bitcoin, um mein Wissen und meine Beruflichen als auch Privaten Erfahrungen aus der großartigen Welt der Blockchain als auch aus der Kryptowelt kostenlos mit euch zu teilen. Ich würde mich freuen wenn ich dich genauso für das Thema ... Filecoin Miner Strike. According to reports citing Space Cloud chairman, Lai Chuhang, miners had already powered down their pricey rigs in protest; “The mainnet is online and all the miners are stopped there. It is really not a so-called ‘demonstration’, it is helpless! Do mortgage mining! Stupid economic model!” A twitter account called ‘Nico Deva’ broke down the model using ... In diesem Beitrag geht es um die Programmierung einer Simulation im Falle einer Miner Kapitulation nach dem Halving Event. Bei dieser in Java programmierten Simulation geht es um die Frage nach der Lebensdauer des Bitcoin Netzwerks im Falle einer Miner Kapitulation. In diesem Szenario passt sich die Schwierigkeit des Bitcoin Netzwerk zu langsam an und immer mehr Miner steigen aus. The report's findings indicate cryptocurrency mining has expanded a great deal, but China’s bitcoin mines “suffered a great impact” in H1.
[index]