Is Bitcoin A Bubble? If So, When Will The Bitcoin Bubble ...

Small reviews of (I think) all incremental games I've ever played on Android

I don't know if this will be useful to anyone. So I write a line or two about every game I play, and decided to find all the incremental in my game journal and post them here. It starts with the latest games I've played and I think goes back to several years back. One thing I've realized is I have such a love-hate-hate relationship with this genre since I think I've hated 90% of the games and 100% of myself after each incremental phase. I usually angrily stop playing them for a while and restart them again, so this is more or less a journal of addiction, I suppose.
  1. Kittens Game
  2. Antimatter Dimensions
  3. Oil Tycoon
Honorable Mention: Eggs, Inc
The rest: more or less hated it
Additional comment if you decide to scan through it, I complain a lot, so it is perfectly reasonable and normal to think, "why the fuck are you even playing these games, idiot??".

Time Idle RPG
This game was confusing. It tells me the game's resources is time, where you get 1 of it every second, but that's not really something as unique as I assumed. It would have been cool if time as resources meant you used it to deal with something related to time. Maybe time travel? Maybe slowing and speeding time?
Instead time as resource buys you stuff like a library. And then you buy a camp or something. Honestly, I wasn't really feeling it.
Path of Idling
The biggest cardinal sin for me when it comes to incremental is when a game has a lot of features and it just completely throws them all at you instantly. The joy of a great incremental is how things slowly open up and each new achievement feels progress.
The game is a RPG game and these are the things that opened up for me in the first few hours.
Combat which includes normal fighting, dungeon, raid, boss, PVP (locked, but it just needs an ascend, which I haven't done)
Hero upgrades which include Passive (strength, defence, stamina, intelligence), Train, and a huge Tree
Town which you can buy workers who get you various things like gold, orbs, knowledge, etc. You can upgrade stuff here.
Quest that also includes Perks and Skill quests.
Gear which 5 equipment slots, plus craft plus trade plus smelt
Also gear for your Pet, which is also another tab!
Now, here is the thing. Because I have all of this pretty much instantly, I don't really know which ones are helping me go past a well. How is adding 10 points in strength helping me? Should I have added five in strength instead and five in defence? I have already bought 20 or so upgrades in the Tree, but I have no idea if I am made the optimal choice. There is no real excitement with getting new gear. And so on.
The dev has added a lot of features, now it's time to rework the game, and have the features take their time.
Idle Slayer
The game is like a super simple platformer. Your character is running and any enemy it hits, it automatically slays it. There is no HP, and all enemies die in one shot. Your only active play is jumping occasionally to grab coins or hit the flying enemies. Also, you have a run skill that has a cool down.
With the coins, we get new weapons that give us more coins. Enemies give us souls which is used for the prestige system that provides us with an interesting skill tree which provides a lot of choices on the path you want to do in terms of upgrades.
So far excellent, however, the game has an extremely serious issue of pacing. The game initially progresses so fast that in the first hour or so, you get almost all the weapons aside from the last two, which then grinds down to a snail pace. You can upgrade your past weapons, but they never really get into play again. Reaching high levels of past weapons sometimes gave me upgrades of that weapon of 10,000% but they still did nothing to my overall coin per second. I think the pacing needs to be fully reworked. It would have been nice to get new weapons after certain prestige cycles, so that every new weapon feels like we have passed a significant wall. The best part of an incremental game for me is to face a wall, and when I finally break it, I feel powerful again for a while. This game feels like this though, powerful powerful powerful powerful WALL........break it....WALL. And so on. I'm still playing it as I want to get some of the skills, but I feel like it could have been so much better.
Exponential Idle
A very back to the foundation kind of incremental. The premise is that you are a student and working on a formula. There is a neat story where as you progress in the game, your character progresses through university. Each upgrade gives you more and more automation until I reached a stage where I would check back once every 2 or 3 days, click a 2nd layer prestige reset, and close it. Meaning the game was something like 5 seconds of game player every 2 days. I just opened it for this review and realized I had reached the end game. The story wraps up and it tells me "You can take a rest. Travel a bit. Go outside!" NO, DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO GAME.
Factoid & Spark should have the same review as they are almost the same game with only small differences. The games are the most basic kind of incremental, where you buy something with resources, until you get the next thing which gives you more of the resources. Both give you upgrades to speed things up, and finally prestige and it's own prestige upgrades. That's it. It's nice little change of pace from all the recent incremental that sometimes do too much, but obviously due to the very simple nature of it, it does eventually feel pointless, specially after you more or less open up everything and the prestige upgrades just keep repeating.
Factoid & Spark should have the same review as they are almost the same game with only small differences. The games are the most basic kind of incremental, where you buy something with resources, until you get the next thing which gives you more of the resources. Both give you upgrades to speed things up, and finally prestige and it's own prestige upgrades. That's it. It's nice little change of pace from all the recent incremental that sometimes do too much, but obviously due to the very simple nature of it, it does eventually feel pointless, specially after you more or less open up everything and the prestige upgrades just keep repeating. 3
Antimatter Dimensions
Easily top 5 incremental on mobile. Does everything perfectly. You progress nicely, and when new features open it, not only is it rewarding but more importantly, it keeps adding new dimensions (lol) to the game. I'd at the end game as I write this, and I realize that there was no point in the game where it felt stale. Each new prestige layer made the game feel fresh and almost like a new incremental game.
Melvor Idle
It seems this game was mainly aimed at Runescape players, which is probably why it didn't click for me. It also run extremely slow on my phone which also played a part in me not really getting into.
A Girl Adrift
The animation is really pretty and is a nice change of pace for incrementals, but I didn't really like the too much active play. Really had to keep going back and forth to different areas to do the fishing which got too repetitive for me.
You travel to different areas of the map to catch fish, which you get points and then you upgrade stuff, but I didn't really find any real excitement about the upgrades because I kept having to go back to previous areas to fish similar creatures.
Archer: Danger Phone
I'm really annoyed how terrible of a game this was. Two things I like, the TV show "Archer" and incremental games, and it's done in the most lazy manner. The game is the worst aspect of idle games where it's just a straight path of clicking the next upgrade with absolutely zero decision making. Every once in a while there is a mini game where Archer gets to shoot others but it's done in the most basic form of early 2000s flash games, where the animation budget is probably 3 dollars. Same static background and both enemies and Archer have just two animation frames. The absolute laziness of it is almost insulting to the player, because it feels like we aren't even worth the effort.
There is an Archer story in the game which develops really fast, which is the only positive part, but no voice acting is again another evidence that the creators of the game weren't given any budget for this.
Home Quest
This game is way too slow. You have to collect materials to build your settlement but everything takes time, so you click for a few seconds, and then you have to leave the game. Which I'm fine with, but the problem isn't the idle part of it, it's how the idle part of it combines with constant checking of the game which annoys me. I like an idle game where you forget to start the game for a day, you come up to a lot of resources, but this is a game which needs you to check back in every 30 minutes or an hour to really get anywhere. I felt that the micromanagement was getting worse as I progressed (without any actual thing to do when I am active in the game) that made me give up.
Idle Industry
This is probably an interesting game, but I gave up because the one thing I really disliked was the amount of resources and manufacturing that very quickly opens to you. You can buy raw materials, and you can either sell these raw materials or turn them into finished goods and sell them either. And each of these has several upgrade options (increase selling price, increase production, etc). Without even really getting too deep into the game, I have around 20 raw materials and around 30 finished products. A satisfying part of this genre is to have things slow open up for you, which gives me a decent feeling of satisfaction. But the money I got would quickly open up new products, so I would just jump ahead and purchase more expensive ones, and after a while I had a lot of materials and products at zero, and was instead focusing on latter ones.
Masters of Madness
Somewhat neat atmosphere and visuals, but too much active clicking. Click, upgrade to get more per clicks, get minions to get you some points without clicking, typical clicker, but with the added benefit of almost no idling. I like idling incrementals but clickers is a hard no from me.
Soda Dungeon 2
Basically similar to the first one, as far as I could tell. I did "finish" it but maybe I shouldn't have, since it really is the same thing from early on, specially once you get all the heroes and you kind of sort out which characters work best, then it's just the same. But because it was somewhat short and no real wall, it was at least easy to stick to it to the end.
Bacterial Takeover
Played for a decent amount and was actually more interesting that I thought, given the buttload of ad incentives. You create and upgrade bacteria, attack planets, and eventually go into a blackhole to prestige. Most of the game was good, but the part that killed it for me was the prestige system. Once you prestige, planets get super easy to attack, which becomes a lot of active play. I realized that each prestige was taking me at least 30 minutes to get to where I was, and it was just meaningless clicking. It got to a point where I was putting off prestige because it seemed like it would be a hassle so I stopped.
Cute graphics. The hero sort of hopping to hit the tiny monsters is cute to look at, but how long can you look at it and do nothing before you realize that it's boring? I suppose this is a game where it's just not for me. I don't like to have my phone open on a game and just watch it like a crazy person and do nothing. My rule is simple for incrementals. While the app is open, be active, if there isn't any choices to make, close the app while resources build up or whatever. I don't like it being open while I do nothing.
A Kittens Game
Incremental games are so strange. I get in and out of the phases. I loved this for so long and so obsessively that I wanted to only play incremental games. And then, just like that, I was wondering why the fuck I was wasting my time with this. Has happened countless times before.
But still probably the best incremental ever.
A Dark Room
An incremental cult classic of sorts but I don't find it really matches the genre. There is a bit of incremental at the beginning with people huts and stuff but then its just a ascii exploring game, which wasn't interesting to me.
Little Healer
Saw it mentioned in the Reddit incremental forum in one of the posts and thought it was a healer themed incremental which sounded neat. But it's like being a healer in a raid in World of Warcraft without any if the extras. Just a couple of bars representing your team mates and you healing them while they fight the boss. I didn't even like playing the healer in WoW so no way would I play this game.
Clickie Zoo
Started playing for a few days until I realized there a beta released with the dev reworking the game completely from scratch and releasing it as "Idle Zoo Tycoon". So, played that instead but this seemed like a game I would enjoy anyway.
Idling to Rule the Gods
The UI and one drawing if your character is really ugly enough to be distracting to me. The game, seemed interesting and I eventually was into it, but seems like a game that has been constantly being updated, which is not always a good thing, because features are obviously updated regularly to it, making the whole thing a bit bloaty.
I guess, this is the problem with this game for me, it's too fat. Also, one main part of the game is that your character creates Shadow Clones up to a maximum limit. Which is fine except the clones can't be made in offline mode. This might not be a big deal in its original web browser game but that doesn't work as well in a mobile format.
Realm Grinder
This is one of the really popular incremental and it's fanbase seems to love it for it's depth, but to be honest, I don't play these games for the depth, I play it for the simple dopamine rush of doing the same thing over and over again. It relaxes.
Although, I didn't even get to the depth part because I dislike games where it rushes in the beginning. I constantly bought buildings, got spells, and got upgrades without even looking at the description. Apparently, later on, we can get complicated race upgades, which seems not what I'm looking for in such a genre.
A short (!!) incremental with an actual story (!!!). That's two cool points for it but unfortunately, the game mechanics of increment genre isn't so good. It's a space game with nice visuals and a great ending (cool music set to cool graphics) but the game itself wasn't really that fun. This same exact game would have been better in a different genre (maybe something like "Out There"?)
Felt like idle games again and this is the kind of examples that kept me away. Too much clicking and seems like advancement will start to get irritating since it relies on IAPs
Eggs, Inc
While I was playing it, Eggs, Inc was probably my favorite Android game I had ever played. But like most incremental games, there comes a moment when I suddenly stop and think, what am I doing?
Because there is something fascinating about Incrementals. Their addictiveness is in a way the whole point. An incremental is less of a game and more an act of electronic addictiveness. What's the point?
Eggs, Inc is a very well made and fun incremental but even the best in its genre is still pointless.
Castle Clicker
Supposedly a mix of incremental and city building but didn't really find out since the clickings were way to much. I know this is supposed to be the genre but I like the incremental part more than the tapping part. This seemed to be a good way to hurt your fingers.
Endless Era
This RPG clicker game is like other such games but with horrible GUI and animations. Tap tap tap. It's my fault for downloading such games. Why would I ever think this would be fun???
Idle Quote
An incremental game with a unique twist. This time we get to make up quotes! The first negative about the game and this irritates me a lot is most of the quotes are fake. A quick search on Google and this proves it. Quotes are generally attributed to Buddha or Ghandi or shit like that and it's usually fake like most quotes on the internet. This kills the major possible advantage of the game because I thought coming up with arbitrary words would at least give me some quotes to learn. Aside from the this, the game isn't fun either because it slows down very quickly meaning you combine words very slowly at a certain stage of the game and then it becomes a boring grind.
Monster Miser
An incremental game with almost no graphics. We just see character portraits of monsters which we buy and then upgrade until we buy the next monster. Eventually we prestige which gives us multipliers. The only game choice is choosing between two monsters with each new monster with unique benefits. Annoyingly there is a max limit which I wish didn't exist because I wanted to prestige so much that I would be over powerful in upgrading like that "Idle Oil Tycoon". Still, pointless but reasonably fun.
Pocket Politics
An incremental take on politics sounds fun but it's so generic that it could have been about anything. A Capitalist idle game or a cooking idle game, it wouldn't matter. IAP was also the usual shitty kind.
Time Clickers
A shooter incremental sounds like a cool twist but it's not a FPS like I imagined it would be. I'm just stuck in a room and I was shooting blocks. Upgrades didn't give me any enjoyment since I was shooting fucking blocks.
Tap Tap Fish - Abyssrium
I thought this was going to be relaxing incremental but the ridiculous and generic IAPs and all the social integeration spoil it. Too much time is spent in them asking you to buy or share or tweet or post or give them a blowjob. And there is nothing relaxing about that.
Cartoon 999
Incremental game about comic book writers, but not the marvel DC kind, it seemed to be the webcomic one and I think it's a Korean developer so all the characters and injokes made no sense to me. The whole thing was just targeted to a very specific audience.
Dungeon Manager
Incremental games need to be simple but this is beyond simple, it's just upgrade a fighter to level 5, go to next dungeon character, do the same, and just continue without any of the delicious balancing of upgrades like other idle games.
Final Fortress
Incremental games are already pointless but when it's super heavy on IAP than its also annoying, but when it always has bugs that doesn't register my offline earnings, then it just needs a uninstall in its face.
The zombie skin was also crappy.
Mana Maker
Here is how I know this clicker isn't very good. It doesn't make me hate all clickers and my life and mobile gaming in general for being so addictive and pointless.
So fail, sorry.
Infinity Dungeon
The usual incremental RPG that I should probably never play again. Starts simple enough and then gets more or a chore as you play.
Another incremental game which I had promised myself not to play anymore because they are so pointless and repetitive and endless. Well, this wasn't infinite and had a goal at 999 level so I thought it was good but while the humor was cute, the game did become very repetitive. Every 10 levels the slimes changed but after every 100 levels the whole thing restarted and while the monsters got stronger, I seemed to get even stronger. So the game became easier as I progressed and there was no more challenge. By level 800, I gave up.
Tap Dungeon RPG
Okay, I'm running out of ways to complain about those incremental RPG games that all have similar problems. It starts off reasonably fast and fun but soon it seems like I am in a data entry job. Doing the same thing over and over again with little changes.
Dungeon 999 F: Secret of Slime Dungeon
Another incremental game which I had promised myself not to play anymore because they are so pointless and repetitive and endless. Well, this wasn't infinite and had a goal at 999 level so I thought it was good but while the humor was cute, the game did become very repetitive. Every 10 levels the slimes changed but after every 100 levels the whole thing restarted and while the monsters got stronger, I seemed to get even stronger. So the game became easier as I progressed and there was no more challenge. By level 800, I gave up.
Tap Dungeon RPG
Okay, I'm running out of ways to complain about those incremental RPG games that all have similar problems. It starts off reasonably fast and fun but soon it seems like I am in a data entry job. Doing the same thing over and over again with little changes.
Tower of Hero
You start on the first floor of the tower and keep fighting your way up by summoning your heroes (by clicking) and recruiting other fighters, get upgrades, level up, and then, ugh, here is the typical incremental RPG part, restart, get items, and do it ALL over again.
There is something fun about restarting and getting slowly stronger each time but it also feels so pointless after a while. Such a pointless genre now that I have played a billion of such titles, heh.
Yet another incremental RPG which I have no idea why I downloaded because I'm sick of the genre. I played a pageboy to a knight who does the fighting while I collect the lot. I collect the loot, buy stuff for the knight, and eventually I restart to do the same thing again and get better items but this game I didn't even RESTART! Because fuck it! Fuck it!
Idle Warriors
The story is cute. Human population is regressing while monster population is on the rise. So the humans start enslaving monsters to mine for them! The brave warriors beat the crap out of monsters, kidnap the bosses, and enslave them. The animation of monsters slaving away while speech balloons above them talk about their wife and children is funny.
But the game itself is another RPG incremental which I should start staying away from. These games are like a chore for me nowadays because I'm doing the same crap again and again. The blame is probably on me because it seems like a reasonably solid game. But hey, fuck it, I PERSONALLY didn't enjoy it.
Tap! Tap! Faraway!
Any game that is remotely like Tap Titan scares me. They are addictive at first and very fast moving but after every restart gets more and more annoying. It soon turns into a time eating activity with the player having to redo the initial levels to get relics to get better items to progress further to restart to get relics to and so on until the player realizes how much time he is putting in the game for a repetitive activity.
Auto RPG
Now that is a title the game developers didn't spend too much time on. RPG battles are automatic but I can help out by clicking like a mad man. I started with one hero but would get additional members in my party as the story progressed. Party members receive skills as as they level up and while all the skill usage is automatic, it did give me a sense of progression which is extremely important in a RPG and which I think is usually lacking in incremental games. It usually starts feeling useless but in this game at least there are new maps, new members, and an actual end sight!
There is an infinity stage once the last boss is defeated but I am glad the infinity stage happens AFTER the end and it's not the game itself.
Hire a hero and send on to battle. The battles is done automatically and takes time, starts with something short like 10 seconds with each battle taking longer. The loot is raw materials which can be used to craft equipment which also takes real life time with better items taking longer. The crafted items can either be sold or equipped to the hero to make him be able to fight stronger monsters.
I was worried I would hate the longer crafting and fighting times because I hate games which I have to watch for a task to finish but even though the durations for longer, I had more to do. However, I don't know what would have happened in the end game because I gave up on it. New maps were exactly like the first map just with different heroes but the progression was similar in each level which felt that I was doing the exact same thing all over again but with longer task times.
Idle Oil Tycoon
This is the best idle game I played. It's graphics aren't just minor, they are none existent. It's just numbers, so basic that my sister thought I was on a stock market app.
It's such a simple concept. Invest, get oil, upgrade then like other idlers restart to get a bonus and do the full thing all over again. When I finished the game, I played the unlimited mode which I played until the unlimited mode couldn't handle the numbers anymore.
Soda Dungeon
This kind-of Idle Dungeon was great. I started with weak ass fighters who would fight on my behalf while I collected the loot. I then got to use the lot to upgrade the sofa bar to recruit more adventurers. Not sure why it was a sofa bar. Maybe they wanted to make it a family game and not have alcohol? Sounds weird but the sofa element in a RPG game sounds weirder.
The game only hit a brick for me when, like most other incremental games, there is no real closure. Once I thought I bet the big bad guy, it just goes on, harder but similar enough with no end in sight. Eventually, we have to stop playing right, but it always feels a bit like a let down when I don't feel like I have finished the game.
10 Billion Wives Kept Man Life
The two games from this company, 10 Billion Wives and Kept Man Life, have similar strengths and weaknesses.
I liked the silly premises from both. In 10BM, I had to get married as much as I could, using the loves I collect to marry more expensive wives! In KML, I'm a boyfriend who doesn't work and I have to please my career gf so she would take care of me.
Both start reasonably fast and I was willing to grind through difficult parts but the end game is like a brick wall. Passing through it to get all the achievements is pretty much impossible unless one puts in way too many hours. And it's a shame because I really wanted to get all the achievements to see all the tiny little extra stuff.
Adventure Capitalist
One of the better incremental games, but now that I am out of the short lived incremental fan phase, I realized how dumb the genre is. Tap, tap, tap, upgrade, do this a million times, reset, and do it all over again like a moron. The game does deserve credits for me acting like a moron and playing it for so long but I also cheated and got free cash and then if occupying became even more pointless.
The Monolith
A combination of an incremental and a civilization building game seemed like an excellent idea and in some ways, it was, specially how we get to upgrade through the ages from cavemen to futuristic. But no offline feature means that the resets aren't enticing.
USSR Simulator
An incremental game that has a great theme (USSR!) but absolutely horrible to enjoy, even though I did stick to it. After a certain upgrades, the game just turned into me popping in the game, clicking an upgrade and then forgetting about the game for a few days.
RPG Clicker
They should call these games tappers not clickers. We are not clicking anything on a touchscreen device. Anyway, tap tap tap level up buy weapons tap tap and uninstall.
Logging Quest Logging Quest 2
[Review is for the original and its sequel]
There is not much of a difference between the game. I actually played them both at the same time because the actual game is offline. You choose your hero, send them to a dungeon, and then come back to the game after a while to see how well they did. I thought an offline RPG like this might be interesting but then, if you don't really play a game, how much fun can it be?
Another pointless incremental. I was in an incremental phase and got so many incremental games that I know realize were absolutely pointless.
Hit a tree, buy upgrades, get a new hero, and continue hitting a tree. Not much offline it seems which is what I like about incrementals.
Galaxy Clicker
A space incremental that should have been a lot of fun. You get to upgrade your spaceship and buy new ones and explorer new planets. But first of all, the interface is so ugly that it makes playing the game less enjoyable. And a lot of things I didn't really get no matter how much I would play like the full exploring planets. The spaceships were nice, so it could have been fun.
A pretty pointless incremental kind of game. You are a tramp and then you can collect money to buy upgrades to make more money, with no strategy needed, nor any effort needs to be made to hurt your brain cells.
Inflation RPG
It supposed to be some kind of incremental RPG, I think, which has you resetting and getting more powerful and then fighting monsters to get insane levels. It is very unique but I couldn't get into it.
Widget RPG
Are you fucking with me? This is button bashing rpg in the most extreme manner. You get a widget, so you don't even have to open the game and distract yourself from the button bushing. Just click the button and the game plays behind the scenes and gets you experience, loot, and kills.
It's a ridiculous idea that is fun for a few minutes to see what they come up with but there is only so much button bashing you can do.
Capitalist Tycoon
I downloaded this game because I was in an incremental/idle game phase and really enjoyed AdVenture Capitalist. But this game is nothing like that. On the surface, it seems similar, buy small investments, make money, buy bigger investments, and so on.
But with this game, there is no offline mode, and you keep having to wake up managers, AND the goal is to see how much you make in one year. Bah. I prefer the incremental approach which makes you build and build and build, not try to rush it in just a year.
Clicking Bad
An incremental clicking game that is themed after Breaking Bad. It is a fun idea it's a very simple game with little to do aside from the obvious of upgrading and upgrading. The only twist might be to balance out making lots of money selling drugs and not attracting the law but even that is only a small challenge at the start. Eventually, you will get enough upgrades to bring the law risk so down that it makes no impact on the game play.
Zombie Tapper
A super basic incremental clicker game with a zombie team. Click click click to eat brains, use brains (?) to buy zombies to do the brain eating for you and then buy upgrades for your zombies, and buy new zombies and it all feels very pointless.
Bitcoin Billionaire
I started to enjoy incremental games, but it needs to have a good offline mode, because I don’t want to just play a game where I keep tapping. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t play. I played it, and I played a lot of it, because I could reset the game (like most incremental games) and it gives you a small benefit where you could finish the full game a bit faster (it gives you bonus income). So, I kept finishing and resetting, and each time the start to finish would shorten, so I thought I would reach a stage where I could finish each start-to-finish in an instant! It didn’t happen. I got bored first.
Tap Titan
An addictive tapping game. Just tap on the creatures, level up, get new skills, hire heroes, and then reset and to it all over again to progress further. It’s an incremental game where it depends on resets to progress, but no real offline bonus, so you have to be playing online. Which got boring, so I installed an app that does the tapping for me, which is actually a stupid way to play the game, but this isn’t an attempt to prove to anyone my intelligence. Anyway, thankfully something went wrong and my progress got deleted, WHICH WAS A GOOD THING, because the game was extremely addictive.
God Squad
I’ve realized most incremental games are stupid. Tap on monsters to kill, collect gold, buy Roman Gods, level them up, fight other monsters, and then get bored.
submitted by madali0 to incremental_games [link] [comments]

I worked hard for it: version 2.0 of LuckyNano is finally there. Come and check out a fun faucet for a change :)

Howdy ~♪
It's been a vague promise for a year now, life has been quite busy on my end but, yay, we've done it: LuckyNano 2.0 is a thing ! Do pay us a visit by clicking this link, peeps.
As always, I'm sure many of you don't know LN, so let me introduce you: LuckyNano started in January 2018, with the idea of creating a faucet to introduce people to Nano, but in a fun way. I felt really bummed that such an awesome currency as Nano would only be discovered through dull faucets, where all you do to get munie is clicking a button, every now and then. Worse, some only allow you to claim once, or at the cost of viewing ads.
I was a big fan of for Bitcoin (RIP), which let you play casino games in exchange of a few satoshi, with a big community component around it. People were enticed to chat and build a strong fanbase, and those who wanted to help the project would invest their own money to unlock perks and features.
This is *exactly* what I'm going for with LuckyNano: a faucet with casino-inspired games where you win NANO, but with a more modern design, and an enhanced multiplayer aspect. And those who are willing to try their luck for a quick buck, or simply want to help keep the project afloat can deposit a couple of NANO to play for higher stakes.
So ! On to what 2.0 has to offer:
Please try it, and share some love if you feel like it. :-)
submitted by Emul0rd to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

Technical: Upcoming Improvements to Lightning Network

Price? Who gives a shit about price when Lightning Network development is a lot more interesting?????
One thing about LN is that because there's no need for consensus before implementing things, figuring out the status of things is quite a bit more difficult than on Bitcoin. In one hand it lets larger groups of people work on improving LN faster without having to coordinate so much. On the other hand it leads to some fragmentation of the LN space, with compatibility problems occasionally coming up.
The below is just a smattering sample of LN stuff I personally find interesting. There's a bunch of other stuff, like splice and dual-funding, that I won't cover --- post is long enough as-is, and besides, some of the below aren't as well-known.

"eltoo" Decker-Russell-Osuntokun

Yeah the exciting new Lightning Network channel update protocol!




Multipart payments / AMP

Splitting up large payments into smaller parts!




Payment points / scalars

Using the magic of elliptic curve homomorphism for fun and Lightning Network profits!
Basically, currently on Lightning an invoice has a payment hash, and the receiver reveals a payment preimage which, when inputted to SHA256, returns the given payment hash.
Instead of using payment hashes and preimages, just replace them with payment points and scalars. An invoice will now contain a payment point, and the receiver reveals a payment scalar (private key) which, when multiplied with the standard generator point G on secp256k1, returns the given payment point.
This is basically Scriptless Script usage on Lightning, instead of HTLCs we have Scriptless Script Pointlocked Timelocked Contracts (PTLCs).




Ensuring that payers cannot access data or other digital goods without proof of having paid the provider.
In a nutshell: the payment preimage used as a proof-of-payment is the decryption key of the data. The provider gives the encrypted data, and issues an invoice. The buyer of the data then has to pay over Lightning in order to learn the decryption key, with the decryption key being the payment preimage.



Stuckless payments

No more payments getting stuck somewhere in the Lightning network without knowing whether the payee will ever get paid!
(that's actually a bit overmuch claim, payments still can get stuck, but what "stuckless" really enables is that we can now safely run another parallel payment attempt until any one of the payment attempts get through).
Basically, by using the ability to add points together, the payer can enforce that the payee can only claim the funds if it knows two pieces of information:
  1. The payment scalar corresponding to the payment point in the invoice signed by the payee.
  2. An "acknowledgment" scalar provided by the payer to the payee via another communication path.
This allows the payer to make multiple payment attempts in parallel, unlike the current situation where we must wait for an attempt to fail before trying another route. The payer only needs to ensure it generates different acknowledgment scalars for each payment attempt.
Then, if at least one of the payment attempts reaches the payee, the payee can then acquire the acknowledgment scalar from the payer. Then the payee can acquire the payment. If the payee attempts to acquire multiple acknowledgment scalars for the same payment, the payer just gives out one and then tells the payee "LOL don't try to scam me", so the payee can only acquire a single acknowledgment scalar, meaning it can only claim a payment once; it can't claim multiple parallel payments.



Non-custodial escrow over Lightning

The "acknowledgment" scalar used in stuckless can be reused here.
The acknowledgment scalar is derived as an ECDH shared secret between the payer and the escrow service. On arrival of payment to the payee, the payee queries the escrow to determine if the acknowledgment point is from a scalar that the escrow can derive using ECDH with the payer, plus a hash of the contract terms of the trade (for example, to transfer some goods in exchange for Lightning payment). Once the payee gets confirmation from the escrow that the acknowledgment scalar is known by the escrow, the payee performs the trade, then asks the payer to provide the acknowledgment scalar once the trade completes.
If the payer refuses to give the acknowledgment scalar even though the payee has given over the goods to be traded, then the payee contacts the escrow again, reveals the contract terms text, and requests to be paid. If the escrow finds in favor of the payee (i.e. it determines the goods have arrived at the payer as per the contract text) then it gives the acknowledgment scalar to the payee.



Payment decorrelation

Because elliptic curve points can be added (unlike hashes), for every forwarding node, we an add a "blinding" point / scalar. This prevents multiple forwarding nodes from discovering that they have been on the same payment route. This is unlike the current payment hash + preimage, where the same hash is used along the route.
In fact, the acknowledgment scalar we use in stuckless and escrow can simply be the sum of each blinding scalar used at each forwarding node.



submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Vitalik's response to Tuur

I interlaced everything between Vitalik and Tuur to make it easier to read.
1/ People often ask me why I’m so “against” Ethereum. Why do I go out of my way to point out flaws or make analogies that put it in a bad light?
2/ First, ETH’s architecture & culture is opposite that of Bitcoin, and yet claims to offer same solutions: decentralization, immutability, SoV, asset issuance, smart contracts, …
Second, ETH is considered a crypto ‘blue chip’, thus colors perception of uninformed newcomers.
Agree! I personally find Ethereum culture far saner, though I am a bit biased :)
3/ I've followed Ethereum since 2014 & feel a responsibility to share my concerns. IMO contrary to its marketing, ETH is at best a science experiment. It’s now valued at $13B, which I think is still too high.
Not an argument
4/ I agree with Ethereum developer Vlad Zamfir that it’s not money, not safe, and not scalable.
@VladZamfir Eth isn't money, so there is no monetary policy. There is currently fixed block issuance with an exponential difficulty increase (the bomb).
I'm pretty sure Vlad would say the exact same thing about Bitcoin
5/ To me the first red flag came up when in our weekly hangout we asked the ETH founders about to how they were going to scale the network. (We’re now 4.5 years later, and sharding is still a pipe dream.)
Ethereum's Joe Lubin in June 2014: "anticipate blockchain bloat—working on various sharding ideas".
The core principles have been known for years, the core design for nearly a year, and details for months, with implementations on the way. So sharding is definitely not at the pipe dream stage at this point.
6/ Despite strong optimism that on-chain scaling of Ethereum was around the corner (just another engineering job), this promise hasn’t been delivered on to date.
Sure, sharding is not yet finished. Though more incremental stuff has been going well, eg. uncle rates are at near record lows despite very high chain usage.
7/ Recently, a team of reputable developers decided to peer review a widely anticipated Casper / sharding white paper, concluding that it does not live up to its own claims.
Unmerciful peer review of Vlad Zamfir & co's white paper to scale Ethereum: "the authors do NOT prove that the CBC Casper family of protocols is Byzantine fault tolerant in either practice or theory".
That review was off the mark in many ways, eg. see, and by the way CBC is not even a prerequisite for Serenity
8/ On the 2nd layer front, devs are now trying to scale Ethereum via scale via state channels (ETH’s version of Lightning), but it is unclear whether main-chain issued ERC20 type tokens will be portable to this environment.
Umm... you can definitely use Raiden with arbitrary ERC20s. That's why the interface currently uses WETH (the ERC20-fied version of ether) and not ETH
9/ Compare this to how the Bitcoin Lightning Network project evolved:
elizabeth stark @starkness: For lnd: First public code released: January 2016 Alpha: January 2017 Beta: March 2018…
10/ Bitcoin’s Lightning Network is now live, and is growing at rapid clip.
Jameson Lopp @lopp: Lightning Network: January 2018 vs December 2018
Sure, though as far as I understand there's still a low probability of finding routes for nontrivial amounts, and there's capital lockup griefing vectors, and privacy issues.... FWIW I personally never thought lightning is unworkable, it's just a design that inherently runs into ten thousand small issues that will likely take a very long time to get past.
11/ In 2017, more Ethereum scaling buzz was created, this time the panacea was “Plasma”.
@TuurDemeester Buterin & Poon just published a new scaling proposal for Ethereum, "strongly complementary to base-layer PoS and sharding":
Yay, Plasma!
12/ However, upon closer examination it was the recycling of some stale ideas, and the project went nowhere:
Peter Todd @peterktodd These ideas were all considered in the Treechains design process, and ultimately rejected as insecure.
Just because Peter Todd rejected something as "insecure" doesn't mean that it is. In general, the ethereum research community is quite convinced that the fundamental Plasma design is fine, and as far as I understand there are formal proofs on the way. The only insecurity that can't be avoided is mass exit vulns, and channel-based systems have those too.
13/ The elephant in the room is the transition to proof-of-stake, an “environmentally friendly” way to secure the chain. (If this was the plan all along, why create a proof-of-work chain first?)
@TuurDemeester "Changing from proof of work to proof of stake changes the economics of the system, all the rules change and it will impact everything."
Umm... we created a proof of work chain first because we did not have a satisfactory proof of stake algo initially?
14/ For the uninitiated, here’s a good write-up that highlights some of the fundamental design problems of proof-of-stake. Like I said, this is science experiment territory.
And here's a set of long arguments from me on why proof of stake is just fine: For a more philosophical piece, see
15/ Also check out this thread about how Proof of Stake blockchains require subjectivity (i.e. a trusted third party) to achieve consensus: … and this thread on Bitcoin:
Yes, we know about weak subjectivity, see It's really not that bad, especially given that users need to update their clients once in a while anyway, oh and by the way even if the weak subjectivity assumption is broken an attacker still needs to gather up that pile of old keys making up 51% of the stake. And also to defend against that there's Universal Hash Time.
16/ Keep in mind that Proof of Stake (PoS) is not a new concept at all. Proof-of-Work actually was one of the big innovations that made Bitcoin possible, after PoS was deemed impractical because of censorship vulnerability.
@TuurDemeester TIL Proof-of-stake based private currency designs date at least back to 1998.
Oh I definitely agree that proof of work was superior for bootstrap, and I liked it back then especially because it actually managed to be reasonably egalitarian around 2009-2012 before ASICs fully took over. But at the present time it doesn't really have that nice attribute.
17/ Over the years, this has become a pattern in Ethereum’s culture: recycling old ideas while not properly referring to past research and having poor peer review standards. This is not how science progresses.Tuur Demeester added,
[email protected] has been repeatedly accused of /criticised for not crediting prior art. Once again with plasma:
I try to credit people whenever I can; half my blog and posts have a "special thanks" section right at the top. Sometimes we end up re-inventing stuff, and sometimes we end up hearing about stuff, forgetting it, and later re-inventing it; that's life as an autodidact. And if you feel you've been unfairly not credited for something, always feel free to comment, people have done this and I've edited.
18/ One of my big concerns is that sophistry and marketing hype is a serious part of Ethereum’s success so far, and that overly inflated expectations have lead to an inflated market cap.
Ok, go on.
19/ Let’s illustrate with an example.
20/ A few days ago, I shared a critical tweet that made the argument that Ethereum’s value proposition is in essence utopian.
@TuurDemeester Ethereum-ism sounds a bit like Marxism to me:
  • What works today (PoW) is 'just a phase', the ideal & unproven future is to come: Proof-of-Stake.…
21/ I was very serious about my criticism. In fact, each one of the three points addressed what Vitalik Buterin has described as “unique value propositions of Ethereum proper”.
22/ My first point, about Ethereum developers rejecting Proof-of-Work, has been illustrated many times over By Vitalik and others. (See earlier in this tweetstorm for more about how PoS is unproven.)
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: I don't believe in proof of work!
See above for links as to why I think proof of stake is great.
23/ My second point addresses Ethereum’s romance with the vague and dangerous notion of ‘social consensus’, where disruptive hard-forks are used to ‘upgrade’ or ‘optimize’ the system, which inevitably leads to increased centralization. More here:
See my rebuttal to Tuur's rebuttal :)
24/ My third point addresses PoS’ promise of perpetual income to ETHizens. Vitalik is no stranger to embracing free lunch ideas, e.g. during his 2014 ETH announcement speech, where he described a coin with a 20% inflation tax as having “no cost” to users.
Yeah, I haven't really emphasized perpetual income to stakers as a selling point in years. I actually favor rewards being as low as possible while still being high enough for security.
25/ In his response to my tweet, Vitalik adopted my format to “play the same game” in criticizing Bitcoin. My criticisms weren't addressed, and his response was riddled with errors. Yet his followers gave it +1,000 upvotes!
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: - What works today (L1) is just a phase, ideal and unproven future (usable L2) is to come - Utopian concept of progress: we're already so confident we're finished we ain't needin no hard forks…
Ok, let's hear about what the errors are...
26/ Rebuttal: - BTC layer 1 is not “just a phase”, it always will be its definitive bedrock for transaction settlement. - Soft forking digital protocols has been the norm for over 3 decades—hard-forks are the deviation! - Satoshi never suggested hyperbitcoinization as a goal.
Sure, but (i) the use of layer 1 for consumer payments is definitely, in bitcoin ideology, "just a phase", (ii) I don't think you can make analogies between consensus protocols and other kinds of protocols, and between soft forking consensus protocols and protocol changes in other protocols, that easily, (iii) plenty of people do believe that hyperbitcoinization as a goal. Oh by the way:
27/ This kind of sophistry is exhausting and completely counter-productive, but it can be very convincing for an uninformed retail public.
Ok, go on.
28/ Let me share a few more inconvenient truths.
29/ In order to “guarantee” the transition to PoS’ utopia of perpetual income (staking coins earns interest), a “difficulty bomb” was embedded in the protocol, which supposedly would force miners to accept the transition.
The intended goal of the difficulty bomb was to prevent the protocol from ossifying, by ensuring that it has to hard fork eventually to reset the difficulty bomb, at which point the status quo bias in favor of not changing other protocol rules at the same time would be weaker. Though forcing a switch to PoS was definitely a key goal.
30/ Of course, nothing came of this, because anything in the ETH protocol can be hard-forked away. Another broken promise.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Looks like another Ethereum hard-fork is going to remove the "Ice Age" (difficulty increase meant to incentivize transition to PoS).
How is that a broken promise? There was no social contract to only replace the difficulty-bombed protocol with a PoS chain.
31/ Another idea that was marketed heavily early on, was that with ETH you could program smart contract as easily as javascript applications.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: I forgot, but in 2014 Ethereum was quite literally described as "Javascript-on-the-blockchain"
Agree that was over-optimistic, though the part of the metaphor that's problematic is the "be done with complex apps in a couple hours" part, NOT the "general-purpose languages are great" part.
32/ This was criticized by P2P & OS developers as a reckless notion, given that every smart contracts is actually a “de novo cryptographic protocol”. In other words, it’s playing with fire.
See above
33/ The modular approach to Bitcoin seems to be much better at compartmentalizing risk, and thus reducing attack surfaces. I’ve written about modular scaling here...
To be fair, risk is reduced because Bitcoin does less.
34/ Another huge issue that Ethereum has is with scaling. By putting “everything on the blockchain” (which stores everything forever) and dubbing it “the world computer”, you are going to end up with a very slow and clogged up system.
Christopher Allen @ChristopherA: AWS cost: $0.000000066 for calc, Ethereum: $26.55. This is about 400 million times as expensive. World computer?
We never advocated "putting everything on the blockchain". The phrase "world computer" was never meant to be interpreted as "everyone's personal desktop", but rather as a common platform specifically for the parts of applications that require consensus on shared state. As evidence of this, notice how Whisper and Swarm were part of the vision as complements to Ethereum right from the start.
35/ By now the Ethereum bloat is so bad that cheaply running an individual node is practically impossible for a lay person. ETH developers are also imploring people to not deploy more smart contract apps on its blockchain.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: But... deploying d-apps on the "Ethereum Virtual Machine" is exactly what everyone was encouraged to do for the past 4 years. Looks like on-chain scaling wasn't such a great idea after all.
Umm.... I just spun up a node from scratch last week. On a consumer laptop.
36/ As a result, and despite the claims that running a node in “warp” mode is easy and as good as a full node, Ethereum is becoming increasingly centralized.
@TuurDemeester Finally a media article touching on the elephant in the room: Ethereum has become highly centralized. #infura
See above
37/ Another hollow claim: in 2016, Ethereum was promoted as being censorship resistant…
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Pre TheDAO #Ethereum presentation: "uncensorable, code is law, bottom up".
Yes, the DAO fork did violate the notion of absolute immutability. However, the "forking the DAO will lead to doom and gloom" crowd was very wrong in one key way: it did NOT work as a precedent justifying all sorts of further state interventions. The community clearly drew a line in the sand by firmly rejecting EIP 867, and EIP 999 seems to now also be going nowhere. So it seems like there's some evidence that the social contract of "moderately but not infinitely strong immutability" actually can be stable.
38/ Yet later that year, after only 6% of ETH holders had cast a vote, ETH core devs decided to endorse a hard-fork that clawed back the funds from a smart contract that held 4.5% of all ETH in circulation. More here: ...
See above
39/ Other potential signs of centralization: Vitalik Buterin signing a deal with a Russian government institution, and ETH core developers experimenting with semi-closed meetings: …,
Hudson Jameson @hudsonjameson: The "semi-closed" Ethereum 1.x meeting from last Friday was an experiment. The All Core Dev meeting this Friday will be recorded as usual.
Suppose I were to tomorrow sign up to work directly for Kim Jong Un. What concretely would happen to the Ethereum protocol? I suspect very little; I am mostly involved in the Serenity work, and the other researchers have proven very capable of both pushing the spec forward even without me and catching any mistakes with my work. So I don't think any argument involving me applies. And we ended up deciding not to do more semi-closed meetings.
40/ Another red flag to me is the apparent lack of relevant expertise in the ETH development community. (Check the responses…)
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Often heard: "but Ethereum also has world class engineers working on the protocol". Please name names and relevant pedigree so I can follow and learn.
I personally am confident in the talents of our core researchers, and our community of academic partners. Most recently the latter group includes people from Starkware, Stanford CBR, IC3, and other groups.
41/ For a while, Microsoft veteran Lucius Meredith was mentioned as playing an important role in ETH scaling, but now he is likely distracted by the failure of his ETH scaling company RChain.
I have no idea who described Lucius Meredith's work as being important for the Serenity roadmap.... oh and by the way, RChain is NOT an "Ethereum scaling company"
42/ Perhaps the recently added Gandalf of Ethereum, with his “Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians” [sic] can save the day, but imo that seems unlikely...
Honestly, I don't see why Ethereum Gandalf needs to save the day, because I don't see what is in danger and needs to be saved...
43/ This is becoming a long tweetstorm, so let’s wrap up with a few closing comments.
44/ Do I have a conflict of interest? ETH is a publicly available asset with no real barriers to entry, so I could easily get a stake. Also, having met Vitalik & other ETH founders several times in 2013-’14, it would have been doable for me to become part of the in-crowd.
Agree there. And BTW I generally think financial conflicts of interest are somewhat overrated; social conflicts/tribal biases are the bigger problem much of the time. Though those two kinds of misalignments do frequently overlap and reinforce each other so they're difficult to fully disentangle.
45/ Actually, I was initially excited about Ethereum’s smart contract work - this was before one of its many pivots.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Ethereum is probably the first programming language I will teach myself - who wouldn't want the ability to program smart BTC contracts?
Ethereum was never about "smart BTC contracts"..... even "Ethereum as a Mastercoin-style meta-protocol" was intended to be built on top of Primecoin.
46/ Also, I have done my share of soul searching about whether I could be suffering from survivor’s bias.
@TuurDemeester I just published “I’m not worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, but I am losing sleep over Ethereum”
Ok, good.
47/ Here’s why Ethereum is dubious to me: rather than creating an open source project & testnet to work on these interesting computer science problems, its founders instead did a securities offering, involving many thousands of clueless retail investors.
What do you mean "instead of"? We did create an open source project and testnet! Whether or not ETH is a security is a legal question; seems like SEC people agree it's not:
48/ Investing in the Ethereum ICO was akin to buying shares in a startup that had “invent time travel” as part of its business plan. Imo it was a reckless security offering, and it set the tone for the terrible capital misallocation of the 2017 ICO boom.
Nothing in the ethereum roadmap requires time-travel-like technical advancements or anything remotely close to that. Proof: we basically have all the fundamental technical advancements we need at this point.
49/ In my view, Ethereum is the Yahoo of our day - an unscalable “blue chip” cryptocurrency:
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: 1/ The DotCom bubble shows that the market isn't very good at valuing early stage technology. I'll use Google vs. Yahoo to illustrate.
Got it.
50/ I’ll close with a few words from Gregory Maxwell from 2016,:
See my rebuttal to Greg from 2 years ago:
submitted by shouldbdan to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Rediscovering ICON

Over the past few days, I had some unexpected downtime, so I went ahead and did some "re-research" of ICON, and went back to read some of the articles and analysis from thoughtful people that got me so excited about the project to begin with. I also found some additional content that I hadn't found before, that was equally thoughtful and analytic.
Ultimately, the more I followed the near-daily updates that ICON has been putting out recently, the more I was unable to fit them into the broader context of what ICON was trying to accomplish, and how each new partnership potentially fits into the puzzle.
After doing this digging around, I thought it wouldn't hurt to share a chunk of what I read here. I thought this would be helpful for the following reasons:
There are obviously a million other places to read about ICON, such as the website, whitepaper, etc. But having thoughtful people explain how the project works, and what new developments mean in context, can be incredibly illuminating, enlightening, and inspirational.
This isn't organized in a perfect manner - not sure if there is a way to do that - but I believe reading the articles below in order is probably the best path to develop a 30,000 foot view of ICON.
Keep in mind, these articles are older, so their timelines on certain developments may be outdated, or a bit on the overly-optimistic side. However, out of all the premises they lay out, and the conclusions they reach, the passing of time has only fortified their analysis and foundational beliefs about the projects. All of the partnerships listed still exist - none have gone away to my knowledge - and of course we've added plenty more over the past few months. The staff has grown, offices have expanded, new partnerships have been born, technological developments added, etc. Ultimately, it's all the more reason to ignore today's price and focus on the potential price in 3-5 years, once the vision articulated below is able to play out.

Markus Jun - The Comprehensive ICON Report Part 1: ICON Facts & Commentary (Medium)
A couple of my favorite sections...
Here’s how this plays out in real life. Imagine that a student requires surgery. She may check into a hospital, verify her identity on Chain ID and give permission so that the hospital can share her medical records directly with her insurance company. This will trigger a smart contract that will immediately transfer her health records and her surgeon’s medical certificate (signed digitally on ICON’s Chain Sign) to the insurance company. The insurance company can then immediately process the insurance claim as both the health records and the medical certificate are tamper-proof on the blockchain and do not require additional verification or the sending of official paper documents, steps which typically slow down the process of traditional insurance claims and make them more costly.
After her surgery, the student who needs to get hospitalized for a few days may then give permission to the hospital to share her records with her university so that she can get formally excused from attending classes. The information would again be shared immediately via a smart contract without the need of a third party ‘messenger’, without the need for paper (e.g., a doctor’s note), and with full assurance for both parties that the information is legitimate.
Thus, the use of Chain ID, Chain Sign, powered by smart contractsexecuting on the ICON network, enables information sharing within industries to become safer, faster, tamper-proof, and cheaper. This means that ICON isn’t just enabling connectivity between loopchain networks, but a more efficient connectivity.
It should be noted that this scenario is theoretically possible on any smart contract blockchain protocol. However, the reason why it’s a uniquely plausible scenario for ICON currently is because ICON is one of the only platforms that have already secured and built the networks in the necessary industries (e.g., healthcare, banking, insurance). Building a blockchain can be as easy as copying and pasting code, the true challenge is building a network.
At the end, Kim refers to adoption occurring with ‘the more participants you have.’ And this is precisely the approach that ICON is taking: enticing corporations to join ICON’s network. Because every time you see an announcement of an MOU between theloop and Company X, you are seeing a new addition to the ICON network. And every addition makes the network more valuable. The sum total of the network value will always be more valuable than any single company within. Even if Company X is Samsung.
If you agree with Kim that ‘the value of blockchain is in the network itself,’ you may see why ICON has gone beyond any other project in realizing this vision.

Markus Jun - The Comprehensive ICON Report Part 2: ICX Token Utility & Valuation (Medium)
As a researcher of this space for 2 years, I’ve studied countless projects and countless surges and crashes in market value. I’ve concluded there are few projects in the blockchain space that have the network effect, enterprise technical expertise, real world partnerships and growth initiatives that ICON has. At the same time, I’ve seen few projects that have been as mischaracterized and misunderstood as ICON, which is why I felt compelled to clarify.
As a Korean, I want to refute the idea that Koreans are nationalistic and will always support their own. Yes, we’re passionate and proud of our gold medalists and Samsung but that’s because they are the best at what they do, and ICON isn’t there yet. However, I feel that ICON is currently Korea’s best hope for global blockchain leadership.
As an investor, I believe that ICX is one of the most undervalued tokens in the space, especially when considering that larger market cap projects can’t compete with the scope of ICON’s network nor their years of experience in providing enterprise solutions. Oncoming developments in the next few months will prove to be catalysts for a significant surge in ICX demand both in institutional and individual investors. As I’ve stated before, widespread misunderstandings of ICON and its relationship with loopchain, and frequent delays have cast uncertainty on the project. But this is mostly immaterial as I feel these are still extremely early days, and these doubt arise mostly from a lack of understanding. Hence, I write.
ICON has successfully planted seeds that are critical for success in major industries, but they are currently just that, seeds. Much of the projects haven’t matured enough to enable the truly game-changing network effects yet. I would say that there aren’t many projects in this space in which the utility of their utility tokens actually drives organic demand, and it’s certainly not true for ICX either right now. But with the network that ICON has built, and the projects that are set to begin developing, I see a strong case to be made.
The crypto market isn’t rational. Everyday, millions are poured into ideas with no product, let alone a network. But in mid-late 2017, Ethereum had an explosive growth in value as people realized its utility/value proposition as a leading 2.0 blockchain smart contract protocol and all its corresponding uses.
I see parallels between ICX currently and ETH in early 2017, both in their initial mischaracterizations, and failure of the public to see their value. If ICON manages to do what it seeks to do just in Korea (and I’d argue they’ve done most of the heavy lifting), we can expect significant growth in demand for ICX. Not just among speculators and investors, but among those actually seeking to utilize ICON as a leading 3.0 blockchain interoperability protocol.

Jimmie Schrute - Thoughts on Icon/ICX: Part 1 (Medium)
There’s a very clear difference between speculative and consumptive demand. Almost all cryptos, including Ethereum, are still firmly in the speculative demand bucket. People are buying, not to use (i.e. consume) the token, but to speculate on it’s future consumptive demand. Undoubtedly, these networks have the potential to generate MASSIVE consumptive demand, but that demand may still be years away. In my opinion, that timeline is much, MUCH shorter for Icon than any other crypto I’ve seen. Icon had functional products up and running that rely on their ICX token months before they launched their mainnet product. Most projects haven’t even begun to actually implement real-world use cases. Sure they talk about them, but talk is cheap, especially in cryptoland.
Why does this matter? Let me use San Francisco as an example. Being a “sales guy” in the Bay Area is a borderline derogatory term with techies. Developers oftentimes start businesses with the mindset that “if we build it, they will come” — “they” meaning customers. Startup after startup learns the hard way that this is almost never the case. Business development is never as easy as technologists think.
In one of his many interviews on Youtube, Min Kim, one of the founders of Icon, mentioned that while they have an incredibly strong tech team, they realize that blockchain technology is still rapidly evolving. We’re still in the early innings of blockchain and, much like the internet, the tech will rapidly improve. Icon’s approach is to develop real world use cases today given the technological constraints we’re operating under. As the space matures technologically, so will Icon. As someone who has worked in tech as well as private and public market investing for many years, I can’t tell you how excited I was to hear him say this. This approach has been the winning approach in industry after industry after industry for decades. Technology and business development go hand in hand.

Hyperconnectivity – A Look at ICON’s Business Philosophy & Strategy (
A common complaint I often see in the ICON subreddit and Telegram channel has to do with ICON’s lack of consumer and retail-oriented marketing. I believe there are several reasons for these complaints, with most of them being somewhat unreasonable.
- A lack of understanding of the difference between a token holder and a shareholder. Many token holders believe they are entitled (perhaps even legally) to daily or weekly updates regarding the status of the project.
- Unrealistic expectations set by other cryptocurrency projects which do not function like real-world businesses.
- Overinvesting – plain and simple.
Before discussing the first two points, I would like to say I completely understand the negativity towards ICON’s lack of B2C marketing, and I do agree there is major room for improvement – more on this later on. Token holder versus shareholder – there’s a major difference. In this stage of the game, investing in a cryptocurrency is complete speculation – it can be educated speculation, but it’s still speculation. We do not have the same rights and protections as a shareholder, and we should act accordingly. In the world of corporate business, there are usually quarterly shareholder meetings that act as a medium of communication between shareholders and company executives. As token holders, this does not apply to us.
We should not expect constant communication from executives – the fact that we even have some communication from ICON’s executives is completely unheard of. Imagine Mark Zuckerberg tweeting (LOL) with a Facebook user about Facebook’s upcoming plans on a consistent basis. The truth is, blockchain and its decentralized identity have already punctured a gigantic hole through the facade of normal corporate communication, and the fact that Min Kim willingly spends his free time interacting with the ICON community members is absolutely incredible.
This is further compounded by the fact that, unlike many blockchain projects, ICON has real ties with many industry-leading companies, major banks, top universities, and government institutions. Here are examples of a few – LINE, Deloitte, Samsung, SBI Ripple Asia, DAYLI Intelligence, Smilegate, and more. Many of these companies are worth billions of dollars and have assets and brand recognition of their own to protect. You have to understand that creating coordinated PR strategies with these huge corporations and government entities takes time and patience. Most importantly, it’s not the kind of stuff ICON can whimsically tweet about whenever they feel like it. Obviously, ICON wants to share all the great things happening behind the scenes, but legally they cannot do this without being sued by their partners. Do you think LINE would be okay with ICON publicly talking about future blockchain DApps on the LINE platform? No, because this would affect LINE’s bottom line if its competitors can race to build a similar product.
Okay, so all three examples above have one thing in common – ICX gains value as a network utility token. I cannot stress this enough. ICX will not have real value if a bunch of retail investors buys it. ICX may gain “bubble value” if a bunch of hedge funds buys it. ICX will only gain REAL value if the ICON platform is used to connect people, businesses, and institutions together to create new and unique connections that can be monetized.
Knowing this, I hope you have a better understanding of why ICON is working to onboard businesses to build on and connect to the ICON platform first. At this stage of the game, there’s very little incentive to market to retail investors because we are not the intended users of the ICON network. We are the intended users of the services that will use ICON as a backbone and interoperable protocol. Thus, ICON is choosing to devote 95% of their manpower to the core business philosophy, and as true supporters of the project, we shouldn’t have it any other way.

ICON & LINE's Joint Venture Could Lead to 200 Million DApp Users - Decrypto.Net
If this ends up happening, and I think it will relatively soon, ICON will be poised to become the most widely used blockchain platform in the world. At the moment, Bitcoin, the world’s number one cryptocurrency, is estimated to have less than 28.5 million users.
Additionally, here is a great breakdown of LINE and how it could impact ICON.

CHAIN ID, ActiveX, and South Korea's Authentication Nightmare (
Last October, theloop revealed that its blockchain-based authentication solution, CHAIN ID, was already being piloted by 25 banks and securities companies in the Korea Financial Investment Blockchain Consortium. Half a year later, theloop announced that CHAIN ID would be used by Samsung (one of Korea’s largest companies) in their biometric authentication technology, Samsung Pass. Recently, ICON Foundation wrote, “in the future it is expected that there will no longer be classifications of certified/private certifications, and all certificates will have the same authenticity.” Connect the dots.
CHAIN ID is already being used by some of South Korea’s largest banks and securities companies.
CHAIN ID is being implemented in Samsung Pass. Samsung has over 57% market share in South Korea’s mobile smartphone market.
ICON revealed there will only be one kind of certificate in the future.
After a little reading between the lines and a tiny amount of educated speculation, I have come to the conclusion that the majority of digital authentication in South Korea will happen on the CHAIN ID platform in the near future. This blockchain solution is being aggressively adopted by the country’s biggest financial and technology firms. If there’s really only going to be one certificate in the future, it’s obvious they will be issued by the first mover in the space – theloop’s CHAIN ID.

I would suggest going through all of the posts on ICON. Brian Li - the blog's author - has a deep understanding of the project and has done a good job of breaking down new developments by providing context. Here are all the posts he has made that I could find (I have bolded a couple that are particularly helpful):
I would also recommend this year+ old reddit post, as well as this one.
I hope you all find this helpful and valuable. As stated, this will be stale information to a number of you, but hopefully some of it will be fresh to a chunk of you, and 100% new to those who have recently hopped on board the project.
And of course, if there are other articles you've enjoyed along a similar vein that I have not included, please feel free to share them below.

submitted by mpherron20 to helloicon [link] [comments]

Would You Marry Your Character?

Zoarkim the naive Lizardman had a unique accent. Every ‘s’ that he pronounced was extended thrice as long. This is fine if I wanted to make clear when I spoke in-character, but it started to bug the heck out of the rest and it became difficult for me to speak as well. This became apparent when being unable to choose a ssspear or a musssical inssstrument. The group mockingly asked me if I wouldn’t rather wanted a sssword or a ssshield, but I told them that I wasn’t an assssssassssssin. The accent became old very quickly and he didn’t have any redeeming qualities, to begin with.
I’ve seen plenty of aggravating characters in my time. Characters who don’t understand that the way they behave is grating for the rest of the party and the campaign. From silly to boring to downright disgusting, some players create characters that make it hard to get into the adventurous feel of the game. But because I have made that same mistake I advise anyone not to do the same. In a way, you could ask yourself: “Would I marry this character?” Would you be willing to spend your life with this character? Allow me to elaborate on why this is important to give it a thought.

Understanding The Scope

When playing a One-Shot, you will play about to 3, maybe 5 hours for one day and after that, the character might be gone, nothing but a memory when looking at that character sheet. Anything short-term like that wouldn’t have a large impact on a long-running campaign. But when it does get into a long-running campaign or you start to play in one, you will play 3 to 5 hours in a day on a weekly or monthly basis and possibly to level 20 which might take a year or longer. Now assess the situation here: You will play the same character for a year or longer. You are basically stuck with the same person for a year or even longer. Even when the campaign wouldn’t go that far or you just play a One-Shot, there is still the chance that it might go on or its completely ruined because someone has been acting like an abrasive jerk all the time even though you wanted it to go on.
This doesn’t mean that you can’t have fun or change your character, but when your character is set and done, you have the whole package. It wouldn’t make sense to change some parts because you regret some things after five sessions. You could’ve given it some more thought than that. It’s important to keep the scope in mind that the choices you settle with are something that you are stuck with for an incredibly long time. This is a good way to make some realistic decisions and give your character concept a double check before starting. And don’t lie to yourself and say “Yeah, I want to play this!” just to ignore the fact that you will forget it later or think you can coerce, goad and beg your DM to change your character for whatever reason. You risk being kicked out of the group for any extremely unwanted behavior or continued character flops.

The Joke

So you create a character called Gordon Blue, Poopy McShmooperpants, or an Austrian Warforged Barbarian Noble called The Governator. Yeah, that’s fun, right? You might make names like that for your avatar in computer games so that people call you Mr Fudgenugget or they have to accept that your face is all gross and mangled and act like nothing is wrong, right? How long does that joke last? To whom is that still funny? Because being on your own in that way is harmless, the computer game is going to act like nothing is wrong and you can still be an adventurer because you don’t care about it, right? Some people on video game shows do this as it creates something endearing sometimes. But D&D is different.
That joke character that you made is funny. To you. At character creation. For one moment. Your fellow players might give it a chuckle, maybe a polite laugh. After that, the joke is old. Like bread that has been laying out in the open, it’s stale after that one day and nobody likes it anymore. Imagine going to a restaurant, spending time with people and paying full price for quality food, and those pieces of bread you get are just day-old stale pieces of bread, the soup is cold, the food has lost its taste, and the ice already melted. That’s what it’s like when a player creates such a joke character. It’s what it’s like when dealing with such a joke character. It sucks a lot of the credibility out of the adventure where people invested their time in.
I get it, coming up with names is hard. It doesn’t need to be a spectacular name, just go online and grab a name generator or look up a list of real names if you really don’t care. But if you’d walk around with a name like Buttnugget von Poopiepants, you’d be bullied until you’d hate yourself and the ones who named you. Nobody would take you seriously if you’d introduce yourself as they think you’re pulling a prank on them. You’d be jobless, have no friends, and just be depressed as your whole life is incredibly hard because your parents gave you a ridiculous name.
Yes, you are still allowed to create a somewhat funny or comedic character if it fits the campaign setting (always ask your DM about the campaign setting before character creation), but if that comedic effect doesn’t go beyond the introduction of the character, then you might as well leave the table and never come back after that because that character is nothing but an annoyance. A comedic character is something archetypical, it is able to generate fresh comedy from its being once every session while still being credible enough for people to relate to, including yourself. A repeated joke is not funny after it’s already been told.


When choosing an accent or way of speech for your character, do keep the scope in mind. If you create an oriental person with a thick German accent, not only is that nonsensical but if you’re not used to speaking German, that accent will hurt your jaws. If it can be done without a thick accent, please do so. It could be a subtle accent, something that matches the characters place of origin. Otherwise, if your character has a certain voice characteristic such as a lisp, a nasal tone, a different intonation, or a raspy voice, I want to remind you that you will have to stick with that whenever you speak. And you will speak for about 3 to 5 hours in a session, weekly, for a year. Keeping your voice raspy and gravely on a weekly basis for hours runs you the risk of developing a polyp in your vocal cords and the procedure of removing one can risk you in losing your voice and it’s expensive to boot.
Yes, voice actors can do this for a long time, but that’s because they are professional voice actors, they have been trained to do this and they keep good care of their voice as it is their money maker. They wouldn’t go about creating silly voices unless they’re aware that they have to do that for hours on end. Sometimes their act is good enough when they speak normally or adjust their voice slightly. That’s part of the art as well, it doesn’t need to go to extremes.
Having a DM who can do voices is great for immersion. It makes it feel like the character is really there and gives you a better read on its personality. That’s a good example for you. That’s the upside for it. But don’t mistake the DM’s ways of voice acting as an excuse to do the same and in the same way. The characters that the DM plays won’t exist for long. They aren’t around with the party for hours on end and don’t need to keep talking for so long. Your DM isn’t ‘married’ to these NPCs, that Demon with the dark voice was destroyed in the same session as when you first heard it speak, that high-pitched screaming creature sure was loud, but it didn’t follow you around for the entire campaign. The variety in the DM’s characters are necessary for the campaign, but when one sounded or acted annoying, it wouldn’t be around like that for long. Your character, however, will.


So you have a mage that wants to shoot fireballs everywhere or a dwarf that unclogs his nose at everyone every single minute. Would meeting someone like that make you feel at ease? Wouldn’t it make you uncomfortable if you actually met such a person? Such acts may sound like fun at first, but just like The Joke, it gets old very fast and starts to get really bothersome. Repeating the same disruptive or anti-social shtick every time will eventually get you kicked out or never be invited to the game again. Now, of course, every person has flaws, little things such as being a klutz or having a short temper are things that some people have to deal with. Making connections with other people also means that you have to be okay with some of your own flaws and those of others. But would you want to be with someone who can’t shut up about bitcoin? Would you be okay with someone who is obsessed with cats to the point that she doesn’t have a personality or subject that doesn’t revolve around cats? Could you stand someone’s racist statements even though it’s not aimed at you if that person wouldn’t stop about it for one day? Would you be okay with someone who rubs his crotch against everything and grabs peoples butts all the time, and I do mean all the time? Ask yourself this and give yourself an honest answer. If you are okay with any of the above-stated personality traits, then I suggest you give yourself a reality check.
The balance in this is when the flaws are significant enough to come up in some inopportune moments, but won’t make the character ineffective, makes other characters ineffective, or has to halt the entire adventure because of one little thing. If your character has such a flaw, you might want to find a way to change it or just reel it in a little bit to make it possible but not too silly. If your character hates a certain thing, then that doesn’t mean that the rest of the party can’t do anything because of that. Your character can still agree with a plan but do so begrudgingly.

Will You Take This Character?

So would you marry your character if it were your preferred gender or race? The gravity of this question is important to make you think about how long you are willing to play this character. A date is meant to see if there’s a spark or some chemistry, a relationship is somewhat the same but long-term and indefinite, but to make a vow to be with someone for the rest of your life? That’s a heavy decision. You share your money, items, home, and bed with that person. You see that person every day from morning to evening. It’s not just some experiment or a choice that can be altered halfway through, it’s a heavy decision. You have the whole package of that person on a daily basis, flaws and all. You better imagine what your life would be like if you’d made that choice. Would you accept the good with the bad?
So if you made your character and would say “No, I wouldn’t want to be with this character.” Try to figure out why not. What things does it have that would make you go “Yeah, that’s a no go.” because chances are, it’s what makes your gaming experience less fun. An experimental session is like a date, but a campaign might as well feel like 24 hours a day every day, will you accept the character for what it is now and invite it to grow a bit more, or would it be too unbearable to handle? You can still change that and have the power to reel in the awful things or learn to accept the little flaws that it has. Hopping in there not knowing how aggravating it can get can ruin what you had. Give it a thought, perhaps in some way you’d be willing to marry your character.
I know I do.
submitted by OlemGolem to PCAcademy [link] [comments]

Over the last 6 weeks I've written a functioning Crypto trading bot in VB.NET and here are some of the important tips & things I've learned and some VB.NET code for you to use.

I started on December 18th when I was playing about with Google Sheets and pulling prices from exchanges using the CRYPTOFINANCE() plugin... it was slow, clunky and the data was wildly old - I knew I could do something better in VB.NET but at this point had absolutely no idea where to start, no idea about trading, no idea how exchanges or API's worked and no idea just how bad I was at programming. I've asked a lot of dumb questions, I've lost a bunch of money making mistakes & learning as I go... Fast forward to today however and I have a fully functioning, cross-exchange trading bot. Sweet!
1) Truncate your numbers, don't round.**
Hindsight makes this seem so obvious to me now, but when you're working with Bitcoin balances to 8 decimal places, exchange rates to 5 decimal places and sums that can increase your decimal places exponentially, it helps to be precise. Even an extra 0.00000001 in the wrong place can cause an exchange to reject your request. Honestly if I'd have realised this sooner I'd be about 2 weeks ahead right now and nowhere near as bald.
The below functions in will truncate any decimal number with no rounding:
Public Function Trunc8(numbertoTuncate As Decimal) As Decimal Return Math.Truncate(numbertoTuncate * 100000000) / 100000000 End Function Public Function Trunc5(numbertoTuncate As Decimal) As Decimal Return Math.Truncate(numbertoTuncate * 100000) / 100000 End Function 
** Absolutely do round when exchange such as Bitstamp does it's fee calculations in spot USD price. Below is the logic I use to do this:
Dim amount_btc As Decimal = BTCtoSpend / ASK ' Full amount in BTC Dim fee_btc As Decimal = amount_btc * 0.0025 ' Get 0.25% of the BTC amount Dim fee_USD As Decimal = fee_btc * BitstampBTCUSD ' Convert to USD Dim round_USD As Decimal = Math.Round(fee_USD, 2, MidpointRounding.AwayFromZero) ' Round up Dim round_BTC As Decimal = round_USD / BitstampBTCUSD ' Convert back to BTC Dim amount = amount_btc - round_BTC ' minus the fee 
2) Websockets are your friend.
It's really easy to query Bitstamp or GDAX's API for the prices(Last/Bid/Ask). The query might take a 3rd of a second to get there, a 3rd of a second to get back - by the time your software has interpreted it it may have been nearly a full second. The prices you end up being sent back can some times be stale/out of date. Couple this with the API rate limits (Once a second on Bitstamp if you end up polling it continuously) and you can soon end up with stale information. The websockets allow the exchanges to push information to you, in real-time, as it happens. Seriously, they're fucking rad and you can query that data til the cows come home. Millisecond timers FTW!
Bitstamp uses Pusher, GDAX is a plain old web socket. It took me an age to figure it out, and honestly I've done it rather arse-about-tit, but here's the code I ended up using:
Bitstamp:(You'll need PusherClient from Nuget)
Imports PusherClient Imports Newtonsoft.Json.Linq Public WithEvents pusherClient As New Pusher("de504dc5763aeef9ff52") Public WithEvents BitstampLTCBTCOrderbook As Channel Public WithEvents BitstampLTCBTCTrades As Channel Public WithEvents BitstampBTCUSDTrades As Channel Public WithEvents BitstampEURUSDTrades As Channel pusherClient.Connect() Public Sub pusher_Connected() Handles pusherClient.Connected BitstampLTCBTCTrades = pusherClient.Subscribe("live_trades_ltcbtc") End Sub Public Sub BitstampLTCBTCTrades_Subscribed(Sender As Object) Handles BitstampLTCBTCTrades.Subscribed BitstampLTCBTCTrades.Bind("trade", AddressOf BitstampLTCBTCTrade) End Sub Public Sub BitstampLTCBTCTrade(data) Dim jss = JObject.Parse(data.ToString) BitstampPrice = CDec(jss("price_str").ToString) BitstampLastAmount = CDec(jss("amount_str").ToString) End Sub 
That's basically it - the different channels are all documented in the API and you can format the JSON til your little crypto heart's content.
GDAX:(You'll need Websocket4NET from Nuget) P.S. I know my sending raw JSON is a fucking abomination.
Imports WebSocket4Net Imports Newtonsoft.Json.Linq Public WithEvents websocketGDAX As WebSocket websocketGDAX = New WebSocket("wss://") websocketGDAX.Open() Public Sub gdax_Connect() Handles websocketGDAX.Opened Dim Data As String = "{ ""type"": ""subscribe"", ""product_ids"":[""BTC-EUR""], ""channels"": [""heartbeat"", { ""name"": ""ticker"", ""product_ids"": [""LTC-BTC""] }]}" websocketGDAX.Send(Data) End Sub Public Sub gdax_Data(sender As Object, args As WebSocket4Net.MessageReceivedEventArgs) Handles websocketGDAX.MessageReceived Dim jss = JObject.Parse(args.Message) Try If jss("type").ToString = "ticker" Then Select Case jss("product_id") Case "LTC-BTC" GDAXPrice = CDec(jss("price")) GDAXBid = CDec(jss("best_bid")) GDAXAsk = CDec(jss("best_ask")) GDAXLastSize = CDec(jss("last_size")) Case "EUR-USD" GDAXEURUSD = CDec(jss("price")) Case "BTC-USD" End Select End If Catch ex As Exception Exit Sub End Try End Sub 
Again, that's kind of it. Some proper error handling wouldn't go amiss, but I'm lazy and I use GOTO's all over the shop anyway so I'm basically a terrible human being.
3) Hashing. Fucking Hashing.
Ok so basically when sending authenticated/private API calls you need to hash bits of the message in order to prove authenticity. This was a bitch to try and cobble together the right code. Here, have it. It's yours:
Imports System.Security.Cryptography Imports System.Text Module Hashing Public Function HMACSHA256_Encrypt(ByVal message As String, secret As String) As String Try Dim secretkey As String = secret Dim sha As New System.Security.Cryptography.HMACSHA256(System.Text.ASCIIEncoding.ASCII.GetBytes(secretkey)) Dim Hash() As Byte = sha.ComputeHash(System.Text.ASCIIEncoding.ASCII.GetBytes(message)) Dim sb As New StringBuilder(Hash.Length * 2) For Each B As Byte In Hash sb.Append(Hex(B).PadLeft(2, "0")) Next Return sb.ToString.ToUpper Catch ex As Exception Debug.Print(Date.Now & " SHA256_Encrypt error " & ex.Message) Return Nothing End Try End Function Public Function HashString(ByVal str As String, ByVal secret As Byte()) As String Dim bytes As Byte() = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(str) Using hmac = New HMACSHA256(secret) Dim hash As Byte() = hmac.ComputeHash(bytes) Return Convert.ToBase64String(hash) End Using End Function End Module 
Top one for Bitstamp, Bottom one for GDAX. They differ slightly in the way they do things and the output they provide, hence there being two. Don't ask me what they do, couldn't tell you. Not a clue.
4) Verbose logging. Verbose logging. Verbose logging.
So you've made your bot, hit the button and....nothing. Now these things don't happen instantly; Even if you place an order at Ask or Bid, it might be minutes, even hours until it gets filled. Maybe your bot keeps erroring out and you don't know why. Write yourself a little logging function that you can copy and paste into your functions & subs that outputs the data you're sending and the data you're receiving along with a timestamp so you can debug if stuff isn't working. Again, I'm lazy and shit and this took me way longer to realise than it should have.
5) Don't be afraid to ask questions.
One of the biggest things that totally blew my mind was just how closed up some people are; on Reddit, forums, discord rooms... you name it. There's this weird stigma about people who trade & write bots that if they share their knowlege they'll somehow be doing themselves out of returns. Don't be afraid to ask questions. Ask enough, and eventually someone will come along and help. For every 10 people who chastised me for asking for coding help, trading help or whatever, 1 person would help out - it's worth enduring the rough for that... also, fuck those 10 people.
6) God damn Nonce generation.
A nonce is basically a unique, yet increasing number. Again, this was all massive trial and error. Bitstamp nonces and GDAX nonces work slightly differently and are interpreted slightly differently. Here's the code I use:
Module Nonces Public Function GenerateStampNonce() As String Static lastnonce As String Dim newNonce As String = Replace(Math.Round((DateTime.UtcNow - New DateTime(1970, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)).TotalMilliseconds / 1000, 1).ToString("#0.0"), ".", "") Do While lastnonce = newNonce Threading.Thread.Sleep(10) newNonce = Replace(Math.Round((DateTime.UtcNow - New DateTime(1970, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)).TotalMilliseconds / 1000, 1).ToString("#0.0"), ".", "") Loop lastnonce = newNonce Return newNonce End Function Public Function GenerateGDAXNonce() As Decimal Static lastnonce As Decimal Dim newNonce As Decimal = (DateTime.UtcNow - New DateTime(1970, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)).TotalMilliseconds / 1000 Do While lastnonce = newNonce Threading.Thread.Sleep(10) newNonce = (DateTime.UtcNow - New DateTime(1970, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)).TotalMilliseconds / 1000 Loop lastnonce = newNonce Return newNonce End Function End Module 
It's dirty...I know (I like it that way) - however it just simply works. I'm sure there's a more elegant way of generating these but honestly I ran out of patience on this because it's so simple when you look at it once it works.
7) Don't bog yourself down with a GUI.
Seems kind of daft, but running a bot as a console app forced me not only to be more verbose, but also helped really train my though process in terms of what all the timers in the background are doing. Not to mention, if you're anything like me you'll probably end up bogging it right down with all kinds of unnecessary GUI crap... in fact my first bot that was a total failure had more code to make the GUI whistle and pop than it did quality trading code.
You need so little input for a trading bot besides a config file full of preferences that your only real commands for any kind of interaction are quite simply:
 Console.WriteLine() Console.ReadKey() 
7.5) Limit orders on GDAX - FREE! As in... no fees!
Some people act like this is some kind of trade secret (haha, puns) but if you put a limit order on GDAX you almost always pay absolutely no fees. If you want to GUARANTEE you pay no fees, have your order set to post_only=true. This forces the order onto the books, which means you MUST place it AT Bid/Ask (depending on direction) or above/below, it'll get rejected if you try and eat into the other side of the spread.
8) Async/Multithread your requests to the API's.
I haven't done this, so I have no code to share. But if you suddenly lose connection or there's a blip or whatever, there's often no way of specifying a timeout and it could potentially freeze/crash your application.
I guess that's all I can think of. It might seem like simple, trivial stuff but when it comes to writing something in a language like VB.NET there's very little resources out there at all... I went through some pretty mind-bending trial and error that while fun and now rewarding, was very frustrating at the time.
All in all, writing a program that can interact with an exchange is a wholly steep learning experience and I've learned more in terms of my general programming ability and my knowlege and understanding of trading & exchanges in general than I had in months or even years before doing this.
Feel free to ask any questions, I'll try to answer them as best I can.
submitted by DotNetBarry to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Refutation to savingprivatedash's Proposal to Demote Ryan Taylor

Recently a proposal was submitted to the Dash masternode network requesting the demotion of Ryan Taylor, the CEO of Dash Core Group (DCG). DCG is the core development team hired by the Dash DAO. The proposal’s author, savingprivatedash, provided 7 points to support his argument. I am going to discuss each of these points directly.
This is the link to the proposal -

(1) “Ryan destroyed the market's confidence in Dash by repeatedly breaking promises and missing deadlines. Dash was once valued at 0.09BTC and it is now 0.02, in spite of millions of dollars available to him. Vault accounts, usernames, friends lists, easy to use mobile wallets, marketplace. None of the 2016 promises were kept. Even Amanda Johnson, once Dash's biggest fan and now nowhere to be seen, said publicly she would give DCG until Dec 31 2018 to deliver on Evolution. Unfortunately, she is in for yet another disappointment, since we are in August 2018 and there isn't even a roadmap yet. If Ryan were to present one during this quarterly call, there is no reason he should be believed.”
(2) “Ryan has grown his company irresponsibly. There are 6,176 DASH available in the budget and DCG has about $500,000 in monthly expenses. Dash is now below $200, and $500,000 / 6176 = $80.95. That means if the DASH price goes below $80, not only there won't be funds for any other community projects, but also not enough to pay the salaries of DCG employees. The threshold for complete chaos is probably around $150-$160, because there are other financial obligations that they need to meet besides salaries. I wonder how much confidence the employees have in Ryan's leadership knowing their salaries are at risk.”
(3) “Ryan had access to more than $30,000,000 USD in funding and didn't create a safety net for DCG. Because of his unforgivable mistake, other important community projects are either already defunded or in serious risk of being defunded. Ryan jeopardized the financial stability of his entire company, and many other community projects, in spite of the ludicrous amounts of money that were available to him.”
(4) “Technology. Big promises were made and we expected reasonable results in reasonable times. Users, merchants, investors and everyone else in the ecosystem had high expectations but didn't see meaningful releases in the past 3 years. We still don't have features promised in Evolution, Private Send still takes way too long (it took me almost 2 days to mix 5 DASH), and the Dash Core Wallet are still the same they were 2 years ago, and so on. There are thousands of other cryptocurrencies being actively developed and timing is essential. People cared about logins and passwords in 2016, but won't in 2019-2020 if and when this is released. Perhaps we would do better by breaking Dash Core into individual teams, where each apply for their own funding. Instead of 100 DASH all going to DCG, the Marketing Team applies for 30, Evolution Team for 60 and Business Development for 10.”
(5) “Marketing. Ryan made the mistake of promoting Fernando Gutierrez to CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) back in Jan 17 2018. As a lawyer with no experience, creativity, or talent for marketing, Fernando has an impressive track record of zero results in 8 months. He had at his disposal millions of dollars and still have nothing to show for. The Dash brand is in dire need of professional tender love and care. He is doing the best he can with the limited resources he has (talent, experience, creativity), and it is Ryan's fault for misallocating human resources. The new CEO should move Fernando to a different position and instruct HR to hire a new CMO.”
(6) “Business Development. Ryan made the mistake of hiring Bradley Zastrow on Dec 15 2017. For the past 8 months, the guy has been bullshitting his way with meaningless updates and also zero results. Things like "30 conversations focusing on 9 integrations", and "30+ conversations focusing on 6 integrations" are his way of saying he is working, but not delivering. Imagine a sales person that does not make a single sale. Ever. His list of accomplishments includes things like "Attended Consensus" and "Attended Alt36 conference". If Bradley were a community project he would have been defunded after just two months. He is allowed to underperform and underdeliver without consequences, in spite of the disproportional salary he receives.”
(7) “Ryan is not a leader. Since Evan Duffield left, Dash Core Group has been a stale and boring company that does not innovate! Ryan failed to create a sense of urgency and a culture of results. His company has taken millions of dollars from the budget and still does not have any meaningful achievements on Marketing, Business Development, and most importantly, on Technology. No other entity in the Dash ecosystem consumes so much resources and delivers so little. Even small community projects with modest budgets have far more to show for than DCG's bloated and fully funded departments. We need a dependable, energetic, and passionate CEO. One that would care deeply about our brand, that would be involved in important community projects, that would have a say on important proposals, that would DELIVER and KEEP HIS PROMISES.”
Ultimately, even though presented as concern for the Dash network, this proposal is nothing more than an insidious attempt to create dissent in the Dash community and tarnish the reputation of Dash to those who don’t follow the project closely. It failed. What it showed is not only how open and decentralized the Dash system is where someone can submit a proposal for personnel change and have the network vote on it, but it also showed that by being the least successful proposal in Dash’s history, the Dash community is more united than ever.

**Edited to fix formatting**
submitted by kanuuker to dashpay [link] [comments]

Why I have never invested the same love for 343's Halo the way I have for Bungie.

To start this off I want to make it clear, I am not a hater, rather one day I experienced a story that was amazing and absolutely captivating. To say the least it was awe inspiring, the scale on which it was told blew me away.
My story begins in the early 2002 just after the release of halo and the Xbox, I wee-lad was sitting at home playing my Nintendo 64, Golden Eye to be specific, which was then what I understood was one of the greatest console shooters ever made. When my older brother asked me if I'd want to out money towards a new console called an Xbox and a game called Halo. my immediate reaction was, "haha no way, how can anything be better than Golden Eye?". Dear god I was wrong, this is like missing out on Apple stocks or Bitcoin when they were worth mere dollars then seeing them shoot up in value, because the moment you know the real value of those things, you've got an itch that can't be scratched.
So skipping ahead what captured me?
Reunion Tour, although there are earlier parts in the map which looked like this, the transition from going underground out into this canyon with the instrumentals which Martin O'Donnell wrote was breath taking. I was 7 years old and that was my awakening to music, it would have be the first name of a composer I ever knew. Before something more common than Mozart or as new age and relevant as Danny Elfman.
But I digress, all above was unique personal experience. What makes Halo great otherwise?
  1. 30 seconds of fun: "To do that, we talked about how the AI handles all the decisions on the 30-second timescale; where to stand, when to shoot, when to dive away from a grenade. And the Mission Designers handle what happens on the 3-minute timescale; when to send reinforcements, when to retreat, encounter tactics. But in between, design and programming had to work together to come up with behaviors and a combat loop that would serve as the bridge between the 30-second AI and the 3-minute mission script." Source
    A big thing which differs for me in the new games is the feel of each location I go to doesn't feel as well organised as this, each space has a hierarchy of players being stuck at the bottom of a hill and the opponent has the upper-ground or vice versa. It doesn't feel like I'm fighting my way through something, but up a hill, this is actually tiring when playing somehow?
  2. Tone and influence: , from the Gulf War to Grunge, I feel as if there was a lot of 90's underground culture influencing the tone of the original Halo and that's what inspired the characters from their they grew. I can quite easily see aspects of Robo Cop, Black-hawk down or Starship Troopers in the Halos. There is a reason why Master Chief didn't have a largely explored personality like he does in the newer 343 games, he represents a means to ending the war, he is every soldier, every solider can't have one face, that's why its hidden. Then when it is hidden anyone can be Master Chief.
    It's funny how now with that lens you can see how Master Chief is someone who is meant to be used and tossed aside, but then through the other characters, Captain Keyes, Sargent Johnson, 343 Guilty Spark he is given value, they don't just attach their mission to him but they put their faith in him, they believe, we believe, and believing is the most powerful force is story telling. The Prophets tell story the entire covenant believe up into a point and it puts a galaxy in turmoil.
    The point of this isn't to say Halo still needs to draw influence from the same things and have the same tone of the grit of the 90's, but rather understand the point that was made of Chief being a means to an end. In Halo 1-3 the end was pretty damned clear, stop the Flood, Stop the covenant both mean the absolute end of the universe. The Didact is some random baddy to me because he wants an army, it wasn't exactly clear, I didn't read the books.
  3. I DID READ THE BOOKS: I was attracted to Halo not because of the characters, their arks, story telling or level of ambition in which the universe presented itself (Those are things that kept me there). What brought me in that was it was a video game, that's right I went for the format. I think it's completely fine to have other formats of material aside the main source supplementing it, but the source should never be reliant on them. I don't understand why to continue to enjoy a video game I must invest in other types of entertainment I wasn't attracted to i.e. an online web series (Forward onto Dawn) or all the books which were written.
    Just to make this clear, this is nor a judgement of the quality of work put into such pieces, but a judgement of how they were managed and implemented. It seems like a complete misjudgement of your market by having a niche section a required element.
  4. The Balance in game-play, fair starts, and the eloquence of a simple formulae: Armour abilities are the start of what kills the multiplayer, items in Halo 3 aren't so bad you don't spawn with them, so they're a tool to level the playing field instead of filling the map with power weapons. Problem is is with Reach and further games is that if everyone has an ability so it doesn't balance anything out, it just makes a new baseline.
    Now to go customisation load-out before the game it ruins the idea of a baseline balance (fair starts). In Halo the tenant isn't just for a fair start, but it can be that less is more, at least with game mechanics.
    This affects Campaign too. The world already has a lot going on, so adding more in this area diminishes the player's ability to absorb other elements of the story line and universe. It's like having choice fatigue, instead of enjoying McDonald's now your problem is there are too many things to choose from and your mind can't stray from that. The game was effective when it didn't break pacing to consider what I would bring along, but the focus on was the obstacle that laid ahead. I know that may sound conflicting but its a video game, not a 50km hike up a mountain. If anyone knows much of the history of LEGO, it is quite easy to see where their successes were, and where their failures were. Successes followed the adherence to their design system of the classic blocks we all know and love, and then pieces that are designed to fit with them, failures came when they moved away from this and tried to integrate play sets where the pieces didn't match up. Essentially trying to emulate things from other play styles, whilst forgoing the idea that they had one already which wasn't really related. It's odd to me that anyone would do that, but yet it happens. Now we don't see odd toys like this or this where elements don't quite match each other, but we've seen a strong return to this as if the scale is following specific rules of space like the Golden Ratio or Le Corbusier's: The Modulor is an anthropometric scale of proportions.
People couldn't play with the lego, and be creative because the pieces were so damn weird, playing Halo suffers from the same affliction, the pieces have gotten weird.
Edit: I want to add another point to this.
  1. Why change Cortana or mess with her in anyway? I am not talking about her in terms of character, its a story, characters need progression or they become stale. I believe you chose a logical step in her character development by making her enter rampancy (Part of the story was clearly leading there).
    What I am adding to this is, why her role was not replaced with another character acts in the role mentor archetype, someone who explains and expands the context of the world, who follows you through as a guide? In Halo 3 when Cortana was not present 343 Guilty spark took on a larger role in that respect, more so than in previous games. What makes him great as a character is his different invested interest and goal. You have the same enemies, you are not enemies but any means, but in the end your goals conflict. Which is an even greater poetic irony when you acknowledge Master Chief is just a means to an end, humanity does not really care about him per-se, the UNSC do not, what they do care for is the end of the war.
submitted by N1cko1138 to halo [link] [comments]

Two Lane Highways are Insecure. Cars can crash Head On!

Professor Stolfi made a new round of claims about Lightning Network which I'm going to try to debunk here instead of in that thread.
Before I get into the details let me explain something in broad strokes. Most of the second layer solutions are trading some security for efficiency. If you want maximum security you still need to make an on chain transaction and wait for confirmation. That being said claiming they are insecure is analogous to claiming that a two lane highway is too dangerous to drive on because oncoming cars could do anything. The reason you drive calmly down such a road every day is because you know that if an oncoming car swerves into your lane and kills you, they risk killing themselves, destroying their vehicle and potential legal consequences.
This is a good way of thinking of a bidirectional payment channel, basically, not as a crash but as two cars sharing the same road. Two parties enter into a contract. The result of participating in the contract is the benefit of being able to send value instantaneously and/or profit from fees. The terms of the contract ensure that bad actors cannot profit. In other words, if someone wants to watch the world burn, they can, it's just extremely expensive. In fact the expense to them is basically as much as they burn and therefore pointless even as a statement.
What professor Stolfi has attempted to do in many of his posts is present the failure modes as the norm. This is analogous to claiming that cars will constantly be swerving into oncoming traffic despite consequences. In reality the vast majority of lightning nodes will download the same software from a repository, run it on basically the same linux box and have a basically the same behavior. They are incentivized to do this well so that they are profitable and don't lose the money that they are staking. We don't know exactly what the rate of entering the failure modes will be but it could be a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent. Such that essentially no one encounters it.
However I will give you that: we don't know everything about how a lightning network will function because it's impossible to predict how a complex economic system will evolve. There are still big questions about what eventual topology of the network will look like, what the final routing protocol will land on, what the duration of the average channel will be and what the fee structure will look like. My opinion is these are engineering challenges that are likely to be solved iteratively and importantly no consensus changes required once segwit is enabled. The underlying design is sound and actually quite brilliant.
Drawing the conclusion that the network is insecure, or worse spreading a conspiracy theory that it's "Controlled by Blockstream" who wishes to cover up the flaws, doesn't explain a clear incentive for them or anyone. And perhaps shows a lack of comprehension of the basic incentives that make the system function. If I'm wrong about this then there is a simple solution: Jorge can publish a paper that explains why LN is doomed to be a failure for peer review. He's an academic after all, don't you think it's weird that he doesn't do this?
Ok, on with the attempted debunking, the quotes here are Professor Stolfi, I'm just going to use parts here for brevity but feel free to go read them and let me know if I missed something.
The LN depends on bidirectional payment channels (BPCs) , which are not secure. Someone who pays you through a BPC may be able to reverse his recent payments before closing the channel.
Right out of the box, no. They can't do that. Not without risking their entire stake in the channel. So if Bob, the malicious actor, pays Alice and then Bob decides to reverse the transaction, Alice has the chance to take all of the money including Bobs. So basically if Bob takes no action, he assumes no risk, if he takes action his risk is potentially greater than his reward. That's why this is a failure mode. The success of the network relies on the fact that there is no incentive to enter this mode, and every incentive to avoid it. But does that mean there will be zero failures, no, but Bob would be a lot more likely to succeed by taking his money to Vegas and he would have more fun there.
After this Jorge goes into a good explanation of how a bidirectional payment channel works but then concludes:
One problem with this idea is that either party could cheat the other by sending to the miners, instead of the last cheque T[n], some earlier cheque T[i] that had a more favorable balance to hehim. In particular, the sender of the most recent payment T[k] can send the previous cheque T[k-1] to the miners, canceling that payment. The "solution" that has been offered to this problem is that each cheque T[k] has a time lock that delays the actual release of the balances to the two parties for a couple of days. After each cheque T[k] is exchanged, each of the two parties also receives a special "punishment" cheque P[k]. This transaction is effective only if the previous cheque T[k-1] has been confirmed, but its time-lock has not expired yet; and it sends all the NA+NB coins to the wronged party, without waiting for the time lock.
So this part isn't explained well. What is really happening here is in order to extend the life of a payment channel there needs to be a mechanism to change the direction of the channel so that money can flow both ways. Every time the channel changes direction it enters a new state and the players give each other a key that allows them to take all of the money IF their counterpart attempts to use a transaction from the earlier state of the channel.
So, the idea goes, Alice can deter and correct such fraud attempts from Bob by saving the transactions P[1], P[2], ... P[n], checking the blockchain at least once a day or so, and sending the appropriate P[k] to the miners as soon as she sees a stale cheque T[k-1] being confirmed.
When he says Alice, he means a full node connected to the network. The node is reading each new block and looking for transactions which are pertinent to it. In particular if she sees Bob attempt to use a transaction from one of the earlier states of the channel, then Alice is now able to take all of the money using her key. There is some risk here to Alice, if she goes offline or can't get that transaction into a block, but Bob is taking an even bigger risk. So in practice Bob has a huge incentive to never let those old transactions see the light of day.
There are of course many things that can go wrong with this idea. So it is not really a solution, but a "hacker's solution": a trick, preferably convoluted, that may achieve the desired result in some cases, and can be blamed on the "luser" when it doesn't.
Basically I've concluded that any time someone uses game theory or incentives to build a system Jorge refers to that a "hacker trick". He of course has no alternative to such "tricks" other than I expect "using a bank" but lets continue.
And there are other problems. For one thing, until the channel is closed, there is no record anywhere of all the checks that were exchanged though it.
Ok, the record is in the computers that we are calling Alice and Bob.
Thus, if Alice loses her LN wallet, she cannot reconstruct it from some master key and some public source (as she can do with ordinary bitcoin payments).
Ok so I'm assuming you mean that Alice could lose all of the money in her LN account if she looses her phone and Bob is malicious. In practice phones are not likely to be used for bidirectional payments, they don't have enough connectivity. (for mono-directional payments they do.) In any case she should limit the funds stored in her phone regardless. Bitcoin is like cash and so is LN.
In a later post:
The "network" is supposed to use a chain of two or more BPCs to execute a payment between any two users that are not directly connected by a BPC. Say, Alice wants to pay 2 BTC to Eric, through the path Alice Bob Carol Dave Eric. The four payments are negotiated by the 5 users and cryptomagically linked so that, in the end, either they all happen (that is, all users get valid cheques for their respective channels) or all fail.
This is true, but the phrase cryptomagically linked is disingenuous. No one in the chain has the ability to steal the money because they lack a key that only the person further down the chain will have. There is no a potential cascading failure here and no magic.
Since the intermediate users (Bob, Carol and Dave) will charge fees for their service, either Alice has to pay more than 2 BTC, or Eric receives less than 2 BTC, or both. Thus the four cheques will have slightly decreasing amounts, and the middlemen receive a little more than they send through the next BPC. Each of those 4 cheques will have its own punishment transactions, and, in general, all 5 nodes will have to watch the blockchain for the previous cheque on each of his path channels (in addition to all the previous stale cheques) .
Again this is confused. Each channel in the network is maintaining it's relationships independently. A transaction passing down the chain does not increase this burden.
That brings up the Watchers issue. Since one cannot assume that every user will be able to scan the blockchain every day, it was proposed that the task could be delegated to some Watcher service that would do that for a fee.
But we aren't assuming that. We aren't even assuming that end users will use bidirectional channels.
Since a BPC must be used used for at least tens of payments, on average (otherwise the LN would not be a "scaling solution" at all), it must remain open for months. But the Watcher will have to keep watch for each stale cheque associated with each client's BPC, as long as the BPC remains open -- even if the channel has been idle fro months. Originally it was assumed that the Watcher could be paid by a fraction of the confiscated coins, whenever he detects a fraud and sends the punishment transaction to the miners. Thus those services were originally called "Bounty Hunters".
I don't even think that this idea has any traction so it's not the solution to the problem rather than something someone once proposed. The solution is to select the appropriate type of channel based on the connectivity, uptime, and staking amount of the participants. Bidirectional channels are "live" and requires continuous connectivity and monitoring from participants. Monodirectional channels allow one participant to be passive. What this means is that it limits the types of devices and connections that can participate in bidirectional payments but not in the network as a whole.
He goes on about the Watchers, and I'm happy to rebut the rest if you want, but the upshot is that "Watching" is not expensive. Moving on:
Then there is the issue of finding the payment routes. The only case when that problem is solved is when the "network" is just one huge central bank hub with one channel to each user. But this solution is just an inefficient PayPal with some formidable financial problems thrown in. If that topology is excluded, each user will need to create at least half a dozen BPCs in order to ensure reasonable connectivity of the network. So each LN user would have to split his coins among half a dozen BPCs and keep them locked there for months.
Ok, when the coins are "locked in" in a BPC they are spendable and they are useful for routing payments that's THE WHOLE POINT. Likewise it storing coins in multiple BPCs doesn't affect how payments can be combined from them. Likewise if the node you share a BPC with is not malicious, it will just close the channel upon request. This is again an example of claiming a failure mode is normal.
Even so, the typical path will have half a dozen hops. Then there is a need for a router, some service that will find a suitable path given its two end users. The max amount that can be sent through a BPC from Alice to Bob is the clearance C = NA-Q, where NA is the amount initially locked by Alice and Q is the net payment (positive or negative) already sent through that channel in that direction. The max amount that can be sent through a path is the smallest among the clearances of its channels. Thus the router must know the current clearances of all the channels that he may use in his paths. Thus he too must somehow promptly receive information about every LN payment exchanged through those channels, since each payment changes the clearance. And the router must also know which nodes are on-line and willing to relay payments (since all nodes in a path must negotiate the multi-hop payment) and what fees each relay charges. Because of that need, no one knows how to implement a routing service that will work for 10 million users, each making several multi-hop payments ṕer day on average, with each payment requiring half a dozen BPC payments. Not even if the router service is centralized, much less if it is to be decentralized.
This just isn't true. What Jorge is basically stating is that there is no way to instantly calculate a globally optimal solution without complete knowledge of the instantaneous state of the system. He should know already that no one is attempting to do that, what they are attempting to do is create a metahueristic or stochastic solution that finds as large a set of sufficient paths as possible and picks the best among them. So think of how a colony of insects organizes itself for example, each local actor has limited knowledge but collectively they create a desired outcome.
So my hope that what you take away from this is: LN is a live cache that sits on top of bitcoin. Bidirectional channels require constant participation. Overall LN is basically the best solution we have for creating a large scale instant payment network that remains permisionless. It's not 100% finished but the engineering challenges that remain are tractable.
submitted by biglambda to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

What is the point of Bitcoin? Ft. Paul Puey What Does How to Buy Bitcoin Legally in the U.S ... A Weird Pattern on Bitcoin Repeats Again What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin Explained Simply for Dummies ... Bitcoin Panic Selling... What it REALLY Means

Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up. Sign up to join this community. Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Bitcoin . Home ; Questions ; Tags ; Users ; Unanswered ; Jobs; guiminer shares 0 accepted 6 stale/invalid,what does the message mean ... Stale shares are the shares that were sent after a block was already solved, that is to say, they were sent late and were no longer valid. To avoid stale shares, best to have a reasonably fast mining rig (so you won't take too long to calculate a share, probably not a problem for most machines), reliable internet connection (stable, not necessarily fast), but also an up-to-date mining software ... The warning message is saying "it has been a long time since the node received a new block" Usually it means your node is not connected to the Internet Sometimes it means there is an unusually long time between blocks. This is normal variation, can be ignored Sometimes it means you are following the wrong tip branch of a Blockchain which had 2 blocks mined at the same time. $12 million in Bitcoin that was created back when Satoshi Nakamoto was still actively involved with the top cryptocurrency just came to life after being dormant for a decade. According to blockchain data tracking bot BTCparser, 1,050 Satoshi-era BTC mined back in 2010 were spent on October 11th in 21 separate transactions worth 50 BTC each. Stale shares are the shares that were sent after a block was already solved, meaning they were sent too late and were no longer valid. This is why the better configuration you have, the more money you make. Because we cannot predict stale shares, this data goes to the pending balance and gets confirmed only after the final data arrives. This is why the pending balance may change, while the ...

[index] [29936] [37789] [35841] [39746] [45457] [47446] [12929] [5119] [2028] [50574]

What is the point of Bitcoin? Ft. Paul Puey

An important pattern repeats itself again on Bitcoin. What does it mean and how can we use it? We explain. For more visit: Bitcoin appears to be lagging behind and doing nothing while most altcoins like XRP, ETH and LTC have moved higher. What does it mean for BTC? #Bitcoin #XRP ... Video shows what stale means. Theft; the act of stealing. Stealth, used in the phrase by stale. stale pronunciation. How to pronounce, definition by Wiktiona... How will bitcoin escape from the formidable "kill zone" and what does this mean? We discuss in video. For more, please visit: Bitcoin bears the weight of many hopes: stable money, anonymity, anti-censorship, and trustless commerce. But what does this jargon mean? And how will Bitcoin truly affect the lives of everyday ...