Bitcoin transaction not becoming verified with Electrum ...
Bitcoin transaction not becoming verified with Electrum ...
Not seeing your transaction? Here's how ... - Athena Bitcoin
Why hasn't my transaction confirmed yet? – Blockchain ...
What happens if your transaction is never confirmed?
Bitcoin: (High) Transaction Fees (Long) Confirmation Times ...
Tai Zen on Twitter: “It has been over 10 hours and my bitcoin [core] transaction still hasn't confirmed yet...This is one of the main reasons btc has not gained mainstream adoption yet as a peer to peer electronic cash.” - and this is why people that was p2p cash use Bitcoin Cash!
"It has been over 10 hours and my bitcoin transaction still hasn't confirmed yet...This is one of the main reasons btc has not gained mainstream adoption yet as a peer to peer electronic cash. Imagine how users & businesses feel when it takes this long to confirm."
[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] it's been 1 day and my transaction is still not confirmed yet, when will this be solved?
The following post by wilruns is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7c67pg The original post's content was as follows:
I'm new to bitcoin and yesterday made my first transfer to a fellow friend, used Bread Wallet and transferred 0.02 BTC, selected the economic fee of 227sats which says I should expect the transfer to be done in an hour+, yet here I am 1 day later still having the transaction unconfirmed. I understand that there's been lots of debates and civil war going on how to scale BTC, as a layman end user I just want to know what's being done right now to solve this issue? will this be solved? otherwise I really don't see the vision of peer to peer cash transfer being realised as it is right now, and people like me will just end up using something else for day to day transfers.
It's been 24 hours and my Bitcoin transaction has not been confirmed yet...
I sent about .6 Bitcoin to another address online and I accidentally set the miners fee below the recommended amount of .0001. Now it's not being confirmed. Also, I tried to rebroadcast it on three different outlets and it didn't work on any because it said either the fee was too low or "this transaction already exists in the mining pool". What should I do? Just wait it out?
[HELP!] I messed up. I sent bitcoin to from my dying phone, to a new phone which I accidentally wiped. The transaction is not confirmed yet. I have the private key of the sending address. Is there any way I can recover my bitcoin? Reward offered! /r/Bitcoin
A 61500 satoshi transaction has over 400 confirmations. The other person has not received their bitcoins yet.
So yep, pretty much the title. Transferred some bitcoins on Wednesday, it's a small amount actually (61500 satoshis) yet the other person hasn't received anything on Friday. Checked the transaction on Blockchain.info and it has been confirmed over 416 times. First time this happens to me actually. What could it be?
$0.88 transaction fees and yet not even 1 confirmation for a $900 transaction for over 1 hour. The transaction was made via Blockchain.info and that was the recommended transaction fee for priority. I didn't change it. This is ridiculous. When do I know this transaction will go through? /r/Bitcoin
Cosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together. The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set. For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three (There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Polkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework. The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain. For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three (There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Avalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements. Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here (There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look
Each Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created
Parachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.
Avalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.
All three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅ https://preview.redd.it/2o0brllyvpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=8f62bb696ecaafcf6184da005d5fe0129d504518
Tendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.
Polkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.
Avalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.
Avalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅ https://preview.redd.it/ckfamee0wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4355f145d821fabf7785e238dbc96a5f5ce2846
Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.
Polkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once. If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three
Avalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.
With regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅ https://preview.redd.it/kzup5x42wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=320eb4c25dc4fc0f443a7a2f7ff09567871648cd
Every Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.
Shared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots. However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.
A subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional
Shared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now. https://preview.redd.it/pbgyk3o3wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=61c18e12932a250f5633c40633810d0f64520575
The Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.
The Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.
Avalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.
Whilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅. https://preview.redd.it/4zpi6s85wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e91ade1a86a5d50f4976f3b23a46e9287b08e373
Cosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.
With polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.
Avalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.
Avalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅. https://preview.redd.it/li5jy6u6wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a95f1f88e5efbcf9e23c789ae0f002c8eb73fc
Cosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.
Polkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.
A subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.
All 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅. https://preview.redd.it/ai0bkbq8wpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e85ee6a3c4670f388ccea00b0c906c3fb51e415
The ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.
Polkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.
AVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself. There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well. Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.
Ultimate glossary of crypto currency terms, acronyms and abbreviations
So I sent some Bitcoin to another wallet to consolidate wallets, but then I realized it might be smarter to keep my funds from multiple different places and for multiple different reasons separate. I used a relatively low confirmation speed, so I decided I would rather cancel the transaction instead of waiting the whole 25 blocks to just wait another 25 blocks. I'm using electrum on mobile and used the "cancel (double-spend)" option to do this. Since then (about 2 days ago), the mempool depth has been fluctuating, mainly staying above 10mb, which makes me think that the transaction is accounted for, just not confirmed yet. Did I just nuke my funds or are they still sitting in cyberspace waiting for confirmation? This is all I did, so if I need to go to my other wallet and do something, that would also be nice information to know.
I have yet to complete the auditing and fairing in "the previous confirmed trades thread"], but will update in both of them when that process is complete. Last update: Early evening, 12 October 2020 (PDT) Post your confirmed buy/sell/trades below, When confirming a post type "Confirmed" only (nothing else) because of the convention, and because if you don't, we won't be able to confirm your trades and give you cool flairs :( A REMINDER: GO AND UPDATE YOUR FLAIRS TO PURCHASED / SOLD once the trade/sale/buy completes. Also, make a fair when you post -- or else when we have a bot, it will stop you from publishing your posts! (Posts not set with flair within 5 minutes of posting are technically eligible to be marked Sold / Purchased / Traded by any moderator, please see rule 5 for more details.) If any mods requests proof, please send a modmail (message to the subreddit) including the following:
Screenshot of PM's between the users
Permalink to trade
Relative comments from the thread
Examples (previous thread of the last six months): https://www.reddit.com/thinkpadsforsale/comments/g065na A simplified version of the same warning from previous threads: (1) Any Reddit user can impersonate any eBay seller -- perhaps use eBay's messaging system to verify (2) If you are scammed the following platforms will rarely-to-likely-never refund you:
Apple Pay (now including Apple Credit Card) [limited success reported]
Google Pay [very little chance of recovery]
Zelle [almost all users scammed on Zelle here have reported negative luck]
Disclaimer: This is sort of my own arbitrary editing, so there could be some misunderstandings. I root for the spread of good spirits and transparency of IF. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 2:45 So why don't we just copy Avalanche? Well that's pretty simple ... 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 2:47 1. It doesn't scale very well with the amount of nodes in the network that have no say in the consensus process but are merely consensus consuming nodes(i.e. sensors, edge devices and so on). If you assume that the network will never have more than a few thousand nodes then thats fine butif you want to build a DLT that can cope with millions of devices then it wont work because of the message complexity. 2. If somebody starts spamming conflicts, then the whole network will stop to confirm any transactions and will grind to a halt until the conflict spamming stops.Avalanche thinks that this is not a huge problem because an attacker would have to spend fees for spamming conflicts which means that he couldn't do this forever and would at some point run out of funds. IOTA tries to build a feeless protocol and a consensus that stops to function if somebody spams conflicts is really not an option for us. 3. If a medium sized validator goes offline due to whatever reason, then the whole network will again stop to confirm any transactionsbecause whenever a query for a nodes opinion can not be answered they reset the counter for consecutive successful voting rounds which will prevent confirmations. Since nodes need to open some ports to be available for queries it is super easy to DDOS validators and again bring the network confirmations to 0. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:05 4. Avalanche still processes transactions in "chunks/blocks"by only applying them after they have gone through some consensus process (gathered enough successfull voting rounds),which means that the nodes will waste a significant amount of time where they "wait" for the next chunk to be finished before the transactions are applied to the ledger state. IOTA tries to streamline this process by decoupling consensus and the booking of transactions by using the "parallel reality based ledger state" which means that nodes in IOTA will never waste any time "waiting" for decisions to be made. This will give us much higher throughput numbers. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:11 5. Avalanche has some really severe game theoretic problems where nodes are incentivized to attach their transactions to the already decided parts of the DAG because then things like conflict spam won't affect these transactions as badly as the transactions issued by honest nodes.If however every node would follow this "better and selfish" tip selection mechanism then the network will stop to work at all. Overall the "being able to stop consensus" might not be too bad since you can't really do anything really bad (i.e. double spend) which is why we might not see these kind of attacks in the immediate future but just wait until a few DeFi apps are running on their platform where smart contracts are actually relying on more or less real time execution of the contracts. Then there might be some actual financial gains to be made if the contract halts and we might see alot of these things appear (including selfish tip selection). Avalanche is barely a top 100 project and nobody attacks these kind of low value networks unless there is something to be gained from such an attack. Saying that the fact that its live on mainnet and hasn't been attacked in 3 weeks is a proof for its security is completely wrong. Especially considering that 95% of all stake are controlled by avalanche itself If you control > 50% of the voting power then you essentially control the whole network and attacks can mostly be ignored I guess there is a reason for avalanche only selling 10% of the token supply to the public because then some of the named problems are less likely to appear 📷 Navin Ramachandran [IF]어제 오후 3:21 I have to say that wtf's suggestion is pretty condescending to all our researchers. It seems heavy on the troll aspect to suggest that we should ditch all our work because iota is only good at industrial adoption. Does wtf actually expect a response to this? Or is this grand standing? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:22 The whole argument of "why don't you just use X instead of trying to build a better version" is also a completely idiotic argument. Why did ETH write their own protocol if Bitcoin was already around? Well because they saw problems in Bitcoins approach and tried to improve it. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:27 u/NavinRamachandran [IF] Its like most of his arguments ... remember when he said we should implement colored coins in 2nd layer smart contracts instead of the base layer because they would be more expressive (i.e. turing complete) completely discarding that 2nd layer smart contracts only really work if you have a consensus on data and therefore state for which you need the "traceability" of funds to create these kind of mini blockchains in the tangle? Colored coins "enable" smart contracts and it wouldnt work the other way round - unless you have a platform that works exactly like ETH where all the nodes validate a single shared execution platform of the smart contracts which is not really scalable and is exactly what we are trying to solve with our approach. 📷 Navin Ramachandran [IF]어제 오후 3:28 Always easier to criticise than build something yourself. But yet he keeps posting these inflammatory posts. At this point is there any doubt if he is making these comments constructively? 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 3:43 If he at least would try to understand IOTAs vision ... then maybe he wouldn't have to ask things like "Why don't you just copy a tech that only works with fees" 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 4:35 u/Shaar
I thought this would only be used to 'override' finality, eg if there were network splits. But not in normal consensus
That is not correct. Every single transaction gets booked on arrival using the parallel reality based ledger state. If there are conflicts then we create a "branch" (container in the ledger state) that represents the perception that this particular double spend would be accepted by consensus. After consensus is reached, the container is simply marked as "accepted" and all transactions that are associated with this branch are immediately confirmed as well. This allows us to make the node use all of its computing ressources 24/7 without having to wait for any kind of decision to be made and allows us to scale the throughput to its physical limits. That's the whole idea of the "parallel reality based ledger state" instead of designing a data structure that models the ledger state "after consensus" like everybody else is doing it is tailored to model the ledger state "before consensus" and then you just flip a flag to persist your decision. The "resync mechanism" also uses the branches to measure the amount of approval a certain perception of the ledger state receives. So if my own opinion is not in line with what the rest of the network has accepted (i.e. because I was eclipsed or because there was a network split), then I can use the weight of these branches to detect this "being out of sync" and can do another larger query to re-evaluate my decision.(수정됨)
Also what happens in IOTA if DRNG notes would fall out, does the network continue if no new RNGs appear for a while? Or will new nodes be added sufficiently fast to the DRNG committee that no one notices?
Its a comittee and not just a single DRNG provider. If a few nodes fail then it will still produce random numbers. And even if the whole comittee fails there are fallback RNG's that would be used instead 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 4:58 And multiverse doesn't use FPC but only the weight of these branches in the same way as blockchain uses the longest chain wins consensus to choose between conflicts. So nodes simply attach their transactions to the transactions that they have seen first and if there are conflicts then you simply monitor which version received more approval and adjust your opinion accordingly. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 5:07 We started integrating some of the non-controversial concepts (like the approval reset switch) into FPC and are currently refactoring goshimmer to support this We are also planning to make the big mana holders publish their opinion in the tangle as a public statement, which allows us to measure the rate of approval in a similar way as multiverse would do it So its starting to converge a bit but we are still using FPC as a metastability breaking mechanism Once the changes are implemented it should be pretty easy to simulate and test both approaches in parallel 📷 Serguei Popov [IF]어제 오후 5:53
So the ask is that we ditch all our work and fork Avalanche because it has not been attacked in the month or so it has been up?
u/NavinRamachandran [IF] yeah, that's hilarious. Avalanche consensus (at least their WP version) is clearly scientifically unsound. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 9:43 u/wtfmaybe you should research avalanche before proposing such a stupid idea and you will see that what I wrote is actually true 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 9:44 paying fees is what "protects" them atm and simply the fact that nobody uses the network for anything of value yet we cant rely on fees making attack vectors "inattractive" 📷 Serguei Popov [IF]어제 오후 10:17
well (1.) very obviously the metastability problems are not a problem in practice,
putting "very obviously" before questionable statements very obviously shows that you are seeking a constructive dialogue📷(to make metastability work, the adversary needs to more-or-less know the current opinion vectors of most of the honest participants; I don't see why a sufficiently well-connected adversary cannot query enough honest nodes frequently enough to achieve that)
(2.) .... you'd need an unpredictable number every few tens/hundreds milliseconds, but your DRNG can only produce one every O(seconds).
the above assumption (about "every few tens/hundreds milliseconds") is wrong
We've had this discussion before, where you argued that the assumptions in the FPC-BI paper (incl. "all nodes must be known") are not to be taken 100% strictly, and that the results are to be seen more of an indication of overall performance.
Aham, I see. So, unfortunately, all that time that I invested into explaining that stuff during our last conversation was for nothing. Again, very briefly. The contents of the FPC-BI paper is not "an indication of overall performance". It rather shows (to someone who actually read and understood the paper) why the approach is sound and robust, as it makes one understand what is the mechanism that causes the consensus phenomenon occur.
Yet you don't allow for that same argument to be valid for the "metastability" problem in avalanche,
Incorrect. It's not "that same argument". FPC-BI is a decent academic paper that has precisely formulated results and proofs. The Ava WP (the probabilistic part of it), on the other hand, doesnotcontain proofs of what they call results. More importantly, they don't even show a clear path to those proofs. That's why their system is scientifically unsound.
even when there's a live network that shows that it doesn't matter.
No, it doesn't show that it doesn't matter. It only shows that it works when not properly attacked. Their WP doesn't contain any insight on why those attacks would be difficult/impossible. 📷 Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 10:56 That proposal was so stupid - Avalanche does several things completely different and we are putting quite a bit og effort into our solution to pretty much fix all of Avalanches shortcomings If we just wanted to have a working product and dont care about security or performance then we could have just forked a blockchaib I am pretty confident that once we are done - its going to be extremely close to the besttheoretical thresholds that DLTs will ever be able to achieve for an unsharded baselayer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 📷 Bas어제 오전 2:43 Yesterday I was asked how a reasonably big company no one has heard of could best move forward implementing Access for thousands of locations worldwide. (Sorry for the vagueness, it’s all confidential.) They read the article and want to implement it because it seems to fit a problem they’re currently trying to solve. Such moves will vastly increase the utility of protocols like IOTA, and is what the speculation is built on. I do not think you can overestimate what impact Access is going to have. It’s cutting out the middleman for simple things; no server or service needed. That’s huge. So yes, I think this space will continue to growu/Coinnave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 📷 Angelo Capossele [IF]2020.10.02. In short: we are planning a new v0.3.0 release that should happen very soon. This version will bring fundamental changes to the structure of the entire codebase (but without additional features) so that progressing with the development will be easier and more consistent. We have also obtained outstanding results with the dRNG committee managed by the GoShimmer X-Team, so that will also be integral part of v0.3.0. After that, we will merge the Value Tangle with the Message Tangle, so to have only one Tangle and make the TSA and the orphanage easier to manage. And we are also progressing really well with Mana, that will be the focus after the merge. More or less this is what is going to happen this month. We will release further details with the upcoming Research Status Update📷
Possibly scammed, need any technical advice please! :)
Hi bitcoin!Situation: I am a professional poker player and ventured deep into the abyss of shady/dodgy sites. Why I did so is still a mystery to me. Long story short, I finally made two withdrawals totaling approximately $3,500 to $4,000 via BTC. Next day, I load up my Ledger and see I have my balance. Awesome! Oh wait...it's not spendable.Surely it just hasn't confirmed yet, right? No big deal. Then I look at the transactions...https://blockstream.info/tx/35c1ff29f22c251b67829ce6046a7441aa81dd67d1b6b3fffb3c518fa7a19b2b andhttps://blockstream.info/tx/e65394e7a7c8fce0eeabef3709368ad032bee7a531fed6ac002823c4ad697970 Previous withdrawals were sent to me with a more normalized fee structure.These were sent with what looks like a near-zero fee. With my limited technical understanding of BTC, this means the transaction will either get stuck for a VERY long time, or it will never confirm and eventually be returned to him.This person has blocked me on socials and has said on the discord server for the site that "the site is better off without him" (Basically as a good professional player he didn't want me beating his small community of players) I'm ok with this as long as I don't get scammed. Is there anything I can do at this point? Edit #1: Thanks a ton tou/jcoinnerfor the extensive help with spending the unspent coins via CPFP (child pays for parent) The transaction appears to be confirmed! Using CPFP has successfully spent the unconfirmed coins back to a different wallet of mine. The txid is: 6d65c98ea01bad8d98045794729b7d1b93936a11faad0e3bd126e9223d2ee297 and appears to show a confirm and my coins are spendable. I believe this persons' intention was "Send a transaction that's very likely to fail and if it does I'll scam and if it doesn't...oh well." Thank you so much reddit!
Hunting Scammers... 8/16/20 If you don’t care about the background skip to: [************************************************] So... I am in a unique position where I am aware of new and old scams daily. I often help those that are wronged and I frequently pass this information along to family so they don’t fall prey... Recently my mother told me that she was a victim of a scam, but not just a few hundred dollars, not a few thousand... She got taken for around $125,000, 401k cleaned out, retirement gone, second mortgage, credit cards opened and maxed out, sold her car, loans taken out and emptied... How did they do it? They hacked a Facebook account of one of her cousins and that compromised account blasted out the message: “Hey I just got a grant from the IDA (Independent Development Association) I saw your name on the list, did you get your $150,000 check yet?” That spiral led into her texting an “agent” who got all of her information and told her that she needed to pay for the secure courier which was $1,000... Months go by with regular contact, always a new “problem” like “the check got delayed here for a customs check and you need to pay $500”. They told her that she was bound to secrecy as if she told anyone beyond my step dad, they would be disqualified. They told her that they needed to monitor her phone calls to make sure she didn’t tell anyone, they provided her with a “court order subpoena” which was obviously fake, but she didn’t know. They logged into her cell account and ordered 20+ new iPhone 11 Pro Max from her cell provider on her credit. Then they actually paid her account for 2 months before ghosting her... They hacked her Facebook and tried to recruit more people into their scam... It was always a promise of more money if you do this or that... $150,000 then $250,000 all the way to $750,000... [************************************************] Preface: Always be safe when scam hunting/baiting Use an encrypted email (ProtonMail is free) Use a good proxy/VPN (pay for it, it’s worth it) NEVER give out your personal details I got all the information from my mother about: The phone number she texted. The person she talked to. Where/who she shipped the cell phones to. Where/who she sent cash to. (1) First contact/a little payback From that I started by contacting the scammer... My Facebook is already locked down so the information you get from my profile is very little, I reached out to my mother’s compromised FB through messenger and got a bite. They told me to text a number from the US to which I happily obliged. I used a texting app in conjunction with a VPN on my computer running a VM (virtual machine) I can control all the information released like OS, browser and such if they know how to look it’ll all be spoofed. I spoke with the scammer who had me “fill out a form” and he was working from a script, which is hard to break them from... This form he sent me, he accidentally forgot to clear it off from the last person he scammed so I had all of the information from the victim *I immediately call this guy and saved him before he sent any money luckily. So I digress, I occupy the scammers time for about 6 hours, giving him issues and excuses finally getting him off script. He directs me to a “local” bitcoin ATM to send a deposit of $1,500. I go through a host of issues while he gave me his first BTC address. I google a good picture of a bitcoin ATM and began photoshopping error messages until I had an epiphany... I told the scammer that the machine was giving me an error that his account was unverified and that he needed to “mirror” the transaction by first sending me $1,500 to unlock the transfer and it would be immediately refunded and my “$1,500” would be sent too. Unfortunately it didn’t work, so he gives me the second BTC address. What do ya know, same error lol... After a back and forth for about an hour, I couldn’t believe it, he agreed to “mirror” the transaction... So I scrambled to get a clean BTC address and sent it to him. He agreed to send $200 to see if it worked... Low and behold I just received $200... So what do I do next? Give in? No. I just changed the photoshop to say “Pending $1,300” now lol... He bit, hard. After more talking and pretending to be a helpless 64 year old guy with $20,000 ready to give him the scammer saw green and got greedy... More debate, more discussion, he sent another $500. Give in now? No... Back to photoshop... “Pending $800” To cut it short, he sure as hell sent the other $800... After a back and forth I sent him doctored up transaction receipts saying it was all transferred back to him. Getting him off script and getting him to pay a fraction of what he stole, is that enough? No. I promptly withdrew the money and gave it to my mom, it wasn’t much but just a little victory for now... (2) Finding the mules The next day the scammer cuts all contact with me, so I spoof a new number and call him. It rings and goes to voicemail and I hear his voice, sounds distorted with a British accent but broken English, I assume African. I leave only my telephone number on the recording saying “call me back” (we’ll come back to this) I move on to the places the phones were sent, first up, an apartment complex about an hour from me. But I’m not looking for a direct contact situation as I don’t know who or what they’re capable of... So I get the shipping details and find a very unique name but for Reddit we’ll call her Mrs. “E”. I begin tearing into her life, public records, credit report info, and phone records, I get it all... Time to make contact, I send an unassuming text to her number, asking for help. Surprisingly she responded, I began by asking her about a shipment she got in and the name of the shipping company she was receiving packages for. Radio silence for a few hours, then the denial began... I hit her with the hard facts, and just enough information so she knows I know everything about her... Mrs. E breaks and gives me the info I need. She was contacted by a friend who owns a shipping company in Lagos, Nigeria, they asked her to take the package of iPhones and forward them to him via another courier service. Mrs. E gave me everything. Next is Mrs. R who my mother sent actual cash to... I looked up the address and find it’s a duplex in Midwest. So I do a quick search of the name and nothing comes up... I then use the County Assessment District to get the public tax records and owner information. I contact the owner and give him the name I have and explain why I’m looking for her information. He gave me all the details he could as Mrs. R is the girlfriend of his tenant and the name I had was wrong. Waiting to get Mrs. R’s records right now I’ll get everything on her just like Mrs. E, she’ll bend to my will. (3) International Phone Calls So while I was searching for Mrs. R’s records I get a phone call... It’s a Nigerian number... I answered and find out it’s my scammer that I left a message for... This genius calls me from his actual cell number, which is not the number I called and left a message for. Currently working on getting his subscriber information but it’s proving hard (if anyone can help reply). I call up the owner of the shipping company in Nigeria and tell him that I’m looking for shipping details and quotes, I’m still working on his information... He’s a pleasant person to talk to, I will ruin him... So that’s where I’m at for now, but I definitely will keep you all updated. Mini-update 8/16/20: The owner of the shipping company apologized that his courier service had anything to do with the transactions. I’m not sure if I believe that but he did give me a name and 2 phone numbers he had on file for the customer. I’m really needing someone who can check these numbers out... If I can get a carrier identified I can work my magic on them to get the info I need. Update #1: 8/17/2020 Today I got all of Mrs. “R”s info minus good contact information... Pitty... But I’ll find it. The number on her file with her last loan didn’t pan out... I’ll come back to this tomorrow... I back traced the scammers cell phones with a little help from a friend, both phones are confirmed cell phones with active service with 2 different cell phone providers in Nigeria. I’m still lacking on the subscriber information, but I know where to look now... I reached out to the Nigerian Police Force to see if they can help, I doubt they can but you never know what you can get without asking... The scammer himself reached out to another dummy account I set up. I gave him a little scare, he asked who referred me to him... I gave him his own name, he hasn’t responded yet... https://imgur.com/gallery/EvfLcgy Update #2: 8/31/2020 So after name dropping the scammer I got dead silence. Luckily I was able to capture his IP address. I worked with a few contacts I made and found he was using the “Text Now” app, did a little magic and found out the “main scammer” actually is working in a call center. But interestingly enough I found that the workers there on average make like $500usd a month... (more on that later) So I have numerous fake Facebook accounts optimized for international connections, even though they look and are set up American, with them connected to the profiles from Africa or Russia, you can set your profile up to show up to them first, and you’ll be flooded with friends and messages... Another scammer reached out to me and I played along and made friends with them. I ran a game on him for a little bit and just came out and told him what I was trying to do. I asked him to help me, but it was off how he was replying, I called him on the phone and he told me that he was “busy in the office”. So he ghosted me, or so I thought... I get a text message from a Nigerian number that I did not know a few hours later. He tells me that he was the one I was talking to, he went on to explain that everything they do is monitored, there are about 20 of them in this room with computers, and several cell phones at their station. This guy goes on to explain that he controls about 15 different profiles, as many phone numbers as he can, and several emails, all of which are for scamming. So I think I’ve just developed an asset in Nigeria........ He has agreed to help me for money. He explained to me that he pulls on average $40,000 usd a month, I don’t know if that figure is true, but it’s believable... Mr. Asset goes on to tell me that if they hit their goal they make $250 a month, and for every so many $$$’s above their goal they get bonuses. So ladies and gents’ I’ve got boots on the ground. (Hopefully) I’ll keep you all updated. Not officially an update but figured I’d share it anyway! https://www.reddit.com/SuicideWatch/comments/ikfno1/went_looking_to_ruin_a_life_ended_up_saving_one/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Reasons why NANO fails and will keep failing until some things change
Dear NANO community, This is going to be a long post where I will discuss why NANO under performed and will keep under performing in this bull run unless some things change. I'm going to start up with straight facts with the famous quote of Floyd Mayweather: "Men lie, women lie, numbers don't lie". If you feel offended by some of this, facts don't care about your feelings. Technical Analysis In the time where BTC Dominance fell from peak of 74% to 56% and keeps falling, NANO has moved from its low of 0.0000640 sats to a price of 0.0000950 sats. That is about 50% gain if you bought on the absolute low, but looking at the monthly chart, we can see that NANO has basically been in the range of 0.0001400 sats to 0.0000750 sats ever since July of 2019 (for more than 2 years). https://charts.cointrader.pro/snapshot/zaXzV The all time high of NANO was 0.0028, so this price is currently 96% down in terms of BTC . https://charts.cointrader.pro/snapshot/tTF4J With this price NANO is falling out of top 100 cryptocurrency based on market cap. My thoughts: Considering that entire altcoin market is moving and that it keeps reaching new highs, this is very concerning for NANO and one can only ask themselves why does NANO keep falling behind? Why does on every Bitcoin pump price falls hardest and on every day when other altcoins go up 30%, NANO only goes up 10%. Reasons why NANO is lagging on the market:
Reason 1. - Lack of adoption where NANO can be utilized to its fullest
We all know that NANO has near instantaneous transactions and is fee-less which is why most of us fell in love with this cryptocurrency. Problem is that it has little to no adoption. What does it matter if NANO is feeless, when you don't have an exchange that will make a NANO/USD conversion for 0%. Who cares if STR, XRP and other fast coins have like 0.01$ fee if either way, exchange will take 1% or more fees from you.? If XRP has better exchange, they can easily be more cost efficient than NANO because of this problem. Devs need to be much more proactive rather than sit and wait while entire market is eating you alive. Proposed solution: Nano needs to invest more in marketing and in making a deal with exchange that will be liquid enough and provide little to no fees on NANO.
Reason 2. - There is no reward for NANO holders
I am a NANO holder ever since 2018 and it's been a long ride with constant buying at the end of each month with average buy of 2$ when I look at it totally. This is not that bad considering NANO's massive fall and what some other holders had to go through. Let's remind ourselves again, NANO has 0% inflation. And yet NANO's price doesn't grow. Where as other cryptocurrencies have 5-10% inflation and they are over-performing NANO massively. NANO holders get no rewards from holding NANO which is a big problem. People call this an advantage and I somewhat agree, but NANO holders need to be rewarded with something, because crypto space doesn't care about inflation. Proposed solution: Introduce POS (Proof of Stake) with inflation of 5% where NANO holders will be able to stake their NANO and receive 5% more NANO each year. You can do this or make it 6% and after each 2 years, there is halving of inflation. Imagine how coins get hyped when their rewards per year get cut in half. NANO has 0% inflation and it doesn't get any hype. It's already scarce, but people fail to see it.
Reason 3. - NANO is refusing to adapt with the current market
Current bull run has been ignited with DEFI and because people see that they can earn up to 3-5% daily income just for holding ERC20 token like BAT, BAL, LINK etc. There's even been introudect WBTC (Wrapped Bitcoin) and WETH (Wrapped Ethereum), which means that people can hold their cryptocurrency which they would hold even if there weren't any rewards and they get 3-5% daily income + the chance of the DEFI coin actually pumping by 1000+% which many of them have done in the past month. Because of all of this people are massively buying ERC20 tokens just to get these gains daily. What has NANO do to interact with this entire DEFI space? Absolutely nothing. Did they try to introduce wNANO (wrapped NANO) like Ethereum and Bitcoin did? No. They just kept working on some other bullshit even-though protocol is in of itself 99% perfect and working. They keep focusing their energy on technology when technology is already better than anything else on the crypto market. NANO is currently the best fast cryptocurrency and it is not even close. Proposed solution: Devs need to start focusing energy on things that matter and which will help the price and not dump their stash and blindly look how everything else keeps growing.
Reason 4. - No one is making money of NANO market
This is similar to reason number 2 but it has to be said separately. Just ask yourself, who benefits of BTC markets? Miners. Who benefits of any other POS market? All of the holders. And then with this money you can finance devs which will work on the currency and will by this raise the price and the whole cycle repeats itself. So all of these things have in common that people are making money of doing something for the ecosystem. On one hand resources get paid, on the other people that are loyal to the project. NANO has one of the best and largest communities in cryptocurrency and numbers confirm this, yet there is no special way for any of us to benefit of of this. Everything is open source and people make everything for free. Proposed solution: Introduce mechanism so that community members can earn money of holding NANO. Conclusion: Nano is an amazing currency, but there are many things that need to fall in place in order for it to stop falling behind the market. It's sad that investing in what is called a "safest" altcoin Ethereum, would've made you much better gains than even buying NANO on the all time low would. This post is meant to be constructive criticism and to in the end open peoples mind on current problem NANO has in the space. Please share this post so more people and hopefully devs can see it and so that we all as a community can start working towards our goal of NANO becoming one of most utilized cryptocurrencies in the world.
Does it make sense to do a network capacity demonstration?
Almost 2 years ago, the BCH community ran a series of successful stress tests to gather information about how the network would perform under load. On the peak day (Nov 10, 2018), the network processed ~1.6M transactions without even blinking. Recently, both Bitcoin and Ethereum have been running at or near 100% capacity, with Bitcoin intentionally capped at ~300k tx per day, and Ethereum (still making progress on 2.0 but not ready yet) currently capped at ~1M tx per day. As a result, both networks have high fees and slow confirmation times. This has been business as usual for Bitcoin for several years at this point, but it's a relatively new phenomenon for Ethereum and it has a lot of people talking about high fees recently. Obviously Ethereum is fundamentally different from Bitcoin Cash (one is trying to be a planet-scale computer and the other is trying to be planet-scale money), but given that there has recently been so much discussion about network capacity in the crypto space, I wonder if it makes sense to organize a multi-day demonstration of BCHs capabilities. In addition to showcasing the technical progress that has been made since the fork away from Bitcoin, this would also provide a valuable talking point in conversations about Bitcoin Cash as the current leading contender for global decentralized currency.
If a transaction hasn't yet broadcast / hasn't yet arrived at this address, then you will not see a transaction matching the bitcoin amount on your receipt. This is usually only the case when you lookup your address within 40 minutes after visiting the ATM. If it has been longer than 40 minutes for Bitcoin, please contact us so we may look into it. It may be a problem on our side. To change the coin from bitcoin, click the drop-down in the upper right corner where it says BTC. An incoming transaction to my BitPay or Copay App is missing! My transaction is not confirmed yet. If the transaction receives a confirmation, your wallet should update automatically. If the transaction does not confirm, the funds will be spendable ... If you are running Electrum through EPS and Bitcoin Core, it may mean that your transaction is not yet confirmed on the Bitcoin blockchain, or that your Bitcoin blockchain is not yet synced. This ... Every bitcoin transaction that's sent flows into what's called the mempool (short for memory pool) before it can be confirmed by miners. When there's a dramatic spike in transaction activity, the mempool can become congested because so many transactions are waiting to be included in the next block. There's not a precise time when the transaction will disappear from the network, it could be days or up to a week. This is why it's always recommended to set a transaction fee. The wallet that you sent it to cannot spend it because it's not confirmed. So you have to wait until it disappears from the network and send an entirely new transaction.
In some cases, It can appear as if your Bitcoin transaction is stuck and will not receive any network confirmation. This is a somewhat common misconception among users, as it can take longer than ... How To Get Your Bitcoin Transaction Confirmed with CPFP - Duration: 7:15. m1xolyd1an 56,433 views. 7:15. how to send and receive bitcoins on blockchain - Duration: 2:12. ... For more tips like these visit http://bodymindsuccess.com/bitcoin or subscribe to our channel Get your blockchain pending transactions confirmed fast In this video I will show you how to use Child Pays For Parent (CPFP) to get an old unconfirmed transaction to confirm in under an hour. You will need to be ...