Bitcoin.com Buy BTC & BCH News, prices, mining & wallet

Bitcoin Confirmation Explained: A Complete Guide

Bitcoin Confirmation Explained: A Complete Guide submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Confirmation Explained: A Complete Guide

Bitcoin Confirmation Explained: A Complete Guide submitted by bdinu89 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Explainer on how supply shock and popular media-driven demand causes Bitcoin post-halving parabolic increases in price. Bull market confirmed

Explainer on how supply shock and popular media-driven demand causes Bitcoin post-halving parabolic increases in price. Bull market confirmed submitted by FellatioFellas to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Explainer on how supply shock and popular media-driven demand causes Bitcoin post-halving parabolic increases in price. Bull market confirmed (x-post from /r/Cryptocurrency)

Explainer on how supply shock and popular media-driven demand causes Bitcoin post-halving parabolic increases in price. Bull market confirmed (x-post from /Cryptocurrency) submitted by ASICmachine to CryptoCurrencyClassic [link] [comments]

nChain CEO Jimmy Nguyen explains that the US Copyright Office didn't just rubber-stamp Craig's application for the Bitcoin white paper, they verified and confirmed authorship.

nChain CEO Jimmy Nguyen explains that the US Copyright Office didn't just rubber-stamp Craig's application for the Bitcoin white paper, they verified and confirmed authorship. submitted by UndercoverPatriot to CraigIsSatoshi [link] [comments]

[OC] Which front offices and agents are the 3 major newsbreakers connected to? I went through 6000+ tweets to find out!

If this sounds somewhat familiar, that's because I did a 2019-2020 version and posted it back in March.
In terms of changes from that post:
TL;DR
Tracked tweets of Woj, Shams and Haynes from 2018-2020 to see whether any of them report on a certain team or a certain agent's players more than their counterparts. Here is the main graph concerning a reporter's percentage of tweets per team separated into three periods (2019 season, 2020 offseason, 2020 season). Here is a separate graph with the Lakers and Warriors, because Haynes's percentages would skew the first graph.

During times like the NBA trade deadline or the lifting of the NBA free-agency moratorium, it’s not uncommon to see Twitter replies to (or Reddit comments about) star reporters reference their performance relative to others.
Woj is the preeminent scoop hound, but he is also notorious for writing hit pieces on LeBron (sources say it’s been widely rumoured that the reason for these is that Woj has always been unable to place a reliable source in LeBron’s camp). On the other end of the spectrum, it has been revealed that in exchange for exclusive intel on league memos and Pistons dealings, Woj wrote puff pieces on then-GM Joe Dumars (see above Kevin Draper link). Last summer, Woj was accused of being a Clippers shill on this very discussion board for noticeably driving the Kawhi Leonard free agency conversation towards the team.
This is the reason I undertook this project: to see whether some reporters have more sources in certain teams (and certain agencies) than other reporters.
First I’ll explain the methodology, then present the data with some initial comments.

Methodology

To make this manageable on myself, I limited myself to tracking the 3 major national reporters: Shams Charania of the Athletic, Chris Haynes of Yahoo Sports and the aforementioned Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN.
The time period I initially tracked for was from January 1, 2020 to the end of the regular season March, but after finding a Twitter scraping tool on GitHub called Twint, I was able to easily retrieve all tweets since September 27, 2018. However, a month ago, Twitter closed their old API endpoints, and Twint ceased to work. I used vicinitas.io but the data loading became more time-consuming. Therefore, the tweets are up to the date of October 15 2020.
How I determined information was by manually parsing text tweets by the reporter (no retweets):
Now, I didn’t take every single text tweet:
Next, I had to assign possible teams to each tweet:
With all the methodology out of the way, here’s the data! (Here’s a link to a full Google Sheet)

Teams

Here's a graph of number of tweets per team per period, with the colours denoting reporter.
On a quick glance, here's which teams saw a significant period-over-period increase in number of tweets:
And here's which teams saw decreases over a period-by-period basis:
The problem with just using number of tweets is that it's not close on totals between Haynes vs. Woj or Shams. Here's a graph showing total number of tweets in each period for all three reporters. Haynes's most reported period doesn't even stack up to the least reported period of Woj or Shams.
Instead, let's look at percentage of tweets per team per period.
Now, you'll notice that there's two teams missing from the above graph: the Golden State Warriors and the Los Angeles Lakers. Here's the graphs for those two teams. As you can see, they would skew the previous graph far too much. During the 2019 NBA season, 27% of Chris Haynes's qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Warriors, and 14% of his qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Lakers.

Agents

Here's the top 10 agents in terms of number of potential tweets concerning their clients.
Agent Haynes Shams Woj Total
Rich Paul 15 28 24 67
Mark Bartelstein 4 16 30 50
Jeff Schwartz 3 10 25 38
Bill Duffy 2 13 14 29
Leon Rose 1 12 15 28
Aaron Mintz 2 9 15 26
Juan Perez 5 10 8 23
Aaron Goodwin 11 8 1 20
Steven Heumann 1 6 12 19
Sam Permut 1 13 5 19
Woj has the most tweets directly connected to agents by far. It wasn't uncommon to see "Player X signs deal with Team Y, Agent Z of Agency F tells ESPN." The agents that go to Woj (and some of their top clients):
One thing I found very intriguing: 15/16 of tweets concerning an Aaron Turner client were reported on by Shams. Turner is the head of Verus Basketball, whose clients include Terry Rozier, Victor Oladipo and Kevin Knox. Shams also reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Sam Permut of Roc Nation. Permut is the current agent of Kyrie Irving, after Irving fired Jeff Wechsler near the beginning of the 2019 offseason. Permut also reps the Morris brothers and Trey Burke.
As for Chris Haynes, he doesn't really do much agent news (at least not at the level of Woj and Shams). However, he reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Aaron Goodwin of Goodwin Sports Management, who reps Damian Lillard and DeMar DeRozan.
Here are the top 10 free agents from Forbes, along with their agent and who I predict will be the first/only one to break the news.
Player Agent Most Likely Reporter
Anthony Davis Rich Paul Too close to call, leaning Shams
Brandon Ingram Jeff Schwartz Woj
DeMar DeRozan Aaron Goodwin Haynes
Fred VanVleet Brian Jungreis Limited data
Andre Drummond Jeff Schwartz Woj
Montrezl Harrell Rich Paul Too close to call, leaning Shams
Gordon Hayward Mark Bartelstein Woj
Danilo Gallinari Michael Tellem Woj
Bogdan Bogdanovic Alexander Raskovic, Jason Ranne Limited data, but part of Wasserman, whose players are predominantly reported on by Woj
Davis Bertans Arturs Kalnitis Limited data
Thanks for reading! As always with this type of work, human error is not completely eliminated. If you think a tweet was mistakenly removed, feel free to drop me a line and I’ll try to explain my thought process on that specific tweet! Hope y’all enjoyed the research!
submitted by cilantro_samosa to nba [link] [comments]

Redditor who called Bitcoin lower in 2017 explained why Russia was behind the crash; news has now confirmed his thesis /r/Bitcoin

Redditor who called Bitcoin lower in 2017 explained why Russia was behind the crash; news has now confirmed his thesis /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Ivan on Tech - Bitcoin Manipulation Confirmed? Programmer explains.

Ivan on Tech - Bitcoin Manipulation Confirmed? Programmer explains. submitted by Yanlii to cryptovideos [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Can anyone explain this analysis of the new Bitcoin up/down options contracts on Bitmex and confirm if the OP’s analysis is accurate? /r/options

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Can anyone explain this analysis of the new Bitcoin up/down options contracts on Bitmex and confirm if the OP’s analysis is accurate? /options submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Please explain why some sites require multiple confirmations before acknowledging your Bitcoin transfer.

I understand that confirmations are required to protect against a double spend. E.g. if somebody broadcasts to the network a transaction with a low value and no transfer fee it could potentially take days for that transaction to ever get included in a block ("confirmed"), so somebody could re-spend the inputs for that transaction with a higher transaction fee which is more likely to be included in the Blockchain than the older low-value transaction - effectively a double spend.
If my understanding is correct (it very well may not be!) then surely when there is a single confirmation the transaction is set in stone in the blockchain, and there's no opportunity for a double-spend.
Could somebody explain to me what advantages there are waiting for multiple confirmations on a transaction before acknowledging that transaction?
submitted by RJacksonm1 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Has Craig Steven Wright ever explained why (if indeed he is Satoshi Nakamoto) he hasnt transferred or sold a single one of the over 1,000,000 BTC sitting in the Ledger attributed to Satoshis wallet - Seems that would be the easiest way to confirm his claim. /r/Bitcoin

Has Craig Steven Wright ever explained why (if indeed he is Satoshi Nakamoto) he hasnt transferred or sold a single one of the over 1,000,000 BTC sitting in the Ledger attributed to Satoshis wallet - Seems that would be the easiest way to confirm his claim. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Just ordered from ExpressPCT and FuzzyDuck. Will update.

I will keep posting once I get the tracking numbers. Paid with Zelle for ExpressPCT (Waklert) and BitCoin for FuzzyDuck (not moda but anyway).
09/29
Completed payment for both vendors around 10:30 pm.
09/30
ExpressPCT took about 12 hours to recognize the payment via Zelle and sent a payment confirmation email around 11:30 am.
10/01
Received order confirmation email with a tracking code from FuzzyDuck. The staff (Amy) attached a screenshot of the original email sent to me and explained that some of the emails they sent to Gmail accounts bounced back.
10/03
Received shipment confirmation email with a tracking code from ExpressPCT saying " Your order has been picked up by DHL eCommerce on October 4, 2020 (Singapore time)."
10/07
No update from both vendors yet : ( Both of my packages haven't moved.
10/18
ExpressPCT (Waklert) - No update so far. I am kind of disappointed at this point : (
FuzzyDuck - "Processed at transit facility: Frankfurt Flughafen, Germany"
10/20
ExpressPCT (Waklert) - [SINGAPORE, Singapore] Departed from Transit Facility
FuzzyDuck - Departed USPS Regional Facility. Your item departed our USPS facility in
[JERSEY CITY NJ] NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER on October 20, 2020
10/21
FuzzyDuck - Now the package is 20 minutes away from my home and will be delivered tomorrow!
10/22
FuzzyDuck - Received my package in the mailbox and it came intact.
submitted by Other_Ostrich_11 to genuine_reviews [link] [comments]

Can someone explain why only miners can confirm transactions and receive fees instead of the people who have the core app and download the whole blockchain on the computer? /r/Bitcoin

Can someone explain why only miners can confirm transactions and receive fees instead of the people who have the core app and download the whole blockchain on the computer? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

12-21 22:43 - 'I am so scared of it... This needs to be shared across the community. I want it to be confirmed as a possibility and broadcasted, or explained to me where am I wrong. / People might get financially ruined. Not only BCH...' by /u/hodlforthelongest removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-8min

'''
I am so scared of it... This needs to be shared across the community. I want it to be confirmed as a possibility and broadcasted, or explained to me where am I wrong.
People might get financially ruined. Not only BCH holders, anyone that holds anything on BCH-enabled exchanges. My ignorant noob friends, grandmas, grandpas and so on.
Please re-post (since I'm shadow banned by our automatic censorship systems) and lets have a conversation.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: hodlforthelongest
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Could someone explain: How exactly does the NASDAQ software use bitcoin to confirm a share transaction?

submitted by heroman55 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Article explaining why the six confirmations of bitcoin transactions is not an arbitrary number

submitted by greyman to BitcoinSerious [link] [comments]

Can someone explain to me why Bitcoin is experiencing such slow confirmation times in comparison to Bitcoin Cash? /r/btc

Can someone explain to me why Bitcoin is experiencing such slow confirmation times in comparison to Bitcoin Cash? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Huge tx backlog - High Fees - Slow Confirmation. Please could somebody from Blockstream explain how this is good for bitcoin useage and new adoption ? And how this does not push new users into Alt-Coins ? /r/btc

Huge tx backlog - High Fees - Slow Confirmation. Please could somebody from Blockstream explain how this is good for bitcoin useage and new adoption ? And how this does not push new users into Alt-Coins ? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

05-09 21:21 - '[quote] Ok. / Well if you are going to be delusional then I will not bother trying to explain simple facts to you. Enjoy your confirmation bias.' by /u/Cryptolution removed from /r/Bitcoin within 12-17min

'''
No, I was talking about Gavin Andresen, who did not "run" Bitcoin at any point in time.
Ok.
Well if you are going to be delusional then I will not bother trying to explain simple facts to you. Enjoy your confirmation bias.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Cryptolution
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Can someone please explain why my transaction is not confirming? /r/Bitcoin

Can someone please explain why my transaction is not confirming? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Transaction stuck in 0 confirmations - looking for help for 18 hours anyobody could explain this to me? /r/Bitcoin

Transaction stuck in 0 confirmations - looking for help for 18 hours anyobody could explain this to me? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot

Comparison between Avalanche, Cosmos and Polkadot
Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)
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 better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
https://preview.redd.it/e8s7dj3ivpq51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=5d0463462702637118c7527ebf96e91f4a80b290

Overview

Cosmos

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

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

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

Scalability

Cosmos

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

Polkadot

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

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.

Results

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

Decentralisation

Cosmos

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

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

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.

Results

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

Latency

Cosmos

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

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

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.

Results

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

Shared Security

Cosmos

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.

Polkadot

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.

Avalanche

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

Results

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

Current Adoption

Cosmos

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.

Polkadot

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

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.

Results

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

Enterprise Adoption

Cosmos

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.

Polkadot

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

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.

Results

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

Interoperability

Cosmos

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

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.

Avalanche

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.

Results

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

Tokenomics

Cosmos

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

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.

Avalanche

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.

Results

Avalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
https://preview.redd.it/mels7myawpq51.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=df9782e2c0a4c26b61e462746256bdf83b1fb906
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate 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, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
https://preview.redd.it/dbb99egcwpq51.png?width=1388&format=png&auto=webp&s=aeb03127dc0dc74d0507328e899db1c7d7fc2879
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin: How Cryptocurrencies Work - YouTube How Bitcoin Transaction Are Verified  BTC Confirmed Transastion  SOFT TECH  FAROOQ AHMED Bitcoin Explained - A Simple Explanation - Easy To Understand Bitcoin Explained Video How do bitcoin transactions work?  Simply Explained for Beginners  BTC.com Demonstration of a Bitcoin Transaction

Bitcoin Confirmations Explained Bitcoin . Bitcoin Confirmations Explained . Dec 14, 2017 DTN Staff. twitter. pinterest. google plus. facebook. How Bitcoin Transactions Work ... As explained in the Transactions and Block Chain sections, broadcasting a transaction to the network doesn’t ensure that the receiver gets paid. A malicious spender can create one transaction that pays the receiver and a second one that pays the same input back to himself. Only one of these transactions will be added to the block chain, and nobody can say for sure which one it will be. Bitcoin confirmations measure how many blocks have passed since a transaction was added to the Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin confirmations are crucial to protect the network from attacks, including double-spending attacks, Finney attack, and race attack. Although the standard number of confirmations on the Bitcoin network is six blocks, more confirmations are crucial for a secure transaction ... Bitcoin Confirmations are the number of blocks added to the blockchain that the Bitcoin network has accepted after a particular transaction has been made. Broadly speaking, the more blocks that are added more confirmations there are the more secure a transaction is. When a user wishes to send bitcoins to another user they provide the address (public key) from which the bitcoins are coming from ... Number of Confirmations. The classic bitcoin client will show a transaction as "n/unconfirmed" until the transaction is 6 blocks deep. Merchants and exchanges who accept bitcoins as payment can and should set their own threshold as to how many blocks are required until funds are considered confirmed. When potential loss due to double spending as nominal, as with very inexpensive or non ...

[index] [23948] [17074] [9691] [36557] [43499] [10621] [32908] [10504] [41212] [19905]

Bitcoin: How Cryptocurrencies Work - YouTube

This video demonstrates the speed and ease in which a bitcoin transaction can take place. The security is set to 0 confirmations so that it's near instantaneous. This is useful for low priced ... A short simplified tutorial about Bitcoin blocks and confirmations for newbies. For the complete text guide visit: http://bit.ly/2qDVVVW Join our 7-day Bitco... George Levy - What are Bitcoin Transaction Confirmations? - Duration: 9:23. George Levy 1,112 views. 9:23 . How does a blockchain work - Simply Explained - Duration: 6:00. Simply Explained ... #btc #bitcointransaction #confirmation #softtech #farooqahmed How transactions are verified in Bitcoin Blockchain. A short simplified tutorial about Bitcoin blocks and confirmations for newbies ... In simple terms, Bitcoin miners use powerful computers to track and compile pending Bitcoin transactions every 10 minutes into a new block. These miners then set to work doing the intensive number ...

#