terminology - What does "accepted shares" mean? - Bitcoin ...

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

August / September monthly report from v1docq47 (CCS + XRM.RU)

This is my monthly progress report (CCS.html) + XMR.RU).
Below is a list of what has been done and translated into Russian for two months of my work.

Monero Video (YouTube)

The following video posted on Monero Russian Community YouTube Channel.

Weekly News:

Short Q&A about Monero:

Monero into Russian (Translation)

The following articles / guides have been translated into Russian and posted on the XMR.RU website and my Github repository.
Note: If you would like to read the original article in English, then, open the article you are interested in, and at the end of each article you will find a link to the source.

Critical Decentralisation Cluster 36c3 (transcriptions (EN + RU) + translation (RU)):

01 - Monero Introduction (Diego "rehrar" Salazar) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 02 - RIAT Introduction (parasew) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 03 - Swiss Cryptoeconomics Assembly (polto, Ome) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 04 - Namecoin Introduction (Jeremy Rand) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 05 - Open Hardware developed at FOSSASIA (Mario Behling) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 06 - Paralelni Polis (Juraj Bednar) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 07 - Introduction to Replicant (dllud, Denis ‘GNUtoo’ Carikli)​ | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 08 - Open Source Hardware and OSHWA (Drew Fustini) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 09 - ImplicitCAD (Juila Longtin) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 10 - Program in Detail | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 11 - about:freedom (Bonnie Mehring, Blipp)​ | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 13 - Funding Models of FOSS (Diego “rehrar” Salazar) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 14 - The Sharp Forks We Follow​ | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 16 - P2P Trading in Cryptoanarchy | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 17 - Monero’s Adaptive Blockweight Approach to Scaling | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 18 - Nym (Harry Halpin)​ | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 19 - Digital Integrity of the Human Person | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 20 - cyber~Congress (Sergey Simanovsky) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 21 - KYC & Crypto-AML Tools (polto) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 22 - Parallel Polis, Temporary Autonomous Zones and Beyond | Transcriptions - EN / RU 23 - MandelBot:HAB - Open Source Ecotecture and Horizontalism | Transcriptions - EN / RU 24 - Adventures and Experiments Adding Namecoin to Tor Browser | Transcriptions - EN / RU 25 - Fair Data Society (Gregor Zavcer) | Transcriptions - EN.md) / RU.md) / XMR.RU 45 - Designing a Communal Computing Interface | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU 47 - Hackatoshi’s Flying Circuit | Transcriptions - EN / RU / XMR.RU

Zero to Monero - Second Edition

https://www.overleaf.com/read/hcmqnvgtfmyh - Chapter 00 - Abstract - Chapter 01 - Introduction - Chapter 02 - Basic Concepts - Chapter 03 - Advanced Schnorr-like Signatures

Monero Outreach Articles

Getmonero.org Posts Blog

LocalMonero Articles

Note: You need "Change Language" to Russian - Why Monero Has A Tail Emission - How CLSAG Will Improve Monero's Efficiency - How Monero Solved the Block Size Problem That Plagues Bitcoin - How Ring Signatures Obscure Monero's Outputs - Monero Best Practices for Beginners - Monero Outputs Explained

Monero Meeting logs

CCS Result / Report

Monero News

Other Articles

Pull / Merge Request

Monero Project Translations (Weblate)

Thanks for your support!
submitted by v1docq47 to Monero [link] [comments]

Gulden [NLG] - Constant development - In wallet Staking/Mining/Dex

Official Website / Official Slack
About Gulden:
How to setup a Witness (Staking) Gulden was founded in April 2014 based on the Litecoin codebase. In 2015 the Litecoin codebase is abandoned and Gulden switched to the Bitcoin codebase. After years of development it can be said that Gulden now has its own codebase. Gulden started with a 10% premine that was spent entirely on development. The current developments are now paid by part of the mining reward. The direction of the developments are determined by the Gulden advisory board (GAB). The GAB consists of 9 members and is elected each year from the members of the community. Anyone can stand for election. Voting for candidates is recorded and done through the Gulden blockchain. Gulden would like to become a generally accepted means of payment. To this end, the development is aimed at making the wallets as user-friendly as possible.
What makes Gulden unique:
- PoW2 - Proof of work + Witness/Staking - SegSig (Segregated Signature) - SIGMA (Semi Iterated Global Memory Argon) - Linking (Control your mobile wallet from your desktop wallet) - Wallet accounts - Unity (Unified codebase) - Delta (Difficulty Algorithm) - Sonic (Fast Sync)
Features of Gulden explained:
PoW2: Gulden does not use a standard PoW consensus model, but the in-house developed PoW2 model. This is a combination of PoW and Witness. Miners control the transactions and the Witness controls the miners. In order to get the same chance of success for a double spend as for the single transaction approval systems it is therefore necessary not to control >50% of the mining power or >50% of the number of coins in witness accounts but to own more than 71% of both systems. (0.71 * 0.71 = 0.5 so 50% chance).
Because many Gulden owners have their Gulden fixed in witness, it is difficult to get a 71% majority in witness. There are now more than 100 million Gulden in witness. In order to get a 71% majority, an attacker has to secure an additional 220 million Gulden in witness. Apart from the fact that this is almost impossible, the price of the Gulden would go up sky high if so much Gulden had to be bought by the attacker. And because the attacker has to lock the Gulden, it looks like a bank robber who is going to rob his own bank. So such an attack is theoretically possible, but not possible in reality.
Anyone can become a witness: by locking an amount of Gulden in a Witness account in the desktop wallet for a certain amount of time. Depending on the weighting of the witness account (chosen duration and amount in the account) the witness earns rewards. The advantage of this system is that the Gulden blockchain can withstand 51% attacks without relying heavily on energy-guzzling PoW miners or vulnerable standard PoS systems. Transactions can be safely accepted after one confirmation instead of the standard 3-6 confirmations.

  1. PoW2 Whitepaper simply explained PoW² explored — A post-launch look at some of the security implications How to setup a Witness
SIGMA: Since October 17, 2019, the Gulden team has implemented the Sigma algorithm and since then it is possible to mine Gulden solo without additional equipment. The algorithm is asic resistant and can be done on a normal desktop computer using it’s CPU. One can simply use this CPU mining algorithm by creating a mining account in the desktop wallet and start mining Gulden.
SegSig - Segregated Signature - Detailed article still to be published but was implemented with PoW2. Advantages of Segregated Signature: 1. 58% space saving on all transactions. More then twice the bitcoin SegWit implementation. 2. 58% increased transaction throughput. No block size or frequency changes needed. 3. Overhaul to the transaction script system which allowed us to implement PoW² and SegSig as clean as possible along with other benefits.

Please take your time and read the technicals on this coin as its truly phenomenal and seriously under valorised and recognised. Barely any effort has been made to market its potential but you can judge yourself. Read the PoW2 Whitepaper or the short version PoW2 simply explained
The Official Website and Official Slack chatroom.
submitted by mainpmf to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

Minimum Viable Issuance - Why Ethereum’s lack of a hard cap on ETH issuance is a good thing.

This post will explain how the argument used by the average Bitcoin maximalist, thinking that they have found Ethereum’s achilles heel when talking about issuance is actually highlighting one of Ethereum’s strong points and one of the main threats to the longevity of the Bitcoin network.
So first let’s answer the question which I know many people have about Ethereum:

What is Ethereum’s ETH issuance schedule?

Ethereum has an issuance policy of Minimum Viable Issuance. So what does this mean exactly? It means that the issuance of ETH will be as low as possible while also maintaining a sufficient budget to pay miners (and soon to be stakers) to keep the network secure. For example, if ETH issuance was halved, miners would drop off the network and stop mining as it is no longer profitable for them to mine. As a result, the network would be less secure as it would cost less money for an attacker to control 51% of the hash power and attack the network. This means that the Ethereum community plans to change ETH issuance as time goes on to maintain a reasonable security budget which will keep the network secure but will also keep inflation in check. We have done this twice in the past with EIP-649 and EIP-1234 which reduced block rewards from 5 ETH per block to 3 ETH and from 3 ETH to 2 ETH respectively. I previously made a graph of ETH issuance over time here: https://redd.it/it8ce7
So while Ethereum doesn’t have a strictly defined issuance schedule, the community will reject any proposals which either put the security of the network at risk such as the recent EIP-2878, or we will reject proposals which will lead to excessive network security and therefore an unnecessarily high inflation rate (or we will accept proposals which reduce issuance after price rises and therefore the security budget rises). This means that when Bitcoiners accuse the Ethereum Foundation of being no better than a central bank because they can “print more Ether”, this is completely untrue. Any proposals made by the EF which would increase issuance unnecessarily would be rejected by the community in the same way that a proposal to increase the supply of Bitcoin from 21 million to 22 million would be rejected. There is a social contract around both Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s issuance schedules. Any networks or proposals which break the social contracts of 21 million Bitcoins and minimal viable issuance of Ether would be a breach of these contracts and the new proposed network would be labeled by the community as illegitimate and the original network would live on.

So why is minimum viable issuance better than a hard cap?

Minimum viable issuance is better than a hard cap because it puts the most important part of the network first - the security. MVI ensures that the Ethereum network will always have a security budget which keeps the cost of a 51% attack impractically high. Bitcoin on the other hand, halves its security budget every 4 years until eventually only the transaction fees pay for network security. This means that every 4 years, the amount of money paying for network security halves until eventually, the value of attacking the network becomes greater than the security budget and someone performs a 51% attack (technically the security budget only halves if terms of BTC not in dollars. However, even if the price of Bitcoin more than doubles in the time that the security budget halves, the ratio of security budget to value secured on the network still halves, doubling the financial viability of performing a network attack). The strategy to pay for the security budget once Bitcoin issuance stops is for transaction fees to secure the network since transaction fees are paid to miners. Not only does this have its own security problems which I won’t detail here, but unless Bitcoin scales on layer 1 (layer 2 scaling solutions have their own security mechanisms separate from L1), then fees would have to cost well in the thousands of dollars to secure a trillion dollar market cap Bitcoin that is secured by nothing but fees. If Bitcoin maximalists want a 10 trillion or 100 trillion dollar market cap then expect fees to go up another 10 or 100 times from there.
Ethereum on the other hand, will be able to keep its network secure with approximately 1-2% annual issuance being paid to stakers under ETH 2.0. This is because not all of the network will be staking, so if 33 million of the approximately 110 million Ether in existence stakes under ETH 2.0, then paying this 33 million Ether 6% a year (a very decent yield!) would cost just under 2 million ETH per year which would equate to less than 2% annual ETH inflation. This is also before considering EIP-1559 which will burn a portion of transaction fees which will counter the effect of this inflation and potentially even make ETH deflationary if the sum of all burned transaction fees are greater than the annual inflation. Also, under ETH 2.0, an attacker performing a 51% attack would get his funds slashed (they would lose their funds) if they attack the network, meaning that they can only perform a 51% attack once. However, in Bitcoin, anyone who controls 51% of the mining hash power could perform multiple 51% attacks without losing everything like they could in ETH 2.0.
So in conclusion, while Ethereum doesn’t have the guaranteed anti-inflation security of a hard cap, it does have the guarantee of always paying it’s miners (or stakers under ETH 2.0) enough to keep the network secure. In contrast, while Bitcoin’s social contract may guarantee a hard cap of 21 million, it cannot simultaneously guarantee network security in the long run. Eventually, its users will have to decide if they want a secure network with more than 21 million coins or a tax to pay for security or an insecure network with super high fees and a hard cap of 21 million Bitcoin.
Disclaimer: The details I covered around 51% attacks and network security are simplified. I am not an expert in this field and things are a lot more nuanced than I laid out in my simplifications above.
submitted by Tricky_Troll to ethfinance [link] [comments]

[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 27;

Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be always some misunderstandings and exaggerations, plus many convos are from 'spec channel', so take it with a grain of salt, pls.
+ I added some recent convos afterward.
--------------------------------------------------​
📷
Luigi Vigneri [IF]어제 오후 8:26
Giving the opportunity to everybody to set up/run nodes is one of IOTA's priority. A minimum amount of resources is obviously required to prevent easy attacks, but we are making sure that being active part of the IOTA network can be possible without crazy investments.
we are building our solution in such a way that the protocol is fair and lightweight.

📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:24
IOTA is not "free to use" but it's - fee-less
you have tokens? you can send them around for free
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:25
you have no tokens? you have to pay to use the network
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:25
I think it is a smart way to avoid the spamming network problem
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26
owning tokens is essentially like owning a share of the actual network
and the throughput it can process
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26****​
if you don't need all of that yourself, you can rent it out to people and earn money
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27
mana = tokens * time since you own them
simplified
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27
the longer you hold your tokens and the more you have, the more mana you have
but every now and then you have to move them to "realize" that mana
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:28
Is there any other project that is using a Mana solution to the network fee problem ?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:28
nah
the problem with current protocol is that they are leader based
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29
you need absolute consensus on who the current leaders are and what their influence in the network is
that's how blockchains works
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29
if two block producers produce 2 blocks at the same time, then you have to choose which one wins
and where everybody attaches their next block to
IOTA works differently and doesn't need to choose a single leader
we therefore have a much bigger flexibility of designing our sybil protection mechanisms
in a way, mana is also supposed to solve the problem of "rewarding" the infrastructure instead of the validators
in blockchain only the miners get all the money
running a node and even if it's one that is used by a lot of people will only cost
you won't get anything back
no fees, nothing
the miners get it all
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:31
in IOTA, the node operators receive the mana
which gives them a share of the network throughput
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:32
because in blockchain you need to decide whose txs become part of the blocks
and it's not really based on networking protocols like AIMD
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:33
And the more Mana your node have, the more trust your node has and you have more to say in the FPC, is that correct?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:33
yeah
a node that has processed a lot of txs of its users will have more mana than other nodes
and therefore a bigger say in deciding conflicts
its a direct measure of "trust" by its users
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:34
And choosing committee for dRNG would be done on L1 protocol level?
Everything regarding Mana will be L1 level, right?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35
Yeah
Mana is layer1, but will also be used as weight in L2 solutions like smart contracts
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:35
And you are not dependant on using SC to implement this
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35
No, you don't need smart contracts
That's all the base layer
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:37
'Time' actually takes into account things like decay
So it doesn't just increase forever
It's close to "Demurrage" in monetary theory
📷
lekanovic어제 오후 11:36
For projects to be able to connect to Polkadot or Cosmos, you need to get the state of the ledger.
Will it be possible to get the Tangle state?
If this would be possible, then I think it would be SUPER good for IOTA
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:38
Yeah but polkadot is not connecting other dlts
Just inhouse stuff
📷
Hyperware어제 오후 11:39
Is there still a cap on mana so that the rich don't get richer?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:39
Yes mana is capped
📷
TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:39
u/Hans Moog [IF] My first thought is that the evolution of this renting system will lead to several big mana renting companies that pool together tons of token holders mana. That way businesses looking to rent mana just need to deal with a reliable mana renting company for years instead of a new individual every couple of months (because life happens and you don't know if that individual will need to sell their IOTAs due to personal reasons). Any thoughts on this?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:41
u/TangleAccountant yes that is likely - but also not a bad thing - token holders will have a place to get their monthly payout and the companies that want to use the tangle without having tokens have a place to pay
📷
TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:42
Oh I completely agree. That's really cool. I'll take a stab at creating one of those companies in the US.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:42
And everybody who wants to run a node themselves or has tokens and wants use the tangle for free can do so
But "leachers" that would want to use the network for free won't be able to do so
I mean ultimately there will always be "fees", as there is no "free lunch".
You have a certain amount of resources that a network can process and you have a certain demand.
And that will naturally result in fees based on supply / demand
what you can do however is to build a system where the actual users of that system that legitimately want to use it can do so for free,
just because they already "invest" enough by having tokens
or running infrastructure
they are already contributing to the well-being of the network through these two aspects alone
it would be stupid to ask those guys for additional fees
and mana essentially tries to be such a measure of honesty among the users
📷
Hyperware어제 오후 11:47
It's interesting from an investment perspective that having tokens/mana is like owning a portion of the network.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:48
Yeah, you are owning a certain % of the throughput and whatever the price will ultimately be to execute on this network - you will earn proportionally
but you have to keep in mind that we are trying to build the most efficient DLT that you could possibly ever build
📷
semibaron어제 오후 11:48
The whole mana (tokens) = share of network throuput sounds very much like EOS tbh
Just that EOS uses DPoS
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50
yeah i mean there is really not too many new things under the sun - you can just tweak a few things here and there, when it comes to distributing resources
DPoS is simply not very nice from a centralization aspect
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50
at least not the way EOS does it
delegating weights is 1 thing
but assuming that the weight will always be in a way that 21 "identities" run the whole network is bad
in the current world you see a centralization of power
but ultimately we want to build a future where the wealth is more evenly distributed
and the same goes for voting power
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:52
blockchain needs leader selection
it only works with such a centralizing component
IOTA doesn't need that
it's delusional to say that IOTA wouldn't have any such centralization
but maybe we get better than just a handselected nodes 📷
📷
Phantom3D어제 오후 11:52
How would this affect a regular hodler without a node. Should i keep my tokens elsewere to generate mana and put the tokens to use?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:53
you can do whatever you want with your mana
just make an account at a node you regularly use and use it to build up a reputation with that node
to be able to use your funds for free
or run a node yourself
or rent it out to companies if you just hodl
📷
semibaron어제 오후 11:54
Will there be a build-in function into the node software / wallet to delegate ("sell") my mana?
📷
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:55
u/semibaron not from the start - that would happen on a 2nd layer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📷
dom어제 오후 9:49
suddenly be incentive to hold iota?
to generate Mana
📷
Hyperware오늘 오전 4:21
The only thing I can really do, is believe that the IF have smart answers and are still building the best solutions they can for the sake of the vision
📷
dom오늘 오전 4:43
100% - which is why we're spending so much effort to communicate it more clearly now
we'll do an AMA on this topic very soon
📷
M [s2]오늘 오전 4:54
u/dom​ please accept my question for the AMA: will IOTA remain a permissionless system and if so, how?
📷
dom오늘 오전 4:57
of course it remains permissionless
📷
dom오늘 오전 5:20
what is permissioned about it?
is ETH or Bitcoin permissioned because you have to pay a transaction fee in their native token?
📷
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:24
How did your industry partners think about the mana solution and the fact they need to hold the token to ensure network throughput?
📷
dom오늘 오전 5:26
u/Gerrit considering how the infrastructure, legal and regulatory frameworks are improving around the adoption and usage of crypto-currencies within large companies, I really think that we are introducing this concept exactly at the right time. It should make enterprise partners comfortable in using the permissionless network without much of a hurdle. They can always launch their own network if they want to ...
📷
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:27
Launching their own network can’t be what you want
📷
dom오늘 오전 5:27
exactly
but that is what's happening with Ethereum and all the other networks
they don't hold Ether tokens either.
📷
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:32
Will be very exciting to see if ongoing regulation will „allow“ companies to invest and hold the tokens. With upcoming custody solutions that would be a fantastic play.
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:34
It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority
there will still be sharding to keep the network free most of the time
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:35
but without a protection mechanism, somebody could just spam a lot of bullshit and you could break the network(수정됨)
you need some form of protection from this
📷
M [s2]오늘 오전 5:36
u/Hans Moog [IF] so when I have 0 Mana, I can still send transactions? This is actually the point where it got strange...
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37
yes you can
unless the network is close to its processing capabilities / being attacked by spammers
then the nodes will favor the mana holders
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37
but having mana is not a requirement for many years to come
currently even people having fpgas can't spam that many tps
and we will also have sharding implemented by then
📷
M [s2]오늘 오전 5:39
Thank you u/Hans Moog [IF] ! This is the actually important piece of info!
📷
Basha오늘 오전 5:38
ok, i thought it was communicated that you need at least 1 mana to process a transaction.
from the blogpost: "... a node with 0 mana can issue no transactions."
maybe they meant during the congestion**, but if that's the case maybe you should add that**
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:42
its under the point "Congestion control:"
yeah this only applies to spam attacks
network not overloaded = no mana needed
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:43
if congested => favor txs from people who have the most skin in the game
but sharding will try to keep the network non-congested most of the time - but there might be short periods of time where an attacker might bring the network close to its limits
and of course its going to take a while to add this, so we need a protection mechanism till sharding is supported(수정됨)
📷
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 6:36
I don't have a particular problem with EOS or their amount of validators - the reason why I think blockchain is inferior has really nothing to do with the way you do sybil protection
and with validators I mean "voting nodes"
I mean even bitcoin has less mining pools
and you could compare mining pools to dpos in some sense
where people assign their weight (in that case hashing power) to the corresponding mining pools
so EOS is definitely not less decentralized than any other tech
but having more identities having weight in the decision process definitely makes it harder to corrupt a reasonable fraction of the system and makes it easier to shard
so its desirable to have this property(수정됨)

-------------------------------------------------

📷
Antonio Nardella [IF]오늘 오전 3:36
https://twitter.com/cmcanalytics/status/1310866311929647104?s=19
u/C3PO [92% Cooless] They could also add more git repos instead of the wallet one, and we would probably be #1 there too..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I'm sorry, maybe I'm fueling some confusion through posting this mana-thing too soon,
but, instead of erasing this posting, I'm adding recent convos.
Certain things about mana seem to be not clear, yet.
It would be better to wait for some official clarification.
But, I hope the community gives its full support to IF, 'cause
there could be always some bumps along the untouched, unchartered way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Addition;

Billy Sanders [IF]오늘 오후 1:36

It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority
u/Hans Moog [IF] Im sorry Hans, but this is false in the current congestion control algorithm. No mana = no transactions. To be honest, we havent really tried to make it work so that you can sent transactions with no mana during ties with no congestion, but I dont see how you can enable this and still maintain the sybil protection required. u/Luigi Vigneri [IF] What do you think?📷

Dave [EF]오늘 오후 2:19

Suggestion: Sidebar, then get back to us with the verdict.(수정됨)📷2📷

dom오늘 오후 2:27

No Mana no tx will definitely not be the case(수정됨)📷5📷7***[오후 2:28]***Billy probably means the previous rate control paper as it was written by Luigi. I'll clarify with them📷

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오후 2:29

When was this decided u/Billy Sanders [IF] and by whom? Was this discussed at last resum when I wasnt there? The last info that I had was that the congestion control should only kick in when there is congestion?!?***[오후 2:29]***📷 📷 📷📷

Navin Ramachandran [IF]오늘 오후 2:30

Let's sidebar this discussion and return when we have agreement. Dave has the right idea

submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

Minimum Viable Issuance - Why Ethereum’s lack of a hard cap on ETH issuance is a good thing.

This post will explain how the argument used by the average Bitcoin maximalist, thinking that they have found Ethereum’s achilles heel when talking about issuance is actually highlighting one of Ethereum’s strong points and one of the main threats to the longevity of the Bitcoin network.
So first let’s answer the question which I know many people have about Ethereum:

What is Ethereum’s ETH issuance schedule?

Ethereum has an issuance policy of Minimum Viable Issuance. So what does this mean exactly? It means that the issuance of ETH will be as low as possible while also maintaining a sufficient budget to pay miners (and soon to be stakers) to keep the network secure. For example, if ETH issuance was halved, miners would drop off the network and stop mining as it is no longer profitable for them to mine. As a result, the network would be less secure as it would cost less money for an attacker to control 51% of the hash power and attack the network. This means that the Ethereum community plans to change ETH issuance as time goes on to maintain a reasonable security budget which will keep the network secure but will also keep inflation in check. We have done this twice in the past with EIP-649 and EIP-1234 which reduced block rewards from 5 ETH per block to 3 ETH and from 3 ETH to 2 ETH respectively. I previously made a graph of ETH issuance over time here: https://redd.it/it8ce7
So while Ethereum doesn’t have a strictly defined issuance schedule, the community will reject any proposals which either put the security of the network at risk such as the recent EIP-2878, or we will reject proposals which will lead to excessive network security and therefore an unnecessarily high inflation rate (or we will accept proposals which reduce issuance after price rises and therefore the security budget rises). This means that when Bitcoiners accuse the Ethereum Foundation of being no better than a central bank because they can “print more Ether”, this is completely untrue. Any proposals made by the EF which would increase issuance unnecessarily would be rejected by the community in the same way that a proposal to increase the supply of Bitcoin from 21 million to 22 million would be rejected. There is a social contract around both Bitcoin’s and Ethereum’s issuance schedules. Any networks or proposals which break the social contracts of 21 million Bitcoins and minimal viable issuance of Ether would be a breach of these contracts and the new proposed network would be labeled by the community as illegitimate and the original network would live on.

So why is minimum viable issuance better than a hard cap?

Minimum viable issuance is better than a hard cap because it puts the most important part of the network first - the security. MVI ensures that the Ethereum network will always have a security budget which keeps the cost of a 51% attack impractically high. Bitcoin on the other hand, halves its security budget every 4 years until eventually only the transaction fees pay for network security. This means that every 4 years, the amount of money paying for network security halves until eventually, the value of attacking the network becomes greater than the security budget and someone performs a 51% attack (technically the security budget only halves if terms of BTC not in dollars. However, even if the price of Bitcoin more than doubles in the time that the security budget halves, the ratio of security budget to value secured on the network still halves, doubling the financial viability of performing a network attack). The strategy to pay for the security budget once Bitcoin issuance stops is for transaction fees to secure the network since transaction fees are paid to miners. Not only does this have its own security problems which I won’t detail here, but unless Bitcoin scales on layer 1 (layer 2 scaling solutions have their own security mechanisms separate from L1), then fees would have to cost well in the thousands of dollars to secure a trillion dollar market cap Bitcoin that is secured by nothing but fees. If Bitcoin maximalists want a 10 trillion or 100 trillion dollar market cap then expect fees to go up another 10 or 100 times from there.
Ethereum on the other hand, will be able to keep its network secure with approximately 1-2% annual issuance being paid to stakers under ETH 2.0. This is because not all of the network will be staking, so if 33 million of the approximately 110 million Ether in existence stakes under ETH 2.0, then paying this 33 million Ether 6% a year (a very decent yield!) would cost just under 2 million ETH per year which would equate to less than 2% annual ETH inflation. This is also before considering EIP-1559 which will burn a portion of transaction fees which will counter the effect of this inflation and potentially even make ETH deflationary if the sum of all burned transaction fees are greater than the annual inflation. Also, under ETH 2.0, an attacker performing a 51% attack would get his funds slashed (they would lose their funds) if they attack the network, meaning that they can only perform a 51% attack once. However, in Bitcoin, anyone who controls 51% of the mining hash power could perform multiple 51% attacks without losing everything like they could in ETH 2.0.
So in conclusion, while Ethereum doesn’t have the guaranteed anti-inflation security of a hard cap, it does have the guarantee of always paying it’s miners (or stakers under ETH 2.0) enough to keep the network secure. In contrast, while Bitcoin’s social contract may guarantee a hard cap of 21 million, it cannot simultaneously guarantee network security in the long run. Eventually, its users will have to decide if they want a secure network with more than 21 million coins or a tax to pay for security or an insecure network with super high fees and a hard cap of 21 million Bitcoin.
Disclaimer: The details I covered around 51% attacks and network security are simplified. I am not an expert in this field and things are a lot more nuanced than I laid out in my simplifications above.
submitted by Tricky_Troll to ethtrader [link] [comments]

List of current UI/UX issues & possible QoL improvements (Megathread?)

As some of you know, I only make stupidly long posts and also like to humbly brag about being a software engineer with fairly decent experience in QA, automated testing and testing in general (6+ years a C# dev).
This is my personal list of things that either make no sense, are unpleasant, incoherent, or could be improved.
Please feel free to add to the list, I will come back and edit every day.
Numbers are also here to help you quote & provide your own criticism.
Note that is is done with the following optimization mindset, in order of importance :
As you can see I worked under the assumption that the average player wants to spend more time in raid rather than in inventory ; obviously this falls apart if that is not the case. To do that I try to improve time spent on searching / arranging things without creating unecessary automation or remove important/immersive aspects of the game, even in inventory. I also try to improve time spent clicking through various windows as currently a lot of them are done to be fast & easy to for the devs, not for the players. I want to emphasize that I'm okay with that. I know the importance of having sub-optimal navigation to help you find out what your better navigation is. I also know a complete rework is not always possible, that is why I made my list without changing too much of the menus as well as keeping the vibe/current feel of those menus.
Keywords like should & could are used as intended ; since this is not a professional report I'm emphasizing here, the meaning of the word is important. Should means it is adding an improvement over an existing issue, could means it's a possible improvement but requires further investigation. Would means investigation was done and is just one possible outcome usually relevant within the context.
Please note that most of us now are very used to the current UI/UX, which will generate two reactions:
- "It's fine as it is because I can do it quite fast."
- "I don't want it to change again, I'm used to it now."
I cannot emphasize how unefficient it is to let those emotions get the best of you. UI/UX is the study of common sense & ease of use in an interface. You should never have to get used to anything, it should be fluid and intuitive. If you think you're fast now, that means it's possible to be slow. This is extremely bad for a UI/UX standpoint. Everybody should be able to navigate/understand the menus just as fast the 1st time than the 100th time (ideally). Keep this in mind when you read everything down here, because some stuff you probably won't like at first glance, but you will get used to it very fast, and you will gain a lot of time in the future, as well as new players.

1. Autostacking of items

Money & Ammo. When a stackable item or stack of items enter an inventory, it should autostack itself to an available non-full stack, then fill other available stacks until there aren't any. At that point, the item should just go at the top of the inventory as it is doing now. Autostacking should *not* browse for sublayers of inventory.
Items drag & dropped on an inventory slot should not be auto-stacked either (drag & drop overrides autostacking).
It would autostack when control clicking, or using "Receive all" from another inventory, or when dropping into a sublayer without selecting a specific slot.
Autostacking should only stack FiR items together and non FiR items together.

Example 1

Drag & Dropping would not stack in the same inventory layer. Drag & dropping would override auto stacking.

Dragging over the money case would auto stack in the inventory of the case.

Using Ammo as example here. If you drag & drop directly on a slot (even in an inventory sublayer), you would override autostacking.

2. Highlighting of full stacks

Stacks at full capacity could be highlighted for easier inventory management.
Many aspects could be used to highlight (either the name of the item, or the value, or the background of the cell)

Apology for the poor photoshop skills

This could be a highlighting method

This could be a highlighting method

3. Consistent item order in hideout craft list

Currently when in the workbench (and I think others? now I doubt), the list of craftable items appears to be random. The order should always be the same for consistency. Does not provide meaningful gameplay experience to have to "look for the recipe" every time.

4. Collecting crafts

Hideout stations could display the finished craft on top for easy collection of craft, or there could be a "Get Items" or "Receive All" elsewhere to avoid unecessary scrolling. This is uncessary if ongoing crafts are moved on top of the list, or if the list is autoscrolled to the ongoing craft.
"Collect All" on station level is not the best idea. If you go in a station, it's probably better that you know what you're collecting. I suggest moving the relevant craft on top or auto scrolling and not adding "receive all" on station level, although it would be a good help.
This should be investigated.

Receive All or Get Items could be moved or added at the top or bottom of the window.

5. "Receive All" could exist at hideout level

The same way we "receive all" from a trader, it would be nice to "Receive all" from the hideout. Either in the form of a trader (in which we can receive all / pick manually from) or by instantly putting it in inventory. If there is enough space it just works. If there isn't, it displays an error like it already does.
This is not mutually exclusive with the previous suggestion.

6. Display crafts readyness/collection

6.1 Hideout
The current behaviour is partially coherent. You get notified when an item is sold, and you get notified when a craft is finished.
You have a display notification "Attachment" style when a trader has something for you, and you should get a display notification "attachment" style when the hideout has something for you.
Ideally, there should also be such notifications for currently unused station


Receive all on the right, Nutrition unit has finished crafting and Lavatory is currently NOT crafting

6.2 Traders
There should be a way of knowing if something is waiting in trader inventory on a global level (quest rewards, money, insurance, unsold market items returns), like the nofication. The "new item" notification could be always visible as long as items are in the trader inventories, compared to now where it disappears as soon as you either click it or visit the messenger. In this hypothesis, there could be a change of color in the notification to show that there are still item waiting including some that haven't been seen yet (to still fulfill the current role of the notification)

7. CTA's

Note : CTA = Call to Action, it's the button your user will press 99.3% of the time. Example, in the launcher, it's the "Start Game". Clearly visible, easily accessible, highlighted, much bigger, and at a very common CTA spot. That one is great.
Some others are not.
7.1. "Receive All" should not be displayed when there is nothing to receive.
7.2 "Get" in single transaction messages from Ragman could be removed. There is no reason to take single items from the window when you can receive it all at once.
7.3 A "group collect" Receive all action could be added when you click on the attachment notification, or as an extra action next to the notification (just like shown on the Hideout in figure 6.0) that would specifically collect all. it would loop through all conversations and collect all and dump at the top of stash, either until its finished or there is not enough room, in which case it displays an error. It could also work like the scav case and not pick up anything until you have room, and in that case you would go in the window manually and/or make room (like we do now).
7.3 The "Receive all" is at the bottom when most CTAs in the game is at the top (dealer tabs, market tabs, character sheet tabs, settings...). Save in the settings is at the bottom too. It is incoherent. It would make more sense to have all CTAs at the bottom and options/tabs/menus at the top.
7.4 The "DEAL" button in trader view is much smaller and less visible than the "Fill Item" checkbox. The CTA should be getting more attention than a setting. New players pretty much *never* see it first and look around the "Fill Item" with eyes & mouse.

DEAL should be at the bottom in the current \"Fill Item\" box. Fill Items should be removed entirely.
7.5 Quests could be automatically accepted (no need for CTA). I don't see a reason why someone would not accept a quest. The only reason we're Accepting them now is to let the user know he has a new quest. There are other means of notifying players of new stuff : usually notifications. If not, that button should at least be more visible/highlighted. Every new player ( 100%! ) I coach does not see it at first and never looks at the right spot the first time.
7.6 "Insure All" is the most commonly used button in the insurance screen and could be emphasized more.

Example 7.5

8. Remove "Fill Items"

The Fill Items to automatically fill the trader's requirements should be removed and set as the default behaviour. There is no need to fill items manually nor tell the game to do so.

9. Expire / Delete pending requests

Friend requests should be cancellable and could expire. Requests should not be stuck until another user acts on them. Right clicking the request could display a "Cancel" or "Delete" request button.
Ideally, the cell should include a CTA on the right, as the only action I would ever do in a cell in this context is cancel.
Opening a submenu with only 1 item means you should not be opening a submenu, but displaying a button where the user right clicked instead.

I can only re-send a friend request to someone that already denied me. This is incoherent.

10. Market Rows

From my somewhat small sample (about 60 players), nobody uses the expand button on the top right of a cell (see below). I think everybody uses the right click on item instead.

An expanded cell with context menu opened, and a collapsed cell
The extra information available on the right is the exact same as a right click, but is hidden behind a left click. This is incoherent.
The only difference is the profile picture that I only get from expanding, but currently we all have the same one. This would need to be investigated.

This could be an improvement, displaying the CTA's immediately (although BUY is definitely way too small). Notice profile picture on the left
10.1 The expandable cell feature should be removed altogether, as the other options are available on right click.
10.2 The whole row should provide the same context menu (right click).
10.3 The "Send friend request" could be included in the row's context menu, or could be removed entirely, as right now most requests are missclicks. Adding the Send Friend Request at the bottom of the context menu on the row would reduce the amount of missclicks.
10.4 Left clicking should not open the context menu. This is mostly the reason behind missclick friend requests, people double clicking slightly off the item icon sending a friend request by mistake. Now I have 4 just because I was trying to make a screenshot. F's in the chat. This would be resolved with 10.2 and 10.3.
10.5 Barter items have a "Barter" icon that is redundant, the first and second column are completely irrelevant to the player.

Example 10.5

11. Filtering search

11.1 "Filter by Item" should not filter the browse list. If you're writing a valid keyword in the search field it should display the correct suggestions. Filtering content is good, filtering suggestions is incoherent.
11.2 Filters could be cleared as soon as you type text in the search field. This would resolve 11.1

Example 11
11.3 "My Offers" could not be affected by filters, or could reset filters. It is more trouble to remove the filter manually every time rather than browsing through the offer list. Currently we never have more than ~10 offers at the same time for most players, which is okay to display without filter.
11.4 Filters should not overlap with other UI elements, they could be resized to fit or the expandable filter list could include more elements so the visible ones fit.

Example 11.4
11.5 The Remember Selected Filter / Reset Filter is unclear. Looks great, feels weird, and should be investigated to be more useful.

12. Context Menu in player lobby


The current lobby with context menu open

All players in this list are looking for a group, there is no need to write a status "Looking for group", it's redundant. The exception is friends, which 99.633...% of the time is the group i'm about to play with. Those are displayed on top.
The only action we do on the list on this screen is the "Invite to group" context menu action. It's a CTA and should not be hidden in a context menu, especially if the context menu only has one option. Since recently it has two, but we'll come to that in a minute.
12.1 The invite CTA should be on the player cell itself.
12.2 The report action should not be the default one from the context menu
12.3 Since there could be only one item in the context menu according to 12.1, the report action could be on the cell as well.

A low quality suggestion for 12.x

13. Trader Buy/Sell

Trader screen needs to be reworked. I won't provide a solution that doesn't completely change how everything looks/works as I stated at the start of the post. That being said this should be improved.


Example 13.1
13.1 Buying UI should be reworked.
When buying, the price of the item is already displayed on the item itself in the trader view.
The price is also displayed a second time in the tooltip of the item if you mouse-over.
The price is also displayed a third time in the barter area on the right of the image (middle of the screen in game). This is redundant. I understand the item on the right is the physical item "Roubles" in a stack that is paid, like a barter, but it does not need to be displayed a third time.
13.2 Quantity limit (red box in the image) could be shown in the tooltip ; most of the time people will hit "DEAL" until they get an error insted of actually reading the red box.
13.3 The red box looks like an error even when at 0/x, this is not intuitive. Limited items can be listed in different ways that are not so invasive. We could add "out of X" at the right side of the quantity box.
13.4 Barter item prices (if we assume 13.1) would need to also displayed differently. This needs to be investigated
13.5 Selling UI should be reworked

Example 13.5

Currently selling an item still displays the full available items to BUY, this is incoherent. Especially from the "Sell" tab. The whole left side of the screen is wasted, and cannot be used.
13.6 Items on the left are not greyed out (even though I can't buy them), but items on the right are greyed out (because I can't sell them). This is incoherent.
13.7 Trader sell space should be infinite
13.8 Buy/Sell could be done in a single tab if the whole screen is reworked. There are different levels to this. An easy one I could think :
"Trade" Tab instead of "Buy". Displays the same as the current "BUY" tab. If you ctrl+click an item from your stash, it instantly sells without confirmation. The second tab would be a "Buyback" where you can see what you sold in the current trade session. If you leave the screen your buyback is reset and items cannot be recovered. Another way would be to keep buybacks for the last X items. You would need to pay what you received to get back. The item would not lose it's FiR status. This preleminary and simplistic rework has issues, notably that you have to know to right click to sell. One way to fix that would be to make right click sell to trader instead of control click, but that would definitely make missclicks the first few days (and buyback would be mandatory).
This could be investigated.
13.9 Currency exchange rates should be easily available in relevant areas (Peacekeeper, Therapist and flea market) for all currencies (Rouble, Euro, Dollar, Bitcoin)

14. Boxing

Items should be boxables and moved around. At least to be dropped in boxes, ideally to be moved around freely.
There is a limit of 20 images. 🤷‍♂
Example 14

15. Quest inventory

If you loot too many quest items in a raid, you can end up not being able to loot it. I assume this is by design and it is why you have limited quest item space.
The quest inventory could be infinite if it's not by design to be limited.
The quest inventory should be manageable. In my case i had a 1 slot item blocking me from taking the suitcase, I should have been allowed to move that 1 slot item to the top or to the right of my inventory, clearing a whole line and letting me take the case.
Quest items could be stored in backpack (and resized) ; since you lose them on death it's not relevant to the players looting you or you dying and that issue would be gone. Storing it in your stash would also prevent you from losing it by going in raid with it by mistake. Taking it in raid or giving it to trader would be a volontary action. It also makes much more sense that way as other quest items (that are also usable items) work that way.


Alright this ended up taking more time than my lunchbreak, and there is *much* more to write but for the time being I'll leave it at that and come tomorrow to add your suggestions or mine. See you in 24 hours.
submitted by SixOneZil to EscapefromTarkov [link] [comments]

[Table] IAmA dark web expert, investigative journalist and true crime author. I’ve met dark web kingpins in far flung prisons and delved the murky depths of child predator forums. I’ve written six books and over a dozen Casefile podcast episodes. AMA (part 2/2)

Source | Guestbook
Previous thread
Questions Answers
Around here nobody talks about the argument that increased regulation of the internet would help stop child predators. Is that true, and if so where do you fall on the Net Neutrality vs law enforcement spectrum? No I don't think that's true at all. Child predators have been around much longer than the internet, and I would argue child abuse was more prevalent 50+ years ago when children were seen and not heard and it wasn't talked about. The dark web hasn't created more predators, it has just given them a new place to gather and hang out.
The one thing I found really interesting when I was lurking the forums of the child predators was their frustration about how children are now taught from a very young age that certain touching and acts are wrong and that they shouldn't keep certain secrets. It came up over and over again that they could not abuse certain children because they knew those children had someone they would tell. It was pretty clear that education was a child's best defence against getting abused.
the below is a reply to the above
That's so interesting, thanks for the AMA! Can you remember any other thing that a child could do in order to protect himself from being abused? What other characteristics do the abusers hate in potential victims? That seems to be the main one. Kids who speak up and who have close relationships with one or more people they are likely to confide in
What do folks talk about in the child predator forums? Do they like give each other advice on how to improve their craft? Yes, quite literally. The give each other tips on how not to get caught, how to edit out incriminating details in videos, how to drug children, techniques for convincing kids not to tell etc
the below is a reply to the above
Given your insight into how predators operate, do you have any advice for parents on protecting their kids? I'll cut'n'paste a response i gave to someone else about this, because it was something that really stuck out to me:
The one thing I found really interesting when I was lurking the forums of the child predators was their frustration about how children are now taught from a very young age that certain touching and acts are wrong and that they shouldn't keep certain secrets. It came up over and over again that they could not abuse certain children because they knew those children had someone they would tell. It was pretty clear that education was a child's best defence against getting abused. Kids who speak up and who have close relationships with one or more people they are likely to confide in
Has the exponential increase in Bitcoin value affected darknet dealers in any profound way? I can imagine that some drug dealers were sitting on quite a large sum of Bitcoin when the value shot up. Crypto purists hate to admit it, but bitcoin would not be where it is today without Silk Road. It was sitting at less than a dollar when Silk Road began and the markets showed a robust use case for cryptocurrency and as the markets grew, so did the demand for bitcoin. It also provided real-life use data for those who were not interested in drugs but who weren't sure if it had practical application. When SR went down, Bitcoin was at about $650 and it continued to grow as adoption became more mainstream. There are many many stories of drug dealers (and at least one faux-hitman!) who gained most of their wealth not by selling the drugs, but by the growth in value of their bitcoin holdings
Since you have a lot of experience with them online. Do you think pedophiles(not child abusers) should be treated as criminals, or as people suffering from a mental illness? Contact offenders should be treated as criminals, because they are criminals. They have abused or hurt someone. Same with those who support the creation and dissemination of child abuse materials.
Pedophiles who do not act on their urges should be given as much help as humanly possible.
Are there any mysterious or suspicious pages or communities that you haven’t been able to access? Anything that seems especially weird? there are a lot of Russian communities that I can't access, mostly because I don't speak Russian. Some of the more technical hacking communities have entry barriers that I'm not technical enough to score an invite to
How much these bad people really exist out there? Hundreds? Thousands? More? It depends what you mean by bad. If you mean people who use the dark web to buy drugs (who I do not consider bad) then there are many many thousands. There are also thousands of people who deal in stolen information to make money.
Unfortunately there are also thousands of child predators and the dark web has provided a "safe space" for them to come together to share materials and "tips". I hope this is where most of the resources of law enforcement are concentrated
Ehy mine is a rare question: what do you know about art on dark web? I'm talking about the black market made of stolen important pieces from museums, art used as value to money laundry and other criminal affairs I'm an artist and what I know is people don't think too much about the dark side of art and probably they need to open their eyes about I really haven't come across much in the way of that. Some of the markets have an "art" section, but that is mostly blotter art
How accurate are the legends? Any legends in particular? For a lowdown copied from a post I made in another forum:
1Red Rooms  The one that is most persistent is the myth of the "Red Room" - live streaming of torture/rape that ends in the murder of the victim and which people can pay to watch, or even bid to type in commands for the torturer to carry out (highest bid wins!). The most famous was the “ISIS Red Room” pictured above, where people could provide instructions to torture captured terrorists - you can read what happened here.
People have this idea of Hostel with webcams exist all over the dark web, but you just need an invite to get into them. It's ridiculous. They don't exist. They certainly wouldn't exist on Tor. But people are desperate to believe and they always come back with "You can't prove they don't exist, people are crazy, therefore they must exist." Picture my eyes rolling here.
2.Hitman sites
I don't think many people are taken in by the hitmen sites anymore, though the press loves playing up the fact that there are sites offering up hitman services. But every single one of them has turned out to be a scam, especially Besa Mafia, the one that did the most marketing. Again, you can read about it at the same link as above.
3.Exotic animals  People are always asking where they can find markets for exotic animals. Obviously the illegal trade in exotic animals exists, and some communications and transactions may well take place over Tor, but there are no markets like the drug markets where you can go and look at a picture and then put a tiger or ocelot or something into your basket and buy it with bitcoin.
SO WHAT DOES HAPPEN ON THE DARK WEB?
1.People buy and sell drugs.
The drug markets are more busy than ever. You have probably heard of Silk Road, the most famous online drug market that got busted a few years ago and the owner sent to prison for two consecutive life terms? A lot of people thought that was the end of drugs being sold on the dark web. In fact, dark web sales of drugs have tripled since the shutdown of Silk Road.
The reason people buy drugs this way is that for many they offer a safer alternative for people who are going to do drugs anyway. There is no possibility of any violence. The vast majority of the time a buyer knows exactly what they are getting, because of the feedback and rating system. That's not the case in a nightclub, or even friends-of-friends, where you just blindly accept that the pill, powder or tab is what the seller says it is.
2.People buy and sell other illegal things
Mostly they buy and sell stolen credit cards and financial information, fake IDs (though lots of these are scams), personal information, “dumps” of hacked data and fraud-related items. For a long time, a seller was making a fortune selling fake discount coupons that really worked.
3.People access and create childporn  Unlike the other markets, the CP market is generally not for money, but rather they are groups who swap vile images and videos for free. The worst of the worst is called “hurtcore’. Thankfully, most of the people behind the worst sites have been arrested and put in jail.
4.People talk about stuff
There are plenty of sites, forums and chatrooms where people talk about all sorts of things - conspiracies, aliens, weird stuff. They take advantage of the anonymity.
5.People anonymously release information
Whistleblowers use the dark web to release information and make sure their identities won't be compromised. You will find Wikileaks, for example, on the dark web.
6.People surf the web anonymously
The number 1 thing people use the dark web for is just to surf the web completely anonymously. Not everybody wants to be tracked by advertisers.
I have a question: what are the odds of the casual Darkweb drug buyer - not buying mega loads all the time - the occasional purchase - what are the risks of being busted? Kinda figuring pretty low. But you’re the expert. What do you think? Obviously there is always a risk, but the risk is very low. It is rare for personal amounts to be seized. Even if a package is seized, there's usually no resources to follow it up. Many people report simply receiving a letter from Customs saying they have seized what they believe is contraband and the person has a choice of going to claim it or it will be destroyed. Even if LE does knock on the door there is plausible deniability: "I don't know who sent that stuff to me".
So yeah, rare, but it does happen. You might be the unlucky one
How do you find things on the dark web without search engines? There are a lot of entry sites, set up with links to the most popular places. You can generally get a link to one of them by browsing places like reddit. From there it is a matter of checking out different places, people will put links in forums etc.
I also use a Pastebin where people paste sites they have made/found, and a Fresh Onion site, which crawls all the newly-populated .onion addresses
Hi. there!! Thank you for answering questions. Mine is very simple. How do sellers get the drugs to people? Regular mail? That's always puzzled me bc I'd assume USPS, UPS, fedEx or any other mail carrier would catch at least some goods. If people are ordering drugs, particularly in powder form, for personal use, they can be flattened, sealed in MBB (moisture barrier baggies) and sent in a regular business envelope, indistinguishable from billions of other envelopes going through the postal system every day. The chances of a particular package being intercepted is very low.
Some people take the extra precaution of having the person taking delivery of the drugs different to the person/household that is ordering them.
How did you move from being a corporate lawyer to researching and writing about dark web? I was in London, working for one of the most conservative law firms in the world when the Global Financial Crisis hit. I liked the job but it struck me when people were losing their livelihoods that I was working for the bad guys. I'd always wanted to be a writer so when I came back to Australia I quit law and enrolled in a writing course planning to be a novelist, but I discovered I was better at journalism. I first wrote for newspapers here about Silk Road and it grew from there
I've always wanted to check out the dark web, what is a normal day for you look like on there? Can you give me any tips on how to safely surf the dark web? A normal day looks like me sitting at my desk writing things on my computer. When I'm researching a book or a case I venture away from my computer to trials and to interview people (at least I did pre-COVID)
There is nothing inherently unsafe in surfing the dark web. All the usual precautions you take surfing the clearweb apply. Don't visit any child exploitation sites - it will be pretty obvious that's what they are by the names/descriptions before you log in.
It is only when you want to do more than surfing - e.g. buying drugs etc - that you need to do a LOT of homework or you will absolutely get scammed
Is there anything good about the dark web? It depends what you are into. A lot of academic research has concluded that the darknet markets provide a safer way for people to buy and use drugs, due to the ratings of vendors, services that independently test and report back on batches of drugs, doctor on staff ready to answer questions, no violence in transactions etc.
News sites provide a dark web option so that whistleblowers can safety provide information and upload documents that get stripped of any identifying metadata before being available.
It bypasses firewalls and allows for secure communications under hostile regimes
the below is a reply to the above
How does this make you feel about the idea of the decriminalization of drugs? I've always been for full legalization of drugs, and studying the darknet markets just proved I was right.
I was invited to an experts roundtable in Portugal about drugs and cybercrime a few years ago and the Portugal model of decriminalisation has been a great success
the below is a reply to the above
Hey, you are still answering. Been reading this thread for 1-2 hours now. Thank you so much for all the good work and info! Always been intrigued by this topic, downloaded tor once to explore a bit but couldn’t and deleted it right away, to be on the safer side. Great insights. Thanks! I've been writing it for about 14 hours. Going a bit loopy
How was working on Casefile? What's the production process like? Which episodes did u do?? I have listened to... all of them.... I absolutely LOVE working for Casefile. I am a freelancer, so I source and write my own cases and then sell the scripts to Casefile. I've done at least a dozen, but some of my most popular are Amy Allwine, Mark & John, Ella Tundra, Leigh Leigh, Rebecca Schaeffer...
As for the production process, once I have sold the script to them, a staff member edits them and then they are passed on to Casey to narrate. After that, they go to Mike for sound editing, music etc. They are the best team ever
the below is a reply to the above
Oh, Leigh Leigh was so well written!! How do you choose which stories to write? Do you just pick true crime you're interested in? Thank you! I have a huge list of potential episodes. Any time I come across an interesting crime on reddit, or in the news or wherever I make a note of it. Then I just pick one when it comes time to write a new script.
Sometimes I've been personally involved (e.g. Amy Allwine), gone to trials etc. Those are always the best ones
Hi Eiley, your twitter just reminded me of this AMA :) What are your thoughts on bitcoin? And would you prefer to be paid in crypto or fiat? OOOOH, I know that name! Love & Light to you!
I like Bitcoin and I wish I had a whole lot of it and like many many people, I wish I had kept the first crypto I bought at something like $4 a coin :D I do not have a whole lot of it but I do have a little bit. I like the philosophy behind it and in theory it should change the world. However the reality is that the vast majority of it is concentrated in a very few hands which allows for market manipulation and stops it being useful as a post-fiat currency.
As long as I'm getting paid, I'm pretty happy!
the below is a reply to the question
I too remember your name Pluto! Such a decent human ❤ he is!! True OG right there <3
Is the dark web subject to more racism than its counterpart, the world wide web? There are some white power sites and that sort of thing and the chans are even more uncensored than the clearweb ones (4chan, 8chan) but to be honest they are the same cesspools in different spots. Drug forums don't seem to be very racist. I've seen worse on Twitter
Have you seen any consequential political or social organizing being carried out on the dark web? Not directly, but the dark web helped facilitate the Arab Spring uprising in 2010 by allowing activists to remain anonymous and to access blocked websites and social media. Wikileaks, obviously. Some white supremacy organizations seem to use it to coordinate attacks, but they are not places I'm keen to hang out in.
What’s the most expensive thing for sale you’ve seen on the dark web? What was surprisingly inexpensive? I can't remember specific listings, but there were sometimes sales of things like coke by the kilo, so that sort of thing I guess.
LSD could easily be found for $1/tab and one huge dealer gave it away for free if it was for personal use
the below has been split into separate questions
1. I’m going to ask a couple in hopes that one will catch your interest! I know you’re anonymous on the dark web, but even so, have you ever felt worried about your safety? I actually made the decision to be upfront and honest about who I am on the dark web, so I use the name OzFreelancer (which is easily traceable to my real name) on all the dark web sites where i went looking for interviews. The people there had the option of talking to me or not, so they had no reason to want to harm me.
2. I’ve found your comments about your relationship with Yura fascinating. Did y’all develop a friendship? Did you build any other relationships that stand out in your mind? Since you were straightforward about being on the dark web for stories, did people seem reluctant to communicate, or were they excited for the opportunity to divulge a secret? We do have a friendship of sorts, it is really quite weird. I do hope to met him one day. I met all of the senior staff of Silk Road other than the Dread Pirate Roberts himself and keep in touch with some. Some people wanted nothing to do with me of course, but many more were happy to talk to me. i think sometimes it was a relief to them to be able to talk to one person who they knew was who they said they were.
3. On violent forums, did users ever express remorse, guilt, shame, or anything indicative of some recognition that what they were viewing/seeking was awful? Do you see doxxing teams on the dark web working together to uncover info, or is the info already there through previous hacks/breaches, and someone just accesses and releases it? Sorry if any of those don’t make sense! I’m not familiar with the dark web lingo but am so intrigued by your work. Not really. I think if they were contributing to the forums, they were comfortable with who they were and what they were doing. Many of the "regular" pedophiles expressed revulsion about Lux and hurtcore sites though
these have probably been asked before but has there ever been a time where you where genuinely been scared for your life and whats the most messed up thing you've witnessed did you have any help? Yeah both things have been answered in this thread, so I'll cut'n'paste
The only time I've felt even slightly in danger despite all this nosing around in there was when I helped uncover a hitman scam. The owner of Besa Mafia, the most profitable murder-for-hire site in history, came after me when I started writing about him. He made loads of threats ("you don't know who I am, but I know who you are and where you live") but that wasnt scary, as I had access to the backdoor of his site thanks to a friendly hacker and knew he didn't really want to hurt anybody.
It took a bit of a darker turn when he told the people who had signed up to work as hitmen on his site - and who he made video themselves burning cars with signs on them to advertise how legit his site was, then never sent them the promised money for doing so - that I was the owner of the site who had ripped them off. That could have become ugly, but luckily even the thugs weren't dumb enough to believe him.
The only other time I've been a bit nervous was when Homeland Security wanted to have a "friendly" meeting with me on one of my trips to the US to attend a trial. They were friendly, but scary too.
The most frightening experience I've ever had is coming face to face with Lux, the owner of Pedoempire and Hurt2theCore, the most evil and reviled person on the entire dark web. He was responsible for procuring and hosting Daisy's Destruction, the most repulsive video ever made, created by Peter Scully, whose crimes were so bad, the Philippines are considering reinstating the death penalty especially for him.
It wasn't frightening because Lux was frightening - he was anything but. It was frightening because he looked so inoffensive and normal.
It was frightening because he was living proof that monsters walk among us and we never know.
[deleted] It is absolute crap for browsing the clearweb, and a lot of sites detect that it is odd traffic and you have to solve their CAPTCHAs before doing the most basic things
I’m sure you’ve seen some really bad stuff, do you regularly talk to a therapist to help? I've never seen a therapist (they don't really seem to be a thing in Australia they way they are in the US), but I have been known to unload on my partner and my dog
the below is a reply to the question
Yo, speaking as an Aussie, they absolutely are a thing, you can get them covered thru medicare, and I recommend it if you possibly can! Bro, therapy is awesome. I'm not against therapy as a thing, but I've honestly never been so traumatised that I feel I need it. Also I had a bad experience with a psychologist after I watched my partner die in an accident - they suggested I find God, and I noped out of there
the below is another reply to the answer
Therapist is an American term- we call them psychs. And the one who told you to find God was terrible and out of line. Yeah she didn't last long before I was over it. Also a doctor decided I needed Xanax, which was also a bad move, because what I really needed was to grieve and Xanax doesn't let you do that properly
Do you find any good things on the dark web? Happy stuff that gives people hope? Or just the trash? I like the psychonaut communities. They just want peace, love and mungbeans for everybody
Have you heard of "The Primarch System" rumor of the dark web? Sounds downright silly to me. But I'm curious if anyone who spends time on the deep web actually takes it seriously, or if as an idea it is connected to anything serious at all. Nah, up there with the Shadow Web and Mariana's Web. There's always people who want to find out where the "deeper" "more secret" "really dark" stuff is. To them I say what, hurtcore isn't dark enough for you?
Doesn't delving the murky depths of child predator forums categorize you with the child predators in the eyes of an investigating law enforcement agency? Do you have some sort of amnesty due to your journalism, or is that something you worry about having to explain away? Has your presence there ever caused some sort of a scare? No, I never went into any of the sites that had actual photos or videos (you can't un-see that shit), but did spend a lot of time in pedophile discussion forums. I also went to a hurtcore hearing and saw screenshots in the police files, as well as listening for two days to videos being described frame-by-frame and private communications between the site owner and the sadists.
Besides drugs and sex crimes, what else is going on in the dark web? Are there other interesting nooks and crannies? I often post screenshots of bizarre sites I find on my Twitter. However, the main uses for the dark web are drugs, digital/fraud goods and child exploitation
I have one, it might be rather boring though, but here goes. On these "child predator forums" are they actually forums devoted to stalking children and do they share social media profiles of children among themselves? That would be kik ids, snapchat and facebook ids, instagram, stuff like that, info that would allow online access and that may have been chosen for suitability? Creepy question I know, but anyway I would be interested to hear your answer. I came here from TrueCrime, you referred to these things in your post on that sub. I suspect I already know the answer yet would like to hear your take on it. Yes, they provide information and tips on how to approach children, how to ensure they won't tell, how to sedate them in some instances, where to find child exploitation material, how to remove metadata and any identifying characteristics in photos and videos before sharing and so on.
They don't tend to share socia media, as that is the sort of thing that can be traced easily. They do talk about how to approach kids on social media and on the worst forums how to blackmail children into stripping/meeting etc
the below is a reply to the above
So you're saying they have a more general approach rather than identifying individual children on the internet? Again a creepy question because what I suggest is that a child's social media could be used and circulated on the dark web as potential information to gain access by anonymity, even if it was just online access only. I actually wonder as I have recently read of the anonymity of apps like ''kik messenger'' and how the police are often unable to get any information from the communications as they remain encrypted and off the server and require little if any valid ID to make an account. No doubt photos from social media are uploaded as part of the materials they have. I haven't seen anything where they get together and try to track down a specific child, but I'm sure some predators do this. Most are more likely to abuse children in their orbit - family, kids of friends, or they work where they have access to children
I heard there are forums to download books but it was really dangerous, Is it true? I'm just a poor guy who wants to finish the young Jack sparrow series Whenever you download anything from a pirate site you run the risk of infection
What do you think of QAnon? Wackjob conspiracy
the below is a reply to the above
Who should the conspiracy theorists actually be worried about if they actually care about thwarting pedophilia? The vast, vast majority of child abuse takes place within the child's personal orbit - relatives, family friends, parents of their own friends, people involved in their activities (coaches, leaders, etc)
So, those people
the below is another reply to the answer
Also how to we get people to stop believing in QAnon? Outside my area of expertise, sorry
do you personally believe there was/is any truth to the "defense" (story) that DPR was a title handed down to different admins for the original silk road, or was it just a convenient defense? do you have any theories as to who satoshi nakamoto is? besides the original SR, are there any other darkweb markets that you think have a good enough story to turn into a book? eg sheep market? i've seen you talk a little about the child predator forums, and (as with h2tc) noted are mainly populated by males. i'm curious if you've ever encountered females on such forums/websites (eg. btfk) No. There was a time that I believed the person posting on the forums as DPR changed, but the ownership and administration of the market I believe never changed hands. Variety Jones is claiming a part ownership (which may or may not be true) but I believe that is so he can run a Fourth Amendment argument
So many theories have some credibility to them, but no one theory ticks all the boxes. Highly recommend the 3-part youtube deep dive by Barely Sociable
I'm not sure any one market has the story that Silk Road had, but I would like to write a definitive history that encompasses the most compelling features of all the markets. Backopy of BMR apparently got away clean. The admins of Atlantis got wind of a security issue and closed shop, trying to warn DPR. AlphaBay ended in Alexander Cazes death in a Bangkok prison cell. Then everyone flocked to Hansa, which by that time was being run by law enforcement. Evolution ended in the most brazen exit scam, followed by a bizarre cloak'n'dagger situation played out right here on reddit. The WSM/DDW follow-the-money case. And these are just some that come right off the top of my head. I just need a publisher to provide me an advance I can live off while I write it!
There were a very few people on the forums who identified as female (obvs anyone can be anyone on a dark web forum) and there have been one or two arrests of women in relation to dark web child pornography. Peter Scully's female assistant who carried out some of the torture was originally one of his victims, turned into a sadist.
What’s the one lingering unanswered question you have about SR? I am hanging out for Joel Ellingson to go to trial so that I can find out once and for all whether redandwhite, lucydrop and Tony76 are one and the same person.
There are several people who I got to "know" by their handles who I wonder about from time to time, but mostly I hope they are safe and well and i don't want to track them down or expose them
the below is a reply to the above
Eileen, I am fangirling PRE-TTY hard right now. Talking SR and Tony76 with you is how I imagine it feels to talk to a royal correspondent about Prince Andrew 😅 Ellingson being all three would be a very neat end to an otherwise insane story. Part of me wants to pin Oracle in with that trio too but that’s mostly a desperate attempt from me to add another layer to the madness. I miss the twists and turns that came with the rise and fall of SR. From your own experience - would you agree with the idea that more than one person staffed the DPR account? Thanks for the reply! Ha! You have no idea what it is like when I find someone who really knows about this stuff and can have informed conversations about it. I latch onto them and don't let go. The very BEST was meeting up with DPR's three deputies (SSBD in Australia, Inigo in US and Libertas in Ireland) so I could actually have conversations with people who knew more than I did! Variety Jones was cool too, but the conversation couldn't flow too freely thanks to him being incarcerated in Bangkok prison at the time.
I think others sometimes posted from the forum account, but Ulbricht kept a vice-like grip on his market account
the below is a reply to the above
I can imagine it’s so satisfying and exciting to get those tidbits of info that piece the jigsaw together. The bedlam that played out over the forum in the aftermath was a cloud of paranoia and adrenaline that kept me refreshing pages for days. Would love to hear accounts from SSBD, Inigo and Libertas from this time. One last question: what were your thoughts when the Chloe Ayling story first broke? I assumed it was a publicity stunt. I don't think that any more. I guess I can't blame her for milking her kidnapping for publicity in the aftermath, though I don't think she does herself any favors the way she goes about it sometimes
Sorry if this has been covered before but in your research, mainly related to child abuse, where are these children coming from? Children in their care/ family? Kidnapped? The vast majority of child abuse is carried out by someone within their social circle - family and acquaintances. However, the hurtcore stuff was often carried out in third world countries on orphans or where desperate families gave up their children to "benefactors" who they believed were going to provide food an education
What Casefile episodes have you written? I became obsessed with it and ripped through all the episodes and now nothing will fill that void. Thanks for your efforts! Casefile – the murder of Amy Allwine
Casefile – Blue Skies, Black Death
Casefile – Ella Tundra
Casefile – Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs
Casefile – Motown Murders
Casefile – Rebecca Schaeffer
Casefile – Sian Kingi
Casefile – John & Mark
Casefile – Shauna Howe
Casefile – Chloe Ayling
Casefile – Johnny Altinger
Casefile – Killer Petey
Casefile – The Santa Claus Bank Robbery
Casefile – Martha Puebla
Casefile – Leigh Leigh
Is there any way parents can keep their kids safe from this without being helicopter parents? I'll cut'n'paste a response i gave to someone else about this, because it was something that really stuck out to me:
The one thing I found really interesting when I was lurking the forums of the child predators was their frustration about how children are now taught from a very young age that certain touching and acts are wrong and that they shouldn't keep certain secrets. It came up over and over again that they could not abuse certain children because they knew those children had someone they would tell. It was pretty clear that education was a child's best defence against getting abused. Kids who speak up and who have close relationships with one or more people they are likely to confide in
What does it take in terms of degrees and experience to get into this business? Nothing official. I was a lawyer, but that had no bearing on what I do now (I did corporate law). I didn't have any official credentials when I began as a freelance journalist, though later I got a diploma of professional writing and editing. Anyone can be an author, provided they can write
If you could take a guess from your findings, what would be some speculative statistics on these abuse/torture sites? How many people (tens of thousands?) are involved? Do they generally come from the same places in the world or are they seemingly geographically random (based on victim ethnicity, or language spoken, perhaps)... what are some quantifying stats to wrap our heads around how prevalent this shit is? Most dark web users come from western countries, just because infrastructure supports it. The sites often have tens of thousands of registered users, but a lot of them would be people for whom curiosity got the better of them and who signed up then left. Active users more like in the thousands, hyper-active users the hundreds.
One of the things that makes life difficult for law enforcement is that most of these sites don't operate on a commercial basis - people aren't making money from them, so there is no cryptocurrency chain to follow. They operate on a sharing basis and to get access to the more private parts of the sites, a user has to upload "fresh" material and/or prove they are actively abusing a child. Hurt2theCore used to get users to have the children hold up signs or have the site name or a username written on their bodies with a marker. This stopped law enforcement from getting access to those parts (like the "producers lounge") of the sites unless they were able to take over an account of a user who already had access. Even then, the rules of the hurtcore sites would require constant new proof in order to maintain access.
Some sites allowed people to buy access, such as one called "Welcome to Video" and then were taken down by law enforcement carrying out blockchain analysis of the Bitcoin transaction that led to the owner when they cashed out to fiat without moneylaundering precautions
the below is a reply to the above
Do you think LE uses deep fakes to simulate a picture to gain access? Is that possible? It is definitely possible, but I don't know whether they are doing it as they are understandably secretive about their methods. I know it is deeply problematic, as even fake child porn is still illegal (even cartoon stuff, including some Hentai in some countries). But they have used questionable methods before, most notably running the dark web's largest site, Playpen, for over a year in order to identify contact offenders
the below is another reply to the original answer
Am I hearing you that many people are NOT doing this for financial gain? Just to do it and share it?? Child exploitation, yes, it is mostly a sharing community. Some people make some money out of it, but it is not like drugs where a lot of people are making a LOT of money
On the subject of abused kids... did you ever help the kids in any way? I never met any of the kids. I never saw any of the photos and videos. I don't know who any of the kids are.
Daisy has been taken into care and her identity changed. I hope she is doing okay
What exactly does the dark web look like? You hear about it often, but don’t know if it looks like Google Chrome, Safari, or just a page full of code. It looks like a normal browser and operates just like a normal browser. It's just that it can access sites that your normal browser can't.
e.g. http://thehub5himseelprs44xzgfrb4obgujkqwy5tzbsh5yttebqhaau23yd.onion/index.php is the URL of a dark web forum. If you plug it into your normal browser you will get an error. If you plug it into the Tor browser you will get the registration page for The Hub
How do you keep yourself from hating all humanity? I am happy to report that, even on the dark web, the good people outnumber the bad
Hi! First off I'd like to say that I find what you do quite fascinating and would love to do something like that in the future. My question is in regards to art and other forms of artistic expression on the dark web. Is it true that the dark web is a place where you can also find awesome things such as art and literature? Not really, because all that stuff is readily available on the clearweb. There are sites like the Imperial Library of Trantor, which is a pirate site for books, where you can read thousands of books for free, but that's really no different to The Pirate Bay. Some people share their LSD art, but again, nothing you won't find on the clearweb
submitted by 500scnds to tabled [link] [comments]

Don't blindly follow a narrative, its bad for you and its bad for crypto in general

I mostly lurk around here but I see a pattern repeating over and over again here and in multiple communities so I have to post. I'm just posting this here because I appreciate the fact that this sub is a place of free speech and maybe something productive can come out from this post, while bitcoin is just fucking censorship, memes and moon/lambo posts. If you don't agree, write in the comments why, instead of downvoting. You don't have to upvote either, but when you downvote you are killing the opportunity to have discussion. If you downvote or comment that I'm wrong without providing any counterpoints you are no better than the BTC maxis you despise.
In various communities I see a narrative being used to bring people in and making them follow something without thinking for themselves. In crypto I see this mostly in BTC vs BCH tribalistic arguments:
- BTC community: "Everything that is not BTC is shitcoin." or more recently as stated by adam on twitter, "Everything that is not BTC is a ponzi scheme, even ETH.", "what is ETH supply?", and even that they are doing this for "altruistic" reasons, to "protect" the newcomers. Very convenient for them that they are protecting the newcomers by having them buy their bags
- BCH community: "BTC maxis are dumb", "just increase block size and you will have truly p2p electronic cash", "It is just that simple, there are no trade offs", "if you don't agree with me you are a BTC maxi", "BCH is satoshi's vision for p2p electronic cash"
It is not exclusive to crypto but also politics, and you see this over and over again on twitter and on reddit.
My point is, that narratives are created so people don't have to think, they just choose a narrative that is easy to follow and makes sense for them, and stick with it. And people keep repeating these narratives to bring other people in, maybe by ignorance, because they truly believe it without questioning, or maybe by self interest, because they want to shill you their bags.
Because this is BCH community, and because bitcoin is censored, so I can't post there about the problems in the BTC narrative (some of which are IMO correctly identified by BCH community), I will stick with the narrative I see in the BCH community.
The culprit of this post was firstly this post by user u/scotty321 "The BTC Paradox: “A 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own node!” “Okay, then what?” “Poor people won’t be able to use the network!”". You will see many posts of this kind being made by u/Egon_1 also. Then you have also this comment in that thread by u/fuck_____________1 saying that people that want to run their own nodes are retarded and that there is no reason to want to do that. "Just trust block explorer websites". And the post and comment were highly upvoted. Really? You really think that there is no problem in having just a few nodes on the network? And that the only thing that secures the network are miners?
As stated by user u/co1nsurf3r in that thread:
While I don't think that everybody needs to run a node, a full node does publish blocks it considers valid to other nodes. This does not amount to much if you only consider a single node in the network, but many "honest" full nodes in the network will reduce the probability of a valid block being withheld from the network by a collusion of "hostile" node operators.
But surely this will not get attention here, and will be downvoted by those people that promote the narrative that there is no trade off in increasing the blocksize and the people that don't see it are retarded or are btc maxis.
The only narrative I stick to and have been for many years now is that cryptocurrency takes power from the government and gives power to the individual, so you are not restricted to your economy as you can participate in the global economy. There is also the narrative of banking the bankless, which I hope will come true, but it is not a use case we are seeing right now.
Some people would argue that removing power from gov's is a bad thing, but you can't deny the fact that gov's can't control crypto (at least we would want them not to).
But, if you really want the individuals to remain in control of their money and transact with anyone in the world, the network needs to be very resistant to any kind of attacks. How can you have p2p electronic cash if your network just has a handful couple of nodes and the chinese gov can locate them and just block communication to them? I'm not saying that this is BCH case, I'm just refuting the fact that there is no value in running your own node. If you are relying on block explorers, the gov can just block the communication to the block explorer websites. Then what? Who will you trust to get chain information? The nodes needs to be decentralized so if you take one node down, many more can appear so it is hard to censor and you don't have few points of failure.
Right now BTC is focusing on that use case of being difficult to censor. But with that comes the problem that is very expensive to transact on the network, which breaks the purpose of anyone being able to participate. Obviously I do think that is also a major problem, and lightning network is awful right now and probably still years away of being usable, if it ever will. The best solution is up for debate, but thinking that you just have to increase the blocksize and there is no trade off is just naive or misleading. BCH is doing a good thing in trying to come with a solution that is inclusive and promotes cheap and fast transactions, but also don't forget centralization is a major concern and nothing to just shrug off.
Saying that "a 1 MB blocksize enables poor people to run their own" and that because of that "Poor people won’t be able to use the network" is a misrepresentation designed to promote a narrative. Because 1MB is not to allow "poor" people to run their node, it is to facilitate as many people to run a node to promote decentralization and avoid censorship.
Also an elephant in the room that you will not see being discussed in either BTC or BCH communities is that mining pools are heavily centralized. And I'm not talking about miners being mostly in china, but also that big pools control a lot of hashing power both in BTC and BCH, and that is terrible for the purpose of crypto.
Other projects are trying to solve that. Will they be successful? I don't know, I hope so, because I don't buy into any narrative. There are many challenges and I want to see crypto succeed as a whole. As always guys, DYOR and always question if you are not blindly following a narrative. I'm sure I will be called BTC maxi but maybe some people will find value in this. Don't trust guys that are always posting silly "gocha's" against the other "tribe".
EDIT: User u/ShadowOfHarbringer has pointed me to some threads that this has been discussed in the past and I will just put my take on them here for visibility, as I will be using this thread as a reference in future discussions I engage:
When there was only 2 nodes in the network, adding a third node increased redundancy and resiliency of the network as a whole in a significant way. When there is thousands of nodes in the network, adding yet another node only marginally increase the redundancy and resiliency of the network. So the question then becomes a matter of personal judgement of how much that added redundancy and resiliency is worth. For the absolutist, it is absolutely worth it and everyone on this planet should do their part.
What is the magical number of nodes that makes it counterproductive to add new nodes? Did he do any math? Does BCH achieve this holy grail safe number of nodes? Guess what, nobody knows at what number of nodes is starts to be marginally irrelevant to add new nodes. Even BTC today could still not have enough nodes to be safe. If you can't know for sure that you are safe, it is better to try to be safer than sorry. Thousands of nodes is still not enough, as I said, it is much cheaper to run a full node as it is to mine. If it costs millions in hash power to do a 51% attack on the block generation it means nothing if it costs less than $10k to run more nodes than there are in total in the network and cause havoc and slowing people from using the network. Or using bot farms to DDoS the 1000s of nodes in the network. Not all attacks are monetarily motivated. When you have governments with billions of dollars at their disposal and something that could threat their power they could do anything they could to stop people from using it, and the cheapest it is to do so the better
You should run a full node if you're a big business with e.g. >$100k/month in volume, or if you run a service that requires high fraud resistance and validation certainty for payments sent your way (e.g. an exchange). For most other users of Bitcoin, there's no good reason to run a full node unless you reel like it.
Shouldn't individuals benefit from fraud resistance too? Why just businesses?
Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure that people can easily run a full node because they feel like it, and that it's desirable to keep full node resource requirements reasonable for an enthusiast/hobbyist whenever possible. This might seem to be at odds with the concept of making a worldwide digital cash system in which all transactions are validated by everybody, but after having done the math and some of the code myself, I believe that we should be able to have our cake and eat it too.
This is recurrent argument, but also no math provided, "just trust me I did the math"
The biggest reason individuals may want to run their own node is to increase their privacy. SPV wallets rely on others (nodes or ElectronX servers) who may learn their addresses.
It is a reason and valid one but not the biggest reason
If you do it for fun and experimental it good. If you do it for extra privacy it's ok. If you do it to help the network don't. You are just slowing down miners and exchanges.
Yes it will slow down the network, but that shows how people just don't get the the trade off they are doing
I will just copy/paste what Satoshi Nakamoto said in his own words. "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server."
Another "it is all or nothing argument" and quoting satoshi to try and prove their point. Just because every user doesn't need to be also a full node doesn't mean that there aren't serious risks for having few nodes
For this to have any importance in practice, all of the miners, all of the exchanges, all of the explorers and all of the economic nodes should go rogue all at once. Collude to change consensus. If you have a node you can detect this. It doesn't do much, because such a scenario is impossible in practice.
Not true because as I said, you can DDoS the current nodes or run more malicious nodes than that there currently are, because is cheap to do so
Non-mining nodes don't contribute to adding data to the blockchain ledger, but they do play a part in propagating transactions that aren't yet in blocks (the mempool). Bitcoin client implementations can have different validations for transactions they see outside of blocks and transactions they see inside of blocks; this allows for "soft forks" to add new types of transactions without completely breaking older clients (while a transaction is in the mempool, a node receiving a transaction that's a new/unknown type could drop it as not a valid transaction (not propagate it to its peers), but if that same transaction ends up in a block and that node receives the block, they accept the block (and the transaction in it) as valid (and therefore don't get left behind on the blockchain and become a fork). The participation in the mempool is a sort of "herd immunity" protection for the network, and it was a key talking point for the "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) around the time the Segregated Witness feature was trying to be added in. If a certain percentage of nodes updated their software to not propagate certain types of transactions (or not communicate with certain types of nodes), then they can control what gets into a block (someone wanting to get that sort of transaction into a block would need to communicate directly to a mining node, or communicate only through nodes that weren't blocking that sort of transaction) if a certain threshold of nodes adheres to those same validation rules. It's less specific than the influence on the blockchain data that mining nodes have, but it's definitely not nothing.
The first reasonable comment in that thread but is deep down there with only 1 upvote
The addition of non-mining nodes does not add to the efficiency of the network, but actually takes away from it because of the latency issue.
That is true and is actually a trade off you are making, sacrificing security to have scalability
The addition of non-mining nodes has little to no effect on security, since you only need to destroy mining ones to take down the network
It is true that if you destroy mining nodes you take down the network from producing new blocks (temporarily), even if you have a lot of non mining nodes. But, it still better than if you take down the mining nodes who are also the only full nodes. If the miners are not the only full nodes, at least you still have full nodes with the blockchain data so new miners can download it and join. If all the miners are also the full nodes and you take them down, where will you get all the past blockchain data to start mining again? Just pray that the miners that were taken down come back online at some point in the future?
The real limiting factor is ISP's: Imagine a situation where one service provider defrauds 4000 different nodes. Did the excessive amount of nodes help at all, when they have all been defrauded by the same service provider? If there are only 30 ISP's in the world, how many nodes do we REALLY need?
You cant defraud if the connection is encrypted. Use TOR for example, it is hard for ISP's to know what you are doing.
Satoshi specifically said in the white paper that after a certain point, number of nodes needed plateaus, meaning after a certain point, adding more nodes is actually counterintuitive, which we also demonstrated. (the latency issue). So, we have adequately demonstrated why running non-mining nodes does not add additional value or security to the network.
Again, what is the number of nodes that makes it counterproductive? Did he do any math?
There's also the matter of economically significant nodes and the role they play in consensus. Sure, nobody cares about your average joe's "full node" where he is "keeping his own ledger to keep the miners honest", as it has no significance to the economy and the miners couldn't give a damn about it. However, if say some major exchanges got together to protest a miner activated fork, they would have some protest power against that fork because many people use their service. Of course, there still needs to be miners running on said "protest fork" to keep the chain running, but miners do follow the money and if they got caught mining a fork that none of the major exchanges were trading, they could be coaxed over to said "protest fork".
In consensus, what matters about nodes is only the number, economical power of the node doesn't mean nothing, the protocol doesn't see the net worth of the individual or organization running that node.
Running a full node that is not mining and not involved is spending or receiving payments is of very little use. It helps to make sure network traffic is broadcast, and is another copy of the blockchain, but that is all (and is probably not needed in a healthy coin with many other nodes)
He gets it right (broadcasting transaction and keeping a copy of the blockchain) but he dismisses the importance of it
submitted by r0bo7 to btc [link] [comments]

What Bitcoin Miners Actually Do Noob's Guide To Bitcoin Mining - Super Easy & Simple - YouTube What Is Bitcoin Mining? - YouTube What It Was Like MINING Cryptocurrency Full-Time For A ... What is BitCoin ? பிட்காயின் என்றால் என்ன ? How to Earn ...

How Does Mining Work? Listening for Transactions. Bitcoin miners connect to the Bitcoin network like telephone operators. Miners use their computers to listen for transaction requests across the entire network and assemble a list of valid transactions. Bitcoins are not sent and received like file attachments in an email. For instance, bitcoin was the sole currency accepted on Silk Road, the Dark Web marketplace for drugs and other illicit goods and services that was shuttered by the FBI in 2013. An accepted share represents work that your miner did towards a round in a mining pool. When the pool finds a block, it distributes the block reward (i.e. 25BTC) to the miners according to how many shares they have contributed during that round. Bitcoin mining is the processing of transactions in the digital currency system, in which the records of current Bitcoin transactions, known as a blocks, are added to the record of past transactions, known as the block chain. Bitcoin mining is done by specialized computers. The role of miners is to secure the network and to process every Bitcoin transaction. Miners achieve this by solving a computational problem which allows them to chain together blocks of transactions (hence Bitcoin’s famous “blockchain”).. For this service, miners are rewarded with newly-created Bitcoins and transaction fees.

[index] [8404] [34526] [30304] [18425] [25243] [32570] [469] [19429] [19631] [27261]

What Bitcoin Miners Actually Do

బిట్ కాయిన్ గురించి పూర్తివివరాలు ఈ వీడియో చూసి తెలుసుకోండి ... What is BitCoin? how to earn ? Future of Curriencies? how to buy them, bitcoin mining , பிட்காயின் என்றால் என்ன? Tamil Tech Explained - Like and Share ... Where do Bitcoins come from, and what is Bitcoin "mining"? Peter van Valkenburgh, Director of Research at Coin Center, explains the role of miners in a syste... We are miners from 2013 looking to create community and help train and learn together as blockchain tech changes so quickly. Leave your thoughts in the comme... How Bitcoin mining actually works - What is the "cryptographic puzzle"? - Duration: 14:13. Keifer Kif 78,184 views. 14:13. How to BitCoin mine using fast ASIC mining hardware - Duration: 27:15.

#