On May 6th, 2017, Bitcoin hit an all-time high in transactions processed on the network in a single day: it moved 375,000 transactions which accounted for a nominal output of about $2.5b. Average fees on the Bitcoin network had climbed over a dollar for the first time a couple days prior. And they kept climbing: by early June average fees hit an eye-watering $5.66. This was quite unprecedented. In the three-year period from Jan. 1 2014 to Jan. 1 2017, per-transaction fees had never exceeded 31 cents on a weekly average. And the hits kept coming. Before 2017 was over, average fees would top out at $48 on a weekly basis. When the crypto-recession set in, transaction count collapsed and fees crept back below $1.
During the most feverish days of the Bitcoin run-up, when normal users found themselves with balances that would cost more to send than they were worth, cries for batching — the aggregation of many outputs into a single transaction — grew louder than ever. David Harding had written a blog post on the cost-savings of batching at the end of August and it was reposted to the Bitcoin subreddit on a daily basis.
The idea was simple: for entities sending many transactions at once, clustering outputs into a single transaction was more space- (and cost-) efficient, because each transaction has a fixed data overhead. David found that if you combined 10 payments into one transaction, rather than sending them individually, you could save 75% of the block space. Essentially, batching is one way to pack as many transactions as possible into the finite block space available on Bitcoin.
When fees started climbing in mid-2017, users began to scrutinize the behavior of heavy users of the Bitcoin blockchain, to determine whether they were using block space efficiently. By and large, they were not — and an informal lobbying campaign began, in which these major users — principally exchanges — were asked to start batching transactions and be good stewards of the scarce block space at their disposal. Some exchanges had been batching for years, others relented and implemented it. The question faded from view after Bitcoin’s price collapsed in Q1 2018 from roughly $19,000 to $6000, and transaction load — and hence average fee — dropped off.
But we remained curious. A common refrain, during the collapse in on-chain usage, was that transaction count was an obfuscated method of apprehending actual usage. The idea was that transactions could encode an arbitrarily large (within reason) number of payments, and so if batching had become more and more prevalent, those payments were still occurring, just under a regime of fewer transactions.
Some sites popped up to report outputs and payments per day rather than transactions, seemingly bristling at the coverage of declining transaction count. However, no one conducted an analysis of the changing relationship between transaction count and outputs or payments. We took it upon ourselves to find out.
Table Of Contents:
Introduction to batching
Bonus content: UTXO consolidation
- Introduction to batching
Bitcoin uses a UTXO model, which stands for Unspent Transaction Output. In comparison, Ripple and Ethereum use an account/balance model. In bitcoin, a user has no balances, only UTXOs that they control. If they want to transfer money to someone else, their wallet selects one or more UTXOs as inputs that in sum need to add up to the amount they want to transfer. The desired amount then goes to the recipient, which is called the output, and the difference goes back to the sender, which is called change output. Each output can carry a virtually unlimited amount of value in the form of satoshis. A satoshi is a unit representing a one-hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin. This is very similar to a physical wallet full of different denominations of bills. If you’re buying a snack for $2.50 and only have a $5, you don’t hand the cashier half of your 5 dollar bill — you give him the 5 and receive some change instead.
Unknown to some, there is no hardcoded limit to the number of transactions that can fit in a block. Instead, each transaction has a certain size in megabytes and constitutes an economic incentive for miners to include it in their block. Because miners have limited space of 2 MB to sell to transactors, larger transactions (in size, not bitcoin!) will need to pay higher fees to be included. Additionally, each transaction can have a virtually unlimited number of inputs or outputs — the record stands at transactions with 20,000 inputs and 13,107 outputs.
So each transaction has at least one input and at one output, but often more, as well as some additional boilerplate stuff. Most of that space is taken up by the input (often 60% or more, because of the signature that proves they really belong to the sender), while the output(s) account for 15–30%. In order to keep transactions as small as possible and save fees, Bitcoin users have two major choices:
Use as few inputs as possible. In order to minimize inputs, you can periodically send your smaller UTXOs to yourself in times when fees are very low, getting one large UTXO back. That is called UTXO consolidation or consolidating your inputs.
Users who frequently make transfers (especially within the same block) can include an almost unlimited amount of outputs (to different people!) in the same transaction. That is called transaction batching. A typical single output transaction takes up 230 bytes, while a two output transaction only takes up 260 bytes, instead of 460 if you were to send them individually.
This is something that many casual commentators overlook when comparing Bitcoin with other payment systems — a Bitcoin transaction can aggregate thousands of individual economic transfers! It’s important to recognize this, as it is the source of a great deal of misunderstanding and mistaken analysis.
We’ve never encountered a common definition of a batched transaction — so for the purposes of this study we define it in the loosest possible sense: a transaction with three or more outputs. Commonly, batching is understood as an activity undertaken primarily by mining pools or exchanges who can trade off immediacy for efficiency. It is rare that a normal bitcoin user would have cause to batch, and indeed most wallets make it difficult to impossible to construct batched transactions. For everyday purposes, normal bitcoiners will likely not go to the additional effort of batching transactions.
We set the threshold at three for simplicity’s sake — a normal unbatched transaction will have one transactional output and one change output — but the typical major batched transaction from an exchange will have dozens if not hundreds of outputs. For this reason we are careful to provide data on various different batch sizes, so we could determine the prevalence of three-output transactions and colossal, 100-output ones.
We find it helpful to think of a Bitcoin transaction as a mail truck full of boxes. Each truck (transaction) contains boxes (outputs), each of contains some number of letters (satoshis). So when you’re looking at transaction count as a measure of the performance and economic throughput of the Bitcoin network, it’s a bit like counting mail trucks to discern how many letters are being sent on a given day, even though the number of letters can vary wildly. The truck analogy also makes it clear why many see Bitcoin as a settlement layer in the future — just as mail trucks aren’t dispatched until they’re full, some envision that the same will ultimately be the case for Bitcoin.
- A timeline
So what actually happened in the last six months? Let’s look at some data. Daily transactions on the Bitcoin network rose steadily until about May 2017, when average fees hit about $4. This precipitated the first collapse in usage. Then began a series of feedback loops over the next six months in which transaction load grew, fees grew to match, and transactions dropped off. This cycle repeated itself five times over the latter half of 2017.
more like this on coinmetrics.io
The solid red line in the above chart is fees in BTC terms (not USD) and the shaded red area is daily transaction count. You can see the cycle of transaction load precipitating higher fees which in turn cause a reduction in usage. It repeats itself five or six times before the detente in spring 2018. The most notable period was the December-January fee crisis, but fees were actually fairly typical in BTC terms — the rising BTC price in USD however meant that USD fees hit extreme figures.
In mid-November when fees hit double digits in USD terms, users began a concerted campaign to convince exchanges to be better stewards of block space. Both Segwit and batching were held up as meaningful approaches to maximize the compression of Bitcoin transactions into the finite block space available. Data on when exchanges began batching is sparse, but we collected information where it was available into a chart summarizing when exchanges began batching.
Batching adoption at selected exchanges
We’re ignoring Segwit adoption by exchanges in this analysis; as far as batching is concerned, the campaign to get exchanges to batch appears to have persuaded Bitfinex, Binance, and Shapeshift to batch. Coinbase/GDAX have stated their intention to begin batching, although they haven’t managed to integrate it yet. As far as we can tell, Gemini hasn’t mentioned batching, although we have some mixed evidence that they may have begun recently. If you know about the status of batching on Gemini or other major exchanges please get in touch.
So some exchanges have been batching all along, and some have never bothered at all. Did the subset of exchanges who flipped the switch materially affect the prevalence of batched transactions? Let’s find out.
3.1 How common is batching?
We measured the prevalence of batching in three different ways, by transaction count, by output value and by output count.
Batching accounts for roughly 12% of all transactions, 40% of all outputs, and 30–60% of all raw BTC output value. Not bad.
3.2 Have batched transactions become more common over time?
From the chart in 3.1, we can already see a small, but steady uptrend in all three metrics, but we want to dig a little deeper. So we first looked at the relationship of payments (all outputs that actually pay someone, so total outputs minus change outputs) and transactions.
More at transactionfee.info/charts
The first thing that becomes obvious is that the popular narrative — that the drop in transactions was caused by an increase in batching — is not the case; payments dropped by roughly the same proportion as well.
Dividing payment count by transaction count gives us some insight into the relationship between the two.
In our analysis we want to zoom into the time frame between November 2017 and today, and we can see that payments per transactions have actually been rallying, from 1.5 payments per transaction in early 2017 to almost two today.
3.3 What are popular batch sizes?
In this next part, we will look at batch sizes to see which are most popular. To determine which transactions were batched, we downloaded a dataset of all transactions on the Bitcoin network between November 2017 and May 2018from Blockchair.
We picked that period because the fee crisis really got started in mid-November, and with it, the demands for exchanges to batch. So we wanted to capture the effect of exchanges starting to batch. Naturally a bigger sample would have been more instructive, but we were constrained in our resources, so we began with the six month sample.
We grouped transactions into “batched” and “unbatched” groups with batched transactions being those with three or more outputs.
We then divided batched transactions into roughly equal groups on the basis of how much total output in BTC they had accounted for in the six-month period. We didn’t select the batch sizes manually — we picked batch sizes that would split the sample into equal parts on the basis of transaction value. Here’s what we ended up with:
All of the batch buckets have just about the same fraction of total BTC output over the period, but they account for radically different transaction and output counts over the period. Notice that there were only 183,108 “extra large” batches (with 41 or more outputs) in the six-month period, but between them there were 23m outputs and 30m BTC worth of value transmitted.
Note that output value in this context refers to the raw or unadjusted figure — it would have been prohibitively difficult for us to adjust output for change or mixers, so we’re using the “naive” estimate.
Let’s look at how many transactions various batch sizes accounted for in the sample period:
Batched transactions steadily increased relative to unbatched ones, although the biggest fraction is the small batch with between 3 and 5 outputs. The story for output counts is a bit more illuminating. Even though batched transactions are a relatively small fraction of overall transaction count, they contain a meaningful number of overall outputs. Let’s see how it breaks down:
Lastly, let’s look at output value. Here we see that batched transactions represent a significant fraction of value transmitted on Bitcoin.
As we can see, even though batched transactions make up an average of only 12% of all transactions, they move between 30%-60% of all Bitcoins, at peak times even 70%. We think this is quite remarkable. Keep in mind, however that the ‘total output’ figure has not been altered to account for change outputs, mixers, or self-churn; that is, it is the raw and unadjusted figure. The total output value is therefore not an ideal approximation of economic volume on the Bitcoin network.
3.4 Has transaction count become an unreliable measure of Bitcoin’s usage because of batching?
Yes. We strongly encourage any analysts, investors, journalists, and developers to look past mere transaction count from now on. The default measure of Bitcoin’s performance should be “payments per day” rather than transaction count. This also makes Bitcoin more comparable with other UTXO chains. They generally have significantly variable payments-per-transaction ratios, so just using payments standardizes that. (Stay tuned: Coinmetrics will be rolling out tools to facilitate this very soon.)
More generally, we think that the economic value transmitted on the network is its most fundamental characteristic. Both the naive and the adjusted figures deserve to be considered. Adjusting raw output value is still more art than science, and best practices are still being developed. Again, Coinmetrics is actively developing open-source tools to make these adjustments available.
We started by revisiting the past year in Bitcoin and showed that while the mempool was congested, the community started looking for ways to use the blockspace more efficiently. Attention quickly fell on batching, the practice of combining multiple outputs into a single transaction, for heavy users. We showed how batching works on a technical level and when different exchanges started implementing the technique.
Today, around 12% of all transactions on the Bitcoin network are batched, and these account for about 40% of all outputs and between 30–60% of all transactional value. The fact such that a small set of transactions carries so much economic weight makes us hopeful that Bitcoin still has a lot of room to scale on the base layer, especially if usage trends continue.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that the increase in batching on the Bitcoin network may not be entirely due to deliberate action by exchanges, but rather a function of its recessionary behavior in the last few months. Since batching is generally done by large industrial players like exchanges, mixers, payment processors, and mining pools, and unbatched transactions are generally made by normal individuals, the batched/unbatched ratio is also a strong proxy for how much average users are using Bitcoin. Since the collapse in price, it is quite possible that individual usage of Bitcoin decreased while “industrial” usage remained strong. This is speculation, but one explanation for what happened.
Alternatively, the industrial players appear to be taking their role as stewards of the scarce block space more seriously. This is a significant boon to the network, and a nontrivial development in its history. If a culture of parsimony can be encouraged, Bitcoin will be able to compress more data into its block space and everyday users will continue to be able to run nodes for the foreseeable future. We view this as a very positive development. Members of the Bitcoin community that lobbied exchanges to add support for Segwit and batching should be proud of themselves.
- Bonus content: UTXO consolidation
Remember that we said that a second way to systematically save transaction fees in the Bitcoin network was to consolidate your UTXOs when fees were low? Looking at the relationship between input count and output count allows us to spot such consolidation phases quite well.
Typically, inputs and outputs move together. When the network is stressed, they decouple. If you look at the above chart carefully, you’ll notice that when transactions are elevated (and block space is at a premium), outputs outpace inputs — look at the gaps in May and December 2017. However, prolonged activity always results in fragmented UTXO sets and wallets full of dust, which need to be consolidated. For this, users often wait until pressure on the network has decreased and fees are lower. Thus, after transactions decrease, inputs become more common than outputs. You can see this clearly in February/March 2017.
Here we’ve taken the ratio of inputs to outputs (which have been smoothed on a trailing 7 day basis). When the ratio is higher, there are more inputs than outputs on that day, and vice versa. You can clearly see the spam attack in summer 2015 in which thousands (possibly millions) of outputs were created and then consolidated. Once the ratio spikes upwards, that’s consolidation. The spike in February 2018 after the six weeks of high fees in December 2017 was the most pronounced sigh of relief in Bitcoin’s history; the largest ever departure from the in/out ratio norm. There were a huge number of UTXOs to be consolidated.
It’s also interesting to note where inputs and outputs cluster. Here we have histograms of transactions with large numbers of inputs or outputs. Unsurprisingly, round numbers are common which shows that exchanges don’t publish a transaction every, say, two minutes, but instead wait for 100 or 200 outputs to queue up and then publish their transaction. Curiously, 200-input transactions were more popular than 100-input transactions in the period.
We ran into more curiosities when researching this piece, but we’ll leave those for another time.
Future work on batching might focus on:
Determining batched transactions as a portion of (adjusted) economic rather than raw volume
Looking at the behavior of specific exchanges with regards to batching
Investigating how much space and fees could be saved if major exchanges were batching transactions
Lastly, we encourage everyone to run their transactions through the service at transactionfee.info
to assess the efficiency of their transactions and determine whether exchanges are being good stewards of the block space.
Antoine Le Calvez has created a series of live-updated charts to track batching and batch sizes, which you can find here.
We’d like to thank 0xB10C for their generous assistance with datasets and advice, the people at Blockchair for providing the core datasets, and David A. Harding for writing the initial piece and answering our questions.
Note: you can read this on GitHub (link), Medium (link) or old Reddit (link) to see all the links. submitted by
: Version 1.3.0 RC1 (Release Candidate 1) is out! The main features of this release are significant performance improvements, including some that benefit SPV clients. Full release notes and downloads are on GitHub
The default minimum transaction fee rate was reduced from 0.001 to 0.0001 DCkB. Do not try to send such small fee transactions just yet, until the majority of the network upgrades.
Release process was changed
to use release branches and bump version on the master branch at the beginning of a release cycle. Discussed in this chat
The codebase is ready for the new Go 1.11 version. Migration to vgo module system is complete and the 1.4.0 release will be built using modules. The list of versioned modules and a hierarchy diagram are available here
The testnet was reset and bumped to version 3.
Comments are welcome for the proposal
to implement smart fee estimation, which is important for Lightning Network.
@matheusd recorded a code review video
for new Decred developers that explains how tickets are selected for voting. dcrwallet
: Version 1.3.0 RC1
features new SPV sync mode, new ticket buyer, new APIs for Decrediton and a host of bug fixes. On the dev side, dcrwallet also migrated
to the new module system. Decrediton
: Version 1.3.0 RC1
adds the new SPV sync mode that syncs roughly 5x faster. The feature is off by default while it receives more testing from experienced users. Other notable changes include a design polish and experimental Politeia integration. Politeia
: Proposal editing is being developed
and has a short demo
. This will allow proposal owners to edit their proposal in response to community feedback before voting begins. The challenges associated with this feature relate to updating censorship tokens and maintaining a clear history of which version comments were made on. @fernandoabolafio produced this architecture diagram
which may be of interest to developers.
@degeri joined to perform security testing of Politeia and found several issues
: mainnet explorer upgraded to v2.1 with several new features. For users: credit/debit tx filter on address page, showing miner fees on coinbase transaction page, estimate yearly ticket rewards on main page
, cool new hamburger menu and keyboard navigation. For developers: new chain parameters
page, experimental Insight API support, endpoints for coin supply and block rewards, testnet3 support. Lots of minor API changes and frontend tweaks, many bug fixes and robustness improvements.
The upcoming v3.0 entered beta and is deployed on beta.dcrdata.org
. Check out the new charts
page. Feedback and bug reports are appreciated. Finally, the development version v3.1.0-pre is on alpha.dcrdata.org
: updated to be compatible with the latest SPV code and is syncing, several performance issues are worked on. Details were posted in chat
. Alpha testing has started, to participate please join #dev
and ask for the APK. iOS
: backend is mostly complete, as well as the front end. Support for devices with smaller screens was improved. What works now: creating and recovering wallets, listing of transactions, receiving DCR, displaying and scanning QR codes, browsing account information, SPV connection to peers, downloading headers. Some bugs need fixing before making testable builds. Ticket splitting
: v0.6.0 beta released
with improved fee calculation and multiple bug fixes. docs
section that grouped some old articles as well as the new Politeia
@Richard-Red created a concept repository
sandbox with policy documents, to illustrate the kind of policies that could be approved and amended by Politeia proposals. decred.org
: 8 contributors
added and 4 removed, including 2 advisors (discussion here
Dev activity stats for August: 239 active PRs, 219 commits, 25k added and 11k deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2-10 developers per repository. (chart
Hashrate: went from 54 to 76 PH/s, the low was 50 and the new all-time high is 100 PH/s. BeePool share rose to ~50% while F2Pool shrank to 30%, followed by coinmine.pl at 5% and Luxor at 3%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 95.6 DCR (+3.0) as of Sep 3. During the month, ticket price fluctuated between a low of 92.2 and high of 100.5 DCR. Locked DCR represented between 3.8 and 3.9 million or 46.3-46.9% of the supply.
Nodes: there are 217 public listening and 281 normal nodes per dcred.eu
. Version distribution: 2% at v1.4.0(pre) (dev builds), 5% on v1.3.0 (RC1), 62% on v1.2.0 (-5%), 22% on v1.1.2 (-2%), 6% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Almost 69% of nodes are v.1.2.0 and higher and support client filters. Data snapshot of Aug 31.
Obelisk posted 3 email updates
in August. DCR1 units are reportedly
shipping with 1 TH/s hashrate and will be upgraded with firmware to 1.5 TH/s. Batch 1 customers will receive compensation
for missed shipment dates, but only after Batch 5 ships. Batch 2-5 customers will be receiving the updated slim design
the new D9+ DecredMaster
: 2.8 TH/s at 1,230 W priced $1,499. Specified shipping date was Aug 10-15. FFMiner DS19
claims 3.1 TH/s for Blake256R14 at 680 W and simultaneously 1.55 TH/s for Blake2B at 410 W, the price is $1,299
. Shipping Aug 20-25.
Another newly noticed miner offer is this
unit that does 46 TH/s at 2,150 W at the price of $4,720. It is shipping Nov 2018 and the stats look very close to Pangolin Whatsminer DCR
(which has now a page on asicminervalue
joined the list of stakepools
for a total of 16.
Australian CoinTree added
DCR trading. The platform supports fiat, there are some limitations
during the upgrade to a new system but also no fees
in the "Early access mode". On a related note, CoinTree is working
on a feature to pay household bills with cryptocurrencies it supports.
Three new OTC desks were added to exchanges
page at decred.org.
Two mobile wallets integrated Decred:
- Coinomi added Decred to their Android and iOS wallets. In addition to the Apple App Store and Google Play you can download the APK directly. Coinomi features an integrated cryptocurrency exchange and is the first company to offer a mobile Decred wallet.
- BitBill Android and iOS wallet also added Decred.
Reminder: do your best to understand the security and privacy model before using any wallet software. Points to consider: who controls the seed, does the wallet talk to the nodes directly or via middlemen, is it open source or not?
- Bit Dials announced DCR support via GloBee at their bitdials.eu luxury boutique. Their separate supercar and classic car shop bitcars.eu also accepts DCR, either via GloBee or with manual invoicing in case of privacy concerns.
- Sheldon Store re-enabled DCR payments. The shop sells gift cards for Amazon, iTunes, Netflix and many more.
Targeted advertising report for August was posted by @timhebel. Facebook appeal is pending, some Google and Twitter campaigns were paused and some updated. Read more here
Contribution to the @decredproject
Twitter account has evolved over the past few months. A #twitter_ops channel is being used on Matrix to collaboratively draft and execute project account tweets (including retweets). Anyone with an interest in contributing to the Twitter account can ask for an invitation to the channel and can start contributing content and ideas there for evaluation by the Twitter group. As a result, no minority or unilateral veto over tweets is possible. (from GitHub
- Meetup in Puebla City, Mexico, organized by @elian. (photo, slides, missed in July issue)
- @joshuam discussed Decred and decentralized organizations with Craig Laundy, Federal Minister for Small Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation with the Australian Government, at @YBFVentures. (photos)
- Meetup at @TheBlockCafe in Lisbon, Portugal. @mm presented "Decred 101 - Governance with Skin in the Game" and @moo31337 talked about Decred's 2018 roadmap. (photos: 1 2 3)
- Meetup in Taipei, Taiwan. @morphymore made a short intro of Decred and noted: "After the talk, many have approached to tell me that they literally don’t hear of Decred until today, and are interested in finding out more about the merit of a hybrid consensus system.". Longer report here, some photos and a video are here.
- @eSizeDave introduced Decred to the SILC Undergraduate Program students at @YBFVentures. (photo)
- OKEx Global Meetup Tour in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. @joshuam gave a brief presentation covering the history of Decred, how the project functions, and the importance of governance. Afterwards he joined a panel discussion and spoke about Decred's incentives for long term viability. (video, video, photo)
- Blockchain & Decentralised Governance Panel at @YBFVentures in Melbourne, Australia. @eSizeDave presented Decred, mini-report here. (photos: 1 2)
- Blockchain Futurist Conference in Toronto, Canada. @zubairzia0 noted: "Devs and the community were held in high regard for the people who knew about decred ... one positive thing I remember was someone defending us saying 'Decred does not need a booth', I believe that comment was reflective of the quality of projects being showcased at the conference.". (photo)
- Meetup at @YBFVentures in Melbourne, Australia. @joshuam discussed Decred with Graham Stuart, U.K. Minister for International Trade. (news, photos)
- Small meetup with Jackson Palmer in Melbourne, Australia. (photo)
- Voice of Blockchain in Chicago, USA. @moo31337 talked on Protocol Governance panel, Solving Scalability panel (video) and gave an interview, while @ay-p spoke on Decentralized Exchanges panel. Stakey made an appearance on the slides. (photos: 1 2 3 4 5)
- Hawthorne Street Fair in Portland, USA. Raedah Group was out answering questions about crypto and Decred. (photos)
- Blockchain APAC in Melbourne, Australia. @joshuam joined a panel discussion with reps from banking, university and ISO/TC 307. @eSizeDave reports: "This enterprise conference was indeed a whole lot better than I expected. The presentations were actually full of very worthwhile information from credible people, articulated aptly to a very government, academic, and corporate crowd, who genuinely took on board valuable insights. Good to know some of these key people are Decred holders and stakers as well. I got to use the entire day to speak directly with some of the most pivotal personalities in this particular populace. Ongoing relationships have been built and strengthened.". (photos: 1 2 3)
For those willing to help with the events:
BAB: Hey all, we are gearing up for conference season. I have a list of places we hope to attend but need to know who besides @joshuam and @Haon are willing to do public speaking, willing to work booths, or help out at them? You will need to be well versed on not just what is Decred, but the history of Decred etc... DM me if you are interested. (#event_planning)
The Decred project is looking for ambassadors. If you are looking for a fun cryptocurrency to get involved in send me a DM or come talk to me on Decred slack. (@marco_peereboom, longer version here)
Decred Assembly episode 21 is available
. @jy-p and lead dcrwallet developer @jrick discussed SPV from Satoshi's whitepaper, how it can be improved upon and what's coming in Decred.
Decred Assembly episodes 1-21 are available in audio only format here
New instructional articles on stakey.club
: Decrediton setup
, Deleting the wallet
, Installing Go
, Installing dcrd
, dcrd as a Linux service
. Available in both English and Portuguese
Decred scored #32 in the August issue
of Chinese CCID ratings. The evaluation model was explained in this interview
Satis Group rated Decred highly in their cryptoasset valuation research report
). This was featured by several large media outlets, but some did not link to or omitted
Decred entirely, citing
low market cap.
- Decred Investor Interviews: Ciarán O’Leary, General Partner, BlueYard Capital (medium)
- Decred Update Research Report by Node Blockchain (medium), and the corresponding full 11-page report (Google Drive)
- Is Decred worth my time and money? by Fabien Pelissier (medium), and the full 13-page Decred Analysis (PDF)
- Decred for Custody Providers by @bee (medium)
- The 3 Best-Performing Cryptocurrencies in 2018 (nulltx.com, missed in July issue)
- Decred Review (vivecrypto.com, missed in July issue)
- What is Decred? Everything about Decred, the wallet and the hybrid consensus (Dutch, currentcrypto.nl)
- Decred overview (Japanese, cryptocoinportal.jp, note: Decred's Coco is Amazing, according to Google Translate)
- What is Dark Red (Decred)? (Japanese, billion-coin.jp)
- Decred is the neglected gem among altcoins (captainaltcoin.com)
- What are the characteristics of Decred and where to buy? (Japanese, motto-money.com)
- What is hybrid virtual currency Decred? Explanation of features and future potential (Japanese, investor-a.com)
- What is DCR? Introduction to Decred (cryptobriefing.com)
- Cryptocurrencies in the Top 100 With Working Products That Are In-Use (investinblockchain)
- Top 3 Coins Crushing it in 2018 so Far! - Decred, VeChain, Binance Coin! by Decentralized TV (youtube)
- Decred review by Ultimate Money (youtube, missed in July issue)
- Interview with Marco Peereboom by BitBoy Crypto (youtube)
- Twitter followers 39,592 (+174)
- Reddit subscribers 8,631 (+119)
- Matrix users 163
- Slack users 6,067 (+103)
- YouTube subscribers 3,667
- Facebook 3,048 followers and 2,814 likes
- GitHub 417 (+14) stars and 1,021 (+44) forks of dcrd repository
Comm systems news:
- Interruptions in the chat bridge led to some Slack messages not reaching other platforms, and consequently not being archived in Matrix.
- Several impersonators were detected and banned.
- Inactive Slack channels were archived. If you miss them, let it be known.
- Mastodon was mentioned by several people as a possible alternative for Twitter.
- Two new Reddit rules were added to prevent CAPS flood and duplicate submissions.
After another debate about chat systems more people began testing and using Matrix, leading to some gardening on that platform:
- Decred Matrix community was created: +decred:decred.org, it helps to see all Decred-related rooms and people.
- #privacy and #design are now bridged.
- One private work channel was successfully migrated to Matrix.
- Stylish room avatars were set.
- @Haon has prepared a short guide to help new Matrix users get started and join the Decred rooms.
- A thread was started to discuss changes to Decred jargon with the intent to make it more consistent and accessible to newcomers. The question whether changing "official" terminology requires stakeholder approval was touched in this thread and in #documentation.
- Project fund transparency and constitution were extensively discussed on Reddit and in #general.
- Pre-proposal to use Politeia to approve Politeia as a legitimate decision-making tool for Decred.
Reddit: substantive discussion about Decred cons
; ecosystem fund
; a thread
about voter engagement, Politeia UX and trolling; idea
of a social media system for Decred by @michae2xl; how profitable
is the Obelisk DCR1.
Chats: cross-chain trading
via LN; plans
for contractor management system, lower-level decision making and contractor privacy vs transparency for stakeholders; measuring
dev activity; what if
the network stalls, multiple implementations of Decred for more resilience, long term vision behind those extensive tests and accurate comments in the codebase; ideas
for process for policy documents, hosting them in Pi and approving with ticket voting; about
SPV wallet disk size, how compact filters work; odds
of a wallet fetching a wrong block in SPV; new module system
in Go; security
of allowing Android app backups; why
PoW algo change proposal must be specified in great detail; thoughts
and SPV; prerequisites
for shipping SPV by default (continued
); Decred vs Dash treasury and marketing expenses
, spending other people's money; why
Decred should not invade a country, DAO and nation states, entangling with nation state is poor resource allocation; how
winning tickets are determined and attack vectors; Politeia
proposal moderation, contractor clearance, the scale of proposals and decision delegation, initial Politeia vote to approve Politeia itself; chat systems
, Matrix/Slack/Discord/RocketChat/Keybase (continued
of Korean exchanges; no breaking changes
in vgo; why
project fund burn rate must keep low; asymptotic
behavior of Decred and other ccs, tail emission; count of full nodes
and incentives to run them; Politeia proposal translations
and multilingual environment.
An unusual event was the chat about double negatives and other oddities in languages in #trading
DCR started the month at USD 56 / BTC 0.0073 and had a two week decline. On Aug 14 the whole market took a huge drop
and briefly went below USD 200 billion. Bitcoin went below USD 6,000 and top 100 cryptos lost 5-30%. The lowest point coincided with Bitcoin dominance peak at 54.5%. On that day Decred dived -17% and reached the bottom of USD 32 / BTC 0.00537. Since then it went sideways in the USD 35-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0064 range. Around Aug 24, Huobi showed DCR trading volume above USD 5M and this coincided with a minor recovery. @ImacallyouJawdy
posted some creative analysis based on ticket data.
an extensive article "ASIC Resistance is Nothing but a Blockchain Buzzword" that is much in line with Decred's stance on ASICs.
The ongoing debates
about the possible Sia fork
yet again demonstrate the importance of a robust dispute resolution mechanism. Also, we are lucky
to have the treasury.
Mark B Lundeberg, who found
a vulnerability in atomicswap earlier, published
a concept of more private peer-to-peer atomic swaps. (missed in July issue)
Medium took a cautious stance
on cryptocurrencies and triggered at least one project to migrate
to Ghost (that same project previously migrated
away from Slack).
Regulation: Vietnam bans
mining equipment imports, China halts
crypto events and tightens control of crypto chat groups.
Reddit was hacked
by intercepting 2FA codes sent via SMS. The announcement
explains the impact. Yet another data breach
suggests to think twice before sharing any data with any company and shift to more secure authentication systems.
Intel and x86 dumpsterfire keeps burning brighter
. Seek more secure hardware and operating systems for your coins.
Finally, unrelated to Decred but good for a laugh: yetanotherico.com
About This Issue
This is the 5th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub
. Past issues are available here
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit
or #writers_room on Matrix
Contributions are welcome too. Some areas are collecting content, pre-release review or translations to other languages. Check out @Richard-Red's guide
how to contribute to Decred using GitHub without writing code.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Haon, jazzah, Richard-Red and thedecreddigest.
NiceHash Miner v22.214.171.124 is a continuation of NiceHash Miner v1. This version is intended for experienced miners who need the fastest updates and maximum hash speed. NiceHash Miner — An advanced auto miner that supports the latest algorithms and miners. No need to view tons of configuration files, various versions of mining software, configuration settings or cryptocurrency coin market analysis. Just enter the data of the Bitcoin miner you are planning on buying and see how long it will take you to break even or make a profit. However, I can tell you from the get go that if you don’t have a few hundred dollars to spare you probably won’t be able to mine any Bitcoins. Once you’ve finished with your calculations it’s time to get your miner. Make sure to go over our different ... The current miner reward for Electroneum is 6,413.56 ETN, which is equal to $136 at today’s rate. Any user can win this reward. However, the more processing power (hash rate) a miner has, the more likely they are to solve the problem. Therefore, Electroneum mining pools are a good option for users mining on less powerful devices. Providers and plans are recommended/included based only on their utility in hosting full nodes. The recommended provider (Feral Hosting) has a plan that costs around $15 USD a month for 1TB of space and unlimited bandwidth. I have also included other seedbox providers that I trust, but I have not yet had a chance to run a node on them yet. If ... Running a Bitcoin full node comes with certain costs and can expose you to certain risks. This section will explain those costs and risks so you can decide whether you’re able to help the network. Special Cases. Miners, businesses, and privacy-conscious users rely on particular behavior from the full nodes they use, so they will often run their own full nodes and take special safety ... Miner fees are the cost your wallet pays for the computing power which confirms transactions on the Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash networks. Miner fees are not BitPay fees, and they cannot be refunded. These fees can be higher or lower depending on the number of transactions waiting to be confirmed on the Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash networks. Network Cost Fee. The Network Cost fee included in your ... bitcoin, bitcoin miner, cudaminer, cgminer, gpuminer; stratum mining proxy. uses SSE2, AVX an AVX2 instructions automatically; MultiMiner. MultiMiner is an app designed to monitor your bitcoin mining process from your desktop. It has a very nice feature that lets you switch individual devices between currencies, thus making it compatible with ... bitcoin miner linux free download. Invoice Ninja Invoice Ninja is a free and open source invoicing, expenses and time-tracking app built with Laravel How to start Bitcoin Mining Using USB ASIC. There are many USB ASIC miners out there, one of the more popular one is the GekkoScience Newpac which is an upgraded version of the older 2PAC version. This USB ASIC miner cost a fraction of a full fledged ASIC machine and retails at around 60 USD. Please note that using this miner will not get you ... Make sure to follow the instructions by your wallet on how to generate an address. With some wallets, after you’ve finished making an account, all you need to do is click on it and verify it through prompts, and that’s it. However, you may also ...
VIDEO LIBRARY HOW TO INSTRUCTIONS ... Buy Bitcoin with Credit Card on Binance Crypto Exchange https: //youtu.be/f6Mw5FQDnuQ. Comments are turned off. Learn more. Autoplay When autoplay is enabled ... This is not financial advice! If anyone has any questions about it let me know and I'll try and help out. If anyone has any questions about it let me know and I'll try and help out. GET OUT OF THE MARKET! YOU'RE BEING PLAYED!! Rich Dad Poor Dad Author Robert Kiyosaki and Bitcoin - Duration: 36:53. Digital Asset News 205,177 views Complete overview of Binance API cryptocurrency exchange I cover many topics including which market to be in and why. URL references include https://quantlab... #Binance Official Super Meetup - Taipei, July 2019 Visit us at www.binance.com Disclaimer: We respect our users' right to privacy and if there is any complaint/objection to being included in our ... Panduan sederhana cara pinjam bitcoin dan cara trading binance margin Support Channel Telegram SCAL : https://web.telegram.org/#/[email protected] WA : 0813... You should not take my opinion as financial advice. You should always do your research before making any investment. You should also understand the risks of investing. This is all speculative ... Every 4-5 days you can withdraw your mined bitcoins.Get massive hashing power for mining Bitcoin from your own pc with our unique algorithm. Approximately after 4-5 days you mining 0.05 - 0.1 BTC. Learn Step By Step how you can successfully withdraw bitcoin from your binance account into your wallet. Don't forget to give this video a thumbs up if your enjoyed it.