Hi everyone! I ran into Ethereum several months ago while reading about bitcoin and the blockchain and was quite impressed by some videos explaining the project (most of them by Vitalik himself). During this time I've tried to educate myself on this breakthrough technology. And at this point, I'd like to get a little more involved. I think that one easy way to contribute to this fascinating project is by running a full Ethereum node, so let me share some stuff of my experience of setting up an Ethereum node on Raspberry Pi 3. While doing some research about the best Ethereum client for my raspberry Pi 3 I realized that pretty much there are no ARM nodes on the network (according to ethernodes.org). Shouldn't be precisely the opposite? ARM devices such as Raspberry Pi have a good performance, are cheap and power-efficient. I looked into "EthEmbedded"  (great project, by the way) but it is mainly focused on Geth and Eth clients and you need to run the Ethereum clients manually. It's built on top of Ubuntu mate (and we need to keep things light). Besides, I was looking something more Flash & Play :-). So, I compiled Parity from source on my raspberry Pi 3 (which is the most efficient Ethereum client out there ) and gave it a try. I was really surprised with the overall performance and thought that it would be great to get an Ethereum node up and running easiest way possible. So, I built a custom Raspbian image which runs Parity as a boot up service and starts syncing the blockchain with no user interaction. This is what I got so far: A custom  Raspbian  image with Ethcore Parity 1.3  integrated. The image is generated using pi-gen  (plus a couple of files for Parity installation) Some remarks:
Parity was compiled from source according to Ethcore official documentation 
Parity binary is deployed through a debian package  (based on the official Ethcore Ubuntu x86 package plus some minor modifications )
MicroSD partition is resized automatically on first boot (this is a default Raspbian feature)
Parity runs as a Systemd service (as "pi" user) and it is started right after the network goes up. The Systemd option "Restart=always" is enabled for keeping Parity alive in case the process dies or gets killed
This is a Raspbian Lite Image (no Xorg environment) to save as much resources as possible.
Installation is pretty much flash and play. The idea is to quickly set up an Ethereum node even by non tech-savvy users.
Once the full blockchain is synced, Parity cpu load rarely goes beyond 40% which I think it's an outstanding performance for this kind of devices (Ethcore team did an amazing job here).
You can get the current Parity output by running "sudo systemctl status parity"
SSH is enabled by default so you can connect remotely to the Raspberry
Final thoughts: I think there are several reasons to try to increase Ethereum ARM nodes in the coming months:
Light clients are around the corner and this may affect the total number of Ethereum full nodes.
Share economy: Devices like Raspberry Pi's should be key components of web3 and IoT infraestructure. Conventional x86 computers are a waste of resources for this kind of tasks
POS: There's no much information regarding PoS but it would be great to use this kind of devices for the stake process (don't know if this is possible at all)
Let's do this. Mine is up and running :-) TL;DR: If you want to contribute to the Ethereum network, get a Raspberry pi 3, install the OS image into your microSD card, connect the ethernet cable and power on your device. This is it, flash and play :-), you are already running an Ethereum node!
NEWs To Come - last updated - April 5th, 2016 Ethereum’s ecosystem is growing so quickly, very exciting news has a habit of coming out of nowhere. That said, there are more than a few things to have on our radar. Thanks to help from this community, here’s a current list. As always, what am I missing?
Our faq page may also be helpful for many common questions connected to the news listed below.
Ethereum Blockchain Development
Metropolis - Includes user friendly Mist Browser and likely a light client.
Serenity - Major scalability improvement and Casper
With Casper, issuance of ETH drops between 0-2m a year, depending on staking rewards (think, a crypto version of dividends more than Bitcoin's mining).
Synereo partnership with a important update. "Synereo and Ethereum now have an end to end spec of a correct, fault tolerant architecture that is sharded, i.e. scales".
Sharding development news. Sharding is a game changer for Ethereum and could allow it to 10000+ transactions a second (Visa currently handles 2000 per second). While its success is starting to look inevitable, more specific news should be watched carefully.
Client updates - Ethereum’s clients are wide ranging - Go, C++, Python, Rust, Java, Ruby, .net. This allows Ethereum to attract developers with a wide range of programming backgrounds and empowers Ethereum for more applications. It was a VERY smart strategy by the founders of Ethereum. Watching the news for client updates is important.
Coin relays and interoperability One very powerful aspect of Ethereum’s blockchain is it allows both formal relays between blockchains as well as general interoperability between chains. Relays allow Ethereum to empower other blockchains, basically letting these more classic chains (like Bitcoin and Dogecoin) use Ethereum as a service for smart contracts. This “bonded sidechain” is more powerful/flexible path to using smart contracts than building non-currency agnostic chains. Similarly, interoperability is a classic concept in software development with over 30 years of history. Ethereum’s Virtual Machine (EVM) greatly facilitates multi-chain interoperability – which could allow private chains to communicate with Ethereum’s public chain. Basically, Ethereum facilitates “chaining all the things”. In other words, even future private chains could interoperate with the Ethereum public blockchain to have a gateway between their secured private chain and the more global public chain. Private chain development is a GOOD thing under this model, even if that private chain is not an Ethereum fork. Current examples
Public Dapps and/or ventures to keep an eye on Ethereum ecosystem is growing in unbelievable way with well over a 100 DApps. Below are some DApps and ventures that have been commonly discussed and seem to be generating news sooner than later.
Many of Ethereum's 100+ DApps will fail, but it only takes one to succeed to bring Ethereum to the mainstream. That said, sadly, there will also be scams. We should never forget Bitcoin's NeoBee or any of the MANY failed exchanges. As a community, we'll want to keep a close eye out in more ways than one. Be enthusiastic but critical - with transparency being absolutely key to trust. Developer tools to keep an eye on
Eth(Emedded) "Providing successful builds of Ethereum Clients for multiple, Linux based, ARM embedded devices"
Potential surprises that are not really surprises
Anything China – ETH's value has largely been independent of anything to do with China, that must inevitability change.
OKcoin inclusion (largest exchange in China, insane history with price boosts)
Gemini inclusion (New Yorkers access to ETH)
Parting statement Ethereum has essentially a monopoly on smart contracts, and from the list above, it should be clear that it has built a remarkable network effect around this ecosystem. It is a disruptive technology, that fosters synergies, and when put in a greater perspective, it’s market cap remains quite tiny, especially when you think of the relative size of the growing community. Please let me know if there is something you'd like to see.
R3 CEV, a consortium of 10+ big banks announce they used ethereum to test using blockchain technology for their interbank settlements of off-chain registered assets.
ConsenSys launches 'Internet-of-People'. ConsenSys, BlockApps, and Canonical form team to deliver Nimbus uPort Biometric Digital Identity Ethereum tools on Ubuntu phones so users can access Ethereum safely. The project will be fully unveiled on Mobile World Congress later in February.
European energy giant RWE partners with (ex ETHDEV) Stephan and Christoph'sSlock.it to tackle autonomous electric charging stations with smart contracts. News giving a whole new meaning to pump and dump.
Ethereum's advantages for Bitcoin highlight how Ethereum has won the smart contract market for years to come - at a minimum
If you're new to Ethereum, but in love with Bitcoin, you may be thinking, "well, Ethereum is winning now, but Rootstock is still a contender". This topic come up frequently and has been addressed community members quite well. Because posts get censored elsewhere, and deleted over time, I thought I'd reiterate the points here. tl;dr Using Ethereum to create bonded side chains has advantage to Bitcoin holders that cannot be obtained by non-currency agnostic chains (such as the proposed chain called Rootstock). Ethereum is better for Bitcoin, and with PoS, is more secure. Rootstock is currently a proposal to be the path to creating smart contracts with Bitcoin. There is this idea out there called “bitcoin maximalization” in which a some cryptocurrency enthusiasts will only accept Bitcoin as THE blockchain of the future. Well, the challenge with that idea is that, while Bitcoin was the first successful blockchain, it is also slow, expensive, and the least-developed. Bitcoin maximalists believe that will change. They believe that bitcoin will adapt. They think Bitcoin will incorporate more technological innovation and maintain global dominance. Sadly, this belief still holds true for many, despite the clear conflicts between mining, development, and exchanges that have driven the long drawn out block size debate. Bitcoin ability to adapt and incorporate new technology is clearly questionable. One technological revolution brought on by Ethereum has been the smart contract (programmable automated contracts). Ethereum has had a year long monopoly on this innovation, and the monopoly appear to be maintain for the foreseeable future. Bitcoin maximalists do not like that idea. They feel it is a threat to Bitcoin dominance. While bitcoin and Ethereum COULD make lovely music together, the idea that Bitcoin could lose its dominant position (by market cap) is likely true. Ethereum has many more use cases. This doesn’t mean Bitcoin will go extinct. As a streamlined, non-bloated, currency, it may still be very useful, but I digress. What if Bitcoin could simply gain Ethereum’s technological sophistication? Rootstock desires to do just that, well, sort of, and for a piece of the pie. For that reason, it’s often promoted by /Bitcoin (a highly censored bitcoin community similar /btc). So how will Rootstock plan to achieve this? First, understand Rootstock is currently vapor. An idea and an implementation can be worlds apart. At the time of this post, there is not a single line of code on Github, while Ethereum has just matured to "Homestead" and is running perfectly. While some describe Rootstock as “open source”, currently, nothing is open. Ethereum development took years to get where it is today, and the open aspect of the development led to Etherum’s current remarkable sophistication and stable platform. But let’s assume, fairly, that Rootstock does eventually emerge from vapor. Rootstock developers are borrowing some of Ethereum’s technology. Thus, in some sense, some of the work is provided for them thanks to Ethereum. Of course, it is easy to overstate. You can’t just cut and paste Ethereum and have it work. It requires a massive amount of development. So what will Rootstock look like. Currently, they have two major version planned:
1) Smart contract via a 2-way peg,
2) Smart contract by merge mining.
vovobov (throwaway account) had this nice contribution:
Ethereum as a bonded sidechain of Bitcoin with advantages over Rootstock What is a sidechain? According to block stream: A sidechain is a blockchain that validates data from other blockchains Ethereum already does that with BTC Relay. So how about pegged assets?
Two-way peg refers to the mechanism by which coins are transferred between sidechains and back at a fixed or otherwise deterministic exchange rate.
A pegged sidechain is a sidechain whose assets can be imported from and returned to other chains; that is, a sidechain that supports two-way pegged assets.
This is an idea for an Ethereum contract that makes Bitcoin-backed tokens without any softfork or trusted Bitcoin multisig managers. Instead, Bitcoin IOU's are created on the Ethereum blockchain and backed by Ether bonds which are governed by Ethereum contracts like BTC Relay or price oracles. The Bitcoin IOUs are backed by Bitcoins held by the escrow managers but if they steal/lose the Bitcoins (or refuse to redeem them) the Bonded Escrow Contract will observe their naughty behaviour and sell their Ether bond to redeem the Bitcoins from someone else! Rootstock vs Bonded Escrow Contract on Ethereum There are two methods that Rootstock developers plan to use for issuing Bitcoin IOUs (called "Roots") on their Bitcoin "sidechain". AFAIU the first involves merged mining and a multisig wallet that entrusts a quorum of Bitcoin miners with the entire basket of Bitcoin eggs that were "moved" to the Rootstock chain. The second method requires softforking the Bitcoin blockchain for a two-way peg. Pseudonymous, distributed, untrusted issuers Rootstock dev maaku7:
“It's a known trade-off made by any presently deployable implementation of the 2-way peg. It's also something that we were very upfront about in the sidechains paper, and part of the reason why many of us are so concerned about decentralization of bitcoin mining. In any non-SNARK, non-extension-block version of the 2-way peg a bitcoin node does not perform full validation of the sidechain as part of the consensus rules. Therefore it is perfectly possible (by design) for a threshold majority of the miners / signers to steal the coins in the peg pool, and censor any attempt to stop them. Why by design? Because that's the promise of sidechains: performant permissionless innovation at the cost of SPV trust in the honest majority of signers / miners. Sidechains we are working on (e.g. Alpha, Liquid) and Rootstock, by the looks of it, make use of a fixed set of signers instead of or in addition to reliance on >50% honest hashpower. This is because while less pure, it is ultimately safer to work with known, contracted entities as functionaries rather than 50% hashpower which at the moment is just a small handful of unaccountable people. EDIT: Although obviously the ideal end goal is fully decentralized mining, where creating a 50% hashpower cabal requires organizing thousands of people at minimum. In such a case we may be able to consider a pure SPV peg to have a reasonable security model. But we're a long way from there yet...”
says this about sidechain security:
“In any non-SNARK, non-extension-block version of the 2-way peg a bitcoin node does not perform full validation of the sidechain as part of the consensus rules. Therefore it is perfectly possible (by design) for a threshold majority of the miners / signers to steal the coins in the peg pool, and censor any attempt to stop them. Why by design? Because that's the promise of sidechains: performant permissionless innovation at the cost of SPV trust in the honest majority of signers / miners.”
Ether bonds can remove most of the need for this trust and allow pseudonymous, permissionless participation in issuance and escrow management. Without anonymous, untrusted validators, distributed around the world, Bitcoin is looking more and more like Chinese Liberty Reserve or E-gold. … Bonded sidechains decentralize pegged assets Even with a Bitcoin softfork, Rootstock has just one Bitcoin IOU with all the Bitcoins sitting like a duck in one "wallet". Since Roots are just one Bitcoin IOU from one issuer, they can't be used to back/bond IOUs the way Ether can. If Rootstock's multisig/SPV wallet is robbed by it's signers/miners or (as they always say) hackers, the value of Roots become "zero" along with any asset or contract using Roots. Ether continues to have value if Bitcoins are stolen. Theft just thins out the herd and makes people more cautious. Ether bonds make issuers mostly responsible for their IOUs with IOU holders assuming some risk if Ether loses too much value to Bitcoin. Issuing servers and indie issuers A basic Bonded Escrow Contract is practically complete since BTC Relay does the difficult part. "Bonded Escrow Contract" is completely decentralized and requires no modification to Bitcoin. It would allow anyone to "anonymously" manage Bitcoin escrow wallets or issue Bitcoin IOUs. They only need to obtain Ether for the bond, send it to the Bonded Escrow Contract along with their Bitcoin escrow address and the terms of the IOU they wish to create. Indie issuers don't have to babysit a "server" (that needs to be online all the time) if they create IOU contracts that won't have harsh penalties if they take some time to redeem the tokens. IOU buyers who want faster redemption can buy IOU's from issuing servers. Issuers are free to choose alternatives to SPV such as prediction markets, to verify Bitcoin transactions. Bonded Escrow Contract options Here are some options that the Bonded Escrow Contract could make available: * Designate how much Bitcoin the IOU tokens are to be worth and how much Ether will back them. This may be a fixed rate or it may be based on other Ethereum price oracle contracts. If a price oracle is used the issuer may have to add Ether to prevent the IOU from going into default if the Ether price goes down relative to Bitcoin. * Set exchange or rental rates for the Bitcoin IOUs. These rates may be in Ether and/or Bitcoin and could be based on oracle/derivatives contracts. When IOUs aren't redeemed (right away) What happens if the IOU's are sent back to the issuer but the Bitcoins aren't released right away?
Set grace period where there is no penalty. After this you have these options.
Set the rate of an Ether stream that is sent slowly from the escrow contract until the value of the bonded Ether gets too close to the value of the Bitcoins in escrow. At this point, all the Ether is transfered from the issuer to the "creditor" (or to another contract).
The user who is waiting on the Bitcoins may choose to take some of the bonded Ether instead. This option sets the rate to buy some of the bonded Ether from the Bonded Escrow Contract instead of waiting for the Bitcoins.
The contract may automatically use the Ether to buy Bitcoins from a more reliable issuer. Or the creditor may be given the option to do this manually.
In more recent news: Rootstock devs (RSK) clarified that instead of creating a token, like Ether, which is sold to the public to fund initial development. With Rootstock, “every time a person or a corporation runs a smart contract on RSK, 80% of the fuel paid goes to the miners and the remaining 20% to RSK Labs, so we can continue the development of the open source platform”. In other words, Rootstock is a sidechain business venture centrally controlled by RSK. Unlike Ethereum, it is NOT a public resource. This does not foster independent, open source, development, such as what we are seeing with ventures like Ethcore and Consensys and well, the many many other Ethereum developers well deserving of attention. If you’re planning to build on Rootstock, RSK labs get a cut of your expenses. Enjoy having a new boss. That doesn’t exist with Ethereum!!! The Ethereum Foundation started the enterprise, but Ethereum development is already much bigger than a single foundation. sjalq also makes these fair comments:
2-way decentralized pegs do not yet exit.
People are not going to be very elated about the FedPeg, but I don't suspect this will do much to inhibit RSK token exchange. ShapeShift will for instance allow for an RSK to BTC exchange.
It merge mines with Bitcoin. OI VE! Talk about an anti-feature. This exposes RootStock to all the problems associate with the great firewall while trying to accomplish sub 10sec block times? What if it becomes obvious that RootStock is now worth more than Bitcoin and Bitcoin becomes this empty shell that does nothing but "burn" Bitcoins into RootStock?
RSK trades at 1:1 to the Bitcoin. Think about this for a second. It's like going to college, studying a medical degree for 10 years and then equally distributing your income to all your family members and extended family. Even if RootStock is faster, better, more secure than Ethereum. This one single "feature" cripples it. The RootStock ecosystem will never see most of this value. They are giving all their money to rich Bitcoiners who took no risk building their network. ...
It doesn't much matter that it is EVM compatible. I can launch another Ethereum blockchain today with no token value. The problem isn't compatibility but the value of the state of the blockchain. IE Digix will not only have to relaunch their network on RSK but they'll have to import and close off their state on Ethereum or write and move to Bitcoin.
All the features they build can be forked by building a network that isn't 20% more expensive to fund it's development. RootStock will basically get a RootStock of its own.
Add to this is that Ethereum's PoS will be far more scalable, with Casper development reaching high levels of sophistication. Basically, unless you absolutely refuse to hold anything but Bitcoin, there is no reason to ever use what's proposed for Rootstock. It's less capable, less secure, less scalable, more centralized, and will be two years behind Ethereum's remarkable network effect (at a minimum). Ethereum's monopoly is going no where for the foreseeable future. Update: March 18th 2016 What About Counterparty?
In most repects, Counterparty's model has the exact same issues as Rootstock's outlined above, so it's the same problems as that described above. Unlike Rootstock, there will be an altcoin, but instead of currency agnostics, it's connected only to bitcoin.
Counterparty is also greatly limited by bitcoin's slow blocktime.
Detail discussion here.. Basically, Counterparty's model is a model that the Ethereum founders abandoned because it is a technologically poor decision.
"many ex-xcp developers who are migrating to Ethereum due to ease of development and better tools. [such as Bitnation] ... Also I don't understand the advantage of counterparty 'using Bitcoin': they also have their own token and their own Blockchain, what is gained by having a ten minute block time?"
"The 'there's only one Blockchain' crowd is what we call 'Bitcoin maximalism'. I think this is more a political position than a pragmatic one: Ethereum Blockchain is secure and created from the ground up for contracts. Counterparty is hack trying to put them into a Blockchain that wasn't made for it and doesn't seem to want contracts. I do wish them the best, I just never saw their software stack."
"... they claimed they had cloned us and then the next day Vitalik answered that he had implemented counterparty in X lines of codes in ethereum."
VB response to "What Ethereum can do that Counterparty cannot"
<15s block time
Light client support
Lack of exposure to Bitcoin development politics (personally, I think this point alone is enough to outweigh whatever 8x difference in dollars wasted per hour on PoW the maximalists like to wave around, and was the original reason for not making ethereum itself a bitcoin-based metacoin)
Lack of exposure to the possibility of Paul Sztorc convincing bitcoin miners that XCP decreases the value of BTC and so should be censored by miners.
Lack of artificially low block size limit
Has a coherent long-term scalability roadmap
Just to throw a bitcoin maximalist argument right back at them, ETH has way better liquidity than XCP so there's less overhead in acquiring the token to pay fees (alongside other network effects like developer tools, user community, etc)
We have DELEGATECALL implemented, they as I understand don't
VB does give Counterparty one benefit
"That said, counterparty is more closely linked to the bitcoin blockchain, so it's easier to make crowdsales that accept bitcoin directly; that's the primary point in favor of a bitcoin blockchain-based metacoin. Though now btcrelay makes up for quite a bit of that difference."
Not to mention that the LISK contracts will be stored in plaintext, which means they'll be vastly more expensive to publish.
OK, so Bitcoin focused smart contracts and LISK are bad ideas, but sometimes bad ideas win, after all, bla bla "network effect" Ethereum already has its own network effect within the smart contract space. Bitcoin is far behind. There really is no mechanism to catch up. At this time, there appears to be just as much fresh money going into Ethereum development as Bitcoin, if not more (200+ project and counting) and over a billion dollars in investments estimated this year by Vinay Gupta. Bitcoin is certainly used as a currency in more places, but its use as a currency is still pretty much a joke. An Ethereum credit card would make this "currency network effect" absolutely pointless. What people don't seem to get it that Bitcoin's market cap is larger as an artifact of it being around longer, but soon, that will change. The amount of new investment in Ethereum, the number of devs deeply involved in Ethereum projects, has already made Bitcoin's history irrelevant. It seems very obvious to me. In my opinion, it really is over already. Ethereum has already won its place as the primary public blockchain. It's just a matter of time before people realize it. And some very clever investors, already have.
Good morning all, I am submitting our Altcoin Assembly Weekly two days early because of some prior committments this coming Sunday. Enjoy! And as always, looking forward to some great discussion around this. Our focus this week is on Blockchain Capital. Blockchain Capital (www.blockchain.capital) (formerly Crypto Currency Partners) is a venture capital company that invests in blockchain related companies. It is headquartered in San Francisco, California. It was founded in October 2013 by Bart Stephens, Bradford Stephens and Brock Pierce. To say they invest in blockchain related companies is an understatement. They ONLY invest in ventures inside the space. As of now anyway, who knows if that may change in the future. They are one of the few VCs that do this. Bart and Brad are brothers who have been involved in the financial sector for quite some time. Bart started his career at e-trade in the FinTech sector while his brother was a former hedge fund manager at Fidelity. They also ran one together for ten years. Brock Pierce is someone that you may know as Chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation. All three combined bring a wealth of experience to the venture. Having a quick look at their advisory board, it reads names like Vinny Lingham, Bobby Lee and Charlie Lee among traditional financial corporate heavyweights. Entrepreneur and self titled Disruptepreneur, Jeremy Gardner resides at Blockchain Capital as well. He is an Augur co-founder. They are currently invested in 40+ companies and have a proven record of exits as well. See below this post for their current holdings and past acquisitions which are publicly available. Another part of their business is money management, usually for family offices, high net worth individuals including 25 Bitcoin CEOS. The aim of Blockchain Capital is to invest in early stage fundraising, meaning they will meet with teams that may only have a small group of devs and a PowerPoint presentation. That’s a great position to be in since this is where the most money can be made if prospects can pass their criteria. Primarily, they want to see strong engineering teams with a proven track record of success. The opportunities need to lie in places where there is a large total available market, have an engineering advantage or a new business model that sits overtop free to use hardware/software models. Go big or go home right? Investing in A, B or C round is something they don’t ignore either. Their ICO has happened already (April 10 to May 17, 2016) and it was successful. Their ticker is BCAP, an Ethereum based smart contract token. They raised $10MM in 6 hours, self-proclaiming they were oversold. This is 20% of the total funds they are raising. The rest will come through traditional channels and will not have a token. Though their token supply is also 10MM, valuing each $1.00. As of this (Sunday, June 4, 2017, the value of BCAP is currently $1.73. The token represents an indirect fractional non-voting economic interest in Blockchain Capital. The sales were only available to accredited investors. Interested parties had to submit documentation to confirm their identity and net worth/income. A complete turnaround from how ICOs are usually currently conducted. They could be setting the way for how future sales happen. Keep in mind this isn’t a completely new concept. From what I know, they have been in touch with the Federal Reserve on how to structure this so I feel it wasn't done blindly or without guidance. What they did here was disrupt the very industry they work in. And why wouldn’t they try to? It makes perfect sense. Why wait for someone else to do it? Your local cab company didn’t start Uber. Netflix isn't owned by Blockbuster. Look where those two are now. One is struggling to catch up and the other is defunct. This is a perfect example of a firm who sees blockchain technology as both a threat and an opportunity. The funds raised from their ICO will be split 50/50. Half will be for new ventures. The remaining for follow-up investments. Their token grants holders a portion of the profits earned by their investment fund. They wish to spread $500,000 per investment which means 20 deals at that rate. Blockchain Capital will take a 2.5% management fee from that plus a 25% performance fee calculated on the returns. The remainder of the profits will be distributed to the token holders. Further, a token buyback provision will also enable them to purchase tokens on the open market. This would be in the event that their market value tumbles below their net asset value. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this. As mentioned, this isn't an ICO we're used to seeing although this isn't the first of its kind. I do not own any BCAP and I’m hoping u/laughncow can add something here given that he met and spoke with Brock Pierce at his party in NYC during Consensus 2017. Portfolio includes: o Coinbase – (https://www.coinbase.com) o ABRA - (https://www.goabra.com/) o AlphaPoint -(https://alphapoint.com/) o Bitaccess - (https://www.bitaccess.co/) o BitFury - (http://www.bitfury.org/) o BitGo - (https://www.bitgo.com/) o Blade - (http://www.bladepayments.com/) o BitPesa - (https://www.bitpesa.co/) o BLOCKCYPHER -(http://www.blockcypher.com/) o Blockstream - (http://www.blockstream.com/) o BTCC - (https://www.btcchina.com/) o Chain - (https://chain.com/) o Civic - (https://www.civic.com/) o ETHCORE - (https://parity.io/) - Led by Gavin Wood, with Fenbushi who VB is a partner in o Expresscoin - (https://www.expresscoin.com/) o Gem - (https://gem.co/) o Go - (https://www.gocoin.com/) o itBit - (https://www.itbit.com/) o Kraken - (https://www.kraken.com/) o LedgerX - (https://ledgerx.com/) o Noble - (http://noblex.io/) o PEERNOVA - (http://peernova.com/) o Ripple - (https://ripple.com/) o SFOX - (https://www.sfox.com/) o SNAPCARD – (https://www.snapcard.io/) o Stampery - (https://stampery.com/) o Stem - (http://stem.is/) o String - (http://string.technology/) o TIERION - (https://tierion.com/) o WAVE - (www.wavebl.com/) o Xapo - (https://xapo.com/es/) o zenbox o zipzap - (http://zipzapinc.com/) o ShapeShift - (https://shapeshift.io/) o Ox - (https://0xproject.com/) Exits include: o Authy – Acquired by Twilio o Bex.io - Acquired by Klinch o Bitnet - Acquired by Rakuten o ChangeTip - Acquired by Airbnb o Coinsetter - Acquired by Kraken Side note: Had you not participated in the ICO for whatever reason, they also have an AngelList network that allows smaller investors to get in on their deals with as little as $1K. I think this is smart on their part to extend and flex their financial reach. You can visit their page here, (https://angel.co/blockchain-capital) Edit: Formatting
Thank you MEW ( MyEtherWallet ) (89 points, 32 comments)
The #2 reason to be invested in Ethereum (87 points, 26 comments)
Which burden do you want to carry: Going to PoS with an anti-Ethereum hacker holding (1)5 % of the Ethers? Or having an anti-principle fork in the history of the network which prevented exactly that? (81 points, 95 comments)
A new Bitcoin crisis: Bitcoin is suffering from a brain drain, accelerating Ethereum's brain gain (71 points, 22 comments)
Which burden do you want to carry: Going to PoS with an anti-Ethereum hacker holding (1)5 % of the Ethers? Or having an anti-principle fork in the history of the network which prevented exactly that? (80 points, 95 comments)
TL;DRThere are some misconceptions about forking out there. Here are some information about soft and hard forks and what they mean in the context of the dao attack. The past two days I have read a lot of reddit posts, comments, blog posts and media article regarding whether one should (soft and/or hard) fork or not as a reaction to the dao attack. I have noticed that there are many common misconceptions on what a soft/hard fork is, what these forks mean and how the process of forking looks like. In my opinion it is essential to clear up these misunderstandings in order to give every community member the best possibility to form a profound opinion and have a fruitful and action-oriented discourse. Definitions of soft and hard forks I assume that this post is most important for community members without technical background therefore I keep the following defintions simple: Soft fork: A soft fork is a change in the protocol (set of rules) in a way that some previous valid transactions/blocks are no longer valid. Since everyone following the old rule set will recognise the new blocks as valid, a softfork is backward-compatible. Hard fork: A hard fork is a change in the protocol (set of rules) in a way that some previous invalid transactions/blocks are valid after the change. So how could the forks regarding the dao attack look like? Soft fork: The doa attacker drained part of theDAO's fund in a child dao which is a new theDAO contract. Each dao contract has the same hash. A possible soft fork could disallow value transaction from contracts with these specific hash. The ether would be locked and can't be transfered anylonger. Hard fork: In a hard fork all rule changes are possible. A hard fork would be required for getting the ether drained in the child dao back in the mother dao contract. This could be done be reverting all illegimate splits. Then one could deploy this contract and set the rule to forward every interaction of the mother dao to this new DAO which only functionality is to withdraw. Other common misconceptions: A hard fork means there will be a rollback and the Ether I just bought will vanish. As I said before, in a hard fork all rule changes are possible and in principle even rollbacks. Nevertheless a rollback -a reversion of all transaction to a specific block- is absolutely unlikely to get community consensus and surely not indispensable in hard forks. Hard forks which might be proposed will only revert specific transaction if any (e.g.illegimate splits). In a fork situation the miners decide which chain will "win". One could say that in order to have a successful and reliable soft fork (eg. the dao attack soft fork) a coordination of miner would be helpful but in general soft and hard forking is much more community consensus. Ethereum is much more flexible in adjusting the difficulty than Bitcoin. In Bitcoin it would result in a disaster if a large portion of miners decide to go along with the other chain than the rest of the community since the block time would increase enormously on the commonly used chain. Therefore forks in Bitcoin are prevoted by the miners - and yes in Bitcoin one can argue it is miner's choice. In Ethereum that's not the case. In a fork scenario a client version with the fork and one without it is released. Then each community member decides which branch to go along simply by using one chain eg sending transaction, trading coins and running contracts/dapps with or without the forked client version. Exchanges most likely follow the demand of the community members. Under the assumption that a miner is a buisness man, miners therefore choose the chain to mine on which they earn most. Miners choose the chain n where X(n)=(Hashrate/TotalHashrate(n))*CoinValue(n) is maximum. As you can see miners decision depends on the CoinValue of each chain which depends highly on the community decision. Forking is an evil thing and should be avoided under every circumstances. In my opinion forking the protocol of a blockchain has 3 purposes: 1) Keep the consensus system alive. Forks are needed for bug fixing or are used to disincentivize attacks game theoretically. 2) Improve the consensus system. Forks provide the possibility to add functionality or improve certain aspects of the consensus system. 3) Set and redefine the moral framework the consensus system runs in. In my opinion forking is the purest form of social consensus. People come together in order to discuss, negatiate and finally form an agreement or build a new rule set. This can be done for fixing an previous agreement or for improving the capability of the previous agreement. Furthermore it can redefine or extends the morality of the previous agreement. Ethereum is a consensus system where 'code is law'. It is a system which is build for human interaction (at least it is a tool for humans) but, nevertheless, it lacks of empathy. IMHO it is the duty of its community to take care of the system and check once in a while if the moral framework has to be adjusted. So another important purpose of forks is to adjust the moral framework the consenus system runs in. I dont think forking is evil. It is an indispensable tool. To illustrate the idea of this moral framework, I posted a thought experiment here. Check it out and discuss about how the moral framework of Ethereum should look like.
http://www.globalcorporateventuring.com/ Global Corporate Venturing is the media publication and data provider for the corporate venture capital industry. It has a unique database, GCV Analytics, to which numerous Fortune 1000 companies subscribe, and it runs multiple global events, with flagship conferences in Silicon Valley and London
15 Vitalik Buterin, Wanxiang One of the most regular expectations from corporate venturers is there will be more cross-sector collaboration and innovative ideas funded. The poster child for how this can happen involves China-based auto parts maker Wanxiang, which has set up a $50m corporate venturing fund, Fenbushi Capital, which means distributed in Mandarin Chinese, in collaboration with Vitalik Buterin, the Russia-born, Canada-reared, Switzerland-residing cofounder of blockchain platform Ethereum. Buterin is the technical person behind the Ethereum foundation promoting blockchain technologies and decentralized contracts. He is also working on a non-proft, Blockchain Labs, Buterin co-founded with Bo Shen, who also co-founded the decentralized exchange, or trading platform, BitShares, through his Invictus Innovations company, and Feng Xiao, vicechairman and executive director of Wanxiang Holdings, the auto parts company’s investment unit, and founder of the Bosera mutual fund company. And the three are all general partners in Fenbushi, which has backed Factom, Everledger, ZCash, Abra, Circle, Tierion, Gem, Otonomos and Symbiont, according to its website, and reportedly Ethcore. Blockchain, best known for being the underlying technology of digital currency Bitcoin, is a cryptographic public ledger that enables verifed, instant and low-cost transactions. Wanxiang expects to provide $1m of funding in each of the next three years to blockchain research through Blockchain Labs, which was instrumental in the creation of ChinaLedger, an alliance of regional commodity exchanges, equity exchanges and fnancial asset exchanges. In September, the Ethereum Foundation and Wanxiang’s Blockchain Labs held a joint developer conference, Devcon2, and the second Global Blockchain Summit in Shanghai, China. At the conference, Feng introduced a way of using the blockchain to track car batteries and monitor their usage, as reported by CoinDesk, which could allow them to be lent out to car makers. But perhaps the biggest project could see Wanxiang partner US-listed technology frms IBM and Microsoft to develop blockchain for a smart cities initiative. Wanxiang reportedly plans to invest $30bn in purchasing 83 million square feet of land as a foundation for its smart city project.
An Ethereum startup founded by one of the blockchain project’s founders has raised $750,000. Ethcore Raises $750,000 to Help Ethereum Go Enterprise - CoinDesk News Learn Videos Research On August 1, 2017, Bitcoin Cash split from Bitcoin Core via a hard fork, and the former now features 32MB blocks, whereas BTC has a theoretical capacity for a max “block weight” of 4MB via a ... Open source .NET Core Bitcoin based blockchain node in C# Do you want to build your own blockchain based upon Blockcore? Then check out our blockcore-node repository, which is the best starting point for most custom blockchains. Introduction Bitcoin Implementation in C#. What is Blockcore? Blockcore is a platform to build Layer 1 consensus networks based on the Bitcoin protocol, built on the ... Einige Wallets unterstützen SegWit, das den Platz der Blockchain effizienter nutzt. Dies hilft die Gebühren zu senken weil das Bitcoin-Netzwerk dadurch besser skaliert und bildet die Grundlage für sog. Second-Layer-Lösungen wie dem Lightning-Netzwerk. Gut. Akzeptabel. Vorsicht. Neutral. Kontrolle über Ihr Geld Diese Wallet gibt Ihnen volle Kontrolle über Ihre Bitcoins. Das bedeutet, dass ... Buying crypto like Bitcoin and Ether is as easy as verifying your identity, adding a payment and clicking "Buy". Sign up for our Wallet today. Create Wallet. Trade Crypto at the Exchange. Integrated with the Blockchain Wallet, our Exchange is a one-stop shop where you can deposit funds and place trades seamlessly in minutes. Get Started. Dive Deeper. Buy Crypto . Bitcoin $ USD. Your Email ...
Communicate with Bitcoin-qt using C# - .NET Ethereum Classic is forking at block 2,500,000 on 10-25-16 in order to stop the very dangerous spam attacks. You must be using ETC Geth 3.0.0 or parity 1.3.9 BEFORE the fork occurs. It combines all the benefits from Bitcoin and solved the technical limitations. With more than +100.000 transactions per second is the Graphene Blockchain ready for the Blockchains mass market ... Jutta Steiner (COO and Co-Founder at Ethcore), Thomas Conté (Cloud Architecte), Paul Puey (CEO at Airbitz), Elizabeth Stark (Co-Founder and CEO at Lightning) and Brian Behlendorf (Executive ... Ethereum vs Bitcoin first blockchain to settle $1 trillion in one year The Ethereum network is processing more than double the transaction volume of Bitcoin,...