Advantages and Disadvantages of the different forms of a ...

The only acceptable "compromise" is SegWit NEVER, bigger blocks NOW. SegWit-as-a-soft-fork involves an "anyone-can-spend" hack - which would give Core/Blockstream/AXA a MONOPOLY on Bitcoin development FOREVER. The goal of SegWit is NOT to help Bitcoin. It is to HURT Bitcoin and HELP Blockstream/AXA.

TL;DR: Adding a poison pill like SegWit to Bitcoin would not be a "compromise" - it would be suicide, because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt, incompetent, toxic dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA, who are only interested in staying in power and helping themselves at all costs - even if they end up hurting Bitcoin.
Most of this post will probably not be new information for many people.
It is being provided mainly as a reminder, to counteract the constant flood of lies and propaganda coming from Core/Blocsktream/AXA in their attempt to force this unwanted SegWit poison pill into Bitcoin - in particular, their latest desperate lie: that there could somehow be some kind of "compromise" involving SegWit.
But adding a poison pill / trojan horse like SegWit to our code would not be some kind of "compromise". It would be simply be suicide.
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is an existential threat to Bitcoin development - because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt / incompetent centralized dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA who are directly to blame for the current mess of Bitcoin's crippled, clogged network and drastically falling market cap.
Furthermore, markets don't even do "compromise". They do "winner-takes-all". Any coin adopting SegWit is going to lose, simply because SegWit is such shitty code:
"Compromise is not part of Honey Badger's vocabulary. Such notions are alien to Bitcoin, as it is a creature of the market with no central levers to compromise over. Bitcoin unhampered by hardcoding a 1MB cap is free to optimize itself perfectly to defeat all competition." ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y7vsi/compromise_is_not_part_of_honey_badgers/
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill / trojan horse for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember: The real goals of Core/Blocsktream/AXA with SegWit are to:
  • permanently supress Bitcoin's price / adoption / network capacity / market cap / growth - via SegWit's too-little, too-late centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize;
  • permanently control Bitcoin development - via SegWit's deadly "anyone-can-spend" hack.
In order to see this, all you need to do is judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their actions (and the results of their actions - and by their shitty code):
Purely coincidental... ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Do not judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their words.
As we have seen, their words have been just an endless stream of lies and propaganda involving changing explanations and shifting goalposts and insane nonsense - including this latest outrageous concept of SegWit as some kind of "compromise" which some people may be "falling for":
Latest Segwit Trickery involves prominent support for "SW Now 2MB Later" which will lead to only half of the deal being honored. Barry Silbert front and center. Of course.
~ u/SouperNerd
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btm5u/latest_segwit_trickery_involves_prominent_support/
The people we are dealing with are the WORST type of manipulators and liars.
There is absolutely NO reason why they should not deliver a 2 MB block size at the same time as SegWit.
This is like a dealer saying "hey gimme that $200 now, I just gotta run home and get your weed, I promise I'll be right back".
~ u/BitAlien
Barry Silbert's "proposal" is just another bait and switch
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btl26/barry_silberts_proposal_is_just_another_bait_and/
Right, so the wording is:
I agree to immediately support the activation of Segregated Witness and commit to effectuate a block size increase to 2MB within 12 months
[Based] on [their] previous performance [in the Hong Kong agreement - which they already broke], they're going to say, "Segregated Witness was a block size increase, to a total of 4MB, so we have delivered our side of the compromise."
~ u/edmundedgar
Barry is an investor in Blockstream. What else needs to be said?
~ u/coinlock
Nothing involving SegWit is a "compromise".
SegWit would basically hijack Bitcoin development forever - giving a permanent monopoly to the centralized, corrupt dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA.
  • SegWit would impose a centrally planned blocksize of 1.7MB right now - too little and too late.
  • Segwit would permanently "cement" Core/Blockstream/AXA as the only people controlling Bitcoin development - forever.
If you are sick and tired of these attempts by Core/Blockstream/AXA to sabotage Bitcoin - then the last thing you should support is SegWit in any way, shape or form - even as some kind of so-called "compromise".
This is because SegWit is not primarily a "malleability fix" or a "capacity increase".
SegWit is a poison pill / trojan horse which would put the idiots and traitors at Core/Blockstream/AXA permanently and exclusively in control of Bitcoin development - forever and ever.
Here are the real problems with SegWit (which Core/Blockstream/AXA is not telling you about):
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
"So, Core wants us to trust miners not to steal Segwit's anyone-can-spends, but will not let them have a say on block size. Weird."~Cornell U Professor and bitcoin researcher Emin Gün Sirer.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/60ac4q/so_core_wants_us_to_trust_miners_not_to_steal/
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
Here is a list (on medium.com) of 13 articles that explain why SegWit would be bad for Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/646kmv/here_is_a_list_on_mediumcom_of_13_articles_that/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly (self.btc)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
As Benjamin Frankline once said: "Given a choice between Liberty (with a few Bugs), and Slavery (with no Bugs), a Free People will choose Liberty every time." Bitcoin Unlimited is liberty: market-based blocksizes. SegWit is slavery: centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize & "anyone-can-spend" transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zievg/as_benjamin_frankline_once_said_given_a_choice/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA is terrified of hard forks:
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
If some bozo dev team proposed what Core/Blockstream is proposing (Let's deploy a malleability fix as a "soft" fork that dangerously overcomplicates the code and breaks non-upgraded nodes so it's de facto HARD! Let's freeze capacity at 1 MB during a capacity crisis!), they'd be ridiculed and ignored
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5944j6/if_some_bozo_dev_team_proposed_what/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA has been trying to choke the Bitcoin network and suppress Bitcoin's price & adoption. (Hint: Blockstream is controlled by central bankers who hate Bitcoin - because they will go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeds as a major world currency).
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
Double standards: The other sub would go ballistic if Unlimited was funded by AXA. But they are just fine when AXA funds BS-core.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62ykv1/double_standards_the_other_sub_would_go_ballistic/
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
Bilderberg Group -> AXA Strategic Ventures -> funds Blockstream -> Blockstream Core Devs. (The chairman of Bilderberg is Henri de Castries. The CEO of AXA Henri de Castries.)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/576ac9/bilderberg_group_axa_strategic_ventures_funds/
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62htv0/why_is_blockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_unullc_trying/
Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/689y1e/coreaxablockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_ceo_adam_back/
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xjkof/im_angry_about_axa_scraping_some_counterfeit/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
Just as a reminder: The main funder of Blockstream is Henri de Castries, chairman of French insurance company AXA, and chairman of the Bilderberg Group!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uw6cc/just_as_a_reminder_the_main_funder_of_blockstream/
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jgkxv/bitcoin_can_go_to_10000_usd_with_4_mb_blocks_so/
And finally, here's one easy way that Bitcoin can massively succeed without SegWit - and even without the need for any other major or controversial changes to the code:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

GRAFT NETWORK: AMA - questions and answers (summary from Discord)

Question 1
Could you talk a little about the software development process that Graft uses? What development methodology does Graft use? Is it an industry-standard model (such as agile, incremental, or waterfall) or something custom designed? Perhaps you could walk us through how the process works, for example how a concept goes from initial idea to implementation to testing to competition?

We use an agile methodology with two-week sprints. The system is quite complex with many components that we have to time together into planned releases. We started with formal testing but are quickly migrating towards community supported rollouts. You can see how various pieces stitch together looking at our development roadmap.

Question 2
"I currently scan various blockchain projects"". Ive noticed several unresponded pull requests that seem to be ignored"" In understanding C++ for a number of years. They seem to be solutions for a drastic fix. I can not involve myself in a blockchain that the dev doesn't fix issues in a timely manner. How can i invest with any courage the dev and the project is community oriented if they do not listen to pull requests! Is there any particular reason why PR are being ignored and is the super node RTA going to launch without any review from all pull requests?"

We pay attention to all pull requests. Pull requests however are not "just push an approve" button activity - they have to be vetted, tested, incorporated into the release schedule, and timed for the appropriate network update (fork) - all these things take time and are gated by the development and release schedule.

Question 3
It is appreciated that the Graft Team have said many times that people who buy GRFT aren't investors. But if GRFT is truly a 'community' coin then it would help if someone is available to give one consistent message from the Graft team to the people that form the community. There is often misinformation and confusion in the telegram and elsewhere because there isn't someone from the core team that is managing communication with the community. Will you be hiring an individual or team to manage communication with the community?

We are sometimes constrained as to what we can share due to incomplete conceptual framework (we start out with broad brush strokes and then fill in the details as we move closer to implementation), private info from 3rd parties that we're not at liberty to share (such is often the case with exchanges or other partners), or simply are working on something that may or may not pan out and we try to avoid situations where we overpromise and underdeliver. As engineers, we tend to communicate once something is done and no uncertainties remain - we're learning however to communicate more, bear with us :)"

Question 4
In the current alpha implementation, the RTA SuperNode requires a hot wallet with full spend keys on the VPS running the SuperNode. This seems dangerous: if we imagine graft at $1, that means a T4 is holding a hot wallet worth a quarter of a million USD, which makes it a tempting target for hacks—someone who gains access to the VPS could steal the entire stake plus any transaction fees. Why did Graft decide to go with a hot wallet approach as opposed to the cold-stake approach (of submitting stakes as time-locked transactions on the blockchain) commonly used by other Masternode systems?

First, it's important to take into account the specifics of the Cryptonote protocol - proof of balance in a CryptoNote wallet is not as easy as doing the same in ""regular"" non-private blockchains. Second, we are aware of this issue and already have it in the backlog, so it will be resolved in the future RTA release.

Question 5
"The recently announced stimulus plan for supernodes was unveiled without any details at all as to how it will work. This has led the community taking wild guesses as to how it might work (e.g. with the unofficial calculator floating around) and what the payoffs might be. Proper planning for potential supernode operators requires the actual details. When do you plan to formalize the stimulus payoff details so that people can start deciding whether or not they want to run supernodes?"

The stimulus plan will take a bit of flushing out. We have defined the general direction and the targets for the incentives and will be filling in the details as we get to the roll out stage. The goal is to make the network perform at roughly 100k tx monthly volume.

Question 6
There has been quite some discussion recently on the GRAFT blockchain telegram channel about the upcoming Monero CNv2 fork and the impact it may have on the GRAFT blockchain. Some are convinced that the fork will lead to a substantial migration of ASIC/FPGA hashrate to GRAFT (being the most profitable CNv1) from XMR. This in turn could lead to centralization of the network, a potential drop in value (as the farms are less like to hold their GRAFT) and even outright attacks. It would be great to get more information from you on this topic, if you plan to fork to CNv2 or any of the CNv1 derivates in the coming months?

The GRAFT dev team is working on the patch. We will announce the date of the hard fork shortly

Question 7
Where are we with Verifone and Ingenico exactly? What will be procedure for merchant to turn on GRAFT as currency on their POS machines, and will it require manual update?

Regarding Verifone software - it is done and ready for the rest of the network - of course there are iterations and updates happening on that as we go as all these things are interconnected. Using GRAFT on Verifone terminals only requires Engage-compatibility. Engage is their app platform - they are rolling it out to various models starting with the newest / most capable ones. To enable GRAFT, the merchant has to go to Verifone marketplace, add the app to their merchant account, configure the wallet and few other payment gateway options. As simple as that. Regarding Ingenico - we are waiting for the platform upgrade from their side and opening API's - tentatively Q1 2019, so for now our primary goal is to get the Verifone terminal to work flawlessly.

Question 8
Could you briefly share the Graft Team marketing plan and road marks that you are following to implement the plan?

Here's an example of what we're thinking and driving towards. https://www.graft.network/merchant-service-provide . Please keep in mind however, that this is a decentralized, community project, so core team's involvement in marketing and distribution is focused on working on core software and integrations.

Question 9
Many people have attempted to send coins from the mobile wallet to Cryptopia. The transaction fails because the mobile wallet does not support non-integrated payment ID's. The users then contact Cryptopia about the lost coins and then Cryptopia asks for a payment ID. There are a few problems with this all too common scenario, but the biggest problem in my opinion is that the mobile wallet does not provide access to transaction ID's. Will the mobile wallet soon be able to display transaction ID's?

Cryptopia is the only exchange that does not support integrated addresses. We've contacted their devs several times and asked to implement this support. They promised to do it but never provided any ETA. By the way, they do not support integrated address for Monero or other CryptoNote coins, not just GRAFT. Here is the latest response from Cryptopia devs: "We’ve escalated this issue and hope to have an ETA for you in the near future. We haven’t forgotten about it." 2) In the next releases of the wallets we plan to add both detached payment id & full transaction history (including Tx ID).

Question 10
When will the results of the RTA alpha testing (bug reports/fixes/etc.) be made public? Or if they won't be, when will you start accepting public bug reports for RTA supernodes?

As you may have noticed, we have started communicating the development status on a weekly basis providing lots of details to the community. The results of the testing feed back into the development with the end result of a public alpha and then beta state of the product.

Question 11
Do you plan to conduct any external security audit of the platform (RTA/Exchange brokers/etc.) before the final production release?

One-time security audits are largely ineffective (subpar, expensive, and short lived) as the code changes literally every day. The code is open to the community to examine and find bugs. We're also looking into implementing a bug bounty program. (Note that both GRAFT co-founders are CISSP certification holders and have serious infosec background.)

Question 12
What is the long-term plan for continuing Graft’s management? Some other coins have defined organization structures that are designed to continue without the present Dev teams. Has the Graft team thought about how Graft will be managed on an ongoing basis once the project reaches maturity?

Good question. We recognize that there is a natural evolution in a decentralized project governance as the project matures. We are considering a DAO path potentially, taking notes from other leading projects, and looking to incorporate some of the innovative models (like quadratic voting) that provide equalized participation.

Question 13
Multiple sites out there already support payments with cryptocurrency. How's GRAFT different?

The primary purpose of the GRAFT project is to build a DECENTRALIZED payment network - the fact that it can process crypto payments is one of the important by-products, not the be all and end all. The devil is in the details - centralized payment brokers go against the principles of decentralization and they don't scale. GRAFT's goal is a decentralized payment network with no borders, no single party controls, no (or marginalized) banks, agnostic to the currency you pay with.

Question 14
I've heard that early supernode holders will be incentivized to participate in the graft network and I applaud that. Doesn't it make sense to incentivize merchants to encourage graft usage by offering a transaction fee holiday for some time period up front? You could still pay the network supernode participants out of the coins set aside for incentives (or not). I think that incentivizing the vendor will go MUCH further towards promoting crypto adoption.

Yes, we're thinking about incentivizing other eco-system participants and have thought about waving the transaction fees for the merchants for period of time. It's not clear whether it's strong enough of an incentive for them to adopt a new payment network if they didn't have an interest in it before. We are thinking that the focus with merchants should be on creating awareness in the industries that are notoriously hard to get merchant services in, as well as making it super easy for them to integrate GRAFT into their existing systems and processes.

Question 15
Service Brokers are going to be One of the most critical part of the Graft Ecosystem. Considering an example where Bitcoin payment is made by a buyer and Merchant's payout choice is in Fiat USD. This is the most obvious use case I could think of. And the kind of liquidity needed for converting BTC to USD is going to be huge (to make settlement seemless). I fear individuals (SN owners) could provide this liquidity. Unless a major exchange could be a service broker I personally feel this will be difficult. Hard fact being we are facing difficulties in listing Graft on a bigger exchange, so what's the plan on getting a high liquidity exchange?

You're right - payout brokers are one of the keys to the functional network. We anticipate the liquidity to come from both smaller and larger brokers. The plan is that once the project gains recognition and adoption in the marketplace, the exchanges will open up as it's a very lucrative market for them. At this time we have a number of smaller payout brokers who have registered their intent to provide these services to the network.

Question 16
One problem with almost every cryptocurrency is the boundless growth of the blockchain data. One of the numbers that got pulled from the reward post was 100k transactions per day. Graft transactions average about 12kB, so put those together and you get the blockchain growing by 1.2GB/day. It'll hit nearly 100 gigs after 2 months, nearly 500 gigs after a year.Does Graft have any long-term plan to reduce that storage requirement at the node and/or supernode level?

This is common problem for all blockchains, not just a specific problem to GRAFT. The current short-term solution is merging recent Monero code which introduced a new method of proofs for confidential transactions - Bulletproof - which is supposed to reduce the blockchain size by 80%. https://web.stanford.edu/~buenz/pubs/bulletproofs.pdf https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/6781/what-are-bulletproofs

Final Question
We appreciate your efforts to involve the community in the project, how would you like to improve this relationship over the next few months?

Thanks for this question. As a decentralized project, we have to really pull back on implementing roll-out and adoption plans for the network and rely on the community to take over and form their own geographic and industry clusters with their own promotion and business plans for the network. We will know that the network is thriving if there are initiatives, ideas, local governance, and business models that go well beyond what was envisioned by the founding team

OK - One last question
How does GRAFT handle void transaction? Is that similar to void transaction of Credit card's?

oid transactions are typically handled by the point of sale, before it even comes to the settlement. If payment is processed, some payment processors allow voiding such transaction. On blockchain it is impossible to reverse (void) a transaction after it is added to the transaction pool (even before it's added to the block), so RTA "void" should be replaced by refund (return) transaction.




submitted by graft-network to Graft [link] [comments]

QUADRATIC EQUATIONS: INTRODUCTION I STANDARD FORM I VALUES ... 11 1 Changing Standard Form into Vertex Form Translating Standard Quadratics to and from Vertex Form graphing quadratic functions from standard form lhs 3.2 Quadratic Functions in Standard Form

Therefore we can use a quadratic form, that is ax^2 + bx + c, where a,b and c are variables. This is the quadratic least squares moving average (qlsma), a not so official term, but we'll stick with it because it still represent the aim of the filter quite well. In this indicator i make the calculations of the qlsma less troublesome, therefore ... Solve quadratic equation in standard form. Ask Question Asked 1 year, 2 months ago. ... import time def quadratic_solver(a, b, c): """ Solves quadratic equations of the form ax**2 + bx + c """ print("ax^2+bx+c ausrechen UwU, Bitte Achte!!! Bei Kommazahlen . benutzen, nicht , Beispiel: 0.5 0.7 1.6") ... Now, if you want to check the type of your arguments you can do a simple: type(val) is int ... The quadratic semaphore indicator is an indicator that find confirmed market u-turn with the help of 2 quadratic regression calculated with Highs and Lows over the last “length” periods. - “p” setting is candlesticks quantity to confirmed the quadratic regression has formed a High or Low parabola, such as Fractals. Consecutive same signals can happen due to the use of different price ... Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up. Sign up to join this community. Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Bitcoin . Home ; Questions ; Tags ; Users ; Jobs; Unanswered ; ScriptSig content during signature (quadratic hashing) Ask Question Asked 3 ... quadratic — Check out the trading ideas, strategies, opinions, analytics at absolutely no cost!

[index] [24538] [11633] [42856] [17508] [467] [3590] [50394] [8034] [199] [1875]

QUADRATIC EQUATIONS: INTRODUCTION I STANDARD FORM I VALUES ...

Graphing Quadratic Functions Axis of Symmetry, Vertex & Standard Form, X Y Intercepts, Word Problems - Duration: 47:00. The Organic Chemistry Tutor 406,473 views Graphing quadratic equations in standard form. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue But how does bitcoin actually work? - Duration: 26:21. 3Blue1Brown Recommended for you. 26:21. Changing a Quadratic from Standard Form to Vertex Form - Duration: 3:44. MrsQuesnelle 500,604 views ... Graph quadratic functions that are in standard form by using the axis of symmetry formula then creating a table of points. Notes for Lufkin High School Algebra 1. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue

#