Blockchain Is About to Switch Directions
Bitcoin suffers from a fundamental flaw in its blockchain. I believe this was designed intentionally, in order to protect it. The underlying motives unknown, I can only speculate that the beta-Bitcoin blockchain I described in the last two entries, is about to be cut off. This can be done by pumping all Bitcoins into a drivechain (sidechain) and a lightning like network. I have already discussed that both Ixcoin and I0coin are ideal, secure, directly linked-to-Bitcoin blockchains capable of supporting this. However, what is Bitmark?
Bitmark
My previous entries have been my best attempts to explain things mathematically. Whether my math is completely correct or not is not the point. The point is to show that there are publicly available clues to figure this out before someone out and out says it from inside of the project. The fairness of distribution has caused people willing to dig, such as myself, to invest in such overlooked projects — that may lead to the most value in the future. It has also built blockchain security, so the effects of that success as a network are long lasting.
Something considered “trivial” in coding, may not be so trivial in real life. If you notice, something as simple as font — the Bitcoin whitepaper and Bitmark whitepaper — they are identical. Going deeper into something more meaningful, notice that the Bitmark transaction chain moves right to left, using SHA 3–256 (32 bit) transactions and then converts them into a SHA3–512 (64 bit) record. If you go back to my first entry here, you will see that I covered compatibility between 32 bit and 64 bit format programs and embedded timestamps. Is this another possible way to convert timestamps correctly between different UTC formats in an effort to avoid a Y2K38 problem? It very well may be. It could just be a Bitcoin scaling solution. Either way, it has caught my attention and I think I somewhat am able to grasp the significance more each day.
Bitcoin Mining: Educated Guess
Bitcoin mining is a process that can be thought of as producing transactions from left to right on the current blockchain. What most people aren’t aware of is that the mining payments have been distributed based on a “guess” for something called a nonce. I am going to let both picture and a quotation from an article on Coindesk explain both:
Some nodes are mining nodes (usually referred to as “miners”). These group outstanding transactions into blocks and add them to the blockchain. How do they do this? By solving a complex mathematical puzzle that is part of the bitcoin program, and including the answer in the block. The puzzle that needs solving is to find a number that, when combined with the data in the block and passed through a hash function, produces a result that is within a certain range. This is much harder than it sounds.
(For trivia lovers, this number is called a “nonce”, which is a concatenation of “number used once.” In the case of bitcoin, the nonce is an integer between 0 and 4,294,967,296.)
Takeaways: Bitcoin miners are guessing to find a number called a “nonce” in order to push transactions forward. This is problematic because:
How do they find this number? By guessing at random. The hash function makes it impossible to predict what the output will be. So, miners guess the mystery number and apply the hash function to the combination of that guessed number and the data in the block. The resulting hash has to start with a pre-established number of zeroes. There’s no way of knowing which number will work, because two consecutive integers will give wildly varying results. What’s more, there may be several nonces that produce the desired result, or there may be none (in which case the miners keep trying, but with a different block configuration).
The first miner to get a resulting hash within the desired range announces its victory to the rest of the network. All the other miners immediately stop work on that block and start trying to figure out the mystery number for the next one. As a reward for its work, the victorious miner gets some new bitcoin.
Takeaways: The nonce doesn’t have to be correct, just within a desired range…
This problem has caused a lot of unspent transactions, defined as:
An Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) that can be spent as an input in a new transaction.
In Bitcoin transactions, the left side of the transaction is called the “input” and the right side is called the “output”:
This isn’t just a one off type transaction either, there are transactions with many spent outputs within a mining pool with just two unspent outputs. You can see that example here within block 150,951:
Takeaways: You can start a new transaction by using this as an input to work back through time on this block and create a new transaction.
Reject the Null: Bitcoin Is Backwards Compatible
Think of each one of these unspent outputs as a hypothesis for solving the block reward. The transaction above with many spent outputs is for a total of 50 BTC (known as a block reward). What if the addresses that have been unspent are leaving a bookmark just in case the nonce the mining pool is guessing for is solved? That would allow input for a new transaction to be the unspent “output” on the right, and then a new output would be made (in the same block) on the left. That would look like this (using Bitmark as an ex.):
Or if I included data from the unspent output example over it would look like this:
Finding the nonce would shift the order of process. When we have an I(0) order of process, we reject the null hypothesis (think of the null hypothesis as the incorrect miners guess of “what blocks came first”):
In inferential statistics, the term “null hypothesis” is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis — and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect) — is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics gives precise criteria for rejecting a null hypothesis.
So the existence of I(0), is a way in which we prove the new association for which came first, aka the nonce is proven to associate that order of process. This could be the grounds of a blockchain reorganization! Think of reorganization as the scaling of Bitcoin. This is not just a one-step solution. To scale by reorganizing the blockchain using the correct nonce, I will use a graphic representation from above:
In this depiction, define:
- Fingerprint — a record of the entire blockchain from the very beginning. Containing all of the important blockheaders from the start of Bitcoin (and possibly before) — thus only a “pruned” blockchain is needed. In January 2018, the I0coin blockchain size was 2.4 GB because it contains all of the merge mining records since the beginning of merge mining, and possibly Bitcoin. The “pruned” version of the blockchain, which contains only the important parts (correct nonce?), is trimmed down to 550 MB. Perhaps, I0coin contains the fingerprint needed for Bitcoin scaling.
- Asset Record — the blockchain on which the hash of the correct fingerprint and signature is retained for record keeping. This would certainly require some large blocks. In the Bitmark example, this reversing occurs on a blockchain with twice the space (going from a 32 bit hash to a 64 bit hash). This can be seen as the transition from 1 to 2 mb block size, but I would like to think of it as the transition from 32 mb to 64 mb blocks.
Making theories from newly revealed information above, one conclusion is that this effort includes auxiliary pow blockchains. If that is the case, your lifetime record of Bitcoin and its auxpow partners are included on I0coin’s blockchain. The bigger blocks of record are now available on Ixcoin’s block chain after its recent hard fork to 64 MB blocks (the largest in all of crypto).
Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin
Bitcoin Cash has also undergone a transition in block size via a hard fork (just 2 days after Ixcoin, as of 5/15/2018). What would be the reason for that? To undergo a block size transition, but twice as small as your largest blocks in crypto? That doesn’t make sense if the two were competitors, Ixcoin would be able to produce more transactions per second. If the blocks were working in some sort of synchronized, joint-effort — the situation would be entirely different. So consider the background information on Bitcoin Cash:
Birth: August 1, 2017 by hard fork of BTC (9 months ago)
Forked to 32 MB block size: May 15, 2018 (2 weeks ago, 8.5 months since birth)
Genesis Block: Same as BTC (January 3, 2009)
Takeaways:
- Think of Bitcoin Cash as a copy of Bitcoin Core (BTC) but BEFORE IT HAD IT’S PUBLICLY KNOWN RUN TO ATH OF $19,000.
- If true, Bitcoin Cash is the non-Wall Street traded version of Bitcoin. This is just a copy of Bitcoin Core that has scaled already using larger blocks.
- Which means it would have the necessary blocksize to produce many more transactions per second than Bitcoin Core (BTC) — yet in reverse from August 1, 2017.
- The necessary copy of the blockchain with all AUXPOW records is contained in I0coin’s blockchain.
- What if each month of Bitcoin Cash’s existence reflected 1 year of Bitcoin Core’s existence? And each year of those transactions were reflected on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain since August 1, 2017? Then each one of the correct “nonce” were displayed going backward to January 3, 2009 on Bitcoin Cash’s blockchain to the Genesis Block through I0coin. Last, the correct transactions are put forth as a record on the Ixcoin blockchain, which is double the size of the Bitcoin Cash “original and corrected” Bitcoin Core blockchain. Use the picture below if confused:
Read the caption of the above image. If you think that’s crazy, you may want to checkout Bitmark’s open sourced code:
First, Bitmark changing the name from “Bitcoin” to “Bitmark” in their copyrights code:
You will notice this rebranding is already on many Bitcoin apps using this logo (which for a property rights based crypto, may be pretty significant in its use):
The above logo is found at Bitmark.com — the main website for Project Bitmark, which is not linked on Coinmarketcap. Instead you are linked to Bitmark.io — which uses the logo below — but I assure you they are one in the same.
I know the two are linked, undeniably, and all it takes is a trip to Bitmark CEO, Sean Moss-Pultz’s, Twitter. I am positive that the CEO would not retweet a fraudulent company.
Bitmark Fork = Bitcoin Cash Fork
The note about a Bitmark fork merging back into a master branch fork once stable makes a guy wonder if we should call Bitmark, Bitcoin Cash. In this theory, returning to the master branch would be by rejecting the null hypothesis, with I0coin’s correct nonce’s, and working back through Bitcoin Core history to a new master branch. That master branch in my theory is Ixcoin. In fact, Ixcoin is using an OP_RETURN code in its new 64 MB blocks which may explain more or less how the correct record of Bitcoin Core is translating to a larger blockchain that gives it the end result of SCALING:
A definition:
A transaction type relayed and mined by default in Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 and later that adds arbitrary data to a provably unspendable pubkey script that full nodes don’t have to store in their UTXO database.
My theory:
That the “arbitrary data” is stored within I0coin (the correct nonce, or correct order of transactions not reflected in the current Bitcoin Core blockchain) is being translated correctly using data transferred from Bitcoin Cash to Ixcoin.
What if the lightning network is I0coin and the relay of information being carried out to Ixcoin’s blockchain will also be recorded going forward as the better, larger block, version of Bitcoin? Going forward, Bitmark becomes a system that can be used on top of Bitcoin. We may see some very interesting announcements coming forth once Ixcoin’s “pre-mine” distribution is done.
Let that all digest for now.
