I have been trying to set up a local blockchain on my Windows PC using Docker and blockchain tech like Geth, or Ganache. Sadly it all failed multiple times now am stuck. All I am trying to do is set up a local blockchain with at least 5 nodes that use Proof of Authority as the consensus algorithm. PLEASE HELP!

Hey everyone,

I'm planning to get in the market in a bit after researching quite a while about bitcoin and xrp. Both really fascinates me and believe both could co exist in the future to create the future of financial technology.

This is what I got and please correct me if I have mistakes and I'm open for discussion down in the comment sections so feel free!

Key Differences Between Bitcoin and XRP Algorithms

Consensus Mechanism:

• Bitcoin: Uses Proof of Work (PoW), where miners solve complex cryptographic puzzles to validate transactions and add blocks to the blockchain. This process is energy-intensive and relatively slow.

• XRP (Ripple): Uses the Ripple Protocol Consensus Algorithm (RPCA), which relies on a network of trusted validators (Will talk about these later) to reach consensus on transactions. It is faster, more energy-efficient, and does not require mining.

Transaction Speed:

• Bitcoin: 10 minutes on average due to the time required to mine each block.

• XRP: 3-5 seconds due to its lightweight consensus algorithm. Very fast.

Scalability (TPS-wise):

• Bitcoin: Processes about 7 transactions per second (TPS). Scaling has been a challenge due to its block size and consensus model (?)

• XRP: Can handle up to 1,500 TPS, making it more suitable for large-scale, high-frequency use cases like global payments.

Purpose:

• Bitcoin: Designed as a decentralized digital currency and store of value, often referred to as "digital gold."
• XRP: Primarily developed as a bridge currency for cross-border payments and facilitating fast, low-cost transfers between financial institutions.

Combined Benefits for Financial Technology:

1. Improved Efficiency: Bitcoin’s decentralization and XRP’s speed/low cost can complement each other in creating hybrid systems that are both secure and scalable.

2. Reduced Costs: Both cryptocurrencies eliminate the need for traditional intermediaries, reducing inefficiencies in transaction and operational costs between countries.

3. Innovation in Payment Systems: By integrating blockchain technology, Bitcoin and XRP can inspire new solutions for digital payments, lending, and "ASSET" tokenization.

Some questions that I have:

1. Can both co-exist with each other later?
2. Is XRP decentralized or centralized?

• Validators on the XRP Ledger include universities, financial institutions, and independent organizations, making the network less reliant on Ripple Labs.

• Since Ripple Labs created XRP and still holds a significant portion of its supply (over 40 billion XRP in escrow). This concentration of ownership can give Ripple Labs significant influence over the XRP market, defeat the purpose of decentralized currency like bitcoin.

Please correct me if I have any mistakes and I hope we could learn from each other :) Thank you!

Am I missing something, or does it just not make that much sense?

I see companies and startups claiming blockchain technology and well... I thought the whole point of Bitcoin's blockchain was that it was decentralized and essentially unhackable.

Wouldn't a centrally owned blockchain be editable by the owners?
Does this still add security enhancements? The 'trustless environment' isn't really there though... so its almost just boasted security.

Or is that the entire point? They don't care about the visibility and authenticity, just the security?

This is from 2013, from the bitcointalk:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0

Someone can explain it to me? For what I unterstood this has not double spending, just the problem with accepting unconfirmed transaction? Am I wrong?

Thanks

Hi Everyone!

I have a QUESTION:

Can people find out your personal data(like name , adres and stuff) via a wallet? In my case a phantom Wallet?

I have googled Some things but cant find a clear answer. So maybe you Guys know.

Thanks and have a nice day!

AI systems are becoming increasingly powerful, but how can we trust their outputs and ensure they’re processed securely? Oasis Protocol is addressing this by combining Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) with blockchain technology to deliver verifiable AI.

Here’s how it works:

• What Are TEEs? TEEs are secure hardware environments that isolate sensitive data and computations, protecting them from unauthorized access or tampering. Think of them as a vault for processing data while keeping it private.
• Blockchain Integration: By coupling TEEs with Oasis’s blockchain, computations performed inside these secure enclaves can be verified using cryptographic proofs. This guarantees that the AI models and their outputs haven’t been altered.
• Why It Matters: This combination enables decentralized applications to maintain both transparency and privacy, solving a key issue for industries that rely on sensitive data, such as:
  • Healthcare: Securely analyzing patient data without exposing it to breaches.
  • Finance: Ensuring fraud detection algorithms operate as intended without bias or interference.
  • Government and Compliance: Proving compliance with regulations while maintaining data confidentiality.

Oasis Protocol is paving the way for AI systems to gain trust in critical applications where verifiability is essential. By leveraging TEEs, they ensure computations are not only private but also provably correct—offering a balance of security and accountability. You can deep diver in their post here.

I’m new to the crypto and blockchain space and feeling a bit overwhelmed. After reading a few articles about blockchain’s evolution, I’m unsure where to start my learning journey. Should I begin with Web3 concepts first or dive directly into understanding blockchain technology? What resources or learning paths would you recommend for someone starting out in this field?

Hello Reddit!

I'm excited to share with you all an innovative approach to blockchain security and privacy that I’ve been working on. The core idea of this algorithm is to enhance both transaction confidentiality and user anonymity without compromising the integrity of the blockchain itself. This is achieved primarily through the use of pseudonyms for each transaction, and I'd love to explain how it works!

Key Features:

1. Pseudonyms for Sender and Receiver:

Every transaction on the blockchain involves a pseudo-generated public address for both the sender and the receiver. These pseudonyms are essentially temporary identities tied to a private key that can only be used for that specific transaction. By doing so, the blockchain ensures that there is no direct link between the user’s real-world identity and their on-chain activities, enhancing privacy.

2. Transaction Fragmentation:

Transactions are fragmented into smaller parts that are independently validated, meaning that even if parts of the transaction are intercepted, it becomes nearly impossible to reconstruct the full transaction. This ensures extra layers of security and privacy.

3. Dual Validation by Two Groups of Miners:

To further enhance security, two separate groups of miners validate different aspects of each transaction. This reduces the risk of malicious actions and ensures that the integrity of the transaction is always maintained.

4. Cryptographic Protections:

I’ve incorporated zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), ring signatures, and other advanced cryptographic techniques to guarantee that transaction details remain private while still allowing for secure verification on the blockchain.

Why Pseudonyms?

The use of pseudonyms in this system allows for complete privacy—even when transactions are verified, there is no way to trace back the transaction to any real-world identity unless the user explicitly reveals it. This is a key feature for anyone concerned with maintaining their privacy in a blockchain environment.

Additionally, it provides a layer of security against tracking and surveillance by making it incredibly difficult to correlate transactions between different pseudonyms, even if they are used by the same person.

What’s Next?

I’m hoping to take this concept further and eventually bring it to the real world. The system is designed to be scalable, meaning it can grow alongside the adoption of blockchain technology while maintaining privacy and security for all users.

If you’re into blockchain tech, privacy, or cryptography, I’d love to hear your thoughts and any feedback you might have!

This blockchain algorithm uses pseudonyms for both sender and receiver, transaction fragmentation, and dual miner validation to ensure maximum privacy and security while maintaining a transparent and secure blockchain ledger.

Hi, I know my question might sound a bit basic, but I'm new to crypto and trying to understand things better. When a new crypto is launched, where does the liquidity come from (let's say on DEXes)? Who provides it at the start, if anyone does?

Thanks in advance for the help!

I am searching for a wallet that supports creating multiple accounts (addresses) for the same seed phrase like MyEtherWallet, but I need it to support other non ERC-20 networks like stellar.

So I need the two features together supporting networks like stellar and creating multiple addresses and determining the branch I want to open and get control over (determining derivation path like that m/44'/60'/0'/0) like 1Inch wallet but as you know it only supports ERc-20 based networks .

Can you help me , and what wallets do you use for purposes like that .

Can anyone explain in simple terms what are the differences between a non quantum resistent encryption (ECDSA) and a quantum resistent encryptionn (XXMS or non-ECDSA)?

I find this subject really interesting and I might consider to invest more into quantum resistent coins like QRL, because Google had launch like a month ago Willow chip, which I think is a message for the future which suggests that most non quantum resistent cryptos will lose because of the lack of resistence against quantum computers. Of course, I know that quantum computers are not right now a threat, but as technology advances, it won't be the case anymore, so to get more in common with this subject won't be that bad.

Let's be real, Government is a great thing but with great things come bad and it feels like they want to invade and take over our privacy more and more every day. China has already banned crypto because they don't like the independence factor. How soon until other countries and corrupt governments start doing it? Imagine Canada or US banning crypto. It would cause huge price crashes due to less people using it. Will this be a short-lived Golden Era of financial freedom due to its recent popularity or will it continue to thrive and give us all a way out of government control? Although the currencies would be able to still be used either way, they would certainly not retain their value not being able to be publicly used.

I’m wondering why others feel DAGs are the future. If I’ve done my research correctly, (correct me if I’m wrong), DAGs are very fast but not secure and when I look at the future of this tech people much appreciate security over speed. Hence why I feel most likely want to drive and fly in something safe and secure rather than a race car or superjet. What am I missing?

A few months ago, I was working on a decentralized app that needed strong privacy features. The concept was great-secure transactions without exposing sensitive user data. But as the project scaled, performance hit a wall. It got me wondering-how are others balancing scalability and privacy in blockchain systems? Are there any frameworks or tools making this easier?

I'm aiming to solve a problem within philanthropy of mismanagement of resources/lack of transparency when using funds that are donated.

I'm brainstorming an idea which would be a platform where charities would have to issue some sort of NFT to each donor, which would allow donors to see direct proof of how their donations made an impact.

For example, if someone donated $10 for 10 trees to an organization that plants trees, the charity would issue 10 unique NFT's (via smart contract) to prove that these trees have actually been planted (via geotag for the exact coordinates, a photo or something else- not important in this example). This would serve as a "proof of impact" and would provide transparency in how funds are managed and donations used.

Users (donors) would have a platform to see their contributions, project updates, fund allocation, and milestones achieved in real time.

We would charge a % of each donation as a fee, but I'm still exploring if this idea is even viable and needed.

IMO people are much more willing to donate when they can see what they're getting for the money, and therefore getting donors to use our platform shouldn't be a problem; and the charities would be attracted to use our platforms with the access to additional donors.

This has use cases beyond large charities, it can be used to crowdfund projects (like Kickstarter), or individual donations (like gofundme).

Is this an idea worth pursuing?

In Bitcoin's original code (2009), the block reward starts at 50 BTC and halves every 210,000 blocks. Was there ever any mention or code in early implementations suggesting the block reward could reset to 50 BTC after 140 years, or is this a myth?

I remember this idea from a comment here on Reddit. Is it correct, or is my mind tricking me? I’ve already done some research, but I couldn’t find anything. However, I recall that in the initial proposal, the idea was that the supply would mimic the discovery of new 'BTC mines,' increasing the reward to 50 BTC again.

Been thinking about the whole proof-of-work (PoW) vs. proof-of-stake (PoS) energy debate lately. PoS is often hyped as the eco-friendly future of blockchain, but then you’ve got PoW defenders saying, “Hey, we’re more secure and decentralized. That’s worth the energy cost.”

Take Bitcoin it gets so much heat for its energy consumption, but some argue it’s actually pushing renewable energy adoption forward. Then there’s Ethereum, which moved to PoS and cut its energy use massively. But does that centralize power among big stakers? Feels like it’s a tough trade-off either way.

I wrote about this recently in Meta Wire (my newsletter) and didn’t expect such split opinions. Some people think we’re focusing on the wrong issue and ignoring blockchain’s actual innovation. Others feel this conversation is critical for the future of the space.

So what’s your take? Is the energy debate a distraction, or does it genuinely matter for blockchain adoption? Would love to hear what you think.

Im new to crypto and trying to figure out if I'm actively being stolen from or if there's something else going on. I bought a new crypto on presale (it's not on an exchange yet) and it uses the ethereum block chain. A few days ago I was trying to get help claiming it to my wallet and I'm afraid I clicked on an unsafe link from someone impersonating a mod. since then I had a small sum of dogecoin taken out and all eth that I transfer to the wallet is immediately transferred to somewhere else, but always to the same address. However, I also have some transactions receiving small amounts of eth from the same address. The coin i purchased has successfully been claimed but i tried to put more eth in my wallet today so that I could try to transfer this coin to a brand new wallet (not available yet) and now that eth isn't showing up in either wallet but there is a transfer to the address from before. I tried to transfer everything immediately after buying so that anyone with access to my account wouldn't have time to do it first but I see another transfer to that same address at the same time that eth arrived in my account. Am I in a hopeless situation or is there something I'm not getting? I tried looking up the address online but I can't get any information on the owner

As quantum computing continues to advance, concerns about its potential impact on blockchain technology and cryptocurrency security are gaining traction. The cryptographic algorithms that protect Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are based on principles that quantum computers might eventually break.

Is this a realistic concern, or are these fears exaggerated? How soon could quantum computing pose a threat, and what measures can be taken to safeguard the crypto ecosystem?

Share your thoughts—should we be worried, or is blockchain already evolving to withstand this challenge?

Someone can explain this transaction to me? The last transaction (ID 99e57af92e123ea822ba72d4a3a4d8374f4ebae6d4a71081843d611a59b0e9a9) from the adress: 12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S.

Source: https://www.blockchain.com/pt/explorer/addresses/BTC/12cbQLTFMXRnSzktFkuoG3eHoMeFtpTu3S

Is this Satoshi transferring to himself? I thought Satoshi's BTC was never moved.

I've just read that people affected by the LastPass hack have had their crypto stolen.

I thought the idea of crypto was the Blockchain was uncorrutable and you could trace all transactions?

Surely if someone steels your crypto it's a case of following the electronic trail?

I have some crypto in my Revolut account not sure if that's a good idea.

Is it safe to keep crypto with exchange or should it store somewhere else and what are options and how do you do that? I am not familiar with other options but heard about cold/hot wallets (tbh don't understand it), this whole crypto and block chain is super complicated, even you read theory but in practical kind of crazy to understand how it functions lol

Thanks in advance!

Why I Don’t Think Crypto Can Replace FIAT

After extensive research and reflection on cryptocurrency, I believe that nearly all technologies in the cryptosphere won’t succeed. The ones that do will probably only play a minor role in the future of finance. There’s a lot to say so I’ll focus on what I see as the fundamental issue: trustless and decentralized financial systems, no matter how well-engineered, fail to meet basic user needs.

Crypto overlooks the need for oversight and intervention. Without it, systems become dangerously exploitable. Crypto wallets often lack government IDs and use irreversible, sometimes untraceable transactions, making them prime targets for theft. As adoption grows, so might scams, threats, and violence. Without oversight, crypto can also be used to hide and launder money, promoting tax fraud and other criminal behavior.

Traditional bank accounts, in contrast, incorporate measures like withdrawal limits, fraud detection, transaction traceability and reversibility, and compliance checks (KYC and AML). These safeguards require centralized authorities with power and thus DeFi lacks foundational security.

Some argue that crime is minimal relative to total crypto transactions. Yet crypto grants users the freedom to commit these crimes if they choose, and the ease of doing so could incentivize tax fraud and other crimes. So while I admit privacy is important, your actions can’t be totally anonymous. Crypto is akin to having no police in a city.

Users are also fully responsible for their private keys, and that responsibility often leads to lost or accidentally destroyed wallets. Proper storage means creating multiple backups and maintaining a highly secure physical environment—no small task, especially when millions of dollars could be on the line. For most people, it simply isn’t practical or safe to manage that level of risk themselves. The sensible solution, in my view, is to rely on a centralized, trustworthy entity—i.e., a bank.

Hopefully, this illustrates the flaws in DeFi and why banks and governments remain necessary. For those who still believe a trustless blockchain is the solution where users bank themselves, remember that today’s “trustless” blockchains aren’t truly trustless. Oracles—offchain data sources that link onchain—cannot be verified cryptographically. While aggregation from multiple oracles can reduce risk, collusion remains possible.

The uncomfortable truth is that trust is indispensable, despite its imperfections. Instead of eliminating trust, we should focus on making our institutions more trustworthy—a far simpler approach. To replace TradFi, crypto would need to replicate thousands of centralized features in code—fraud resolution, asset recovery, tax compliance, oracle verification, criminal law, and more. This would require an enormous infrastructure of decentralized nodes running millions of lines bug-free code, making complex, nuanced decisions—well beyond current technology. And since “code is law,” human intervention would be nearly impossible when mistakes occur.

Maybe once we reach AGI, decentralized altruistic AI agents could run the financial system. Until then, I remain skeptical that most cryptocurrencies have any real, lasting value.

EDIT: I wrote this post right before learning that OpenAI announced o3, which some say is AGI 🙊

There’s a lot I didn’t say because this is long enough but I think there is some good in blockchain via taking elements of it and applying them to centralized, permissioned systems. That would give us the best of both worlds. Happy to engage with you all in the comments :) Also I used ChatGPT to polish this just a lil bit.

We’ve been working on connecting Bitcoin and Ethereum for a project, and it seemed straightforward-until now. The more we test, the more edge cases pop up. One of the trickiest ones is Handling different speeds between the chains without messing up the user experience.

It’s been one of those weeks where you wonder if you’re solving the right problem at all.

Bitcoin came first to the scene and that is a big reason behind its high market cap, right? There must be other crypto that are technologically superior. Now I am assuming whichever crypto is closer to solving the blockchain trilemma is technologically superior.

For a blockchain to be successful on a global scale, it must have a good handle on:

• Decentralization
• Security
• Scalability

However, as things currently stand, one of these three factors are being sacrificed to some extent to achieve two of the others. This is what's called the blockchain trilemma.

I did a few internet searches and found the following names floating around when it comes to cryptos that are closer than others to solving the blockchain trilemma:

• Polkadot (DOT)
• Cosmos (ATOM)
• Nano (XNO)
• Algorand (ALGO)
• Hedera (HBAR)

What do you think? Now there could be criteria other than the ability to solve blockchain trilemma that can be used for determining technological superiority, if you think so I'd love to hear about that.

People get into crypto to trade and make quick money. And that's alright. But I am thinking which crypto could potentially overtake Bitcoin on basis of technological superiority/better utility in the future.

Hardware wallets are wide open to the cracks Ed Snowden warned us about a decade ago. OTP wallets per https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simple-seed-security-peter-merel-ejhkc/ are free, hand-made, and mathematically unbreakable. So why use a hardware wallet?

I don't know if it's a me thing, but I think one of the biggest problem we have in blockchain and Web3, is the issue around Data.

To be fair, I wasn't really thinking about this until very recently when I was reading about a few projects on CMC, but the way the ecosystem is setup, most users have no control over how their data is used or even monetized by tech companies.

We also cannot overlook the fact that personal data is usually vulnerable to breaches or misuse, and even if you decide to monetize your data, the average user lacks access to tools or platforms to participate in the data economy.

Although the project I was reading about, one that Bitget already listed VANA, mentioned enabling users to contribute their data to Data DAOs, which gives them ownership and control over their digital footprints. Which also means users can tokenize their validated data, turning it into a financial asset, all via their platform.

But what other solutions are out there for some of these issues, and how accessible are they to the average crypto user?

NIST has initiated the deprecation of RSA and ECDSA by 2030, signaling a shift in cryptographic standards.

Is Falcon a viable replacement for ECDSA?

Falcon, a lattice-based signature scheme, stands out for its low communication overhead, boasting significantly smaller public key and signature sizes compared to many alternatives. This efficiency is crucial for applications where bandwidth is limited, such as cryptocurrencies, IoT devices and mobile communications.

Or is further research and standardization necessary to fully assess Falcon's security, performance, and suitability for widespread deployment?

Hey everyone! I’ve been following Radix’s work on tackling blockchain scalability challenges, and they’ve recently published a series exploring their Hyperscale Alpha approach—a modular and hybrid consensus design. I found it quite insightful and wanted to share the highlights for anyone interested in blockchain technology advancements.

1. Part I: The Inception of a Hybrid Consensus Mechanism https://www.radixdlt.com/blog/hyperscale-alpha---part-i-the-inception-of-a-hybrid-consensus-mechanism

Introduces a hybrid consensus model that separates transaction handling and consensus processes.

Focuses on achieving high throughput while maintaining decentralization and security.

2. Part II: Design Principles https://www.radixdlt.com/blog/hyperscale-alpha---part-ii-design-principles

Details the layered architecture to enable scalability and flexibility.

Prioritizes security and decentralization while enabling modular optimizations.

3. Part III: Integrating Sortition https://www.radixdlt.com/blog/hyperscale-alpha---part-iii-integrating-sortition

Explains how sortition (random validator selection) enhances fairness, prevents collusion, and supports decentralization.

Integrates with the hybrid consensus model to ensure efficient and secure transaction validation.

Additionally, Radix Labs is conducting a real-world Hyperscale Alpha community test on December 18, 2024. The test will target 1 million complex transactions per second under intentionally imperfect conditions to showcase systemic scalability. Nodes will be operated globally to validate real-world performance.

If you’re curious about the technical details, the full announcement can be found here: Radix Labs - Hyperscale Alpha Test https://www.radixdlt.com/blog/radix-labs---hyperscale-alpha-test

The blockchain industry is evolving rapidly, with some networks pioneering groundbreaking 'zero-energy' designs. Unlike traditional blockchains that rely on energy-intensive systems like Proof-of-Work (PoW), zero-energy blockchains eliminate the need for such processes entirely.

These innovative designs enable decentralized systems that are not only sustainable but also highly efficient, making blockchain more accessible and environmentally responsible. By rethinking the fundamentals of validation and consensus mechanisms, zero-energy blockchains are setting a new standard for eco-conscious technology. https://tha-chain.org/

What do you think about this revolutionary approach? Could zero-energy designs become the norm for blockchain sustainability? Share your thoughts below!