A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform 
 
 Satoshi Nakamoto's development of Bitcoin in 2009 has often been hailed as a radical development in money and currency, being the first example of a digital asset which simultaneously has no backing or *intrinsic value(opens in a new tab)* and no centralized issuer or controller. However, another, arguably more important, part of the Bitcoin experiment is the underlying blockchain technology as a tool of distributed consensus, and attention is rapidly starting to shift to this other aspect of Bitcoin. Commonly cited alternative applications of blockchain technology include using on-blockchain digital assets to represent custom currencies and financial instruments (*colored coins(opens in a new tab)*), the ownership of an underlying physical device (*smart property(opens in a new tab)*), non-fungible assets such as domain names (*Namecoin(opens in a new tab)*), as well as more complex applications involving having digital assets being directly controlled by a piece of code implementing arbitrary rules (*smart contracts(opens in a new tab)*) or even blockchain-based *decentralized autonomous organizations(opens in a new tab)* (DAOs). What Ethereum intends to provide is a blockchain with a built-in fully fledged Turing-complete programming language that can be used to create *contracts* that can be used to encode arbitrary state transition functions, allowing users to create any of the systems described above, as well as many others that we have not yet imagined, simply by writing up the logic in a few lines of code. 
 
 Introduction to Bitcoin and Existing Concepts 
 
 History 
 
 The concept of decentralized digital currency, as well as alternative applications like property registries, has been around for decades. The anonymous e-cash protocols of the 1980s and the 1990s, mostly reliant on a cryptographic primitive known as Chaumian blinding, provided a currency with a high degree of privacy, but the protocols largely failed to gain traction because of their reliance on a centralized intermediary. In 1998, Wei Dai's b-money(opens in a new tab) became the first proposal to introduce the idea of creating money through solving computational puzzles as well as decentralized consensus, but the proposal was scant on details as to how decentralized consensus could actually be implemented. In 2005, Hal Finney introduced a concept of *reusable proofs of work(opens in a new tab)*, a system which uses ideas from b-money together with Adam Back's computationally difficult Hashcash puzzles to create a concept for a cryptocurrency, but once again fell short of the ideal by relying on trusted computing as a backend. In 2009, a decentralized currency was for the first time implemented in practice by Satoshi Nakamoto, combining established primitives for managing ownership through public key cryptography with a consensus algorithm for keeping track of who owns coins, known as *proof-of-work*. 
 
 The mechanism behind proof-of-work was a breakthrough in the space because it simultaneously solved two problems. First, it provided a simple and moderately effective consensus algorithm, allowing nodes in the network to collectively agree on a set of canonical updates to the state of the Bitcoin ledger. Second, it provided a mechanism for allowing free entry into the consensus process, solving the political problem of deciding who gets to influence the consensus, while simultaneously preventing sybil attacks. It does this by substituting a formal barrier to participation, such as the requirement to be registered as a unique entity on a particular list, with an economic barrier - the weight of a single node in the consensus voting process is directly proportional to the computing power that the node brings. Since then, an alternative approach has been proposed called proof-of-stake, calculating the weight of a node as being proportional to its currency holdings and not computational resources; the discussion of the relative merits of the two approaches is beyond the scope of this paper but it should be noted that both approaches can be used to serve as the backbone of a cryptocurrency. 
 
 Bitcoin As A State Transition System 
 
 From a technical standpoint, the ledger of a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin can be thought of as a state transition system, where there is a *state* consisting of the ownership status of all existing bitcoins and a *state transition function* that takes a state and a transaction and outputs a new state which is the result. In a standard banking system, for example, the state is a balance sheet, a transaction is a request to move $X from A to B, and the state transition function reduces the value in A's account by $X and increases the value in B's account by $X. If A's account has less than $X in the first place, the state transition function returns an error. Hence, one can formally define: 
 The *state* in Bitcoin is the collection of all coins (technically, Üunspent transaction outputs* or UTXO) that have been minted and not yet spent, with each UTXO having a denomination and an owner (defined by a 20-byte address which is essentially a cryptographic public keyfn1). A transaction contains one or more inputs, with each input containing a reference to an existing UTXO and a cryptographic signature produced by the private key associated with the owner's address, and one or more outputs, with each output containing a new UTXO to be added to the state. 
 The state transition function APPLY(S,TX) -> S' can be defined roughly as follows: For each input in TX: If the referenced UTXO is not in S, return an error. If the provided signature does not match the owner of the UTXO, return an error. If the sum of the denominations of all input UTXO is less than the sum of the denominations of all output UTXO, return an error. Return S with all input UTXO removed and all output UTXO added. 
 The first half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending coins that do not exist, the second half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending other people's coins, and the second step enforces conservation of value. In order to use this for payment, the protocol is as follows. Suppose Alice wants to send 11.7 BTC to Bob. First, Alice will look for a set of available UTXO that she owns that totals up to at least 11.7 BTC. Realistically, Alice will not be able to get exactly 11.7 BTC; say that the smallest she can get is 6+4+2=12. She then creates a transaction with those three inputs and two outputs. The first output will be 11.7 BTC with Bob's address as its owner, and the second output will be the remaining 0.3 BTC *change*, with the owner being Alice herself 


Fanta Drink

Token	Balance	24H %	Price
ETH 0⁴669 ETH	$0.10	-5.23%	$1,476.05
GENESIS 2.12 M GENESIS	$0.00	-	$0⁵372
DRINK 830.23 k DRINK	$0.00	-	$0³172
SHPEDO 45.38 M SHPEDO	$0.00	-	$0²²103
soso 0⁸100 soso	$0.00	-	$0³140
ty 2.76 T ty	$0.00	-	$0²⁴511
Джейк 8.43 M Джейк	$0.00	-	$0³174
NewFriend 64.03 M NewFriend	$0.00	-	$0⁴995
ETHCHAN 258.13 M ETHCHAN	$0.00	-	$247,131.86
$WANTED 14.20 M $WANTED	$0.00	-	$0²²747
TempleRun 343.04 B TempleRun	$0.00	-	$0⁵225