Binance’s Bitcoin 'Bid-Ask Spreads' Tighten as ...

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2019 (Year End Update)

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2019 (Year End Update)

2019 \"Index Fund\" EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies of 2019 - Year End Update - UP 2%
Full blog post with all the tables

The Experiment:

Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. I then repeated the experiment on the 1st of January 2019. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2019 crypto space. I am trying to keep this project simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet. I try not to take sides or analyze, but rather report and document in a detached manner letting the numbers speak for themselves.
The Rules:
Buy $100 of each the Top 10 cryptocurrencies on January 1st, 2019. Hold only. No selling. No trading. Report monthly. Compare loosely to the 2018 Top Ten Experiment.

Month Twelve and Year End Tally – UP 2% since January 2019

After a strong October, 2019 ended with two straight bloody months, each of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos finishing in the red.
Here’s the finally tally after one year: after generous rounding, the 2019 Top Ten ended the year UP 2%. My $1,000 investment on the 1st of January 2019 is now worth $1017.
For context, this same group of cryptos was up +114% at the peak in May 2019. The worst month (and the only month in the red) was January 2019.
Additionally, the portfolio has fallen well behind the stock market as measured by the S&P 500 (see below).

Ranking and December Winners and Losers

Very little movement in December, with most of the cryptos glued to their positions. Only Stellar and Tron budged, each slipping one place to #11 and #12, respectively. 2019 has been a remarkably static year in terms of Top Ten positioning: most of the coins stuck close to their starting place. This is certainly not the case in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment where coins have fallen and fallen hard.
December WinnersTether, again. As always, when Tether is the best performer it signals a not great month for this portfolio. While not the nightmare it could have been, Tether won the majority of the months in 2019, as you can see in the chart below. Bitcoin finished in second place, down -2% in December.
December Losers – In addition to dropping out of the Top Ten, Stellar lost about one-fifth of its value followed by Tron which was down -15%.
For those keeping score, here is the 2019 year end tally of which coins had the most monthly wins and losses: Tether had twice as many wins as Bitcoin and BTCSV, which finished tied for second place. Bitcoin SV also finished the most monthly losses, finishing last in four months in 2019.

FINAL YEAR END RESULTS after tracking this group for 2019: Bitcoin far ahead, followed by Litecoin, and Bitcoin Cash. Stellar and Ripple at the bottom.

Let’s start with the winners: Bitcoin is up +89% and single-handedly prevented the entire 2019 Top Ten portfolio from finishing in the red (just barely). Bitcoin carved out a healthy lead in 2019: it is well ahead of second place Litecoin (+34%) and third place Bitcoin Cash (+22%).
Many others ended 2019 flat or nearly flat. BTCSV, EOS, Ethereum, and of course Tether all finished the year close to where they started.
The final three had significant losses: Tron, Ripple, and Stellar finished the year at -33%, -46%, and -61%, respectively.
2019 also saw Tron and Stellar booted out of the Top Ten, replaced by Binance Coin and Tezos.
Quite the fall from grace for Stellar, which was the champion of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Experiment.
So there you have it. After one year, three coins in the green, four coins flat, three coins in the red.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

Even though the year ended in a downward trend, the crypto market overall has had an undeniably positive year.
One Year (2019) Final Market Cap Figures:
  • Since January 2019 – the total market cap for crypto has increased +49%
  • Worst Month – January 2019 ($114B total crypto market cap)
  • Best Month – June 2019 ($321B total crypto market cap)
  • The last time the total market cap reached $300B: August 2019
  • The last time the total market cap reached $200B: November 2019

Bitcoin dominance:

Bitcoin dominance ticked back up in December and ends 2019 at 68%, a level not seen since September 2019. The range since the beginning of the year has been between a low of 50% in March and a high of 70% in September. The 70% figure in September also marks the Bitcoin dominance high since I started the experiment back in January 2018. The lowest level was 33% way back in February 2018.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:

After an initial $1000 investment, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio is worth $1,017, UP about +2% in one year.
The humble +2% gain of the 2019 Top Ten portfolio is dwarfed by the overall crypto market’s +49% gain and Bitcoin’s +89% gain. As mentioned earlier, the value of this group of coins was dragged down by the four flat cryptos and the three that finished deep in the red.
  • Lowest 2019 Top Ten portfolio value: January 2019 ($915)
  • Highest 2019 Top Ten portfolio value: May 2019 ($2139)
Here’s what the 2019 Ten Ten portfolio has returned throughout the year:
The 2018 Top Ten Experiment is faring far, far worse, down -86%.
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom line: after a $2000 investment in both the 2018 and the 2019 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios are worth $1,153.
That’s down about -42%.

Implications/Observations:

Congratulations to Bitcoin which significantly outperformed the rest of the field to end the first year of the 2019 Top Ten experiment on top. Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash deserve honorable mentions as well, finishing in second and third places.
Bitcoin also came out on top after the first two years of the 2018 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment.
Unlike the 2018 Top Ten, there were examples of months in 2019 where holding this Top Ten group cryptos outperformed the overall market. This is surprising, as this has not been the case with the other group: for each of the first twenty-four months of the 2018 experiment, the strategy of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos was a losing approach.
That said, the year end difference between a +2% gain with the Top Ten approach vs. the +67% gain for the market overall of course implies that I would have done a lot better if I’d picked different cryptos. Or just stuck with Bitcoin and its +89% gain.
In retrospect, it seems an easy/obvious choice, as choices normally do when looking backward. But by tracking the progress of these experiments monthly, I’m able to report another obvious point: crypto is a highly dynamic market. Stellar was the best performer of 2018, for example. And Litecoin looked like it was the crypto to beat for much of 2019, up +300% at the mid-year point.
I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 is now up +29% since the beginning of 2019. My initial $1k investment into crypto would have yielded about +$290 had it been redirected to the S&P.

Conclusion:

Although the 2019 Top Ten ended the December fairly flat, the overall market and Bitcoin in particular had a very strong year. The year is staring off with a bang, the market is up, the halvening approaches, and current sentiment towards crypto seems positive – 2020 will no doubt be another interesting year for cryptocurrency.

Thanks and Future of the Experiments:

Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment(s). I hope you’ve found them helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. If you’re interested in the 2018 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment, you can check it out here.
As for the future of the experiment:
  1. I’ll continue to hold and will report on the Top Ten Cryptos of 2018.
  2. I’ll continue to hold and will report on the Top Ten Cryptos of 2019.
  3. I’ve also decided to repeat the experiment with the Top Ten Cryptos of 2020.
Thanks again and all the best in 2020!
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Year End Recap)

I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Year End Recap)

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies for Two Years (2018 & 2019) - End of Year Summary - Down 86%
Full blog post with all the tables
**NOTE** - I usually like to release the two posts a day apart, but I'll be spacing out the Top Ten 2018 and the Top Ten 2019 reports a bit more as readers have mentioned they've been removed by the mods (no offence taken, mods - the content is similar, I assume the posts are being removed because they're seen as identical. **END NOTE**
tl;dr - Every crypto was down again in December. After two years tracking this group of cryptos, I'm down -86%. Although the market as a whole rebounded in 2019, the 2018 Top Ten portfolio was flat for the year. Bitcoin wins this year by far, do you know who one last year? 60% of the 2018 Top Ten cryptos has lost at least 90% of their January 2018 value and 50% of cryptos aren't in the Top Ten anymore. NEM continues to be the absolute worst performer. Happy New Year, Happy New Decade!

The Experiment:

Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2018/2019 crypto space. I’m trying to keep it simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet.
I have also started a parallel project: on January 1st, 2019, I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) into the new Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019. Spoiler alert: the 2019 Experiment makes for much happier reading.

Month Twenty-Four and Two Year Tally – Down 86% since January 2018

Thought not quite as bad as November, December was a rough month in the cryptoverse: for the second straight month, each of the 2018 Top Ten cryptos ended 2019 in the red.
Finally tally after two years of this experiment? I am now down -86% on the 2018 Top Ten crypto portfolio since January 2018. My $1,000 investment on the 1st of January 2018 is now worth $136.
This isn’t quite the record low: the 2018 Top Ten bottomed out at -88% in January of 2019.
The best month this year for this group of cryptos was June 2019, where this portfolio reached a -71% return on initial investment.

Ranking and December Winners and Losers

For the second straight month, there was no upward movement: every crypto either held onto its position or slid. Stellar, Cardano, and NEM, each dropped a position, down to #11, #13, and #29 respectively.
December was not kind to IOTA and Dash: IOTA fell three spots to #23 and Dash dropped four positions to #26.
December WinnersBitcoin pretty much broke even, down only -2% in December. Second place goes to Bitcoin Cash, down -6%.
December Losers – For the second month in a row, I’m going to have to give the loss to Dash. Although it virtually tied with IOTA and Dash (both down -21%), Dash also reached a new low, settling down at #26. A reminder: since January 2018, Dash had never ended a month in last place until last month.
For those keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and losses after two years of the 2018 Top Ten Cryptos Experiment. Most monthly wins (6): Bitcoin. Most monthly losses (5): Stellar. All cryptos have at least one monthly win and Bitcoin now stands alone as the only crypto that hasn’t lost a month.

FINAL RESULTS after tracking this group through 2018 and 2019: Bitcoin is well in the lead, followed distantly by Litecoin, then Ethereum. NEM and Dash are the worst overall performers.

Although down -46% since January 2018, Bitcoin is still miles ahead of the rest of the field. Litecoin and Ethereum are virtually tied at a very distant second place down -81% and -82% respectively.
That’s what victory looks like for the Top Ten 2018 batch of cryptos.
If that’s victory, what’s defeat?
NEM has performed the absolute worst, down -97%. in two years. My initial $100 investment is now worth $3.47.
But NEM is by no means alone at the bottom: 60% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten are down at least 90%: NEM, Cardano, Dash, IOTA, Ripple, and Bitcoin Cash.
As you’ll see on the chart above, 50% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out, specifically NEM, Dash, IOTA, Stellar, and Cardano. They have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tether, Tezos, and BTCSV. Three coins (NEM, Dash, IOTA) have dropped out of the Top Twenty and one (NEM) is in danger of dropping out of the the Top Thirty. Quite a fall in two years.
Of note, with the exception Cardano, the Top Five cryptos have more or less stayed put over the course of the twenty-four month experiment. Also of note: Litecoin has maintained perfect consistency, ending 2017, 2018, and 2019 glued to the #6 position.
For extra credit, does anyone remember which crypto finished 2018 in the lead?
Answer – Stellar.
Probably not what you were thinking, huh?

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto space lost $9B in December, which isn't much for crypto and nowhere near the $50B which evaporated in November. The overall market cap is now back to the $189B mark, last seen in May 2019.
Two Year Final Market Cap Figures:
  • Since January 2018 – the total market cap for crypto has dropped -67%.
  • Since January 2019 – the total market cap for crypto has increased +49%
  • Worst Month – January 2019 ($114B total crypto market cap)
  • Best Month – January 2018 ($575B total crypto market cap)
  • The last time the total market cap reached $500B: January 2018
  • The last time the total market cap reached $400B: May 2018
  • The last time the total market cap reached $300B: August 2019
  • The last time the total market cap reached $200B: November 2019

Bitcoin dominance:

Bitcoin dominance ticked back up in December and ends 2019 at 68%, a level not seen since September 2019 and much higher than 2018’s year end figure of 52%.
For context, the range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2018 has been quite wide: a high of 70% in September 2019 and a low of 33% in February 2018.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2018:

After an initial $1000 investment, the 2018 Top Ten Portfolio is worth $136, down about -86% in two years.
Although the overall market ended 2019 stronger than the year before, the 2018 Top Ten Experiment cryptos finished at more or less the same level: last year the portfolio recorded a -85% loss and was worth $152.
  • Lowest 2018 Top Ten portfolio value: January 2019 ($122)
  • Highest 2018 Top Ten portfolio value: January 2018 ($792)
The 2019 Top Ten Experiment is doing better, but the year end report will show that group has basically broken even for the year, up a mere +2%. The year end report will be released soon for the 2019 Top Ten.
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom line: after a $2000 investment in both the 2018 and the 2019 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios would be worth $1,153.
That’s down about -42%.

Implications/Observations:

Congratulations to Bitcoin which significantly outperformed the rest of the field at the end of the first two years of the 2018 Top Ten Index Fund experiment.
Two years on, there are a few obvious takeaways from the 2018 experiment. Buying at all time highs put this experiment in a difficult position from the start and it has not yet come close to just breaking even. The high point of this experiment was at the end of the very first month (January 2018) where the portfolio was “only” down -20%. I haven’t run the numbers, but by eyeballing and with hindsight, it’s easy to see that it would have been much better to come in at just about any other time during that first year. The portfolio would still be down, but not like this – not like this.
That said, buying mid-January when prices were even higher would have been worse – hard to imagine considering my Top Ten buys on New Years Day 2018 have seen a -86% drop – but yes, it could have been even worse.
For each of the first twenty-four months, the experiment’s focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos continues to be a losing approach. While the overall market is down -67% from January 2018, the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten are down -86% over the same period. This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I’d picked different cryptos.
At no point in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the twenty-four months compared to the market overall.
There are a few examples, however, of this approach outperforming the market in the parallel 2019 Top Ten Crypto Currency Experiment.
I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 is now up +21% since the beginning of 2018. My initial $1k investment into crypto would have yielded about +$210 had it been redirected to the S&P.

Conclusion:

Although the 2018 Top Ten Experiment cryptos ended 2019 pretty much where they began, the market overall saw some solid gains in 2019. 2018 ended pretty hopelessly as crypto seemed to be in free-fall. 2019 overall felt like a recovery story, as a bottom was reached. With The Bitcoin Halvening due to arrive mid 2020, it should be another interesting year in the crypto space.

Thanks and Future of the Experiments:

Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment(s). I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel project where I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of a new set of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019.
As for the future of the experiment, why not, let’s keep this thing rolling:
  1. I’ll continue to hold and will report on the Top Ten Cryptos of 2018.
  2. I’ll continue to hold and will report on the Top Ten Cryptos of 2019.
  3. I’ve also decided to repeat the experiment with the Top Ten Cryptos of 2020.
Thanks again and all the best in your crypto adventures!
edit: changed a bad link
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Technical: A Brief History of Payment Channels: from Satoshi to Lightning Network

Who cares about political tweets from some random country's president when payment channels are a much more interesting and are actually capable of carrying value?
So let's have a short history of various payment channel techs!

Generation 0: Satoshi's Broken nSequence Channels

Because Satoshi's Vision included payment channels, except his implementation sucked so hard we had to go fix it and added RBF as a by-product.
Originally, the plan for nSequence was that mempools would replace any transaction spending certain inputs with another transaction spending the same inputs, but only if the nSequence field of the replacement was larger.
Since 0xFFFFFFFF was the highest value that nSequence could get, this would mark a transaction as "final" and not replaceable on the mempool anymore.
In fact, this "nSequence channel" I will describe is the reason why we have this weird rule about nLockTime and nSequence. nLockTime actually only works if nSequence is not 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. final. If nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF then nLockTime is ignored, because this if the "final" version of the transaction.
So what you'd do would be something like this:
  1. You go to a bar and promise the bartender to pay by the time the bar closes. Because this is the Bitcoin universe, time is measured in blockheight, so the closing time of the bar is indicated as some future blockheight.
  2. For your first drink, you'd make a transaction paying to the bartender for that drink, paying from some coins you have. The transaction has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, and a starting nSequence of 0. You hand over the transaction and the bartender hands you your drink.
  3. For your succeeding drink, you'd remake the same transaction, adding the payment for that drink to the transaction output that goes to the bartender (so that output keeps getting larger, by the amount of payment), and having an nSequence that is one higher than the previous one.
  4. Eventually you have to stop drinking. It comes down to one of two possibilities:
    • You drink until the bar closes. Since it is now the nLockTime indicated in the transaction, the bartender is able to broadcast the latest transaction and tells the bouncers to kick you out of the bar.
    • You wisely consider the state of your liver. So you re-sign the last transaction with a "final" nSequence of 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. the maximum possible value it can have. This allows the bartender to get his or her funds immediately (nLockTime is ignored if nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF), so he or she tells the bouncers to let you out of the bar.
Now that of course is a payment channel. Individual payments (purchases of alcohol, so I guess buying coffee is not in scope for payment channels). Closing is done by creating a "final" transaction that is the sum of the individual payments. Sure there's no routing and channels are unidirectional and channels have a maximum lifetime but give Satoshi a break, he was also busy inventing Bitcoin at the time.
Now if you noticed I called this kind of payment channel "broken". This is because the mempool rules are not consensus rules, and cannot be validated (nothing about the mempool can be validated onchain: I sigh every time somebody proposes "let's make block size dependent on mempool size", mempool state cannot be validated by onchain data). Fullnodes can't see all of the transactions you signed, and then validate that the final one with the maximum nSequence is the one that actually is used onchain. So you can do the below:
  1. Become friends with Jihan Wu, because he owns >51% of the mining hashrate (he totally reorged Bitcoin to reverse the Binance hack right?).
  2. Slip Jihan Wu some of the more interesting drinks you're ordering as an incentive to cooperate with you. So say you end up ordering 100 drinks, you split it with Jihan Wu and give him 50 of the drinks.
  3. When the bar closes, Jihan Wu quickly calls his mining rig and tells them to mine the version of your transaction with nSequence 0. You know, that first one where you pay for only one drink.
  4. Because fullnodes cannot validate nSequence, they'll accept even the nSequence=0 version and confirm it, immutably adding you paying for a single alcoholic drink to the blockchain.
  5. The bartender, pissed at being cheated, takes out a shotgun from under the bar and shoots at you and Jihan Wu.
  6. Jihan Wu uses his mystical chi powers (actually the combined exhaust from all of his mining rigs) to slow down the shotgun pellets, making them hit you as softly as petals drifting in the wind.
  7. The bartender mutters some words, clothes ripping apart as he or she (hard to believe it could be a she but hey) turns into a bear, ready to maul you for cheating him or her of the payment for all the 100 drinks you ordered from him or her.
  8. Steely-eyed, you stand in front of the bartender-turned-bear, daring him to touch you. You've watched Revenant, you know Leonardo di Caprio could survive a bear mauling, and if some posh actor can survive that, you know you can too. You make a pose. "Drunken troll logic attack!"
  9. I think I got sidetracked here.
Lessons learned?

Spilman Channels

Incentive-compatible time-limited unidirectional channel; or, Satoshi's Vision, Fixed (if transaction malleability hadn't been a problem, that is).
Now, we know the bartender will turn into a bear and maul you if you try to cheat the payment channel, and now that we've revealed you're good friends with Jihan Wu, the bartender will no longer accept a payment channel scheme that lets one you cooperate with a miner to cheat the bartender.
Fortunately, Jeremy Spilman proposed a better way that would not let you cheat the bartender.
First, you and the bartender perform this ritual:
  1. You get some funds and create a transaction that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig between you and the bartender. You don't broadcast this yet: you just sign it and get its txid.
  2. You create another transaction that spends the above transaction. This transaction (the "backoff") has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, plus one block. You sign it and give this backoff transaction (but not the above transaction) to the bartender.
  3. The bartender signs the backoff and gives it back to you. It is now valid since it's spending a 2-of-2 of you and the bartender, and both of you have signed the backoff transaction.
  4. Now you broadcast the first transaction onchain. You and the bartender wait for it to be deeply confirmed, then you can start ordering.
The above is probably vaguely familiar to LN users. It's the funding process of payment channels! The first transaction, the one that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig, is the funding transaction that backs the payment channel funds.
So now you start ordering in this way:
  1. For your first drink, you create a transaction spending the funding transaction output and sending the price of the drink to the bartender, with the rest returning to you.
  2. You sign the transaction and pass it to the bartender, who serves your first drink.
  3. For your succeeding drinks, you recreate the same transaction, adding the price of the new drink to the sum that goes to the bartender and reducing the money returned to you. You sign the transaction and give it to the bartender, who serves you your next drink.
  4. At the end:
    • If the bar closing time is reached, the bartender signs the latest transaction, completing the needed 2-of-2 signatures and broadcasting this to the Bitcoin network. Since the backoff transaction is the closing time + 1, it can't get used at closing time.
    • If you decide you want to leave early because your liver is crying, you just tell the bartender to go ahead and close the channel (which the bartender can do at any time by just signing and broadcasting the latest transaction: the bartender won't do that because he or she is hoping you'll stay and drink more).
    • If you ended up just hanging around the bar and never ordering, then at closing time + 1 you broadcast the backoff transaction and get your funds back in full.
Now, even if you pass 50 drinks to Jihan Wu, you can't give him the first transaction (the one which pays for only one drink) and ask him to mine it: it's spending a 2-of-2 and the copy you have only contains your own signature. You need the bartender's signature to make it valid, but he or she sure as hell isn't going to cooperate in something that would lose him or her money, so a signature from the bartender validating old state where he or she gets paid less isn't going to happen.
So, problem solved, right? Right? Okay, let's try it. So you get your funds, put them in a funding tx, get the backoff tx, confirm the funding tx...
Once the funding transaction confirms deeply, the bartender laughs uproariously. He or she summons the bouncers, who surround you menacingly.
"I'm refusing service to you," the bartender says.
"Fine," you say. "I was leaving anyway;" You smirk. "I'll get back my money with the backoff transaction, and posting about your poor service on reddit so you get negative karma, so there!"
"Not so fast," the bartender says. His or her voice chills your bones. It looks like your exploitation of the Satoshi nSequence payment channel is still fresh in his or her mind. "Look at the txid of the funding transaction that got confirmed."
"What about it?" you ask nonchalantly, as you flip open your desktop computer and open a reputable blockchain explorer.
What you see shocks you.
"What the --- the txid is different! You--- you changed my signature?? But how? I put the only copy of my private key in a sealed envelope in a cast-iron box inside a safe buried in the Gobi desert protected by a clan of nomads who have dedicated their lives and their childrens' lives to keeping my private key safe in perpetuity!"
"Didn't you know?" the bartender asks. "The components of the signature are just very large numbers. The sign of one of the signature components can be changed, from positive to negative, or negative to positive, and the signature will remain valid. Anyone can do that, even if they don't know the private key. But because Bitcoin includes the signatures in the transaction when it's generating the txid, this little change also changes the txid." He or she chuckles. "They say they'll fix it by separating the signatures from the transaction body. They're saying that these kinds of signature malleability won't affect transaction ids anymore after they do this, but I bet I can get my good friend Jihan Wu to delay this 'SepSig' plan for a good while yet. Friendly guy, this Jihan Wu, it turns out all I had to do was slip him 51 drinks and he was willing to mine a tx with the signature signs flipped." His or her grin widens. "I'm afraid your backoff transaction won't work anymore, since it spends a txid that is not existent and will never be confirmed. So here's the deal. You pay me 99% of the funds in the funding transaction, in exchange for me signing the transaction that spends with the txid that you see onchain. Refuse, and you lose 100% of the funds and every other HODLer, including me, benefits from the reduction in coin supply. Accept, and you get to keep 1%. I lose nothing if you refuse, so I won't care if you do, but consider the difference of getting zilch vs. getting 1% of your funds." His or her eyes glow. "GENUFLECT RIGHT NOW."
Lesson learned?

CLTV-protected Spilman Channels

Using CLTV for the backoff branch.
This variation is simply Spilman channels, but with the backoff transaction replaced with a backoff branch in the SCRIPT you pay to. It only became possible after OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV) was enabled in 2015.
Now as we saw in the Spilman Channels discussion, transaction malleability means that any pre-signed offchain transaction can easily be invalidated by flipping the sign of the signature of the funding transaction while the funding transaction is not yet confirmed.
This can be avoided by simply putting any special requirements into an explicit branch of the Bitcoin SCRIPT. Now, the backoff branch is supposed to create a maximum lifetime for the payment channel, and prior to the introduction of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY this could only be done by having a pre-signed nLockTime transaction.
With CLTV, however, we can now make the branches explicit in the SCRIPT that the funding transaction pays to.
Instead of paying to a 2-of-2 in order to set up the funding transaction, you pay to a SCRIPT which is basically "2-of-2, OR this singlesig after a specified lock time".
With this, there is no backoff transaction that is pre-signed and which refers to a specific txid. Instead, you can create the backoff transaction later, using whatever txid the funding transaction ends up being confirmed under. Since the funding transaction is immutable once confirmed, it is no longer possible to change the txid afterwards.

Todd Micropayment Networks

The old hub-spoke model (that isn't how LN today actually works).
One of the more direct predecessors of the Lightning Network was the hub-spoke model discussed by Peter Todd. In this model, instead of payers directly having channels to payees, payers and payees connect to a central hub server. This allows any payer to pay any payee, using the same channel for every payee on the hub. Similarly, this allows any payee to receive from any payer, using the same channel.
Remember from the above Spilman example? When you open a channel to the bartender, you have to wait around for the funding tx to confirm. This will take an hour at best. Now consider that you have to make channels for everyone you want to pay to. That's not very scalable.
So the Todd hub-spoke model has a central "clearing house" that transport money from payers to payees. The "Moonbeam" project takes this model. Of course, this reveals to the hub who the payer and payee are, and thus the hub can potentially censor transactions. Generally, though, it was considered that a hub would more efficiently censor by just not maintaining a channel with the payer or payee that it wants to censor (since the money it owned in the channel would just be locked uselessly if the hub won't process payments to/from the censored user).
In any case, the ability of the central hub to monitor payments means that it can surveill the payer and payee, and then sell this private transactional data to third parties. This loss of privacy would be intolerable today.
Peter Todd also proposed that there might be multiple hubs that could transport funds to each other on behalf of their users, providing somewhat better privacy.
Another point of note is that at the time such networks were proposed, only unidirectional (Spilman) channels were available. Thus, while one could be a payer, or payee, you would have to use separate channels for your income versus for your spending. Worse, if you wanted to transfer money from your income channel to your spending channel, you had to close both and reshuffle the money between them, both onchain activities.

Poon-Dryja Lightning Network

Bidirectional two-participant channels.
The Poon-Dryja channel mechanism has two important properties:
Both the original Satoshi and the two Spilman variants are unidirectional: there is a payer and a payee, and if the payee wants to do a refund, or wants to pay for a different service or product the payer is providing, then they can't use the same unidirectional channel.
The Poon-Dryjam mechanism allows channels, however, to be bidirectional instead: you are not a payer or a payee on the channel, you can receive or send at any time as long as both you and the channel counterparty are online.
Further, unlike either of the Spilman variants, there is no time limit for the lifetime of a channel. Instead, you can keep the channel open for as long as you want.
Both properties, together, form a very powerful scaling property that I believe most people have not appreciated. With unidirectional channels, as mentioned before, if you both earn and spend over the same network of payment channels, you would have separate channels for earning and spending. You would then need to perform onchain operations to "reverse" the directions of your channels periodically. Secondly, since Spilman channels have a fixed lifetime, even if you never used either channel, you would have to periodically "refresh" it by closing it and reopening.
With bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels, you may instead open some channels when you first begin managing your own money, then close them only after your lawyers have executed your last will and testament on how the money in your channels get divided up to your heirs: that's just two onchain transactions in your entire lifetime. That is the potentially very powerful scaling property that bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels allow.
I won't discuss the transaction structure needed for Poon-Dryja bidirectional channels --- it's complicated and you can easily get explanations with cute graphics elsewhere.
There is a weakness of Poon-Dryja that people tend to gloss over (because it was fixed very well by RustyReddit):
Another thing I want to emphasize is that while the Lightning Network paper and many of the earlier presentations developed from the old Peter Todd hub-and-spoke model, the modern Lightning Network takes the logical conclusion of removing a strict separation between "hubs" and "spokes". Any node on the Lightning Network can very well work as a hub for any other node. Thus, while you might operate as "mostly a payer", "mostly a forwarding node", "mostly a payee", you still end up being at least partially a forwarding node ("hub") on the network, at least part of the time. This greatly reduces the problems of privacy inherent in having only a few hub nodes: forwarding nodes cannot get significantly useful data from the payments passing through them, because the distance between the payer and the payee can be so large that it would be likely that the ultimate payer and the ultimate payee could be anyone on the Lightning Network.
Lessons learned?

Future

After LN, there's also the Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels (DMC). This post is long enough as-is, LOL. But for now, it uses a novel "decrementing nSequence channel", using the new relative-timelock semantics of nSequence (not the broken one originally by Satoshi). It actually uses multiple such "decrementing nSequence" constructs, terminating in a pair of Spilman channels, one in both directions (thus "duplex"). Maybe I'll discuss it some other time.
The realization that channel constructions could actually hold more channel constructions inside them (the way the Decker-Wattenhofer puts a pair of Spilman channels inside a series of "decrementing nSequence channels") lead to the further thought behind Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer channel factories. Basically, you could host multiple two-participant channel constructs inside a larger multiparticipant "channel" construct (i.e. host multiple channels inside a factory).
Further, we have the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun or "eltoo" construction. I'd argue that this is "nSequence done right". I'll write more about this later, because this post is long enough.
Lessons learned?
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[EU] [FIAT GATEWAY] Bitvavo.com is a new fiat ramp for NANO!

Hello dear NANO'ers,

I come with great news. Bitvavo - a DUTCH exchange, secretly has fully implemented NANO on their exchange! This means you can buy AND sell NANO for Euros! Bitvavo is a DUTCH exchange, under Dutch/European law, having its HQ within the Netherlands. This is AMAZING. I made a post about Bitvavo adding nanos last year, back then you couldnt send/withdraw NANO (so it was fully artificial), but now its fully operational!

Why is this a big deal? Its an European exchange, falling under European laws (Dutch to be precise). Since i live in the Netherlands, this to me is just amazing. The dutch are a meticulously kind of folk. Dutch laws are quite strong and complicated and regulations are strong here. To have a working fiat ramp exchange that hasnt been shutdown by authorities, means it has a certain degree of Trustworthiness (at least for me and Dutch laws, which are stricter then European laws mostly).

Is it any good? Well, i first deposited euro's on the website (which you cant hold for longer then 5 days, since it isnt a bank and certain laws are preventing that), which went 'pretty' fast. I bought nano's with it (which was instant), and then i withdrew NANO's from it...which went through in SECONDS. Yes. Seconds. I put the order in, went to Binance to check things out and literally a few seconds later i heard the ping from CANOE. I couldnt believe it lol. I actually was in awe and suddenly became extremely enthusiastic, and immediately bought more lol.

What about fees? They take maketrader fees of 0.25%. In my eyes, that isnt much. For withdrawal they also have fee, but its around 0.00025 nano if im right. Its crazy low. And crazy fast.

Are there any negative parts? Well, its a dutch company but it isnt coinbase. If the whole world flocks towards it, i can see the website going down because the server can't hold that weight. This is theoretically, but those who experienced the 2017 run know that a lot of exchanges either went down (for a few hours/days) or stopped accepting new registrations because their servers couldnt handle it. I feel the same is with Bitvavo, its a small dutch exchange, not a big one.

Other negative parts? I don't think they have much nano lol. After my first purchase i was SO impressed with the speed and low cost of it, i bought more. The second time i bought, i received a message that this was going to be processed manually. For the long run i cant see this being a problem, it just means they have to buy more NANO, which will only help NANO :)

Now besides those, you do need to do a KYC, and i havent read in about any international KYC. The KYC is necessary for you to trade on the exchange. For me, i had to link my bank account to my account on Bitvavo (the same way you do it with Paypal). You can only send/receive money from/to your (linked) bank account to Bitvavo (if through IDEAL, not sure about SEPA etc). I find this acceptable to be honest for a EUROPEAN/trustworthy fiat gateway.

Payment methods (including fees):

It has been a while since i sold crypto for Euro's on the site, but it worked pretty fast. The next day, the money was sitting in my bank account :) it wasnt much though (around 100 euros), but it passed the test for me back then. Unless we go in to a massive bullrun, i prob wont be selling my NANO for fiat anytime soon anyways. I am more searching for ways to pay internet services for NANO :) Hopefully one day we can pay for everyday things with NANO, like groceries or liqueur etc.

Bitvavo has many many other coins too (besides btc,eth, xrp) like ADA, ICX, IOTA, Vechain, NEO etc. So if you want to trade your NANO with other crypto's, it is another way besides Binance (though i would still use binance for it).

THis is a huge step. For very low cost, and extremely fast speed, we (Europeans in general) have an amazing gateway towards NANO. Together with Coingate integration of NANO, and NANO amazing ease of use - i cant see any other way besides NANO becoming a smashing succes.

The only weird thing about this is Bitvavo own marketing. They did this all in silent, for reasons unknown to me since this is HUGE news for me (and a lot of Dutch/European citizens that have access to IDEAL).

Now, i have to SHILL NANO a bit more here, because i am really getting hyped once again. I feel even more positive about NANO then back in dec 2017 to be honest.

Remember guys, NANO is just at #48 in CMC. 48! While its utility is much better then 99% of ALL crypto! Infact, NANO is the ONLY usuable crypto RIGHT NOW besides maybe Eth for Dapps. Look at the marketcap of LTC, which in EVERY aspect is a worse coin then NANO. Then calculate how much a single NANO would be worth if it would have LTC marketcap... NANO has STILL SO MUCH to grow, its crazy. Its like getting Bitcoin back in 2011/2013.

Pay for your products online FASTER and more reliable AND cheaper then Paypal (conversation rate), credit card (% rate per month/year) or bank. Since V18 has come out i have been EXTREMELY impressed by NANO. So much that i have doubled my (relatively small) stack and i have (once again) started to accumulate slowly. News like this (Bitvavo) just makes me more hyped for NANO. Together with a website where i can actually buy their services with NANO - and i am planning to use it more, i cant be more positive. NANO may have had a hard time in 2018 price wise, but DAMN the team has done an amazing job with its tech throughout the bear market.

Mad props to you Colin AND your amazing team. Props to Coingate for having an amazing service too! Once NANO has been proven to scale to 1k+ (with 7K being a nicely goal) + an automatically representative node assignment through wallets (to make NANO more decentralized), i cant see nano NOT becoming a top 10 - or even a top 5 coin. As a payment coin, NANO truly knows no equal!

EDIT: a MAJOR edit here, before you guys get TOO excited. PLEASE look in to the exchange pricing too! Bitvavo might be selling (or probably IS) NANO for a higher rate then for example Binance (this is apart from maketaker fee and withdrawal fee!). It isnt the same price as you pay on Binance, with the conversion rate. So for the same EUUSD, you will get less NANO compared to Binance (if you could pay directly for it). So keep that in mind, u/dotcoml said it actually was 2%. I personally didnt bother doing the math nor do i mind a 2% fee to exchange my fiat for NANO (it still is better then credit card, and for its speed/usability, i dont mind paying 2% more compared to FIAT either), but it still is 2%. Keep this in mind!

EDIT2: other users are reporting Bitvavo actually having LOWER prices then Binance :) please check it out for yourself!
submitted by Redac07 to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

Which exchanges do you recommend after the Binance AWS issue, which also affected KuCoin, Bitmax, etc.

Which exchanges do you recommend after the Binance AWS issue, which also affected KuCoin, Bitmax, etc.
The binance exchange's AWS issue results in the error in deposit and withdrawal. What is worse is that Bitmax's orderbook is broken, and there was a deep dip and people could buy the $8000 bitcoin cause the market makers failed to provide the liquidity caused by the API bug of Binance. Bitmax's also planning to roll back the data, and stopped users from trading nor withdrawing, which I think also sucks.
https://preview.redd.it/l72xyishc6i31.png?width=2104&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a609a21065fc5ac594c02dea0b8003c435f00fe
Is there any better exchange to choose where the liquidity is good, safe, and stable? I'm planning to deposit a part of my assets out of binance.
submitted by JeremyPeng to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto

A couple of years ago in the early months of the 2017, I published a piece called Abundance Via Cryptocurrencies (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/69d12a/abundance\_via\_cryptocurrencies/) in which I kind of foresaw the crypto boom that had bitcoin go from $1k to $21k and the alt-coin economy swell up to have more than 60% of the bitcoin market capitalisation. At the time, I spoke of coming out from “the Pit” of conspiracy research and that I was a bit suss on bitcoin’s inception story. At the time I really didn’t see the scaling solution being put forward as being satisfactory and the progress on bitcoin seemed stifled by the politics of the social consensus on an open source protocol so I was looking into alt coins that I thought could perhaps improve upon the shortcomings of bitcoin. In the thread I made someone recommended to have a look at 4chan’s business and finance board. I did end up taking a look at it just as the bull market started to really surge. I found myself in a sea of anonymous posters who threw out all kinds of info and memes about the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of different shitcoins and why they’re all going to have lambos on the moon. I got right in to it, I loved the idea of filtering through all the shitposts and finding the nuggest of truth amongst it all and was deeply immersed in it all as the price of bitcoin surged 20x and alt coins surged 5-10 times against bitcoin themselves. This meant there were many people who chucked in a few grand and bought a stash of alt coins that they thought were gonna be the next big thing and some people ended up with “portfolios” 100-1000x times their initial investment.
To explain what it’s like to be on an anonymous business and finance board populated with incel neets, nazis, capitalist shit posters, autistic geniuses and whoever the hell else was using the board for shilling their coins during a 100x run up is impossible. It’s hilarious, dark, absurd, exciting and ultimately addictive as fuck. You have this app called blockfolio that you check every couple of minutes to see the little green percentages and the neat graphs of your value in dollars or bitcoin over day, week, month or year. Despite my years in the pit researching conspiracy, and my being suss on bitcoin in general I wasn’t anywhere near as distrustful as I should have been of an anonymous business and finance board and although I do genuinely think there are good people out there who are sharing information with one another in good faith and feel very grateful to the anons that have taken their time to write up quality content to educate people they don’t know, I wasn’t really prepared for the level of organisation and sophistication of the efforts groups would go to to deceive in this space.
Over the course of my time in there I watched my portfolio grow to ridiculous numbers relative to what I put in but I could never really bring myself to sell at the top of a pump as I always felt I had done my research on a coin and wanted to hold it for a long time so why would I sell? After some time though I would read about something new or I would find out of dodgy relationships of a coin I had and would want to exit my position and then I would rebalance my portfolio in to a coin I thought was either technologically superior or didn’t have the nefarious connections to people I had come across doing conspiracy research. Because I had been right in to the conspiracy and the decentralisation tropes I guess I always carried a bit of an antiauthoritarian/anarchist bias and despite participating in a ridiculously capitalistic market, was kind of against capitalism and looking to a blockchain protocol to support something along the lines of an open source anarchosyndicalist cryptocommune. I told myself I was investing in the tech and believed in the collective endeavour of the open source project and ultimately had faith some mysterious “they” would develop a protocol that would emancipate us from this debt slavery complex.
As I became more and more aware of how to spot artificial discussion on the chans, I began to seek out further some of the radical projects like vtorrent and skycoin and I guess became a bit carried away from being amidst such ridiculous overt shilling as on the boards so that if you look in my post history you can even see me promoting some of these coins to communities I thought might be sympathetic to their use case. I didn’t see it at the time because I always thought I was holding the coins with the best tech and wanted to ride them up as an investor who believed in them, but this kind of promotion is ultimately just part of a mentality that’s pervasive to the cryptocurrency “community” that insists because it is a decentralised project you have to in a way volunteer to inform people about the coin since the more decentralised ones without premines or DAO structures don’t have marketing budgets, or don’t have marketing teams. In the guise of cultivating a community, groups form together on social media platforms like slack, discord, telegram, twitter and ‘vote’ for different proposals, donate funds to various boards/foundations that are set up to give a “roadmap” for the coins path to greatness and organise marketing efforts on places like reddit, the chans, twitter. That’s for the more grass roots ones at least, there are many that were started as a fork of another coin, or a ICO, airdrop or all these different ways of disseminating a new cryptocurrency or raising funding for promising to develop one. Imagine the operations that can be run by a team that raised millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on their ICOs, especially if they are working in conjunction with a new niche of cryptocurrency media that’s all nepotistic and incestuous.
About a year and a half ago I published another piece called “Bitcoin is about to be dethroned” (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/7ewmuu/bitcoin\_is\_about\_to\_be\_dethroned/) where I felt I had come to realise the scaling debate had been corrupted by a company called Blockstream and they had been paying for social media operations in a fashion not to dissimilar to correct the record or such to control the narrative around the scaling debate and then through deceit and manipulation curated an apparent consensus around their narrative and hijacked the bitcoin name and ticker (BTC). I read the post again just before posting this and decided to refer to it to to add some kind of continuity to my story and hopefully save me writing so much out. Looking back on something you wrote is always a bit cringey especially because I can see that although I had made it a premise post, I was acting pretty confident that I was right and my tongue was acidic because of so much combating of shills on /biz/ but despite the fact I was wrong about the timing I stand by much of what I wrote then and want to expand upon it a bit more now.
The fork of the bitcoin protocol in to bitcoin core (BTC) and bitcoin cash (BCH) is the biggest value fork of the many that have occurred. There were a few others that forked off from the core chain that haven’t had any kind of attention put on them, positive or negative and I guess just keep chugging away as their own implementation. The bitcoin cash chain was supposed to be the camp that backed on chain scaling in the debate, but it turned out not everyone was entirely on board with that and some players/hashpower felt it was better to do a layer two type solution themselves although with bigger blocks servicing the second layer. Throughout what was now emerging as a debate within the BCH camp, Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre of Coin Geek said they were going to support massive on chain scaling, do a node implementation that would aim to restore bitcoin back to the 0.1.0 release which had all kinds of functionality included in it that had later been stripped by Core developers over the years and plan to bankrupt the people from Core who changed their mind on agreeing with on-chain scaling. This lead to a fork off the BCH chain in to bitcoin satoshis vision (BSV) and bitcoin cash ABC.

https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/cbb50c322a2a89f3c627e1680a3f40d4ad3cee5a3fb153e5d6d001bdf85de404

The premise for this post is that Craig S Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. It’s an interesting premise because depending upon your frame of reference the premise may either be a fact or to some too outrageous to even believe as a premise. Yesterday it was announced via CoinGeek that Craig Steven Wright has been granted the copyright claim for both the bitcoin white-paper under the pen name Satoshi Nakamoto and the original 0.1.0 bitcoin software (both of which were marked (c) copyright of satoshi nakamoto. The reactions to the news can kind of be classified in to four different reactions. Those who heard it and rejected it, those who heard it but remained undecided, those who heard it and accepted it, and those who already believed he was. Apparently to many the price was unexpected and such a revelation wasn’t exactly priced in to the market with the price immediately pumping nearly 100% upon the news breaking. However, to some others it was a vindication of something they already believed. This is an interesting phenomena to observe. For many years now I have always occupied a somewhat positively contrarian position to the default narrative put forward to things so it’s not entirely surprising that I find myself in a camp that holds the minority opinion. As you can see in the bitcoin dethroned piece I called Craig fake satoshi, but over the last year and bit I investigated the story around Craig and came to my conclusion that I believed him to be at least a major part of a team of people who worked on the protocol I have to admit that through reading his articles, I have kind of been brought full circle to where my contrarian opinion has me becoming somewhat of an advocate for “the system’.
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-s-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-granted-us-copyright-registrations-for-bitcoin-white-paper-and-code/

When the news dropped, many took to social media to see what everyone was saying about it. On /biz/ a barrage of threads popped up discussing it with many celebrating and many rejecting the significance of such a copyright claim being granted. Immediately in nearly every thread there was a posting of an image of a person from twitter claiming that registering for copyright is an easy process that’s granted automatically unless challenged and so it doesn’t mean anything. This was enough for many to convince them of the insignificance of the revelation because of the comment from a person who claimed to have authority on twitter. Others chimed in to add that in fact there was a review of the copyright registration especially in high profile instances and these reviewers were satisfied with the evidence provided by Craig for the claim. At the moment Craig is being sued by Ira Kleiman for an amount of bitcoin that he believes he is entitled to because of Craig and Ira’s brother Dave working together on bitcoin. He is also engaged in suing a number of people from the cryptocurrency community for libel and defamation after they continued to use their social media/influencer positions to call him a fraud and a liar. He also has a number of patents lodged through his company nChain that are related to blockchain technologies. This has many people up in arms because in their mind Satoshi was part of a cypherpunk movement, wanted anonymity, endorsed what they believed to be an anti state and open source technologies and would use cryptography rather than court to prove his identity and would have no interest in patents.
https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/1fce34a7004759f8db16b2ae9678e9c6db434ff2e399f59b5a537f72eff2c1a1
https://imgur.com/a/aANAsL3)

If you listen to Craig with an open mind, what cannot be denied is the man is bloody smart. Whether he is honest or not is up to you to decide, but personally I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and then cut them off if i find them to be dishonest. What I haven’t really been able to do with my investigation of craig is cut him off. There have been many moments where I disagree with what he has had to say but I don’t think people having an opinion about something that I believe to be incorrect is the same as being a dishonest person. It’s very important to distinguish the two and if you are unable to do so there is a very real risk of you projecting expectations or ideals upon someone based off your ideas of who they are. Many times if someone is telling the truth but you don’t understand it, instead of acknowledging you don’t understand it, you label them as being stupid or dishonest. I think that has happened to an extreme extent with Craig. Let’s take for example the moment when someone in the slack channel asked Craig if he had had his IQ tested and what it was. Craig replied with 179. The vast majority of people on the internet have heard someone quote their IQ before in an argument or the IQ of others and to hear someone say such a score that is actually 6 standard deviations away from the mean score (so probably something like 1/100 000) immediately makes them reject it on the grounds of probability. Craig admits that he’s not the best with people and having worked with/taught many high functioning people (sometimes on the spectrum perhaps) on complex anatomical and physiological systems I have seen some that also share the same difficulties in relating to people and reconciling their genius and understandings with more average intelligences. Before rejecting his claim outright because we don’t understand much of what he says, it would be prudent to first check is there any evidence that may lend support to his claim of a one in a million intelligence quotient.

Craig has mentioned on a number of occasions that he holds a number of different degrees and certifications in relation to law, cryptography, statistics, mathematics, economics, theology, computer science, information technology/security. I guess that does sound like something someone with an extremely high intelligence could achieve. Now I haven’t validated all of them but from a simple check on Charles Sturt’s alumni portal using his birthday of 23rd of October 1970 we can see that he does in fact have 3 Masters and a PhD from Charles Sturt. Other pictures I have seen from his office at nChain have degrees in frames on the wall and a developer published a video titled Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 degrees where he went and validated at least 8 of them I believe. He is recently publishing his Doctorate of Theology through an on-chain social media page that you have to pay a little bit for access to sections of his thesis. It’s titled the gnarled roots of creation. He has also mentioned on a number of occasions his vast industry experience as both a security contractor and business owner. An archive from his LinkedIn can be seen below as well.

LinkedIn - https://archive.is/Q66Gl
https://youtu.be/nXdkczX5mR0 - Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 Degrees
https://www.yours.org/content/gnarled-roots-of-a-creation-mythos-45e69558fae0 - Gnarled Roots of Creation.
In fact here is an on chain collection of articles and videos relating to Craig called the library of craig - https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/94b361b205196560d1bd09e4e3b3ec7ad6bea478af204cabfe243efd8fc944dd


So there is a guy with 17 degrees, a self professed one in a hundred thousand IQ, who’s worked for Australian Federal Police, ASIO, NSA, NASA, ASX. He’s been in Royal Australian Air Force, operated a number of businesses in Australia, published half a dozen academic papers on networks, cryptography, security, taught machine learning and digital forensics at a number of universities and then another few hundred short articles on medium about his work in these various domains, has filed allegedly 700 patents on blockchain related technology that he is going to release on bitcoin sv, copyrighted the name so that he may prevent other competing protocols from using the brand name, that is telling you he is the guy that invented the technology that he has a whole host of other circumstantial evidence to support that, but people won’t believe that because they saw something that a talking head on twitter posted or that a Core Developer said, or a random document that appears online with a C S Wright signature on it that lists access to an address that is actually related to Roger Ver, that’s enough to write him off as a scam. Even then when he publishes a photo of the paper copy which appears to supersede the scanned one, people still don’t readjust their positions on the matter and resort back to “all he has to do is move the coins or sign a tx”.

https://imgur.com/urJbe10

Yes Craig was on the Cypherpunk mailing list back in the day, but that doesn’t mean that he was or is an anarchist. Or that he shares the same ideas that Code Is Law that many from the crypto community like to espouse. I myself have definitely been someone to parrot the phrase myself before reading lots of Craig’s articles and trying to understand where he is coming from. What I have come to learn from listening and reading the man, is that although I might be fed up with the systems we have in place, they still exist to perform important functions within society and because of that the tools we develop to serve us have to exist within that preexisting legal and social framework in order for them to have any chance at achieving global success in replacing fiat money with the first mathematically provably scarce commodity. He says he designed bitcoin to be an immutable data ledger where everyone is forced to be honest, and economically disincentivised to perform attacks within the network because of the logs kept in a Write Once Read Many (WORM) ledger with hierarchical cryptographic keys. In doing so you eliminate 99% of cyber crime, create transparent DAO type organisations that can be audited and fully compliant with legislature that’s developed by policy that comes from direct democratic voting software. Everyone who wants anonymous coins wants to have them so they can do dishonest things, illegal things, buy drugs, launder money, avoid taxes.

Now this triggers me a fair bit as someone who has bought drugs online, who probably hasn’t paid enough tax, who has done illegal things contemplating what it means to have that kind of an evidence ledger, and contemplate a reality where there are anonymous cryptocurrencies, where massive corporations continue to be able to avoid taxes, or where methamphetamine can be sold by the tonne, or where people can be bought and sold. This is the reality of creating technologies that can enable and empower criminals. I know some criminals and regard them as very good friends, but I know there are some criminals that I do not wish to know at all. I know there are people that do horrific things in the world and I know that something that makes it easier for them is having access to funds or the ability to move money around without being detected. I know arms, drugs and people are some of the biggest markets in the world, I know there is more than $50 trillion dollars siphoned in to off shore tax havens from the value generated as the product of human creativity in the economy and how much human charity is squandered through the NGO apparatus. I could go on and on about the crappy things happening in the world but I can also imagine them getting a lot worse with an anonymous cryptocurrency. Not to say that I don’t think there shouldn’t be an anonymous cryptocurrency. If someone makes one that works, they make one that works. Maybe they get to exist for a little while as a honeypot or if they can operate outside the law successfully longer, but bitcoin itself shouldn’t be one. There should be something a level playing field for honest people to interact with sound money. And if they operate within the law, then they will have more than adequate privacy, just they will leave immutable evidence for every transaction that can be used as evidence to build a case against you committing a crime.

His claim is that all the people that are protesting the loudest about him being Satoshi are all the people that are engaged in dishonest business or that have a vested interest in there not being one singular global ledger but rather a whole myriad of alternative currencies that can be pumped and dumped against one another, have all kinds of financial instruments applied to them like futures and then have these exchanges and custodial services not doing any Know Your Customer (KYC) or Anti Money Laundering (AML) processes. Bitcoin SV was delisted by a number of exchanges recently after Craig launched legal action at some twitter crypto influencetalking heads who had continued to call him a fraud and then didn’t back down when the CEO of one of the biggest crypto exchanges told him to drop the case or he would delist his coin. The trolls of twitter all chimed in in support of those who have now been served with papers for defamation and libel and Craig even put out a bitcoin reward for a DOX on one of the people who had been particularly abusive to him on twitter. A big european exchange then conducted a twitter poll to determine whether or not BSV should be delisted as either (yes, it’s toxic or no) and when a few hundred votes were in favour of delisting it (which can be bought for a couple of bucks/100 votes). Shortly after Craig was delisted, news began to break of a US dollar stable coin called USDT potentially not being fully solvent for it’s apparent 1:1 backing of the token to dollars in the bank. Binance suffered an alleged exchange hack with 7000 BTC “stolen” and the site suspending withdrawals and deposits for a week. Binance holds 800m USDT for their US dollar markets and immediately once the deposits and withdrawals were suspended there was a massive pump for BTC in the USDT markets as people sought to exit their potentially not 1:1 backed token for bitcoin. The CEO of this exchange has the business registered out of Malta, no physical premises, the CEO stays hotel room to hotel room around the world, has all kind of trading competitions and the binance launchpad, uses an unregistered security to collect fees ($450m during the bear market) from the trading of the hundreds of coins that it lists on its exchange and has no regard for AML and KYC laws. Craig said he himself was able to create 100 gmail accounts in a day and create binance accounts with each of those gmail accounts and from the same wallet, deposit and withdraw 1 bitcoin into each of those in one day ($8000 x 100) without facing any restrictions or triggering any alerts or such.
This post could ramble on for ever and ever exposing the complexities of the rabbit hole but I wanted to offer some perspective on what’s been happening in the space. What is being built on the bitcoin SV blockchain is something that I can only partially comprehend but even from my limited understanding of what it is to become, I can see that the entirety of the crypto community is extremely threatened as it renders all the various alt coins and alt coin exchanges obsolete. It makes criminals play by the rules, it removes any power from the developer groups and turns the blockchain and the miners in to economies of scale where the blockchain acts as a serverless database, the miners provide computational resources/storage/RAM and you interact with a virtual machine through a monitor and keyboard plugged in to an ethernet port. It will be like something that takes us from a type 0 to a type 1 civilisation. There are many that like to keep us in the quagmire of corruption and criminality as it lines their pockets. Much much more can be read about the Cartel in crypto in the archive below. Is it possible this cartel has the resources to mount such a successful psychological operation on the cryptocurrency community that they manage to convince everyone that Craig is the bad guy, when he’s the only one calling for regulation, the application of the law, the storage of immutable records onchain to comply with banking secrecy laws, for Global Sound Money?

https://archive.fo/lk1lH#selection-3671.46-3671.55

Please note, where possible, images were uploaded onto the bitcoin sv blockchain through bitstagram paying about 10c a pop. If I wished I could then use an application etch and archive this post to the chain to be immutably stored. If this publishing forum was on chain too it would mean that when I do the archive the images that are in the bitstragram links (but stored in the bitcoin blockchain/database already) could be referenced in the archive by their txid so that they don’t have to be stored again and thus bringing the cost of the archive down to only the html and css.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

Logs of yesterday's dev meeting

 Dev meeting?  Would say so, yes  The people are still exhausted from the payment ID meeting :)  Guess we could ping some people  vtnerd, moneromooo, hyc, gingeropolous, TheCharlatan, sarang, suraeNoether, jtgrassie  Anyone up for a meeting?  Yep I'm here  Here  o/  Perhaps we should just start and people will eventually hop in?   oof   sorry guys, I'm working on the new FFS and I forgot all about this. Got a couple of new volunteers.   This literally might be able to launch tomorrow.  I know that. It's called "flow" :)  I could run if you're out of time?   go for it dEBRUYNE   you guys are going to like this new FFS. We're like 99% done.  Hi  rehrar: someone else do the milestone thing already?  All right, jtgrassie, perhaps you'd to start w/ briefly describing your most recent PR? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/5091   oneiric, xiphon did everything   like....everything  As far as I can see, it allows the user to push his transaction over I2P, thereby masking the origin IP of the sendeuser  great  And it hooks into vtnerd's PR right?  Sure. It basically just builds on vtnerds Tor stuff.  sorry dEBRUYNE  Really not much added.  I have it running and tested.  From the perspective of the user, what needs to be configured exactly?  Nice  Assuming the PR is included in the release binaries  I'm using knacccs i2p-zero duirng testing but will of course work with any i2p setup   sorry dEBRUYNE <= Np  Looks a little like dams breaking, now that we have some dark clouds over Kovri and people take matters into their own hands ...  User needs to run i2p, expose a socks service and and inbound tunnel.  Basically same as Tor  Okay, so should be reasonable as long as we write proper documentation for it (e.g. an elaborate guide)  rbrunner, yes, knaccc credit for jumping on i2p-zero really  dEBRUYNE: documentation monero side is kindof done. i2p side is very much implementation specific.  I suppose we could write some guides for the most popular implementations?  e.g. i2p-zero aims to be zero conf, but i2pd or Kovri would be differnet.  I see, great  vtnerd___: Do you want to add anything?  could amend the current kovri guide for monero use from --exclusive-peer to the new proxy support  Now I have i2p-zero running and tested with the #5091, I plan to jump back over to helping knaccc on getting that polished.  I added support for socks proxy in the basic wallets  ^ excellent  Yes vtnerd___ I havent tested it yet but looks sweet.  So connections to `monerod` over Toi2p are possible within wallet cli and wallet rpc  Awesome  This also implies auth+encryption even if ssl is not in use (when using an onion or i2p address)  All right  moneromooo: are you here? If so, could you perhaps share what you've been working on?  I am.  I revived the SSL PR, more stuff on multi sender txes, an implementation of ArticMine's new block size algorithm.  I presume a multi sender tx works similar to multisig insofar as the senders have to exchange data before the transaction can be performed right?  Yes.  There are 2 SSL PRs. What's the diff?  Theoretically this would also allow the sender to provide an output right? Which would be kind of similar to Bitcoin's P2EP  The second one adds some things like selecting a cert by fingerprint.  Yes.  (for the first sentence)  All right, awesome  For anyone reading, this breaks the assumption of the inputs belonging to a single sender, which makes analysis more difficult  Nice side-effect.  Much work coming for the various wallets to support that  rbrunner: Anything you'd like to share in the meeting btw?  Yes, just a little info  I have started to seriously investigate what it would mean to integrate Monero into OpenBazaar  I have already talked with 2 of their devs, was very interesting  In maybe 2 or 3 weeks I intend to write a report  Too early to tell much more :)  Soon^tm I guess :)  Yep  Currently wrestling with Go debugging  whole new world  moneromooo: Has pony recently shared any insights regarding the upcoming 0.14 release btw?  No.  All right  I would love to see the tor & i2p PR's merged sooner rather than later so we can get more testing done.  ^ +1  Isn't that famous early code freeze already on the horizon?  fluffypony, luigi1111 ^  I suppose I could provide a little update regarding the GUI btw  As always, lots of bug fixes and improvements :-P  selsta has recently added a feature to support multi accounts  dsc_ has revamped the wizard and will now start working on implementing the different modes and a white theme  dsc_ is working fulltime on the GUI already?  yes  :)   dsc_ is bae  In light of the recent payment ID discussion, we've also, by default, disabled the option to add a payment ID unless the user explicitely activates the option on the settings page  rehrar ^  nice   I spoke about this yesterday at the coffee chat, this is not a good decision.  How does it handle integrated addresses? The same way?  rehrar ?   For the next many months, we are still stuck with PAyment IDs in the ecosystem. Making it harder for people to access them will make Monero suck so hard to use for the average person for many months.  i agree with rehrar   Remove the option of Payment IDs when we remove Payment IDs  rehrar: The new GUI release won't be live until probably mid march though  Which is a few weeks in advance of the scheduled protocol upgrade   Payment ID removal comes in October   right, but Payment IDs are not removed in March  Did we not have loose consensus on removing the old, unencrypted payment IDs in march?   they are removed in October  We had discussed a deprecation in March  and a ban in October   ok, then if we are going to do that, we have to commit to it and contact the exchanges like Binance that use them and get rid of them in the next few months  (of unencrypted)   Binance is huge, and if they still use them, then people will be very upset that they can't deposit or use Payment IDs easily   I'm just speaking from a UX perspective.  I thought it was unencrypted in April and possibly encrypted in October  Yes I do agree  Timeline and notes: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/299  impossible to remove them for march, many exchanges still use them  We can defer it to the 0.15 release if needed  Well, that wasn't the impression for them log that I just read today  This was all discussed in the earlier meeting linked above   We have to force the ecosystem off of Payment IDs before we remove them from the UI, is all I'm saying  Remove != make difficult to use  ... or make them more difficult there, right?  ping sgp_   sarang, I understand, and I agreed with you during that meeting. But then I started thinking of it as a UX person, which I am.   And that huge massive problem leapt out at me  i think making them difficult to generate is a good idea but making them difficult to consume and use is a bad idea  well, maybe not a good idea, but a better idea   ^  If we defer the decision to depriciate long payment IDs to october, won't we have the same issue then?  The UI can gave an expandable payment ID field like MyMonero and we can still call it deprecated   It is foolhardy to remove an option that the ecosystem uses. So I suggest we keep the Payment ID in the UI until October when they are completely banned.   no dEBRYUNE, because they will be banned via consensus  sgp_ imo it may be a misdirection of dev resources to add that since things are proceeding in the short term rather than long term  but this is a relatively minor point  Nothing matters til exchanges change  All right   The issue is that consensus will still have them in April, and exchanges won't upgrade because they are still allowed. Thus they must still be in the UI.  endogenic these changes are already merged in the GUI to hide it like you do  ok   But when they are banned, exchanges are forced to upgrade or stop using Monero, so we can remove them safely because they won't be in use  rehrar: that's a strong assumption   sarang that they will upgrade?  yes   if they don't, then they can't use Monero  If exchanges require pid, users need a way to set a pid. Making it hard for the user in the interim is just going to be a nightmare.   we have decided to take our "stand" in October  A way that is not too hard, then  To be clear, we still intend to deprecate long encrypted payment IDs in April right? But no enforcement until October   the term "deprecated" doesn't mean much if it's still allowed, and used in popular places   yes, as far as I understand it   jtgrassie, exactly  True I suppose  dEBRUYNE: we need to be more specific when talking about deprecation   the person who suffers is the user  There are two proposals for GUI deprecation:  1. Hide it in the send screen with a simple option to expand (currently merged iirc)  2. Hide it completely in the send screen unless users enable the field in advanced settings (PR'd but not merged yet iirc)  What are the arguments for 2?   Both are poor options, but 1 is better than 2 by a long shot   Well the people who need to be made to "suffer" are the exchanges. And I don't see a way to make exchanges "suffer" other than by having their suffering customers complain to them constantly that they need to update.  ^  CLI has something similar where users need to set a manual payment ID transfer mode. Not sure if it's merged yet   the way to make the exchanges suffer is when we ban PIDs. They either upgrade or don't use Monero.  exact;y  Agree with rerahr here  have exchanges been provided with clear, practical, sufficient technical upgrade plans for supporting what they're doing with PIDs but with subaddrs?    Both are poor options, but 1 is better than 2 by a long shot <= I wouldn't call 1. a poor option. Have you actually checked how it looks?  Because it states "Payment ID" and a user has to click on the + to expand the field  endogenic: yes the email when out. Blog post coming soon, but contains the same info as the email  also the exhcnages' users are often using wallets that don't support subaddresses  ok great   as well, it should be noted that the timeline for exchanges to upgrade is September, not October when the fork is.  Which wallets are that?  Rehrar: I don't see option 1. causing any issues/confusion  i guess it doesnt matter too much if withdrawing as a personal user the main address should suffice   Because September is when the new versions will be coming out without PIDs in the UI  If there's opposition to 2, 1 is fine. We can still call it deprecated which is the optics we need anyway   exchange users are often just using other exchanges lol. No wallets involved.   dsc_ dEBRUYNE, ok, I trust you guys here then  rbrunner: i was thinking mymonero last i heard  Ok  pigeons: rbrunner yes receiving on subaddresses won't be supported yet  sending to them has been possible though  and yes as learnandlurkin says often they withdraw to other systems like exhcnages that also dont yet support subaddresses  I really can't come up with any good argument for 2. right now  endogenic: seems not much of an issue then. Exchanges will typically support withdrawals to both subaddresses and plain addresses (especially if we are going to force them to use subaddresses)  For deposits, MyMonero works properly if the user sends to a subaddress  Actually the second solution was already merged: https://github.com/monero-project/monero-gui/pull/1866  Maybe not enough eyes watching :)   The important thing is to have done something to justify having a big "DEPRECATED IN APRIL" stamp on PIDs to spook exchanges in the interim  This was for solution 1: https://github.com/monero-project/monero-gui/pull/1855   The Monero Community Workgroup will start making noise everywhere we can to exchanges, and everywhere else that will listen. Try to get on those garbage news sites also.   So everyone knows that deprecated in April, and banned in September  Hey, for solution 1, write "Payment ID (optional, deprecated)" or similar there  rbrunner: noted  rehrar: probably wait until the blog post, but it should only be a few days   Maybe a Reddit sticky post would be useful?   With the blog post   If people are over freaking out about the hashrate  or terabyte blockchain :)  sigh  Any questions for the MRL side?  Is someone checking ArticMine's block size changes for weird behaviour in some cases etc ?  How would such testing work? Private blockchain?  I'm waiting on cost information from ArticMine to complete the model  Or just simulations?  Also, smooth suggested a mean rather than median for the 100000 block op. It would indeed be much nicer if it doesn't make the change worse.  You mean computationally or what?  Nicer ? Yes.  no sorting needed for mean  I'll add a separate sim for that  Well, just nicer. Forger the much.  Forger the Much sounds like the formal name of a Lord of the Rings character  :)  To close the payment ID discussion, in essence, we agree that we shouldn't make it difficult for the user to add a payment ID right (until 0.15 is released)  ?  I don't. I did make it harder.  In the CLI, somewhat other story, I would say  than the GUI  People there are used to juggle with options and CL parameters  rehrar: I recommend opening another issue to reverse 1866 and we can gather feedback on it there  Sounds good, to me at least   Dudes, if I do a Jitsi stream right now to show the new FFS in action, would you guys be interested in watching it?  I'd watch it, if the meeting is formally done  sure  yeah, can I start one and record it?   I'll give it in like fifteen minutes   I'll let you all know, stand by  I have a question on tx_extra if no one else has anything to talk about  People have said you can put arbitrary data in there in whatever format you want as long as you're willing to pay for it. However, do you need to mine the transaction for it to be included? I didn't think nodes would block transactions with arbitrary tx_extra data  It'll be in nodes' txpool when you relay it. A wallet could see it before it's mined.  moneromooo: will it be mined though?  by others  Is it valid ?  assume it's otherwise valid  Does it have a high enough fee ?  assume it does yes  I ran into conflicting information here: https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/3627/42  Then it will probably be mined.  I once had the idea to put "my" MMS messages in there, looked at the code, and found no hard blocks for tx_extra data  That answer looks incorrect.  It is incorrect  If it will be mined, then that meets my assumption. There seems to be some misconception that people will not mine transactions with arbitrary tx_extra. I can add some comments there  And please don't spam it, and don't put fingerprintable stuff in it. It's meant to be here for *useful* stuff that's "uniform" enough.  It will be mined, whether a wallet *displays* the tx_extra is a different question.  I don't think any wallet currently displays that  it soes if its a pid  I think  Yeah, of course :)  Great, that answers my question 
submitted by dEBRUYNE_1 to Monero [link] [comments]

Elaborating on Datadash's 50k BTC Prediction: Why We Endorse the Call

As originally published via CoinLive
I am the Co-Founder at CoinLive. Prior to founding Coinlive.io, my area of expertise was inter-market analysis. I came across Datadash 50k BTC prediction this week, and I must take my hats off to what I believe is an excellent interpretation of the inter-connectivity of various markets.
At your own convenience, you can find a sample of Intermarket analysis I've written in the past before immersing myself into cryptos full-time.
Gold inter-market: 'Out of sync' with VIX, takes lead from USD/JPY
USD/JPY inter-market: Watch divergence US-Japan yield spread
EUUSD intermarket: US yields collapse amid supply environment
Inter-market analysis: Risk back in vogue, but for how long?
USD/JPY intermarket: Bulls need higher adj in 10-y US-JP spread
The purpose of this article is to dive deeper into the factors Datadash presents in his video and how they can help us draw certain conclusions about the potential flows of capital into crypto markets and the need that will exist for a BTC ETF.
Before I do so, as a brief explainer, let's touch on what exactly Intermarket analysis refers to:
Intermarket analysis is the global interconnectivity between equities, bonds, currencies, commodities, and any other asset class; Global markets are an ever-evolving discounting and constant valuation mechanism and by studying their interconnectivity, we are much better positioned to explain and elaborate on why certain moves occur, future directions and gain insights on potential misalignments that the market may not have picked up on yet or might be ignoring/manipulating.
While such interconnectivity has proven to be quite limiting when it comes to the value one can extract from analyzing traditional financial assets and the crypto market, Datadash has eloquently been able to build a hypothesis, which as an Intermarket analyst, I consider very valid, and that matches up my own views. Nicolas Merten constructs a scenario which leads him to believe that a Bitcoin ETF is coming. Let's explore this hypothesis.
I will attempt to summarize and provide further clarity on why the current events in traditional asset classes, as described by Datadash, will inevitably result in a Bitcoin ETF. Make no mistake, Datadash's call for Bitcoin at 50k by the end of 2018 will be well justified once a BTC ETF is approved. While the timing is the most challenging part t get right, the end result won't vary.
If one wishes to learn more about my personal views on why a BTC ETF is such a big deal, I encourage you to read my article from late March this year.
Don't Be Misled by Low Liquidity/Volume - Fundamentals Never Stronger
The first point Nicholas Merten makes is that despite depressed volume levels, the fundamentals are very sound. That, I must say, is a point I couldn't agree more. In fact, I recently wrote an article titled The Paradox: Bitcoin Keeps Selling as Intrinsic Value Set to Explode where I state "the latest developments in Bitcoin's technology makes it paradoxically an ever increasingly interesting investment proposition the cheaper it gets."
However, no article better defines where we stand in terms of fundamentals than the one I wrote back on May 15th titled Find Out Why Institutions Will Flood the Bitcoin Market, where I look at the ever-growing list of evidence that shows why a new type of investors, the institutional ones, looks set to enter the market in mass.
Nicholas believes that based on the supply of Bitcoin, the market capitalization can reach about $800b. He makes a case that with the fundamentals in bitcoin much stronger, it wouldn't be that hard to envision the market cap more than double from its most recent all-time high of more than $300b.
Interest Rates Set to Rise Further
First of all, one of the most immediate implications of higher rates is the increased difficulty to bear the costs by borrowers, which leads Nicholas to believe that banks the likes of Deutsche Bank will face a tough environment going forward. The CEO of the giant German lender has actually warned that second-quarter results would reflect a “revenue environment [that] remains challenging."
Nicholas refers to the historical chart of Eurodollar LIBOR rates as illustrated below to strengthen the case that interest rates are set to follow an upward trajectory in the years to come as Central Banks continue to normalize monetary policies after a decade since the global financial crisis. I'd say, that is a correct assumption, although one must take into account the Italian crisis to be aware that a delay in higher European rates is a real possibility now.
![](https://coinlive.io/ckeditor_assets/pictures/947/content_2018-05-30_1100.png)
Let's look at the following combinations: Fed Fund Rate Contract (green), German 2-year bond yields (black) and Italy's 10-year bond yield (blue) to help us clarify what's the outlook for interest rates both in Europe and the United States in the foreseeable future. The chart suggests that while the Federal Reserve remains on track to keep increasing interest rates at a gradual pace, there has been a sudden change in the outlook for European rates in the short-end of the curve.
While the European Central Bank is no longer endorsing proactive policies as part of its long-standing QE narrative, President Mario Draghi is still not ready to communicate an exit strategy to its unconventional stimulus program due to protectionism threats in the euro-area, with Italy the latest nightmare episode.
Until such major step is taken in the form of a formal QE conclusion, interest rates in the European Union will remain depressed; the latest drastic spike in Italy's benchmark bond yield to default levels is pre-emptive of lower rates for longer, an environment that on one hand may benefit the likes of Deutsche Bank on lower borrowing costs, but on the other hand, sets in motion a bigger headache as risk aversion is set to dominate financial markets, which leads to worse financial consequences such as loss of confidence and hence in equity valuations.
![](https://coinlive.io/ckeditor_assets/pictures/948/content_2018-05-30_1113.png)
Deutsche Bank - End of the Road?
Nicholas argues that as part of the re-restructuring process in Deutsche Bank, they will be facing a much more challenging environment as lending becomes more difficult on higher interest rates. At CoinLive, we still believe this to be a logical scenario to expect, even if a delay happens as the ECB tries to deal with the Italian political crisis which once again raises the question of whether or not Italy should be part of the EU. Reference to an article by Zerohedge is given, where it states:
"One day after the WSJ reported that the biggest German bank is set to "decimate" its workforce, firing 10,000 workers or one in ten, this morning Deutsche Bank confirmed plans to cut thousands of jobs as part of new CEO Christian Sewing's restructuring and cost-cutting effort. The German bank said its headcount would fall “well below” 90,000, from just over 97,000. But the biggest gut punch to employee morale is that the bank would reduce headcount in its equities sales and trading business by about 25%."
There is an undeniably ongoing phenomenon of a migration in job positions from traditional financial markets into blockchain, which as we have reported in the past, it appears to be a logical and rational step to be taken, especially in light of the new revenue streams the blockchain sector has to offer. Proof of that is the fact that Binance, a crypto exchange with around 200 employees and less than 1 year of operations has overcome Deutsche Bank, in total profits. What this communicates is that the opportunities to grow an institution’s revenue stream are formidable once they decide to integrate cryptocurrencies into their business models.
One can find an illustration of Deutsche Bank's free-fall in prices below:
![](https://coinlive.io/ckeditor_assets/pictures/946/content_2018-05-30_1052.png)
Nicholas takes notes of a chart in which one can clearly notice a worrying trend for Italian debt. "Just about every other major investor type has become a net seller (to the ECB) or a non-buyer of BTPs over the last couple of years. Said differently, for well over a year, the only marginal buyer of Italian bonds has been the ECB!", the team of Economists at Citi explained. One can find the article via ZeroHedge here.
![](https://coinlive.io/ckeditor_assets/pictures/953/content_2018-05-30_1451.png)
Equities & Housing to Suffer the Consequences
Nicholas notes that trillions of dollars need to exit these artificially-inflated equity markets. He even mentions a legendary investor such as George Soros, who has recently warned that the world could be on the brink of another devastating financial crisis, on lingering debt concerns in Europe and a strengthening US dollar, as a destabilizing factor for both the US's emerging- and developed-market rivals.
Ray Dalio, another legend in the investing world and Founder of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund, "has ramped up its short positions in European equities in recent weeks, bringing their total value to an estimated $22 billion", MarketWatch reports.
Nicholas extracts a chart by John Del Vecchio at lmtr.com where it illustrates the ratio between stocks and commodities at the lowest in over 50 years.
As the author states:
"I like to look for extremes in the markets. Extremes often pinpoint areas where returns can be higher and risk lower than in other time periods. Take the relationship between commodities and stocks. The chart below shows that commodities haven not been cheaper than stocks in a generation. We often hear this time it is different” to justify what’s going on in the world. But, one thing that never changes is human nature. People push markets to extremes. Then they revert. "
![](https://coinlive.io/ckeditor_assets/pictures/954/content_2018-05-30_1459.png)
Bitcoin ETF the Holy Grail for a Cyclical Multi-Year Bull Run
It is precisely from this last chart above that leads Nicholas to believe we are on the verge of a resurgence in commodity prices. Not only that but amid the need of all this capital to exit stocks and to a certain extent risky bonds (Italian), a new commodity-based digital currency ETF based on Bitcoin will emerge in 2018.
The author of Datadash highlights the consideration to launching a Bitcoin ETF by the SEC. At CoinLive, our reporting of the subject can be found below:
"Back in April, it was reported that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has put back on the table two Bitcoin ETF proposals, according to public documents. The agency is under formal proceedings to approve a rule change that would allow NYSE Arca to list two exchange-traded funds (ETFs) proposed by fund provider ProShares. The introduction of an ETF would make Bitcoin available to a much wider share of market participants, with the ability to directly buy the asset at the click of a button, essentially simplifying the current complexity that involves having to deal with all the cumbersome steps currently in place."
Nicholas refers to the support the Bitcoin ETF has been receiving by the Cboe president Chris Concannon, which is a major positive development. CoinLive reported on the story back in late March, noting that "a Bitcoin ETF will without a doubt open the floodgates to an enormous tsunami of fresh capital entering the space, which based on the latest hints by Concannon, the willingness to keep pushing for it remains unabated as the evolution of digital assets keeps its course."
It has been for quite some time CoinLive's conviction, now supported by no other than Nicholas Merten from Datadash, that over the next 6 months, markets will start factoring in the event of the year, that is, the approval of a Bitcoin ETF that will serve as a alternative vehicle to accommodate the massive flows of capital leaving some of the traditional asset classes. As Nicholas suggests, the SEC will have little choice but to provide alternative investments.
Bitcoin as a Hedge to Lower Portfolios' Volatility
Last but not least, crypto assets such as Bitcoin and the likes have an almost non-existent correlation to other traditional assets such as stocks, bonds, and commodities, which makes for a very attractive and broadly-applicable diversification strategy for the professional money as it reduces one’s portfolio volatility. The moment a Bitcoin ETF is confirmed, expect the non-correlation element of Bitcoin as a major driving force to attract further capital.
Anyone Can Be Wrong Datadash, But You Won't be Wrong Alone
Having analyzed the hypothesis by Nicholas Merten, at CoinLive we believe that the conclusion reached, that is, the creation of a Bitcoin ETF that will provide shelter to a tsunami of capital motivated by the diversification and store of value appeal of Bitcoin, is the next logical step. As per the timing of it, we also anticipate, as Nicholas notes, that it will most likely be subject to the price action in traditional assets. Should equities and credit markets hold steady, it may result in a potential delay, whereas disruption in the capital market may see the need for a BTC ETF accelerate. Either scenario, we will conclude with a quote we wrote back in March.
"It appears as though an ETF on Bitcoin is moving from a state of "If" to "When."
Datadash is certainly not alone on his 50k call. BitMEX CEO Arthur Hayes appears to think along the same line.
On behalf of the CoinLive Team, we want to thank Nicholas Merten at Datadash for such enlightening insights.
submitted by Ivo333 to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

BitcoinTaxes Podcast: Crypto Audits w/ Alex Kugelman

BitcoinTaxes Podcast Link
TLDR; Alex Kugelman, a tax controversy lawer, discusses crypto audits and how to avoid them.
Highlights:
IRS audits are a real possibility for anyone who has traded cryptocurrencies. Our guest today is Alex Kugelman, a tax controversy lawyer with an abundance of knowledge concerning cryptocurrency audits. He's here to share his expertise on IRS cryptocurrency audits, including risk reduction strategies as well as enforcement predictions and misconceptions.
Alex Kugelman specializes in IRS audits. His experience includes four years of Federal government court experience at the U.S. Tax Court and a U.S. District Court. [00:40]
Alex: I'm an attorney out in California. I clerked for a US District Court judge and as well as the United States Tax Court. I've been in private practice exclusively doing tax controversy work for the past five years or so. I kind of got involved with crypto towards the end of 2016. I tended to represent clients mainly with compliance & disclosure issues with respect to cryptocurrency. I just really like it. Really interesting area.
The Coinbase summons in 2018 played a major role in Alex's interest in crypto audits. [01:19]
Alex: What started me into the crypto space was when the IRS first issued summons for Coinbase. We started getting some interesting calls regarding that. And at that time I thought to myself, this might be an interesting area. So I started following the actual summons enforcement proceeding at the District Court here in San Francisco - from there kind of worked with people under different types of compliance, including international disclosures. Now we're starting to see some of the first cryptocurrency audits come through.
First, let's get a brief rundown of how IRS audits work. [02:00]
Alex: It is important to understand the IRS as an administrative agency and all different layers of it. So when it comes to an audit the term that the IRS uses is an examination and there's three basic levels.
The first is a correspondence exam. That's where you get a letter that says, dear taxpayer, so-and-so reported that you had $100 of interest income that wasn't on your tax return - we're going to increase your tax. If you want to challenge that, you can. And that's basically termed an under reporter notice. That's probably not going to be a cryptocurrency audit if you get that notice.
The next one is an office exam. That is someone in the local IRS office sending you a letter that says, we have selected a certain tax return for audit and we're going to look at these issues. We'd like you to call us to schedule an appointment. That's going to be usually a tax compliance officer that is doing that.
The third and probably the most serious level of exam is a field examination. That's also going to be a local IRS representative, typically a revenue agent. There, the revenue agent may come to your work or ask come to your work or business to kind of conduct the audit.
All three of those are going to start the same: a letter that's sent to you at your most recent address provided to the IRS.
Cryptocurrency audits follow a similar protocol. [05:40]
Alex: I think it's likely that most crypto audits are going to start with one of two things happening. One is that there is information from the Coinbase summons that is inconsistent with what was on a taxpayer's tax return. I think for someone who's involved with that issue, they're going to have a good sense of that one because they should've gotten an email notice from Coinbase.
Or two, the audit notice is going to identify older tax years - 2013, 2014 or 2015 because those are the years that the information related to.
Another reason I think people will get audited is going to be because information on the return is incomplete, in the sense that the taxpayer or the cryptocurrency owner reports some transactions, without enough detail to figure out the actual cost basis.
Does reporting your data in an aggregated fashion increase your chances of being audited? [06:45]
Alex: I mean one - to the extent that there's going to be a lot of taxpayers - a lot of people use TurboTax, right? If that's the way TurboTax is preparing all of those returns, it would seem to me you're kind of in a herd of people like that. And at least it's consistent with what a lot of people are doing. The second part of that is going to be at least those people who have prepare the returns in that manner, they're going to, or should have, the underlying data. So even if it's an aggregate reporting of each asset class as opposed to each individual trade, if there ever were questions then you're going to have your CSV files, you're going to have your Bitcoin.tax exports, you're going to have all the information that you need to back that up.
Alex is an advocate of over-reporting your information to the IRS. [09:30]
Alex: I'm a big proponent of over-reporting - and I don't mean paying too much tax. I just mean including too much information. Because at some point there's kind of two ways that your returned can be flagged: a computer flags the return for some reason or there's a special unit or a person who actually flags it. At the end of the day, a human being will be looking at that return and deciding whether it actually is going to go all the way through to an audit. I want them to completely understand what's being reported, why it's been reported, and if there's too much information, that's fine - it's less likely that someone's going to have more questions.
A crypto audit is very likely to be a field exam - and it's important to hire a good rep. [11:00]
Alex: It's very likely going to be a field exam, which means you're going to have a revenue agent - and those are kind of the best of the best auditors for an IRS audit. And remember - an IRS audit is a civil matter. It is not criminal at this point. Again, it's unlikely that it will become criminal. It is, however, the highest level of audit you're going to get.
If you're going to hire a representative, which you have every right to do, you should contact that person, let them know what's going on and probably have them interface with the auditor. You should receive, as part of the opening notice or letter, the information document request - which is identifying what things to bring for the auditor. Also, it'll tip to what topics might be important. For example the typical things you're going to see will be bank statements, financial or asset account statements, which I view as requesting exchange statements or exchange CSV files. Any documents that show the cost basis for your cryptocurrency trades.
Audits are more art than science. [13:35]
Alex: The auditor has a fair amount of power. So if you play real hardball - that's not going to prevent the auditor from expanding to other years. So when you get that audit notice ,and let's say that you're going to deal with this yourself, the first thing you want to kind of figure out is what are the areas that I wouldn't want to go into, and what are the areas that I don't have good records? That will help guide the way to respond or what information to pull together.
The reality is, and let's just be honest here - for most people reporting cryptocurrency gains, they have all of the information. The IRS does not have much. They might have some records from Coinbase, but it's not as if they have a treasure trove of third party data.
The burden is really going to be, in every audit, on the taxpayer to prove their tax return is correct.
It's difficult to say how lenient the IRS will be regarding past years. [15:35]
Alex: I think the way that I would look at it is that maybe the standard of of records required to really substantiate older years might be a little bit lower for older years as opposed to now because it's different now. There's a lot better information provided by some of the exchanges. There's a lot more software out there to help you, especially for people who are newer to crypto. You should have access to all your bank records. You should still have a lot of emails, reflecting on-ramping off-ramping, or other purchases. You should be able to kind of pull this all together.
I can understand when we have clients who come in and are early adopters and they're missing chunks of information. So I do think that in those types of circumstances, yes, I think there would be a little bit of leniency. But I don't think if you're asking, hey, I reported my gains in 2017 but I never really did it 14, 15 or 16 - I don't think that's going to be viewed very favorably.
It is possible to substantiate your data without all of your records. [19:00]
Alex: I think the first thing is, I mean, outside of cryptocurrency and just generally in audits, how many people have complete records to support everything on their tax return from three years ago? Right? It's just not the reality.
The best source of information in a lot of these cryptocurrency clients are the clients themselves. They kind of know what they did and they can remember. There's some who take good notes and other people don't, but as you go through and ask people: what exchanges have you've been on, what type of coins, if you bought any ICOs, have you ever sold for actual US cash, and have you ever bought goods or services? As you talk through things people tend to recall what happened. We use that information and we cross check that against bank statements, as well as CSV files, to pick out what those transactions look like.
Most people have some sort of records, at least reflecting the transfer in and the transfer back out of that exchange. So you can use historical data and historical pricing information to essentially estimate what that transaction would have been. And then what we do is we provide a written statement summary of what we're doing and why we're doing it.
The other big one that we see all the time - and anybody listening to this, please hear this, do not trade for your friends on your exchange accounts - because that type of commingling causes such major problems. Essentially you are walking into those taxable gains just because you're allowing someone access to the exchange to make sales.
If you need representation for an audit, get representation. [23:00]
Alex: My general rule is that I think experienced representatives are really important. I probably would not hire the CPA that prepared my return unless they were: one, experienced with being a representative in audits. And two, you felt comfortable that they weren't going to go in there with a conflict of interest. But I do think if you're worried about going into audit - hiring a skilled, and experienced rep is really, really important.
If they're experienced with this, they should understand the appropriate ethical standards and go in there and essentially help resolve portions of the audit and move it to a resolution that you can deal with.
Taxpayers actually have a lot of leverage in an audit. And that sounds crazy to say, but there is a lot of truth to that. And so as you're kind of working through the audit itself, you want to make sure that you're not just agreeing to something to be done with it. You're not agreeing to something just because you think that you'll get in more trouble or get a worse result otherwise.
There are important risk-reduction strategies you can utilize to avoid a crypto audit. [28:15]
Alex: The first thing that you really want to do, is just assess; for those of you that are really worried about an audit - just assess what it is you've actually done over the years. When did you start trading, what exchanges were you on, do you have records that reflect on-ramping and off-ramping? And that's going to be your bank account statements. Do you know where you've been, what exchanges you've been on?
For foreign exchanges, there may not be as much of that AML & KYC compliance, but I really believe that you do have reporting requirements under FATCA for FBAR and something called an 8938, which if you listen to the podcast with Tyson, he kind of explains what that is. But it's basically if you have ownership of a foreign bank account or asset, you have certain reporting requirements, whether you've had income or not.
You want to make sure you at least track when you've actually exchanged crypto for cash or vice versa. That's partly because that's one of those areas where when people can get in trouble with some sort of federal investigators - because those types of transactions can be potentially considered money laundering.
For those who believe that they've used like-kind exchange rules to defer taxable gains -you should look on your tax returns to see if you filed the form 8824, which is where like kind exchanges are actually reported. That kind of goes back to the over reporting issue I was talking about before. I think that if you didn't report the actual trades that you're taking like-kind treatment for in past years, I don't know that you've actually taken like-kind treatment to be frank with you. I think, objectively, that might be viewed as just not reporting certain transactions.
You want to make sure that you address these issues sooner rather than later.
1099-K forms can be misleading - to the recipient and, potentially, the auditor. [32:40]
Alex: A 1099-K is actually a merchant processing third party information returns. And it really is typically associated with people who have credit card sales - so it's going to reflect a gross amount and typically on a monthly basis.
It shows the gross amount and what I've seen too is that sometimes transfers actually get caught into that amount as well. So it's not even just gross sales or purchases - it may have other information. So the 1099-K can be really inflated. That's why reconciling that against accounting records is really, really important because that is one of those issues that I think could lead to an exam.
To those who think crypto isn't beholden to tax laws: you are not correct. [37:38]
Alex: The current commissioner of the IRS is Charles Rettig, and he's a really well known practitioner in tax controversy. I know from people that know him well, that he's actually mentioned Reddit as one of the reasons that cryptocurrency enforcement is his number one enforcement priority right now.
The other person that I've seen speak a couple of times is the head of the IRS Criminal Investigation Unit. His name is Don Fort and every year he does a presentation at the National Tax Controversy and Criminal Tax Conference. The last two years cryptocurrency has been number two and number one on his list. As much as the IRS lacks the funding and the manpower that it needs for all the enforcement, the IRS CI are really, really good and they are probably best agency at dealing with cryptocurrency enforcement issues.
I really think that it's gaining steam and I think once the audits from the Coinbase summons kind of get going, I think it's going to be a really scrutinized area. I think the people who have gone through the cost and the pain of disclosing and amending returns and doing everything they can will be happy that they did in a couple of years. I think the other people are going to be sweating it out - I don't know if it's ever really worth it to be honest with you. I would recommend people do their best to get in compliance.
In summary: do your best to report your crypto gains and losses - and don't try to pull one over on the IRS. [42:36]
Alex: For people who have potential issues with past years, one is getting a consistent record and just amending your past years, so they're consistent.
For people who have the foreign account issues - let's just say, for example, had an account with Binance, and that Binance account was never reported. The IRS has disclosure programs that allow you to amend certain returns, pay the tax that you report and pay a penalty, which would be 5% of the the highest account value that you have.
For people who don't want to deal with this, I think taking evasive steps is the best way to get the worst result possible. One of the things that I learned very early in dealing with audits and tax compliance, is that you can always make things worse. I think you really just want to address it and resolve the issue while you have a good opportunity.
We may see criminal prosecution of some of the "big fish" tax evaders from the Coinbase summons. [46:43]
Alex: Yeah, and I think the two things that I'm fairly certain we're going to see: one is we're going to see the IRS use the information provided by Coinbase to start auditing the biggest account holders from that period. I think that's very likely.
Probably the second one that I would say is very likely is that you're going to see limited criminal prosecutions related to cryptocurrency. And these are going to be people that have some sort of level of notoriety, whether actually famous or maybe famous in the cryptocurrency world. That's typically how the IRS and Department of Justice uses limited resources to prosecute criminal tax tax crimes.
Alex is a great guy to reach out to with any audit-related questions, crypto or otherwise. [48:50]
Alex: You can go to my website: www.kugelmanlaw.com. You can email me at [email protected]. I have clients all over the country, international clients. If you need any sort of help, whether that's representing you, or at least doing the nitty gritty audit investigation, we're always willing to talk to people and help them out as best we can.

If you enjoyed our podcast, be sure to check back frequently for more great discussions about a range of topics in the crypto space. If you have any questions for Alex Kugelman, or want to schedule a consultation with him, he can be reached via his website www.kugelmanlaw.com, or via email at [email protected].
If you would like to request a topic for an interview, or have any questions related to this podcast, be sure to reach out to us at [email protected].
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to bitcointaxes [link] [comments]

Consensus Network EP36: Buy, Borrow and Die: Bitcoin Style

Catch the full episode: https://www.consensusnetwork.io/podcastepisodes/2019/10/5/ep36-buy-borrow-and-die-bitcoin-style-1
Buck: Welcome back to the show everyone. Today my guest on Wealth Formula Podcast is Zack Prince. He's Founder and CEO of BlockFi. BlockFi bridges the gap between blockchain and the basic financial products that you're used to including interest-bearing accounts and loans. Zack, welcome to Wealth Formula Podcast. I think you we might have had you on before as a Consensus Network replay but first time on Wealth Formula Podcast specifically, so welcome.
Zac: Yeah, excited to be here, Buck. Thanks for having me. And it's good to chat with you again
Buck: Yeah so remind me how you got into this you know Bitcoin stuff in the first place, I mean you were as I understand you were a traditional finance guy right so where did the blockchain part come in?
Zac: Sure so I was I was working at a company in the FinTech world that provided data and technology solutions to institutional investors that wanted to participate in some of the new online lending platforms, whether they were real estate platforms or consumer lending platforms, and I kind of became the FinTech guy amongst my friend group and people would ask me you know should I invest in these real estate deals on fund rise or buy loans from Lending Club and I started writing a blog to share the information more efficiently with my friends basically and I started expanding a little bit writing about Robo advisory and some other things that were going on in the FinTech space and that's what led me to Bitcoin, and this is back in early 2015. I didn't start BlockFi until 2017 because I started following the market in the background, still working in traditional financial services in FinTech and then in early 2017 it started to feel like mainstream adoption was starting to happen in the crypto ecosystem. I'm started going to some meetups in New York City because at a certain point my wife said Zac, you're talking about crypto all the time and you're talking to me about it and I don't want to talk about it so you should find some other people to talk about this with. And the meetup composition started to change and in 2016 when I started going to these meetups it was the early crypto adopters you know libertarians, computer scientists and then in early 2017 I started to see some venture capitalists, some guys who had just left their job at Wall Street still wearing a suit, some more entrepreneurs and it was a really exciting time in the ecosystem, things like the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance were getting announced which had participation microsoft and a lot of other you know fortune 500 companies and I had started to believe in it. I was drinking the kool-aid a little bit so I decided to find a way to get involved in the space full-time and that's what led me to start BlockFi.
Buck: So I have to imagine that the response you got from the traditional finance people around that time when you started talking about the blockchain space and when you started being more and more involved with that was probably not a very positive response initially or did you did you experience some of that sort of you know rejection initially to what you were doing?
Zac: Yeah absolutely. But you know throughout my career this is now kind of the third emerging technology industry that I've worked in. I was originally an advertising technology starting like you know 15 years ago and I was in FinTech specifically the online lending side of FinTech which in its early days was called peer-to-peer lending and now in crypto. So having to do a lot of education explain it you know why something isn't crazy and it might work and here's why and here's the value proposition and here's what it is, I've gotten very used to that and comfortable with it. But yeah there were a lot of people who are like you know I've heard Bitcoin is only used by drug dealers and money launderers. I've heard that I'm supposed to care about blockchain and not Bitcoin. And you know at BlockFi we’re providing financial products into the market so it's a heavily regulated business so we also had to communicate with regulators. We had to explain to state regulators, federal regulators why what we were doing with Bitcoin and other cryptos than when you're doing these same types of things with assets that they're more familiar with.
Buck: So when you were talking to people back in, I don't know I guess 2016/17 and it's not a long time ago, it's only two years ago, but I have to imagine that the response or the you know the approach that people take to you when you speak to investors is very different. Has it become more mainstream in that regard for you know for big money investors?
Zac: It's absolutely become more mainstream you know the end of 2017 Q3/Q4. Point was going on that parabolic run it started to get covered everywhere, I mean it was on CNBC every day it was in Bloomberg New York Times Wall Street Journal. If you were paying attention to the financial industry and markets you heard about Bitcoin at that time if you hadn't heard about it before. So from a baseline of awareness perspective it got a lot better and then in 2018 you had a number of positive developments for the sector including one that I think is probably the most noteworthy which is that Bitcoin futures were listed on the CME the institutional investor perspective that's massive. You now have a well regulated well known super trustworthy venue where you can get exposure to this asset class, you also had companies like Grayscale bringing products to the market which are accessible to certain types of investors and their low bridge accounts and you started to see some adoption from companies like FinTech companies like Robin Hood and Square making Bitcoin available on their platforms. So the conversation has absolutely changed a lot and it's become less about whether or not this is something that's going to continue to exist whether or not it's something that was just a bubble and is going to die and now it's more about ok how is it going to get used how big could it get what are the interesting applications of it and what could have potentially disrupt in the traditional financial ecosystem.
Buck: So you know we had obviously following this you know pop in 2017, you know I actually like you kind of really got into this early 2017 so timing was pretty good I guess now regards. Good or bad depending how you look at it but I was there before before the parabolic move. And then we have you know then we followed this up with a crypto winter and and you know who knows if we're done with it, I guess we certainly are much better off than we were. You know a unit buddy it's funny Zac I don’t know if you remember this but I was about to, we'll talk about BlockFi specifically in a minute but, I was about to use BlockFi for borrowing because I like this idea of borrowing you know collateralized debt and collateralized debt on assets and buying something else. So I was about to do it and then Bitcoin lost a clip and I was like literally and I remember I was just emailing with somebody somebody over there and I was like sorry dude I guess I just sold it, I just sold all that Bitcoin I had and you sent one email back to me and it said “capitulation” but it you know and so now we're looking back at these we go down from 3,000 back up you know been sort of flirting around this 10,000 and it seems like we're kind of maybe that we're stuck there, maybe we're kind of out of winter, maybe we're in a holding pattern but it seems like to me that since that two years not only is the awareness increase but the development of the ecosystem itself is so much further advanced than it was in 2017. Is this an unusual case where the technology and maybe even the infrastructure is actually outpacing the price?
Zac: You know it's really hard to say. I would argue that in some ways it's typical. In other industries that showed a lot of promise where investors could you know participate maybe a little bit ahead of the adoption curve you saw crazy price run ups with the tech bubble and you know ‘99-2000 being the one that's kind of top of mind in recent memory and then on the other side of things, are we behind where the price should be now? It's really hard to say because this is kind of like a commodity type asset built on a payment network and valuing that is challenging and there's not a perfect model for for doing it today. It's not as easy as something that's cashflow producing but I'm incredibly bullish. I'm on record as saying at the beginning of this year that Bitcoin has only had one year in its 10-year existence where it had a lower low than the year before and parted this year around the low price for 2018 and I predicted that we would in the year had a higher price than where we started the year pretty soon and now we're up and you know around 300 percent from where we started the year. As that happens in investing is people frequently look at things on a year-to-year performance basis and when people are looking at Bitcoin even if all we do is stay around 10 K from here when they're looking at how Bitcoin performed rather than other relative to other assets at the end of 2019 it's probably going to look fantastic. And you also have an event coming up and in the summer of next year called The Halvening where basically the supply that's produced by miners is going to get cut in half and so if you believe in the stock the flow type models of valuation for Bitcoin that is usually a very big driver of price appreciation.
Buck: I believe May of 2020, right?
Zac: That's right.
Buck: In May of 2020. Can you just talked a little bit about that just so people know because people hear about it, I've been talking about it but I don't think that it really explained it.
Zac: Yeah and you know I'm not I'm not a computer scientist so I can explain it in a you know in a very simple…
Buck: No one else here is either.
Zac: So basically the way that new Bitcoin is created is through this process called mining. And it's analogous to mining gold except instead of finding a place in the earth where gold exists and then getting your trucks and mining equipment and digging it out of the ground, the way bitcoin is mined is using this computer program and there is now specialized computer hardware that's built specifically and optimized for mining Bitcoin. And you have this network of machines around the world where the input is energy into the mining hardware and the output is new Bitcoin and those miners are what provides the power for the payment network a Bitcoin to run and when we say that there is this event called The Halvening, what that basically means is that the output that's built into the Bitcoin program that the miners are receiving as their payment for contributing energy to the network, is going to get cut in half. So the miners are going to have the same you know relative input but the amount that they're receiving is going to get cut in half for that input. This should, if the demand side for Bitcoin remains equal, it should drive up the price and historically Bitcoin has had three of these Halvening events in its lifetime so far I believe and around each Halvening you have seen you know six months before or six months after a pretty material run up in price.
Buck: Yeah so it also goes along with that sort of that the entire idea that Bitcoin unlike you know other assets including gold is it's a deflationary asset ultimately and and that's one of the things that makes that happening really significant. Apart from and I have one more question before we get to block five which is apart from the Halvening, you know thing that's happening, what is maybe the biggest development or upcoming thing that's coming up that makes you the most bullish on the future of Bitcoin or blockchain in general?
Zac: Sure so I think I wouldn't actually point to any one specific thing, I would point to two broad trends. So one is institutional adoption and participation in the asset class and the other is better ramps for retail participation into the asset class and just focusing here you know on the US market because it really is an international story but just in the US market. In September we should have Bakkt launching their futures platform. Bakkt is owned by ICE, the Intercontinental Exchange, and there's a big core difference between their futures and the current futures that are available on the CME in that futures on Bakkt platform are going to be physically settled so that means that actual Bitcoin is going to be needed to facilitate the trading on Bakkt’s platform which does not happen on CMEs exchange so that's that should be a very positive catalyst in terms of demand for physical Bitcoin that could have an impact on the price. Also on the institutional side this year I believe earlier this year, the first pension fund made an investment into an asset management vehicle that was focused on investing in Bitcoin and private equity opportunities in the Bitcoin and blockchain sector. So that will be a trend.
Buck: Which pension fund was it?
Zac: It was in North Carolina so I think it was like the North Carolina Firefighters and the group that raised the money from them was Morgan Creek Digital it’s actually invested in BlockFi by Anthony Pompliano Twitter and Mark Yusko so that's on the institutional side. And then on the retail side you've seen FinTech companies like Square and Robin Hood offer Bitcoin trading to their users. But soon you will also have companies like TD Ameritrade E-Trade and others offer Bitcoin to their users sometimes be a partnership sometimes because they've built it directly. You also at some point might see progress made in terms of an ETF getting approved that would give retail investors in the US market exposure to Bitcoin in a really easy and familiar way. All of those things are tremendously positive catalysts and the caliber of people working on them only continues to increase. Talent was attracted into the sector very, very rapidly these days.
Buck: You know one question that leads me to is that all of this is happening with Bitcoin for the most part. Are alt coins in your opinion is that market coming back or is that something that we're gonna see probably select you know group of tokens projects emerge and then the rest will kind of just get left in the dust, what do you think?
Zac: I mean I'll tell you exactly what I'm doing with my portfolio and then I'll provide a bit more color. So my asset allocation in the crypto side of my investing is I'm like 90% Bitcoin 5% Ethereum and 5% B&B; which is the Binance right. So I'm super bullish on Bitcoin. I think that you know there's a chance that Ether makes a comeback specifically I think that a lot of the stable coins that have been launched have been built on Ethereum if you're not familiar with stable coins it's basically the concept of a dollar but on a blockchain which could be really really powerful because it creates the opportunity for the delivery of US dollar denominated financial services at a global scale not using the traditional banking rails. And then B&B; I mean Binance is the biggest and most successful exchange they have a history of innovating, creating new products, going fast and so I'm taking a bit of a flyer with them but I'm 90% Bitcoin. I don't think that I'm not bullish on any of the other all coins frankly I struggle to see you know the big upside I have heard whispers in the community that there's kind of like a new wave of altcoins 3.0 might emerge, you know could see some some good returns similar to what some of the ICOs did in 2017 but it's not an area of focus for me. So that's my view.
Buck: Yeah let's talk about BlockFi. Remind us exactly what BlockFi is.
Zac: Sure so we're a wealth management platform for crypto investors. Today we have two products that we offer. One product is analogous to a savings account from a traditional bank where you're able to earn interest on your holdings except on BlockFi, the assets instead of being dollars are bitcoin and Ether and we don't have FDIC insurance so it's not exactly the same risk profile as a savings account at a bank, but conceptually you're able to hold Bitcoin and an account with BlockFi and earn interest on it paid in Bitcoin every month. That's one product that we have. The second product that we have which you are alluding to earlier offers our clients the ability to borrow dollars secured by the value of their cryptocurrency and it's analogous to a securities backed loan or a liquidity access line in the traditional world except instead of securities we're taking Bitcoin or other digital assets as collateral and lending it rates as low as four point five lending USD that rates as low as four point five percent a year.
Buck: I wanna pick these apart a little bit if you don't mind. In terms of this savings account first of all is it just bitcoin or is it bitcoin, Ethereum?
Zac: We actually support three assets in the interest account currently Bitcoin, Ether and GUSD which is the stable coin from Gemini.
Buck: Got it. And talk about the interest because it's not one flat interest rate right it's different depending on how much cryptocurrency actually is held?
Zac: Correct so there's a tiered interest rate structure. Currently on Bitcoin for balances up to ten Bitcoin, we offer a six point two percent annual yield and for balances above ten Bitcoin it's a 2.2 percent annual yield. On Ether, for balances up to two hundred Ether it's a 3.3 percent annual yield and balances above two hundred Ether is 0.5% annual yield and for GUSD the stable coin it's an eight point six percent interest rate with no tier so yeah those are the different rates.
Buck: Why did, I mean was it just a matter of like an issue with people dumping like a thousand Bitcoin and trying to get six you know 6% of that, was it just too hard to you know make that a long-term part of the business model or why did the higher levels end up changing to a lower rate?
Zac: Sure so I wanted to function of market conditions and to it's a function of supply and demand. So we launched the interest account in March of this year. We were just starting to come out of the bear market and one of the things that happened as we switched from being in a bear market to being in a bull market is the futures switched from being in backwardation to contango which basically means that our institutional borrowers the groups that we lend to that enable us to pay the rate to depositors had less of a need they had less demand to borrow and they were willing to pay lower rates to borrow crypto than they were when we were building and planning to launch this product. The second thing that happened is we were surprised to the upside in terms of the level of interest that we received from depositors and especially depositors with very large sums of cryptocurrency. So to give you an example you know within a day or two of making the product available publicly, we had a number of groups that were depositing 5, 10, 15, 20 million dollars worth of Bitcoin and so the supply-demand that we have to manage is, the amount that we have on deposit relative to the size of this market that will borrow Bitcoin size of the market that will borrow Bitcoin is partially a function of market sentiments partially a function of number of trading venues and the liquidity profile and it's partially a function of you know BlockFi’s efforts in terms of sales and client development relationship management. So the supply side got a little bit ahead of the demand side on deposit and how much there was available to borrow so we made a few tweaks. We want to keep the 6%, 6.2% rate on Bitcoin available to as many people as possible for as long as possible so that's why we went with the tiered structure where we made it available on balances up to 10 and reduced it for balances above that.
Buck: Got it and the interest on that, when you say 6.2 percent that six point like it's all denominated in Bitcoin, you're not paying cash out right?
Zac: Correct so to use round numbers to provide an easy example you start on January first with a hundred Bitcoin in an account, by the subsequent January first you will have 106 point 2 Bitcoin in your account.
Buck: Yeah and that that's kind of neat too because then you're you know you're also getting potentially the upside of that you know I mean they made 6% but if you if you're really bullish on the market you could be potentially looking at a lot more than 6% on your money. How about in terms of the, is there like a you know do you do it sort of a month-to-month or six month or month you know year-long contracts for these things?
Zac: It's month-to-month. So the rates are subject to change on a monthly basis. We provide notifications at least a week in advance before the end of one month on what the rates will be for the subsequent month and people are able to you know withdraw any time without penalty. We reserve up to 7 days to process withdrawals but we've never taken more than one business day to process a withdrawal so they're pretty quick but not instant for security reasons and yeah it's pretty flexible.
Buck: How about the lump in the lending side how does how does that work? So now I've got like 10 Bitcoin and so I would deposit that I guess and you guys I understand that maybe that that goes into like a Gemini account or something, is that still how it works?
Zac: Correct so we have a partnership with Gemini for custody. So when you log into a BlockFi account you'll have a deposit address. When you send Bitcoin to that deposit address it actually goes directly into storage with Gemini. Gemini was the first custodian in the crypto sector to receive insurance against cyber hacks on their platform. They were also the first custodian to get to complete a SOC 2 compliance audit and they have a really long track record of custody billions of dollars worth of crypto without ever having any issues. So it goes directly to Gemini and then you're able to interact with block-wise platform to take any actions that you might deem necessary. So you can view your interest payments you can withdraw you can deposit more you can also take out a loan. So in terms of taking out a loan, if you have ten Bitcoin that's worth roughly a hundred thousand US dollars at this point in time, you can borrow up to fifty percent of that value in a US dollar loan which can be funded be a wire or stable coin and then the structure of those loans is that you make interest-only payments on the amount that you borrowed throughout the duration and you can prepay at any time without penalty.
Buck: And what's the typical you said it was four point six.
Zac: We have interest rates as low as four point five. The interest rates on borrowing USD vary according to your initial loan to value ratio. So if you have a hundred thousand dollars worth of Bitcoin we actually have three loan-to-value ratio options. You can borrow at a 50 percent initial loan-to-value ratio which would mean you're borrowing 50k, the interest rate on that will be eleven point two five, if you borrow thirty five percent of the value so 35k the interest rate is seven point nine, and if you borrow twenty five percent of the value of the interest rate is four point five percent per year.
Buck: Got it. In terms of you know the technical, so you basically pay that on a month-to-month basis and then in terms of contracts, are those also month-to-month loans or how does that work?
Zac: Those are one-year term loans well now it's the ability to renew without repaying the principal at the end of the term at current rates and our rates for those loans have always come down so far. So it's a one-year term loan BlockFi committed for a year at that rate your payments stay the same but you can prepay at any time without penalty.
Buck: Right. When do you do when would you do an actual sort of I guess a cap will call like what loan-to-value because you can go up to say you're borrowing at you know you're borrowing at the lowest rate you know you're at 4.5% you're borrowing see you know just for round numbers 100 Bitcoin you borrowed or you said 10 Bitcoin hundred thousand dollars but you only borrowed twenty-five thousand dollars at four point five percent, what if Bitcoin you know loses 50 percent of its value then what happens?
Zac: Well you wouldn't have a margin call based on on that example. If your loan to value ratio hits 70 percent that's when we have a margin call and the way the margin call works is our clients have the option to either post more collateral, pay down the loan using USD or some of the collateral that's posted for the loan or take no action. If they take no action there's a 72-hour window where we'll wait to see if the price recovers, if it does then no action is required, if the price keeps going down further then we will initiate a partial collateral sale to rebalance that LTV to a healthy level at the end of that window.
Buck: So in terms of the clients that you see doing this kind of stuff, I mean who are you seeing borrowing because you don't have a cap I mean you can on the borrow side, I mean and the rates don't really change like if you're depositing a hundred Bitcoin you're getting the same rate differences as somebody who's depositing ten for borrowing right?
Zac: That's right.
Buck: So who are the people who are putting I mean what are these businesses that are putting are using these loans who are the typical clients?
Zac: Sure so it's a mix of retail and corporate. On the retail side we actually did a survey recently on use cases and the number one use case about a third of our borrowers expressed is that they were using the funds that they borrowed to start a business, which we were really excited about. So the other popular use cases were investing in real estate, investing in other types of traditional assets like stocks and bonds, home improvement, larger purchases, vacations were all used cases, paying down higher cost debt was another use case, and then on the corporate side the loans are used for operating capital. So we have some mining companies that borrow from BlockFi. Other types of companies who you know maybe have crypto denominated inventory like exchanges or crypto ATM businesses our frequent borrowers from BlockFi and our loan sizes rearranged from you know as low as five thousand dollars all the way up to seven figures. So it's a pretty diverse group of borrowers.
Buck: So recently it sounds like you guys partnered with another company called Casa. What is Casa and I guess how does that benefit both companies?
Zac: Sure. So Casa is a leader in fighting self sovereign storage solutions for cryptocurrency owners so if you're alone that owns Bitcoin and to use a gold analogy. If you want to own gold but you keep it in your vault or in your backyard you want to have physical possession of it yourself if you want to do that same type of custody with Bitcoin. Casa has a solution that makes that really easy. Our partnership with Casa provides mutual benefits to clients on either side. So Casa clients are able to receive some discounts in terms of accessing BlockFi products and vice-versa BlockFi clients are able to receive discounts in terms of accessing kasam products and over time we'll build some things in to the user experience specifically on Casa’s platform that will make it you know a bit more seamless to interact with BlockFi products while you're on their platform. In general that partnership strategy is something that you'll see more of we think there are in the ecosystem that are specializing in areas that BlockFi's not focused on and doing things where we can provide benefits to clients on both sides is a win-win for us then and our clients.
Buck: Last thing I want to ask you about, last time I spoke to you, you had talked about the idea of potentially Bitcoin backed credit cards meaning like you know getting Bitcoin back instead of miles or dollars back. You guys any closer to that, because I definitely want one of those cards.
Zac: I'm so glad you brought it up. We're definitely closer, but we're not you're not going to have the card until like Q3 of next year probably. It's getting worked on, these things you know for better or worse they take a long time launching a credit program is no small feat you know we're working on it. We've identified some of the key partners that we'll be working with to bring that product to market it is going to happen and I share your sentiment like I wish I had it now.
Buck: Yeah seriously that'd be great. Well listen it was great talking you. So it's BlockFi.com and it's spelled like block and then fi and tell us you know tell us the process of doing is pretty simple okay how long does it take to apply for these things…
Zac: Yeah I mean nothing takes any time really. So you could come in and start earning interest and get a loan from us all in under five minutes. And we also have a client service team that's super responsive in in terms of communication however you want to communicate with them, over email, over the phone, over text message so you know don't don't hesitate to reach out to us. We're also on twitter. My twitter handle is BlockFiZac and our company twitter handle is @therealBlockFi so we're very active on those platforms and happy to chat with you there as well.
Buck: Zac Prince, thank you very much for being on Wealth Formula Podcast today.
Zac: Thanks for having me, Buck, I appreciate it.
Buck: We’ll be right back.
submitted by Buck_Joffrey to u/Buck_Joffrey [link] [comments]

Binance vs Coinbase - Which Exchange is Better For Trading ... CoinMetro Telegram Real Talk: CoinMetro Exchange - Binance but better Ted Lin - Binance: Is cryptocurrency going to collapse like the economy? CZ from Binance explains Banning Bitcoin, Litecoin Upgrade, Can't Ban This, Bitcoin ... Binance Vs Coinbase Vs Bittrex Vs Bitfinex 💰 Where & How ... Snapshot of What is Bitcoin by Binance.US Bitcoin 80% Crash after the Halving! Earnings Binance [07.31.20] - Ethereum rallies as Bitcoin ... Bitcoin Halving Theory, History Repeating, Nasdaq + R3, Binance Fiat, Swiss Crypto Association

The general perception is that when Bitcoin (BTC) falls, altcoins fall even more aggressively. However, there is one altcoin which is not subject to this behavior. That altcoin is Binance Coin (BNB). Since the beginning of the year, has performed a lot better than most altcoins during bad times. Bitcoin News. Google News Bitcoin; Bitcoin.com; Cryptocoins Exchanges. Coinbase ; Kraken ; CEX.IO; Binance Bitcoin has gone through yet another leg up, gaining 5 percent in the past 24 hours alone. And while some altcoins have managed to increase even surpass Bitcoin is surging in 2019 but some cryptocurrencies aren't even budging. Let's look at the 5 worst performing cryptocurrencies against BTC this year. Bitcoin (BTC): 149 pairs; Binance Coin (BNB): 74 pairs; Ethereum (ETH): 146 pairs; US Tether (USDT): 18 pairs; So, who’s currency services are better - Binance VS Coinbase? For beginners, Coinbase has better currency services because new traders can buy cryptocurrencies with fiat currencies. They don’t need to go to another exchange first. Its selection of coins is comparatively-small, but ... Recent events involving Binance, Bitfinex and Tether suggest there's potential for "catastrophic, systemic risk in crypto," Dan Cawrey argues. Although all three coins, Decred, Neo and Binance coin, recorded negative returns across the board, the exchange token performed much better, in relative terms, over the last 90 days. Decred Decred, the 41st ranked coin on CoinMarketCap, has a market cap of $128 million and a 24-hour trading volume of $75 million. With its price […] Binance Review: What is Binance? Binance is an exchange that hosts crypto-to-crypto trades.This means that they do not accept real-world money, such as U.S Dollars (USD) or Euros (EUR).The exchange was first created in 2017 and was originally located in China. However, as cryptocurrency laws are very strict in China, the exchange has since moved to Japan, a country that loves digital currency! Binance, on the other hand, has close to 14 million users. Ya - the difference is quite significant. In short, if you plan a long-lasting career in the realm of cryptocurrency trading, Binance is going to be the better alternative, unless Bittrex suddenly explodes with users. At Binance, the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, the daily average spread between buy and sell orders on bitcoin futures for $10 million quote size declined to a record ...

[index] [17673] [14072] [9579] [24051] [4030] [10263] [17785] [9082] [135] [15347]

Binance vs Coinbase - Which Exchange is Better For Trading ...

Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) joins us to discuss the epic news in cryptocurrency and global markets, what to expect as time goes on, and what opportunities this makes for Bitcoin and other ... NEW CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH9HlTrjyLmLRS0iE1P4rrg ----- Rich Dad Poor Dad: https://amzn.to/3cKJ4Ia C... Binance.US brings you the trusted technology from the world's leading crypto exchange, Binance. Trade your USD for bitcoin, ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies. Trade your USD for bitcoin ... Users are rewarded for simply depositing and holding coins on Binance as they normally would. With staking on Binance, users can receive staking rewards all while just being a regular Binance user. CoinMetro Founder and CEO Kevin Murcko answering a question about the differences between CoinMetro and Binance in the CoinMetro Telegram channel https://t.m... Amazon Affiliate Link - (If You Buy Something On Amazon, I Get A Small Commission As A Way To Support The Channel) - (There is NO extra cost for you) https://amzn.to/39MXp4q Computer I Use To ... Welcome back to the no BS blockchain channel covering bitcoin, cryptocurrency and everything around FinTech. Episode 9 is with the Ted Lin, CGO of Binance, the most popular and innovating crypto ... After the first Bitcoin Halving in November 2012 the price of Bitcoin crashed more than 80% a couple months later. How likely is such a Bitcoin dump after th... I compare Binance vs Coinbase side-by-side to determine which exchange is the best platform for trading cryptocurrency. My answer may surprise you! I strateg... Binance http://bit.ly/2krss1M -Fast, No ID required, Easy to withdraw funds -Based in China Coinbase http://bit.ly/2hJwa4Z -Most trusted exchange, excellent ...

#