Home Blog Page 151

Deadcoins Launches Compendium of Deceased Cryptocurrencies



Deadcoins hosts “a curated list of cryptocurrencies forgotten by this world”. Most of the coins detailed are artifacts from altcoin bubbles past, with many comprising exit scams or litecoin clones sporting a silly name for marketing purposes.

Also Read: 40+ ICO Platforms Closing in China

The Majority of the Coins Listed on Deadcoins Comprised of Exit Scams or Poorly Planned Ventures

Deadcoins Launches Compendium of Deceased Cryptocurrencies

Deadcoins lists projects alphabetically, with ‘Aiden’ being one of the first coins encountered by visitors. Of Aiden, the author states “haha this brings back memories. Aiden is another LTC clone shitcoin I made which the idiots and Poloniex listed. I just changed some scrypt parameters and scammed people by calling it GPU friendly. I made so much BTC from this shitcoin it’s not even funny.” The flippant tone of the author’s comments should underline the imperative need for prospective investors to critically evaluate the claims made by the developers of new altcoins.

Deadcoins illustrates the prevalence of exit scams among obscure cryptocurrencies. Many of the exit scams described tell the familiar story of developers disappearing with investors’ funds, such as ‘Blockshares’, which “raised $250k [and] then disappeared”, ‘Crimsoncoin’, whose developors “sold their coins and ran off in less than a week”, and ‘Erosvision’, which is said to have “comprised a “scam coin ICO with [a] plagiarized white paper [that] collected around ten million US dollars before… disappearing”.

Some scams, however, elicit a far more elaborate story, such as Chancoin. Of Chancoin, Deadcoins alleges that the developer conducted a “30% premine, supposedly mistakenly [sent] 10% of the coins to a stranger on the first day, [made] big promises to the community which went unfulfilled… [told] an elaborate lie about [multiple] developers which were all alternate accounts of the same person”, and “fork[ed] the coin which accidentally caused all funds held by people on exchanges to disappear.” Deadcoins states that “[Chancoin] now has a daily volume of less than $1000 [which is] faked by the developer trading with himself.”

Many Failed Altcoins Possess Gimmicky Names

Deadcoins Launches Compendium of Deceased Cryptocurrencies

Many of the cryptocurrencies detailed on Deadcoins comprise projects with little worth that sought to ride the gimmick of a silly name. One such project is ‘Beercoin’, which sought to use a premine in order to “hold the price relative to the price of beer”. Other notably named coins include ‘Fraudcoin’, ‘Groincoin’, ‘Koindashian’, ‘Obama_bin_lotterycoin’, and ‘Asspennies’.

Although though most of the cryptocurrencies described on Deadcoins comprise lazy attempts at establishing a gimmick, or maliciously motivated scams, some projects appear to have been serious in their efforts, and failed due to comically poor execution. ‘Siliconvalleycoin’ sought to build its user base by “sending out a mailer that said ‘free money’ to people in Silicon Valley”. ‘Oilcoin’ is described as “an attempt to create a cryptocurrency for the vertical market of crude-oil shipping and dealing [that] made absolutely zero penetration into that market.” ‘Cryptometh’ is another notable example, which “after a smooth launch… couldn’t get listed on Bittrex because bittrex objected to the… name. They were listed on allcrypt, but the price collapsed and miners abandoned the coin.”

Do you think that many of the cryptocurrencies launched during the recent altcoin bubble will be able to sustain a robust userbase long term? Or do you think the majority of altcoins are destined to fade into obscurity? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

Bitcoin News is growing fast. To reach our global audience, send us anews tip or submit a press release. Let’s work together to help inform the citizens of Earth (and beyond) about this new, important and amazing information network that is Bitcoin.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

The Risks of Segregated Witness: Problems under Evidence Laws


The Risks of Segregated Witness: Problems under Evidence Laws


By Jimmy Nguyen
Chief IP, Communications & Legal Officer – nChain Group

The bitcoin community still debates whether Segregated Witness will help the network’s scalability or will instead create more problems.  As I have previously written, SegWit raises legal questions because it would enable full digital signature (witness) data to be dropped from the transaction data; this would undermine the ability of bitcoin digital signatures to also be used as electronic contract signatures (for example, for smart contracts).  Another key legal issue is evidentiary authentication of blockchain transactions.  Ideally, we are moving to a world where the bitcoin network can power smart contracts and be used for numerous types of data transactions.  But in such a world, what happens if companies and consumers cannot easily authenticate and prove those transactions later when there are legal disputes?   In this piece, I’ll examine the problem under evidence laws.

How SegWit Changes Bitcoin

The original Bitcoin white paper (in section 2) by Satoshi Nakamoto defines “an electronic coin” as “a chain of digital signatures”.  Each owner transfers ownership control of the coin to the next owner by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin.  A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.  The transaction data conveys the inputs and outputs of coins being spent, and could also carry additional data to be recorded in the bitcoin transaction.

A normal bitcoin transaction stores both transaction and signature (witness) data together in a block, with the signatures accounting for approximately 60% of the data size.  As described in my prior post, this means bitcoin transactions signatures could satisfy e-signature laws, which often require the electronic contract signature to be “attached to or logically associated” with the contract terms – which could, for example, be coded into bitcoin transaction data.   (Of course, all bitcoin digital signatures are not meant to also be electronic contract signatures; however, they were originally set up in a manner that could satisfy the requirements of electronic contract signature law if the parties wanted to use them for that purpose.  For example, Alice could sign her bitcoin transaction – or at a more advanced level, a smart contract whose terms are encoded with the transaction data – using her bitcoin digital signature which serves two purposes:  (1) to verify the transaction to be sent and validated to the bitcoin network, and also (2) to confirm her assent to the transaction or smart contract terms for purposes of electronic contract law.)

How does SegWit change the picture?  Rather than directly raising the 1MB block size, SegWit would indirectly increase a block’s capacity to store more transactions by separating the signature (witness) data from the transaction data.  It then creates two hashes: (1) a “regular” hash of just the transaction data, without the signatures; and (2) a “witness hash” consisting of a hash of both of the transaction data and the witness data.  For storage in a block, the bitcoin protocol already uses a Merkle tree (a hierarchical data structure composed of hashes of information) to efficiently store transaction data, and places the Merkle root into the block header of every mined block.  SegWit creates a second Merkle tree to separately store the witness hashes, but importantly does not require nodes to keep the signature data.

In fact, SegWit assumes that signature data is only needed when transactions are being validated, and can thereafter be discarded as unimportant.  As described by its original proponent Pieter Wuille, “[t]hese signatures are only needed at time of validation”; SegWit treats “signatures [as] not part of the transaction”, its “redesign would allow you to drop this [signature] data.”  (Mr. Wuille is a co-founder of Blockstream, a blockchain technology company which helps support Bitcoin Core and advocates for SegWit).

Moreover, bitcoin nodes would not be required to keep the signature data.  As Wuille further explained, “[SegWit] allows you to drop the signatures from relay whenever you are relaying to a node that is not actually doing full-validation at the time. It also allows us to effectively prune this data from history, maybe we’re fine with not all nodes in the network actually maintaining these gigabytes of signatures that are buried under years of proof-of-work now.”  This is a key point because SegWit opens up the likelihood that most bitcoin nodes do not keep the signature data, because it is simply less efficient and costs more to do so.

If most nodes drop the signatures (which is the likely result), the blockchain can only reliably serve as a ledger for worldwide business transactions if:

  • Some nodes choose to specialize in storing all signature data. This gives those nodes special weight (as a trusted source) to verify and authenticate bitcoin transactions and signatures.  But this is antithetical to the idea of bitcoin as a decentralized, trustless system, with no central authority; or
  • Companies and consumers operating on the blockchain must keep their own copy of transaction records (or their own nodes storing all blockchain transactions with signature data), so they have access to the signature data later if needed for legal proceedings or audits. But this requires massive data duplication and eliminates the efficiencies of using the blockchain as a decentralized ledger.

Evidence Authentication

Under courtroom evidence law, SegWit would make it more difficult for businesses and consumers to authenticate blockchain-recorded transactions.  In civil and criminal court proceedings, evidence must be authenticated before it can be admitted.  Under U.S. Federal Rule of Evidence 901, “[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.”  This requirement is important to ensure litigants do not try to introduce falsified or tampered evidence.

How does this work in practice?  Consider a lawsuit over an automobile accident.  Drivers often seek to introduce pictures of the accident scene.  They could testify from personal knowledge that they used their smartphones to take pictures immediately after the accident and confirm the images are authentic.  Similarly, transaction and other business records can be admitted into court proceedings, but a witness typically must testify to authenticate the records.  For example, if you are involved in a dispute with your stock exchange over a stock trade, the stock exchange could introduce its electronic records of your account and trades, but one of its employees needs to testify about the authenticity of the data.  Likewise, you could produce your own printed copies of your stock trade history and testify about those printouts.  Thus, transaction records generally require a witness to explain what the transaction record is, how it is kept or was generated, and what it represents.

How Can Blockchain Receipts Be Authenticated Without Signature Data?

How would this work in the blockchain world?  If signature data is kept, it is easier to later authenticate the transaction record by referring to the bitcoin digital signature used to validate the transaction.  This helps meet the evidentiary requirement that the blockchain record “is what the proponent claims it is” – in other words, the blockchain receipt for the specific transaction.

But SegWit allows signature data to be dropped from the transaction data, making the task of evidentiary authentication more difficult.  If all nodes do not maintain signature data, who can testify as to the authenticity of signature data to match it to the relevant transaction data?  While the direct parties to a transaction could hopefully do so, what happens if they relied upon bitcoin nodes to maintain the signature and transaction data and did not keep (or lost) their own records?  Would that place nodes who opt to keep full signature data in a special “trusted” position to verify bitcoin transactions for legal proceedings (such as a government-approved service provider)?  Or would mere evidence that a signature was necessary at the time of the bitcoin transaction satisfy a court, if no such signature can now be produced?

These evidence issues will also play out at the U.S. state level. As more blockchain technology enthusiasm grows, U.S. state legislatures are beginning to examine what is sufficient proof of blockchain business transactions. In 2016, the state of Vermont enacted H.868; it adds a statute to Vermont’s evidence rules (12 V.S.A. §1913) stating that a blockchain-based digital record is now considered a business record and thus admissible over hearsay objections – but importantly, only if the blockchain record is authenticated by the written declaration of a qualified person.  One wonders, however, whether other states will follow suit, if SegWit reveals that key components of bitcoin transactions (such as signature data) can be dropped or altered from blockchain records.  In order to pass statutes like the Vermont evidence law, blockchain advocates need to champion the reliability and immutability of blockchain records.  But would legislators be so quick to recognize blockchain records if they knew the basic signature data that has always been saved with bitcoin transaction data could be dropped?

Need for a Witness

If signature data is not kept by any bitcoin nodes or only some of them, it creates a serious question of what witness (if any) can adequately authenticate bitcoin transactions from the blockchain.  While it was not dealing with blockchain, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decided an immigration case – U.S. v. Lizarraga-Tirado – which addressed questions about the admissibility of machine-generated evidence.  (U.S. v. Lizarraga-Tirado, 789 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2015)).  The case led James Ching, a Law.com contributor, to write a January 2016 blog asking Is Blockchain Evidence Inadmissible Hearsay? and triggered other online articlesquestioning whether blockchain evidence is admissible in court.  As Ching describes, a blockchain verification “receipt must be introducible in litigation in order to be of any value as a verifier of a transaction.  Because a receipt obviously is asserting the existence of the transaction, it must qualify as a business record or it is inadmissible hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”   (These blockchain evidence issues were further examined in a June 2017 law review article entitled Blockchain Receipts:  Patentability and Admissibility in Court.)

The Lizarraga case involved the deportation of a defendant who was found improperly entering (again) the United States through the Mexico border.  The defendant claimed he had not actually crossed over the border to the U.S. side.  However, the government sought to introduce the evidence of a Google Earth satellite view of the scene where the defendant was arrested, including a tack marker to reflect the border agent’s notation (on a mobile device) of where the arrest occurred (on the U.S. side of the border, according to the agent).  But that pin marker was manually added to the machine-generated satellite image to record the agent’s contemporaneous impressions of where the arrest occurred.

To evaluate the admissibility of the Google Earth map image and the tack marker indicating whether the defendant crossed the U.S. border, the 9th Circuit decided that machine-generated evidence can be admissible in court (and is not hearsay because it is a machine, rather than a person, making an assertion); however, the evidence still requires that some witness authenticate it.  The party offering the machine evidence must show that the “machine is reliable and correctly calibrated, and that the data put into the machine (here, the GPS coordinates) is accurate.”  (Lizarraga-Tirado, 789 F.3d at 1110.)  The court noted that the rules of evidence allow for authentication of a “process or system” with evidence “describing the process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result.”  In the case of Google Maps, its satellite mapping and GPS coordinates could be authenticated by a Google employee or other witness who works with the program frequently, if they can testify about how the Google Earth system works.  The key is “to establish Google Earth’s reliability and accuracy.”

How would this authentication requirement be applied to a blockchain receipt offered as evidence in court? A witness would have to testify about the bitcoin network and its “reliability and accuracy” as a mechanism for maintaining business records.  The Blockchain Receipts law review article noted above (at pp. 447-448) gives examples of what types of witnesses could serve this function to explain the blockchain and its transaction record system: “an exchange programmer, an avid Bitcoin user, a programmer attempting to replicate the blockchain, a digital currency expert, or an investor could all be brought in at trial.”  That is certainly possible with respect to the original form of bitcoin transactions (which retain both transaction and signature data).   But the task is more difficult with SegWit, which allows nodes to drop the signature data, and could lead to complex evidentiary battles about the “reliability and accuracy” of the blockchain-stored data.

Thought Experiments About the Legal Risks

At the 2017 Future of Bitcoin conference in Arnhem, Netherlands, Bitcoin Unlimited’s Chief Scientist Peter Rizun gave a presentation about why bitcoins with SegWit are not real bitcoins.  To illustrate his point, he offered this thought experiment:

Imagine that you have 100 BTC in a segwit address and a few days later you notice that they’ve been transferred to an address that you do NOT control. You try to find the signature that authorized the transfer to prove the theft (you’re sure your private keys were secure so you think the signature must be bogus) but conveniently nobody seems to have it saved.

Can you prove that your funds were stolen?

In Rizun’s thought experiment, assume you sue your bitcoin wallet provider over the 100 BTC that you believe were stolen from your wallet.  As Rizun points out, you need to find the signature associated with the transaction in order to prove it was fake and not authorized by you.  But of course, you would not have kept it because you did not initiate the transaction.  And if your wallet provider and no node has kept the signature for the disputed transaction, you are out of luck.  At most, you or your wallet provider may only be able prove:  (a) a transaction occurred on a particular date and time for the 100 BTC; and (b) there is string of hashes that indicate the transaction was authorized at that time.  Is that enough to authenticate that transaction record for evidence purposes?  And more importantly, even if that limited transaction record is authenticated and admissible in court, the signature data is missing and a key question in the case cannot be answered from the evidence.

I take Peter Rizun’s example a step further and offer this thought experiment based upon potential smart contracts that could be recorded on the blockchain, and electronically signed by one party using a bitcoin digital signature.

Alice enters into a smart contract to pay you 5 BTC to buy your used automobile.  The contract’s terms are recorded on the blockchain as part of a transaction sending the 5 BTC to a SegWit address.   Alice’s digital signature to validate the bitcoin transaction is also the means Alice uses to digitally sign to signify acceptance of the smart contract (for purposes of e-contract law).  [In other words, Alice does not manually sign a paper contract, does not affix a digital copy of her handwritten signature to any document, and does not electronically sign a document using other means.]

Alice later disputes the smart contract, claiming that she did not authorize the transaction. You have a legal dispute over whether she in fact digitally signed the smart contract.   But Alice’s signature data was pruned after the transaction was validated onto the blockchain, and she claims she did not digitally sign the transaction.  You have no record of Alice’s private key used for the digital signature.

Can you prove that Alice digitally signed the smart contract?

This thought experiment illustrates the potential proof challenges of a SegWit world.  It can be more difficult to prove that Alice digitally signed the disputed smart contract if you have no record of Alice’s private key used for the digital signature, and no node has kept the signature data.

As with electronic contract issues, legal systems can find ways to address these evidentiary proof problems.  But SegWit makes the challenges harder by creating additional hurdles for authenticating blockchain records as evidence in legal proceedings.  These risks could deter businesses from operating more on the blockchain, and impede the greater vision of a Bitcoin 2.0 network powering smart contracts and greater functionality in the future.  The bitcoin community needs to demonstrate to courts, regulators and legislators that bitcoin records – and in particular signatures – are reliable and authentic; this effort is just getting started and should not be undermined by proposals such as SegWit which fundamentally change the nature of bitcoin.

By Jimmy Nguyen
Chief IP, Communications & Legal Officer – nChain Group

Jimmy Nguyen is Chief IP, Communications and Legal Officer for the nChain Group of companies – the global leader in research and development of innovations in blockchain technology.   Jimmy joined nChain after a 21-year legal career in private practice as an IP and digital technology lawyer.  He was a partner in major law firms representing multinational corporates and emerging companies.  A leader in the legal community, Jimmy was formerly Chair of the State Bar of California’s IP Law section, and co-chaired the California Minority Counsel Program.  He has been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the 500 Leading Lawyers in America (2008), by the Century City Bar Association as “Intellectual Property Lawyer of the Year” (2011), and by the Association of Media & Entertainment Counsel with its Industry Leader Award (2017).  Jimmy is also a Certified Information Privacy Professional/U.S.

Do you agree with Jimmy Nguyen that Segwit fundamentally alter how Bitcoin works and that it is a problem? Or do you think Segwit transactions are the best thing since sliced bread? Share your thoughts in the comment section below!

Images via Shutterstock

At news.Bitcoin.com all comments containing links are automatically held up for moderation in the Disqus system. That means an editor has to take a look at the comment to approve it. This is due to the many, repetitive, spam and scam links people post under our articles. We do not censor any comment content based on politics or personal opinions. So, please be patient. Your comment will be published.  

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

BTC-e: The fleet that survived Pearl Harbor… for now


Mr. Robot in real life: Much of the drama surrounding BTC-e’s unfinished recovery played out in the shadows.


July 25, 2017: Users attempting to visit the long-established crypto currency exchange known as BTC-e get a “bad gateway” message instead. It is much worse, something Consensys.net calls “the first time the US government has attacked a foreign exchange on foreign soil.”

July 26: U.S. enforcers arrest Alexander Vinnik in Greece. He’s a Russian accused of money laundering. But some claim he’s a leader of the exchange. BTC-e contests this claim, but statements coming from the organization are initially few and don’t even seem believable.

August 1 (approximately): A man apparently in the Palestinian Territories launches or hosts a Change.org petition to be sent to the U.S. Justice Department. It demands the return of the currency seized by Washington and stands at over 4,000 signatures in early September.

August 9:TheMerkle.com reports BTC-e is claiming it has successfully maintained control over 55% of customer funds despite the raid and that it will issue tokens to cover the other 45% on a relaunched site.

Sept 1: BTC-e.com site relaunches as BTC-e.nz and begins returning some funds within three days. CoinDesk reports the process is “anything but smooth,” but “refunds” do begin on schedule. To paraphrase Commander Adama… we’re still alive; who’d have believed it a month ago? Most or many passwords appear to be reset, requiring a new password be sent to the user’s e-mail even if they last logged in during late July 2017. Users are told they can pull out 55% of their funds with 72 hours if they agree to forfeit their accounts and the remaining 45%. The exchange tells the world that users who “believe in us” may be able to recoup their full accounts later by sticking with it. BTC-e says it will not serve U.S. customers in the future and projects an essentially complete relaunch later in September.

Sept. 7, 2017:Pushback against Vinnik’s arrest belatedly gets off the ground as his wife accuses globetrotting U.S. intel services of attempting to make him their servant. “If I am guilty of something,” he reportedly tells Russia Today, “then my country should judge me.”4

There’s a real-time strategy game called Astro Empires, still very popular online since its launch around 2009. What draws me to it is the unspoken ethical element and the ability to be neutral like Switzerland. The game tends to climax seconds after you were sitting around doing nothing. Usually a blood-red message will appear in the upper right and you will learn someone much more powerful has occupied one of your bases with lots of allies and no provocation. Sometimes it was one you’d overlooked or left an unnecessarily vulnerable fleet at. You see the enemy’s recyclers feasting on your debris and then discover the worst part: He’s going to make a profit on the kill. It is a debacle. For hours, sometimes days, you scramble to maneuver, escape, strike back in even the smallest way. You wonder… is this the war I won’t be able to survive?

But over time, you regroup, gain knowlege, spot opportunities. You wear the enemy down if you can just hold it together, save this scrap, preserve that scout and stay in the fight. The most important thing in the game isn’t killing but rather well-organized production, construction and stealth. You sometimes can’t liberate your bases or even find a weak spot in the superior foe, but you can usually rebuild, collect, deprive.

So it must have been for the faceless but very three-dimensional pioneers from this beleaguered monetary endeavor. Peering bleary toward the late-night glow of laptop monitors, darting furtive into hidden spaces to retrieve caches of backup data… calculating, reconnecting, rebooting… never safe but never relenting. We might not ever know what risks they had to take, what heroic or selfish things each of them did. But whatever they did, it worked… partly. To paraphrase one observer, when was the last time you heard of an organization recouping and refunding any of its funds after a Federal attack like this?

BTC-e refund process

As one of the people who – reluctantly – exercised the refund option… here is how it played out.

Being a partial off-gridder living below the poverty line, I didn’t have that much money in BTC-e compared to what mainstream traders would have had. But it was a big percentage of my assets; there simply was no better, established place I’d found for trading a narrow basket of cryptos and fiats cheaply… with good graphing and no battery of personal data demanded.

When I began looking over the organization’s plan for making things right with its users, initially I was hopeful. Upon re-entering the site right after relaunch, it informed me that my (relatively recent) password had expired and e-mailed me a new one, activated by clicking a link. This was confusing, because one of BTC-e’s recent pronouncements warns of phishing scams and urges users not to click links in e-mails. Nevertheless, this e-mail and its link were legit; upon logging in… well let’s just say you’ve never seen a chat box full of trolls that looked so good. Because above it was my balance, just as it had read the day before this particular apocalypse. Most of the trolls, actually not trolls at all in most cases, seemed to be expressing their plans to stick with BTC-e… or scolding other users for asking questions that were answered in the posted news updates.

“This is my home,” one of them said.

One question that seemed unanswered at this point was whether one could withdraw partially from the exchange. Clicking on “withdraw” under any of my coins let me to a message indicating normal withdrawals were disabled. Clicking “refund” provided the following detailed “eject button” for completely evacuating the site but didn’t quite settle the issue:

BTCe cryptocurrency exchange refund process

In fact, there were only three options: sticking with it completely, bailing out completely, or donating a portion of your coin to the exchange on your way out. I wrote down the pros and cons of each course of action, slept on it and determined that I wanted to stay in but couldn’t.

BTC-e’s recovery against the odds

BTC-e’s plan for survival and “making good” no longer appeared just satisfactory to me; it appeared somewhere between competent and brilliant. The elements were nearly all there to inspire confidence… a seemingly miraculous partial-recovery against a world-conquering Power, a token set up perhaps quickly in crisis but also in the midst of an ICO boom, the goodwill of many users, an apparent road-map for recovering all assets. They were the place where lighting had already struck without killing them, likely hardened now and reconstituted against the next blow. I believed in them. Staying in, at least for a while, was worth the risk, except for one thing: They claimed that once the site was fully reconstituted, they would refuse to serve people in the U.S., or at least U.S. citizens in the U.S.

This meant that the whole business for us stateside folk was more of a closing window than an eject-button. After coming fully back on line, perhaps very soon, BTC-e would become a place where… though I might believe in them, they wouldn’t believe in me. I could only remain there by pretending to be an Irishman or something.

So I clicked all my coins it had listed for me, a list which impressively already included Bitcoin Cash. I added wallet addresses to which I could withdraw and then punched “refund.” At this point I got an error message indicating there was a problem with my Bitcoin Cash wallet address. It was located on a newly formed account at Bittrex.com. I did some checking, found no errors, couldn’t easily come up with another place to put Bitcoin Cash. I half-considered entering “-” instead, which would have donated the BCH to these folks who had stood up so well against so much. But another punch of the “refund” button resulted in no errors and a message indicating my refund was processing. That was on September 3.

The site indicated I would receive my coins within 72 hours. On September 4, more like 24 hours later, I received the amounts promised, of all coins promised except BCH.  On September 5, the Bitcoin Cash came through. Nothing failed.  With the rise in crypto prices since the day the site went down… I had suffered a loss of about 15% real value.  Logins by me on BTC-e were now disallowed. But finally it was possible to breathe and reflect.

On July 25, a date that should live in infamy, we witnessed the modern equivalent of a world government, with a military budget roughly ten times the size of Russia’s… lash out globally and near-randomly at the sustenance of individuals or the progeny thereof who it had once liberated from fascism, communism and nationalism in sequence. Belgians, Estonians, Bosniaks… some of each surely now gazing with a fury not preceded,  at the Anakin-Skywalker-turned-Darth-Vader figure now preying upon them from vast distances.

Lessons from history

The attack on BTC-e really could be viewed like Pearl Harbor or like the Battle of the Coral Sea… the former analogy being a little to pessimistic toward our side and the latter one a little too sanguine. At Pearl Harbor (usually perceived as a major IJN victory), Tokyo actually failed to achieve its strategic objective, which was the elimination of American carriers or perhaps the blockage of the facility. The Americans were able to preserve the important parts of their fleet and keep the harbor open. More importantly, the Japanese even screwed up their attempt to do the slightly-more-honorable-than-1904 thing of declaring war before the attack. This was what turned the Americans from neutrals into fanatical killing machines.

The monetary anger at Washington fortunately hasn’t had that effect and hopefully never will. But we may hope that its next attack (or perhaps China’s) will see stronger resistance both in terms of successfully protecting assets and providing the civic pushback worthy of our large but excessively fragmented community.

Flawed, unaligned with any nation, accused of being too friendly toward all, a place where everyone was treated as innocent unit there was some obvious counter-active reason… BTC-e accomplished more than nearly all before it and may accomplish much more than it did before this raid. Until you quit, you haven’t lost. BTC-e didn’t quit.

Featured image from Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Why Bitcoin is Not a Bubble




The internet is replete with people referring to bitcoin as a “bubble.” They are spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt galore. They believe bitcoin’s high price spells impending doom, but their criticisms move beyond mere skepticism. It seems like they just hate cryptocurrency. Yet many of these pundits do not fully grasp bitcoin…or even economics.

Also read: BTC-e Exchange Comes Back Online With Limited Functionality

For anyone unfamiliar with what a bubble is, investopedia refers to it as an asset driven by unwarranted, but exuberant, market behavior. It is basically a hike in price that has resulted in a lie or “false truth” about the actual value of an asset, and therefore presages a massive selloff.

People are Confused About Bitcoin

Bitcoin is Not a Bubble

Commentators like Peter Schiff and others have routinely said bitcoin is a “bubble,” and that it will collapse any moment. They make these claims, but do not seem to understand how bitcoin works. Everyone sees headlines like this all over the internet: “Bitcoin is a false truth, warns analyst,” and this CNBC article, “Bitcoin’s nearly five-fold climb in 2017 looks very similar to tech bubble surge.” There is even a site dedicated to collecting these FUD and clickbait claims the mainstream media repeats.

In a recent Chicago Tribune op-ed article called “Why Investors Should be Wary of Bitcoin,” writer Gail MarksJarvis, also compared the bitcoin boom to various historical bubbles:

Do you remember the housing crash of 2008, when the innocents who bought homes thinking they’d make a fortune on soaring prices ended up losing 30 percent on plunging home values? Do you remember the technology stock bubble of early 2000? Until the technology bubble burst, people were euphoric about the pioneers of the fledgling Internet in the 1990s, and figured the gains in technology stocks would never end.

She went on to say that bitcoin is not special or different in this regard. She implied it is a “volatile bubble” that could burst at anytime and leave investors gasping for air. Her comparisons — and all comparisons mentioned — are erroneous, though. The currency is not comparable to any of the aforesaid history lessons.

Bitcoin is Special

Bitcoin is special. It is not a company that could lose profitability and fail. It is certainly not a speculative real estate scam that could crumble as a result of government and bank-induced chicanery. Bitcoin is another animal.

Bitcoin is Not a Bubble

Its value is not increasing because of marketplace lies. It is increasing because it is a life-changing financial invention. It is increasing because more people are adopting it. The “network effect” is in full swing.

It is true investors are rabid to get on board and this excitement is causing bitcoin’s price to explode, but do not confuse this with an artificially inflated bubble based on a “false truth.” In accordance with the network effect, the more people that continue to get involved with bitcoin, the higher the price will climb.

Basic Economics

Bitcoin is also growing as a result of basic economics. The supply is limited to 21 million units and this necessarily makes bitcoin a scarce asset. When things are scarce and people want those things, their value will ultimately rise. Supply and demand at work.

Thus, when economics and the network effect intermingle, you have a recipe for explosive growth within an asset. Bitcoin is not some new version of the 17th century tulip bulb. It is a groundbreaking advancement in accounting and money.

Bubbles versus Technological Failures

With that said, this does not mean Bitcoin is guaranteed to succeed. The price could be affected if something bad were to happen to the protocol that underlies it. If this kind of event ever occurred, people would certainly lose faith in bitcoin and its price would collapse.

Bitcoin is Not a Bubble

However, this is not the same thing as an artificially hiked price or “bubble.” It is the result of a technological or community failure, but not a market failure. For instance, Bitcoin just upgraded to Segwit. However, Segwit does not necessarily align with Satoshi Nakamoto’s vision that Bitcoin should be a scalable, peer-2-peer cash system. Instead, it turns bitcoin into a settlement layer, which could do harm to the currency.

This illustration is not intended to spread panic. I am just saying bitcoin is susceptible to failures and crashes. It is just that these potential crashes are not the result of a “bubble.” They would occur because the community failed to make bitcoin economically viable. In either case, many people hope Segwit will work over the long run and that there will not be a technological failure.


Point being: if people want to call bitcoin a bubble, they ought to explain why exactly it is, instead of incompetently comparing it to past bubbles that do not share any characteristics with bitcoin other than a big price tag. If bitcoin were a bubble, it would be the largest one humankind has ever witnessed (not counting the 6,000-year old gold bubble, of course). But that is unlikely. It is more likely that bitcoin is just an amazing creation. Its value and potential dwarfs any fintech idea heretofore imagined, and the blockchain communities are just getting started.

Bitcoin is Not a Bubble

Why do people believe bitcoin is a bubble? How big will bitcoin actually grow? Let us know in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

The Bitcoin universe is vast. So is Bitcoin.com. Check ourWiki, where you can learn everything you were afraid to ask. Or read ournews coverage to stay up to date on the latest. Or delve into statistics on our helpfultools page.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

PR: Why Investors Cant Wait To Invest In Revolutionary Dicing Platform Ethbet


PR: Why Investors Cant Wait To Invest In Revolutionary Dicing Platform Ethbet

This is a paid press release, which contains forward looking statements, and should be treated as advertising or promotional material. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support this product/service. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the press release.

The world’s first peer-to-peer cryptocurrency dicing platform, Ethbet, is opening its doors to investors starting September 17th at 8PM UTC via the Ethbet Crowdsale. Due to its small funding cap, investors are eagerly awaiting their chance to become a part of the first dicing platform that will allow users to bet against each other instead of against a centralized house.

That is the core of what makes Ethbet unique: its peer-to-peer nature. As other cryptocurrency gambling platforms are required to charge a large fee called a house edge on every bet that players make, they won’t be able to compete with Ethbet’s business model, which involves a match-making service that lets players play versus each other for much smaller fees. In addition to this, Ethbet offers on-blockchain bet execution and provably-fair betting. As a consequence of these features, Ethbet should have no trouble becoming a force to be reckoned with in the world of cryptocurrency gambling.

With the online gambling industry currently being valued at over $50 billion USD, Ethbet only needs to capture a mere fraction of the market in order to become a huge success. With other novel features planned such as supporting gambling with any Ethereum-based token and later expanding into other games and areas, Ethbet has captured the eyes of many investors aspiring to hop on for the wild ride ahead.

With previous dicing tokens giving investors unbelievable returns such as 1950% (vDice) and a whopping 6000% (Etheroll), Ethbet is a strong contender to become one of the best investments that can be made this month. With an interesting technical whitepaper published and a working demo of their vision, Ethbet plans to take the world of dicing by surprise in the coming months as it ramps up its support and later releases its public beta.

The Ethbet Crowdsale will begin on September 17th at 8PM UTC and is capped at only 5,000ETH. After it reaches this amount, it will permanently close to new investors and no new tokens will ever be created. Those interested in learning more about the Ethbet project are encouraged to check out their whitepaper and website which have been linked above.

Press Contact Email Address
Supporting Link

This is a paid press release. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the promoted company or any of its affiliates or services. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in the press release.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

IG Bringing Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ether CFD Trading to the Mainstream


IG Bringing Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ether CFD Trading to the Mainstream


Leading Contract for Difference (CFD) and spread betting provider, IG Group, is actively marketing bitcoin, bitcoin cash and ether CFD trading to the mainstream. While customers speculate without owning actual cryptocurrencies, IG purchases and sells them to hedge its clients’ positions.

Also read: New FCA Rules Could Reduce UK Bitcoin Spread Betting Appeal

IG’s Crypto Products

IG Group has been stepping up its game in promoting cryptocurrency products. Currently, products based on three cryptocurrencies are offered; bitcoin, bitcoin cash, and ether.

IG Bringing Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ether CFD Trading to the Mainstream“We’re the no.1 provider of CFDs and spread betting worldwide,” the company’s website states. IG is regulated by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). It operates in 17 countries and its subsidiaries are regulated by the relevant authorities in the countries where they operate such as Australia, Japan, South Africa, UAE and Singapore. The platform provides 185,000 active traders and retail investors access to more than 15,000 financial markets. In the U.S., it operates under the brand Nadex. The platform facilitates almost 8 million transactions a month.

Users can speculate on the price of bitcoin and bitcoin cash against the USD, EUR, and GBP. However, only USD is offered for ether.

IG Bringing Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ether CFD Trading to the Mainstream

Clients Want Choices

IG Bringing Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ether CFD Trading to the MainstreamSpread bets come in two varieties; Daily Funded Bets (DFBs) and forward bets, IG detailed. The former run for as long as the user wants to keep them open, whereas the latter expire after a set period of time. Therefore, the cost of maintaining a DFB position is levied on the corresponding account each day, whereas the entire cost of a forward bet is taken into account in the spread, IG noted.

Customers speculate without owning actual bitcoins, the company states. In addition, “IG’s bitcoin settlement is based on a combination of real time prices provided directly by some of the world’s most liquid bitcoin exchanges,” according to the company’s FAQs. IG market analyst Chris Weston explained:

The ability to take a position without putting down the full face value of the position is an attraction, especially when traders are purely speculating on price movements and, by not actually taking delivery of the coins, this mitigates the possibility of the coins being hacked or stolen.

While bitcoin products have been around since 2013, IG started offering its ether product in July this year. “The introduction of Ethereum as a trading vehicle has been led by demand,” Weston wrote, adding that “the bottom line is traders want choice.” The company added bitcoin cash (BCH) products last month.

IG Trades and Holds Bitcoin

IG revealed in its 2017 annual report that the group buys, holds, and uses bitcoin as a hedge in order to cover its clients’ positions. The company wrote:

The Group normally would hedge its clients’ trading positions with its brokers. However, as its brokers do not offer bitcoin as a hedging product, the Group purchases and sells bitcoins to hedge the clients’ positions.

For the financial year 2017, IG reported “£11.9 million (31 May 2016: £3.2 million) related to amounts held on bitcoin exchanges and in third party vaults.”

Reaching the Mainstream

IG Bringing Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Ether CFD Trading to the Mainstream
IG’s Ad in Dagens Industri.

Recently, IG has been increasing its marketing efforts to attract investors to CFD and spread betting on the three cryptocurrencies.

IG’s ads for CFD and spread betting in bitcoin, bitcoin cash and ether, can be found in mainstream newspapers such as the London Evening Standard. The free daily newspaper has a circulation of 899,484 as of July this year.

A similar ad can be found in leading Swedish financial newspaper Dagens Industri. According to a media survey, Dagens Industri’s printed edition had about 328,000 daily readers during the beginning of 2017.

What do you think of IG’s product offerings? Do you think more people will be attracted CFD or spread betting on cryptocurrencies? Let us know in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Financial Times, IG, Reddit u/Fengstrom, Dagens Industri

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Vietnamese Hurry to Import Mining Rigs




Vietnamese investors are in a hurry to import crypto mining equipment. As the bitcoin price continues to flourish — despite the Chinese putting a stop to domestic ICOs — investors desperately want mining equipment. However, the legality of bitcoin and cryptocurrency in Vietnam is unclear, and getting miners through customs is difficult.   

Also read: Lead Developer Amaury Séchet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin Cash

A Vietnamese article elaborated: “In Vietnam, Vietnamese Hurry to Import Bitcoin Mining RigsThe General Department of Customs (GDC) is still considering whether to allow computers imported to mine bitcoin to get custom’s clearance. The State Bank of Vietnam recently affirmed its viewpoint on not recognizing virtual currencies, including bitcoin, as a legal currency and payment instrument in Vietnam.”

Mining and Mining Equipment in Vietnam

Regardless if the Vietnamese government legally recognizes Bitcoin, investors are still trying to get their hands on mining rigs. They are wanting equipment for bitcoin, litecoin, and ethereum. It is just that the rigs have become difficult to obtain and expensive. The article provided more information:

One bitcoin mining machine is offered to sell on internet at VND30-60 million. A set of computers for bitcoin mining comprises 4-6 VGA, while the latest-generation machine has 8 VGAs. Just two months ago, computer component suppliers in Vietnam reported that all computers with strong configuration and VGAs were running out because of  high demand from bitcoin miners.

The owner of a computer store in Hanoi, mentioned he generated a lot of revenue as a result of selling bitcoin mining rigs. However, mining is complicated and takes a lot of resources, he said. This means that most people will end up just leasing the equipment. This seems more likely, especially if more powerful systems were running out as a result of the legal status of cryptocurrency in Vietnam.

Legal Status for Bitcoin in Vietnam; Central Bank Commentary

This gold rush for bitcoin mining rigs is occurring as Vietnamese officials determine the legal status of digital assets. News.Bitcoin.com reported the prime minister Nguyễn Xuân Phúc approved a plan to delve into digital assets. However, the government may consider legalizing them. They are considering whether they can be properly integrated into Vietnamese Hurry to Import Bitcoin Mining Rigssociety. More recently, the central bank of Vietnam made a highly skeptical assessment of the technology:

“Regarding the import of Bitcoin machines, Vietnam has not mastered the technology of exploiting virtual money. Most businesses and individuals involved in virtual currency trading will fail. To mine you need specialized computers to dig up Bitcoin and they are very expensive. Due to the “digging” machine installed, unsuspecting investors will fail, qualified investors will also break even or gain a little bit and continue to buy machinery to participate in the Bitcoin digging.”

Do you think Vietnamese mining will continue to pickup? Will the Vietnamese government make mining more or less difficult? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Images via Shutterstock

Bitcoin.com offers up-to-the-minute charts on bitcoinprice and other stats. Our feeds show the bitcoinprice index in all three major currencies (USD, CNY, EUR). Also, if you want to dig deeper into how the bitcoin network is performing behind the scenes, check out the statistics page too.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Lead Developer Amaury Séchet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin Cash


Developer Amaury Séchet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin Cash


This week the lead developer of Bitcoin ABC, Amaury Séchet, engaged in a Reddit Ask-Me-Anything (AMA) discussion about the future of Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and the protocol’s future scaling.

Also Read: Tel Aviv Gets a New BTM and Bitcoin Museum in the Historical Bauhaus Center

An AMA With Amaury Séchet – Lead Developer of Bitcoin ABC

This summer Amaury Séchet (otherwise known as ‘deadalnix’), the lead developer of the Bitcoin ABC client, revealed the team’s intentions at The Future of Bitcoin event to hard fork the Bitcoin network on August 1. Since then Bitcoin Cash has been thriving, and Séchet recently explained his vision for the future of the BCH chain and the ABC client. Many other BCH supporters and developers were involved in the conversation with Séchet including Yours network founder Ryan X Charles, Openbazaar’s Chris Pacia, Bitcoin Classic’s lead developer Thomas Zander and others.

Developer Amaury Séchet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin Cash

A Configurable Block Size and Finding the Right Fee Structure for Bitcoin Cash

Developer Amaury Séchet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin Cash
Amaury Séchet, lead developer of the Bitcoin ABC client.

Participants asked Séchet questions concerning the current roadmap for bitcoin cash; such as future block sizes, BCH and BTC compatibility, and protocols like layer two solutions. For instance, the developer of the Electron Cash wallet, Jonald Fyookball asked the ABC developer what he thinks about “algorithm-based block size” solutions. Séchet explains the BCH block size can be configurable using the protocol in the ABC client.”

“I like these proposals,” explains Séchet. “Right now the block size is configurable in ABC, but I would like to have a way to determine this configuration automatically in the future.”

Yours network developer, Ryan X Charles, asks Séchet how the protocol can avoid ‘dust limits’ and fee management. “We [Yours developers] run into dust limits quite easily,” Charles explains regarding the software’s recent implementation of bitcoin cash.    

“There is work to be done on fee management,” Séchet responds. “Finding the right fee structure will take time, if one exists at all.”

The next version of ABC will reserve a percentage of the block space for low fee transactions. This will improve over time.

BCH & BTC Compatibility and Layer Two Solutions

Developer Amaury Séchet Discusses the Future of Bitcoin CashFollowing this discussion, an AMA participant asked Séchet if he believes BCH and BTC can coexist in the future with different use cases or if he thinks all the hashpower will converge to one chain.

“Because of the way the difficulty adjustment works on the Bitcoin chain, it makes it very unlikely that it would survive being a minority chain,” Séchet states in response to the question. As a result, it is unlikely that this chain will survive if Bitcoin Cash gets a lot of traction. As long as Bitcoin Cash is a minority chain, both chain will continue to live.”

Séchet also gives his opinion about layer one and layer two scaling solutions. The ABC developer reveals he’s not against layer two solutions but believes pushing every issue towards a layer two solution is unrealistic.

“I have nothing against layer 2 per se, but I think some important points have been ignored,” Séchet explains. “First layer 2 can only be as reliable as layer 1.”

When blocks become congested and layer 1 becomes unreliable, layer 2 does so as well. Second, layer 2 will have different characteristics than layer 1 and thinking we’ll push everything into layer 2 is not a realistic roadmap.

Learning from Past Mistakes

Séchet explains a whole lot more about how he envisions the future of bitcoin cash and the ABC client, including BCH anonymity – where he hopes the protocol’s lower fees will allow for cheaper tumbling processes. The ABC developer also gives further opinions about programmers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik not being “protective enough” to keep the original values of the Bitcoin project in the past.

“It [Bitcoin] ended up being hijacked. We need to learn from this mistake and not reproduce it,” Séchet states.

Maxwell Claims Bitcoin ABC Developer Séchet Plagiarized Bitcoin Core Code

However, there is no shortage of drama around the Bitcoin Cash code base. In a recent Github post, Gregory Maxwell claimed the Bcash developer plagiarized a piece of code. He said that Amaury Séchet (deadalnix) copied the migration to the per-txout UTXO database from the Bitcoin Core project, and did not credit the original authors with it. Instead, he used his name and copied everything verbatim down to the “grammatical oddities,” according to Greg Maxwell.

Do Séchet’s Actions Infringe on a Licensing Agreement?

Furthermore, Maxwell claims Séchet’s actions infringe on an open source licensing Maxwell Claims Bcash Developer Séchet Plagiarized Bitcoin Core Codeagreement and constitute a copyright infringement. He said, “Beyond being fraudulent and sleazy behavior, this action is a violation of the very minimal requirements of the MIT license.”

There is controversy over Maxwell’s position, though. Some commentators believe there is no infringement on the commit, because there is information on the source code within it. Séchet further said the code was “backported” and is “mentioned in the series of commits.”

The schnorr code is backported from https://github.com/deadalnix/schnorr/blob/master/schnorr.d
The per txout db is backported from core and it is mentioned in the series of commits.

Is He Fixing it Faster? Multiple Copyright Violations by Séchet

Maxwell continued his accusations, saying Séchet is also claiming he fixed the issue quicker than Blockstream. Maxwell also mentioned Séchet was been accused of copyright violations before. This is not a first offense. He said, “Amaury SECHET has a well known history of these copyright violating false attribution events. To give a few other examples. I also understand that he is advocating in your private issue tracker to remove all attribution to Bitcoin Core in the codebase from your repository.”

Community Response

The community has responded to Maxwell’s accusations with dramatic flare. Some users are attacking Maxwell and Blockstream for focusing on trivial issues instead of updating Bitcoin Core. One user, sandakersmann, said, “So you guys are prioritizing this instead of releasing a new version of Bitcoin Core that is not vulnerable? Fits the pattern of backward priorities from you blockstreamers.”

Other users defend Maxwell and Core, saying people like sandakersmann were shifting the goalposts of the original post. They were trying to create a diversion from the serious issue of fraud and copyright infringement. User thijstriemstra responded to sandakersmann:

This has nothing to do with the fact you’re copy/pasting code and stripping out author. This is not done in any opensource project and you’re trying to divert attention away from it. It’s this project that creates unneccessary annoyance and extra work for the maintainers of bitcoin core.

Maxwell Asks Séchet to Discontinue Violating Copyright

Maxwell finished his blog post by asking Séchet to discontinue violating their copyright. He also wants him to correct his repository and credit the actual authors. At press time, Séchet had not responded to the request, other than to say the original code was “backported.”

What do you think about Séchet’s statements, the recent AMA and the accusations brought forward by Core developer Greg Maxwell? Let us know what you think in the comments below.

With additional reporting by Sterlin Lujan.

Images via Shutterstock, Linkedin, and Bitcoin ABC.

We got it all at Bitcoin.com. Do you want to top up on some bitcoins? Do ithere. Need to speak your mind? Get involved in ourforum. Wanna gamble? Wegotcha.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Singapore – A haven for ICOs after China regulation?


The recent rumor regarding the ban on ICOs and cryptocurrency exchanges in China has left markets in a state of uncertainty, but Singapore is preparing to step up, and could very well become the next ICO hotspot.

China’s crackdown rumors

Since January, China has taken a noticeable interest in the cryptocurrency business. The government has forced exchanges to add transactions fees and, more notably, has required exchanges to implement measures to confirm their customers’ identities. However, the most recent news, has left markets scrambling.

Following Bitcoin’s record high of US$5000 on September 2, China-based media group Caixin released a report suggesting that the country was going to move to ban ICO trading and shut down Bitcoin exchanges.

This announcement was quickly refuted by popular Chinese exchanges Huobi and OKCoin, saying that they had received no orders from the government regarding cryptocurrency exchanges. Others even suggested that the ban would only be temporary while the country figures out how to regulate cryptocurrencies effectively. Regardless, Western media quickly circulated the story, often lacking to mention that no official action had been taken.

The news regurgitated by the West left markets reeling. With generally negative sentiment coming from the media, including the headlines from Marketwatch and Forbes – “Bye, Bitcoin” and “Why China Crushed Bitcoin” respectively – prices have remained suppressed.

Despite the great Chinese FUD debate of 2017, HODL’ers are “buying the dip” and Bitcoin advocates are on their soapbox, sharing the good news that everything that made cryptocurrencies great still exists, with or without China. And one notable Southeast Asian city-state could be poised to pick up the pieces in the ICO world if or when China does actually go through with the ban.

Singapore steps up

Singapore has long since been a favorable location for startups due to its tech-friendly atmosphere, favorable regulatory standards, and supportive tax measures.

Indeed, Singapore has had a positive run with fintech startups including TenX whose token sale raised US$80M, and Golem which raised nearly US$9M. While most companies which have launched ICOs in Singapore have raised between US$1M and US$15M, it is clear that the city has created a system which is desirable for fintech companies.

This sentiment is largely supported by Singapore’s own blockchain ambitions. At the end of May, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced its plan to launch its own “tokenized form of the Singapore Dollar (SGD) on a distributed ledger.”

In “Project Ubin,” the MAS conducted tests with the help of professional services firm Deloitte and distributed ledger consortium R3. The successful trial has since given way to the planning of phase 2 which will involve further research and separate projects to leverage the lessons learned in the previous phase of the experiment.

And in August, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) rolled out its regulations regarding ICOs.

Echoing the concerns of many other government authorities worldwide, Singapore has expressed that reducing fraud and money laundering are the primary motive behind regulation. Singapore, however, has diverted from SEC rulings in that ICOs within Singapore will not be subjected to the Howey test in order to be identified as securities.

In the official statement from the MAS, it is noted that: “Where digital tokens fall within the definition of securities in the SFA, issuers of such tokens would be required to lodge and register a prospectus with MAS prior to the offer of such tokens, unless exempted. Issuers or intermediaries of such tokens would also be subject to licensing requirements under the SFA and Financial Advisers Act (Cap. 110)”

And those who would like to list their own token should: “seek independent legal advice to ensure they comply with all applicable laws, and consult MAS where appropriate.”

Singapore’s ICO future

While the markets remain weary and the general sentiment surrounding cryptocurrencies seems shaken, Singapore’s actions provide a glimmer of hope for those who intend to launch or invest in ICOs.

With its own digital currency right around the corner, supportive tax policies, appealing regulatory stance and futuristic cityscape, Singapore is laying out promising groundwork which could potentially solidify it as a haven for crowdfunding efforts in the form of ICOs.

PR: LAT Research: The Exponential Growth of Crypto Markets to $5 trillion


PR: LAT Research: The Exponential Growth of Crypto Markets to $5 trillion

This is a paid press release, which contains forward looking statements, and should be treated as advertising or promotional material. Bitcoin.com does not endorse nor support this product/service. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the press release.

LATokens research team, formed by Deutsche Bank and McKinsey alumni, prepared the first LAT Crypto Research, outlining that total market capitalization of cryptocurrencies can reach $5 trillion by 2025, with asset-backed tokens driving the growth. To read the full report, follow the link, and we’ll share the highlights with you in this post.

Total Market Cap to Reach $5tn by 2025
Cryptocurrencies market capitalization has surged by 830% from last August, reaching $165 billion. The adoption rate of cryptocurrencies may be as high as that of cell phones and broadband Internet, thanks to advantages of blockchain, such as low transaction costs, security, transparency, ease of cross-border transactions etc.

By that time crypto wallet penetration can exceed 5% of the world’s population, as the adoption rates of new technologies has significantly accelerated at the beginning of the 21st century. To illustrate, the number of crypto wallets has doubled every year since 2013.

The average wallet size today is $9,835. We expect that by 2025 the average wallet size can exceed $12,000, bringing total cryptocurrency capitalization to $5 trillion. Demand for crypto will be driven by the emergence of less volatile asset cryptocurrencies.

Asset Cryptocurrencies Will Drive the Growth
According to LAT Crypto Research, market capitalization of asset cryptocurrencies, also known as asset-backed tokens, can account for at least 80% of the total market by 2025. As their value is linked to asset prices, ranging from equities and commodities to real estate and works of art, they combine the benefits of blockchain with advantages of investing in hard assets, like greater stability.

Today volatility of crypto markets often makes investors reallocate funds from their crypto portfolios back into fiat and hard assets. Asset cryptocurrencies provide them with an attractive alternative of getting the same exposure while saving costs of conversion from crypto to fiat. They may become indispensable for crypto portfolio diversification.

Notable examples are tokens linked to fiat currencies are Tether (linked to USD), Digix (linked to precious metals) and tokenized shares of blue chips, along with oil and gold listed at the LAT Platform. LAToken analytics expect the value of asset cryptocurrencies to exceed $4 trillion by 2025, driving the growth of the crypto markets.

Trading Volume of Asset Cryptocurrencies to Reach $40 tn by 2025
According to LAT Crypto Research, trading volume of asset cryptocurrencies can exceed $40 trillion by 2025, while in a longer perspective it can exceed the capitalization of the traded assets by 10+ times. The current overall value of the major asset classes today is $600 trillion, thus the trading volume potential of asset cryptocurrencies could reach as much as $6 quadrillion.

Meanwhile, tokenization of previously illiquid assets increases their market value by 10–40% as illiquidity costs vanish. High illiquidity costs make asset tokenization a very attractive opportunity for asset owners.

LAToken is the first multi-asset tokenization platform.
We already launched trades of Real Estate LAT backed by ETF at the LAT Platform. You can buy it in your Wallet along with the shares of Apple, Tesla, Google and other blue chips, as well as gold and oil, to diversify your crypto portfolio with real assets without converting to fiat.

Press Contact Email Address
Supporting Link

This is a paid press release. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the promoted company or any of its affiliates or services. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in the press release.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link