Brian Tockey: Bitcoin, Regression Theorem, and Defining ...

r/Bitcoin recap - June 2019

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 30th monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in May 2019
Adoption
Development
Security
Mining
Business
Research
Education
Regulation & Politics
Archeology (Financial Incumbents)
Price & Trading
Fun & Other
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Near $1B are currently on the move from a Silkroad related wallet

Near $1B are currently on the move from a Silkroad related wallet
It seems that the owner of a huge #SilkRoad related wallet is moving funds actively since 3 days, dividing it in chunks of 100 coins by subwallets.
The original wallet owned 111,114.62 $BTC / $BCH , which is currently valuated ~ $844M (without taking in account other #Bitcoin forks).
Last movements on these subwallets are 4 years and 5 months old (March 9th, 2014).
The chunks have been divided over time to 60,000 coins then to 30,000 / 20,000 / 10,000 / 5,000 / 500 and now 100 coins.
#Bitcoin: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/address/1KyJr2L6CN5XhDfv9Sb5q3kjKwFCrRxTLy/transactions
#BitcoinCash: https://www.blocktrail.com/BCC/address/1KyJr2L6CN5XhDfv9Sb5q3kjKwFCrRxTLy/transactions
Does the owner intend selling it on the market soon?

Update 1
For those who asked, the original wallet (1933phfhK3ZgFQNLGSDXvqCn32k2buXY8a) seems to be related to a SilkRoad address per this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=310600.0.
So it's most probably a wallet owned linked to DPR / SilkRoad. Note that this address is still active with 5 transactions executed in 2018 and 13 in 2017, with really small amount of BTC received/sent.
However, I ran some checks and it does not seem to be linked to the DPR seized coins wallet (1FfmbHfnpaZjKFvyi1okTjJJusN455paPH, there's only a 0.001 BTC link between the 2 addresses), so either the FBI did not sold them yet (last auction was in November 2015) or someone else (linked or not to SilkRoad) has access to it .
Finally, if it's not a SilkRoad related wallet the other options are, by descending probability order:
a) a MtGox cold wallet that has been seized or is still owned by MtGox: in fact the wallet funds moved in March 2014 right after MtGox filed for bankruptcy one month earlier in February 2014; these movements dates are really similar to the 200,000 lost coins "found" by Karpeles which moved March 7th, 2014 (1dda0f8827518ce4d1d824bf7600f75ec7e199774a090a947c58a65ab63552e3), just 2 days before the movements on the wallet we are talking about here.
b) a whale wallet since the major part of the 111,111 coins are coming from a very old deposit of 37,421 coins processed on June 21st, 2011 making this an early adopter's wallet (70d46f768b73e50440e41977eb13ab25826137a8d34486958c7d55c5931c6081)
...
z) CSW's wallet ... https://www.scribd.com/document/372445546/Bitcoin-Lawsuit, credits mishax1

Update 2
This amount of $1B in bitcoins that MtGox is going to return to customers looks pretty familiar, it could match the 111,114-coin wallets we are investigating here: https://btcmanager.com/mt-gox-preparing-return-1b-stolen-bitcoin-affected-users/.
But the methodology of transfer does not match in my opinion, it looks that the owner tries to hide the movements by mixing the coins.

Update 3
Investigating the $1B Bitcoins on the move from a SilkRoad related wallet: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/9bwsaf/investigating_the_1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_from_a/

Update 4
$1B Bitcoins On The Move: Owner Transfers ~$100M to Bitfinex And Binance In 10 Days
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/9ceb5v/1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_owner_transfers_100m_to/

Update 5
MtGox vs SilkRoad origin and September 6th BTC price impact is now discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/9dvaj1b_bitcoins_on_the_move_mtgox_vs_silkroad_origin/

submitted by sick_silk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

2019 in Review: Community, Crime, Courtcases, Craig & Consolidation

2019 in Review: Community, Crime, Courtcases, Craig & Consolidation

https://preview.redd.it/r7dmpveldia41.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=f7dc87d5b58c4391d3e04359c4dc111d771246a1
2019 has been a tumultuous but amazing year for the development and advancement of blockchain technology. Following the rally to the all-time-highs at the end of 2017 and the intense infrastructure development and ongoing Bear Market of 2018 it was clear things were changing quickly. We are about to enter a new decase and the team at Aelf wanted to look back at 2019 and reflect on some of the events that occurred over the last year to see where the industry might be headed in 2020.

https://preview.redd.it/tccwloemdia41.png?width=384&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c9feac47c8e8accc602dee7e738df86facc3e2e
Although the year has been considered a continuation of the 2018 bear market, it didn’t stop development, progression and a myriad of crazy events from occurring. This included the challenges associated with global regulations, the upcoming Bitcoin halving event in May 2020, announcement of the Facebook Libra and Telegram Open Network’s (TON) launch delay. This year also saw a myriad of debacles from self-proclaimed Bitcoin creator Craig Wright, the Justin Sun and Warren Buffet lunch situation, the recent claim of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s goal to modify Twitter into a decentralized version of the platform, and President Trump’s Bitcoin statement, among others. Now let’s examine more of what took place during 2019 as we approach the start of the New Year in 2020.
The SEC, Telegram, Facebook Libra, Kik and Blockchain’s Global Regulatory Environment
Many of the world’s governments have been harsh towards blockchain technology in recent years. Particularly, the US Government and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been very reluctant to ease the regulatory framework for blockchain development in the country. This has become more evident in 2019, with the SEC combatting many blockchain projects this year including the $1.7 billion-dollar token offering of the Telegram Open Network
and the Facebook Libra project. As well the SEC created controversy in a gruesome battle with Kik over its alleged illegal token offering that Kik has sworn to fight to their last breath.

https://preview.redd.it/6yngxxfndia41.png?width=614&format=png&auto=webp&s=dc363d1a2225f461bad20786e8439e7cc3896d7d
Many proponents of blockchain technology accuse the SEC of unfair policies to put a stranglehold on the development on blockchain in order to prevent the devaluation of the American monetary system. The reluctance for crypto exchanges to set up shop in the US is also becoming more prevalent because of the supposedly biased and unfavourable approach of the SEC. Nevertheless, there are also several major countries including China that have for the most part embraced the advancement of blockchain technology in 2019. China has also nearly finalized the development of the digital Chinese Yuan and announced that that country is going all in on blockchain development despite its sometimes anti-Bitcoin approach.
The Bitcoin Halving Event and its Ongoing Effect on Market Conditions
With the end of 2019 nearly upon us and the upcoming Bitcoin halving event set to take place during May of 2020 the market could be overdue for a bull market of mass proportions. Remember, the last bull market that took place was 2 years ago during December 2017 and was followed by an incredible dump from the all-time-high price of 20 thousand US Dollars to just 3300 USD in December 2018. For the most part, 2018 was a blood-bath for crypto markets and 2019 has not been all that much better. The price did briefly rally up to 14 thousand US Dollars during mid 2019 but has since been reduce by half with the Bitcoin price presently at just over 7000 US Dollars. Bitcoin was designed by its original creators with code written to mitigate the negative effects of inflation. In order to curb inflation, once every 4 years (or 210,000 blocks) the mining rewards that the network automatically generates are reduced in half.

https://preview.redd.it/xuthhfiodia41.png?width=819&format=png&auto=webp&s=2cc8cbc7452d4aadb5076530915acfd5e755735a
3 Additional Stories to Watch in 2020
In June, the CEO of Tron, Justin Sun purchased tickets through eBay for a charity auction to have lunch with Warren Buffet. Sun paid a record $4.56 million US Dollars in the process becoming the highest bid in the 20-year history of the event. The purpose of the lunch from Sun’s standpoint is to change Mr. Buffet’s viewpoint towards crypto and blockchain tech by inviting several blockchain industry leaders to help sway the famous investor’s perspective. Sun subsequently missed the lunch he scheduled in September because of a sudden bout with kidney stones. At this time, the community will have to wait and see when Sun and Buffet will meet in 2020. Stay tuned.
Back in December of 2015, Craig Wright claimed publicly to be the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Most believe Wright was lying to gain more fame and recognition in the industry. On November 18th, 2018 Bitcoin SV hard forked from the Bitcoin Cash Network to create it own chain. As noted above, the disgruntled CEO of Bitcoin SV, has for years maintained he led the initial development of Bitcoin. During February 2018, Wright was the subject of a 5.118-Billion-dollar lawsuit by Dave Kleiman claiming that Wright defrauded Kleiman of Bitcoin while working on the initial development of the Bitcoin Network between 2009 and 2013. In August 2019, Wright was ordered by a court of law to pay half the 5.11 Billion in Bitcoin back to Kleiman. Throughout 2019, Wright launched lawsuits against Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin, Bitcoin Cash’s Roger Ver and others for calling him a fraud. It seems likely Wright will continue his ongoing Satoshi rhetoric in 2020.

https://preview.redd.it/l977df8qdia41.png?width=547&format=png&auto=webp&s=f52d70a3c852b920ae665c8b5770a74cd8dadabe
The CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey recently stated that he has hired 5 full-time employees to modify the Twitter platform and make it increasingly decentralized. This may seem like a small step initially, but this project could be expanded easily by someone of Dorsey’s reputation and wealth in the technology industry. Dorsey himself has been a long-term proponent of blockchain technology and an investor in Bitcoin. Binance CEO, Changpeng Zhao, recently offered to help Dorsey make this dream come to fruition. Additionally, Morgan Creek Capital founder Anthony Pompliano supported Dorsey’s statement noting that, “Jack Dorsey may understand the future better than any entrepreneur on the planet right now.”
Conclusion
This year we saw Kik, Telegram and Facebook Libra face fierce backlash from the most powerful regulatory body in the world, the SEC. We saw the Chinese government announce that they are all in on blockchain development and declare the upcoming launch of their own centralized digital Chinese Yuan. Justin Sun postponed his 4.56-million-dollar lunch with billionaire investor Warren Buffet because of health issues, while Jack Dorsey the CEO of Twitter proclaimed a more decentralized and open version of Twitter to prevent some of the abuse on the platform.
In 2019, the 4-year long Craig Wright and Satoshi Nakamoto saga continued, and we finally are moving closer to the much-anticipated Bitcoin halving event of May 2020 that could change the trajectory of the Bitcoin price for much of 2020 and 2021. It is clear 2019 has been an incredible year for the blockchain industry. With no shortage of uncertainty and scepticism in the short-term, it is likely that 2019 will pale in comparison to the developments of 2020. As we approach 2020, the industry will continue to expand towards mass adoption and the mainstream evolution of blockchain technology. Nevertheless, with the global regulatory blockchain environment evolving in many areas across the world, the uncertainty in the United States remains stronger than ever. There is no telling what will happen in this regard and what will happen with Bitcoin and this amazing revolution in 2020 and beyond.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from the Aelf Blockchain team and a Happy 2020 to all our community members!! Thank You
submitted by Floris-Jan to aelfofficial [link] [comments]

QuadrigaCX: A history of suspicious activity

This is a compilation of everything suspicious I found with Quadriga. Please let me know if there’s anything incorrect or missing

Early History (2013-2017)
All account fundings are considered to be purchases of QuadrigaCX Bucks. These are units that are used for the purposes of purchasing Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. QuadrigaCX Bucks are NOT Canadian Dollars. Any notation of $, CAD, or USD refers to an equivalent unit in QuadrigaCX Bucks, which exist for the sole purpose of buying and selling Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
QuadrigaCX is NOT a financial institution, bank, credit union, trust, or deposit business. We DO NOT take Deposits. We exist solely for the purposes of buying and selling cryptocurrencies.

Banking troubles throughout 2018

Period leading up to Gerry’s death

Gerry’s death and announcement

Chain analysis of the crypto trapped in cold storage

Formal Active Investigations

References:
Quadriga’s History
CCN Article listing suspicious activity
Court Documents
submitted by crashcow51 to QuadrigaCX2 [link] [comments]

The Biggest Scams In The Crypto History: Part 2

Here’s the sequel of our previous article. You wanted — you got it. Let’s roll!
OneCoin
OneCoin is a good example of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, the Indian company One Coin Limited began to issue digital currency without a blockchain and decentralization. The old-school MLM (Multi-Level Marketing) strategy was used for the distribution of coins.
The company was selling a wide range of training packages on crypto trading, mining and successful life. There were textbooks, presentations, and other rubbish, among which were OneCoin tokens. They were supposed to allow users to get even more tokens. But the thing was that only One Coin Limited had exclusive rights to issue of coinage. So there were no other options for mining this coin.
On the international conference the founder of OneCoin, Ruja Ignatova, presents these tokens as the Bitcoin killer. See how easy it is to fool users?
Over the years, the company has spread its network globally. And only in 2017, the project gets into a number of investigations and restrictions. Owners and employees of the company more and more often could not answer questions from investors and carried on with the nonsense about “a bright crypto-future.”
Finally, regulators and banks in Italy, Germany, Hungary, Belize, Thailand and other countries have banned the trade of OneCoin and warned users not to get engaged with this company.
In early March 2019, the current OneCoin cryptocurrency leader Konstantin Ignatov, brother of Ruja Ignatova, was arrested at Los Angeles airport. He is accused of fraud and creating a financial pyramid.
According to the United States Attorney’s Office, Ignatov and his sister misled investors all over the world, and as a result, the people invested billions of dollars in a fraud scheme. They are accused of building a billion-dollar cryptocurrency company, based entirely on deception.
FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William Sweeney, Jr. said:
“OneCoin was a cryptocurrency existing only in the minds of its creators and their co-conspirators. Unlike authentic cryptocurrencies, which maintain records of their investors’ transaction history, OneCoin had no real value. It offered investors no method of tracing their money, and it could not be used to purchase anything. In fact, the only ones who stood to benefit from its existence were its founders and co-conspirators.”
Despite all hardships, One Coin Limited continues to work. If you check out their website you will find everything there: a meaningless text about the benefits of a “revolutionary” token and other signs of a high-quality international project that deceives people.
QuadrigaCX
It’s not possible to take your savings to the grave, right? More than 100,000 clients of QuadrigaCX are ready to argue with that. So let’s try to recount the details of this strange story.
QuadrigaCX was created in 2013 and was Canada’s largest cryptocurrency exchange.
In December 2018, Gerald Cotten (founder and CEO of the QuadrigaCX) and his wife — Jennifer Robertson, were in India on their honeymoon. During this trip Cotten suddenly passed away from Crohn’s disease. After his death, it turned out that Gerald was the only one who had access to cold wallets of the exchange platform.
Changpeng Zhao (Binance CEO) comments this situation on Twitter:
“That’s sad. There are many solutions to split private keys or signing to achieve 3/5, 5/7 etc. Never neglect security. Also, never have CEO carry private keys. Bad on many levels.”
On January 25, 2019 (that is, almost two months after Cotten’s death) a special meeting was convened to appoint QuadrigaCX’s new directors. As a result, the inconsolable widow Jennifer Robertson, her stepfather Thomas Beazley and Jack Martel were elected to take charge of a company. By the way, this meeting was held by a conference call as the widow was very busy by hastily selling the property of her deceased husband. Indeed, there was something to deal with: a yacht, a plane, and several houses. Also, dearly departed managed to take care of his Chihuahuas by opening a special trust account for them in the amount of $100,000 (which is interesting, as Cotten did not show such forethought about the clients of his company).
It’s worth to mention that the clients of QuadrigaCX had problems with the exchange for a long time — mainly related to the withdrawal of funds. The first wake-up calls took place in March 2018, when press reports negatively about delays in the withdrawal of funds the total amount of which exceeded $100,000. But that’s all just moonshine compared to the fact that in June 2017 the exchange platform lost about 15 million Canadian dollars — as explained to the community, due to a bug in the smart contract. As a result, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) froze about $22 million in QuadrigaCX accounts. This happened in November 2018, and for all users, it would have meant the end of a remarkable business but Mr. Cotten wasn’t explaining the problems to customers, wasn’t trying to solve them, and so on. He had just married and went on a honeymoon trip to pass away exactly two weeks after freezing the accounts.
As the inconsolable widow stated in her testimony:
“To the best of my knowledge, most of the businesses of these companies was being conducted by Gerry whenever and wherever he and his computer were located”.
In February 2019, the head of Coinbase — Brian Armstrong unveiled the results of an independent investigation into the QuadrigaCX. He reported on his Twitter account the following:
“Sequence of events suggests this was a mismanagement with later attempt to cover for it.” “This implies that at least few people inside Qadriga knew that they were running fractional. If so, then it’s possible that untimely death of their CEO was used as an outlet to let the company sink”.
Brian Armstrong stressed that QuadrigaCX users started complaining about problems with withdrawing money long before Gerald Cotten’s death. Thus, the company management decided to invent a story about private keys on the laptop of the CEO to hide the financial insolvency, one of the reasons for which could be inefficient management.
Nowadays, the Canadian cryptocurrency exchange QuadrigaCX is officially bankrupt. Users of the closed Quadriga are now leading legal battles in order to recover their funds. The total amount of which is about $190 million in crypto. The exact circumstances of the disappearance of user deposits remain uncertain.
Do you think the story with QuadrigaCX was Exit Scam or Mismanagement?
Bitfinex
One of the largest crypto scandals of the year broke out on April 30, 2019. The New York State Attorney General’s Office has filed serious accusations against the biggest exchange platform — Bitfinex. According to Leticia James, the exchange platform used the reserves of Tether, an affiliated company to cover up a loss of $850 million.
Questions to Tether have been in the air for a long time. In January 2018, the critics of the main stablecoin assumed that the company, in fact, produced more coins than it actually could sustain. Some critics accused the Bitfinex in fraud and manipulation of Tether’s rate and influenced through it on the price of Bitcoin.
So what’s up with the Bitfinex? Investigators of the prosecutor’s office claim that the lost money belonged to the clients and iFinex corporation. That is why, back in October 2018, Bitfinex started having problems with the withdrawal of the funds: the clients complained about long response time and a delay in receiving currency. According to the authorities, Bitfinex transferred $850 million to Crypto Capital Corp., the payment company. The Tether reserves were used to fill the gap, but this information was not disclosed to the public. According to the first data, Tether provided funding in the amount of at least $700 million for this purposes. Withdrawing this amount of currency severely shook faith in the idea that Tether tokens are indeed fully backed by dollars.
And then Bitfinex had extraordinary difficulties in satisfying the withdrawal demands from the platform since Crypto Capital refused to process withdrawals or simply could not return any funds. One of the senior Bitfinex executives opened a can of worms by writing the following:
“Please understand all this could be extremely dangerous for everybody, the entire crypto community. BTC could tank to below 1k if we don’t act quickly.”
Soon after it was known about the serious accusations against companies, Bitfinex’s users began to panic. They started buying Bitcoin and trying to get rid of their assets in USDT. As a result, BTC was trading $350+ (6.75%) more expensive than the crypto market average.
Tether and Bitfinex published a joint statement on their official blogs in response to the allegations of missing funds. The posts allege that the companies did not receive any preliminary warnings, as well as that lawsuits from the New York Prosecutor General’s Office were “riddled with false assertions”.
According to the latest information, Bitfinex is supposed to release its own token and attract $1 billion in Tether through IEO.
What do you think about these scandals and scams? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.
Like and share this article if you find it useful. Want more interesting articles on the crypto world? Follow us on Medium, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get Stealthex.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by Stealthex_io to BitcoinCA [link] [comments]

Playing with fire with FinCen and SEC, Binance may face a hefty penalty again after already losing 50 percent of its trading business

On 14 June, Binance announced that it “constantly reviews user accounts to improve (their) platform security and to comply with global compliance requirements”, mentioning that “Binance is unable to provide services to any U.S. person” in the latest “Binance Terms of Use” attached within the announcement.
According to the data from a third-party traffic statistics website, Alexa, users in the U.S. form the biggest user group of Binance, accounting for about 25% of the total visitor traffic.
In the forecast of Binance’s user scale compiled by The Block, the largest traffic is dominated by users in the U.S., surpassing the total of the ones from the second place to the fifth place.
Also, considering that the scale of digital asset trading for the users in the U.S. far exceeds that of the users of many other countries, it could mean that Binance may have already lost 50 % of the business income by losing users in the U.S. Apparently, such an announcement by Binance to stop providing services to users in the U.S. means Binance has no other alternative but “seek to live on.”
So, what are the specific requirements of the U.S. for digital asset exchanges and which of the regulatory red lines of the U.S. did Binance cross?
Compliance issues relating to operation permission of digital asset exchanges
In the U.S., the entry barrier for obtaining a business license to operate a digital asset exchange is not high. Apart from the special licencing requirements of individual states such as New York, most of the states generally grant licences to digital asset exchanges through the issuance of a “Money Transmitter License” (MTL).
Each state has different requirements for MTL applications. Some of the main common requirements are:
Filling out the application form, including business address, tax identification number, social security number and statement of net assets of the owneproprietor Paying the relevant fees for the licence application Meeting the minimum net assets requirements stipulated by the state Completing a background check Providing a form of guarantee, such as security bonds
It is worth noting that not all states are explicitly using MTL to handle the issues around operation permission of digital asset exchanges. For instance, New Hampshire passed a new law on 12 March 2017, announcing that trading parties of digital assets in that state would not be bound by MTL. Also, Montana has not yet set up MTL, keeping an open attitude towards the currency trading business.
On top of obtaining the MTL in each state, enterprises are also required to complete the registration of “Money Services Business” (MSB) on the federal level FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Treasury Department) issued the “Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies” on 18 March 2013. On the federal level, the guideline requires any enterprise involved in virtual currency services to complete the MSB registration and perform the corresponding compliance responsibilities. The main responsibility of a registered enterprise is to establish anti-money laundering procedures and reporting systems.
However, California is an exception. Enterprises in California would only need to complete the MSB registration on the federal level and they do not need to apply for the MTL in California.
Any enterprise operating in New York must obtain a virtual currency business license, Bitlicense, issued in New York
Early in July 2014, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS) has specially designed and launched the BitLicense, stipulating that any institutions participating in a business relevant to virtual currency (virtual currency transfer, virtual currency trust, provision of virtual currency trading services, issuance or management of virtual currencies) must obtain a BitLicense.
To date, the NYSDFS has issued 19 Bitlicenses. Among them includes exchanges such as Coinbase (January 2017), BitFlyer (July 2017), Genesis Global Trading (May 2018) and Bitstamp (April 2019).
Solely from the perspective of operation permission, Binance has yet to complete the MSB registration of FinCEN (its partner, BAM Trading, has completed the MSB registration). This means that Binance is not eligible to operate a digital asset exchange in the U.S. FinCEN has the rights to prosecute Binance based on its failure to fulfil the relevant ‘anti-money laundering’ regulatory requirements.
Compliance issues relating to online assets
With the further development of the digital asset market, ICO has released loads of “digital assets” that have characteristics of a “security” into the trading markets. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed more comprehensive compliance requirements for digital asset exchanges. The core of the requirements is reflected in the restrictions of offering digital assets trading service.
In the last two years, the SEC has reiterated on many occasions that digital assets that have characteristics of a security should not be traded on a digital asset exchange
In August 2017, when the development of ICO was at its peak, the SEC issued an investor bulletin “Investor Bulletin: Initial Coin Offerings” on its website and published an investigation report of the DAO. It determined that the DAO tokens were considered ‘marketable securities’, stressing that all digital assets considered ‘marketable securities’ would be incorporated into the SEC regulatory system, bound by the U.S. federal securities law. Soon after, the SEC also declared and stressed that “(if) a platform offers trading of digital assets that are securities and operates as an “exchange,” as defined by the federal securities laws, then the platform must register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be exempt from registration.”
On 16 November 2018, the SEC issued a “Statement on Digital Asset Securities Issuance and Trading,” in which the SEC used five real case studies to conduct exemplary penalty rulings on the initial offers and sales of digital asset securities, including those issued in ICOs, relevant cryptocurrency exchanges, investment management tools, ICO platforms and so on. The statement further reiterates that exchanges cannot provide trading services for digital assets that have characteristics of a security.
On 3 April 2019, the SEC issued the “Framework for ‘Investment Contract’ Analysis of Digital Assets” to further elucidate the evaluation criteria for determining whether a digital asset is a security and providing guiding opinions on the compliance of the issuance, sales, holding procedures of digital assets.
As of now, only a small number of digital assets, such as BTC, ETH, etc. meet the SEC’s requirement of “non-securities assets.” The potentially “compliant” digital assets are less than 20.
Early in March 2014, the Inland Revenue Service (IRS) has stated that Bitcoin will be treated as a legal property and will be subject to taxes. In September 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) stated that Bitcoin is a commodity and will be treated as a “property” by the IRS for tax purposes.
On 15 June 2018, William Hinman, Director of the Corporate Finance Division of the SEC, said at the Cryptocurrency Summit held in San Francisco that BTC and ETH are not securities. Nevertheless, many ICO tokens fall under the securities category.
So far, only BTC and ETH have received approval and recognition of the U.S. regulatory authority as a “non-securities asset.”
Since July 2018, the SEC has investigated more than ten types of digital assets, one after another, and ruled that they were securities and had to be incorporated into the SEC regulatory system. It prosecuted and punished those who had contravened the issuance and trading requirements of the securities laws.
Although there are still many digital assets that have yet to be characterised as “securities”, it is extremely difficult to be characterised as a “non-securities asset” based on the evaluation criteria announced by the SEC. As the SEC’s spokesperson has reiterated many times, they believe the majority of ICO tokens are securities.
Under the stipulated requirements of the SEC, Coinbase, a leading U.S. exchange, has withdrawn a batch of digital assets. The assets withdrawn included digital assets that had been characterised as “securities” as well as those that have high risks of being characterised as “securities.” However, it is worth noting that although the risk to be characterised as “securities” for more than ten types of digital assets, which have not been explicitly required by SEC to be withdrawn, is relatively small, they are not entirely safe. With the further escalation of the SEC’s investigations, they could still be characterised as securities and be held accountable for violating their responsibilities. However, this requires further guidance from the SEC.
*Coinbase’s 14 types of digital assets that have yet to be requested for withdrawal
Poloniex announced on 16 May that it would stop providing services for nine digital assets, including Ardor (ARDR), Bytecoin (BCN), etc. under the compliance guidelines of the SEC. On 7 June, Bittrex also announced that it would stop providing trading services to U.S. users for 32 digital assets. The action of the SEC on its regulatory guidance was further reinforced apparently.
In fact, it is not the first time that these two exchanges have withdrawn digital assets under regulatory requirements. Since the rapid development of digital assets driven by ICO in 2017, Poloniex and Bittrex were once leading exchanges for ICO tokens, providing comprehensive trading services for digital assets. However, after the SEC reiterated its compliance requirements, Poloniex and Bittrex have withdrawn a considerable amount of assets in the past year to meet the compliance requirements.
In conclusion, the takeaways that we have got are as follows: Under the existing U.S. regulatory requirements of digital assets, after obtaining the basic entry licences (MSB, MTL), exchanges could either choose the “compliant asset” solution of Coinbase and only list a small number of digital assets that do not have apparent characteristics of a security, and at all times prepare to withdraw any asset later characterised as “securities” by the SECs; or choose to be like OKEx and Huobi and make it clear they would “not provide services to any U.S. users” at the start.
Binance has been providing a large number of digital assets that have characteristics of a security to U.S users without a U.S. securities exchange licence, so it has already contravened the SEC regulatory requirements.
On top of that, it is also worth noting that the rapid development of Binance has been achieved precisely through the behaviours of “contrary to regulations” and “committing crimes.” Amid the blocking of several pioneering exchanges, such as OKCoin, Huobi, etc. providing services to Chinese users in the Chinese market under new laws from the regulatory authorities, Binance leapfrogged the competition and began to dominate the Chinese market. Similarly, Binance’s rapid growth in the U.S. market is mainly due to its domination of the traffic of digital assets withdrawn by Poloniex and Bittrex. One can say that Binance not only has weak awareness of compliance issues, but it is also indeed “playing with fire” with the U.S. regulators.
In April 2018, the New York State Office of Attorney General (OAG) requested 13 digital asset exchanges, including Binance, to prepare for investigations, indicating it would initiate an investigation in relations to company ownership, leadership, operating conditions, service terms, trading volume, relationships with financial institutions, etc. Many exchanges, including Gemini, Bittrex, Poloniex, BitFlyer, Bitfinex, and so on, proactively acknowledged and replied in the first instance upon receipt of the investigation notice. However, Binance had hardly any action.
Binance has been illegally operating in the U.S. for almost two years. It has not yet fulfilled the FinCEN and MSB registration requirements. Moreover, it has also neglected the SEC announcements and OAG investigation summons on several occasions. The ultimate announcement of exiting the U.S. market may be due to the tremendous pressure imposed by the U.S. regulators.
In fact, the SEC executives have recently stressed that “exchanges of IEO in the U.S. market are facing legal risks and the SEC would soon crack down on these illegal activities” on numerous occasions. These were clear indications of imposing pressure on Binance.
Regarding the SEC’s rulings on illegal digital asset exchanges, EtherDelta and investment management platform, Crypto Asset Management, it may not be easy for Binance to “fully exit” from the U.S. market. It may be faced with a hefty penalty. Once there are any compensation claims by the U.S. users for losses incurred in the trading of assets at Binance, it would be dragged into a difficult compensation dilemma. It would undoubtedly be a double blow for Binance that has just been held accountable for the losses incurred in a theft of 7,000 BTC.
Coincidentally, Binance was tossed out of Japan because of compliance issues. In March 2018, the Financial Services Agency of Japan officially issued a stern warning to Binance, which was boldly providing services to Japanese users without registering for a digital asset exchange licence in Japan. Binance was forced to relocate to Malta instead. Binance may have to bear hefty penalties arising from challenging the compliance requirements after it had lost important markets due to consecutive compliance issues.
The rise of Binance was attributed to its bold and valiant style, grasping the opportunity created in the vacuum period of government regulation, breaking compliance requirements and rapidly dominating the market to obtain user traffic. For a while, it gained considerable advantages in the early, barbaric growth stage of the industry. Nonetheless, under the increasingly comprehensive regulatory compliance system for global digital asset markets, Binance, which has constantly been “evading regulation” and “resisting supervision” would undoubtedly face enormous survival challenges, notwithstanding that it would lose far more than 50 per cent of the market share.
https://www.asiacryptotoday.com/playing-with-fire-with-fincen-and-sec-binance-may-face-a-hefty-penalty-again-after-already-losing-50-percent-of-its-trading-business/
submitted by Fun_Judgment to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

An in-depth interview with Coss founder, Rune Evensen:

Hey guys!
About two weeks ago I decided to book tickets to Singapore to pay a visit to the COSS team. I was and still am heavily invested in COSS and I thought it was my duty to push the do your own research idea to the maximum and actually go there and meet them!
So, today was my first day in Singapore and it's been very busy! I spent the morning preparing my first official meeting with Rune and I headed to their offices around 2pm. They are a little bit outside of the city center, about 10 minutes drive. They look quite nice and leave a lot of room for growth, which is good cause a lot of people are coming in house in the next few weeks. The meeting went for about 2 hours and we talked about almost everything regarding COSS. Rune has been incredibly welcoming so far, I landed yesterday night and as soon as he knew I was in town he invited me to have dinner with him, so today was our second meeting, first official one. After the meeting, I headed back to my hotel caught a bit of sleep and started redacting the interview. Tomorrow I have a meeting with their head of compliance and will do the same thing, only much shorter. I'll also start vloging my adventures in Singapore :)
Here is the 1st part of the interview:
*Hi Rune, thanks for having me, how did you come up with the COSS idea? *
Rune Evensen: Originally, back in 2013, I to develop a one stop solution for social media. I was looking at the current platforms and realized twitter is undersharing, facebook is oversharing and LinkedIn is for professionals. You needed a different account for everything so I started building a solution. Unfortunately it was all 3d rendered and way too heavy. It was designed like a house with different rooms. I spent two years on that project and we were supposed to build-in something like facebook credits as an internal currency, but not a cryptocurrency because at that time I did not know about them. But when I showed my idea to people, especially here in Singapore, more and more of them asked me why don’t you make it as a cryptocurrency instead of credits? Then I started to look into it, that was in 2015 but I found it quite complicated with a lot of hurdles especially for a beginner. So instead of working on a one-stop solution for social medias I figured I should build one for cryptos, because everybody talks about mass-adoption, but it is mostly IT guys, nerds and traders who are into cryptos. It is still way too complicated for people to get into it. So I started to plan my one stop solutions, many long nights of work. To get a better understanding I signed up for a FinTech course at MIT. During one of the weekly sessions there, we were supposed to submit a business idea that we had and could implement into blockchain. That was the first time I publicly presented my idea. We 1200 people in this course, and the average score for the assignment was 25, my project got the best rating, 100. They described it as a great business idea with real potential to take COSS to the masses. That was quite an endorsement! I needed this endorsement to actually build this idea. I had a consultancy company in Singapore with some staff. First I brought some of them in the project, then I met Dan from Romania and some months later we had the first drafts of the white paper. In November 2016 we moved to our offices in Singapore, in April 2017 we went live with the beta. Until then we were 100% self-funded, and that was the time all the ICOs were popping up. At first we started looking at institutional investors, but they wanted too many shares of the company for money that would last us a year at best. I did not want sell a majority stake of my company in which I already put so much time, efforts and money. The next natural step was to do an ICO and this is why we created our COSS token and came-up with the idea of the fee split allocation. We had to come-up with a clear use case. We then built our advisory board, we picked our advisory board according to our road map and not specifically for the ICO. For example Anson Zeall who is the president of ACCESS, Singapore’s Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Industry Association. So we chose them so that they could help us to complete our roadmap. We did every possible mistake during the ICO because we had no experience in it, none of us had done it before. We did not realize the power of community at the time, we did not even have Telegram at the time! You need to start building a community months before the ICO, you need thousands of people on Telegram and people being active in the community. This is the key to a successful ICO. Nowadays we are actually asked for advices by companies doing their own ICOs because we did everything ourselves during ours. We did not do proper marketing too, we thought we could push it through social medias, that was a big mistake. Nowadays, you need at least half a million to start your ICO for marketing budgets etc… Some companies even offer funding to ICOs! I remember we were approached at the time by TokenMarket and they offered us to take care of everything in our ICO. For 4 months of their work we were asked between 30 and 40k USD. Nowadays they do not work for less than a million. It’s been a bumpy road, that’s why we call it the RollerCOSSter! We raised 3.2M during our ICO.
How much did you estimate you needed?
Rune Evensen: We were very ambitious because we made an audit through ICO ranker and at that time they scored us the highest they had ever done. So we thought we would reach our 50M hardcap really easily. We were asked by the community what we were going to do with the unsold tokens, we did a community vote and the result was that everybody that joined the token sale would get 10x more token than expected. We decided to stay on Ether with the ICO money as opposed to go to FIAT. We only convert as we go and we still have two third of ETH we raised, which at today’s market price are worth 6M USD. For those who believe we have not hired more staff yet because of financial reasons, that is absolutely not true. We are very careful with the way we use our money, yes we have a big office but we decided to rent it a little bit outside of Singapore’s center cause it is a lot cheaper. We got a big office because we know we want to hire a lot. We are 7 persons working at the office at the moment and 4 more will arrive in February. Three persons for compliance and one developer, Jay.
That was actually my follow-up question, how many people are on the current staff?
Rune Evensen: We have a very decentralized team. We currently have 7 people in house, then we have the core dev team in Romania, which is Dan’s (one of COSS shareholders) team. It’s a 20 people team but only two of them are working a 100% on COSS. Then we have the UI team in Amsterdam, with 5 people working on COSS. We have our content manager also in Europe, we have our graphic designer in Indonesia, we have our internal security expert and our lawyer (also a shareholder) here in Singapore. So we have a big team, but people need to understand the difference between team and staff. For instance we have Gary here in house for support but he’s managing a four people team that we outsource. They all came here for training but do not work here. We are also planning to add 6 or 7 more in house developers. Mong (COSS’s 1st in house dev) has determined what kind of team she needs and she has free hands to hire and build the team.
Just to clarify, if she finds someone that would fit the team, she is allowed to hire him/her immediately?
Rune Evensen: Of course, we still need to discuss it together. She cannot sign the contract all alone. But yes, she is free to hire! We want it to be as quick as possible. The very good ones often have a job, then we need to make good offers to convince them and once they accept they need to give notice to their former employers so that takes a bit more time. If there are some devs out there that can start immediately and fit our needs, then we will bring them in immediately.
Is it fair to say that Mong is COSS’ CTO?
Rune Evensen: Yes, her contract does not say CTO but she is definitely acting CTO. It’s the same for me, I am leading the company but I do not have the CEO title.
What does your typical day look like?
Rune Evensen: I’m normally at the office between 8 and 9, sometimes I try to hit the gym before coming there, not too much lately. At the office I spend a lot of my time acting as support role on Slack and Telegram, I help everybody that DMs me with issues. Maybe I made myself too available because now I am getting a lot of them everyday. Of course we have meetups with compliance team and the devs. Mong has taken over a lot of communications with the dev teams oversea. She is coordinating and leading the Amsterdam and Romania team. Before she came on board that was also part of my job. I also took part on the KYC process, which is now the compliance team’s responsibility. I’m also the one negotiating when a coin wants to be listed.
The priority is to get off your support role?
Rune Evensen: Yes, as soon as support is up to speed, and can handle all the issues as fast I as I want to I will get off this role and go back to only leading the company.
You announced FIAT will be introduced by the end of Q1 can you give us more details?
Rune Evensen: We will introduce FIAT through credit card for Bitcoin and ETH. We will add more FIAT pairs as soon as the engine is up and running. I do not have an exact date for the engine. We are in the process of designing the architecture we need and want to use. Once that is done I will be able to give a more precise timeline. This should happen by the end of the week or next week.
One question that comes up a lot, why don’t you buy the same engine as Binance?
Rune Evensen: We want to build something from scratch for a few reasons. One reason is security, we want to have full control of the code. But mostly we want the engine to fit our business model, that requires different solutions than a standard exchange. So even if we bought Binance’s engine we would need to build a lot on top. We will speed up as much as possible the release of the engine, as long as that does not jeopardize security or quality.
There are now over 80 devs on the Trello board, what is their role?
Rune Evensen: They are giving us feedbacks and come up with solutions. For instance what can be done to increase the speed of the site. Some of them are working for Microsoft, Facebook and other Fortune 500 companies. Of course they are already very busy with their job and they are only helping us because they have an interest in COSS. Some of them reached out and sent their CVs to us. That’s something I always rejected before because we did not have in house devs. I did not want to get more outsourced devs and put them under an already outsourced dev team. Now that we have a leading team in Singapore, I’m passing those CVs, of highly qualified people looking to contribute more, to Mong. Some of them will become COSS team members. That’s really the true power of community that I talked about in my Medium update. Yes we have the FUD, from time to time, but to see the activity we have on Telegram and Slack, I really believe we have an amazing community. I know you guys also have a huge french community. France is actually our second biggest market behind USA.
Let’s talk about security, it’s always an important concern from users. How do you improve and assess the exchange’s security?
Rune Evensen: We are doing regular penetration testing, you can never say that something is 100% hack proof. My personal recommendation is to leave on exchanges only what you intend to trade and send the rest to your hardware wallet. You can get your fee split allocation on Ledger very easily. We do our due diligence and have never been breached, but some users have through their emails. I’m also amazed by how many people have not yet set-up 2FA. We might make it mandatory.
You mentioned earlier that you still have 6M worth of ETH from your ICO. How much volume does the exchange need to cover your costs?
Rune Evensen: Right now, when we have 2 to 3M daily volume, we are paying weekly to COSS holders between 70 and 100k. That means we get the same amount for ourselves and that’s almost enough to cover our expenses. If we reach 10M daily volume we should be very healthy financially.
submitted by IlikeItGr33n to CossIO [link] [comments]

Craig Wright: The Real Satoshi Or The Real Scammer

Today we will focus on Craig Wright, the person who took the liberty to declare himself as true Satoshi Nakamoto and who tries to take all the credit of the creator of Bitcoin, the main cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin is considered to be one of the progressive forms of payments — absolutely transparent, distributed and resistant to external influence. Its creator must be at least a genius, and most importantly, a billionaire — because a significant amount of Bitcoins mined in the early stages of the project is concentrated in his hands. It is known that Satoshi Nakamoto retired from the project around 2010 and no one knows exactly who is he really is.
In December 2015, two American publications — Gizmodo and Wired — published huge investigations aimed at finding a man who has been hiding under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto since 2008. Clues led journalists to Craig Wright, a 45-year-old entrepreneur from Australia, which on many grounds could be reckoned as a true Satoshi. For example, there were publications about the ideas of a decentralized payment system similar to Bitcoin in Wright’s blog in 2008, a year before Satoshi Nakamoto himself created BTC. Another interesting fact is that in 2013 he invested more than one million BTC in the project to create his Bitcoin Bank — supposedly only the creator of Bitcoin could own such amount of coins.
In correspondence with the publications, Craig indirectly confirmed that he is Nakamoto. At the same time, in December, 2015, Wright said that he was not going to talk about himself publicly. But almost six months later Craig Wright appeared on the front pages. Unexpectedly for many, Craig decides to give an interview to the BBC and The Economist, in which once again, but already publicly assures that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. As the main proof, Wright provided a “cryptographic signature” from the private key used in the first Bitcoin transactions by Satoshi Nakamoto himself.
Since then, Dr. Wright did not give up his words and continued to tell everyone that he is Satoshi. Later Craig said that he would sue anyone who slanders him and generally denies his merits in the creation of Bitcoin.
And while he was just talking around declaring himself as the creator of BTC — all this was tolerated and ignored. But when Wright began to threaten all who disagreed with his lies, the crypto-community decided to teach him a lesson.
Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao wrote the following on his Twitter:
“Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Anymore of this sh!t, we delist!”
His example was followed by some other exchanges, like ShapeShift and Kraken, which also announced the delisting of BSV.
Blogger and ex-hacker Nik Cubrilovic and cybersecurity researcher Dan Kaminsky published their own investigations in which Wright is exposed as a great deceiver. Enthusiasts also investigated the activities of Wright and his companies. It turned out that the purpose of the existence of many of them was to draw tax refunds and the operation of other benefits that are provided to companies focused on research activities.
When an entrepreneur’s business started to decline and companies have earned an unpleasant reputation, Wright decides to appear before the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. According to Cubrilovic’s opinion, this could improve Craig’s affairs, attract new investments and add excitement since it is known that Nakamoto owns large amounts of Bitcoins.
Craig’s opponents also notice one detail: Satoshi Nakamoto would certainly stand on the side of the Bitcoin community that would like to leave the BTC system in its original form. However, in a conversation with The Economist Wright drew a different picture: if Bitcoin power can be repeatedly scaled, then it will be able to replace not only all banking systems but many others, becoming a truly mainstream currency.
In this case, the regulation and support of such cryptocurrency would have to be taken up by large organizations — from banks, already interested in using blockchain technology, to entire states. If this happens, Bitcoin will really replace conventional currency but will lose its independence — the main reason for its creation.
Here are some interesting facts about Craig Wright:
  1. In the early 1990s, worked as a sauce cook at a French restaurant.
  2. Wright filed about 114 Blockchain-related patents since 2017
  3. Craig Wright has his own companies, for example, the Tulip Trading company, which has been very successful in developing supercomputers, as well as DeMorgan Ltd and Panopticrypt Pty Ltd, engaged in various operations with cryptocurrencies. But Wright’s main project is, of course, his own Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision), which appeared as a result of the fork of Bitcoin Cash in November 2018. The fork’s reason was the dissatisfaction of developers and miners with a size of the blockchain that was originally written in code. Transactions were processed very slowly, so Bitcoin Cash ABC appeared, where the size was increased to 8 megabytes. But this was not enough for Craig Wright, and he initiated the second fork, setting the block size to 128 megabytes in the currency he was in charge of.
  4. In February 2018 Wright was sued by David Kleiman — a computer scientist and cyber-security expert suspected to be one of the developers behind the Bitcoin and the blockchain tech. Kleiman said that Wright stole between 550,000 and 1,100,000 BTC.
  5. In 2018, Craig Wright was sued, accusing him of forging contracts and signatures in order to assign Bitcoins in the amount of $5 billion.
  6. In October 2017, Cointelegraph published a list of the most influential individuals from the blockchain industry. Not finding his name in it, Craig Wright appealed to the media with a comment about their negative mood regarding his personality. At the same time in the Cointelegraph ranking was the name Satoshi Nakamoto. This situation was noted as Wright’s recognition that he is not the creator of Bitcoin.
  7. Craig is suspected of repeatedly conducting operations to cash large amounts of BTC. During one of the checks, he brought the family from his native Sydney and moved to London to continue working and creating his own business.
What do you think about Craig Wright? Write your opinion in the comments below!
Like and share this article if you find it useful. Want more interesting articles on the crypto world? Follow us on Medium,Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get Stealthex.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by Stealthex_io to btc [link] [comments]

batching in Bitcoin

On May 6th, 2017, Bitcoin hit an all-time high in transactions processed on the network in a single day: it moved 375,000 transactions which accounted for a nominal output of about $2.5b. Average fees on the Bitcoin network had climbed over a dollar for the first time a couple days prior. And they kept climbing: by early June average fees hit an eye-watering $5.66. This was quite unprecedented. In the three-year period from Jan. 1 2014 to Jan. 1 2017, per-transaction fees had never exceeded 31 cents on a weekly average. And the hits kept coming. Before 2017 was over, average fees would top out at $48 on a weekly basis. When the crypto-recession set in, transaction count collapsed and fees crept back below $1.
During the most feverish days of the Bitcoin run-up, when normal users found themselves with balances that would cost more to send than they were worth, cries for batching — the aggregation of many outputs into a single transaction — grew louder than ever. David Harding had written a blog post on the cost-savings of batching at the end of August and it was reposted to the Bitcoin subreddit on a daily basis.
The idea was simple: for entities sending many transactions at once, clustering outputs into a single transaction was more space- (and cost-) efficient, because each transaction has a fixed data overhead. David found that if you combined 10 payments into one transaction, rather than sending them individually, you could save 75% of the block space. Essentially, batching is one way to pack as many transactions as possible into the finite block space available on Bitcoin.
When fees started climbing in mid-2017, users began to scrutinize the behavior of heavy users of the Bitcoin blockchain, to determine whether they were using block space efficiently. By and large, they were not — and an informal lobbying campaign began, in which these major users — principally exchanges — were asked to start batching transactions and be good stewards of the scarce block space at their disposal. Some exchanges had been batching for years, others relented and implemented it. The question faded from view after Bitcoin’s price collapsed in Q1 2018 from roughly $19,000 to $6000, and transaction load — and hence average fee — dropped off.
But we remained curious. A common refrain, during the collapse in on-chain usage, was that transaction count was an obfuscated method of apprehending actual usage. The idea was that transactions could encode an arbitrarily large (within reason) number of payments, and so if batching had become more and more prevalent, those payments were still occurring, just under a regime of fewer transactions.

“hmmm”
Some sites popped up to report outputs and payments per day rather than transactions, seemingly bristling at the coverage of declining transaction count. However, no one conducted an analysis of the changing relationship between transaction count and outputs or payments. We took it upon ourselves to find out.
Table Of Contents:
Introduction to batching
A timeline
Analysis
Conclusion
Bonus content: UTXO consolidation
  1. Introduction to batching
Bitcoin uses a UTXO model, which stands for Unspent Transaction Output. In comparison, Ripple and Ethereum use an account/balance model. In bitcoin, a user has no balances, only UTXOs that they control. If they want to transfer money to someone else, their wallet selects one or more UTXOs as inputs that in sum need to add up to the amount they want to transfer. The desired amount then goes to the recipient, which is called the output, and the difference goes back to the sender, which is called change output. Each output can carry a virtually unlimited amount of value in the form of satoshis. A satoshi is a unit representing a one-hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin. This is very similar to a physical wallet full of different denominations of bills. If you’re buying a snack for $2.50 and only have a $5, you don’t hand the cashier half of your 5 dollar bill — you give him the 5 and receive some change instead.
Unknown to some, there is no hardcoded limit to the number of transactions that can fit in a block. Instead, each transaction has a certain size in megabytes and constitutes an economic incentive for miners to include it in their block. Because miners have limited space of 2 MB to sell to transactors, larger transactions (in size, not bitcoin!) will need to pay higher fees to be included. Additionally, each transaction can have a virtually unlimited number of inputs or outputs — the record stands at transactions with 20,000 inputs and 13,107 outputs.
So each transaction has at least one input and at one output, but often more, as well as some additional boilerplate stuff. Most of that space is taken up by the input (often 60% or more, because of the signature that proves they really belong to the sender), while the output(s) account for 15–30%. In order to keep transactions as small as possible and save fees, Bitcoin users have two major choices:
Use as few inputs as possible. In order to minimize inputs, you can periodically send your smaller UTXOs to yourself in times when fees are very low, getting one large UTXO back. That is called UTXO consolidation or consolidating your inputs.
Users who frequently make transfers (especially within the same block) can include an almost unlimited amount of outputs (to different people!) in the same transaction. That is called transaction batching. A typical single output transaction takes up 230 bytes, while a two output transaction only takes up 260 bytes, instead of 460 if you were to send them individually.
This is something that many casual commentators overlook when comparing Bitcoin with other payment systems — a Bitcoin transaction can aggregate thousands of individual economic transfers! It’s important to recognize this, as it is the source of a great deal of misunderstanding and mistaken analysis.
We’ve never encountered a common definition of a batched transaction — so for the purposes of this study we define it in the loosest possible sense: a transaction with three or more outputs. Commonly, batching is understood as an activity undertaken primarily by mining pools or exchanges who can trade off immediacy for efficiency. It is rare that a normal bitcoin user would have cause to batch, and indeed most wallets make it difficult to impossible to construct batched transactions. For everyday purposes, normal bitcoiners will likely not go to the additional effort of batching transactions.
We set the threshold at three for simplicity’s sake — a normal unbatched transaction will have one transactional output and one change output — but the typical major batched transaction from an exchange will have dozens if not hundreds of outputs. For this reason we are careful to provide data on various different batch sizes, so we could determine the prevalence of three-output transactions and colossal, 100-output ones.
We find it helpful to think of a Bitcoin transaction as a mail truck full of boxes. Each truck (transaction) contains boxes (outputs), each of contains some number of letters (satoshis). So when you’re looking at transaction count as a measure of the performance and economic throughput of the Bitcoin network, it’s a bit like counting mail trucks to discern how many letters are being sent on a given day, even though the number of letters can vary wildly. The truck analogy also makes it clear why many see Bitcoin as a settlement layer in the future — just as mail trucks aren’t dispatched until they’re full, some envision that the same will ultimately be the case for Bitcoin.

Batching
  1. A timeline
So what actually happened in the last six months? Let’s look at some data. Daily transactions on the Bitcoin network rose steadily until about May 2017, when average fees hit about $4. This precipitated the first collapse in usage. Then began a series of feedback loops over the next six months in which transaction load grew, fees grew to match, and transactions dropped off. This cycle repeated itself five times over the latter half of 2017.

more like this on coinmetrics.io
The solid red line in the above chart is fees in BTC terms (not USD) and the shaded red area is daily transaction count. You can see the cycle of transaction load precipitating higher fees which in turn cause a reduction in usage. It repeats itself five or six times before the detente in spring 2018. The most notable period was the December-January fee crisis, but fees were actually fairly typical in BTC terms — the rising BTC price in USD however meant that USD fees hit extreme figures.
In mid-November when fees hit double digits in USD terms, users began a concerted campaign to convince exchanges to be better stewards of block space. Both Segwit and batching were held up as meaningful approaches to maximize the compression of Bitcoin transactions into the finite block space available. Data on when exchanges began batching is sparse, but we collected information where it was available into a chart summarizing when exchanges began batching.

Batching adoption at selected exchanges
We’re ignoring Segwit adoption by exchanges in this analysis; as far as batching is concerned, the campaign to get exchanges to batch appears to have persuaded Bitfinex, Binance, and Shapeshift to batch. Coinbase/GDAX have stated their intention to begin batching, although they haven’t managed to integrate it yet. As far as we can tell, Gemini hasn’t mentioned batching, although we have some mixed evidence that they may have begun recently. If you know about the status of batching on Gemini or other major exchanges please get in touch.
So some exchanges have been batching all along, and some have never bothered at all. Did the subset of exchanges who flipped the switch materially affect the prevalence of batched transactions? Let’s find out.
  1. Analysis
3.1 How common is batching?
We measured the prevalence of batching in three different ways, by transaction count, by output value and by output count.

The tl;dr.
Batching accounts for roughly 12% of all transactions, 40% of all outputs, and 30–60% of all raw BTC output value. Not bad.
3.2 Have batched transactions become more common over time?
From the chart in 3.1, we can already see a small, but steady uptrend in all three metrics, but we want to dig a little deeper. So we first looked at the relationship of payments (all outputs that actually pay someone, so total outputs minus change outputs) and transactions.

More at transactionfee.info/charts
The first thing that becomes obvious is that the popular narrative — that the drop in transactions was caused by an increase in batching — is not the case; payments dropped by roughly the same proportion as well.
Dividing payment count by transaction count gives us some insight into the relationship between the two.

In our analysis we want to zoom into the time frame between November 2017 and today, and we can see that payments per transactions have actually been rallying, from 1.5 payments per transaction in early 2017 to almost two today.
3.3 What are popular batch sizes?
In this next part, we will look at batch sizes to see which are most popular. To determine which transactions were batched, we downloaded a dataset of all transactions on the Bitcoin network between November 2017 and May 2018from Blockchair.
We picked that period because the fee crisis really got started in mid-November, and with it, the demands for exchanges to batch. So we wanted to capture the effect of exchanges starting to batch. Naturally a bigger sample would have been more instructive, but we were constrained in our resources, so we began with the six month sample.
We grouped transactions into “batched” and “unbatched” groups with batched transactions being those with three or more outputs.

We then divided batched transactions into roughly equal groups on the basis of how much total output in BTC they had accounted for in the six-month period. We didn’t select the batch sizes manually — we picked batch sizes that would split the sample into equal parts on the basis of transaction value. Here’s what we ended up with:

All of the batch buckets have just about the same fraction of total BTC output over the period, but they account for radically different transaction and output counts over the period. Notice that there were only 183,108 “extra large” batches (with 41 or more outputs) in the six-month period, but between them there were 23m outputs and 30m BTC worth of value transmitted.
Note that output value in this context refers to the raw or unadjusted figure — it would have been prohibitively difficult for us to adjust output for change or mixers, so we’re using the “naive” estimate.
Let’s look at how many transactions various batch sizes accounted for in the sample period:


Batched transactions steadily increased relative to unbatched ones, although the biggest fraction is the small batch with between 3 and 5 outputs. The story for output counts is a bit more illuminating. Even though batched transactions are a relatively small fraction of overall transaction count, they contain a meaningful number of overall outputs. Let’s see how it breaks down:


Lastly, let’s look at output value. Here we see that batched transactions represent a significant fraction of value transmitted on Bitcoin.


As we can see, even though batched transactions make up an average of only 12% of all transactions, they move between 30%-60% of all Bitcoins, at peak times even 70%. We think this is quite remarkable. Keep in mind, however that the ‘total output’ figure has not been altered to account for change outputs, mixers, or self-churn; that is, it is the raw and unadjusted figure. The total output value is therefore not an ideal approximation of economic volume on the Bitcoin network.
3.4 Has transaction count become an unreliable measure of Bitcoin’s usage because of batching?
Yes. We strongly encourage any analysts, investors, journalists, and developers to look past mere transaction count from now on. The default measure of Bitcoin’s performance should be “payments per day” rather than transaction count. This also makes Bitcoin more comparable with other UTXO chains. They generally have significantly variable payments-per-transaction ratios, so just using payments standardizes that. (Stay tuned: Coinmetrics will be rolling out tools to facilitate this very soon.)
More generally, we think that the economic value transmitted on the network is its most fundamental characteristic. Both the naive and the adjusted figures deserve to be considered. Adjusting raw output value is still more art than science, and best practices are still being developed. Again, Coinmetrics is actively developing open-source tools to make these adjustments available.
  1. Conclusion
We started by revisiting the past year in Bitcoin and showed that while the mempool was congested, the community started looking for ways to use the blockspace more efficiently. Attention quickly fell on batching, the practice of combining multiple outputs into a single transaction, for heavy users. We showed how batching works on a technical level and when different exchanges started implementing the technique.
Today, around 12% of all transactions on the Bitcoin network are batched, and these account for about 40% of all outputs and between 30–60% of all transactional value. The fact such that a small set of transactions carries so much economic weight makes us hopeful that Bitcoin still has a lot of room to scale on the base layer, especially if usage trends continue.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that the increase in batching on the Bitcoin network may not be entirely due to deliberate action by exchanges, but rather a function of its recessionary behavior in the last few months. Since batching is generally done by large industrial players like exchanges, mixers, payment processors, and mining pools, and unbatched transactions are generally made by normal individuals, the batched/unbatched ratio is also a strong proxy for how much average users are using Bitcoin. Since the collapse in price, it is quite possible that individual usage of Bitcoin decreased while “industrial” usage remained strong. This is speculation, but one explanation for what happened.
Alternatively, the industrial players appear to be taking their role as stewards of the scarce block space more seriously. This is a significant boon to the network, and a nontrivial development in its history. If a culture of parsimony can be encouraged, Bitcoin will be able to compress more data into its block space and everyday users will continue to be able to run nodes for the foreseeable future. We view this as a very positive development. Members of the Bitcoin community that lobbied exchanges to add support for Segwit and batching should be proud of themselves.
  1. Bonus content: UTXO consolidation
Remember that we said that a second way to systematically save transaction fees in the Bitcoin network was to consolidate your UTXOs when fees were low? Looking at the relationship between input count and output count allows us to spot such consolidation phases quite well.

Typically, inputs and outputs move together. When the network is stressed, they decouple. If you look at the above chart carefully, you’ll notice that when transactions are elevated (and block space is at a premium), outputs outpace inputs — look at the gaps in May and December 2017. However, prolonged activity always results in fragmented UTXO sets and wallets full of dust, which need to be consolidated. For this, users often wait until pressure on the network has decreased and fees are lower. Thus, after transactions decrease, inputs become more common than outputs. You can see this clearly in February/March 2017.

Here we’ve taken the ratio of inputs to outputs (which have been smoothed on a trailing 7 day basis). When the ratio is higher, there are more inputs than outputs on that day, and vice versa. You can clearly see the spam attack in summer 2015 in which thousands (possibly millions) of outputs were created and then consolidated. Once the ratio spikes upwards, that’s consolidation. The spike in February 2018 after the six weeks of high fees in December 2017 was the most pronounced sigh of relief in Bitcoin’s history; the largest ever departure from the in/out ratio norm. There were a huge number of UTXOs to be consolidated.
It’s also interesting to note where inputs and outputs cluster. Here we have histograms of transactions with large numbers of inputs or outputs. Unsurprisingly, round numbers are common which shows that exchanges don’t publish a transaction every, say, two minutes, but instead wait for 100 or 200 outputs to queue up and then publish their transaction. Curiously, 200-input transactions were more popular than 100-input transactions in the period.


We ran into more curiosities when researching this piece, but we’ll leave those for another time.
Future work on batching might focus on:
Determining batched transactions as a portion of (adjusted) economic rather than raw volume
Looking at the behavior of specific exchanges with regards to batching
Investigating how much space and fees could be saved if major exchanges were batching transactions
Lastly, we encourage everyone to run their transactions through the service at transactionfee.info to assess the efficiency of their transactions and determine whether exchanges are being good stewards of the block space.
Update 31.05.2018
Antoine Le Calvez has created a series of live-updated charts to track batching and batch sizes, which you can find here.
We’d like to thank 0xB10C for their generous assistance with datasets and advice, the people at Blockchair for providing the core datasets, and David A. Harding for writing the initial piece and answering our questions.
submitted by miguelfranco1412 to 800cc [link] [comments]

Craig Wright: The Real Satoshi Or The Real Scammer

Today we will focus on Craig Wright, the person who took the liberty to declare himself as true Satoshi Nakamoto and who tries to take all the credit of the creator of Bitcoin, the main cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin is considered to be one of the progressive forms of payments — absolutely transparent, distributed and resistant to external influence. Its creator must be at least a genius, and most importantly, a billionaire — because a significant amount of Bitcoins mined in the early stages of the project is concentrated in his hands. It is known that Satoshi Nakamoto retired from the project around 2010 and no one knows exactly who is he really is.
In December 2015, two American publications — Gizmodo and Wired — published huge investigations aimed at finding a man who has been hiding under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto since 2008. Clues led journalists to Craig Wright, a 45-year-old entrepreneur from Australia, which on many grounds could be reckoned as a true Satoshi. For example, there were publications about the ideas of a decentralized payment system similar to Bitcoin in Wright’s blog in 2008, a year before Satoshi Nakamoto himself created BTC. Another interesting fact is that in 2013 he invested more than one million BTC in the project to create his Bitcoin Bank — supposedly only the creator of Bitcoin could own such amount of coins.
In correspondence with the publications, Craig indirectly confirmed that he is Nakamoto. At the same time, in December, 2015, Wright said that he was not going to talk about himself publicly. But almost six months later Craig Wright appeared on the front pages. Unexpectedly for many, Craig decides to give an interview to the BBC and The Economist, in which once again, but already publicly assures that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. As the main proof, Wright provided a “cryptographic signature” from the private key used in the first Bitcoin transactions by Satoshi Nakamoto himself.
Since then, Dr. Wright did not give up his words and continued to tell everyone that he is Satoshi. Later Craig said that he would sue anyone who slanders him and generally denies his merits in the creation of Bitcoin.
And while he was just talking around declaring himself as the creator of BTC — all this was tolerated and ignored. But when Wright began to threaten all who disagreed with his lies, the crypto-community decided to teach him a lesson.
Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao wrote the following on his Twitter:
“Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Anymore of this sh!t, we delist!”
His example was followed by some other exchanges, like ShapeShift and Kraken, which also announced the delisting of BSV.
Blogger and ex-hacker Nik Cubrilovic and cybersecurity researcher Dan Kaminsky published their own investigations in which Wright is exposed as a great deceiver. Enthusiasts also investigated the activities of Wright and his companies. It turned out that the purpose of the existence of many of them was to draw tax refunds and the operation of other benefits that are provided to companies focused on research activities.
When an entrepreneur’s business started to decline and companies have earned an unpleasant reputation, Wright decides to appear before the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. According to Cubrilovic’s opinion, this could improve Craig’s affairs, attract new investments and add excitement since it is known that Nakamoto owns large amounts of Bitcoins.
Craig’s opponents also notice one detail: Satoshi Nakamoto would certainly stand on the side of the Bitcoin community that would like to leave the BTC system in its original form. However, in a conversation with The Economist Wright drew a different picture: if Bitcoin power can be repeatedly scaled, then it will be able to replace not only all banking systems but many others, becoming a truly mainstream currency.
In this case, the regulation and support of such cryptocurrency would have to be taken up by large organizations — from banks, already interested in using blockchain technology, to entire states. If this happens, Bitcoin will really replace conventional currency but will lose its independence — the main reason for its creation.
Here are some interesting facts about Craig Wright:
  1. In the early 1990s, worked as a sauce cook at a French restaurant.
  2. Wright filed about 114 Blockchain-related patents since 2017
  3. Craig Wright has his own companies, for example, the Tulip Trading company, which has been very successful in developing supercomputers, as well as DeMorgan Ltd and Panopticrypt Pty Ltd, engaged in various operations with cryptocurrencies. But Wright’s main project is, of course, his own Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision), which appeared as a result of the fork of Bitcoin Cash in November 2018. The fork’s reason was the dissatisfaction of developers and miners with a size of the blockchain that was originally written in code. Transactions were processed very slowly, so Bitcoin Cash ABC appeared, where the size was increased to 8 megabytes. But this was not enough for Craig Wright, and he initiated the second fork, setting the block size to 128 megabytes in the currency he was in charge of.
  4. In February 2018 Wright was sued by David Kleiman — a computer scientist and cyber-security expert suspected to be one of the developers behind the Bitcoin and the blockchain tech. Kleiman said that Wright stole between 550,000 and 1,100,000 BTC.
  5. In 2018, Craig Wright was sued, accusing him of forging contracts and signatures in order to assign Bitcoins in the amount of $5 billion.
  6. In October 2017, Cointelegraph published a list of the most influential individuals from the blockchain industry. Not finding his name in it, Craig Wright appealed to the media with a comment about their negative mood regarding his personality. At the same time in the Cointelegraph ranking was the name Satoshi Nakamoto. This situation was noted as Wright’s recognition that he is not the creator of Bitcoin.
  7. Craig is suspected of repeatedly conducting operations to cash large amounts of BTC. During one of the checks, he brought the family from his native Sydney and moved to London to continue working and creating his own business.
What do you think about Craig Wright? Write your opinion in the comments below!
Like and share this article if you find it useful. Want more interesting articles on the crypto world? Follow us onMedium,Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get Stealthex.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by Stealthex_io to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Craig Wright: The Real Satoshi Or The Real Scammer

Today we will focus on Craig Wright, the person who took the liberty to declare himself as true Satoshi Nakamoto and who tries to take all the credit of the creator of Bitcoin, the main cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin is considered to be one of the progressive forms of payments — absolutely transparent, distributed and resistant to external influence. Its creator must be at least a genius, and most importantly, a billionaire — because a significant amount of Bitcoins mined in the early stages of the project is concentrated in his hands. It is known that Satoshi Nakamoto retired from the project around 2010 and no one knows exactly who is he really is.
In December 2015, two American publications — Gizmodo and Wired — published huge investigations aimed at finding a man who has been hiding under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto since 2008. Clues led journalists to Craig Wright, a 45-year-old entrepreneur from Australia, which on many grounds could be reckoned as a true Satoshi. For example, there were publications about the ideas of a decentralized payment system similar to Bitcoin in Wright’s blog in 2008, a year before Satoshi Nakamoto himself created BTC. Another interesting fact is that in 2013 he invested more than one million BTC in the project to create his Bitcoin Bank — supposedly only the creator of Bitcoin could own such amount of coins.
In correspondence with the publications, Craig indirectly confirmed that he is Nakamoto. At the same time, in December, 2015, Wright said that he was not going to talk about himself publicly. But almost six months later Craig Wright appeared on the front pages. Unexpectedly for many, Craig decides to give an interview to the BBC and The Economist, in which once again, but already publicly assures that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. As the main proof, Wright provided a “cryptographic signature” from the private key used in the first Bitcoin transactions by Satoshi Nakamoto himself.
Since then, Dr. Wright did not give up his words and continued to tell everyone that he is Satoshi. Later Craig said that he would sue anyone who slanders him and generally denies his merits in the creation of Bitcoin.
And while he was just talking around declaring himself as the creator of BTC — all this was tolerated and ignored. But when Wright began to threaten all who disagreed with his lies, the crypto-community decided to teach him a lesson.
Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao wrote the following on his Twitter:
“Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Anymore of this sh!t, we delist!”
His example was followed by some other exchanges, like ShapeShift and Kraken, which also announced the delisting of BSV.
Blogger and ex-hacker Nik Cubrilovic and cybersecurity researcher Dan Kaminsky published their own investigations in which Wright is exposed as a great deceiver. Enthusiasts also investigated the activities of Wright and his companies. It turned out that the purpose of the existence of many of them was to draw tax refunds and the operation of other benefits that are provided to companies focused on research activities.
When an entrepreneur’s business started to decline and companies have earned an unpleasant reputation, Wright decides to appear before the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. According to Cubrilovic’s opinion, this could improve Craig’s affairs, attract new investments and add excitement since it is known that Nakamoto owns large amounts of Bitcoins.
Craig’s opponents also notice one detail: Satoshi Nakamoto would certainly stand on the side of the Bitcoin community that would like to leave the BTC system in its original form. However, in a conversation with The Economist Wright drew a different picture: if Bitcoin power can be repeatedly scaled, then it will be able to replace not only all banking systems but many others, becoming a truly mainstream currency.
In this case, the regulation and support of such cryptocurrency would have to be taken up by large organizations — from banks, already interested in using blockchain technology, to entire states. If this happens, Bitcoin will really replace conventional currency but will lose its independence — the main reason for its creation.
Here are some interesting facts about Craig Wright:
  1. In the early 1990s, worked as a sauce cook at a French restaurant.
  2. Wright filed about 114 Blockchain-related patents since 2017
  3. Craig Wright has his own companies, for example, the Tulip Trading company, which has been very successful in developing supercomputers, as well as DeMorgan Ltd and Panopticrypt Pty Ltd, engaged in various operations with cryptocurrencies. But Wright’s main project is, of course, his own Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision), which appeared as a result of the fork of Bitcoin Cash in November 2018. The fork’s reason was the dissatisfaction of developers and miners with a size of the blockchain that was originally written in code. Transactions were processed very slowly, so Bitcoin Cash ABC appeared, where the size was increased to 8 megabytes. But this was not enough for Craig Wright, and he initiated the second fork, setting the block size to 128 megabytes in the currency he was in charge of.
  4. In February 2018 Wright was sued by David Kleiman — a computer scientist and cyber-security expert suspected to be one of the developers behind the Bitcoin and the blockchain tech. Kleiman said that Wright stole between 550,000 and 1,100,000 BTC.
  5. In 2018, Craig Wright was sued, accusing him of forging contracts and signatures in order to assign Bitcoins in the amount of $5 billion.
  6. In October 2017, Cointelegraph published a list of the most influential individuals from the blockchain industry. Not finding his name in it, Craig Wright appealed to the media with a comment about their negative mood regarding his personality. At the same time in the Cointelegraph ranking was the name Satoshi Nakamoto. This situation was noted as Wright’s recognition that he is not the creator of Bitcoin.
  7. Craig is suspected of repeatedly conducting operations to cash large amounts of BTC. During one of the checks, he brought the family from his native Sydney and moved to London to continue working and creating his own business.
What do you think about Craig Wright? Write your opinion in the comments below!
Like and share this article if you find it useful. Want more interesting articles on the crypto world? Follow us onMedium,Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get Stealthex.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by Stealthex_io to BitcoinAUS [link] [comments]

Craig Wright: The Real Satoshi Or The Real Scammer

Today we will focus on Craig Wright, the person who took the liberty to declare himself as true Satoshi Nakamoto and who tries to take all the credit of the creator of Bitcoin, the main cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin is considered to be one of the progressive forms of payments — absolutely transparent, distributed and resistant to external influence. Its creator must be at least a genius, and most importantly, a billionaire — because a significant amount of Bitcoins mined in the early stages of the project is concentrated in his hands. It is known that Satoshi Nakamoto retired from the project around 2010 and no one knows exactly who is he really is.
In December 2015, two American publications — Gizmodo and Wired — published huge investigations aimed at finding a man who has been hiding under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto since 2008. Clues led journalists to Craig Wright, a 45-year-old entrepreneur from Australia, which on many grounds could be reckoned as a true Satoshi. For example, there were publications about the ideas of a decentralized payment system similar to Bitcoin in Wright’s blog in 2008, a year before Satoshi Nakamoto himself created BTC. Another interesting fact is that in 2013 he invested more than one million BTC in the project to create his Bitcoin Bank — supposedly only the creator of Bitcoin could own such amount of coins.
In correspondence with the publications, Craig indirectly confirmed that he is Nakamoto. At the same time, in December, 2015, Wright said that he was not going to talk about himself publicly. But almost six months later Craig Wright appeared on the front pages. Unexpectedly for many, Craig decides to give an interview to the BBC and The Economist, in which once again, but already publicly assures that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. As the main proof, Wright provided a “cryptographic signature” from the private key used in the first Bitcoin transactions by Satoshi Nakamoto himself.
Since then, Dr. Wright did not give up his words and continued to tell everyone that he is Satoshi. Later Craig said that he would sue anyone who slanders him and generally denies his merits in the creation of Bitcoin.
And while he was just talking around declaring himself as the creator of BTC — all this was tolerated and ignored. But when Wright began to threaten all who disagreed with his lies, the crypto-community decided to teach him a lesson.
Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao wrote the following on his Twitter:
“Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Anymore of this sh!t, we delist!”
His example was followed by some other exchanges, like ShapeShift and Kraken, which also announced the delisting of BSV.
Blogger and ex-hacker Nik Cubrilovic and cybersecurity researcher Dan Kaminsky published their own investigations in which Wright is exposed as a great deceiver. Enthusiasts also investigated the activities of Wright and his companies. It turned out that the purpose of the existence of many of them was to draw tax refunds and the operation of other benefits that are provided to companies focused on research activities.
When an entrepreneur’s business started to decline and companies have earned an unpleasant reputation, Wright decides to appear before the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. According to Cubrilovic’s opinion, this could improve Craig’s affairs, attract new investments and add excitement since it is known that Nakamoto owns large amounts of Bitcoins.
Craig’s opponents also notice one detail: Satoshi Nakamoto would certainly stand on the side of the Bitcoin community that would like to leave the BTC system in its original form. However, in a conversation with The Economist Wright drew a different picture: if Bitcoin power can be repeatedly scaled, then it will be able to replace not only all banking systems but many others, becoming a truly mainstream currency.
In this case, the regulation and support of such cryptocurrency would have to be taken up by large organizations — from banks, already interested in using blockchain technology, to entire states. If this happens, Bitcoin will really replace conventional currency but will lose its independence — the main reason for its creation.
Here are some interesting facts about Craig Wright:
  1. In the early 1990s, worked as a sauce cook at a French restaurant.
  2. Wright filed about 114 Blockchain-related patents since 2017
  3. Craig Wright has his own companies, for example, the Tulip Trading company, which has been very successful in developing supercomputers, as well as DeMorgan Ltd and Panopticrypt Pty Ltd, engaged in various operations with cryptocurrencies. But Wright’s main project is, of course, his own Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision), which appeared as a result of the fork of Bitcoin Cash in November 2018. The fork’s reason was the dissatisfaction of developers and miners with a size of the blockchain that was originally written in code. Transactions were processed very slowly, so Bitcoin Cash ABC appeared, where the size was increased to 8 megabytes. But this was not enough for Craig Wright, and he initiated the second fork, setting the block size to 128 megabytes in the currency he was in charge of.
  4. In February 2018 Wright was sued by David Kleiman — a computer scientist and cyber-security expert suspected to be one of the developers behind the Bitcoin and the blockchain tech. Kleiman said that Wright stole between 550,000 and 1,100,000 BTC.
  5. In 2018, Craig Wright was sued, accusing him of forging contracts and signatures in order to assign Bitcoins in the amount of $5 billion.
  6. In October 2017, Cointelegraph published a list of the most influential individuals from the blockchain industry. Not finding his name in it, Craig Wright appealed to the media with a comment about their negative mood regarding his personality. At the same time in the Cointelegraph ranking was the name Satoshi Nakamoto. This situation was noted as Wright’s recognition that he is not the creator of Bitcoin.
  7. Craig is suspected of repeatedly conducting operations to cash large amounts of BTC. During one of the checks, he brought the family from his native Sydney and moved to London to continue working and creating his own business.
What do you think about Craig Wright? Write your opinion in the comments below!
Like and share this article if you find it useful. Want more interesting articles on the crypto world? Follow us onMedium,Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get Stealthex.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by Stealthex_io to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Korean Market Weekend Update: Korean Government Official Dealing with Crypto Passes Away; New Years Sentiment Leads To Spike

Korean Market Weekend Update
News: Korean Official In Charge of Cryptocurrency Policy Passes Away Days After Making Announcement that Brought Encouragement to Markets
http://news.kbs.co.knews/view.do?ncd=3607294&ref=A 2018021800677_0.jpg
This weeks news starts off on an incredibly sad note. Although I am not a fan of governments, and what I see to have been their irresponsible intervention into the markets, this is something I never want to see. Jeong Ki Joon (정기준), the Korean Economic Chief Advisor in charge of dealing with cryptocurrencies passed away in his sleep on the 18th. He was assigned to the position of economic advisor last September, and has since then has been in charge of coordinating policy regarding cryptocurrencies. Just 3 days ago on the 15th he announced the formal government position on cryptocurrencies. Currently his passing seems related to the amount of stress he was dealing with related to his duties. He was 53.
He actually seemed to have been one of the government officials who stepped up and really tried to understand what cryptocurrency was, and see the positive benefits it could bring. Him and others made announcements from the government last week that detailed plans in order to “block illegal activity and maintain transparency in order to foster a healthy environment for blockchain technology.” It is sad to see his passing, and we hope this isn't a common occurrence in the cryptocurrency space.
Korean Exchanges Made 700 Billion Korean Won, (Appx, 656 Million USD) in 2017. A 87 Times Increase
http://www.yonhapnews.co.kbulletin/2018/02/14/0200000000AKR20180214194000002.HTML?input=1195m
According to documents released with a government announcement from the majority party in Korea, Korean exchanges saw an increase of 83 times in revenue over the previous year. Upbit alone made nearly 200 billion won (187 million USD)after launching at the end of October. Upbits launch was accompanied by a double in the amount of volume coming out of Korea. Bithumb made 317 billion won (290 million USD), Coinone 78 billion (73 million USD) and Korbit 67 billion. (63 million USD)
These top four exchanges, plus the nearly 30 other exchanges has caused the total revenue of exchanges to exceed over 700 billion won. Comparatively, crypto exchanges in Korea did 3 billion and 8 billion won, (2.8 million and 7.5 million USD)in 2015 and 16 respectively. This sort of news really shows the strength and fervor of Korean markets. It is significant to note that previous to Upbit being launched, Koreans only had access to KRW based pairs, but were still one of the larger markets. With the launching of Upbit, which is actually just a connection to Bittrex that doesn't actually operate an exchange, Koreans were able to access all sorts of new cryptocurrencies, which obviously furthered their enthusiasm.
The Lunar New Year Effect Trend Continues
http://www.insightkorea.co.k/news/articleView.html?idxno=22860
Since 2015, the Lunar New Year, one of the biggest holidays in Korea and other eastern countries has always bode well for cryptocurrency. The chart above shows how every year, crypto has fared better after the holiday than before. This began in 2015 prices moved from 235 million won 2,300 USD to 245 million, 2,400 USD, a 23.5% increase. This trend has continued over the past years, and this year seems to have been no exception.
This year has been no exception. With the holiday beginning on the 15th, and technically starting after work ends the 14th, the price has experienced a 25% increase, going from 8500 to 10725 at the time of writing. (Binance) This is in spite of a dip that occured in the last few hours, which have seen a healthy rebound with significant volume. If this trend continues, prices could travel beyond 12,000 by the end of the coming week. But we will have to see.
My opinion on the reason for this is simple. It's the same as the Thanksgiving effect that we saw send us soaring back in November. People and families meet, and one of the topics that is often discussed is finance, and obviously Bitcoin and cryptocurrency is one of the hottest topics to talk about. Add to that the fact that many of the youth, as in those unmarried receive between 10,000 to 200,000 won (10 to 200 USD) as gifts, this brings a lot of spare cash with which to move the market as well as new interest and speculation.
Sentiment: Sentiment in Korea continues to improve, with significant increases in volume across all exchanges in Korea and the world. Global volume increased 25 percent, from around 400 million USD to 500 million USD over the period. Over half all the transactions that are taking place in non-cryptocurrency pairs ex. BTC/USD, BTC/KRW are being conducted in Korean won. The “Kimchi Premium” is continuing to come back, sitting around 5 percent at the time of writing.
Among forums and news articles, positive sentiment also seems to be increasing. More news articles and government announcements are focused on how to help Korea become a center of blockchain development, and foster a healthy space for all the components of blockchain to grow, including cryptocurrencies. Overall, the market seems very healthy, with some overextending following this latest run, but no trouble in Korea that I can see. Good luck!
Korean Listings: Upbit:
2/14 - Sirin Labs Token SRN 2/14 - Worldwide Asset Exchange Token WAX 2/16 - 0x ZRX 2/17 - BlockV Vee Bithumb Coinone Korbit
All still under the self-imposed no listing regulation. No news regarding when this will change. Coinrail:
2/14 - Enjin Token ENG Coinnest:
2/11 - Oceanchain OC 2/11 - Beechat Gopax:
2/14 - Steem, SteemDollar STEEM, SBD
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@jnem/korean-market-weekend-update-korean-government-official-dealing-with-crypto-passes-away-new-years-sentiment-leads-to-spike
submitted by jnembit to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Craig Wright: The Real Satoshi Or The Real Scammer

Today we will focus on Craig Wright, the person who took the liberty to declare himself as true Satoshi Nakamoto and who tries to take all the credit of the creator of Bitcoin, the main cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin is considered to be one of the progressive forms of payments — absolutely transparent, distributed and resistant to external influence. Its creator must be at least a genius, and most importantly, a billionaire — because a significant amount of Bitcoins mined in the early stages of the project is concentrated in his hands. It is known that Satoshi Nakamoto retired from the project around 2010 and no one knows exactly who is he really is.
In December 2015, two American publications — Gizmodo and Wired — published huge investigations aimed at finding a man who has been hiding under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto since 2008. Clues led journalists to Craig Wright, a 45-year-old entrepreneur from Australia, which on many grounds could be reckoned as a true Satoshi. For example, there were publications about the ideas of a decentralized payment system similar to Bitcoin in Wright’s blog in 2008, a year before Satoshi Nakamoto himself created BTC. Another interesting fact is that in 2013 he invested more than one million BTC in the project to create his Bitcoin Bank — supposedly only the creator of Bitcoin could own such amount of coins.
In correspondence with the publications, Craig indirectly confirmed that he is Nakamoto. At the same time, in December, 2015, Wright said that he was not going to talk about himself publicly. But almost six months later Craig Wright appeared on the front pages. Unexpectedly for many, Craig decides to give an interview to the BBC and The Economist, in which once again, but already publicly assures that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. As the main proof, Wright provided a “cryptographic signature” from the private key used in the first Bitcoin transactions by Satoshi Nakamoto himself.
Since then, Dr. Wright did not give up his words and continued to tell everyone that he is Satoshi. Later Craig said that he would sue anyone who slanders him and generally denies his merits in the creation of Bitcoin.
And while he was just talking around declaring himself as the creator of BTC — all this was tolerated and ignored. But when Wright began to threaten all who disagreed with his lies, the crypto-community decided to teach him a lesson.
Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao wrote the following on his Twitter:
“Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Anymore of this sh!t, we delist!”
His example was followed by some other exchanges, like ShapeShift and Kraken, which also announced the delisting of BSV.
Blogger and ex-hacker Nik Cubrilovic and cybersecurity researcher Dan Kaminsky published their own investigations in which Wright is exposed as a great deceiver. Enthusiasts also investigated the activities of Wright and his companies. It turned out that the purpose of the existence of many of them was to draw tax refunds and the operation of other benefits that are provided to companies focused on research activities.
When an entrepreneur’s business started to decline and companies have earned an unpleasant reputation, Wright decides to appear before the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. According to Cubrilovic’s opinion, this could improve Craig’s affairs, attract new investments and add excitement since it is known that Nakamoto owns large amounts of Bitcoins.
Craig’s opponents also notice one detail: Satoshi Nakamoto would certainly stand on the side of the Bitcoin community that would like to leave the BTC system in its original form. However, in a conversation with The Economist Wright drew a different picture: if Bitcoin power can be repeatedly scaled, then it will be able to replace not only all banking systems but many others, becoming a truly mainstream currency.
In this case, the regulation and support of such cryptocurrency would have to be taken up by large organizations — from banks, already interested in using blockchain technology, to entire states. If this happens, Bitcoin will really replace conventional currency but will lose its independence — the main reason for its creation.
Here are some interesting facts about Craig Wright:
  1. In the early 1990s, worked as a sauce cook at a French restaurant.
  2. Wright filed about 114 Blockchain-related patents since 2017
  3. Craig Wright has his own companies, for example, the Tulip Trading company, which has been very successful in developing supercomputers, as well as DeMorgan Ltd and Panopticrypt Pty Ltd, engaged in various operations with cryptocurrencies. But Wright’s main project is, of course, his own Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision), which appeared as a result of the fork of Bitcoin Cash in November 2018. The fork’s reason was the dissatisfaction of developers and miners with a size of the blockchain that was originally written in code. Transactions were processed very slowly, so Bitcoin Cash ABC appeared, where the size was increased to 8 megabytes. But this was not enough for Craig Wright, and he initiated the second fork, setting the block size to 128 megabytes in the currency he was in charge of.
  4. In February 2018 Wright was sued by David Kleiman — a computer scientist and cyber-security expert suspected to be one of the developers behind the Bitcoin and the blockchain tech. Kleiman said that Wright stole between 550,000 and 1,100,000 BTC.
  5. In 2018, Craig Wright was sued, accusing him of forging contracts and signatures in order to assign Bitcoins in the amount of $5 billion.
  6. In October 2017, Cointelegraph published a list of the most influential individuals from the blockchain industry. Not finding his name in it, Craig Wright appealed to the media with a comment about their negative mood regarding his personality. At the same time in the Cointelegraph ranking was the name Satoshi Nakamoto. This situation was noted as Wright’s recognition that he is not the creator of Bitcoin.
  7. Craig is suspected of repeatedly conducting operations to cash large amounts of BTC. During one of the checks, he brought the family from his native Sydney and moved to London to continue working and creating his own business.
What do you think about Craig Wright? Write your opinion in the comments below!
Like and share this article if you find it useful. Want more interesting articles on the crypto world? Follow us on Medium,Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get Stealthex.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by Stealthex_io to Anarcho_Capitalism [link] [comments]

Craig Wright: The Real Satoshi Or The Real Scammer

Today we will focus on Craig Wright, the person who took the liberty to declare himself as true Satoshi Nakamoto and who tries to take all the credit of the creator of Bitcoin, the main cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin is considered to be one of the progressive forms of payments — absolutely transparent, distributed and resistant to external influence. Its creator must be at least a genius, and most importantly, a billionaire — because a significant amount of Bitcoins mined in the early stages of the project is concentrated in his hands. It is known that Satoshi Nakamoto retired from the project around 2010 and no one knows exactly who is he really is.
In December 2015, two American publications — Gizmodo and Wired — published huge investigations aimed at finding a man who has been hiding under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto since 2008. Clues led journalists to Craig Wright, a 45-year-old entrepreneur from Australia, which on many grounds could be reckoned as a true Satoshi. For example, there were publications about the ideas of a decentralized payment system similar to Bitcoin in Wright’s blog in 2008, a year before Satoshi Nakamoto himself created BTC. Another interesting fact is that in 2013 he invested more than one million BTC in the project to create his Bitcoin Bank — supposedly only the creator of Bitcoin could own such amount of coins.
In correspondence with the publications, Craig indirectly confirmed that he is Nakamoto. At the same time, in December, 2015, Wright said that he was not going to talk about himself publicly. But almost six months later Craig Wright appeared on the front pages. Unexpectedly for many, Craig decides to give an interview to the BBC and The Economist, in which once again, but already publicly assures that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. As the main proof, Wright provided a “cryptographic signature” from the private key used in the first Bitcoin transactions by Satoshi Nakamoto himself.
Since then, Dr. Wright did not give up his words and continued to tell everyone that he is Satoshi. Later Craig said that he would sue anyone who slanders him and generally denies his merits in the creation of Bitcoin.
And while he was just talking around declaring himself as the creator of BTC — all this was tolerated and ignored. But when Wright began to threaten all who disagreed with his lies, the crypto-community decided to teach him a lesson.
Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao wrote the following on his Twitter:
“Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Anymore of this sh!t, we delist!”
His example was followed by some other exchanges, like ShapeShift and Kraken, which also announced the delisting of BSV.
Blogger and ex-hacker Nik Cubrilovic and cybersecurity researcher Dan Kaminsky published their own investigations in which Wright is exposed as a great deceiver. Enthusiasts also investigated the activities of Wright and his companies. It turned out that the purpose of the existence of many of them was to draw tax refunds and the operation of other benefits that are provided to companies focused on research activities.
When an entrepreneur’s business started to decline and companies have earned an unpleasant reputation, Wright decides to appear before the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. According to Cubrilovic’s opinion, this could improve Craig’s affairs, attract new investments and add excitement since it is known that Nakamoto owns large amounts of Bitcoins.
Craig’s opponents also notice one detail: Satoshi Nakamoto would certainly stand on the side of the Bitcoin community that would like to leave the BTC system in its original form. However, in a conversation with The Economist Wright drew a different picture: if Bitcoin power can be repeatedly scaled, then it will be able to replace not only all banking systems but many others, becoming a truly mainstream currency.
In this case, the regulation and support of such cryptocurrency would have to be taken up by large organizations — from banks, already interested in using blockchain technology, to entire states. If this happens, Bitcoin will really replace conventional currency but will lose its independence — the main reason for its creation.
Here are some interesting facts about Craig Wright:
  1. In the early 1990s, worked as a sauce cook at a French restaurant.
  2. Wright filed about 114 Blockchain-related patents since 2017
  3. Craig Wright has his own companies, for example, the Tulip Trading company, which has been very successful in developing supercomputers, as well as DeMorgan Ltd and Panopticrypt Pty Ltd, engaged in various operations with cryptocurrencies. But Wright’s main project is, of course, his own Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision), which appeared as a result of the fork of Bitcoin Cash in November 2018. The fork’s reason was the dissatisfaction of developers and miners with a size of the blockchain that was originally written in code. Transactions were processed very slowly, so Bitcoin Cash ABC appeared, where the size was increased to 8 megabytes. But this was not enough for Craig Wright, and he initiated the second fork, setting the block size to 128 megabytes in the currency he was in charge of.
  4. In February 2018 Wright was sued by David Kleiman — a computer scientist and cyber-security expert suspected to be one of the developers behind the Bitcoin and the blockchain tech. Kleiman said that Wright stole between 550,000 and 1,100,000 BTC.
  5. In 2018, Craig Wright was sued, accusing him of forging contracts and signatures in order to assign Bitcoins in the amount of $5 billion.
  6. In October 2017, Cointelegraph published a list of the most influential individuals from the blockchain industry. Not finding his name in it, Craig Wright appealed to the media with a comment about their negative mood regarding his personality. At the same time in the Cointelegraph ranking was the name Satoshi Nakamoto. This situation was noted as Wright’s recognition that he is not the creator of Bitcoin.
  7. Craig is suspected of repeatedly conducting operations to cash large amounts of BTC. During one of the checks, he brought the family from his native Sydney and moved to London to continue working and creating his own business.
What do you think about Craig Wright? Write your opinion in the comments below!
Like and share this article if you find it useful. Want more interesting articles on the crypto world? Follow us onMedium,Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get Stealthex.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us at [support[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by Stealthex_io to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

The Biggest Scams In The Crypto History: Part 2

Here’s the sequel of our previous article. You wanted — you got it. Let’s roll!
OneCoin
OneCoin is a good example of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, the Indian company One Coin Limited began to issue digital currency without a blockchain and decentralization. The old-school MLM (Multi-Level Marketing) strategy was used for the distribution of coins.
The company was selling a wide range of training packages on crypto trading, mining and successful life. There were textbooks, presentations, and other rubbish, among which were OneCoin tokens. They were supposed to allow users to get even more tokens. But the thing was that only One Coin Limited had exclusive rights to issue of coinage. So there were no other options for mining this coin.
On the international conference the founder of OneCoin, Ruja Ignatova, presents these tokens as the Bitcoin killer. See how easy it is to fool users?
Over the years, the company has spread its network globally. And only in 2017, the project gets into a number of investigations and restrictions. Owners and employees of the company more and more often could not answer questions from investors and carried on with the nonsense about “a bright crypto-future.”
Finally, regulators and banks in Italy, Germany, Hungary, Belize, Thailand and other countries have banned the trade of OneCoin and warned users not to get engaged with this company.
In early March 2019, the current OneCoin cryptocurrency leader Konstantin Ignatov, brother of Ruja Ignatova, was arrested at Los Angeles airport. He is accused of fraud and creating a financial pyramid.
According to the United States Attorney’s Office, Ignatov and his sister misled investors all over the world, and as a result, the people invested billions of dollars in a fraud scheme. They are accused of building a billion-dollar cryptocurrency company, based entirely on deception.
FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William Sweeney, Jr. said:
“OneCoin was a cryptocurrency existing only in the minds of its creators and their co-conspirators. Unlike authentic cryptocurrencies, which maintain records of their investors’ transaction history, OneCoin had no real value. It offered investors no method of tracing their money, and it could not be used to purchase anything. In fact, the only ones who stood to benefit from its existence were its founders and co-conspirators.”
Despite all hardships, One Coin Limited continues to work. If you check out their website you will find everything there: a meaningless text about the benefits of a “revolutionary” token and other signs of a high-quality international project that deceives people.
QuadrigaCX
It’s not possible to take your savings to the grave, right? More than 100,000 clients of QuadrigaCX are ready to argue with that. So let’s try to recount the details of this strange story.
QuadrigaCX was created in 2013 and was Canada’s largest cryptocurrency exchange.
In December 2018, Gerald Cotten (founder and CEO of the QuadrigaCX) and his wife — Jennifer Robertson, were in India on their honeymoon. During this trip Cotten suddenly passed away from Crohn’s disease. After his death, it turned out that Gerald was the only one who had access to cold wallets of the exchange platform.
Changpeng Zhao (Binance CEO) comments this situation on Twitter:
“That’s sad. There are many solutions to split private keys or signing to achieve 3/5, 5/7 etc. Never neglect security. Also, never have CEO carry private keys. Bad on many levels.”
On January 25, 2019 (that is, almost two months after Cotten’s death) a special meeting was convened to appoint QuadrigaCX’s new directors. As a result, the inconsolable widow Jennifer Robertson, her stepfather Thomas Beazley and Jack Martel were elected to take charge of a company. By the way, this meeting was held by a conference call as the widow was very busy by hastily selling the property of her deceased husband. Indeed, there was something to deal with: a yacht, a plane, and several houses. Also, dearly departed managed to take care of his Chihuahuas by opening a special trust account for them in the amount of $100,000 (which is interesting, as Cotten did not show such forethought about the clients of his company).
It’s worth to mention that the clients of QuadrigaCX had problems with the exchange for a long time — mainly related to the withdrawal of funds. The first wake-up calls took place in March 2018, when press reports negatively about delays in the withdrawal of funds the total amount of which exceeded $100,000. But that’s all just moonshine compared to the fact that in June 2017 the exchange platform lost about 15 million Canadian dollars — as explained to the community, due to a bug in the smart contract. As a result, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) froze about $22 million in QuadrigaCX accounts. This happened in November 2018, and for all users, it would have meant the end of a remarkable business but Mr. Cotten wasn’t explaining the problems to customers, wasn’t trying to solve them, and so on. He had just married and went on a honeymoon trip to pass away exactly two weeks after freezing the accounts.
As the inconsolable widow stated in her testimony:
“To the best of my knowledge, most of the businesses of these companies was being conducted by Gerry whenever and wherever he and his computer were located”.
In February 2019, the head of Coinbase — Brian Armstrong unveiled the results of an independent investigation into the QuadrigaCX. He reported on his Twitter account the following:
“Sequence of events suggests this was a mismanagement with later attempt to cover for it.” “This implies that at least few people inside Qadriga knew that they were running fractional. If so, then it’s possible that untimely death of their CEO was used as an outlet to let the company sink”.
Brian Armstrong stressed that QuadrigaCX users started complaining about problems with withdrawing money long before Gerald Cotten’s death. Thus, the company management decided to invent a story about private keys on the laptop of the CEO to hide the financial insolvency, one of the reasons for which could be inefficient management.
Nowadays, the Canadian cryptocurrency exchange QuadrigaCX is officially bankrupt. Users of the closed Quadriga are now leading legal battles in order to recover their funds. The total amount of which is about $190 million in crypto. The exact circumstances of the disappearance of user deposits remain uncertain.
Do you think the story with QuadrigaCX was Exit Scam or Mismanagement?
Bitfinex
One of the largest crypto scandals of the year broke out on April 30, 2019. The New York State Attorney General’s Office has filed serious accusations against the biggest exchange platform — Bitfinex. According to Leticia James, the exchange platform used the reserves of Tether, an affiliated company to cover up a loss of $850 million.
Questions to Tether have been in the air for a long time. In January 2018, the critics of the main stablecoin assumed that the company, in fact, produced more coins than it actually could sustain. Some critics accused the Bitfinex in fraud and manipulation of Tether’s rate and influenced through it on the price of Bitcoin.
So what’s up with the Bitfinex? Investigators of the prosecutor’s office claim that the lost money belonged to the clients and iFinex corporation. That is why, back in October 2018, Bitfinex started having problems with the withdrawal of the funds: the clients complained about long response time and a delay in receiving currency. According to the authorities, Bitfinex transferred $850 million to Crypto Capital Corp., the payment company. The Tether reserves were used to fill the gap, but this information was not disclosed to the public. According to the first data, Tether provided funding in the amount of at least $700 million for this purposes. Withdrawing this amount of currency severely shook faith in the idea that Tether tokens are indeed fully backed by dollars.
And then Bitfinex had extraordinary difficulties in satisfying the withdrawal demands from the platform since Crypto Capital refused to process withdrawals or simply could not return any funds. One of the senior Bitfinex executives opened a can of worms by writing the following:
“Please understand all this could be extremely dangerous for everybody, the entire crypto community. BTC could tank to below 1k if we don’t act quickly.”
Soon after it was known about the serious accusations against companies, Bitfinex’s users began to panic. They started buying Bitcoin and trying to get rid of their assets in USDT. As a result, BTC was trading $350+ (6.75%) more expensive than the crypto market average.
Tether and Bitfinex published a joint statement on their official blogs in response to the allegations of missing funds. The posts allege that the companies did not receive any preliminary warnings, as well as that lawsuits from the New York Prosecutor General’s Office were “riddled with false assertions”.
According to the latest information, Bitfinex is supposed to release its own token and attract $1 billion in Tether through IEO.
What do you think about these scandals and scams? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.
Like and share this article if you find it useful. Want more interesting articles on the crypto world? Follow us on Medium, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get Stealthex.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by Stealthex_io to Anarcho_Capitalism [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Magazine Presents the Final Table for the Binance Charity Poker game 5/15 Live: Binance CEO about the Future of Crypto & Bitcoin BTC ... Bitcoin Bouncing Back, Out Of Critical Zone? Cardano Staking Rewards, Binance Delist Bittorrent Pair Binance Exchange Tutorial For Beginners  The Complete Full Tutorial 9 november - CryptoCoiners Café: LIVE Traden met Bitcoin ... Binance announces Stellar (XLM) Airdrop and Staking - Don't Miss! - Hindi Bitcoin Todes-Dreieck? Wann Bullrun?  Binance Blutbad -70%  Ethereum, IOTA & Ripple  Gewinnspiel

Binance Coin $ 28.80 4.36%. Polkadot $ 4.47 5.27%. Litecoin $ 61.07 4.29%. Cardano $ 0.107933 10.37%. Alle Kurse . Bitcoin-Kurs erreicht neuen Höchstwert in 2015 . Startseite; Aktuelle Artikel im Überblick; Krypto; Bitcoin; Bitcoin Kurs erreicht neuen Höchstwert in 2015 . von Mark Preuss. Am 30. Oktober 2015 26. Mai 2019 · Lesezeit: 0 Minuten. Mark Preuss. Mark Preuss ist Gründer und ... Discover historical prices for BTC-USD stock on Yahoo Finance. View daily, weekly or monthly format back to when Bitcoin USD stock was issued. EUR/BNB Historisch: Hier finden Sie die Historisch-Seite für den EUR/BNB “Bitcoin, Regression Theorem, and Defining Money” was published on January 2, 2015, and is reprinted here on Bitcoin.com for historical preservation. The opinions expressed in this article are ... Der Benutzer hat zum ersten Mal seit 2015 69.370 Bitcoin von der Adresse verschoben. Das Analyse- und Geheimdienstunternehmen Blockchain, Ciphertrace, veröffentlichte heute einen Bericht zur Identifizierung einer massiven Transaktion im Bitcoin-Netzwerk, bei der zum ersten Mal seit April 2015 eine Milliarde Dollar Bitcoin aus dem Markt der Silk Road bewegt wurden. View. Bitcoin’s daily chart is reporting a “golden crossover” – a bull cross of the 50- and 200-day moving averages – for the first time since October 2015. Binance suffered a large scale security breach late today, according to a statement. Hackers managed to obtain API keys, two-factor-authentication codes and other information. In addition, 7,000 Bitcoin ($40 million) were withdrawn in a single transaction. The hackers used multiple techniques, including phishing attacks and computer viruses to get at Binance and its hot wallets,... Bitcoin-Exchange Binance hat heute ihren eigenen Krypto-Token verbrannt, Binance Coin (BNB) – im Wert von 68 Millionen US-Dollar, ihr letzter vierteljährlicher Burn. Gemessen am Dollarwert war dies die bisher größte Verbrennung – BNB verbrannte BNB im Wert von 68 Millionen Dollar. Der Preis hat sich allerdings nicht viel bewegt. CZs Journey into Bitcoin and Crypto. CZs tweet can be linked to his own story of how he got into crypto in 2014 when Bitcoin was trading at $600. Mr. Zhao had just sold his house and gone all in. However, a few months later and in 2015, Bitcoin crashed to $200 but he kept holding and is now the CEO of the largest crypto exchange around by trade ... “Binance Effect”: ... For example, from early 2014 to early 2015, the price of Bitcoin fell by 75%, while UTXO cap actually rose by 15%; in the most recent bear period from the beginning of 2018 through November 2018, the price of Bitcoin fell nearly 70%, while UTXO cap only fell 5%. This echoes the findings of Calderón (2018), who utilized the CSAD model 12 to demonstrate that crypto ...

[index] [631] [21344] [1770] [23472] [10951] [4926] [16128] [2946] [21702] [7054]

Bitcoin Magazine Presents the Final Table for the Binance Charity Poker game 5/15

LIVE traden met Bitcoin op Binance. Meer weten over Bitcoin en crypto? Ga naar ons andere kanaal op YouTube: www.cryptocoiners.nl BREAKING! JAPAN & USA COLLABORATION to BEAT China's E-Yuan! Ethereum to 10k minimum + SEC Securities - Duration: 29:09. Digital Asset News 31,107 views Binance made a surprise announcement for its users who deposit XLM to their accounts. Users will receive airdrop and staking rewards starting 1st September 2... Bitcoin Bouncing Back, Out Of Critical Zone? Cardano Staking Rewards, Binance Delist Bittorrent Pair Bitcoin Magazine Presents the Final Table for the Binance Charity Poker game 5/15 ... Live Bitcoin Poker Night in the Bitcoin Lounge it's Friday NIGHT! - Duration: 4:23:35. Joe Saz 748 views. 4:23 ... 6:38 - Bitcoin Transaktionsvolumen schreibt Geschichte, HODLn im Trend, Bitcoin Bullrun? - Meine Meinung zum aktuellen Kurs - Meine Meinung zum aktuellen Kurs 13:38 - Binance Blutbad bei Matic mit ... #BINANCE #BITCOIN #BTC Today we are glad to announce the greatest crypto giveaway ever! It is happening just right now, during the live speech of Changpeng Zhao, CEO of Binance.

#