Discussion about Bitcoin. BitcoinSV restores the original Bitcoin protocol, will keep it stable, and allow it to massively scale on-chain. BSV will maintain the vision laid out by Satoshi Nakamoto in the 2008 white paper - Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Welcome to IOTAmarkets! -- IOTA is a quantum-resistant distributed ledger protocol launched in 2015, focused on being useful for the emerging m2m economy of Internet-of-Things (IoT), data integrity, micro-/nano- payments, and anywhere else a scalable decentralized system is warranted. IOTA uniquely offers zero fees, no scaling limitations, and decentralized consensus where users are also validators. The digital currency 'iota' has a fixed money supply with zero inflationary cost.
What are the steps to create a Bitcoin API from scratch for Bitcoin market data ?
I cant find informations about how the already existing Bitcoin APIs come up with their market data. Maybe there's something I dont understand? Do they look directly into the blockchain? If its the case, how? Thank you
[OC] Which front offices and agents are the 3 major newsbreakers connected to? I went through 6000+ tweets to find out!
If this sounds somewhat familiar, that's because I did a 2019-2020 version and posted it back in March. In terms of changes from that post:
I've expanded the timeline to tweets from September 27, 2018. This is the first official day where each of Shams, Woj and Haynes were at their own respective companies. Shams moved to the Athletic from Yahoo in August, and Haynes moved from ESPN to Yahoo in September.
I've also expanded the criteria on when a tweet could possibly be linked to an agent
TL;DR Tracked tweetsof Woj, Shams and Haynes from 2018-2020 to see whether any of them report on a certain team or a certain agent's players more than their counterparts.Here is the main graphconcerning a reporter's percentage of tweets per team separated into three periods (2019 season, 2020 offseason, 2020 season). Here is aseparate graphwith the Lakers and Warriors, because Haynes's percentages would skew the first graph. During times like the NBA trade deadline or the lifting of the NBA free-agency moratorium, it’s not uncommon to see Twitter replies to (or Reddit comments about) star reporters reference their performance relative to others. Woj is the preeminent scoop hound, but he is also notorious for writing hit pieces on LeBron (sources say it’s been widely rumoured that the reason for these is that Woj has always been unable to place a reliable source in LeBron’s camp). On the other end of the spectrum, it has been revealed that in exchange for exclusive intel on league memos and Pistons dealings, Woj wrote puff pieces on then-GM Joe Dumars (see above Kevin Draper link). Last summer, Woj was accused of being a Clippers shill on this very discussion board for noticeably driving the Kawhi Leonard free agency conversation towards the team. This is the reason I undertook this project: to see whether some reporters have more sources in certain teams (and certain agencies) than other reporters. First I’ll explain the methodology, then present the data with some initial comments.
To make this manageable on myself, I limited myself to tracking the 3 major national reporters: Shams Charania of the Athletic, Chris Haynes of Yahoo Sports and the aforementioned Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN.
I didn’t use beat reporters, as most (if not all) of their sources would be concentrated on their local team
Others that I considered but ultimately decided not to track:
Brian Windhorst of ESPN (double-dipping in ESPN)
Zach Lowe of ESPN (I consider him more of an analyst)
Marc Spears of ESPN (harder to sift through Twitter feeds, as he posts a lot more unrelated/non-news-breaking content)
Marc Stein of the New York Times (same as Spears)
Kevin O'Connor of The Ringer (same as Lowe)
The time period I initially tracked for was from January 1, 2020 to the end of the regular season March, but after finding a Twitter scraping tool on GitHub called Twint, I was able to easily retrieve all tweets since September 27, 2018. However, a month ago, Twitter closed their old API endpoints, and Twint ceased to work. I used vicinitas.io but the data loading became more time-consuming. Therefore, the tweets are up to the date of October 15 2020. How I determined information was by manually parsing text tweets by the reporter (no retweets):
This means I did not include images or multimedia appearances such as television, radio or podcasts. The rationale for this is that I simply don’t have the time to listen/watch and record all the instances of providing information through sources on these mediums.
Now, I didn’t take every single text tweet:
I didn’t include direct statements, be they from players or front office folks
I separated them, along with podcast guests in another tab
I didn’t include the summary tweet that Woj & Shams love to do: “Story filed to/Story on [employer]:..” because it doesn’t add anything apart from a link to a story (also, I personally don’t want to be called an ESPN/Yahoo/Athletic shill)
If the tweet added a reporter’s own analysis to someone else’s tweet, it was not included
If it was new information, the tweet was retained
Tweets that related solely to retired players were not included: mainly Haynes reporting Dwyane Wade joining CAA, as well as the unfortunate passing of Kobe Bryant on January 26
I grouped multiple tweets about the same subject delivered around the same time frame (such as trades) into one, as doing otherwise would arbitrarily inflate totals
There’s no hard and fast rule for whether or not to group tweets
For example, the big 4-team trade that created the Pocket Rockets was grouped in full
On the other hand, the Miami-Memphis trade was split up because the full details came like a day later
Sometimes, I used my judgment to determine whether a tweet’s underlying information would have come from a source, and therefore whether I should include that tweet or not
For example, consider the All-Star tweets: Haynes and Shams both posted the All-Star starters, but looking at the time signatures led me to believe that this was simply relaying the information from the TNT reveal
On the other hand, both Shams and Haynes posted tweets disclosing the All-Star Reserves before the TNT reveal
Next, I had to assign possible teams to each tweet:
Items such as changes to the league calendar, the naming of All-Star Reserves and salary cap projections were immediately attached to an NBA source
Injuries and trades were fairly straightforward, assigning these tweets to the participating teams
Items such as league mandated fines/suspensions, invitations to All-Star competitions and game protests were credited to both a general NBA source, as well as the related team(s)
Direct sources from agents or mentions of specific agents were attributed as a catch-all “Agent”
In the former, team was not included: examples include Matisse Thybulle’s agent on not being selected for the Rising Stars Game or Royce O’Neale’s agents confirming his contract extension with the Jazz
In the latter, team was included: examples include two Knicks switching their agent to Rich Paul
New addition: anything related to a player's status with a team were also attributed to agents (qualifying offers, extensions, option decisions, waivers, and contracts/deals)
I then found which agents correspond to which players (big shoutout to realgm.com and the Wayback Machine)
Rumours were slightly more difficult
As we know very well, league sources is an exceedingly vague term
Instead of attempting to pinpoint a rival executive with a motive to make a comment, I took the “Occam’s Razor” approach and assumed that the teams involved had someone talk to the reporter
When it was impossible to even determine a participant team, it was the general “NBA” source to the rescue
Chris Haynes has the highest percentage of tweets relating to the Detroit Pistons in all three periods. He also reports on far more Portland news than Shams or Woj.
Shams' Brooklyn edge is evident. The Athletic was also the outlet that Kevin Durant felt comfortable talking to about his positive coronavirus test. As well, Shams reported on Spencer Dinwiddie's quest to tokenize his contract (similar to bitcoin).
Adrian Wojnarowski has increased his percentage of tweets regarding the LA Clippers period-over-period, but so have the other two reporters.
It's surprising that Dallas's numbers are so low, considering they're a good team with an international superstar.
My hypothesis from my previous post is that Shams and Woj each have capable Mavericks deputies in the Tims (Cato and MacMahon, respectively) and decide to leave that market alone
Shams does have the highest percentage of Mavericks tweets in all three seasons however.
Now, you'll notice that there's two teams missing from the above graph: the Golden State Warriors and the Los Angeles Lakers. Here's the graphs for those two teams. As you can see, they would skew the previous graph far too much. During the 2019 NBA season, 27% of Chris Haynes's qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Warriors, and 14% of his qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Lakers.
Here's the top 10 agents in terms of number of potential tweets concerning their clients.
Woj has the most tweets directly connected to agents by far. It wasn't uncommon to see "Player X signs deal with Team Y, Agent Z of Agency F tells ESPN." The agents that go to Woj (and some of their top clients):
Mark Bartelstein of Priority Sports (Bradley Beal, Kyle Lowry, Gordon Hayward)
Jeff Schwartz and Sam Goldfeder of Excel Sports (Khris Middleton, Nikola Jokic, CJ McCollum and Kevin Love)
Steven Heumann and Austin Brown of Creative Artists Agency (Andrew Wiggins, Chris Paul, Donovan Mitchell and Zion Williamson)
One thing I found very intriguing: 15/16 of tweets concerning an Aaron Turner client were reported on by Shams. Turner is the head of Verus Basketball, whose clients include Terry Rozier, Victor Oladipo and Kevin Knox. Shams also reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Sam Permut of Roc Nation. Permut is the current agent of Kyrie Irving, after Irving fired Jeff Wechsler near the beginning of the 2019 offseason. Permut also reps the Morris brothers and Trey Burke. As for Chris Haynes, he doesn't really do much agent news (at least not at the level of Woj and Shams). However, he reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Aaron Goodwin of Goodwin Sports Management, who reps Damian Lillard and DeMar DeRozan. Here are the top 10 free agents from Forbes, along with their agent and who I predict will be the first/only one to break the news.
Most Likely Reporter
Too close to call, leaning Shams
Too close to call, leaning Shams
Alexander Raskovic, Jason Ranne
Limited data, but part of Wasserman, whose players are predominantly reported on by Woj
Thanks for reading! As always with this type of work, human error is not completely eliminated. If you think a tweet was mistakenly removed, feel free to drop me a line and I’ll try to explain my thought process on that specific tweet! Hope y’all enjoyed the research!
How do I check Bitcoin price history in extremely minute increments?
Hi guys! I hope this is the correct platform for my query, please let me know if it isn't. I need to see Bitcoin price history but the catch is it should be in the smallest time increments possible. I am going to summarise what I need to know; please guide me to appropriate resources.
How often does the BTC price change ( is it every second every millisecond???)
Where can I get a BTC price history in small time increments. (preferably however often the bitcoin price changes): I'm looking for a website, application, program, or open source code which has/can collect this information. Alternatively, you can tell me if there's a way to create a program which will do this for me or whether there is an exchange or an organisation I can contact to get this information.
I can't find information on how to get price changes below 1 minute. Trading view has an option for live prices every 1 second (candles) but I'm not sure if that's the smallest increment possible. Thank you all in advance!
I am very surprised that the entire cryptocurrency market bounced despite some VERY unfavorable news. I am even more surprised that DeFi specifically stood still during the storm of a minor Bitcoin sell-off. If you check the data from DeFi Pulse, you can see that the community locked $11.2 billion in assets before the dump and two days later it only dropped to $10.8 billion! https://i.ibb.co/cDhL8JX/where-to-yield-farm.png Yes, a majority of the DeFi tokens suffered extreme losses, some even dropped by 30%. We saw YFI, a leading token in the sector, losing $10k in price in only a few days. But you know what? We recovered. What brings even more confidence is the fact that while tokens suffered, the entire market structure stood stable. So everything is perfect now, right? Well, not really. If we continue to rise at the exponential rate the market rose in the past, we will have to deal with the same old problems. There are far too many to list but here are some of the most important ones:
Long transaction times
EXTREMELY high fees
Unstable and bad APY returns
If we take a look at any Ethereum statistics website we can see that most of these things are already fixed, for several weeks in fact. But if we remember how the market looked like when there was really high hype in the DeFi space, we remember how much of a nightmare it was. So now that it is the PERFECT time to yield farm, which platform should you choose? Well, I’m not going to hide anything, I’ll just reveal it right away. In July, I fell in love with a DEX after scouring Medium for new platform announcements that appeared like a good catch long-term. I discovered Anyswap, a cross-chain DEX that appeared to be relatively new to the space. However, I realized upon closer inspection that the devs and creators behind it have been in crypto for a far longer time than I could imagine. But I’ll leave this secret part for you to research since what Anyswap currently offers is even more important. Simply put, Anyswap is a DEX with yield farming capabilities that offers some of the best features possible. I have not yet encountered a project that surpasses what this DEX provides. First things first, gas fees are almost non-existent. Whether you want to do a token swap or be a liquidity provider, you will pay 1000x smaller fees compared to any other platform. Moreover, the reward structure is completely great. Even if the reward pools fall in APY, you still have another form of passive income that will keep you stable. With the ANY token, you have both governance control and rewards. Every ANY holder that participates in the liquidity pools earns 9900 ANY on average. As for the pools themselves, users earn around 927% APY on ANY pools and 159% on non-ANY pools. As for transaction times, that issue is fixed as well. Since Anyswap utilizes the Fusion network, a cross-chain finance ecosystem, transactions only take a few minutes no matter how much trading activity there is. To be honest, Anyswap did have its ups and downs when it launched. But guess what? That is true for literally any crypto and DeFi platform. Online for more than three months, I plan to still use Anyswap for yield farming so that I can earn high and secure rewards every day. And guess what? I’m still an early adopter, meaning that I will earn even more while Anyswap is still working silent in the market.
vectorbt - blazingly fast backtesting and interactive data analysis for quants
I want to share with you a tool that I was continuously developing during the last couple of months. https://github.com/polakowo/vectorbt As a data scientist, when I first started flirting with quant trading, I quickly realized that there is a shortage of Python packages that can actually enable me to iterate over a long list of possible strategies and hyper-parameters quickly. Most open-source backtesting libraries are very evolved in terms of functionality, but simply lack speed. Questions like "Which strategy is better: X or Y?" require fast computation and transformation of data. This not only prolongs your lifecycle of designing strategies, but is dangerous after all: limited number of tests is similar to a tunnel vision - it prevents you from seeing the bigger picture and makes you dive into the market blindly. After trying tweaking pandas, multiprocessing, and even evaluating my strategies on a cluster with Spark, I finally found myself using Numba - a Python library that can compile slow Python code to be run at native machine code speed. And since there were no packages in the Python ecosystem that could even closely match the speed of my own backtests, I made vectorbt. vectorbt combines pandas, NumPy and Numba sauce to obtain orders-of-magnitude speedup over other libraries. It builds upon the idea that each instance of a trading strategy can be represented in a vectorized form, so multiple strategy instances can be packed into a single multi-dimensional array. In this form, they can processed in a highly efficient manner and compared easily. It also integrates Plotly and ipywidgets to display complex charts and dashboards akin to Tableau right in the Jupyter notebook. You can find basic examples and explanations in the documentation. Below is an example of doing in total 67,032 tests on three different timeframes of Bitcoin price history to explore how performance of a MACD strategy depends upon various combinations of fast, slow and signal windows:
import vectorbt as vbt import numpy as np import yfinance as yf from itertools import combinations, product # Fetch daily price of Bitcoin price = yf.Ticker("BTC-USD").history(period="max")['Close'] price = price.vbt.split_into_ranges(n=3) # Define hyper-parameter space # 49 fast x 49 slow x 19 signal fast_windows, slow_windows, signal_windows = vbt.indicators.create_param_combs( (product, (combinations, np.arange(2, 51, 1), 2), np.arange(2, 21, 1))) # Run MACD indicator macd_ind = vbt.MACD.from_params( price, fast_window=fast_windows, slow_window=slow_windows, signal_window=signal_windows, hide_params=['macd_ewm', 'signal_ewm'] ) # Long when MACD is above zero AND signal entries = macd_ind.macd_above(0) & macd_ind.macd_above(macd_ind.signal) # Short when MACD is below zero OR signal exits = macd_ind.macd_below(0) | macd_ind.macd_below(macd_ind.signal) # Build portfolio portfolio = vbt.Portfolio.from_signals( price.vbt.tile(len(fast_windows)), entries, exits, fees=0.001, freq='1D') # Draw all window combinations as a 3D volume fig = portfolio.total_return.vbt.volume( x_level='macd_fast_window', y_level='macd_slow_window', z_level='macd_signal_window', slider_level='range_start', template='plotly_dark', trace_kwargs=dict( colorscale='Viridis', colorbar=dict( title='Total return', tickformat='%' ) ) ) fig.show()
Analyze and engineer features for any time series data
Supercharge pandas and your favorite tools to run much faster
Test thousands of strategies, configurations, assets, and time ranges in one go
Test machine learning models
Build interactive charts/dashboards without leaving Jupyter
The current implementation has limitations though:
It's still experimental and fast evolving, thus API can change quickly.
Fast processing means more memory requirements. Above example created multiple DataFrames each taking 46MB of RAM (price, signals, cash, shares, equity, returns, etc). The issue can be mitigated by deleting at least some artifacts as soon as they are created and by disabling caching.
Usage requires intermediate knowledge of pandas and NumPy to understand what's going on. Numba can be learned faster because of it mimicking NumPy. I tried to make lots of small examples in the documentation to get the idea how everything is glued together.
The approach of merging vectorized and iterative code differs significantly from classic OOP approach of designing strategies, and will require you to rethink how strategies are formulated and implemented (which is kinda fun).
Finally, if you're looking for a pure backtesting solution - it's not. It's more of a data mining tool to get to know your market and approach better.
If it sounds cool enough, try it out! I would love if you'd give me some feedback and contribute to it at some point, as the codebase has grown very fast. Cheers.
https://preview.redd.it/al1gy9t9v9q51.png?width=424&format=png&auto=webp&s=b29a60402d30576a4fd95f592b392fae202026ca Hopefully any questions you have will be answered by the resources below, but if you have additional questions feel free to ask them in the comments. If you're quite technically-minded, the Zano whitepaper gives a thorough overview of Zano's design and its main features. So, what is Zano? In brief, Zano is a project started by the original developers of CryptoNote. Coins with market caps totalling well over a billion dollars (Monero, Haven, Loki and countless others) run upon the codebase they created. Zano is a continuation of their efforts to create the "perfect money", and brings a wealth of enhancements to their original CryptoNote code. Development happens at a lightning pace, as the Github activity shows, but Zano is still very much a work-in-progress. Let's cut right to it: Here's why you should pay attention to Zano over the next 12-18 months. Quoting from a recent update:
Anton Sokolov has recently joined the Zano team. ... For the last months Anton has been working on theoretical work dedicated to log-size ring signatures. These signatures theoretically allows for a logarithmic relationship between the number of decoys and the size/performance of transactions. This means that we can set mixins at a level from up to 1000, keeping the reasonable size and processing speed of transactions. This will take Zano’s privacy to a whole new level, and we believe this technology will turn out to be groundbreaking!
If successful, this scheme will make Zano the most private, powerful and performant CryptoNote implementation on the planet. Bar none. A quantum leap in privacy with a minimal increase in resource usage. And if there's one team capable of pulling it off, it's this one.
What else makes Zano special?
You mean aside from having "the Godfather of CryptoNote" as the project lead? ;) Actually, the calibre of the developers/researchers at Zano probably is the project's single greatest strength. Drawing on years of experience, they've made careful design choices, optimizing performance with an asynchronous core architecture, and flexibility and extensibility with a modular code structure. This means that the developers are able to build and iterate fast, refining features and adding new ones at a rate that makes bigger and better-funded teams look sluggish at best. Zano also has some unique features that set it apart from similar projects: Privacy Firstly, if you're familiar with CryptoNote you won't be surprised that Zano transactions are private. The perfect money is fungible, and therefore must be untraceable. Bitcoin, for the most part, does little to hide your transaction data from unscrupulous observers. With Zano, privacy is the default. The untraceability and unlinkability of Zano transactions come from its use of ring signatures and stealth addresses. What this means is that no outside observer is able to tell if two transactions were sent to the same address, and for each transaction there is a set of possible senders that make it impossible to determine who the real sender is. Hybrid PoW-PoS consensus mechanism Zano achieves an optimal level of security by utilizing both Proof of Work and Proof of Stake for consensus. By combining the two systems, it mitigates their individual vulnerabilities (see 51% attack and "nothing at stake" problem). For an attack on Zano to have even a remote chance of success the attacker would have to obtain not only a majority of hashing power, but also a majority of the coins involved in staking. The system and its design considerations are discussed at length in the whitepaper. Aliases Here's a stealth address: ZxDdULdxC7NRFYhCGdxkcTZoEGQoqvbZqcDHj5a7Gad8Y8wZKAGZZmVCUf9AvSPNMK68L8r8JfAfxP4z1GcFQVCS2Jb9wVzoe. I have a hard enough time remembering my phone number. Fortunately, Zano has an alias system that lets you register an address to a human-readable name. (@orsonj if you want to anonymously buy me a coffee) Multisig Multisignature (multisig) refers to requiring multiple keys to authorize a Zano transaction. It has a number of applications, such as dividing up responsibility for a single Zano wallet among multiple parties, or creating backups where loss of a single seed doesn't lead to loss of the wallet. Multisig and escrow are key components of the planned Decentralized Marketplace (see below), so consideration was given to each of them from the design stages. Thus Zano's multisig, rather than being tagged on at the wallet-level as an afterthought, is part of its its core architecture being incorporated at the protocol level. This base-layer integration means months won't be spent in the future on complicated refactoring efforts in order to integrate multisig into a codebase that wasn't designed for it. Plus, it makes it far easier for third-party developers to include multisig (implemented correctly) in any Zano wallets and applications they create in the future. (Double Deposit MAD) Escrow With Zano's escrow service you can create fully customizable p2p contracts that are designed to, once signed by participants, enforce adherence to their conditions in such a way that no trusted third-party escrow agent is required. https://preview.redd.it/jp4oghyhv9q51.png?width=1762&format=png&auto=webp&s=12a1e76f76f902ed328886283050e416db3838a5 The Particl project, aside from a couple of minor differences, uses an escrow scheme that works the same way, so I've borrowed the term they coined ("Double Deposit MAD Escrow") as I think it describes the scheme perfectly. The system requires participants to make additional deposits, which they will forfeit if there is any attempt to act in a way that breaches the terms of the contract. Full details can be found in the Escrow section of the whitepaper. The usefulness of multisig and the escrow system may not seem obvious at first, but as mentioned before they'll form the backbone of Zano's Decentralized Marketplace service (described in the next section).
What does the future hold for Zano?
The planned upgrade to Zano's privacy, mentioned at the start, is obviously one of the most exciting things the team is working on, but it's not the only thing. Zano Roadmap Decentralized Marketplace From the beginning, the Zano team's goal has been to create the perfect money. And money can't just be some vehicle for speculative investment, money must be used. To that end, the team have created a set of tools to make it as simple as possible for Zano to be integrated into eCommerce platforms. Zano's API’s and plugins are easy to use, allowing even those with very little coding experience to use them in their E-commerce-related ventures. The culmination of this effort will be a full Decentralized Anonymous Marketplace built on top of the Zano blockchain. Rather than being accessed via the wallet, it will act more as a service - Marketplace as a Service (MAAS) - for anyone who wishes to use it. The inclusion of a simple "snippet" of code into a website is all that's needed to become part a global decentralized, trustless and private E-commerce network. Atomic Swaps Just as Zano's marketplace will allow you to transact without needing to trust your counterparty, atomic swaps will let you to easily convert between Zano and other cyryptocurrencies without having to trust a third-party service such as a centralized exchange. On top of that, it will also lead to the way to Zano's inclusion in the many decentralized exchange (DEX) services that have emerged in recent years.
Where can I buy Zano?
Zano's currently listed on the following exchanges: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zano/markets/ It goes without saying, neither I nor the Zano team work for any of the exchanges or can vouch for their reliability. Use at your own risk and never leave coins on a centralized exchange for longer than necessary. Your keys, your coins! If you have any old graphics cards lying around(both AMD & NVIDIA), then Zano is also mineable through its unique ProgPowZ algorithm. Here's a guide on how to get started. Once you have some Zano, you can safely store it in one of the desktop or mobile wallets (available for all major platforms).
How can I support Zano?
Zano has no marketing department, which is why this post has been written by some guy and not the "Chief Growth Engineer @ Zano Enterprises". The hard part is already done: there's a team of world class developers and researchers gathered here. But, at least at the current prices, the team's funds are enough to cover the cost of development and little more. So the job of publicizing the project falls to the community. If you have any experience in community building/growth hacking at another cryptocurrency or open source project, or if you're a Zano holder who would like to ensure the project's long-term success by helping to spread the word, then send me a pm. We need to get organized. Researchers and developers are also very welcome. Working at the cutting edge of mathematics and cryptography means Zano provides challenging and rewarding work for anyone in those fields. Please contact the project's Community Manager u/Jed_T if you're interested in joining the team. Social Links: Twitter Discord Server Telegram Group Medium blog I'll do my best to keep this post accurate and up to date. Message me please with any suggested improvements and leave any questions you have below. Welcome to the Zano community and the new decentralizedprivateeconomy!
RADIX: THE PROTECTION AGAINST DEFI RISK Radix is a First-layer protocol for DeFi. Currently, DeFi applications are based on protocols that are not scalable Radix has created a robust, secure, and scalable protocol for building applications and tokens. Based on existing public ledgers’ success, the Radix protocol is an unauthorized framework within which DeFi services can be developed and operated. Radix claims to solve two of the biggest problems in DeFi: scalability and security. Overall, the blockchain-based decentralized finance (DeFi) space is still evolving but offers a compelling value proposition where individuals and institutions have broader access to financial applications without the need for a trusted broker. WHAT IS DECENTRALIZED FINANCE (DeFi) Decentralized finance is a new financial system based on public blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. After all, Bitcoin and Ethereum are not just digital currencies. They are essentially open-source networks that can be used to change the way the world economy works. DeFi is a significant project to decentralize traditional core use cases such as trading, lending, investment, asset management, payments, and insurance on blockchains. DeFi relies on decentralized applications or protocols (dApps). By running these dApps on a blockchain, a peer-to-peer financial network is provided. Each dApp can be combined with each other like Lego blocks. Smart contracts act as connectors comparable to perfectly defined APIs in traditional systems. Rarely will you get great rewards without huge risk Just like every other industry, the DeFi system also has its own risks and issues. Unfortunately, many DeFi system users underestimate the risk associated with automated loan protocol’s impressive interest rates. FORMS OF DEFI RISKS When working with DeFi solutions, it is essential to consider technical and procedural risks as well. Technical risk means assessing potential weak spots in the hardware and software behind a product or service. This is important for decentralized applications (dApps) Procedural risk can be viewed as similar to technical risk, but rather than considering the product or service, procedural risk examines how users can be directed to use the product in undesirable ways that could compromise their safety. RADIX SOLVING DeFi RISKS DeFi is worth more than $ 8 billion. However, DeFi requires fast and minimal transaction fees and secure building systems to reach its full potential. DeFi applications must be scalable and compilable. Protocols such as Ethereum 2.0, Polkadot, and Cosmos solve the wrong scaling issues and don’t attract others, according to Piers. According to Piers, mainstream DeFi needs a bottom-up DLT platform for DeFi_ to work for both users and developers. This is the purpose of Radix. Incentives are needed to attract developers for the DeFi ecosystem to continue to grow. Radix has an innovative incentive program for developers that allows them to take advantage of the applications they contribute to. Radix has two significant innovations: The first is Cerberus, the scalable consensus protocol. Thanks to its highly fragmented data structure and its unique application layer, Cerberus can process many transactions. The second innovation is the Radix Engine, a developer interface that enables public ledger to be quickly deployed in a secure environment. Radix Engine is the Radix application layer. In Crypto Chat, Piers anticipates that DeFi will have more liquidity in the transition market than any other exchange in the next decade. “The key component of DeFi is how liquidity can move between applications and products.” The Radix protocol is a combination of four core technologies that solve four significant issues to the growth of DeFi. It is a platform where transactions are fast with minimal transaction fee and high security. The scale is unlimited, and connections between applications. dApps can be created quickly and rely on their ability to safely manage user resources. Builders are rewarded directly from the platform for additional contributions, both large and small. It is a platform intended to serve as the basis for mainstream DeFi on a global scale. Each of the four technologies on the Radix platform represents a breakthrough in the Defi-related issue we want to share with the world. At a critical technology milestone last year, the Radix team overcame DeFi’s core scalability problem by using its technology to over 1 million transactions per second, a performance that exceeds five times the NASDAQ at its peak. THE POSSIBLE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZED FINANCE Five ways decentralized finance can affect the universe 1. Accessing financial services across borders With decentralized finance, all you need is an internet connection to access financial services in any part of the world. There are several barriers to access in the current system: Status: citizenship, document, identity, etc. Lack of Wealth: High Entry-Level Funds to Access Financial Services Location: Great distance to business economies and financial service providers A senior trader in a financial company will have the same access as a farmer in India’s remote area in a decentralized financial system.
Affordable cross-border payments Decentralized funding eliminates costly intermediaries to make remittance services more affordable to the world’s population. In today’s system, sending money across borders is too expensive for people — the average global transfer fee is 7%. In decentralized financial services, transfer fees can be less than 3%.
More privacy and security With decentralized finance, users have responsibility for their assets and can securely transact without a major party’s approval. In this day and age, parents risk people’s wealth and knowledge if they don’t protect them.
Censorship-resistant transactions In a decentralized financial network, transactions are immutable, and blockchains cannot be closed by central institutions such as governments, central banks, or large corporations.
There are poor governance and authoritarianism. Users can exit the decentralized financial system to protect their assets. Venezuelans, for example, are already using Bitcoin to protect their wealth from government manipulation and hyperinflation. 5.Ease of use With plug and play applications, users can spontaneously access and use the decentralized financial without centralized finance. With a decentralized system, anyone can get a loan from any part of the world through interoperable apps, invest in a business, pay off the loan, and make a profit. writen By Naphtali Dabuk for more information visit https://t.me/radix_dlthttps://twitter.com/radixdlthttp://www.radixdlt.com/
Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses. Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes. First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure: Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:
Alice might take the assets and disappear.
Alice might spend the assets and pretend that she still has them (fractional model).
Alice might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Alice might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Alice might lose access to the assets.
But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
Alice can't take the assets and disappear (unless she asks Bob or never gives them to Bob).
Alice can't spend the assets and pretend that she still has them. (Unless she didn't give them to Bob or asks him for them.)
Alice can't store the assets insecurely so they get stolen. (After all - she doesn't have any control over the withdrawal process from any of Bob's systems, right?)
Alice can't give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force. (Bob will stop her, right Bob?)
Alice can't lose access to the funds. (She'll always be present, sane, and remember all secrets, right?)
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
Bob might take the assets and disappear.
Bob might spend the assets and pretend that he still has them (fractional model).
Bob might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Bob might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Bob might lose access to the assets.
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are! "On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid". "Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since." "As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!" "Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?" "Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party." "Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!" "What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven." "Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!" "We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies. And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often". How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen? Just one. Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so? If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security. The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle. And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet? Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds. So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
ANY CERTAINTY BALANCES WEREN'T EXCLUDED. Quadriga's largest account was $70m. 80% of funds are in 20% of accounts (Pareto principle). All it takes is excluding a few really large accounts - and nobody's the wiser. A fractional platform can easily pass any audit this way.
ANY VISIBILITY WHATSOEVER INTO THE CUSTODIANS. BitBuy put out their report before moving all the funds to their custodian and ShakePay apparently can't even tell us who the custodian is. That's pretty important considering that basically all of the funds are now stored there.
ANY IDEA ABOUT THE OTHER EXCHANGES. In order for this to be effective, it has to be the norm. It needs to be "unusual" not to know. If obscurity is the norm, then it's super easy for people like Gerald Cotten and Dave Smilie to blend right in.
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
First report within 1 month of launching, another within 3 months, and further reports at minimum every 6 months thereafter.
No auditor can be repeated within a 12 month period.
All reports must be public, identifying the auditor and the full methodology used.
All auditors must be independent of the firm being audited with no conflict of interest.
Reports must include the percentage of each asset backed, and how it's backed.
The auditor publishes a hash list, which lists a hash of each customer's information and balances that were included. Hash is one-way encryption so privacy is fully preserved. Every customer can use this to have 100% confidence they were included.
If we want more extensive requirements on audits, these should scale upward based on the total assets at risk on the platform, and whether the platform has loaned their assets out.
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever. Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see. It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation. A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7. History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance. Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.) Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive. Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today. Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well. Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do. Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):
The inspiration for the paragraph about splitting wallets was an actual quote from a Canadian company providing custodial services in response to the OSC consultation paper: "We believe that it will be in the in best interests of investors to prohibit pooled crypto assets or ‘floats’. Most Platforms pool assets, citing reasons of practicality and expense. The recent hack of the world’s largest Platform – Binance – demonstrates the vulnerability of participants’ assets when such concessions are made. In this instance, the Platform’s entire hot wallet of Bitcoins, worth over $40 million, was stolen, facilitated in part by the pooling of client crypto assets." "the maintenance of participants (and Platform) crypto assets across multiple wallets distributes the related risk and responsibility of security - reducing the amount of insurance coverage required and making insurance coverage more readily obtainable". For the record, their reply also said nothing whatsoever about multi-sig or offline storage.
In addition to the fact that the $40m hack represented only one "hot wallet" of Binance, and they actually had the vast majority of assets in other wallets (including mostly cold wallets), multiple real cases have clearly demonstrated that risk is still present with multiple wallets. Bitfinex, VinDAX, Bithumb, Altsbit, BitPoint, Cryptopia, and just recently KuCoin all had multiple wallets breached all at the same time, and may represent a significantly larger impact on customers than the Binance breach which was fully covered by Binance. To represent that simply having multiple separate wallets under the same security scheme is a comprehensive way to reduce risk is just not true.
Private insurance has historically never covered a single loss in the cryptocurrency space (at least, not one that I was able to find), and there are notable cases where massive losses were not covered by insurance. Bitpay in 2015 and Yapizon in 2017 both had insurance policies that didn't pay out during the breach, even after a lengthly court process. The same insurance that ShakePay is presently using (and announced to much fanfare) was describe by their CEO himself as covering “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held,” which is something that has never historically happened. As was said with regard to the same policy in 2018 - “I don’t find it surprising that Lloyd’s is in this space,” said Johnson, adding that to his mind the challenge for everybody is figuring out how to structure these policies so that they are actually protective. “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.”
The most profitable policy for a private insurance company is one with the most expensive premiums that they never have to pay a claim on. They have no inherent incentive to take care of people who lost funds. It's "cheaper" to take the reputational hit and fight the claim in court. The more money at stake, the more the insurance provider is incentivized to avoid payout. They're not going to insure the assets unless they have reasonable certainty to make a profit by doing so, and they're not going to pay out a massive sum unless it's legally forced. Private insurance is always structured to be maximally profitable to the insurance provider.
The circumvention of multi-sig was a key factor in the massive Bitfinex hack of over $60m of bitcoin, which today still sits being slowly used and is worth over $3b. While Bitfinex used a qualified custodian Bitgo, which was and still is active and one of the industry leaders of custodians, and they set up 2 of 3 multi-sig wallets, the entire system was routed through Bitfinex, such that Bitfinex customers could initiate the withdrawals in a "hot" fashion. This feature was also a hit with the hacker. The multi-sig was fully circumvented.
Bitpay in 2015 was another example of a breach that stole 5,000 bitcoins. This happened not through the exploit of any system in Bitpay, but because the CEO of a company they worked with got their computer hacked and the hackers were able to request multiple bitcoin purchases, which Bitpay honoured because they came from the customer's computer legitimately. Impersonation is a very common tactic used by fraudsters, and methods get more extreme all the time.
A notable case in Canada was the Canadian Bitcoins exploit. Funds were stored on a server in a Rogers Data Center, and the attendee was successfully convinced to reboot the server "in safe mode" with a simple phone call, thus bypassing the extensive security and enabling the theft.
The very nature of custodians circumvents multi-sig. This is because custodians are not just having to secure the assets against some sort of physical breach but against any form of social engineering, modification of orders, fraudulent withdrawal attempts, etc... If the security practices of signatories in a multi-sig arrangement are such that the breach risk of one signatory is 1 in 100, the requirement of 3 independent signatures makes the risk of theft 1 in 1,000,000. Since hackers tend to exploit the weakest link, a comparable custodian has to make the entry and exit points of their platform 10,000 times more secure than one of those signatories to provide equivalent protection. And if the signatories beef up their security by only 10x, the risk is now 1 in 1,000,000,000. The custodian has to be 1,000,000 times more secure. The larger and more complex a system is, the more potential vulnerabilities exist in it, and the fewer people can understand how the system works when performing upgrades. Even if a system is completely secure today, one has to also consider how that system might evolve over time or work with different members.
By contrast, offline multi-signature solutions have an extremely solid record, and in the entire history of cryptocurrency exchange incidents which I've studied (listed here), there has only been one incident (796 exchange in 2015) involving an offline multi-signature wallet. It happened because the customer's bitcoin address was modified by hackers, and the amount that was stolen ($230k) was immediately covered by the exchange operators. Basically, the platform operators were tricked into sending a legitimate withdrawal request to the wrong address because hackers exploited their platform to change that address. Such an issue would not be prevented in any way by the use of a custodian, as that custodian has no oversight whatsoever to the exchange platform. It's practical for all exchange operators to test large withdrawal transactions as a general policy, regardless of what model is used, and general best practice is to diagnose and fix such an exploit as soon as it occurs.
False promises on the backing of funds played a huge role in the downfall of Quadriga, and it's been exposed over and over again (MyCoin, PlusToken, Bitsane, Bitmarket, EZBTC, IDAX). Even today, customers have extremely limited certainty on whether their funds in exchanges are actually being backed or how they're being backed. While this issue is not unique to cryptocurrency exchanges, the complexity of the technology and the lack of any regulation or standards makes problems more widespread, and there is no "central bank" to come to the rescue as in the 2008 financial crisis or during the great depression when "9,000 banks failed".
In addition to fraudulent operations, the industry is full of cases where operators have suffered breaches and not reported them. Most recently, Einstein was the largest case in Canada, where ongoing breaches and fraud were perpetrated against the platform for multiple years and nobody found out until the platform collapsed completely. While fraud and breaches suck to deal with, they suck even more when not dealt with. Lack of visibility played a role in the largest downfalls of Mt. Gox, Cryptsy, and Bitgrail. In some cases, platforms are alleged to have suffered a hack and keep operating without admitting it at all, such as CoinBene.
It surprises some to learn that a cryptographic solution has already existed since 2013, and gained widespread support in 2014 after Mt. Gox. Proof of Reserves is a full cryptographic proof that allows any customer using an exchange to have complete certainty that their crypto-assets are fully backed by the platform in real-time. This is accomplished by proving that assets exist on the blockchain, are spendable, and fully cover customer deposits. It does not prove safety of assets or backing of fiat assets.
If we didn't care about privacy at all, a platform could publish their wallet addresses, sign a partial transaction, and put the full list of customer information and balances out publicly. Customers can each check that they are on the list, that the balances are accurate, that the total adds up, and that it's backed and spendable on the blockchain. Platforms who exclude any customer take a risk because that customer can easily check and see they were excluded. So together with all customers checking, this forms a full proof of backing of all crypto assets.
However, obviously customers care about their private information being published. Therefore, a hash of the information can be provided instead. Hash is one-way encryption. The hash allows the customer to validate inclusion (by hashing their own known information), while anyone looking at the list of hashes cannot determine the private information of any other user. All other parts of the scheme remain fully intact. A model like this is in use on the exchange CoinFloor in the UK.
A Merkle tree can provide even greater privacy. Instead of a list of balances, the balances are arranged into a binary tree. A customer starts from their node, and works their way to the top of the tree. For example, they know they have 5 BTC, they plus 1 other customer hold 7 BTC, they plus 2-3 other customers hold 17 BTC, etc... until they reach the root where all the BTC are represented. Thus, there is no way to find the balances of other individual customers aside from one unidentified customer in this case.
Proposals such as this had the backing of leaders in the community including Nic Carter, Greg Maxwell, and Zak Wilcox. Substantial and significant effort started back in 2013, with massive popularity in 2014. But what became of that effort? Very little. Exchange operators continue to refuse to give visibility. Despite the fact this information can often be obtained through trivial blockchain analysis, no Canadian platform has ever provided any wallet addresses publicly. As described by the CEO of Newton "For us to implement some kind of realtime Proof of Reserves solution, which I'm not opposed to, it would have to ... Preserve our users' privacy, as well as our own. Some kind of zero-knowledge proof". Kraken describes here in more detail why they haven't implemented such a scheme. According to professor Eli Ben-Sasson, when he spoke with exchanges, none were interested in implementing Proof of Reserves.
And yet, Kraken's places their reasoning on a page called "Proof of Reserves". More recently, both BitBuy and ShakePay have released reports titled "Proof of Reserves and Security Audit". Both reports contain disclaimers against being audits. Both reports trust the customer list provided by the platform, leaving the open possibility that multiple large accounts could have been excluded from the process. Proof of Reserves is a blockchain validation where customers see the wallets on the blockchain. The report from Kraken is 5 years old, but they leave it described as though it was just done a few weeks ago. And look at what they expect customers to do for validation. When firms represent something being "Proof of Reserve" when it's not, this is like a farmer growing fruit with pesticides and selling it in a farmers market as organic produce - except that these are people's hard-earned life savings at risk here. Platforms are misrepresenting the level of visibility in place and deceiving the public by their misuse of this term. They haven't proven anything.
Fraud isn't a problem that is unique to cryptocurrency. Fraud happens all the time. Enron, WorldCom, Nortel, Bear Stearns, Wells Fargo, Moser Baer, Wirecard, Bre-X, and Nicola are just some of the cases where frauds became large enough to become a big deal (and there are so many countless others). These all happened on 100% reversible assets despite regulations being in place. In many of these cases, the problems happened due to the over-complexity of the financial instruments. For example, Enron had "complex financial statements [which] were confusing to shareholders and analysts", creating "off-balance-sheet vehicles, complex financing structures, and deals so bewildering that few people could understand them". In cryptocurrency, we are often combining complex financial products with complex technologies and verification processes. We are naïve if we think problems like this won't happen. It is awkward and uncomfortable for many people to admit that they don't know how something works. If we want "money of the people" to work, the solutions have to be simple enough that "the people" can understand them, not so confusing that financial professionals and technology experts struggle to use or understand them.
For those who question the extent to which an organization can fool their way into a security consultancy role, HB Gary should be a great example to look at. Prior to trying to out anonymous, HB Gary was being actively hired by multiple US government agencies and others in the private sector (with glowing testimonials). The published articles and hosted professional security conferences. One should also look at this list of data breaches from the past 2 years. Many of them are large corporations, government entities, and technology companies. These are the ones we know about. Undoubtedly, there are many more that we do not know about. If HB Gary hadn't been "outted" by anonymous, would we have known they were insecure? If the same breach had happened outside of the public spotlight, would it even have been reported? Or would HB Gary have just deleted the Twitter posts, brought their site back up, done a couple patches, and kept on operating as though nothing had happened?
In the case of Quadriga, the facts are clear. Despite past experience with platforms such as MapleChange in Canada and others around the world, no guidance or even the most basic of a framework was put in place by regulators. By not clarifying any sort of legal framework, regulators enabled a situation where a platform could be run by former criminal Mike Dhanini/Omar Patryn, and where funds could be held fully unchecked by one person. At the same time, the lack of regulation deterred legitimate entities from running competing platforms and Quadriga was granted a money services business license for multiple years of operation, which gave the firm the appearance of legitimacy. Regulators did little to protect Canadians despite Quadriga failing to file taxes from 2016 onward. The entire administrative team had resigned and this was public knowledge. Many people had suspicions of what was going on, including Ryan Mueller, who forwarded complaints to the authorities. These were ignored, giving Gerald Cotten the opportunity to escape without justice.
There are multiple issues with the SOC II model including the prohibitive cost (you have to find a third party accounting firm and the prices are not even listed publicly on any sites), the requirement of operating for a year (impossible for new platforms), and lack of any public visibility (SOC II are private reports that aren't shared outside the people in suits).
Securities frameworks are expensive. Sarbanes-Oxley is estimated to cost $5.1 million USD/yr for the average Fortune 500 company in the United States. Since "Fortune 500" represents the top 500 companies, that means well over $2.55 billion USD (~$3.4 billion CAD) is going to people in suits. Isn't the problem of trust and verification the exact problem that the blockchain is supposed to solve?
To use Quadriga as justification for why custodians or SOC II or other advanced schemes are needed for platforms is rather silly, when any framework or visibility at all, or even the most basic of storage policies, would have prevented the whole thing. It's just an embarrassment.
We are now seeing regulators take strong action. CoinSquare in Canada with multi-million dollar fines. BitMex from the US, criminal charges and arrests. OkEx, with full disregard of withdrawals and no communication. Who's next?
We have a unique window today where we can solve these problems, and not permanently destroy innovation with unreasonable expectations, but we need to act quickly. This is a unique historic time that will never come again.
Link to Businessworld article:http://www.businessworld.in/article/Block-Chain-Technology-its-use-in-Banking-Secto26-10-2020-335662/ In the coming years, Blockchain will spread exponentially to the financial industry. The industry is also investigating the exponential use of Blockchain instances. Blockchain is just not about Bitcoin, but there's a lot more to it yet to be found. In the words of Olawale Daniel, “ Blockchain technology is a form of digitalized, de-centralized public record of all cryptocurrency transactions. Blockchain was designed to record, not just financial-related information, but virtually everything of value.” A blockchain is a digital transaction record. The name is derived from its structure, in which individual records, called blocks, are connected together in a single list, called a chain. Blockchains are used to record transactions made with cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, and have many other applications. In simple terms, Blockchain is a method for managing and storing information in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to change, hack, or cheat the network. A blockchain is basically a digital transaction record that is duplicated and distributed across the entire network of computer systems on the blockchain. Banking sectors are moving from their traditional methods of securities to high-tech securities. Industry has started experimenting with blockchain by replicating current asset transactions on the blockchain. Although this gives some room for the effectiveness of the blockchain solution. In infrastructure terms, Blockchain is an open source software designed to support the transfer of digital assets among market participants in real time. Using any chosen blockchain APIs, one may demonstrate a drastic decrease in asset transfer costs and timelines. The main advantages of Blockchain technology in banking sector are that it improves efficiency, enhances security, unchangeable records, quick transaction time and no third party involvement thus decreasing costs. One of the main advantages of blockchain is the history of immutable transactions. Any purchases that have been made once cannot be removed. This will help to reduce much of the crimes committed against financial institutions.Blockchain uses the Smart Contracts principle. It includes a set of laws by which the parties involved in the contract and agree to deal with each other. It allows any kind of digital information to be stored and allows the party to access or modify data only in accordance with a set of predefined rules. Many financial firms pay millions of dollars a year to retain all their consumer records. But blockchain allows all the information to be stored in one location. This guarantees the dignity and non-repudiation of the stored data. It allows organizations to access the verification information of a specific customer from another organization and thus avoids duplication of data. Blockchain increases the processing speed of transactions. The distributed existence eliminates the need for intermediaries to authorize financial transactions between consumers. This offers a cheaper and easier way to exchange currency at lower rates than bank charges. It is the safest way to avoid fraud, money laundering and promises. In the coming years, Blockchain will spread exponentially to the financial industry. The industry is also investigating the exponential use of Blockchain instances. Blockchain is just not about Bitcoin, but there's a lot more to it yet to be found.
USA +1.855<945>31.66~ Bitcoin Customer Support Number,Bitcoin Customer Service helpline Number US
USA +1.855<945>31.66~ Bitcoin Customer Support Number,Bitcoin Customer Service helpline Number US
USA +1.855<945>31.66~ Bitcoin Customer Support Number,Bitcoin Customer Service helpline Number US USA +1.855<945>31.66~ Bitcoin Customer Support Number,Bitcoin Customer Service helpline Number US USA +1.855<945>31.66~ Bitcoin Customer Support Number,Bitcoin Customer Service helpline Number US USA +1.855<945>31.66~ Bitcoin Customer Support Number,Bitcoin Customer Service helpline Number US Bitcoinsupport number Bitcoinprovides a stage for exchanging different digital forms of money. It is a digital money trade. With 1.3 billion market capitalization, Bitcoinis the biggest digital money trade. In this specific article, we will discuss the help group of Bitcoinand what you can profit by it. As I said before, it is a digital money trade, there is a ton of disarray among the clients on various points. The absence of data and backing made them alarm before exchanging the cryptographic money. Here, we disclose all you require to think about our trade framework and how might you use them to exchange. Reach us at Bitcoinsupport number to get an answer and help on:
Withdrawal location white rundown
Understanding cutoff and market request
How to store on Bitcoinfrom any cryptographic money wallet?
Anti-phishing code control.
We are giving you Bitcoinsupport number to determine any sort of inquiry and inquiries identified with the Bitcoincrypto money trade. You may call us to get the help of any sort, identified with our digital currency trade. You may present a solicitation for an answer for your concern and our group will assist you with disposing of that specific issue. In the event that you are a novice and simply beginning utilizing Bitcoinand you are discovering disarray or any sort of inquiries for us, you may call us at our Bitcoinsupport number. We will promptly support you and lead you to the arrangement. We offer full help to our clients who are very amateur, you will simply need to call us and pose the inquiries. There is our Bitcoinapp which is exceptionally valuable for our clients and it causes them from various perspectives by its extremely simple UI. Be that as it may, on the off chance that you are thinking that its difficult to utilize or getting tangled in it of course there is just a single way you can get the arrangement and the most ideal path is to call us on our client service number. A considerable lot of our clients need Binance's industry-driving API and all things considered, they have to offer an alternate sort of documentation. In the event that you are likewise applying for APIs, at that point you will require the documentation and all things considered, you may request help on our Bitcoinsupport number. There is a two-factor confirmation on Bitcoinand it is for the security of your resources. On the off chance that you need assistance in setting up two-factor verification on Binance, you can set up a withdrawal white rundown and advantage from it which will be an expansion to the security of your resources. There is an enemy of phishing code that will include an additional layer of security to your cryptographic money. These are a few subjects on which individuals need assistance and backing commonly and we are here to support them and backing them. Regardless of whether it is a store on Bitcoinor the part of market request in digital currency or the cutoff request which submit on the request book. You will find the solution to the entirety of your inquiries. Here is our Bitcoinsupport number and get in touch with us to free any sort from disarray, questions, or help.
CoinDesk provides a simple and free API to make its Bitcoin Price Index (BPI) data programmatically available to others. Find out how to use it here. Market capitalization (often shortened to market cap) is the approximate total value of a cryptocurrency, typically shown in US dollars. The market cap of a cryptocurrency is calculated by multiplying the number of coins or tokens in existence by its current price. $0.00. 0.00%. 24hr Volume. Volume is defined as the number of digital coins that have been traded within the last 24 hours. $0.00 ... We provide fast, reliable and unified API for accessing cryptocurrency market data and executing orders on all major exchanges. Clean & Normalized. While exchanges differ in how coin symbols and markets are presented, Quadency provides all data in a standardized manner. This means symbols, pairs, and historical data are consistent across all supported exchanges. Trade Execution. Easily send ... All of our historical market data is available over API and that is the preferred delivery method for many of our customers. If you prefer a custom one-time export of historical data this can be arranged using the full scope of our historical records dating back to 2010. Markets API API Overview. Bitcoincharts provides a simple API to most of its data. You can use this API to include markets data in your websites, mobile apps or desktop applets. Please remember to add a link to Bitcoincharts! Bitcoincharts' API is accessable through HTTP; Parameters are passed using GET-requests; returned data is JSON encoded
Building a Bitcoin Price Tracking Python Script using the Luno API
The macro in the very first comment below lets you import all types of market information for any cryptocurrency/token into Excel, e.g. current price, volume, highest and lowest price in the last ... 🎓 In this stream I'm going to go through building a simple little python script that polls the Luno API for the current Bitcoin prices on their exchange. If the price changes we will print a ... Support the channel with a Bitcoin donation - 1BcYJCVfU9imPKTrqhdVpmUfweAo9fT3U9 Keep your crypto safe with an offline wallet (cold wallet) - Ledger Nano S (... An introduction to the Bitcoin JSON-RPC tutorial series. BTC: 1NPrfWgJfkANmd1jt88A141PjhiarT8d9U Garbage Market Data Is Holding Bitcoin Back: MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor strongly criticized widely distributed bitcoin...