MyCryptoMixer 2020 - The Best Bitcoin Mixer Necessary To ...

Daily General Discussion - August 16, 2020

Welcome!

This Daily post is meant for things which are relevant, but do not justify their own post. For example, debates, issues, simple questions, memes or suggested services/ companies/ cryptocurrencies/ etc.
We normally recommend using our Discord server for more effective chat and quicker answers but using this post is fine if you don't have/want Discord.
It's common that users have the same questions. So please, before making a new thread, read the FAQs and use the search bar at the top. You will often find a comprehensive answer to your question has already been given! Please also check the official nano forum linked below.

Quick links


Rules:

submitted by AutoModerator to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

Just how bad is Chainalysis?

I've read about how some guy got his account blocked in Binance because he sent a transaction from Wasabi wallet. I've read it goes deep into several iterations after the mix. For instance:
You send the coins into a mixer -> send it back to you to address A -> send it back to you to address B -> send it to an exchanger.
Chainalaysis will notice the coins are mixed even if you've send it to 2 "clean addresses" before that. This is insanity. It could put people into trouble since one could mix the coins, send it to someone else, then this person sends it to an exchange where he is identified with his real name, and he ends up in some money laundering investigation scheme. Just nuts.
Does it recognize all mixers? If you use helix, chipmixer or whatever else... how would it even know? Do they just keep adding more and more "blacklisted" addresses? In a long enough timeline the % of ending up in some "money laundering investigation" is increasingly higher.
Until we have proper fungibility in Bitcoin, I wouldn't send a single satoshi to an exchanger that doesn't come from:
1) Coins you've bought from an exchange that uses Chainalysis (whitelisted by default since they had it on their custody wallet, one would assume those are safe)
2) Mined coins with no tx history
These f*ckers are just developing an scheme to put people in trouble and confiscate coins. Use bisq outside of the above mentioned cases IMO. Just assume 0 privacy when dealing with your average big exchange. Better safe than sorry. Our only hope is smart devs crush their Chainalysis dreams where every coin has an ID.
submitted by cryptomann1 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Let's discuss some of the issues with Nano

Let's talk about some of Nano's biggest issues. I also made a video about this topic, available here: https://youtu.be/d9yb9ifurbg.
00:12 Spam
Issues
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
01:58 Privacy
Issues
  • Nano has no privacy. It is pseudonymous (like Bitcoin), not anonymous.
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues & Outstanding Issues*
  • Second layer solutions like mixers can help, but some argue that isn't enough privacy.
  • The current protocol design + the computational overhead of privacy does not allow Nano to implement first layer privacy without compromising it's other features (fast, feeless, and scalable transactions).
02:56 Decentralization
Issues
  • Nano is currently not as decentralized as it could be. ~25% of the voting weight is held by Binance.
  • Users must choose representatives, and users don't always choose the best ones (or never choose).
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • Currently 4 unrelated parties (who all have a verifiable interest in keeping the network running) would have to work together to attack the network
  • Unlike Bitcoin, there is no mining or fees in Nano. This means that there is not a strong incentive for emergent centralization from profit maximization and economies of scale. We've seen this firsthand, as Nano's decentralization has increased over time.
  • Nano representative percentages are not that far off from Bitcoin mining pool percentages.
  • In Nano, voting weight can be remotely re-delegated to anyone at any time. This differs from Bitcoin, where consensus is controlled by miners and requires significant hardware investment.
  • The cost of a 51% attack scales with the market cap of Nano.
06:49 Marketing & adoption
Issues
  • The best technology doesn't always win. If no one knows about or uses Nano, it will die.
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • I would argue that the best technology typically does win, but it needs to be best in every way (price, speed, accessbility, etc). Nano is currently in a good place if you agree with that argument.
  • Bitcoin started small, and didn't spend money on marketing. It takes time to build a community.
  • The developers have said they will market more once the protocol is where they want it to be (v20 or v21?).
  • Community marketing initiatives have started to form organically (e.g. Twitter campaigns, YouTube ads, etc).
  • Marketing and adoption is a very difficult problem to solve, especially when you don't have first mover advantage or consistent cashflow.
08:07 Small developer fund
Issues
  • The developer fund only has 3 million NANO left (~$4MM), what happens after that?
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • The goal for Nano is to be an Internet RFC like TCP/IP or SMTP - development naturally slows down when the protocol is in a good place.
  • Nano development is completely open source, so anyone can participate. Multiple developers are now familiar with the Nano protocol.
  • Businesses and whales that benefit from Nano (exchanges, remittances, merchant services, etc) are incentivized to keep the protocol developed and running.
  • The developer fund was only ~5% of the supply - compare that to some of the other major cryptocurrencies.
10:08 Node incentives
Issues
  • There are no transaction fees, why would people run nodes to keep the network running?
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • The cost of consensus is so low in Nano that the benefits of the network itself are the incentive: decentralized money with 0 transaction fees that can be sent anywhere in the world nearly instantly. Similar to TCP/IP, email servers, and http servers. Just like Bitcoin full nodes.
  • Paying $50-$100 a month for a high-end node is a lot cheaper for merchants than paying 1-3% in total sales.
  • Businesses and whales that benefit from Nano (exchanges, remittances, merchant services, etc) are incentivized to keep the protocol developed and running.
11:58 No smart contracts
Issues
  • Nano doesn't support smart contracts.
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • Nano's sole goal is to be the most efficient peer-to-peer value transfer protocol possible. Adding smart contracts makes keeping Nano feeless, fast, and decentralized much more difficult.
  • Other solutions (e.g. Ethereum) exist for creating and enforcing smart contracts.
  • Code can still interact with Nano, but not on the first layer in a decentralized matter.
  • Real world smart contract adoption and usage is pretty limited at the moment, but that might not always be the case.
13:20 Price stability
Issues
  • Why would anyone accept or spend Nano if the price fluctuates so much?
  • Why wouldn't people just use a stablecoin version of Nano for sending and receiving money?
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • With good fiat gateways (stable, low fees, etc), you can always buy back the fiat equivalent of what you've spent.
  • The hope is that with enough adoption, people and businesses will eventually skip the fiat conversion and use Nano directly.
  • Because Nano is so fast, volatility is less of an issue. Transactions are confirmed in <10 seconds, and prices change less in that timeframe (vs 10 minutes to hours for Bitcoin).
  • Stablecoins reintroduce trust. Stable against what? Who controls the supply, and how do you get people to adopt them? What happens if the assets they're stable against fail? Nano is pure supply and demand.
  • With worldwide adoption, the market capitalization of Nano would be in the trillions. If that happens, even millions of dollars won't move the price significantly.
15:06 Deflation
Issues
  • Nano's current supply == max supply. Why would people spend Nano today if it could be worth more tomorrow?
  • What happens to principal representatives and voting weight as private keys are lost? How do you know keys are lost?
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • Nano is extremely divisible. 1 NANO is 1030 raw. Since there are no transaction fees, smaller and smaller amounts of Nano could be used to transact, even if the market cap reaches trillions.
  • People will always buy things they need (food, housing, etc).
  • I'm not sure what the plan is to adjust for lost keys. Probably requires more discussion.
Long-term Scalability
Issue
  • Current node software and hardware cannot handle thousands of TPS (low-end nodes fall behind at even 50 TPS).
  • The more representatives that exist, the more vote traffic is required (network bandwidth).
  • Low-end nodes currently slow down the network significantly. Principal representatives waste their resources constantly bootstrapping these weak nodes during network saturation.
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • Even as is, Nano can comfortably handle 50 TPS average - which is roughly the amount of transactions per day PayPal was doing in 2011 with nearly 100 million users.
  • Network bandwidth increases 50% a year.
  • There are some discussions of prioritizing bootstrapping by vote weight to limit the impact of weak nodes.
  • Since Nano uses an account balance system, pruning could drastically reduce storage requirements. You only need current state to keep the network running, not the full transaction history.
  • In the future, vote stapling could drastically reduce bandwidth usage by collecting all representative signatures up front and then only sharing that single aggregate signature.
  • Nano has no artificial protocol-based limits (e.g. block sizes or block times). It scales with hardware.
Obviously there is still a lot of work to be done in some areas, but overall I think Nano is a good place. For people that aren't Nano fans, what are your biggest concerns?
submitted by Qwahzi to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Suggestions ?

Any reliable bitcoin mixers as of July 2019 ? I read that you wouldn’t want your banking account amount out to the public , so why would I want to have the amount of my bitcoin on the blockchain. It’s debated a lot :/ any thoughts on this ?
submitted by TheLoneKnight2525 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What are Nano's biggest issues? Let's talk about it!

Let's talk about some of Nano's biggest issues. I also made a video about this topic, available here: https://youtu.be/d9yb9ifurbg.
00:12 Spam
Issues
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
01:58 Privacy
Issues
  • Nano has no privacy. It is pseudonymous (like Bitcoin), not anonymous.
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues & Outstanding Issues*
  • Second layer solutions like mixers can help, but some argue that isn't enough privacy.
  • The current protocol design + the computational overhead of privacy does not allow Nano to implement first layer privacy without compromising it's other features (fast, feeless, and scalable transactions).
02:56 Decentralization
Issues
  • Nano is currently not as decentralized as it could be. ~25% of the voting weight is held by Binance.
  • Users must choose representatives, and users don't always choose the best ones (or never choose).
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • Currently 4 unrelated parties (who all have a verifiable interest in keeping the network running) would have to work together to attack the network
  • Unlike Bitcoin, there is no mining or fees in Nano. This means that there is not a strong incentive for emergent centralization from profit maximization and economies of scale. We've seen this firsthand, as Nano's decentralization has increased over time.
  • Nano representative percentages are not that far off from Bitcoin mining pool percentages.
  • In Nano, voting weight can be remotely re-delegated to anyone at any time. This differs from Bitcoin, where consensus is controlled by miners and requires significant hardware investment.
  • The cost of a 51% attack scales with the market cap of Nano.
06:49 Marketing & adoption
Issues
  • The best technology doesn't always win. If no one knows about or uses Nano, it will die.
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • I would argue that the best technology typically does win, but it needs to be best in every way (price, speed, accessbility, etc). Nano is currently in a good place if you agree with that argument.
  • Bitcoin started small, and didn't spend money on marketing. It takes time to build a community.
  • The developers have said they will market more once the protocol is where they want it to be (v20 or v21?).
  • Community marketing initiatives have started to form organically (e.g. Twitter campaigns, YouTube ads, etc).
  • Marketing and adoption is a very difficult problem to solve, especially when you don't have first mover advantage or consistent cashflow.
08:07 Small developer fund
Issues
  • The developer fund only has 3 million NANO left (~$4MM), what happens after that?
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • The goal for Nano is to be an Internet RFC like TCP/IP or SMTP - development naturally slows down when the protocol is in a good place.
  • Nano development is completely open source, so anyone can participate. Multiple developers are now familiar with the Nano protocol.
  • Businesses and whales that benefit from Nano (exchanges, remittances, merchant services, etc) are incentivized to keep the protocol developed and running.
  • The developer fund was only ~5% of the supply - compare that to some of the other major cryptocurrencies.
10:08 Node incentives
Issues
  • There are no transaction fees, why would people run nodes to keep the network running?
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • The cost of consensus is so low in Nano that the benefits of the network itself are the incentive: decentralized money with 0 transaction fees that can be sent anywhere in the world nearly instantly.
  • Paying $50-$100 a month for a high-end node is a lot cheaper for merchants than paying 1-3% in total sales.
  • Businesses and whales that benefit from Nano (exchanges, remittances, merchant services, etc) are incentivized to keep the protocol developed and running.
11:58 No smart contracts
Issues
  • Nano doesn't support smart contracts.
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • Nano's sole goal is to be the most efficient peer-to-peer value transfer protocol possible. Adding smart contracts makes keeping Nano feeless, fast, and decentralized much more difficult.
  • Other solutions (e.g. Ethereum) exist for creating and enforcing smart contracts.
  • Code can still interact with Nano, but not on the first layer in a decentralized matter.
  • Real world smart contract adoption and usage is pretty limited at the moment, but that might not always be the case.
13:20 Price stability
Issues
  • Why would anyone accept or spend Nano if the price fluctuates so much?
  • Why wouldn't people just use a stablecoin version of Nano for sending and receiving money?
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • With good fiat gateways (stable, low fees, etc), you can always buy back the fiat equivalent of what you've spent.
  • The hope is that with enough adoption, people and businesses will eventually skip the fiat conversion and use Nano directly.
  • Because Nano is so fast, volatility is less of an issue. Transactions are confirmed in <10 seconds, and prices change less in that timeframe (vs 10 minutes to hours for Bitcoin).
  • Stablecoins reintroduce trust. Stable against what? Who controls the supply, and how do you get people to adopt them? What happens if the assets they're stable against fail? Nano is pure supply and demand.
  • With worldwide adoption, the market capitalization of Nano would be in the trillions. If that happens, even millions of dollars won't move the price significantly.
15:06 Deflation
Issues
  • Nano's current supply == max supply. Why would people spend Nano today if it could be worth more tomorrow?
  • What happens to principal representatives and voting weight as private keys are lost? How do you know keys are lost?
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • Nano is extremely divisible. 1 NANO is 1030 raw. Since there are no transaction fees, smaller and smaller amounts of Nano could be used to transact, even if the market cap reaches trillions.
  • People will always buy things they need (food, housing, etc).
  • I'm not sure what the plan is to adjust for lost keys. Probably requires more discussion.
Long-term Scalability
Issue
  • Current node software and hardware cannot handle thousands of TPS (low-end nodes fall behind at even 50 TPS).
  • The more representatives that exist, the more vote traffic is required (network bandwidth).
  • Low-end nodes currently slow down the network significantly. Principal representatives waste their resources constantly bootstrapping these weak nodes during network saturation.
Potential Mitigations & Outstanding Issues
  • Even as is, Nano can comfortably handle 50 TPS average - which is roughly the amount of transactions per day PayPal was doing in 2011 with nearly 100 million users.
  • Network bandwidth increases 50% a year.
  • There are some discussions of prioritizing bootstrapping by vote weight to limit the impact of weak nodes.
  • Since Nano uses an account balance system, pruning could drastically reduce storage requirements. You only need current state to keep the network running, not the full transaction history.
  • In the future, vote stapling could drastically reduce bandwidth usage by collecting all representative signatures up front and then only sharing that single aggregate signature.
  • Nano has no artificial protocol-based limits (e.g. block sizes or block times). It scales with hardware.
submitted by Qwahzi to nanocurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Isn't Meant For Conventional Westphalianism (Republicanism)(Statism)

Let me give you an idea of the vantage point and perspective I come from.
I *am a quant, and a trader, and someone well read in law* I hate wallstreet, because I understand how the western economy works, and obviously I understand the technicals of trading and quant work. So I know the angles they play. And I understand regulatory behavior, I have a background in environmental regulatory work ( left because it's corrupt no surprise).
You people obsessed with price at any cost or calling everything FUD have no long term view of things. If we get a economic collapse, a real crash, *the happening*, Bitcoin is going into the hundreds again. At this point, bitcoin is dependent on wallstreet, dependent on the same economy we supposedly disagree with.
They've written the laws in the united state to only benefit the rich and institutions, and banned us off almost all exchanges. The only thing americans can use are basically three major names with piss poor liquidity and catastrophic fees. No one even talks about this. You HAVE to trade on unregulated exchanges to get by. Losing binance was a massive loss. The rich and powerful in united states have plans for bitcoin totally antithetical to cypherpunk.

We don't just need mainstream adoption, we need mainstream adoption of bitcoin WITH mainstream adoption of things like bisq and wasabi. This needs to become the norm, and yet they instead are planning on geofence locking bitcoin on a system of white listed exchanges, institutions, and wallets, trapping and tagging kyced bitcoin.

The thing people have to realize is that the money laundering that is done, is done through Deutsche bank and HSBC and the likes, by the drug cartels, human right violating dictators, war criminals , shell companies for defense companies and spin offs of intelligence agencies. It's all done with cash and the us dollar and banks. The worst people who run the super PAC for election, the worse people who hold trillions offshore and dominate the third world with multinational corporations, Russian oligarchs, all of them use the system and its loop holes to do all the things that they are trying cite as a reason to impose on bitcoin all of these extreme regulations.

They want secrecy for themselves. Period. They want to control and oppress us, and use secrecy for themselves. Most of the reason western governments are broken is because of multinational conglomerate and monopolistic economic cartels buying out regulatory agencies. Period. It's called a inverted totalitarianism. (From Lawerence Lessig's Lost Republic). The economic cartels own the regulatory agencies. No regulatory body in the united states does what it really should do. But more often the opposite, specifically to protect industry, and their trillions offshore. The people who have all this wealth and control these profit entities don't even keep the money in the states or pay taxes. The truly rich live above the law while wrecking democracy.

They want to have the ability to do the worst possible shit with the same level of secrecy that monero implies. So not only do we need encryption and privacy coins and features and anonymous untraceable access to bitcoin just to protect ourselves from them, we need to empower ourselves by having the same level of financial access that they do.

Think about it. What is the effect of the rich institutions making so many loopholes that allow them to move money and participate in functions of the market that the average person is prohibited from? It encourages and enables their ability to subvert democracy secretly with the very financial crimes they accuse of us.

So we need to take very deadly serious interchains and DAPP and DEX and DEFI, the wasabis, the mixers, monero, commerce adoption, and INFRASTRUCTURE that supports it. You people acting like maximalist can be so dense FFS. OPSEC. The world doesn't need bitcoin full node on backdoored windows 10 with zuck and the nsa watching you take a shit. The hardware and ancillary gear and infrastructure that supports bitcoin matters. Linux matters, user interface matters, commerce acceptance matters, server technology and security matters, even the processor matters, there are IBM and RISC V chips now,. The internet and bitcoin along with it needs to be violently dragged into open source models. Corporatization and closed gardening and the mcdonaldification of bitcoin is going to end in tragedy.

Bitcoin really is intended to be an anarchist apparatus. Bullshit to the citadel loving maximalist power tripping on some sort of libertarian randian american centric fantasy. You need to pay attention to why democracy doesn't work, why our political systems are broken, why these aspects of government only seem to empower the worst aspect of wallstreet criminality and financial crisis. Because it's how a late republic behaves, it's inherent in the flaws of republicanism, in electoral politics, in these hierarchical regulatory bodies, which are in no way self governing.

Our regulatory bodies are the literal opposite of Don't trust, Verify
but more Don't verify, Trust.
submitted by samdane7777 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

After the Bitcoin crash: do others fear me for greed?

At 6:30 pm on March 12, Bitcoin dropped from $ 7211 to $ 5555.55. The bitcoin price dived again this morning, slumping nearly $ 2,000 again in half an hour, the lowest fell to $ 3,782.13, a drop of more than 40% in 24 hours. According to the data of the contract emperor, only Huobi, OKEx, Binance, and BitMEX exchanges had a daily short position of 3.133 billion US dollars, which reached the highest in a single day in history. The number of liquidated positions exceeded 110,000, which was also the highest in a single day.
Also on March 12, the S & P index fell 260.74 points, triggering the fusing mechanism for the second time this week. The Dow hit its largest decline in history, at 2352.6 points. The Nasdaq fell 750.25 points to 7201.8 points. This is the third time in the history of US stocks. This fuse has been 33 years since the first fuse, but only 4 days have passed since the last fuse. Buffett shouted, "I only lived this way in 89 years." It is reported that Buffett lost $ 6.8 billion last night.
According to incomplete statistics, with the exception of the United States, the stock markets of 11 countries including Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan plummeted. The five largest US technology companies, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, had a cumulative market value of $ 416.63 billion. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index shows that the top 15 richest people in the world lost a total of $ 46.4 billion.
Market panic or pullback demand? Regarding the meltdown of U.S. stocks this week, Yang Delong, chief economist of Qianhai Open Source Fund, believes that the spread of the epidemic is not the main reason. It is more a decade of bull market for U.S. stocks. Some factors driving the rise of U.S. stocks are quietly changing, such as the Federal Reserve ’s interest rate There is not much space. Regarding this crazy drop in Bitcoin, Apocalypse Capital told InfoQ that there are two main reasons for this drop in Bitcoin: on the one hand, the bearish demand caused by the expected global economic downturn, and on the other hand, Bitcoin Callback requirements themselves.
As we all know, Bitcoin will be halved in the second half of the year, but the trading market pays attention to speculation expectations. This round of rise has essentially halved the market. After hitting a high of 10500, Bitcoin is facing a callback demand. Of course, this round of downtrends is so rapid and there are only a handful of recurrences in the history of Bitcoin, which are inextricably linked to the decline in global stock markets, both of which are the result of expectations of a bearish global economy.
However, Johnson Xu, chief analyst of TokenInsight, told InfoQ that the Bitcoin dip was mainly due to market panic, because some market participants bought bitcoins by buying mining machines, borrowing, etc., and expected to reduce their expectations by half. A linkage effect caused by everyone being too optimistic about the market.
The market is overhyped because Bitcoin is halved, and some market participants are afraid to miss the opportunity to enter the market irrationally. The current market slump is driven by strong irrational behavior, which translates into a rapid downside response and quickly depletes market buyers' liquidity (flattening down). When the overall financial market panic or other unexpected events are caused by the New Crown virus and the global economic slowdown, market participants often seek to withdraw assets such as stocks and bitcoins and convert these assets into cash (cash is king). So has the recent gold sell-off.
When the market panics, people ask for cash in the beginning instead of investing in safe-haven assets such as gold. At the same time, because gold is considered a high-quality asset, investors usually start with liquidity crunch and market panic. Cash in on good assets (because inferior assets are more difficult to sell in panic times). The Bitcoin crash this time has a certain connection with the decline in global stock markets, because the entire financial market is a globalized market, and there is more or less linkage between each asset.
In addition, Forbes speculated that it may be because PlusToken scammers transferred bitcoins worth more than 100 million US dollars to the mixer, and then sold bitcoins, resulting in rising market supply.

Other people are greedy, I am afraid, others are afraid of me, greedy? In this case, should investors still expect "halving the market"? Johnson Xu believes that there is no such thing as a "half quotation", and most market participants are too optimistic about the halving of Bitcoin. Price fluctuations are not necessarily caused by halving, but may be caused by the sum of other factors. When everyone is saying that they are optimistic about the market, the existence of risk is ignored in the subconscious. At this time, the risk will be actually reflected, and the upside will gradually shrink. Bitcoin halving was written into the code, and it was not an accident. Bitcoin should be halved in a rational way. It is worth looking forward to, but not overly interpreting and speculation.
However, Tianqi Capital believes that this plunge is a callback period for bitcoin's halving of the market, and each round of sharp decline also indicates the opportunity of the market outlook: cheap chips will be hoarded, waiting for the next wave of hype and explosion. Therefore, Tianqi Capital still believes that the market outlook of Bitcoin is worth looking forward to, provided that it is not frightened by the current fierce washing of the chips, after all, when the bear market is the worst, it is also when gold is everywhere.
Regarding the future trend of Bitcoin, Apocalypse Capital stated that it should judge according to the current trend.
In this round of market, Apocalypse Capital initially chose to follow the downward trend of May 18, and Bitcoin has gradually dropped from a high of 10,000 to 3150 points, so the big support level predicted by this round happens to be 3700 today. Near the point. Data monitoring shows that some funds are involved in this price range. But whether it can hold on to this support remains to be tested. If the 3700 support cannot be maintained, it is very likely that it will hit the US $ 2000 level. Tianqi Capital believes that this is the market's last line of defense. Long-term investment is recommended to buy some relatively stable targets, such as BTC, ETH, etc. The bear market will eliminate many currencies, but if it survives, it will shine in the next round.
Johnson Xu believes that the plunge is also a test to promote the healthy development of the industry. Extreme market is a test for the entire industry, especially for infrastructure, risk management, etc., so it is still optimistic and supports the development of the industry for a long time.
For current investors, Johnson Xu offers the following suggestions:
  1. Other people are greedy, I am afraid, others are afraid of me, greedy.
  2. Global financial markets have also undergone major changes. From the data point of view, I don't think Bitcoin has the attributes of a safe-haven asset, but this market can test whether Bitcoin has a certain risk-avoidance capability. This is a global world. We need to analyze various markets, not just the digital asset market.
  3. In the long run, we are still optimistic about the digital asset industry.
Does Bitcoin have a fusing mechanism? On March 9, after the U.S. stock market crash triggered the fusing mechanism, the market began a discussion of "whether Bitcoin should set up a fusing mechanism". But at present, most people are not optimistic about the Bitcoin fusing mechanism. OKEx CEO Jay Hao said that the fusing mechanism is difficult to implement in the digital currency market. In the face of a highly volatile market, setting the fuse point is a difficult problem. At the same time, for a 7 * 24h market, when a certain exchange breaks down, the price difference between the digital currencies between the platforms will increase, leading to arbitrage, and the fuse mechanism will eventually become a decoration.
Du Wan, the co-founder of Contract Emperor, also said that it is unrealistic to use a fuse mechanism in the currency circle. The fusing mechanism first violates the original intention of the decentralization of the blockchain, and at the same time, it will touch the interests of the top of the currency circle ecological chain. For example, large trading teams can no longer use pins to obtain large profits. When the market is panic, exchanges with a fuse mechanism may lose traffic to exchanges without a fuse mechanism because of the run effect of traders.
It can be seen that the current risk aversion measures in the traditional stock market are difficult to transfer to the fickle currency market in a short time, and the regulation of this market still has a long way to go. Investors should still be cautious when investing.
submitted by FmzQuant to u/FmzQuant [link] [comments]

Q2 - 2019 | Cryptocurrency Anti-Money Laundering Report Highlights:

  1. Thieves and scammers stole more than $4.26 billion from cryptocurrency exchanges, investors, and users in the first half of 2019.
  2. Users and investors lost approximately US$2.9 billion as “South Korean” Plus Token app and exchange went offline; Chinese police arrested six Chinese nationals in Vanuatu as the alleged perpetrators.
  3. Hackers used advanced cyberattack to steal $44 million from world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance.
  4. Update from Canadian court on QuadrigaCX collapse reveals long history of misappropriation of user funds by QuadrigaCX founder.
  5. Japanese exchange BITPoint hacked for $30 million.
  6. BestMixer mixing service seized by law enforcement authorities.
  7. European authorities seized three dark web markets and assets.
  8. CFTC charged Control-Finance in $147M Ponzi scheme.
  9. Facebook shook up crypto economy and woke up policy makers with Libra announcement.
  10. SIM Swapping victim won $75.8 million judgement against hacker.
  11. More sophisticated exchange hacks used advanced simultaneous takeovers of user and admin accounts.
  12. SEC sued Kik over $100 million unregistered ICO.
  13. CipherTrace research shows Bitcoin still dominates payment method in dark markets despite advent of privacy coins.
  14. Hack may have caused Bitcoin flash crash on Kraken.
  15. European authorities made arrests in two major typosquatting scams that cost exchange users tens of millions.
  16. $23 million in Bitcoin lost and co-owner found dead after Polish exchange Bitmarket shutters due to “liquidity issues.
  17. Iran accused US of attempting to block its virgin Bitcoin as means to compensate for financial hit from sanctions.
  18. UN published report on North Korean government hackers stealing $571 million from Asian exchanges to fund WMD and compensate for sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Full Report: Webpage or PDF
submitted by 2Panik to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

BTC MIXERS: GOOD OR BAD?

BTC MIXERS: GOOD OR BAD?
Several major cryptocurrency exchanges, including Paxful and Binance, have recently demonstrated their negative attitude to mixing services.
🤹‍♀️ A cryptocurrency mixing service (cryptocurrency tumbler, Bitcoin mixer) is a special tool intended to mix ‘tainted’ or pseudo-anonymous coins with others. It makes tracing their origin very hard. It should be noted that a BTC mixer is not always used for money-laundering and other criminal purposes. Some law-abiding people apply it just for the love of privacy.
🕵️‍♀️ Obviously, crypto exchanges seek to decrease the level of privacy in order to increase transparency and security. In such a way, they want to ensure better compliance with KYC/AML regulations and avoid getting involved with ‘dirty money’. As for exchange users, many of them don’t agree with this strategy and see it as an attempt to pry into their business.
The latest event of this kind involved Paxful exchange - they blocked the account of the user Ronald McHodled when he tried to withdraw his funds. The exchange support service was worried that Ronald had tried to withdraw the money to a well-known mixing service and demanded explanations.
🤷‍♂️ McHodled himself declares he did not use this mixing service for any bad purpose. According to him, it was like using an ATM for withdrawing cash.
And what do you think?

https://preview.redd.it/x0ecrbka19g41.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=44b4e2f70e6df26cfcbf92b833e5ac53757a052a
submitted by EX-SCUDO to EXSCUDO [link] [comments]

Q2 - 2019 | Cryptocurrency Anti-Money Laundering Report Highlights:

  1. Thieves and scammers stole more than $4.26 billion from cryptocurrency exchanges, investors, and users in the first half of 2019.
  2. Users and investors lost approximately US$2.9 billion as “South Korean” Plus Token app and exchange went offline; Chinese police arrested six Chinese nationals in Vanuatu as the alleged perpetrators.
  3. Hackers used advanced cyberattack to steal $44 million from world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance.
  4. Update from Canadian court on QuadrigaCX collapse reveals long history of misappropriation of user funds by QuadrigaCX founder.
  5. Japanese exchange BITPoint hacked for $30 million.
  6. BestMixer mixing service seized by law enforcement authorities.
  7. European authorities seized three dark web markets and assets.
  8. CFTC charged Control-Finance in $147M Ponzi scheme.
  9. Facebook shook up crypto economy and woke up policy makers with Libra announcement.
  10. SIM Swapping victim won $75.8 million judgement against hacker.
  11. More sophisticated exchange hacks used advanced simultaneous takeovers of user and admin accounts.
  12. SEC sued Kik over $100 million unregistered ICO.
  13. CipherTrace research shows Bitcoin still dominates payment method in dark markets despite advent of privacy coins.
  14. Hack may have caused Bitcoin flash crash on Kraken.
  15. European authorities made arrests in two major typosquatting scams that cost exchange users tens of millions.
  16. $23 million in Bitcoin lost and co-owner found dead after Polish exchange Bitmarket shutters due to “liquidity issues.
  17. Iran accused US of attempting to block its virgin Bitcoin as means to compensate for financial hit from sanctions.
  18. UN published report on North Korean government hackers stealing $571 million from Asian exchanges to fund WMD and compensate for sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Full Report: Webpage or PDF
submitted by 2Panik to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Best Privacy Coins Today: A Comparison

A little-known fact about cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, and others, is that, contrary to popular belief, they aren't anonymous. Perhaps the belief that they are anonymous persists because rather than using real names in transactions, crypto transactions such as sending bitcoin from one wallet to another only require a string of text and numbers known as public addresses.
Public addresses, however, are pseudonymous, and still provide anyone with the sophistication and resources the ability to track down the personal details of the actors within an exchange. Within the last year, several well-known and popular figures within the cryptocurrency industry have had their identities and funds compromised, with millions of dollars lost.
Pseudonymity is not Anonymity
Just because your name, birthdate, and geographic location are not apparently tied to your cryptocurrency wallet doesn't mean that they can't be found out using your public address alone. The reason for this is simple: blockchain analysis. What is blockchain analysis? There are two forms of it; one is simple, the other much more sophisticated.
The simple version of blockchain analysis is one that anyone with access to the internet can perform. On any block explorer, whether it's for Bitcoin, Qtum, Neo, Ethereum, or Icon, you will find a search field into which any wallet address can be looked up. If you input your own public address, you will see the entire history of your financial activity on the blockchain laid bare. Who you've sent to, who you've received from, and what you own on the blockchain are all part of the public domain of blockchain information that is viewable by the world. If you're thinking that it's not a problem since you've got your public address shielding your real identity, then think again.
The sophisticated method of blockchain analysis aims to make connections and uncover a logic between different entities on blockchains. Essentially, this type of blockchain analysis views blockchains as massive Sudoku puzzles -- and with enough computer power and effective enough algorithms, patterns can be easily found on blockchains that lead hackers, blockchain analysis startups working for government organizations, and others straight to your actual identity.
Consider the way you entered into the cryptocurrency market in the first place. You had to buy bitcoin using Coinbase, Kraken, Bithumb, or another exchange with a fiat to crypto gateway. Doing so required your personal and bank details owing to the fact that regulated exchanges must comply with KYC (know-your-customer) and AML (anti-money-laundering) laws. After entering all of the required personal information, the exchange set about to confirm your details by sharing them with other third-party KYC organizations.
Finally, your documents and details were verified, allowing the chance to enter the market. After your you bought bitcoin, the natural thing to do was send it away from the exchange wallet and into your own software or hardware wallet. Then, perhaps you sent some bitcoin to Binance in order to buy a cryptocurrency asset such as ethereum. After purchasing ETH, perhaps you sent it back to your wallet before using it to participate in an ICO. This entire web of financial activity may seem disconnected and hard to trace, yet to a powerful enough blockchain analysis engine tracing all the way back to your initial exchange of purchase would have no problem at all uncovering your IP address and, eventually, your identity.
Using Anonymity to Protect your Digital Assets
The above scenario is in large part why privacy tokens such as Apollo Currency, Monero, Verge, and Dash have found popularity and value within cryptocurrency markets. Essentially, users are looking for a cryptocurrency asset which gives them the private, financial autonomy blockchain seemed to promise in its early days without being exposed to the possibility of being hacked, monitored, or otherwise controlled by outside parties.
Which Are the Best Coin for Anonymity?
The top contenders in the cryptocurrency marketplace for taking best privacy coin honors are Monero, Verge, and Dash, and Apollo Currency. Despite having some similarities, they are all in fact quite different. After the comparison, we'll share the reasons why three of these coins fail to provide adequate privacy while only one of them provides true anonymity and more.
Dash
Dash is a digital currency and payment network that places its privacy feature as an option rather than as the main feature. For this alone, it is already on the backfoot. Rather than have privacy built into every transaction as a standard, the Dash development team instead opted to give users the option to make transactions private using a feature called PrivateSend.
Despite having started out as Darkcoin, Dash changed paths and began focusing on mass-adoption and placed it's anonymity features to the side. As such, there are concerns around the centralization of Dash masternodes which are largely hosted by cloud AWS services leading to legitimate worry that government agencies could one day demand, and have access to, transaction logs.
Beyond this, Dash does not feature stealth addresses, encrypted messaging, IP masking, or a secure form of coin shuffling. Dash relies on CoinJoin for its PrivateSend feature which requires users to negotiate with each other during the transaction process.
Monero
Monero has the largest reputation when it comes to anonymous cryptocurrency. Apart from enjoying wide adoption and a stellar market capitalization, Monero is open-source and uses a proof-of-work algorithm for consensus along with RingCT signatures for privacy.
In sharp contrast to Dash, Monero is not a privacy-optional coin. Every transaction uses RingCT (confidential-transactions) to hide the sources of transactions in a given set. In theory, this should shield every transaction with anonymity, yet in practice, quite the opposite has been found. Researchers from MIT published a report titled "An Empirical Analysis of Traceability in the Monero Blockchain" wherein they revealed that they were able to trace 80% of Monero transactions prior to the integration of RingCT and 45% of transactions after its integration.
Beyond this, Monero lacks an encrypted messaging platform, does not mask IP addresses, does not function as a bitcoin mixer, and its proof-of-work consensus algorithm has significant negative effects on the environment.
Verge
Verge deserves a mention if only because of its bold claims. Prior to their Wraith update, Verge developers claimed that they would use Tor and I2P networks to anonymize user IP addresses. Unfortunately, not long after the Wraith update was announced, it appeared that Tor had not been integrated at all and several cryptocurrency whistleblower websites were able to track IP addresses involved in Verge transactions.
Initially called DogeCoinDark, Verge also uses two ledgers -- a private and a public ledger. This is to allow users the option of switching between ledgers depending on the type of transaction made and the level of disclosure the user prefers for that transaction. Like Monero, Verge lacks a coin shuffling function, claims to mask IP addresses but fails in practice, does not offer an alias system (meaning users can not encrypt text), and relies on a slow proof-of-work algorithm for consensus.
Apollo Currency
Apollo Currency picks up where privacy coins prior to it have left off and then goes several leaps further. Rather than offer a cut-rate privacy coin, Apollo has taken the strengths of other privacy coins and made them stronger, while also containing what they lack -- namely, real anonymity and financial freedom on the blockchain.
Apollo's Olympus Protocol ushers forth a new paradigm of anonymous transactions using a host of innovations. IP masking via Tor will allow for untraceable transactions directly from the Apollo wallet without the risk of having a compromised IP address somewhere down the line. Apollo also features coin-shuffling which, like bitcoin mixing, is a process for coin anonymization that makes shuffled coins resistant to tracing and blockchain analysis.
The way this works is simple - Apollo users simply send their coins through the shuffling mechanism which then pools user coins together, mixes them, then sends each user their specified amount of coins back from different sources than they started with. The result is complete anonymity and a break in the connection between sending and receiving addresses.
Apollo's encrypted messaging platform furthers the total anonymity offered by the currency. Users can communicate and transfer files without a trace, all the while having their IP addresses masked by Olympus Protocol.
Conclusion
Until Monero and Verge clear up the allegations made by researchers from MIT and other institutions that users are vulnerable to having their IP addresses exposed, I would steer clear of them. Dash and Apollo Currency are proven and both offer coin shuffling which is a real, proven coin anonymization technique that offers the best of privacy.
As always, it's best to DYOR (do your own research).
submitted by stardawg777 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Q2 - 2019 | Cryptocurrency Anti-Money Laundering Report Highlights:

  1. Thieves and scammers stole more than $4.26 billion from cryptocurrency exchanges, investors, and users in the first half of 2019.
  2. Users and investors lost approximately US$2.9 billion as “South Korean” Plus Token app and exchange went offline; Chinese police arrested six Chinese nationals in Vanuatu as the alleged perpetrators.
  3. Hackers used advanced cyberattack to steal $44 million from world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance.
  4. Update from Canadian court on QuadrigaCX collapse reveals long history of misappropriation of user funds by QuadrigaCX founder.
  5. Japanese exchange BITPoint hacked for $30 million.
  6. BestMixer mixing service seized by law enforcement authorities.
  7. European authorities seized three dark web markets and assets.
  8. CFTC charged Control-Finance in $147M Ponzi scheme.
  9. Facebook shook up crypto economy and woke up policy makers with Libra announcement.
  10. SIM Swapping victim won $75.8 million judgement against hacker.
  11. More sophisticated exchange hacks used advanced simultaneous takeovers of user and admin accounts.
  12. SEC sued Kik over $100 million unregistered ICO.
  13. CipherTrace research shows Bitcoin still dominates payment method in dark markets despite advent of privacy coins.
  14. Hack may have caused Bitcoin flash crash on Kraken.
  15. European authorities made arrests in two major typosquatting scams that cost exchange users tens of millions.
  16. $23 million in Bitcoin lost and co-owner found dead after Polish exchange Bitmarket shutters due to “liquidity issues.
  17. Iran accused US of attempting to block its virgin Bitcoin as means to compensate for financial hit from sanctions.
  18. UN published report on North Korean government hackers stealing $571 million from Asian exchanges to fund WMD and compensate for sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Full Report: Webpage or PDF
submitted by 2Panik to CryptoCurrency [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]

Monero. Overview

Monero. Overview

https://preview.redd.it/bcgzjh51cpi11.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a5995c852e67caccecdb138b1b475e84d8fab8d
Cryptoindex is a tool for exposure to the cryptomarket and serves as a smart benchmark for all cryptocurrencies. The AI-based Cryptoindex algorithm is continuously analyzing more than 1000 coins applying over 170 factors, processing more than 1 million signals per second to provide a highly sophisticated index of the top 100 coins.
You can find our previous reviews here:
Dash. Review - August 2018. Binance Coin. Review IOTA. Review. August - 2018 NEM.Overview Ethereum Classic.Review TRON overview. Cardano - review. Future plans. Ripple - review. Further Perspectives Litecoin. June'18 overview The Dow Jones index. From where did it come to us? Bitcoin Cash. June 2018 overview Are cryptocurrency indices a new crypto market trend? EOS. End of May'18 overview Ethereum. May 2018 overview
Here on our Cryptoindex blog, we will be posting 100 articles about each of the top performing coins selected by our powerful AI algorithm#CIX100coinreview.
Today’s review: Monero
What is Monero?
This name cryptocurrency has received from the word "coin" in the language of Esperanto. Cryptocurrency appeared on April 18, 2014, as Bytecoin fork (not Bitcoin). The release of the coin caused increased interest from the crypto community after announcing by the developers the Roadmap and the Whitepaper. The essence of the project was to make the cryptocurrency anonymous.
But on the other hand, the creation of such cryptocurrency attracted the attention of law enforcement agencies, including Europol. As an argument that was brought to the attention of developers, it was that Monero could become a good means of payment on the black market for drugs trade.
The FBI also speaks with the same statement, pointing out that Monero is in the TOP of the crypto-currency on the black market:
  1. Bitcoin
  2. Litecoin
  3. Monero.
The level of Monero anonymity is sometimes questioned, in particular, Edward Snowden called it "amateur cryptocurrency."
At the time of writing, Monero is ranked 11th by the capitalization in Coinmarketcap.com
How does it work?
Monero is mostly an open source software that uses the principle of proof-of-work. But unlike Bitcoin, Monero emission is not limited. That's why the developers did it so that the miners would ensure the system's operation even after the emission was completed.

https://i.redd.it/nzcpy6u3cpi11.gif
The developers of Monero have made a lot of efforts to make their cryptocurrency secure. To achieve a high result, special measures were taken:
  • Use of "Annular signatures". This technology allows you to "shuffle" all the public keys, thus eliminating the possibility of identifying any of the participants in the system.
  • Monero uses a unique protocol that creates one-time addresses. This allows you to hide information about the payee, the balance of his account and so on.
  • Protection against hacking. Cryptographic algorithms ensure the security of electronic cash stored in user wallets.
Due to CryptoNote and the obfuscation added to the protocol, passive mixing is provided: all transactions in the system are anonymous, and all participants in the system can use plausible negation in the event if they are being captured.
Dirty Monero?
Among the miners, it’s in high demand, due to anonymity for mining on other people's computers and servers. Recently, there have been more cases when Monero was noticed in the code of many viruses. The power of many computers around the world is used to extract this particular cryptocurrency, in particular, this happened last year in London, where scammers used the hacked government servers for mining.
Also Monero, right along with Bitcoin, Zcash and Dash is the most used cryptocurrency in Darknet. A particularly favored method of money laundering is the so-called "mixer". The principle of its work is that the money received illegally is sent to the exchange where Bitcoin coins are purchased, for which the Monero tokens are then purchased and then the attacker can safely transfer to any stock exchange, to a pre-established account and receive money in any form convenient for him.
Advantages of Monero
  • Absolute decentralization. Without any control, including financial organizations (banks and etc);
  • The anonymity of transactions;
  • Constant growth and trust;
  • The presence of his own personal wallet.
Disadvantages of Monero
  • The size of one transaction in Monero is more significant than in Bitcoin;
  • The anonymity of transactions began to challenge experts working on the development of other cryptocurrencies.
Conclusion
Now the developers are actively working to promote the currency. Given the high anonymity and growth in demand, success is entirely assured. The anonymity of Monero transactions is not absolute. If the attacker controls a large part of the network, then under certain circumstances, he can deanonymize some of the transactions.
At the time this article was published, Monero [XMR] is 0.812% of the total of CryptoIndex portfolio. You can always check the current CIX100 composition at our MVP platform: http://cryptoindex.ai/
Stay updated on our channels: Follow CRYPTOINDEX on Telegram Follow CRYPTOINDEX on Medium Follow CRYPTOINDEX on Twitter Follow CRYPTOINDEX on Facebook Follow CRYPTOINDEX on Linkedin Follow CRYPTOINDEX on Reddit
https://preview.redd.it/zz0qunsbcpi11.png?width=757&format=png&auto=webp&s=63687e4c6d097b241a2c647fe03945b3d07d2047
submitted by kkkc to CryptoIndex_io [link] [comments]

BINANCE POOL WHAT IS AND COULD BE - PERSONAL REVIEW #Binance Futures - Trade Bitcoin, altcoins and more with up to 125x leverage trading scalping sesssion short trade crypto bitcoin bitmx binance short trade This Line Is Critical For Bitcoin + Binance Scandal Bitcoin Halving Bull Run? Binance Launches Bitcoin Mining Pool - BitPay BUSD - Kim Jong Un BTC Stash 5 Bitcoin Coin Mixer Facts  4 Minute Crypto News  8/9/2018

This is not the first year that BitMix.Biz has been the best Bitcoin mixer and it will probably remain so in 2020. This is proved by that on the Internet there are many fakes posing as BitMix.Biz. Bitcoin Mixer sind Angebote, die dazu dienen, die Geldflüsse Deiner Bitcoins (BTC) zu verschleiern. Damit helfen sie, die Privatsphäre Deines Vermögens zu schützen. Kritiker sehen Bitcoin Mixer als Werkzeuge, um kriminelle Aktivitäten der Beobachtung zu entziehen. Bitcoin (BTC) als erste und führende Kryptowährung hat zwar in seinem Konzept prinzipiell Anonymität verankert. Doch in der ... 👉 Binance Freezes BTC Withdrawal to Coin Mixer, Questions Customer Binance Singapore has frozen a user’s funds, after they attempted to withdraw the funds to a privacy wallet and mixer. The exchange also asked very personal questions to resolve the issue, regarding the purpose of the withdrawal, copies of supporting documents, and the individual’s occupational details. MyCryptoMixer – The Preferred Bitcoin Mixer of 2020. MCM’s meteoric rise in the Bitcoin mixer market is likely due to its trusted and user-friendly platform when compared to other mixers in ... Bitcoin mixer is a service designed for anonymization, with which you can prevent the tracking of your transactions in the bitcoin network. It’s generally accepted that people use Bitcoin mixers for illegal purposes. However, it’s not true. They are often used by those who want to protect themselves or hide the fact of cryptocurrency ownership from attackers. Bitcoin mixer can give your ... Bitcoin Mixer ist aktuell in 16 verschiedenen Sprachen verfügbar und bietet Zeitverzögerungen bei der Auszahlung an. Die Höhe der möglichen Verzögerung ist von der gewählten Kryptowährung abhängig. Der Mindestbetrag für die Mixing-Dienstleistung beträgt 0,02 BTC bei Bitcoin, 0,5 ETH bei Ethereum und 1 LTC bei Litecoin. Alle darunterliegenden Beträge, die an die Adresse des Mixers ...

[index] [13305] [13943] [4658] [7128] [13807] [6271] [22435] [3319] [8190] [7570]

BINANCE POOL WHAT IS AND COULD BE - PERSONAL REVIEW

Binance Pool’s first product offering will be Bitcoin mining, using a FPPS payment method. - BitPay Partners With Binance to Support BUSD Payments Around the World Bienvenido! Si te gusto el video dale Like y Suscribite! Welcome! If you like please like and subscribe! Our team of producers, editors, writers are producin... Mix Play all Mix - Altcoin Daily YouTube Thomas Lee Presents The Economics of Cryptocurrencies Upfront Summit 2018 - Duration: 23:27. Upfront Ventures 176,463 views As a company I love BINANCE, how they have been performing no matter what type of market they are in, bull market, bear market, sideways, you name it and their token BNB and Exchanges has been ... There are a few aspects of coin mixers often overlooked by the average Bitcoin user and they are as follows. Join Gary for these quick weekday news briefs from the world of Bitcoin and ... Sign up here for a free account and 10% discount for the first 30 days: bit.ly/FuturesYouTube #Binance Futures - Trade Bitcoin, altcoins and more with up to 125x ...

http://binaryoption-uae.traderplanet.asia