roadrunner

Instantly verifiable, unhackable and forever retrievable are some of the key features of information stored on a blockchain. These are also the characteristics that traders of various assets, commodities and currencies would appreciate when it comes to the price data they are using. The team behind the Blitz Ticker project have decided that’s exactly what they need, too. Also read: Skrill Now Lets You Swap BTC for BCH Blitz Ticker Offers Current Price Data for Cryptocurrencies Blitz Tickdata is a platform that aims to become the world’s first rate publisher on blockchain. It tracks crypto, forex, and bullion prices and distributes rates each second onto a P2P network. The service has been operating in testing mode for some time and Blitz has promised its users a beta version but they already have plenty of information available on their website. The ticker tool provides current and historical data about the price of bitcoin core in U.S. dollars and the rates of other leading cryptocurrencies against BTC, including bitcoin cash (BCH), ethereum (ETH), ripple (XRP), and litecoin (LTC). You can explore rates for a specific period by setting a start and end date and also get daily, weekly and monthly charts through the quick select function. The task of saving all this information on a blockchain involves a lot of crypto transactions. Blitz have chosen the bitcoin cash (BCH) network to record their timestamped price rates. Transferring BCH is almost instantaneous and often costs less than a U.S. cent which is an advantage over other cryptocurrencies. The low transaction fees on the BCH network have played a role in selecting the blockchain that can do the job for the project. Rates Encoded Into Bitcoin Cash Transactions The real-time rate data is thus encoded into BCH transactions and propagated throughout the world, the team notes. That allows Blitz Ticker to maintain a truly decentralized rate publishing system that’s always available to traders and other users. A documentation page explains how the data can be used in other applications as well. Blitz Ticker uses addresses that map to a separate set of symbols and the rate data is stored in the format OP_RETURN OP_PUSHDATA [TIMESTAMP] OP_PUSHDATA [DATA]. The timestamp is 32bit Unix Time. The document further details how to query data from the platform and provides instructions on how to take advantage of its other features. The rate publishing tool has been developed by Blitz which unites professionals with extensive experience in both cryptocurrency and traditional finance markets, including the trading of digital assets, mining hardware and hashrate. The company states that its mission is to help entrepreneurs, family funds and private individuals grow and preserve their crypto assets. Besides Tickdata, Blitz has also created and maintains a network of miners, traders, crypto investors, banks, exchanges, and brokers. They are involved in over-the-counter (OTC) trading with clients and partners in Beijing, Hong Kong and Tokyo. The network offers investment opportunities in three major sectors: mining, exchange and trading. A private fund set up by Blitz is targeting accredited investors ready to invest $100,000 or more in cryptocurrencies. What do you think about the Blitz Ticker platform using the Bitcoin Cash blockchain? Share your thoughts about it in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any third party products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Images courtesy of Shutterstock, fair use. Do you want to dig deeper into Bitcoin? Explore past and present cryptocurrency prices through our Bitcoin Markets tool and head to our Blockchain Explorer to view specific transactions, addresses, and blocks. The post Ticker Tool Uses the BCH Blockchain to Provide Reliable Rate Data appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

When it comes to creating a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, accepting zero confirmation transactions becomes critically important. When a model’s main aim is to “just hodl” or push an isolated store of value narrative, important concerns like double spending can take a back seat, potentially opening a network to serious attack. A recent video demonstrating this risk saw some claiming such weaknesses are equally exploitable on the BCH chain. However, as the Replace-By-Fee (RBF) protocol isn’t part of the BCH codebase, the claims can be easily refuted and as such, the BCH community has been speaking out. Also Read: Travelbybit to Drop Bitcoin Payments After Viral Double Spend Video Double Spending BTC in the Wild A double spend is just what it sounds like — spending the same bitcoin twice. Of course, this is a favorable proposition to bad actors, scammers and thieves, who are more than happy to make off with goods without paying a service provider or merchant. In essence, double spending involves spending bitcoin, then sending the same money back to oneself before the transaction is etched into the blockchain via sufficient confirmations. Bitcoinbch.com CEO, Hayden Otto, recently demonstrated this flaw in a video, showing a merchant’s point-of-sale (POS) device confirm that his BTC payment had been sent, and then walking off slyly with his bucket of champagne only to reverse the payment moments later. Of course, the merchant had agreed to the experiment prior, and all funds were returned, but the humorous demonstration successfully showcased a decidedly unfunny problem with RBF and Bitcoin Core. A sly Otto makes off with the goods via a BCT double spend. Replace-By-Fee Fraud vs. Other Double Spend Instances As BCH community member kilrcola writes in his recent read.cash post: There was a great deal of chatter on this topic on social media – Reddit, Twitter and Facebook. The reasoning for this follow up was – the main defense I saw online was: ‘Zero Confirmations on BCH were equally as bad as Double Spending on BTC.’ Kilrcola goes on to clarify that “there is a big difference between a perceived double spend (on BCH) when there is two TX sent at the same time and a double spend on BTC where the sender sends two TX the first one, and then the second TX minutes later after he has purchased something, allowing the spender to leave the brick and mortar shop or online store without the merchant realizing what has happened.” In other words, as there is no RBF protocol allowing a transaction to be replaced by another with a higher fee in Bitcoin Cash, for a successful double spend to occur, two payments would have to be sent simultaneously or near simultaneously. Bitcoin Core’s RBF function can provide minutes, hours or conceivably days for a bad actor to double send a transaction. The difference is trying to pull the scam in front of a vendor and not be detected (via some serious blockchain acrobatics), or having ample time to take your goods and walk out the door, planning the double spend for later. Kilrcola clarifies: Yes Double spends on BCH are possible, in the real world they are very hard to do (we’re talking 1 out of 3992 attempts where the tx was not broadcast simultaneously, 0.025% chance) and because on BCH it is possible to mitigate with a Point-of-sale system design where the merchant can detect it, it is substantially more difficult to attempt a Double Spend on BCH than on BTC. The 1 out of 3,992 figure comes from doublespend.cash, a statistics and informational resource on BCH double spends created by developer Dagur. As noted on his page, “Double spend can happen for various reasons. A wallet may not be fully synced. Software bugs. Someone having fun. One of the reasons can is fraud attempts. Double spending attempts are relatively rare compared to the total amount of transactions on the network.” Even critics of BCH and Otto’s video have acknowledged this, albeit while adding their own creative interpretations of Dagur’s data. One such article reads: “In BCH you don’t necessarily have to wait [for confirmations] if it’s a dinner, with the successful double spends being far less than 1% based on some 50,000 BCH transactions in just the past 24 hours.” What’s not noted by these critics and reactionary voices, however, is that the percentage of successful double spends listed on doublespend.cash mostly comprises simultaneous double spend instances whose motivations or causes are unknown. Delayed double spending on BCH, such as can be demonstrated on BTC via RBF, only stretches out to mere seconds and almost never happens. Successful delayed double spends form only a fraction of a fraction of attempts. Attempts (malicious or otherwise) themselves are relatively small compared to total BCH transactions. Source: https://doublespend.cash/stats.html For example, in the month of December there were more than 1.1 million BCH transactions. Double spend attempts — which could be malicious or otherwise as noted above by Dagur — for the same month were only 5,499 according to the data, and in almost every case the acknowledged first seen transaction won, and was mined into the blockchain. Only a miniscule portion of the number of successful double spends were delayed, and when they were, it was only by a matter of one or two seconds, not minutes or hours. Twitter user @Vnumeris laid into the statistics, tweeting: “According to https://doublespend.cash/stats.html (a site that tracks 2x spends on bcash), the chances for a successful double-spend on bcash in the past 7 days averages out to be a staggering 13.5%. Between 11-18 Dec, there were 1,185 2x spend attempts, out of which 160 were successful.” Dagur retorted: Otto, for his part, replied: Go double spend it [BCH] at a real world merchant and show the video. I have been asking people to do this for years and nobody can rise to the challenge, maybe because it’s impossible. Transparency Makes for Easy Targets, but Greater Reliability While the data may be presented creatively and criticized harshly by detractors, and BCH hasn’t yet achieved the market cap or hashrate of BTC, the BCH community continues to provide transparent resources — such as Dagur’s site — as well as innovative solutions and answers to issues that need attention. Kilrcola, also known as Michael Nunzio, notes at the end of his article that “The difference is that on BTC you can effectively, purchase an item in-store, walk out of the store, double spend it and be off with your items. This is the difference. Compare it to attempting to defraud a merchant while standing in front of them while paying for your coffee, vs. attempting it after walking out of the shop. It is also worth mentioning there is some development going on by those in the BCH community to improve the security of 0-conf with Double Spend Proofs, ZKSnarks.” Dagur further observes: “After receiving a transaction, if you monitor the network for double spends for only a few seconds before accepting it as valid payment, you’ll drastically reduce the acceptance risk, as this is the time needed for most of the network to see your transaction first.” What are your thoughts on Hayden Otto’s video and the double spend controversy surrounding RBF? Let us know in the comments section below. Image credits: Shutterstock, fair use. Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section. You can also enjoy the easiest way to buy Bitcoin online with us. Download your free Bitcoin wallet and head to our Purchase Bitcoin page where you can buy BCH and BTC securely. The post Why Double Spends on BCH Are Not the Same as Replace-By-Fee Fraud appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

On January 1, the BTC network hashrate touched an all-time high at close to 120 exahash per second (EH/s). Despite the crypto market lull and lower BTC prices, the 2020 milestone happened just before the blockchain’s 11th anniversary. BTC’s curious jump in hashrate has the cryptosphere wondering whether or not the price truly follows hashpower. Also Read: Market Update: Crypto Traders Search for Bullish and Bearish Trends BTC Hashrate Reaches Close to 120 Exahash per Second One of the crypto community’s favorite topics is hash power, which is a cryptocurrency mining rig’s processing speed. The overall hashrate is the combined hash power used to mine cryptocurrencies like BCH, BTC, and a slew of other coins. The hashrate that analytical websites track is typically measured in calculated hashes per second. Data sites use terminology like ‘terahash’ (1,000,000,000,000 hashes per second), ‘petahash’ (one quadrillion hashes per second), and ‘exahash,’ which equals one quintillion hashes per second. A number of BTC supporters believe the price follows hashrate, and some believe it’s the other way around. For some perspective, most single-unit machines produce a number of terahash per second. Bigger facilities filled with mining rigs and collaborative pools produce petahash, and the entire network of single miners, giant facilities, and pools combined yield a number of exahash. Miners on the BTC network did not process one exahash until the last week of January 2016. At the time, the milestone was considered a noteworthy spike in overall hashrate. On January 1, 2020, the BTC network hashrate touch 119 EH/s surpassing the chain’s previous all-time high of 100 EH/s. BTC hashrate touched 119 exahash per second (EH/s) on January 1, 2020. Does Price Follow Hashrate? Similar to now, in 2016 BTC prices were low, at $380 per coin when the network crossed one exahash. Following the jump in hash power, the price did follow, and very slowly crept from $380 per BTC to $700 per coin in June of that year. Following the month of June, BTC’s hashrate climbed above two EH/s but BTC prices remained stagnant fluctuating between $600-$775 per coin. At the end of November 2016, the price per BTC started climbing higher and the value continued to spike in the spring of 2017. From the spring months of 2017 all the way until December 2017, both BTC’s fiat value and hashrate skyrocketed. In April 2017, the overall BTC network hashrate was around 4 EH/s and by the year’s end, it was hovering around 15 EH/s. Now, despite the price dropping from close to $20k per BTC all the way to the $3,500 range, the hashrate jumped to 56 EH/s in September 2018 without dropping much in between. BTC price over the last five years. In September 2018, with a hashrate around 56 EH/s, the price per BTC was similar to today’s market prices at $6,500 per coin. From September to December 2018, the BTC network lost a significant amount of hashrate as it plummeted to 31 EH/s. Of course, the price in December 2018 was between $3,200 to $4,000 per BTC. Bitcoin prices didn’t start to recover until the end of March 2019, but from December 2018 until the spring months of 2019, BTC’s hashrate regained the hash power it held in September 2018 at around 56 EH/s. The overall hashrate has doubled since then, touching a milestone of 100 EH/s in November 2019. The price per BTC has also followed suit up until it touched the 100 EH/s all-time high. Since then, BTC’s fiat value has hovered around the $6,500 to $7,500 region. BTC hashrate between September 2019 until January 1, 2020. Hashrate Typically Gets a Decent Head Start There is always a lot of talk that “the price follows hashrate” and historically this has been true. However, statistics show that the hash power typically gets a decent lead before the prices start kicking into gear. This means that it could take some time for the price to follow the climbing hashrate. A few individuals are uncertain the two metrics are even correlated. If historical patterns remain consistent with future patterns, it could mean a few more months before the price comes around. People should also keep in mind that past price and hashrate patterns do not necessarily reflect what will happen in the future. What do you think about the BTC network hashrate coming close to 120 EH/s on January 1, 2020? Do you agree that the price will follow BTC’s hashrate? Or do you think that patterns like price and hash do not matter? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below. Disclaimer: Price articles and market updates are intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered as trading advice. Neither Bitcoin.com nor the author is responsible for any losses or gains, as the ultimate decision to conduct a trade is made by the reader. Always remember that only those in possession of the private keys are in control of the “money.” Cryptocurrency prices referenced in this article were recorded at different times using historical fiat prices and today’s global exchange rate for BTC at 3:00 p.m. EST on January 2, 2020. Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Twitter, Fair Use, Blockchain.com, markets.bitcoin.com, and Wiki Commons. Verify and track bitcoin cash transactions on our BCH Block Explorer, the best of its kind anywhere in the world. Also, keep up with your holdings, BCH, and other coins, on our market charts at Bitcoin.com Markets, another original and free service from Bitcoin.com. The post BTC’s Hashrate Touches 120 Exahash, But the Price Has Not Followed appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

The cypherpunks, a ragtag group of tech tinkerers, cryptographers, and privacy advocates, were obscure in their 1990s heyday. And it would have remained that way in perpetuity were it not for a certain Satoshi Nakamoto launching a digital currency in 2009 encapsulating their core beliefs. We don’t know if Satoshi was a cypherpunk. But what we do know from rediscovered mailing list conversations is that many of the cypherpunks’ early ideas were to be enshrined in Bitcoin more than a decade later. Also read: Why Nick Szabo Probably Isn’t Satoshi Hal Finney Described Bitcoin Before It Was Born Building on David Chaum’s digital cash, a certain Hal Finney proposed several improvements, suggesting to his fellow cypherpunks that “Alice and Bob could be pseudonyms, using anonymous addresses to communicate with each other and with the bank … If these problems can be solved, a big advantage of this approach is that the banker can be anonymous. He would be known only by his anonymous address and his public key(s). This would provide some safety in the event that even a small-scale experiment like this was targeted for a crackdown.” If you think that sounds a lot like Bitcoin – minus the central bank – you’re not alone. Last month, bitcoiner Nadav Ivgi shared the full trove of cypherpunk emails from the early 90s to the present day, and this particular despatch from Hal Finney immediately stood out. What’s most remarkable is that those words were written in November 1992 – 16 years before Satoshi’s whitepaper was published. Given the perspicacity of Hal Finney’s vision for the form electronic money could take, it’s no wonder that some suspect him of being Satoshi Nakamoto himself. But the resurfaced cypherpunk mailing list is not a rich mine of clues to Satoshi’s identity – it’s a blueprint for Bitcoin itself. Satoshi – whether he lurked there or not – did more than simply cobble together the ideas of others; he solved the Byzantine Generals Problem for one thing. Yet it’s hard to sift through these early internet conversations without sensing the shape of what was to come in 2009. Digital cash inventor David Chaum Cypherpunks Foresaw Blockchain Surveillance Hal Finney wasn’t the only cypherpunk who foresaw a future in which digital cash was a reality. Others had the prescience to envision the up- and downsides that this would entail. In a November 1992 thread on the topic of a “cypher bank,” one respondent warned: It is said information should be free… however, if someone was (and someone undoubtedly would) … monitor the bank(s) they would probably see accounts going up and down by various amounts and it should be possible to track transactions between identities … This probably isn’t particularly inviting to the majority to know that your funds could be traced very anonymously and that patterns could be formulated… If you wish to entertain such a testbed financial system be very careful with any decision made and work through each possible consequence. Most people I think would prefer to remain anonymous. I know I would. In light of the surveillance era the cryptosphere has sleepwalked into, that prediction has been fully vindicated. The cypherpunk mailing list veered between humor and serious business. In February 1993, cypherpunk Alan Hetzel proposed another potential drawback to digital cash, writing: “One of the serious deterrents to crimes such as kidnapping is the probability that one will get caught attempting to communicate one’s demands or collect the payment … I could send you an anonymous note threatening to poison your dog, kill your wife, burn down your house, whatever, unless you pay me $$$ in untraceable digital cash. What can you do?” He added: “I foresee a great way for jerks to “earn extra income in their spare time” threatening hundreds of people in mass anonymous mailings. Some of these folks will be scared enough to pay off.” Bitcoin does not provide true anonymity, but given its ability to facilitate ransomware and blackmail attempts, it would be disingenuous to dismiss this prediction altogether. It can be tempered, however, by this riposte to Hetzel’s post, composed by Perry Metzger. It may have been despatched by email, but if you listen closely, you can almost hear the mic drop at the end: “To eliminate the capacity to use digital cash means to require monitoring of all speech and ban most international traffic, to prohibit strong cryptography and require key registration. Even then I’m not convinced that it would work because people would still try to avoid these restrictions. “All technologies are fraught with dangers. All of them. The knife you use to slice your bread can be used to kill your wife. Shall we dispense with knives? Shall we pretend that we can unlearn what we know? A bright 10 year old with a computer can produce a cypher machine. Shall we lobotomize all ten year olds and destroy all the computers? You can’t put some genie back in the bottle after you’ve rubbed the first time. We can’t stop people from knowing things. “At least the well meaning fools who advocate gun control have the fact that good machine shops aren’t in practically every home on their side — telephones, modems, and computers are becoming ubiquitous, however, and they are all capable of aiding and abetting in the criminal techniques you mention. Welcome to the world.” Have you read any of the cypherpunks’ emails? Do you think Satoshi was among them? Let us know in the comments section below. Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Wiki Commons, Fair Use. Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see what’s happening in the industry. The post Early Cypherpunk Emails Reveal a Blueprint for Bitcoin appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

Since the platform’s launch, the Bitcoin Cash-centric blogging site read.cash has gathered a lot of traction. The website’s user base publishes interesting content and new material on a daily basis with the most popular authors gathering tips in bitcoin cash for their work. Also Read: These Are the Bitcoin Stories You Loved in 2019 Read.cash Blogging Platform Leverages Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash About a month ago, news.Bitcoin.com reported on two blogging websites that reward users in crypto for producing content. One of the platforms featured was read.cash and ever since that initial report, the application’s user base has grown significantly. The creator of read.cash explains in the About section that the site allows users to publish content (text, images, videos) with the ability to earn BCH if people enjoy the work produced. “If a reader likes your content – he or she can upvote your post by sending some amount of bitcoin cash (BCH) to your online wallet,” the website’s creator notes. The website’s posts are stored in a traditional database, but the system uses onchain transactions for peer-to-peer upvote payments. “These are done on-chain and censorship-resistant,” the read.cash website details. While perusing the read.cash front page or main news feed, there is a number of blog posts from unique authors covering a variety of subjects. There’s also a bunch of well known BCH proponents who utilize the read.cash blogging site. How to Use Read.cash Signing up for read.cash is fairly intuitive and takes only a few minutes to get started. The first thing the website does after you press the ‘register’ tab on the top right side of the screen is give you a simple rules disclosure notice. Essentially the owners of read.cash will not tolerate pornography, or “anything hate-filled, name-calling, trash-talking, personal attacks or insults.” If you accept this agreement, then you are brought to the registration window which asks you to enter a valid email address and give yourself a read.cash username. You can also quickly register with a Cash ID and Badger wallet in order to skip giving the website an email address. After signing up, the platform gives you a welcome message and the next screen gives you a 12-word seed phrase for the read.cash native BCH wallet. Read.cash highly recommends that you write down the seed phrase as you would with any other noncustodial wallet. The website also stresses that it doesn’t recommend storing more than $10-20 on the platform. From here, read.cash gives you the BCH address tethered to your account and you can begin using the site. If you want to write a post using read.cash, in the top middle section of the website there is a ‘write’ tab, which brings you to a page that allows you to format a post. You are asked to add a title and there’s a section for you to draft the body of an editorial. Read.cash allows you to also add a header image and there’s a help page that teaches users how to format subheadings, italics, bold text, clipboard support, embedding images, creating lists, embedding videos (Youtube and Vimeo), code markups and blocks, blockquotes, and more. The step-by-step guide explains how to save the work and publish the post to the main read.cash feed when the draft is finalized. If you hover your mouse over the username on the top right, it will show you a dropdown menu which shows your articles, saved drafts, affiliates, sponsorships, and full access to the native wallet. With the read.cash native wallet you can send funds to another wallet, deposit BCH, and back up your seed phrase again if you lost it. Read.cash also allows you to tether a unique image to your profile picture, write a bio, and tie a few website links to your profile. Future Enhancements and One-Time QR Codes The read.cash platform has published a roadmap, which displays a list of objectives the website’s developer plans to add in the future. In no particular order, the read.cash blogging site hopes to add a section for communities, email notifications, user mentions, and more. A large portion of the roadmap’s goals have been completed and the list shows all the tasks that have been checked off. So far, using the website is easy to get used to, especially if you are already familiar with other social media applications and forums. There’s a great number of posts published on the read.cash platform and if you like a particular author’s content you can give them some BCH at the bottom of each post. In order to upvote the content and give the author BCH, simply press the button that says “encourage the author to write more.” You need to have BCH in your native read.cash wallet to tip the writer, but if you haven’t deposited funds you can opt to use a one-time QR code invoice. Read.cash users can also share content with sites like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Pinterest. If you want to continue following an author’s work, you can subscribe to an individual writer’s feed. A Giant Obstacle: Amplifying the Network Effect of Decentralized Social Media Read.cash is promising, but like the slew of other blogging sites that leverage cryptocurrencies, it will need to continue attracting users. There have been many platforms that have attempted to create blogging and social media sites that integrate the benefits of censorship-resistant onchain transactions. However, they have all faced an enormous obstacle which is amplifying the network effect enough to outpace centralized incumbents. Still, the use cases and platforms that leverage cryptocurrencies are still young and there’s a chance that any one of them could potentially gain ground on a social media giant. Especially when the platform is powered by the overall user base and it rewards users for providing good content. Such platforms look nothing like the centralized blogging sites today that censor people while reaping 100% of the benefits produced by popular content creators. The hope is that someday, applications like memo.cash, read.cash, and other crypto powered solutions will break the mold. What do you think about the read.cash blogging platform? Have you tried a platform that leverages cryptocurrencies and content sharing? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any ideas, concepts, content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Image credits: Shutterstock, read.cash, and Jamie Redman. Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see what’s happening in the industry. The post Read.cash Platform Rewards Content Creators With Bitcoin Cash Incentives appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

This article considers the legal implications of Youtube’s notorious purge of crypto channels on Christmas Eve. What legal context induces Youtube and other social media giants to operate as they do? The article does not explore whether it is morally proper to terminate a contract without cause or explanation and to threaten people’s livelihoods; it is not. Nor are political implications, such as Youtube’s liberal bias, discussed. The legal factors context surrounding Google’s Youtube purge are important. Users should know what is happening and why. Also read: Youtube ‘Christmas Purge’ Has Content Creators Pointing to These Alternate Platforms What Happened? On Christmas Eve, Bitcoin.com contributor Graham Smith warned, “At least six crypto Youtube channels have reported in recent hours that their content is being removed under the site’s ‘harmful and dangerous’ policy, with one popular channel claiming Youtube pointed to a ‘sale of regulated goods’.” The purged channels received no warning, no plausible explanation. Presumably, the “harmful and dangerous” policy so vaguely referenced by Youtube was an alleged violation of Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. It shall be unlawful for any person … to publish, give publicity to, or circulate any notice, circular, advertisement, newspaper, article, letter, investment service, or communication which, though not purporting to offer a security for sale, describes such security for a consideration received or to be received, directly or indirectly, from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer, without fully disclosing the receipt, whether past or prospective, of such consideration and the amount thereof [italics added]. The original purpose of Section 17(b) was to make it illegal for anyone to promote a stock without disclosing any consideration they may have received from an issuer, underwriter, or dealer in the stock. The Christmas Purge is not the first time Google has removed crypto material. In June 2018, Google followed Facebook’s lead in banning crypto-related advertising. CNBC reported, “Even companies with legitimate cryptocurrency offerings won’t be allowed to serve ads through any of Google’s ad products, which place advertising on its own sites as well as third-party websites.” The legality of crypto and the reputation of the advertiser were irrelevant. Three months later, Google’s outright ban ended, but a new policy was instated. Forbes explained, “regulated cryptocurrency exchanges” could “buy ads in the U.S. and Japan … Ads for initial coin offerings (ICOs), wallets, and trading advice will remain banned … with the updated policy applying to advertisers all over the world, though the ads will only run in the U.S. and Japan.” The stated reason for the ban and restriction was a desire to shut down illegal activities connected to crypto for which Google could have been liable. Happy Christmas, the Purge Is Over The Christmas Purge now seems to be resolved and the channels restored—at least, according to Youtube. But Chris Dunn, owner of a channel with more than 200,000 subscribers, claims that his videos have not been completely restored; other crypto Youtubers echo this complaint and some report an inability to post new videos or to insert links within the ones they do put up. Meanwhile, Youtube ascribes the incident to an “error.” Even those without complaints should note Youtube’s new Terms of Service (November 11, 2019). “Youtube may terminate your access, or your Google account’s access to all or part of the Service if Youtube believes, in its sole discretion, that provision of the Service to you is no longer commercially viable.” Most centralized social media have similar terms. What is the legal context of such authoritarianism? Publisher or Platform? The key question is “publisher or platform?” A publisher edits and controls the material it issues, which means it assumes legal liability. Under the traditional common law for defamation, for example, a publisher who issues the defamatory statement of another party can bear the same legal liability as the party himself. This is because the publisher has the knowledge, ability, and opportunity to control what appears. For years, Facebook has described itself as a platform—that is, an array of services, tools, and products through which other parties independently create and publish content. Except for minimal and common sense restrictions, such as the prohibition of illegal activity, Facebook claimed it did not edit or control content. It was a platform or a distribution mechanism. A platform is no more legally responsible for the content it hosts than a phone company is responsible for the content of conversations that flow over its lines. This immunity comes from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, subtitled “Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material.” It reads, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The provision provides all interactive online services with broad immunity from tort liability that could arise due to material posted by a third party. Establishing Where Liability Lies The legal difference between a platform (a distributor) and a publisher is significant and centers on the issue of liability. The Digital Media Law Project explained, “Distributor liability is much more limited. Newsstands, bookstores, and libraries are generally not held liable for the content of the material that they distribute. The concern is that it would be impossible for distributors to read every publication before they sell or distribute it, and that as a result, distributors would engage in excessive self-censorship. In addition, it would be very hard for distributors to know whether something is actionable defamation; after all, speech must be false to be defamatory.” A publisher could be liable. Social media—platform or publisher?—was the gist of an early court battle over online content. The case revolved around defamatory statements made by posters on a bulletin board: Cubby v. CompuServe, Inc. (1991). Subscribers to Compuserve could access over 150 forums that were managed by third parties. When the so-called “Rumorville” forum was sued for defamation, Compuserve claimed to enjoy the immunity of a distributor because it did not review posts before they appeared. The court agreed and dismissed the case. But the Compuserve ruling did not create settled law. In Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995), a court found that a computer network did exercise editorial control over messages through its content guidelines and software screening filter. Prodigy was found legally liable for content on its site. The Digital Media Law Project commented on the conflicting decisions. “The perverse upshot of the CompuServe and Stratton decisions was that any effort by an online information provider to restrict or edit user-submitted content on its site faced a much higher risk of liability if it failed to eliminate all defamatory material than if it simply didn’t try to control or edit the content of third parties at all.” Social media is in the tense position of wishing to be legally viewed as a platform while exercising the control vested in a publisher. Facebook and its ilk try to straddle the fence, with a foot planted on either side. The footing is not solid. For one thing, the situation is more complicated. On civil liability, for example, the current Section 230 includes a “good Samaritan clause” that states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” Social media does not incur civil liability for exercising “good faith” efforts to patrol content, at least in theory. But the civil immunity is not absolute, and courts have shown a tendency to chip away at the broad protection. In Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., for example, the court found that a failure to comply with promises to remove material could invalidate Section 230 protection. Besides which, many accusations against crypto are criminal, not civil. Social Media’s Schizophrenia Since the civil liability of social media is evolving law, the greatest safety resides in being a “platform” rather than “publisher.” But as the media grows in wealth, influence, and arrogance, the lines blur. According to Bloomberg Business, Susan Wojcicki, Youtube’s chief executive officer, has been “trying to traverse an almost impossible tightrope: nurture a growing community of demanding creators, while pledging to police troubling videos … The efforts pleased almost no one and highlighted an existential quandary. Every time Youtube tries to fix something, the company, an arm of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, risks losing the neutrality that it needs to thrive.” The neutrality comes from acting as a platform. And yet, Youtube also acts as a publisher by censoring material. When caught doing so, Youtube reverts to being a platform again by ascribing the “mistake” to a computer glitch, human error or act of God. Facebook is similarly schizophrenic; that is, it wants the legal protections of a platform while functioning as a publisher. Facebook has been leaning more openly toward a publisher status, however. In April 2019, while testifying before a Senate hearing, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that his company “is responsible for the content.” In response, Senator Ted Cruz spelled out the legal implications of this statement by asking Zuckerberg, “Are you a First Amendment speaker expressing your views [a publisher], or are you a neutral public forum allowing everyone to speak [a platform]? … The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you’re a neutral public forum.” Cruz’s question must have been for the record because Zuckerberg was surely familiar with the legal distinction. Of more significance: Facebook represented itself as a First Amendment speaker—a publisher—in a 2018 court proceeding. The Guardian reported, “In a small courtroom in California … attorneys for the social media company … repeatedly argued, [Facebook] is a publisher, and … makes editorial decisions, which are protected by the first amendment.” Complying with the demands the state makes upon a publisher is costly, inconvenient, and disempowering; but demands are happening more and more. Bloomberg Business reported on just one policy the state has imposed on Youtube for 2020: Youtube’s approach to kids. A landmark privacy settlement this year with the Federal Trade Commission is forcing Youtube to split its massive site in two. Every clip, starting in January, must be designated as “made for kids” or not. The overhaul puts billions of ad dollars at stake and has sparked panic among creators, who also now face new legal risk. The company isn’t offering creators legal advice or ways to salvage their businesses. It isn’t even defining what a “made for kids” video is on Youtube. Youtube will pass on the cost of compliance to the user, of course. One cost will be the arbitrary suspension of “suspicious” accounts—suspicious by the unstated or vague definition of the social media company. If some simply “offensive” accounts fall victim, so be it. Conclusion Social media does not have to be this way. It should not involve the exercise of arbitrary power over dutiful customers. The unthinking or biased bureaucracy of the giants results from several factors. The companies are highly centralized, which makes them unresponsive and autocratic. They are financially supported by the state through tax grants and privileges, contracts and exemptions; in short, they do not need to provide a competitive service in the marketplace. They strip privacy away from users in order to sell it or share it with the state—neither of which benefits users. The function and legal context of the social media giants is not likely to change, except for the worse. The solution is obvious, however. Graham Smith presented it out in “Youtube ‘Christmas Purge’ Has Content Creators Pointing to These Alternate Platforms.” These crypto-powered video sharing platforms deserve an immediate look before the social media giants oblige content creators and their fans to adopt them en masse. What are your thoughts on Youtube’s Christmas crypto purge? Let us know in the comments section below. Op-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see what’s happening in the industry. The post Was Youtube’s Christmas Crypto Purge Illegal? appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

Similar to how it’s restored some crypto Youtube channels after a lot of pushback from the crypto community, Google has now restored Metamask to the Play Store. Either the tech giant is sensitive to claims of hurting innovation and competition or it is simply not ready yet to enforce a ban on dapp browsers, as Apple seemingly has in its App Store. Also Read: Google Bans Crypto App Metamask From Play Store Metamask for Android Restored Google Play, the official app store for the Android operating system which is used by billions of mobile devices, has now restored the crypto app Metamask after Google banned it for about a week. The company did not disclose the reason for the move, which was in contrast to a previous appeal that was rejected, but it might have had something to do with the uproar the original decision created within the crypto community. “Thanks to all the believers in an open web for speaking out in our support!” the Metamask team stated on Twitter. “Also thanks to all the suggestions for alternate distribution methods. This experience has made us more resilient, and as a community we are stronger for enduring it.” Happy New Year! Upon careful consideration, Google has permitted The MetaMask mobile app back on the Google Play (Android) store! Thanks to all the believers in an open web for speaking out in our support! https://t.co/Z8KOCtvHq0 — MetaMask (@metamask_io) January 1, 2020 Metamask is a decentralized apps browser for desktop and mobile built upon the Ethereum network. It also offers browser extensions for Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Brave that add an in-browser wallet for ETH and ERC20 tokens to be sent and received. Last week Google banned the Metamask app from the Play store under the policy that “we don’t allow apps that mine cryptocurrency on devices,” despite the fact that mining is something Metamask was never designed to do. Tense Time for Tech Giants and the Crypto Community One reason why the removal of Metamask from the Play store caused leading voices in the crypto community to react is that it followed the Google-owned Youtube removing content and banning channels devoted to digital asset markets. The company quickly claimed this was done by mistake and reinstated some channels but not before it already drove many in the community to start looking for ways to back up their content or even migrate to alternative platforms. As for speculating over the reason the company restored Metamask, Google might have decided that it is not ready to follow Apple’s restrictive policy on dapps or that it will serve the company to differentiate itself from its only real rival in the mobile OS field for now. A few days ago Apple came under fire from the crypto community for apparently forcing the Coinbase mobile wallet on the App Store to remove the built-in dapp browser. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong commented that “If Apple customers want to be able to use Dapps, we may need to make this request know to Apple in some way. This is an important area of innovation in finance, and many developers and early adopters of this technology have millions of dollars worth of crypto tied up in these financial applications, which they will no longer be able to use on Apple mobile devices if this app store policy continues.” The public pressure Android crypto users put on Google to restore Metamask seems to show this approach can work if Apple is willing to listen too. What do you think about Google restoring crypto app Metamask after an uproar by the crypto community? Share your thoughts in the comments section below. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. Verify and track bitcoin cash transactions on our BCH Block Explorer, the best of its kind anywhere in the world. Also, keep up with your holdings, BCH and other coins, on our market charts at Bitcoin.com Markets, another original and free service from Bitcoin.com. The post Google Restores Metamask App After Community Uproar appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

Search online for ‘possible creators of Bitcoin’ and Bit Gold creator Nick Szabo will always appear near the top of the list. His long history in the cypherpunk space, his writings on money, digital cash, and smart contracts, and some facts about his past have often been used to create a compelling picture that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. But many of the facts are misinterpreted and actually point against this theory. Also Read: “I Designed Bitcoi… Gold” – The Many Facts Pointing to Nick Being Satoshi Why It Even Matters Bit Gold creator Nick Szabo is probably not Satoshi. He is not even one of the pretend Satoshis. He has said publicly several times that he is not the creator of Bitcoin. For years though, small-block bitcoiners have successfully used Szabo’s theoretical Satoshiness in the Bitcoin scaling debate to argue against changes to Bitcoin that would allow it to work better as fast, reliable digital cash. A Useful Talking Point During the 2017 Segwit2x fork, Litecoin creator and small-blocker Charlie Lee went as far as to use Szabo’s possible Satoshiness as an argument against an increase to BTC’s block size that would have prevented the spike in fees that occurred at the end of 2017, with the growth of forks like BCH and BSV, and helped push BTC into a two-year dark age in which adoption and price have stagnated. In my opinion, Nick Szabo is the closest we have to Satoshi, if not Satoshi himself. With Nick and all of Bitcoin Core devs against Segwit2x, why are people still pushing for this hardfork that will split the chain? More recently, small-blocker Dan Held shared what he said were similarities between Satoshi and Szabo to argue that Bitcoin was not intended primarily as a medium of exchange, but as a collectible and store of value. Satoshi even refers to the earlier use of Bitcoin being a “collectible” before SoV/MoE just like Nick Szabo. This is incorrect. Satoshi wrote he believed Bitcoin would bootstrap because it had utility and defined its earliest uses in an email on the Cryptography Mailing List as a utility token, not a collectible. As long as someone can theoretically imagine Szabo being Satoshi though, people will be able to use him to support arguments that might otherwise be discredited with Satoshi’s writing alone. Interestingly, there’s a remarkable amount of evidence against the Szabo-Satoshi theory. Let’s put it to rest by refuting three of the popular arguments. Why Szabo Probably Isn’t Satoshi Claim: Satoshi was a cypherpunk like Nick Szabo Nearly all the popular theories about the origins of Bitcoin place it firmly within the cypherpunk tradition of anarchist digital cash. The idea is that Satoshi was simply the end of a long road pioneered by cypherpunks like b-money creator Wei Dai and Nick Szabo, and that indeed because of this, Satoshi could even be Szabo. It isn’t totally baseless. In 2010, Satoshi wrote that Bitcoin is “an implementation of Wei Dai’s b-money … and Nick Szabo’s Bitgold proposal.” But there’s another explanation for this. Thanks to statements from cypherpunk Adam Back and emails from Wei Dai, we know that Satoshi was back-crediting and citation stuffing when he said this, and that before creating Bitcoin he was likely not even aware of the prominent earlier cypherpunk attempts to create digital cash like Nick Szabo would have been. It goes all the way back to around mid-2008, several months before Satoshi announced the whitepaper to the Cryptography Mailing List. Satoshi contacted Adam Back, who according to him suggested he contact b-money creator Wei Dai because the idea for Bitcoin sounded similar to Wei’s earlier proposal. Adam wrote that he believes it was he who got Wei Dai’s b-money reference added to Satoshi’s Bitcoin paper. In other words, Satoshi, unlike Szabo, was ignorant of b-money until Back told him about it and only added the citation to the whitepaper because Back told him about it. Back hasn’t released any emails, but we can confirm this conversation probably took place because Wei Dai has released the emails Satoshi sent him after communicating with Back. I’m getting ready to release a paper that expands on your ideas into a complete working system. Adam Back (hashcash.org) noticed the similarities and pointed me to your site. I need to find out the year of publication of your b-money page for the citation in my paper. Two things are important here. 1) Satoshi didn’t even know the date to the b-money paper, information which Szabo definitely would have had, and 2) his point that Bitcoin “expands on your ideas” clearly does not mean that Satoshi was literally influenced by b-money or aware of it before creating Bitcoin. He was simply giving credit to someone who independently had some similar ideas before him and spreading the word about his new project. Wei tells us as much himself. My understanding is that the creator of Bitcoin, who goes by the name Satoshi Nakamoto, didn’t even read my article before reinventing the idea himself. He learned about it afterward and credited me in his paper. So my connection with the project is quite limited. He also has said that “in Satoshi’s early emails to me he was apparently unaware of Nick Szabo’s ideas.” So much for the cypherpunk origin theory of Bitcoin and its relationship to b-money and Bit Gold. It looks like Satoshi just wanted to pad his work for credibility. Szabo might be a cypherpunk, but Satoshi doesn’t appear to have been one. Claim: Satoshi and Szabo share the same vision for Bitcoin As we saw earlier, Charlie Lee used the shared vision argument to justify his opposition to the Segwit 2x fork, but a look at the evidence shows Szabo and Satoshi say almost entirely opposite things about important parts of Bitcoin. Compare what Szabo wrote in 2018 about scaling Bitcoin for small payments to what Satoshi wrote 10 years before. Szabo: “I’ve always thought of Bitcoin as evolving into a settlements-and-large-payments layer that in the long term needed a layer 2 for consumer payments.” Satoshi: “[Micropayments] can become more practical if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.” While Satoshi expected Bitcoin to scale onchain according to Moore’s Law using large, professional server farms, Szabo says he has always believed that digital cash would require a base settlement layer and a second payment layer. Even 15 years before Satoshi published the Bitcoin whitepaper, Szabo explained on the Cypherpunk Mailing List a two-layer digital cash that is very different from Bitcoin: “accumulating credits/debits for use of on-line services (including travel services, concert tickets, etc. purchased on-line), eventually paid for by some “real” currency: FRNs, yen, etc. Implemented with Chaum-style protocol to prevent forgery and assure privacy.” Let’s look at two more quotes to be sure Satoshi and Szabo don’t agree. Szabo: “…we can have multiple protocol layers instead of separate kinds of physical objects. Bitcoin the settlement & large payments layer is the “gold”; layer 2s or 3s used for retail are the “silver” and “copper”, smaller but pegged to layer 1.” Satoshi: “Gold mining is a waste, but that waste is far less than the utility of having gold available as a medium of exchange. I think the case will be the same for Bitcoin. The utility of the exchanges made possible by Bitcoin will far exceed the cost of electricity used.” Satoshi and Szabo both refer to gold, but while Szabo called gold a settlement too, Satoshi specifically calls it a medium of exchange in his comparison to Bitcoin. In other words, Szabo thinks Bitcoin is for settlement while Satoshi thought Bitcoin was for payments. Szabo is a small-blocker, Satoshi was a big-blocker. Claim: Nick Szabo deliberately altered his blog to hide his tracks Did Szabo really alter a blog post about Bit Gold? He did. In 2008, Szabo dated a blog post from 2005 to December 2008, nearly two months after the Bitcoin whitepaper was released. Szabo-Satoshi theorists have jumped on this for years as the definitive smoking gun that proves Szabo was trying to mask his involvement in Bitcoin by making it appear he was working on Bit Gold at the same time Satoshi was releasing Bitcoin, but some searching shows this isn’t as scandalous as it appears. Szabo explained this in a post on August 20, 2008 announcing that he would be doing this so that he could bump his better articles to the front of the site as ‘reruns.’ Unenumerated is going into reruns season. For the next few weeks I will be reposting the best articles from this blog. These will mostly be posts from previous years, so unless you have been a reader since the beginning or have read most of the archives many of these will be new to you. A web archive search of the 2006 article Wet code and dry shows he began changing dates to 2008 only a few days after the announcement, just like he said he would. Redating old posts so they appear at the top in the newsfeed is a well-known practice among bloggers and Nick redated several other posts in 2008 and 2009, including The Kula Ring, which was written in 2005 but now shows September 22nd as the date. There’s no smoking gun here, just a common blogging practice. Final Thoughts What we’re left with after all this is substantially more difficulty making the case Szabo is Satoshi. Satoshi doesn’t match up nearly as well with the cypherpunk origin myths that have been common for so long which are essential for the Szabo theory, his vision for scaling Bitcoin is the opposite of Szabo’s, and the popular smoking gun theory about Szabo’s blog turns out to be much ado about nothing. If Nick Szabo is Satoshi, he has done a remarkable job of leaving bread crumbs that point the opposite way. From what we know about Satoshi Nakamoto’s abilities, admittedly, that’s not entirely inconceivable. Who do you think is Satoshi? One person? Many? Let us know in the comments section below. Images credits: Shutterstock, fair use. Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section. You can also enjoy the easiest way to buy Bitcoin online with us. Download your free Bitcoin wallet and head to our Purchase Bitcoin page where you can buy BCH and BTC securely. The post Why Nick Szabo Probably Isn’t Satoshi appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

Since Tether’s (USDT) migration to other networks beside the BTC-based Omni protocol, significant shifts have taken place seeing the heavily-printed stablecoin rise to prominence also via Ethereum’s ERC20 standard and Tron’s TRC20 implementation. Ethereum-based USDT supply currently sits at over 2.2 billion tokens, while the Omni equivalent stands at around 1.5 billion. The Tron network adds over 900 million tethers to this mix, with the popular and controversial USDT stablecoin showing no sign of slowing down. Also Read: Veriblock Captured Close to 60% of BTC’s OP Return Transactions in 2019 The Controversial, Multi-Network USDT Tether’s expansion to other networks from the Omni Layer since its creation in 2014 is testament to its almost ubiquitous popularity. An asset seen as enabling stability and liquidity in the typically volatile context of crypto trading. Tether has not been without its skeptics and detractors, however. From alleged market manipulation involving ties to Bitfinex, to terms of service revisions detailing that the asset is no longer backed only by dollars, but also by “other assets and receivables from loans made by Tether to third parties,” those scrutinizing the coin have had more than a few reasons to raise an eyebrow. USDT’s market cap increased over $2 billion in 2019, and the company minted a reported 1.7 billion coins. Image source: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/ That notwithstanding, growth on the ERC20 and TRC20 standards shows that tether retains demand even when not associated with the Bitcoin Core protocol. Since the announcement of TRC20 tether in March 2019, USDT supply on the Tron Network has risen to over 900 million tokens. Tron USDT Now Almost 22% of Total Supply In October 2019, the supply of USDT on the Tron network made up almost 12% of all tethers. Fast forward to January, 2020, and the total supply of Tron USDT is 916,550,610.601 at press time. Given that the supply of USDT across all its various networks is 4,207,771,504, this means that TRC20 tethers now make up nearly 22% of the total supply of tokens. Ethereum-Based Tether and Major Holders Last summer, when ERC20 tether transactions flipped the number of USDT Omni transactions, the crypto space took notice. The amount of tether on the Omni Layer at that time (2.5 billion) has since dwindled to just 1.5 billion at press time, with the ETH network currently housing over 2.2 billion tethers on chain. The EOS network is also home to the stablecoin, and sees tether’s circulating presence there at just over 5 million tokens, with a Bitfinex-managed account holding 88.6% of this supply. Where Tron is concerned, a Binance account is the top holder, and on the ETH network the top holder is Huobi. USDT also has a presence on the Algorand blockchain. Top USDT circulating supply holders on the EOS network. Tether Into 2020 It will be interesting to see how tether develops into the new year, as the outcomes of various legal battles, potential chain swaps and migrations of USDT to other networks, and the long-debated claims of the asset actually being redeemable for dollars, all stand to be brought to greater clarity. What are your thoughts on Tether? Is USDT’s continued growth and printing good for the crypto space? Let us know in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Images courtesy of Shutterstock, fair use. Did you know you can buy and sell BCH privately using our noncustodial, peer-to-peer Local Bitcoin Cash trading platform? The local.Bitcoin.com marketplace has thousands of participants from all around the world trading BCH right now. And if you need a bitcoin wallet to securely store your coins, you can download one from us here. The post Tron-Based Tether Has Ballooned to Over 900 Million Tokens, Almost 22% of Total Supply appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

South Korea has confirmed that income tax cannot be levied on individual investors’ profits from crypto transactions under the current tax law. The government, however, is reviewing international trends and the approaches of major countries to crypto taxation in an effort to amend the existing Korean tax law to include cryptocurrency. Also read: Regulatory Roundup – China Blockchain ETF, France New Crypto Rules, Tokens Like Money in Russia Crypto Gains Not Subject to Taxation The South Korean Ministry of Economy and Finance, which oversees the country’s economic policy, has stated officially that individual investors’ crypto trading profits cannot be taxed under the current tax law. Not all capital gains from financial investments are subject to taxation in South Korea, and taxes cannot be imposed on income from activities that are not explicitly defined under the tax law. Since the term “virtual currency,” or any other term it is known by, is not included anywhere in the tax law, its transactions cannot be taxed. The ministry clarified on Dec. 30: Profits from individual virtual asset transactions are not listed income and are not taxable. Amendments Are Being Discussed While individuals’ crypto profits are currently tax-free in South Korea, the Ministry of Economy and Finance has been pushing to amend the tax law so they can be taxed. An official of the ministry said that discussions have already been taking place, adding that the revised bill is expected to be drawn up by the first half of 2020. However, some major decisions must be made before the tax law can be amended. They include a precise definition of crypto assets, whether profits should be categorized as capital gains, and how the government plans to obtain trading records from crypto exchanges to accurately levy taxes. Emphasizing that cryptocurrency would need legal status before it can be added to the law, the ministry elaborated: We are preparing a taxation plan for virtual assets by comprehensively reviewing the taxation of major countries, consistency with accounting standards, and trends in international discussions to prevent money laundering. National Tax Service Targets Foreign Traders Using Domestic Crypto Exchanges While domestic crypto transactions are not taxed, the country’s National Tax Service (NTS) has imposed 80.3 billion won ($69.5 million) in withholding tax on trades conducted by foreign customers of Bithumb Korea, one of the largest crypto exchanges in the country. “Bithumb can pay [the NTS] 80.3 billion won and afterwards collect the amount from its foreign clients, but practically it’s impossible,” Kim Woo-cheol, a tax professor at the University of Seoul, was quoted by Korea Joongang Daily as saying. Bithumb reportedly has not been withholding taxes from its foreign customers and is preparing to file a lawsuit against the NTS over a “groundless” tax imposed on the company, local media reported Sunday. The Issue of Categorizing Crypto Profits as Capital Gains The NTS has categorized foreign traders’ crypto gains as miscellaneous income — the category which includes irregular income such as rewards or lottery winnings, Korea Joongang Daily detailed. In contrast, earnings from real estate or stock trading are categorized as capital gains. Noting that “Capital gains tax is collected for every deal, but tax for miscellaneous income is collected once each year,” the publication asserted: Putting income from cryptocurrency trades under capital gains would have required the government to receive every trading record from domestic exchanges. Ahn Chang-nam, a tax professor at Kangnam University, believes that it is “realistically difficult” for the government to know about every crypto transaction. “It seems like the NTS took a practical approach in categorizing gains from crypto asset trading as miscellaneous assets,” the professor opined. What do you think of South Korea’s approach to crypto taxation? Let us know in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Images courtesy of Shutterstock and the Korean government. Did you know you can buy and sell BCH privately using our noncustodial, peer-to-peer Local Bitcoin Cash trading platform? The local.Bitcoin.com marketplace has thousands of participants from all around the world trading BCH right now. And if you need a bitcoin wallet to securely store your coins, you can download one from us here. The post Government Confirms Crypto Profits Not Taxable in South Korea appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

2019 was a crazy year for cryptocurrency enthusiasts and a number of interesting events happened throughout the last 12 months. It’s hard to keep track of the day-to-day activities taking place within the cryptosphere and there may be a few incidents some of our readers missed. At news.Bitcoin.com we took the opportunity to scan our most popular articles from 2019 in order to create a year-end list to share with our readers. Also Read: A List of Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventors and Satoshi Clues Debunked in 2019 2019’s Most Popular News.Bitcoin.com Stories Bitcoin.com’s writers are entrenched in the cryptosphere and every day our writing team is on the hunt for cryptocurrency-related news. During the last 365 days, a number of our writers have published news stories seven days a week to keep our readers informed. There’s been a number of developments in 2019, as the community is dealing with digital asset regulations, crypto exchange hacks, central banks practicing monetary easing, and people claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. The following is a look at news.Bitcoin.com’s most popular crypto articles in 2019 by order of the highest-trafficked content. Panic at 137 Bank Branches as RBI Limits Withdrawals to ₹1,000 In September, news.Bitcoin.com’s Kevin Helms reported on the Reserve Bank of India’s regulatory guidelines imposed, which limited bank customers’ withdrawals from 137 financial institutions. Customers from these bank branches were only allowed to withdraw “1,000 rupees (approximately $14) per account for six months.” After the news spread, a number of India’s citizens revolted and the government had to send police assistance to a few different banks located in Mumbai. The report highlighted how the current banking system, no matter what country you live in, continues to grow untrustworthy. More Signs the Next Big Financial Crisis Begins in Germany Across 2019, a great number of central banks and countries participated in practicing monetary easing. However, one specific economy, that has been considered the foundation of Europe, has been showing signs of financial failure. In August, Lubomir Tassev explained that the German economy is facing an economic crisis that could cause a domino effect throughout the EU. 2019 statistics had shown that Germany’s strong industrial economy saw significant declines in production. “[Germany] is now seeing a significant decline in production – by 2.7% year-on-year in January and 1.9% in April compared to the previous month,” Tassev detailed. “Then in May, factory orders declined 2.2% from a month ago and registered an 8.6% annual drop, the biggest in a decade.” The following month the country invoked a five-year rent freeze in Berlin. Satoshi Nakamoto Could Be Criminal Mastermind, Paul Le Roux In May, the cryptocurrency community found another suspect who might be the infamous creator of Bitcoin. Kai Sedgwick reported on how the name Paul Le Roux found its way into the cryptosphere last spring. During the Kleiman v. Wright lawsuit, Document 187 had shown an unredacted name and Wiki link which belongs to the criminal mastermind Paul Le Roux. The document led people to believe that Le Roux was smart enough to create Bitcoin and the coincidental timing of his arrest was around the same time Nakamoto left the community. Speculators really started wondering if Le Roux was Nakamoto when an anon from 4chan’s /biz/ messageboard insisted that “Bitcoin was a project of a evil genius … Paul Solotshi Calder Le Roux.” The unredacted footnote from Document 187. Satoshi’s Final Messages Leave Tantalizing Clues to His Disappearance Satoshi Nakamoto was a popular topic in 2019, and a few of news.Bitcoin.com’s highest-trafficked articles are written about this legendary character. The day before Halloween, news.Bitcoin.com published a story about the fascinating clues left behind by Bitcoin’s notorious creator. The editorial discusses Satoshi’s planning, theories as to why Nakamoto left the community, and conspiracy theories like the idea that Bitcoin was created by the CIA. Satoshi left behind a bunch of clues and said some interesting statements back when the monicker spoke on bitcointalk.org and the cryptography mailing list. Indian Government Confirms Cryptocurrency Regulation in Final Stages All year long Indian cryptocurrency enthusiasts have been waiting on the final word in regard to digital currency regulations in India. News about the regulatory situation started coming to life in the spring and in March, India’s government told the supreme court that the crypto regulations being drafted were near completion. Attorney Jaideep Reddy of Nishith Desai, a lawyer behind a writ petition opposing the crypto banking ban by the Reserve Bank of India, told news.Bitcoin.com at the time: “The matter was heard for a very short period of time — The matter started with the counsel for the Union of India stating that its committee is in the final stages of deliberations and that the matter should be heard after that.” Banks Stopped Walmart Bank – Now the Retail Giant Hits Back With Crypto During the first week of August, it was discovered that the giant retail corporation Walmart patented plans for a stablecoin backed by USD. The news followed Facebook’s announcement to launch a coin called Libra. Walmart’s attempt also followed the time when the company attempted to start its own banking services back in 2006. At the time, politicians and financial incumbents opposed Walmart joining the banking industry and the firm got so much pushback it decided to quit the banking attempt. However, with a ‘Walmart Coin,’ the company could skip all the banking charter laws and offer customers a different kind of “savings” incentive through cryptocurrency dividends. Indian Government Official Resigns After Drafting ‘Flawed’ Crypto Bill News about cryptocurrency laws in India was of great interest to news.Bitcoin.com readers in 2019. On July 26, headlines detailed that an Indian official who led the committee which had created the crypto ban bill resigned. Former Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg decided to apply for voluntary retirement after receiving flak from the Indian cryptocurrency community. Supporters of friendlier digital asset laws in India, called the drafted bill “flawed” and after a few controversial tweets about crypto, he left his post. Moreover, a few days prior, members of the Indian government told the public that digital currencies were not banned. 8 Crypto Debit Cards You Can Use Around the World Right Now In the first month of 2019, news.Bitcoin.com’s Lubomir Tassev wrote a review about eight different crypto debit cards people can use around the world. The editorial discussed cards issued by firms like Wirex, Bitpay, Revolut, Cryptopay, and Fuzex. The report explained the negatives and the positive benefits to a loadable cryptocurrency card. In addition to detailed information about existing crypto cards on the market, Tassev also wrote about the upcoming card companies that planned to launch in 2019. The editorial highlights how the use of crypto debit cards “significantly expands the usability of digital coins in the world.” Banking System Failures, More Satoshi Lore, IRS Cracks Down on American Crypto Owners, and Onecoin Crumbles There were a hell of a lot more popular stories last year and the eight mentioned above just scratch the surface when it comes to news.Bitcoin.com’s 2019 archive. Other reader favorites in our library this year included subjects like a possible Deutsche Bank collapse, how Citi, Deutsche, and HSBC laid off thousands of employees, the Indian supreme court’s struggles with drafting regulations, and the Philippines seeing 10 government approved exchanges. There were plenty of Satoshi Nakamoto stories and unique editorials involving the mysterious creator of Bitcoin. The news about the U.S. tax agency telling the public they planned on sending 10,000 letters to American cryptocurrency owners shocked our readers. 2019 also saw the downfall of the biggest multi-level-marketing (MLM) crypto scam of all time when the so-called ‘Bitcoin Killer’ Onecoin crumbled. What do you think about the eight most popular news.Bitcoin.com articles from 2019? Let us know what you think about the subjects and articles in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any ideas, concepts, content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Fair Use. Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see what’s happening in the industry. The post These Are the Bitcoin Stories You Loved in 2019 appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

Do you use a VPN? It’s a privacy-enhancing tool that everyone should be using, especially those with digital assets. Or do you happen to be older than the typical crypto trader? Both of these characteristics are part of a list of so-called ‘red flags’ that can get you in trouble with a new dragnet that is being established in Israel. Also Read: Why a VPN Is the First Layer You Should Pull On When Browsing the Web Too Many Red Flags On December 31, 2019 the Israel Money Laundering and Terror Financing Prohibition Authority published a draft guide titled ‘Red Flags in the Virtual Assets Field’ for the public to review. The document contains a list of ‘red flags’ that is intended to help the private sector formulate a policy on anti-money laundering risks related to digital assets such as cryptocurrencies. It was compiled by the authority in collaboration with various financial regulators and members of the industry. The authority noted that digital assets can promote economic innovation, but are “a challenge” to enforcement agencies seeking to conduct financial investigations and seize prohibited property originating from crime. Therefore, the guide was designed to help financial bodies identify activity that can be “problematic.” The authority also said this guide was compiled in collaboration with various financial regulators and members of the industry. However, voices in the Israeli crypto community have already criticized it for having too many so-called ‘red flags’ which are the result of excessive and unjustified concerns by the regulators. “Such red flags hurt both the growing industry and technology, and the fundamental rights inherent in democracy: the freedom of the individual, the right to privacy, the right to property and freedom of occupation,” commented lawyer and accountant Ron Tsarfaty, the Chief Financial and Compliance Officer at Bit2c. The Israel Money Laundering and Terror Financing Prohibition Authority was established in 2002 as an independent financial intelligence unit acting in accordance with the international rules against money laundering prescribed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). In 2018 Israel became the 35th member state in the FATF, the intergovernmental organization founded in 1989 by the countries of the G7. In June 2019 the FATF published its ‘final guidance’ on crypto assets and service providers, which has forced many industry companies around the world to change how they do business at the expense of clients’ privacy. Targeting Older People, VPN and Tor Users The guide draft lists dozens of red flags and explains that in the event that one or more of these is triggered the service providers must investigate the matter and if suspicions of money laundering or terror financing arise, report immediately to the authority or the police. Among the dozens of red flags listed, many focus on users who try to protect their privacy, for example by using coin mixers or dealing in dash, monero or zcash. There is also focus on users of VPNs, Tor and any other privacy enhancing technology. The red flags also cover obvious cases such as darknet vendors, suspected ICO pump and dumps or Ponzi scams, and ransomware hackers. However, the list of suspicious activities and clients also includes older people, users of P2P or decentralized exchanges, people who appear to be in a hurry to trade and even people who donate to charities using crypto. The long list of ref flags that service providers, such as crypto exchanges, are required to monitor includes the following: Purchase of virtual assets in high amounts of cash; Purchase of virtual assets in high amounts between private individuals; Complex activity of conversion or transfer of virtual assets, without reasonable explanation; Change of address, telephone number or other means of identification frequently, without reasonable explanation; The recipient of the service is not within the typical population of virtual assets, such as an older person; The recipient of the service refuses to present a legitimate source of funds or documents verifying the information provided, without reasonable explanation; The recipient of the service shows indifference to the terms of service, including fees and costs; The activity does not match the normal service recipient activity and the identification documents provided by it; The recipient of the service demonstrates pressure or urgency to obtain virtual assets and is not ready to disclose the purpose of the acquisition; The recipient of the service is a public person (including a relative or business partner of a public person); The service recipient requests information about the service provider’s internal systems, policies and procedures regarding the prohibition of money laundering; The service recipient provides inaccurate or incorrect information about the transaction or its relationship with the other party to the transaction; The service recipient mainly uses anonymous or high value currencies; The service recipient enters the service provider’s system using an IP address associated with VPN, The Onion Router (TOR) software or another software that allows users to employ increased anonymity; The service recipient receives virtual assets from illegal gambling sites; The recipient of the service transacts with foundations or nonprofits that receive virtual assets; The recipient of the service carries out transactions in high frequency or high amounts, after a long period of inactivity; The recipient of the service frequently changes its identification information, such as address, email, IP address or bank account; The recipient of the service shows indifference to paying high fees for switching virtual assets to fiat compared to commissions paid to other service providers. What do you think about the ‘red flags’ that can get Israeli crypto traders in trouble? Share your thoughts in the comments section below. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. Verify and track bitcoin cash transactions on our BCH Block Explorer, the best of its kind anywhere in the world. Also, keep up with your holdings, BCH and other coins, on our market charts at Bitcoin.com Markets, another original and free service from Bitcoin.com. The post Using a VPN May Get Israeli Crypto Traders in Trouble appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

A crypto startup providing wifi hotspot sharing services in Nigeria has won funding from the country’s telecom regulator. Wicrypt placed second among 25 tech companies participating in an innovation competition organized by the Nigeria Communication Commission and it’s going to receive a grant worth 2 million naira to finance its project. Also read: Skrill Now Lets You Swap BTC for BCH Wicrypt Users Can Earn and Spend Crypto Wicrypt allows subscribers to earn money by sharing their mobile data with other users who pay for the service. The platform’s app has been developed for Android and iOS devices and is already available on Google Play and Apple’s App Store. Hosts can connect their wireless routers to Wicrypt as well and set a price for the wifi hotspot. Clients pay to gain access but are also free to reward the hosts for the network quality and speed. To connect to Wicrypt hotspots, wifi users need to have a sufficient amount of Wicrypt credits (WCs), the platform’s website explains. The application verifies if a beneficiary has enough credits in their wallet to pay for the service. WCs can be acquired and redeemed with a wide choice of payment methods available to both sides. Ugochukwu Aronu, founder of the company based in the Nigerian state of Enugu, commented: Wicrypt will help Nigerians earn money online using and sharing their mobile data. The payment options include regular bank accounts and cards as well as crypto payments with bitcoin core (BTC), ethereum (ETH) and Binance coin (BNB). Deposits and withdrawals can also be made through the Kenyan mobile phone-based money transfer system Mpesa. Text-based payments offered by telecom companies are quite popular in African countries. These provide an opportunity for crypto payments to expand in developing nations, as is the case with Cointext, which provides users with a bitcoin cash wallet and an SMS channel to send and receive BCH. Wicrypt has been chosen to receive 2 million naira in funding, which is more than $5,500, as a grant from Nigeria’s telecom regulator. Dozens of technological innovators took part in the three-day Innovation Competition and Exhibition conducted by the Nigeria Communication Commission. The NCC recently released the final list of 25 contenders and Wicrypt is second in the rating, the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) announced. The companies that received government grants can invest the prize money into their business development. Other Funding Programs Launched The NIPC also notes that the Lagos State Government recently launched a 250 million Nigerian naira seed funding for startups focusing on innovations, including in the blockchain and other fintech fields. The initiative was announced by Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu during the Art of Technology Lagos 1.0 conference held in early December with over 1,500 young innovators and tech solutions developers. Funds were also distributed among blockchain startups during another event, the Zenithtech Fair 2019 in November. These funding projects may indicate a change in the attitude of Nigerian authorities toward the nascent crypto industry, at least on a regional level. The federal government has generally had a negative stance regarding the blockchain space so far, with the Central Bank of Nigeria issuing warnings against investment in cryptocurrencies which it does consider legal tender in the country. Nigerians, however, have been growing fonder of digital coins. According to a study conducted by Binance Research, the trends in Google searches for “bitcoin” have noticeably shifted in the past few years, from the developed West to the East, including regions in Eastern Europe and Asia, but most recently on the African continent. A video with the results released this past fall shows that Nigeria has been topping the chart for a whole year until September 2019. Do you think the Nigerian government is changing its policy toward the crypto space? Share your thoughts on the topic in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any third party products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. Are you a Bitcoin developer? You can create your own Bitcoin Cash app with the Bitbox and Badger Wallet SDKs, get started with BCH tokens through the SLP SDK, and build your knowledge base with our Bitcoin Cash developer guides. The post Wifi Sharing Platform Wicrypt Gets Government Grant in Nigeria appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

Five years ago, the crypto community became aware of an alleged contract called the Tulip Trust. The supposed contract emerged when a few tech-based news outlets published stories on two former business partners Craig Wright and David Kleiman. According to the Tulip Trust contract story, Wright and Kleiman were ostensibly part of the group that invented Bitcoin. The trust claims that on January 1, 2020, approximately 1,100,111 BTC will be returned to Wright and now skeptics are patiently waiting for the arrival of a bonded courier. Also Read: A List of Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventors and Satoshi Clues Debunked in 2019 The Infamous Tulip Trust: ‘All Bitcoin Will be Returned to Dr. Wright on Jan. 1st 2020’ Today is the day the alleged bonded courier is supposed to deliver Craig Wright the keys to roughly 1 million BTC ($8 billion). The reason a few people have this belief is because Wright told the court during his lawsuit against the Kleiman estate that the keys to the funds he owned within the Tulip Trust were to be delivered by bonded courier. Prior to the supposed courier’s delivery, Wright claimed the keys to this stash of bitcoins were unattainable and split among various key holders. If you think Satoshi Nakamoto is waiting for a "bonded courier" from some "tulip trust" you are seriously f#$k'n stupid. — ฿TF%$D! (@CryptoHustle) December 27, 2019 The bonded courier tale has been an ongoing joke throughout the crypto community for those who believe the story is a farce. Skeptics think that Wright won’t obtain any keys and he will come up with another excuse in order to keep kicking the Satoshi can down the road. On December 27, Wright spoke with the finance publication Bloomberg and told the news outlet he “cannot be certain that information will arrive.” In addition to the uncertainty of wondering if the bonded courier will arrive, Wright has stated that he won’t be dumping his BTC anyway. “I do not intend to dump my family’s BTC as some people suspect or want, as this would hurt many people in the industry,” Wright told the columnist Olga Kharif. Me waiting for the non-existant tulip trust to dump all the BTC today. pic.twitter.com/sb7R8gi9nA — MeanHash⛏️🤖⛏️ (@MeanHash) January 1, 2020 ‘The Fatal Flaw’ On January 1, 2020, throughout various cryptocurrency forums and social media, the bonded courier story has been trending. There are lots of people discussing the subject in jest and one person said he was taking bets that Kleiman’s lawyers will be expecting an update about the alleged courier delivery. During the last two weeks, there have been numerous bonded courier headlines in the news and other Craig Wright stories closing out 2019. I am really anxious what happens with the #TulipTrust and if #craigwright told the truth.#bitcoin #2020NewYear #bitcoin2020 — Matthew J. Mack (@MackMatze) January 1, 2020 For instance, the crypto community has also been joking around about Wright’s ‘fatal flaw’ prediction he made on November 12, 2018. “They will learn next year that there is a fatal flaw in BTC and by fatal I mean there won’t be any BTC by the end of next year,” Wright told the hosts of the Crypto Show during his interview. One Tulip Trust skeptic called Arthur van Pelt explained that today would be quite boring for CSW fans and over time they would grow leery of his excuses. Van Pelt stressed: January 1, 2020, BTC is $7,215, while BSV is $98. Who had thought? The next non-event is today, the no-show of the Tulip Trust bonded courier. Then we’ll have a true event halfway this month. I’m expecting widespread apathy among BSV fans by the end of the month. Did I already miss #CSW moving the Satoshi $BTC from the #Tuliptrust? – or is the bonded courier running late because its driver got drunk on NYE? #Bitcoin $BSV — Orit Fox (@oritfox) January 1, 2020 Tulip Trust Believers Still Believe Besides the jokes and memes about Craig Wright and the bonded courier story, which is eerily similar to one of the Back to the Future II subplots, there are plenty of BSV fans that still wholeheartedly believe. A number of CSW followers now say that the keys might not be used right away and they think Satoshi-related events will happen when the cryptosphere least expects it. In fact, BSV supporters decided to host a ‘Tulip Trust Party’ on the broadcast the Bitcoin SV Channel today. Phil Wilson, aka ‘Scronty’ claims to be part of the Satoshi Nakamoto team but does not have any hard evidence to prove this claim. The publication Coingeek, which is owned and operated by the BSV supporter and billionaire Calvin Ayre, has published numerous stories on the Tulip Trust phenomenon. The articles explain how Wright is expected to get between 821,050 and 1,100,111 BTC on January 1. On December 27, the news outlet published an editorial in regard to what would happen if Satoshi’s coins moved in 2020. Wright also speaks about the Tulip Trust funds in a post called: “Craig Wright sets record straight again on Tulip Trust.” The self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor again highlights that there is “no guarantee” that the private keys will be made available at the dawn of the new year. “What a family does with its finances should be its own private business,” Wright asserted. Any updates on the Tulip trust? — [not a robot?] (@cryptoMD45) January 1, 2020 “As I’ve explained in court proceedings, I believe I will receive information in January 2020 that will enable us to identify coins I mined into my companies in 2009 and 2010, but cannot be certain that all of that information will in fact arrive,” Wright said in his interview with Coingeek author Jasmine Solana. Wright continued: I have not said the private keys to those coins would become available, or if so, actually used, in January 2020. In the next few weeks, we will be holding trust meetings and working out the next steps going forward in 2020. Despite the fact that Wright has already explained that the Tulip Trust information may not arrive as expected, the bonded courier story still has a lot of people curious. Since Gizmodo and Wired first published their stories about the alleged trust that supposedly holds 1 million BTC, it has sparked all kinds of fanatical theories. Since 2015’s hit pieces and with all the comments from Wright during the billion-dollar lawsuit that started in 2018, the Tulip Trust has transformed into quite the tale. Wright detractors believe that the bonded courier story is just a fantasy and the ‘leaked’ Tulip Trust document is nothing more than a long con. Do you think the bonded courier will arrive today or sometime after January 1, 2020? Do you believe Wright’s stories and claims? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below. Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Fair Use, and Twitter. Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see what’s happening in the industry. The post Alleged $8B BTC Tulip Trust Expires With Tales of Bonded Couriers appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

The China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) announced that effective January 1, 2020, the system “will adjust weights for CFETS RMB Index,” decreasing the weighting of the USD for the second time in the currency basket’s history from 22.40% to 21.59%, and increasing the Euro from 16.34% to 17.40%. The change could signal further disassociation with USD due to ongoing U.S./China trade difficulties. Also, reports of increased trade with the EU over 2019 and the fact that both China and the European Union are actively working on central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), have some speculating that dollar hegemony is being challenged by the move. Also Read: Regulatory Roundup: China Blockchain ETF, France New Crypto Rules, Tokens Like Money in Russia CFETS Adjusts Yuan Index The CFETS yuan index has been around since 2015 and aims to measure the yuan’s performance against a basket of 24 currencies. The newly announced adjustment will see the influence of USD over this basket trimmed back for the second time since its creation. The last time the currency saw its weight diminished was in January 2017, falling from 26.40% to 22.40%. The 2020 cutback sees the dollar fall again from 22.40% to 21.59%. The euro, on the other hand, remains the second largest currency in the basket, and will see its influence rise from 16.34% to 17.40%. The official announcement states that the change is due to updated trade data, and according to Chinese news outlet Global Times “shows the fading role of the dollar in the currency basket as the trade war between the world’s top two economies has weighed on bilateral trade.” Also taking a hit will be the fourth largest currency in the basket, the USD-pegged Hong Kong dollar, falling from 4.28% to 3.57%. Trade Tensions and CBDC Development The ongoing trade and tariff war between the U.S. and China may see some changes with the upcoming “phase one deal,” which could be signed this month, bringing a proposed reduction of U.S.-imposed tariffs on Chinese goods in exchange for purchase of American agricultural products. It is not certain whether the deal will go through. Relations with China’s biggest trading partner, on the other hand, appear to be thriving. “The nation’s yuan-denominated trade with the EU, China’s top trading partner, posted a rise of 7.7 percent in the first 11 months [of 2019], per Chinese customs statistics,” Global Times reports. The Chinese government’s relationship with the EU is interesting, especially given that both the EU and China are actively working on implementing central bank digital currencies. The ECB recently published a report on their hypothetical “Eurochain” network, and China appears to be ready for pilot testing of the digital yuan. This in stark contrast to the perceived cold feet of U.S. financial planners when it comes to creating a digital version of the greenback. Whether CFETS adjustments signal broader intentions related to these areas is yet to be seen, but the fact that Chinese authorities are measuring the strength of the yuan now less relative to USD — at least where the trade index is concerned — has been clearly demonstrated. The CFETS Bank for International Settlements (BIS) index also notably saw changes this time around in replacing the Venezuelan bolivar with the Icelandic krona. What are your thoughts on the CFETS index adjustment? Let us know in the comments section below. Image credits: Shutterstock. Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section. You can also enjoy the easiest way to buy Bitcoin online with us. Download your free Bitcoin wallet and head to our Purchase Bitcoin page where you can buy BCH and BTC securely. The post China Takes Another Step Away From USD Hegemony appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

Yoni Assia is the CEO and founder of multi-asset trading platform Etoro. The brokerage firm, which enjoys a high profile within the cryptosphere, enables digital assets such as BTC and BCH to be traded alongside stocks, ETFs, and commodities. Juxtaposed between the traditional and crypto investment realms, Etoro has a unique insight into the health of the industry. In an interview with news.Bitcoin.com, Yoni Assia shared his thoughts on what traders can expect in 2020. Also read: Bitcoin’s Next Decade Will Be Shaped by Derivatives 2019 Was a Year of Diversification for Etoro “We launched commission-free stocks trading this year and we’ve seen a flurry of new and existing trading platforms following suit and axing commission,” begins Yoni Assia. “This is important to attract new investors; people who are often put off from investing because of the cost. It’s also a boon to existing Etoro customers trading cryptocurrencies on the platform. One in 10 of people who came to us to trade crypto in 2017 and 2018 subsequently went on to diversify into stocks trading. This all helps normalize the view of crypto assets.” He continues: On the crypto side, for those who are more experienced traders, we launched eToroX, our regulated crypto exchange earlier this year, providing them with a secure platform to trade crypto and tokenized assets on the blockchain. Acquisitions were a major trend for crypto exchanges this year, with Circle offloading Poloniex, before itself being acquired by Kraken. Binance took up a stake in derivatives exchange FTX, meanwhile, and Coinbase divested itself of Earn.com. Etoro was not exempted from this M&A flurry either, acquiring Firmo in March. The Danish business provides a platform that enables exchanges to execute smart financial contracts across various assets, including crypto derivatives, and across all major blockchains. Then, explains Yoni Assia, “In November we acquired Delta, the crypto portfolio tracker app, which will help investors make better decisions around their crypto assets by providing tools such as portfolio tracking and pricing data.” 12 Million Users and Counting In 2019, Etoro surpassed 12 million registered users in over 100 territories, including the U.S., which the social trading platform entered this year on a mandate to “make trading, investing and managing money easy for everyone,” according to Assia. Here, it finds itself going up against rivals such as millennial investor favorite Robinhood. When asked about the greatest challenges Etoro encountered this year, Assia cites issues that will be familiar to all exchange operators: “the volatility of prices, and recently, questions around the security of assets on exchanges.” However, he claims that “a lot of people who joined us in 2017 at the peak of crypto’s popularity have stayed and this year have diversified into other areas such as stocks,” noting that “Crypto assets are often a gateway to investing for many people on the Etoro platform. We always say invest in the brands you love, so IPOs such as Uber have helped attract more investors.” Multi-asset exchanges such as Etoro, which offer cryptocurrencies alongside stocks and commodities, are also duty bound to educate, given that many of their users have no previous experience of such instruments. “Not only are we providing them with a place to trade, we also ensure they have access to information to help them make informed decisions about their trading behavior,” acknowledges Assia. Yoni Assia “We provide regular analysis of price performance, changes and events in the sector, while reassuring them about the safety of Etoro as a regulated platform. Etoro is profitable and we use that profit to develop more services for our customers, broadening the offering to create a platform that people can use to manage and invest their money to suit their needs, with a wide range of assets to choose from, beyond cryptocurrencies.” Crypto Taxation and Resolutions for 2020 This year, it was reported that tax agencies such as the IRS and HMRC have been contacting cryptocurrency exchanges to bulk request information on customer activity. When asked whether Etoro had fielded any such approaches, its CEO had this to say: We have been required by tax agencies in the jurisdictions where we operate to provide information on our customers and as a responsible, regulated business, we have done this. We firmly believe that tax harmonization of crypto assets is a precursor to regulation, which is much needed to bring security to consumers and confidence to regulators. 2020 will be a coming of age for crypto assets. It will also be a coming of age for Etoro if Yoni Assia’s predictions come to pass. According to the company’s founder and CEO, “Etoro is on track to launch a debit card, more details of which will follow in 2020.” He also asserts that “We believe the future of financial services lies in the tokenization of investable assets,” and tips Etoro to focus its energies here in the coming year. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see what’s happening in the industry. The post Etoro CEO Yoni Assia on Reaching 12 Million Users and Why Cryptos Are a Gateway to Stocks appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

During the course of 2019, the most used BTC-based OP_Return protocol, Veriblock, outshined Omni Layer outputs. According to statistics, Veriblock captured 57% of BTC’s OP_Return outputs in 2019. Ever since the protocol’s opcodes started dominating, a number of BTC influencers called the outputs “abuse” and “spam.” Also Read: Central Bank Gold Hoarding Hits 50-Year High Veriblock Captured a Majority of the BTC-Based OP_Return Outputs in 2019 2019 was an interesting year and a slew of blockchains saw a bunch of statistical changes. One specific data point observed this year was the consumption of OP_Return transactions processed on the BTC blockchain. Prior to the start of the year, the Omni Layer Protocol, the project that issues tether (USDT), captured most of the OP_Returns. But this year, the stablecoin firm Tether started migrating a great number of USDT to other chains including Ethereum, Tron, and Algorand. The company moved roughly half the activity of USDT into the Ethereum network. Currently, there is 2.2 billion USDT now using the ERC20 standard and another 12% of USDT is held on Tron using the TRC20 standard. These migrations have made it so the Omni Layer Protocol using the BTC chain for data is handling fewer USDT transactions per day. Most of the USDT activity now takes place on Ethereum and close to 12% is now held on Tron. The Veriblock project is another network that leverages the BTC chain’s OP_Return transactions in order to create a proof-of-proof (PoP) consensus system. Basically, Veriblock uses BTC’s security model to tether a snapshot of an altcoin’s blockchain into BTC’s ledger. A mixture of OP_Return transactions and other methods are utilized to embed the alternative blockchain’s data. During the first week of 2019, on January 5, Casa CTO Jameson Lopp noticed that OP_Returns stemming from Veriblock were outpacing all the other forms of OP_Return transactions. At the time, a few BTC supporters called the Veriblock project “spam” or “garbage” and Lopp said the idea was “inefficient.” Then months later in September, the project sparked controversy once again when BTC developer Luke Jr said the Veriblock project was consuming too many Segwit bech32 transactions. At the time, the Veriblock project told the crypto-community it had transitioned to using Segregated Witness (Segwit). Small block advocates got very upset with Veriblock’s operations writing odd blog posts about “Transaction Eugenics” that week and Luke Jr once again argued that developers should consider reducing the block size to 300 kilobytes. Coldcard founder Rodolfo Novak agreed with the Bitcoin Core developer’s assessment and Luke Jr emphasized that “denying the problem won’t fix it — reducing block sizes might.” Now that 2019 is coming to an end, BTC proponents once again have discovered that Veriblock outputs have dominated the OP_Returns on the BTC chain all year. On December 29, Lopp again shared data in regard to the OP_Return trend and tweeted: Omni Layer was displaced as the most-used OP_Return protocol in 2019 as Veriblock was used to create 57% of new OP_Return outputs. The Hatred Toward Veriblock Operations Swells The news still upsets BTC supporters who dislike Veriblock’s operations and a number of influencers have bad things to say about the project. This past week, Bitrefill representative John Carvalho called Veriblock a “scam,” while many other BTC pundits continued to show strong adversity toward Veriblock. “Veriblock is like a malicious parasite that is raping the bitcoin network daily without returning any benefits,” one person replied to Carvalho’s scam comment on Twitter. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) supporters also commented on Veriblock dominating BTC’s OP_Return outputs. “So between Omni and Veriblock, the OP_Return usage on BTC is pretty insignificant — Still, the Segwit usage and the OP_Return usage climbs to new record highs,” software developer Jonathan Silverblood tweeted. Silverblood added: I wonder how much of BTC network activity is still peer-to-peer-electronic-cash. BTC had 28.2 million OP_Return-based transactions in 2019 and 57% were Veriblock transactions. Lopp also tweeted a list of OP_Return statistics the following day, which indicated BTC-based OP_Return (data anchor) outputs have been rising exponentially. In 2014, there were 13,000 OP_Returns and in 2016 the number jumped above 1 million. OP_Returns on BTC doubled in 2017 and then jumped 6X in 2018. In 2019, thanks to Veriblock and the rest of the data anchor operations there were 28.2 million OP_Return-based transactions processed. Of course, a number of BTC supporters are confident that projects like Veriblock will someday be priced out by higher network fees. “I’m fairly certain the explosion of OP_Return transactions in 2019 came from Veriblock,” said Wayne Vaughan CEO of the project Tierion. “I don’t think [Veriblock’s] usage model will survive future transaction fee price increases.” What do you think about Veriblock dominating most of the BTC-based OP_Return transactions in 2019? Do you think projects like Veriblock should be allowed to anchor data to the BTC chain in a permissionless manner? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any ideas, concepts, content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Blockchain.com, Wiki Commons, and Coin Dance. Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section. You can also enjoy the easiest way to buy Bitcoin online with us. Download your free Bitcoin wallet and head to our Purchase Bitcoin page where you can buy BCH and BTC securely. The post Veriblock Captured Close to 60% of BTC’s OP Return Transactions in 2019 appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

Live streaming platform Dlive will soon be joining the Bittorrent ecosystem and begin migrating to the Tron blockchain. The Twitch alternative will no longer support the Lino blockchain after the transition to Tron is complete. Also Read: Youtube Star Pewdiepie Joins Live Streaming Platform That Accepts Cryptocurrency Dlive Enters Justin Sun’s Orbit Bittorrent has announced that Dlive, a blockchain-based content sharing platform, will be joining its ecosystem and begin a migration to the Tron blockchain. Last year Justin Sun, the founder of “decentralized web” crypto Tron, has taken over Bittorrent Inc, the San Francisco-headquartered company founded in 2004 to manage the ongoing development of the Bittorrent peer-to-peer file sharing protocol. As part of the deal, Dlive will advertise its products and services on Bittorrent as well as using its newest service for storage. The two sides explained that Dlive and its blockchain development team will collaborate with the Bittorrent team to bolster its products and services. Blive, the live streaming platform introduced by Bittorrent in early 2019, will be merged into the Dlive platform, and their team will join the Dlive team. Dlive will begin utilizing the Bittorrent File-Sharing System (BTFS), a distributed file sharing and storage system, and will also merge its account systems with Bittorrent’s to further integrate each community with the other. “We are ecstatic to have the opportunity to be part of the Bittorrent ecosystem,” said Charles Wayn, CEO of Dlive. “I’ve watched them pioneer the digital peer-to-peer space. Dlive’s goal of empowering creators and rewarding communities is one step closer with the amplification of this new venture.” Dlive is mainly an alternative to video live streaming platform Twitch. It claims to have over five million monthly active users and is available online at Dlive.tv as well as via its Android and iOS apps. Content creators and viewers can earn rewards for their participation in the form of Lino points, the native tokens of the network. For users outside the U.S. it is also possible to buy Lino points with cryptocurrency including bitcoin cash (BCH) as well as BTC, ETH and LTC. The platform got a big boost to its brand earlier this year when Pewdiepie, the leading Youtube star with over 100 million subscribers, started streaming with Dlive. Lino Abandoned After Blockchain Migrating to Tron Dlive also explained that by joining the Bittorrent ecosystem, it will no longer support the Lino blockchain after the transition to the Tron blockchain is complete. The Lino blockchain technical infrastructure will be integrated into Bittorrent, however the Lino coin will no longer be the fundamental unit of value or utilization in the new ecosystem. To facilitate the integration of BTT into the existing Dlive ecosystem, Dlive is expected to offer various benefits and rewards to existing users to transition from the Lino blockchain into the Bittorrent ecosystem. Once the migration to the Tron blockchain is successfully completed, Dlive will no longer utilize the Lino blockchain. Regarding the Lino blockchain mainnet, the foundation of the Lino Network has announced that they have entered into a strategic partnership with the Bittorrent foundation. In conjunction with the partnership, the foundation will no longer support the Lino blockchain mainnet and the Lino coins. The foundation is currently working with the Bittorrent foundation on a plan to introduce the Bittorrent protocol and the BTT tokens to the Lino community. Further details are expected to be provided on January 15, 2020 for Lino coin holders and Lino blockchain validators. “Dlive is one of the best real-world examples of what is possible when you combine blockchain and digital media,” said Justin Sun, CEO of Bittorrent. “Dlive is a great solution for live media producers. Think of how valuable live streaming content is already to centralized social media platforms who take ownership and advantage of their users’ hard work. We look forward to Dlive bringing value to the entire world with the addition of Tron and Bittorrent’s global community of passionate creators.” The Dlive migration comes at a very good time to help Tron get new people onboard. Only recently the Google-owned video sharing website Youtube removed content and banned channels that promote or otherwise analyze the digital asset markets. The company has since claimed this was done by mistake and reinstated some channels but it already drove many in the crypto community to look for ways to back up their content or even migrate to alternative platforms. What do you think about Dlive joining the Bittorrent ecosystem? Share your thoughts in the comments section below. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. Verify and track bitcoin cash transactions on our BCH Block Explorer, the best of its kind anywhere in the world. Also, keep up with your holdings, BCH and other coins, on our market charts at Bitcoin.com Markets, another original and free service from Bitcoin.com. The post Live Streaming Platform Dlive Joins Bittorrent Ecosystem appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

On Monday, Electron Cash developer Jonald Fyookball updated the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) community in regards to the Cashfusion protocol. Fyookball revealed that Tor integration is currently in the works. The Tor-integrated Cashfusion build is “the big piece” the development team needs to get from alpha to beta stage, Fyookball detailed. Also read: Privacy-Enhancing BCH Tool Cashfusion Begins Working Behind the Scenes Tor + Cashfusion Bitcoin Cash proponents are excited to hear that developers are relentlessly working on the Cashfusion protocol. A number of BCH users already utilize the Cashshuffle protocol, which mixes Bitcoin Cash-based UTXOs in a pool with other shuffling participants. Millions of dollars worth of BCH ($41.2M) have been shuffled since the platform’s official release in March. Cashshuffle adds a greater layer of privacy but the concept can be improved. For example, if a shuffling participant mixes their BCH and eventually consolidates the UTXOs, it’s possible the transaction can leave behind some clues for blockchain analysis. “We need a method to coordinate Coinjoin transactions with multiple inputs per user,” explains the Cashfusion specifications. In November, Electron Cash (EC) developer Jonald Fyookball told the BCH community that the privacy-enhancing BCH tool was working behind the scenes. That week Fyookball and independent software developer Mark Lundeberg shared a couple of mainnet Cashfusion transactions as examples. A month later on December 30, Fyookball revealed the “alpha software Cashfusion already works, and we do fusion transactions on mainnet on a daily basis.” “Axel Gembe is working on Tor integration [and] this is the big piece we need to get from alpha stage to beta stage,” Fyookball added. The EC programmer also shared an update from Gembe which said: I had to abandon the idea of using tor as a dynamic library due to recent glibc changes. They basically disallowed loading pie executables with dlopen, even though it works well for some situations. Now I have the build system work done (except macOS, I’ll need likely need help with that). And the plan is to use stem to control tor using the control port — It should be finished in a few weeks. Enhanced Bitcoin Privacy The BCH community on social media and forums enjoyed Fyookball’s update. “Bundling Tor with EC sounds great,” one person wrote on Reddit. “Once this is fully functional this will be a game changer for BCH — I wouldn’t be surprised to see more darknet markets accepting BCH alongside BTC and monero,” another individual commented. BCH fans were pleased to hear the creator of Wasabi compliment Cashfusion after he listened to Mark Lundeberg’s recent interview with Naomi Brockwell. Then on December 27, Wasabi wallet developer @nopara73 commended Cashfusion again on Twitter. “I am not convinced if this is true, but if it is, it’s a game changer in Bitcoin privacy,” the engineer tweeted. Overall the news of Cashfusion’s progress has BCH fans excited and a number of Cashshuffle users look forward to the advanced update. Fyookball thanked Axel for this “amazing and critical work” and told the community the developer can be tipped. “If you want to send him a tip, you can do so at ichundes#102 cashaccount,” the EC programmer concluded. What do you think about the Cashfusion progression helping bolster BCH privacy? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below. Image credits: Shutterstock, Github, Acid Sploit’s Cashshuffle Stats Twitter, and Pixabay. You can now purchase Bitcoin without visiting a cryptocurrency exchange. Buy BTC and BCH directly from our trusted seller and, if you need a Bitcoin wallet to securely store it, you can download one from us here. The post A Tor-Integrated Cashfusion Build for Bitcoin Cash Is Coming appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

In this roundup, we cover Russia’s supreme court recognizing tokens as assets like money and property, France’s new crypto regulatory framework, and several industry developments in China, including a blockchain ETF filing. We also cover Japan’s world conference for decentralized financial governance, Uzbekistan’s crypto ban, and four countries’ central bank digital currency updates. Also read: Regulatory Roundup – New US Crypto Bill, France’s 1st Approved ICO, Muslim Crypto China’s Blockchain ETF and Crypto Warnings The China Securities Regulatory Commission revealed on Dec. 24 that it had received an application for a blockchain exchange-traded fund (ETF) from Shenzhen-based asset manager Penghua Fund. According to Chinese media, if successfully launched, this fund will be China’s first blockchain ETF. It will track the performance of the blockchain index recently launched by the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, one of the two key stock exchanges in mainland China. The index comprises stocks of the largest 50 companies listed on the exchange with blockchain ventures, ranked by market capitalization. On the same day, Reuters reported that China will expand the scope of its blockchain cross-border financing pilot platform. The government will also “push forward a prospective study on foreign exchange reforms to deal with cryptocurrency and explore the construction of the foreign exchange regulation and technology system under the new situation,” explained Lu Lei, deputy head of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange. While blockchain friendly after President Xi Jinping openly advocated for the technology, the authorities in China continue to scrutinize crypto businesses. On Dec. 27, four regulators in Beijing jointly issued a warning regarding cryptocurrency trading and related activities in their jurisdictions. It reiterates the September 2017 announcement made by seven Chinese ministries, including the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), which led to the closing of crypto and initial coin offering (ICO) trading platforms in the country. Recently, the PBOC’s Shanghai Head Office also issued a similar notice reminding people that the seven ministries’ order is still effective. The crypto mining industry is also under scrutiny by Chinese regulators. In Sichuan, the authorities went after crypto miners to save electricity in the dry season. In the city of Tangshan, Hebei province, the police recently seized 6,890 bitcoin mining rigs and arrested a group of scammers. Russian Supreme Court Recognizes Tokens as Assets Like Money or Property The Russian supreme court has clarified that “digital rights,” the term currently used to describe cryptocurrencies and tokens in Russian law, can be a subject of bribes similar to fiat money, property, and other assets. While Russia currently does not have a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, various institutions in the country, including the courts, have previously characterized them as “money surrogates” which are banned by Russian law. Meanwhile, Russia’s central bank has reportedly begun testing stablecoins in its regulatory sandbox. Bank of Russia Governor Elvira Nabiullina explained to local publication Interfax on Dec. 25 that the bank looks at companies wanting to issue tokens secured by some real assets, “but we do not assume that they will function as a means of payment and become money surrogate,” she emphasized. Regarding central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) which many countries are discussing, “we are also at the stage of studying this topic,” the governor revealed. However, she noted that “First of all, we need to understand what will be the advantages for our citizens, for businesses,” compared to other options. France Publishes New Crypto Rules France’s financial markets regulator, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF), published its new rules for digital asset service providers (DASPs) on Dec. 20. They define the types of services that are considered DASPs under the new regulatory framework adopted in April and clarify which specific rules apply to crypto or ICO services. The regulator detailed that registration is mandatory for two types of crypto activities, elaborating: If you provide services of digital asset custody and/or buying or selling digital assets for legal tender in France, you must register with the AMF. Registrants must be established in France. They will be checked for compliance with the regulations on anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT). The AMF also recently approved the first public ICO in France. Japan Hosting World DeFi Conference Japan’s top financial regulator, the Financial Services Agency (FSA), announced on Dec. 23 that it is organizing the Blockchain Global Governance Conference in collaboration with Nikkei Inc. The event is in response to the consensus reached by the international regulatory community “on the importance of engaging with various stakeholders in the decentralized financial ecosystem to ensure public policy objectives,” as stated in the G20 Osaka Leaders’ Declaration under Japan’s presidency in June, the agency detailed. The conference welcomes stakeholders from all around the world, including “those who are active in open-source software communities, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Hyperledger.” University researchers, relevant organizations, businesses in the space, civil society and financial regulators are also invited. According to the FSA, the event aims to “discuss the better governance for decentralized financial ecosystem.” Uzbekistan’s Crypto Ban Uzbekistan has banned crypto buying. The country’s National Agency for Project Management has recently adopted amendments to the regulatory regime that place significant restrictions on local private individuals using cryptocurrency. The agency issued an order on Dec. 6 stating that Uzbekistan citizens will only be allowed to sell crypto assets on registered exchanges. Using decentralized cryptocurrencies as a means of payment is now also prohibited in the country. Furthermore, any transactions involving coins acquired through anonymous means are banned. However, the regulator has not clarified how it plans to determine whether someone’s digital money has been involved in such transfers. Further, crypto trading platforms should only serve verified users of 18 years or older whose names are not on the government’s list of those suspected of money laundering and terrorist financing. CBDCs in Korea, Japan, and the Bahamas Besides Russia, three more countries made some announcements regarding their CBDC progress last week. The Central Bank of the Bahamas started a pilot program of a digital version of the Bahamian dollar on Dec. 27 in Exuma, which will be extended to Abaco in the first half of 2020. The bank described: As the pilot progresses in Exuma, the central bank will simultaneously promote the development of new regulations for the digital currency, and strengthen consumer protection, especially around data protection standards. The central bank added that it “will also advance reforms to permit direct participation of non-banks in the domestic payments system. Early passage of the new Central Bank of the Bahamas Bill will support the creation of some regulations, while additional reforms will be possible under the existing Payment Systems Act.” Another country that has been studying the benefits of issuing a CBDC is South Korea. While repeatedly declaring that it is not currently considering issuing one, the Bank of Korea (BOK) is reportedly organizing a task force dedicated to CBDC research, local media reported on Friday. In its “Monetary Policy for 2020” report, the BOK revealed that it will continue to build on research into innovations, including distributed ledger technology, crypto assets, and CBDC. “We will actively engage in discussions with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and other international organizations, keeping an eye on CBDC development at other central banks,” the BOK wrote. The central bank also said it will recruit additional CBDC experts and proceeded to post a job opening for digital currency experts on Dec. 10. Similarly, Japan is another Asian country actively researching the impact of a CBDC on the current system without committing to issuing one. The Bank of Japan (BOJ) published a summary report on Dec. 24 outlining the legal implications of a CBDC in the country. The report highlights a wide range of issues which need be addressed, including whether a CBDC can be regarded as legal tender, ways to combat its counterfeit or duplication, whether its issuance is consistent with the Bank of Japan Act, and whether the central bank can restrict its use by certain individuals. Other issues concern AML/CFT regulations, protecting personal information, and the penalties for counterfeiting or duplicating CBDC under current criminal law. “By clarifying these potential legal issues spanning various legal fields, the report intends to stimulate further discussion regarding CBDC,” the BOJ concluded. Catch up on other regulatory roundups you may have missed: Dec. 23: New US Crypto Bill, France’s 1st Approved ICO, Muslim Crypto Dec. 16: Crypto ‘Inevitable’ in India, China Rankings, NY Streamlines Policy Dec. 9: Bitcoin Futures Fund Approved, India’s RBI-Backed Digital Currency Dec. 2: Germany to Let Banks Sell and Store Crypto, Laws Changing in Asia Nov. 25: China Rekindles Cleanup, US Widens Oversight, India Defers Decisions What do you think of the regulatory developments covered in this roundup? Let us know in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. Did you know you can buy and sell BCH privately using our noncustodial, peer-to-peer Local Bitcoin Cash trading platform? The local.Bitcoin.com marketplace has thousands of participants from all around the world trading BCH right now. And if you need a bitcoin wallet to securely store your coins, you can download one from us here. The post Regulatory Roundup: China Blockchain ETF, France New Crypto Rules, Tokens Like Money in Russia appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

The last five years have been a test phase for bitcoin derivatives, which began tentatively when Bitmex eased into life in 2014. Now, as the cryptoconomy prepares to enter a new decade, derivatives products will play a pivotal role in price discovery. 2020 will be a big year for bitcoin and for the futures markets where billions of dollars will be won and lost, and the next bull market will begin. Also read: South Korea Imposes $69M Tax Obligation on Crypto Exchange Bithumb A Year of Bitcoin Derivatives Is Dawning In 2019, crypto futures volumes approached those of spot trading. In 2020, futures are on course to blow right past spot levels and keep on trucking. The success of derivatives platforms Binance Futures and Bitmex, as well as new products from the likes of FTX, Dydx, and Synthetix, has convinced many that 2020 could be the Year of Derivatives. And U.S. regulators are lending credence to the notion: Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the independent regulator that governs the country’s futures and options markets, recently hinted that it could approve a new crypto-based derivative product backed by Ethereum in the course of 2020. Out-of-the-box products serve to attract new players and new capital to the crypto derivatives market. But will the spate of novel products capture sufficient volume and play a role in shaping bitcoin’s price action in the coming year? And if so, who stands to benefit most? A Flurry of Derivatives Developments Singapore exchange Bybit is planning to move into Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese and Spanish markets, Okex’s new USDT-margined Perpetual Swap Trading is likely to gain traction, and decentralized derivatives products are expected to see broader usage as defi adoption continues. Synthetix – the second largest defi app in the Ethereum ecosystem – has just announced a partnership with Chainlink, meaning it no longer needs to rely on centralized price feeds for its derivatives trading mechanism. Today’s traders are now spoilt for choice, with bitcoin futures trading platforms feeding their appetite for high leverage on an array of digital assets. Traders aren’t limited to BTC and ETH, either: they can long or short altcoins such as cardano, enjin, tomo, and stellar if they’re feeling bold. Improved fiat-crypto gateways, such as Plutus’ virtual bank account and debit card, have also increased the appeal of derivatives exchanges to retail investors, who are no longer locked into tether (USDT). Enhanced crypto-fiat conversion means traders can spend or reinvest their profits without needing to jump through multiple hoops. US Futures Markets Heat Up In terms of institutional interest in bitcoin futures, the U.S., where much of the innovation is happening, will dictate matters. One platform seeking to play a major role is Bakkt, which launched bitcoin options and cash-settled futures in the U.S. at the tail-end of 2019. While the former is the first regulated bitcoin futures contract rubber-stamped by the CFTC, the latter will initially be available via the ICE Futures Singapore exchange. In December, open interest on Bakkt bitcoin futures reached an all-time high of $6.5 million – and with the ascension of CEO Kelly Loeffler to the U.S. Senate, the next 12 months are shaping up to be interesting. Bakkt isn’t the only platform contributing to a market that has evolved greatly since traders first sought to profit from falling prices during the 2018 downturn. Binance’s bitcoin derivatives surpassed the volumes of its spot offering at various times in 2019, leading the juggernaut to invest an undisclosed sum in derivatives platform FTX. This after it had already acquired spot and derivatives exchange JEX, a move which enabled Binance to add options and futures to its platform. Speaking of bitcoin derivatives, CME Group’s Tim McCourt recently celebrated the two-year anniversary of the exchange’s operations in this field. In a short article noting the market’s “forward curve,” he revealed that CME had traded over 2.4 million contracts with a notional value exceeding $92 billion from 12.5 million BTC. Some speculate that the growing interest of trading exchanges like Bakkt and CME stems from reduced BTC volatility in comparison to previous years. In any case, the preponderance of such platforms gives derivatives traders plenty of options. Competition Is Getting Fierce As derivatives players vie for market share, battlegrounds are coming into clearer focus. Blade, the San Francisco-based exchange supported by Silicon Valley venture capitalists, just announced its commitment to zero-fee trading – a flagrant affront to perpetual swap titan Bitmex. UMA’s Bitdex specification also presents a possible route to non-custodial perpetual swaps, though more work is required to develop this concept. So what does all this surging activity mean for bitcoin’s price? According to Meltem Demirors, chief strategy officer of Coinshares, the growth of the crypto derivatives market means that bitcoin’s price is becoming less relevant – which will keep it in check even after the halving. Demirors believes that bitcoin’s evolution into an investable asset will, in effect, decouple its price from both its value and supply and demand. With the crypto derivatives market coming to wider attention, a greater number of investors may also choose to hedge their positions via derivatives to manage price risk, leading to less volatility. All told, the bitcoin derivatives market looks to be in rude health, even if it remains small when compared to other commodities markets. For one thing, traditional investors are likely to be enticed into crypto as a consequence of their familiarity, since derivatives are routinely used in regular financial markets. In fact, a great many institutional traders have thus far been reluctant to engage with crypto due to a paucity of tools to hedge trades and manage risk. 2020, then, and the decade it heads should bring greater leverage for crypto derivatives, including those in the defi ecosystem, greater liquidity, and greater competition from players old and new. Do you think derivatives markets will dictate bitcoin’s price action in 2020? Let us know in the comments section below. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see what’s happening in the industry. The post Bitcoin’s Next Decade Will Be Shaped by Derivatives appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

Despite the harsh market conditions this year, high profile closures of a few ventures and a lot of employee downsizing, the number of companies operating in the blockchain and cryptocurrency fields in Israel actually grew by 32% in 2019. Also Read: Bankrupt DX Exchange Didn’t Pay Israeli Suppliers and Employees Israeli Blockchain Industry Survives Crypto Winter As of December 2019, 150 active blockchain and crypto companies are operating in Israel, an increase of 32% compared with only 113 companies at the end of 2018. This is according to a survey by the Israeli Bitcoin Association which was first reported by local financial newspaper Globes. The 2019 growth rate is a moderate figure compared to the strong growth seen in 2018, when the number of Israeli companies operating in the sector more than doubled, increasing by 113% from just 53 companies at the end of 2017. The situation in the blockchain field this year was also tame in comparison to the wider Israeli high tech scene. For example, the general tech industry in Israel saw the number of unicorns (private ventures worth more than $1 billion) rise from 11 to 20 this year and the total value of exits double from 2018 to $9.9 billion in 2019, according to a recent report by accounting firm PWC. Herzliya business district In the survey conducted by the Bitcoin Association, it was found that out of the 113 companies operating in the industry at the end of 2018, 63 companies still continue to operate in the field today – while information on the activities of the other companies is not available. This means that, according to the available data, it is possible that half of Israeli companies in the blockchain and crypto business did not survive during the past year or changed the nature of their operations to other areas. The association notes that the survey data includes all local companies operating in these areas, although they are not necessarily those with blockchain technology at the core of their activities. Many of these companies officially focus on other areas, such as software development, fintech or cyber, for example, and combine their main business with some blockchain or crypto activity. The Bitcoin Association does not provide data on the change in the number of employees in Israeli companies in the blockchain field compared to previous years, nor on the change in the amount of total funds raised by those companies. However, according to company reports revealed over the passing year by the newspaper, in most blockchain companies the number of employees decreased significantly this year, and capital raising was very weak compared to previous years. This is not surprising as many ventures in Israel brought in staggering amount of money from investors during the ICO bubble and had to adapt to stay in business when it popped. Over 90 Companies Are Based in Tel Aviv The survey also found that most Israeli companies in the sector are newer startups, operating for no more than three years. According to the available data, 30% of active companies were founded in 2017 and another 30% in 2018. The oldest local companies in the field were founded in 2012 (a total of four such companies remained active this year), while only six companies were established in the past year (4% of all companies). The figures indicate that most companies operating in the industry are relatively small, and employ no more than 10 employees. According to data from the Bitcoin Association, 65% of companies report that they employ up to 10 employees, 31% employ between 11 and 50 employees, and only four companies (less than 3%) employ between 50 and 200 employees. Netanya, Israel In terms of sources of financing for companies operating with blockchain and cryptocurrencies in Israel, the Bitcoin Association found that 44% of companies operate only on a self-funding basis. Additionally, 42% of these companies raised funding at some level: 34% got seed funding, about 1% of companies completed round A funding and 6% completed round B funding. Also, 7% of companies are using their own revenues to finance their activities. Looking at the geographical spread of the Israeli blockchain industry across the country, it was found in the survey that 91 out of the 150 Israeli companies in the field operate in Tel Aviv, nine in Herzliya, six in Jerusalem, six in Netanya, and the rest in other cities or towns. In terms of the level of technology maturity, the survey found that 40% of the companies have already released a product to the market, 25% are still in the research and development stage, 10% have an alpha product and 19% developed a product in beta. What do you think about the state of the Israeli crypto scene? Share your thoughts in the comments section below. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. Verify and track bitcoin cash transactions on our BCH Block Explorer, the best of its kind anywhere in the world. Also, keep up with your holdings, BCH and other coins, on our market charts at Bitcoin.com Markets, another original and free service from Bitcoin.com. The post Number of Israeli Blockchain Companies Grew by 32% in 2019 appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

2019 was known for the growing trend of stealth miners mining on the BTC and BCH network. On Dec. 30, data shows that 68% of the Bitcoin Cash network’s hashrate is being mined by mystery miners. As the year comes to an end, the large number of unknown BCH hashrate has attracted scrutiny. Also Read: Ethereum Proponent Virgil Griffith Deemed a Flight Risk, Judge Denies Bail 68% of the BCH Hashrate Was Recently Processed by Unknown Miners On Monday, a post on the Reddit forum r/btc explained that “untrusted hash is at nearly 70%.” The r/btc thread detailed that on Dec. 30, statistics indicate that roughly 68% of the overall BCH hashrate is being processed by miners not willing to disclose their identity. When a known mining pool finds a block, in the coinbase there’s usually a message which identifies who mined the block. However, in 2019 both SHA-256 networks BTC and BCH saw a significant increase in mystery miners processing the chains. In January, two research reports noticed the increasing trend of unknown miners as Coin Metrics and Diar both published findings on the subject. At the time, Diar’s report said that unknown miners could be “concerning” and just because the miner does not disclose its identity, it doesn’t mean the hash is not from a known pool. Coin Metrics wrote that the analytics firm also noticed a resurgence of mystery miners during the start of 2019. On Dec. 30, 2019, unknown miners processing the Bitcoin Cash chain are around 68% and there is 2.18 exahash per second (EH/s). BCH stealth miners capture roughly 1 EH/s on Monday. A few weeks before the Bitcoin Cash upgrade that took place on Nov. 15, BCH proponents discovered 44% of the BCH hashrate was processed by unknown miners. At the time, speculators assumed the stealth hash belonged to roughly 3-4 different pools. The reason for the theory is because there are unique messages in the block’s coinbase for each unknown mining entity. Today, there are a few coinbase messages that read: “d B ^//bf Oe?D 5F” and another pool uses this message: “^//KFy{Ʊ!+.” Besides clues like the different coinbase messages, no one truly knows who is behind the unknown BCH hashrate. During the discussion on r/btc, a few individuals took issue with calling the unknown miners “untrusted.” “‘Untrusted hash’… isn’t that how it’s supposed to be?” a person asked on the Reddit forum and also left a quote from Satoshi’s white paper that said: We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. Are Stealth Miners Untrustworthy? The Reddit user dubbed ‘Lovelyday,’ the BCH supporter who wrote the original post, responded to the critique for using the term “untrusted.” “Sure, the ‘ideal’ situation in Bitcoin would be if every miner were unknown, and Bitcoins were so valuable that there’d be absolute incentive for the majority of the hash to protect the Bitcoin that observes the economic model laid out in the white paper,” Lovelyday said. “Comparing against where we are today… we are a little ways off, with historical precedent for hashpower actually trying to destroy Bitcoin Cash — That’s why I used the term ‘untrusted’ as a blanket term for the unidentified hashrate that is > 50% — We can’t trust them, neither should we,” the Redditor added. Lovelyday further stated: Should we trust the identified hashrate? Probably not much more, but at least we can compare their actions to their stated intentions, and hold them to account by switching to pools that act in ways we prefer. On Dec. 30, 2019, unknown miners processing the BTC chain are around 26% and there’s more than 30% on the BSV chain. A few other BCH supporters disagreed and stressed that the Nov. 15, 2018 hash war that created BSV was the perfect example. “A 51% attack would be extraordinarily expensive to sustain on a network as large as BCH — And it wouldn’t work because of all the miners that support us,” another individual commented on the thread. In addition to the stealth miners processing hash on the BCH network, a growing number of unknown miners are mining BTC and BSV as well. At the time of writing, BTC hashrate distribution shows 26% of the hashpower is being processed by unknown pools and there’s 30% on the BSV network today. What do you think about the resurgence of unknown miners taking away the dominance of known mining pools? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any ideas, concepts, content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Blockchain.com, Wiki Commons, and Coin Dance. Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section. You can also enjoy the easiest way to buy Bitcoin online with us. Download your free Bitcoin wallet and head to our Purchase Bitcoin page where you can buy BCH and BTC securely. The post Debate Ensues After 68% of BCH Hashrate Mined by Stealth Miners appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

The National Tax Service of South Korea (NTS) has decided to withhold income tax from Bithumb’s foreign customers. The total tax to be imposed on their transactions amounts to more than 80 billion won (over $69 million), the leading Korean cryptocurrency exchange announced. Also read: Poles Hit With Backdated Tax on Crypto Trades Bithumb to Challenge the Move Which Lacks Legal Grounds In what has been described by Korean media as the first such attempt by the government in Seoul, the NTS is preparing to withhold the tax even before the country’s legislation has been amended to allow for the taxation of cryptocurrencies. The new provisions are expected to be adopted next year. Quoted by the Korea Joongang Daily, a notice published Friday through the Financial Supervisory Service’s system by Bithumb’s largest shareholder, Vident, detailed: We confirmed that the NTS will impose 80.3 billion won of withholding tax on our foreign clients. No specific taxation standards for crypto assets are in place at the moment, the outlet noted in its report. The Ministry of Strategy and Finance announced earlier this month that the 2020 tax law reform will introduce taxation for incomes and profits from cryptocurrency transactions. Industry sources say the Bithumb case is just the first step which reveals that the government will make good on its intentions. Bithumb’s foreign clients have become the first to be targeted. But it’s actually the exchange that’s supposed to withhold and deposit the tax to the treasury. However, Bithumb is planning to take legal action against the tax claim, Vident clarified in its announcement. That means the payment may eventually be different from the stated amount. NTS Building in Sejong City Speaking to the newspaper, Professor Kim Woo-cheol from the University of Seoul remarked that when there’s income, there’s tax as well. He added, however, that the current situation can be described as a “tax bomb” for the digital asset trading platform. “Bithumb can pay 80.3 billion won and afterward collect the amount from its foreign clients, but practically that’s impossible,” the academic elaborated. Crypto Profits Categorized as Miscellaneous Income According to other tax experts quoted by the publication, the NTS has based its figure on the amounts withdrawn by foreign users from Bithumb accounts. Their earnings from trading on the exchange have been categorized as ‘miscellaneous income,’ which is subject to a tax rate of 22%. In this case, withdrawals from the platform have been estimated by the government at over 401 billion won, or around $347 million. Miscellaneous income is one of the possible interpretations of revenues generated in cryptocurrency trading, with the other one being capital gains such as those from the sale of real estate or stock. The chosen category refers to irregular income and tax is collected once a year, while the capital gains tax should be reported paid for each deal. Such a scenario would’ve meant that Korean exchanges would have been required to report every trading record which is impractical and complicates oversight. Besides this questionable approach, other issues stand in the way of taxation too. Before December 2017, foreigners were free to trade on Korean exchanges but many transactions were conducted under fake names or by anonymous traders, including local residents. Establishing who’s behind a certain trade and the size of their profits would be extremely difficult for trading platforms, if at all possible. A legal challenge against the tax agency’s decision is very likely to succeed also because the move is not based on any law. Under the current Korean legislation, the state cannot impose taxes on incomes that are no specifically defined in the country’s tax code. Besides, a question that still hangs in the air is whether Seoul views decentralized cryptos as currencies or some kind of assets. What do you think about South Korea’s decision to withhold tax from Bithumb’s foreign customers? Share your opinion on the subject in the comments section below. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not an offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation, endorsement, or sponsorship of any third party products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article. Images courtesy of Shutterstock. You can now purchase bitcoin without visiting a cryptocurrency exchange. Buy BTC and BCH directly from our trusted seller and, if you need a bitcoin wallet to securely store it, you can download one from us here. The post South Korea Imposes $69M Tax Obligation on Crypto Exchange Bithumb appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article

U.S. law enforcement filed in November criminal charges against Ethereum researcher Virgil Griffith because he traveled to North Korea and taught “his audience how to use blockchain technology.” Griffith was arrested on Thanksgiving Day and has been forced to remain in prison the whole time. On Dec. 26, SDNY Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses refused Griffith’s bail plea citing that he might be a flight risk. Also Read: Harsh Laws Make Bitcoin Holders Consider Renunciation or Dual Citizenship US Prosecutors: ‘Griffith Could Acquire Property Overseas With His Digital Wallet’ A few weeks ago the cryptocurrency community learned about the Ethereum proponent Virgil Griffith’s travels to North Korea (DPRK). Criminal charges are being sought against him which was initiated by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the FBI. According to U.S. law enforcement agencies, Griffith was told not to go to North Korea but then decided to “[teach] his audience how to use blockchain technology to evade sanctions.” The 36-year old Griffith faces 21 months in prison if convicted and he’s been in jail since he was arrested on Nov. 28. Now according to innercitypress.com, Griffith was denied bail on Thursday because Judge Moses thinks he may abscond. Ethereum community member Virgil Griffith. Innercitypress.com columnist Matthew Russell Lee said that Judge Moses asked prosecutors if they believed “North Korea will send a private plane to pick him up.” U.S. prosecutors claim Griffith “misled pre-trial services” in regard to his second residence in Puerto Rico. The court asked Griffith’s council why he had another home in Puerto Rico and his lawyer told the judge: “Puerto Rico is a developing area in the crypto space.” Russell Lee’s report also notes that Griffith’s lawyer insisted to the court that using cryptocurrency is not illegal. Griffith’s legal team also had to disclose that he had roughly $65,000 in an “old fashioned savings account.” According to Griffith’s lawyer, he has plans to go home to his parents in Alabama if granted bail. The prosecutors disagreed and stated: [Griffith] has not given sufficient financial info. He may have misled pre-trial services: he owns the property and a shell company in Puerto Rico. Griffith told his parents he might set up a money-laundering company in North Korea. He can acquire property overseas with his digital wallet. Ethereum Community Debates Griffith’s Criminal Charges After hearing from both sides, Judge Moses said: “There are no conditions to assure the defendant’s presence — Bail is denied.” The SDNY magistrate also stressed that Griffith has a month to provide transparency into his accounts. She also noted that she was “troubled by the delay in disclosing the Puerto Rico residence.” According to the court transcription, U.S. prosecutors claimed Griffith discussed renouncing his citizenship with his parents via text messages. A number of crypto supporters stood up for Griffith’s cause when he was arrested and influencers like John McAfee called the U.S. government “corrupt at the core.” On Dec. 1, Ethereum inventor Vitalik Buterin spoke out against Griffith’s arrest and said he signed a petition to have him set free. “I refuse to take the convenient path of throwing Virgil under the bus, because I firmly believe that that would be wrong.” Change.org’s petition for Griffith’s freedom However, not everyone agrees with Buterin and a few people believe that Griffith should not have broken the law. Well known Ethereum developer, Lefteris Karapetsas tweeted: “Becoming devil’s advocate and to answer the blog’s question as to the reason he is in jail would probably be because by traveling to North Korea as an American citizen he knowingly broke the law and went against sanctions.” “Honestly Vitalik, it doesn’t matter how good of a person Virgil is, or how honorable his intentions were,” another person responded to Buterin’s statements. “He made an incredibly stupid decision and went directly against the U.S. [government]. I very much disagree with your support of him,” he added. At the moment, the petition for Griffith’s freedom has only 284 signatures and the goal is currently set for 500 signatures. It was initiated by cryptocurrency proponent Joseph Delong and he says he’s also contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). What do you think about the U.S. government’s charges against Virgil Griffith? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below. Image credits: Shutterstock, Twitter, U.S. Attorney SDNY, Wiki Commons, and Fair Use. Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our tools section. You can also enjoy the easiest way to buy Bitcoin online with us. Download your free Bitcoin wallet and head to our Purchase Bitcoin page where you can buy BCH and BTC securely. The post Ethereum Proponent Virgil Griffith Deemed a Flight Risk, Judge Denies Bail appeared first on Bitcoin News. View the full article