Top Altcoins to Look Out for in 2020 - Bitcoin & Crypto ...
binance exchange - Yahoo Search Results
Bob The Magic Custodian
Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses. Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes. First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure: Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:
Alice might take the assets and disappear.
Alice might spend the assets and pretend that she still has them (fractional model).
Alice might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Alice might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Alice might lose access to the assets.
But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
Alice can't take the assets and disappear (unless she asks Bob or never gives them to Bob).
Alice can't spend the assets and pretend that she still has them. (Unless she didn't give them to Bob or asks him for them.)
Alice can't store the assets insecurely so they get stolen. (After all - she doesn't have any control over the withdrawal process from any of Bob's systems, right?)
Alice can't give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force. (Bob will stop her, right Bob?)
Alice can't lose access to the funds. (She'll always be present, sane, and remember all secrets, right?)
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
Bob might take the assets and disappear.
Bob might spend the assets and pretend that he still has them (fractional model).
Bob might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Bob might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Bob might lose access to the assets.
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are! "On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid". "Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since." "As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!" "Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?" "Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party." "Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!" "What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven." "Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!" "We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies. And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often". How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen? Just one. Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so? If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security. The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle. And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet? Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds. So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
ANY CERTAINTY BALANCES WEREN'T EXCLUDED. Quadriga's largest account was $70m. 80% of funds are in 20% of accounts (Pareto principle). All it takes is excluding a few really large accounts - and nobody's the wiser. A fractional platform can easily pass any audit this way.
ANY VISIBILITY WHATSOEVER INTO THE CUSTODIANS. BitBuy put out their report before moving all the funds to their custodian and ShakePay apparently can't even tell us who the custodian is. That's pretty important considering that basically all of the funds are now stored there.
ANY IDEA ABOUT THE OTHER EXCHANGES. In order for this to be effective, it has to be the norm. It needs to be "unusual" not to know. If obscurity is the norm, then it's super easy for people like Gerald Cotten and Dave Smilie to blend right in.
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
First report within 1 month of launching, another within 3 months, and further reports at minimum every 6 months thereafter.
No auditor can be repeated within a 12 month period.
All reports must be public, identifying the auditor and the full methodology used.
All auditors must be independent of the firm being audited with no conflict of interest.
Reports must include the percentage of each asset backed, and how it's backed.
The auditor publishes a hash list, which lists a hash of each customer's information and balances that were included. Hash is one-way encryption so privacy is fully preserved. Every customer can use this to have 100% confidence they were included.
If we want more extensive requirements on audits, these should scale upward based on the total assets at risk on the platform, and whether the platform has loaned their assets out.
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever. Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see. It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation. A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7. History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance. Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.) Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive. Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today. Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well. Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do. Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):
The inspiration for the paragraph about splitting wallets was an actual quote from a Canadian company providing custodial services in response to the OSC consultation paper: "We believe that it will be in the in best interests of investors to prohibit pooled crypto assets or ‘floats’. Most Platforms pool assets, citing reasons of practicality and expense. The recent hack of the world’s largest Platform – Binance – demonstrates the vulnerability of participants’ assets when such concessions are made. In this instance, the Platform’s entire hot wallet of Bitcoins, worth over $40 million, was stolen, facilitated in part by the pooling of client crypto assets." "the maintenance of participants (and Platform) crypto assets across multiple wallets distributes the related risk and responsibility of security - reducing the amount of insurance coverage required and making insurance coverage more readily obtainable". For the record, their reply also said nothing whatsoever about multi-sig or offline storage.
In addition to the fact that the $40m hack represented only one "hot wallet" of Binance, and they actually had the vast majority of assets in other wallets (including mostly cold wallets), multiple real cases have clearly demonstrated that risk is still present with multiple wallets. Bitfinex, VinDAX, Bithumb, Altsbit, BitPoint, Cryptopia, and just recently KuCoin all had multiple wallets breached all at the same time, and may represent a significantly larger impact on customers than the Binance breach which was fully covered by Binance. To represent that simply having multiple separate wallets under the same security scheme is a comprehensive way to reduce risk is just not true.
Private insurance has historically never covered a single loss in the cryptocurrency space (at least, not one that I was able to find), and there are notable cases where massive losses were not covered by insurance. Bitpay in 2015 and Yapizon in 2017 both had insurance policies that didn't pay out during the breach, even after a lengthly court process. The same insurance that ShakePay is presently using (and announced to much fanfare) was describe by their CEO himself as covering “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held,” which is something that has never historically happened. As was said with regard to the same policy in 2018 - “I don’t find it surprising that Lloyd’s is in this space,” said Johnson, adding that to his mind the challenge for everybody is figuring out how to structure these policies so that they are actually protective. “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.”
The most profitable policy for a private insurance company is one with the most expensive premiums that they never have to pay a claim on. They have no inherent incentive to take care of people who lost funds. It's "cheaper" to take the reputational hit and fight the claim in court. The more money at stake, the more the insurance provider is incentivized to avoid payout. They're not going to insure the assets unless they have reasonable certainty to make a profit by doing so, and they're not going to pay out a massive sum unless it's legally forced. Private insurance is always structured to be maximally profitable to the insurance provider.
The circumvention of multi-sig was a key factor in the massive Bitfinex hack of over $60m of bitcoin, which today still sits being slowly used and is worth over $3b. While Bitfinex used a qualified custodian Bitgo, which was and still is active and one of the industry leaders of custodians, and they set up 2 of 3 multi-sig wallets, the entire system was routed through Bitfinex, such that Bitfinex customers could initiate the withdrawals in a "hot" fashion. This feature was also a hit with the hacker. The multi-sig was fully circumvented.
Bitpay in 2015 was another example of a breach that stole 5,000 bitcoins. This happened not through the exploit of any system in Bitpay, but because the CEO of a company they worked with got their computer hacked and the hackers were able to request multiple bitcoin purchases, which Bitpay honoured because they came from the customer's computer legitimately. Impersonation is a very common tactic used by fraudsters, and methods get more extreme all the time.
A notable case in Canada was the Canadian Bitcoins exploit. Funds were stored on a server in a Rogers Data Center, and the attendee was successfully convinced to reboot the server "in safe mode" with a simple phone call, thus bypassing the extensive security and enabling the theft.
The very nature of custodians circumvents multi-sig. This is because custodians are not just having to secure the assets against some sort of physical breach but against any form of social engineering, modification of orders, fraudulent withdrawal attempts, etc... If the security practices of signatories in a multi-sig arrangement are such that the breach risk of one signatory is 1 in 100, the requirement of 3 independent signatures makes the risk of theft 1 in 1,000,000. Since hackers tend to exploit the weakest link, a comparable custodian has to make the entry and exit points of their platform 10,000 times more secure than one of those signatories to provide equivalent protection. And if the signatories beef up their security by only 10x, the risk is now 1 in 1,000,000,000. The custodian has to be 1,000,000 times more secure. The larger and more complex a system is, the more potential vulnerabilities exist in it, and the fewer people can understand how the system works when performing upgrades. Even if a system is completely secure today, one has to also consider how that system might evolve over time or work with different members.
By contrast, offline multi-signature solutions have an extremely solid record, and in the entire history of cryptocurrency exchange incidents which I've studied (listed here), there has only been one incident (796 exchange in 2015) involving an offline multi-signature wallet. It happened because the customer's bitcoin address was modified by hackers, and the amount that was stolen ($230k) was immediately covered by the exchange operators. Basically, the platform operators were tricked into sending a legitimate withdrawal request to the wrong address because hackers exploited their platform to change that address. Such an issue would not be prevented in any way by the use of a custodian, as that custodian has no oversight whatsoever to the exchange platform. It's practical for all exchange operators to test large withdrawal transactions as a general policy, regardless of what model is used, and general best practice is to diagnose and fix such an exploit as soon as it occurs.
False promises on the backing of funds played a huge role in the downfall of Quadriga, and it's been exposed over and over again (MyCoin, PlusToken, Bitsane, Bitmarket, EZBTC, IDAX). Even today, customers have extremely limited certainty on whether their funds in exchanges are actually being backed or how they're being backed. While this issue is not unique to cryptocurrency exchanges, the complexity of the technology and the lack of any regulation or standards makes problems more widespread, and there is no "central bank" to come to the rescue as in the 2008 financial crisis or during the great depression when "9,000 banks failed".
In addition to fraudulent operations, the industry is full of cases where operators have suffered breaches and not reported them. Most recently, Einstein was the largest case in Canada, where ongoing breaches and fraud were perpetrated against the platform for multiple years and nobody found out until the platform collapsed completely. While fraud and breaches suck to deal with, they suck even more when not dealt with. Lack of visibility played a role in the largest downfalls of Mt. Gox, Cryptsy, and Bitgrail. In some cases, platforms are alleged to have suffered a hack and keep operating without admitting it at all, such as CoinBene.
It surprises some to learn that a cryptographic solution has already existed since 2013, and gained widespread support in 2014 after Mt. Gox. Proof of Reserves is a full cryptographic proof that allows any customer using an exchange to have complete certainty that their crypto-assets are fully backed by the platform in real-time. This is accomplished by proving that assets exist on the blockchain, are spendable, and fully cover customer deposits. It does not prove safety of assets or backing of fiat assets.
If we didn't care about privacy at all, a platform could publish their wallet addresses, sign a partial transaction, and put the full list of customer information and balances out publicly. Customers can each check that they are on the list, that the balances are accurate, that the total adds up, and that it's backed and spendable on the blockchain. Platforms who exclude any customer take a risk because that customer can easily check and see they were excluded. So together with all customers checking, this forms a full proof of backing of all crypto assets.
However, obviously customers care about their private information being published. Therefore, a hash of the information can be provided instead. Hash is one-way encryption. The hash allows the customer to validate inclusion (by hashing their own known information), while anyone looking at the list of hashes cannot determine the private information of any other user. All other parts of the scheme remain fully intact. A model like this is in use on the exchange CoinFloor in the UK.
A Merkle tree can provide even greater privacy. Instead of a list of balances, the balances are arranged into a binary tree. A customer starts from their node, and works their way to the top of the tree. For example, they know they have 5 BTC, they plus 1 other customer hold 7 BTC, they plus 2-3 other customers hold 17 BTC, etc... until they reach the root where all the BTC are represented. Thus, there is no way to find the balances of other individual customers aside from one unidentified customer in this case.
Proposals such as this had the backing of leaders in the community including Nic Carter, Greg Maxwell, and Zak Wilcox. Substantial and significant effort started back in 2013, with massive popularity in 2014. But what became of that effort? Very little. Exchange operators continue to refuse to give visibility. Despite the fact this information can often be obtained through trivial blockchain analysis, no Canadian platform has ever provided any wallet addresses publicly. As described by the CEO of Newton "For us to implement some kind of realtime Proof of Reserves solution, which I'm not opposed to, it would have to ... Preserve our users' privacy, as well as our own. Some kind of zero-knowledge proof". Kraken describes here in more detail why they haven't implemented such a scheme. According to professor Eli Ben-Sasson, when he spoke with exchanges, none were interested in implementing Proof of Reserves.
And yet, Kraken's places their reasoning on a page called "Proof of Reserves". More recently, both BitBuy and ShakePay have released reports titled "Proof of Reserves and Security Audit". Both reports contain disclaimers against being audits. Both reports trust the customer list provided by the platform, leaving the open possibility that multiple large accounts could have been excluded from the process. Proof of Reserves is a blockchain validation where customers see the wallets on the blockchain. The report from Kraken is 5 years old, but they leave it described as though it was just done a few weeks ago. And look at what they expect customers to do for validation. When firms represent something being "Proof of Reserve" when it's not, this is like a farmer growing fruit with pesticides and selling it in a farmers market as organic produce - except that these are people's hard-earned life savings at risk here. Platforms are misrepresenting the level of visibility in place and deceiving the public by their misuse of this term. They haven't proven anything.
Fraud isn't a problem that is unique to cryptocurrency. Fraud happens all the time. Enron, WorldCom, Nortel, Bear Stearns, Wells Fargo, Moser Baer, Wirecard, Bre-X, and Nicola are just some of the cases where frauds became large enough to become a big deal (and there are so many countless others). These all happened on 100% reversible assets despite regulations being in place. In many of these cases, the problems happened due to the over-complexity of the financial instruments. For example, Enron had "complex financial statements [which] were confusing to shareholders and analysts", creating "off-balance-sheet vehicles, complex financing structures, and deals so bewildering that few people could understand them". In cryptocurrency, we are often combining complex financial products with complex technologies and verification processes. We are naïve if we think problems like this won't happen. It is awkward and uncomfortable for many people to admit that they don't know how something works. If we want "money of the people" to work, the solutions have to be simple enough that "the people" can understand them, not so confusing that financial professionals and technology experts struggle to use or understand them.
For those who question the extent to which an organization can fool their way into a security consultancy role, HB Gary should be a great example to look at. Prior to trying to out anonymous, HB Gary was being actively hired by multiple US government agencies and others in the private sector (with glowing testimonials). The published articles and hosted professional security conferences. One should also look at this list of data breaches from the past 2 years. Many of them are large corporations, government entities, and technology companies. These are the ones we know about. Undoubtedly, there are many more that we do not know about. If HB Gary hadn't been "outted" by anonymous, would we have known they were insecure? If the same breach had happened outside of the public spotlight, would it even have been reported? Or would HB Gary have just deleted the Twitter posts, brought their site back up, done a couple patches, and kept on operating as though nothing had happened?
In the case of Quadriga, the facts are clear. Despite past experience with platforms such as MapleChange in Canada and others around the world, no guidance or even the most basic of a framework was put in place by regulators. By not clarifying any sort of legal framework, regulators enabled a situation where a platform could be run by former criminal Mike Dhanini/Omar Patryn, and where funds could be held fully unchecked by one person. At the same time, the lack of regulation deterred legitimate entities from running competing platforms and Quadriga was granted a money services business license for multiple years of operation, which gave the firm the appearance of legitimacy. Regulators did little to protect Canadians despite Quadriga failing to file taxes from 2016 onward. The entire administrative team had resigned and this was public knowledge. Many people had suspicions of what was going on, including Ryan Mueller, who forwarded complaints to the authorities. These were ignored, giving Gerald Cotten the opportunity to escape without justice.
There are multiple issues with the SOC II model including the prohibitive cost (you have to find a third party accounting firm and the prices are not even listed publicly on any sites), the requirement of operating for a year (impossible for new platforms), and lack of any public visibility (SOC II are private reports that aren't shared outside the people in suits).
Securities frameworks are expensive. Sarbanes-Oxley is estimated to cost $5.1 million USD/yr for the average Fortune 500 company in the United States. Since "Fortune 500" represents the top 500 companies, that means well over $2.55 billion USD (~$3.4 billion CAD) is going to people in suits. Isn't the problem of trust and verification the exact problem that the blockchain is supposed to solve?
To use Quadriga as justification for why custodians or SOC II or other advanced schemes are needed for platforms is rather silly, when any framework or visibility at all, or even the most basic of storage policies, would have prevented the whole thing. It's just an embarrassment.
We are now seeing regulators take strong action. CoinSquare in Canada with multi-million dollar fines. BitMex from the US, criminal charges and arrests. OkEx, with full disregard of withdrawals and no communication. Who's next?
We have a unique window today where we can solve these problems, and not permanently destroy innovation with unreasonable expectations, but we need to act quickly. This is a unique historic time that will never come again.
Based on the volume of questions from the East and West, we have compiled them all here. We also want to make sure the community has a chance to see all of the answers in a neat and orderly presentation.
Reddit 1st AMA Answers What do you mean by “side chains”? Will the Hcash main chain run parallel with other chains, or are other chains plugged in based on certain block numbers? My question is based around the vertical and parallel scalability I see with EOS. What is the interaction with the side chains? Is this faster than vertical scaling?
Side chains will run parallel and be interoperable with the main chain. Side chains allow for new, more efficient, consensus mechanisms as well as smart contract functionality. Eventually other major blockchains will be interoperable with Hcash, through side chains and relays, DAG EVM for ETH, and other “Layer 2” solutions (Lightning Network for BTC and BTC forked code). Side chains allow for different scalability methods, flexibility and accessibility.
Is quantum resistance to protect against hacking, or against “fast mining” (preventing inequality between PoW miners)? How is it possible to guarantee quantum resistance? Isn’t our understanding of quantum computing just based on theories since quantum computers are not fully functional yet?
Quantum resistance is the protection against attacks made by quantum computers, which is currently contrasted by what we know about classical computers. Quantum computers weaken the security assumptions of certain types of cryptography, including ECDSA. If ECDSA were broken, attackers could steal balances in addresses that have made previous spends because the ECDSA public key for the address is revealed to the blockchain. Addresses with unexposed ECDSA keys will be resistant to this type of attack, as they are secured by RIPEMD160 and their ECDSA keys have not been revealed. Quantum resistance does not mean quantum proof. Quantum resistance means that quantum-based attacks do not have a significant advantage over the computers we have today. Based on what we currently know, our signature scheme is quantum resistant. No one knows what the future holds which is why it is important to always continue research and development into quantum resistant cryptography.
What do you mean by “exchange of value and valuable information”? Is this the exchange of coins and smart contracts?
The “value” you are referring is not derived from our current understanding of value (fiat). The “true value” that blockchain systems hold is stored in the hashes themselves. Data and information is king.
Imagine that in 2 years, a kid walks up to you and asks, “What do you do and how does it help society?”
We are one of many projects that helped build a more secure web of connected devices, and revolutionized peoples’ opinion on value and what really matters.
An uninformed businessman who has no understanding of blockchain, but has heard Bitcoin approaches you. How do you explain your product and the benefits to him so that he remembers to give you a call the next day?
Tell him to do his research on blockchain first before selling him on some grand idea. Smart investors grow a stable smart economy, not dumb money.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Lab of Cryptography and Computer Security is the primary contributor to the main chain code. It is no small feat to have the 4th best university in China working on this project. The Nucleus Team is working with them to finish main chain testing. After the main chain launch, the Nucleus team will focus on the future development for Hcash including our side DAG EVM and main chain Lightning interoperability.
The main chain public repo hasn’t been updated very frequently.
Please refer to our new GitHub. The frequency of updates will increase as we approach/ pass the main chain launch.
When will the swap from Hshares to Hcash take place?
The swap to the main chain will take place after the main chain launch mid-February. Announcements will be made as to how and where you can swap your Hshares for Hcash.
What is the exact date of main chain launch?
The main chain launch will take place mid-February. We are aiming for release on February 15th.
Will you provide interoperability for all the existing blockchains?
We hope to provide interoperability for all blockchains in the future. That is a lot of work though. We will start with the larger chains that have healthy development and community sizes first. To make this easier, we plan to provide a back-end solution for new blockchains to make this process easier.
Will the interoperability between the blockchains support both transfer of data and transfer of value?
What is a block-less blockchain? Is this a traditional distributed system?
A block-less blockchain accomplishes the same goals as a traditional blockchain by using consensus to determine the order of transactions. A block-less blockchain, such as a DAG, allows for faster consensus without traditional block size requirements. Faster consensus means higher throughput.
How will Hcash bridge block-less and traditional blockchains?
Through relays between our main chain and side DAG. A more technical analysis will be available in our upcoming yellow paper.
What signature scheme will you use to achieve quantum resistance? Why?
Hcash is using the BLISS signature scheme. Hcash’s version of BLISS has been hardened to mitigate side channel attacks. BLISS was chosen for its efficient key and signature size.
Provide an overview as to how inoperability will be achieved.
We will be using relays to Hashed Timelock Contracts for Lightning Network interop on our main chain, relays and colored coins that operate with our DAG EVM, bridges to side chains for more uncommon chains, and back-end protocols for newer blockchains.
Specifically, what is the theory behind Hcash’s interoperability?
This answer would be longer than the entire AMA. Unfortunately, the specifics will have to wait until the yellow paper release. In the meantime, I would read the Lightning Network whitepaper because it is an excellent source of information. You could also research BTC relays and EVMs.
What is the timeline for interoperability? Will this be the main focus of Hcash? When can be expect an Alpha version?
We will be updating the roadmap in Q2. Interop timeframes will be easier to gauge after the main chain release. There are quite a few ideas around what we would like to tackle next, whether it would be assisting other projects on Lightning Network development, the DAG EVM implementation, or possibly both at the same time.
How will swap values be calculated when switching between blockchains? Is it based on the current market value?
Yes, it would be based on the current, real time market value.
Will you update the whitepaper to include a comprehensive overview of interoperability, its theory and its exchange functions?
In the coming months we plan to do an update on the white paper. The technical analysis will be provided in our yellow paper. These will be detailed in the updated roadmap to be released after the main chain launch.
Can you explain who will use the Hcash? I am trying to figure out where the supply and demand will come from.
Our target audience is everyone, from people playing mobile games to supporting business and government logic. The supply and demand will come with the need to transfer more and more data across multiple platforms. As for the economic model, this has not been outlined yet. We will be exploring all methods that fall in line with creating smart economies, including 2 token models.
Will you be hiring an advertising team?
We are already expanding Western marketing, primarily in the US. More focus on this will come soon after the main chain.
What are ring signatures in cryptography? How do they work?
At this time, we are exploring more efficient transaction schemes, such as bulletproofs. Bulletproofs can reduce the computational power needed for privatized/ anonymous transactions.
Most of us understand the interoperability of the network. What is a specific use case for Hcash? What role will Hcash have in the network? What makes it a requirement for interoperability? If someone has Bitcoin and wants to convert it to Ethereum using Hcash’s network wallet, is Hcash used as a fee for that conversion?
Here is an analogy. You walk into an arcade with 20 different machines. Each of these machines takes a different token, but you only have coins that operate with one of these machines. This would be the type of solution we hope to provide. Fees can be paid with Hcash. In the future we can explore taking fees in other denominations as well. More of this would be explained in detail with our yellow paper and economic model.
Baidu 1st AMA Answers What specific date will the main chain go online?
Main chain release is mid-February, but we are aiming for launch on February 15th.
Are you willing to divulge how many apps you have in development for the Hcash main chain?
The primary focus right now is to improve the stability of the Hcash main chain. This will ensure successful launches in the future for developers on our side DAG EVM.
What is the Martian’s current relationship to Hcash? Is he still part of its team?
The Hcash team is currently located on Earth. The last I heard the Martian was returning to Mars.
Will the main chain go up according to schedule? Are there any problems with Hcash? The specialist sales team was made up of shareholders/ investors, right?
Provided no unforeseen circumstances, we are on schedule for the main chain release. There are roadblocks and disconnects with every project. This is a new world of technology we are exploring. I think the team you may be referring to is the Hcash Foundation themselves. A lot of the Western marketing and development is being handled by the Nucleus Team.
Is the code on GitHub all original? Are all developments executed on GitHub? Why is there so little original code? There are so few modifications. I also noticed there are remarkably few references to the code. Most of them are from documents that have been updated.
Many engineers have worked to contribute to the blockchain community over the years. We are taking advantage of the hard work and research that has been done while also making our own meaningful contributions for others to use in their code. It is important to acknowledge the contributions of others. The work completed by Decred in particular has allowed us to grow. Now we will have our chance to contribute back to them and others with our post quantum signature scheme and NG implementation. There are advantages of having similar projects that people don’t realize. For example, after our main chain launch we can explore assisting with development on the Lightning Network. As for GitHub, you will see activity increase when the main chain launches.
What is scope of the Hcash R&D team?
To assess, research and develop cutting edge decentralized consensus mechanisms and applications.
Hcash is currently collaborating with three universities. Shanghai Jiao Tong University has been working on the main chain quantum resistance. What are the main responsibilities of the other two universities?
Building blockchain technology is a group effort. The other teams have also been researching other options for main chains, smart contracts etc. For example, Dr. Joseph Liu from Monash University is working on ring signature schemes to continue our research and development into privatized transactions. We are looking forward to taking the best efforts of all teams and bringing them to the blockchain communities at large, starting with the post quantum implementation from LoCCS at Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
The Westerners working on Hcash don't seem very enthusiastic. They aren't following a lot of people on Twitter. Does the team have any clearer plans for increasing publicity?
The Westerners are primarily focused on the technology, development, and creating more content. The community management will be increasing transparency and activity in time. More Western marketing can be done after the launch of the main chain.
Are there plans to get onto more exchanges such as Bittrex?
When moon? We are constantly considering all options to allow users to access Hcash. Currently we are listed amongst some of the top exchanges like Binance and growing exchanges like KuCoin.
When will quantum resistant technology be implemented into Hcash? Where can we follow the developments being made and is there anywhere we can go to participate in the project?
Quantum resistant technology is available now on GitHub at https://github.com/HcashOrg/hcashd and will be available for use outside of the testing environment when the main chain launches in the middle of February.
Where do you download the wallet? How do you mine?
When will Hshares swap Hcash? Can you announce a general time?
Hshares can be redeemed for Hcash after the main chain launches in the middle of February. Announcements will be made regarding how and where to swap your Hshares for Hcash.
Will there be an address mapping when Hshares swaps to Hcash like there was with EOS? What other kind of mechanism will be used for the coin swap?
A snapshot of Hshares will be included in the Genesis (first) block of Hcash’s launch to allow users to convert their Hshares into Hcash. An announcement will be made as to how, when and where conversions will take place.
When will the main chain that can support smart contracts go online? When will tokenization for Hcash take place?
Smart contract functionality will be available when our side DAG launches. Users, businesses and developers will be able to build dApps, launch tokens and more. We are making sure the main chain is a stable foundation before adding our DAG to the Hcash ecosystem.
There aren't many updates on GitHub and there aren’t many contributors. What kind of coordination is going on with the development team?
Both the Nucleus Team and members of Shanghai Jiao Tong University LoCCS are working together to finalize testing. Updates are being made to our GitHub at https://github.com/HcashOrg/hcashd.
Based on what I've been reading, Shanghai Jiao Tong University is mainly responsible for the main chain portion of the project. How is their team doing? How many research students in their labs are helping them?
Shanghai Jiao Tong is responsible for building and launching the new main chain. Their team there has been doing a great job with research and development and we look forward to seeing more of their work. The Nucleus Team is currently working with them to finish testing. After testing, the Nucleus team will focus on the future development of the project including our side DAG. I do not know the size of their team as we have not visited their lab.
Can you confirm that the main chain will finally go up in mid-February? Is it just a hypothetical date and then a further delay?
The primary responsibility is to make sure the main chain is stable and secure so that it can be used as the foundation to add other important features to the Hcash ecosystem, like smart contracts and hidden transactions. Everyone is working very hard to hit the target release date of mid-February. We are planning on mid-February for the launch unless anything unexpected comes up.
What is the status of these interoperability features? When is the main chain going online?
Main chain will be released mid-February. The interoperability features depend on the stability of the network. Our side DAG EVM will be the quickest addition to the Hcash ecosystem that will allow for ETH interoperability. Lightning Network on the main chain will require further research and development.
Won’t zero knowledge proofs conflict with the system’s throughput?
We are currently working on more uncommon implementations of zero proof knowledge, such as bulletproofs that allow for efficient transaction speeds. We can also achieve higher throughput with our side DAG.
Thank you to everyone who participated! Round 2 of our AMA session leading up to the launch of the main chain will be announced shortly 😊
By CCN: On May 10, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, released a security incident update regarding the firm’s loss of 7,000 bitcoin. Following the high-profile security breach of the exchange during which sophisticated tools and methods were used to steal $44 million from Binance, the firm swiftly revamped its security measures and practices. 7074 ... Teeka Tiwari Crypto Catch Up: Last Chance, Get Event Details Associated Press · 7 days ago. Crypto Catch Up is a free online seminar that will educate consumers about Teeka Tiwari’s top choice for cryptocurrency investment. The live cryptocurrency research-centric event is set to take ... Price analysis 11/2: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, LINK, BNB, LTC, DOT, BSV, ADA The Cointelegraph · 4 days ago ... By 2020, a large group of West African countries plan to adopt a single fiat currency called the eco. After a meeting in Abuja held on June 29 between the 15 member-country regional bloc, the ... binance bitcoin wallet address - Binance login Until then, we'll have to rely on bitcoin wallet address binance using bitcoins bitcoin wallet download android and ethereum to buy digital coins. Step 3: 3 days ago On November 2nd the world's biggest crypto Reich Werden Sofort exchange Binance, through its blog post announced that they will be supporting Bitcoin - Step 4: How to deposit Bitcoin ... You need to keep a very close eye on the upcoming fork updates and implementation of the PoS algorithm. To know more in details read out the article: Ethereum 2.0: All You Need to Know. 2. Binance Coin. Binance coin (BNB) is the native cryptocurrency of Binance exchange. This coin was launched in August 2017 along with the launch of its exchange. Binance is one of the biggest and most ... By entering your details, ... MPs called cryptocurrencies a “Wild West industry” To put bitcoin prices into investment profit and loss terminology, if you had invested five years ago, you ... Attack Bitcoin Corebleed. At the Breaking Bitcoin Conference in Paris last weekend, speakers from around the world gave talks about breaking down the technicals of different implementations such ... The decentralized exchange (dex) built on Ethereum, Uniswap has accumulated a whopping $2 billion in total value locked (TVL) this week. Tuesday’s data shows out of all the dece The saga worked its way through social media and the crypto press, spawning an entirely new, competitive implementation, Bitcoin Cash Node and a desire by some BCH enthusiasts to build crowdfunding alternatives as a matter of course. The original IFP was thought to have been signed off by BCH heavies such as Bitmain’s Jihan Wu, Roger Ver of Bitcoin.com, and Haipo Yang of ViaBTC. Ver later ... Binance CEO Reveals New Details of ‘Damaging’ $44 Million Bitcoin Hack. May 10, 2019 MrCrypto. By CCN: On May 10, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, released a security incident update regarding the firm’s loss of 7,000 bitcoin. Following the high-profile security breach of the exchange during which sophisticated tools and methods were used to ...
Cryptobud Trading Academy: Best Exchange Binance Referral Link: Sign up with Coinigy: . Grab my free Bitcoin trading course here: In todays episode, Im helping you prepare for the coming bear ma... HOW TO SEND STELLAR LUMENS XLM TO AN EXCHANGE 2018 BITCOIN BINANCE Hey everyone! In this video you will be learning how send your Stellar Lumens (XLM) from your wallet to an exchange! Its ... earn free btc, bitcoin mining 2020, connectbot, linux deploy, bitcoin mining script, bitcoin money adder android, bitcoin money adder free, bitcoin money adder apk, mine bitcoins, bitcoin money ... After a nearly week-long rally which saw BTC go +13% coming off an $8,300 local bottom, we look at the markets to ask if we will see a retracement this weekend. Crypto Comment Giveaway Winner ... Binance Trading Tips: The Stochastic RSI Indicator. Day Trading. Advanced Binance Trading. How to Trade on Binance DISCLAIMER *I am not a financial adviser, professional investor or technical ... BITCOIN JUST FLASHED THIS DEVASTATING SIGNAL (btc crypto live market news price today ta analysis) - Duration: 51:50. Crypto Crew University Recommended for you New Using Ledger Nano S as a security key to implement 2-step verification U2F, this video is a step-by-step guide to setup U2F for Google account. Another great feature by Ledger Nano S apart from ... Crypto Comment Giveaway Winner: Crypto Caveman 0:01:51 Bitcoin Analysis and Trading Strategy 0:04:21 Ethereum Analysis and Strategy 0:10:21 Litecoin Analysis... BITCOIN 12.000$ FORTEMENT POSSIBLES, ATTACHEZ LA CEINTURE !? btc analyse technique crypto monnaie - Duration: 29:55. Crypto Monnaie Analyse FR 11,790 views 29:55