BTC-e’s Big Claim: Bitcoin Withdrawals to Begin Today CoinDesk BTC-e, the long-running and controversial bitcoin exchange targeted by US authorities last month, has claimed that users will be able to withdraw their funds beginning Saturday. As previously reported, BTC-e – after its original domain had been seized …
BTC-e's Big Claim: Bitcoin Withdrawals to Begin Today CoinDesk BTC-e, the long-running and controversial bitcoin exchange targeted by US authorities last month, has claimed that users will be able to withdraw their funds beginning Saturday. As previously reported, BTC-e – after its original domain had been seized ...
Another day, another all-time high for the BTC-USD markets. Bitcoin has been on a strong bull run since its bottom in the $1800s and, despite many technical indicators, has pushed to new highs, week after week. With the international uncertainty surrounding the North Korean conflict and the recent news of Dalia Blass’s recent hire at the SEC, there is plenty of bullish news to fuel the push. However, the current BTC-USD all-time high resides in the lower $4800s, which many market analysts say is the local top of this run.
Typical Fibonacci Extensions are 127% and 160% of the total length of the bull run. $2600 (0% retracement value shown above) marks the breakout point of the current bull market BTC-USD is experiencing. There have been 4 attempts made to break the $4480 values (100% retracement value shown above). Due to the prolonged effort to break these values, we can make the argument that $4480s are the local top values; any values that breach beyond the $4480s are extensions of the bull run.
A week ago, BTC-USD made a test of the lower $3600s in a move that would ultimately bounce and push us to our current all time high. However, the move from the local bottom to the $4800s is currently forming a reversal pattern called a “Rising Wedge.” Although a Rising Wedge has a relatively high rate of failure, it is still something BTC-USD traders should keep an eye on:
The Rising Wedge is characterized by higher highs and higher lows that converge about an ascending value. For anyone trading reversal patterns, it is paramount to confirm the breakout before entering a position. In low confidence patterns like Rising Wedges, we must wait for a breakout below the wedge and for strong trading volumes to increase the likelihood of success. Some evidence that points toward a possible reversal is the RSI and MACD divergence.
Divergence is essentially an indication that there is potential bullish momentum loss in the market. It’s important to note that bearish divergence does not guarantee a market reversal and it does not mean the market will pullback. The only thing we are permitted to take away from bearish divergence is the argument that the market has an increased probability of either consolidation or a market pullback. In strong bull markets, bearish divergence can be seen for hours, days and even weeks.
Should the Rising Wedge break to the bottom, we can calculate the expected price move as follows:
In our case, should the Rising Wedge break to the bottom, we can expect an approximate $500 move downward. However, should the pattern fail to break to the bottom, we can expect a price upward to test the 127% Fibonacci Extension values around $5000 before encountering any significant resistance.
Summary:
Global uncertainty surrounding North Korea’s aggression plus ETF optimism give further evidence to support a continued bullish market.
A potential Rising Wedge could potentially cause a $500 BTC-USD market retracement. The pattern has yet to be confirmed.
Should the Rising Wedge fail to break to the bottom, we can expect a further push toward the 127% Fibonacci Extension values of $5000.
Trading and investing in digital assets like bitcoin, bitcoin cash and ether is highly speculative and comes with many risks. This analysis is for informational purposes and should not be considered investment advice. Statements and financial information on Bitcoin Magazine and BTC Media related sites do not necessarily reflect the opinion of BTC Media and should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation to buy, sell or hold. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
Another day, another all-time high for the BTC-USD markets. Bitcoin has been on a strong bull run since its bottom in the $1800s and, despite many technical indicators, has pushed to new highs, week after week. With the international uncertainty surrounding the North Korean conflict and the recent news of Dalia Blass’s recent hire at the SEC, there is plenty of bullish news to fuel the push. However, the current BTC-USD all-time high resides in the lower $4800s, which many market analysts say is the local top of this run.
Typical Fibonacci Extensions are 127% and 160% of the total length of the bull run. $2600 (0% retracement value shown above) marks the breakout point of the current bull market BTC-USD is experiencing. There have been 4 attempts made to break the $4480 values (100% retracement value shown above). Due to the prolonged effort to break these values, we can make the argument that $4480s are the local top values; any values that breach beyond the $4480s are extensions of the bull run.
A week ago, BTC-USD made a test of the lower $3600s in a move that would ultimately bounce and push us to our current all time high. However, the move from the local bottom to the $4800s is currently forming a reversal pattern called a “Rising Wedge.” Although a Rising Wedge has a relatively high rate of failure, it is still something BTC-USD traders should keep an eye on:
The Rising Wedge is characterized by higher highs and higher lows that converge about an ascending value. For anyone trading reversal patterns, it is paramount to confirm the breakout before entering a position. In low confidence patterns like Rising Wedges, we must wait for a breakout below the wedge and for strong trading volumes to increase the likelihood of success. Some evidence that points toward a possible reversal is the RSI and MACD divergence.
Divergence is essentially an indication that there is potential bullish momentum loss in the market. It’s important to note that bearish divergence does not guarantee a market reversal and it does not mean the market will pullback. The only thing we are permitted to take away from bearish divergence is the argument that the market has an increased probability of either consolidation or a market pullback. In strong bull markets, bearish divergence can be seen for hours, days and even weeks.
Should the Rising Wedge break to the bottom, we can calculate the expected price move as follows:
In our case, should the Rising Wedge break to the bottom, we can expect an approximate $500 move downward. However, should the pattern fail to break to the bottom, we can expect a price upward to test the 127% Fibonacci Extension values around $5000 before encountering any significant resistance.
Summary:
Global uncertainty surrounding North Korea’s aggression plus ETF optimism give further evidence to support a continued bullish market.
A potential Rising Wedge could potentially cause a $500 BTC-USD market retracement. The pattern has yet to be confirmed.
Should the Rising Wedge fail to break to the bottom, we can expect a further push toward the 127% Fibonacci Extension values of $5000.
Trading and investing in digital assets like bitcoin, bitcoin cash and ether is highly speculative and comes with many risks. This analysis is for informational purposes and should not be considered investment advice. Statements and financial information on Bitcoin Magazine and BTC Media related sites do not necessarily reflect the opinion of BTC Media and should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation to buy, sell or hold. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
The history of Bitcoin – which only spans around nine years – has seen its fair share of controversy, allegations, and governmental opposition. Regulators from all over the world have told the public Bitcoin is not to be trusted and is merely a tool for criminals in both the real world and on the internet. Considering most of these regulators also dream of a cash-free society, that is not entirely surprising. One source at the Department of Homeland Security recently gave Bitcoin one of its biggest validations to date, though. Bitcoin is “a lot More Legitimate Than Assumed” That was the statement
The history of Bitcoin – which only spans around nine years – has seen its fair share of controversy, allegations, and governmental opposition. Regulators from all over the world have told the public Bitcoin is not to be trusted and is merely a tool for criminals in both the real world and on the internet. Considering most of these regulators also dream of a cash-free society, that is not entirely surprising. One source at the Department of Homeland Security recently gave Bitcoin one of its biggest validations to date, though.
Bitcoin is “a lot More Legitimate Than Assumed”
That was the statement provided to CNBC by an anonymous source allegedly working at the Department of Homeland Security. While it is true the DHS has never been overly negative when it comes to cryptocurrency, it was also one of the first to acknowledge that this technology could be used for illegal activity. Then again, a unit tasked with protecting the U.S. from terrorism and other types of attacks always needs to assume the worst and adjust its opinion from there on out. It appears some DHS staffers can see the good in Bitcoin at this stage.
Although we have no idea who the anonymous source in question is, it certainly goes to show not every government official is shortsighted when it comes to cryptocurrency in general. After all, there will always be those who continue to oppose any form of financial innovation, regardless of how legitimate it may be in the end. There are also those officials who do not want to understand what Bitcoin can potentially bring to the table in the first place. One does not have to like Bitcoin to see the potential it offers, though.
It is certainly true Bitcoin does not lend itself to illegal criminal activity. In fact, it is one of the worst payment methods to use in this regard. All transactions and their associated amounts are publicly visible on the blockchain in real time. While those transfers do not disclose personal information directly, it is certainly not impossible to track the money across different wallets and even exchange platforms. Additionally, there are multiple blockchain analysis service providers that will gladly help out in this regard, as even the IRS partnered with Chainalysis not too long ago.
All of this goes to show Bitcoin is used by as many different types of people as you can imagine. Indeed, its user base is a lot broader than just criminals or people with nefarious purposes. In fact, it is slowly dawning upon the DHS and other organizations how Bitcoin has far more legitimate use cases than illegal ones. Bitcoin initially gained traction thanks to its darknet activity in the early years, but it has become so much more than just that in these past five or six years. Many people now use it for regular shopping purposes, remittance solutions, and even as a way to receive international payments from employers.
Intelligence and security agencies have a fairly easy time tracking Bitcoin transactions and making arrests accordingly. Bitcoin has pseudonymous traits, just like any online nickname has. However, when it comes to cashing in on Bitcoin, you cannot avoid sharing personal information whatsoever. Even using so-called mules to receive illegally obtained Bitcoins and send them to you later on can be traced and will eventually lead to the culprit. There are many payment methods far more anonymous than Bitcoin which pose legitimate problems in this regard.
Although this validation by an anonymous DHS source will not necessarily turn Bitcoin into a fan favorite, it shows the tide is slowly changing in favor of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is no longer the niche currency so many claim it to be, but it is now an industry in its own right – a growing industry, mind you, as the level of adoption by both consumers and merchants is still a lot lower than what most enthusiasts would like to see. Given enough time, however, Bitcoin will rival most prominent companies. Its market cap is already above that of PayPal and Pepsico, just to name a few.
Dash’s developers recently had to intervene in a significant way. A major exploit method was discovered with the help of the community. This exploit was found within the InstantSend implementation. As a result, the InstantSend feature has been temporarily suspended until a new client is released in the coming days. It is a very unusual turn of events, especially considering how developers can turn network features on and off without issues. InstantSend Disabled by the Dash Developers It is the first time we have seen the Dash developers intervene in a major way to protect the network. The issue discovered by the developers and
Dash’s developers recently had to intervene in a significant way. A major exploit method was discovered with the help of the community. This exploit was found within the InstantSend implementation. As a result, the InstantSend feature has been temporarily suspended until a new client is released in the coming days. It is a very unusual turn of events, especially considering how developers can turn network features on and off without issues.
InstantSend Disabled by the Dash Developers
It is the first time we have seen the Dash developers intervene in a major way to protect the network. The issue discovered by the developers and community made the only option a drastic one. Although disabling such a major part of the Dash network is never a fun outcome, having an exploit waiting to be leveraged is never a good idea. This particular exploit could have had major consequences for the network as a whole if left unchecked.
According to the Dash forum, this particular exploit would have allowed an attacker with 6 or more Masternodes to dominate an InstantSend quorum. They could have brute forced collateral transaction hashes to increase their chances of getting selected for an InstantSend quorum. Anyone who partook in this quorum could have received the ability to perform a double spend or even a network fork. It is important to note such an attack has never been executed, but preventing these issues is always better than fixing them later.
Granted, the economic requirements for such an attack are not insignificant by any means. An attacker would have needed at least US$2.1 million in Dash to successfully pull off this exploit, although that could have been worth it to the right individual. For the time being, InstantSend will remain disabled until a fix is deployed on the network. That fix will come in the form of the Dash 112.2 release, which is already completed and ready for release in the next few weeks.
The developers could have solved this problem through a hotfix, but they deliberately decided not to pursue that avenue. A hotfix would have potentially disrupted the network, which would have created a whole new set of problems. This means Dash users will not be able to use the InstantSend feature for quite some time, which may cause some friction among community members. All InstantSend transactions made before the 12.2 release will revert to regular transaction times, while still being charged the InstantSend fee.
We commend the Dash developers on successfully identifying this issue with the help of community members and ensuring this exploit could not be leveraged by criminals. Catching such issues at a very early stage is of the utmost importance; otherwise, the network would have been placed in serious jeopardy as a result. There will always be people who feel this type of measure is a problem, as it shows the Dash developers have a lot of control over one of the network’s primary features in providing anonymity. Then again, that proved to be a positive aspect in this particular case.
Cryptocurrency technology is not free from exploits and potentially disastrous issues. The Dash team successfully avoided a major crisis, although their course of action could raise some questions from other communities. It does not affect Masternode functionality in general, though, as they are still an integral part of the Dash ecosystem as a whole. The wait begins for the 12.2 release client which will address these problems once and for all.
The Bitcoin Cash (Bcash or BCH) mining saga continues.
Last week, Bitcoin Magazine reported how — assuming all miners would act in their short-term self-interest — Bcash could potentially have its blockchain freeze in its tracks. Then, last weekend, the Bcash mining saga further developed, as some miners periodically triggered an emergency difficulty adjustment, leading to extreme swings in hash power, unreliable block times and increased inflation.
Now, the situation has taken yet another turn.
Bitcoin Cash is currently less profitable to mine than Bitcoin (BTC). And according (translation) to at least one mining pool operator, BTC.TOP’s Jiang Zhuo’er, this is intentional. Some miners, including Zhou’er, seem to be coordinating to keep the Bitcoin Cash difficulty where it is now, relative to Bitcoin and relative to the price of the two coins. In other words, Bcash miners are keeping Bcash a little less profitable to mine than Bitcoin, on purpose.
As we explained in our first article on this topic, miners that are driven by short-term financial incentives should all switch to the chain that is most profitable to mine (regardless of what other miners do). Yet, Bcash is still being mined despite being less profitable — and at a relatively regular pace. Blocks aren’t found too fast or too slow, inflation is not out of bounds, and the situation seems relatively stable.
In short, miners are collectively leaving money on the table to ensure that Bcash is usable.
The big question, therefore, is why.
The simple explanation would be that the Bcash miners expect the BCH exchange rate to increase significantly in the future and are therefore willing to “take one for the team” right now. (Keep in mind that even if miners believe in Bcash’s long-term potential, they would individually still be better off mining BTC and selling their proceeds for BCH — but someone needs to be mining Bcash for that to even be possible.)
Alternatively, miners could be invested in Bcash enough to want to keep it — and thus their investment — alive. Or maybe someone else is similarly invested is subsidizing the miners.
It could also be a matter of honor or pride.
Or perhaps there is a bigger picture.
The Bitmain Factor
Two of the biggest Bcash miners are ViaBTC and, indeed, BTC.TOP. But the vast majority of Bcash hash power is mining anonymously to two BCH addresses. This hash power must therefore belong to one or two mystery miners, or maybe one or two mystery pools.
Meanwhile, there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest that Bitmain is involved with Bcash to some degree.
First and foremost, Bitcoin Cash was the realization of the “UAHF,” a plan first proposed by Bitmain. And while the mining hardware manufacturer has publicly distanced itself from the project to some extent since, it did not rule out the possibility of supporting Bcash later on. Indeed, two of Bitmain’s pools, Antpool and BTC.com, have mined BCH since.
Meanwhile, Amaury Séchet, lead developer of Bitcoin ABC (the first software implementation that implemented this UAHF) received funding from the Bitmain-sponsored Bitcoin Development Grant. Similarly, Juan Garavaglia, CEO of early Bitcoin Cash infrastructure development company Bitprim, is or was the authorized Bitmain distributor for the U.S. and Canada. And while any connection between BTC.TOP and Bitmain has so far been denied, ViaBTC did at least receive investment from the mining giant. And of course, Bitmain co-CEO Jihan Wu established himself as a big proponent of Bcash, both online and offline.
Furthermore, Bitmain might be one of the parties that could benefit the most from Bitcoin Cash, if the coin proves successful in the longer term. As opposed to Bitcoin, Bcash is still fully compatible with covert use of the patented AsicBoost technology that Bitmain admitted to having implemented in its chips, while Bitcoin ABC has no plans to counter this. And as Blockstream CSO Samson Mow argued, by producing their own coin, Bitmain can perhaps to some extent guarantee future hardware sales, even if Bitcoin were to ever, for example, adopt a proof-of-work algorithm change.
All this, and of course the fact that Bitmain is a world-leading producer of hash power, suggests that the company is in a good position be responsible for one or both mystery miners. Or that someone associated with the company is.
While this theory is speculative and parts of it are officially denied, it would mean that Bitmain — or someone associated with Bitmain — is almost single handedly propping up Bcash. As a result, the coin is currently relatively functional. But barring more durable solutions, Bcash’s future might just depend on Bitmain’s willingness and ability to keep it that way.
The Bitcoin Cash (Bcash or BCH) mining saga continues.
Last week, Bitcoin Magazine reported how — assuming all miners would act in their short-term self-interest — Bcash could potentially have its blockchain freeze in its tracks. Then, last weekend, the Bcash mining saga further developed, as some miners periodically triggered an emergency difficulty adjustment, leading to extreme swings in hash power, unreliable block times and increased inflation.
Now, the situation has taken yet another turn.
Bitcoin Cash is currently less profitable to mine than Bitcoin (BTC). And according (translation) to at least one mining pool operator, BTC.TOP’s Jiang Zhuo’er, this is intentional. Some miners, including Zhou’er, seem to be coordinating to keep the Bitcoin Cash difficulty where it is now, relative to Bitcoin and relative to the price of the two coins. In other words, Bcash miners are keeping Bcash a little less profitable to mine than Bitcoin, on purpose.
As we explained in our first article on this topic, miners that are driven by short-term financial incentives should all switch to the chain that is most profitable to mine (regardless of what other miners do). Yet, Bcash is still being mined despite being less profitable — and at a relatively regular pace. Blocks aren’t found too fast or too slow, inflation is not out of bounds, and the situation seems relatively stable.
In short, miners are collectively leaving money on the table to ensure that Bcash is usable.
The big question, therefore, is why.
The simple explanation would be that the Bcash miners expect the BCH exchange rate to increase significantly in the future and are therefore willing to “take one for the team” right now. (Keep in mind that even if miners believe in Bcash’s long-term potential, they would individually still be better off mining BTC and selling their proceeds for BCH — but someone needs to be mining Bcash for that to even be possible.)
Alternatively, miners could be invested in Bcash enough to want to keep it — and thus their investment — alive. Or maybe someone else is similarly invested is subsidizing the miners.
It could also be a matter of honor or pride.
Or perhaps there is a bigger picture.
The Bitmain Factor
Two of the biggest Bcash miners are ViaBTC and, indeed, BTC.TOP. But the vast majority of Bcash hash power is mining anonymously to two BCH addresses. This hash power must therefore belong to one or two mystery miners, or maybe one or two mystery pools.
Meanwhile, there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to suggest that Bitmain is involved with Bcash to some degree.
First and foremost, Bitcoin Cash was the realization of the “UAHF,” a plan first proposed by Bitmain. And while the mining hardware manufacturer has publicly distanced itself from the project to some extent since, it did not rule out the possibility of supporting Bcash later on. Indeed, two of Bitmain’s pools, Antpool and BTC.com, have mined BCH since.
Meanwhile, Amaury Séchet, lead developer of Bitcoin ABC (the first software implementation that implemented this UAHF) received funding from the Bitmain-sponsored Bitcoin Development Grant. Similarly, Juan Garavaglia, CEO of early Bitcoin Cash infrastructure development company Bitprim, is or was the authorized Bitmain distributor for the U.S. and Canada. And while any connection between BTC.TOP and Bitmain has so far been denied, ViaBTC did at least receive investment from the mining giant. And of course, Bitmain co-CEO Jihan Wu established himself as a big proponent of Bcash, both online and offline.
Furthermore, Bitmain might be one of the parties that could benefit the most from Bitcoin Cash, if the coin proves successful in the longer term. As opposed to Bitcoin, Bcash is still fully compatible with covert use of the patented AsicBoost technology that Bitmain admitted to having implemented in its chips, while Bitcoin ABC has no plans to counter this. And as Blockstream CSO Samson Mow argued, by producing their own coin, Bitmain can perhaps to some extent guarantee future hardware sales, even if Bitcoin were to ever, for example, adopt a proof-of-work algorithm change.
All this, and of course the fact that Bitmain is a world-leading producer of hash power, suggests that the company is in a good position be responsible for one or both mystery miners. Or that someone associated with the company is.
While this theory is speculative and parts of it are officially denied, it would mean that Bitmain — or someone associated with Bitmain — is almost single handedly propping up Bcash. As a result, the coin is currently relatively functional. But barring more durable solutions, Bcash’s future might just depend on Bitmain’s willingness and ability to keep it that way.
Monopoly-Resistant Mining? Paper Claims Bitcoin Centralization Fears Overblown CoinDesk Bitcoin might be naturally resistant to mining monopolies – or so claims a new research paper authored by University of Siena professor of economics, Nicola Dimitri. At a high level, the paper contends “the intrinsic structure of the mining activity …
Monopoly-Resistant Mining? Paper Claims Bitcoin Centralization Fears Overblown CoinDesk Bitcoin might be naturally resistant to mining monopolies – or so claims a new research paper authored by University of Siena professor of economics, Nicola Dimitri. At a high level, the paper contends "the intrinsic structure of the mining activity ...
The darknet has had an undeniable impact on the growth of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin saw most of its first use cases thanks to the darknet. Unfortunately, this also means Bitcoin and some other cryptocurrencies will always be associated with criminal activity, especially over the internet. Monero falls victim to the same stereotypes, even though it makes more sense to use that currency on the darknet compared to Bitcoin. Then again, Monero is so much more than a tool for cybercriminals. Monero Is More Than a Darknet Currency Every type of money that provides either privacy, anonymity, or both will always be
The darknet has had an undeniable impact on the growth of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin saw most of its first use cases thanks to the darknet. Unfortunately, this also means Bitcoin and some other cryptocurrencies will always be associated with criminal activity, especially over the internet. Monero falls victim to the same stereotypes, even though it makes more sense to use that currency on the darknet compared to Bitcoin. Then again, Monero is so much more than a tool for cybercriminals.
Monero Is More Than a Darknet Currency
Every type of money that provides either privacy, anonymity, or both will always be associated with criminal activity. Fiat cash is perhaps one of the more obvious examples of this. Every relevant TV show, movie, or book mentions how criminals will only accept cash as it leaves no trace. Using bills and coins is quite cumbersome when moving them in large quantities, though. Bags filled with money will always attract the attention of law enforcement officials, for obvious reasons. After all, no one needs piles of cash for legitimate reasons, in the public’s opinion.
Monero is one of those currencies which provide both privacy and anonymity in the world of cryptocurrency. While it is certainly true both traits make it a perfect tool for the darknet, the currency has a lot of other benefits as well. Monero has been somewhat of a success on the darknet. Unfortunately, the two largest marketplaces dealing with XMR payments were shut down not too long ago. It is unclear how many other platforms have integrated – or will integrate – Monero payments in the near future.
Considering the fact that one cannot trace Monero payments like one would with Bitcoin, its appeal is somewhat different than Bitcoin’s or Ethereum’s. ZCash is also a big contender in this regard, although its developers use a vastly different approach than Monero’s. Competition in this regard is never a bad thing, as different solutions can effectively achieve the same goal. However, Zcash seemingly has less of an association with online crime, as it is not as widespread as Monero.
Being able to transact privately is not just a tool for people who want to hide illegal activity. Monero has some other traits which make it appealing to criminals. However, the number of legal use cases should not be overlooked either. The protocol is perfectly suited for corporations looking to move money around without their competitors knowing. Remittances can also benefit from XMR if they were ever to embrace it. It remains to be seen if that will ever be the case, though.
Law enforcement officials may not take kindly to Monero. It is impossible to say who uses Monero and which amounts they transmit. Regions where government oppression is a big problem will certainly benefit from Monero as well, as those transactions are obfuscated in every possible way. One cannot freeze someone else’s XMR funds unless it is stored in an exchange wallet. Payments with Bitcoin can be analyzed in real time, which is a big problem for people who value privacy.
Additionally, Monero has partnered with the Software Freedom Law Center for legal advice. There is also the Monero Research lab comprised of dozens of researchers working on technology and research. The currency has a lot of advantages Bitcoin will not necessarily have anytime soon. In terms of scalability, XMR is well ahead of the competition by the looks of things. Monero will even have its own version of the Lightning Network, which will certainly heat up the competition with Bitcoin and Litecoin.
The Winklevoss twins’ proposed Bitcoin ETF that was rejected by the SEC earlier this year might get a second chance, as an attorney from their law firm tapped for a top SEC position.
The Winklevoss twins’ proposed Bitcoin ETF that was rejected by the SEC earlier this year might get a second chance, as an attorney from their law firm tapped for a top SEC position.
French hypergrowth startup DomRaider aspires to develop an open-source solution dedicated to real-time management of auctions based on blockchain technology. Tristan Colombet, DomRaider CEO, explains the operation in the video Over the last four years, DomRaider has become the European market leader for the auctioning of expired domain names. Today, its Founder, Tristan Colombet, … Continue reading European Leader in Domain Name Drop Catching announces ICO to Build Blockchain-Powered Auction Platform
French hypergrowth startup DomRaider aspires to develop an open-source solution dedicated to real-time management of auctions based on blockchain technology. Tristan Colombet, DomRaider CEO, explains the operation in the video Over the last four years, DomRaider has become the European market leader for the auctioning of expired domain names. Today, its Founder, Tristan Colombet, … Continue reading European Leader in Domain Name Drop Catching announces ICO to Build Blockchain-Powered Auction Platform
The independent film Banking on Bitcoin, covering Bitcoin’s roots, its possible futures and its underlying technology, is now on Netflix. “Bitcoin is the most disruptive invention since the internet, and now an ideological battle is underway between fringe utopists and mainstream capitalism,” reads the Netflix news release. “The film shows the players who are defining how this technology will shape our lives.”
Banking on Bitcoin is a good film, professionally produced. On the hugely popular Netflix platform, the film will give many newcomers an understandable first introduction.
The overall impression is that this a good historic and ideological overview of Bitcoin’s first development phase but it’s in need of a sequel. From its cypherpunk roots and days of early adoption, the film focuses on the digital currency’s rocky relationship with the banks and regulatory bodies, setbacks like the fall of MtGox and the Silk Road, as well as some figures who were “first through the door,” like Charlie Shrem, Erik Voorhees and Gavin Andresen.
At the same time, Bitcoin and crypto enthusiasts are likely to find two shortcomings: First, the film dedicates too much time to stale old news like Silk Road and BitLicense, and not enough to new developments. Second, because it was first begun in late 2013 and wrapped up in the fall of 2016, the coverage of recent developments is very limited: The film essentially stops at the end of 2015.
Bitcoin Magazine reached out to the film’s director/writer/producer Christopher Cannucciari and associate producer Phillip Galinsky to find out more about the film’s background and their future plans.
What is your background, and what has been your role in the film?
Christopher Cannucciari: I had become interested in digital currency while I was producing a 2009 documentary in Kenya and some locals had introduced me to what would become mpesa. Kenya had just had a major crisis due to post-election violence of 2008. The banks had shut down and Kenyans came up with the novel idea of texting phone credits which could be used as money to pay for goods and services. Upon my return the thought of new ways to used technology as money stuck with me. Fast forward to 2013 and my interest in Bitcoin became so strong that I decided to bring my abilities as a filmmaker to it.
Phillip Galinsky: I’ve been involved in the film since the beginning when it was just Chris working in the role of Director and myself working in the role of Producer. Chris and I were working together on an unrelated project over a three-day shoot and I kept noticing (and occasionally mentioning to other members of the production team) that the price of bitcoin was skyrocketing.
Others working on the project seemed skeptical at first, but as the weekend drew on and the price nearly doubled, people became more interested. Chris and a number of other team members asked me to explain what bitcoin was and how it worked.
I was (and am) primarily interested in Bitcoin from a technological and moral consequentialist perspective, so I walked through the basic functions of blockchain technology, and attempted to explain how the capacity of blockchain technology to enable distributed, decentralized, censorship-resistant databases is a crucial enabling factor for development and implementation of the next generation of free and open global societies. My technical and somewhat arcane explanation turned out not to be the most effective way introduce the technology to the crew, and a number of people expressed interest in a gentler and easier to digest source of information about Bitcoin.
Chris in particular wanted to know more about Bitcoin due to previous experiences that showed him the power of technology as currency, and took note of the fact that, although Bitcoin had been around for about half a decade by then, most people still hadn’t heard of it and there were few high quality resources to be found that were targeted toward informing a general audience about the technology.
I introduced Chris to the NYC bitcoin community and we worked together on the many components of documentary film production.
What is the main message that viewers should take away?
Christopher Cannucciari: Before the public passes judgement on Bitcoin, they deserve to know where it came from, how it works and how it fits into society.
Bitcoin didn’t come from nothing, it came [off] the shoulders of the Cypherpunks. Bitcoin is a technology, and technologies are neither good nor evil, but rather [they’re] accelerants. Society can use it as a tool however they see fit, and our hope is that those who wish to learn about Bitcoin will understand that it is there for them to participate as much as anyone.
The film doesn’t cover developments after the end of 2015 (price increases in 2017, investments, DAOs, spectacular ICOs, sidechains, Lightning Networks…). I guess you had to take a long time for post processing and marketing (probably for lack of funds) between the end of shooting and the first release?
The story of Bitcoin is just too big to fit in a single film. Banking on Bitcoin is a primer for what Bitcoin is, where it came from and how it survived its initial challenges. As a primer, the audience can then dig in deeper and discover the many more complex stories.
We certainly could have tried to fit in many more stories, subjects and details, but the film would have lost its focus rather quickly. It was essential for us to honor the initiated while holding the attention of those who wanted an entry point to this amazing subject.
Vitalik Buterin appears in a couple of scenes but is never mentioned, and Ethereum is never mentioned. Why?
Christopher Cannucciari: I held interviews with Vitalik in Toronto, Wences Casares in Silicon Valley and even traveled to the Bitcoin Bowl in Florida. As much as I wish I could have kept these stories in the film, we had to keep focus on what was unfolding before us in New York.
Ethereum deserves its own story and perhaps we can find a way to tell that story in the future.
You often mention the tension between the original libertarian, crypto-anarchist spirit of Bitcoin and its new “sanitized” mainstream aspects, Ben Lawsky’s regulations and Blythe Masters’ Wall Street blockchains. What’s your own take?
Christopher Cannucciari: The Crypto scene in New York was amazingly vibrant and the state had a golden opportunity to foster it and give New York the same innovative energy Silicon Valley had in the 1980s. What happened instead is Bitcoin was eyed with suspicion and the regulations around it made it difficult for “garage” entrepreneurs to participate. It is now left to those who can afford to work with the regulators.
Phillip Galinsky: There are both positive and negative consequences of the adoption of blockchain technology by “Wall Street.” All blockchain development, both open and closed source, has the positive consequence of informing developers about the limitations and capacities of the technology. Open source endeavors produce the most accessible and immediately useful technologies to facilitate further blockchain invention and innovation. However, even closed-source development produces valuable knowledge about the possible uses of blockchain technology; for example, this white paper released by Blythe Masters’ firm Digital Asset Holdings which goes into great depth about one of the many possible uses of blockchain technology.
This is not to say that all blockchain based systems will be positive or bear normative value from a moral consequentialist perspective. Blockchain technology is incredibly powerful and will shape the future of human interaction and societal system architectures, for better or worse, and it is largely on the shoulder of developers to ensure that the blockchain is used to increase well-being in the world.
Is the end meant to suggest that Craig Wright is Satoshi? What is your own bet? Who is Satoshi?
Christopher Cannucciari: It’s very interesting how this is a sensitive issue. Craig Wright was presented in the same way as Dorian [Nakamoto] was. The carousel of Satoshi’s identity will continue; Wright will not be the last to come forward.
While Wright is most certainly not Satoshi, some have suggested that he was a drop for the real Satoshi. The timing was interesting, Wright was in need of capital to settle some big debts and all of a sudden he was in possession of some valuable, early Satoshi-era Bitcoins. For those who want to play the Satoshi game, I added this breadcrumb to keep the search on.
The Bitcoin/blockchain story is far from over. Are you working on a sequel to the film, and what role does blockchain technology play in your future work?
Phillip Galinsky: There will certainly be an ever-increasing wealth of material for filmmakers to cover in the blockchain space in coming years, as many of the most exciting developments in blockchain technology — self-executing contracts, oracles, distributed autonomous organizations, and most fascinating to me, blockchain-based societal control systems — are still in the nascent stages of development and implementation. Chris and I have discussed the possibility of making a sequel; however, we haven’t made any specific plans to do so at this point in time.
The independent film Banking on Bitcoin, covering Bitcoin’s roots, its possible futures and its underlying technology, is now on Netflix. “Bitcoin is the most disruptive invention since the internet, and now an ideological battle is underway between fringe utopists and mainstream capitalism,” reads the Netflix news release. “The film shows the players who are defining how this technology will shape our lives.”
Banking on Bitcoin is a good film, professionally produced. On the hugely popular Netflix platform, the film will give many newcomers an understandable first introduction.
The overall impression is that this a good historic and ideological overview of Bitcoin’s first development phase but it’s in need of a sequel. From its cypherpunk roots and days of early adoption, the film focuses on the digital currency’s rocky relationship with the banks and regulatory bodies, setbacks like the fall of MtGox and the Silk Road, as well as some figures who were “first through the door,” like Charlie Shrem, Erik Voorhees and Gavin Andresen.
At the same time, Bitcoin and crypto enthusiasts are likely to find two shortcomings: First, the film dedicates too much time to stale old news like Silk Road and BitLicense, and not enough to new developments. Second, because it was first begun in late 2013 and wrapped up in the fall of 2016, the coverage of recent developments is very limited: The film essentially stops at the end of 2015.
Bitcoin Magazine reached out to the film’s director/writer/producer Christopher Cannucciari and associate producer Phillip Galinsky to find out more about the film’s background and their future plans.
What is your background, and what has been your role in the film?
Christopher Cannucciari: I had become interested in digital currency while I was producing a 2009 documentary in Kenya and some locals had introduced me to what would become mpesa. Kenya had just had a major crisis due to post-election violence of 2008. The banks had shut down and Kenyans came up with the novel idea of texting phone credits which could be used as money to pay for goods and services. Upon my return the thought of new ways to used technology as money stuck with me. Fast forward to 2013 and my interest in Bitcoin became so strong that I decided to bring my abilities as a filmmaker to it.
Phillip Galinsky: I’ve been involved in the film since the beginning when it was just Chris working in the role of Director and myself working in the role of Producer. Chris and I were working together on an unrelated project over a three-day shoot and I kept noticing (and occasionally mentioning to other members of the production team) that the price of bitcoin was skyrocketing.
Others working on the project seemed skeptical at first, but as the weekend drew on and the price nearly doubled, people became more interested. Chris and a number of other team members asked me to explain what bitcoin was and how it worked.
I was (and am) primarily interested in Bitcoin from a technological and moral consequentialist perspective, so I walked through the basic functions of blockchain technology, and attempted to explain how the capacity of blockchain technology to enable distributed, decentralized, censorship-resistant databases is a crucial enabling factor for development and implementation of the next generation of free and open global societies. My technical and somewhat arcane explanation turned out not to be the most effective way introduce the technology to the crew, and a number of people expressed interest in a gentler and easier to digest source of information about Bitcoin.
Chris in particular wanted to know more about Bitcoin due to previous experiences that showed him the power of technology as currency, and took note of the fact that, although Bitcoin had been around for about half a decade by then, most people still hadn’t heard of it and there were few high quality resources to be found that were targeted toward informing a general audience about the technology.
I introduced Chris to the NYC bitcoin community and we worked together on the many components of documentary film production.
What is the main message that viewers should take away?
Christopher Cannucciari: Before the public passes judgement on Bitcoin, they deserve to know where it came from, how it works and how it fits into society.
Bitcoin didn’t come from nothing, it came [off] the shoulders of the Cypherpunks. Bitcoin is a technology, and technologies are neither good nor evil, but rather [they’re] accelerants. Society can use it as a tool however they see fit, and our hope is that those who wish to learn about Bitcoin will understand that it is there for them to participate as much as anyone.
The film doesn’t cover developments after the end of 2015 (price increases in 2017, investments, DAOs, spectacular ICOs, sidechains, Lightning Networks…). I guess you had to take a long time for post processing and marketing (probably for lack of funds) between the end of shooting and the first release?
The story of Bitcoin is just too big to fit in a single film. Banking on Bitcoin is a primer for what Bitcoin is, where it came from and how it survived its initial challenges. As a primer, the audience can then dig in deeper and discover the many more complex stories.
We certainly could have tried to fit in many more stories, subjects and details, but the film would have lost its focus rather quickly. It was essential for us to honor the initiated while holding the attention of those who wanted an entry point to this amazing subject.
Vitalik Buterin appears in a couple of scenes but is never mentioned, and Ethereum is never mentioned. Why?
Christopher Cannucciari: I held interviews with Vitalik in Toronto, Wences Casares in Silicon Valley and even traveled to the Bitcoin Bowl in Florida. As much as I wish I could have kept these stories in the film, we had to keep focus on what was unfolding before us in New York.
Ethereum deserves its own story and perhaps we can find a way to tell that story in the future.
You often mention the tension between the original libertarian, crypto-anarchist spirit of Bitcoin and its new “sanitized” mainstream aspects, Ben Lawsky’s regulations and Blythe Masters’ Wall Street blockchains. What’s your own take?
Christopher Cannucciari: The Crypto scene in New York was amazingly vibrant and the state had a golden opportunity to foster it and give New York the same innovative energy Silicon Valley had in the 1980s. What happened instead is Bitcoin was eyed with suspicion and the regulations around it made it difficult for “garage” entrepreneurs to participate. It is now left to those who can afford to work with the regulators.
Phillip Galinsky: There are both positive and negative consequences of the adoption of blockchain technology by “Wall Street.” All blockchain development, both open and closed source, has the positive consequence of informing developers about the limitations and capacities of the technology. Open source endeavors produce the most accessible and immediately useful technologies to facilitate further blockchain invention and innovation. However, even closed-source development produces valuable knowledge about the possible uses of blockchain technology; for example, this white paper released by Blythe Masters’ firm Digital Asset Holdings which goes into great depth about one of the many possible uses of blockchain technology.
This is not to say that all blockchain based systems will be positive or bear normative value from a moral consequentialist perspective. Blockchain technology is incredibly powerful and will shape the future of human interaction and societal system architectures, for better or worse, and it is largely on the shoulder of developers to ensure that the blockchain is used to increase well-being in the world.
Is the end meant to suggest that Craig Wright is Satoshi? What is your own bet? Who is Satoshi?
Christopher Cannucciari: It’s very interesting how this is a sensitive issue. Craig Wright was presented in the same way as Dorian [Nakamoto] was. The carousel of Satoshi’s identity will continue; Wright will not be the last to come forward.
While Wright is most certainly not Satoshi, some have suggested that he was a drop for the real Satoshi. The timing was interesting, Wright was in need of capital to settle some big debts and all of a sudden he was in possession of some valuable, early Satoshi-era Bitcoins. For those who want to play the Satoshi game, I added this breadcrumb to keep the search on.
The Bitcoin/blockchain story is far from over. Are you working on a sequel to the film, and what role does blockchain technology play in your future work?
Phillip Galinsky: There will certainly be an ever-increasing wealth of material for filmmakers to cover in the blockchain space in coming years, as many of the most exciting developments in blockchain technology — self-executing contracts, oracles, distributed autonomous organizations, and most fascinating to me, blockchain-based societal control systems — are still in the nascent stages of development and implementation. Chris and I have discussed the possibility of making a sequel; however, we haven’t made any specific plans to do so at this point in time.
Figure 1: BTC-USD, 6-Hour Candles, Bitfinex, Recent Bull Fibonacci Extension
Figure 2: BTC-USD, 2-Hour Candles, Bitfinex, Rising Wedge
Figure 3: BTC-USD, 2-Hour Candles, Bitfinex, Rising Wedge Price Target
Figure 1: BTC-USD, 6-Hour Candles, Bitfinex, Recent Bull Fibonacci Extension
Figure 2: BTC-USD, 2-Hour Candles, Bitfinex, Rising Wedge
Figure 3: BTC-USD, 2-Hour Candles, Bitfinex, Rising Wedge Price Target
The history of Bitcoin – which only spans around nine years – has seen its fair share of controversy, allegations, and governmental opposition. Regulators from all over the world have told the public Bitcoin is not to be trusted and is merely a tool for criminals in both the real world and on the internet. Considering most of these regulators also dream of a cash-free society, that is not entirely surprising. One source at the Department of Homeland Security recently gave Bitcoin one of its biggest validations to date, though. Bitcoin is “a lot More Legitimate Than Assumed” That was the statement
Dash’s developers recently had to intervene in a significant way. A major exploit method was discovered with the help of the community. This exploit was found within the InstantSend implementation. As a result, the InstantSend feature has been temporarily suspended until a new client is released in the coming days. It is a very unusual turn of events, especially considering how developers can turn network features on and off without issues. InstantSend Disabled by the Dash Developers It is the first time we have seen the Dash developers intervene in a major way to protect the network. The issue discovered by the developers and
The darknet has had an undeniable impact on the growth of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin saw most of its first use cases thanks to the darknet. Unfortunately, this also means Bitcoin and some other cryptocurrencies will always be associated with criminal activity, especially over the internet. Monero falls victim to the same stereotypes, even though it makes more sense to use that currency on the darknet compared to Bitcoin. Then again, Monero is so much more than a tool for cybercriminals. Monero Is More Than a Darknet Currency Every type of money that provides either privacy, anonymity, or both will always be
