Mastodon

Vietnam’s Largest Smart Vending Machine Operator Dropfoods Plans an ICO on Sep. 21st

dropfoodsDropfoods currently operates the largest network of smart vending machines in Vietnam, which already offers the functionality of using mobile money for product purchases and other transactions including paying for bills With the proceeds from its ICO, Dropfoods will install 1,000 new machines that will enable smart transactions using its own Cryptocurrency, Dropcoins Dropfoods is backed by Sugar Ventures, one of Southeast Asia’s largest venture builders with 11 startups built from scratch in its portfolio to date   Dropfoods, the largest smart vending machine operator in Vietnam, today announced the launch of an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) scheduled for September

dropfoods

  • Dropfoods currently operates the largest network of smart vending machines in Vietnam, which already offers the functionality of using mobile money for product purchases and other transactions including paying for bills
  • With the proceeds from its ICO, Dropfoods will install 1,000 new machines that will enable smart transactions using its own Cryptocurrency, Dropcoins
  • Dropfoods is backed by Sugar Ventures, one of Southeast Asia’s largest venture builders with 11 startups built from scratch in its portfolio to date  

Dropfoods, the largest smart vending machine operator in Vietnam, today announced the launch of an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) scheduled for September 21, 2017 to raise US$9 million with the issuance of its own Dropcoins tokens. With the proceeds from its ICO, Dropfoods will install 1,000 new machines that will enable smart transactions using Dropcoins.

The ICO issued by Dropfoods will be the first of its kind that is supporting an existing operational business outside of the blockchain space, with a solid business plan to utilize the fundraising proceeds from the ICO. Dropfoods currently operates in more than 40 locations in Vietnam, supporting automated retail operations for fast-moving consumer products.

The key value proposition of Dropfoods lies in the scalability of its business model and plug-and-play infrastructure combining its physical assets (vending machines) and digital assets (mobile application) to install a payment gateway that can advance financial inclusion in a region where more people hold smart phones than bank accounts.

Backed by one of Southeast Asia’s largest venture builders with key stakeholders from Japan, South Africa and Singapore, Sugar Ventures, Dropfoods aims to build the region’s largest network of physical touch points for cross-border transactions and digital remittance. Dropcoins may be converted into government-issued fiat currency for cash withdrawal at the Dropfoods vending machine or to make purchases on the vending machines and on the Dropfoods App. This conversion will be set according to the aftermarket coin value exchange rate.

Sugar Ventures, one of Southeast Asia’s largest specialized venture builders, is focused on nurturing greenfield ideas that will transform the region’s emerging economies. Unlike traditional accelerators or incubators, Sugar Ventures seeks to unearth great start-ups from the ideation stage, provide seed funding, support their organic growth and work towards a flourishing exit in the process.

Dr Mark Hon, Co-founder of Dropfoods and Sugar Ventures, commented: “We are excited by the prospects of launching a token that can be a game-changer for the state of play for the financial inclusion of the region’s emerging marketplace. To enable cross-border transactions and digital remittance at close to zero transaction costs will make full use of the digital opportunity presented by the region’s relatively high mobile penetration and enable the underbanked to be included in the formation of a cashless society.”

John Fearon, Co-founder of Dropfoods and Sugar Ventures, commented: “Dropcoins will revolutionize the region’s digital marketplace and is a true example of financial technology that applies emerging technologies such as blockchain and artificial intelligence to transform the current financial landscape, clearly distinguished from the realm of ‘techfin’ where you would be just applying technology to enhance existing financial capabilities.”

Sugar Ventures is founded by Dr Mark Hon, serial entrepreneur and Chairman of the Business Angel Network South East Asia (BANSEA); and John Fearon, Founder of Telr.com and ASX-listed cloud-based software platform Dropsuite (DSE:ASX). Dropfoods’ investors include Shuhei Morofuji, CEO and founder CEO of venture capital firm and venture builder REAPRA and TSE-listed SMS Co Ltd, one of the largest Asian internet healthcare information platforms; and Chiang Joon-Arn, Managing Partner, Financial Accounting Advisory Services – Asia Pacific – ‎Ernst & Young.

Vietnam has approved a plan to scrutinize and streamline the legal framework for the management of cryptocurrencies.

This ICO is only open to accredited investors. “Accredited investors” refer to persons who are defined within the meaning provided under the laws of the country or territory of such person.

About Dropfoods

Dropfoods is the largest smart vending machine operator in Vietnam. Backed by Southeast Asia’s largest venture builder, Sugar Ventures, Dropfoods supports automated retail operations for fast-moving consumer products. Its mobile application, the Dropfoods app, supports the purchase of Dropfoods products and smart transactions using a mobile wallet and will soon be integrated with a cryptocurrency gateway following its initial coin offering to be issued in September 2017.

About Sugar Ventures

Sugar Ventures is one of Southeast Asia’s largest specialized venture builders. Focused on nurturing greenfield ideas that will transform the region’s emerging economies, it has built and invested in 11 companies to date, including Dropfoods, OEScore, ITGLOO, Folr.com, LAWR, Meet Drinks, Kluje.com. Voice Map, Hot Soup, Swallows and Amazons Pre-School and Invictus International School. Unlike traditional accelerators or incubators, Sugar Ventures seeks to unearth great start-ups from the ideation stage, provide seed funding, support their organic growth and work towards a flourishing exit in the process.

The key stakeholders at Sugar Ventures are: Dr Mark Hon, Chairman of the Business Angel Network South East Asia (BANSEA); John Fearon, Founder of Telr.com and ASX-listed cloud-based software platform Dropsuite (DSE:ASX); and Shuhei Morofuji, CEO and founder CEO of venture capital firm and venture builder REAPRA and TSE-listed SMS Co Ltd, one of the largest Asian internet healthcare information platforms.

This is a sponsored press release and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views held by any employees of The Merkle. This is not investment, trading, or gambling advice. Always conduct your own independent research.

SegWit2X and the Case for Strong Replay Protection (And Why It’s Controversial)

BTC1replay.jpg

Come November, the remaining signatories of the “New York Agreement” (NYA) plan to deploy the “SegWit2X” hard fork to double Bitcoin’s block weight limit, allowing for up to 8 megabytes of block space. Since not everyone supports this hard fork, this could well “split” the Bitcoin network into two incompatible blockchains and currencies, not unlike Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash (Bcash) did two months ago.

But this NYA hard fork is controversial and not only because it lacks consensus. It’s also controversial because of design choices made by the development team behind BTC1, the software client associated with the New York Agreement. Perhaps most importantly, this development team, led by Bloq CEO Jeff Garzik, has so far refused to implement replay protection, a measure that Bcash did take. Partly for this reason, at least one NYA signatory — Wayniloans — has backed out of the agreement.

So what is replay protection, why should BTC1 implement it … and why doesn’t it?

What Is Replay Protection? (And What Are Replay Attacks?)

Bitcoin could see another “split” by November. (It’s arguably more accurate to consider the “splitting” nodes and miners as an entirely new cryptocurrency with a new blockchain and token — not an actual split of Bitcoin itself.) For the purpose of this article, we’ll refer to the blockchain and currency that follows the current Bitcoin protocol as “Legacy Bitcoin” and “BTC.” The blockchain and currency that follows the New York Agreement hard fork is referred to as “SegWit2X” and “B2X.”

If this split happens, the two blockchains will be identical. All past transactions and (therefore) “balances” are copied from the Legacy Bitcoin blockchain onto the SegWit2X blockchain. Everyone who owns BTC will own a corresponding amount of B2X.

Without replay protection, new transactions will be equally valid on both chains as well. This means that these transactions can be copied or “replayed,” from one chain to the other — in other words, for them to happen on both. This is called a “replay attack.”

So, let’s say Alice holds BTC at the time of split, which means she also owns B2X after the split. Then, after the split, she wants to send BTC to Bob. So, she creates a transaction that spends BTC from one of her Legacy Bitcoin addresses to one of Bob’s Legacy Bitcoin addresses. She then transmits this transaction over the Legacy Bitcoin network for a Legacy Bitcoin miner to pick it up and include in a Legacy Bitcoin block. The payment is confirmed; all is good.

But this very same transaction is perfectly valid on the SegWit2X blockchain. Anyone — including Bob — can take Alice’s Legacy Bitcoin transaction and also transmit it over the SegWit2X network for a miner to include in a SegWit2X block. (This can even happen by accident quite easily.) If this payment is also confirmed, Alice has inadvertently sent Bob not only BTC but also an equal amount of B2X.

And, of course, all of this is true in reverse as well. If Alice sends B2X to Bob, she might accidentally send him BTC as well. A lack of replay protection, therefore, is a problem for users of both chains. No one wants to accidentally send any money — not even if it was “free money.”

Technically, there are ways to “split” coins on both chains to ensure they can only be spent on one chain. This would, for example, require newly mined coins to be mixed into a transaction. Tiime-locks can also offer solutions. But this takes effort and is not easy, especially for average users — not to mention that many average users may not even know what’s going on in the first place.

To avoid this kind of hassle, at least one side of the split could add a protocol rule to ensure that new transactions are valid on one chain but not the other. This is called replay protection.

Why Should BTC1 Implement Replay Protection? (And Why Not Bitcoin Core?)

In case of a split, at least one side must implement replay protection. But many — Bitcoin Core developers and others — believe there’s only one viable option. It’s the splitting party — in this case BTC1 — that should do it.

There are several arguments for this.

First of all, it makes the most sense for BTC1 to implement replay protection because that requires the least effort. BTC1 is a new client that’s already implementing new protocol rules anyway, and it’s not very widely deployed yet. It would be relatively easy for BTC1 to include replay protection.

Meanwhile, it would not be sufficient for Bitcoin Core to implement replay protection on its own. While it is dominant, and even considered by some to be the protocol-defining reference implementation, Bitcoin Core is not the only Bitcoin implementation on the network. Bitcoin Knots, Bcoin, Libbitcoin and other alternative clients would all have to implement replay protection, too. (And that’s not even taking non-full node clients into account.)

But even more importantly, the reality of the current situation is that all deployed Bitcoin nodes do not have replay protection implemented. And logically, they can’t: Some of these nodes even predate the New York Agreement. So even if Bitcoin Core and other implementations were to implement replay protection in new releases of their software, it wouldn’t suffice. All users must then also update to this new version within about two months: a very short period of time for a network-wide upgrade.

If only some of the nodes on the network upgrade to these new releases, Bitcoin could actually split in three: Legacy Bitcoin, SegWit2X and “Replay Protected Bitcoin.” Needless to say, this three-way split would probably make the problem worse — not better.

Lastly, there is a bit of a philosophical argument. Anyone who wants to adopt new protocol rules, so the argument goes, has the responsibility to split off as safely as possible. This responsibility should not fall on those who want to keep using the existing protocol: They should be free to keep using the  protocol as-is.

Many developers — including RSK founder Sergio Lerner who drafted the SegWit2Mb proposal on which SegWit2X is based — have argued that BTC1 should implement replay protection. In fact, many developers think that any hard fork, even a hard fork that appears entirely uncontroversial, should implement replay protection.

But so far, the BTC1 development team will only consider optional replay protection.

What’s Wrong With Optional Replay Protection?

Implementing optional replay protection, as proposed by former Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen, for example, is currently on the table for BTC1.

In short, this type of optional replay protection would make certain specially crafted (“OP_RETURN”) Legacy Bitcoin transactions invalid on the SegWit2X chain. Anyone who’d want to split their coins could spend their BTC with such a transaction. These transactions should then confirm on the Legacy Bitcoin blockchain but not on the SegWit2X chain. This effectively splits the coins into different addresses (“outputs”) on both chains.

Such optional replay protection is probably better than nothing at all, but it’s still not a definitive solution.

One problem is that the Legacy Bitcoin blockchain would have to include all these OP_RETURN transactions. This would probably result in more transactions on the network and would require extra data for each transaction. All this data must be transmitted, verified and (at least temporarily) stored by all Legacy Bitcoin nodes. It presents a burden to the Legacy Bitcoin network.

But more importantly, it would probably still not be very easy to utilize this option. It might suffice for professional users — exchanges, wallet providers and other service providers — as well as tech-savvy individual users. But these are generally also the types of users that would be able to split their coins even without replay protection. Average users, if they are even aware of what’s going on, would probably find it much more difficult to utilize optional replay protection.

Optional replay protection, therefore, offers help to those who need it least and does little for those who need it most.

Does the NYA Preclude Replay Protection?

While it’s unclear what was (or is) discussed behind closed doors, the New York Agreement seems to be a very minimal agreement. Published on May 23, 2017, it really only consists of two concrete points:

  • Activate Segregated Witness at an 80 percent threshold, signaling at bit 4, and

  • Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months.

With the first point completed through BIP91, the only remaining point is a hard fork to 2 megabytes before November 23. (This assumes that this hard fork wasn’t completed with the creation of Bitcoin Cash which is supported by a number of NYA signatories.)

Notably, a lot of details are not filled in. For example, the agreement does not even state that signatories must specifically run the BTC1 software: Any software implementation that implements a hard fork to 2 megabytes might do. This could even include a software implementation that implements replay protection. And, of course, nothing in the NYA stops BTC1 from implementing replay protection; some signatories may have even expected it.

Why Won’t BTC1 Implement Replay Protection?

There are really several reasons why BTC1 — both stated and speculated — might not want to add replay protection.

The first reason is that replay protection would require simplified payment verification (SPV) wallets and some other thin clients to upgrade in order to send and receive transactions on SegWit2X. Replay protection would, therefore, in the words of BTC1 developer Jeff Garzik, “break” SPV wallets; they wouldn’t be compatible with SegWit2X until upgraded.

This framing and choice of words is disputed. If SegWit2X were to implement replay protection (and if SPV wallets don’t upgrade), these wallets could still send and receive transactions on Legacy Bitcoin perfectly fine. On top of that, they wouldn’t accidentally spend B2X when they don’t mean to.

Meanwhile, if the SegWit2X chain does not implement replay protection (and if SPV-wallets don’t upgrade), users may not be sure if their wallet is receiving or sending BTC transactions or B2X transactions or both. They also may not be sure if the balance in their wallet is a BTC balance or a B2X balance or both. And if hash power moves from one chain to another over time, these wallets could even switch from displaying BTC balances to B2X balances or the other way round without users knowing. (This problem could be solved, to some extent, through another workaround, but this is not yet implemented in either.)

Indeed, not implementing replay protection on SegWit2X could arguably “break” SPV wallets much worse.

The only (plausible) scenario where implementing replay protection would perhaps not break SPV wallets much worse is if there is no Legacy Bitcoin to speak of. Indeed, the New York Agreement very specifically intends to “upgrade” Bitcoin, rather than split off into a new coin as Bcash did. And based on miner signaling and statements of intent by several big Bitcoin companies, some NYA signatories claim that Legacy Bitcoin will not be able to survive at all.

Implementing replay protection is, therefore, sometimes considered an admission that SegWit2X will split off from (Legacy) Bitcoin into something new and will not be considered the upgraded version of Bitcoin.

But the assumption that Legacy Bitcoin won’t be able survive is a big one. In reality, miner signaling is effectively meaningless, while Bitcoin Core — the dominant Bitcoin implementation — will not adopt the hard fork. There is also a significant list of companies that have not stated that they support the hard fork, including two top-10 mining pools. Similarly, it’s not clear if many (individual) users will support SegWit2X either. The implementation of wipe-out protection (another safety measure) also suggests that even BTC1 developers aren’t so sure that there will only be one chain.

And perhaps even more importantly, it’s not clear that replay protection would affect any of this. If miners, developers, companies and users are to consider SegWit2X an upgrade of Bitcoin, they will probably do so with or without replay protection.

This is why it has also been suggested that BTC1 is rejecting replay protection for the specific purpose of being as disruptive as possible. If the Legacy Bitcoin chain is effectively made unusable, SegWit2X might stand the best chance of being recognized as “Bitcoin.”

For more information and debate on replay protection, also see the the relevant threads on the SegWit2X mailing list.

The post SegWit2X and the Case for Strong Replay Protection (And Why It’s Controversial) appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

BTC1replay.jpg

Come November, the remaining signatories of the “New York Agreement” (NYA) plan to deploy the “SegWit2X” hard fork to double Bitcoin’s block weight limit, allowing for up to 8 megabytes of block space. Since not everyone supports this hard fork, this could well “split” the Bitcoin network into two incompatible blockchains and currencies, not unlike Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash (Bcash) did two months ago.

But this NYA hard fork is controversial and not only because it lacks consensus. It’s also controversial because of design choices made by the development team behind BTC1, the software client associated with the New York Agreement. Perhaps most importantly, this development team, led by Bloq CEO Jeff Garzik, has so far refused to implement replay protection, a measure that Bcash did take. Partly for this reason, at least one NYA signatory — Wayniloans — has backed out of the agreement.

So what is replay protection, why should BTC1 implement it … and why doesn’t it?

What Is Replay Protection? (And What Are Replay Attacks?)

Bitcoin could see another “split” by November. (It’s arguably more accurate to consider the “splitting” nodes and miners as an entirely new cryptocurrency with a new blockchain and token — not an actual split of Bitcoin itself.) For the purpose of this article, we’ll refer to the blockchain and currency that follows the current Bitcoin protocol as “Legacy Bitcoin” and “BTC.” The blockchain and currency that follows the New York Agreement hard fork is referred to as “SegWit2X” and “B2X.”

If this split happens, the two blockchains will be identical. All past transactions and (therefore) “balances” are copied from the Legacy Bitcoin blockchain onto the SegWit2X blockchain. Everyone who owns BTC will own a corresponding amount of B2X.

Without replay protection, new transactions will be equally valid on both chains as well. This means that these transactions can be copied or “replayed,” from one chain to the other — in other words, for them to happen on both. This is called a “replay attack.”

So, let’s say Alice holds BTC at the time of split, which means she also owns B2X after the split. Then, after the split, she wants to send BTC to Bob. So, she creates a transaction that spends BTC from one of her Legacy Bitcoin addresses to one of Bob’s Legacy Bitcoin addresses. She then transmits this transaction over the Legacy Bitcoin network for a Legacy Bitcoin miner to pick it up and include in a Legacy Bitcoin block. The payment is confirmed; all is good.

But this very same transaction is perfectly valid on the SegWit2X blockchain. Anyone — including Bob — can take Alice’s Legacy Bitcoin transaction and also transmit it over the SegWit2X network for a miner to include in a SegWit2X block. (This can even happen by accident quite easily.) If this payment is also confirmed, Alice has inadvertently sent Bob not only BTC but also an equal amount of B2X.

And, of course, all of this is true in reverse as well. If Alice sends B2X to Bob, she might accidentally send him BTC as well. A lack of replay protection, therefore, is a problem for users of both chains. No one wants to accidentally send any money — not even if it was “free money.”

Technically, there are ways to “split” coins on both chains to ensure they can only be spent on one chain. This would, for example, require newly mined coins to be mixed into a transaction. Tiime-locks can also offer solutions. But this takes effort and is not easy, especially for average users — not to mention that many average users may not even know what’s going on in the first place.

To avoid this kind of hassle, at least one side of the split could add a protocol rule to ensure that new transactions are valid on one chain but not the other. This is called replay protection.

Why Should BTC1 Implement Replay Protection? (And Why Not Bitcoin Core?)

In case of a split, at least one side must implement replay protection. But many — Bitcoin Core developers and others — believe there’s only one viable option. It’s the splitting party — in this case BTC1 — that should do it.

There are several arguments for this.

First of all, it makes the most sense for BTC1 to implement replay protection because that requires the least effort. BTC1 is a new client that’s already implementing new protocol rules anyway, and it’s not very widely deployed yet. It would be relatively easy for BTC1 to include replay protection.

Meanwhile, it would not be sufficient for Bitcoin Core to implement replay protection on its own. While it is dominant, and even considered by some to be the protocol-defining reference implementation, Bitcoin Core is not the only Bitcoin implementation on the network. Bitcoin Knots, Bcoin, Libbitcoin and other alternative clients would all have to implement replay protection, too. (And that’s not even taking non-full node clients into account.)

But even more importantly, the reality of the current situation is that all deployed Bitcoin nodes do not have replay protection implemented. And logically, they can’t: Some of these nodes even predate the New York Agreement. So even if Bitcoin Core and other implementations were to implement replay protection in new releases of their software, it wouldn’t suffice. All users must then also update to this new version within about two months: a very short period of time for a network-wide upgrade.

If only some of the nodes on the network upgrade to these new releases, Bitcoin could actually split in three: Legacy Bitcoin, SegWit2X and “Replay Protected Bitcoin.” Needless to say, this three-way split would probably make the problem worse — not better.

Lastly, there is a bit of a philosophical argument. Anyone who wants to adopt new protocol rules, so the argument goes, has the responsibility to split off as safely as possible. This responsibility should not fall on those who want to keep using the existing protocol: They should be free to keep using the  protocol as-is.

Many developers — including RSK founder Sergio Lerner who drafted the SegWit2Mb proposal on which SegWit2X is based — have argued that BTC1 should implement replay protection. In fact, many developers think that any hard fork, even a hard fork that appears entirely uncontroversial, should implement replay protection.

But so far, the BTC1 development team will only consider optional replay protection.

What’s Wrong With Optional Replay Protection?

Implementing optional replay protection, as proposed by former Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen, for example, is currently on the table for BTC1.

In short, this type of optional replay protection would make certain specially crafted (“OP_RETURN”) Legacy Bitcoin transactions invalid on the SegWit2X chain. Anyone who’d want to split their coins could spend their BTC with such a transaction. These transactions should then confirm on the Legacy Bitcoin blockchain but not on the SegWit2X chain. This effectively splits the coins into different addresses (“outputs”) on both chains.

Such optional replay protection is probably better than nothing at all, but it’s still not a definitive solution.

One problem is that the Legacy Bitcoin blockchain would have to include all these OP_RETURN transactions. This would probably result in more transactions on the network and would require extra data for each transaction. All this data must be transmitted, verified and (at least temporarily) stored by all Legacy Bitcoin nodes. It presents a burden to the Legacy Bitcoin network.

But more importantly, it would probably still not be very easy to utilize this option. It might suffice for professional users — exchanges, wallet providers and other service providers — as well as tech-savvy individual users. But these are generally also the types of users that would be able to split their coins even without replay protection. Average users, if they are even aware of what’s going on, would probably find it much more difficult to utilize optional replay protection.

Optional replay protection, therefore, offers help to those who need it least and does little for those who need it most.

Does the NYA Preclude Replay Protection?

While it’s unclear what was (or is) discussed behind closed doors, the New York Agreement seems to be a very minimal agreement. Published on May 23, 2017, it really only consists of two concrete points:

  • Activate Segregated Witness at an 80 percent threshold, signaling at bit 4, and

  • Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months.

With the first point completed through BIP91, the only remaining point is a hard fork to 2 megabytes before November 23. (This assumes that this hard fork wasn’t completed with the creation of Bitcoin Cash which is supported by a number of NYA signatories.)

Notably, a lot of details are not filled in. For example, the agreement does not even state that signatories must specifically run the BTC1 software: Any software implementation that implements a hard fork to 2 megabytes might do. This could even include a software implementation that implements replay protection. And, of course, nothing in the NYA stops BTC1 from implementing replay protection; some signatories may have even expected it.

Why Won’t BTC1 Implement Replay Protection?

There are really several reasons why BTC1 — both stated and speculated — might not want to add replay protection.

The first reason is that replay protection would require simplified payment verification (SPV) wallets and some other thin clients to upgrade in order to send and receive transactions on SegWit2X. Replay protection would, therefore, in the words of BTC1 developer Jeff Garzik, “break” SPV wallets; they wouldn’t be compatible with SegWit2X until upgraded.

This framing and choice of words is disputed. If SegWit2X were to implement replay protection (and if SPV wallets don’t upgrade), these wallets could still send and receive transactions on Legacy Bitcoin perfectly fine. On top of that, they wouldn’t accidentally spend B2X when they don’t mean to.

Meanwhile, if the SegWit2X chain does not implement replay protection (and if SPV-wallets don’t upgrade), users may not be sure if their wallet is receiving or sending BTC transactions or B2X transactions or both. They also may not be sure if the balance in their wallet is a BTC balance or a B2X balance or both. And if hash power moves from one chain to another over time, these wallets could even switch from displaying BTC balances to B2X balances or the other way round without users knowing. (This problem could be solved, to some extent, through another workaround, but this is not yet implemented in either.)

Indeed, not implementing replay protection on SegWit2X could arguably “break” SPV wallets much worse.

The only (plausible) scenario where implementing replay protection would perhaps not break SPV wallets much worse is if there is no Legacy Bitcoin to speak of. Indeed, the New York Agreement very specifically intends to “upgrade” Bitcoin, rather than split off into a new coin as Bcash did. And based on miner signaling and statements of intent by several big Bitcoin companies, some NYA signatories claim that Legacy Bitcoin will not be able to survive at all.

Implementing replay protection is, therefore, sometimes considered an admission that SegWit2X will split off from (Legacy) Bitcoin into something new and will not be considered the upgraded version of Bitcoin.

But the assumption that Legacy Bitcoin won’t be able survive is a big one. In reality, miner signaling is effectively meaningless, while Bitcoin Core — the dominant Bitcoin implementation — will not adopt the hard fork. There is also a significant list of companies that have not stated that they support the hard fork, including two top-10 mining pools. Similarly, it’s not clear if many (individual) users will support SegWit2X either. The implementation of wipe-out protection (another safety measure) also suggests that even BTC1 developers aren’t so sure that there will only be one chain.

And perhaps even more importantly, it’s not clear that replay protection would affect any of this. If miners, developers, companies and users are to consider SegWit2X an upgrade of Bitcoin, they will probably do so with or without replay protection.

This is why it has also been suggested that BTC1 is rejecting replay protection for the specific purpose of being as disruptive as possible. If the Legacy Bitcoin chain is effectively made unusable, SegWit2X might stand the best chance of being recognized as “Bitcoin.”

For more information and debate on replay protection, also see the the relevant threads on the SegWit2X mailing list.

The post SegWit2X and the Case for Strong Replay Protection (And Why It's Controversial) appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Russian Prosecutor’s Office Summons Burger King for Issuing Cryptocurrency

Russian Prosecutor's Office Summons Burger King for Issuing CryptocurrencyThe Russian prosecutor’s office has summoned Burger King to explain the issuance of its cryptocurrency called Whoppercoin. Burger King is confident that it has not broken any laws since there is currently no regulation for cryptocurrency in Russia. Also read: Major Japanese Travel Agency Accepts Bitcoin and Offers Bitcoin-Exclusive Deals Burger King’s Cryptocurrency Questioned Less than […]

The post Russian Prosecutor’s Office Summons Burger King for Issuing Cryptocurrency appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Russian Prosecutor's Office Summons Burger King for Issuing Cryptocurrency

The Russian prosecutor’s office has summoned Burger King to explain the issuance of its cryptocurrency called Whoppercoin. Burger King is confident that it has not broken any laws since there is currently no regulation for cryptocurrency in Russia.

Also read: Major Japanese Travel Agency Accepts Bitcoin and Offers Bitcoin-Exclusive Deals

Burger King’s Cryptocurrency Questioned

Russian Prosecutor's Office Summons Burger King for Issuing CryptocurrencyLess than one month after the fast food giant launched its blockchain token called Whoppercoin in Russia, the company was reportedly summoned by the Izmailovo inter-district prosecutor’s office regarding its cryptocurrency.

A Burger King representative told RNS that the company had received two notifications from the prosecutor’s office; one on September 13 and the other on September 19 “with an invitation to the Izmaylovskoy prosecutor’s office on behalf of the prosecutor’s office in Moscow.” He added:

On the instructions of the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office, information was checked that we issued a cryptocurrency and started making payments with it. Accordingly, we were summoned to be reminded that within the territory of the Russian Federation the turnover of any currency other than Russian rubles was banned and all details of this project were clarified.

What is Whoppercoin?

Russian Prosecutor's Office Summons Burger King for Issuing CryptocurrencyThe Russian network of Burger King revealed in August that it had issued a cryptocurrency in Russia on the Waves blockchain platform. The token platform lets users who download their wallet issue their own coins and trade them with other Waves wallet holders. A decentralized exchange built into Waves wallets allows their tokens to be traded with other cryptocurrencies as well as fiat currencies.

Whoppercoins “will be used to reward customers for their purchases, and can be used to buy burgers in return when enough have been accrued,” Waves detailed at the time. These blockchain tokens are held in Burger King-themed wallets for both Android and iOS smartphones and can be freely transferred and traded online, the platform noted, adding that:

The initiative is being run by Burger King Russia. Whoppercoins have already been issued, with a supply of 1 billion (further Whoppercoins can be issued if required). Customers will receive one Whoppercoin for every rouble they spend (1 USD = 59 RUB), and a Whopper burger can be purchased for 1,700 Whoppercoins.

In its notices, the prosecutor’s office asked Burger King to clarify what a Whoppercoin is and how it works. The company was also asked to provide a statement that it did not conduct a mass issuance of Whoppercoins, Vedomosti detailed.

Burger King Says No Laws Broken

The Burger King representative insisted that the company did not break any laws, according to Vedomosti. Nino Tsiklauri, the senior legal counsel for Burger King in Russia explained:

In the Russian legislation, the concept of ‘cryptocurrency’ is not fixed, as there is no ban on conducting transactions using virtual currency.

The Russian finance ministry and the central bank are currently working to provide a legal framework for cryptocurrencies. A draft law is expected by the end of the year, according to the Minister of Finance. A partner at A2 law firm, Mikhail Aleksandrov, said that in the case of Burger King, the cryptocurrency can be treated like coupons used by food retailers. “It’s more of a marketing story, not a payment story,” he described, as reported by Vedomosti.

In June, the general manager of the Burger King Russia franchise reportedly said that one retail location had been testing bitcoin payments and that “Burger King Russia will begin accepting Bitcoin in 2017.”

What do you think will happen to Whoppercoin? Let us know in the comments section below.


Images courtesy of Shutterstock and Waves platform.


Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

The post Russian Prosecutor’s Office Summons Burger King for Issuing Cryptocurrency appeared first on Bitcoin News.

Dash Price Reaches $360 Thanks to Bithumb Pump

Themerkle Bithumb Pump Cycle DashMost cryptocurrency markets are not looking all that great right now. With the Bitcoin price stuck just below US$3,900 once again, no major movements are expected. Dash is the only currency bucking the trend right now, thanks to an 11.94% gain on the day. As a result, the Dash price is now back above US$360. Unfortunately, it appears this is just another pump-and-dump cycle initiated by Bithumb traders. Dash Price Notes a Sharp Increase Although the Dash price is more than capable of increasing on its own, regardless of Bitcoin, such events are very rare. In most cases, the Dash price alone

Themerkle Bithumb Pump Cycle Dash

Most cryptocurrency markets are not looking all that great right now. With the Bitcoin price stuck just below US$3,900 once again, no major movements are expected. Dash is the only currency bucking the trend right now, thanks to an 11.94% gain on the day. As a result, the Dash price is now back above US$360. Unfortunately, it appears this is just another pump-and-dump cycle initiated by Bithumb traders.

Dash Price Notes a Sharp Increase

Although the Dash price is more than capable of increasing on its own, regardless of Bitcoin, such events are very rare. In most cases, the Dash price alone would only increase if someone were effectively pumping its value in the hopes of making some quick profits. Considering how this altcoin usually has very little trading volume, it does not take much effort to influence the markets in an effort to drag others along in the process.

Looking at the current Dash price chart makes it clear that someone is trying to move the price up. Right now, one Dash is trading at a value of US$361.84. That is an 11.94% Dash price increase over the past 24 hours. It’s pretty interesting, especially considering nearly all other markets are in the red right now. Then again, some altcoins have been trying to break free of Bitcoin’s dominance for quite some time now. None of these currencies have been overly successful in doing so, though.

No one will deny there is a genuine demand for Dash all over the world. Especially with its conference tour kicking off this week, things are bound to get very interesting for this particular altcoin. However, one should not expect any major market movements just because of that, as most people still have to buy Bitcoin first before getting their hands on Dash. There are some fiat gateways, to be sure, but they are few and far between, depending on where one lives.

With over US$102 million in 24-hour trading volume, things are seemingly picking up for Dash. As is always the case, one has to take a closer look at the exchanges providing said volume to see what is really going on. Right now, it seems the traders over at Bithumb are artificially pumping the Dash price for some unknown reason. This exchange represents 56.75% of all trading volume for this cryptocurrency, which is both spectacular and worrisome at the same time.

Indeed, this looks very similar to how the Bitcoin Cash price evolved yesterday. That brief increase was also driven by traders at Bithumb and has resulted in a net loss of 7.17% over the past 24 hours. It is not impossible Dash will go through a similar scenario over the next few hours. Although all other exchanges follow Bithumb’s Dash price, their volumes are a lot lower in comparison. It would only take a small pushback for the Koreans to lose interest in this coin again and move on to the next.

While most Dash holders will be pleased with the current price trend, it will likely not last long. When the Bitcoin price is stuck in sideways momentum for a few days, some altcoins will experience brief pump-and-dump cycles. Most of these cycles originate on the Bithumb exchange, thanks to its zero-fee structure. For now, no one knows how long this Dash price increase will last, but rest assured it will drop below US$345 again before the day is over.

Bitcoin Price Struggles to Recover from $3800 Region: Factors and Trends – CryptoCoinsNews

CryptoCoinsNewsBitcoin Price Struggles to Recover from $3800 Region: Factors and TrendsCryptoCoinsNewsAlthough the global bitcoin exchange market has recovered from the imposition of a nationwide ban on bitcoin exchanges by the Chinese government to an…


CryptoCoinsNews

Bitcoin Price Struggles to Recover from $3800 Region: Factors and Trends
CryptoCoinsNews
Although the global bitcoin exchange market has recovered from the imposition of a nationwide ban on bitcoin exchanges by the Chinese government to an extent, the bitcoin market still remains concerned over the uncertainty of the Chinese bitcoin industry.

and more »

Bitcoin is like Tulipmania, says ECB vice-president – Financial Times


Financial Times

Bitcoin is like Tulipmania, says ECB vice-president
Financial Times
One of the eurozone’s most senior central bankers has waded into the debate over bitcoin, dismissing the cryptocurrency as “an instrument of speculation” and saying its sharp rise in value was akin to the 17th century tulip craze. The views of Vítor
ECB Vice President: Bitcoin Is Not A Threat To Central Bank PolicyETHNews

all 2 news articles »


Financial Times

Bitcoin is like Tulipmania, says ECB vice-president
Financial Times
One of the eurozone's most senior central bankers has waded into the debate over bitcoin, dismissing the cryptocurrency as “an instrument of speculation” and saying its sharp rise in value was akin to the 17th century tulip craze. The views of Vítor ...
ECB Vice President: Bitcoin Is Not A Threat To Central Bank PolicyETHNews

all 2 news articles »

Top 3 Monero Wallet Solutions

TheMerkle Top Monero walletsThere are several Monero wallets currently under development which will be released soon. Ledger, for its part, is apparently working on adding XMR integration. Until that happens, there are a few existing solutions people can check out as well. Always make sure to set up your wallet properly, though. 3. Standard Monero GUI Although it may not sound all that appealing to use the regular Monero GUI wallet, this project was created specifically to ensure users keep their money safe at all times. After all, the new GUI binaries for the Helium Hydra update were released not too long ago. This wallet can be installed on any

TheMerkle Top Monero wallets

There are several Monero wallets currently under development which will be released soon. Ledger, for its part, is apparently working on adding XMR integration. Until that happens, there are a few existing solutions people can check out as well. Always make sure to set up your wallet properly, though.

3. Standard Monero GUI

Although it may not sound all that appealing to use the regular Monero GUI wallet, this project was created specifically to ensure users keep their money safe at all times. After all, the new GUI binaries for the Helium Hydra update were released not too long ago. This wallet can be installed on any operating system one can run these days, including Windows, Linux, and Macintosh. It is a pretty decent wallet that feels pretty lightweight and does the job just fine.

As is the case with any cryptocurrency desktop wallet, users need to take some precautions to properly secure their Monero, though. Setting up a password-protected wallet is of the utmost importance; that much is pretty evident right now. In addition, always make sure you effectively back up your wallet.dat file in multiple ways to avoid any loss of funds if your computer ever experienced any major issues.

2. USB Monero Cold Wallet

Keeping money in a cold wallet solution is highly effective from a security standpoint, especially when dealing with various cryptocurrencies. Given that the value of Monero shot up recently, security should be the number one priority moving forward. Using a cold storage solution can go a long way in this regard, as it is a pretty reliable way to keep money safe from harm.

In the case of the Taushet USB Monero Cold Wallet Generator, it takes about 10 minutes to set up cold storage for your Monero. You will need a few tools as outlined in this post, but it is one of the more secure ways to effectively ensure your money is safe from harm. People who are heavily involved with Monero take the security of their wallets very seriously, as should everyone. There are some other options in the thread linked to above to check out as well.

1. MyMonero

Although we are personally not a big fan of online wallets, there is a good reason to trust MyMonero. It is a project operated by the Monero developer himself, which means users should not be overly concerned about losing money. Assuming, that is, that you take ample precautions and never store large amounts of money in it. Considering who maintains this wallet, one cannot compare this to an exchange wallet whatsoever.

From a convenience point of view, using MyMonero makes a lot of sense. It is a very popular wallet service as well, which is not entirely surprising. Users will still need to generate a unique password to ensure no one else can breach their online wallet, though. So far, no MyMonero wallet has ever been hacked, but that is partially due to people taking proper security precautions with unique passwords and such.

CasinoCoin Launches Foundation in Isle of Man

casinocoin logoIsle of Man, 19th September 2017: CasinoCoin (CSC), the open source, peer-to-peer cryptocurrency designed specifically for the regulated online gambling industry, has announced the establishment of a new Foundation with offices in the Isle of Man As part of a broader relaunch, the newly-established and non-profit Double C Foundation will promote adoption and best-use practices of CasinoCoin in regulated gambling markets, and help realise the continued optimal technological performance of the coin and it’s underlying blockchain. The currency, which puts operators and regular customers front-of-mind with its approach, aims to lead the industry in setting high best-use practice standards. It

casinocoin logo

Isle of Man, 19th September 2017: CasinoCoin (CSC), the open source, peer-to-peer cryptocurrency designed specifically for the regulated online gambling industry, has announced the establishment of a new Foundation with offices in the Isle of Man

As part of a broader relaunch, the newly-established and non-profit Double C Foundation will promote adoption and best-use practices of CasinoCoin in regulated gambling markets, and help realise the continued optimal technological performance of the coin and it’s underlying blockchain.

The currency, which puts operators and regular customers front-of-mind with its approach, aims to lead the industry in setting high best-use practice standards. It is currently developing features and new technology that will include built-in KYC, AML and responsible gaming features.

The Foundation’s team, which includes former PokerStars Marketing Executive John Caldwell and ex-Senior Project Manager of Research & Development for Rational Group Duncan Cameron, is committed to educating the commercial (regulated) gambling industry to the benefits of CSC, and cryptocurrency in general.

The Foundation will be supported by a small team of executives, lawyers and consultants from the online gambling industry, who will use their experience to act as advisors.

John Caldwell, Director of Advocacy for the Foundation, said: “The only sustainable way forward for cryptocurrency in the gambling world is to work with regulators and operators from day one and focus on regulated markets.

“Our aim with CasinoCoin is to provide a currency and related technical tools that are designed and accessible for both operators and ordinary players in the regulated gambling industry.

“We are excited to reintroduce CasinoCoin to the industry, and believe the Foundation will play an integral part in driving the coin’s future success.”

CasinoCoin will have world class speed, and built-in wallet tools that facilitate transparency and open transactions.

Its foundation is preparing to offer individual and corporate memberships, allowing access to workshops and seminars as well as educational material for the industry. Corporate members can qualify for the Foundation’s best practice seal of approval.

About CasinoCoin

CasinoCoin (Ticker: CSC) is a cryptocurrency that is being continually developed, specifically with the legal, regulated online gambling business in mind. In addition to world class speed and scalability, CasinoCoin developers are currently working on features that put operators and gambling customers first. KYC (Know your customer), AML (Anti-money laundering), Responsible Gambling and other regulatory first considerations have been built in to CSC at the technology level from the start.

This is a sponsored press release and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views held by any employees of The Merkle. This is not investment, trading, or gambling advice. Always conduct your own independent research.

Strategist predicts bitcoin, digital currency trading volume will ‘soon surpass’ Apple’s – CNBC


CNBC

Strategist predicts bitcoin, digital currency trading volume will ‘soon surpass’ Apple’s
CNBC
Global daily trading volume between bitcoin and ethereum into traditional currencies has multiplied eight times this year, according to Jens Nordvig, founder and CEO of Exante Data. Cryptocurrency trading volume has topped $3 billion a day on average
Why are countries so afraid of bitcoin?Marketplace.org
Go Ahead and Ignore Bitcoin–with These 4 ExceptionsInc.com
Currency Guru Gets His Head Around Bitcoin’s Capital Flow SignalBloomberg
Business Insider –South China Morning Post –CoinTelegraph
all 85 news articles »

CNBC

Strategist predicts bitcoin, digital currency trading volume will 'soon surpass' Apple's
CNBC
Global daily trading volume between bitcoin and ethereum into traditional currencies has multiplied eight times this year, according to Jens Nordvig, founder and CEO of Exante Data. Cryptocurrency trading volume has topped $3 billion a day on average ...
Why are countries so afraid of bitcoin?Marketplace.org
Go Ahead and Ignore Bitcoin--with These 4 ExceptionsInc.com
Currency Guru Gets His Head Around Bitcoin's Capital Flow SignalBloomberg
Business Insider -South China Morning Post -CoinTelegraph
all 85 news articles »

Investor Doug Casey: Bitcoin May Be Money, But It Still Might Fail – CoinDesk


CoinDesk

Investor Doug Casey: Bitcoin May Be Money, But It Still Might Fail
CoinDesk
Investor and anarcho-capitalist Doug Casey recently argued that bitcoin qualifies as money – even he’s not sure it’ll last in the long term. In an interview published yesterday, the Casey Research founder discussed his viewpoints behind bitcoin. During


CoinDesk

Investor Doug Casey: Bitcoin May Be Money, But It Still Might Fail
CoinDesk
Investor and anarcho-capitalist Doug Casey recently argued that bitcoin qualifies as money – even he's not sure it'll last in the long term. In an interview published yesterday, the Casey Research founder discussed his viewpoints behind bitcoin. During ...