Transcript of how Philip the tyrant admin of the Bitcoin Cash Telegram group called Spoice stupid, an idiot, a parrot among other insults then banned her instead of discussing Bitcoin Cash. That Telegram group is hostile, ABC/IFP shills run and follows the rBitcoin toxic censorship modus operandi.
David B., [18.10.20 01:46] https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/jdagi3/whats_up_with_the_bchn_hypocrisy/ David B., [18.10.20 01:47] Wut x2 J Stodd, [18.10.20 01:49] [In reply to David B.] Their words are meaningless. They have no principles. Wish i could comment but bitcoinxio banned me from rbtc and never told me why David B., [18.10.20 01:59] These comments are so toxic Spoice, [18.10.20 01:59] In reality, the real continuation of Bitcoin as we all know it is what is carried on by BCHN, BU, BCHD and others Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] ABC is changing the rules to something that is not Bitcoin Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] anyone denying those facts is selling you snake oil Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] If Blockstream tried to take some % to their own benefit, we would have never needed BCH in the first place Spoice, [18.10.20 02:00] everyone would have rejected them in a second J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:01] [In reply to Spoice] Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin to start with, so who cares? David B., [18.10.20 02:01] [ Album ] Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] yet we have ABC trying to pull this theft and all those puppets think it's ok Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] JSTodd that's bullshit David B., [18.10.20 02:01] Like trying to talk to a core maxi about altcoins Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] Bitcoin Cash is the most Bitcoin out of all Bitcoins Spoice, [18.10.20 02:01] it is the continuation of what Satoshi started David B., [18.10.20 02:02] Tbh they aren't even toxic Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:02] [In reply to Spoice] If the hash follows then it is Bitcoin Cash. Only if it doesn't is your claim true J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:03] [In reply to Spoice] Bitcoin is Bitcoin. Bitcoin failed to be Peer to Peer Cash, so Bitcoin Cash attempted to fix this by forking Bitcoin and attacking the root of the problem. This does not mean Bitcoin Cash is literally Bitcoin. Adopt a different argument. Sorry if you bought into that bc of Rogers rantings J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:05] Bitcoin Cash can replace Bitcoin, and if Bitcoin dies and BCH wins then sure maybe it can take its name from its grave, but they are different products, trying to say Bitcoin stopped being "Bitcoin" and became BCH is a self contradiction. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:08] Jstodd's got some good points. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:08] He's learnt so much in the last year ☺️ Spoice, [18.10.20 02:08] "Bitcoin is Bitcoin" is a false statement. BTC is just an instance of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the set of rules defined in the whitepaper first and foremost, it is peer to peer electronic cash. BTC no longer fits that criteria. Bitcoin Cash meets them. The fork proposed by ABC also fails to meet that criteria. Therefore the continuation of Bitcoin is in whatever BU, BCHN, Flowee and others will continue. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:09] What rules were defined in the WP? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:10] Let's see which rules aren't: 1) No coinbase tax going to any centralized entity such as ABC 2) No throttling of TX throughput such as BTC Spoice, [18.10.20 02:10] therefore they both fail the simple "Is this Bitcoin?" test Spoice, [18.10.20 02:11] Finally, Michael, if you think Hash rate defines what Bitcoin is, you should stick to BTC Jingles, [18.10.20 02:11] 21 million coins isn't in the WP Jingles, [18.10.20 02:11] I asked what rules did the WP define. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] Because BCH failed that criteria since it forked, therefore your point is wrong Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] The announcement of the white paper included the 21 million limit, close enough Jingles, [18.10.20 02:12] HIs announcement isn't the WP Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] show me where Satoshi said that Amaury shoudl tax the chain? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:12] Doesn't matter- close enough Jingles, [18.10.20 02:12] Bitcoin is the set of rules defined in the whitepaper first and foremost - You Jingles, [18.10.20 02:13] My ears pricked up on that comment, so I'm asking you what you meant. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:13] Correct. Changing the 21 million hard limit is still more Bitcoin than taxing the Coinbase, yet both will never ever happen. Not to Bitcoin anyway Jingles, [18.10.20 02:13] If you meant Satoj's writings pre and post WP then you should be clear about it Spoice, [18.10.20 02:13] some bastardized chain might, just not Bitcoin Jingles, [18.10.20 02:14] The closest we have to anything to indicate what is "Bitcoiness" is general things like "the longest chain" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:14] No, it is never a single thing David B., [18.10.20 02:15] REEEE Jingles, [18.10.20 02:15] trustless, no single trusted third parties, and rules can change due to incentives via consensus Spoice, [18.10.20 02:15] it is a set of common sense and experiment driven and historical relevance and initial parameters and "peer to peer electronic cash" definition indicators Spoice, [18.10.20 02:15] never a single thing Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] [In reply to Spoice] This is like the exact opposite of what you said earlier Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] Bitcoin is defined by the rules in the WP, I mean common sense. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] 🤷♂️ Spoice, [18.10.20 02:16] Nope, the rule set is defined in the white paper should never change, but I never said all rules are defined in the white paper Jingles, [18.10.20 02:16] What rules? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:16] It is a union Jingles, [18.10.20 02:17] What rules are there? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:17] Rules in the white paper + what continued to define Bitcoin thereafter J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:17] [In reply to Spoice] > "Bitcoin is Bitcoin is a false statement." Alas, if we cannot agree on the law of identity, aka A=A, then i dont understand how to hold a conversation with you using logic. > BTC is an instance of Bitcoin No, BTC is a ticker used optionally by exchanges. Other common tickers for bitcoin include XBC, XBT, BC (correct me if im wrong on any of these) > "Bitcoin is a set of rules in the whitepaper" Super hard to defend this. Theres no mention of a 21M supply cap, no blocksize limit *at all*, and it also says additional rules and incentives can be enforced (implying maybe they should). Jingles, [18.10.20 02:17] I go through this with BSVers all the time. We have no spec sheet of rules defining what Bitcoin is from Satoshi. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] Rules such as what defines a correct block, miners receiving the full incentive of mining it, etc Jingles, [18.10.20 02:18] The WP is a highlevel document Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] The WP is a description of a scientific experiment Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] if you want to start your own experiment, be my guest Jingles, [18.10.20 02:18] [In reply to Spoice] Valid tx rules aren't defined in the WP Spoice, [18.10.20 02:18] just don't try to call it Bitcoin Jingles, [18.10.20 02:19] The word majority is in the WP an awful lot wouldn't you say? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:19] Not valid TX rules, but what a proof of work block is and how it diverts the reward to the miner, etc Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20] [In reply to Spoice] and? what about BTC doesn't apply? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20] I'm not arguing for any fork of BCH here. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20] It no longer meets the very title of the white paper experiment, "Peer to peer electronic cash" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20] The BTC instance of the experiment is destined to move away from the very title of the white paper Jingles, [18.10.20 02:20] It's electronic, and I use it like cash. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:20] that the maintainers even wanted to edit the white paper (Cobra and co) because of this fact J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:20] u/Spoice When did BTC stop being Bitcoin in your view? The day Amaury decided to launch the fork, before Segwit happened? If someone else launched a fork first, they would have been "the real bitcoin"? This is a game of whoever forks first becomes the real Bitcoin? What if two people launched a fork at the exact same time, maybe even with identical specs? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21] Where did I go wrong? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21] [In reply to Spoice] Did they? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:21] Doesn't matter if you use it today, its very technical fabric will have to move your transactions to 2nd layers and it will no longer be peer to peer electronic cash on chain Jingles, [18.10.20 02:21] peer to peer electronic cash on chain - Not in the wp Jingles, [18.10.20 02:22] We have satoj talking about HFT with sidechannels. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:22] So what? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:23] I think this is a good discussion Phil, nothing disrespectful is being said. I hope this is ok? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:23] Doesn't matter, the rule of common sense, which is closer to that title? Increasing a simple variable (Blocksize) to stay on track of the title and experiment, or introduce IOUs and Watchtowers and channels and locked BTC and that whole LN Bastardization? Which is close to the title? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:23] No one said that can't happen Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:24] [In reply to Spoice] Congratulations you've made an argument which isn't an argument. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:25] The whole thing that was said was the system is based on majority rules, and incentives can be changed. Majority breaks any deadlock. David B., [18.10.20 02:25] How to kill a coin 101 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:25] Logic fails anyone who tries to claim BTC, ABC, BSV or any similar standalone experiments as Bitcoin, because of simple sanity checks and logic checks, often stemming out of common sense - If what you have moves you a single step away from what is otherwise the same old experiment which Satoshi wrote about and unleashed, you're not Bitcoin. If what you have moves you a step closer, it is Bitcoin. and so on and so forth. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:25] Wow, really fanatical almost religious statements. I guess its Sunday morning. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:27] [In reply to Spoice] There's nothing common about common sense. You point to the WP to make a point, and your point isn't in there. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:27] Throttled and you need off-chain IOUs and always-on services to function (BTC) ? Not Bitcoin. Requires permission to be used and could be centrally confiscated on the whim of the organization behind it (BSV)? Not Bitcoin. Premined (Bitcoin Gold, Diamond)? Not Bitcoin. Taxing the miners through Coinbase and changing the incentives which were at play since day 0 (ABC)? Not Bitcoin Spoice, [18.10.20 02:27] simple checks really, yet those who are set to benefit will of course be oblivious to these Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:28] This whole “Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin - see whitepaper” is really stupid. It also ignores the history of how Bitcoin Cash came into existence Jingles, [18.10.20 02:28] Phillip, remove anyone here that has said Bitcoin Gold was the original Bitcoin immediately Jingles, [18.10.20 02:28] ^^^^ Jingles, [18.10.20 02:29] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] It falls to pieces the moment it's questioned. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:29] It is not about "True" Bitcoin Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30] It is about the Bitcoin closest to the experiment which always was Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30] I don't care about "True" or not, they all are true Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:30] [In reply to Jingles] Sorry, I hve stopped reading all the sillyness above. Will reread later Jingles, [18.10.20 02:30] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] I'm joking around 😂 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:30] but the rule of entropy says I shouldn't place my money nor effort in experiments which are set to fade eventually, because they have skewed incentives Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:31] [In reply to Spoice] You get to chose that for yourself but you do not get to dictate it for others David B., [18.10.20 02:31] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] Don't read it. You will have no braincells left Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31] Bitcoin as we know it has a long track record of incentives which work Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31] I won't ever dictate it for others Spoice, [18.10.20 02:31] I only would dictate it for myself, just like how I never use BTC or BSV today, I won't use ABC tomorrow Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] only because they're new experiments Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] interesting, and I wish them luck Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32] "Bitcoin is Bitcoin" is a false statement - Spoice 2020 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] but I would rather stick to the Bitcoin I know Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] that's all Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32] I won't ever dictate it for others - Also Spoice Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:32] Bitcoin Cash came with a plan snd goals. They were clearly presented in two presentations that happened before viabtc announced they would mine with ABC software and create a coin and chain named Bitcoin Cash Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] Yes, because he means BTC is Bitcoin, and that's a false statement Jingles, [18.10.20 02:32] How is it false? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:32] It is an instance of Bitcoin Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:33] [In reply to Michael Nunzio] you're looking intimidatingly handsome in your new profile picture Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:33] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] Lol Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:33] [In reply to J Stodd] actually a good question Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] Anyway, those are my two cents Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] Everyone is free to choose which experiments to pour their effort on and their money in Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:34] [In reply to Spoice] You are entitled to your opinion. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] Andreas is publishing Lightning Network books, I mean Spoice, [18.10.20 02:34] So to each his own Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:35] [In reply to Spoice] Lets leave it at that Spoice, [18.10.20 02:35] but Bitcoin as I know it continues with no Tax, and that in my opinion is BCH with no tax Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:35] Ah you had to continue Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:36] Good thing no tax is proposed by anyone Spoice, [18.10.20 02:35] Isn't this the Bitcoin Cash telegram? Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:35] 😅 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36] If I don't discuss Bitcoin Cash here, where should I? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36] Tax, IFP, call it what you will Spoice, [18.10.20 02:36] from my perspective as a user, it's one the same J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:36] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] I bet nobody will answer it, either Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Spoice] Apparently btc /s David B., [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Spoice] As a user what do you care? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:37] Ooh, can I shill the Bitcoin room in here? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:37] Nah, I prefer quick responses and chats Spoice, [18.10.20 02:37] Reddit is broken Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Jingles] Lol J Stodd, [18.10.20 02:37] [In reply to Spoice] Nobody even pays it, it just comes out of the block reward. The block reward is not sentient, it cannot be stolen from or wronged Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:37] Dont push your luck 😉 Jingles, [18.10.20 02:37] [ 😀 Sticker ] Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:38] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] You too brother. 🙏 Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38] [In reply to Michael Nunzio] but mine is the same....i need new ones everyone always calls me fat because of this one Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38] literally if i say 1 thing to any troll anywhere first thing they say is "ok fatass" Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:38] i blame this dumb photographer Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:38] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] Don't listen. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:39] u/spoice maybe write a read.cash article if you really feel you need to educate people Spoice, [18.10.20 02:39] David, as a user I believe that each new experiment carries risk with it, why should I take part in a new fork of Bitcoin which has a new set of game-theory rules which doesn't even benefit me, rather it benefits some other entity which will take 5% of any effort or economic activity I produce on this chain? They're also off-loading the risk to me as a usebuildebusiness who choose to join their experiment. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:40] Why should I take that risk while the Bitcoin I know and have known for over 10 years worked perfectly for me thus far? (BCH, that is) Jingles, [18.10.20 02:40] small fees and empty blocks? Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:41] It will insure that a centralized group has control over development and they are by decree in the code, it's a literal take over. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:41] [In reply to Spoice] “BSV-freeze the protocol - true Bitcoin” sounds like more your thing David B., [18.10.20 02:41] [In reply to Spoice] Better run bitcoin core 0.1 Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:41] Imagine if satoshi keyd his address in the code to be paid out of every block, but instead of paying himself started a company "Bitcoin Dev Co" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42] Not really, BSV kills the incentives I am discussing too Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:42] [In reply to Jingles] Please stay nice now Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:42] No one would ever be able to say Bitcoin was Decentralized, Bitcoin Dev Co would get paid directly from the reward. Jingles, [18.10.20 02:42] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] "BSV: We have all the Bad Idea. On chain" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42] The Nash equilibrium we have tested for the past 10 years will be changed with ABC, it changed with BTC and BSV too Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:42] "Bad Solutions Verified" Spoice, [18.10.20 02:42] that game-theory set of incentives Spoice, [18.10.20 02:43] why would I want to take a risk with any of those experiments when I gain 0? David B., [18.10.20 02:43] Better run bitcoin core 0.1 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:43] Nope, you're talking technical freezing of development, that's not what I am addressing Jingles, [18.10.20 02:43] [In reply to David B.] Thats the BTC chain though Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:43] [In reply to Spoice] O please share with us your background in the subject. Or are you now just parroting others Spoice, [18.10.20 02:44] BSV wants to freeze the technical development and they want a stable protocol from an API/development perspective Spoice, [18.10.20 02:44] but from an incentive ruleset perspective, they already butchered the equilibrium Bitcoin had Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ], [18.10.20 02:44] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] That's one of those phrases, when you hear it you know they are just a parrot of someones propaganda. "MUH NASH EQUILIBRIUM!" David B., [18.10.20 02:44] Stable = bad? Jingles, [18.10.20 02:45] [In reply to Jc Crown [ I DON'T DM PEOPLE - DON'T GIVE ME MONEY! ]] I love you Spoice, [18.10.20 02:45] Philip, for an admin you are ought to be nicer, if you think I am parroting others you're free to think that, but to state it so bluntly in your position is just... wrong Spoice, [18.10.20 02:46] If you think the point I made is wrong, discuss it Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:46] [In reply to Jingles] Maybe talk to him in DM about that?😉 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:46] not me Jingles, [18.10.20 02:46] [In reply to Phlip - Not giving away coins] working on it. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:46] [In reply to Spoice] I ought to be nicer...😂😂😂 Spoice, [18.10.20 02:47] Also, anyone who studied Bitcoin at length and its set of incentives and game-theory ruleset should know what a Nash Equilibrium is and who the players are in the Bitcoin game Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:47] [In reply to Spoice] You state as fact. You get to dhow why your statements or opinions are even relevant. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] If it's not a fact, highlight how Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] don't attack me Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] prove me wrong Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] if you fail that simple debate test David B., [18.10.20 02:48] How's that breakfast helping? Spoice, [18.10.20 02:48] you should rename from Janitor to Tyrant Jingles, [18.10.20 02:48] I'm still waiting to see the defined rules as per the wp Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:49] [In reply to Spoice] Didn't know this was stand up comedy night in here. Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:49] I missed the memo Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:49] If I have to prove all idiots on the internet wrong I would have a hard time. You are starting to really waste everybody’s time. You state, you prove. Or you are just generating noise Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:50] [In reply to Spoice] Be careful now. Michael Nunzio, [18.10.20 02:50] Noisy bugger. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:52] Getting close to just do some cleaning up. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:52] If you can't debate technical points I am making about Bitcoin Cash on a Bitcoin Cash Telegram, and within the span of 10 minutes you called me stupid, idiot, noisy and a parrot, you absolutely are a tyrant and I stand by my point: You should not be an admin here, nor anywhere actually. If you think I should be careful for the fear of you banning me, go ahead. You still fail to debate the simplest technical point and yet claim you can "but can't be bothered to". You remind me of that Thermos guy. Spoice, [18.10.20 02:53] How do people with 0 technical know how end up in these admin positions is beyond me Jingles, [18.10.20 02:53] I challenged your comments and you just changed the goal posts. Phlip - Not giving away coins, [18.10.20 02:53] [In reply to Spoice] Ok. You are not paying me and you are free to create noise elsewhere
Back in 2014 or so, bitcoin fans used to post price preditions based on linear extrapolation of the log scale plot, like this one: http://www.ic.unicamp.b~stolfi/temp/fit-deg1-rise-fitted.png The red line is the least-squares best fit to the log of the daily mean price P, up to 2013-12-05 (around the 2013 high). Namely, log(P) = A t + B where t is time and A,B are constant coefficients. A close inspection of the plot will reveal that such prediction was not quite accurate. The price definitely stopped following the linear trend, years ago, even if one ignores six-month-long fluctuations. A better model is clearly needed. The next simplest model after a linear function is a quadratic, log(P) = A t2 + B t + C. The least squares best fit of this formula to the mean daily prices, up to 2019-12-19, is shown below: http://www.ic.unicamp.b~stolfi/temp/fit-deg2-full-fitted.png Clearly the fit is as good as one can expect. The coefficients are A = -0.806310, B = +5.703367, C = -1.3030466 (time in kilodays since 2010-07-17, natural log). We can conclude that the price will reach a maximum of 6519.314763786258595548 USD (approximately) around April 1st, 2020, and steadily decrease thereafter. You cannot argue with math. DISCLAIMER: This analysis is provided strictly for trolling and lolling purposes. In reality, any form of Technical Analysis (TA), including this one, is pure bullshit. TA does not have any rigorous validation. The only model for speculative prices (including bitcoin price) that is confirmed by statistical analysis of real data is the Geometric Brownian Model (GBM). It says that the log of the future price P[t+1] (whether on the next day, next minute, next year, whatever) is the log of the current price P[t] plus a random variable with approximately Gaussian distribution with zero mean, that is completely uncorrelated to the past prices P[t-1], P[t-2], etc. That is, the past history of the price does not give any information about future prices.
Today we will talk about the security of using the Tkeycoin platform and the TKEYSPACE mobile blockchain wallet. Tkeycoin is a peer-to-peer payment system based on p2p principles and the concept of electronic cash. P2P technology is a fairer means of mutual settlements between users and companies around the world. Modern payment systems are imperfect and may depend on the will of high-ranking officials. We approached the market from an economic and scientific point of view, borrowing the best from Bitcoin, Ethereum, DASH, and other alternative currencies, mixing modern concepts and building on the global experience of IBM, Microsoft and a number of other companies and research. The Tkeycoin blockchain is protected by various mechanisms that include advanced cryptographic methods and mathematical models of behavior and decision-making. Blockchain technology prevents duplication or destruction of digital assets. https://i.redd.it/idy42g9rntx41.gif In addition to providing security and recording transactions in registers, cryptography also plays a role in ensuring the security of wallets used to store Tkeycoin. Paired public and private keys, which respectively allow users to receive and send payments, are created using asymmetric encryption or public-key cryptography. Public keys are used to generate digital signatures for transactions, which allows you to authenticate ownership of the coins being sent. https://i.redd.it/95yuky0tntx41.gif The asymmetric cryptography architecture does not allow anyone other than the owner of the private key to access funds stored in the cryptocurrency wallet, so these funds are kept safe until the owner decides to spend them. In simple words, in the Tkeycoin peer-to-peer system, only you are the real owner of your money and only You have access to it. Using tools such as a local Tkeycoin Core wallet or TkeySpace provides you with reliable storage, privacy, and security. TkeySpace, in turn, adds maximum usability by combining the highest level of security and easy intuitive design. https://i.redd.it/f0de51vuntx41.gif
How does TKEYSPACE provide security?
TKEYSPACE is one of the first applications that support blockchain in a mobile device and is also the first decentralized application of the TKEY platform. Its serverless architecture provides the highest level of security for storing all assets in the application. unlike centralized applications that are managed by companies, TkeySpace does not have a Central management authority and operates in accordance with all the principles of peer-to-peer networks. https://preview.redd.it/4bret8hwntx41.png?width=1253&format=png&auto=webp&s=535c5d879a36eac4ca8c807ee7af1b5fe05e12a9 As we said above, the wallets in the blockchain have a public and private key. Centralized applications usually store users ‘private keys on their servers, which makes users’ funds vulnerable to hacker attacks or theft. TkeySpace-stores the encrypted key only on the user’s device and in encrypted form. The encrypted key is displayed as a mnemonic phrase (backup phrase), which is very convenient for users. Unlike complex cryptographic ciphers, the phrase is easy to save or write. The backup phrase provides the maximum level of security and thanks to its usual appearance, an attacker is unlikely to ever guess what these words are and what they are for. A mnemonic phrase is 12 or 24 words that are generated using random number entropy. If the phrase consists of 12 words, then the number of possible combinations is 2048¹² or 211³² — the phrase will have 132 security bits. To restore the wallet, you must enter the mnemonic phrase in the strict order as it was presented after generation. And so that you do not get confused in the definitions and concepts, we will briefly describe simple and clear principles of how it all works. Let’s look briefly at the factors.
The simplest thing that protects your phone from unauthorized access is Pincode, a snake, a fingerprint or a Face Id login. And it would seem that this is related to TKEYSPACE? https://i.redd.it/sspjjsgyntx41.gif
At a minimum, it is almost impossible to open new mobile devices and pick up a pin code, even in the case of theft, most often the factory settings are reset, which leads to the deletion of all data on the phone, respectively-your funds are safe even for this reason.
Even if there was some “craftsman” and somehow managed to change the pin code on your device, the TKEYSPACE app will automatically delete all the keys and backup phrases, the wallet will simply be empty, and the attacker will be left with nothing.
As we can see, even a simple screen lock with a pin or fingerprint protects your data. It’s not as simple a screen lock as you and I might think. Every platform, whether it’s Android or AppStore, uses specialized key stores. Cryptography, symmetric and asymmetric encryption, keys, and certificates are directly related to this task. Keys and certificates that are used to protect information must also be securely protected. Android uses Keystore, a certificate and a Keystore, for this purpose. Keystore is a specialized secret data store that is used by Java applications to encrypt, authenticate, and establish HTTPS connections.
For two-way authentication, the client and server exchange certificates, respectively, and the server and client must have a Keystore with a private/public key pair and a certificate. In other words, the Keystore is used to store keys and certificates that are used to identify the key owner (client or server).
Starting with Android 8, the encryption systems have been upgraded, the system is checked for signs of hacking at startup, and the screen lock allows you to restrict access to the device. Data encryption and the use of keys ensure the security of information when it is stored and transmitted. https://i.redd.it/2c0b9re1otx41.gif In the new version of the OS — Android 9 (Pie) — the developers also added support for hardware to protect against unauthorized changes. Android apps run in an isolated software environment that restricts access to your information to other apps. OS components are also protected, which prevents attackers from exploiting system errors for their purposes. Android uses both hardware and software to protect users and their data. Therefore, even at the operating system level, there are a lot of security factors. Of course, if you “flash” the phone (change the factory firmware) and enable Root access, this will reduce the security of Your device, but this is more an exception than a rule and such changes are usually introduced by very experienced users. IOS uses Keychain — a specialized database for storing metadata and confidential information. Using a Keychain is the best practice for storing small pieces of data that are critical to your apps, such as secrets and passwords. In addition to the Keychain, Apple provides a full range of maximum protection for Your device. And so we will continue,
Passcode in the app
Now we understand that to get access to the tools, an attacker needs to hack the hardware security of the Google and Apple giants to somehow get access to the app, which is impossible. To increase security and eliminate other risk factors, we have included an access code (secret code) in the app. You set an additional level of security by enabling a pin code to log in to the app. The access code additionally encrypts all data stored in the app. Just so you understand — it’s not just numbers that you enter on the screen, this combination affects the ciphers inside the app. When creating a key, a user interface element is called. when the user swipes the screen, the application receives a random set of bytes — thus, all information is additionally covered by a new layer of cryptography. And as we said above, if you try to disable the pin code, the app will delete all the data, and the attacker will be left with nothing. As we have already realized, only 2 of these factors provide the maximum level of security for the TKEYSPACE application. And the most important thing is that the application runs on the blockchain, which guarantees its full Autonomous operation, data immutability, and privacy. Generation of new addresses, absence of accounts, phone numbers, e-mail and other personal data-provides you with a social level of security, which is a huge advantage in our time. In a world where security is based on the level of cryptography, attackers try to influence You with the human factor using social engineering, so when you use applications with accounts, phone numbers, you have more risks.
Social engineering is a method of obtaining the necessary access to information based on the characteristics of human psychology.
For example, a copy of a SIM-card has become a new tool for fraudsters, but there is no personal information in TKEYSPACE, so even such groups of fraudsters can’t get access to your funds.
You don’t have to worry about security — it’s already built into the TKEYSPACE system.
A mixed encryption system based on the principles of computational complexity, with the deterministic generation of signatures using elliptic curves, provides absolute security and safety of user funds, and reserve phrases will help you restore funds at any moment. A mnemonic phrase is 12 or 24 words that are generated using the entropy of random numbers. If the phrase consists of 12 words, then the number of possible combinations is 2048¹² or 211³² — the phrase will have 132 security bits. To restore the wallet, you must enter the mnemonic phrase in the strict order as it was presented after generation. Only you and no one else has access to the phrase. When you get the key, the app has restrictions on the screenshot, and the clipboard is disabled, which protects against malicious software. It is you, as a user, who sees the phrases, and everything in the device is encrypted, the blockchain architecture protects against hacker attacks, information forgery, and other hacks. For those who are a bit obsessed with persecution mania, we offer a small lifehack:
Buy several USB drives, connect them to a device that does not have access to the Internet, preferably on a clean operating system, create a text file, write backup phrases there, and encrypt the USB drives with passwords.
Lessons learned - Crypto and Divorce - In January I was a millionaire thanks to BTC, then my wife divorces me and now I have $30,000 AMA
Crossreferencing u/nanoissuperior He wrote earlier today: https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/a3n6uw/in_january_i_was_a_millionaire_thanks_to_nano_now/ Title: In January I was a millionaire thanks to Nano, now I have $25,000 AMA I was replying to his post, but my reply ended up being a bit too large as a reply and steered off-topic, albeit an interesting one. So I decided to make it its own post, because there may be a good lessons to be learned and hoping some will come forward with good information to be shared. I hope it can help anyone on this sub avoid the costly mistakes that I made. Here it goes: FLAIR: LEGAL (not in the list) ---- u/nanoissuperior are you who I think you are? I won't give out any further identifying clues, but I happen to know someone in the exact same position that could have written that exact same headline. If you read the first paragraph, you'll know if you know me. The person I know bought Nano really early, based on a tip from a friend. I got in much later. By the time he told me it had already spiked to the $5 range, when I ended up buying. I then sold in the $20's so it was a good buy nonetheless. We were former colleagues at a large, large software company somewhere in the PNW, I left the company to venture out on my own and try to launch some projects I had in mind and relocated overseas for a few years. We lost contact with each other during my time away, but we connected again during the market runup and started exchanging coin information on a daily basis during the big bull run of late 2017. That was a crazy time.... the market trend was a few degrees short of vertical for pretty much all coins! Hey, guess what? Now that I think about it, I could have written that same headline myself! In January 2018 I was a Millionaire too! Not with Nano, but thanks to purchasing a good chunk of Bitcoin in 2011 at $1.20 each. I ended up a single digit millionaire with what I had left in Bitcoin around January of 2018. And, just like you, today, from all that wealth, I have about $30.000 left, with little to show for. Can we call that even? Although my disaster was not caused entirely by market fluctuation; Mine is a more complex story and I am going to mention it, because hopefully, it could serve as a lesson to be learned for any crypto holder out there, so they don't make the make mistake I made: Don't trust anyone. Always be skeptical and watch out for your own interests. Anyhow, here it goes: After 5 years overseas, I had enough and wanted to come back to the States. My wife stated her preference to stay abroad, but eventually, she conceded albeit reluctantly. We chose a small town in CO to settle, and landed in November of 2017. We had plans to settle down and considered purchasing a home with my/our new fortune, based on the market price during that period. At the same time, I was also hesitant about the inherent tax payments due caused by such large liquidation. I was trying to have to pay taxes as far away as possible. So, I decided to wait till New Year's Eve and started liquidating my crypto on January 1st, 2018 right after midnight. This way, I would have 16 months (till April, 2019) to pay any capital gains taxes, and I was confident at the time that the market would give me that for free, especially at the pace that it was going. I have been an early adopter and have since then acquired the high levels of verification and trading limits per week, with many exchanges, but for a large sum like this, I needed several separate transactions, over the course of several weeks, especially wanting to do it with a US-based exchange that was linked to a US bank accounts, to avoid overseas wire transfers, meaning more fees. (Yes, I did look at all OTC options, but for reasons not relevant to the story, I couldn't make it happen, so I had to use the traditional Exchange channels for asset liquidation). My wife and I, initially had some fundamental disagreements on the gross amount to be spent and the type of property we should be purchasing. I wanted a smaller place, with a denser, younger community, where there'd be kids our son's age for him to play. She insisted that we should go big; we had been traveling for so many years, and we had not been able to call any of our past residences our home. It was time to settle and nest; She convinced me that we should own a property of our own that we would be proud of living in for years. One that we could own outright and would not easily outgrow. We ended up splurging and purchased in cash two luxury cars for ourselves and set our sights on a large dream house in the city's Golf & Country Club, free and clear, for us and our two kids. I don't even play golf, nor do I even like it, but, if it makes her happy and it is within the safe margins of making it happen, I figured, why not? My concerns were largely financial and the numbers were adding up. It was a bit tight against my personal safe margins, but, at the same time, I was imagining to never have to make, or even have to think about, a car or home mortgage payment ever again! Bitcoin is on a roll and there is no sign of it stopping. Fine. Let's do it, before I change my mind. Now, I admit I was extremely lucky with choosing the time of when to sell the assets. I had no clue the market would take a dive in February, and so it seemed to many that I had timed the market perfectly, selling most of my coins in the first two weeks of January of 2018. Many called me a genius for selling at the very top, as if I had some sort of wisdom to know when it would drop; the truth is much less flattering; it was nothing but dumb luck, based on me wanting to pay taxes in 2018 and defer to 2019. Awesome, well done! Yeah? well, slow down, son, not so fast. So, I gather the 7-digit lumpsum in January 2018 and we write a check for the full amount at closing in February on the property of her dreams. A property that could easily be showcased on a luxury Real Estate magazine cover. Also, remember we had just moved back to the United States with just a few suitcases each from overseas. We had no furniture, kitchenware, curtains, TV's, bed sheets, winter clothing and so many other essential things that one usually purchases over time, but which we now had to purchase all at once. Not a problem, Bitcoin had dropped slightly but still well above $15k, I believe, at the time. And, earlier, in January, I had diligently taken this expense into account and effortlessly set aside a small fortune for equipping such a large house with everything we would ever need, brand new. It seemed we were protagonists of one of the Home Makeover Shows. Finally, after working day and night, prepping the house non-stop for days and when every piece of furniture had finally arrived, been unpacked and carried to its corresponding room, it seemed most of the essentials were in place and the hard work was done. I longed for pouring myself a Scotch and to finally sit down and enjoy the fruits of my labor. I head downstairs to the dedicated walk-in, cigar-humidor / wine / Scotch cellar in the basement and grab the better bottle of Whisky of the few bottles of Scotch that I had bought earlier in the week. On my way up, I remember feeling a sense of calm, combined with a glow of excitement and this undescribable profound inner peace, all at once. This was such a rare, natural, non-drug induced high that I had never experienced. It felt so good! This sense of accomplishment of achieving that one thing I had been chasing and longing for my entire life. I had expected I would be chasing this goal for the next 15-20 years, and yet, here it was. No, where I was, was even better than expected! A place where not even my parents, who still have to make their monthly mortgage payments. I had done it! With a smile from ear to ear, I take a deep breath of relief and while looking around the property, I think to myself: "It's perfect, everything is in place and I can finally call this our home. We are so lucky and we are going to live a great life. A life that few can only dream of. So many concerns will be lifted and become redundant. Everything will be better. I'll start a fire in one of our two fireplaces and I am going to begin enjoying my semi-retired life with the first sip of my drink. That will be the official start of our new life". I head over to the kitchen to get a glass and some ice cubes, while I struggle to find which one is the freezer among the many drawers in the kitchen. It was then when I notice a handwritten note placed front and center on the kitchen counter. It is from my wife and read: "There is no easy way to say this, so I am just going to say it..... I want to legally divorce [ ...]". It continued saying that she had taken our son, and had unequivocally decided to leave me. She had already filed the paperwork for divorce and that I should expect to be served in the morning. My bliss had lasted less than 5 minutes and in less than two seconds, it turned dark, somber and I saw it all crumbling down in front of me. Like a long-awaited rocket launch, years in preparation, which then unexpectedly explodes on the launch pad during the countdown. My stomach, heart and everything in my body just sank and melted into one ball of poison in my core. I felt like throwing up. I was completely blindsided; she had played the game all along, not giving me the slightest hint of what was being concocted in the background. She had already engaged with her lawyers weeks beforehand. Her mother was already in town from another state to help out with I don't know what. I had been gaslighted and was threatened by her that I needed to see a psychiatrist due to a change in my temper that I had supposedly developed - my temper was awesome: with BTC at that price? Everything was perfect! But I obeyed and went anyhow (this would later fit her story that she had to leave with the child because she feared for her safety due to my supposed temper for which I was under treatment, therefore, I must have this temper problem, see?). Also, the purchase of the overpriced home also seemed clearly premeditated: Price was the main driver of the decision making; not location, demographics, taxes, etc. It was the wrong neighborhood for us (people much older than us, retired, golfers and no kids the same age as our son to play with). Our house happened to also be the most expensive in the neighborhood. I can see it all so clearly now. See, your crypto coins on the blockchain, are not within the US court's jurisdiction (or, at least, it's quite debatable - a gray area - ask me for the seed and I can tell you that I may have the seed, or that I may not have the seed, I may have the wrong seed, I may have forgotten it, I may have lost it - you can't prove I did not forget, or lost it, etc). However, once it is in FIAT in a bank, or invested in a property, the courts can rule on the asset(s), freeze, disburse or order a sale of the property, etc. It's done all the time. Also, the coins were technically mine, and by definition private property (not to be divided during the divorce) as they were acquired before the marriage. I could not prove its origins (I bought many of them via direct messaging members on Bitcointalk.org and mining rather than exchanges, so no records, receipts or nothing to prove otherwise: the big exchanges like BitStamp and Coinbase didn't start operations till 2013, if I m not mistaken. Instead, I would talk to one of the forum members offering coins we'd agree on a price, I'd send a check to wherever the individual seller instructed me to (Russia, Bulgaria, Japan, UK. etc) and the coins would be deposited to whatever address I provided. Yes, it was quite crude at the time. However, once I converted my coins to cash and used that cash to buy a property for the benefit of the family, it became common property and thus she then had rights to a portion of it when divided between the two parties should a divorce occur - which ended up being almost 3/4 of all assets. I was robbed in broad daylight. By the one person, I trusted with my life. The one you should trust with your life. Your life partner. And while I was in complete denial, trying to bargain, I waited too long to obtain good legal representation. When I finally ended up getting a lawyer, I was quite distraught and I clearly did not do the proper research and this resulted in a less than stellar performance and detrimental to me at many key steps in the process. I had to switch legal representation right before mediation and I can't blame my new lawyer either, as (s)he did not have the required time to catch up on all the details, (s)he did his/her best, but I was ultimately strongarmed into conceding my soon-to-be-ex-wife to let her return to the house, in exchange to obtain 50% of my son's custody, with serious and strict clauses I had to abide by. So, I had to move out, find a hole in the wall in a student apartment, pay my rent and pay our kids pre-school, while she lives grandiose, without monthly payments in the country club, till the house sells, which will likely be in the spring of next year. Nice! Due to my delay, legal mishandling and somehow every other element in her favor, she inexplicably ended up with around 3/4 of the worth of all assets, free and clear, no taxes due. Mind you, she has never financially contributed, nor made a single $ during our entire marriage. She has never worked and had $0 in her pocket when we married. She didn't even have a checking account, well in her thirties. She is no dummy; she is street smart, knows how to manipulate people, get her way with flirting and charm, while I am more intellectual and book smart. and She beat me hands-down. She is walking away with a sum of, not quite 7 figures, but close. With what I am left with from the sale of the house, I am responsible to pay for all the capital gains taxes from the liquidation to the IRS, which are due in April 2019. I don't expect there to be more left over than the estimated $30k mentioned above. Hate the market all you want, I made peace with the market and am keeping busy at hating my ex for a while for putting me in the same situation. She tripped me 1 yard before the finish line and pushed me in the prickly bushes, to cross it by herself. Go figure. When I am done hating her, I'll get back to rebuilding my life again from scratch. I am not worried, I have done it before. Just pissed, I was so close and that I was so naive to not see it coming. Sorry, I am not meaning to hijack the thread, just wanted you to know that others may have lost more than just "free" money; money we didn't really have to work for. We were the lucky ones. It is what I keep telling myself to stop me from jumping off a bridge. PS - Woah: Sorry for the wall of text; I was just going to write the first paragraph and ended up venting about my current situation. I know, I should take this issue to /depressed, /exes or /whereisthenearestbridgeIcanjumpfrom. Hopefully, this can be a lesson to those holding crypto and some can learn what NOT to do. I learned the hard way and was left with nothing. Don't be a nice guy. Don't trust anyone with your crypto. Anyhow, I am sure either our vigilant subreddit bot, or one of the mods will remove my post for not adhering to rule, and if not, I am sure that you fine people will downvote me to hell. Go ahead. Take away from me the little Karma I left too! Thanks! I learned many lessons, but here are some key ones [IANAL - any crypto-educated AL opinion appreciated here, thanks] : - Understand the concept of private property - property you acquire before getting married. INAL - this depends on the state legislation, but it is hard to prove with crypto, especially if you obtained your crypto through foreign exchanges, outside of legal jurisdictions, the petitioner might not understand or willing to invest in obtaining subpoenas and requests to businesses operating overseas, as this may result costly. - Get a lawyer who understands, or is willing to understand crypto, its benefits of being somewhat unreachable and how that can work for you. Don't let them shortchange you with: "well, let's just convert the rest to cash, because that I understand" type of reasoning. - If you do go to mediation, the above applies as well. This arbitrator or mediator needs to be one that understands the intrinsic details of crypto - for example, during the ATH, I bought 6 digits worth in $USD of Stellar. I used the very first version of the software, supporting Stellar on my hardware device, and put it all in a cold storage wallet somewhere around January. I routinely checked on my coins on the blockchain and they are there. A few months later, I try to access my account and the device returns a different public address, which contains 0 funds. I am still trying to debug this issue with the manufacturer, but the fact is that I was accused of hiding these coins or negligence and was demanded that I paid half of what was lost. or not lost, out of my pocket for money that I didn't have access either. I tried to explain it in the simplest terms, there are risks involved with using first come software. There is no 1800 number, mo tech support. no CEO, no, you can't call the BBB and complain, etc and no one seemed to be able to understand, nor willing to either. It became a huge roadblock for which I had to concede, not cash, but a concession, I was not wanting to concede. The petitioner leaned on the fact that I was either wilfully cheating or stupid enough to lose the coins and managed to create enough doubt in my character and integrity and there was nothing rational I could explain that she, or anyone else in the room would understand. Perhaps mutually contracting a seasoned crypto expert that can offer a neutral view and give his/her opinion might be worth considering. Andreas, where were you when I needed you? :) - Other examples were some coins I had bought in 2012 and gifted to some of her family's kids. I was holding these, till they would turn 16 for them to pay themselves their college, or so I told them. These coins were demanded back by the petitioner. Ok, I suggested that I would send them, but with a CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY value with a block height of let's say,10 years from now, out of fear that she would spend the coins and the kids would never know (they are toddlers). No one understood what I was talking about, I was made out the crazy one, I gave up, sent her the coins, unlocked and, just as I expected, within 20 minutes of receiving them, she spent $1200 worth of it (for a flight, I think). If you are the only one speaking your language, no one is willing to listen or make an effort to understand you. - It appears my coins were private property, which means, that I acquired them before the marriage and in case of divorce, if I have not moved them or used them for the common good of the marriage, then they remain mine. However, I liquidated them and cash ended up in my checking account to be used to buy groceries, cars and eventually a house, and it is then that they became common property. Only once they landed in my checking account on which she is named on. It appears that had I taken proper legal precautions with documentation, or a company/trust, where that money would have gone, instead of my checking accounts, elsewhere, I would have still been able to be the legal proprietor of the resulting cash. I can't quite remember the details, but it as something that was explained to me afterward, and I honestly think I just tuned it out, because it made me sick to know I could have held on to my wealth. Perhaps a lawyer can chime in? Again, much of the lack of information and every misstep taken was because of dealing with people that are accustomed to traditional assets and will not deviate from it. Crypto is different and is treated differently. It is so important to know the strengths and weaknesses when going into litigation about something that people don't understand. - Some more I can think of, but this post is getting way out of hand in size. Feel free to comment/suggest your own and I'll add more to the comments. Credits to: u/nanoissuperior Thanks for your post, it inspired me to write this one. Anyone, any karma you feels needs to go his way, for providing the source of inspiration, please give to O-OP. TL;DR: Wife, having contributed $0 during entire marriage, waited until I cashed out all my crypto at the top of the bull market in January 2018, for a nice seven-figure amount, and then immediately divorced me for the money. Edit: added TL;DR
🚀 Successful trading strategies: Arbitrage Trading 💡 Definition: “Buy crypto at one exchange and sell on the other one to get the profit on a price difference.” Probably the simplest one both to learn and to master. Often different exchanges handle various prices on a specific coin (for ex. Bitcoin). The difference may vary from slight to significant (even 10% price variation is possible). The general point is to buy wherever the coin is cheaper, send it to wherever it’s pricier, and sell. It’s a short term phenomenon, so keep your eyes open on the rates using any tracker (for ex. Coinmarketcap). 👉 https://bit.emirex.com/buybtcrd #Emirex#Trading
*These questions are sourced directly from Telegram Q: When you say RenVM is Trustless, Permissionless, and Decentralized, what does that actually mean? A: Trustless = RenVM is a virtual machine (a network of nodes, that do computations), this means if you ask RenVM to trade an asset via smart contract logic, it will. No trusted intermediary that holds assets or that you need to rely on. Because RenVM is a decentralized network and computes verified information in a secure environment, no single party can prevent users from sending funds in, withdrawing deposited funds, or computing information needed for updating outside ledgers. RenVM is an agnostic and autonomous virtual broker that holds your digital assets as they move between blockchains. Permissionless = RenVM is an open protocol; meaning anyone can use RenVM and any project can build with RenVM. You don't need anyone's permission, just plug RenVM into your dApp and you have interoperability. Decentralized = The nodes that power RenVM ( Darknodes) are scattered throughout the world. RenVM has a peak capacity of up to 10,000 Darknodes (due to REN’s token economics). Realistically, there will probably be 100 - 500 Darknodes run in the initial Mainnet phases, ample decentralized nonetheless. Q: Okay, so how can you prove this? A: The publication of our audit results will help prove the trustlessness piece; permissionless and decentralized can be proven today. Permissionless = https://github.com/renproject/ren-js Decentralized = https://chaosnet.renproject.io/ Q: How does Ren sMPC work? Sharmir's secret sharing? TSS? A: There is some confusion here that keeps arising so I will do my best to clarify.TL;DR: *SSS is just data. It’s what you do with the data that matters. RenVM uses sMPC on SSS to create TSS for ECDSA keys.*SSS and TSS aren’t fundamental different things. It’s kind of like asking: do you use numbers, or equations? Equations often (but not always) use numbers or at some point involve numbers. SSS by itself is just a way of representing secret data (like numbers). sMPC is how to generate and work with that data (like equations). One of the things you can do with that work is produce a form of TSS (this is what RenVM does). However, TSS is slightly different because it can also be done *without* SSS and sMPC. For example, BLS signatures don’t use SSS or sMPC but they are still a form of TSS. So, we say that RenVM uses SSS+sMPC because this is more specific than just saying TSS (and you can also do more with SSS+sMPC than just TSS). Specifically, all viable forms of turning ECDSA (a scheme that isn’t naturally threshold based) into a TSS needs SSS+sMPC. People often get confused about RenVM and claim “SSS can’t be used to sign transactions without making the private key whole again”. That’s a strange statement and shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what SSS is. To come back to our analogy, it’s like saying “numbers can’t be used to write a book”. That’s kind of true in a direct sense, but there are plenty of ways to encode a book as numbers and then it’s up to how you interpret (how you *use*) those numbers. This is exactly how this text I’m writing is appearing on your screen right now. SSS is just secret data. It doesn’t make sense to say that SSS *functions*. RenVM is what does the functioning. RenVM *uses* the SSSs to represent private keys. But these are generated and used and destroyed as part of sMPC. The keys are never whole at any point. Q: Thanks for the explanation. Based on my understanding of SSS, a trusted dealer does need to briefly put the key together. Is this not the case? A: Remember, SSS is just the representation of a secret. How you get from the secret to its representation is something else. There are many ways to do it. The simplest way is to have a “dealer” that knows the secret and gives out the shares. But, there are other ways. For example: we all act as dealers, and all give each other shares of our individual secret. If there are N of us, we now each have N shares (one from every person). Then we all individually add up the shares that we have. We now each have a share of a “global” secret that no one actually knows. We know this global secret is the sum of everyone’s individual secrets, but unless you know every individual’s secret you cannot know the global secret (even though you have all just collectively generates shares for it). This is an example of an sMPC generation of a random number with collusion resistance against all-but-one adversaries. Q: If you borrow Ren, you can profit from the opposite Ren gain. That means you could profit from breaking the network and from falling Ren price (because breaking the network, would cause Ren price to drop) (lower amount to be repaid, when the bond gets slashed) A: Yes, this is why it’s important there has a large number of Darknodes before moving to full decentralisation (large borrowing becomes harder). We’re exploring a few other options too, that should help prevent these kinds of issues. Q: What are RenVM’s Security and Liveliness parameters? A: These are discussed in detail in our Wiki, please check it out here: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Safety-and-Liveliness#analysis Q: What are the next blockchain under consideration for RenVM? A: These can be found here: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Supported-Blockchains Q: I've just read that Aztec is going to be live this month and currently tests txs with third parties. Are you going to participate in early access or you just more focused on bringing Ren to Subzero stage? A: At this stage, our entire focus is on Mainnet SubZero. But, we will definitely be following up on integrating with AZTEC once everything is out and stable. Q: So how does RenVM compare to tBTC, Thorchain, WBTC, etc..? A: An easy way to think about it is..RenVM’s functionality is a combination of tBTC (+ WBTC by extension), and Thorchain’s (proposed) capabilities... All wrapped into one. Just depends on what the end-user application wants to do with it. Q1: What are the core technical/security differences between RenVM and tBTC?A1: The algorithm used by tBTC faults if even one node goes offline at the wrong moment (and the whole “keep” of nodes can be penalised for this). RenVM can survive 1/3rd going offline at any point at any time. Advantage for tBTC is that collusion is harder, disadvantage is obviously availability and permissionlessness is lower. tBTC an only mint/burn lots of 1 BTC and requires an on-Ethereum SPV relay for Bitcoin headers (and for any other chain it adds). No real advantage trade-off IMO. tBTC has a liquidation mechanism that means nodes can have their bond liquidated because of ETH/BTC price ratio. Advantage means users can get 1 BTC worth of ETH. Disadvantage is it means tBTC is kind of a synthetic: needs a price feed, needs liquid markets for liquidation, users must accept exposure to ETH even if they only hold tBTC, nodes must stay collateralized or lose lots of ETH. RenVM doesn’t have this, and instead uses fees to prevent becoming under-collateralized. This requires a mature market, and assumed Darknodes will value their REN bonds fairly (based on revenue, not necessarily what they can sell it for at current —potentially manipulated—market value). That can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you feel. tBTC focuses more on the idea of a tokenized version of BTC that feels like an ERC20 to the user (and is). RenVM focuses more on letting the user interact with DeFi and use real BTC and real Bitcoin transactions to do so (still an ERC20 under the hood, but the UX is more fluid and integrated). Advantage of tBTC is that it’s probably easier to understand and that might mean better overall experience, disadvantage really comes back to that 1 BTC limit and the need for a more clunky minting/burning experience that might mean worse overall experience. Too early to tell, different projects taking different bets. tBTC supports BTC (I think they have ZEC these days too). RenVM supports BTC, BCH, and ZEC (docs discuss Matic, XRP, and LTC). Q2: This are my assumed differences between tBTC and RenVM, are they correct? Some key comparisons: -Both are vulnerable to oracle attacks -REN federation failure results in loss or theft of all funds -tBTC failures tend to result in frothy markets, but holders of tBTC are made whole -REN quorum rotation is new crypto, and relies on honest deletion of old key shares -tBTC rotates micro-quorums regularly without relying on honest deletion -tBTC relies on an SPV relay -REN relies on federation honesty to fill the relay's purpose -Both are brittle to deep reorgs, so expanding to weaker chains like ZEC is not clearly a good idea -REN may see total system failure as the result of a deep reorg, as it changes federation incentives significantly -tBTC may accidentally punish some honest micro-federations as the result of a deep reorg -REN generally has much more interaction between incentive models, as everything is mixed into the same pot. -tBTC is a large collection of small incentive models, while REN is a single complex incentive model A2: To correct some points: The oracle situation is different with RenVM, because the fee model is what determines the value of REN with respect to the cross-chain asset. This is the asset is what is used to pay the fee, so no external pricing is needed for it (because you only care about the ratio between REN and the cross-chain asset). RenVM does rotate quorums regularly, in fact more regularly than in tBTC (although there are micro-quorums, each deposit doesn’t get rotated as far as I know and sticks around for up to 6 months). This rotation involves rotations of the keys too, so it does not rely on honest deletion of key shares. Federated views of blockchains are easier to expand to support deep re-orgs (just get the nodes to wait for more blocks for that chain). SPV requires longer proofs which begins to scale more poorly. Not sure what you mean by “one big pot”, but there are multiple quorums so the failure of one is isolated from the failures of others. For example, if there are 10 shards supporting BTC and one of them fails, then this is equivalent to a sudden 10% fee being applied. Harsh, yes, but not total failure of the whole system (and doesn’t affect other assets). Would be interesting what RenVM would look like with lots more shards that are smaller. Failure becomes much more isolated and affects the overall network less. Further, the amount of tBTC you can mint is dependent on people who are long ETH and prefer locking it up in Keep for earning a smallish fee instead of putting it in Compound or leveraging with dydx. tBTC is competing for liquidity while RenVM isn't. Q: I understand correctly RenVM (sMPC) can get up to a 50% security threshold, can you tell me more? A: The best you can theoretically do with sMPC is 50-67% of the total value of REN used to bond Darknodes (RenVM will eventually work up to 50% and won’t go for 67% because we care about liveliness just as much as safety). As an example, if there’s $1M of REN currently locked up in bonded Darknodes you could have up to $500K of tokens shifted through RenVM at any one specific moment. You could do more than that in daily volume, but at any one moment this is the limit.Beyond this limit, you can still remain secure but you cannot assume that players are going to be acting to maximize their profit. Under this limit, a colluding group of adversaries has no incentive to subvert safety/liveliness properties because the cost to attack roughly outweighs the gain. Beyond this limit, you need to assume that players are behaving out of commitment to the network (not necessarily a bad assumption, but definitely weaker than the maximizing profits assumption). Q: Why is using ETH as collateral for RenVM a bad idea? A: Using ETH as collateral in this kind of system (like having to deposit say 20 ETH for a bond) would not make any sense because the collateral value would then fluctuate independently of what kind of value RenVM is providing. The REN token on the other hand directly correlates with the usage of RenVM which makes bonding with REN much more appropriate. DAI as a bond would not work as well because then you can't limit attackers with enough funds to launch as many darknodes as they want until they can attack the network. REN is limited in supply and therefore makes it harder to get enough of it without the price shooting up (making it much more expensive to attack as they would lose their bonds as well). A major advantage of Ren's specific usage of sMPC is that security can be regulated economically. All value (that's being interopped at least) passing through RenVM has explicit value. The network can self-regulate to ensure an attack is never worth it. Q: Given the fee model proposal/ceiling, might be a liquidity issue with renBTC. More demand than possible supply?A: I don’t think so. As renBTC is minted, the fees being earned by Darknodes go up, and therefore the value of REN goes up. Imagine that the demand is so great that the amount of renBTC is pushing close to 100% of the limit. This is a very loud and clear message to the Darknodes that they’re going to be earning good fees and that demand is high. Almost by definition, this means REN is worth more. Profits of the Darknodes, and therefore security of the network, is based solely on the use of the network (this is what you want because your network does not make or break on things outside the systems control). In a system like tBTC there are liquidity issues because you need to convince ETH holders to bond ETH and this is an external problem. Maybe ETH is pumping irrespective of tBTC use and people begin leaving tBTC to sell their ETH. Or, that ETH is dumping, and so tBTC nodes are either liquidated or all their profits are eaten by the fact that they have to be long on ETH (and tBTC holders cannot get their BTC back in this case). Feels real bad man. Q: I’m still wondering which asset people will choose: tbtc or renBTC? I’m assuming the fact that all tbtc is backed by eth + btc might make some people more comfortable with it. A: Maybe :) personally I’d rather know that my renBTC can always be turned back into BTC, and that my transactions will always go through. I also think there are many BTC holders that would rather not have to “believe in ETH” as an externality just to maximize use of their BTC. Q: How does the liquidation mechanism work? Can any party, including non-nodes act as liquidators? There needs to be a price feed for liquidation and to determine the minting fee - where does this price feed come from? A: RenVM does not have a liquidation mechanism. Q: I don’t understand how the price feeds for minting fees make sense. You are saying that the inputs for the fee curve depend on the amount of fees derived by the system. This is circular in a sense? A: By evaluating the REN based on the income you can get from bonding it and working. The only thing that drives REN value is the fact that REN can be bonded to allow work to be done to earn revenue. So any price feed (however you define it) is eventually rooted in the fees earned. Q: Who’s doing RenVM’s Security Audit? A: ChainSecurity | https://chainsecurity.com/ Q: Can you explain RenVM’s proposed fee model? A: The proposed fee model can be found here: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Safety-and-Liveliness#fees Q: Can you explain in more detail the difference between "execution" and "powering P2P Network". I think that these functions are somehow overlapping? Can you define in more detail what is "execution" and "powering P2P Network"? You also said that at later stages semi-core might still exist "as a secondary signature on everything (this can mathematically only increase security, because the fully decentralised signature is still needed)". What power will this secondary signature have? A: By execution we specifically mean signing things with the secret ECDSA keys. The P2P network is how every node communicates with every other node. The semi-core doesn’t have any “special powers”. If it stays, it would literally just be a second signature required (as opposed to the one signature required right now). This cannot affect safety, because the first signature is still required. Any attack you wanted to do would still have to succeed against the “normal” part of the network. This can affect liveliness, because the semi-core could decide not to sign. However, the semi-core follows the same rules as normal shards. The signature is tolerant to 1/3rd for both safety/liveliness. So, 1/3rd+ would have to decide to not sign. Members of the semi-core would be there under governance from the rest of our ecosystem. The idea is that members would be chosen for their external value. We’ve discussed in-depth the idea of L<3. But, if RenVM is used in MakerDAO, Compound, dYdX, Kyber, etc. it would be desirable to capture the value of these ecosystems too, not just the value of REN bonded. The semi-core as a second signature is a way to do this. Imagine if the members for those projects, because those projects want to help secure renBTC, because it’s used in their ecosystems. There is a very strong incentive for them to behave honestly. To attack RenVM you first have to attack the Darknodes “as per usual” (the current design), and then somehow convince 1/3rd of these projects to act dishonestly and collapse their own ecosystems and their own reputations. This is a very difficult thing to do. Worth reminding: the draft for this proposal isn’t finished. It would be great for everyone to give us their thoughts on GitHub when it is proposed, so we can keep a persistent record. Q: Which method or equation is used to calculate REN value based on fees? I'm interested in how REN value is calculated as well, to maintain the L < 3 ratio? A: We haven’t finalized this yet. But, at this stage, the plan is to have a smart contract that is controlled by the Darknodes. We want to wait to see how SubZero and Zero go before committing to a specific formulation, as this will give us a chance to bootstrap the network and field inputs from the Darknodes owners after the earnings they can make have become more apparent.
Developer-friendly guide to the Google "associated account ban" - advice to an iOS developer thinking about Android (misconceptions and alternatives for developers)
I received a query from an iOS developer thinking about developing for Android - and his concerns about the notorious "associated account ban" practice (by Google). Since the exchange may be of wider use to new developers thinking about Android, I am providing it here - my reply and the comments others may post here should dispel some of the misconceptions about:
"associated account ban" what it is, and what it is not
where to distribute other than Google Play
NOTE: I asked for permission from the iOS developer - which he granted - so that I could include his quoted text.
Hi! I'm a junior iOS developer that was looking into branching into Android. If you don't mind, may I ask you some questions about the associated account ban issue?
If you are just starting out with Android, i.e. this is your first account, you don't have to be concerned about the associated account ban issue. This only becomes relevant if you have a ban - then this ban is percolated to all the other accounts that Google can get it's hands on - ones which it finds "could be you". But sometimes it makes mistakes and can ban your friend, who may have opened his Google account from your computer, using your Wifi or from your home using your browser. There are examples of a company account being banned because their developer was banned, and the developer was banned not because of any fault of his, but because a friend of him had been banned some time ago for some previous infraction. These types of bans are possible to get reversed, but usually take a lot of effort, and usually not through usual channels - what seems to work is posting on medium dot com with a convincing blog post that gets viral, and then sometimes Google will reverse. There are cases of account reinstatements after one year, but often it can be a week to a month. In any case, this is needless disruption for a developer. Usually app bans/account bans DO NOT lead to a Google account ban - BUT some developers have expressed fears that this could happen. I can't think of a case like that - I have a vague feeling it may have happened once perhaps but can't be sure. But it DID definitely happen with Markiplier's YouTube fans - when he asked them to post emojis - and Google mass-banned a bunch of those who responded. Markiplier issued videos trying to get his followers' YouTube accounts restored - many were restored, but many weren't (may have been by now). This case was notable because these followers got their ENTIRE Google accounts - including Google Photos and other such personal stuff also account-banned. Thus was particularly egregious. The alternative to going viral with blog post is to have legal representation - your lawyer sends them a warning letter - supposedly that also works reasonably well. We don't have too many documented public cases for this - but many commenters on androiddev sub-reddit have said that even just having your lawyer send a letter to Google at [email protected] (even though Google says it doesn't read e-mail sent there) - can get results. Again, I don't know of any particular cases that used this method - so cannot give much more insight on this type of appeal to Google.
Would it be possible to create a new identity separate from my old one? Suppose I buy a new phone and new phone number. Only use my mobile data and a new bank account to pay for stuff. The one thing I am not able to change is my location as I can't move out anytime soon.
Developers have been trying to create new accounts after account bans for many years - at least from what one reads on various forums. So developers certainly do evade such bans - they seems to suggest using different internet WiFi, different Mac address for computer, different browser (so can't be tracked by cookies) and then using different credit card identity - so for example they may open an account in a relative's name. But if that relative is your wife - who resides in the same place - you are likely to be associated eventually - and wife could suffer the fate of the husband (and the associated ban wouldn't be removed even after divorce!).
Would not opening a developer account be enough to avoid having my colleagues getting associated banned? I have a housemate that got banned, while I was lucky to not share WiFi with him we still stay in the same location. Not only that I have logged into my personal accounts using the office computer and WiFi. I also roughly believe an ex-colleague there might get banned for his personal app on the Play Store in the future. Is it too late to do anything to migitate any association at this point?
I don't know - we don't have the data to be that specific about whether a previous association between you and another dev (even before you actually created a Google account) would contribute towards yours (or his) associated ban. If you are very enthusiastic about your Android project - you can proceed without bothering about associated account ban - since it is unlikely to affect 100 percent of developers everytime, you could take the risk. If something does happen, you deal with it. But if it is low priority for you, and you would rather not endanger yourself, or your friends, you could consider not opening a Google developer account - and simply publishing on F-Droid, or even offering your APK via your website. It gets trickier if you were planning to show ads or have in-app purchases - for ads there are ad providers other than Google Admob - but often they ask where your app is published on Google Play. But possibly it may not be a requirement - for example they may accept that you are only published on F-Droid - though I don't know how this reduces "developer cred" in the eyes of the advertiser (and if they pay less for advertising on such apps). For in-app purchases, you could use payment processors like 2Checkout - which would allow you to process payments independent of any association with Google. 2Checkout has wider country coverage, but you could try Square and the other credit card processing companies which focus more for U.S. developers. Some developers have anecdotally reported on androiddev sub-reddit that they are able to get good revenue for apps hosted on their website, and using third-party payment systems like 2Checkout etc. However, this will still be less than what you would get on Google Play Store (because of it's ubiquity/wide reach). EDIT: xda-developers also seems to have an app store - though you don't hear much about it on androiddev. But it may be a good alternative to F-Droid (if you don't want to open source your app): https://www.xda-developers.com/xda-labs/
In addition to accessing the forums, Labs contains an app distribution platform for both hobbyist and professional developers. With support for Alpha, Beta, and Stable release channels, developers get the utmost in control. We also have built-in commerce for devs that want to earn money for their work, and unlike Play, where developers only get 70% of app revenue, XDA lets developers keep 100% through PayPal or Bitcoin payment methods.
Despite all this I still want to develop Android apps and share them with people. Is hosting the apk on my personal site the next best thing besides the Play Store? Are there any other app stores I could try? I know there's F-Droid but I don't plan open-sourcing my apps.
Sorry if the message is too long. I don't see Google fixing this issue anytime soon and am just trying to find a way to publish Android apps despite the bleak situation.
There are other android app stores, but because Google forces manufacturers to include Google Play (as part of the Google suite of apps) - it has so far ensured that Google Play remains the dominant store. Developers have anecdotally reported that they are able to get good sales on Amazon (not sure how it is these days) - overall volume is lower, but the revenue per user is higher, so the overall revenue is not bad, though still lower than for the version of their app on Google Play Store. As an example, the Chinese market is hard for non-Chinese developers to get into (because of the certification/documentation requirements) - but even if you do that, there are a number of app stores (4 or 5 of the big ones - none of them are particularly dominant over the other). This is obviously an outcome of the fact that Google exited the China market earlier (a decision they may regret, but it has also affected/led to app store fragmentation). Chinese app stores also often have clone apps - so you may find that there already is a version of your app there - sometimes with different ad provider inserted, and sometimes may even seem very different (I have never tried to install the APK from those stores, but have tried to examine the APK contents and found differences). So there is a negative to not having Google Play Store dominant - and there is a negative to Google Play Store being dominant as well! The Chinese market has another emerging player - Huawei - they have had an app store (App Gallery - which ships with every Huawei device as well - and which you can download using an APK as well). However, it has not gained much traction - the only reason I mention it is that it MAY become interesting in the future, since Huawei (for strategic/survival reasons) may have to invest in their app store at much higher levels now - in order to prepare for a future where they are totally excluded from the U.S. market, and cannot ship their devices with Google suite of apps (including Google Play Store). Given Huawei is a multi-billion dollar company with big ambitions - their whole company future is dependent on this one thing - and so it makes sense that among all the app store contestants, if there is one which will have added impetus behind it, it will be a Huawei App Store (App Gallery). However, their execution thus far has not been exceptional - App Gallery is still anemic in terms of revenue according to some anecdotal reports by developers on androiddev sub-reddit. However that could change in the future, if Huawei's App Gallery implements even more developer friendly processes (for signup, and for in-app purchasing etc.).
iOS developer's response:
Thank you very much for the detailed reply! I guess I would choose not to create a new identity and just publish outside the app store. Google's ability to track someone feels like more than what I could handle. Hopefully some kind of government regulation or third party competition would appear to knock some sense into Google in the near future. All the best to you and thanks again for your help!
Asked for permission to use his quotes:
Sure, no problem. Feel free to quote/rephrase it any way you like. It would definitely be a great help to others who are worried about the issue.
FAQ - App Bans and Account Bans
When does a lifetime account ban occur ? A Google Play account ban can occur due to an "associated account ban" - when Google thinks you are associated with someone else, and that someone else was awarded a lifetime account ban. That person's ban percolates to his associated accounts - i.e. you. Thus if you become lifetime account banned by Google - you become a threat to your acquaintances, and to your company (and should not be put in charge of their Google Play account once you are lifetime account banned). If you are not associated with anyone by Google - then your lifetime account ban will occur usually due to an accumulation of app bans. A Google Play developer account ban IS a lifetime ban.
How many app bans are required to achieve a lifetime account ban ? The conventional wisdom some time ago was that 3 app bans were usually what triggered a lifetime account ban. But from anecdotal evidence from developers on androiddev, we now know:
a lifetime account ban can occur with just a single app ban (usually when you only have 1 app published)
a lifetime account ban can occur with your first Alpha app (one dev published his first app as an Alpha app - which Google considers as a published app - this app was banned for some reason - which triggered his lifetime account ban)
sometimes a lifetime account ban does not occur even after 3 app bans (happens if you have many apps - and some of them are seen by Google as high quality apps ?)
sometimes a lifetime account ban can occur as "one event" - these are based on a cascade of app bans (which happen in quick succession - usually because they all violate some recently introduced rule by Google) - this triggers an immediate lifetime account ban. As far as the developer is concerned, the series of events happens so fast that they seem to occur as one event (and there is no chance for them to stave off this attack).
Other observations about app bans and account bans
just as an app ban means a developer cannot get access to the information about his app (Description and other info he previously entered is now not visible to him), similarly if you are lifetime account banned, you lose access to the account information (which you may now need to mount a defence against Google's action).
app bans usually lack enough context for a developer to understand what caused them (this is an often cited observation by devs) - only in the simplest of cases is it clear what the cause was (in such cases Google DOES provlde a screenshot sometimes with the e-mail that makes clear (for example a button that takes user to your Google Play app page is not labelled). However, they will not tell you what to do to fix it - for this particular case, you need to add text "My Apps" or "Our Apps" to the button. So even in the cases where Google does give feedback about an app ban, it is so terse as to be more confusing than informative. Sometimes the app can be banned, but is then reinstated after the story goes viral (but not before) - in the case of FX File Explorer the app was reinstated without change: FX File Explorer removed from the Play Store for “deceptively” advertising…a free theme
an app ban is labelled as "Suspended" in your Google Developer Console listing for your app. Sometimes an app can be labelled "Update Suspended" - this means you still have time to fix the problem and upload another APK. However, the amount of time you have to fix this is indeterminate and unspecified - the app could transition from "Update Suspended" to "Suspended" at any time without further notice (i.e. permanent app ban).
if an app has been labelled "Removed" it means it is not available to users now. However, it's removal is NOT affecting the standing of your account (i.e. it is not an app ban, and not contributing towards an account ban). However, I am not sure what happens if too many of your apps are "Removed" - does it lower your resistance to an account ban i.e. you become like the vulnerable single app developers mentioned above - vulnerable to an account ban because of a single further app ban ?
sometimes an app ban can be reversed - we posted on reddit, and also appealed to the e-mail address in the e-mail we got for the app ban. The app moved from "Suspended" (app ban) to "Removed" (i.e. not affecting account standing).
sometimes a lifetime account ban can be reversed - usually after you have posted on medium dot com, and the blog post goes viral. Sometimes the accounts are reinstated after a few days, sometimes weeks, and in one known case after a year!
lifetime account bans generally DO NOT lead to a ban on your Google account (i.e. will not affect your Google Photos etc.) - however, there have been cases with YouTube account bans which DID affect ALL the Google account content (including Google Photos):
Can a developer remove an app if he fears it's future ban may imperil his account ? (similarities to slave labor) Google does not provide a way for an app developer to remove his app from Google Play. A dev can only delete his app from Google Play IF it has been downloaded by zero users. A dev CAN "unpublish" his app (from Pricing & Distribution section), however the app remains visible to existing users, and users who have paid for the app. However apps you "unpublish" remain liable to app ban - for example an app that is no longer being updated by a developer can fall out of compliance with new rules which Google introduces each year (for example Google no longer honors it's "old apps will always work on newer android versions" compact - every year now apps have to comply with new targetSdkVersion requirements - which means older apps will break and eventually fall out of compliance at a steady pace). Devs do occasionally neglect their apps (they may be a hobbyist, a scientists, or simply is swamped by new projects, or the old app may no longer be profitable for them to maintain). However such developers may find that Google is forcing them to update their apps which they have no incentive to update any more. Google uses the threat of a lifetime account ban to COMPEL these developers to keep updating their apps (even when devs want not to do so). This is a type of compulsion - reminiscent of slave labor - where work is demanded without promise of compensation, or advantage to the worker. Essentially a developer once published on Google Play, faces the prospect of lifetime obligation to Google. This is odd, given that Google has in the past portrayed itself as an intermediary between the developer and the user, and not as the actual seller of the app - if so it seems odd that Google feels responsible for enforcing a relationship between developer and user. Perhaps Google now does act as actual selleprovider of apps - given that it now also collects taxes directly for more territories (?)
Recently there was a comment by a Googler (which was also carried by androidpolice) that unpublishing an app will not expose an app to app ban, but that such apps will eventually be "Removed" (as in our app above - see second link at top - ie Removed apps don't put account standing at risk). The androidpolice artice was based on the comment, while the Google commenter was himself at odds with Google docs and said he will get back with others at Google about the discrepancy:
What is an "associated account ban" ? Google's practice of lifetime bans for android developers - bans which percolate from acquaintance to acquaintance. In all likelihood a wife would face an immediate ban if her husband has already been banned - this association would survive divorce:
An lifetime account ban thus risks making a pariah out of a dev as any potential employer may fear tainting their company account and the accompanying hassle if they hire a tainted developer. Thus the early crimes of a dev could become a lifelong "Scarlet Letter".
Why is the Google appeal process flawed ? Android developers, once banned, are banned for life - and the only reliable way to get account reinstated is for developer to blog post on medium dot com and achieve virality. Then somehow Google is convinced that the developer's issue has been vetted (for free by the public!) and often restores the account. Even for restored accounts, developers often report that they never found out what led to the account ban in the first place. Essentially no human at Google can countermand a Google bot's decision - probably because it is a neural net or uses fuzzy rules to decide - which means it is not explainable in human terms. Google also uses secrecy argument - they need secrecy about why they did something to avoid being "gamed" - i.e. they are afraid their automated processes, once known would be easily exploited - as a loophole in an automated system could be used repeatedly, possibly without detection by Google. Google uses this secrecy argument for Adsense and it's other services as well - where Google partners can be banned without them knowing exactly why that happened. This developer has created a whole website to document the misbehavior of Google regarding his AdSense account:
Can a lifetime account ban (developer) lead to a GENERAL Google account ban (Google Photos etc.) ? Lifetime account bans generally DO NOT lead to a ban on your Google account (i.e. will not affect your Google Photos etc.) - however, there have been cases with YouTube account bans which DID affect ALL the Google account content (including Google Photos):
Threats to hobbyist devs and open source developers Right now the old advice to new devs to publish early with their test apps, and to do it with abandon is totally the wrong advice now. Generations of android tutorials are hopelessly out of tune with that old advice. The current conventional wisdom is to publish carefully, and sparingly with apps which can be supported by the new dev. If dev cannot commit to that, they should not post their hobbyists apps to Google Play. This is sound advice to the new hobbyist dev, and to the budding independent dev - if they value their lifetime cred with Google. It may surprise you but now even open source app developers are under threat - the other developers who copy and publish with their code are rendering the original app under threat.
For a while now, we have been hearing quite a lot of definitions for cryptocurrency. Well, let’s take the simplest cryptocurrency definition: Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency/assets that also works as a medium of exchange. Cryptocurrency grasps or uses cryptography and blockchain to secure any form of transaction. The grasps of blockchain makes cryptocurrency decentralized and transparent. No one needs permission from any higher authority to own crypt currencies or cripto coins. If you want hold some coins, then all you need is to get a wallet to store your coins. Holding crypto is very simple and easy because you have power to make transactions at anytime.
HISTORY OF CRYPTOCURRENCY
The very first crypto currency to be launched was Bitcoin the mighty of all cryptos, of course, it is the reason why bitcoin rings in most peoples mind when they hear Crypto-currencies.Bitcoin was invented by an unknown programmer called Satoshi Nakamoto, claimed to be born on April 5 1975 and from Japan. His motive was to create a Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System which many people tried creating a while back. But his invention resulted in creating bitcoin.
IS CRYPTOCURRENCY LEGAL?
Well, in most countries cryptocurrencies are legally operating, but there is no law stating that holding or trading bitcoin or any other cryptocurrencies is illegal. Countries like United States, Canada, UK and others accept the use of cryptocurrencies whiles other countries like Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc do not allow cryptocurrencies to function. For those countries that crypto currencies are allowed to regulate, users can use them as another payment method.
To everyone rushing back into BTC from altcoins: What matters is that you learn why Bitcoin needs to be conservative in its development.
Over the past year, the prevailing thought among many in the cryptocurrency communities is that bitcoin is not keeping up with other coins. That somehow bitcoin was being intentionally crippled, or that the developers did not know what they were doing. As we are seeing with the bitcoin dominance going up, that prevailing thought was wrong. The coins who were supposedly going to kill bitcoin have been all but abandoned in many cases. Many others are in the process of dying a slow death (which may take years to fully play out). To everyone who went heavy on these coins and sold all of their bitcoin, but are now coming back: Welcome back. We are glad to have you. But before you pretend like everything is great with bitcoin again, it's important to realize why you were wrong. But first let's go back a few years. In 2015, I was a staunch big blocker. I want to share a post made during this time that I initially downvoted. (The reason I know this is because after a certain number of months/years, reddit does not let you change whether you upvoted/downvoted something). I downvoted it because it went against my biases which had already been built up around the scaling decision, and later I came back to this post after being referred to it again. The 2015 version of me had only been in Bitcoin for 2 years, and was disillusioned with what I thought bitcoin was. And not what it actually was, or what its limitations were. The 2018 me now realizes why I was wrong, but back then I spent far too much time thinking I had it all figured out. The post that I downvoted, is as relevant today as it ever was: A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages or otherwise the rocket equation will eat your lunch... packing everyone in clown-car style into a trebuchet and hoping for success is right out.
A lot of people on Reddit think of Bitcoin primarily as a competitor to card payment networks. I think this is more than a little odd-- Bitcoin is a digital currency. Visa and the US dollar are not usually considered competitors, Mastercard and gold coins are not usually considered competitors. Bitcoin isn't a front end for something that provides credit, etc. Never the less, some are mostly interested in Bitcoin for payments (not a new phenomenon)-- and are not so concerned about what are, in my view, Bitcoin's primary distinguishing values-- monetary sovereignty, censorship resistance, trust cost minimization, international accessibility/borderless operation, etc. (Or other areas we need to improve, like personal and commercial privacy) Instead some are very concerned about Bitcoin's competitive properties compared to legacy payment networks. ... And although consumer payments are only one small part of whole global space of money, ... money gains value from network effects, and so I would want all the "payments only" fans to love Bitcoin too, even if I didn't care about payments. But what does it mean to be seriously competitive in that space? The existing payments solutions have huge deployed infrastructure and merchant adoption-- lets ignore that. What about capacity? Combined the major card networks are now doing something on the other of 5000 transactions per second on a year round average; and likely something on the order of 120,000 transactions per second on peak days. The decentralized Bitcoin blockchain is globally shared broadcast medium-- probably the most insanely inefficient mode of communication ever devised by man. Yet, considering that, it has some impressive capacity. But relative to highly efficient non-decentralized networks, not so much. The issue is that in the basic Bitcoin system every node takes on the whole load of the system, that is how it achieves its monetary sovereignty, censorship resistance, trust cost minimization, etc. Adding nodes increases costs, but not capacity. Even the most reckless hopeful blocksize growth numbers don't come anywhere close to matching those TPS figures. And even if they did, card processing rates are rapidly increasing, especially as the developing world is brought into them-- a few more years of growth would have their traffic levels vastly beyond the Bitcoin figures again. No amount of spin, inaccurately comparing a global broadcast consensus system to loading a webpage changes any of this. So-- Does that mean that Bitcoin can't be a big winner as a payments technology? No. But to reach the kind of capacity required to serve the payments needs of the world we must work more intelligently. From its very beginning Bitcoin was design to incorporate layers in secure ways through its smart contracting capability (What, do you think that was just put there so people could wax-philosophic about meaningless "DAOs"?). In effect we will use the Bitcoin system as a highly accessible and perfectly trustworthy robotic judge and conduct most of our business outside of the court room-- but transact in such a way that if something goes wrong we have all the evidence and established agreements so we can be confident that the robotic court will make it right. (Geek sidebar: If this seems impossible, go read this old post on transaction cut-through) This is possible precisely because of the core properties of Bitcoin. A censorable or reversible base system is not very suitable to build powerful upper layer transaction processing on top of... and if the underlying asset isn't sound, there is little point in transacting with it at all. The science around Bitcoin is new and we don't know exactly where the breaking points are-- I hope we never discover them for sure-- we do know that at the current load levels the decentralization of the system has not improved as the users base has grown (and appear to have reduced substantially: even businesses are largely relying on third party processing for all their transactions; something we didn't expect early on). There are many ways of layering Bitcoin, with varying levels of security, ease of implementation, capacity, etc. Ranging from the strongest-- bidirectional payment channels (often discussed as the 'lightning' system), which provide nearly equal security and anti-censorship while also adding instantaneous payments and improved privacy-- to the simplest, using centralized payment processors, which I believe are (in spite of my reflexive distaste for all things centralized) a perfectly reasonable thing to do for low value transactions, and can be highly cost efficient. Many of these approaches are competing with each other, and from that we gain a vibrant ecosystem with the strongest features. Growing by layers is the gold standard for technological innovation. It's how we build our understanding of mathematics and the physical sciences, it's how we build our communications protocols and networks... Not to mention payment networks. Thus far a multi-staged approach has been an integral part of the design of rockets which have, from time to time, brought mankind to the moon. Bitcoin does many unprecedented things, but this doesn't release it from physical reality or from the existence of engineering trade-offs. It is not acceptable, in the mad dash to fulfill a particular application set, to turn our backs on the fundamentals that make the Bitcoin currency valuable to begin with-- especially not when established forms in engineering already tell us the path to have our cake and eat it too-- harmoniously satisfying all the demands. Before and beyond the layers, there are other things being done to improve capacity-- e.g. Bitcoin Core's capacity plan from December (see also: the FAQ) proposes some new improvements and inventions to nearly double the system's capacity while offsetting many of the costs and risks, in a fully backwards compatible way. ... but, at least for those who are focused on payments, no amount of simple changes really makes a difference; not in the way layered engineering does.
by nullc (Mr. Gregory Maxwell) submitted to the bitcoin subreddit If you're made it this far and want to read more, or perhaps from a different perspective, here is another article which influenced me more recently by Melik Manukyan Lightning Network enables Unicast Transactions in Bitcoin. Lightning is Bitcoin’s TCP/IP stack.
It has recently come to my attention that there is a great deal of confusion revolving around the Lightning Network within the Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash communities, and to an extent, the greater cryptocurrency ecosystem. I’d like to share with you my thoughts on Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Lightning from a strictly networking background. To better understand how blockchain and the lightning network work, we should take a step back from the rage-infused battlegrounds of Twitter and Reddit (no good comes from this 😛) and review the very network protocols and systems that power our Internet. I believe that there is a great wealth of knowledge to be gained in understanding how computer networks and the Internet work that can be applied to Bitcoin’s own scaling constraints. The three protocols I will be primarily focusing on in this article are Ethernet, IP, and TCP. By understanding how these protocols work, I feel that we will all be better equipped to answer the great ‘scaling’ question for Bitcoin and all blockchains alike. With that said, let’s get started. In computer networking, the two most common forms of data transmission today are broadcast and unicast. There are many other forms such as anycast and multicast, but we won’t touch up on them in this article. Let’s first start by defining and understanding these data transmission forms. Broadcast — a data transmission type where information is sent from one point on a network to all other points; one-to-all. Diagram: Broadcast Data Transmission https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*xbgXKepaeHZRqmHWsCb_qw.png Unicast — a data transmission type where information is sent from one point on a network to another point; one-to-one. Diagram: Unicast Data Transmission https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*i18TOm6hT_h7UQ8cnt8U_Q.png Based on our understanding of these types of data transmission forms, we very quickly discover that blockchain transactions resemble Broadcast-like forms of communication. When a transaction is made on the Bitcoin network, the transaction is communicated or broadcasted to all connected nodes on the network. In other words, for a transaction to exist or happen in Bitcoin, all nodes must receive and record this transaction. Transactions on blockchains work very similarly to how legacy, ethernet hubs handled data transmissions. A long time ago, we relied on ethernet hubs to transfer data between computers. Evidently, we discovered that they simply did not scale due to their limited nature. Old ethernet hubs strictly supported broadcast transmissions, data that would come in through one interface or port would need to be broadcasted and replicated out through all other interfaces or ports on the network. To help you visualize this, if you wanted to send me a 1MB image file over a network with 100 participants, that 1MB image file would, in turn, need to be replicated 99 times and broadcasted out to all other users on the network. In Bitcoin, we see very similar behavior, data (a transaction or block) that comes from one node is broadcasted and replicated to all other nodes on the network. Blockchains similarly to old, legacy ethernet hubs are simply poor mediums to perform data transmission and communicate over. It is simply unrealistic to me as a network engineer to even consider scaling a global payment network such as Bitcoin via Broadcast-based on-chain transactions. Even to this very day, us network engineers take great care and caution in spanning our Ethernet and LAN networks, let alone on a global level. To put it into perspective, if we were to redesign the Internet by strictly relying on broadcast data transmissions as exhibited in blockchains and ethernet hubs — we would have effectively put every single person, host, and device in the entire world on the same LAN segment or broadcast domain. The Internet would have been a giant, flat LAN network where all communication would need to be replicated and broadcasted to every single device. In you opening up to read this article, every other device on the Internet would have been forced to download this article. In other words, the internet would come to a screeching halt. In computer networks, the most frequent form of communication relies on unicast data transmissions, or point-to-point. Most of the communication on the internet is routed from one computer to another, we no longer need to rely on blind broadcast transmissions of data with the hopes that our recipient will receive it or see it. We are able to accurately send, route and deliver our messages to our receiving party(ies). We learned that the transfer of a 1MB image file in a broadcast network would require the file to be replicated and broadcasted to every participant on that network. Instead, in a network that supports unicast data transmissions, we are able to appropriately route that image file from source to destination in a clearcut manner. To me, the Lightning Network is the IP layer of Bitcoin. (I understand that these data transmission forms exist in both Ethernet and IP.) But, I do feel that these analogies help us to better understand these complex and largely abstract ideas: blockchain, lightning, channels, etc. Let’s take a moment and ignore all explanations and overly simplistic definitions of Lightning that are perpetuated from both sides of the debate for a moment. Instead, lets objectively take a close look at Lightning and determine what we know. What do we know about lightning? It allows us to lock our Bitcoin and form channels with others. What else do we know? We can bidirectionally send and receive transactions between the two points that constitute the channel. What else do we know? We can further route transactions to their correct destination. Based on these key understanding points, we are able to see that lightning enables unicast transactions in a system [Bitcoin] that previously only supported broadcast transactions. To me, Lightning nodes in Bitcoin are the equivalent of IP hosts — where we can finally conduct or route one-to-one or point-to-point transactions to their appropriate recipients. In traditional IP, we send and receive data packets; in Lightning, we send and receive Bitcoin. IP is what allowed us to scale our small and largely primitive networks of the past into the global giant that it is today, the Internet. In a similar manner, Lightning is what will allow us to scale our global Bitcoin network. Where Lightning Nodes can be seen as IP hosts, I view Lightning Channels as established TCP connections. On the Internet today, when we try to connect to a website for example, we open a TCP connection to a web server through which we can then download the website’s HTML source code from. Alternatively, when we download a torrent file, we are opening TCP connections to other computers on the Internet which we then use to facilitate the transfer of the torrent data. And in Lightning, we establish channels with our respective parties and are able to directly [point-to-point] send and receive data (transactions) similarly to TCP. Where Blockchain is similar to Ethernet, Lightning Nodes are our IPs and Lightning Channels our TCP connections. To conclude, I see many similarities to our pre-existing network technologies and protocols that power our computer network(s) and I feel that we are redesigning the Internet. From a technical point of view, I don’t believe that scaling Bitcoin on-chain will ever work and fear broadcast storm-like events in the future. I welcome our new unicast transaction methods enabled by the Lightning Network. Even more so, I am excited for the ‘web’ moment in Bitcoin. While everyone has their eyes fixed on blockchain technology, I look towards Lightning. Lightning is the TCP/IP stack of Bitcoin. Lightning is where we will transact on. Lightning is where everything will be built on. Lightning is what will power and enable our applications and additional protocols and layers. With this said, what is to become of the main Bitcoin blockchain? It will and should remain a decentralized, tamper-proof, immutable base or foundation layer which will provide us with cryptographic evidence of what is a Bitcoin. Some individuals and groups within our communities and ranks spread fear and warn us of false narratives of “lightning hubs”, but fail to grasp that their scaling approach of on-chain transactions only pushes us in the direction of an actual (ethernet) hub design. If Bitcoin loses decentralization on its base layer, then we will lose Bitcoin. The past 9 years of work will have only resulted in a large, centralized broadcast hub with only a few remaining with the ability to operate such a monstrosity. I wrote this article with hopes that it will help clear up the ongoing confusion about Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Lightning. It is designed to help better explain Blockchain and Lightning through analogies to concepts that we may be more familiar with. I also wrote this very quickly and it may contain typos. If you notice any typos, please bring it to my attention.
The purpose of this post is to provide crypto-currency investors and traders with a basic understanding of the laws and prinipals regarding tax treatment for crypto-currency in Australia (including but no limited to Bitcoin) as it applies to individuals, not businesses. At this point in time, this post does not attempt to explain tax treatment for businesses, or when trading in bitcoin is and is not classified as a business. This post is a work in progress and will be updated and improved on an ongoing basis. The Author(s) of this post are not tax accountants. Any advice given and/or any facts presented are based solely on our personal understanding of the rules and determinations made by the ATO and do not constitute financial advice. Please feel free to message any of the moderator team should you wish to dispute any of the facts or wording listed here. Please also feel free to offer suggestions and/or improvements that can be made in the comment section. When in doubt, you should always seek professional advice from a tax accountant.
Captial Gains Tax
First and foremost, lets look at this exerpt from the ATO brief titled "Tax treatment of crypto-currencies in Australia" 
Transacting with bitcoin is akin to a barter arrangement, with similar tax consequences. Our view is that bitcoin is neither money nor a foreign currency, and the supply of bitcoin is not a financial supply for goods and services tax (GST) purposes. Bitcoin is, however, an asset for capital gains tax (CGT) purposes.
So this tells us two things. 1) Crypto-currencies are treated as assets for captial gains tax (CGT) purposes. 2) Crypto-currency trasnactions are treated as barter arrangements, with similar tax consequences. Calculating capital gains tax (CGT) for your investments may sound daunting, but it is really very easy. If you sell a capital asset, such as real estate or shares (or in our case, crypto-currencies), you usually make a capital gain or a capital loss. This is the difference between what it cost you to acquire the asset and what you receive when you dispose of it. You need to report capital gains and losses in your income tax return and pay tax on your capital gains. Although it's referred to as capital gains tax (CGT), this is actually part of your income tax, not a separate tax. This means that the amount of CGT you pay will depend on your own marginal tax rate. When you sell or otherwise dispose of an asset, it's called a capital gains tax (CGT) event. This is the point at which you make a capital gain or loss. Lets work through an example; Alice purchased 1BTC at a price of $6000 AUD per BTC in Janurary of 2016. Over the ourse of the year, the price of Bitcoin increased to $10000 AUD. Alice then sold 0.5BTC in December 2017 at a price of $10000 per BTC. Therefore the total amount gained from the sale was $5000. It is at this point in time that a CGT event is generated. Alice must now calucalte the profit for this CGT event so that she may declare it on her 2017/2018 tax return (As this is financial year that the CGT event occured). The first step is to calculate the cost base for the 0.5BTC that was sold. In our example this is easy, Alice originally paid $6000 for 1BTC, which gives us a cost base of $3000 for 0.5BTC. The amount Alice received from sale of the 0.5BTC was $5000, so she subtracts the cost base from the sale price ($5000 - $3000) which leaves her with $2000 profit. This is the amount that Alice will record on her 2017/2018 tax return as a Capital Gain.
There are a number of other considerations to make when calculating profit for a CGT event.
The ATO offer individuals a 50% discount on capital gains when the disposed asset has been held for a period of time that exceeds 12 months. The way to make this calculation is as follows; Subtract the cost base from the capital proceeds, deduct any capital losses, then reduce by the relevant discount percentage. (50% for individuals). So in our above example, Alice will only be taxed on a $1000 capital gain had she held the Bitcoin for > 12 months. . Alice would still need to declare the full capital gain on her tax return, but she would select the 'discount' method when performing the calculation. .
Any incidental costs associated with purchasing, holding, moving, and/or disposing of an asset may also be deducted from the capital proceeds prior to calculating the capital gain. The ATO provide the following example  The following example (with values inserted) illustrates how to calculate a capital gain: Capital proceeds (sale price) $10,210 Less Cost base:
Purchase price $6,000
Incidental costs of purchase (Brokerage fee and GST) $100
Incidental costs of sale (Brokerage fees and GST) $110 $6,210
Capital gain $4,000 Further details for calculating the cost base, and reduced cost base of an asset can be found here.
Any capital losses may be carried forward from previous tax years and used to offset capital gains (if any) in the current tax year. 
It's important to note that losses are applied to any gains before applying the CGT discount. So if you have a carried forward loss of $1,000 and make a gain eligible for the discount of $2,000, your net gain is ($2,000 - $1,000) * 50% = $500.
Bitcoin as a personal use asset
Where you use bitcoin to purchase goods or services for personal use or consumption, any capital gain or loss from disposal of the bitcoin will be disregarded (as a personal use asset) provided the cost of the bitcoin is $10,000 or less.  Personal use assets are CGT assets, other than collectables, used or kept mainly for the personal use or enjoyment of you or your associates.  Personal use assets include:
Bitcoin that is kept or used mainly to make purchases of items for personal use or consumption ordinarily will be kept or used mainly for personal use. Bitcoin that is kept or used mainly for the purpose of profit-making or investment, or to facilitate purchases or sales in the course of carrying on business is not used or kept mainly for personal use.  The ATO have released a Ruling Compendium to accompany TD2014/25EC. One section of this compendium provides clarification on when bitcoin will be a personal use asset. (Item 10) Item 10 section 1 states the following: A taxpayer who purchases bitcoin with the intention of holding onto them for a number of years so that they appreciate in value and the profit can be spent in their retirement, is using the bitcoin for investment or profit making purposes and the bitcoin is not a personal use asset. Further, Item 11 section 3 states the following: All of the facts and circumstances regarding the acquisition, use and disposal of the bitcoin are relevant to determining whether the bitcoin are a personal use asset. I urge everyone to read the Compendium, specifically items 10 and 11. These clarifications mean that bitcoin cannot be disposed of as a 'personal use asset' if they were bought or held with the intention of making a profit.
Transacting with bitcoin is akin to a barter arrangement.  In its simplest form, bartering involves the direct exchange of goods or services for other goods or services without reference to money or a money value.  Early we discussed the fact that Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies are treated and assets, and not currencies. What this means is that whenever you acquire crypto-currency, you are acquiring an asset. This means that trading crypto pairs is essentially a barter arrangement involving the disposal of one asset and an acquisition of a different asset. By definition, this means that you generate a CGT event each and every time you trade a crypto pair. The ATO law regarding barter arrangements tells us that you must assign an AUD value to the disposed asset as well as the acquired asset at the time of the trade. You must then calculate your capital gain or loss using these values. As a general rule when valuing the consideration arising from barter or countertrade transactions, the ATO will accept a fair market value as adequately reflecting the money value or arm's length value, as applicable. In most cases, the ATO will accept as a fair market value, the cash price which the taxpayer would normally have charged a stranger for the services or for the sale of the goods or property. 
Happy Halloween! Audit Statuses of Canadian Cryptocurrency Exchanges
Halloween is a wonderful time of year! Businesses and consumers alike dress up, children go door to door naively asking strangers for candy, and everyone parties celebrating things like death and evil. In the spirit of Halloween storytelling, let me tell you a scary story. There once was a Canadian cryptocurrency exchange. It had one of the simplest user interfaces, the CEO was well known in person and trusted throughout the country for over half a decade, and it had several deposit and withdrawal methods. It was the first to register as a money services business and for much of its history, it was one of the most legally compliant exchanges. It even looked to be headed for public listing on the TSX. The exchange operated for 6 years, assuring users that all funds “are stored in cold storage, using some of the most secure cryptographic procedures possible.” Unfortunately, while we celebrate Halloween by dressing up and wearing masks once a year, the wonderful people who brought us this exchange played “dress up” for over half a decade and time will only tell if there are any more “masks” to come off in this story. There’s no better or more fitting time to explore one of the darkest realities of the Canadian cryptocurrency space - exactly what is backing any of the cryptocurrency on Canadian exchanges. It’s easy to lose sight that there are real people behind these funds. Most people spend most waking hours working for their money. It literally is their lives. Impacts to victims are not just financial, but psychological and social as well. Victims of exchange fraud go through depression, anxiety, and trauma. They lose their trust and faith in humanity. They withdraw from friends and family in shame and humility. In the spirit of exploring dark and evil things, let’s examine exactly what evidence there is that any of your crypto is backed on any Canadian exchange. This is a continuation of research I’ve been working on since May/June. I hope it will be enlightening and help you better protect your funds that you worked hard for. I’ve done a detailed analysis of all Canadian exchanges I could find that handle any sort of custody of funds, and grouped them into 3 categories:
Not Audited. The only assurance I was able to find that any crypto on the exchange is backed are their words. I was unable to locate any public audit or report of an audit.
Audited. This means that at some point in the past, the exchange invited someone with a reasonable level of credibility, who they showed the wallets to. This person/group, at that point, was sufficiently convinced that funds were actually held by the exchange.
Proof of Reserves. An advanced real time public audit algorithm. It shows that funds exist right on the blockchain, validates access to those funds, and uses a hash tree to enable any customer to verify that their balance is included in the total.
Non-Audited Exchanges (“trust us, we haven't spent your money, we promise")
Bitvo - The service “utilizes a proprietary cold storage solution”. Proprietary, as in, definitely better than established non-proprietary solutions. If you can’t withdraw, they “will credit your account for [their] withdrawal fee”. They’re not an MSB that I could find, nor are they audited. Coinfield - MSB. No audit. Luckily it’s the "most secure trading platform in Canada" - though apparently not the other 150+ countries, including Estonia where they’re based. No matter which country you pick, the “Security” page still says "most secure trading platform in Canada". Coinsmart - MSB. Not sure what "[i]ndustry leading cold storage" is, but luckily they’re so "accountable to [their] clients, community and to each other" and "committed to being open and honest" that they don’t need any audit. Coinut - MSB. Also "the most secure cryptocurrency exchange platform". In addition to not using multi-sig and "not us[ing] USB drives, as the online computer may be infected with virus", they also don’t use audits. Einstein - You can get “your money deposited and withdrawn faster than any other exchange”. As one customer said "With so many hacks and exit scams, it gives me confidence knowing Einstein is backed by hard-working people just like me." Just check the user experience on their subreddit from their "220,000+ satisfied customers". EZ-BTC - As they said, “All your coins are kept in cold storage. They’re safe.” They have “strong security”. The supposed presence of physical ATMs was one of the strategies to build customer confidence and they promised 9% annual return on stored funds. NDAX - MSB. Luckily also “Canada’s most secure trading platform” with "fast withdrawals". I couldn’t find any audit but at least there’s a full page risk disclosure and disclaimer. You can sleep peacefully knowing that they’re legally protected. Netcoins - MSB. The best assurance I could find of solvency is that they “can process large transactions”. Although they don’t waste time with audits or links at the bottom of their website, apparently “[a]ll transactions happen quickly and securely” “within the same day”. Newton - MSB. “No-fees”! Your funds are stored in the "professional custody" of Balance, which doesn’t appear to be a registered MSB. I couldn't find any audit of the funds but they "audit [their] policies and controls". They "publish the reports", but I couldn't find any reports. Simply storing funds somewhere else doesn’t give any assurance they cover customer balances. QuadrigaCX - Operated since 2013, with “vast cryptocurrency reserves” right up to the end. "Bitcoins that are funded in QuadrigaCX are stored in cold storage, using some of the most secure cryptographic procedures possible." Their "cryptographic" procedures are so secure that nobody can access any funds, even now! Shakepay - MSB. Many will trust the raccoon mascot promising “commission-free” trading. No audit found but the “majority of all digital assets on Shakepay are stored securely offline”. Whatever this means, it’s good to know that up to half might not be.
Audited Exchanges ("so and so swears we didn't spend your money, you can trust them, we showed them once before")
Overall assessment: Bitbuy has a long history of buying/selling bitcoin without custody, and is likely too new to offering custody to have been hacked yet. The fact they have taken proactive steps shows promise.
According to the site, they "undergo annual 3rd party financial statement audits", but don’t mention by whom. According to “Newswire”, it’s a firm called MNP LLP.
I was unable to find any published report on the audit, which was completed prior to January 17th, 2019.
Overall assessment: It’s hard not to be a fan of Medium articles describing proactive steps that a company is taking, however without an actual report it can be difficult to assess the integrity of the reserves.
No audit is mentioned on their website, however multiple news sources report that one occurred. According to TechVibes, the audit was completed "by a national accounting firm whose identity is protected under an NDA", which is the best I was able to ascertain from several news sources.
A report about the audit was found as early as September 27th, 2018. TechVibes indicates "the audit covered the operational years of 2015, 2016 and 2017 for Coinsquare, and concluded an “unmodified opinion,” which means the financial statements from those years are “free from material misinformation.”" Other articles had even less information, and I was unable to find any published report.
Overall assessment: The fact that an audit was completed is a great step in the right direction, however the fact the firm is undisclosed by NDA, the audit is completely unmentioned on their website, and minimal details are available should be concerning. It also may be concerning that they claim to be "[t]he most secure trading platform" and also "100% proprietary". This would imply the team at Coinsquare is smarter than established security standards by experts all around the world at protecting your funds, contradicting recently reported incidents.
Kraken - Not a registered MSB in Canada (that I could find)
“So and so” is Stephan Thomas, CTO of Ripple.
The page literally says the audit was done "over the past several weeks", and since the page doesn’t have any date you might assume it’s recent. But look closely at the screenshot and you’ll see a date in 2014! Yes, that’s 5 years ago!
Overall assessment: While it certainly feels good to know an audit was done, the opinion of one individual from 5 years ago doesn’t say much about the state of anything today and they openly admit all kinds of limitations.
Proof of Reserves ("here's your money, right here right now on the blockchain, and here's a proof that we included your balance in that total")
Rather than depend on outdated audits (or lack thereof), it’s actually possible to use the blockchain and cryptography to enable a public real-time audit. This can give assurance to every customer that their balances are fully backed. Giving everyone the ability to check the integrity of balances will keep us all safer. It immediately exposes any fraud, and in most major hacking cases there was advanced hacking that went unnoticed ranging from months (Bitgrail), or years (Mt. Gox). Having an aware public reduces the number of people trading on fraudulent exchanges, and can pressure the exchange to shut down trading or resolve the hack faster, so less funds are permanently lost. To help explain exactly what this is and how it works, I’ve started a detailed tutorial. I did not come up with this algorithm - it was created in 2014 by a guy named Gregory Maxwell. Sometimes cryptography can be hard to understand. Hopefully this tutorial is simple:
Given what can often be at stake, I had hoped that maybe one of the “audited” exchanges might embrace Proof of Reserves. Sadly I haven’t had any such luck. Bitbuy:
Actually they reached out to me in response to one of my posts on Reddit July 14th, asking for detailed feedback on their services.
I provided an extensive summary of my research (I’d just put together descriptions of every exchange for a business plan.)
As of today, that response, which included Proof of Reserves among a multitude of other suggestions, is still unanswered.
On the 4th of July I actually got a response from them to a casual mention where I was recommending their exchange (based on the Medium articles).
Their response, which didn’t address the Proof of Reserves, included the statement “All coins on our platform are 100% secured offline in cold storage“. On their site, Coinberry shows 15 minute withdrawal times in one of the screenshots. Perhaps they have a team standing around “offline” and ready to service withdrawals 24/7.
My subsequent response to them was not answered.
On their website they expressly give reasons why they don’t want "public knowledge of exchanges’ or wallet providers’ bitcoin wallets and total holdings".
They claim it has an effect on security, however public keys do not enable any access to funds - only private keys can. One would hope that their security of funds doesn’t depend on not knowing which wallets they own, since the blockchain is pretty public.
They also claim an effect on user privacy, which is important. Nobody should have any illusion that transactions to or from an exchange are secret in any way. I would highly recommend using privacy coins and setting up new wallets regularly, given that transactions are completely public on the blockchain already.
I was unable to get any clarification, either in live chat or multiple Reddit posts. Understandable, given the size of their operation.
Given that this was their stance after Mt. Gox, it seems unlikely to change based on recent events half a decade later affecting a much smaller exchange.
As such, the bottom line is that present exchanges don’t want to share public keys and offer the kind of transparency which is necessary to enable customers to know their funds are backed. Attempting to get answers doesn’t reveal them, and I’m left with an unnerving silence not unlike the end of Halloween night, like I’m asking questions nobody should ask. Having spent the last 8 months of my life watching and being part of a large group of people suffer through a grueling bankruptcy, where we’ll be “lucky” to only lose 90% of our funds, I want this fixed. I don’t want to live in a reality where fraud can happen just buying/selling on the largest and most trusted exchanges. Especially now that I’ve learned blockchain provides the capability for even greater transparency and a level of public audit far beyond even what's possible with fiat. If you feel the same way, I invite you to join Quadriga Initiative, where we are fighting for a Proof of Reserves future and also enabling businesses to help Quadriga victims with an innovative token recovery project. Every sign-up helps us reach our goal and launch the project! If any information in this post is incorrect, please let me know so I can fix it! Thanks! I’m happy to update the audit status of any exchange given reasonable evidence, or provide a review of any other custodial exchange I might have missed.
If you still can’t figure out what the heck a bitcoin is, this simple explanation for a five-year-old may help you. Ganz einfach: Die Bitcoin-Kurse unterliegen regelmäßig zum Teil starken Schwankungen (derzeit bis zu 20 Prozent). Man könnte dadurch innerhalb kürzester Zeit unverhältnismäßige Verluste einfahren. Hinzu kommt die Tatsache, dass die Gesetzgeber Bitcoins in Zukunft vermutlich noch strenger überwachen werden in Bezug auf Geldwäsche. Ebenfalls kann es passieren, dass durch Viren oder ... Bitcoin is effectively a much-needed alternative for this potentially Orwellian future where governments are able to surveil all financial activity, tell people who they can and can’t transact with, and easily steal from individuals through bail-ins or the inflation tax. In summary, bitcoin is important because it creates an alternate financial system that will allow individuals to freely ... Un cryptomoney appelé bitcoin a été créé en 2009. Il s’agit de monnaie électronique (virtuelle) et non officielle qui peut être utilisée comme moyen d’échange dans les transactions commerciales. La création de bitcoin est attribuée à Satoshi Nakamoto, qui serait un Japonais. Cependant, il y a ceux qui pensent que Nakamoto-san n’existe pas vraiment, mais […] Putting it down in simple terms, the definition goes like this: bitcoin is a digital currency, existing only on internet. It can be considered as a file that is created and transferred around using computers, which are seen as bitcoin nodes. It is not governed by a single entity nor is an institution responsible for its value. It is completely decentralized asset that is moved by the market ...
What is The History of Bitcoin: Super Easy Explanation - https://blockgeeks.com/ We’ll start at the very beginning by understanding the history of blockchain... Bitcoin definition: 'BitcoinDecoded' is the Bitcoin beginner's guide to mining -- http://bitcoindecodedbook.com Bitcoin-economy business op: http://bitcoin-e... Learn about Bitcoin with the most watched Bitcoin video. More information: Start Guide - https://www.weusecoins.com Mining Guide - https://www.bitcoinmining.... Bitcoin für Anfänger einfach erklärt! [auf Deutsch] Bitcoin-Börse (erhalte 10€ in BTC) https://finanzfluss.de/go/bitcoin-boerse *📱 Sicheres Bitcoin-Wallet... Qu'est-ce que le bitcoin, pourquoi faut-il s'y intéresser ? 🤔 L'ACTUALITÉ, TOUS LES JOURS SUR INSTAGRAM : http://instagram.com/hugodecrypte/ L'ACTUALITÉ TOUS...