How Cryptocurrency Fits into the Currency War Signaled by Donald Trump?

The rising trade deficit and debt in the United States have created an apprehensive atmosphere in the currency markets. Donald Trump who has been a strong advocate of weakening the dollar in order to compete with other countries was evident in a tweet,
China and Europe playing big currency manipulation game and pumping money into their system in order to compete with USA. We should MATCH, or continue being the dummies who sit back and politely watch as other countries continue to play their games – as they have for many years
Currency War or manipulation is a methodology in which Central Banks or Federal reserves of a country buy or sells foreign currencies in order to regulate their economy. According to Trump, the strength of the dollar is causing the nation’s trade deficit to increase. Furthermore, the currency of a nation can also be simulated by increasing the inflation rate.
Max Keizer, a financial program broadcaster recently talked about the recent deal between Merill Lynch and the Department of Justice on Tuesday, 25th June 2019 to settle charges of misleading the gold markets. He told the media,
As we’ve covered for years now, the precious metals market is undeniably manipulated by the same people who are printing all the money because they don’t want gold to rise up and attract capital while they try to pump the fake money called the US dollar.
In another recent interview with Ran Neuner, reported on Coingape, Max Keizer also explained how Bitcoin is making had money fashionable again.
Andreas Antonopoulos, an educator, and author of four books on cryptocurrencies recently touched similar topics and explained how cryptocurrencies fit into the mix – like an outcast.  According to both Antonopoulos and Keizer, cryptocurrency is currently providing an exit from FIAT currencies.

The falling value of the yuan is a prominent example. The dollar also took a hit this morning due to the rate cut view. Hence, as Bitcoin and cryptocurrency continue to provide and exit from the federal currency it will be blamed for causing the currency war in the first place. Antonopoulos said that it will be expressed as if,
The reason the banks are failing and the reason the economy is on fire is that the exit was offered.
The US Government recently sent an open letter to Facebook to halt its development on the cryptocurrency project citing a similar reason that it will affect the Federal Reserves apart from other things. This is essential because the Libra Association has planed a token backed by a basked to currencies to reduce volatility and not the US Dollar.
Do you think that Central banks will rush to release their stablecoins in the current environment? Please share your views with us. 
The post How Cryptocurrency Fits into the Currency War Signaled by Donald Trump? appeared first on Coingape.
Source: CoinGape

Facebook’s Blockchain Head, David Marcus, Speaks Up on Libra Vs. Bitcoin [BTC]

Facebook released the Whitepaper of its cryptocurrency, Libra on 18th June 2019. The cryptocurrency community and Bitcoin maximalists welcomed the news as a positive impetus for awareness about Bitcoin. Nevertheless, one might still argue that, if Libra is globally used as a medium of exchange, what the use of Bitcoin [BTC] is?
An analogy with Gold could explain the difference between the two. While Bitcoin is a store of value, Libra, like many other FIAT currencies, is a medium of exchange. David Marcus, the Co-Creator of Libra, Head of Facebook’s Blockchain team and former head of PayPal suggested the same in a tweet, he said,
“Many want to pit Libra vs. Bitcoin. In my mind these two are not in the same category. BTC is a decorrelated (investment) asset. Libra is designed to be a stable medium-of-exchange. I have been, and remain a fan of BTC, but for very different purposes.”
If there was a competition between Libra and Bitcoin, Marcus seems to have conceded rather than overselling the facts. Moreover, he mentioned that Bitcoin is a ‘decorrelated asset’; an asset that has no particular utility; however, ubiquitous and limited in nature like Gold.
Also Read: “I Believe in Bitcoin,” says Edith Yeung As She Talks About Rising Institutional Interest
Samson Mow, Crypto-analyst and Blockchain expert agreed with David Marcus as he tweeted,
‘Totally agree with David. They are not in the same category. Libra is the western clone of Alipay, marketed as a cryptocurrency.’
What is Bitcoin then?
Andreas Antonopolous, an educator and author of several books on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, explained that since Libra is not borderless (imposed by Government constraints), censored,  ‘permissioned‘ and even mutable to a certain degree on validators consent, it not an ideal cryptocurrency.  
Bitcoin is open, borderless, permissionless, censorship-resistant, publicly verifiable and immutable.
All the other currencies like US Dollar, Euros, Yen, Yuan, and so on, are backed by the GDP of a country. The stablecoins pegged to these currencies are hence exposed to the same degree of risk a FIAT is. Libra, on the other hand, is backed by a basket of currencies and Government bonds. Being a cryptocurrency, it is also transparent and partly decentralized.
Hence, there is a high possibility that will become a popular medium if Exchange and challenge the current banking system. The new cryptocurrency enabled system will allow the ‘unbanked’ population of the world to transact freely using their phones.
Which cryptocurrencies do you think will become favorite mediums of exchange in the future? Please share your views with us. 
The post Facebook’s Blockchain Head, David Marcus, Speaks Up on Libra Vs. Bitcoin [BTC] appeared first on Coingape.
Source: CoinGape

Binance Security Breach: Andreas Antonopoulos explains process, implications if exchange had pursued chain re-org

Andreas Antonopoulos, author of Mastering Bitcoin and a well-known Bitcoin advocate, spoke about the Binance hack and the re-org that was briefly considered, during a Q&A session on YouTube. During the session, the author explained the scenario of what would have happened if Binance had decided to go ahead with the re-org.
Binance, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, fell victim to a security breach that led to the loss of 7000 BTC. Soon after the hack was announced, Changpeng Zhao, CEO of the exchange, discussed the possibility of a chain re-org. This however, was criticized by a majority of the members in the cryptocurrency community, with several well-known influencers standing against this move.
This was followed by Zhao stating that the exchange had decided not to go ahead with the plan, after discussions with a few prominent players in the community. The reason behind the backtracking was that the cons weighed more than the pros.
Antonopoulos explained an outcome where Binance had decided to go the other way around, and do a chain re-org. The author claimed that the exchange was basically proposing a 51 percent attack. He added that the exchange would’ve had to persuade 51 percent or more miners to roll back to the block before the attacker sent the coins to his/her address, and set that block as the parent of the next block and start mining from thereon.
This was followed by the author speaking about a scenario where the exchange decided to do a re-org, a day after the attack. This would require the exchange to persuade miners to roll back around 145 blocks, following which, they would use their hashing power to surpass the remaining 49 percent of the miners who would’ve have been mining from the current block of the longest chains, thereby causing a re-org of the chain.
He went on to explain the majority of the miners’ work during this process,
[…] they would deliberately mine a double spend transaction from Binance, spending all of the outputs that were stolen by the attacker to Binance addresses and once that’s in there then the transaction from the attacker would not succeed those coins will have already been spent on the chain being mined by the miners trying to do the rollback […]”
Further, Antonopoulos stated that 51 percent was not enough, adding that one of the reasons it was not enough was that “at a rate of 1 percent advantage over the chain being mined by the 49 percent, they [rest 51 percent] would only achieve a 1 block gain every day.”
He stressed that miners with 51 percent hash rate would have only a 1 percent advantage over the chain being mined by the rest of the miners. The author added that under such circumstances, it would take the miners almost 150 days to catch up, overtake and rewrite the chain, remarking that it was a “very very long time.” Antonopoulos also stated that if something went wrong during this timeframe, like 1 percent of miners abandoning this process and shifting to the other side, then all the energy spent on this would’ve been wasted.
The author also spoke about one of the possibilities suggested to Binance, in order to get the miners on-board with the plan, which was to bribe them. He went on to state,
[…] one way to bribe them is to make sure that the transaction that they introduce, which spends Binance’s outputs back to Binance, carries very very high fees and therefore the miners are incentive, they’re gonna get paid off for this and those these would have to be more than the rewards of the blocks that the miners would be rolling back […]”
Antonopoulos added that if miners rolled back five blocks, then they have to pay the miners more than 60 Bitcoins. He explained that the reason for this was that miners would’ve made 12 and a half Bitcoins for continuing to mine the blocks on the normal chain, and if they had to roll back the chain, then that energy would be wasted. He further stated that Binance would’ve had to bribe the miners with the entire reward amount and add more to this as this would’ve been a risky undertaking.

The post Binance Security Breach: Andreas Antonopoulos explains process, implications if exchange had pursued chain re-org appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto

Upside Down

Much like Bitcoin, you must first address what is wrong with fiat to get to why crypto is necessary. The payoff is for those who kick ass and chew bubble gum through the first parts without skipping the meat and potatoes to get to the gravy. This is much the point of the whole article. If you only serve sauce at a historically 5-star restaurant that earned its prestige over centuries of excellence – it won’t there for long.

When I arrived in London three years ago I was soon surprised how well the edges, beauty, transcendence, and humor had been polished off from the contemporary art experience. You know, only the parts that were the point of art to begin with. The feel of it is first and foremost corporate – intimidation over awe. Outside of abstract lines, the menu mostly serves political activism in a convenient up-scale setting. To find less homogenized expression, you can go and hang out with the underground east side but that, mostly, equals broke. I’m talking about the gallery life with grown adults with families making a living from a serious profession. The kind where you expect to see the best of what that world has to offer.

Some of it is undoubtedly still magical but in the global scheme of things, a BBC documentary “The Great Contemporary Art Bubble” argues that the real art star of the 21st century thus far is the market itself. The expression side has been sanitized accordingly to fit a new power hierarchy. In it, the artists once more, find themselves at the bottom. Much of the diluted depth and lack of substance is a politically supercharged left worldview working together with inflation-capitalism (printing value without much to back it up).
It’s hard to make sense of without looking under the hood a bit. For anyone even remotely interested in collecting, it is much like watching your first proper Bitcoin doc.
The Sleeping King

The perpetuated bubble protection myth is that you are uncultured if you refuse to see why an old shoe on a pedestal in a gallery is art. A lot of what has been happening to the news profession has been going on in the arts for decades. The prestige of art took millennia to build. The perspective that this offers us is that the days since Campbell soup cans are a blink of an eye but with serious implications. We just haven’t arrived at a point yet where many from within dare call what is being pushed fake art. It used to be the job of art critics but who has read one that felt honest lately? There is a hell of a lot of money at stake that can devalue like the Bolivar. Even the critics had to bend to participate.
For insiders even remotely critiquing the debased substance of the art itself, is verboten. To some of us who have sacrificed our lives to crafting with the original premise, statements like the above “all art is subjective” couldn’t be much more upsetting. It is much like the villains being hailed as heroes in superhero mythology. It is perverting the nature of reality to make it worse at the expense of coming generations. You can only tamper language so much before it loses the thing the signs point to. The application processes for government grants and publicly funded museums work much like a Youtube strike. You will never know what got you kicked off the list but artists with any sense adjust themselves to the political and bureaucratic dogma to participate.

The documentary does not go into the arts education or Marxist flip side of it all but gives a wider picture than most. For the political side of it, Professor Jordan Peterson lays down the case of the radical activist side here. The rebuttal of it, which feels misrepresented to me, is here. It used to be that art scams referred mostly to sold forgeries and skillful thieves. Now, the BBC  documentary argues the real scam has become the whole contemporary art world itself. Much like everything else, it was also hijacked by politics. The old masters are likely to hold their value for a long time and deservedly so. The world-changing historic substance won’t die unless the paintings are destroyed. Up to Pollock and Rothko, I’m still largely with it myself. There truly is abstract art your kid could have not made. The political hard-fork of Warhol is where I switched off. With the more contemporary stuff, best be as careful as you are with your shitcoins.
The Great Upside Down
Artist: Cy Twombly with an Untitled (Bacchus) piece that sold for 46 million.
A real quote to support the sale.
Enough said.
The Prestige Economy
The above information offers a massive opportunity for those who want to set up some competition for the regressing creative field. The potential of the arts is still as powerful as it was in the days of the Renaissance. Those who know how to work with will inspire an exodus from the current contemporary paradigm. Some will soon recognize an emerging new sustainable market here. Betting on substance now is the art equivalent of BTC. The blockchain solutions against forgeries are going to make many art jobs obsolete. It might not be profound for dead artists, but those of us meticulously putting our work provenance on the blockchain now will override many others in the future.
My aim is also to help artists realize they no longer have to beg for breadcrumbs nor live in fear due to the blockchain space if they have diverse substance to the norm. This extends to talking to companies about how essential implementing creativity to their core model is. Apple is the behemoth it is because it transcended the meaning of the company from technology to a creative revolution from the start. There actually is a difficult and absolutely necessary learning revolution going on that the blockchain space can participate in while benefitting from tremendously. Sir Ken Robinson in his many talks is doing amazing work cutting through what is needed inside the education realm. Watch one of his many lectures about it here. The risk gets smaller, the more of us speak our truth.
The New Creative Tech London
#ETHLDN and Stephan Tual was the first one to give me a performance and keynote break about a year ago during Blockchain Global. This kicked off a lot of cool things in the US to be continued at the 2019 Litecoin Summit in Vegas later on. A lot of the show revolves around exploring monetary healthy and unhealthy hierarchies.
After going to a #ETHLDN meet up again Consensys London, I bumped into Vlad Cealicu from Crypto Compare. I heard they are putting together a summit with Andreas Antonopoulos and Dr. Peter McCormack. He is now giving me my second chance to exhibit in London. I can’t say enough about how important this support is coming from the blockchain space. Also, neither of the top gentlemen speaking are strangers to heavy corruption fights against all odds, so thought to make them proud with this article that, in part, is advertising my participation with the summit.
I’ll be exhibiting four large re-paint works and can’t wait to high five all involved.

Come join us at the Digital Asset Summit // June 12th event by getting a ticket here.
The first 5 people to use CRYPTO35 at checkout can get 35% off their ticket cost

Among three other works, the piece on offer is “Red Eye” with a special price including the digital original.
Watch a video about it here
You best believe I know I’m not doing my art world cred any favors by writing stuff like this. Due to articles like this, deserving or not, my work won’t be found in contemporary museums or the White Cube Gallery any time soon. Your support as collectors, re-tweeters, and word-of-mouthers are vitally appreciated!
V E S A
Crypto Artist
Official Pages:
Crypto Art
Artevo Platform
Twitter Insta
The post Upside Down appeared first on NewsBTC.
Source: New feedNewsBTC.com

Bitcoin [BTC]: People’s fears about crypto are based on misunderstanding of underlying technology, claims Andreas Antonopoulos

Prominent Bitcoin advocates such as Andreas Antonopoulos often conduct online Q&A sessions to debunk some of the misconceptions floating around about the cryptocurrency market. In a recent video on YouTube, Antonopoulos shared his views on the factors affecting crypto-adoption.
While answering one of the questions, Antonopoulos mentioned that the reason why people are scared to invest in cryptocurrency is “based on the misunderstanding of the underlying technology.” He informed the viewer that he is preparing a talk to help such people understand the technology better, and to help them make sound investments. He added,
“We are used to operating a system of soft promises. (This is the reason) A bank can reverse a transaction if you want, or dont want!”
He further explained how Bitcoin does not promise an irreversible transaction, but rather “guarantees that the contract within the transaction will be executed irreversibly.” As a result, he hinted that the contract can be changed to add a refund policy to resolve disputes in the future.
“(This way) you can reintroduce consumer refunds, but the only owner gets to choose who the third-party is. This is not an irreversible payment, but an irreversible guarantee.”
He also clarified that although current engineering limitations are making it hard to implement, it will require just few more rounds of incremental innovation to offer “more robust, predictable guarantees for consumer protection than any existing system of soft promises.”
The post Bitcoin [BTC]: People’s fears about crypto are based on misunderstanding of underlying technology, claims Andreas Antonopoulos appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto

Bitcoin [BTC]: Andreas Antonopoulos elucidates the differences between the Lightning network model, BTC model

Andreas Antonopoulos, the author of Mastering Bitcoin and a famous Bitcoin [BTC] bull has been a prevalent figure in the cryptocurrency space due to his efforts to propagate the advantages of the world’s largest cryptocurrency.
In a recent video, Antonopoulos explained the differences between the famous Lightning Network [LN] and the mainstream UTXO model. He was asked whether the two networks were the same and if they run on the same blockchain model. The Bitcoin bull stated that the LN is not a blockchain, but is rather a routable network of smart contracts exchanged between parties. In his words:
“In case of the lightning network, the smart contracts are basically signed BTC transactions or LTC transactions. Participants in the network exchange signed BC transaction and one important thing to note is that the transactions do not occur on the Bitcoin blockchain. The LN is different from the BTC blockchain as it is a layer on top of the BTC blockchain and other blockchains.”
He elucidated on the benefits by stating that the LN provides a way to quickly exchange values which are confirmed instantly. According to Antonopolous, small amounts can be sent on the LN very quickly as the scalability is available to a much larger degree, while at the same time using the underlying security of the BTC blockchain.
The author went on to explain the ways in which users can participate in the Lightning Network practically and easily. He said:
“Actually there are a number of ways that users can participate and it does not always involve a node creation step. The best way is obviously creating a node but that might be technically difficult for some users as they have to run a full BTC node and then run the LN on top of it. Maybe in the future, there will be a lightweight blockchain that will be easier to run but then again that will take time.”
Antonopoulos suggested an easier method of running desktop wallets like Zap that includes the functionality of a full node, but also warned users that running such desktops wallets would consume a lot of space on the user’s hard disk; somewhere in the range of 150 GB to 250 GB.
The post Bitcoin [BTC]: Andreas Antonopoulos elucidates the differences between the Lightning network model, BTC model appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto

Bitcoin [BTC] proponent Andreas Antonopoulos elucidates on Unspent Transaction Outputs [UTXO]

Andreas Antonopoulos, author of Mastering Bitcoin and an influencer, spoke about UTXOs, and where they were stored, during a Q&A session on Bitcoin.
To the question of what UTXO was, Andreas stated that they referred to Unspent Transaction Outputs and added that they were in the blockchain. He further stated that every transaction has its own transaction output, elaborating that if a user had a copy of the blockchain with the transactions in it, then the transaction outputs would be in that database.
Andreas added,
“[…] they’re not in an easy-to-find database because they’re just in the transactions so unless you know the transaction ID, so you can look up a transaction and then find the outputs that transaction has, those outputs are sitting in the blockchain […]”
This was followed by the author explaining the result of a scenario where a user creates a transaction index and adds it to the watch address. The user’s node software, such as Bitcoin Core, would create a separate index for the database, wallet index, which would index all the UTXO by a script corresponding to the addresses in the watch list.
Andreas further stated that it would have the same database, but would be indexed by the UTXO by script entry, allowing the user to quickly access all the UTXO at that point in time to a specific address. He went on to state,
“But Bitcoin core only does that for specific addresses that you tell it to watch it does not build that index for everything. so the UTXO’s are stored in the blockchain without being fully indexed and they’re only fully indexed when you tell Bitcoin Core to watch specific addresses “
The Bitcoin proponent also explained a scenario where it would be used to build block explorers that enable users to search and find address balances. He stated that here, they were building a fully indexed database of all the UTXOs and all the addresses, which would always be updated. He added that it would require a large amount of disk space and would be a complex database. He added,
“So they store of full UTXO set indexed by a number of different indices, so they can look these things up very very quickly and present them on your screen and that’s custom software that they built to do this your wallet doesn’t do this. so the UTXO is stored where it’s needed, when it’s needed, for the purposes that it’s needed.”

The post Bitcoin [BTC] proponent Andreas Antonopoulos elucidates on Unspent Transaction Outputs [UTXO] appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto

Bitcoin [BTC] dust does not damage the owner or network, explains Andreas Antonopoulos

Andreas Antonopoulos, the author of Mastering Bitcoin and a well-known Bitcoin proponent, spoke about Bitcoin dust, during his latest Q&A session on YouTube. The author also spoke about whether it was bad for Bitcoin owners or the network in the long run and whether it could be avoided.
Antonopoulos explained that Bitcoin dust was the amount of Bitcoin that became a part of the UTXP set; those that are deemed unspendable as the cost to spend these coins [transaction fees] exceeds the value of the Bitcoin itself. This was followed by the author giving the following example,
“I create a transaction and part of the change in that transaction of one of the payments in that transaction is an amount that’s maybe a thousand Satoshi […] then the cost to spend that single chunk of Bitcon […] is going to be more in fees or I’ll end up paying a significant percentage of it in fees and therefore it is in practice unspendable.”
He further stated that these coins would probably not end up being forever unspendable, despite the fact that this could be the case at the current price and fee of Bitcoin. He went on to state that it could become spendable in the future, when the price of the cryptocurrency rises and the relative percentage of the fees goes down, making it valuable enough to spend with a lower fee.
Antonopoulos further stated,
“It’s like the loose change you find in your couch where if you carry that around in your pocket all you’re going to do is make a hole in your pants and ruin your pants and you’re not eventually going to be able to buy anything with it because it’s such a tiny amount.”
This was followed by the Bitcoin proponent speaking about whether it would damage Bitcoin. He stated that it did “not really” do any damage and added that the dust just sits around “doing nothing”. He added,
“[…] and depending on the level of dust if it really is true, dust like amounts that are so tiny that you can’t spend them on the Bitcoin network today or ever then it’s just gonna sit around forever […]”
The post Bitcoin [BTC] dust does not damage the owner or network, explains Andreas Antonopoulos appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto

‘Bitcoin Vs Blockchain’ is Exactly the Same as ‘Facebook vs Net Neutrality’: Andreas Antonopoulos

Andreas Antonopoulos is an educator and an experienced Bitcoin user; He is recognized as one of the most reliable voices in the Blockchain space. Antonopoulos has written four books in the blockchain space, they are Mastering Bitcoin (2014), Internet of Money Vol 1 (2016) and 2 (2017) and most recently Mastering Ethereum (2018).
In his recent interview on YouTube channel, Singularity Web, he answered some hard-hitting questions that currently surround Bitcoin. First and most important was, “Why Bitcoin?.” Since the banking system itself has evolved over more than 50 years to store and send value. 
However, according to Andreas,
“Only 15% of the human population actually has access to banks… Hence, the privildged cannot imagine to need of the system… But its there… Think about South America… People, there are not happy with their economy or Government… Countries with inflation problems”
Hence, from the perception of a developed nation like the US, it is difficult to understand the immediate need for Bitcoin (BTC) in the world.
Blockchains Technology Vs Bitcoin
The second most striking question that the interviewer put was regarding the blockchain technology vs Bitcoin argument. Various industry leader and even banking institutions have emphasized that “Bitcoin will die but blockchain will stay or that Blockchain is the real thing.”
To this, Antonopoulos noted that Blockchains are basically secure databases. However, Blockchain alone does not guarantee immutability and trust. Bitcoin provides immutability and trust on the blockchain by adding proof of work (PoW) consensus mechanism.
The most interesting analogy that Andreas presented to the users was:
“Bitcoin vs Blockchain is exactly the same as Facebook vs the open internet infrastructure.. People say that we are very excited about open-internet and Facebook is the internet, isn’t it? No, its not.” He added, “Facebook is a centralized, control infrastrucure.. It is a terrible argument for many reasons.”
He emphasized on the above ‘argument’ because while Bitcoin is “forging its way to become the world’s most robust, independent digitally secure currency and payment system” it lacks in one aspect and i.e., privacy. However, the second layer of Bitcoin with Segregated Witness (Segwit) and Lightning Network (LN) is working towards addressing those issues as well.
Furthermore, he added that:
“Bitcoin has continued to work like a Heartbeat.. producing a block every 10 minutes for the past 10 years… It provides independence, empowerment, neutrality, borderless operation and open access.” He also added that, “the fact that it is still there is the real testament to the robustness of the technology.”
Hence, midst numerous cryptocurrencies and centralized blockchain projects like the JPM Coin, Ripple, and even forks of Bitcoin like Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Antonopoulos is a staunch believer of the original Bitcoin (BTC). He implores that greed and investment in Blockchain is only the tip of the iceberg, and one must use and experience the technology before giving in to speculation and short-sighted thinking.
Do you agree with Andreas’s comments? Please share your views with us. 
The post ‘Bitcoin Vs Blockchain’ is Exactly the Same as ‘Facebook vs Net Neutrality’: Andreas Antonopoulos appeared first on Coingape.
Source: CoinGape

Bitcoin [BTC]: Andreas Antonopoulos breaks down life cycle of a transaction on the BTC blockchain

Bitcoin [BTC] and its intricacies have been a concept that many users in the cryptoverse have been trying to understand since its inception. In his latest video, Andreas Antonopoulos, a major Bitcoin bull and the author of Mastering Bitcoin, elucidated on the life cycle of a wallet transaction from start to finish.
Antonopoulos stated that from the point someone sends a transaction from a wallet to its confirmation on the Bitcoin blockchain, the wallet constructs a transaction by accumulating the BTC in the user’s wallet and assigning the addresses. The user’s wallet then transmits the transaction’s information to one of the many nodes it is connected to, from where it can be sent to ‘1, 2 or even 8 other nodes’. He added:
“The transaction is then transmitted to other nodes, which can be mining nodes, e-commerce payment gateways, and many such options. Each of those nodes will receive the transaction from your node and each of those, in turn, will validate every single transaction. When the nodes receive the transactions, they don’t’ know whether it was created by you or was forwarded and hence each of these transactions need to be validated individually.”
Antonopoulos went on to state that if all the nodes are validated, ie. if the payment details are correct and if it is confirmed that no double spend has occurred on the blockchain, then eventually through the process of ‘flood propagation’, the transaction information will be sent to every other node, out of which some may be mining nodes. In his words:
“Once the transaction reaches the mining pool, it maintains a pool of unconfirmed transactions, like a bucket where all this unconfirmed data is stored. This is the pool known as the mempool. Also, know that there isn’t THE mempool rather there is ‘A’ mempool. Information in separate mempools can be in a 99 percent overlap but there will never be a case where it will completely similar.”
According to the author, the mempool also serves the purpose of providing transaction for a miner to add a new block after which ‘the race is on’ for the next block. Miners usually have to construct a block and then solve the Proof of Work on it to eventually make it a confirmed block. Antonopoulos claimed that once the block is made, the information will be sent to the mining equipment to solve the PoW on that particular block and probably after a “billion hashes” the miners will find the block. The Bitcoin bull elucidated on the information transfer back by saying:
“Once the PoW is solved, the mining node will propagate the node back the same way as it received. The nodes validate the block on the way back and once all the nodes confirm its validity, then the user’s wallet will know that there is a confirmation on the transaction. That is the entire life cycle of a transaction.”
The post Bitcoin [BTC]: Andreas Antonopoulos breaks down life cycle of a transaction on the BTC blockchain appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto

Bitcoin [BTC] and Ethereum [ETH] have different niches, says Andreas Antonopoulos

Andreas Antonopoulos, a Bitcoin expert and author of ‘Internet of Money,’ discussed the contrasting use cases and goals of Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchains in a recent interview. He said that the two blockchains’ use cases cannot be performed by the other.
“Essentially the two systems ETH and BTC evolved in divergent directions and they can occupy different niches but they can’t actually occupy the same niches at the same time.”
Even though maximalists from both sides urge that the use cases of one can be performed by the other blockchain, Antonopoulos claimed that it was ‘meaningless.’ He admitted that any blockchain with a different use case can only achieve this partially, and not outperform the original blockchain.
Bitcoin, which strives to become global money, is vastly different from that of Vitalik Buterin’s Ethereum, Antonopoulos said. He asserted that the latter’s core was different from that of the former, not in terms of application, but in terms of design choices and engineering of the two blockchains. He said,
“It’s in its DNA, the two systems have been evolved, not in the random mutation but a direct evolution perspective.”
The author further suggested that the initial design decisions and trade-offs made for Bitcoin facilitated the blockchain to become a very “robust, secure, nation-state resistant, a censorship-resistant form of global money.”Antonopoulos further added that this subsequently attracted a particular set of individuals to come forward with the same vision, strengthening the existing design trade-offs in that direction.
Talking about the design trade-offs in Ethereum, he said that the ETH blockchain was built with “an unconstrained software engineering mentality.” According to him, the developers were looking to address a “broader set of problems to solve.” The design trade-offs for this attracted a different set of people in comparison to Bitcoin.
The author also said that building a trade-off in Ethereum required its own blockchain for it to be meaningful. He also suggested that issues such as scaling in the ETH blockchain were much harder than that for BTC.
The post Bitcoin [BTC] and Ethereum [ETH] have different niches, says Andreas Antonopoulos appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto

Bitcoin [BTC] proponent: There are going to be more state-sponsored cryptocurrencies because cash is going to be eradicated

Andreas Antonopoulos, the author of Mastering Bitcoin and a well-known Bitcoin proponent, spoke about state-sponsored cryptocurrency, during the recent Q&A video uploaded on Youtube. Here, he discussed whether it is a “good idea” to have these currencies or whether it is better to accept the duality of Fiat and cryptocurrencies.
Andreas started by stating that the state-sponsored cryptocurrencies don’t “really change anything”, adding that the purpose of the cryptocurrency “by definition” will be centralized, controlled, surveilled, closed, would required identity verification and would be allowed only to a “select few”. He said:
“What we don’t realize is that one of the reasons why we’re going to see more and more states promoted crypto currencies or other forms of digital currency is because we are entering the last era of cash.”
The author went on to say that cash would soon be eradicated and that this would happen “within our lifetimes”, adding that “in many cases our children will never see cash unless they visit a museum.” Moreover, according to him, the reason why cash would be eradicated is that it creates an “unfortunate opening” for freedom in places where freedom is not allowed. He said:
“Cash allows some flexibility in the system right when ridiculous things are made illegal captures the way you do them and generally speaking the big crimes don’t use cash because you can’t move that much cash for the big crimes what you need to do is buy yourself a banking license and use a bank to do it”
He further added that one of the ways to eradicate cash is by introducing digital state-sponsored currencies.
“What they [governments] are trying to create is a currency panopticon a situation a virtual digital prison of money in which everything you do is controlled everything you do can be seen can be monitored and at that point your freedom is one binary switch free not free free not free and one day someone’s gonna go through that virtual control room ago click-click click-click click-click I won the election of course”
The post Bitcoin [BTC] proponent: There are going to be more state-sponsored cryptocurrencies because cash is going to be eradicated appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto

Bitcoin [BTC]: Lightning Network’s Splicing feature is powerful and underappreciated, says Andreas Antonopoulos

Andreas Antonopoulos, on the latest session of Let’s Talk Bitcoin, discussed the second layer payment technology solution – Lightning network. He also spoke about what he considers to be its “most powerful and underappreciated feature” – splicing.
According to him, users will keep a huge volume of their funds in the Lightning network at all times and the funds that are not on the network will only be the ones which are stored in the cold wallets. The splicing functionality comes into the picture with respect to the propagation of Bitcoin transactions between on-chain and off-chain. Antonopoulos stated,
“… splicing allows you to do is blend the open channel, close channel and on-chain Bitcoin outputs into a single transaction.”
He further elucidated that splicing encompasses completion of all operations – opening, closing and re-balancing of funds on the on-chain wallet. The process enables a network user to send Bitcoin in the Lightning channel, channeling out Bitcoin to the Bitcoin blockchain and executing the open and close of the channel simultaneously in a single transaction.
When asked if this was a way to piggyback on existing traffic with a view that the transaction will be executed periodically by the users, Antonopoulos said,
“It [the wallet] decides, depending on who you want to pay and whether they can be reached on-chain or off-chain to construct your transaction and piggyback as many open and closed channels as it needs to do.”
Further, the author of Mastering Bitcoin also spoke about the function of CoinJoin, stating that it was effective for both obfuscation and privacy in the Lightning network. However, he emphasized that CoinJoin substantially reduces fees by ‘batching,’ re-balancing and all the other operations on the channel. He stated,
“It also saves on transaction fees. Because if you’re going to do that transaction anyway and you get five other strangers to join you and do their transactions, you pay one transaction fee across all of you. One transaction with five times the outputs is a lot cheaper than five transactions.”
Antonopoulos also called the Privacy-Preserving Light Wallet Protocol, Neutrino, an amazing improvement as opposed to its precursor. The Bitcoin proponent went on to state that the protocol can be leveraged to enhance the privacy of on-chain Bitcoin transactions on mobile wallets.
The post Bitcoin [BTC]: Lightning Network’s Splicing feature is powerful and underappreciated, says Andreas Antonopoulos appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto

Here’s How Ripple’s XRP Could Hit $589 or Even $11,400 One Day

CoinSpeaker

Here’s How Ripple’s XRP Could Hit $589 or Even $11,400 One Day

Recently, the XRP Community was divided among the lines of those who believe in a theory and those who don’t. The theory in question is whether XRP will reach $589 in price before the end of the year or even $10,000 one day.

Here’s How Ripple’s XRP Could Hit $589 or Even $11,400 One Day

Continue reading at Coinspeaker
Source: CoinSpeaker

“People interested in XRP are not interested in Bitcoin,” says Andreas Antonopoulos

Andreas Antonopoulos, the author of Mastering Bitcoin and a well-known Bitcoin proponent, spoke about Blockstream’s Liquid sidechain, the first Bitcoin production sidechain, during a Q&A session on YouTube. Here, the author also spoke about whether there was any competition between Bitcoin’s Liquid sidechain and XRP/ Ripple, with respect to use case.
Antonopoulos started by talking about the Liquid sidechain, wherein he stated that the product was designed by Blockstream, a well-known company in the Bitcoin space that has been a part of numerous projects related to Bitcoin. The initial discussion for a Bitcoin Liquid sidechain solution commenced in 2015.
Here, a sidechain refers to a separate blockchain that is connected to the main chain via a two-way peg, a mechanism that enables assets to be fungible at a predetermined rate. Andreas explained sidechain as,
“[…] you can move [value] from Bitcoin’s chain… to this other blockchain, use it [there for some purpose], and then move it back.”
Sidechain introduces a concept wherein a user of the main chain has to send coins to an output address, which is then locked up to avoid the user from using it for other purposes. This is followed with a confirmation that is transmitted through the chain after the initial transaction is completed. Succeeding this, the same amount of coins will be released on the sidechain, which can later be used by the user. The same concept applies when the coins are transferred from the main chain to the sidechain.
With Liquid sidechain, users can make use of Liquid BTC, which is a “one-to-one equivalent of Bitcoin,” to lock up 1 BTC on the Bitcoin blockchain, which then becomes 1 Liquid BTC that can be used on the Liquid sidechain. This enables faster and cheaper transactions, without burdening the Bitcoin blockchain.
Antonopoulos also said, “in the case of Liquid, it is first sidechain implemented by Blockstream,” adding that it has been in the beta stage for over a year. He stated that this sidechain is intended to be a “backend exchange-to-exchange pipeline” for transactions of the largest cryptocurrency in the space. It will ensure that the coin moves “very fluidly” between exchanges without the need for on-chain transactions.
“The idea being, you have exchanges around the world who must withdraw and deposit… bitcoin to addresses that belong to other exchanges. Every time they do a withdrawal or deposit, they are not only using up space on the Bitcoin blockchain, but they also need to pay fees.”
He further added,
“Liquid is essentially payment channels with exchanges that allow them to move money… between themselves directly, like a SWIFT network. Liquid uses a federated signing model. It is not a mined chain, but a signed chain. It uses a proof-of-authority [consensus algorithm]”
This was followed by the author stating that this sidechain solution is not suitable for end-users and consumers, but a solution for exchanges that manage large Bitcoin transactions, “in a network that is off-chain and commercial product.”
Antonopoulos also voiced his opinion on whether there is any competition between Liquid sidechain and XRP saying,
“I don’t think so. Ripple [XRP] has a different model in its consensus layer, as well as… how the currency is used within the network. I think the people who are interested in XRP are not interested in Bitcoin, even through a sidechain.”
He further added,
“There is a spectrum of applications here, from payment channels and atomic swaps with… [decentralized] Lightning Network, to a [distributed proof-of-authority] sidechain like Liquid, to XRP / Ripple. There is some overlap in those applications, but I don’t think the overlap is enough and… I think they differentiate enough that they don’t directly compete.”
The post “People interested in XRP are not interested in Bitcoin,” says Andreas Antonopoulos appeared first on AMBCrypto.
Source: AMB Crypto