Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. I then repeated the experiment on the 1st of January 2019. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2019 crypto space. I am trying to keep this project simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet. I try not to take sides or analyze, but rather report and document in a detached manner letting the numbers speak for themselves. The Rules: Buy $100 of each the Top 10 cryptocurrencies on January 1st, 2019. Hold only. No selling. No trading. Report monthly. Compare loosely to the 2018 Top Ten Experiment.
Month Twelve and Year End Tally – UP 2% since January 2019
After a strong October, 2019 ended with two straight bloody months, each of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos finishing in the red. Here’s the finally tally after one year: after generous rounding, the 2019 Top Ten ended the year UP 2%. My $1,000 investment on the 1st of January 2019 is now worth $1017. For context, this same group of cryptos was up +114% at the peak in May 2019. The worst month (and the only month in the red) was January 2019. Additionally, the portfolio has fallen well behind the stock market as measured by the S&P 500 (see below).
Ranking and December Winners and Losers
Very little movement in December, with most of the cryptos glued to their positions. Only Stellar and Tron budged, each slipping one place to #11 and #12, respectively. 2019 has been a remarkably static year in terms of Top Ten positioning: most of the coins stuck close to their starting place. This is certainly not the case in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment where coins have fallen and fallen hard. December Winners – Tether, again. As always, when Tether is the best performer it signals a not great month for this portfolio. While not the nightmare it could have been, Tether won the majority of the months in 2019, as you can see in the chart below. Bitcoin finished in second place, down -2% in December. December Losers – In addition to dropping out of the Top Ten, Stellar lost about one-fifth of its value followed by Tron which was down -15%. For those keeping score, here is the 2019 year end tally of which coins had the most monthly wins and losses: Tether had twice as many wins as Bitcoin and BTCSV, which finished tied for second place. Bitcoin SV also finished the most monthly losses, finishing last in four months in 2019.
FINAL YEAR END RESULTS after tracking this group for 2019: Bitcoin far ahead, followed by Litecoin, and Bitcoin Cash. Stellar and Ripple at the bottom.
Let’s start with the winners: Bitcoin is up +89% and single-handedly prevented the entire 2019 Top Ten portfolio from finishing in the red (just barely). Bitcoin carved out a healthy lead in 2019: it is well ahead of second place Litecoin (+34%) and third place Bitcoin Cash (+22%). Many others ended 2019 flat or nearly flat. BTCSV, EOS, Ethereum, and of course Tether all finished the year close to where they started. The final three had significant losses: Tron, Ripple, and Stellar finished the year at -33%, -46%, and -61%, respectively. 2019 also saw Tron and Stellar booted out of the Top Ten, replaced by Binance Coin and Tezos. Quite the fall from grace for Stellar, which was the champion of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Experiment. So there you have it. After one year, three coins in the green, four coins flat, three coins in the red.
Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:
Even though the year ended in a downward trend, the crypto market overall has had an undeniably positive year. One Year (2019) Final Market Cap Figures:
Since January 2019 – the total market cap for crypto has increased +49%
Worst Month – January 2019 ($114B total crypto market cap)
Best Month – June 2019 ($321B total crypto market cap)
The last time the total market cap reached $300B: August 2019
The last time the total market cap reached $200B: November 2019
Bitcoin dominance ticked back up in December and ends 2019 at 68%, a level not seen since September 2019. The range since the beginning of the year has been between a low of 50% in March and a high of 70% in September. The 70% figure in September also marks the Bitcoin dominance high since I started the experiment back in January 2018. The lowest level was 33% way back in February 2018.
Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:
After an initial $1000 investment, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio is worth $1,017, UP about +2% in one year. The humble +2% gain of the 2019 Top Ten portfolio is dwarfed by the overall crypto market’s +49% gain and Bitcoin’s +89% gain. As mentioned earlier, the value of this group of coins was dragged down by the four flat cryptos and the three that finished deep in the red.
Lowest 2019 Top Ten portfolio value: January 2019 ($915)
Highest 2019 Top Ten portfolio value: May 2019 ($2139)
Here’s what the 2019 Ten Ten portfolio has returned throughout the year: The 2018 Top Ten Experiment is faring far, far worse, down -86%. Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom line: after a $2000 investment in both the 2018 and the 2019 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios are worth $1,153. That’s down about -42%.
Congratulations to Bitcoin which significantly outperformed the rest of the field to end the first year of the 2019 Top Ten experiment on top. Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash deserve honorable mentions as well, finishing in second and third places. Bitcoin also came out on top after the first two years of the 2018 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment. Unlike the 2018 Top Ten, there were examples of months in 2019 where holding this Top Ten group cryptos outperformed the overall market. This is surprising, as this has not been the case with the other group: for each of the first twenty-four months of the 2018 experiment, the strategy of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos was a losing approach. That said, the year end difference between a +2% gain with the Top Ten approach vs. the +67% gain for the market overall of course implies that I would have done a lot better if I’d picked different cryptos. Or just stuck with Bitcoin and its +89% gain. In retrospect, it seems an easy/obvious choice, as choices normally do when looking backward. But by tracking the progress of these experiments monthly, I’m able to report another obvious point: crypto is a highly dynamic market. Stellar was the best performer of 2018, for example. And Litecoin looked like it was the crypto to beat for much of 2019, up +300% at the mid-year point. I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 is now up +29% since the beginning of 2019. My initial $1k investment into crypto would have yielded about +$290 had it been redirected to the S&P.
Although the 2019 Top Ten ended the December fairly flat, the overall market and Bitcoin in particular had a very strong year. The year is staring off with a bang, the market is up, the halvening approaches, and current sentiment towards crypto seems positive – 2020 will no doubt be another interesting year for cryptocurrency.
Thanks and Future of the Experiments:
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment(s). I hope you’ve found them helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. If you’re interested in the 2018 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment, you can check it out here. As for the future of the experiment:
I’ll continue to hold and will report on the Top Ten Cryptos of 2018.
I’ll continue to hold and will report on the Top Ten Cryptos of 2019.
I’ve also decided to repeat the experiment with the Top Ten Cryptos of 2020.
I bought $1000 worth of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018 (Year End Recap)
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptocurrencies for Two Years (2018 & 2019) - End of Year Summary - Down 86% Full blog post with all the tables **NOTE** - I usually like to release the two posts a day apart, but I'll be spacing out the Top Ten 2018 and the Top Ten 2019 reports a bit more as readers have mentioned they've been removed by the mods (no offence taken, mods - the content is similar, I assume the posts are being removed because they're seen as identical. **END NOTE** tl;dr - Every crypto was down again in December. After two years tracking this group of cryptos, I'm down -86%. Although the market as a whole rebounded in 2019, the 2018 Top Ten portfolio was flat for the year. Bitcoin wins this year by far, do you know who one last year? 60% of the 2018 Top Ten cryptos has lost at least 90% of their January 2018 value and 50% of cryptos aren't in the Top Ten anymore. NEM continues to be the absolute worst performer. Happy New Year, Happy New Decade!
Instead of hypothetically tracking cryptos, I made an actual $1000 investment, $100 in each of the Top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap as of the 1st of January 2018. Think of it as a lazy man's Index Fund (no weighting or rebalancing), less technical, more fun (for me at least), and hopefully still a proxy for the market as a whole - or at the very least an interesting snapshot of the 2018/2019 crypto space. I’m trying to keep it simple and accessible for beginners and those looking to get into crypto but maybe not quite ready to jump in yet. I have also started a parallel project: on January 1st, 2019, I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) into the new Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019. Spoiler alert: the 2019 Experiment makes for much happier reading.
Month Twenty-Four and Two Year Tally – Down 86% since January 2018
Thought not quite as bad as November, December was a rough month in the cryptoverse: for the second straight month, each of the 2018 Top Ten cryptos ended 2019 in the red. Finally tally after two years of this experiment? I am now down -86% on the 2018 Top Ten crypto portfolio since January 2018. My $1,000 investment on the 1st of January 2018 is now worth $136. This isn’t quite the record low: the 2018 Top Ten bottomed out at -88% in January of 2019. The best month this year for this group of cryptos was June 2019, where this portfolio reached a -71% return on initial investment.
Ranking and December Winners and Losers
For the second straight month, there was no upward movement: every crypto either held onto its position or slid. Stellar, Cardano, and NEM, each dropped a position, down to #11, #13, and #29 respectively. December was not kind to IOTA and Dash: IOTA fell three spots to #23 and Dash dropped four positions to #26. December Winners – Bitcoin pretty much broke even, down only -2% in December. Second place goes to Bitcoin Cash, down -6%. December Losers – For the second month in a row, I’m going to have to give the loss to Dash. Although it virtually tied with IOTA and Dash (both down -21%), Dash also reached a new low, settling down at #26. A reminder: since January 2018, Dash had never ended a month in last place until last month. For those keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and losses after two years of the 2018 Top Ten Cryptos Experiment. Most monthly wins (6): Bitcoin. Most monthly losses (5): Stellar. All cryptos have at least one monthly win and Bitcoin now stands alone as the only crypto that hasn’t lost a month.
FINAL RESULTS after tracking this group through 2018 and 2019: Bitcoin is well in the lead, followed distantly by Litecoin, then Ethereum. NEM and Dash are the worst overall performers.
Although down -46% since January 2018, Bitcoin is still miles ahead of the rest of the field. Litecoin and Ethereum are virtually tied at a very distant second place down -81% and -82% respectively. That’s what victory looks like for the Top Ten 2018 batch of cryptos. If that’s victory, what’s defeat? NEM has performed the absolute worst, down -97%. in two years. My initial $100 investment is now worth $3.47. But NEM is by no means alone at the bottom: 60% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten are down at least 90%: NEM, Cardano, Dash, IOTA, Ripple, and Bitcoin Cash. As you’ll see on the chart above, 50% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out, specifically NEM, Dash, IOTA, Stellar, and Cardano. They have been replaced by EOS, Binance Coin, Tether,Tezos, and BTCSV. Three coins (NEM, Dash, IOTA) have dropped out of the Top Twenty and one (NEM) is in danger of dropping out of the the Top Thirty. Quite a fall in two years. Of note, with the exception Cardano, the Top Five cryptos have more or less stayed put over the course of the twenty-four month experiment. Also of note: Litecoin has maintained perfect consistency, ending 2017, 2018, and 2019 glued to the #6 position. For extra credit, does anyone remember which crypto finished 2018 in the lead? Answer – Stellar. Probably not what you were thinking, huh?
Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:
The crypto space lost $9B in December, which isn't much for crypto and nowhere near the $50B which evaporated in November. The overall market cap is now back to the $189B mark, last seen in May 2019. Two Year Final Market Cap Figures:
Since January 2018 – the total market cap for crypto has dropped -67%.
Since January 2019 – the total market cap for crypto has increased +49%
Worst Month – January 2019 ($114B total crypto market cap)
Best Month – January 2018 ($575B total crypto market cap)
The last time the total market cap reached $500B: January 2018
The last time the total market cap reached $400B: May 2018
The last time the total market cap reached $300B: August 2019
The last time the total market cap reached $200B: November 2019
Bitcoin dominance ticked back up in December and ends 2019 at 68%, a level not seen since September 2019 and much higher than 2018’s year end figure of 52%. For context, the range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2018 has been quite wide: a high of 70% in September 2019 and a low of 33% in February 2018.
Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2018:
After an initial $1000 investment, the 2018 Top Ten Portfolio is worth $136, down about -86% in two years. Although the overall market ended 2019 stronger than the year before, the 2018 Top Ten Experiment cryptos finished at more or less the same level: last year the portfolio recorded a -85% loss and was worth $152.
Lowest 2018 Top Ten portfolio value: January 2019 ($122)
Highest 2018 Top Ten portfolio value: January 2018 ($792)
The 2019 Top Ten Experiment is doing better, but the year end report will show that group has basically broken even for the year, up a mere +2%. The year end report will be released soon for the 2019 Top Ten. Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom line: after a $2000 investment in both the 2018 and the 2019 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my portfolios would be worth $1,153. That’s down about -42%.
Congratulations to Bitcoin which significantly outperformed the rest of the field at the end of the first two years of the 2018 Top Ten Index Fund experiment. Two years on, there are a few obvious takeaways from the 2018 experiment. Buying at all time highs put this experiment in a difficult position from the start and it has not yet come close to just breaking even. The high point of this experiment was at the end of the very first month (January 2018) where the portfolio was “only” down -20%. I haven’t run the numbers, but by eyeballing and with hindsight, it’s easy to see that it would have been much better to come in at just about any other time during that first year. The portfolio would still be down, but not like this – not like this. That said, buying mid-January when prices were even higher would have been worse – hard to imagine considering my Top Ten buys on New Years Day 2018 have seen a -86% drop – but yes, it could have been even worse. For each of the first twenty-four months, the experiment’s focus of solely holding the Top Ten Cryptos continues to be a losing approach. While the overall market is down -67% from January 2018, the cryptos that began 2018 in the Top Ten are down -86% over the same period. This of course implies that I would have done a bit better if I’d picked different cryptos. At no point in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment has this investment strategy been successful: the initial 2018 Top Ten have under-performed each of the twenty-four months compared to the market overall. There are a few examples, however, of this approach outperforming the market in the parallel 2019 Top Ten Crypto Currency Experiment. I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. The S&P 500 is now up +21% since the beginning of 2018. My initial $1k investment into crypto would have yielded about +$210 had it been redirected to the S&P.
Although the 2018 Top Ten Experiment cryptos ended 2019 pretty much where they began, the market overall saw some solid gains in 2019. 2018 ended pretty hopelessly as crypto seemed to be in free-fall. 2019 overall felt like a recovery story, as a bottom was reached. With The Bitcoin Halvening due to arrive mid 2020, it should be another interesting year in the crypto space.
Thanks and Future of the Experiments:
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment(s). I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel project where I repeated the experiment, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of a new set of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st 2019. As for the future of the experiment, why not, let’s keep this thing rolling:
I’ll continue to hold and will report on the Top Ten Cryptos of 2018.
Technical: A Brief History of Payment Channels: from Satoshi to Lightning Network
Who cares about political tweets from some random country's president when payment channels are a much more interesting and are actually capable of carrying value? So let's have a short history of various payment channel techs!
Generation 0: Satoshi's Broken nSequence Channels
Because Satoshi's Vision included payment channels, except his implementation sucked so hard we had to go fix it and added RBF as a by-product. Originally, the plan for nSequence was that mempools would replace any transaction spending certain inputs with another transaction spending the same inputs, but only if the nSequence field of the replacement was larger. Since 0xFFFFFFFF was the highest value that nSequence could get, this would mark a transaction as "final" and not replaceable on the mempool anymore. In fact, this "nSequence channel" I will describe is the reason why we have this weird rule about nLockTime and nSequence. nLockTime actually only works if nSequence is not 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. final. If nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF then nLockTime is ignored, because this if the "final" version of the transaction. So what you'd do would be something like this:
You go to a bar and promise the bartender to pay by the time the bar closes. Because this is the Bitcoin universe, time is measured in blockheight, so the closing time of the bar is indicated as some future blockheight.
For your first drink, you'd make a transaction paying to the bartender for that drink, paying from some coins you have. The transaction has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, and a starting nSequence of 0. You hand over the transaction and the bartender hands you your drink.
For your succeeding drink, you'd remake the same transaction, adding the payment for that drink to the transaction output that goes to the bartender (so that output keeps getting larger, by the amount of payment), and having an nSequence that is one higher than the previous one.
Eventually you have to stop drinking. It comes down to one of two possibilities:
You drink until the bar closes. Since it is now the nLockTime indicated in the transaction, the bartender is able to broadcast the latest transaction and tells the bouncers to kick you out of the bar.
You wisely consider the state of your liver. So you re-sign the last transaction with a "final" nSequence of 0xFFFFFFFF i.e. the maximum possible value it can have. This allows the bartender to get his or her funds immediately (nLockTime is ignored if nSequence is 0xFFFFFFFF), so he or she tells the bouncers to let you out of the bar.
Now that of course is a payment channel. Individual payments (purchases of alcohol, so I guess buying coffee is not in scope for payment channels). Closing is done by creating a "final" transaction that is the sum of the individual payments. Sure there's no routing and channels are unidirectional and channels have a maximum lifetime but give Satoshi a break, he was also busy inventing Bitcoin at the time. Now if you noticed I called this kind of payment channel "broken". This is because the mempool rules are not consensus rules, and cannot be validated (nothing about the mempool can be validated onchain: I sigh every time somebody proposes "let's make block size dependent on mempool size", mempool state cannot be validated by onchain data). Fullnodes can't see all of the transactions you signed, and then validate that the final one with the maximum nSequence is the one that actually is used onchain. So you can do the below:
Become friends with Jihan Wu, because he owns >51% of the mining hashrate (he totally reorged Bitcoin to reverse the Binance hack right?).
Slip Jihan Wu some of the more interesting drinks you're ordering as an incentive to cooperate with you. So say you end up ordering 100 drinks, you split it with Jihan Wu and give him 50 of the drinks.
When the bar closes, Jihan Wu quickly calls his mining rig and tells them to mine the version of your transaction with nSequence 0. You know, that first one where you pay for only one drink.
Because fullnodes cannot validate nSequence, they'll accept even the nSequence=0 version and confirm it, immutably adding you paying for a single alcoholic drink to the blockchain.
The bartender, pissed at being cheated, takes out a shotgun from under the bar and shoots at you and Jihan Wu.
Jihan Wu uses his mystical chi powers (actually the combined exhaust from all of his mining rigs) to slow down the shotgun pellets, making them hit you as softly as petals drifting in the wind.
The bartender mutters some words, clothes ripping apart as he or she (hard to believe it could be a she but hey) turns into a bear, ready to maul you for cheating him or her of the payment for all the 100 drinks you ordered from him or her.
Steely-eyed, you stand in front of the bartender-turned-bear, daring him to touch you. You've watched Revenant, you know Leonardo di Caprio could survive a bear mauling, and if some posh actor can survive that, you know you can too. You make a pose. "Drunken troll logic attack!"
I think I got sidetracked here.
Bears are bad news.
You can't reasonably invoke "Satoshi's Vision" and simultaneously reject the Lightning Network because it's not onchain. Satoshi's Vision included a half-assed implementation of payment channels with nSequence, where the onchain transaction represented multiple logical payments, exactly what modern offchain techniques do (except modern offchain techniques actually work). nSequence (the field, but not its modern meaning) has been in Bitcoin since BitCoin For Windows Alpha 0.1.0. And its original intent was payment channels. You can't get nearer to Satoshi's Vision than being a field that Satoshi personally added to transactions on the very first public release of the BitCoin software, like srsly.
Miners can totally bypass mempool rules. In fact, the reason why nSequence has been repurposed to indicate "optional" replace-by-fee is because miners are already incentivized by the nSequence system to always follow replace-by-fee anyway. I mean, what do you think those drinks you passed to Jihan Wu are, other than the fee you pay him to mine a specific version of your transaction?
Satoshi made mistakes. The original design for nSequence is one of them. Today, we no longer use nSequence in this way. So diverging from Satoshi's original design is part and parcel of Bitcoin development, because over time, we learn new lessons that Satoshi never knew about. Satoshi was an important landmark in this technology. He will not be the last, or most important, that we will remember in the future: he will only be the first.
Incentive-compatible time-limited unidirectional channel; or, Satoshi's Vision, Fixed (if transaction malleability hadn't been a problem, that is). Now, we know the bartender will turn into a bear and maul you if you try to cheat the payment channel, and now that we've revealed you're good friends with Jihan Wu, the bartender will no longer accept a payment channel scheme that lets one you cooperate with a miner to cheat the bartender. Fortunately, Jeremy Spilman proposed a better way that would not let you cheat the bartender. First, you and the bartender perform this ritual:
You get some funds and create a transaction that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig between you and the bartender. You don't broadcast this yet: you just sign it and get its txid.
You create another transaction that spends the above transaction. This transaction (the "backoff") has an nLockTime equal to the closing time of the bar, plus one block. You sign it and give this backoff transaction (but not the above transaction) to the bartender.
The bartender signs the backoff and gives it back to you. It is now valid since it's spending a 2-of-2 of you and the bartender, and both of you have signed the backoff transaction.
Now you broadcast the first transaction onchain. You and the bartender wait for it to be deeply confirmed, then you can start ordering.
The above is probably vaguely familiar to LN users. It's the funding process of payment channels! The first transaction, the one that pays to a 2-of-2 multisig, is the funding transaction that backs the payment channel funds. So now you start ordering in this way:
For your first drink, you create a transaction spending the funding transaction output and sending the price of the drink to the bartender, with the rest returning to you.
You sign the transaction and pass it to the bartender, who serves your first drink.
For your succeeding drinks, you recreate the same transaction, adding the price of the new drink to the sum that goes to the bartender and reducing the money returned to you. You sign the transaction and give it to the bartender, who serves you your next drink.
At the end:
If the bar closing time is reached, the bartender signs the latest transaction, completing the needed 2-of-2 signatures and broadcasting this to the Bitcoin network. Since the backoff transaction is the closing time + 1, it can't get used at closing time.
If you decide you want to leave early because your liver is crying, you just tell the bartender to go ahead and close the channel (which the bartender can do at any time by just signing and broadcasting the latest transaction: the bartender won't do that because he or she is hoping you'll stay and drink more).
If you ended up just hanging around the bar and never ordering, then at closing time + 1 you broadcast the backoff transaction and get your funds back in full.
Now, even if you pass 50 drinks to Jihan Wu, you can't give him the first transaction (the one which pays for only one drink) and ask him to mine it: it's spending a 2-of-2 and the copy you have only contains your own signature. You need the bartender's signature to make it valid, but he or she sure as hell isn't going to cooperate in something that would lose him or her money, so a signature from the bartender validating old state where he or she gets paid less isn't going to happen. So, problem solved, right? Right? Okay, let's try it. So you get your funds, put them in a funding tx, get the backoff tx, confirm the funding tx... Once the funding transaction confirms deeply, the bartender laughs uproariously. He or she summons the bouncers, who surround you menacingly. "I'm refusing service to you," the bartender says. "Fine," you say. "I was leaving anyway;" You smirk. "I'll get back my money with the backoff transaction, and posting about your poor service on reddit so you get negative karma, so there!" "Not so fast," the bartender says. His or her voice chills your bones. It looks like your exploitation of the Satoshi nSequence payment channel is still fresh in his or her mind. "Look at the txid of the funding transaction that got confirmed." "What about it?" you ask nonchalantly, as you flip open your desktop computer and open a reputable blockchain explorer. What you see shocks you. "What the --- the txid is different! You--- you changed my signature?? But how? I put the only copy of my private key in a sealed envelope in a cast-iron box inside a safe buried in the Gobi desert protected by a clan of nomads who have dedicated their lives and their childrens' lives to keeping my private key safe in perpetuity!" "Didn't you know?" the bartender asks. "The components of the signature are just very large numbers. The sign of one of the signature components can be changed, from positive to negative, or negative to positive, and the signature will remain valid. Anyone can do that, even if they don't know the private key. But because Bitcoin includes the signatures in the transaction when it's generating the txid, this little change also changes the txid." He or she chuckles. "They say they'll fix it by separating the signatures from the transaction body. They're saying that these kinds of signature malleability won't affect transaction ids anymore after they do this, but I bet I can get my good friend Jihan Wu to delay this 'SepSig' plan for a good while yet. Friendly guy, this Jihan Wu, it turns out all I had to do was slip him 51 drinks and he was willing to mine a tx with the signature signs flipped." His or her grin widens. "I'm afraid your backoff transaction won't work anymore, since it spends a txid that is not existent and will never be confirmed. So here's the deal. You pay me 99% of the funds in the funding transaction, in exchange for me signing the transaction that spends with the txid that you see onchain. Refuse, and you lose 100% of the funds and every other HODLer, including me, benefits from the reduction in coin supply. Accept, and you get to keep 1%. I lose nothing if you refuse, so I won't care if you do, but consider the difference of getting zilch vs. getting 1% of your funds." His or her eyes glow. "GENUFLECT RIGHT NOW." Lesson learned?
Payback's a bitch.
Transaction malleability is a bitchier bitch. It's why we needed to fix the bug in SegWit. Sure, MtGox claimed they were attacked this way because someone kept messing with their transaction signatures and thus they lost track of where their funds went, but really, the bigger impetus for fixing transaction malleability was to support payment channels.
Yes, including the signatures in the hash that ultimately defines the txid was a mistake. Satoshi made a lot of those. So we're just reiterating the lesson "Satoshi was not an infinite being of infinite wisdom" here. Satoshi just gets a pass because of how awesome Bitcoin is.
CLTV-protected Spilman Channels
Using CLTV for the backoff branch. This variation is simply Spilman channels, but with the backoff transaction replaced with a backoff branch in the SCRIPT you pay to. It only became possible after OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV) was enabled in 2015. Now as we saw in the Spilman Channels discussion, transaction malleability means that any pre-signed offchain transaction can easily be invalidated by flipping the sign of the signature of the funding transaction while the funding transaction is not yet confirmed. This can be avoided by simply putting any special requirements into an explicit branch of the Bitcoin SCRIPT. Now, the backoff branch is supposed to create a maximum lifetime for the payment channel, and prior to the introduction of OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY this could only be done by having a pre-signed nLockTime transaction. With CLTV, however, we can now make the branches explicit in the SCRIPT that the funding transaction pays to. Instead of paying to a 2-of-2 in order to set up the funding transaction, you pay to a SCRIPT which is basically "2-of-2, OR this singlesig after a specified lock time". With this, there is no backoff transaction that is pre-signed and which refers to a specific txid. Instead, you can create the backoff transaction later, using whatever txid the funding transaction ends up being confirmed under. Since the funding transaction is immutable once confirmed, it is no longer possible to change the txid afterwards.
Todd Micropayment Networks
The old hub-spoke model (that isn't how LN today actually works). One of the more direct predecessors of the Lightning Network was the hub-spoke model discussed by Peter Todd. In this model, instead of payers directly having channels to payees, payers and payees connect to a central hub server. This allows any payer to pay any payee, using the same channel for every payee on the hub. Similarly, this allows any payee to receive from any payer, using the same channel. Remember from the above Spilman example? When you open a channel to the bartender, you have to wait around for the funding tx to confirm. This will take an hour at best. Now consider that you have to make channels for everyone you want to pay to. That's not very scalable. So the Todd hub-spoke model has a central "clearing house" that transport money from payers to payees. The "Moonbeam" project takes this model. Of course, this reveals to the hub who the payer and payee are, and thus the hub can potentially censor transactions. Generally, though, it was considered that a hub would more efficiently censor by just not maintaining a channel with the payer or payee that it wants to censor (since the money it owned in the channel would just be locked uselessly if the hub won't process payments to/from the censored user). In any case, the ability of the central hub to monitor payments means that it can surveill the payer and payee, and then sell this private transactional data to third parties. This loss of privacy would be intolerable today. Peter Todd also proposed that there might be multiple hubs that could transport funds to each other on behalf of their users, providing somewhat better privacy. Another point of note is that at the time such networks were proposed, only unidirectional (Spilman) channels were available. Thus, while one could be a payer, or payee, you would have to use separate channels for your income versus for your spending. Worse, if you wanted to transfer money from your income channel to your spending channel, you had to close both and reshuffle the money between them, both onchain activities.
Poon-Dryja Lightning Network
Bidirectional two-participant channels. The Poon-Dryja channel mechanism has two important properties:
No time limit.
Both the original Satoshi and the two Spilman variants are unidirectional: there is a payer and a payee, and if the payee wants to do a refund, or wants to pay for a different service or product the payer is providing, then they can't use the same unidirectional channel. The Poon-Dryjam mechanism allows channels, however, to be bidirectional instead: you are not a payer or a payee on the channel, you can receive or send at any time as long as both you and the channel counterparty are online. Further, unlike either of the Spilman variants, there is no time limit for the lifetime of a channel. Instead, you can keep the channel open for as long as you want. Both properties, together, form a very powerful scaling property that I believe most people have not appreciated. With unidirectional channels, as mentioned before, if you both earn and spend over the same network of payment channels, you would have separate channels for earning and spending. You would then need to perform onchain operations to "reverse" the directions of your channels periodically. Secondly, since Spilman channels have a fixed lifetime, even if you never used either channel, you would have to periodically "refresh" it by closing it and reopening. With bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels, you may instead open some channels when you first begin managing your own money, then close them only after your lawyers have executed your last will and testament on how the money in your channels get divided up to your heirs: that's just two onchain transactions in your entire lifetime. That is the potentially very powerful scaling property that bidirectional, indefinite-lifetime channels allow. I won't discuss the transaction structure needed for Poon-Dryja bidirectional channels --- it's complicated and you can easily get explanations with cute graphics elsewhere. There is a weakness of Poon-Dryja that people tend to gloss over (because it was fixed very well by RustyReddit):
You have to store all the revocation keys of a channel. This implies you are storing 1 revocation key for every channel update, so if you perform millions of updates over your entire lifetime, you'd be storing several megabytes of keys, for only a single channel. RustyReddit fixed this by requiring that the revocation keys be generated from a "Seed" revocation key, and every key is just the application of SHA256 on that key, repeatedly. For example, suppose I tell you that my first revocation key is SHA256(SHA256(seed)). You can store that in O(1) space. Then for the next revocation, I tell you SHA256(seed). From SHA256(key), you yourself can compute SHA256(SHA256(seed)) (i.e. the previous revocation key). So you can remember just the most recent revocation key, and from there you'd be able to compute every previous revocation key. When you start a channel, you perform SHA256 on your seed for several million times, then use the result as the first revocation key, removing one layer of SHA256 for every revocation key you need to generate. RustyReddit not only came up with this, but also suggested an efficient O(log n) storage structure, the shachain, so that you can quickly look up any revocation key in the past in case of a breach. People no longer really talk about this O(n) revocation storage problem anymore because it was solved very very well by this mechanism.
Another thing I want to emphasize is that while the Lightning Network paper and many of the earlier presentations developed from the old Peter Todd hub-and-spoke model, the modern Lightning Network takes the logical conclusion of removing a strict separation between "hubs" and "spokes". Any node on the Lightning Network can very well work as a hub for any other node. Thus, while you might operate as "mostly a payer", "mostly a forwarding node", "mostly a payee", you still end up being at least partially a forwarding node ("hub") on the network, at least part of the time. This greatly reduces the problems of privacy inherent in having only a few hub nodes: forwarding nodes cannot get significantly useful data from the payments passing through them, because the distance between the payer and the payee can be so large that it would be likely that the ultimate payer and the ultimate payee could be anyone on the Lightning Network. Lessons learned?
We can decentralize if we try hard enough!
"Hubs bad" can be made "hubs good" if everybody is a hub.
Smart people can solve problems. It's kinda why they're smart.
After LN, there's also the Decker-Wattenhofer Duplex Micropayment Channels (DMC). This post is long enough as-is, LOL. But for now, it uses a novel "decrementing nSequence channel", using the new relative-timelock semantics of nSequence (not the broken one originally by Satoshi). It actually uses multiple such "decrementing nSequence" constructs, terminating in a pair of Spilman channels, one in both directions (thus "duplex"). Maybe I'll discuss it some other time. The realization that channel constructions could actually hold more channel constructions inside them (the way the Decker-Wattenhofer puts a pair of Spilman channels inside a series of "decrementing nSequence channels") lead to the further thought behind Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer channel factories. Basically, you could host multiple two-participant channel constructs inside a larger multiparticipant "channel" construct (i.e. host multiple channels inside a factory). Further, we have the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun or "eltoo" construction. I'd argue that this is "nSequence done right". I'll write more about this later, because this post is long enough. Lessons learned?
Bitcoin offchain scaling is more powerful than you ever thought.
[EU] [FIAT GATEWAY] Bitvavo.com is a new fiat ramp for NANO!
Hello dear NANO'ers, I come with great news. Bitvavo - a DUTCH exchange, secretly has fully implemented NANO on their exchange! This means you can buy AND sell NANO for Euros! Bitvavo is a DUTCH exchange, under Dutch/European law, having its HQ within the Netherlands. This is AMAZING. I made a post about Bitvavo adding nanos last year, back then you couldnt send/withdraw NANO (so it was fully artificial), but now its fully operational! Why is this a big deal? Its an European exchange, falling under European laws (Dutch to be precise). Since i live in the Netherlands, this to me is just amazing. The dutch are a meticulously kind of folk. Dutch laws are quite strong and complicated and regulations are strong here. To have a working fiat ramp exchange that hasnt been shutdown by authorities, means it has a certain degree of Trustworthiness (at least for me and Dutch laws, which are stricter then European laws mostly). Is it any good? Well, i first deposited euro's on the website (which you cant hold for longer then 5 days, since it isnt a bank and certain laws are preventing that), which went 'pretty' fast. I bought nano's with it (which was instant), and then i withdrew NANO's from it...which went through in SECONDS. Yes. Seconds. I put the order in, went to Binance to check things out and literally a few seconds later i heard the ping from CANOE. I couldnt believe it lol. I actually was in awe and suddenly became extremely enthusiastic, and immediately bought more lol. What about fees? They take maketrader fees of 0.25%. In my eyes, that isnt much. For withdrawal they also have fee, but its around 0.00025 nano if im right. Its crazy low. And crazy fast. Are there any negative parts? Well, its a dutch company but it isnt coinbase. If the whole world flocks towards it, i can see the website going down because the server can't hold that weight. This is theoretically, but those who experienced the 2017 run know that a lot of exchanges either went down (for a few hours/days) or stopped accepting new registrations because their servers couldnt handle it. I feel the same is with Bitvavo, its a small dutch exchange, not a big one. Other negative parts? I don't think they have much nano lol. After my first purchase i was SO impressed with the speed and low cost of it, i bought more. The second time i bought, i received a message that this was going to be processed manually. For the long run i cant see this being a problem, it just means they have to buy more NANO, which will only help NANO :) Now besides those, you do need to do a KYC, and i havent read in about any international KYC. The KYC is necessary for you to trade on the exchange. For me, i had to link my bank account to my account on Bitvavo (the same way you do it with Paypal). You can only send/receive money from/to your (linked) bank account to Bitvavo (if through IDEAL, not sure about SEPA etc). I find this acceptable to be honest for a EUROPEAN/trustworthy fiat gateway. Payment methods (including fees):
SEPA Overboeking (0%)
It has been a while since i sold crypto for Euro's on the site, but it worked pretty fast. The next day, the money was sitting in my bank account :) it wasnt much though (around 100 euros), but it passed the test for me back then. Unless we go in to a massive bullrun, i prob wont be selling my NANO for fiat anytime soon anyways. I am more searching for ways to pay internet services for NANO :) Hopefully one day we can pay for everyday things with NANO, like groceries or liqueur etc. Bitvavo has many many other coins too (besides btc,eth, xrp) like ADA, ICX, IOTA, Vechain, NEO etc. So if you want to trade your NANO with other crypto's, it is another way besides Binance (though i would still use binance for it). THis is a huge step. For very low cost, and extremely fast speed, we (Europeans in general) have an amazing gateway towards NANO. Together with Coingate integration of NANO, and NANO amazing ease of use - i cant see any other way besides NANO becoming a smashing succes. The only weird thing about this is Bitvavo own marketing. They did this all in silent, for reasons unknown to me since this is HUGE news for me (and a lot of Dutch/European citizens that have access to IDEAL). Now, i have to SHILL NANO a bit more here, because i am really getting hyped once again. I feel even more positive about NANO then back in dec 2017 to be honest. Remember guys, NANO is just at #48 in CMC. 48! While its utility is much better then 99% of ALL crypto! Infact, NANO is the ONLY usuable crypto RIGHT NOW besides maybe Eth for Dapps. Look at the marketcap of LTC, which in EVERY aspect is a worse coin then NANO. Then calculate how much a single NANO would be worth if it would have LTC marketcap... NANO has STILL SO MUCH to grow, its crazy. Its like getting Bitcoin back in 2011/2013. Pay for your products online FASTER and more reliable AND cheaper then Paypal (conversation rate), credit card (% rate per month/year) or bank. Since V18 has come out i have been EXTREMELY impressed by NANO. So much that i have doubled my (relatively small) stack and i have (once again) started to accumulate slowly. News like this (Bitvavo) just makes me more hyped for NANO. Together with a website where i can actually buy their services with NANO - and i am planning to use it more, i cant be more positive. NANO may have had a hard time in 2018 price wise, but DAMN the team has done an amazing job with its tech throughout the bear market. Mad props to you Colin AND your amazing team. Props to Coingate for having an amazing service too! Once NANO has been proven to scale to 1k+ (with 7K being a nicely goal) + an automatically representative node assignment through wallets (to make NANO more decentralized), i cant see nano NOT becoming a top 10 - or even a top 5 coin. As a payment coin, NANO truly knows no equal! EDIT: a MAJOR edit here, before you guys get TOO excited. PLEASE look in to the exchange pricing too! Bitvavo might be selling (or probably IS) NANO for a higher rate then for example Binance (this is apart from maketaker fee and withdrawal fee!). It isnt the same price as you pay on Binance, with the conversion rate. So for the same EUUSD, you will get less NANO compared to Binance (if you could pay directly for it). So keep that in mind, u/dotcoml said it actually was 2%. I personally didnt bother doing the math nor do i mind a 2% fee to exchange my fiat for NANO (it still is better then credit card, and for its speed/usability, i dont mind paying 2% more compared to FIAT either), but it still is 2%. Keep this in mind! EDIT2: other users are reporting Bitvavo actually having LOWER prices then Binance :) please check it out for yourself!
Which exchanges do you recommend after the Binance AWS issue, which also affected KuCoin, Bitmax, etc.
The binance exchange's AWS issue results in the error in deposit and withdrawal. What is worse is that Bitmax's orderbook is broken, and there was a deep dip and people could buy the $8000 bitcoin cause the market makers failed to provide the liquidity caused by the API bug of Binance. Bitmax's also planning to roll back the data, and stopped users from trading nor withdrawing, which I think also sucks. https://preview.redd.it/l72xyishc6i31.png?width=2104&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a609a21065fc5ac594c02dea0b8003c435f00fe Is there any better exchange to choose where the liquidity is good, safe, and stable? I'm planning to deposit a part of my assets out of binance.
A couple of years ago in the early months of the 2017, I published a piece called Abundance Via Cryptocurrencies (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/69d12a/abundance\_via\_cryptocurrencies/) in which I kind of foresaw the crypto boom that had bitcoin go from $1k to $21k and the alt-coin economy swell up to have more than 60% of the bitcoin market capitalisation. At the time, I spoke of coming out from “the Pit” of conspiracy research and that I was a bit suss on bitcoin’s inception story. At the time I really didn’t see the scaling solution being put forward as being satisfactory and the progress on bitcoin seemed stifled by the politics of the social consensus on an open source protocol so I was looking into alt coins that I thought could perhaps improve upon the shortcomings of bitcoin. In the thread I made someone recommended to have a look at 4chan’s business and finance board. I did end up taking a look at it just as the bull market started to really surge. I found myself in a sea of anonymous posters who threw out all kinds of info and memes about the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of different shitcoins and why they’re all going to have lambos on the moon. I got right in to it, I loved the idea of filtering through all the shitposts and finding the nuggest of truth amongst it all and was deeply immersed in it all as the price of bitcoin surged 20x and alt coins surged 5-10 times against bitcoin themselves. This meant there were many people who chucked in a few grand and bought a stash of alt coins that they thought were gonna be the next big thing and some people ended up with “portfolios” 100-1000x times their initial investment. To explain what it’s like to be on an anonymous business and finance board populated with incel neets, nazis, capitalist shit posters, autistic geniuses and whoever the hell else was using the board for shilling their coins during a 100x run up is impossible. It’s hilarious, dark, absurd, exciting and ultimately addictive as fuck. You have this app called blockfolio that you check every couple of minutes to see the little green percentages and the neat graphs of your value in dollars or bitcoin over day, week, month or year. Despite my years in the pit researching conspiracy, and my being suss on bitcoin in general I wasn’t anywhere near as distrustful as I should have been of an anonymous business and finance board and although I do genuinely think there are good people out there who are sharing information with one another in good faith and feel very grateful to the anons that have taken their time to write up quality content to educate people they don’t know, I wasn’t really prepared for the level of organisation and sophistication of the efforts groups would go to to deceive in this space. Over the course of my time in there I watched my portfolio grow to ridiculous numbers relative to what I put in but I could never really bring myself to sell at the top of a pump as I always felt I had done my research on a coin and wanted to hold it for a long time so why would I sell? After some time though I would read about something new or I would find out of dodgy relationships of a coin I had and would want to exit my position and then I would rebalance my portfolio in to a coin I thought was either technologically superior or didn’t have the nefarious connections to people I had come across doing conspiracy research. Because I had been right in to the conspiracy and the decentralisation tropes I guess I always carried a bit of an antiauthoritarian/anarchist bias and despite participating in a ridiculously capitalistic market, was kind of against capitalism and looking to a blockchain protocol to support something along the lines of an open source anarchosyndicalist cryptocommune. I told myself I was investing in the tech and believed in the collective endeavour of the open source project and ultimately had faith some mysterious “they” would develop a protocol that would emancipate us from this debt slavery complex. As I became more and more aware of how to spot artificial discussion on the chans, I began to seek out further some of the radical projects like vtorrent and skycoin and I guess became a bit carried away from being amidst such ridiculous overt shilling as on the boards so that if you look in my post history you can even see me promoting some of these coins to communities I thought might be sympathetic to their use case. I didn’t see it at the time because I always thought I was holding the coins with the best tech and wanted to ride them up as an investor who believed in them, but this kind of promotion is ultimately just part of a mentality that’s pervasive to the cryptocurrency “community” that insists because it is a decentralised project you have to in a way volunteer to inform people about the coin since the more decentralised ones without premines or DAO structures don’t have marketing budgets, or don’t have marketing teams. In the guise of cultivating a community, groups form together on social media platforms like slack, discord, telegram, twitter and ‘vote’ for different proposals, donate funds to various boards/foundations that are set up to give a “roadmap” for the coins path to greatness and organise marketing efforts on places like reddit, the chans, twitter. That’s for the more grass roots ones at least, there are many that were started as a fork of another coin, or a ICO, airdrop or all these different ways of disseminating a new cryptocurrency or raising funding for promising to develop one. Imagine the operations that can be run by a team that raised millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on their ICOs, especially if they are working in conjunction with a new niche of cryptocurrency media that’s all nepotistic and incestuous. About a year and a half ago I published another piece called “Bitcoin is about to be dethroned” (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/7ewmuu/bitcoin\_is\_about\_to\_be\_dethroned/) where I felt I had come to realise the scaling debate had been corrupted by a company called Blockstream and they had been paying for social media operations in a fashion not to dissimilar to correct the record or such to control the narrative around the scaling debate and then through deceit and manipulation curated an apparent consensus around their narrative and hijacked the bitcoin name and ticker (BTC). I read the post again just before posting this and decided to refer to it to to add some kind of continuity to my story and hopefully save me writing so much out. Looking back on something you wrote is always a bit cringey especially because I can see that although I had made it a premise post, I was acting pretty confident that I was right and my tongue was acidic because of so much combating of shills on /biz/ but despite the fact I was wrong about the timing I stand by much of what I wrote then and want to expand upon it a bit more now. The fork of the bitcoin protocol in to bitcoin core (BTC) and bitcoin cash (BCH) is the biggest value fork of the many that have occurred. There were a few others that forked off from the core chain that haven’t had any kind of attention put on them, positive or negative and I guess just keep chugging away as their own implementation. The bitcoin cash chain was supposed to be the camp that backed on chain scaling in the debate, but it turned out not everyone was entirely on board with that and some players/hashpower felt it was better to do a layer two type solution themselves although with bigger blocks servicing the second layer. Throughout what was now emerging as a debate within the BCH camp, Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre of Coin Geek said they were going to support massive on chain scaling, do a node implementation that would aim to restore bitcoin back to the 0.1.0 release which had all kinds of functionality included in it that had later been stripped by Core developers over the years and plan to bankrupt the people from Core who changed their mind on agreeing with on-chain scaling. This lead to a fork off the BCH chain in to bitcoin satoshis vision (BSV) and bitcoin cash ABC. https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/cbb50c322a2a89f3c627e1680a3f40d4ad3cee5a3fb153e5d6d001bdf85de404 The premise for this post is that Craig S Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. It’s an interesting premise because depending upon your frame of reference the premise may either be a fact or to some too outrageous to even believe as a premise. Yesterday it was announced via CoinGeek that Craig Steven Wright has been granted the copyright claim for both the bitcoin white-paper under the pen name Satoshi Nakamoto and the original 0.1.0 bitcoin software (both of which were marked (c) copyright of satoshi nakamoto. The reactions to the news can kind of be classified in to four different reactions. Those who heard it and rejected it, those who heard it but remained undecided, those who heard it and accepted it, and those who already believed he was. Apparently to many the price was unexpected and such a revelation wasn’t exactly priced in to the market with the price immediately pumping nearly 100% upon the news breaking. However, to some others it was a vindication of something they already believed. This is an interesting phenomena to observe. For many years now I have always occupied a somewhat positively contrarian position to the default narrative put forward to things so it’s not entirely surprising that I find myself in a camp that holds the minority opinion. As you can see in the bitcoin dethroned piece I called Craig fake satoshi, but over the last year and bit I investigated the story around Craig and came to my conclusion that I believed him to be at least a major part of a team of people who worked on the protocol I have to admit that through reading his articles, I have kind of been brought full circle to where my contrarian opinion has me becoming somewhat of an advocate for “the system’. https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-s-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-granted-us-copyright-registrations-for-bitcoin-white-paper-and-code/ When the news dropped, many took to social media to see what everyone was saying about it. On /biz/ a barrage of threads popped up discussing it with many celebrating and many rejecting the significance of such a copyright claim being granted. Immediately in nearly every thread there was a posting of an image of a person from twitter claiming that registering for copyright is an easy process that’s granted automatically unless challenged and so it doesn’t mean anything. This was enough for many to convince them of the insignificance of the revelation because of the comment from a person who claimed to have authority on twitter. Others chimed in to add that in fact there was a review of the copyright registration especially in high profile instances and these reviewers were satisfied with the evidence provided by Craig for the claim. At the moment Craig is being sued by Ira Kleiman for an amount of bitcoin that he believes he is entitled to because of Craig and Ira’s brother Dave working together on bitcoin. He is also engaged in suing a number of people from the cryptocurrency community for libel and defamation after they continued to use their social media/influencer positions to call him a fraud and a liar. He also has a number of patents lodged through his company nChain that are related to blockchain technologies. This has many people up in arms because in their mind Satoshi was part of a cypherpunk movement, wanted anonymity, endorsed what they believed to be an anti state and open source technologies and would use cryptography rather than court to prove his identity and would have no interest in patents. https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/1fce34a7004759f8db16b2ae9678e9c6db434ff2e399f59b5a537f72eff2c1a1 https://imgur.com/a/aANAsL3) If you listen to Craig with an open mind, what cannot be denied is the man is bloody smart. Whether he is honest or not is up to you to decide, but personally I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and then cut them off if i find them to be dishonest. What I haven’t really been able to do with my investigation of craig is cut him off. There have been many moments where I disagree with what he has had to say but I don’t think people having an opinion about something that I believe to be incorrect is the same as being a dishonest person. It’s very important to distinguish the two and if you are unable to do so there is a very real risk of you projecting expectations or ideals upon someone based off your ideas of who they are. Many times if someone is telling the truth but you don’t understand it, instead of acknowledging you don’t understand it, you label them as being stupid or dishonest. I think that has happened to an extreme extent with Craig. Let’s take for example the moment when someone in the slack channel asked Craig if he had had his IQ tested and what it was. Craig replied with 179. The vast majority of people on the internet have heard someone quote their IQ before in an argument or the IQ of others and to hear someone say such a score that is actually 6 standard deviations away from the mean score (so probably something like 1/100 000) immediately makes them reject it on the grounds of probability. Craig admits that he’s not the best with people and having worked with/taught many high functioning people (sometimes on the spectrum perhaps) on complex anatomical and physiological systems I have seen some that also share the same difficulties in relating to people and reconciling their genius and understandings with more average intelligences. Before rejecting his claim outright because we don’t understand much of what he says, it would be prudent to first check is there any evidence that may lend support to his claim of a one in a million intelligence quotient. Craig has mentioned on a number of occasions that he holds a number of different degrees and certifications in relation to law, cryptography, statistics, mathematics, economics, theology, computer science, information technology/security. I guess that does sound like something someone with an extremely high intelligence could achieve. Now I haven’t validated all of them but from a simple check on Charles Sturt’s alumni portal using his birthday of 23rd of October 1970 we can see that he does in fact have 3 Masters and a PhD from Charles Sturt. Other pictures I have seen from his office at nChain have degrees in frames on the wall and a developer published a video titled Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 degrees where he went and validated at least 8 of them I believe. He is recently publishing his Doctorate of Theology through an on-chain social media page that you have to pay a little bit for access to sections of his thesis. It’s titled the gnarled roots of creation. He has also mentioned on a number of occasions his vast industry experience as both a security contractor and business owner. An archive from his LinkedIn can be seen below as well. LinkedIn - https://archive.is/Q66Gl https://youtu.be/nXdkczX5mR0 - Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 Degrees https://www.yours.org/content/gnarled-roots-of-a-creation-mythos-45e69558fae0 - Gnarled Roots of Creation. In fact here is an on chain collection of articles and videos relating to Craig called the library of craig - https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/94b361b205196560d1bd09e4e3b3ec7ad6bea478af204cabfe243efd8fc944dd So there is a guy with 17 degrees, a self professed one in a hundred thousand IQ, who’s worked for Australian Federal Police, ASIO, NSA, NASA, ASX. He’s been in Royal Australian Air Force, operated a number of businesses in Australia, published half a dozen academic papers on networks, cryptography, security, taught machine learning and digital forensics at a number of universities and then another few hundred short articles on medium about his work in these various domains, has filed allegedly 700 patents on blockchain related technology that he is going to release on bitcoin sv, copyrighted the name so that he may prevent other competing protocols from using the brand name, that is telling you he is the guy that invented the technology that he has a whole host of other circumstantial evidence to support that, but people won’t believe that because they saw something that a talking head on twitter posted or that a Core Developer said, or a random document that appears online with a C S Wright signature on it that lists access to an address that is actually related to Roger Ver, that’s enough to write him off as a scam. Even then when he publishes a photo of the paper copy which appears to supersede the scanned one, people still don’t readjust their positions on the matter and resort back to “all he has to do is move the coins or sign a tx”. https://imgur.com/urJbe10 Yes Craig was on the Cypherpunk mailing list back in the day, but that doesn’t mean that he was or is an anarchist. Or that he shares the same ideas that Code Is Law that many from the crypto community like to espouse. I myself have definitely been someone to parrot the phrase myself before reading lots of Craig’s articles and trying to understand where he is coming from. What I have come to learn from listening and reading the man, is that although I might be fed up with the systems we have in place, they still exist to perform important functions within society and because of that the tools we develop to serve us have to exist within that preexisting legal and social framework in order for them to have any chance at achieving global success in replacing fiat money with the first mathematically provably scarce commodity. He says he designed bitcoin to be an immutable data ledger where everyone is forced to be honest, and economically disincentivised to perform attacks within the network because of the logs kept in a Write Once Read Many (WORM) ledger with hierarchical cryptographic keys. In doing so you eliminate 99% of cyber crime, create transparent DAO type organisations that can be audited and fully compliant with legislature that’s developed by policy that comes from direct democratic voting software. Everyone who wants anonymous coins wants to have them so they can do dishonest things, illegal things, buy drugs, launder money, avoid taxes. Now this triggers me a fair bit as someone who has bought drugs online, who probably hasn’t paid enough tax, who has done illegal things contemplating what it means to have that kind of an evidence ledger, and contemplate a reality where there are anonymous cryptocurrencies, where massive corporations continue to be able to avoid taxes, or where methamphetamine can be sold by the tonne, or where people can be bought and sold. This is the reality of creating technologies that can enable and empower criminals. I know some criminals and regard them as very good friends, but I know there are some criminals that I do not wish to know at all. I know there are people that do horrific things in the world and I know that something that makes it easier for them is having access to funds or the ability to move money around without being detected. I know arms, drugs and people are some of the biggest markets in the world, I know there is more than $50 trillion dollars siphoned in to off shore tax havens from the value generated as the product of human creativity in the economy and how much human charity is squandered through the NGO apparatus. I could go on and on about the crappy things happening in the world but I can also imagine them getting a lot worse with an anonymous cryptocurrency. Not to say that I don’t think there shouldn’t be an anonymous cryptocurrency. If someone makes one that works, they make one that works. Maybe they get to exist for a little while as a honeypot or if they can operate outside the law successfully longer, but bitcoin itself shouldn’t be one. There should be something a level playing field for honest people to interact with sound money. And if they operate within the law, then they will have more than adequate privacy, just they will leave immutable evidence for every transaction that can be used as evidence to build a case against you committing a crime. His claim is that all the people that are protesting the loudest about him being Satoshi are all the people that are engaged in dishonest business or that have a vested interest in there not being one singular global ledger but rather a whole myriad of alternative currencies that can be pumped and dumped against one another, have all kinds of financial instruments applied to them like futures and then have these exchanges and custodial services not doing any Know Your Customer (KYC) or Anti Money Laundering (AML) processes. Bitcoin SV was delisted by a number of exchanges recently after Craig launched legal action at some twitter crypto influencetalking heads who had continued to call him a fraud and then didn’t back down when the CEO of one of the biggest crypto exchanges told him to drop the case or he would delist his coin. The trolls of twitter all chimed in in support of those who have now been served with papers for defamation and libel and Craig even put out a bitcoin reward for a DOX on one of the people who had been particularly abusive to him on twitter. A big european exchange then conducted a twitter poll to determine whether or not BSV should be delisted as either (yes, it’s toxic or no) and when a few hundred votes were in favour of delisting it (which can be bought for a couple of bucks/100 votes). Shortly after Craig was delisted, news began to break of a US dollar stable coin called USDT potentially not being fully solvent for it’s apparent 1:1 backing of the token to dollars in the bank. Binance suffered an alleged exchange hack with 7000 BTC “stolen” and the site suspending withdrawals and deposits for a week. Binance holds 800m USDT for their US dollar markets and immediately once the deposits and withdrawals were suspended there was a massive pump for BTC in the USDT markets as people sought to exit their potentially not 1:1 backed token for bitcoin. The CEO of this exchange has the business registered out of Malta, no physical premises, the CEO stays hotel room to hotel room around the world, has all kind of trading competitions and the binance launchpad, uses an unregistered security to collect fees ($450m during the bear market) from the trading of the hundreds of coins that it lists on its exchange and has no regard for AML and KYC laws. Craig said he himself was able to create 100 gmail accounts in a day and create binance accounts with each of those gmail accounts and from the same wallet, deposit and withdraw 1 bitcoin into each of those in one day ($8000 x 100) without facing any restrictions or triggering any alerts or such. This post could ramble on for ever and ever exposing the complexities of the rabbit hole but I wanted to offer some perspective on what’s been happening in the space. What is being built on the bitcoin SV blockchain is something that I can only partially comprehend but even from my limited understanding of what it is to become, I can see that the entirety of the crypto community is extremely threatened as it renders all the various alt coins and alt coin exchanges obsolete. It makes criminals play by the rules, it removes any power from the developer groups and turns the blockchain and the miners in to economies of scale where the blockchain acts as a serverless database, the miners provide computational resources/storage/RAM and you interact with a virtual machine through a monitor and keyboard plugged in to an ethernet port. It will be like something that takes us from a type 0 to a type 1 civilisation. There are many that like to keep us in the quagmire of corruption and criminality as it lines their pockets. Much much more can be read about the Cartel in crypto in the archive below. Is it possible this cartel has the resources to mount such a successful psychological operation on the cryptocurrency community that they manage to convince everyone that Craig is the bad guy, when he’s the only one calling for regulation, the application of the law, the storage of immutable records onchain to comply with banking secrecy laws, for Global Sound Money? https://archive.fo/lk1lH#selection-3671.46-3671.55 Please note, where possible, images were uploaded onto the bitcoin sv blockchain through bitstagram paying about 10c a pop. If I wished I could then use an application etch and archive this post to the chain to be immutably stored. If this publishing forum was on chain too it would mean that when I do the archive the images that are in the bitstragram links (but stored in the bitcoin blockchain/database already) could be referenced in the archive by their txid so that they don’t have to be stored again and thus bringing the cost of the archive down to only the html and css.
Dev meeting? Would say so, yes The people are still exhausted from the payment ID meeting :) Guess we could ping some people vtnerd, moneromooo, hyc, gingeropolous, TheCharlatan, sarang, suraeNoether, jtgrassie Anyone up for a meeting? Yep I'm here Here o/ Perhaps we should just start and people will eventually hop in? oof sorry guys, I'm working on the new FFS and I forgot all about this. Got a couple of new volunteers. This literally might be able to launch tomorrow. I know that. It's called "flow" :) I could run if you're out of time? go for it dEBRUYNE you guys are going to like this new FFS. We're like 99% done. Hi rehrar: someone else do the milestone thing already? All right, jtgrassie, perhaps you'd to start w/ briefly describing your most recent PR? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/5091 oneiric, xiphon did everything like....everything As far as I can see, it allows the user to push his transaction over I2P, thereby masking the origin IP of the sendeuser great And it hooks into vtnerd's PR right? Sure. It basically just builds on vtnerds Tor stuff. sorry dEBRUYNE Really not much added. I have it running and tested. From the perspective of the user, what needs to be configured exactly? Nice Assuming the PR is included in the release binaries I'm using knacccs i2p-zero duirng testing but will of course work with any i2p setup sorry dEBRUYNE <= Np Looks a little like dams breaking, now that we have some dark clouds over Kovri and people take matters into their own hands ... User needs to run i2p, expose a socks service and and inbound tunnel. Basically same as Tor Okay, so should be reasonable as long as we write proper documentation for it (e.g. an elaborate guide) rbrunner, yes, knaccc credit for jumping on i2p-zero really dEBRUYNE: documentation monero side is kindof done. i2p side is very much implementation specific. I suppose we could write some guides for the most popular implementations? e.g. i2p-zero aims to be zero conf, but i2pd or Kovri would be differnet. I see, great vtnerd___: Do you want to add anything? could amend the current kovri guide for monero use from --exclusive-peer to the new proxy support Now I have i2p-zero running and tested with the #5091, I plan to jump back over to helping knaccc on getting that polished. I added support for socks proxy in the basic wallets ^ excellent Yes vtnerd___ I havent tested it yet but looks sweet. So connections to `monerod` over Toi2p are possible within wallet cli and wallet rpc Awesome This also implies auth+encryption even if ssl is not in use (when using an onion or i2p address) All right moneromooo: are you here? If so, could you perhaps share what you've been working on? I am. I revived the SSL PR, more stuff on multi sender txes, an implementation of ArticMine's new block size algorithm. I presume a multi sender tx works similar to multisig insofar as the senders have to exchange data before the transaction can be performed right? Yes. There are 2 SSL PRs. What's the diff? Theoretically this would also allow the sender to provide an output right? Which would be kind of similar to Bitcoin's P2EP The second one adds some things like selecting a cert by fingerprint. Yes. (for the first sentence) All right, awesome For anyone reading, this breaks the assumption of the inputs belonging to a single sender, which makes analysis more difficult Nice side-effect. Much work coming for the various wallets to support that rbrunner: Anything you'd like to share in the meeting btw? Yes, just a little info I have started to seriously investigate what it would mean to integrate Monero into OpenBazaar I have already talked with 2 of their devs, was very interesting In maybe 2 or 3 weeks I intend to write a report Too early to tell much more :) Soon^tm I guess :) Yep Currently wrestling with Go debugging whole new world moneromooo: Has pony recently shared any insights regarding the upcoming 0.14 release btw? No. All right I would love to see the tor & i2p PR's merged sooner rather than later so we can get more testing done. ^ +1 Isn't that famous early code freeze already on the horizon? fluffypony, luigi1111 ^ I suppose I could provide a little update regarding the GUI btw As always, lots of bug fixes and improvements :-P selsta has recently added a feature to support multi accounts dsc_ has revamped the wizard and will now start working on implementing the different modes and a white theme dsc_ is working fulltime on the GUI already? yes :) dsc_ is bae In light of the recent payment ID discussion, we've also, by default, disabled the option to add a payment ID unless the user explicitely activates the option on the settings page rehrar ^ nice I spoke about this yesterday at the coffee chat, this is not a good decision. How does it handle integrated addresses? The same way? rehrar ? For the next many months, we are still stuck with PAyment IDs in the ecosystem. Making it harder for people to access them will make Monero suck so hard to use for the average person for many months. i agree with rehrar Remove the option of Payment IDs when we remove Payment IDs rehrar: The new GUI release won't be live until probably mid march though Which is a few weeks in advance of the scheduled protocol upgrade Payment ID removal comes in October right, but Payment IDs are not removed in March Did we not have loose consensus on removing the old, unencrypted payment IDs in march? they are removed in October We had discussed a deprecation in March and a ban in October ok, then if we are going to do that, we have to commit to it and contact the exchanges like Binance that use them and get rid of them in the next few months (of unencrypted) Binance is huge, and if they still use them, then people will be very upset that they can't deposit or use Payment IDs easily I'm just speaking from a UX perspective. I thought it was unencrypted in April and possibly encrypted in October Yes I do agree Timeline and notes: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/299 impossible to remove them for march, many exchanges still use them We can defer it to the 0.15 release if needed Well, that wasn't the impression for them log that I just read today This was all discussed in the earlier meeting linked above We have to force the ecosystem off of Payment IDs before we remove them from the UI, is all I'm saying Remove != make difficult to use ... or make them more difficult there, right? ping sgp_ sarang, I understand, and I agreed with you during that meeting. But then I started thinking of it as a UX person, which I am. And that huge massive problem leapt out at me i think making them difficult to generate is a good idea but making them difficult to consume and use is a bad idea well, maybe not a good idea, but a better idea ^ If we defer the decision to depriciate long payment IDs to october, won't we have the same issue then? The UI can gave an expandable payment ID field like MyMonero and we can still call it deprecated It is foolhardy to remove an option that the ecosystem uses. So I suggest we keep the Payment ID in the UI until October when they are completely banned. no dEBRYUNE, because they will be banned via consensus sgp_ imo it may be a misdirection of dev resources to add that since things are proceeding in the short term rather than long term but this is a relatively minor point Nothing matters til exchanges change All right The issue is that consensus will still have them in April, and exchanges won't upgrade because they are still allowed. Thus they must still be in the UI. endogenic these changes are already merged in the GUI to hide it like you do ok But when they are banned, exchanges are forced to upgrade or stop using Monero, so we can remove them safely because they won't be in use rehrar: that's a strong assumption sarang that they will upgrade? yes if they don't, then they can't use Monero If exchanges require pid, users need a way to set a pid. Making it hard for the user in the interim is just going to be a nightmare. we have decided to take our "stand" in October A way that is not too hard, then To be clear, we still intend to deprecate long encrypted payment IDs in April right? But no enforcement until October the term "deprecated" doesn't mean much if it's still allowed, and used in popular places yes, as far as I understand it jtgrassie, exactly True I suppose dEBRUYNE: we need to be more specific when talking about deprecation the person who suffers is the user There are two proposals for GUI deprecation: 1. Hide it in the send screen with a simple option to expand (currently merged iirc) 2. Hide it completely in the send screen unless users enable the field in advanced settings (PR'd but not merged yet iirc) What are the arguments for 2? Both are poor options, but 1 is better than 2 by a long shot Well the people who need to be made to "suffer" are the exchanges. And I don't see a way to make exchanges "suffer" other than by having their suffering customers complain to them constantly that they need to update. ^ CLI has something similar where users need to set a manual payment ID transfer mode. Not sure if it's merged yet the way to make the exchanges suffer is when we ban PIDs. They either upgrade or don't use Monero. exact;y Agree with rerahr here have exchanges been provided with clear, practical, sufficient technical upgrade plans for supporting what they're doing with PIDs but with subaddrs? Both are poor options, but 1 is better than 2 by a long shot <= I wouldn't call 1. a poor option. Have you actually checked how it looks? Because it states "Payment ID" and a user has to click on the + to expand the field endogenic: yes the email when out. Blog post coming soon, but contains the same info as the email also the exhcnages' users are often using wallets that don't support subaddresses ok great as well, it should be noted that the timeline for exchanges to upgrade is September, not October when the fork is. Which wallets are that? Rehrar: I don't see option 1. causing any issues/confusion i guess it doesnt matter too much if withdrawing as a personal user the main address should suffice Because September is when the new versions will be coming out without PIDs in the UI If there's opposition to 2, 1 is fine. We can still call it deprecated which is the optics we need anyway exchange users are often just using other exchanges lol. No wallets involved. dsc_ dEBRUYNE, ok, I trust you guys here then rbrunner: i was thinking mymonero last i heard Ok pigeons: rbrunner yes receiving on subaddresses won't be supported yet sending to them has been possible though and yes as learnandlurkin says often they withdraw to other systems like exhcnages that also dont yet support subaddresses I really can't come up with any good argument for 2. right now endogenic: seems not much of an issue then. Exchanges will typically support withdrawals to both subaddresses and plain addresses (especially if we are going to force them to use subaddresses) For deposits, MyMonero works properly if the user sends to a subaddress Actually the second solution was already merged: https://github.com/monero-project/monero-gui/pull/1866 Maybe not enough eyes watching :) The important thing is to have done something to justify having a big "DEPRECATED IN APRIL" stamp on PIDs to spook exchanges in the interim This was for solution 1: https://github.com/monero-project/monero-gui/pull/1855 The Monero Community Workgroup will start making noise everywhere we can to exchanges, and everywhere else that will listen. Try to get on those garbage news sites also. So everyone knows that deprecated in April, and banned in September Hey, for solution 1, write "Payment ID (optional, deprecated)" or similar there rbrunner: noted rehrar: probably wait until the blog post, but it should only be a few days Maybe a Reddit sticky post would be useful? With the blog post If people are over freaking out about the hashrate or terabyte blockchain :) sigh Any questions for the MRL side? Is someone checking ArticMine's block size changes for weird behaviour in some cases etc ? How would such testing work? Private blockchain?