Qtum announces intent to implement Mimble Wimble technology through precompiled Smart Contract on Qtum Platform
CFTC cleared bitcoin derivatives provider LedgerX to offer physically settled bitcoin futures contracts, approving LedgerX’s application for a designated contract market license. No timeline was provided for when LedgerX might start to offer futures.
Binance rolls out Binance 2.0, with margin access to everyone. Will soon decommission 1.0 version due to legacy performance bottlenecks.
Bitfinex ready to ship a derivatives product with up to 100 times leverage. It had been expected to go live this month.
Bitcoin IRA, a company that specialises in offering crypto for individual retirement accounts, has struck a partnership with custodian BitGo Trust that will offer clients the optionality to have their accounts insured by the custodian firm. The move will see each new Bitcoin IRA account covered by default against theft or loss of cryptographic keys, limited to $100 million annually for all of Bitcoin IRA’s accounts.
Kraken raised $13.5 million from individual donors through a crowdfunding campaign which attracted 2,263 individual investors, organised on Bnk To The Future.
KAKAO about to launch blockchain mainnet, Klaytn, according to an insider, who revealed "Klaytn's wallet will be launched after introducing Klaytn, and the wallet is going to be added into KAKAOTalk."
Square is rolling out Bitcoin deposits for its mobile Cash App. Previously, users could purchase or sell Bitcoin, as well as transfer the cryptocurrency to another wallet.
Jun 25-26 - Bitcoin 2019 (Andrew Poelstra, Anthony Pompliano, Jihan Wu, Tuur Demeester)
Jun 28 - CME Bitcoin Futures Jun 2019 contract (BTCM19) last trade date; settlement July 1
July 4-5 - Asia Blockchain Summit Taipei (Arthur Hayes, He Yi, Charlie Lee, Nouriel Roubini, Samson Mow, Vincent Zhou)
July 16 - U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs hearing on Facebook's Libra
Jul 26 - CME Bitcoin Futures Jul 2019 contract (BTCN19) last trade date; settlement July 29
Aug 6 - Litecoin Block Reward Halving (Coin reward decreases from 25 to 12.5 coins)
Aug 14 - SEC decision on Bitwise ETF
Aug 20 - Blockchain Summit Singapore 2019 (forthcoming)
Aug 30 - CME Bitcoin Futures Aug 2019 contract (BTCQ19) last trade date; settlement Sept 3
The hourly bar that marked tonight's bitcoin $12,972 top had the highest hourly volume in Bitmex's history. When such high volume prints come after an extended run, they often mark a local top. One could appreciate an intraday blow-off top on the 5 minute as well.
1/3 The opinion of the majority seems to be that #Bitcoin will shoot a lot higher from here before other #DigitalAssets move up in price. However, this does not take into account that the fiat liquidity for others has improved and that they have already been lagging behind:
2/3 Markets have a tendency to screw the majority. Market participants anticipate an "altcoin" rally to happen which leads them to invest sooner than last time, shifting the occurrence of the event to an earlier date. Game theory. That is one side of the coin (no pun )
3/3 The other side of the coin is that the general population only knows one #crypto, which is Bitcoin. Are they going to invest in Bitcoin first and then switch to other assets as these move up? I will not assign probabilities to these scenarios, just keep all aspects in mind.
How do I play this? As mentioned in the past, I use a diversification strategy which involves rebalancing. Very(!!!) simplified: Select subset of market. (Important!) Invest. Upscale the ones which have stagnated. Downscale which have multiplied in price. No financial advice!
And some long term "HODL" positions which just do not get touched at all.
Thread on the future wealth management wrt crypto: Over the next decade, the financial industry is going to become dramatically transformed, we are already beginning to see it with retail banking. As a teen i remember opening my first bank account, the fees were charged monthly.
Unless you had a large balance, that was the cost of doing business. You had no choice. I was ok with it as I knew no other option. I accepted it as reality. Wires? Fee as well. The bank holds your money, gives you basically nothing for it, and charges fees at the same time.
Thread: as the only research co-founder of Chainspace that did not join Facebook (the blockchain scalability startup that Facebook acquired), people have been asking me about my view of Libra. Here's a thread about it.
I don't have any doubt that the Libra team is building Libra for the right reasons: to create an open, decentralized payment system, not to empower Facebook. However, the road to dystopia is paved with good intentions, and I'm concerned about Libra's model for decentralization.
To understand Libra's technical philosophy for decentralization, this comment is a good point to start: https://github.com/libra/libra/pull/161 …. Libra's 100 node closed set of validators is seen as more "decentralized" than e.g. Bitcoin, as Bitcoin has 4 pools that control >51% of hashpower.
I'm aware that the word "decentralization" is overused. I'm looking at decentralization, and Sybil-resistance, as a means to achieve censorship-resistance. Specifically: what do you have to do to reverse or censor transaction, how much does it cost, and who has that power?
My concern is that Libra could end up creating a financial system that is *less* censorship-resistant than our current traditional financial system. You see, our current banking system is somewhat decentralized on a global scale, as money travels through a network of banks.
In the banking system there is no majority of parties that can collude together to deny two banks the ability to maintain a relationship which each other - in the worst case scenario they can send physical cash to each other, which does not require a ledger. It's permissionless.
With cryptocurrency systems (even decentralized ones), there is always necessarily a majority of consensus nodes (e.g. a 51% attack) that can collude together from censor or reverse transactions. So if you're going to create digital cash, this is extremely important to consider.
With Libra, censorship-resistance is even more important, as Libra could very well end up being the world's "de facto" currency, and if the Libra network is the only way to transfer that currency, and it's less censorship-resistant, we're worse off than where we started.
Libra's current permissioned consensus node selection authority is derived directly from nation state-enforced (Switzerland's) organization laws, rather than independently from stakeholders holding sovereign cryptographic keys, as was well, the cypherpunk vision.
In other words: the "root API" for Libra's node selection mechanism is the Libra Association via the Swiss Federal Constitution and the Swiss courts, rather than public key cryptography. Also, Association members must be large $1b+ companies, and are overwhelmingly US-based.
You might argue that governments can still regulate the people who hold those public keys, but a key difference is that this can't be directly enforced w/o access to the private key (example in next tweet).
Example: US pressures Swiss govt to add sanctions against $country that require Libra Association to remove $country's orgs from Association, and remaining organizations are regulated to censor $country's transactions. If $country controls its own keys, it wouldn't be possible.
This is not a hypothetical. Last year, Iran tested how resistant global payments are to US censorship, by requesting a 300 million Euro cash withdrawal via Germany's central bank. They rejected it under US pressure, changing the rules at the last minute.
US sanctions have been bad on ordinary people in Iran, but they can at least use cash to transact with other countries. If people wouldn't even be able to use cash in the future because Libra digital cash isn't censorship-resistant, that would be *brutal*.
My argument is Sybil-resistant node selection through permissionless mechanisms such as proof-of-stake, which select a set of cryptographic keys (which may be individuals) that participate in consensus, is necessarily more censorship-resistant than the Association-based model.
(Nitpick: the Libra whitepaper confuses consensus with Sybil-resistance. Proof-of-work is a Sybil-resistance mechanism, not a consensus mechanism. The "longest chain rule" is the consensus mechanism. You can still e.g. have proof-of-work + BFT consensus.)
Now to their credit, Libra has outlined a proof-of-stake-based permissionless roadmap (https://libra.org/en-US/permissionless-blockchain/ …) and "start this transition within five years". Five years. By then it will be way too late - central banks are already lining up to control it.
What I find particularly rude about Libra's whitepaper is that they claim they need to start permissioned for the next five years, because permissionlessness and scalable secure blockchains are an unsolved technical problem, and they need the community's help to research this.
It's as if they ignored the past decade of blockchain scalability research efforts. Secure layer-one scalability is a solved research problem. Ethereum 2.0, for example, is past the research stage and is now in the implementation stage, and will handle more than Libra's 1000tps.
In fact, the company that they acquired - Chainspace - was specifically *in the middle of* implementing a permissionless sharded blockchain with higher on-chain scalability than Libra's 1000tps. With FB's resources, this could've easily been accelerated and made a reality.
And there are many research-led blockchain projects that have implemented or are implementing scalability strategies that achieve higher than Libra's 1000tps without heavily trading off security, so the "community" research on this is plentiful; IMO FB is being lazy.
Let me remove the word "implemented" from the quantification of "many" actually: achieving scalability without significantly trading off security is extremely hard and I don't want to give the impression that most projects have done it successfully.
However, as stated, I do believe the core research to achieve it exists, and either way ignoring it in favour of launching permissioned for such an important system seems unwise.
So tl;dr: I find it a great shame that Facebook has decided to be anti-social and launch a permissioned system as "they need the community's help as scalable blockchains are an unsolved problem", instead of using their resources to implement on a decade of research in this area.
$XLM update: This chart is making me unimaginably happy. Very close to at least a short term bottom. Another 20% wipeout should do the trick.
$NEO Started a small bag of NEO. Altcoin capitulation going on, NEO not taking part. Chart looks semi-shitty, project really hasn't delivered but for some weird reason, it's holding against BTC. This looks like someone knows something I don't and that makes me want to own it.
Open interests of the main derivatives instruments keep rising - Bitmex xbtusd getting close to $1bln CME new all time high - $324mln as of yesterday's evening
Probably the largest derivatives expiry on record this Friday following a great Q2 for bitcoin - Bitcoin June futures: CME - 15,480 contracts ~ $175mln notional Okex - 10,800 contracts Bitmex - 4,797 contracts Bitcoin options: Deribit - 31,900 options
The 2019 crypto special - peak activity during weekends when the market is getting increasingly institutional
This update is provided for information purposes only and does not bind GSG Asset Management or any of its affiliates in any way. It is not, and is not intended to be, a/an: (1) “research report”, “investment research” or “independent research” as may be defined in applicable laws and regulations worldwide; (2) offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any digital asset by GSG Asset Management or any third party; or (3) official confirmation or official valuation of any transaction or asset mentioned herein. To the extent that any of the content published in this update may be deemed to be investment advice or recommendation in connection with a particular digital asset, such information is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any specific person. Any pricing information is indicative only, and does not reflect a level where GSG Asset Management is prepared to execute a trade. You understand that an investment in any digital asset is subject to a number of risks, and that discussions of any digital assets in this update will not contain an exhaustive list or description of the relevant risk factors. GSG Asset Management is not an advisor, and nothing in this update should be construed as investment, tax, legal, accounting, regulatory or other advice, or as creating a fiduciary relationship. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal and financial situation. You should consult an attorney or tax professional regarding your specific legal or tax situation. All market prices, data, and other information (including that which may be derived from third party sources believed to be reliable) are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy, and are subject to change without notice. All content in the update is presented only as of the date published or indicated, and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. GSG Asset Management disclaims any responsibility or liability to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, whether in contract, tort (without limitation, negligence), equity, or otherwise, for any loss or damage arising from any reliance on or use of this update in any way.