|Byzantine Fault Tolerance Explained||What Is a Dusting Attack||What Are Forward and Futures Contracts|
|Blockchain Use Cases: Charity||What Is Symmetric Key Cryptography||MACD Indicator Explained|
|What Makes a Blockchain Secure?||Pyramid and Ponzi Schemes||What Is Technical Analysis|
|Hybrid PoW/PoS Consensus Explained||What Is a 51% Attack||Stochastic RSI Explained|
|Blockchain Use Cases||What Is a DoS Attack||What Is Quantitative Easing?|
|Blockchain Use Cases: Healthcare||What Is Social Engineering?||What Is Hyperinflation|
|Blockchain Use Cases: Supply Chain||General Security Principles||What Is Inflation|
|zk-SNARKS and zk-STARKS Explained||Why Public Wifi Is Insecure||What Is an ICO|
|Delayed Proof of Work Explained||What Is a Replay Attack||What Is Fractional Reserve|
|What Is a Coin Burn?||What Is Public Key Cryptography||Game Theory and Cryptocurrencies|
|Delegated Proof of Stake Explained||History of Cryptography||What Is Tulip Mania|
|What Is Ethereum?||What Is a Multisig Wallet||What Is Fiat Currency|
|Hard Forks and Soft Forks||Ransomware Explained||The 2008 Financial Crisis Explained|
|Proof of Stake Explained||What Is CryptoJacking||What Is Ripple|
|What is Lightning Network||What Is a Keylogger||Moving Averages Explained|
|What Is Cryptocurrency||Sybil Attacks Explained||Liquidity Explained|
|Blockchain Advantages and Disadvantages||What Is Phishing||What Is the RSI Indicator|
|What Is Ethereum Plasma?||What Is Trust Wallet||Bollinger Bands Explained|
|Proof of Authority Explained||What are Makers and Takers|
|What Is Bitcoin?|
|Difference Between Blockchain and Bitcoin|
|History of Blockchain|
|What Is Cryptocurrency Mining?|
|What Is a Blockchain Consensus Algorithm|
|Proof of Work Explained|
|Proof of Burn Explained|
|What is Binance Coin?|
|How Does Blockchain Work?|
|What are Nodes?|
submitted by turtlecane to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]
The War On Shitcoins Episode 1: Bitcoin Gold (BTG). The war on shitcoins is a Crypto.IQ series that targets and shoots down cryptocurrencies that are not worth investing in either due to their being scams, having serious design flaws, being centralized, or in general just being worthless copies of other cryptocurrencies. There are thousands of shitcoins that are ruining the markets, and Crypto.IQ intends to expose all of them. The crypto space needs an exorcism, and we are happy to provide it.
There are more than 2,000 cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap, and Bitcoin Gold (BTG) is near the top at number 25 with a market cap of $207 million. This would seem to indicate that Bitcoin Gold is a major cryptocurrency, but it is simply a copycat of Bitcoin with one key and debilitating difference that makes it worse than Bitcoin. Bitcoin Gold is designed to block ASIC miners, leaving only GPU miners.
The idea was that GPU miners would rally around Bitcoin Gold since GPU Bitcoin miners were disenfranchised by ASIC miners years ago. Ultimately, this decision to only allow GPUs resulted in such a low mining hash rate that Bitcoin Gold is vulnerable to 51 percent attacks, and a serious 51 percent attack has already happened once. Further, Bitcoin Gold has had centralization problems from the very beginning.
When Bitcoin Gold launched in November 2017 the developers did a massive premine of 8,000 blocks, which yielded them about 100,000 BTG. At today’s price $12 this is $1.2 million, and when BTG’s price peaked near $500, this was $50 million. This premine is unfair to other BTG miners, traders, and investors. Supposedly, the premined BTG were placed in an “endowment,” which means the developers will receive all of that money eventually, just not all at once. There is no way to verify if this is even true, however, and the excessive 97 percent BTG price crash since January 2018 might be partially due to developers dumping their coins.
A far more serious issue than the premine is BTG’s lack of network security. BTG made mining ASIC resistant by using the Equishash Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm. However, ASICs were eventually developed for Equihash since ASICs can be developed for any PoW algorithm. In May 2018 a 51 percent double spend attack occurred on the Bitcoin Gold network, and a hacker stole $18.6 million from cryptocurrency exchanges that listed BTG. This caused the developers to hard fork in order to implement a newer version of Equihash that is supposedly more ASIC resistant. Clearly, the developers did not learn their lesson that there is no ASIC-resistant PoW algorithm. If Bitcoin Gold became valuable enough, someone would produce an ASIC for it.
It is unclear if Equihash ASICs were the reason for the 51 percent attack, since an attacker could literally just rent some hash rate on a cloud mining site and successfully 51 percent attack Bitcoin Gold. Currently it only takes 1.6 MH/s of rented mining power to successfully perform a double spend attack on the Bitcoin Gold network, and this costs about $1,000 per hour if the hash rate is rented from NiceHash.
Effectively, Bitcoin Gold is not cryptographically secure. The original purpose of banning ASIC miners so that GPU miners could thrive ended up being a fatal flaw for Bitcoin Gold. It is ridiculous that major exchanges like Binance and Bitfinex still offer BTG trading. This is a true disservice to the users of these exchanges and is a risk for the exchanges themselves.
Crypto users need to educate themselves thoroughly before buying any cryptocurrency, or they could end up buying a shitcoin like Bitcoin Gold just because it has a high ranking on CoinMarketCap. BTG has already lost 97 percent of its value since January 2018, and there is strong potential for it to become completely worthless once someone decides to rent some hash power and perform a vicious 51 percent attack.
submitted by GTE_IO to u/GTE_IO [link] [comments]
Article by Coindesk: Omkar Godbole
Bitcoin’s latest bout of consolidation may end up with bullish breakout, as a key metric of miner confidence has hit all-time highs.
The top cryptocurrency by market value has clocked lower daily highs and higher daily lows over the last three days and is currently trading at $10,300 on Bitstamp, little changed on a 24-hour basis.
The cryptocurrency has charted the narrowing price range amid a surge in non-price metrics including a rise in the network’s hash rate — a measure of the computing power dedicated to mining bitcoin.
The two-week average hash rate reached a record high of 85 exahashes per second (EH/s) around 19:00 UTC last Friday. Further, mining difficulty — a measure of how hard it is to create a block of transactions — also jumped to a new all-time of nearly 12 trillion.
The hash rate could be considered a barometer of miner’s confidence in the bitcoin price rally. After all, the miners would be ready to dedicate more resources for mining if they are bullish on price and would want to scale back their operations if a price slide is expected.
Hence, many observers, including the likes of Changpeng Zhao, Founder of Binance, and former Wall Street trader and journalist Max Keiser believe prices follow hash rate.
Zhao tweeted on Friday that, “a rising hash rate means more miners are investing in BTC”, while few other observers stated that sellers should think twice before betting against the most secure blockchain — the higher the hash rate of a cryptocurrency network, the more expensive to 51 percent attack.
Put simply, Zhao is expecting bitcoin’s price to track the hash rate higher. It is worth noting that the market stands divided on the relationship between bitcoin’s price and hash rate.
Some observers believe the hash rate follows price and the metric’s outperformance represents overtly exuberant miners. Hence, reading the rising hash rate as a sign of an impending price rally may prove costly.
That said, the price is likely to follow the hash rate this time, as overexuberance is typically observed at market tops or near record highs. As of now, BTC is down almost $10,000 from the record high of $20,000 reached in December.
Also, the market sentiment is quite bullish with reward halving (supply cut) due in less than a year and the sustained uptick in miners’ confidence is more likely to draw fresh bids, possibly leading to a positive feedback loop.
All-in-all, the narrowing price range established over the last few days is likely to pave the way for a bullish move.
Daily and 4-hour charts
Bitcoin has charted (above left) back-to-back inside bar candlestick pattern over the last three days. The first inside bar appeared on Friday as that day’s high and low fell within Thursday’s trading range.
The second and the third inside bar candle was created on Saturday and Sunday, respectively.
Inside bars indicate consolidation and lack of volatility and often end with an explosive move on either side. A break below the first inside bar’s (Friday) low of $10,154 would imply range breakdown and could yield a stronger sell-off to levels below $9,855 (Sept. 11 low).
A break above Friday’s high of $10,458 would imply range breakout and open the doors to $10,956 (July 20 high).
The falling wedge breakout confirmed on the 4-hour chart (above right) last week is still valid. So, the probability of range breakout is high.
Disclosure: The author holds no cryptocurrency assets at the time of writing.
Bitcoin image via Shutterstock; charts by Trading View
submitted by crypt0hodl1 to PundiX [link] [comments]
Thank you for participating in the AMA session.
The live recording of the AMA session addressing questions and concerns by the community members at 10:00 am GMT+8 on January 19 can be viewed here: youtu.be/4HcjcwUbaW8
Please find a summary of Zac’s answers below (some answers have been lightly edited for clarity and conciseness).
After the staking process has started on March 10, the conversion process will start in April or May, giving users the opportunity to choose and swap their NPXS or NPXSXEM tokens to f(x) tokens. This will be done on XWallet too.
The reason we gave no exact figure is that the conversion process refreshes everyday and is fluid. Every day there are millions of f(x) tokens available for conversion which are distributed dynamically depending on demand.
For e.g. let’s say Bob elects to convert 1 NPXS and is the only person converting on that day, he will get all of the f(x) available for conversion.
But if Bob and Alice each stake 1 NPXS then they will share 50% of the tokens.
If Bob, Alice and Charlie each stake 1 NPXS and 1 NPXSXEM they will share 33% of the tokens and so on.
What if so many people want to convert? We have a low bar figure, which is we want to guarantee that if there are a lot of people trying to convert, the daily ratio cap you will get (days 1–30) is 1:500, (days 30–60) 1:600 and (days 60–90) 1:700.
Once you decide to convert you will receive 12% on the spot and then 8% every month until the conversion process is finished in one year.
Just like Bitcoin, f(x) will need miners to come in, proof of service to come in. This is the blockchain model, which f(x) will also implement. NPXS instead has tokens deducted from supply.
If we were to merge the two they couldn’t work together as they operate in contradictory ways.
This is how we designed the token mechanics, to reward and incentivise those who want to contribute to the ecosystem?
We’re going to try to get a web version out by March 10 too.
Over 15 years we will need to attract service providers, nodes, miners etc. etc. We believe that we want to strike a balance to allocate tokens to the benefit of current holders.
The team will not convert any of its NPXS to f(x). We’ll be holding our NPXS token and focusing on the deployment of XPOS. More than 5500 XPOS have been shipped with more due next week. Some 50,000 XPASS cards have been activated, making it the most activated crypto card in the market.
Our vision is to see the XPOS, XPASS cards and XWallet power commerce on the Function X blockchain.
Attack (computing) Binance; Bitcoin Gold hit by 51% attacks, $72K in cryptocurrency double-spent . Smaller Proof-of-Work networks are prone to these incidents. Story by David Canellis. 102 ... 4. Historical 51% Attack Cases Bitcoin Cash (May 2019) Two Bitcoin Cash mining pools, BTC.com and BTC.top, carried a 51% attack on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain in order to stop an unknown miner from taking coins that he wasn’t supposed to have access to, while the network forked.. Even though some would argue the 51% attack was done to help the network, it still demonstrates the power these ... Bitcoin 51% Attack Requires ‘Significant Expenditure’ Professor Saravanan Vijayakumaran, an Associate Professor of the Department of Electrical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay has published a new research paper titled The Security of the Bitcoin Protocol.. The study, sponsored by Zebpay, examined the security framework of the Bitcoin network under three main ... Binance increased its BTG withdrawal requirement to 20 confirmations right after the attack occurred. The first 51 percent attack in a combination of double-spending on the Bitcoin Gold network happened in 2018 and resulted in $18M of stolen assets. The Bittrex crypto exchange had to delist BTG coin back then. #2. Ethereum Classic (ETC) The genuine Ethereum blockchain suffered a malicious 51% ... For instance, the altcoin Bitcoin Gold - which is a fork from the main Bitcoin chain - suffered a 51% attack in May 2018, leading to the theft of $18 million worth of BTG at the time. To learn more about 51% attacks and how likely to happen they are, check our full article on the Binance Academy. In Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, a 51 percent attack is possible if a single miner, or group of colluding miners (a cartel), can assemble more hashing power than all other mining participants. Advancement in ASICs aside, hashing power is roughly proportionate to how much money a miner is willing to spend on engineering research, hardware, and electricity. Therefore, a 51% attack on Bitcoin is rather unlikely due to the magnitude of the network. Once a blockchain grows large enough, the likelihood of a single person or group obtaining enough computing power to overwhelm all the other participants rapidly drops to very low levels. Moreover, changing the previously confirmed blocks gets more and more difficult as the chain grows, because the ... The most recent Bitcoin Gold attack was worth about $72,000, while Binance expects to make $429K from Bitcoin Gold this year. Likewise, the Ethereum Classic 51 percent attack netted the attacker approximately $1.1 million, while Binance expects to make about $3.2 million off its trading fees. This is yet another reason why coins do not die ... Bitcoin gold’s 51 percent attack was the second in just two years (the first bitcoin gold attack was much larger), yet BTG remains traded on exchanges like Binance to this day. Naturally, the ... Exchanges including Bittrex, Binance, Bithumb, Bitinka, and Bitfinex lost an estimated $18 million worth of coins due to the double spend attack. Bittrex blamed the Bitcoin Gold team for negligence and demanded compensation in order to keep the cryptocurrency listed. In response, the Bitcoin Gold team stated that 51% attacks are a known risk in the ecosystem. They added that the BTG ...
[index]          
The Binance IEO Shill Gang ( Crypto Zombie, Blockchain Brad, That Martini Guy & Mr Kristof) have attacked Chico Crypto on the same day after I posted my Binance IEO expose video. Breaking Bitcoin Market Update - Bitcoin Short Sell Setup and Bullish Altcoin Trades Cracking Crypto 146 watching Live now Is the US-China Trade War a Cold War? Tax Free Crypto, XRPTip Bot Ban, Bitcoin Gold 51% Attack, Assets On XRP & Bitcoin Price Bounce The Modern Investor. Loading... Unsubscribe from The Modern Investor? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working ... Bitcoin 51% Attack - Clearly Explained In this video I explain what a 51% attack is in the world of blockchain & cryptocurrency. Did you enjoy this video? SUBSCRIBE for more: https://www.youtube ... Watch live: https://ivanontech.com/live 51% ( majority ) hash power attack in bitcoin ! what is double spend ? monopoly of blockchain - Duration: 15:53. Hacks And Security - Concepts of Technology 1,395 views 15:53 51% attack is when an individual miner or group of miners manage to control more than 50% of a network’s hashing power. This would allow the attacker to disrupt the network and rewrite history ...