Bitcoin and Cardanos ADA Weekly Technical Analysis July 20th, 2020 – Yahoo Finance

Bitcoin

Bitcoin fell by 0.95% in the week ending 19th July. Partially reversing a 2.50% gain from the previous week, Bitcoin ended the week at $9,231.2.

It was a bearish start to the week. Bitcoin fell from a Monday intraweek high $9,350 to a Wednesday intraweek low $9,026.6.

Bitcoin fell through the first major support level at $9,095 before finding support in the 2nd half of the week.

3 consecutive days in the green cut the deficit for the week, with Bitcoin recovering to $9,200 levels.

3-days in the red, however, were enough to leave Bitcoin in negative territory for the week.

Bitcoin would need to move back through the $9,200 pivot to bring the first major resistance level at $9,380 into play.

Support from the broader market would be needed for Bitcoin to break back through to $9,300 levels.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and last weeks high $9,380 would likely cap any upside.

In the event of a breakout, Bitcoin could take a run at $9,500 levels before any pullback. The second major resistance level at $9,526 would likely cap any upside, however.

Failure to move back through the $9,200 pivot would bring support levels into play.

A pullback through to sub-$9,100 levels would bring the first major support level at $9,055 into play.

Barring an extended crypto sell-off, however, Bitcoin should steer clear of the second major support level at $8,879.0. The 23.6% FIB of $8,900 should limit any downside in the week.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin was down by 0.36% to $9,197.9. A mixed start to the week saw Bitcoin rise to an early Monday high $9,238.2 before falling to a low $9,191.2.

Bitcoin left the major support and resistance levels untested at the start of the week.

Cardanos ADA fell by 2.23% in the week ending 19th July. Following a 29.24% rally from the previous week, Cardanos ADA ended the week at $0.12409.

It was a mixed start to the week. Cardanos ADA rose to a Monday intraweek high $0.1369 before ending the day in the red.

Falling short of the first major resistance level at $0.1468, Cardanos ADA slid to a Thursday intraweek low $0.1169.

Steering clear of the first major support level at $0.10116, Cardanos ADA recovered to $0.12 levels to limit the downside.

4-days in the red that included a 3.49% loss on Thursday and 3.01% fall on Friday delivered the weekly loss. A 6.61% rally on Tuesday limited the downside for the week, however.

Cardanos ADA would need to move through the $0.1260 pivot to support a run at the first major resistance level at $0.1350.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Cardanos ADA to break back through to $0.130 levels.

Barring another extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and last weeks high $0.1369 would likely cap any upside.

In the event of another breakout, the second major resistance level at $0.14596 and $0.15 levels could come into play.

Failure to move through the $0.1260 pivot could see Cardanos ADA see a 2nd consecutive week in the red.

A pullback through to sub-$0.12 levels would bring the first major support level at $0.1150 and 23.6% FIB of $0.1125 into play.

Barring an extended broader-market sell-off, however, Cardanos ADA should steer well clear of sub-$0.010 levels. The second major support level at $0.1060 should limit any downside.

Story continues

At the time of writing, Cardanos ADA was down by 0.92% to $0.12294. A bearish start to the week saw Cardanos ADA fall from an early Monday high $0.12444 to a low $0.12267.

Cardanos ADA left the major support and resistance levels untested at the start of the week.

This article was originally posted on FX Empire

More here:
Bitcoin and Cardanos ADA Weekly Technical Analysis July 20th, 2020 - Yahoo Finance

Bitcoin And Modern Soft Fork Activation Bitcoin Magazine – Bitcoin Magazine

Taproot, a proposed protocol upgrade that would improve Bitcoins privacy and flexibility, is in its late stages of development. Bitcoin Core contributors agree that the upgrade would benefit Bitcoin, and so far it generally appears to be welcomed by the wider Bitcoin ecosystem as well. Its therefore likely that Taproot will make its way into a Bitcoin Core release, with other Bitcoin implementations possibly to follow.

But one question remains: how should the Bitcoin network itself upgrade? Taproot is a consensus protocol change, which means that Bitcoin nodes must somehow switch from the old rules to the new rules without splitting the network into factions enforcing different rules. For various reasons, this has in the past sometimes proven to be a challenge.

Improved strategies to activate protocol upgrades are now being contemplated.

The good news is that Taproot will be a soft fork. This type of upgrade adds or tightens rules as opposed to a hard fork which removes or loosens rules. The nice thing about adding or tightening rules is that anything that an upgraded node considers valid, a non-upgraded node considers valid, too. (If an old node accepts both transaction types A and B, but new rules only allow transaction type A, the old node would remain compatible on a network enforcing the new rules.)

Bitcoins earliest soft forks were activated though flag days. Developers (in particular, Satoshi Nakamoto) embedded a future date in the code of a new Bitcoin software client release, specifying a point in time where upgraded nodes would enforce the new rules. Miners and users were encouraged to upgrade before that date to avoid network splits. (As an aside, in those days, miners and users were in these days more often than today the same people.)

Since non-upgraded nodes remain compatible with new rules, a handy benefit of soft forks is that if a majority of hash power enforces the upgrade, the entire Bitcoin network finds consensus on their version of the blockchain. This also means there is less of a pressing need for all nodes to be upgraded immediately when the new protocol rules are enforced, allowing users some flexibility. (Though users are encouraged to upgrade nonetheless; they are ultimately the ones enforcing the new rules by rejecting transactions and blocks that break them.)

Since about 2012, soft forks have increasingly utilized hash power as a coordination mechanism to coordinate a switch to new rules. By embedding a bit of data in their blocks, miners can signal to other miners and the rest of the network that they upgraded their software, and thus are ready to enforce the new rules. Once enough hash power signals support, all upgraded nodes are triggered to enforce the new rules.

Over the course of a few upgrades, this strategy evolved into Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 9 (BIP 9). BIP 9 was, for example, the mechanism used to activate Bitcoins last soft fork upgrade, Segregated Witness (SegWit). Miners were given a year to activate the upgrade, requiring 95 percent of blocks within any difficulty interval to include a readiness signal bit. If after a year this hadnt happened, the activation period would expire, and the upgrade would have failed. (It could then of course simply be tried again.)

For SegWit, however, BIP 9 did not play out smoothly. As with some of the previous upgrades, some miners probably didnt get around to upgrading for some time due to apathy: there often isnt a very big incentive for miners to upgrade fast. But a bigger problem was that some miners had come to understand the signaling process as a sort of vote on the upgrade, where instead of signaling readiness, they would (or would not) signal support for it. Worse, some miners ended up using this vote to block the upgrade in order to try and gain political leverage over the Bitcoin development process, and/or they voted against the upgrade in order to covertly benefit from a quirk in the Bitcoin protocol which the upgrade would fix.

After an extended period of intense drama, SegWit ultimately did activate, but only after alternative Bitcoin clients included new activation schemes. BIP 148, included in the BIP 148 client run by some users, was programmed to only accept blocks signaling support for the protocol upgrade starting on a flag day. Meanwhile, BIP 91, included in the btc1 client and run by miners just ahead of the BIP 148 flag day, effectively lowered the hash power requirement from 95 percent to 75 percent. Faced with a potential split network and a possible loss of income, the obstructing miners conceded. But for most Bitcoin Core developers, BIP 9 had revealed itself to be a suboptimal solution, and they started thinking of alternatives.

BIP 8 was an early alternative for BIP 9, proposed by BIP 148 author Shaolinfry and Bitcoin Knots and Bitcoin Core contributor Luke-jr. It initially resembled BIP 9, but with one crucial difference: instead of the upgrade failing after a year of insufficient hash power support, it would do the exact opposite and activate the soft fork at that point in time. Similar to a flag day, all upgraded nodes would from then on start enforcing the new rules. Miners whod still have failed to upgrade would risk mining blocks that upgraded miners and users would reject.

The main idea behind BIP 9 is that assuming of course that users upgrade miners cant block the soft fork and therefore cant use this leverage to their benefit. They can speed activation up and help coordinate a smooth protocol upgrade, but the upgrade will eventually happen even if they dont activate it themselves.

A more recent draft of BIP 8 includes some notable changes. For one, BIP 8 allows nodes to be configured for two different policies when the signaling period is about to expire: forced activation, as explained in the previous two paragraphs, or no forced activation, like with BIP 9. Furthermore, instead of activating the upgrade itself, nodes (if so configured) actually enforce signaling for the upgrade. Blocks that do not signal support for the upgrade are then rejected, hence still guaranteeing the upgrade, at least for the upgraded nodes. The combination of these two changes has the interesting property that if a majority of all Bitcoin hash power is compelled to signal support for the upgrade, even BIP 8 nodes that arent configured to enforce signaling will go along with the upgrade,

An argument against BIP 8, and its forced signaling (or automatic activation) in specific, is that it can be risky, especially on a shorter timeline. If a hash power majority and at least some users dont upgrade, this scheme could split the network between upgraded and non-upgraded nodes. Assuming most users support the upgrade, this would likely resolve in favor of the upgraded part of the network eventually. But non-upgraded users would risk losing funds in the meantime, while non-upgraded miners would waste hash power to the detriment of Bitcoins security.

This risk is probably best countered by offering enough time to upgrade. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on how much time is enough; some think forced signaling could start within a year, others believe it should take several years.

Another complication with BIP 8 is setting defaults for forced signaling. If forced signaling is switched off by default, users could find themselves uncoordinated, increasing the risk of network splits. If on the other hand forced signaling is chosen as the default in a Bitcoin Core release, the historically widespread adoption of Bitcoin Core virtually guarantees that the upgrade will happen. Some believe this would give Bitcoin Core developers too much influence over Bitcoins protocol rules. For this reason, BIP 8 coauthor Luke-jr prefers BIP 8 with forced signaling to exclusively be deployed through special clients, similar to the BIP 148 client.

Others argue that Bitcoin Core developers always release software to their best judgement, while keeping user demand in mind and avoiding contentious upgrades; setting BIP 8 defaults should be no exception to this policy. If anyone disagrees with the choices Bitcoin Core developers make after all, they can simply choose not to upgrade to a new release or even fork the Bitcoin Core code to launch a competing client altogether.

While Bitcoin Core developers indeed seek to take user demand into consideration and try to avoid contentious upgrades, not everyone is convinced this is always perfectly possible. Perhaps concerns about a proposed upgrade only surface when the software is deployed in a new release. Perhaps whole new issues arise after this release. Or perhaps Bitcoin Core developers simply missed something.

This is one reason why Bitcoin Core contributor Matt Corallo proposed a strategy dubbed Modern Soft Fork Activation. Modern Soft Fork Activation consists of three steps, together essentially realizing a combination of BIP 9 (or: BIP 8 without forced signaling) and BIP 8 with flag day activation (though forced signaling could be an option as well).

As the first step, BIP 9 would allow miners to activate the soft fork through hash power. If miners dont activate it in (say) a year, the first activation window expires. Then, as the second step, developers take some time to analyze why activation failed, and reconsider the proposal if they do find a concern with it. If they find there was no problem with the proposal, however, the third step is redeployment of the soft fork, this time using BIP 8 with flag day activation: miners get another chance to activate the proposal with hash power, but if they fail again, the soft fork activates when this second signaling period ends. (During this second signaling period, the hash power activation threshold could also be incrementally lowered over time, Bitcoin Core contributor AJ Towns suggests.)

By explicitly committing to BIP 8 redeployment if it turns out theres nothing wrong with the proposal, Corallo believes the strategy would offer the benefits of BIP 9 without the downside. The code is put out there during the first signaling period for everyone to consider, miners can coordinate a smooth upgrade if they so choose, and with no forced activation developers can take their time to reconsider the proposal if activation does initially fail. Meanwhile, miners would have much less to gain from blocking the upgrade for no good reason, as everyone knows it will eventually activate anyways.

The main argument against Modern Soft Fork Activation is that without miner cooperation, the process would take relatively long, and some consider the BIP 9 step a waste of time altogether. Corallos original proposal includes one year of BIP 9 signaling, followed by six months to reconsider, and finally two years of BIP 8 signaling before automated activation: a total of three-and-a-half years. While this timeline is of course not set in stone yet, shortening the different steps by too much would leave less time for reconsideration and/or upgrading (increasing the risk of network splits).

Due to the long time until potential forced activation, some also argue that miners can try and gain some political leverage after all: they can delay the upgrade for years.

Another, recent suggestion circulating through Bitcoins tech channels is perhaps best described as a bit of a merger between BIP 8 and Modern Soft Fork Activation, at least in spirit. The unnamed proposal would deploy a long BIP 8 signaling period, perhaps as long as Modern Soft Fork Activations three-and-a-half years, after which forced signaling triggers. However, if after (say) one year the upgrade didnt activate yet, developers would take some time to reconsider the proposal, like they would with Modern Soft Fork Activation.

If developers would find no problem with the proposal, and instead were to conclude that it simply hadnt activated due to miner apathy or another invalid reason, they could opt to deploy a new soft fork in the style of BIP 91, used during SegWit activation. This would effectively lower the hash power threshold for activation, presumably speeding up the process.

If, on the other hand, developers would find a problem with the proposal after all, they could deploy a new soft fork that would fix the problem, or even undo the original soft fork (in this case, Taproot) altogether. Assuming Modern Soft Fork Activations three-and-a-half-year timeline until forced signaling, there ought to be enough time left to take care of this.

The main argument against this proposal is probably that its not very elegant to deploy a soft fork that undoes another soft fork, if so needed. More concretely, it requires that miners and users upgrade to new releases before deadlines are reached, or risk splitting the network.

Finally, as a bit of an outlier proposal, Bitcoin Core contributor Jeremy Rubin suggested that a concept he invented called Probabilistic Bitcoin soft forks, or Sporks, might be an interesting alternative.

The heart of the problem of BIP 9, Rubin argues, is that miners can delay upgrades at no cost of their own. Simply refusing to signal readiness for an upgrade is free, while it potentially offers them political leverage.

With Sporks, the readiness signal is no longer taken from a bit of data that miners include in the blocks they mine, but derived from the block header hash: the randomly generated proof of work they produced by investing time and resources. Upgraded nodes would agree that a small subset of valid block header hashes statistically to only be found every six months or so would trigger the upgrade.

Per the randomness of hashes, a miner would not control whether he produces regular block header hashes or upgrade-activating block header hashes; hed statistically just happen to churn out one of the latter sporadically. So, if his invested resources happen to generate an upgrade-activating block header hash, hed have two choices. Either, publish it to the Bitcoin network, earn the block reward, and activate the soft fork. Or, withhold from publishing, delaying the soft fork by about six months on average in our example but in doing so also giving up the block reward. Delaying the upgrade would come at a significant cost.

The main problem with Sporks right now is probably that its a relatively new idea, that hasnt been developed yet let alone tested in the wild. While some do consider the concept interesting, its as of yet not the most likely contender for Taproot activation.

Authors note: The debate on soft fork activation (and Taproot activation in specific) is in flux; this is a non-exhaustive overview of the different upgrade proposals, especially when it comes to variants of the proposals with alternative parameters and other tweaks, and all their pros and cons.

Read more:
Bitcoin And Modern Soft Fork Activation Bitcoin Magazine - Bitcoin Magazine

As other inflation hedges enjoy moment in the sun, bitcoin stays stuck in the doldrums – Yahoo Finance

Investors are increasingly looking to snap up safeguards for their portfolios to hedge against rising inflation a trend that could benefit assets spanning gold to bitcoin.

Indeed, reporting from the Financial Times last week noted that money has been pouring into funds that invest in TIPS (Treasury inflation-protected securities). According to the publication, more than $5 billion has moved into funds invested in the bonds, which aim to protect investors from spikes in consumer prices. Gold is also enjoying a moment, trading up more than 19% since the beginning of the year and recently crossing $1,800 for the first time since 2011.

The thinking among investors is that inflation could pick up as a result of recent monetary policy actions from various central banks. Other factors include a further decline in the price of the U.S. dollar, as noted by the FT's Michael Mackenzie. U.S. consumer prices rebounded in June after three months of declines, the highest increase in more than eight years.

Still, the Federal Reserves' flagship inflation gauge declined to 1.7%, below the Fed's 2% target.

The average expected inflation over the next five years stands at 1.57%, far below the 2.2% post-financial crisis average. The expected breakeven inflation, meanwhile, stands at 1.35%, below the post-recession average of 1.7%. Typically, a rising breakeven inflation rate is associated with a rosier economic outlook among investors. It also can be "interpreted as the inflation rate that market participants anticipate to hold in the future," specifically over five years.

In any case, bitcoin appears stuck in an extended period of doldrums the digital asset has traded within a tight range between $9,000 and $9,300 since the end of June.

2020The Block Crypto, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Read the rest here:
As other inflation hedges enjoy moment in the sun, bitcoin stays stuck in the doldrums - Yahoo Finance

Bitcoin SV poised to support tokens better than any blockchain – CoinGeek

sCrypt recent published a simple way to implement tokens on the base layer of the Bitcoin SV (BSV) ledger. This demonstration leverages their previous OP_PUSH_TX technique to enforce state such that a chain of token transfers can be established and kept consistent.

After the script terminates with the proper use of OP_RETURN, only two values are necessary to reflect the owners balancetheir public key and token amount. This simplicity is enabled by the security model and features of the Bitcoin protocol itself.

The solution is UTXO based, so additional software to keep track of ownership is minimal. To recognize the transactions, existing wallets would only need to show the user the sum of all the tokens in their UTXOs that match their public key(s). Additional metadata could be trivially added to the transaction in order to rival ERC-20 like standards, paving the way for BSVs potential scale and low fees to deprecate alternative chains token solutions.

Under the UTXO model, tokens can be just as private as Bitcoins:

Source: Medium

Source: BitcoinSV.io

They also scale with the network as opposed to heavily needing to rely on external software.

This base layer solution has an advantages over the Layer 2 solutions like Tokenized and Run which leverage data in OP_RETURN outputs. Tokenized requires off-chain agents to validate transactions; Run requires validating the history of UTXOs. Both Run and sCrypt can leverage external solutions like state servers and co-signers respectively, to prevent arbitrary minting or spoofing of tokens.

That all seems great, yet several hurdles need to be overcome before this is possible. Wallets for the most part only support one transaction type via their user interfaces, sending money from one person to another aka P2PKH. The transactions used as examples are quite large (over 2 KB), so they would have fees of around 1500 satoshis (assuming 0.5 sats/byte). Per sCrypt founder Xiaohui Liu, these scripts are not optimized at all and could be drastically reduced in size.

The actual Bitcoin amounts in the UTXOs would optimally need to be 1 satoshi, which would require a lowering of the dust limit. Also, fees would need to be much lower to make these transactions feasible, and to compete with the other chains solutions. Thus, we have yet another chicken and egg scenario where we want limits lowered but need more demand of on-chain transactions to justify their reduction.

Each token solution (sCrypt, Tokenized, Run) are either not public or too immature to be adopted. The potential exists now to facilitate the transactions faster and cheaper than currently possible on other chains.

Even with sCrypts raw, sub-optimal demo transaction, with a rate of 0.5 sats/byte the fee would be a quarter of a cent (1400 satoshis) which would be 160x cheaper than the 2.1% transaction fee above. Until those solutions mature, users of BSV looking to use stable coins are stuck with duct tape (yet slick) solutions like RelayXs OTC desk which cannot overcome alternative chains high fees.

Source: RelayX

As more simple, easy to implement token solutions emerge, Bitcoin SV is poised to dominate in the token space. At the moment, the potential of the chain with unlocked scripting capabilities are not yet widely understood enough to take advantage. Hopefully sCrypts innovation at the base layer can pave the way forward.

New to Bitcoin? Check out CoinGeeksBitcoin for Beginnerssection, the ultimate resource guide to learn more about Bitcoinas originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamotoand blockchain.

Original post:
Bitcoin SV poised to support tokens better than any blockchain - CoinGeek

Bitcoin Scammers Claim To Have Compromising Videos Of Victims – Yonkers Daily Voice

Bitcoin scammers have been threatening to expose sensitive videos of their victims if they are not paid off.

Fraudsters have been sending spam emails that allege they have recorded video of you getting yourself off, which they threaten to expose if they are not paid off.

The emails claim that the scammer is from out of the country, and cannot be targeted by local law enforcement.

Scammers allege that based on their potential victims visiting bad websites that infected computers with malware, they now have video of lewd acts that they threaten to share with friends and family.

In order to obviate the disgrace for the term of life, you should send 18 Dash coins to a certain address, and your prestige will not be damaged, the fraudsters wrote in an email to Daily Voice.

The scammers offer a 24-hour deadline to transfer the bitcoin, with the compromising video allegedly being disseminated within 48 hours.

The FBIs Internet Crime Complaint Center said it has seen an increase in reports of online extortion scams during the current "stay-at-home" orders due to the COVID-19 crisis.

Because large swaths of the population are staying at home and likely using the computer more than usual, scammers may use this opportunity to find new victims and pressure them into sending money, they wrote in a report.

The scammers are sending emails threatening to release sexually explicit photos or personally compromising videos to the individual's contacts if they do not pay. While there are many variations of these online extortion attempts, they often share certain commonalities.

Click here to sign up for Daily Voice's free daily emails and news alerts.

See the original post here:
Bitcoin Scammers Claim To Have Compromising Videos Of Victims - Yonkers Daily Voice

Most-wanted Wirecard executive reportedly owns significant sums of Bitcoin Report – Yahoo Finance

The former chief operating officer at disgraced payments firm Wirecard has reportedly transferred "significant sums" of bitcoin following his escape from Germany, according to reporting by a leading German business newspaper Handelsblatt.

Jan Marsalek was a key figure behind the breakdown of Germany-based Wirecard, which has made headlines for filing for insolvency and allegations of improper accounting tied to billions of dollars that went missing from its balance sheet.

The transfer of bitcoin suggests Marsalek is now in Russia. As per German publication Handelsblatt, Marsalek has been missing for weeks and he "is said to have brought significant sums to Russia in the form of bitcoins from Dubai, where Wirecard had dubious operations" as per a translation of a Sunday evening report.

Marsaleks fascination with cryptocurrencies has been documented, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

"Mr. Marsalek liked engaging in late-night discussions about cryptocurrencies and their ability to move money without a trace," a July report noted.

2020The Block Crypto, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Follow this link:
Most-wanted Wirecard executive reportedly owns significant sums of Bitcoin Report - Yahoo Finance

Why the Twitter Hack Was Good for Bitcoin (and Its Not the Media Attention) – CoinDesk – CoinDesk

Every year has a handful of days that youll never forget. Sometimes for great reasons, sometimes for awful ones, and sometimes because a level of noise and action coalesces into an awareness that something big has shifted.

Wednesday was one of those days, with the staccato of compromised Twitter accounts (including ours) escalating to reach prominent public figures including current and former heads of state. The scale of the hack was spectacular.

Youre readingCrypto Long & Short, a newsletter that looks closely at the forces driving cryptocurrency markets. Authored by CoinDesks head of research, Noelle Acheson, it goes out every Sunday and offers a recap of the week with insights and analysis from a professional investors point of view.You can subscribe here.

The mainstream press called this a bitcoin scam, and to some extent it was the hacker set up the typical ploy of promising to send back double whatever amount of bitcoin anyone sent to a certain wallet. Its amazing that people fall for this.

But some people do a total of $123,000 worth of BTC was sent in approximately 400 transactions in total (some may have been the hacker recycling coins to inflate the activity). 17 transactions sent more than $1,000. Glossing over the fact that this is an astonishingly small amount for the scale of the hack, some skeptics took the opportunity to remind everyone how bitcoin was a scammers paradise.

Close the door

Some commentators went as far as to call for the banning of bitcoin. If bitcoin wereillegal, goes the reasoning, this wouldnt happen. Of course, this brought out the defenders by the droves, who pointed out among other compelling arguments that making something illegal doesnt stop it from happening; it often just makes it harder to monitor. And banning bitcoin would not stop its use nor eliminate its value.

But it did highlight a pervasive concern among many mainstream investors: a lack of regulatory clarity. Could the U.S. decide to outlaw bitcoin transactions within its jurisdiction? The very possibility is understandably enough to keep cautious investors away.

Technically, the U.S. could not ban bitcoin on a global scale bitcoin lives on a distributed network that would continue to exist even if U.S.-based nodes shut off and U.S.-based users dropped out. One of the strengths of bitcoin is that it is out of the range of state actors.

But, realistically, making the holding or transacting of bitcoin illegal for U.S.-based entities and individuals would be a big shock to the price as its store of value narrative would take a significant hit.

Whats more, the U.S. has considerable influence over the FATF, which sets anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing systems for the worlds banks and payments companies. The organization could be pressured to penalize governments that allow cryptocurrency services within their jurisdiction.Yet all of these concerns seem unfounded.Last week, the FATF announced its intention to step up crypto asset supervision with a view to building a global framework, which implies an interest in monitoring rather than stopping.

And in the wake of the Twitter hack, the talk coming out of Washington is not about bitcoin. The concern is the centralization of platforms. Twitter is under scrutiny much more than bitcoin.

If regulators were going to jump on the ban-bitcoin bandwagon, given the media frenzy, now would be the time. That they have notdone so is a strong sign of acceptance. True, there may yet be hiccups ahead in the road to systemic support but so far, the concern is more about the vulnerabilities in centralized services.

Furthermore, the amount of bitcoin involved in the scam is minusculecompared to what the take couldhave been, given the scale of the operation. Maybe the public is becoming more scam-savvy? And we should all be grateful that the hackers only wanted bitcoin, when you consider that they had control of the Twitter accounts of the likes of Elon Musk, Joe Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama, Apple

The lack of focus on bitcoin in Washington this weekis a step forward,especially in the eyes of professional investors eager for greater regulatory clarity. If indeed bitcoin does weather this without louder calls for a clampdown, that is a strong sign that regulators acknowledge that bitcoin is here to stay.

I see you

Another way in which the Twitter hack was positive for bitcoin is the spotlight shone on the forensic transparency of the network.

Within hours of the hack, blockchain analysts were already constructing profiles of the hackers history and tracking the movements of the ill-gotten funds.

The wallets in question may not have a name and address associated with them, but they are indelibly there for anyone to monitor, and transactions into and out of these wallets cannot be hidden nor undone. Digital fiat money transfers may have associated names and addresses, but movements are easier to obscure. And names and addresses can be faked.

Whats more, the fact that anyone can access this data spreads the potential for useful information coming to light. While there may initially be different interpretations of the addresses and transfers, a consensus interpretation tends to emerge, which is likely to be a help to law enforcement. And forensic techniques are advancing, as is the diversity of approaches to blockchain data analysis. This should reassure regulators that bitcoin-related crime is not the threat to society some skeptics claim.

The bigger question

It is true that having bitcoin in mainstream headlines is good for its brand recognition but, in this case, the association with scams is not in its favor. Yet while politicians do pay attention to what the media is saying, by next week the bitcoin scam headlines will have faded into the pixels of time, giventhe frenetic news cycle we live in.

And the market itself does not seem worried the bitcoin price barely budged in the aftermath of the news.

The lasting effect will be a deeper understanding for those willing to ask the right questions, not just about bitcoins seizure resistance but also about how one weak access point left so much power in a bad actors hands.

That is a third beneficial outcome that should strengthen interest in blockchain applications beyond crypto assets. Growing concern over centralized vulnerabilities in communication platforms is just the beginning. From there to worrying about vulnerabilities in the centralized financial systems on which our society runs is not that big a step.

Anyone know what's going on yet?

This week exemplified the seesaw of good news swiftly followed by dampeners. Better-than-expectedearnings were offset by forecast downgrades, which seem to be spooking investors. Vaccine optimism, buoyed by positive results from a few laboratories, yet again got tempered by vaccine realism, as even really good candidates could take years before they become widely available. And when it comes to the evolution of the number of COVID-19 cases, positive news in some areas was offset by devastating news in others.

The S&P 500 is very close to having clawed back its losses for the year-to-date, and by the time you read this, might well have done so. It is 7% higher than this time last year. Ive given up wondering what economic outlook it is discounting.

Bitcoin has had a lackluster performance so far this month, yet it continues to outperform other major indices and assets on a year-to-date basis. Its lack of volatility has traders champing at the bit, however, and the emotional tension of waiting for a breakout, any breakout, could soon start to impact trading patterns.

CHAIN LINKS

Crypto asset fund manager Grayscale Investments* released its Q2 report, which revealed new investment of over $900 million over the quarter, its largest quarterly inflow to date, and 80% more than the previous quarterly high in Q1. TAKEAWAY: While the BTC price has been stagnant of late, it appreciated over 40% in Q2, largely as part of a broader market recovery from post-crash lows, but also perhaps partially because of growing institutional support. We dont know, however, how much of the inflow is new investment and how much is recycled as qualified investors sell their holding in the market at a premium and buy back in at par. (*Grayscale is owned by DCG, also the parent of CoinDesk.)

Lex Sokolin, the CMO and Global Fintech Co-Head at Ethereum laboratory ConsenSys, published an analysis of the rumored upcoming listing of crypto exchange Coinbase. TAKEAWAY: The lack of available data at the current time is one major obstacle for analysts trying to get a feel for what a listing valuation could be, but Lex does an admirable job of scraping information from public sources. Yet even if/when listing documents are filed and more numbers become available, analysts will still have a hard time figuring this one out: what exactly isCoinbase? Is it an exchange? A bank? A custodian?

Crypto data provider Coin Metrics has published areport on stablecoins that looks into their explosive growth: It took supply five years to reach $6 billion in March 2012, and only four months since then to double that. TAKEAWAY: The report takes a close look at pegs not everyone realizes that dollar stablecoins are not always worth $1, and that the difference can exert a material influence on supply as issuers arbitrage profit opportunities.

Crypto fund manager Arca reviewed its 2020 predictions from January, and updated them for the rest of the year. TAKEAWAY: The ones I found particularly interesting included the growth in non-crypto companies issuing crypto tokens, the rise of non-fungible tokens as an asset group and the growing influence of younger generations (I wrote more about this here).

Bitcoin miners sent less bitcoin to exchanges during the second quarter of 2020 than at any time over the past 12 months. TAKEAWAY: This can be taken as bullish (miners are choosing to hold onto their mined bitcoin because they believe the price will go up) or bearish (they would rather not sell into what they think will be a weak market). Either way, we should remember that newly mined bitcoins now account for a very small fraction of trading volume, so the influence of miners decisions is mitigated. Their actions are worth watching, however, as most have close relationships with OTC desks that move high volumes and have their ear to the ground.

The number of addresses holding a large number of bitcoins, known as whale addresses, has declined to a 14-month low. TAKEAWAY: As with the miner flows metric above, this can also be either bearish or bullish. Its not positive news for the asset price outlook to see large holders reduce their stakes; but a broader distribution of ownership is better for price resilience.

U.S.-based digital asset firm BitOoda published a report, together with the Fidelity Center for Applied Technology, that shows 50% of bitcoin mining is in China, and 14% in the U.S. TAKEAWAY: Earlier estimates had put Chinas market share at 65%, so if these figures are accurate, the bitcoin mining industry is becoming more decentralized and less dependent on China.

Crypto financial app Abra has settled charges from the SEC and the CFTC relating to its offering of synthetic swaps to retail investors without registering or selling them on a recognized national exchange. Abra and its Philippines-based partner company Plutus will pay $300,000 in fines and do not have to acknowledge the accusations. TAKEAWAY: This is the long arm of the law in action. Abra limited its offering to non-U.S. investors, and moved most of its operations overseas. But the regulators determined that having an office in San Francisco from which the contracts were marketed and hedged, serving a handful of U.S. retail investors that got through the geofencing, and having marketed to retail investors in the early days of the contract, put Abra in violation of securities laws. In other words, it doesnt matter where your main base is if your activity touches U.S. citizens and/or U.S. soil, you fall under U.S. jurisdiction.

On a recent panel, Linda Lacewell, superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS),said that the recent changes to the BitLicense law were being well received. TAKEAWAY: The original BitLicense, which emerged just over five years ago as a requirement for any crypto business wanting to operate in the state of New York, received significant criticism for its onerous application obligations and the high cost of compliance. Lacewell introduced some reforms to the regulation that aimed to lower the barriers and encourage more experimentation. Its not surprising they are being well received, but it is good news to get the confirmation. Many crypto businesses chose to not do business in New York as a result of the original design, and the update does not mean they will come back. But Wall Street is one of the greatest financial centers in the world, and if crypto is going to run with the big boys, a presence at the heart of finance will be a step forward in the push to position crypto assets as a respectable investment for institutional portfolios.

Bitcoin Core contributor Jeremy Rubin has revealed his work on a new smart-contract language for Bitcoin called Sapio, which he hopes will increase the financial self-sovereignty of users. TAKEAWAY: Its worth keeping an eye on technological developments even in assets that, for many, are based on the store-of-value narrative. Enhanced smart contract ability will not only potentially lend application functionalities to Bitcoin, giving it a residual value and further likening it to gold (which, as well as an investment asset, is used in jewelry, technology, dentistry, etc.); it could also make it easier and/or safer to custody and exchange.

BitGo will offer API support for the latest Travel Rule guidelines from the FATF that stipulate originators and beneficiaries of financial transactions over $1,000 be identified. TAKEAWAY: This was always going to be a difficult proposition with crypto assets, since identification of both ends of a transaction isoften not possible, and goes against the integral idea that transfers can be decentralized and independent of a third party. The FATFs reach is long, however, and non-compliance is likely to be costly for jurisdictions that cannot control crypto activity within their boundaries. Technological aids like BitGos API, provided by a firm with a long history of custodial services, are likely to calm fears of both regulators and clients. Plus, BitGos origin is as a custody technology provider in 2013, it launched the first multi-sig wallet, a staple of custody technology today.

Also, Shyft Network this week announced that it is releasingits blockchain-based solution to help crypto companies comply with the FATFrequirements. TAKEAWAY:Tools like this are trying to get ahead of what is going to be a significant problem: the security vulnerabilities inherent in the FATFs requirement to send sensitive financial information back and forth.

The crypto options marketis growing fast, both in volumes and in number of platforms. Gate.io, a relatively small offshore exchange, has launched a new options trading feature, and Singapore-based exchange Huobi, which already offers futures and perpetual swaps, plans to do so later this year. TAKEAWAY: Growth in options is a sign of a maturing market, and a necessary step for greater institutional involvement. How long this growth will continue is an open question, especially given the declining volumes in crypto spot and futures markets.

Switzerland-based crypto custodian Metaco has closed a Series A round that was reportedly oversubscribed by a factor of two. Investors include Standard Chartered, smart-card and currency note printer Giesecke+Devrient, Zrcher Kantonalbank (the fourth largest bank in Switzerland), and the countrys postal service Swiss Post. TAKEAWAY: That this was reportedly oversubscribed is a sign of growing interest in Europe in digital asset market infrastructure. Also, the mix and profile of the investors is intriguing.

Podcast episodes worth listening to:

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

See the article here:
Why the Twitter Hack Was Good for Bitcoin (and Its Not the Media Attention) - CoinDesk - CoinDesk

Bitcoin Price Predictions by Top Analysts Are Usually Wrong Heres Why – Cointelegraph

Since Bitcoin (BTC) price rallied above $19,000 in 2017, crypto analysts have issued an amazingly wide range of price predictions on the date and value of the next all-time high or low.

Sometimes these predictions are rooted in deep fundamental and technical analysis, whereas other times they are simply nothing more than off-the-cuff estimates issued at whim.

Options markets provide useful insights into traders' expectations, including mathematical probabilities for an asset's future prices. Using Black & Scholes model allows one to better assess the likelihood of analysts' estimates.

The Black & Scholes valuation algorithm has been the basis for the pricing of options on traditional assets since the early 1970s, and remains widely used.

Although the Black & Scholes option pricing model tends to underestimate the odds of substantial movements, it does provide precise and conservative estimates.

Similar to weather forecasting, adding more than a couple of days to an estimate reduces its precision by a logarithmic proportion. One must also consider that the model has to predict a binary outcome because a $9,500 option will be deemed worthless if the expiry price is $9,499.

Many analysts tend to exaggerate their estimates to make a bold statement and attract media attention, or their predictions are based on various types of bias.

No one expects gold bugs like Peter Schiff to draw a bullish Bitcoin estimate, and the same can be said for expecting a bearish prediction from Stock-to-Flow model author PlanB.

The question investors should be asking is exactly how far off were those estimates compared to Bitcoin options pricing? Furthermore, should one even consider these analysts and pundits opinions?

Although the Black & Scholes options pricing model can be complicated, it's usage is pretty straight forward. By informing the current BTC price, strike level, days until expiry, and annual volatility, the model will instantly provide the odds above and below a specific price.

Skipping the complex calculations, one can refer to Skew Analytics to find current probabilities for each expiry based on options pricing.

Bitcoin probability at options maturity. Source: Deribit

Most active option strikes expire on the last Friday of every month. As previously explained, those figures will seem conservative. Both August and September strikes signify a mere 50% probability that Bitcoin price will remain above $9,000.

A 50% odd should is effectively neutral, as the mathematical model states that odds above and below such target are pretty much the same.

By contrast, the probability for a $8,500 on the July expiry (just two weeks from now) sits at 76%. The model becomes more confident as we approach maturity, so one should not expect options to price 90% plus odds for contracts with more than two weeks left.

To assert whether analysts and pundits' predictions fare better than options markets pricing, one needs to stack those odds against the Black & Scholes options model, which requires four basic inputs: current price, strike (prediction), days until expiry, and implied volatility.

Bitcoin price and pundits predictions. Source: TradingView

The above chart depicts six predictions over a 100 day period, which will be individually tested against the options markets model.

Despite having said numerous times that he isn't an active trader, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao often likes to publicize his predictions. In early November, CZ declared that BTC would hit $16K 'soonish,' so one should assume four months.

CZ missed the mark by 35% as Bitcoin failed to break $10,500 level within four months. This was not a lousy call, but rather way too optimistic as indicated by the Black & Scholes model.

Analyst Willy Woo reflected on the previous year cycle low of $3,100 and estimated that Bitcoin could drop 71% from its $12,800 high, reaching $4,500 before the next halving. It seemed rather unlikely at the time, but a six-month timeframe in cryptocurrency is a very long time.

Hats off to Willy Woo on this call as the March 13 infamous crash caused a brief test of the $4,000 level. Despite being correct, buying protection for such a long time frame costs substantial money. A $6K put option would have cost Woo $540 back then.

Notorious Bitcoin basher Peter Schiff spotted a head and shoulders pattern and issued a $1,000 prediction. Although no timeframe was set, based on such a pattern, a three-month time frame seems reasonable.

One doesn't need to be a statistician to deem such predictions as unreasonable. According to the options model, a $5,000 target back would still have shown a limited 10.7% probability.

Peter could have remained bearish using a more reasonable goal, according to options markets at that time.

The 40-year market stalwart said that BTC had already hit its floor; hence investors waiting for a price dip to $6,000 have "missed" their opportunity. No timeline was mentioned, although a 3-month prediction would have pleased most investors.

Less than two months after that tweet, the sudden Bitcoin collapse on March 13 proved Peter Brandt's prediction wrong.

In an interview with Yahoo! Finance, Fundstrat senior analyst Tom Lee suggested that Bitcoin's technical achievements paved the way for 200% gains within six months, with halving acting as a catalyst.

With less than 20 days to fulfill such a prediction, it seems very unlikely to occur. At least buying a $23K call option would have cost $65, a bargain considering a $4,000 upside to Lee's target.

The creator of the stock-to-flow model revealed his belief that Bitcoin would not return below $8,200. PlanB also mentioned that he was expecting levels above $10,000 near Bitcoin halving in May.

Less than a month later, PlanB's $8,200 support level was broken, although his $10,000 prediction for halving was pretty close as it was off by only 3% to 5%.

One might say PlanB got it 50% right, although the bold $10,000 prediction could have earned him good money using a butterfly spread strategy.

Black & Scholes can be a useful tool to understand how far a prediction might be from options pricing. Whats clear is that pundits seem to exaggerate their takes, which leads to huge misses and misinformation in the form of bad analysis being spread through major media outlets.

In some cases, the wild guesses do hit the mark. For example, Willy Woo and PlanB could certainly have profited by defying options model pricing, but generally it's better to do your own research instead of following calls from leading analysts.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.

Read more:
Bitcoin Price Predictions by Top Analysts Are Usually Wrong Heres Why - Cointelegraph

Bank of Thailand Enters Third Phase of CBDC Development; Now "Using CBDC with Big Businesses" | News – Bitcoin News

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) announced Wednesday that is has entered third-phase development of its central bank digital currency (CBDC).

BOT is planning to expand the use of the CBDC among large businesses.

The report by The Nation of Thailand quotes Vachira Arromdee, BOT assistant governor saying the central bank is already using the CBDC for financial transactions with a number of big businesses.

Thailands cement and building material provider, Siam Cement Group (SCG), and fintech firm Digital Ventures Company Limited were selected by BOT to pilot test the payment prototype system.

In June, BOT announced plans to develop a prototype to test real-life business use cases of its CBDC. The prototype builds on the knowledge gained Project Inthanon, a collaborative project between BOT and eight financial institutions.

Next, the BOT will begin using the digital currency for transactions with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority starting in September.

Arromdee explains that BOT is also thinking about expanding use of the cryptocurrency to the general public.

She cautions, however, that any further action can only be pursued after completion of a comprehensive study currently underway. The study seeks to assess the potential impact of digital currencies on the financial system.

Arromdee suggests that the cryptocurrency may have a negative impact on commercial banks by removing the need for a middleman in financial transactions.

On the other hand, it would reduce the cost of financial transactions.

Still, Arromdee expresses optimism as she points to China where public use of digital currency in the form of tokens had not affected the financial system there.

Meanwhile, the Nation Thailand also quotes Thakorn Piyapan, head of the Krungsri Consumer Group, supporting a public rollout of the BOT digital currency.

Piyapan insists the CBDC would promote mobile banking and e-wallets while reducing the cost of printing and using banknotes.

In 2019, BOT announced the completion of the second phase of Project Inthanon. The findings showed that Distributed Ledger Technology or DLT can help enhance the efficiency of bond trading and repurchasing activities.

Do you think the Bank of Thailands CBDC project will achieve its minimum objectives? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

The rest is here:
Bank of Thailand Enters Third Phase of CBDC Development; Now "Using CBDC with Big Businesses" | News - Bitcoin News

Bitcoin Scammers Claim To Have Compromising Videos Of Victims – Daily Voice

Bitcoin scammers have been threatening to expose sensitive videos of their victims if they are not paid off.

Fraudsters have been sending spam emails that allege they have recorded video of you getting yourself off, which they threaten to expose if they are not paid off.

The emails claim that the scammer is from out of the country, and cannot be targeted by local law enforcement.

Scammers allege that based on their potential victims visiting bad websites that infected computers with malware, they now have video of lewd acts that they threaten to share with friends and family.

In order to obviate the disgrace for the term of life, you should send 18 Dash coins to a certain address, and your prestige will not be damaged, the fraudsters wrote in an email to Daily Voice.

The scammers offer a 24-hour deadline to transfer the bitcoin, with the compromising video allegedly being disseminated within 48 hours.

The FBIs Internet Crime Complaint Center said it has seen an increase in reports of online extortion scams during the current "stay-at-home" orders due to the COVID-19 crisis.

Because large swaths of the population are staying at home and likely using the computer more than usual, scammers may use this opportunity to find new victims and pressure them into sending money, they wrote in a report.

The scammers are sending emails threatening to release sexually explicit photos or personally compromising videos to the individual's contacts if they do not pay. While there are many variations of these online extortion attempts, they often share certain commonalities.

Click here to sign up for Daily Voice's free daily emails and news alerts.

See more here:
Bitcoin Scammers Claim To Have Compromising Videos Of Victims - Daily Voice