To me, it's interesting as another example of faddish human behavior. It is more psychological than something that could be explained by the computer science department.

Then, we have a new form of money that ... sounds extremely revolutionary and involves a very clever use of cryptography that you can spend all afternoon trying to figure out," Shiller said. "So the story has inspired young people and active people, and that's what's driving the market.

I tend to think of bitcoin as an experiment," he said. "It is an interesting experiment, but it's not a permanent feature of our lives. We are over-emphasizing bitcoin, we should broaden it out to blockchain, which will have other applications.

Part of it is political. Economists tend to neglect the political side," he said. "There's a big element of people [who] don't trust the government anymore. They like the idea that this didn't come from the government. It came from some real smart computer scientist. They like that. It's a great story for today's markets.

So what basically happened was that the government stepped its game up by terminating bank accounts associated with cryptocurrency exchanges in the country like Zebpay, Unocoin and CoinSecure and many others. While the others were ready to compensate its user base, the founder of CoinSecure is believed to have fled with all of the 438~ BTC that was stored in a non-multisig address (so much for the brand name 'CoinSecure') and the rest of the team is helpless at this point of time.

Dr. Amitabh Saxena has kept a watchful eye on the progress of Coinsecure’s construction of complex and fast algorithms and a reliable platform backbone.

Doc comes with an extremely strong understanding of the crypto space and has a lot of ideas and implementations that he will be bringing to Coinsecure.

Regulating cryptocurrencies prematurely could have the negative consequence of throttling the growth and innovation of the industry. In addition, if laws are drafted based on existing technology, which is still in its growth phase, there is a risk that the technology may have moved so much by the time the legislation is enacted, that the legislation is obsolete or requires updating almost immediately to align with the latest technology.

I'd be happier sending to '1667dggwAuUzsrcc1Ujmdj1pX6qecCdKz8' than ''billing@gas.provider.bitcoin' because there is a built-in 32-bit checksum to catch a typo or copy/paste error with 99.99999998% certainty ( (1- 1/(232) )*100 ) rather than silently accepting my irreversible transaction to a wrong email-style address.

We believe that blockchain technologies should be accessible to everyone, regardless of age or IT skills. We intend to facilitate and accelerate the adoption of cryptocurrencies, by making blockchain usage simpler, easier and more secure. Our first goal is to eliminate the need of using blockchain addresses, similarly to how domain names eliminated the need of using IPs.

You get a unique alias and associate your blockchain address with it. Instead of using your blockchain address, people can start using your simple and personalized alias. Alternatively, people can continue to use your blockchain address. However, when they input it in a wallet, your alias will appear and will give them the confidence of having introduced the right characters.

CryptoAlias is compatible with all blockchains. We aim to become the de facto standard for blockchain identity, similarly to how DNS is for the web.

“The direction is for us to consider this so-called virtual currencies offerings as possible securities in which case we will apply the Securities Regulation Code,” Aquino was quoted as stating. We have seen particularly in the social media sites that there are offers of initial coin offerings, most popular of which, of course [are] bitcoin and Ethereum…but [there are] new ones which may be considered as securities.

Under Rule 26.3.5 par. 4 of the 2015 Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Securities Regulation Code (Republic Act 8799), an investment contract has been defined as a contract, transaction or scheme (collectively “contract”), whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits primarily from the efforts of others.
 
Applying the Howey Test as discussed by the Honorable Supreme Court in Power Homes Unlimited vs. SEC (G.R. No. 164182, February 26, 2008), a cloud mining contract is an investment contract falling within the purview of the term “securities” as defined by law. First, there is investment of money because an investor is expected to part with his hard-earned money in order to enter into these contracts. Second, there is an investment in a common enterprise because the party soliciting investments pool the funds collected to purchase mining equipment for use in the profit-making activity. Third, there is expectation of profits because the investor is given the promise of a return in the form of fiat currency or cryptocurrency. Lastly, the profits are generated from the efforts of others because the cloud mining company undertakes to perform all the profit-generating activities and distributes all the profits to all investors after deducting mining costs.

It’s (Bitcoin) something economists had never had to think about until this was developed, and we're just beginning to think through all the implications of it.

I think you are overestimating the risks of hard forking in the first place.  I mean, think about the time, money and effort that goes into companies, or other for profit small mining operations, to develop ASICs... To keep actively knocking them off the network, I think, will dissuade people from even attempting I would think.

Using hard forks as means to maintain the decentralized nature of the coin is far superior than letting more centralization to occur imo.

1. Continued and repeated ad-hoc modifications to the PoW algorithm may accidentally (or even maliciously) introduce exploits.

2. ASIC developers may build in more flexibility to their designs to be able to accommodate small algorithm tweaks (indeed this may already be the case, we don't know).

3. Potential for favoritism/corruption if plans for tweaks are leaked or influenced far enough ahead of time that some favored ASIC developers may have enough lead time to produce ASICs, while others do not.

4. A belief that ASICs may be desirable as a means to facilitate industrial scale mining and growing the network beyond what might be called a hobby mining phase.

5. Potential for increased monopolization if the strategy is only partially effective (i.e. keeps all but oneASIC developer from succeeding)

6. Dependence of the network on continued frequent hard forking independent of the need for functional upgrades. This carries with it a greater degree of centralization necessary to design, implement and coordinate these forks, without any real plan to transition beyond it.

Bitmain has a strong track record in Bitcoin of actively working to undermine core development, blocking important network upgrades (Segwit), backing contentious forks (Bitcoin Cash), building in backdoors (Antbleed), and much more. We consider Bitmain a bad actor in the cryptocurrency space.

At the same time, we recognize that we have a conflict of interest. Our own Obelisk SC1 is now competing directly with Bitmain’s A3. Though we have the ability to release a version of Sia that invalidates the A3s via a soft-fork, we believe that doing so before Bitmain has attacked our network would be a centralized, monopolistic move, rather than a proactive, protective measure.

Therefore, we will not be supporting a soft-fork at this time.

At this point in time, choosing to fork would mean compromising on our values as a company and a community, even though Bitmain poses a serious threat to the Sia network.

All cryptocurrency developers who build public proof-of-work blockchains have to face the same challenge: Bitmain, a China-based chipmaker with a monopoly over ASIC miner manufacturing. Bitmain’s dominance over hash power and enormous influence is dangerous for peer-to-peer networks. It makes protocols vulnerable to censorship and rule-changes dictated by a single central authority, upsetting the checks and balances between the various stakeholders.

And yet — there are benefits to having ASICs on your network. Specialized hardware is extremely efficient, and boast far more hash power, and thus security, per unit of electricity. They’re more reliable than home-built GPU miners, and allow miners to specialize, professionalize, and scale up. Additionally, ASICs are algorithm-specific, and could align miner incentives better with a specific project compared to GPUs, which are much more flexible.

However, ASIC critics believe that silicon manufacturing is an inherently unfair game, where larger chipmakers can use economies of scale to undercut and extinguish competitors. In theory, ASIC-resistant networks wouldn’t be necessary if their creators believed the ASIC manufacturing industry could ever be a level playing field.

1. Why create ASIC-resistant networks?

As a result of ASICs, the idea of an average person mining profitably with their CPU or GPU disappeared. Bitcoin mining is no longer a purely decentralized and egalitarian pursuit, as it requires millions of dollars of capital to participate in. Only large mining companies have the resources to create a competitive ASIC, and they control the supply of this hardware to consumers. There’s a much higher barrier to entry to creating and using ASICs compared to GPUs or CPUs. Mining concentration from ASICs has resulted in pools controlling more than 51% of the hashrate at times, and Bitmain producing a majority of Bitcoin mining chips.

2. How does ASIC resistance work?

It’s important to note “ASIC resistant” doesn’t mean that making dedicated hardware can’t be done. It simply means that the mining algorithm makes it less economical or profitable to produce ASIC chips for the algorithm — not that ASICs are impossible to create.

The core of the disagreement around ASIC resistance comes down to your view on the chip manufacturing industry. Proponents of ASIC-resistance projects also believe ASIC commoditization is impossible, and that specialized hardware will always be vulnerable to monopolization at every step of the process (development, production, distribution). Their argument is that economies of scale and cheaper electricity will allow a few corporations to perpetually dominate the mining process. ASICs will always be fundamentally incompatible with the idea of a fair and distributed mining process, so pursuing GPUs make more sense.

3. Are ASICs inevitable?

In a successful and growing cryptocurrency network, ASIC development is inevitable. Even if the ASIC is not exponentially more efficient than GPUs, it becomes profitable at a certain point to create specialized hardware and mine it.

4. The risks of hard-forking away from ASICs

The most simple answer is to change the Proof of Work algorithm via a Hard Fork. ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) will only work for specific algorithms, so small changes can render them useless.

Changing the proof of work algorithm can successfully fend off ASICs once or twice, but the long term sustainability of this strategy is questionable. This game of ‘cat and mouse’ requires community consensus and good execution to keep tweaking the algorithm. As open source protocols grow and become more widely used, this consensus will inevitably be harder to achieve. At some point, community stakeholders might realise these constant forks are being done in vain.

Apart from requiring community consensus that will get harder to achieve over time, hard forking every time ASICs are conceived has many risks:

1. The introduction of new bugs or exploits, whether accidental or malicious in nature.

2. Hard forks will scatter the hash power on the network.

3. GPU mining is also susceptible to economies of scale and domination by vertically integrated companies like Bitmain.

4. ASIC developers could build more flexible FPGA designs that can adjust to small algorithm tweaks.

5. Can ASIC Commoditization happen fairly?

We are now starting to see increased competition and decentralization of bitcoin mining. This is due to a couple of factors:

Increased geographical distribution. Due to government crackdown, some mining operations are moving from China to Iceland, Canada, the US, etc.

An end to China’s cheap electricity policy.Cheap electricity in China allowed miners based there to undercut everyone else and make it unsustainable for those in other countries. However, the government’s crackdown has made this practice less common.

Other chipmakers such as Intel and Samsung have entered the game. Bitmain’s huge margins have forced other companies to get involved in the foundry business.

It’s taken bitcoin around 5+ years to begin this process, and it will take many more years to finish.

With Bitcoin’s price increasing 1000% in 2017, it’s inevitable that competitors will enter the chipmaking and mining market. Many new mining operations have sprung up, and many more plan to enter the market over the next year.

Bitcoin mining is trending towards decentralization and resembling of a commodity product, but this is a long and slow process. Samsung and Intel could eventually compete with Bitmain, but it will take a while.

6. What can we conclude about the future of ASIC mining?

Changing the proof of work algorithm often comes with costs and is a never ending game of cat and mouse. Developers can obviate this game by focusing on the creation of a fair and sustainable environment for ASIC production and development.

Allowing ASICs to develop means mining could be centralized for a time being while the market is immature. However, with the large margins enjoyed by Bitmain, other operations won’t be able to resist competing.

There is no easy way forward, but embracing ASICs is probably the best route. ASIC commoditization is a very complicated issue, and determining whether it’s likely to happen will require more input from foundries, miners, and other stakeholders in the ecosystem.

Let me see if I get this right.

They bought a lot of coins to increase the price from 1 000 to 18 000, not they are suppressing the price back to 6 000,  by dumping because they know it will go up beyond 18 000 somewhere in the future.

They had 3 years of buying coins at 1/10 of the current value and now they are bent on keeping bitcoin at 6 000 to accumulate.

No matter how you look at it it's just not making any sense!!!


So they want to push down the price slowly but they don't want to push it fast because that way it will go down...also
Common....

It is not a big issue in crypto market because Bitcoin is not easily banned in India because know only I saw the article it is just warning the Bitcoin traders. The Indian big whales are buying more bitcoin but they don't produce the pan ID so Zetpay is create the alarm automatically Indian government is warned in Bitcoin traders but it is simple issue in crypto platform some media is create the big issue because they need TRP rating.

Reserve Bank has repeatedly cautioned users, holders and traders of virtual currencies, including Bitcoins, regarding various risks associated in dealing with such virtual currencies. In view of the associated risks, it has been decided that, with immediate effect, entities regulated by RBI shall not deal with or provide services to any individual or business entities dealing with or settling VCs. Regulated entities which already provide such services shall exit the relationship within a specified time. A circular in this regard is being issued separately.

We have decided to ring-fence the RBI regulated entities from the risk of dealing with entities associated with virtual currencies. They are required to stop having a business relationship with the entities dealing with virtual currencies forthwith and unwind the existing relationship within a period of three months, BP Kanungo, Deputy Governor, RBI said.

In comparison to a potato, Bitcoin is not even a physical tangible good that can be used for satisfying human wants or needs.

Totally agreed with this article since our happiness directly link everytime with the price, you become happy when the price rise and sad when it fall. However the solution offer was to biased, you can't just ignore the price or even telling people not to check the price multiple times a day because it serves nothing. My solution is to offer a purpose in a trading or any investment, get a plan A, plan B or even plan C. If something going out of your prediction then you can still have other solution for countermeasure rather than hoping god raise the price for you. 

He [Ben Graham] said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his.

Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him.

Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you.

But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to either ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence.

Anyone, or anything, bringing a present to the doorstep of your consciousness does not have to be accepted inside. They can be dealt with on the periphery, leaving the inner walls of your consciousness, and thereby happiness, untouched.

Not accepting a present at your experiential doorstep doesn’t mean you can bury your head in the sand, pretending that crypto isn’t now down 70% and you’re half as “rich” as you were at the start of the year.

But instead that you have a choice about how to handle and interpret this present that Mr. (Crypto) Market is bringing you. Maybe it even allows you to stop caring about the price, and focus on the ideas behind crypto more. I’ve found the ideas in crypto are always up and to the right.

If instead the present trashes the inner walls of your consciousness, then you are handing your happiness directly to the market, one of the most mercurial beasts alive. And in my opinion, missing the more important points— our mission to decentralize data, wealth and power.

Remember too, you can ignore Mr. Market. As Buffett writes, “He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option...Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you.” There is nothing that compels you to check the market every day, or multiple times a day, or multiple times an hour.

In the coming years we’ll see a new all time high beyond what January 2018 represented. For me, this is not a matter of if, but of when.

But trying to predict when, or craving for when, is a recipe for suffering in crypto. So don’t get attached to the timing of the prediction, or the prediction at all :-) Meanwhile, do your best to sit in the roller coaster with equanimity.

I think it will be tight for other developers who wants to create new token or coins if every country decide to create their own crypto.  This will definitely open a way to establish blockchain technology era but will kill the decentralized idea of it.  Government will definitely oppose any crypto that is not regulated by the government and might end the era of decentralized crypto.