The majority of the trading volume is taking place at Bithumb (Korean exchange).
Therefore the whole price discovery is highly manipulated, because Bithumb
offers account without fees and vouchers that enable zero fee trading.

This enables rampant wash trading by allowing you to buy and sell your own orders without
incurring any fees!

it looks like that, it's almost the same as a deliberate or accidental DDoS attack. renewal of the blockchain system and mining blocks will benefit to miners.

Recently, AntPool has been mining a number of blocks with sizes of around 99 KB, 369 KB and 860 KB. There were dozens of blocks mined around these specific sizes during the month of February. During the times these blocks were mined, everyone else on the network was filling blocks with transactions up to the 1 MB capacity limit.

In addition to the non-full blocks mined by AntPool, the mining pool also created 16 empty blocks in the month of February. The total amount of transaction capacity lost by the network during this time as a result of AntPool's small blocks is not difficult to estimate. Numbers shared by BitFury's Alex Petrov show AntPool's average mined block size in February was around 100 KB less than other mining pools of comparable size.

The number of transactions in a block can vary, but at an average transaction size of 500 bytes , 100 KB would amount to roughly 200 transactions. With 768 blocks mined, AntPool essentially included 153,600 less transactions in February than other large mining pools, such as BitFury or F2Pool , which would have mined with a similar share of the network. This is roughly half of the total number of transactions that are mined on the entire Bitcoin network per day.

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/something-odd-is-happening-at-bitcoins-largest-mining-pool-cm756139

The Curious Case of Bitcoin’s “Moby Dick” Spam and the Miners That Confirmed It

The scaling debate has dominated the Bitcoin space for well over two years now. As a central issue, Bitcoin’s one-megabyte block size limit was often insufficient to include all transactions on the network. This ultimately led to the replacement of this block size limit for a block weight limit through Segregated Witness, allowing for up to four megabytes of transaction data. And a group of Bitcoin companies plans to deploy a hard fork to double this by November.

But there is reason to believe the “crisis” may have been fabricated, at least partly. A recent analysis by “LaurentMT,” the developer of blockchain analytics tool OXT, in cooperation with Antoine Le Calvez, creator of Bitcoin statistics resource p2sh.info, shows that the Bitcoin network has had to deal with a load of spam transactions throughout the past two years. Now, in a three-part blog post series dubbing the spam attacks “Moby Dick,” their findings suggest that several major Bitcoin mining pools may have had a hand in this.

“Six or seven pools have played a major role in stuffing blocks with spam transactions,” LaurentMT said. “And charts display what looks like a coordination between these pools.”

The Spam Situation

The very concept of “spam” in the context of Bitcoin is sometimes disputed. Differentiating between “good” and “bad” transactions can be controversial on a network designed for permissionlessness innovation and censorship-resistant payments.

But there is little doubt that certain transactions serve no other purpose than to stuff the Bitcoin network and blockchain. LaurentMT and Le Calvez more specifically define spam as transactions that send lots of tiny fractions of bitcoins to lots of different outputs (“addresses”). These kinds of transactions can’t feasibly have been used to make actual payments, while they do present a significant burden on the Bitcoin network: all nodes need to receive, validate, transmit and (at least temporarily) store all this data.

The analysts found that the Bitcoin network has seen many transactions that fit this category: almost three gigabytes worth of data within a two-year span, adding up to more than 2 percent of the total size of the blockchain, or the equivalent of about a month’s worth of normal Bitcoin use.

“We found that there were four waves of ‘fan-out transactions’ during summer 2015,” LaurentMT told Bitcoin Magazine, referring to the transactions that create lots of outputs. “We think that the first two waves were spamming users and services. The third and fourth waves instead mostly sent the fractions of bitcoins to addresses controlled by the attackers themselves.”

These four waves of spam have been relatively easy to notice, as sudden bursts of transactions clogged up the Bitcoin network for brief periods of time. In some cases these spam attacks were even announced as “stress tests” or “bitcoin giveaways.”

What’s more interesting about LaurentMT and Le Calvez’s analysis is that the two focused on the second half of the puzzle. Almost all the fractions of bitcoins that were sent to all these different addresses have slowly been re-spent back into circulation since. These “fan-in” transactions were not as obvious as the initial waves of spam — but were similarly burdensome.

And, LaurentMT explained, blockchain analysis suggests that most of this spam can be tracked down to one or two entities:

“We’ve identified two wallets that seem to have played a central role in the attacks. They’ve funded long chains of fan-out transactions during summer 2015, and they later aggregated the dust outputs.”

The analysts also suggest that the perpetrator(s) of the spam may have been customers of the Canadian exchange QuadrigaCX. But that’s where their analysis stops.

The Mining Pools

Perhaps what is more interesting is who used this spam to fill up Bitcoin blocks: Bitcoin mining pools.

The spam outputs, generated by the first four waves of fan-out transactions, had been starting to move since autumn of 2015 — sort of. Whoever controlled these addresses had been broadcasting transactions to spend these outputs over the network. However, for a long time, miners did not include these “spam broadcasts” in their blocks; the transactions were ignored.

Up until the second half of 2016, that is. At a very specific point in time, a group of seven mining pools started to suddenly accept these spam broadcasts and include them in the blocks they mined: 1-Hash, Antpool, BitClub Network, BTC.com, HaoBTC, KanoCKPool and ViaBTC.

“So, either these seven pools had an ‘aha moment,’ and suddenly discovered that Bitcoin is about censorship resistance. Or, they had another motivation to fill up blocks with these transactions — perhaps related to the block size debate,” LaurentMT suggested.

For more clues, LaurentMT and Le Calvez looked for notable events that happened around the time of the mining pools’ sudden change of heart. In their research, they did find some correlation with “strange” occurrences. The first is an open letter from HaoBTC (now rebranded as Bixin) to the Bitcoin Core development team. The second was a rumor about a group of Chinese pools planning to end their cooperation with Bitcoin Core: the Terminator Plan.

Of course, something notable happens in Bitcoin just about every week. These events may well be coincidences and, therefore, there could be a very different explanation for the mining pools’ behavior, LaurentMT acknowledged:

“An alternative explanation could be that the different mining pools adopted new mining policies for completely different reasons. I tend to think political motivations are more likely … but that’s just a personal opinion.”

Bitcoin Magazine reached out to the seven mining pools in question. The only mining pool willing to comment on the issue was KanoCKPool, which denied being involved with any sort of manipulation or coordination, stating it just confirms “any and all transactions available.”

UPDATE: After publication of this article (and on reading the comment from Kano CK Pool), LaurentMT pointed out that Kano CK Pool, along with 1Hash and Bitclub Network, are the only pools that had been confirming some of the spam transactions even before the second half of 2016, indicating that the pool could be telling the truth.

For a full analysis of the “Moby Dick” spam, read LaurentMT and Le Calvez’s three-part blog post series:

Part 1: https://medium.com/@laurentmt/good-whale-hunting-d3cc3861bd6b
Part 2: https://medium.com/@laurentmt/when-moby-dick-meets-the-terminator-d014c315af85
Part 3: https://medium.com/@laurentmt/the-canadian-connection-7f48cafe2369

Or watch Le Calvez’s presentation at Breaking Bitcoin in Paris earlier this month.

Is Bitcoin Cash the Real Bitcoin?

Segwit2x’s unexpected and sudden cancellation has transformed the crypto landscape. Certainty is now finally here. Bitcoin will not scale in a peer-to-peer manner. Its developers no longer even pretend it might, with Peter Todd, a vocal small blocker, stating fees will only go up.

As such, it can no longer be called a currency because it is awful as a means of exchange. Its fees are far too high even as it stands, but if demand keeps increasing they will become prohibitive, rising to $1,000 or more for one on-chain transaction.

Which means no one will be able to use it except for banks, with bitcoin’s peer to peer payment network basically gone. With it, its blockchain, which many are heiling as a great invention.

Without a usable chain of blocks secured by proof of work, can what is now called bitcoin really deserve that name?

“A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.

We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work.” The Bitcoin Whitepaper

Fees of $10 or $100 per transaction would not “allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.”

Since what is called bitcoin contravenes the very first sentence of the whitepaper, as well as its title, many are arguing that it isn’t actually bitcoin.

The asset has become unusable for commerce. Without that commerce, its utility is unclear as it isn’t obvious where demand would keep coming from, or why it would have a floor at all.

Moreover, its difficulty of transport makes intermediaries necessary as you wouldn’t be able to spend it in a peer-to-peer manner, instead having to convert it for fiat first.

All of which means that what is currently called bitcoin is in fact a very different system. Instead of peer-to-peer, it is hub-to-hub. Instead of proof-of-work to prevent double spending, it will become proof of hub as the vast majority of transactions by far will not be hashed into “an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work.”

Intermediary hub transactions will be changeable in complex circumstances, including unforeseen or otherwise time delays. That’s to say nothing of all the problems with intermediary financial institutions.

The real bitcoin, therefore, is Bitcoin Cash, which as the name says, aims to continue implementing a peer to peer electronic cash system allowing “online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.”

And while it is the case that currently some financial institutions, such as exchanges, are necessary, the aim is for that to be temporary.

Bitcoin Cash plans to continue bitcoin’s roadmap of firstly wide merchant adoption, secondly, the creation of a virtues circle, and thirdly, its use as codable internet money.

On the merchants aspect, its almost non existent fees and its instant transactions through zero confirmed systems allows for the spending of actual money through the internet. Giving you freedom to pay a merchant anywhere in the world without requiring any permission from anyone.

That global means of value exchange will be complemented by a virtuous circle, whereby merchants pay their employees and suppliers in BCH, who in turn pay other merchants in BCH, thus creating an economy where BCH is the unit of account.

At that stage, you would no longer need to convert it to fiat, thus you would need no exchanges, because you get paid in it and you pay in it, making it effectively like dollars, with the added quality of non-inflatable away as the banks please.

All two of the above are complemented by the fact that Bitcoin Cash is basically just code. Therefore, the currency can be coded to behave in certain ways and under certain conditions, something now called smart contracts.

Rootstock is planning to bring that to bitcoin, but they are finding opposition, so they might instead implement it in Bitcoin Cash.

The same applies to the many bitcoin merchants that are considerably struggling due to the very high and ever increasing fees. As it has now become clear bitcoin will no longer be a peer to peer electronic cash system, they may have to adopt Bitcoin Cash for commerce.

That includes BitPay, which currently serves 100,000 or more merchants. And if they don’t add Bitcoin Cash, then Coinify, which is a competitor and already has added Bitcoin Cash, might rise in popularity.

It may also include Coinbase, which likewise offers merchant services, although they may prefer ethereum. OpenBazzar, an eBay like market place, is already working on adding Bitcoin Cash. Others will probably follow, unless they abandon their project completely.

Because for years what Bitcoin Cash now promises bitcoin has promised. An entire ecosystem was built around electronic peer-to-peer payments. That has now changed in bitcoin, but not in digital currencies, with Bitcoin Cash continuing that promise.

As such, all those businesses and that entire ecosystem that was built around digital payments may have to move to the one digital currency that provides it, Bitcoin Cash. The real bitcoin.

http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/11/10/bitcoin-cash-real-bitcoin

Ughhh. A while back before the BTG fork happened, I mistyped my bitcoin address by one letter and it screwed the transaction up.

Having 'dabbled' in what they know best - Snap - Millennials are increasingly turning their back on stocks and buying bitcoin...

In March of this year Millennials piled in to Snap shares...


That has not ended so well...



As a reminder, Peter Lynch has actually recently clarified his now-mythical advice - which perhaps some Millennials should be paying attention to...


But they appear to have learned nothing as Bloomberg reports that a survey by venture capital firm Blockchain Capital found that about 30 percent of those in the 18-to-34 age range would rather own $1,000 worth of Bitcoin than $1,000 of government bonds or stocks.

Bitcoin is up over 600% year-to-date, 60 times more than gold, 30 times more than NASDAQ, and 5 times the rise of the Swiss National Bank's shares...



While just 2 percent of Americans own or have owned the cryptocurrency, according to the survey, that investor base might get larger as millennials become the main investment force. At that point, U.S. regulators may have approved bitcoin ETFs, and the derivatives market might be somewhat mature, making it easier for the new bitcoin buyers.

AFAIK the cash in relation to digital money ratio is irrelevant. The important relation is how much digital money plus cash exists in relation to the physical assets? And this ratio continously drifted away in the recent decades! The more money is available to buy physical goods or services the higher will the price and this is called inflation that could lead to a hyperinflation!

Wall Street, which normally roots for investors to pour their cash into stocks and bonds, is growing increasingly concerned that there is such a thing as too little of it in reserve.

Last week, Bank of America Merrill Lynch said in a research note that a survey of the bank's private wealth clients found that cash as percentage of their total investment accounts had dropped to 10.2 percent. That's the lowest it has been since Bank of America began surveying its clients on their holdings in 2005. Cash hit a previous low of 11 percent in April 2007. It was as high as 21 percent coming out of the financial crisis, and it has averaged just under 13 percent for the past 12 years.



INTL FCStone, the financial services company, said recently that cash in mutual fund portfolios had dropped to 3.3 percent, also an all-time low. And Citigroup's chief U.S. equity strategist, Tobias Levkovich, mused in a note to clients recently that steadily rising stock prices have compelled "performance conscious" mutual fund to go close to all-in on the stock market.



Low cash positions worry Wall Street. First, it suggests that investors, pushed by recent earnings gains and an assumption that President Donald Trump and Republicans will get some type of tax cut passed, may be too exuberant in their affection for stocks. And there are other signs of that. The price-to-earnings ratio of the S&P 500 Index based on this year's expected earnings is nearly 19.5. That's well shy of the highest it has been, but it's still greater than average. The flip side of the cash position is how much investors have in stocks. According to Federal Reserve data, the value of stock market holdings is also at a record for individual investors, but that could also be because stocks have risen faster recently than other assets. Cash held by Americans is up as well, even if it's a lower portion of their total wealth.

Levkovich throws some cold water on the argument that we are back in irrational exuberance territory. A survey by the bank found that more than 60 percent of investors think the market is more likely to drop 20 percent in the next year rather than rise 20 percent. The survey also showed that while few investors expect a recession, similarly few expect the economy to grow more than 3 percent in the next year, either. And growth of index funds, which have to stay 100 percent invested in the stock market, could be driving at least some of the all-time low cash position.

But that may not matter. Even if investors aren't nearly as gaga about stocks or the economy as they were in 2000 or 2008, the low cash position could be a problem as it has at other times during this bull run. Cash positions were low in mid-2011 and mid-2015, points at which the market has stumbled. And funds trying to beat passive investors may be quick to exit stocks when they start to fall, sensing an advantage over index funds, which can't sell. When excess cash runs out, bull markets tend to stop charging as well.