I'm wondering if anyone knows of a good, detailed comparison of the features and capabilities (and weaknesses) of cryptocurrencies that boast of having anonymous transactions. Ideally I'd like to see a chart with a long list of features, etc., comparing each of the cryptos - Dash, Zcash, Monero, Spectrecoin, BitcoinDark and so on. Does anyone know of anything like that? Or at least a good review of privacy-focused cryptos giving the highlights of each?

http://blog.wizsec.jp/2017/07/breaking-open-mtgox-1.html

"We won't beat around the bush with it: Vinnik is our chief suspect for involvement in the MtGox theft (or the laundering of the proceeds thereof). This is the result of years of patient work, and these findings were surely independently uncovered by other investigators as well. Everyone who worked on the case have patiently kept quiet while forwarding findings to law enforcement, so as not to tip suspects off and to maximize the chances of arrests."

http://bitsonline.com/craig-wright-threatens-bitcoin/

Backed by the Bitmain/Bitcoin Unlimited cartel, Wright appears to be going off the deep end. Note that all the bad actors appear to be joining together:

1. Wright's nChain, which is attempting to flood patent offices with a Johnny-come-lately barrage of crypto patents.
2. Jihan Wu of Bitmain, the monopolistic miner/manufacturer that gave us ASICBoost and Antbleed.
3. Roger Ver of Bitcoin.com and r/btc, Bitcoin Unlimited infamy.

Holding Bitcoins is good. But this weekend it's even better than normal. That's because anyone with bitcoin is eligible to receive almost 1000 Stellar Lumens (current value about $40 USD) per bitcoin.

Details of the airdrop can be found here:

https://www.stellar.org/blog/bitcoin-claim-lumens-2/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellar/comments/6bhu05/everything_you_need_to_know_about_the_stellar/

The airdrop will be based on a snapshot of the Bitcoin blockchain with the first block mined on June 26 (UTC time). If you have BTC on several listed exchanges (such as Poloniex and Kraken) you will get your Lumens automatically is my understanding. Note that bitcoins loaned out on Polo for margin trading will not be counted, AFAIK.

Otherwise, you need to have your BTC in a wallet for which you can Sign to prove ownership. (You cannot do this with most exchanges and some online wallets). The first link above will cover the process for claiming Lumens with this path.

So if you were looking for another good reason or time to buy BTC, this might be it...

Moving this from https://www.reddit.com/r/PoloniexForum/comments/6ie1tg/cannot_cancel_loan_offers_in_lending/  to maintain better visibility.

Poloniex users should beware that some of us are experiencing a problem where Lending offers cannot be canceled. The offers can be taken up normally by margin traders borrowing funds, but if your interest rate is too high your funds will be trapped - you will not be able to cancel the offer.

In my case I have 179 LTC stuck at a max 5%/day offer (set by a bot so I would have a chance when it came off the prior loan to extract the funds to sell.) I and others have raised tickets with Polo support but so far there is no resolution to the issue being offered.

If you experience this issue please raise a ticket with Polo support and let us know here. Perhaps we can figure out what is causing the problem.

In the meantime, please use extreme caution when lending - test regularly with small amounts and beware that if the problem strikes while you have funds offered at a high rate they may be stuck there a long while.

AliasCoin: How To Send Money To "Satoshi" Instead of "1TE6a7tvT..."

SUMMARY

One of the chief obstacles to mainstream acceptance of cryptocurrency is the reliance on public keys to transfer funds. Such character strings are long, very difficult to memorize, non-intuitive and intimidating to new users. This proposal suggests a method by which any cryptocurrency could utilize a dedicated blockchain ("AliasCoin") to enable sending funds to a "normal" ASCII name/address such as "Satoshi".

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a bitcoin client in which you could send funds to a name like "Satoshi" or "FordMotorCompany" instead of the long, complex character strings we deal with now. This post outlines a proposal for an Alias Registry situated on a dedicated blockchain. The Alias Registry would tie a simple ASCII text string such as your name to a public key in a secure manner, enabling any other cryptocurrency to search the registry and direct transactions to the appropriate target address based on the assigned alias.

HOW IT COULD WORK

To establish an alias on the Registry users would simply submit a transaction specifying
1. The desired alias ("Satoshi")
2. One or more corresponding public keys
3. Signatures proving control of the listed key(s)
4. A registrar payment in AliasCoin.

The payment would be calculated based on how long a user wanted to register the Alias, counted in blocks. Once the Aliascoin blockchain exceeded the expiration block, the Alias would be recognized as expired, though subsequent transactions could always extend the registration duration. (It is anticipated that transactions on other blockchains such as bitcoin to an expired alias would be rejected as invalid.)

Multiple public keys on separate blockchains could be registered to the same alias. For example, "JohnDoe" could register separate keys for Bitcoin, Ethereum and Zcash in one transaction. Senders sending JohnDoe funds from each blockchain would each be able to simply direct their funds to JohnDoe, with each blockchain retrieving the appropriate public key from the Alias Registry.

The end result would be a universal Alias Registry that all cryptocurrencies could employ, once they implemented the ability to look up Aliases in the registry when they encounter a target address that is not a valid public key in their own blockchain. Users would (for a presumably trivial fee) be able to use and share easily-remembered names instead of long text strings to receive payments.

THE REGISTRAR

There had to be a catch, and here it is. I do not see an alternative to the use of a central registrar to handle Alias registrations. I am wide open to suggestions on this. The registrar would receive Alias registrations from users, verify there is no breach of a Trademark (including verifying the identity of the registering user in cases of Trademark use), and then publish the Alias registration to the blockchain. In other words, users would not directly publish their alias registrations, they would have to go thru the Registrar for verification.

Why is a central registrar body unavoidable? Because 5 minutes after launching AliasCoin without a registrar, we'd see people registering "DonaldTrump" and "IRS" and "FordMotorCompany" who have no valid connection to those names. And then we'd forever be reading about the millions of $$$ that scammers were raking in with control of those aliases.

So a global registrar body would be needed to police the system, including having the ability to cancel out invalid registrations (such as in the case of a judicial decision against a defendant in a trademark dispute) prior to their expiration. The registrar would only have the ability to delete/cancel registrations, not to alter them or unilaterally add them.

I emphasize that use of aliases would be strictly voluntary, and I'm open to ideas of how to keep the Registrar body accountable and user-friendly as possible, while protecting the public from bad actors. (SEE ADDENDUM 3) For example, the Registrar could also cancel alias registrations made by scam artists upon criminal conviction, though this needs to be explored carefully.

How would the Registrar be funded? I anticipate that the registration fees mentioned above could be directed to the Registrar to fund their operations. Such operations should be transparent and handled on a non-profit basis with full auditability via the AliasCoin blockchain, with the fee per # of blocks duration for each alias registration floating based on funding requirements. Again, I'm open to ideas how to refine/improve this. (SEE ADDENDUM 2)


A FEW OTHER COMMENTS AND OPEN ISSUES

It is anticipated that as people bought AliasCoins to purchase registrations, some would be held for future use. This would help ensure the AliasCoins would hold some value, necessary for the funding of the Registrar. I do not anticipate that Aliascoin would have significant other financial functions (and would discourage such use).

PoW, PoS? I'm open to suggestions on how mining would be conducted. If PoW, recent history with bitcoin biases me against the use of algorithms for which ASICs are available, to support decentralization.

Care should be taken to ensure that a public key used in an alias registration is solely identified with one blockchain when registered. We cannot anticipate future forks, but it is imperative that users cannot send funds to an alias and have it misinterpret the connected keys and send funds into a black hole.

For example, Mary hears John needs pizza money. She knows he uses the alias JohnDoe, so she sends him $20 worth of Ethereum using the JohnDoe alias. Only, JohnDoe has never had an Ethereum account/wallet, only one for Ethereum Classic. So he has a key in his alias registration that looks valid for Ethereum, but isn't. He doesn't even know Mary sent him funds because she forgot about it afterwards. A solution to situations like this needs to be implemented, anyone have any ideas? Is this what is meant by Replay protection? What about the thousand altcoins out there, are the keys used for each identifiably unique?

I know there are downsides to re-using public keys, and so an alias registration tied to a single public key that will be heavily used obviously conflicts with the best practice of not re-using public keys. Any suggestions to mitigate this issue would be appreciated.

Finally, each blockchain needs to know that they are reaching the correct AliasCoin blockchain, not a spoof of it, when checking alias registrations. I think this is simple enough, each transaction should include a co-signature from the Registrar proving they published it with a unique signed message, but wanted to mention it in case there are related attack vectors to defeat. (There should not be a need to verify # of confirmations in the Aliascoin blockchain for recent registrations if all transactions are being approved/published by the Registrar.)

ENDNOTE

I believe the use of Aliases could provide a big step forward in ease of use for mainstream adoption. To anyone concerned with the reliance on a registrar, I would point out that the use of aliases would be completely voluntary, and that I just don't see an alternative. Trademark infringement and scamming would explode without it.

I'm not a programmer or coin developer, so I'm just throwing this idea out for the community to consider. If it seems worthwhile and workable my hope is that a team with the right skills will step forward to start working on it. Since literally any cryptocurrency can benefit from it if developers choose to support it, I hope it proves a blessing to cryptocurrency adoption in general.

The concept of an alias registry actually dates from a project I brainstormed back in ~2014. I eventually shelved the project due to its complexity and the fact that it required ultra-high transaction capacities (far in excess of the VISA network). So I decided I'd dust it off once options like the Lightning Network became available. I only just realized this morning that the Alias concept could be applied completely independently and the benefits could be shared with everyone right now.

If this idea bears any relationship to other proposals out there that have already been explored or even implemented, I apologize for being unaware of them. It's not my intent to waste anyone's time.

Throwing it open for discussion...



ADDENDUM 1: WHY A BLOCKCHAIN?

It occurs to me that people may ask, if you are going to need a centralized registrar, why even bother with a blockchain? Why not just trust them to keep the alias-key pairs on a private database?

The answer is that such databases can be hacked, and there would be tremendous incentive to do so if the use of aliases become widespead in cryptocurrency. The most secure method of storing information is on a blockchain. It is hackproof and unalterable apart from defined transaction types. The registrar would need to exercise due care to keep its own keys safe (presumably utilizing some form of multi-sig).

Perhaps it might be necessary to implement a feature by which the public keys used by the Registrar could be "invalidated" on the blockchain - that is, if any given key used by the Registrar was lost/stolen/compromised, the Registrar should be able to send a multi-sig transaction to the blockchain that invalidates the use of the compromised key in any future transaction on the blockchain. Thus even if an attacker obtained several keys over time from the Registrar, it would be unable to use them if the hacks were detected. (Recommendation: The Registrar could make it a practice to invalidate keys it uses at a regular frequency, introducing new ones, to mitigate the risk of undetected thefts.)

Also note that the Registrar should not be able to spoof Alias registrations. Alias registration submissions from users should include a signature (or signatures) proving that they control each of the keys listed in their alias registration. This would improve trust in the use of a registrar, since they can only delete alias registrations (such as in a case of trademark infringement), never alter or add them unilaterally.

ADDENDUM 2 - MINER-FUNDED REGISTRAR?

This is another rough idea I worked out in my original project. The idea here is that registration fees would be paid to the miners (like in bitcoin) rather than the Registrar. To fund the Registrar, miners would have the ability to generate Aliascoins with each block that would be paid to a public key issued by the Registrar. The funds going to the Registrar would be in ADDITION to the regular miner payout per block, and could be specified within some range by the miner.

Thus miners believing the Registrar is overfunded could cut back funding, and those believing it underfunded could increase funding, both with no direct impact to the miner. Miners would be incentivized to not overfund the registrar because it would dilute the value of their own mined coins, and would be incentivized not to underfund it because it would risk the smooth functioning of the Registrar that upholds the value of the Aliascoin project and the value of their own coins.

Whether this is workable and would achieve the right balance needs to be carefully explored. But I thought it an idea worth mentioning, because...

ADDENDUM 3 - A REPLACEABLE REGISTRAR?

This is more speculative, but bear with me. What if it was possible in principle to replace the Registration body with a competing organization in one fell swoop through a democratic process? As an anology, what if the economic majority could vote on whether they preferred Core or Bitcoin Unlimited as being in control of the Bitcoin protocol?

Here is the proposed method: The Aliascoin protocol would include a voting mechanism (such as Dash, etc. employ), in which each coin counts as one vote. The more coins you have, the more voting power. Votes would be tallied based which public key you support - the one of the current Registrar, or one published by a competitor.

Depending on the exact rules for determining a victory (plurality, majority, majority after run-off, etc.), the funds allocated by miners would automatically go to the public key of the winning Registrar body. Moreover, only the winning body holding that public key would be able to submit registrations to the blockchain, effectively acting as the official Registrar. The keys employed by a Registrar driven from power would no longer be accepted for such duty. (I leave it for developers to determine the exact method to do this and how it could be made secure.)

Why on earth might we want the ability to change the Registrar?

1. It is anticipated that the Registrar would also take a lead role as developer for the blockchain. In case of serious conflicts such as the Core/BU debate this would provide a mechanism for resolution of the debate.

2. Insofar as the Registrar is made up of real people in real locations, the Registrar body could be subjected to intimidation or other coercive acts, or even physically replaced, by local/national authorities or organized crime. The voting mechanism would enable the community to disenfranchise such a compromised or corrupted Registrar, replacing it with a fresh body that obtains the most support.

In any event, the Registrar body would need to uphold two linked ideals: The protection of properly trademarked material to the best of their ability, and the prevention of criminal exploitation of aliases.

https://medium.com/@ryanshea/bitcoins-segregated-witness-more-than-just-malleability-fixes-and-scaling-241e2c9800d4

Good listing of the benefits of Segwit.

Go UASF!

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-extended-extension-block-story-5bc3d888bdde

I recall being told by a BU supporter here that the extension block proposal was incompatible with covert ASICBOOST. The article in the link indicates this was a late change after the ASICBOOST scandal broke. It would have been a non-starter otherwise.

As the article notes, going with extension blocks would involve more delays on the order of a year or more, while Bitmain keeps racking up profits while they are able to keep using covert ASICBOOST. This is all about delaying Segwit, which is ready today, while additional miners are driven out of business and Bitmain consolidates its power. Note also the pathetic unwillingness to admit SW provides a TX capacity increase as well.

I note that the extension block proposal came from Purse - a company whose service I like, but Roger Ver of BU lists it in his portfolio (https://rogerver.com/). So this is not coming from a neutral party.

Get out the popcorn, this one is especially good even if you've seen many variations:

http://www.captiongenerator.com/446262/Jihan-finds-out-hes-about-to-lose-his-profits

 

For those who've missed it:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/mining-manufacturer-blocking-segwit-benefit-asicboost/

Summary of the situation: Bitmain has been producing and mining with ASICs using an exploit that gives them a dramatic advantage over competing miners. This exploit is incompatible with Segwit, so Bitcoin Unlimited was created to gin up the appearance of public opposition to Core and place monopoly control over bitcoin mining and the protocol in the hands of Bitmain and associates.

The exploit also incentivizes miners to mine empty blocks, which has aggravated the TX bottleneck situation and contributed to high fees.

While they have been exposed, it is not clear to me that there is any reason they will be shut down in the near term. In other words a conspiracy has been unmasked, but not defeated.

ISSUE: ASICBOOST provides a ~30% mining advantage over non-ASICBOOST miners.

NEAR-TERM RISKS:
1. BitMain keeps mining empty blocks. TX fees remain elevated.
2. BU keeps blocking Segwit from reaching 95% consensus. TX capacity remains throttled.
3. By extension, the Lightning Network continues to be blocked/delayed/impaired insofar as SW provides the best implementation for it.

LONG-TERM RISKS:
1. Bitmain runs all opposition out of business and assumes monopoly control over mining.

COUNTERMEASURES:
1. Patent infringement? This is outside of the bitcoin communities' control, but one countermeasure is if Bitmain is infringing on the original ASICBOOST patent and it can be upheld in a Chinese court. I'm not optimistic here but it has to be listed as a possibility.
2. UASF for Segwit/Gregory Maxwell's countermeasures (see link above). A UASF introducing Segwit would force Bitmain to either mine BTC while abandoning their ASICBOOST exploit, or hardfork away with their own altcoin.
3. ? Other options?

LONG-TERM COUNTERMEASURE:
This episode has taken the issue of mining centralization from a relaxed discussion about future risks to bitcoin to an imminent crisis. BU was close to 50% hashrate in the weeks leading up to this expose. A craftier pair than Wu and Ver might pull off a coup next time. Long term no cryptocurrency can survive and thrive in an environment where monopoly control is threatened or possible.

At the same time I want to emphasize that a raw majority of miners did not join BU and should not be unfairly penalized for their actions. They've made tremendous investments in specialized hardware and should not be bankrupted in a rash reaction to this situation.

Fortunately, the ROI on bitcoin mining hardware is pretty short - less than a year from all I've seen. The means the Core development community can, after due process, provide a roadmap covering several years. One that leads back to decentralization of mining. Thus I urge Core to:

1. Provide a roadmap away from the current ASIC-based paradigm back to mining with desktop-based hardware, over a timeframe that allows the mining community to maintain profitability (without the pressure of Bitmain's advantage weighing on them, through SW deployment).

2. Formalize a public policy that such a decentralized mining paradigm will be maintained.  Either by altering algorithms or through other mitigating actions to defeat any ASIC or other specialized hardware implementation that significantly centralizes mining.

Just my 2 satoshis,
ebliever

https://blog.purse.io/fannypack-unzipping-future-purse/

FannyPack: Unzipping the Future of Purse

A New Beginning

When Purse began in 2014, we had one mission: Make Bitcoin Useful. Not only can you browse and discount shop from one of the largest marketplaces in the world, you get so much more. You also get the satisfaction of being a savvy, sensible, purveyor of fine deals on the internet; spending one of the most magical forms of currency the internet can provide – bitcoin.

With community relations in a flux and tensions at an all time high during the ongoing scaling debate, we need a beacon of hope. That’s why we’re taking this sensitive time in bitcoin’s history to position ourselves accordingly. No longer will critics be able to poke fun at our brand, joking that Purse is not “masculine” sounding enough. We laugh at you, internet trolls, for we’ve entered a new age of millennial innovation and acceptance. We believe in gender neutrality, standing strong, together — attached figuratively at the hip.

Following a very productive afternoon marathon of Rugrats reruns, flipping pogs, and reminiscing back on the 90s as a whole in our acid-washed overalls, we knew what had to be done.

Purse is very proud to announce we’re rebranding, as of today, to “FannyPack”
As FannyPack, we plan to adopt the mantra of those brave and dedicated individuals who wear one everyday, with a straight face. Our FannyPack, will carry the burden of bitcoin’s scaling tensions, right on our side. A constant reminder of the work we must do in order to continue aiding the world in creating financial systems for the future!

When you wear a fanny pack, you leave your hands free to do all sorts of things; like change the world. Inside of our pack will be all of our endless grit and resolve, our passion for world-changing technologies, and all the built up negativity that has amassed during the ongoing scaling debate. Nothing will stop FannyPack on its mission to bring discount bitcoin shopping solutions all over the globe — and we’ll do it all while listening to our favorite mixed cassette tape, too.

Well, that’s all! Fanny out! You’ll notice these new changes going live across social media today while we prepare our company for these major changes over the weekend. And, if you’re interested in learning more about the history of the Fanny Pack (of course you do), check out the video below made by a fan of the pack life!

I'm interested in compiling a list of significant bitcoin/altcoin news media websites, to better track down breaking news as well as trends in cryptocurrency.  Below are the sites I've identified so far, starting with those I'm more familiar with. If anyone knows of other English-language sites please post them. (Note that I'm not interested in click-bait sites with regurgitated news, or fronts that merely issue press releases/propaganda paid for by pump-and-dumpers.)

MEDIA SOURCES:

www.Coindesk.com
www.Cointelegraph.com
www.Cryptocoinsnews.com
www.Bitcoinist.com
www.Bravenewcoins.com
www.crypto-news.net
www.bitcoinmagazine.com
www.newsbtc.com

I'd also mention the subreddits /r/bitcoin and /r/btc, as well as this forum of course.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/61sim7/i_am_stepping_down_as_a_moderator_of_rbtc_and/

This is actually a very good read so I encourage bitcoin users on both sides of the Core/BU divide to digest it. I've leaned Core myself, but have exactly the same thoughts on his scenarios 1 and 2. Not surprisingly given his R/BTC affiliation he's more pessimistic than I about scenario 3 (Segwit wins), but that matters little as long as its hard to imagine Segwit seeing the light of day.

I'd point out, though, that Segwit does alleviate the immediate TX pressure, and even if TX pressure continued at current levels that would not kill bitcoin - only throttle it. But I'm inclined to agree with singularity87 (the author/mod at the link) that even such throttling may be enough to "kill" bitcoin in the sense that Ethereum will surpass Bitcoin in network effect, leading to the "Flippening." (A period of rapid change as people realize bitcoin supremacy is a lost cause and flee to Ethereum in droves.) So the challenge for diehard bitcoin supporters is how to avoid this outcome.

https://news.bitcoin.com/chinese-central-bank-requiring-extreme-customer-verifications-at-exchanges/

I know we're talked about endless rumors and fake news of China "banning" bitcoin, but short of an absolute ban this sort of thing looks like a step in the direction we have long feared they would take. A big step.

The PBoC is apparently requiring every customer to write out how they got their bitcoin, among other things, such as explaining why they are withdrawing whenever they want to convert to fiat. Very, very intrusive stuff. The question is, how will Chinese buyers respond? Is this just business as usual when dealing with their government, or is this the sort of thing that will dry up the Chinese market for bitcoin? Or something in between?

http://web.archive.org/web/20170314164356/https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5z7wzj/ways_to_enhance_postfork_withering_of_core_chain/dewynk0/?context=3

"Post-fork withering of core chain" = Destroying bitcoin so the BTUcoin can survive and people are forced to accept it as a replacement. Except we won't, as the ongoing migration to Dash, ether, etc. shows.

You are not making friends or persuading people with these antics, Bitcoin Unlimited partisans.

https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/batsbzx.htm

I've checked google every few days, but don't have a good answer on this. If the ETF is approved, are they ready to take orders instantly? Can I call up Fidelity that morning and ask them to buy COIN with my IRA funds and expect that they are going to be able to act immediately?

Or once the ETF is approved, will we have to wait for the Winkelvoss ETF management to announce when they will be open for business and be ready at that point?

Thanks for any info/insight/links or even random rumors if that's all you've got. :-)

[DKV Promotion]

There's never been a better time to sign up and play Dragon Knights of Valeria!

http://dknight2.com/users.php?do=register&ref=EnderWiggin

DKV Promotion

The next 50 players to join will receive an automatic upgrade to VIP+ ($5 value) when they reach level 15. As a bonus, if any of these players are referred then the referrer will gain 50% more rewards when they reach level 15.

There's a tutorial to get you started, and I'll be happy to help out anyone who joins up under me with bonus gold and resources and so forth, as well as a position in my clan Dragon Army should you so desire. So come check it out!

EnderWiggin

Article at link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2016/12/20/hackers-have-stolen-millions-of-dollars-in-bitcoin-using-only-phone-numbers/#3e024ad522db

Lessons learned:
2FA using SMS is badly compromised.
You can't outsource your computer/cryptocurrency security to a 3rd party like your phone carrier. It's a recipe for disaster.
Hackers are targeting prominent bitcoiners - but it's only a matter of time for the rest of us.
Thieves are impersonating prominent bitcoiners, asking friends for "loans" of BTC (etc) - which just means more victims.
It's not just bitcoins - bank accounts and everything else are vulnerable. (And you can't fix those with a Trezor or paper wallet.)

What else?

[A Quantum Computing-Dominated World Is Coming In Less Than 10 Years, Says CEO Of Acronis]

A Quantum Computing-Dominated World Is Coming In Less Than 10 Years, Says CEO Of Acronis

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nanhiein/2016/08/15/a-quantum-computing-dominated-world-is-coming-in-less-than-10-years-says-ceo-of-acronis/amp/

An interesting article on quantum computing, claiming that developments are coming quickly in this area. My understanding is that while bitcoin is not wholly broken by the availability of quantum computers, there would be some things that need to be addressed. I hate to distract from transaction capacity improvements, but does this need to start moving up on someone's to-do list?

There is some brief discussion of cryptography most of the way through the article, but only from the standpoint that greater privacy can be achieved with QC. That sounds hopeful, as until now I'd only heard of QC in the context of breaking existing password-based protections.