I know that DASH is the most profitable masternode coin, but I can't afford the collateral of 1,000 DASH at current prices. I'm on the hunt for other affordable masternode coins that would be worth investing right now. To my knowledge, most masternode coins have been abandoned by developers as they've been unable to provide real use cases for the mainstream world. Some are still there (like Digitalcoin and MonetaryUnit) but their trading volume is extremely low. I'm deeply interested in a masternode coin that's active in development and innovation. But most of all, I'd needs to have trading volume on the market.

Do you happen to know which affordable masternode coins (besides DASH) are the most profitable ones to invest right now? Any suggestions or recommendations will be greatly appreciated.

I've been into ASIC and GPU mining for a few years now, and have been deeply interested into FPGAs lately. Doing a little research, I found out a very useful site with lots of info to get started with FPGA mining (https://fpga.guide. FPGAs are a great alternative to ASIC mining (in my own opinion) since you can easily change the PoW algo to mine any coin as long as there a "bitstream" available for it. I'd be interested in programming an FPGA too, but it looks very complicated to do so.

For now, I want to explore FPGAs more thoroughly (for learning/educational purposes) without breaking the bank. I've done a quick search at eBay, but prices are pretty high. I'd be deeply interested in a miner that's well within the $100 budget. Even if I won't be able to make a return on my investment with it, I'd enjoy making use of it for fun. Any suggestions or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I'm curious to know what will be the cost in terms of USD for performing a 51% attack on the Bitcoin blockchain? I'm guessing that it might take a lot of money to do so, considering how many miners are backing the entire chain. A formula on how to calculate such cost would be great to know, in order to make things easier when working on a cryptocurrency project of my own. Knowing beforehand the costs involved for attacking a PoW blockchain, could encourage developers to reinforce security on the same.

Of course, a 51% attack on Bitcoin is not feasible right now. But it might be on smaller chains like Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin SV. Any helpful advice on how to calculate 51% attack costs on the Blockchain will be greatly appreciated. This of course, will be for learning/educational purposes than anything else. Thanks in advance.

According to Crypto Briefing, central banks have suggested governments worldwide to ban stablecoins from existence (or at least, impose heavy-handed regulation). It seems that they see stablecoins as a threat to the existing monetary system. Central banks have recommended to prohibit the use and issuance of decentralized stablecoins (like DAI and bitUSD) within the mainstream world. If governments follow their recommendations, does this mean that the stablecoin industry is doomed?

I wasn't surprised about the news, since central banks and governments have long dominated the world's economy. While crypto is still decentralized, the market is largely dependent on Fiat as we speak. A ban on stablecoins might be harmful for the price (and possibly mainstream adoption) of crypto. Blockchain tech will still be alive and running, no matter what governments' actions will be. But mainstream people will look elsewhere due to decaying prices across the market.

For those unaware, here's the link to the article by Crypto Briefing: https://cryptobriefing.com/central-banks-recommended-ban-stablecoins/

What are your thoughts?

In some cases regulations are necessary to put an end to fraud and corruption in the crypto/Blockchain industry. By requiring KYC compliance on centralized exchanges, the crypto world could become a better place. However, the mere fact that you'd need to provide some sort of ID verification would completely destroy the purpose of crypto. I've seen situations where centralized exchanges became hacked, putting customers' identities at risk. Last time I've heard, someone hacked Binance and threatened to expose customer's identities across the web.

This makes me to believe that KYC does more harm than good for crypto. Of course, regulation is necessary in order to legitimize the industry in its entirety. Institutional investors, conglomerates, and other entities will find crypto regulatory-compliant for their own needs. But knowing that KYC goes against crypto's principles, could make the entire industry similar to traditional banking.

What are your thoughts?

In times where social distancing is a must, the way we make payments changes in its entirety. Physical cash will cease from existence, as they serve as "carriers" or "vehicles" of the deadly coronavirus "COVID-19". Governments will notice that printing more money will not be worth their time, leading them towards the creation of their very own digital currency. That is if the pandemic continues extends long enough in order to have a negative impact on the world's economy.

Considering that everything has been moving to the "online world" lately, I believe that the coronavirus pandemic will pave the way for CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) quicker than we've expected. After all, it'll be much safer to conduct transactions online (and eco-friendly too) than doing so in the physical realm. Crypto will rise like never before because of this, leading towards the accelerated development of CBDCs.

While many countries like the US and Russia are skeptical about crypto/Blockchain technology, they might change their stance once they see it's no longer worth printing physical cash. China has already been working on a CBDC solution of its own, so it's only a matter of time before it starts rolling it to the public.

What are your thoughts? Will this be the era of CBDCs? Or is it still too early to tell?

In the mainstream world, there are traditional VOIP services which accept Fiat as payment either through a payment processor like PayPal or through credit/debit cards directly. I'm well aware of good VOIP services like Vonage and Ooma, but none accept Bitcoin payments. Crypto is known to be quite resilient in times of turmoil, so it could be a better alternative than existing Fiat.

To my surprise, there are no VOIP services out there (AFAIK) which accept Bitcoin directly. I'd be intrigued to know if there are any good VOIP service providers out there that would accept Bitcoin for my own benefit? The more crypto options it offers for payment, the better.

Any help, suggestions, or recommendations will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance

I have a few friends on Facebook which have never heard about crypto or even used it in their lives. I'd like to contribute towards the adoption of crypto by sending them small fractions of Bitcoin and Ethereum through Facebook. But I'd need to be very careful in order to prevent disclosure of private keys from prying eyes.

I'm wondering how will I be able to achieve this in the safest and secure way possible? This will be done through instant messaging of course (Facebook Messenger) with the intention of sending crypto in the most private way possible. My friends are not tech-savvy like me, so I'd need to figure out a method that's easy enough for them to get access to their crypto.

Which is why, I'm very intrigued to know how to send crypto to a non-crypto person through Facebook? Any help, suggestions, or recommendations will be highly appreciated. Thanks

The Ethereum Naming Service (ENS) provides domain names that live on the ETH Blockchain for censorship-resistance. Site addresses could end in ".eth" similar to other TLDs like ".com", ".net", and ".org". They can also be linked to ETH public keys, so that anyone could send you ETH just using your domain name of choice. In my computer, I'm able to easily access ".eth" domain names on a web browser using the "PeerName" extension.

But I'm trying to figure out how to do this on mobile devices. The Chrome browser I'm using on Android doesn't have support for extensions, so I can't use PeerName there. Is there a work around for Android where I could visit ".eth" websites? I'd be intrigued to know about this as browsing the Web 3.0 on a mobile device would be much more convenient than doing so on a traditional desktop computer.

Any help, recommendations, or suggestions will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance

Timestamping documents on the Blockchain proves to be a great solution for anyone to prove their authenticity. From birth certificates, to legal documents, almost anything can be "notarized" on the Blockchain for proof of ownership. Now it's just a matter of time, before this becomes widely accepted in the mainstream world.

Since Bitcoin is known to be an immutable Blockchain network, any data that's thrown at it will virtually remain there forever. This would work wonders with notarization of documents that would eliminate the need for a middleman.

I'm starting to wonder if this would be recognized as "legal" in a court of law? I mean, if I timestamp a document on the Bitcoin blockchain to prove that I'm the owner of it, will a court accept such proof/evidence as legal? I'm having my doubts here since crypto and Blockchain tech, are still not widely recognized in the mainstream world.

What are your thoughts? Will notarized documents on the Blockchain be considered legal as evidence for a court of law? Or are we still too early to tell?

[After all, Steem token holders will obtain the same number of coins on the hard-forked "HIVE" blockchain]

The Steem blockchain just hard forked today at 10 AM EST. For those unaware of the situation, there has been a controversy between TRON's latest acquisition of Steemit, Inc. and the community itself. They were unable to reach an agreement, which resulted on both sides heading their separate ways by forking. I know that the Steem blockchain is not as popular as other blockchains in the mainstream world, but the fact that TRON's Justin Sun took control over most of the network's consensus witnesses has a lot to say about DPoS' level of decentralization.

I'm starting to wonder whenever this newly-launched hard fork will be a success? After all, most forks tend to be less valuable than the original coin. A good example of this is the infamous Bitcoin Cash hard fork that has a lower market cap and price than the original Bitcoin (BTC) itself. Of course, the decentralized nature of Blockchain technology allows anyone to fork at will when none of the parties involved are able to reach a common agreement. The recent pump in STEEM's price yesterday, shows that people are interested in "free money" than anything else. After all, Steem token holders will obtain the same number of coins on the hard-forked "HIVE" blockchain. Major exchanges like Binance and Huobi have already announced support for the hard fork (HIVE). We'll see how this plays in the long run, for both chains. Either Steem dies altogether, or both chains will be able to survive alongside each other for many years to come.

What are your thoughts about the new Steem fork? Was it a good decision by the community? Or will it fail in the long run? In highly unpredictive crypto world, anything could happen in the future. Any opinion on this matter will be appreciated.

For those unaware, a "DAO" is a term that refers to a "Decentralized Autonomous Organization" where organizations live on the Blockchain itself. It was hailed to be the next big thing in crypto back in 2016, which aimed to eliminate the need from human intervention (truly autonomous and decentralized). A future where organizations would live on the Blockchain governed by its stakeholders was a very interesting idea/concept in crypto's early days. Projects or proposals would receive the approval of the Blockchain's stakeholders, as well as, funding in a truly decentralized manner.

Ever since "The DAO" was hacked on the Ethereum blockchain back in 2016, things have been quite silent about the development of new DAOs within the Blockchain space. So far, I'm aware of a DAO called "Wings.ai" which is sort of a crowdfunding system living on the Blockchain. Stakeholders would approve certain projects/proposals for the Blockchain to provide funding autonomously. But I have to say, that the level of interest in developing new DAOs has been quite low over the years.

I'd like to know if there are other DAOs out there in the crypto/Blockchain space that are as good as Wings.ai? I've been looking across the web with no luck so far. Most of the DAOs I've stumbled upon, where either abandoned by their devs or turned out to be a scam in the long run. Which is why, I'm curious to know if there are other great alternatives to "The DAO" (defunct) and "Wings.ai" that I could use for my own benefit?

Any help, suggestions, or recommendations will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

The Blockchain is known to be a distributed global ledger that keeps the integrity of transactions across multiple nodes on the network. It's capable of achieving immutability as long as nodes behave accordingly without reversing blocks or transactions. Knowing that Bitcoin is the world's most secure Blockchain network to date, it could prove to be real useful for maintain the integrity of data for a very long time.

I believe that Blockchain technology is a great way to battle piracy as it's very difficult to manipulate data at will. Software companies like Microsoft or Valve could simply secure licenses or software keys for each user on the Blockchain. The software will verify the Blockchain for the corresponding "license key" to match the one inputted by the user. There are no servers to disrupt or hack, as the key is distributed among many computers worldwide. This brings validation and protection against piracy as we know it. It's even better than storing software license keys on the cloud or central servers operated by a single company. Using an existent public blockchain network like Bitcoin or Ethereum for this purpose could prove to eliminate piracy for good.

Sometimes I wonder why software companies haven't thought on doing something like already? I'm sure that a company like Microsoft would use the Bitcoin blockchain for proving the validity or authenticity of a software license key to protect against privacy. Imagine Windows keys being stored on the Blockchain forever. It would prove to be highly beneficial for the company itself, as it's nearly impossible to tamper with the Blockchain's integrity. Microsoft has already started working on a decentralized identity system that's backed by the Bitcoin Blockchain. So protecting software licenses on the world's largest Blockchain today should be a no-brainer.

What are your thoughts?

If you've been following crypto land's latest developments, you'll notice that there a new trend called "decentralized messaging". Basically, a person can use a decentralized messaging software of his/her choice that promotes freedom of speech powered by the Blockchain itself. There are no companies behind, no data is stored on centralized servers, etc. So far, I'm aware of two decentralized messengers which use the power of Blockchain technology in order to provide true privacy/anonymity to the end user. All data is stored locally (in some apps) or on the Blockchain itself protected by an encryption algorithm.

The "Status Network" (uses ETH blockchain) and Adamant Messenger (uses its own Blockchain network) apps are truly revolutionary. They're considered as better alternatives to existing centralized messaging apps like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger. While the aforementioned decentralized projects are good, I want to know if there are better decentralized messaging apps out there that would make use of Blockchain technology.

Do you know which are the best decentralized messaging apps out there besides Status or Adamant Messenger? Any thoughts, suggestions, or recommendations will be greatly appreciated.

I'm aware that most (if not all) Bitcoin-based cryptocurrencies have a feature where you can create a multi-signature wallet with ease. But so far, I haven't seen a way on how to achieve this with Ethereum or any of its forks (Ethereum Classic, Expanse..). I often use MetaMask for De-Fi apps, while I use the Ledger Nano S itself for serious ETH transactions. Yet, none of them have a feature for creating a multi-sig ETH wallet. Am I missing something?

I'd sometimes wish MetaMask and the Ledger Live app would've have included this feature for convenience. There are also mobile wallet apps like Enjin Wallet and Trust Wallet where you cannot create a multi-sig wallet from them. If there's no other way to create a multi-sig wallet using a GUI, I wouldn't mind doing this with a command-line client (geth) in order to achieve said purpose.

Any help, suggestions, or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Both Swarm (uses the ETH blockchain) and the IPFS are truly innovative projects for decentralized cloud storage. Many blockchain projects are already using the IPFS (like D.Tube) for storing and delivering content without the need for a centralized server. The Ethereum counterpart (Swarm) is not widely known within the crypto space, but it's very similar to IPFS.

I'm starting to wonder what are the main differences between both projects since they're nearly the same? The Ethereum dev team could've chosen the IPFS network as it's tried-and-tested over the years instead of coming with their own solution. After all, many Blockchain projects are using IPFS on top of Swarm (AFAIK). Maybe it's because the ETH blockchain itself is not scalable yet for mainstream use? Anyhow, it's nice to see new projects emerge with the vision of decentralizing the way we store and interact with content online. This could allow data to stay redundant and live virtually forever as there is zero downtime.

Any thoughts?

[Additionally, I'd like to ask how to do this with the Bitcoin Core wallet?]

I've been doing some digging on Bitcoin's "nLockTime" feature which allows anyone to "lock" BTC funds on the Blockchain for a specified time frame. This could prove to be useful for preserving BTC as a form of heritage, where funds will only be unlocked if a certain date (or condition) has passed. I've found some info about it on the official Bitcoin wiki site here. Most of the information is too technical which proves to be quite difficult to understand for the non-tech savvy user. Of course, I was able to understand most of it, but my friends who are not quite fond with Blockchain terminology have found out it to be quite complicated to understand.

What I want to know is how does the nLockTime feature on the BTC blockchain work in layman's terms (ELI5)? This way, I'll be able to clear some of my doubts to properly educate my non-tech savvy friends about it. Additionally, I'd like to ask how to do this with the Bitcoin Core wallet? I've been looking around the web, but have been unable to find a tutorial or guide that would walk me through on setting a BTC transaction that would be unlocked at a certain point in time.

Any help, suggestions or recommendations will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

There are so many Ethereum token standards out there on the web, that's hard to keep track of. Considering that Ethereum hails itself as a platform anyone can launch tokens which serve unique purposes in life, I've been wondering about non-transferable ETH tokens? For instance, a store could issue loyalty points (rewards) to a customer where it's non-transferable to other people. In other words, you cannot send your loyalty points to another person as it cannot be transferred. Something like Burger King's "BK Rewards" in the real world, but as a form of an ETH token limited only to transactions between the store (redeeming loyalty points) and the customer (earning loyalty points).

My question is if it's possible to do something like this on the ETH blockchain? I haven't seen an Ethereum Token Standard (ERC) that would support these type of tokens (AFAIK), but it'd be nice to have in order to increase adoption of the ETH blockchain in the mainstream world. We already have Non-Fungible Tokens (ERC-721), Standard Tokens (ERC-20), and even token standards for issuing securities (ERC-1411 and ERC-1404) on the ETH blockchain. If the need arises (and it's feasible to create non-transferable tokens on the Blockchain), we'll be able to see retail stores, e-commerce stores, and more issuing loyalty points on the Ethereum blockchain sometime in the future.

What are your thoughts? Any recommendations, suggestions, or opinion about this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

I've seen somewhere across the web, that China has been taking measures to protect physical banknotes/bills from getting infected with the coronavirus. After all, it's said that the virus could be transmitted across physical cash in circulation from one person to another. If the trend continues, people will look for other ways to spend their money safely without having direct contact with the virus. In this regard, digital payments prove to be a winner when it comes to sending/receiving money without exposing yourself to physical banknotes/bills that have could've been contaminated with the coronavirus. I believe that it could be a win-win situation for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in the Blockchain space. Unless governments decide to start rolling their digital currencies to the world, everything will remain likely the same as it is today.

Do you think that the recent situation will encourage people to use (or rely) on crypto more thoroughly? What are your thoughts?

I've seen how mainstream events like the coronavirus "COVID-19" and the downfall of the stock market, has negatively impacted Bitcoin's price across the crypto market. For a cryptocurrency that's been hailed as a safe-haven against traditional Fiat, it's been doing otherwise. Gold has been performing better than Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies combined. It's odd to see something like this happening today since Bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency. This should make it "immune" from real-world events whatsoever. Bitcoin's latest decline in price has shown us that the cryptocurrency is still linked to mainstream events. It's probably because Bitcoin is often traded on centralized exchanges than decentralized ones. As long as it stays that way, Bitcoin will never be able to become a "safe-haven" asset in times of turmoil. Or am I wrong?

What are your thoughts?