Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Will Bitcoin Segwit Recover its' All Time High Or Go to Zero?

Bitcoin Segwit proponents have spent more that the last 2 years arguing that BTC is a store of value and should not be used for everyday transactions. They have even proposed that transactions can be conducted on Ethereum and Litecoin. Now they are actively touting Lightning as the killer innovation that will make Bitcoin great again.

I find this argument hard to swallow because experience tells me that it is difficult to win customers and nearly impossible to win them back, if they left because of poor customer service. It is no different for Bitcoin. BTC is a product and transactions on the blockchain is a service. Gaining converts was hard, very hard. Now look at how easy it is to lose them.

Using the Sent From Addresses as an approximation to number of users, we see that in less than a month ( 4 January to 1 February ), the number of users fell 60% from 536K to 218K. 

Where have these "customers" gone?

Since the all time high of 19.5K on 17 December, BTC price have dropped to 10K today. Some call it a correction but I will argue that the correction ended 7 January.  Since then the drop in price have tracked the decline in the number of users as shown in the graph above.

It looks like even the most ardent supporters of BTC are no longer buying into the promises of Core developers. BTC's price drop is more than just a correction and the bear market, because Ethereum's price is bucking this trend. 

Since 1 August a large number of BTC users have moved to Alt coins and many have gone all-in to Bitcoin Cash. It would now appear that, even those vehemently against Bitcoin Cash are leaving and moving to Ethereum. This can only mean that Ethereum will soon replace BTC as the top coin in terms of market share.

What about the flippening?

Bitcoin Cash is only 6 months old. The flippening will happen soon enough after BTC loses its' market dominance to Ethereum. Bitcoin Cash will have to convince the market that it is the real Bitcoin and that Bitcoin Segwit was the fork, before it can unseat Ethereum. This will happen because Ethereum was never designed to be a monetary token. For now it can be a "store of value".

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Lightning Destroys Bitcoin's Security Model.

Bitcoin stands on three pillars, the users, the miners and the developers. The weakest link here was the developers but fortunately Bitcoin has self correcting features which resulted in the forking off to a new development team (Bitcoin Cash).

Lightning destroys Bitcoin's security model.

One of the most fascinating attribute of bitcoin was that the system pays for its' own security. It may seem trivial now but ask yourself back then, how do you pay someone to secure your protocol with coins that are worth nothing? This was the chicken and egg problem. All prior solutions, including governments,  have all relied on trusted entities to perform that function.

Miner's reward = Block Reward + Transaction Fees  =  12.5  + E[xT]

The principle idea is that as the Block rewards decreases every four years the block reward will be replaced by transaction fees.

T is allowed to increase as fast as the technology for block space allow while keeping x as low as possible.

This requires larger block sizes. Even one that can accommodate billions of transactions (T) in say 10 years. We can be sure that technology will come to the rescue. For example, as we will move to 5G networks, developing countries will skip  1G, 2G, 3G and even 4G to move directly into 5G with the rest of us. This development will happen as sure as they skip landlines entirely to move into mobile networks.

Lightning network changes the security model to :

Miner's reward = Block Reward +  ( Transaction Fees - Lightning Fees ) =  12.5  + { E(xT) - E(yL) }

As the block rewards decreases the transaction fees must also increase. The idea here is to make on-chain transaction very expensive and move all smaller transactions to the Lightning network or side chains.

T is capped and x is allowed to increase as much as demand for settlement allows.
L is allowed to increase indefinitely and y is kept very small.

Transactions to get on and off the lightning channels are part of total T. If it is not obvious yet, as x increases it also gets more expensive to open and close a lightning channel. So how would one get on to lighting if it gets too expensive to open a channel. You will have to subscribe to a channel node directly. That is put your money into a "banking" node. These "banking" nodes will now be in a position to allow or deny services to you ie Be A bank!

At the moment we tend to assume that miner's cost are denominated in dollars or fiat. Therefore as the transaction cost grows to thousands of dollars it will keep pace with costs and miners will be happy. But will they? When we get to the situation where the unit of transaction is bitcoin and not dollars, then the block reward will tend to zero in BTC terms. The only real reward are the on chain transaction fees.

Miners are price takers. They get to determine their income by selecting from a smorgasbord of fees. "Banking" nodes become price setters. They put up that smorgasbord of fees. It will be in their interest to set Lightning fees as high as possible and Mining fees as low as possible.

Nodes were never meant to be compensated in the Bitcoin protocol. They are placed on the user side of Bitcoin's 3 legged equation. They pay for the cost of running a node because their business model requires it. It is their cost to use the system.

Lightning has not taken hold yet and we are far away from "banking" nodes. It could work if miners do not have a choice. But miners have a choice in Bitcoin Cash. Miners will not put up with a situation where they get elbowed out of the system, just as happened with the original core developers.

Bitcoin's security is one of its' greatest strength.

Bitcoin uses proof of work to secure the protocol. This is the most secure system we know. Nothing has ever worked before bitcoin. To emphasise this point, the fastest and most powerful chips are used to mine bitcoins even before they are deployed into mainstream computers. The technology to secure Bitcoin is bleeding edge and will remain so.

Any departure from this is a compromise and introduces some level of centralisation or trust. Proof of stake requires some form of centralisation, moderated in different iterations of the POS model. Without Bitcoin coming first, POS cannot take off on its' own. Bitcoin made it possible for value to flow into the POS tokens.

Trust but verify

It can be argued that not everyone can run a Bitcoin Cash node because of the cost and we have to trust a small number of these expensive nodes. However, any business or organisation that needs to verify their transactions real time will have to run a node. We could have hundreds of thousands of nodes across all sectors and industries. We don't have 100% trusted nodes but we have enough, just as we may not have 100% honest miners, but we have enough.

We cannot say the same for "banking" nodes because their profitability depends on their control of miners revenues, and thus the erosion of Bitcoin's security model. You will not be allowed to verify or audit their setups.

Monday, January 22, 2018

A Rating Agency For Cryptocurrency - Blue Sky For Bitcoin Cash.

The announcement that Weiss will release the first crypto curriency ratings on 24 January 2018, will be the most significant development in the crypto space.


Basically Weiss have developed an algorithm to rate cryptos base on 4 criterias

Risk Index   -  Volatility 

Reward Index  -  Profit potential

Technology Index - Whitepaper

Fundamental Index - General Useability

By my reckoning if this rating is accurate then Bitcoin Cash stands head and shoulder above all the others.

1) It scales which puts it above Bitcoin Segwit and Ethereum

2) It is true to the original Satoshi whitepaper 

3) It is a small world network meaning that it is immune to Sybil attacks.

4) It is gaining adoption everyday with large enterprises

5) Price have increased from 300 to $2500 with low volatility in downward price movements

6) It competes on the most secure hashing algorith

7) Biggest development team with at least 4 clients

Look for the price of Bitcoin Cash to strengthen on this news. It will also push the awareness of Bitcoin Cash to people old and new to cryptos.

Update 25/1/2018  The Weiss rating report is a subscription service priced at $936 per annum with a 50% discount for early bird subscriptions. It currently rates Ethereum and EOS at B, Steemit and Cardano at B- Bitcoin at C+ Bitcoin Cash is C-. 

Weiss Announces First Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Grades by U.S. Rating Agency

Risky Crypto Market to Get the Clarity Only Impartial Ratings Can Provide
Palm Beach Gardens, FL — Weiss Ratings, the nation’s leading independent rating agency of financial institutions, will issue letter grades on cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Bitcoin Cash, Cardano, NEM, Litecoin, Stellar, EOS, IOTA, Dash, NEO, TRON, Monero, Bitcoin Gold and many others.
The new Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings, to be released January 24, are the first by a financial rating agency. They are based on a groundbreaking model that analyzes thousands of data points on each coin’s technology, usage, and trading patterns.
“Many cryptocurrencies are murky, overhyped and vulnerable to crashes. The market desperately needs the clarity that only robust, impartial ratings can provide,” said Weiss Ratings founder, Martin D. Weiss, PhD. “We’re proud to be the first to bring that benefit to investors — to help them cut through the hype and identify the few truly solid cryptocurrencies. Our ratings are based on hard data and objective analysis. But they're bound to create controversy, including some grades that may come as a surprise to some people.”
Weiss Ratings, which began in 1971, rates 55,000 institutions and investments. Unlike Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, Fitch and A.M. Best, Weiss never accepts compensation of any kind from the entities it rates. Its independence and accuracy have been noted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Barron’sThe Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, among others.
The Weiss Ratings Scale
Investors should interpret the Weiss Cryptocurrency grade scale with these terms:
A = excellent
B = good
C = fair
D = weak
E = very weak
A plus or minus sign indicates the upper third or lower third of a grade range, respectively. In addition, an F grade is assigned to cryptocurrencies that have failed or are subject to credible allegations of fraud.
Important Caveats
Before acting on, or reacting to, any single grade, investors should be aware of the following five caveats:
Caveat 1. Do not misunderstand the Weiss Ratings scale. Other rating agencies use a scale from triple A to single C.  In that scheme a B grade is “junk” and a C is close to failure. In contrast, Weiss Ratings’ B is “good” and C is “fair.” Based on a study of the Weiss Ratings by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, an institution is not categorized “vulnerable” unless its grade is D+ or lower.
Thus, cryptocurrencies do not have to achieve an A grade to merit interest by investors. A “B” or even “B-” also qualify as the investment rating equivalent to “buy.” At the same time, investors should not be overly alarmed by a “C” rating. It is a passing grade; and for investors, implies the equivalent of “hold.”
Caveat 2. No safe cryptocurrencies. At this early stage in their evolution, there is no such thing as a “safe” cryptocurrency. All investors in the sector must be willing to accept wide price volatility, undefined regulatory risk, frequent market irregularities, and deficiencies in platforms such as currency exchanges.
Caveat 3. Frequent ratings changes. The metrics used to evaluate cryptocurrencies can change more rapidly than those of other investments. Therefore, when using Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings, investors should expect frequent upgrades and downgrades.
Caveat 4. Opinion. Although Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings are based on objective analysis free of conflicts of interest, they should not be interpreted as be-all-end-all evaluations. Every grade issued by any rating agency is ultimately an opinion, to be used by the public in the context of opinions from analysts, developers and users.
Caveat 5. Incomplete. No ratings model, no matter how well designed, can evaluate all factors; and this is especially true in new, unchartered sectors like cryptocurrencies. For example, to fully evaluate the blockchain software programs of each new cryptocurrency, teams of expert blockchain developers would need to audit and thoroughly test the code. Although that effort would be an important step forward, especially for developers and certain institutions, it is beyond the scope of this project. Instead, to help guide investors to cryptocurrencies with the most robust technology, the Weiss Ratings evaluates each blockchain technology by using a series of the proxy metrics described below.
The Model
The Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings model is built from the ground up with five basic layers:
Layer 1. Current data on each currency’s technology, performance and trading trends
Layer 2. Proprietary formulas that convert the data into comparable ratios.
Level 3. Proprietary sub-indexes that aggregate the ratios to measure key factors and features considered critical to the potential success or failure of investments in each cryptocurrency
Level 4. Aggregation of the sub-indexes into four key indexes, each meriting a separate letter grade
Level 5. Aggregation of the four key indexes into an overall letter grade
Thus, each Weiss Cryptocurrency Rating represents the pinnacle of a pyramid built from tens of thousands of calculations that feed up to a final grade.
Disclosure of Model Components
To be consistent with the transparency that has become the hallmark of the cryptocurrency space, Weiss Ratings’ intent over time is to disclose as much as possible about its model.
However, decades of experience in the financial marketplace indicate that, once armed with the specific formulas or processes of a ratings model, some rated entities seek to game the system: They try to manipulate data they can influence or control with the goal of achieving an unfair advantage. To help avoid this outcome, disclosure must proceed in phases, beginning with a broad description of the four key indexes in the Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings model. These are:
  1. The Cryptocurrency Risk Index. A composite of sub-indexes that measure (a) relative and absolute price fluctuations over multiple time frames, (b) declines from peak to trough in terms of frequency and magnitude, (c) market bias, whether up or down, and other factors.
  2. The Cryptocurrency Reward Index. A composite of sub-indexes that evaluate (a) returns compared to moving averages, (b) absolute returns compared to a benchmark, (c) smoothed returns compared to a benchmark, and other factors.
  3. The Cryptocurrency Technology Index. A composite of sub-indexes calculated by a manual analysis of publicly available white papers, public discussion forums or announcements, and open source code to evaluate the protocols underlying each cryptocurrency. Factors considered include the level of anonymity, sophistication of monetary policy, governance capabilities, the ability or flexibility to improve code, energy efficiency, scaling solutions, interoperability with other blockchains and many more.
  4. The Cryptocurrency Fundamental Index. A composite of sub-indexes that evaluate transaction speed and scalability, market penetration, network security, decentralization of block production, network capacity, developer participation, public acceptance, plus other key factors.
Each of these indexes is appropriately weighted, compared and then evaluated in terms of how it interacts with the other three indexes systemically. The end result of the analytical process is the Weiss Cryptocurrency Rating.
Overall, Weiss Cryptocurrency Ratings provide a well-rounded, solidly-grounded opinion based on hard facts and steeped in four decades of ratings experience. They can serve as much-needed cryptocurrency GPS for investors.

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Is The Sky Falling ? No It Is The CBOE/CME Futures But The Flippening Is Still On.

So we are at 11K for BTC today and we nearly went below 10K. What caused this crash? Remember back in December when some of us had doubts about the futures being bullish for Bitcoin, Well we were right. The short sellers are in to make a fortune.

To make money you will always need to bet against the trend ant at that time the trend was bullish. All the pundits were predicting 25K 30K Bitcoin. If you were a whale or belong to that group and had the resources to sell the index then taking up a short position on the futures would be the surest and most profitable bet of all. Each CME contract was for 5 BTC which at 18K would mean a profit of around 40K a contract. The beauty is that this is an unregulated market and even if they manipulated the index there is no authority that can hold them accountable for market manipulation.

The first CBOE futures expires 17/1/2018 and the first CCME futures expires a week later. We can expect to see bearish prices for the next week or two. By then when the sentiment is really bearish and pundits predicting 5K BTC then the smart money futures bet will be the other way. So we will see a huge recovery come March/April 2018.

Update : Calvin Ayrn was bringing in significant hashpower to BCH this week. Instead we we the hashrate increasing in BTC. It could be difficulty pump for BTC, before pulling the plug. Looks like it is and they have started mining BCH. First block today. This is the beginning of the end for BTC. Good riddance.

The flippening is still on.

I do not trade futures. I buy on fundamentals. For this period the only fundamental that we need to be concern with is that both BTC and BCH cannot co-exist on the same mining algorithm. BTC will have to fork away once it is caught in the Chain Death Spiral. High transaction fees is an extinction event, and BTC is only holding the higher price ahead of BCH because it has incumbency.

A price drop of this magnitude without the price of BCH following suite would have triggered the Chain Death Spiral for BTC. However all cryptos including BCH experience the same sell off which means that weak hands who were only in it for speculation and a quick profit have sold their positions.

What we need to realise is that there were many BTC investors who bought into BTC at up to 19K and have moved the BTC to their personal wallet, found to their detriment that their transfer to the exchange for a quick sell was stuck and in just over 24 hours saw their investment drop an additional 3K per BTC and it is possibly still stuck in the BTC unconfirmed mempool. This will be a bitter pill to swallow. Another angry BTC investor.

Everyday the odds are being stacked against BTC. More people are leaving. More businesses announcing that they no longer accept BTC and they are switching their business model to BCH. More mainstream adoption for BCH.  More features being added to the BCH platform and more project shelved because of the unuseability of BTC are now being revived on the BCH chain.

The greatest threat to BTC now is not a drop in the price of BTC but a quick rise in the price of BCH. Keep an eye on that metric. It was .18 when the market collapsed and went as low as .15 but have now recovered to .16

Yes. The flippening is still on.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Why Bitcoin Core Holds Its' Value - Incumbency and the Bitcoin Brand

If we were launching 2 versions of Bitcoin today, one with slow transactions and high fees and the other with fast transactions and low fees, there is no doubt which one will gain adoption and command a higher price. Yet the reality is that Bitcoin Core (BTC), the one with slow transactions and high fees is valued 10 times more that of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Why is that?

Update 12/1/2017 Largest mining farm in the world goes online next week. Means huge increase in hashrate for BCH. Calvin Ayrn is connected with Craig Wright. This is a very big nail in BTC's coffin. ( There is a correlation between price and hash rate. hey say hashrate follows price, but what if hashrate is deliberate ? I presume then price would follow. BCH could double to $5000 next week. )

Update 14/1/2017 BTC dominance is now 32.5% The smart money is leaving and it is moving to Ethereum. The strategy of suppressing BCH price by selling into any bull run is ended because they have run out of BCH. Scenario : If you are holding BTC, you need to exit or watch your asset value drop day by day. You can't move into BCH as that will drive down BTC's price faster. New money is no longer coming in faster than you can divest. Best option is to move into Ethereum. Tide is turning now and when the people finally grasp that BCH can do everything that Ethereum can because it is turing complete and you don't need to spend gas to run your smart contracts, BCH will be number1 and start gaining market dominance accomplishing what BTC could never achieve under Core.

Incumbency and the Bitcoin brand.

BTC has incumbency, and the Bitcoin Brand, which was the intangible idea for which we all worked so hard to promote and develop until it achieve value. Its' value is derived from the accumulated mindshare of all the people who believed in that idea. Unfortunately the brand was taken over by a new group of developers from Gavin Andresen.

Wow. Were we not told that nobody controls Bitcoin? So how can anyone "take over" Bitcoin? Well, Bitcoin is a software like Windows. Even though it is open sourced, someone or a group is in charged of what, how and when changes are made to the software. They do this by controlling the access keys to the Github repository where the software is kept.

From mid 2010, Satoshi handed these keys to Gavin Andresen who nurtured the project and brought it to life. Besides maintaining the software, he also set up Bitcoin faucets and gave away thousands of Bitcoins to anyone and everyone who wanted them. Later he invited other software developers like Wladimir Van De Laan to help him. ( Much of the details in the link are not factually correct eg Satoshi Nakamoto. Note Core supporters penchant for telling lies and half truths ).

To cut a long story short, Gavin was unceremoniously elbowed out and his Github access was revoked in April 2014. This act in itself should speak volumes about the people who have taken over the project. Excuses that he was no longer contributing or that his account access was compromised does not wash. He was a proponent for bigger blocks and they were against it. They also accuse him of being duped by Craig Wright thus casting doubts on his security and judgement.

Incumbency is a very strong factor to overcome and as of today the Bitcoin brand is worth at least $15,000 per coin.

Mass Campaign of untruth and half-truth against Bitcoin Cash

If anything should raise a red flag, it is censorship. Granted that some level of moderation is required to keep discussions amicable but it should be done within reason and a with a light touch. If you need proof on censorship, just post anything about Bitcoin Cash, high fees or slow transactions on r/bitcoin.

Another is the need to resort to slander, ridicule and name calling. Calling Bitcoin Cash - Bcash, Btrash, Shitcoin, is an indication that you are unable to win a proper argument on merit. For the more intelligent supporters condoning this behavior on the basis that "they may be bastards but they are our bastards" is inexcusable.

Up till 1 August the two coins were the same. Then to solve a 3 year scaling debate BCH enabled blocks bigger than 1 MB, while BTC opted to discard Address signatures from the data set (Segwit). You would think then that both system should work but that is not so. BTC is still slow with expensive fees while BCH worked exactly as promised right out of the box. So now we have the BTC spin doctors in full retard spewing falsehood and half truths.

a) Half truth :- BCH does not have many transactions.  In reality BCH can eliminate all the backlog in BTC and then some. BCH has to rebuild a user base. Users and transactions will increase. This will erode the value of BTC's incumbency soon enough.

b) Half truth :- Roger Ver and Jihan Wu controls Bitcoin Cash.  Spouting accusation without fact checking and proof only works if you can control the narrative, misrepresent, and censor speech. If there people choose to put their money behind a project it is their right.

c) Half truth :- Miners controls Bitcoin Cash. Antpool and ViaBtc are also large miners of BTC. Is that also not worth mentioning in the same sentence?

d) Half truth :- With large blocks, the blockchain will bloat and soon few people can store a full copy of the blockchain. Not mentioning the impact of technology is like speaking only through one side of their mouths. Downright deceitful.

e) Half truth :- Bitcoin is open source, anyone can contribute. When there is only one client, there is no competition, and no need to respond to changes that they do not agree with. If you put up proposals and they are always rejected, you tend to get the message and give up.

f) Half truth :- Running full nodes on computers as small as Raspberry PI decentralises the system. Truth is that only mining nodes add blocks and transactions to the blockchain. The rest can only verify and most people have no need nor the desire to personally verify their own transactions. Dictum : Good enough decentralisation is all that is needed. If the need arises the community will rise up to the challenge.

g) Half truth :- Bitcoin is a store of value. If they are talking about the same Bitcoin then it is suppose to be a "Peer-to-peer electronic cash system". That was Satoshi's vision. If you don't have that, then what have you got? Are you in it just for the money? Yes many of us are in it for the money, but we should never lose sight of the vision. To claim that it is now a "store of value" is to defend the indefensible. Examples :-

"If you just hodl you don't need to transact" or is it that you have to hodl because you can't transact.

"Wait for lightning it will make transaction cheap and fast" why bother if it is meant to be a store of value.

"It is useful because it is a digital currency" But they just claimed that it is not a currency. As we all know, if something is not useful, it is not worth anything.

h) Half truth :- Core developers are the smartest developers. That is an opinion not a fact. If they don't hold the keys to the Github repository, I am sure we will all have a different opinion on that.

i) Half truth :- Coinbase is guilty of insider trading BCH tokens. The proper meaning of insider trading, is the trading of one's own company shares, which is illegal. Trading commodities based on prerogative information is not insider trading. The purpose here is to link Coinbase and BCH to an undesirable activity and therefore "Bad". Guilty by association.

j) Half truth :- Segwit and Lightning will reduce fees. Six months of Segwit, and adoption is 10%. "It will reduce fees if everyone uses Segwit". Fact is that not everyone will use Segwit. In fact 90% don't. In this scenario you would think the problem must be with Segwit and not the users! To then propose a campaign of boycott ( Coinbase, Bitpay, ) is infantile. Nobody did. (boycott) Which should tell them that their followers and their influence is not as large as they think it is. Incumbency is still on their side, but for how much longer.

l) Half truth :- Roger Ver is a scammer supports Mt Gox. Context. He is a Bitcoin evangelist, and we all know about bank's attitude to Bitcoin businesses in those days. Would you not say the same things if you were shown those same evidence? He is not an auditor and did not speak as one. He did not have any equity interest in Mt Gox. He had no knowledge on the operational activities of Mt Gox. On hindsight it was unwise. An innocent mistake by one who wants the best for Bitcoin and wanted to help anyway he could, legally. Bitfinnex had the same problems but they learned and took a different approach. As a result they recovered and are still in business.

The problem is inertia. Few people will change their habits is they don't have to. Giving them an option by soft forking means they don't have to. So why are they surprise? Now they have made the system unuseable and have driven away existing and potential users. Lightning will face the same problem. If Lightning works, and that is still an if, there may not be many users left to use it.

e) Untrue :- Bitcoin Cash development is centralised. If anything Bitcoin Core development is centralised with only one client. Bitcoin Cash has several client implementation including Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited.

 f) Untrue :- Bitcoin Cash wants to steal the Bitcoin brand. Bitcoin Cash is Satoshi's vision of Bitcoin. It is still the essentially the same Bitcoin from 9 January 2009, except for changes to the Blocksize, which was capped at 1Mb in 2010 and increased to 8MB on 1 August 2017. Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin. Gavin Andresen did not envisage a situation where another group would take control of the software. It was "stolen" from Gavin.

BCH cemented its' claim to being the real Bitcoin by staying on the same hashing algorithm as BTC. No other forked Bitcoin clone ( Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin God, Bitcoin Platinum, etc) can achieve this. In doing so it now threatens BTC's ability to remain on the same hashing algorithm.

g) Untrue :- Bitcoin Cash want to remain a Model T Ford. In actual fact all the big blockers wanted was an immediate alleviation of the transaction and fee situation by a simple blocksize increase. They were not totally oppose to Segwit or the Lightning network. Since then they have hard forked twice proving that hard fork are not dangerous, and have committed to 6 monthly scheduled improvements. Bitcoin Cash will have the more interesting and exciting developments.

When the earliest adopters are speaking out, Listen.

Many of the earliest adopters have given up on Core and the path they have taken Bitcoin. These were the first people to see the potential in Bitcoin and promoted it before it had any value. Question the motives of people who taunt, slander, dismiss and belittle their contributions.

Gavin Andresen : First developer after Satoshi. Still contributing but to Bitcoin Cash.
Roger Ver : Bitcoin Jesus. First promoter and investor in Bitcoin start-ups.
Rick Falkvinge : Thought leader. BTC has failed.
Jeff Berwick : Anarchist. Dollar Vigilante.

The flippening.

I started this series of articles back in August predicting the flippening ( BCH replacing BTC ) and it seems like this is never going to happen. But like climate change, it is real and I based it on one premise. In the long run, BTC cannot survive on the same mining algorithm as BCH if it does not code in the EDA. (Chain Death Spiral). The power of incumbency is very strong but one by one these struts holding up the value of BTc are being removed .

The main strut are the exchanges. Every crypto exchange in the world trade BTC/fiat and BTC/crypto pairs.  Some have now introduced BCH/fiat pairs and CoinEx will use BCH as the base trading unit. Coinbase adding BCH was a big step.

A coin needs to be useful. We should be able to buy something or do something with it. Not just hold it. The reason for holding is so that you can do something with it in the future. You can see now how the "store of value" argument is "arse about face". With high fees BTC is not useful and for most people with small balances unuseable. This has resulted in all major business enterprise moving away from BTC for payment. Steam (online games), Microsoft, Bitpay, More here )

Lastly I would like to draw your attention to future developments. The one killer feature that will enable the move into mass adoption is a wallet that is totally secure that even your grandma can't lose her coins using it. nChain promises to come up with this. I understand this is a patented technology that nChain will provide free for Bitcoin Cash developers to use. Meaning that BTC cannot use this technology. Is it bad? nChain is a for profit company and they argue that it is their property and therefore they have a right to choose how and who uses it.

Bitcoin brought about a boom for developers all over the world to start making and building all sorts of applications on Bitcoin. Unfortunately high fees killed all that and most projects were abandoned, shelved, or migrated to other platforms. These projects now find a second life and there is a resurgence of enthusiasm and activity because of Bitcoin Cash.

The only thing I know of happening on BTC is Lightning. Until that comes nothing can really move forward with BTC on the development front as they have killed every other use case except for being a store of value. Yes maybe Lightning will get here soon, and yes maybe it will be bug free and yes maybe there will still be people around to use it, but that is alot of ifs. I see BTC as moving into the sunset and BCH as the morning sunrise. The Flippening.


Note about fees :- If you are confused about the different fees from $20 to $300 being quoted for sending BTC, it is because they are both right. The fee you pay to move a certain value depends on its' makeup. The balance in your account is the total of all the unspent inputs. If you have to add all these to send one larger value output then you will use more data space and so pay more fees. Sending a smaller output from a large input incurs the lowest fees.

Note : On the subject of Satoshi

Satoshi is a threat to Core if his identity is confirmed, because he would command respect and authority among the community. They will do everything in their power, much like the campaign against BCH, to discredit him if it came to that. Even if he did successfully sign the message it only proves having access to the keys. Not that he is Satoshi. It is up to you to decide based on the evidence.

That aside, if you were not Satoshi,  why would you want to go through the process of proving that you were?

You will need to demonstrate you have the knowledge and ability to invent Bitcoin.
On a personal level you need to know every detail, every event and every personalities that Satoshi should have known.
You would also have to pass the "Gavin's Test", meaning demonstrating an intimate knowledge of a shared event or memory you had with him. Would you put yourself through all that if you cannot guarantee the outcome? All it would take was for Gavin to say "no he is not who I believe was the person who communicated with me as Satoshi." and that would be the end of it.
And for what? A Nobel prize?

But look at the consequences. You have just confirmed to the world that you are in ownership of 1 million Bitcoins. You and the people around you will never be able to live a normal life.

Something not mentioned much was that the first version of the Bitcoin software was written by someone "quite archaic" in software programming meaning that it is not done in the modern disciplined manner in writing software today. It reeks of "old fashion", possibility written by someone who does not write software for a living.

Thursday, January 4, 2018

Ripple May Be Number 1 In Market Cap Soon - NOT

Why Ripple will be Number 1 in Market Cap soon.

Ripple is now worth $3.68 with a market Cap of $142 billion. Many of us are surprise by this development including myself. Seems that the rumour of Coinbase listing ripple is what driving Ripple's price. I think that this is unlikely for the fact that Ripple is a centralised token. When Ripple gets to $5.00 it will become the number 1 in Market Cap. Should we be alarm that the bankers are taking over? 

If we look at the trading in the last 24 hours for Bitcoin and Ripple. More than $5 billion in fiat moved into the crypto space through Ripple, while only $1 billion of fiat move in through BTC. This is a huge change. BTC has always been the gateway for fiat to on ramp into the crypto space. At this rate Ripple will get to Number 1 by next week.

Note: There was a video of a Coinbase pages presumbly showing Ripple integration. If this was manufactured then there are parties going to great lengths to pump up Ripple's prices. The biggest push to Ripples's price is really the XRP/KRW  XRP/JPY XRP/USD pairs traded giving it a fiat on ramp to te crypto space.

Update 7.1.2018  Looks like the Ripple pump is over. Volume have shifted back to BTC.

Why Ripple ?

I think that institutional money have started moving into the crypto space. It did not come in through BTC because these investors do not want to drive up the price of BTC to astronomical valuations enriching those who got into this space early.

So I expect to see the value of BTC going to $5000 and perhaps lower in the near term. I also think that it is unlikely that value will remain in Ripple as it is a centralised token. I suspect that value will flow into the new utility blockchains like Cardano, Bitshares, Steem, EOS, Etc. as these blockchains mature.

So what happens to Bitcoin ?

In this new phase with the market cap of crypto exceeding 1 trillion dollars, BTC dominance will dip below 15%. The tussle between BTC and BCH for dominance will be irrelevant. With so much fresh money coming into this space, all cryptos including scams will rise with the tide. However in the long run every blockchain including BTC will need to carve out a real use case to be relevant.