Why Binance and Akon Are Betting on Africa for Crypto Adoption

Bob The Magic Custodian



Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses.
Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes.

First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure:

Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:

But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are!

"On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid".
"Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since."

"As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!"
"Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?"

"Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party."
"Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!"

"What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven."
"Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!"

"We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies.
And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often".

How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen?
Just one.

Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so?
If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security.

The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle.

And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet?

Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds.
So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever.

Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see.
It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation.
A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7.

History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance.
Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.)
Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive.

Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today.
Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well.
Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do.

Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):



Thoughts?
submitted by azoundria2 to QuadrigaInitiative [link] [comments]

Voici LA chronique à découvrir, intitulée: La guerre contre Bitcoin. Idéal pour comprendre certains tenants et aboutissants

Voici LA chronique à découvrir, intitulée: La guerre contre Bitcoin. Idéal pour comprendre certains tenants et aboutissants… Bonne découverte!
La guerre contre Bitcoin
Bitcoin est peut-être le meilleur outil de liberté économique de cette génération, et peut-être depuis plusieurs générations. Malheureusement, Bitcoin a été furieusement étouffé par une guerre civile brutale depuis environ cinq ans maintenant; menée par des ingénieurs sociaux professionnels de certaines des entreprises les plus puissantes des médias sociaux. Leur talent dans l'art et la science de la manipulation a permis aux "Bitcoiners" de se battre largement entre eux plutôt que de chercher à créer des modèles commerciaux innovants basés sur les données qui pourraient révolutionner l'économie mondiale via Bitcoin.
À la suite de la guerre civile de Bitcoin, trois versions concurrentes de Bitcoin ont vu le jour (BTC, BCH et BitcoinSV ), mais il en est de même pour environ 3000 autres projets et jetons de « crypto-monnaie » se faisant passer pour des entreprises légitimes, souvent jusqu'à un "exit scam" presque garanti, le fait de disparaitre du jour au lendemain avec tout l'argent des utilisateurs. Le principal bienfaiteur de la guerre civile Bitcoin a été Ethereum: une cryptomonnaie qui fonctionne comme une machine à états mondiale et permet un déploiement facile de tokens et de contrats intelligents. Mais le protocole Ethereum ne peut pas évoluer, et parmi les milliers de projets lancés, seule une poignée pourrait même être présentés comme pouvant devenir des entreprises légitimes. La plupart des autres sont des stratagèmes de Ponzi ou des émissions d'actions illégales enrichissant les développeurs et escroquant les investisseurs amateurs.
C'est dans ce contexte que les défenseurs de BTC et de BCH, les porte-parole d'Ethereum et les altcoiners (nom donné pour englober toutes les autres cryptomonnaies) de tous bords s'alignent pour attaquer sans cesse le protocole Bitcoin préservé uniquement par le réseau BSV. Une industrie composée presque entièrement de criminels, de fraudes et d'arnaqueurs s'est unie contre BSV citant - et c'est là l'ironie! - une prétendue fraude et arnaque présumée qui serait l'existence même de BSV.
Nous devons nous demander pourquoi ?
Quel est le différenciateur clé de BSV?
Pourquoi tous les arnaqueurs se sont-ils unis contre lui?
Je suis fermement convaincu que pour la plupart, la motivation est la peur de la capacité de BSV à absorber l'économie mondiale et tous les autres projets «crypto» qui vont avec. Pour les autres, ou ceux qui ne comprennent pas le pouvoir du Bitcoin, ils sont entraînés dans une guerre civile et culturelle qui les dépasse. Il est essentiel de comprendre les pouvoirs en jeu et leurs implications pour Bitcoin et l'économie mondiale.
Une histoire brève de Bitcoin
Bitcoin a été lancé avec un "livre blanc" sur la liste de diffusion de cryptographie en 2008. Le pseudonyme « Satoshi Nakamoto » a déclaré une solution au problème de la double dépense. Or il s'agit là du problème de tous les systèmes de paiement électronique précédents, et c'était le seul facteur limitant l'adoption d'une monnaie digitale fonctionnelle. Mais qu'est-ce que le problème de la double dépense ? Pour faire simple, il était impossible de prouver exactement qui possédait quelles unités d'argent sur des registres distribués, de sorte que les utilisateurs ne pouvaient pas avoir confiance dans le système, et ces projets mourraient assez vite. Bitcoin a résolu ce problème avec un concept appelé la « preuve de travail ». Il pose la question: qui a utilisé le plus de puissance de calcul pour résoudre des énigmes arbitraires ? ceci afin de rendre compte de l'état du registre d'une manière qui coûte de l'argent, de sorte qu'il y ait une incitation économique à tenir un compte honnête des avoirs de chacun des participants. Ce processus est souvent appelé « exploitation minière » car les nœuds honnêtes qui maintiennent l'état du registre sont récompensés pour leur travail avec des nouveaux Bitcoins toutes les dix minutes - un peu à la même manière d'un mineur d'or qui est récompensé par de l'or en échange de son travail.
Étant donné que Bitcoin n'avait aucune valeur lors de son lancement, il était extrêmement facile à miner et également gratuit d'envoyer des tonnes de transactions. En théorie, il s'agissait d'un vecteur d'attaque par déni de service (DoS). Une attaque DoS ou DDoS se produit lorsque les nœuds d'un réseau sont inondés de plus de données qu'ils ne peuvent en gérer et qu'ils se mettent donc à planter. Sur le jeune réseau Bitcoin, un crash comme celui-ci aurait été considéré comme un échec du réseau. Pour empêcher cela, un plafond de 1 Mo de données par chaque dix minutes de transactions a été codé en dur dans le logiciel - semant la première graine de la guerre civile Bitcoin. De 2009 à 2017, cette limite de 1 Mo sur le total des transactions était l'aspect technique le plus controversé du bitcoin et le déclencheur de la plus grande guerre civile virtuelle de l'univers de la cryptomonnaie.
Pourquoi est-ce aussi important?
Une seule transaction basique Bitcoin est relativement petite du point de vue des données, donc 1 Mo toutes les dix minutes donne environ trois à sept transactions par seconde avant que le réseau ne devienne trop encombré. Satoshi Nakamoto le créateur, a plaidé pour un nombre de transactions du niveau de Visa et bien plus, ainsi que son successeur direct en tant que développeur principal du projet, Gavin Andresen. Certains des premiers Bitcoiners influents comme Mike Hearn et Jeff Garzik ont ​​également plaidé pour plus de données par bloc pour permettre à Bitcoin de se développer et de rester le meilleur système de paiement électronique. Ils étaient pour des «gros blocs» contrairement au camp des «petits blocs» qui préconisaient une permanence de la limitation de 1 Mo des blocs.
Le camp des "petits blocs" estiment que Bitcoin n'est pas un réseau de paiement, mais plutôt qu'il s'apparente davantage à une banque décentralisée conçue pour stocker des Bitcoins qui ne bougent jamais: une sorte de coffre-fort d'or numérique. Ils voulaient que la limite de taille des blocs de 1 Mo reste permanente sous les auspices de chaque personne exécutant un «nœud complet» sans avoir à payer trop d'espace sur le disque dur. Cela signifierait qu'en période de congestion, les frais de transaction deviendraient absurdement élevés, mais cela n'aurait pas d'importance car le bitcoin ne devrait pas être utilisé pour des envois sauf en grosses quantités de toute façon, selon eux. En décembre 2017 les frais de BTC ont ainsi atteint les $50 par transaction. L'autre problème est que s'il est bon marché de rejoindre la gouvernance de Bitcoin, alors le réseau est facile à attaquer par Sybil, et je dirais que BTC est régi par des sybilles à ce jour.
Le camp des "gros-blocs" estime que tout le monde sur terre devrait être en mesure d'échanger et de faire ses affaires sur Bitcoin pour des frais infimes, de l'ordre d'un centième ou millième de centime par transaction, afin d'apporter à la population mondiale la liberté monétaire, y compris aux pays les plus pauvres qui sont gardés en dehors du système actuel car considérés comme pas assez profitables pour des entreprises comme Visa.
Les "petits-blocs" pensent que tout le monde devrait être en mesure de gérer soi-même le registre mondial chez soi, mais que seules certaines personnes très riches devraient pouvoir effectuer des transactions, ce qui est le cas quand les frais sont à $50 par transaction comme en 2017.
Après des années de querelles, en 2017, Bitcoin s'est scindé en deux chaînes distinctes, et en 2018, il s'est à nouveau divisé.
Alors quelle est la différence entre ces trois versions ?
BTC est actuellement la version qui a le prix le plus élevé, avec la plus petite taille de bloc et la plus grande puissance de calcul. On peut dire que BTC à gagné la guerre médiatique. Malheureusement, il est régi par des développeurs et des sybilles qui contrôlent le consensus grâce à une utilisation intelligente de logiciels malveillants appelés «soft-fork» qui leur permet de saper les règles du Bitcoin. Ils utilisent ce pouvoir pour changer les règles des transactions en mentant aux nœuds et en leur disant de les valider quand même. Toute la culture BTC consiste à acheter du BTC afin de le conserver jusqu'à un moment dans le futur où il serait revendu à un prix exorbitant. Le but est de spéculer au maximum. Les paiements avec BTC, particulièrement les petits paiements, ou les transactions de toute nature non-monétaires, sont méprisés.
BCH est un réseau basé sur Bitcoin qui pense que les blocs devraient être à peine légèrement plus grands, mais ils ont également des développeurs en charge des règles, tout comme BTC, et ils pensent que Bitcoin devrait être utilisé uniquement pour le commerce de détail, mais rien de plus. Le réseau change de règles tous les six mois. Les transactions non commerciales sont en général méprisées. Un nouveau scindement de BCH est prévu pour novembre 2020 suite à des conflits internes et l'incapacité à avoir un système de gouvernance dans un projet où les règles changent en permanence.
BSV est la version restaurée du protocole Bitcoin original avec tous les paramètres ouverts afin que les nœuds honnêtes puissent s'engager dans un consensus conformément au livre blanc de Bitcoin - par la preuve de travail ! Le protocole est gravé dans la pierre afin que les développeurs de logiciels ne puissent pas bricoler les règles. Cela permet aux entreprises de planifier des décennies d'utilisation du réseau et d'investir en toute confiance. Il s'agit d'apporter une réelle innovation technologique au monde plutôt que de spéculer. En tant que seul réseau bitcoin totalement sans besoin d'autorisation, le commerce de toute nature est encouragé sur BSV. Tout, allant des réseaux sociaux aux expériences de science des données météorologiques ou aux tests de disponibilité du réseau, est encouragé. Paiements de détail, tokenisation, ou tout autre type de contrat intelligent est simple à déployer sans limitations. Bitcoin SV n'a aucune limite dans son protocole sauf l'esprit humain, l'innovation et l'esprit d'entreprise. Il vise également une adoption mondiale notamment par les pays pauvres afin d'apporter la liberté monétaire et l'inclusion à l'économie mondiale de ceux que les grandes entreprises actuelles comme Visa dédaignent comme pas assez profitables pour leur accorder leur services.
Et c'est la racine de la haine envers BSV.
Les "petits-blocs" ont investi toute leur réputation et leurs moyens de subsistance sur la notion que le bitcoin est incapable de s'adapter. Pendant des années, des experts présumés ont convaincu de nombreuses personnes que les limites de taille de bloc de 2 Mo, 8 Mo ou 22 Mo casseraient littéralement Bitcoin. Ils ont furieusement mis en jeux leur réputation sur ces fausses notions. Et ensuite, BSV a eu de nombreux blocs de plus de 100 Mo. En fait, il y en a même eu quelques-uns de plus de 300 Mo! prouvant que les petits-blocs se trompaient depuis le début sur les limites du réseau. Mais cette prise de conscience est une menace pour l'hégémonie de l'histoire médiatique qui a été crée sur Bitcoin. Depuis 2015, lorsque le Dr Craig Wright est apparu sur les lieux pour expliquer que le bitcoin avait en réalité ZERO limitations, il a créé un tollé massif parmi l'intelligentsia des petits-blocs. Les leaders d'opinion de l'époque étaient payés pour prendre la parole lors de conférences où ils expliquaient à tort que Bitcoin n'était rien d'autre qu'une réserve de valeur rare sans autre utilité, et surtout pas à usage des plus pauvres. Le Dr Wright parlait de l'échelle illimitée du réseau, de son exhaustivité de Turing, de l'objectif d'inclure enfin les plus pauvres dans l'économie mondiale, et d'autres notions inconcevables (à l'époque) sur Bitcoin. Sa passion et ses connaissances se sont heurtées à des calomnies et des railleries. Ils se sont concentrés sur l'attaque de son personnage au lieu de discuter de Bitcoin!
C'est devenu l'une des principales méthodes d'attaque des petits-blocs. Lorsque de gros-blocs parlent des capacités de Bitcoin, ils sont ridiculisés en tant qu'escrocs et le sujet est toujours dirigé très loin de la discussion technique, car les petits-blocs savent bien qu'ils sortiraient perdants. Ils fouillent les dossiers personnels et cherchent des moyens de faire taire les gens du camp des grands-blocs de Bitcoin par des attaques personnelles - de la même manière que les guerriers de la justice sociale s'engagent dans la culture d'annulation contre leurs ennemis politiques.
Qui est le Dr Craig Wright et que fait-il?
Craig Wright est le scientifique en chef d'une société de recherche sur Bitcoin au Royaume-Uni appelée nChain : une société de 150 à 200 informaticiens. Craig dirige l'équipe qui étudie les possibilités de Bitcoin et de ses applications dans le monde. Il est l'un des experts en criminalité numérique les plus reconnus au monde avec les certifications SANS et GIAC ainsi que les titres GSE CISSP, CISA, CISM, CCE, GCFA, GLEG, GREM et GSPA. En outre, il est un polymathe multidisciplinaire de troisième cycle: un doctorat en informatique, économie et théologie et titulaire d'une maîtrise en statistique et en droit commercial international.
En 2015, il a également été exposé par une publication conjointe de WIRED et Gizmodo en tant que Satoshi Nakamoto, le créateur de Bitcoin. Quelques jours après cette révélation, les gens qui le soutenaient ont vu leurs clés d'accès au code de Bitcoin révoquées, et de nombreux autres ont été instantanément bannis. Craig a été mis sous enquête par le bureau des impôts australien pour ce qu'il considérait être une erreur de comptabilisation probable de ses bitcoins. Les retombées ont été agressives et rapides, avec une gigantesque armée de petits-blocs, organisée sur Reddit et d'autres forums, et nouvellement financés par l'argent de la startup pro petits-blocs appelée «Blockstream». Leur message était clair: Bitcoin doit garder de petits blocs. Le Bitcoin ne peut pas évoluer et doit rester réservé aux riches, et toute personne proche de Craig Wright sera harcelée pour se conformer à une armée de comptes Twitter anonymes et sans visage.
Voici un schéma qui retrace les financements de Blockstream et révèle comment le groupe Bilderberg, la banque centrale américaine (FED) et Mastercard on pris le contrôle du réseau BTC via Blockstream afin de le soumettre à leur propre profit: https://imgur.com/eFApDVE
Au cours des années suivantes, Ira Kleiman, frère du défunt Dave Kleiman, a poursuivi Craig Wright en justice pour sa part du prétendu «Partenariat Satoshi Nakamoto», affirmant que son frère Dave était plus impliqué qu'il ne l'était réellement, et l'affaire est en cours actuellement, jusqu'à courant 2021. Ira Kleiman pense que Craig est Satoshi et il a investi une fortune incalculable dans cette attaque et a obtenu l'argent d'investisseurs extérieurs pour poursuivre sa poursuite. Il est clair que les bailleurs de fonds d'Ira pensent que Craig est également Satoshi.
Les critiques qualifient souvent la révélation publique et le procès public de Wright de ternir énormément sa réputation, mais il convient de noter que les deux sont arrivés à Wright malgré sa volonté et qu'il ne souhaitait clairement pas être pris dans l'une ou l'autre situation.
Au lieu de cela, Craig est un défenseur passionné de la vision d'un Bitcoin avec de gros blocs, appelant à la professionnalisation, à la légalisation et à l'utilisation mondiale de Bitcoin pour une utilisation à tous les niveaux du commerce. La réponse à la passion de Craig et à ses affirmations a été d'attaquer sa réputation et d'endosser Internet avec le surnom de «Faketoshi». Lorsque de simples brimades ont échoué contre le Dr Wright, des attaques ont été intensifiées pour remettre en question ses divers diplômes, des pétitions aux universités pour enquêter sur lui pour plagiat dans divers travaux, y compris des thèses de doctorat, etc. Wright a même revendiqué des menaces contre la vie des membres de sa famille et il y a plus qu'une preuve que, selon Ian Grigg, une des légendes de la cryptographie: «des gens sont morts pour Bitcoin, croyez moi, des gens sont morts».
Les attaques en cours
Cela ne peut être assez souligné: la communauté des petits-blocs est construite autour de tactiques d'ingénierie sociale professionnelles. Gregory Maxwell, co-fondateur de la société Blockstream, a été formé à la pratique de l'ingénierie sociale et l'a utilisé de manière si subversive comme un outil de propagande pendant son mandat en tant que modérateur rémunéré de Wikipedia, qu'il a finalement été démis de ses fonctions avec les journaux d'administration citant une litanie d'infractions, notamment:
«Gmaxwell s'est engagé dans la création de faux comptes en masse…» - Alhutch 00:05, 23 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Menaces, insultes grossières, usurpations d'identité d'un administrateur», -Husnock 03:18, 25 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Son comportement est scandaleux. Franchement, il est hors de contrôle à ce stade. Son comportement d'intimidation doit cesser.» - FearÉIREANN 19:36, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Sa liste de contributions est hors de propos. C'est du vandalisme. C'est un comportement auquel je m'attendrais d'un éditeur en furie, et franchement, c'est ce qu'est Gmaxwell.» - Splashtalk 20h00, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Prétend être un administrateur, menaçant de bloquer les personnes qui ne sont pas d'accord avec lui, fait régulièrement des attaques personnelles» - SlimVirgin (talk) 12h22, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC)
Il passe beaucoup de temps sur Reddit et d'autres forums à semer la peur sur les dangers des gros blocs, et il a été surpris en train de faire semblant d'être plusieurs comptes à la fois en train d'avoir de très longues discussions techniques sur Reddit destinées à submerger les nouveaux arrivants avec ce qui ressemble à un débat intellectuel contre une version de Bitcoin libéré de ses limites.
Qui d'autre est attaqué?
L'autre cible commune de la machine de guerre médiatique anti-BSV est Calvin Ayre: un milliardaire à la tête de l'empire du groupe Ayre. Calvin est un entrepreneur canadien et antiguais qui a lancé un incubateur Internet à Vancouver au tout début du boom Internet. Fils d'un éleveur, Ayre est surtout connu en dehors de l'économie Bitcoin pour la création et la professionnalisation de l'industrie du jeu sur Internet. Plus particulièrement, sous la marque Bodog, Ayre a aidé à moderniser les lois financières américaines obsolètes en poussant les limites dans les marchés gris qui existent où les dollars américains sont utilisés à travers les frontières pour s'engager dans un commerce juridiquement compliqué comme le jeu d'argent. Son travail dans ce domaine lui a valu une petite fortune et un passage sur la liste des «plus recherchés» du gouvernement des USA pour blanchiment d'argent. C'est un point sur lequel les petits-blocs aiment se concentrer, mais ils le sortent complètement de son contexte. Calvin a finalement plaidé coupable à une accusation mais a été le fer de lance de la modernisation des lois américaines qui existent aujourd'hui sur les marchés. Il est respecté pour son travail dans l'industrie du jeu, des médias et de la philanthropie. Calvin est le bienvenu aux États-Unis malgré la critique souvent citée selon laquelle il serait une sorte de hors-la-loi.
Calvin Ayre
Dans l'économie Bitcoin, Ayre est une figure de proue dans la gestion de nœuds Bitcoin honnêtes depuis plusieurs années sous les marques CoinGeek et TAAL, et il est un investisseur dans nChain ainsi que plusieurs startups de l'espace BSV. Bien qu'il soit probablement le plus gros investisseur à ce jour, il n'est pas le monopole que les petits-blocs laisseraient croire. Il est important de comprendre que des segments entiers de l'écosystème BSV existent complètement en dehors de son influence.
Twetch, par exemple, est une entreprise indépendante appartenant à l'écosystème BSV, célèbre pour ses attaques contre les médias sociaux centralisés qui abusent de la censure. Ils sont même connus pour se moquer des entreprises qui acceptent l'argent d'Ayre, en plaisantant que Calvin possède tout sauf Twetch. Bien sûr, ce n'est pas vrai. Un autre excellent exemple est l'investisseur / entrepreneur indépendant Jack Liu : ancien dirigeant de Circle et OKEX. Liu possède la marque de hackathons CambrianSV ainsi que des propriétés précieuses dans l'espace BSV telles que RelayX, Streamanity, Output Capital, FloatSV et Dimely.
Les autres acteurs clés sont MatterPool Mining et leur écosystème Mattercloud: une joint-venture entre des acteurs indépendants de l'écosystème BSV, avec des connexions directes aux protocoles BoostPOW et 21e8 et des relations avec des développeurs BSV indépendants.
Bien sûr, il existe également des marques précieuses financées par Ayre. Il s'agit notamment de la propriété partielle via l'investissement dans HandCash, Centi, TonicPow et Planaria Corp de Unwriter.
Une autre mesure importante à prendre en compte est la distribution de la puissance de hachage (autre nom pour la puissance de calcul du résau). Alors qu'au tout début de BSV, les entreprises appartenant à Ayre représentaient une quantité importante de hachage sur bitcoin, afin d'assurer sa survie, BSV est aujourd'hui en grande partie exploité par des mineurs concurrents de Ayre tels que Binance, F2Pool, OKEX et ViaBTC - dont aucun n'est «ami» de BSV ou d'Ayre, mais beaucoup se déclarent les ennemis. Ces mineurs soulignent bien la nature ouverte et sans permission de BSV qui permet à quiconque de participer, notamment à ses ennemis!
Ayre est un acteur important, mais en aucun cas un contrôleur de la direction de la blockchain ou des entreprises indépendantes dans l'économie BSV.
Mais pourquoi Craig poursuit-il des gens en justice ?
Tout d'abord, et c'est crucial, le procès le plus important de Craig est l'affaire Kleiman. Les autres cas existent uniquement à cause de la diffamation publique du Dr Wright. Le hashtag #CraigWrightIsAFraud circule largement, poussé en grande partie par un mélange de personnages anonymes sur Twitter. Plus particulièrement Magnus Granath AKA «Hodlonaut» a été averti qu'une accusation publique de fraude courait à son encontre. La carrière du Dr Wright est en informatique et en criminalistique numérique, donc le déclarer publiquement une fraude sans preuve cause un préjudice financier au Dr Wright dans son domaine d'expertise commerciale. Puisque «Hodlnaut» a refusé de cesser, on lui a envoyer une requête pour être vu au tribunal afin de pouvoir apporter les preuves de ses accusations. Cela a causé le célèbre podcasteur de petits-blocs Peter McCormack à mendier d'être poursuivi aussi - en augmentant la rhétorique diffamatoire contre le Dr Wright. À la demande de McCormack, il a lui aussi été attaqué en justice pour être vu au tribunal. Le Dr Wright à depuis abandonné tous ses procès pour diffamation à l'exception de celui contre McCormack qu'il souhaite continuer pour faire exemple.
Cela a aussi engendré la campagne #DelistBSV menée en grande partie par «CZ», le PDG charismatique de Binance-Exchange. Divers autres échanges comme Shapeshift et Kraken ont publié des sondages twitter demandant s'ils devaient emboîter le pas, et des petits-blocs bien organisés ont voté en masse pour retirer BSV de leurs échanges - citant la toxicité du Dr Wright pour avoir intenté des poursuites en diffamation contre Hodlonaut et McCormack. Finalement, BSV a été retiré de Binance, ShapeShift et Kraken. Il a également été noté publiquement par Coinbase et Gemini qu'ils ne soutiendraient pas cette version de bitcoin à la suite de ce drame public. Il faut noter qu'après 2 ans, Binance a retourné sa veste et est aujourd'hui devenu un des principaux mineurs de BSV.
Au fur et à mesure que les choses progressaient, le fondateur de bitcoin .com, Roger Ver, a également réalisé une vidéo publique déclarant Wright comme arnaqueur. C'était après avoir travaillé sournoisement avec les développeurs Bitcoin ABC pour coder des points de contrôle dans le logiciel ABC de Bitcoin Cash, divisant de manière permanente le réseau Bitcoin pour la deuxième et dernière fois - un acte auquel le Dr Wright s'était opposé et pour lequel Roger est également poursuivi par d'autres parties privées en Floride. Roger Ver a été averti que s'il continuait, des poursuites juridiques similaires se présenteraient à sa porte pour avoir diffamé le Dr Wright, mais il à décidé de poursuivre les accusations publiques jusqu'à ce qu'il soit également entendu devant le tribunal pour fournir une preuve de la fraude de Wright, sous peine de sanctions pour diffamation publique. Aucune preuve n'a jamais été fournit, mais le Dr Wright a depuis abandonné ses poursuites contre Roger Ver pour se concentrer sur son procès avec Kleiman et celui avec McCormack ainsi que son travail sur Bitcoin.
Et maintenant que se passe-t-il ?
Nous avons établi l'histoire du Bitcoin, de sa guerre civile, des attaques publiques contre Wright, Ayre et BSV. Au moment d'écrire ces lignes, nous pouvons revenir sur les attaques contre Thomas Lee, Tim Draper et Jimmy Wales pour avoir eu une proximité avec BSV. Malgré la pression sociale, le rapport technique Fundstrat de Lee a rendu un examen élogieux du protocole fixe et de l'évolutivité infinie de BSV. Lee et son équipe étaient heureux de prendre la parole lors des événements précédents de CoinGeek, même après le tollé public.
Pour la conférence CoinGeek 2020 à New York, McCormack, Hodlonaut, « Arthur Van Pelt » et d'autres acteurs tels que le Dan Held de Kraken et une cacophonie de trolls anonymes sur Twitter ont mis à profit leur expérience de la culture d'annulation à la bolchevique pour faire pression sur l'orateur Gary Vaynerchuk ainsi que d'autres orateurs prévus pour cette conférence, afin de les forcer à annuler leur participation. Cette attaque sociale contre BSV, Dr. Wright, Ayre et les autres entreprises qui utilisent le réseau BSV pourrait être un gigantesque cas de fraude à la consommation. Ils trompent activement les gens en leur faisant croire que le protocole fixe et l'évolutivité infinie de Bitcoin BSV sont en quelque sorte dangereux, alors qu'en fait, le protocole et le réseau sont imperméables à toutes les attaques, à l'exception de leur ingénierie sociale.
Bitcoin SV s'est développé professionnellement avec un portefeuille de brevets de protection de niveau mondial. Il est utilisé par des entreprises indépendantes afin d'apporter des innovations technologiques et possède un groupe décentralisé de nœuds honnêtes qui se font concurrence. Le réseau est fixe, sécurisé et en croissance grâce aux investissements de petites entreprises et de gestionnaires de capitaux. Les transactions sont instantanées avec des frais de 0.0002€ par transaction en moyenne, explosant tous les records de compétitivité de l'écosystème et permettant aux plus pauvres de la planète d'enfin accéder à l'économie digitale mondiale. Les mensonges sont basés sur une campagne massive de dénigrement perpétrée par les communautés d'autres cryptomonnaies qui craignent l'adoption mondiale de BSV comme outil de commerce et ce que cela signifiera pour eux. L'histoire ne sera pas gentille avec ces manipulateurs et leurs réseaux qui sont financés par les fraudes probables des échanges de crypto-monnaies off-shore, le (très probablement) frauduleux Tether Stablecoin, et l'économie des arnaques de "pump-and-dump" qui sous-tend 95% du volume de négociation de l'ensemble de l'économie cryptomonnaie actuelle.
C'est une guerre civile. Il y aura toujours des victimes, mais alors que BTC et BCH se concentrent sur les ragots et les affaires illicites, BSV veut que le monde entier soit plus libre, plus souverain et plus capable de coopérer sur le registre mondial de la vérité afin que les entrepreneurs du monde puissent s'engager à créer des entreprises ou de simples nano-services sont rendus possibles uniquement par Bitcoin. Bitcoin est un test d'intelligence. Au fil du temps, les personnes intelligentes pourront voir à travers le brouillard de distorsion de la réalité créé pour confondre les innocents et reconnaître cela pour ce que c'est, une attaque coordonnée pour tenter de supprimer une technologie qui à un potentiel unique dans l'histoire, et qui les rendrait obsolètes.

Des exemples d'applications Bitcoin que vous pouvez utiliser dès aujourd'hui ?
Les applications qui sont construites sur Bitcoin et interagissent entre elles par ce biais créent ce qu'on appelle le "Metanet". Si vous vous sentez prêt à faire le premier pas dans le futur vous êtes libres de tester les applications les plus populaires du Metanet sur https://metastore.app/apps?sort=money
Le site le plus populaire du Metanet à ce jour est Twetch, une version de twitter incensurable sur la blockchain que vous trouverez ici : bit.ly/twetchapp

_______________________
sources: inspiré de https://coingeek.com/the-war-on-bitcoin/
image : https://imgur.com/1Yb0Yle
Voici un schéma qui retrace les financements de Blockstream et révèle comment le groupe Bilderberg, la banque centrale américaine (FED) et Mastercard on pris le contrôle du réseau BTC afin de le soumettre à leur propre profit: https://imgur.com/eFApDVE
submitted by zhell_ to BitcoinSVFrance [link] [comments]

Want to know why NEM should be as popular as Ethereum? this will be bigger than any altcoins you see, here's why

Want to know why NEM should be as popular as Ethereum? this will be bigger than any altcoins you see, here's why

Altcoin Explorer: NEM (XEM), the Enterprise-Grade Blockchain Platform


https://preview.redd.it/5ogfihikwkg51.png?width=1300&format=png&auto=webp&s=099780e02777d16d4e2add64b249c46da1cd488b
Nestled among the top 40 cryptocurrencies by reported market cap, New Economy Movement — popularly known as NEM (XEM) – is a peer-to-peer (P2P), dual-layer blockchain smart contract platform written in one of the most influential programming languages, Java. NEM uses the proof-of-importance (POI) consensus algorithm that essentially values the tokens held and the activity conducted by the nodes on the blockchain network.
In this Altcoin Explorer, BTCManager delves deeper into the finer intricacies of the NEM blockchain protocol, including the project’s POI consensus algorithm, its native digital token XEM, and some of its real-world use-cases.
Without further ado, let’s get to the core of this high-performance distributed ledger technology (DLT) platform.

History of NEM

NEM was launched on March 31, 2015, with an aim to develop an enterprise-grade blockchain protocol that could circumvent the infamous trilemma of blockchain: scalability, speed, and privacy.
Operated by a Gibraltar-registered NEM Group, NEM is a fork-out version of the NXT blockchain. After the successful fork, the NEM community decided to build its ecosystem from the ground up and developed its own codebase to make the network more scalable and faster.
NEM’s insistence toward building its own tech infrastructure led to a DLT protocol that is unlike anything resembling other similar platforms.
Today, NEM ranks among the top go-to blockchain platforms for enterprises across the world, rivaling competing protocols including Ethereum (ETH), and TRON (TRX), among others.

NEM’s Proof-of-Importance (POI) Algorithm

Unlike Bitcoin’s (BTC) energy-intensive Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Ethereum’s yet-to-be-implemented Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus algorithm, NEM uses PoI consensus mechanism.
The PoI mechanism achieves consensus by incentivizing active user participation in the NEM network. This consensus infrastructure ensures an agile decentralized network by rewarding well-behaved nodes that not only possess a significant stake in the network but are also actively engaged in executing transactions to maintain the network’s robustness.
Specifically, each node in the network possesses an ‘Importance Score’ that impacts the number of times the said node can ‘Harvest’ the XEM altcoin.
Initially, when a user puts XEM tokens into their wallet, they are called ‘unvested coins.’ Over time, as the wallets start accumulating an increasing number of XEM and contribute to the network’s transaction volume, they start collecting importance scores. At the same time, the XEM tokens in these wallets change into ‘vested coins,’ provided that there are at least 10000 tokens in the wallet.
To put things into perspective, let’s take the help of a small example.
On day 1, Joe receives 50,000 XEM in his digital wallet. Now, with each passing day, the NEM network will ‘vest’ 10 percent of the tokens held by Joe. So, on day 2, 5,000 tokens held by Joe are vested into the network. On day 3, 10 percent of the remaining tokens – 15,000 XEM – get vested into the network, leaving Joe with 13,500 XEM, and so one. After a couple of days, Joe sees that the number of XEM vested by him has crossed the 10,000 coins threshold, thereby, making him eligible to seek rewards from the NEM blockchain for his contribution to vesting his tokens.
Close followers of blockchain projects would find the aforementioned network reward mechanism bear a close resemblance to the PoS consensus algorithm. However, it’s worthy of note that vesting coins is just one way of calculating a node’s importance score.
The NEM protocol also rewards nodes that are responsible for most activity on the network. In essence, this means that the higher the number of transactions executed by a node, the more likely it is to gain higher importance points. The balance between vesting XEM and network activity is an important metric to be maintained by NEM nodes as it directly impacts their likelihood of harvesting XEM.
NEM’s consensus algorithm does away with several issues plaguing the more energy-intensive protocols such as PoW. For instance, PoI does not necessarily require high-energy hardware to run the nodes. The decentralized nature of the algorithm means that almost any machine — irrespective of its tech configuration – can participate in the NEM ecosystem ensuring it remains decentralized.

NEM’s Native Digital Token — XEM

XEM, unlike the vast majority of other cryptocurrencies, isn’t mined or staked using Pow or PoS algorithms. Rather, as explained earlier, XEM is ‘harvested’ through the PoI algorithm which ensures a steady supply of the digital token without flooding the market and involving the risk of a dramatic crash in price.
Per data on CoinMarketCap, at the time of writing, XEM trades at $0.04 with a market cap of more than $382 million and a 24-hour trading volume of approximately $6.8 million. The coin reached its all-time high of $1.92 in January 2018.
A large number of reputable cryptocurrency exchanges trade XEM, including Binance, Upbit, OKEx, Bithumb, ProBit, among others. The digital token can be easily traded with BTC, ETH, and USDT trading pairs.
That said, if you wish to vest your XEM to partake in the maintenance of the NEM network and earn rewards, it is recommended you store your tokens in the official NEM Nano wallet for desktop and mobile OS. Only XEM tokens held in the official NEM Nano wallet are eligible for vesting.

NEM Use-Cases

To date, NEM has been deployed for various real-world applications with promising results.
In 2018, Ukraine launched a blockchain-based e-voting trial leveraging the NEM DLT platform.
At the time, Ukraine’s Central Election Commission – with the local NEM Foundation representation – estimated the test vote trial in each polling station could cost as low as $1,227. The organization’s Oleksandr Stelmakh lauded the efforts, saying that using a blockchain-powered voting mechanism would make it impossible for anyone to fiddle with the records. The Commission added that the NEM protocol presents information in a more user-friendly format for voters.
In the same year, Malaysia’s Ministry of Education launched an e-scroll system based on the NEM blockchain to tackle the menace of fake degrees. The University Degree Issuance and Verification System use the NEM blockchain which is interrogated upon scanning of a QR code printed on the degree certificate.
The Ministry added that one of the primary reasons for its decision to selected the NEM platform was its unique and cutting-edge features in managing traceability and authentication requirements.
On a recent note, the Bank of Lithuania announced that it would be issuing its NEM blockchain-powered digital collector’s coin (LBCoin) in July after the successful completion of its testing phase.

Final Thoughts

Summing up, NEM offers a wide array of in-house features that separate it from other blockchain projects in a space that is becoming increasingly congested. NEM’s creative PoI consensus algorithm is a fresh take on the PoS algorithm for performance enhancement. Further, the project’s newly launched enterprise-grade DLT solution, Symbol, offers a tremendous option to businesses to help them cut costs, reduce complexities, and streamline innovation.
NEM uses the Java programming language that makes it an easy project for developers to get involved with, unlike other projects such as Ethereum that use platform-specific programming languages like Solidity. The project’s tech infrastructure not only makes it less power-intensive compared to Bitcoin but also more scalable than its rival projects including Ethereum and NEO.
NEM’s tagline, “Smart Asset Blockchain, Built for Performance,” perfectly captures everything the project has to offer. Over the years, NEM’s active developer community has craftily addressed the notorious bottlenecks in the vast majority of blockchain solutions, The future looks promising for NEM as it continues to foster a trustless and blockchain-driven economy for tomorrow.
Source
submitted by charlesgwynne to CryptocurrencyICO [link] [comments]

Want to know why NEM should be as popular as Ethereum? this will be bigger than any altcoins you see, here's why

Want to know why NEM should be as popular as Ethereum? this will be bigger than any altcoins you see, here's why

Altcoin Explorer: NEM (XEM), the Enterprise-Grade Blockchain Platform


https://preview.redd.it/manbawoqvkg51.png?width=1300&format=png&auto=webp&s=fcbae1f067261326f11641bb9b18cd6f57616966
Nestled among the top 40 cryptocurrencies by reported market cap, New Economy Movement — popularly known as NEM (XEM) – is a peer-to-peer (P2P), dual-layer blockchain smart contract platform written in one of the most influential programming languages, Java. NEM uses the proof-of-importance (POI) consensus algorithm that essentially values the tokens held and the activity conducted by the nodes on the blockchain network.
In this Altcoin Explorer, BTCManager delves deeper into the finer intricacies of the NEM blockchain protocol, including the project’s POI consensus algorithm, its native digital token XEM, and some of its real-world use-cases.
Without further ado, let’s get to the core of this high-performance distributed ledger technology (DLT) platform.

History of NEM

NEM was launched on March 31, 2015, with an aim to develop an enterprise-grade blockchain protocol that could circumvent the infamous trilemma of blockchain: scalability, speed, and privacy.
Operated by a Gibraltar-registered NEM Group, NEM is a fork-out version of the NXT blockchain. After the successful fork, the NEM community decided to build its ecosystem from the ground up and developed its own codebase to make the network more scalable and faster.
NEM’s insistence toward building its own tech infrastructure led to a DLT protocol that is unlike anything resembling other similar platforms.
Today, NEM ranks among the top go-to blockchain platforms for enterprises across the world, rivaling competing protocols including Ethereum (ETH), and TRON (TRX), among others.

NEM’s Proof-of-Importance (POI) Algorithm

Unlike Bitcoin’s (BTC) energy-intensive Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Ethereum’s yet-to-be-implemented Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus algorithm, NEM uses PoI consensus mechanism.
The PoI mechanism achieves consensus by incentivizing active user participation in the NEM network. This consensus infrastructure ensures an agile decentralized network by rewarding well-behaved nodes that not only possess a significant stake in the network but are also actively engaged in executing transactions to maintain the network’s robustness.
Specifically, each node in the network possesses an ‘Importance Score’ that impacts the number of times the said node can ‘Harvest’ the XEM altcoin.
Initially, when a user puts XEM tokens into their wallet, they are called ‘unvested coins.’ Over time, as the wallets start accumulating an increasing number of XEM and contribute to the network’s transaction volume, they start collecting importance scores. At the same time, the XEM tokens in these wallets change into ‘vested coins,’ provided that there are at least 10000 tokens in the wallet.
To put things into perspective, let’s take the help of a small example.
On day 1, Joe receives 50,000 XEM in his digital wallet. Now, with each passing day, the NEM network will ‘vest’ 10 percent of the tokens held by Joe. So, on day 2, 5,000 tokens held by Joe are vested into the network. On day 3, 10 percent of the remaining tokens – 15,000 XEM – get vested into the network, leaving Joe with 13,500 XEM, and so one. After a couple of days, Joe sees that the number of XEM vested by him has crossed the 10,000 coins threshold, thereby, making him eligible to seek rewards from the NEM blockchain for his contribution to vesting his tokens.
Close followers of blockchain projects would find the aforementioned network reward mechanism bear a close resemblance to the PoS consensus algorithm. However, it’s worthy of note that vesting coins is just one way of calculating a node’s importance score.
The NEM protocol also rewards nodes that are responsible for most activity on the network. In essence, this means that the higher the number of transactions executed by a node, the more likely it is to gain higher importance points. The balance between vesting XEM and network activity is an important metric to be maintained by NEM nodes as it directly impacts their likelihood of harvesting XEM.
NEM’s consensus algorithm does away with several issues plaguing the more energy-intensive protocols such as PoW. For instance, PoI does not necessarily require high-energy hardware to run the nodes. The decentralized nature of the algorithm means that almost any machine — irrespective of its tech configuration – can participate in the NEM ecosystem ensuring it remains decentralized.

NEM’s Native Digital Token — XEM

XEM, unlike the vast majority of other cryptocurrencies, isn’t mined or staked using Pow or PoS algorithms. Rather, as explained earlier, XEM is ‘harvested’ through the PoI algorithm which ensures a steady supply of the digital token without flooding the market and involving the risk of a dramatic crash in price.
Per data on CoinMarketCap, at the time of writing, XEM trades at $0.04 with a market cap of more than $382 million and a 24-hour trading volume of approximately $6.8 million. The coin reached its all-time high of $1.92 in January 2018.
A large number of reputable cryptocurrency exchanges trade XEM, including Binance, Upbit, OKEx, Bithumb, ProBit, among others. The digital token can be easily traded with BTC, ETH, and USDT trading pairs.
That said, if you wish to vest your XEM to partake in the maintenance of the NEM network and earn rewards, it is recommended you store your tokens in the official NEM Nano wallet for desktop and mobile OS. Only XEM tokens held in the official NEM Nano wallet are eligible for vesting.

NEM Use-Cases

To date, NEM has been deployed for various real-world applications with promising results.
In 2018, Ukraine launched a blockchain-based e-voting trial leveraging the NEM DLT platform.
At the time, Ukraine’s Central Election Commission – with the local NEM Foundation representation – estimated the test vote trial in each polling station could cost as low as $1,227. The organization’s Oleksandr Stelmakh lauded the efforts, saying that using a blockchain-powered voting mechanism would make it impossible for anyone to fiddle with the records. The Commission added that the NEM protocol presents information in a more user-friendly format for voters.
In the same year, Malaysia’s Ministry of Education launched an e-scroll system based on the NEM blockchain to tackle the menace of fake degrees. The University Degree Issuance and Verification System use the NEM blockchain which is interrogated upon scanning of a QR code printed on the degree certificate.
The Ministry added that one of the primary reasons for its decision to selected the NEM platform was its unique and cutting-edge features in managing traceability and authentication requirements.
On a recent note, the Bank of Lithuania announced that it would be issuing its NEM blockchain-powered digital collector’s coin (LBCoin) in July after the successful completion of its testing phase.

Final Thoughts

Summing up, NEM offers a wide array of in-house features that separate it from other blockchain projects in a space that is becoming increasingly congested. NEM’s creative PoI consensus algorithm is a fresh take on the PoS algorithm for performance enhancement. Further, the project’s newly launched enterprise-grade DLT solution, Symbol, offers a tremendous option to businesses to help them cut costs, reduce complexities, and streamline innovation.
NEM uses the Java programming language that makes it an easy project for developers to get involved with, unlike other projects such as Ethereum that use platform-specific programming languages like Solidity. The project’s tech infrastructure not only makes it less power-intensive compared to Bitcoin but also more scalable than its rival projects including Ethereum and NEO.
NEM’s tagline, “Smart Asset Blockchain, Built for Performance,” perfectly captures everything the project has to offer. Over the years, NEM’s active developer community has craftily addressed the notorious bottlenecks in the vast majority of blockchain solutions, The future looks promising for NEM as it continues to foster a trustless and blockchain-driven economy for tomorrow.
Source
submitted by charlesgwynne to ico [link] [comments]

Altcoin Explorer: NEM (XEM), the Enterprise-Grade Blockchain Platform

Altcoin Explorer: NEM (XEM), the Enterprise-Grade Blockchain Platform

https://preview.redd.it/f82bxncaxkg51.png?width=1300&format=png&auto=webp&s=34afde717d1781f7e472c8dcacd18a8b9390a78d
Nestled among the top 40 cryptocurrencies by reported market cap, New Economy Movement — popularly known as NEM (XEM) – is a peer-to-peer (P2P), dual-layer blockchain smart contract platform written in one of the most influential programming languages, Java. NEM uses the proof-of-importance (POI) consensus algorithm that essentially values the tokens held and the activity conducted by the nodes on the blockchain network.
In this Altcoin Explorer, BTCManager delves deeper into the finer intricacies of the NEM blockchain protocol, including the project’s POI consensus algorithm, its native digital token XEM, and some of its real-world use-cases.
Without further ado, let’s get to the core of this high-performance distributed ledger technology (DLT) platform.

History of NEM

NEM was launched on March 31, 2015, with an aim to develop an enterprise-grade blockchain protocol that could circumvent the infamous trilemma of blockchain: scalability, speed, and privacy.
Operated by a Gibraltar-registered NEM Group, NEM is a fork-out version of the NXT blockchain. After the successful fork, the NEM community decided to build its ecosystem from the ground up and developed its own codebase to make the network more scalable and faster.
NEM’s insistence toward building its own tech infrastructure led to a DLT protocol that is unlike anything resembling other similar platforms.
Today, NEM ranks among the top go-to blockchain platforms for enterprises across the world, rivaling competing protocols including Ethereum (ETH), and TRON (TRX), among others.

NEM’s Proof-of-Importance (POI) Algorithm

Unlike Bitcoin’s (BTC) energy-intensive Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Ethereum’s yet-to-be-implemented Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus algorithm, NEM uses PoI consensus mechanism.
The PoI mechanism achieves consensus by incentivizing active user participation in the NEM network. This consensus infrastructure ensures an agile decentralized network by rewarding well-behaved nodes that not only possess a significant stake in the network but are also actively engaged in executing transactions to maintain the network’s robustness.
Specifically, each node in the network possesses an ‘Importance Score’ that impacts the number of times the said node can ‘Harvest’ the XEM altcoin.
Initially, when a user puts XEM tokens into their wallet, they are called ‘unvested coins.’ Over time, as the wallets start accumulating an increasing number of XEM and contribute to the network’s transaction volume, they start collecting importance scores. At the same time, the XEM tokens in these wallets change into ‘vested coins,’ provided that there are at least 10000 tokens in the wallet.
To put things into perspective, let’s take the help of a small example.
On day 1, Joe receives 50,000 XEM in his digital wallet. Now, with each passing day, the NEM network will ‘vest’ 10 percent of the tokens held by Joe. So, on day 2, 5,000 tokens held by Joe are vested into the network. On day 3, 10 percent of the remaining tokens – 15,000 XEM – get vested into the network, leaving Joe with 13,500 XEM, and so one. After a couple of days, Joe sees that the number of XEM vested by him has crossed the 10,000 coins threshold, thereby, making him eligible to seek rewards from the NEM blockchain for his contribution to vesting his tokens.
Close followers of blockchain projects would find the aforementioned network reward mechanism bear a close resemblance to the PoS consensus algorithm. However, it’s worthy of note that vesting coins is just one way of calculating a node’s importance score.
The NEM protocol also rewards nodes that are responsible for most activity on the network. In essence, this means that the higher the number of transactions executed by a node, the more likely it is to gain higher importance points. The balance between vesting XEM and network activity is an important metric to be maintained by NEM nodes as it directly impacts their likelihood of harvesting XEM.
NEM’s consensus algorithm does away with several issues plaguing the more energy-intensive protocols such as PoW. For instance, PoI does not necessarily require high-energy hardware to run the nodes. The decentralized nature of the algorithm means that almost any machine — irrespective of its tech configuration – can participate in the NEM ecosystem ensuring it remains decentralized.

NEM’s Native Digital Token — XEM

XEM, unlike the vast majority of other cryptocurrencies, isn’t mined or staked using Pow or PoS algorithms. Rather, as explained earlier, XEM is ‘harvested’ through the PoI algorithm which ensures a steady supply of the digital token without flooding the market and involving the risk of a dramatic crash in price.
Per data on CoinMarketCap, at the time of writing, XEM trades at $0.04 with a market cap of more than $382 million and a 24-hour trading volume of approximately $6.8 million. The coin reached its all-time high of $1.92 in January 2018.
A large number of reputable cryptocurrency exchanges trade XEM, including Binance, Upbit, OKEx, Bithumb, ProBit, among others. The digital token can be easily traded with BTC, ETH, and USDT trading pairs.
That said, if you wish to vest your XEM to partake in the maintenance of the NEM network and earn rewards, it is recommended you store your tokens in the official NEM Nano wallet for desktop and mobile OS. Only XEM tokens held in the official NEM Nano wallet are eligible for vesting.

NEM Use-Cases

To date, NEM has been deployed for various real-world applications with promising results.
In 2018, Ukraine launched a blockchain-based e-voting trial leveraging the NEM DLT platform.
At the time, Ukraine’s Central Election Commission – with the local NEM Foundation representation – estimated the test vote trial in each polling station could cost as low as $1,227. The organization’s Oleksandr Stelmakh lauded the efforts, saying that using a blockchain-powered voting mechanism would make it impossible for anyone to fiddle with the records. The Commission added that the NEM protocol presents information in a more user-friendly format for voters.
In the same year, Malaysia’s Ministry of Education launched an e-scroll system based on the NEM blockchain to tackle the menace of fake degrees. The University Degree Issuance and Verification System use the NEM blockchain which is interrogated upon scanning of a QR code printed on the degree certificate.
The Ministry added that one of the primary reasons for its decision to selected the NEM platform was its unique and cutting-edge features in managing traceability and authentication requirements.
On a recent note, the Bank of Lithuania announced that it would be issuing its NEM blockchain-powered digital collector’s coin (LBCoin) in July after the successful completion of its testing phase.

Final Thoughts

Summing up, NEM offers a wide array of in-house features that separate it from other blockchain projects in a space that is becoming increasingly congested. NEM’s creative PoI consensus algorithm is a fresh take on the PoS algorithm for performance enhancement. Further, the project’s newly launched enterprise-grade DLT solution, Symbol, offers a tremendous option to businesses to help them cut costs, reduce complexities, and streamline innovation.
NEM uses the Java programming language that makes it an easy project for developers to get involved with, unlike other projects such as Ethereum that use platform-specific programming languages like Solidity. The project’s tech infrastructure not only makes it less power-intensive compared to Bitcoin but also more scalable than its rival projects including Ethereum and NEO.
NEM’s tagline, “Smart Asset Blockchain, Built for Performance,” perfectly captures everything the project has to offer. Over the years, NEM’s active developer community has craftily addressed the notorious bottlenecks in the vast majority of blockchain solutions, The future looks promising for NEM as it continues to foster a trustless and blockchain-driven economy for tomorrow.
Source
submitted by charlesgwynne to BlockchainStartups [link] [comments]

BitcoinTaxes Podcast: Crypto Audits w/ Alex Kugelman

BitcoinTaxes Podcast Link
TLDR; Alex Kugelman, a tax controversy lawer, discusses crypto audits and how to avoid them.
Highlights:
IRS audits are a real possibility for anyone who has traded cryptocurrencies. Our guest today is Alex Kugelman, a tax controversy lawyer with an abundance of knowledge concerning cryptocurrency audits. He's here to share his expertise on IRS cryptocurrency audits, including risk reduction strategies as well as enforcement predictions and misconceptions.
Alex Kugelman specializes in IRS audits. His experience includes four years of Federal government court experience at the U.S. Tax Court and a U.S. District Court. [00:40]
Alex: I'm an attorney out in California. I clerked for a US District Court judge and as well as the United States Tax Court. I've been in private practice exclusively doing tax controversy work for the past five years or so. I kind of got involved with crypto towards the end of 2016. I tended to represent clients mainly with compliance & disclosure issues with respect to cryptocurrency. I just really like it. Really interesting area.
The Coinbase summons in 2018 played a major role in Alex's interest in crypto audits. [01:19]
Alex: What started me into the crypto space was when the IRS first issued summons for Coinbase. We started getting some interesting calls regarding that. And at that time I thought to myself, this might be an interesting area. So I started following the actual summons enforcement proceeding at the District Court here in San Francisco - from there kind of worked with people under different types of compliance, including international disclosures. Now we're starting to see some of the first cryptocurrency audits come through.
First, let's get a brief rundown of how IRS audits work. [02:00]
Alex: It is important to understand the IRS as an administrative agency and all different layers of it. So when it comes to an audit the term that the IRS uses is an examination and there's three basic levels.
The first is a correspondence exam. That's where you get a letter that says, dear taxpayer, so-and-so reported that you had $100 of interest income that wasn't on your tax return - we're going to increase your tax. If you want to challenge that, you can. And that's basically termed an under reporter notice. That's probably not going to be a cryptocurrency audit if you get that notice.
The next one is an office exam. That is someone in the local IRS office sending you a letter that says, we have selected a certain tax return for audit and we're going to look at these issues. We'd like you to call us to schedule an appointment. That's going to be usually a tax compliance officer that is doing that.
The third and probably the most serious level of exam is a field examination. That's also going to be a local IRS representative, typically a revenue agent. There, the revenue agent may come to your work or ask come to your work or business to kind of conduct the audit.
All three of those are going to start the same: a letter that's sent to you at your most recent address provided to the IRS.
Cryptocurrency audits follow a similar protocol. [05:40]
Alex: I think it's likely that most crypto audits are going to start with one of two things happening. One is that there is information from the Coinbase summons that is inconsistent with what was on a taxpayer's tax return. I think for someone who's involved with that issue, they're going to have a good sense of that one because they should've gotten an email notice from Coinbase.
Or two, the audit notice is going to identify older tax years - 2013, 2014 or 2015 because those are the years that the information related to.
Another reason I think people will get audited is going to be because information on the return is incomplete, in the sense that the taxpayer or the cryptocurrency owner reports some transactions, without enough detail to figure out the actual cost basis.
Does reporting your data in an aggregated fashion increase your chances of being audited? [06:45]
Alex: I mean one - to the extent that there's going to be a lot of taxpayers - a lot of people use TurboTax, right? If that's the way TurboTax is preparing all of those returns, it would seem to me you're kind of in a herd of people like that. And at least it's consistent with what a lot of people are doing. The second part of that is going to be at least those people who have prepare the returns in that manner, they're going to, or should have, the underlying data. So even if it's an aggregate reporting of each asset class as opposed to each individual trade, if there ever were questions then you're going to have your CSV files, you're going to have your Bitcoin.tax exports, you're going to have all the information that you need to back that up.
Alex is an advocate of over-reporting your information to the IRS. [09:30]
Alex: I'm a big proponent of over-reporting - and I don't mean paying too much tax. I just mean including too much information. Because at some point there's kind of two ways that your returned can be flagged: a computer flags the return for some reason or there's a special unit or a person who actually flags it. At the end of the day, a human being will be looking at that return and deciding whether it actually is going to go all the way through to an audit. I want them to completely understand what's being reported, why it's been reported, and if there's too much information, that's fine - it's less likely that someone's going to have more questions.
A crypto audit is very likely to be a field exam - and it's important to hire a good rep. [11:00]
Alex: It's very likely going to be a field exam, which means you're going to have a revenue agent - and those are kind of the best of the best auditors for an IRS audit. And remember - an IRS audit is a civil matter. It is not criminal at this point. Again, it's unlikely that it will become criminal. It is, however, the highest level of audit you're going to get.
If you're going to hire a representative, which you have every right to do, you should contact that person, let them know what's going on and probably have them interface with the auditor. You should receive, as part of the opening notice or letter, the information document request - which is identifying what things to bring for the auditor. Also, it'll tip to what topics might be important. For example the typical things you're going to see will be bank statements, financial or asset account statements, which I view as requesting exchange statements or exchange CSV files. Any documents that show the cost basis for your cryptocurrency trades.
Audits are more art than science. [13:35]
Alex: The auditor has a fair amount of power. So if you play real hardball - that's not going to prevent the auditor from expanding to other years. So when you get that audit notice ,and let's say that you're going to deal with this yourself, the first thing you want to kind of figure out is what are the areas that I wouldn't want to go into, and what are the areas that I don't have good records? That will help guide the way to respond or what information to pull together.
The reality is, and let's just be honest here - for most people reporting cryptocurrency gains, they have all of the information. The IRS does not have much. They might have some records from Coinbase, but it's not as if they have a treasure trove of third party data.
The burden is really going to be, in every audit, on the taxpayer to prove their tax return is correct.
It's difficult to say how lenient the IRS will be regarding past years. [15:35]
Alex: I think the way that I would look at it is that maybe the standard of of records required to really substantiate older years might be a little bit lower for older years as opposed to now because it's different now. There's a lot better information provided by some of the exchanges. There's a lot more software out there to help you, especially for people who are newer to crypto. You should have access to all your bank records. You should still have a lot of emails, reflecting on-ramping off-ramping, or other purchases. You should be able to kind of pull this all together.
I can understand when we have clients who come in and are early adopters and they're missing chunks of information. So I do think that in those types of circumstances, yes, I think there would be a little bit of leniency. But I don't think if you're asking, hey, I reported my gains in 2017 but I never really did it 14, 15 or 16 - I don't think that's going to be viewed very favorably.
It is possible to substantiate your data without all of your records. [19:00]
Alex: I think the first thing is, I mean, outside of cryptocurrency and just generally in audits, how many people have complete records to support everything on their tax return from three years ago? Right? It's just not the reality.
The best source of information in a lot of these cryptocurrency clients are the clients themselves. They kind of know what they did and they can remember. There's some who take good notes and other people don't, but as you go through and ask people: what exchanges have you've been on, what type of coins, if you bought any ICOs, have you ever sold for actual US cash, and have you ever bought goods or services? As you talk through things people tend to recall what happened. We use that information and we cross check that against bank statements, as well as CSV files, to pick out what those transactions look like.
Most people have some sort of records, at least reflecting the transfer in and the transfer back out of that exchange. So you can use historical data and historical pricing information to essentially estimate what that transaction would have been. And then what we do is we provide a written statement summary of what we're doing and why we're doing it.
The other big one that we see all the time - and anybody listening to this, please hear this, do not trade for your friends on your exchange accounts - because that type of commingling causes such major problems. Essentially you are walking into those taxable gains just because you're allowing someone access to the exchange to make sales.
If you need representation for an audit, get representation. [23:00]
Alex: My general rule is that I think experienced representatives are really important. I probably would not hire the CPA that prepared my return unless they were: one, experienced with being a representative in audits. And two, you felt comfortable that they weren't going to go in there with a conflict of interest. But I do think if you're worried about going into audit - hiring a skilled, and experienced rep is really, really important.
If they're experienced with this, they should understand the appropriate ethical standards and go in there and essentially help resolve portions of the audit and move it to a resolution that you can deal with.
Taxpayers actually have a lot of leverage in an audit. And that sounds crazy to say, but there is a lot of truth to that. And so as you're kind of working through the audit itself, you want to make sure that you're not just agreeing to something to be done with it. You're not agreeing to something just because you think that you'll get in more trouble or get a worse result otherwise.
There are important risk-reduction strategies you can utilize to avoid a crypto audit. [28:15]
Alex: The first thing that you really want to do, is just assess; for those of you that are really worried about an audit - just assess what it is you've actually done over the years. When did you start trading, what exchanges were you on, do you have records that reflect on-ramping and off-ramping? And that's going to be your bank account statements. Do you know where you've been, what exchanges you've been on?
For foreign exchanges, there may not be as much of that AML & KYC compliance, but I really believe that you do have reporting requirements under FATCA for FBAR and something called an 8938, which if you listen to the podcast with Tyson, he kind of explains what that is. But it's basically if you have ownership of a foreign bank account or asset, you have certain reporting requirements, whether you've had income or not.
You want to make sure you at least track when you've actually exchanged crypto for cash or vice versa. That's partly because that's one of those areas where when people can get in trouble with some sort of federal investigators - because those types of transactions can be potentially considered money laundering.
For those who believe that they've used like-kind exchange rules to defer taxable gains -you should look on your tax returns to see if you filed the form 8824, which is where like kind exchanges are actually reported. That kind of goes back to the over reporting issue I was talking about before. I think that if you didn't report the actual trades that you're taking like-kind treatment for in past years, I don't know that you've actually taken like-kind treatment to be frank with you. I think, objectively, that might be viewed as just not reporting certain transactions.
You want to make sure that you address these issues sooner rather than later.
1099-K forms can be misleading - to the recipient and, potentially, the auditor. [32:40]
Alex: A 1099-K is actually a merchant processing third party information returns. And it really is typically associated with people who have credit card sales - so it's going to reflect a gross amount and typically on a monthly basis.
It shows the gross amount and what I've seen too is that sometimes transfers actually get caught into that amount as well. So it's not even just gross sales or purchases - it may have other information. So the 1099-K can be really inflated. That's why reconciling that against accounting records is really, really important because that is one of those issues that I think could lead to an exam.
To those who think crypto isn't beholden to tax laws: you are not correct. [37:38]
Alex: The current commissioner of the IRS is Charles Rettig, and he's a really well known practitioner in tax controversy. I know from people that know him well, that he's actually mentioned Reddit as one of the reasons that cryptocurrency enforcement is his number one enforcement priority right now.
The other person that I've seen speak a couple of times is the head of the IRS Criminal Investigation Unit. His name is Don Fort and every year he does a presentation at the National Tax Controversy and Criminal Tax Conference. The last two years cryptocurrency has been number two and number one on his list. As much as the IRS lacks the funding and the manpower that it needs for all the enforcement, the IRS CI are really, really good and they are probably best agency at dealing with cryptocurrency enforcement issues.
I really think that it's gaining steam and I think once the audits from the Coinbase summons kind of get going, I think it's going to be a really scrutinized area. I think the people who have gone through the cost and the pain of disclosing and amending returns and doing everything they can will be happy that they did in a couple of years. I think the other people are going to be sweating it out - I don't know if it's ever really worth it to be honest with you. I would recommend people do their best to get in compliance.
In summary: do your best to report your crypto gains and losses - and don't try to pull one over on the IRS. [42:36]
Alex: For people who have potential issues with past years, one is getting a consistent record and just amending your past years, so they're consistent.
For people who have the foreign account issues - let's just say, for example, had an account with Binance, and that Binance account was never reported. The IRS has disclosure programs that allow you to amend certain returns, pay the tax that you report and pay a penalty, which would be 5% of the the highest account value that you have.
For people who don't want to deal with this, I think taking evasive steps is the best way to get the worst result possible. One of the things that I learned very early in dealing with audits and tax compliance, is that you can always make things worse. I think you really just want to address it and resolve the issue while you have a good opportunity.
We may see criminal prosecution of some of the "big fish" tax evaders from the Coinbase summons. [46:43]
Alex: Yeah, and I think the two things that I'm fairly certain we're going to see: one is we're going to see the IRS use the information provided by Coinbase to start auditing the biggest account holders from that period. I think that's very likely.
Probably the second one that I would say is very likely is that you're going to see limited criminal prosecutions related to cryptocurrency. And these are going to be people that have some sort of level of notoriety, whether actually famous or maybe famous in the cryptocurrency world. That's typically how the IRS and Department of Justice uses limited resources to prosecute criminal tax tax crimes.
Alex is a great guy to reach out to with any audit-related questions, crypto or otherwise. [48:50]
Alex: You can go to my website: www.kugelmanlaw.com. You can email me at [email protected]. I have clients all over the country, international clients. If you need any sort of help, whether that's representing you, or at least doing the nitty gritty audit investigation, we're always willing to talk to people and help them out as best we can.

If you enjoyed our podcast, be sure to check back frequently for more great discussions about a range of topics in the crypto space. If you have any questions for Alex Kugelman, or want to schedule a consultation with him, he can be reached via his website www.kugelmanlaw.com, or via email at [email protected].
If you would like to request a topic for an interview, or have any questions related to this podcast, be sure to reach out to us at [email protected].
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to bitcointaxes [link] [comments]

batching in Bitcoin

On May 6th, 2017, Bitcoin hit an all-time high in transactions processed on the network in a single day: it moved 375,000 transactions which accounted for a nominal output of about $2.5b. Average fees on the Bitcoin network had climbed over a dollar for the first time a couple days prior. And they kept climbing: by early June average fees hit an eye-watering $5.66. This was quite unprecedented. In the three-year period from Jan. 1 2014 to Jan. 1 2017, per-transaction fees had never exceeded 31 cents on a weekly average. And the hits kept coming. Before 2017 was over, average fees would top out at $48 on a weekly basis. When the crypto-recession set in, transaction count collapsed and fees crept back below $1.
During the most feverish days of the Bitcoin run-up, when normal users found themselves with balances that would cost more to send than they were worth, cries for batching — the aggregation of many outputs into a single transaction — grew louder than ever. David Harding had written a blog post on the cost-savings of batching at the end of August and it was reposted to the Bitcoin subreddit on a daily basis.
The idea was simple: for entities sending many transactions at once, clustering outputs into a single transaction was more space- (and cost-) efficient, because each transaction has a fixed data overhead. David found that if you combined 10 payments into one transaction, rather than sending them individually, you could save 75% of the block space. Essentially, batching is one way to pack as many transactions as possible into the finite block space available on Bitcoin.
When fees started climbing in mid-2017, users began to scrutinize the behavior of heavy users of the Bitcoin blockchain, to determine whether they were using block space efficiently. By and large, they were not — and an informal lobbying campaign began, in which these major users — principally exchanges — were asked to start batching transactions and be good stewards of the scarce block space at their disposal. Some exchanges had been batching for years, others relented and implemented it. The question faded from view after Bitcoin’s price collapsed in Q1 2018 from roughly $19,000 to $6000, and transaction load — and hence average fee — dropped off.
But we remained curious. A common refrain, during the collapse in on-chain usage, was that transaction count was an obfuscated method of apprehending actual usage. The idea was that transactions could encode an arbitrarily large (within reason) number of payments, and so if batching had become more and more prevalent, those payments were still occurring, just under a regime of fewer transactions.

“hmmm”
Some sites popped up to report outputs and payments per day rather than transactions, seemingly bristling at the coverage of declining transaction count. However, no one conducted an analysis of the changing relationship between transaction count and outputs or payments. We took it upon ourselves to find out.
Table Of Contents:
Introduction to batching
A timeline
Analysis
Conclusion
Bonus content: UTXO consolidation
  1. Introduction to batching
Bitcoin uses a UTXO model, which stands for Unspent Transaction Output. In comparison, Ripple and Ethereum use an account/balance model. In bitcoin, a user has no balances, only UTXOs that they control. If they want to transfer money to someone else, their wallet selects one or more UTXOs as inputs that in sum need to add up to the amount they want to transfer. The desired amount then goes to the recipient, which is called the output, and the difference goes back to the sender, which is called change output. Each output can carry a virtually unlimited amount of value in the form of satoshis. A satoshi is a unit representing a one-hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin. This is very similar to a physical wallet full of different denominations of bills. If you’re buying a snack for $2.50 and only have a $5, you don’t hand the cashier half of your 5 dollar bill — you give him the 5 and receive some change instead.
Unknown to some, there is no hardcoded limit to the number of transactions that can fit in a block. Instead, each transaction has a certain size in megabytes and constitutes an economic incentive for miners to include it in their block. Because miners have limited space of 2 MB to sell to transactors, larger transactions (in size, not bitcoin!) will need to pay higher fees to be included. Additionally, each transaction can have a virtually unlimited number of inputs or outputs — the record stands at transactions with 20,000 inputs and 13,107 outputs.
So each transaction has at least one input and at one output, but often more, as well as some additional boilerplate stuff. Most of that space is taken up by the input (often 60% or more, because of the signature that proves they really belong to the sender), while the output(s) account for 15–30%. In order to keep transactions as small as possible and save fees, Bitcoin users have two major choices:
Use as few inputs as possible. In order to minimize inputs, you can periodically send your smaller UTXOs to yourself in times when fees are very low, getting one large UTXO back. That is called UTXO consolidation or consolidating your inputs.
Users who frequently make transfers (especially within the same block) can include an almost unlimited amount of outputs (to different people!) in the same transaction. That is called transaction batching. A typical single output transaction takes up 230 bytes, while a two output transaction only takes up 260 bytes, instead of 460 if you were to send them individually.
This is something that many casual commentators overlook when comparing Bitcoin with other payment systems — a Bitcoin transaction can aggregate thousands of individual economic transfers! It’s important to recognize this, as it is the source of a great deal of misunderstanding and mistaken analysis.
We’ve never encountered a common definition of a batched transaction — so for the purposes of this study we define it in the loosest possible sense: a transaction with three or more outputs. Commonly, batching is understood as an activity undertaken primarily by mining pools or exchanges who can trade off immediacy for efficiency. It is rare that a normal bitcoin user would have cause to batch, and indeed most wallets make it difficult to impossible to construct batched transactions. For everyday purposes, normal bitcoiners will likely not go to the additional effort of batching transactions.
We set the threshold at three for simplicity’s sake — a normal unbatched transaction will have one transactional output and one change output — but the typical major batched transaction from an exchange will have dozens if not hundreds of outputs. For this reason we are careful to provide data on various different batch sizes, so we could determine the prevalence of three-output transactions and colossal, 100-output ones.
We find it helpful to think of a Bitcoin transaction as a mail truck full of boxes. Each truck (transaction) contains boxes (outputs), each of contains some number of letters (satoshis). So when you’re looking at transaction count as a measure of the performance and economic throughput of the Bitcoin network, it’s a bit like counting mail trucks to discern how many letters are being sent on a given day, even though the number of letters can vary wildly. The truck analogy also makes it clear why many see Bitcoin as a settlement layer in the future — just as mail trucks aren’t dispatched until they’re full, some envision that the same will ultimately be the case for Bitcoin.

Batching
  1. A timeline
So what actually happened in the last six months? Let’s look at some data. Daily transactions on the Bitcoin network rose steadily until about May 2017, when average fees hit about $4. This precipitated the first collapse in usage. Then began a series of feedback loops over the next six months in which transaction load grew, fees grew to match, and transactions dropped off. This cycle repeated itself five times over the latter half of 2017.

more like this on coinmetrics.io
The solid red line in the above chart is fees in BTC terms (not USD) and the shaded red area is daily transaction count. You can see the cycle of transaction load precipitating higher fees which in turn cause a reduction in usage. It repeats itself five or six times before the detente in spring 2018. The most notable period was the December-January fee crisis, but fees were actually fairly typical in BTC terms — the rising BTC price in USD however meant that USD fees hit extreme figures.
In mid-November when fees hit double digits in USD terms, users began a concerted campaign to convince exchanges to be better stewards of block space. Both Segwit and batching were held up as meaningful approaches to maximize the compression of Bitcoin transactions into the finite block space available. Data on when exchanges began batching is sparse, but we collected information where it was available into a chart summarizing when exchanges began batching.

Batching adoption at selected exchanges
We’re ignoring Segwit adoption by exchanges in this analysis; as far as batching is concerned, the campaign to get exchanges to batch appears to have persuaded Bitfinex, Binance, and Shapeshift to batch. Coinbase/GDAX have stated their intention to begin batching, although they haven’t managed to integrate it yet. As far as we can tell, Gemini hasn’t mentioned batching, although we have some mixed evidence that they may have begun recently. If you know about the status of batching on Gemini or other major exchanges please get in touch.
So some exchanges have been batching all along, and some have never bothered at all. Did the subset of exchanges who flipped the switch materially affect the prevalence of batched transactions? Let’s find out.
  1. Analysis
3.1 How common is batching?
We measured the prevalence of batching in three different ways, by transaction count, by output value and by output count.

The tl;dr.
Batching accounts for roughly 12% of all transactions, 40% of all outputs, and 30–60% of all raw BTC output value. Not bad.
3.2 Have batched transactions become more common over time?
From the chart in 3.1, we can already see a small, but steady uptrend in all three metrics, but we want to dig a little deeper. So we first looked at the relationship of payments (all outputs that actually pay someone, so total outputs minus change outputs) and transactions.

More at transactionfee.info/charts
The first thing that becomes obvious is that the popular narrative — that the drop in transactions was caused by an increase in batching — is not the case; payments dropped by roughly the same proportion as well.
Dividing payment count by transaction count gives us some insight into the relationship between the two.

In our analysis we want to zoom into the time frame between November 2017 and today, and we can see that payments per transactions have actually been rallying, from 1.5 payments per transaction in early 2017 to almost two today.
3.3 What are popular batch sizes?
In this next part, we will look at batch sizes to see which are most popular. To determine which transactions were batched, we downloaded a dataset of all transactions on the Bitcoin network between November 2017 and May 2018from Blockchair.
We picked that period because the fee crisis really got started in mid-November, and with it, the demands for exchanges to batch. So we wanted to capture the effect of exchanges starting to batch. Naturally a bigger sample would have been more instructive, but we were constrained in our resources, so we began with the six month sample.
We grouped transactions into “batched” and “unbatched” groups with batched transactions being those with three or more outputs.

We then divided batched transactions into roughly equal groups on the basis of how much total output in BTC they had accounted for in the six-month period. We didn’t select the batch sizes manually — we picked batch sizes that would split the sample into equal parts on the basis of transaction value. Here’s what we ended up with:

All of the batch buckets have just about the same fraction of total BTC output over the period, but they account for radically different transaction and output counts over the period. Notice that there were only 183,108 “extra large” batches (with 41 or more outputs) in the six-month period, but between them there were 23m outputs and 30m BTC worth of value transmitted.
Note that output value in this context refers to the raw or unadjusted figure — it would have been prohibitively difficult for us to adjust output for change or mixers, so we’re using the “naive” estimate.
Let’s look at how many transactions various batch sizes accounted for in the sample period:


Batched transactions steadily increased relative to unbatched ones, although the biggest fraction is the small batch with between 3 and 5 outputs. The story for output counts is a bit more illuminating. Even though batched transactions are a relatively small fraction of overall transaction count, they contain a meaningful number of overall outputs. Let’s see how it breaks down:


Lastly, let’s look at output value. Here we see that batched transactions represent a significant fraction of value transmitted on Bitcoin.


As we can see, even though batched transactions make up an average of only 12% of all transactions, they move between 30%-60% of all Bitcoins, at peak times even 70%. We think this is quite remarkable. Keep in mind, however that the ‘total output’ figure has not been altered to account for change outputs, mixers, or self-churn; that is, it is the raw and unadjusted figure. The total output value is therefore not an ideal approximation of economic volume on the Bitcoin network.
3.4 Has transaction count become an unreliable measure of Bitcoin’s usage because of batching?
Yes. We strongly encourage any analysts, investors, journalists, and developers to look past mere transaction count from now on. The default measure of Bitcoin’s performance should be “payments per day” rather than transaction count. This also makes Bitcoin more comparable with other UTXO chains. They generally have significantly variable payments-per-transaction ratios, so just using payments standardizes that. (Stay tuned: Coinmetrics will be rolling out tools to facilitate this very soon.)
More generally, we think that the economic value transmitted on the network is its most fundamental characteristic. Both the naive and the adjusted figures deserve to be considered. Adjusting raw output value is still more art than science, and best practices are still being developed. Again, Coinmetrics is actively developing open-source tools to make these adjustments available.
  1. Conclusion
We started by revisiting the past year in Bitcoin and showed that while the mempool was congested, the community started looking for ways to use the blockspace more efficiently. Attention quickly fell on batching, the practice of combining multiple outputs into a single transaction, for heavy users. We showed how batching works on a technical level and when different exchanges started implementing the technique.
Today, around 12% of all transactions on the Bitcoin network are batched, and these account for about 40% of all outputs and between 30–60% of all transactional value. The fact such that a small set of transactions carries so much economic weight makes us hopeful that Bitcoin still has a lot of room to scale on the base layer, especially if usage trends continue.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that the increase in batching on the Bitcoin network may not be entirely due to deliberate action by exchanges, but rather a function of its recessionary behavior in the last few months. Since batching is generally done by large industrial players like exchanges, mixers, payment processors, and mining pools, and unbatched transactions are generally made by normal individuals, the batched/unbatched ratio is also a strong proxy for how much average users are using Bitcoin. Since the collapse in price, it is quite possible that individual usage of Bitcoin decreased while “industrial” usage remained strong. This is speculation, but one explanation for what happened.
Alternatively, the industrial players appear to be taking their role as stewards of the scarce block space more seriously. This is a significant boon to the network, and a nontrivial development in its history. If a culture of parsimony can be encouraged, Bitcoin will be able to compress more data into its block space and everyday users will continue to be able to run nodes for the foreseeable future. We view this as a very positive development. Members of the Bitcoin community that lobbied exchanges to add support for Segwit and batching should be proud of themselves.
  1. Bonus content: UTXO consolidation
Remember that we said that a second way to systematically save transaction fees in the Bitcoin network was to consolidate your UTXOs when fees were low? Looking at the relationship between input count and output count allows us to spot such consolidation phases quite well.

Typically, inputs and outputs move together. When the network is stressed, they decouple. If you look at the above chart carefully, you’ll notice that when transactions are elevated (and block space is at a premium), outputs outpace inputs — look at the gaps in May and December 2017. However, prolonged activity always results in fragmented UTXO sets and wallets full of dust, which need to be consolidated. For this, users often wait until pressure on the network has decreased and fees are lower. Thus, after transactions decrease, inputs become more common than outputs. You can see this clearly in February/March 2017.

Here we’ve taken the ratio of inputs to outputs (which have been smoothed on a trailing 7 day basis). When the ratio is higher, there are more inputs than outputs on that day, and vice versa. You can clearly see the spam attack in summer 2015 in which thousands (possibly millions) of outputs were created and then consolidated. Once the ratio spikes upwards, that’s consolidation. The spike in February 2018 after the six weeks of high fees in December 2017 was the most pronounced sigh of relief in Bitcoin’s history; the largest ever departure from the in/out ratio norm. There were a huge number of UTXOs to be consolidated.
It’s also interesting to note where inputs and outputs cluster. Here we have histograms of transactions with large numbers of inputs or outputs. Unsurprisingly, round numbers are common which shows that exchanges don’t publish a transaction every, say, two minutes, but instead wait for 100 or 200 outputs to queue up and then publish their transaction. Curiously, 200-input transactions were more popular than 100-input transactions in the period.


We ran into more curiosities when researching this piece, but we’ll leave those for another time.
Future work on batching might focus on:
Determining batched transactions as a portion of (adjusted) economic rather than raw volume
Looking at the behavior of specific exchanges with regards to batching
Investigating how much space and fees could be saved if major exchanges were batching transactions
Lastly, we encourage everyone to run their transactions through the service at transactionfee.info to assess the efficiency of their transactions and determine whether exchanges are being good stewards of the block space.
Update 31.05.2018
Antoine Le Calvez has created a series of live-updated charts to track batching and batch sizes, which you can find here.
We’d like to thank 0xB10C for their generous assistance with datasets and advice, the people at Blockchair for providing the core datasets, and David A. Harding for writing the initial piece and answering our questions.
submitted by miguelfranco1412 to 800cc [link] [comments]

An in depth post about kubi.com and kucoin.com

Note: This is not a FUD post so don't be alarmed. But never trust strangers on the internet and always, DYOR! I've tried to list all steps to replicate my findings inline.
Just a heads up guys I did my own research of the domain names.

The Research:

Whois for kucoin.com is:
Chengdu Kucoin Technology Co., Ltd.
Whois for kubi.com is:
Kucoin Technology Co., Ltd.
HOWEVER, anybody who owns the domain kubi.com can make anything up in those fields.
Comparing DNS records:
KuCoin has IP address of 13.115.48.85 which translates to Amazon Web Servers in Japan.|
Kubi.com DNS points to another DNS at 61lrcpjnqntqvvzjujqz9ynhqublzgoc.aliyunwaf.com (47.93.92.22) Which is some kind of weird AliBaba Web Application Firewall service. I'm guessing it's likes Alibaba's version of Amazon Web Services.
If I look at DNS changes over time is where things get interesting:
Kucoin: https://i.imgur.com/wlW3l6E.png
Kubi.com: https://i.imgur.com/JW8WbrG.png
(Download and view these images side by side if you like.)
Kubi.com was first created on 2002, KuCoin.com in 2013. Around 2007 Kubi starting using a DNS from domaincontrol.com. Around 2016 KuCoin also used a DNS from domaincontrol.com (but not the same ones, two different servers). Around 2015 Kubi starting using DNS from dnspod.net and around 2015 KuCoin was using the exact same DNS addresses. This would mean that both sites were most likely hosted on the same server.
On Aug 11, 2017, KuCoin switched to using alidns.com for DNS. On Aug 23, 2017 Kubi.com switched to using the exact same alidns.com DNS.
So to conclude, I do think these websites are run by the same people. You can validate yourself using https://www.whois.com/whois/domaincontrol.com
This does not mean anything shady is going on, however. The KuCoin team could very well have been doing another project in China which they chose to close down.
I was a little worried that the screenshot I attached showed KuCoin.com being hosted on AliBaba servers (a Chinese company) but I just think the records on that site (whois.com) are out of date. I did a fresh whois on www.KuCoin.com and got:
www.kucoin.com. 456 IN CNAME web-768094052.ap-northeast-1.elb.amazonaws.com. web-768094052.ap-northeast-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 60 IN A 13.113.187.236 web-768094052.ap-northeast-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 60 IN A 54.92.111.25 
(You can check yourself by doing "whois www.kucoin.com" in your computers terminal window (if you run Mac or Linux).
I checked on Amazon's AWS website and this is an AWS "load balancer" in the "Asia Pacific (Tokyo)" region. (You can check yourself here: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/grande.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
So there you have it.

My Conclusions:

  1. kubi.com is or was probably managed by the KuCoin team. It may have even been a predecessor to KuCoin. It's still running on Chinese Alibaba servers but I can't read Chinese and don't know what it's about.
  2. Around 2015, the two sites did probably share the same server.
  3. KuCoin.com is currently running on Amazon Web Servers in Japan, out of Chinese control.
  4. F these FUDers, they probably have an agenda. Though they are probably correct in stating that Kubi.com and KuCoin.com were run by the same company, though they draw incredible conclusions about it.
  5. There is a ton of ways to make lots of quick money off of us if the KuCoin team were greedy/evil and knew they were "running out of time" before the Chinese took them down. Continuously adding new tokens and running promotions would not be one of them. Neither is shutting down the referral program. If I were the KuCoin team and I really wanted to cheat everybody I would tell you we are gonna do a special "2x referrals for the next 2 weeks" or something and then cash out everyone's wallets before that happens, not tell people we are closing new referrals.
  6. Lastly, if the Chinese translation one of the FUDers posted is true, whoever runs kubi.com gave people plenty of time to move their coins off kubi—nothing appeared shady at all. They didn't steal them or run or anything.
  7. The fact that KuCoin.com moved from AliBaba web servers to Amazon Japan web servers (some time between Aug 11, 2017 and today) also shows me that they are moving away from Chinese influence. KuCoin.com runs on AWS servers in Japan just like Binance does. Binance, the #2 exchange in the world (by volume) is also a Chinese company that voluntarily moved out before they were forced to just like KuCoin. Also, if you didn't know Bitcoin is now an official legal payment method in Japan.
Edit:

Some additional positive stats for ya:

Whoever the FUDers are the key way to battle them is to keep hodling and valuing your KuCoins! As many people already said buy the dip before they do. We got this, ya'll.
To all the FUDers out there:
https://i.imgur.com/3EhSSLY.jpg
Long live KuCoin.
EDIT: I just found an Oct 18, 2017 article here from neonewstoday.com that confirms everything I found above:
"Kucoin is a new Hong Kong based exchange that began operations last month, with support for both NEO and GAS markets. Originally launched as Kubi.com in China, the company moved their operations to Hong Kong, after regulators forced all Chinese-based exchanges to shut down. Kucoin has since shifted their attention to serve the international market."
submitted by isit2amalready to kucoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin & IRS Auditing - A Podcast Discussion

I recently interviewed Alex Kugelman, a tax controversy lawyer - I asked him about IRS audits in relation to crypto trading. Below is a link to the podcast interview itself, as well as a summary I wrote up. Thought this would be a good place to post (let me know if I'm wrong about that).
BitcoinTaxes Podcast Link

Highlights:
IRS audits are a real possibility for anyone who has traded cryptocurrencies. Our guest today is Alex Kugelman, a tax controversy lawyer with an abundance of knowledge concerning cryptocurrency audits. He's here to share his expertise on IRS cryptocurrency audits, including risk reduction strategies as well as enforcement predictions and misconceptions.
Alex Kugelman specializes in IRS audits. His experience includes four years of Federal government court experience at the U.S. Tax Court and a U.S. District Court. [00:40]
Alex: I'm an attorney out in California. I clerked for a US District Court judge and as well as the United States Tax Court. I've been in private practice exclusively doing tax controversy work for the past five years or so. I kind of got involved with crypto towards the end of 2016. I tended to represent clients mainly with compliance & disclosure issues with respect to cryptocurrency. I just really like it. Really interesting area.
The Coinbase summons in 2018 played a major role in Alex's interest in crypto audits. [01:19]
Alex: What started me into the crypto space was when the IRS first issued summons for Coinbase. We started getting some interesting calls regarding that. And at that time I thought to myself, this might be an interesting area. So I started following the actual summons enforcement proceeding at the District Court here in San Francisco - from there kind of worked with people under different types of compliance, including international disclosures. Now we're starting to see some of the first cryptocurrency audits come through.
First, let's get a brief rundown of how IRS audits work. [02:00]
Alex: It is important to understand the IRS as an administrative agency and all different layers of it. So when it comes to an audit the term that the IRS uses is an examination and there's three basic levels.
The first is a correspondence exam. That's where you get a letter that says, dear taxpayer, so-and-so reported that you had $100 of interest income that wasn't on your tax return - we're going to increase your tax. If you want to challenge that, you can. And that's basically termed an under reporter notice. That's probably not going to be a cryptocurrency audit if you get that notice.
The next one is an office exam. That is someone in the local IRS office sending you a letter that says, we have selected a certain tax return for audit and we're going to look at these issues. We'd like you to call us to schedule an appointment. That's going to be usually a tax compliance officer that is doing that.
The third and probably the most serious level of exam is a field examination. That's also going to be a local IRS representative, typically a revenue agent. There, the revenue agent may come to your work or ask come to your work or business to kind of conduct the audit.
All three of those are going to start the same: a letter that's sent to you at your most recent address provided to the IRS.
Cryptocurrency audits follow a similar protocol. [05:40]
Alex: I think it's likely that most crypto audits are going to start with one of two things happening. One is that there is information from the Coinbase summons that is inconsistent with what was on a taxpayer's tax return. I think for someone who's involved with that issue, they're going to have a good sense of that one because they should've gotten an email notice from Coinbase.
Or two, the audit notice is going to identify older tax years - 2013, 2014 or 2015 because those are the years that the information related to.
Another reason I think people will get audited is going to be because information on the return is incomplete, in the sense that the taxpayer or the cryptocurrency owner reports some transactions, without enough detail to figure out the actual cost basis.
Does reporting your data in an aggregated fashion increase your chances of being audited? [06:45]
Alex: I mean one - to the extent that there's going to be a lot of taxpayers - a lot of people use TurboTax, right? If that's the way TurboTax is preparing all of those returns, it would seem to me you're kind of in a herd of people like that. And at least it's consistent with what a lot of people are doing. The second part of that is going to be at least those people who have prepare the returns in that manner, they're going to, or should have, the underlying data. So even if it's an aggregate reporting of each asset class as opposed to each individual trade, if there ever were questions then you're going to have your CSV files, you're going to have your Bitcoin.tax exports, you're going to have all the information that you need to back that up.
Alex is an advocate of over-reporting your information to the IRS. [09:30]
Alex: I'm a big proponent of over-reporting - and I don't mean paying too much tax. I just mean including too much information. Because at some point there's kind of two ways that your returned can be flagged: a computer flags the return for some reason or there's a special unit or a person who actually flags it. At the end of the day, a human being will be looking at that return and deciding whether it actually is going to go all the way through to an audit. I want them to completely understand what's being reported, why it's been reported, and if there's too much information, that's fine - it's less likely that someone's going to have more questions.
A crypto audit is very likely to be a field exam - and it's important to hire a good rep. [11:00]
Alex: It's very likely going to be a field exam, which means you're going to have a revenue agent - and those are kind of the best of the best auditors for an IRS audit. And remember - an IRS audit is a civil matter. It is not criminal at this point. Again, it's unlikely that it will become criminal. It is, however, the highest level of audit you're going to get.
If you're going to hire a representative, which you have every right to do, you should contact that person, let them know what's going on and probably have them interface with the auditor. You should receive, as part of the opening notice or letter, the information document request - which is identifying what things to bring for the auditor. Also, it'll tip to what topics might be important. For example the typical things you're going to see will be bank statements, financial or asset account statements, which I view as requesting exchange statements or exchange CSV files. Any documents that show the cost basis for your cryptocurrency trades.
Audits are more art than science. [13:35]
Alex: The auditor has a fair amount of power. So if you play real hardball - that's not going to prevent the auditor from expanding to other years. So when you get that audit notice ,and let's say that you're going to deal with this yourself, the first thing you want to kind of figure out is what are the areas that I wouldn't want to go into, and what are the areas that I don't have good records? That will help guide the way to respond or what information to pull together.
The reality is, and let's just be honest here - for most people reporting cryptocurrency gains, they have all of the information. The IRS does not have much. They might have some records from Coinbase, but it's not as if they have a treasure trove of third party data.
The burden is really going to be, in every audit, on the taxpayer to prove their tax return is correct.
It's difficult to say how lenient the IRS will be regarding past years. [15:35]
Alex: I think the way that I would look at it is that maybe the standard of of records required to really substantiate older years might be a little bit lower for older years as opposed to now because it's different now. There's a lot better information provided by some of the exchanges. There's a lot more software out there to help you, especially for people who are newer to crypto. You should have access to all your bank records. You should still have a lot of emails, reflecting on-ramping off-ramping, or other purchases. You should be able to kind of pull this all together.
I can understand when we have clients who come in and are early adopters and they're missing chunks of information. So I do think that in those types of circumstances, yes, I think there would be a little bit of leniency. But I don't think if you're asking, hey, I reported my gains in 2017 but I never really did it 14, 15 or 16 - I don't think that's going to be viewed very favorably.
It is possible to substantiate your data without all of your records. [19:00]
Alex: I think the first thing is, I mean, outside of cryptocurrency and just generally in audits, how many people have complete records to support everything on their tax return from three years ago? Right? It's just not the reality.
The best source of information in a lot of these cryptocurrency clients are the clients themselves. They kind of know what they did and they can remember. There's some who take good notes and other people don't, but as you go through and ask people: what exchanges have you've been on, what type of coins, if you bought any ICOs, have you ever sold for actual US cash, and have you ever bought goods or services? As you talk through things people tend to recall what happened. We use that information and we cross check that against bank statements, as well as CSV files, to pick out what those transactions look like.
Most people have some sort of records, at least reflecting the transfer in and the transfer back out of that exchange. So you can use historical data and historical pricing information to essentially estimate what that transaction would have been. And then what we do is we provide a written statement summary of what we're doing and why we're doing it.
The other big one that we see all the time - and anybody listening to this, please hear this, do not trade for your friends on your exchange accounts - because that type of commingling causes such major problems. Essentially you are walking into those taxable gains just because you're allowing someone access to the exchange to make sales.
If you need representation for an audit, get representation. [23:00]
Alex: My general rule is that I think experienced representatives are really important. I probably would not hire the CPA that prepared my return unless they were: one, experienced with being a representative in audits. And two, you felt comfortable that they weren't going to go in there with a conflict of interest. But I do think if you're worried about going into audit - hiring a skilled, and experienced rep is really, really important.
If they're experienced with this, they should understand the appropriate ethical standards and go in there and essentially help resolve portions of the audit and move it to a resolution that you can deal with.
Taxpayers actually have a lot of leverage in an audit. And that sounds crazy to say, but there is a lot of truth to that. And so as you're kind of working through the audit itself, you want to make sure that you're not just agreeing to something to be done with it. You're not agreeing to something just because you think that you'll get in more trouble or get a worse result otherwise.
There are important risk-reduction strategies you can utilize to avoid a crypto audit. [28:15]
Alex: The first thing that you really want to do, is just assess; for those of you that are really worried about an audit - just assess what it is you've actually done over the years. When did you start trading, what exchanges were you on, do you have records that reflect on-ramping and off-ramping? And that's going to be your bank account statements. Do you know where you've been, what exchanges you've been on?
For foreign exchanges, there may not be as much of that AML & KYC compliance, but I really believe that you do have reporting requirements under FATCA for FBAR and something called an 8938, which if you listen to the podcast with Tyson, he kind of explains what that is. But it's basically if you have ownership of a foreign bank account or asset, you have certain reporting requirements, whether you've had income or not.
You want to make sure you at least track when you've actually exchanged crypto for cash or vice versa. That's partly because that's one of those areas where when people can get in trouble with some sort of federal investigators - because those types of transactions can be potentially considered money laundering.
For those who believe that they've used like-kind exchange rules to defer taxable gains -you should look on your tax returns to see if you filed the form 8824, which is where like kind exchanges are actually reported. That kind of goes back to the over reporting issue I was talking about before. I think that if you didn't report the actual trades that you're taking like-kind treatment for in past years, I don't know that you've actually taken like-kind treatment to be frank with you. I think, objectively, that might be viewed as just not reporting certain transactions.
You want to make sure that you address these issues sooner rather than later.
1099-K forms can be misleading - to the recipient and, potentially, the auditor. [32:40]
Alex: A 1099-K is actually a merchant processing third party information returns. And it really is typically associated with people who have credit card sales - so it's going to reflect a gross amount and typically on a monthly basis.
It shows the gross amount and what I've seen too is that sometimes transfers actually get caught into that amount as well. So it's not even just gross sales or purchases - it may have other information. So the 1099-K can be really inflated. That's why reconciling that against accounting records is really, really important because that is one of those issues that I think could lead to an exam.
To those who think crypto isn't beholden to tax laws: you are not correct. [37:38]
Alex: The current commissioner of the IRS is Charles Rettig, and he's a really well known practitioner in tax controversy. I know from people that know him well, that he's actually mentioned Reddit as one of the reasons that cryptocurrency enforcement is his number one enforcement priority right now.
The other person that I've seen speak a couple of times is the head of the IRS Criminal Investigation Unit. His name is Don Fort and every year he does a presentation at the National Tax Controversy and Criminal Tax Conference. The last two years cryptocurrency has been number two and number one on his list. As much as the IRS lacks the funding and the manpower that it needs for all the enforcement, the IRS CI are really, really good and they are probably best agency at dealing with cryptocurrency enforcement issues.
I really think that it's gaining steam and I think once the audits from the Coinbase summons kind of get going, I think it's going to be a really scrutinized area. I think the people who have gone through the cost and the pain of disclosing and amending returns and doing everything they can will be happy that they did in a couple of years. I think the other people are going to be sweating it out - I don't know if it's ever really worth it to be honest with you. I would recommend people do their best to get in compliance.
In summary: do your best to report your crypto gains and losses - and don't try to pull one over on the IRS. [42:36]
Alex: For people who have potential issues with past years, one is getting a consistent record and just amending your past years, so they're consistent.
For people who have the foreign account issues - let's just say, for example, had an account with Binance, and that Binance account was never reported. The IRS has disclosure programs that allow you to amend certain returns, pay the tax that you report and pay a penalty, which would be 5% of the the highest account value that you have.
For people who don't want to deal with this, I think taking evasive steps is the best way to get the worst result possible. One of the things that I learned very early in dealing with audits and tax compliance, is that you can always make things worse. I think you really just want to address it and resolve the issue while you have a good opportunity.
We may see criminal prosecution of some of the "big fish" tax evaders from the Coinbase summons. [46:43]
Alex: Yeah, and I think the two things that I'm fairly certain we're going to see: one is we're going to see the IRS use the information provided by Coinbase to start auditing the biggest account holders from that period. I think that's very likely.
Probably the second one that I would say is very likely is that you're going to see limited criminal prosecutions related to cryptocurrency. And these are going to be people that have some sort of level of notoriety, whether actually famous or maybe famous in the cryptocurrency world. That's typically how the IRS and Department of Justice uses limited resources to prosecute criminal tax tax crimes.
Alex is a great guy to reach out to with any audit-related questions, crypto or otherwise. [48:50]
Alex: You can go to my website: www.kugelmanlaw.com. You can email me at [email protected]. I have clients all over the country, international clients. If you need any sort of help, whether that's representing you, or at least doing the nitty gritty audit investigation, we're always willing to talk to people and help them out as best we can.
---
If you would like to request a topic for an interview, or have any questions related to this podcast, you can reach out to me at [email protected].
submitted by Sal-BitcoinTax to btc [link] [comments]

MASTER Bitcoin Dominance In THREE SIMPLE STEPS. Understand the three HOLD States Binance HACKED For 7000 BTC/$40 Million Has Bitcoin Dominance CHANGED Polarity? BAD News for ALTCOINS? Bitcoin Hashrate Swells 25%  Binance Plagiarizes Bitmex  Are Alts Dead? Zignaly BOT Study - Binance Complete Review  March 27 2020 NITRO HUNTING Binance Altcoin Technical Analysis ADA - APPC  March 10 2020 Binance.US - Register today for fast and safe crypto trading

Demand for bitcoin is surging in Ghana, Nigeria and Kenya, attracting investment from the cryptocurrency exchange Binance and a token project by Akon. 2.8 percent of the Bitcoin circulating supply transferred to Binance Wallet A transaction of 500k BTC amounting $4 billion, in a single block cost about $8,000 Bitcoin surpasses $18,000 for the first time @ 00:28. 8 December 2017 $14,277 Bitcoin price historically dropped to ~ $14,000, but later that day it reaches $16,250 15 December 2017 $17,900 Bitcoin price reached $17,900 22 December 2017 $13,800 Bitcoin price loses one third of its value in 24 hours, dropping below $14,000. 5 February 2018 $6,200 “Binance Effect”: ... If individuals were to transact with Bitcoin at the lower USD value prices at the same pace as pre-bear-market, the decline of UTXO cap would be steeper. It is also worth noting that after a significant bear period, the measure does not quickly pick up, at least until the underlying price approaches its previous peak 11. For example, from early 2014 to early 2015, the ... On January 1st 2015, the estimated hashrate stood at 0.033 EH/sec (33PH/sec).From January 2015 to mid-2018, the hashrate grew almost exponentially to highs of 5.5 EH/sec (on August 10th 2018), an increase by more than +15,000%.. However, Bitcoin’s hashrate dropped in the second half of 2018, likely owing to the sustained bear market, which saw the price of BTC dropping from a peak at ... Bitcoin difficulty: Unknown; Predicted Bitcoin hash rate: 11,053,500,000 Gh/S; Actual 2015 statistics (December 2015) Estimated wallets: 17.4 Million wallets (hosted + desktop + mobile) note: calculating the total amount of Bitcoin wallet s is very difficult, this count includes dormant wallet s that have not been touched over long periods of ... Bitcoin's price value more than doubled over the course of 2019, and its price has continued to rise on exchanges in 2020. Try our corporate solution for free! +1 (212) 419-5770 In October 2015, Roger Ver said that bitcoin can worth $2,500, $25,000, or even $250,000 per one coin. According to his words, this cryptocurrency has great potential. #7. Winklevoss Brothers’ BTC Price Prediction. Tyler Winklevoss claims that Bitcoin is a version of gold 2.0. He also says that Bitcoin is better than gold just because it’s portable and devisable. #8. Vinny Lingham Price ... Binance users can now buy Bitcoin with practically all of the fiat currencies in existence; Binance, which is one of the leading cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, has partnered with the peer-to-peer crypto exchange Paxful. Via this partnership, Binance users can now use 167 different fiat currencies to buy Bitcoin. Bitcoin price equal to 15518 dollars a coin. Today's range: $15220 - $15949. The previous day close: $15600. The change was -82, -0.53%.

[index] [14355] [14620] [13793] [21332] [23273] [10159] [6578] [17968] [12091] [7687]

MASTER Bitcoin Dominance In THREE SIMPLE STEPS. Understand the three HOLD States

Binance.US brings you the trusted technology from the world's leading crypto exchange, Binance. Trade your USD for bitcoin, ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies. Trade your USD for bitcoin ... There is considerable risk in bitcoin, altcoin or world market trading, and may not be suitable for all investors. Any trading involves risks including, but not limited to, the potential for ... When to hold BTC, When to hold Alts, and When to be in Stable Coin, using Bitcoin Dominance and Bitcoin Price. Head over to the website https://www.introtocryptos.ca , put your email address in to ... https://introtocryptos.ca/3commas - Binance Companion Tool Cryptocurrency Trading Course - Serving over 2000 students from 70 countries Since 2015 #bitcoin #altcoin #crypto Ledn's first product, Bitcoin-backed loans, gives hodlers access to dollar liquidity without having to sell their bitcoin. This lets you keep the any potential appreciation in your precious bitcoin. Ledn's first product, Bitcoin-backed loans, gives hodlers access to dollar liquidity without having to sell their bitcoin. This lets you keep the any potential appreciation in your precious bitcoin. PRO ALERT Technical Analysis for ADA - APPC - Binance Altcoin Review Head over to the website https://www.introtocryptos.ca , put your email address in to receive the free webinar and other bonus ...

#