Bitcoin Update: Staying above the buffer zone for BITSTAMP ...

Classic Ether Market & Trading Discussion

Ethereum has forked and moved to a new chain. This sub is for the discussion of the Ethereum chain which didn't move the coins.
[link]

Murmurs of the Sea | Monthly Portfolio Update - March 2020

Only the sea, murmurous behind the dingy checkerboard of houses, told of the unrest, the precariousness, of all things in this world.
-Albert Camus, The Plague
This is my fortieth portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal.
Portfolio goal
My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars).
This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent.
Portfolio summary
Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $662 776
Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $39 044
Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $74 099
Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $109 500
Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $150 095
Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) – $29 852
Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $197 149
Telstra shares (TLS) – $1 630
Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $7 855
NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $6 156
Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $119 254
Secured physical gold – $19 211
Ratesetter (P2P lending) – $13 106
Bitcoin – $115 330
Raiz* app (Aggressive portfolio) – $15 094
Spaceship Voyager* app (Index portfolio) – $2 303
BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 492
Total portfolio value: $1 566 946 (-$236 479 or -13.1%)
Asset allocation
Australian shares – 40.6% (4.4% under)
Global shares – 22.3%
Emerging markets shares – 2.3%
International small companies – 3.0%
Total international shares – 27.6% (2.4% under)
Total shares – 68.3% (6.7% under)
Total property securities – 0.2% (0.2% over)
Australian bonds – 4.8%
International bonds – 10.4%
Total bonds – 15.2% (0.2% over)
Gold – 8.8%
Bitcoin – 7.4%
Gold and alternatives – 16.2% (6.2% over)
Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio.
Comments
This month saw an extremely rapid collapse in market prices for a broad range of assets across the world, driven by the acceleration of the Coronavirus pandemic.
Broad and simultaneous market falls have resulted in the single largest monthly fall in portfolio value to date of around $236 000.
This represents a fall of 13 per cent across the month, and an overall reduction of more the 16 per cent since the portfolio peak of January.
[Chart]
The monthly fall is over three times more severe than any other fall experienced to date on the journey. Sharpest losses have occurred in Australian equities, however, international shares and bonds have also fallen.
A substantial fall in the Australia dollar has provided some buffer to international equity losses - limiting these to around 8 per cent. Bitcoin has also fallen by 23 per cent. In short, in the period of acute market adjustment - as often occurs - the benefits of diversification have been temporarily muted.
[Chart]
The last monthly update reported results of some initial simplified modelling on the impact of a hypothetical large fall in equity markets on the portfolio.
Currently, the actual asset price falls look to register in between the normal 'bear market', and the more extreme 'Global Financial Crisis Mark II' scenarios modelled. Absent, at least for the immediate phase, is a significant diversification offset - outside of a small (4 per cent) increase in the value of gold.
The continued sharp equity market losses have left the portfolio below its target Australian equity weighting, so contributions this month have been made to Vanguard's Australian shares ETF (VAS). This coming month will see quarterly distributions paid for the A200, VGS and VAS exchange traded funds - totalling around $2700 - meaning a further small opportunity to reinvest following sizeable market falls.
Reviewing the evidence on the history of stock market falls
Vladimir Lenin once remarked that there are decades where nothing happen, and then there are weeks in which decades happen. This month has been four such weeks in a row, from initial market responses to the coronavirus pandemic, to unprecedented fiscal and monetary policy responses aimed at lessening the impact.
Given this, it would be foolish to rule out the potential for other extreme steps that governments have undertaken on multiple occasions before. These could include underwriting of banks and other debt liabilities, effective nationalisation or rescues of critical industries or providers, or even temporary closure of some financial or equity markets.
There is a strong appeal for comforting narratives in this highly fluid investment environment, including concepts such as buying while distress selling appears to be occurring, or delaying investing until issues become 'more clear'.
Nobody can guarantee that investments made now will not be made into cruel short-lived bear market rallies, and no formulas exist that will safely and certainly minimise either further losses, or opportunities forgone. Much financial independence focused advice in the early stages of recent market falls focused on investment commonplaces, with a strong flavour of enthusiasm at the potential for 'buying the dip'.
Yet such commonly repeated truths turn out to be imperfect and conditional in practice. One of the most influential studies of a large sample of historical market falls turns out to provide mixed evidence that buying following a fall reliably pays off. This study (pdf) examines 101 stock market declines across four centuries of data, and finds that:
Even these findings should be viewed as simply indicative. Each crisis and economic phase has its unique character, usually only discernible in retrospect. History, in these cases, should inform around the potential outlines of events that can be considered possible. As the saying goes, risk is what remains after you believe you have thought of everything.
Position fixing - alternative perspectives of progress
In challenging times it can help to keep a steady view of progress from a range of perspectives. Extreme market volatility and large falls can be disquieting for both recent investors and those closer to the end of the journey.
One perspective on what has occurred is that the portfolio has effectively been pushed backwards in time. That is, the portfolio now sits at levels it last occupied in April 2019. Even this perspective has some benefit, highlighting that by this metric all that has been lost is the strong forward progress made in a relatively short time.
Yet each perspective can hide and distort key underlying truths.
As an example, while the overall portfolio is currently valued at around the same dollar value as a year ago, it is not the same portfolio. Through new purchases and reinvestments in this period, many more actual securities (mostly units in ETFs) have been purchased.
The chart below sets out the growth in total units held from January 2019 to this month, across the three major exchange trade funds holdings in the portfolio.
[Chart]
From this it can be seen that the number of securities held - effectively, individual claims on the future earnings of the firms in these indexes - has more than doubled over the past fifteen months. Through this perspective, the accumulation of valuable assets shows a far more constant path.
Though this can help illuminate progress, as a measure it also has limitations. The realities of falls in market values cannot be elided by such devices, and some proportion of those market falls represent initial reassessments of the likely course of future earnings, and therefore the fundamental value of each of those ETF units.
With significant uncertainty over the course of global lock-downs, trade and growth, the basis of these reassessments may provide accurate, or not. For anyone to discount all of these reassessments as wholly the temporary result of irrational panic is to show a remarkable confidence in one's own analytical capacities.
Similarly, it would be equally wrong to extrapolate from market falls to a permanent constraining of the impulse of humanity to innovate, adjust to changed conditions, seek out opportunities and serve others for profit.
Lines of position - Trends in expenditure
A further longer-term perspective regularly reviewed is monthly expenses compared to average distributions.
Monthly expenditure continues to be below average, and is likely to fall further next month as a natural result of a virus-induced reduction of shopping trips, events and outings.
[Chart]
As occurred last month, as a function some previous high distributions gradually falling outside of the data 'window' for the rolling three-year comparison of distributions and expenditure, a downward slope in distributions continues.
Progress
Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below.
Measure Portfolio All Assets Portfolio objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 71.9% 97.7% Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 87.7% 119.2% Total expenses – $89 000 pa 70.2% 95.5%
Summary
This month has been one of the most surprising and volatile of the entire journey, with significant daily movements in portfolio value and historic market developments. There has been more to watch and observe than at any time in living memory.
The dominant sensation has been that of travelling backwards through time, and revisiting a stage of the journey already passed. The progress of the last few months has actually been so rapid, that this backwards travel has felt less like a set back, but rather more like a temporary revisitation of days past.
It is unclear how temporary a revisitation current conditions will enforce, or exactly how this will affect the rest of the journey. In early January I estimated that if equity market fell by 33 per cent through early 2020 with no offsetting gains in other portfolio elements, this could push out the achievement of the target to January 2023.
Even so, experiencing these markets and with more volatility likely, I don't feel there is much value in seeking to rapidly recalculate the path from here, or immediately alter the targeted timeframe. Moving past the portfolio target from here in around a year looks almost impossibly challenging, but time exists to allow this fact to settle. Too many other, more important, human and historical events are still playing out.
In such times, taking diverse perspectives on the same facts is important. This Next Life recently produced this interesting meditation on the future of FIRE during this phase of economic hardship. In addition, the Animal Spirits podcast also provided a thoughtful perspective on current market falls compared to 2008, as does this article by Early Retirement Now. Such analysis, and each passing day, highlights that the murmurs of the sea are louder than ever before, reminding us of the precariousness of all things.
The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
submitted by thefiexpl to fiaustralia [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

SAPE Inc. wrote a quick review on Jibrel Network

Jibrel Network
Name:
According to Muslim belief, God revealed the Quran to the Islamic prophet Muhammad through the angel Ǧibrīl - (Gabriel in English) This divine messenger was the emissary of God who connected the heavens to the terrestrial plane. In choosing the name Jibrel, the project leaders aim to be the bridging point between the earth, i.e contemporary traditional finance, and the heavens: finance of the future conducted on the blockchain.
Team:
-Talal Tabbaa(Co-founder, Business Development Leader): Is a part part of the founding team having graduated as an industrial engineer from Purdue university. His professional career prior to Jibrel involves financial advisory with Price Waterhouse Cooper and managing a private Saudi investment fund for a member of the royal family (~3 Bn AUM).
-Yazan Barghutti(Co-founder, Project Lead): Yazan is a UCL chemical engineer whose previous roles centred around management consultancy and data science spheres within the Oliver Wyman and Deloitte organisations. He has advised assets of over 1 trillion $ and has extensive experience in capital and financial markets in the US and GCC. He has extensive experience in capital and finance markets within the USA and GCC, managing assets over 1 trillion dollars in total.
-Victor Mezrin(Co-founder, CTO): Victor graduated with a masters Degree in physics from Moscow State University, and is a veteran in the crypto field having run one of the top 3 mining pools (pool.mn). He has over 10 years technical experience along with proficiency in C++,C, Python, Java, C#, PHP, JavaScript and solidity programming languages.
-Hamzeh Kolaghassi(Operations Lead): Hamzeh graduated from Marymount University and started working in the financial field as a financial advisor and investment manager in 2011.
-Nick Marinin: (UX/UI dev)

-Aleksey Selikhov Developer (Back-end)

-Ivan Violentov Developer (Front-end)

-Nikita Shchipanov (Web Analyst)

-Rust Khusyainov (Illustrator)

-Aleksey Smirnov (DevOps Engineer)

-Yuriy Homyakov Developer (Back-end)

-Nikita Shchipanov (Web Analyst)

-Anna Bordunova (Public Relations)

Further recruitment was confirmed in May 2018.
Advisors: -Don Tapscott: This legendary investor, business manager and author has become a big name in the blockchain scene in recent years, being best known for his consulting position on the ICON project and his bestselling book, The Blockchain Revolution. Tapscott’s authship is by no means limited to cryptocurrency and his book Wikinomics was a bestseller on the business book charts. -Moe Levin: Levin is also an all-star of the crypto scene. Since 2013 he organizes conferences for all industry representatives. His keynote conferences are among the most influential in the industry and he hold advisory positions on many promising projects. -Abbaz Zuaiter, Zuaiter was Chief Operating Officer of Soros Fund Management between 2002 and 2013. -Ruslan Gavrilyuk (CryptoFinance Advisor CEO & Founder of TaaS Fund) -Saul Hudson (Communications Advisor, GM at Thomson Reuters) -Mohammad Al Sehli (MENA Advisor, CEO & Founder of Arabian Chain)
If one was to compare the panel of advisors for each and every project in cryptocurrency, The Jibrel Network’s board of advisors would certainly be within the top 1 percentile. They have struck the right balance in their blend of experts within blockchain and within he world of conventional finance, so that the project is connected to every area of business and finance it needs to be in order to develop the vision of the founders. A perfect example of this is Don Tapscott’s presentation to Bank of England in March 2018 where he extolled the virtues of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.
ICO: The ICO ran from 27/11/2017, to 27/12/2017, ending weeks before it was supposed to, and saw all 155 million ERC-20 JNT tokens sold at a price fixed at 0.25 USD. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum were accepted during the token sale in addition to fiat contributions facilitated by Bitcoin Suisse AG. The revenues in Bitcoin and Ethereum were sold immediately after the ICO (at $ 300 an ether and $ 4500 for a bitcoin) to avoid speculation with investors' funds. The remaining 45 million JNTs that have been withheld are paid out to the team after 3-5 years. The extreme length of the token locking period for team members shows the huge amount of confidence that the project leaders have in this project.
Vision:
In order to understand the vision of Jibrel in more detail, one must look at the state of the contemporary financial system. On the one hand, we have classic investment products such as bonds, gold, real estate, company shares and Fiat. Let's take a look at how transactions involving traditional assets will operate. Currently, we have a concentration of power where individual financial intermediaries clear the transactions for high fees. In addition, 2 billion people worldwide have no access to traditional banking and therefore rely on service providers MoneyGram or Western Union for international remittances.
The fees involved in transactions using Western Union for example can be exhorbitant and sometimes prohibitive. Other negative aspects of these kinds of service providers are the lengthy wait for transactions to clear and the effect of weekends and bank holidays on service operations. Through use of blockchain technology it is possible to avoid all of these negative aspects of current payment systems and transfer value in an extremely cheap safe and speedy manner, with possession of a mobile device being the only necessity within this new method of transacting.
However, the volatility risk is not to be understated. If we put ourselves in the position of a manual laborer from India who works in Dubai and earns just enough to send $ 100 a month to his family back home, we can better analyse the advantages and disadvantages of each form of transaction . For various reasons, be it regulations, the length of stay or simply because of the associated fees, the worker has no bank account with which he can transfer the money. The only way to send money free of volatility and without being tied to a bank account is to pay the approximate $10 processing fee to a service provider like Western Union, a fee which can mean 10-15% less cash sent home to relatives.. The cheaper and faster alternative would be to buy $100 worth of cryptocurrencies in Dubai and to make a simple blockchain transaction to send the corresponding value in rupees back to India. At first glance, this may seem like a more attractive alternative but drawbacks such as price volatility as well as tax and legal implications must be considered. The value of the cryptocurrency purchased may fluctuate by as much as 10% between purchase in Dubai and receipt in Indian and the resulting profit could be subject to capital gains tax.
Products:
The Jibrel Network’s range of products are aimed at tackling problems such as the scenario described above as well as many other inefficiencies and failings in the current financial system. The first and most significant of these the Crypto Depository Receipt (CryDR) builds on the existing depository receipt instrument in order to facilitate global transactions involving currencies or securities. The total volume of depository receipts issued in 2016 was $2.9 trillion which shows the potential magnitude of the endeavour the project founders are undertaking.
For example, Jibrel, in collaboration with central banks, will initially issue $USD, AED and KRW on the Ethereum Blockchain as so-called jCash tokens. Which can then be purchased in exchange for the JNT token. For our example, this means that the worker in Dubai buys the JNT token and then sends it to Jibrel. In return, he receives dirham tokens, so-called jAED in the same value. The tokens he receives remain stable in value regardless of market volatility, allowing them to be used as a potential means of payment weeks later, or to be converted back to fiat currency. Besides the peer-to-peer crypto-fiat JCash initiative, The Jibrel Network plans to tokenize a great many other financial instruments as CryDRs, such as bonds, gold, company shares and real estate. At present, there are many pilots on going between Jibrel and distinguished institutions that are in future make use of the technology. Jordan's Central Bank and the DFSA (Dubai's Financial Service Authority) are known to be taking part as in pilots we speak. Moreover, Talal confirmed at a conference that a central bank of one Europe nation is also piloting with Jibrel, however the name of the country has not been made public yet.
Use cases:
The issuance of shares by CryDR will be piloted usually in cooperation with a venture capital firm. In the future, cost-intensive IPOs of small companies can be replaced by the issuance of CryDRs, which can then be acquired with the JNT token. According to Jibrel founders, registering and trading real estate on the blockchain proves to be a difficult proposition. There are numerous bureaucratic obstacles that must be traversed and legislative progression to be made by the respective governmental entities of individual countries before the trading of land or real estate is possible on the blockchain. Some countries are committed to the introduction of blockchain technologies on a wide scale which will run parallel to their current systems and eventually may replace them, which will allow the trade of real estate to flourish in future. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has announced that the country's primary goal is to largely replace the bureaucracy by 2020 with the use of blockchains.
Bigger picture:
It is important to clarify the economic implications associated with the issuance of assets on the blockchain. A small business IPO can cost up to 500000 USD and involve regulatory hurdles that prohibit the majority of small time investors from participating. Alternatively, it was possible for companies seeking funding to be funded by venture capital. Liquidity and access to risk capital has so far been limited due to the lack of an open and transparent risk capital market. The increased liquidity provided by blockchain technology enables company shares and real estate to be traded worldwide in the smallest of volumes, with an internet connection being the only prerequisite for inclusion in the system. Extensive new opportunities are now available to investors, startups and estate agents. For example, a construction project or a start-up can be financed by several thousand investors, who then count as legal owners of the property / start-up. In this innovative system entrepreneurs are less reliant on the capital provided by a few large investors, with the investor base expanded. Furthermore, the "smart regulation" of the tokens allows the automated cash flow between the creditors and debtors, so, for example, rent payments of the tenants can automatically be paid in the form of jcash to the owners. This phenomenon of global financial inclusion is why ICOs have become the most popular startup fundraising tool - now Jibrel will attempt to transfer the liquidity and egalitarian benefits of using a blockchain to the classic economy.
Token Economics:
In general, one has to ask the question in blockchain projects whether a separate token is necessary or whether the decentralization goal of the project makes sense The ultimate goal of Jibrel is to be a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that manages the operational business without human influence through smart contracts. The Jibrel founders use the story of Pinocchio as a metaphor for their future development. Currently Jibrel is still a wooden doll that needs a puppeteer, which in this case is still the team. As soon as all regulatory and technical preparations have been made, Jibrel, like Pinocchio, is freed from the strings of it’s puppeteers and acts autonomously. The founders hope that at the end of this process the first decentralized bank will have been born.
Now, the question arises as to why the Jibrel Network uses its own token to secure values ​​rather than using an established cryptocurrency. For one thing, Jibrel is not the typical project based on short-term hype cycles and wants to maintain the the most stringent levels of legal compliance possible. The commitment to legal compliance is an essential requirement for any company seeking to operate in the financial services industry and was the core reason for the company making Switzerland the country within which to base its operations. Switzerland is one of the few countries that make high demands on projects but also gives a clear regulatory framework within which to operate. These include commitment to KYC, AML and other legal guidelines that emphasize the trustworthiness of the project. The issuance of a separate token allows the Jibrel organisation to maintain an independent legal compliance record which would not be possible if Jibrel were to take Ethereum as a collateral in the conducting of its operations. If the Ether token was used in place of the Jibrel Network Token the whole Jibrel project would be at the mercy of the regulatory health of the Ethereum Project, over which it would have no control. Similarly the stability of the Jibrel Project would be subject to the extremely volatile cryptocurrency market’s valuation of the Ether token, which would be disastrous for investor confidence.
The solvency, and thus the disbursement ability of the organization is achieved by depositing the CryDR using its own JNT token. If you wish to tokenize an asset the Jibrel DAO removes the captured JNT from circulation, decreasing the amount of JNT in circulation and consequently increasing the value of all remaining circulating JNT. If an asset is liquidated the previously locked up JNT are brought back into the market. In order to increase the number of tokens owned by the organization, Jibrel will provide its own products and services that charge the fee in the form of the JNT Token. One of the most important of these products is the jWallet, a cryptocurrency wallet with a far superior user interface and performance of its competitors. The alpha of the jWallet was published before the ICO and the beta version is in development with an expected release date of around the end of Q2.
Probably the most interesting and urgently needed product in the field of infrastructure is the blockchain explorer jSearch, which allows the user to view transactions on all blockchains. Existing solutions such as etherscan.io or etherchain.org provide only rudimentary insight and an unsatisfactory user experience. For example, jSearch can be used as a tool to search, filter and bookmark already-issued assets. It is safe to infer rom all the information available that the Jibrel Network is a serious startup attempting to ensure long term solvency by exploring alternative sources of revenue. The resulting Jibrel ecosystem will eventually become in a sense an isolated market within which the performance of other cryptocurrencies plays no role.
challenges:
The implementation of such a paradigm shift will naturally see many hurdles and challenges present themselves. The project stands and falls with the speculative volatility of the market, which can act so irrationally that the buffers of the deposits are not sufficient to counteract the undervaluation and the solvency of the organization is no longer ensured. For example, Jibrel announced that the first product, jCash, will initially only be deposited off-chain due to market volatility, meaning that for the time being no deposit of JNT is required to issue Fiat. As soon as volatility on the market decreases and Jibrel has enough equity to compensate for any shortfalls, all CryDRs will need a JNT deposit as this is the only way to ensure full decentralization of the organization. However, mechanisms such as off-chain / on-chain arbitrage ensure that undervaluation of assets is prevented. In order to get the most realistic token value, Jibrel is currently developing its own blockchain to decouple itself from the Ethereum blockchain and the events on the market. The in-house blockchain jCore is currently under development. Details on the consensus algorithm and the release date will be announced.
Milestones:
-SEED backing/ Office
-Jordan
-JWallet
-EEA
-VQF
-DSFA in Dubai
-MAMA
submitted by Crillus to JibrelNetwork [link] [comments]

Anyone moving their retirement accounts to cash?

I am not sure whether this correction we're in is all we're going to see as a pullback on this parabolic trend the market is in or whether there is going to actually be a major 50% pullback like past recessions. We are definitely overdue for a recession and I definitely feel a market sentiment similar to Bitcoin in December. Everyone is just so excited everything is just going up but that is usually when the rug get pulled out from under.
I am not very knowledgeable in fundamental analysis, I'm more of a Technical Analysis guy and if you look at a weekly chart of /ES, we are absolutely due for a major pullback.
I've also been watching a lot of videos of major fund managers saying that there is no doubt that there will be a 50% pullback within the next year. There are things they talk about regarding fed rates, inflation and US debt but I don't really understand how those things directly affect stock prices and what triggers major sell offs.
Would love to hear opinions from some people who are concerned about the same thing. I would just hold through it but I just got my retirement account going about a year ago and I don't really have enough gains to buffer a 50% pullback.
submitted by longhorn2118 to investing [link] [comments]

Report I by Stablecoin Research Institute - The Difficulties and Future of Stablecoin

Report I by Stablecoin Research Institute - The Difficulties and Future of Stablecoin
https://preview.redd.it/pnnmh4gt6ng21.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a94528a71b7c6e2db9ea746116afeec8d7b1c51

Bitcoin was originally conceived to be outside the fiat money system as an electronic cash system for a new world. However, at present, the currency standard is still the fiat money standard. The envisaged bitcoin-based settlement system still has no foundation or a wide consensus on the value of the currency standard.
As a compromise, many stablecoins provide a temporary solution for the ecology through a 1:1 anchorage of U.S. dollar, with third-party bank custody becoming mainstream. The rapid growth of Tether and the loss of market share in the face of competition have added more uncertainty to the current market. The decentralization scheme provided by MakerDAO was slightly weak in the initial competition but the reputation gradually accumulated. As the market deepens, cryptocurrencies based on more regional legal currencies are gradually coming online, and people are beginning to try different chain payment attempts.
This article refers to the article Stable Digital Currency Manual by co-founder of Zhibao Mikko, trying to explore the difficulties and future of stablecoin from a currency perspective.

The Difficulties of Bitcoin Settlement System
When it comes to stablecoins, the original idea of Bitcoin has to be mentioned ---- a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Over the past decade, a series of expansions have been made in the blockchain technology and Bitcoin. In people's minds, Bitcoin will be a new generation of the world's monetary system, independent of the fiat money (US dollar) system, to de-intermediate transaction transfers and asset storage, to eliminate asset losses caused by the bank's centralized risk, and put an end to the harvest of wealth brought about by hyperinflation.
In reality, Bitcoin does have somehow established its own trading system - such as black market transactions in the dark network. Dark network commodity trading uses Bitcoin as a medium, and buyers and sellers are also happy to configure a portion of Bitcoin as a value reserve. On the other hand, Bitcoin is the most common trading medium among cryptocurrency exchanges for a long time before the popularity of USDT. Some people said, “Bitcoin is the real stablecoin.” In addition to observing the fluctuations in the value of the fiat money, the traders of various cryptocurrencies will also pay attention to the relationship between cryptocurrency and the bitcoin trading pair. But in this case, this so-called bitcoin-based trading system still has several problems.

https://preview.redd.it/679bncm37ng21.jpg?width=788&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dbbb630b286a87eb3b1a38ac48cabac4b653bf83

The first is the currency standard: even if some people regard Bitcoin as a gift, they have long believed that Bitcoin will eventually level the volatility and increase the index, but even the so-called beliefs are usually denominated in fiat money (US dollar, Euro, RMB). That is to say, the first problem with Bitcoin is that there is no pricing power. In other words, Bitcoin cannot perform the settlement function extensively in the holder's daily life. The daily benchmarking consensus based on Bitcoin in a wide range is that it doesn't exist at all.
In China, a Coke is 3 RMB, and in the US it is 1 US dollar. The two are under their respective independent settlement systems. If the person in one of the systems happens to come to another system, such as a Chinese who first bought a Coke in the United States, the first reaction is likely to be a cup of 6.71 yuan. Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency does not have a similar settlement system under the independent monetary framework.
In the case that it is not possible to participate extensively in daily pricing, the currency standard is the fiat money standard. For members of the cryptocurrency community, the actual fiat money-based thinking does not directly affect the willingness of buyers and sellers to use Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies for physical purchases, but when Bitcoin’s price against fiat money falls into huge downward fluctuations, it rejects the situation of receiving cryptocurrencies is inevitable.
So the second question directly promotes the strong demand for stablecoins: currency price fluctuations. On the other hand, it should be realized that Bitcoin does not have a complete settlement system and a broad and stable price consensus based on the system; on the other hand, since the initial definition of Bitcoin was an innovation independent of the traditional financial system, even if it is far from the original concept, the community consensus based on the decentralization and token incentives is different from the traditional financial system.
So for a long time, the market could not price bitcoin with the traditional asset framework. The triumph of 2017 has made the society more aware and acknowledged about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency systems. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange CME has put on bitcoin futures at the end of the year. At the same time as government regulation gradually intervenes, the OTC exchange network outside the market is also getting better and better, and the pricing of bitcoin is starting to break away from fanaticism. At the end of 2017, the isolationism of various countries has become stronger, the pace of interest rate hikes of the FED has sped up, and global asset preferences have also undergone subtle changes towards safe-haven assets. China’s domestic capital has advocated “cash is the king” and Bitcoin has entered a down cycle.
As noted above, upside volatility can also encourage traditional merchants to participate in speculation, but downside volatility has caused most merchants to lose their willingness to treat Bitcoin as a currency. In 2018, with the increasingly strong bear market in the cryptocurrency world, the demand for safe-haven and stable-price trading media in the encryption community has skyrocketed, and countless stablecoin projects have been launched. At the same time, Tether, which occupied the absolute market share of stablecoins in 2017, continued to expand against the trend of black box operations.

Third Party Intermediary - Compromise of Fiat Money Stablecoins
The hot currency-backed stablecoin is undoubtedly a compromise of the cryptocurrency market against traditional currencies.
As Nakamoto said in the Bitcoin White Paper, “trade on the Internet almost requires financial institutions to act as trusted third parties to process electronic payment information. Although such systems work well in most cases, such systems are still endogenously constrained by the weakness of the 'trust based model'... We really need an electronic payment system that is based on cryptography rather than credit, making any parties that have reached an agreement can make payments directly, eliminating the need for third-party intermediaries."
Although the article refers to the payment process in the transaction, it is the same in terms of collateral custody. The trust of third-party financial institutions in this mode is inevitable. Trust means that when the custodian bank secretly misappropriates collateral or bankrupts for any reason, the user's assets will be difficult to guarantee, abbreviated as SPOF single point of failure.
But the good news is that when the market competition is fully carried out, the user as a whole is divided into several different groups, and different fiat money stablecoin products with different audit processes under different banks are used. A single point of failure of an individual project does not affect the continued operation of other stablecoin products; and the community response to a single company's evil or potential evil is greatly magnified as the number of competing products increases.
Taking Tether as an example, the giants who once occupied more than 95% of the market share of the stablecoin market finally ignited the trust crisis in the long-term refusal of transparent auditing, and the market share plummeted. In the foreseeable future, Tether will gradually liberalize its transparency and optimize its relationship with users to maintain its current market share. The stablecoin competing products that continue to enter the market will form a continuous multi-disciplinary force on existing projects in the market to promote market improvement and relief centralized risk.

The Rise and Blockage of Tether
The real rise of stablecoin is actually symbolized by Tether's exponential growth in 2017. From the eve of the dawn of 2017 to the day after 20 months, Tether's market value has skyrocketed from less than $7 million to more than $2.8 billion, a 400-fold increase.

USDT Year Chart (green - currency price; blue - market value)

In 2018, the hot stablecoin market, USDT's exclusive access to the stablecoin, and stablecoin’s widespread dissatisfaction with the rejection of third-party audits attracted many competitors. In March, True USD (TUSD) was transparently managed. The name entered the competition. Around October, stablecoins such as USDCoin (USDC), Gemini Dollar (GUSD) and Paxos Standard (PAX), which had strong background, compliance audit and good asset transparency, went online. At about the same time, perhaps the pressure from friends and merchants has soared. It is a coincidence that Tether has successively experienced a series of scandals and then the price collapsed in mid-October, and evaporated 40% of the market value in the following month. After a series of cycles, the situation gradually eased.
The four consecutive stablecoins mentioned above seized the market share and expanded rapidly in the next few months. In the month before the deadline, Tether's stablecoin market share was stable at around 70%, and the remaining market share was occupied by the top four newcomers. In the process of grabbing the market, there were fluctuations, including the only US compliance encryption. The progress of the USDC issued by the currency exchange COINBASE is the most eye-catching, and its market value accounts for about 10% of the overall stablecoin market at the time of writing.

https://preview.redd.it/wk591kvn7ng21.jpg?width=731&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39a89384cf7b848f50fee6884e109038ac0dc6c6

A simple conclusion is that Tether can still be stable even after the crisis, thanks to Tether's first-mover advantage in its existing position on global exchanges and the high liquidity it represents. The three basic functions of money are pricing units, value storage, and trading media, while liquidity is their common subtext.
The unit price provided by a currency lacking liquidity cannot obtain broad consensus of money users. The lack of consensus leads to price disorder, and the currency thus loses the valuation value. As a value storage and trading medium, it will miss trading object and depth due to low liquidity and cannot complete the basic function as a currency. Although the new four-dollar collateral stabilized currency occupies its place in the start of the competition with Tether, Tether sits on a whole bull market with a trading history that has a relatively complete trading pair coverage in the world's major exchanges; In addition to the full coverage of the exchange, USDT also has a sound OTC network construction, providing the most direct portal for stocks and potential incremental users. Under the superposition, Tether's endogenous and exogenous liquidity advantages are particularly evident, and even in the case of black box scandals, it can still occupy a fairly strong market share. But with the gradual gradual competition, peer supervision and the gradual enrichment of user-selectable products, Tether's fault-tolerant space for future strategies is not as optimistic as imagined.

HUSD - Self-contained Stablecoins
In response to the October crisis in Tether, the Fire Currency Exchange launched a HUSD Stabilization Coin program.
In this scheme, the Firecoin users will automatically convert to HUSD when they recharge the PAX, TUSD, USDC, and GUSD. HUSD has no actual issuance process, but simply a unit of pricing corresponding to four types of stablecoin recharge. After the user converts one of the stablecoins into HUSD, he or she can freely choose any one to redeem.
The program not only helps users to spread the centralization risk of a single fiat money stablecoin, but also helps the four stable coins to complete the group on the fire currency exchange to cope with the existing liquidity competitive advantage of the USDT. But on the other hand, the user's use of HUSD is based on trust in the fire currency exchange, in other words another single point of failure risk. Therefore, in order to dilute the risk of centralization, it is still necessary to transparently deal with the specific schemes of the fire currency exchange, and the supervision of the fire coins by the community, especially other exchanges.

Decentralization Breakout of Stablecoin
At present, a number of currency-backed stablecoins, led by USDT, cover almost all of the market capitalization and liquidity of the stablecoin market.
In this case, MakerDAO's DAI is extraordinarily precious. The DAI Stabilized Currency System generates a stablecoin DAI through over-collateralization of cryptocurrency. Most of the functions within the system are implemented or planned through the deployment of smart contracts, such as chain generation and redemption of stable coins, management of collateral, and so on. In addition to the DAI as a stablecoin, as a dual currency system, there is another governance currency called MKR in MakerDAO. Governance currency holders support the system's decentralized governance functions while enjoying the overall benefits of the system, and provide additional funding buffers for the system in events such as abnormal currency fluctuations.
In MakerDAO's overall vision, the system first endorses the credit of the stablecoin through the chain of excess collateral, while the interest generated by the credit function (the essence of DAI generated by the mortgage cryptocurrency is a lending process), the collateral under abnormal fluctuations The profit from the flat penalty triggered by Ping and the more financial derivative function to support the system's self-operation.
One of the biggest conflicts between the community and the cryptocurrency collateral currency is the risk exposure of the collateral in the warehouse when the cryptocurrency generates a stablecoin. Although in theory the users of the stablecoin can be separated from the mortgagor, the mortgagor can be a more risk-tolerant group, such as an eager borrower, a professional user of financial instruments, etc., but since the stablecoin is issued The identity of the person itself is subject to a natural limitation based on the degree of risk aversion, and its supply has an additional limit.
On the other hand, there is a limited source of information about Ethereum as a single collateral: the mortgagor is limited to holders of Ethereum. In MakerDAO's plan, the multi-collateral version of the system will gradually improve with iteration, and the achievement of this program will effectively reduce the risk of the MakerDAO collateral asset portfolio and increase the potential DAI generation limit. Ample supply and liquidity of the DAI will help activate the system in more possibilities on the market.

https://preview.redd.it/kjbefyb18ng21.jpg?width=950&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0fb8f3892c3d50f5549460acbb26c45773a2cc3

Compared to the competition between the four newcomers and the USDT, the position of MakerDAO is quite different. If the user's choice between the four newcomers and the USDT is a trade-off between liquidity (product usability) and security, then between USDT and DAI is liquidity (product usability) and decentralized belief. The trade-off. As far as the market is concerned, MakerDAO's dual currency system seems to explain better how the project side can continue the project through the circulation of profits. Many of the fiat money-backed stablecoin projects have always wondered whether they will realize their own coinage rights in the future and thus harm the user's property rights.
As a successful decentralized stablecoin project, MakerDAO is one of the most successful projects on Ethereum. This is both a tribute to the MakerDAO development path: the development of other projects (dApp) on the Ethereum and the overall robustness of the ecology. As the second generation of the public chain, Ethereum pioneered the concept of smart contract, which is a milestone in the development of application on the chain. However, in the course of many years of development, the performance of the main network and the fragmentation technology have been delayed. So although MakerDAO claims that DAI will have many chain advantages as ERC20 tokens, it seems that the eApp side of Ethereum has not seen a good development momentum.
It is worth mentioning that in the performance of the public chain and dApp development, the EOS public chain has developed rapidly since the launch of the main network in 2018. If EOS has a stablecoin project like MakerDAO, and can properly handle potential security issues in the operation process (such as the potential risks caused by the scalability of the contract, etc.), there is much to be done. After all, in addition to seeking cooperation under the chain, the pricing system of cryptocurrency is more important to find and create niches that belong only to the world of cryptocurrency. A robust dApp ecology with a constant need for stable coins or the only possible form of this niche.

Choice Outside the U.S. Dollar
The few stablecoins currently circulating the most are anchoring the US dollar. There is no doubt that the status of the dollar in the current world currency system is irreplaceable. The bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies described in the beginning of the article lack the independent settlement system, and the US dollar is the extreme of the other end – the currency with the most complete settlement framework in the world.
From the gold standard to the Bretton Woods system, to the current global commodity and foreign exchange trading system centered on the US dollar-oil trading system, the three functions of currency pricing, storage and circulation are reflected in the US dollar. As the currency with the most universal purchasing power and deep trading depth, the US dollar has naturally become the primary anchor for many stablecoins that pursue international influence. The dependence of the stablecoin on the US dollar is a last resort. While stabilizing the dollar, the stablecoin not only enjoys the liquidity advantage brought by the dollar, but also inherits the volatility risk of the dollar itself. Although the US dollar is still the most trustworthy currency on a macro level, if A's main payment scenario is in Country A, and Country A's currency has a large appreciation of the US dollar due to market factors, then the asset holding the anchored US dollar. Bringing a higher base point risk to A.
Among the many non-US dollar currencies, the yen is one of the most distinctive currencies. The Japanese government has a positive attitude towards blockchain technology. In April 2017, it recognized the legal payment status of Bitcoin and formulated a series of laws and regulations for the exchange. At the same time, Japan is also one of the most active participants in the cryptocurrency market. At the end of 2018, Japanese IT giant GMO Internet announced that it plans to introduce a yen-linked cryptocurrency in 2019 to prepare for the next phase of cross-border settlement. The emergence of a liquid currency-stable yen stablecoin will not only help Japanese crypto community members to better participate in daily market behavior, but also help cross-border currency settlement. In addition, due to Japan’s domestic economic structure, monetary policy has maintained ultra-low interest rates for a long time. Under this premise, investors are more willing to invest in sovereign countries with higher interest rates, especially the United States. When the United States is in turmoil, funds are largely returned to the yen, which has a very low risk attribute, which raises the yen and lowers the dollar. Therefore, the emergence of the yen stablecoin can also provide a better safe haven for holders of USD stabilized coins such as USDT in the potential dollar crisis.
In addition to the yen, the private sector or the government of Australia, the euro zone and other countries are also involved in the development and deployment of their domestic currency stablecoin. While the vast majority will still be a similarly centralized bank hosting model, it should still be seen as an improvement and rationally expecting a more equitable and efficient system.

The Future Direction of the Stablecoin
As mentioned at the beginning of the article, the original idea of the cryptocurrency community for Bitcoin was to create a decentralized financial system that would be independent of the traditional monetary system. However, due to the lack of an independent and complete settlement system, or the lack of a broad currency-based pricing consensus, the cryptocurrency world cannot be formed into a real monetary system, and it has to rely on the attachment to the US dollar or other currencies to achieve long-term scenarios. Valuation of prices in cryptocurrencies, etc. Although Bitcoin itself has the believer of the currency standard, the foundation of the belief is mostly based on the re-exponential rise of the price of the bitcoin, which is still the thinking of fiat money.
Given that there is a consensus that goods can only be denominated in currency A in the payment and settlement system of country A, if the cryptocurrency world wants to form an independent payment settlement system, the best pricing unit for the purchase should be cryptocurrency. The anchoring of the U.S. dollar and other fiat money is just to use the currency attribute (otherwise the currency credit cannot be established), and will destruct the consensus to regard cryptocurrency as the best pricing unit and establish an independent monetary system (the cost of convenience). The power of habit is hard to overcome, and the habit of paying the currency of a chain certainly needs to be achieved by the widespread purchase of assets on the chain. This process requires gradual improvement of the payment scenario between stablecoin systems and dApps.
The cryptocurrency eco-walls we mentioned above are based on the hope of this exclusive chain-based settlement system. The simple dApp on the chain is obviously not enough. We also have two topics to be studied in the chain payment scenario and asset chaining. Users must complete the process from chain to chain and back to chain to integrate cryptocurrency pricing into everyday habitual thinking.
Then, the stablecoin will gradually deepen into people's daily life after several decades, while the banknotes gradually withdraw from the trading scene, and the sub-generation gradually accepts the new cryptocurrency value settlement system.


Reference:
Stable Digital Currency Manual (http://wisburg.com/2018/07/03/稳定数字货币手册/)
submitted by Starteos to eos [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to btc [link] [comments]

SAPE Inc. wrote a quick rundown on Jibrel Network

Jibrel Network
Name:
According to Muslim belief, God revealed the Quran to the Islamic prophet Muhammad through the angel Ǧibrīl - (Gabriel in English) This divine messenger was the emissary of God who connected the heavens to the terrestrial plane. In choosing the name Jibrel, the project leaders aim to be the bridging point between the earth, i.e contemporary traditional finance, and the heavens: finance of the future conducted on the blockchain.
Team:
-Talal Tabbaa(Co-founder, Business Development Leader): Is a part part of the founding team having graduated as an industrial engineer from Purdue university. His professional career prior to Jibrel involves financial advisory with Price Waterhouse Cooper and managing a private Saudi investment fund for a member of the royal family (~3 Bn AUM).
-Yazan Barghutti(Co-founder, Project Lead): Yazan is a UCL chemical engineer whose previous roles centred around management consultancy and data science spheres within the Oliver Wyman and Deloitte organisations. He has advised assets of over 1 trillion $ and has extensive experience in capital and financial markets in the US and GCC. He has extensive experience in capital and finance markets within the USA and GCC, managing assets over 1 trillion dollars in total.
-Victor Mezrin(Co-founder, CTO): Victor graduated with a masters Degree in physics from Moscow State University, and is a veteran in the crypto field having run one of the top 3 mining pools (pool.mn). He has over 10 years technical experience along with proficiency in C++,C, Python, Java, C#, PHP, JavaScript and solidity programming languages.
-Hamzeh Kolaghassi(Operations Lead): Hamzeh graduated from Marymount University and started working in the financial field as a financial advisor and investment manager in 2011.
-Nick Marinin: (UX/UI dev)

-Aleksey Selikhov Developer (Back-end)

-Ivan Violentov Developer (Front-end)

-Nikita Shchipanov (Web Analyst)

-Rust Khusyainov (Illustrator)

-Aleksey Smirnov (DevOps Engineer)

-Yuriy Homyakov Developer (Back-end)

-Nikita Shchipanov (Web Analyst)

-Anna Bordunova (Public Relations)

Further recruitment was confirmed in May 2018.
Advisors: -Don Tapscott: This legendary investor, business manager and author has become a big name in the blockchain scene in recent years, being best known for his consulting position on the ICON project and his bestselling book, The Blockchain Revolution. Tapscott’s authship is by no means limited to cryptocurrency and his book Wikinomics was a bestseller on the business book charts. -Moe Levin: Levin is also an all-star of the crypto scene. Since 2013 he organizes conferences for all industry representatives. His keynote conferences are among the most influential in the industry and he hold advisory positions on many promising projects. -Abbaz Zuaiter, Zuaiter was Chief Operating Officer of Soros Fund Management between 2002 and 2013. -Ruslan Gavrilyuk (CryptoFinance Advisor CEO & Founder of TaaS Fund) -Saul Hudson (Communications Advisor, GM at Thomson Reuters) -Mohammad Al Sehli (MENA Advisor, CEO & Founder of Arabian Chain)
If one was to compare the panel of advisors for each and every project in cryptocurrency, The Jibrel Network’s board of advisors would certainly be within the top 1 percentile. They have struck the right balance in their blend of experts within blockchain and within he world of conventional finance, so that the project is connected to every area of business and finance it needs to be in order to develop the vision of the founders. A perfect example of this is Don Tapscott’s presentation to Bank of England in March 2018 where he extolled the virtues of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.
ICO: The ICO ran from 27/11/2017, to 27/12/2017, ending weeks before it was supposed to, and saw all 155 million ERC-20 JNT tokens sold at a price fixed at 0.25 USD. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum were accepted during the token sale in addition to fiat contributions facilitated by Bitcoin Suisse AG. The revenues in Bitcoin and Ethereum were sold immediately after the ICO (at $ 300 an ether and $ 4500 for a bitcoin) to avoid speculation with investors' funds. The remaining 45 million JNTs that have been withheld are paid out to the team after 3-5 years. The extreme length of the token locking period for team members shows the huge amount of confidence that the project leaders have in this project.
Vision:
In order to understand the vision of Jibrel in more detail, one must look at the state of the contemporary financial system. On the one hand, we have classic investment products such as bonds, gold, real estate, company shares and Fiat. Let's take a look at how transactions involving traditional assets will operate. Currently, we have a concentration of power where individual financial intermediaries clear the transactions for high fees. In addition, 2 billion people worldwide have no access to traditional banking and therefore rely on service providers MoneyGram or Western Union for international remittances.
The fees involved in transactions using Western Union for example can be exhorbitant and sometimes prohibitive. Other negative aspects of these kinds of service providers are the lengthy wait for transactions to clear and the effect of weekends and bank holidays on service operations. Through use of blockchain technology it is possible to avoid all of these negative aspects of current payment systems and transfer value in an extremely cheap safe and speedy manner, with possession of a mobile device being the only necessity within this new method of transacting.
However, the volatility risk is not to be understated. If we put ourselves in the position of a manual laborer from India who works in Dubai and earns just enough to send $ 100 a month to his family back home, we can better analyse the advantages and disadvantages of each form of transaction . For various reasons, be it regulations, the length of stay or simply because of the associated fees, the worker has no bank account with which he can transfer the money. The only way to send money free of volatility and without being tied to a bank account is to pay the approximate $10 processing fee to a service provider like Western Union, a fee which can mean 10-15% less cash sent home to relatives.. The cheaper and faster alternative would be to buy $100 worth of cryptocurrencies in Dubai and to make a simple blockchain transaction to send the corresponding value in rupees back to India. At first glance, this may seem like a more attractive alternative but drawbacks such as price volatility as well as tax and legal implications must be considered. The value of the cryptocurrency purchased may fluctuate by as much as 10% between purchase in Dubai and receipt in Indian and the resulting profit could be subject to capital gains tax.
Products:
The Jibrel Network’s range of products are aimed at tackling problems such as the scenario described above as well as many other inefficiencies and failings in the current financial system. The first and most significant of these the Crypto Depository Receipt (CryDR) builds on the existing depository receipt instrument in order to facilitate global transactions involving currencies or securities. The total volume of depository receipts issued in 2016 was $2.9 trillion which shows the potential magnitude of the endeavour the project founders are undertaking.
For example, Jibrel, in collaboration with central banks, will initially issue $USD, AED and KRW on the Ethereum Blockchain as so-called jCash tokens. Which can then be purchased in exchange for the JNT token. For our example, this means that the worker in Dubai buys the JNT token and then sends it to Jibrel. In return, he receives dirham tokens, so-called jAED in the same value. The tokens he receives remain stable in value regardless of market volatility, allowing them to be used as a potential means of payment weeks later, or to be converted back to fiat currency. Besides the peer-to-peer crypto-fiat JCash initiative, The Jibrel Network plans to tokenize a great many other financial instruments as CryDRs, such as bonds, gold, company shares and real estate. At present, there are many pilots on going between Jibrel and distinguished institutions that are in future make use of the technology. Jordan's Central Bank and the DFSA (Dubai's Financial Service Authority) are known to be taking part as in pilots we speak. Moreover, Talal confirmed at a conference that a central bank of one Europe nation is also piloting with Jibrel, however the name of the country has not been made public yet.
Use cases:
The issuance of shares by CryDR will be piloted usually in cooperation with a venture capital firm. In the future, cost-intensive IPOs of small companies can be replaced by the issuance of CryDRs, which can then be acquired with the JNT token. According to Jibrel founders, registering and trading real estate on the blockchain proves to be a difficult proposition. There are numerous bureaucratic obstacles that must be traversed and legislative progression to be made by the respective governmental entities of individual countries before the trading of land or real estate is possible on the blockchain. Some countries are committed to the introduction of blockchain technologies on a wide scale which will run parallel to their current systems and eventually may replace them, which will allow the trade of real estate to flourish in future. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has announced that the country's primary goal is to largely replace the bureaucracy by 2020 with the use of blockchains.
Bigger picture:
It is important to clarify the economic implications associated with the issuance of assets on the blockchain. A small business IPO can cost up to 500000 USD and involve regulatory hurdles that prohibit the majority of small time investors from participating. Alternatively, it was possible for companies seeking funding to be funded by venture capital. Liquidity and access to risk capital has so far been limited due to the lack of an open and transparent risk capital market. The increased liquidity provided by blockchain technology enables company shares and real estate to be traded worldwide in the smallest of volumes, with an internet connection being the only prerequisite for inclusion in the system. Extensive new opportunities are now available to investors, startups and estate agents. For example, a construction project or a start-up can be financed by several thousand investors, who then count as legal owners of the property / start-up. In this innovative system entrepreneurs are less reliant on the capital provided by a few large investors, with the investor base expanded. Furthermore, the "smart regulation" of the tokens allows the automated cash flow between the creditors and debtors, so, for example, rent payments of the tenants can automatically be paid in the form of jcash to the owners. This phenomenon of global financial inclusion is why ICOs have become the most popular startup fundraising tool - now Jibrel will attempt to transfer the liquidity and egalitarian benefits of using a blockchain to the classic economy.
Token Economics:
In general, one has to ask the question in blockchain projects whether a separate token is necessary or whether the decentralization goal of the project makes sense The ultimate goal of Jibrel is to be a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that manages the operational business without human influence through smart contracts. The Jibrel founders use the story of Pinocchio as a metaphor for their future development. Currently Jibrel is still a wooden doll that needs a puppeteer, which in this case is still the team. As soon as all regulatory and technical preparations have been made, Jibrel, like Pinocchio, is freed from the strings of it’s puppeteers and acts autonomously. The founders hope that at the end of this process the first decentralized bank will have been born.
Now, the question arises as to why the Jibrel Network uses its own token to secure values ​​rather than using an established cryptocurrency. For one thing, Jibrel is not the typical project based on short-term hype cycles and wants to maintain the the most stringent levels of legal compliance possible. The commitment to legal compliance is an essential requirement for any company seeking to operate in the financial services industry and was the core reason for the company making Switzerland the country within which to base its operations. Switzerland is one of the few countries that make high demands on projects but also gives a clear regulatory framework within which to operate. These include commitment to KYC, AML and other legal guidelines that emphasize the trustworthiness of the project. The issuance of a separate token allows the Jibrel organisation to maintain an independent legal compliance record which would not be possible if Jibrel were to take Ethereum as a collateral in the conducting of its operations. If the Ether token was used in place of the Jibrel Network Token the whole Jibrel project would be at the mercy of the regulatory health of the Ethereum Project, over which it would have no control. Similarly the stability of the Jibrel Project would be subject to the extremely volatile cryptocurrency market’s valuation of the Ether token, which would be disastrous for investor confidence.
The solvency, and thus the disbursement ability of the organization is achieved by depositing the CryDR using its own JNT token. If you wish to tokenize an asset the Jibrel DAO removes the captured JNT from circulation, decreasing the amount of JNT in circulation and consequently increasing the value of all remaining circulating JNT. If an asset is liquidated the previously locked up JNT are brought back into the market. In order to increase the number of tokens owned by the organization, Jibrel will provide its own products and services that charge the fee in the form of the JNT Token. One of the most important of these products is the jWallet, a cryptocurrency wallet with a far superior user interface and performance of its competitors. The alpha of the jWallet was published before the ICO and the beta version is in development with an expected release date of around the end of Q2.
Probably the most interesting and urgently needed product in the field of infrastructure is the blockchain explorer jSearch, which allows the user to view transactions on all blockchains. Existing solutions such as etherscan.io or etherchain.org provide only rudimentary insight and an unsatisfactory user experience. For example, jSearch can be used as a tool to search, filter and bookmark already-issued assets. It is safe to infer rom all the information available that the Jibrel Network is a serious startup attempting to ensure long term solvency by exploring alternative sources of revenue. The resulting Jibrel ecosystem will eventually become in a sense an isolated market within which the performance of other cryptocurrencies plays no role.
challenges:
The implementation of such a paradigm shift will naturally see many hurdles and challenges present themselves. The project stands and falls with the speculative volatility of the market, which can act so irrationally that the buffers of the deposits are not sufficient to counteract the undervaluation and the solvency of the organization is no longer ensured. For example, Jibrel announced that the first product, jCash, will initially only be deposited off-chain due to market volatility, meaning that for the time being no deposit of JNT is required to issue Fiat. As soon as volatility on the market decreases and Jibrel has enough equity to compensate for any shortfalls, all CryDRs will need a JNT deposit as this is the only way to ensure full decentralization of the organization. However, mechanisms such as off-chain / on-chain arbitrage ensure that undervaluation of assets is prevented. In order to get the most realistic token value, Jibrel is currently developing its own blockchain to decouple itself from the Ethereum blockchain and the events on the market. The in-house blockchain jCore is currently under development. Details on the consensus algorithm and the release date will be announced.
Milestones:
-SEED backing/ Office
-Jordan
-JWallet
-EEA
-VQF
-DSFA in Dubai
-MAMA
submitted by Crillus to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Free Litecoin App Hack - Earning app hack 2019 Bid / Ask Spread  Trading Terms - YouTube This Is How Warren Buffett REALLY Made 85 Billion Dollars Warren Buffett reveals his investment strategy and ... 'When the next recession comes there is going to be a lot ...

Bitcoin Charts. All 1y 6m 3m 1m 7d 1d. Bitcoin Markets. Exchange Pair Last price 24 volume; Coinbase Pro: BTC/USD $ 13,091 $ 117.03M Bitfinex: BTC/USD $ 13,088 $ 47.73M Bitstamp: BTC/USD $ 13,079 $ 47.32M Kraken: BTC/USD $ 13,092 $ 45.40M FTX: BTC/USD $ 13,085 $ 31.07M Coinsuper: BTC/USD $ 13,087 $ 24.74M Livecoin: BTC/USD $ 13,025 $ 14.59M Gemini: BTC/USD $ 13,098 $ 14.12M Btc-Alpha: BTC/USD ... How Bitcoin is helping to buffer inflation in Africa Bitcoin is a digital currency which is neither issued, manipulated, nor controlled by any central bank or authority. TradingView India. Bitcoin dropped more than I expected (my low was $6800), but we are still seeing higher lows. Volume is weak, but since the shorter term trend is bearish, this could simply be due to supply drying up. What I see here is a buffer zone instead of a trend line, this zone has been respected for well over 6 months. Staying above or inside this zone would be bullish. Live Bitcoin prices from all markets and BTC coin market Capitalization. Stay up to date with the latest Bitcoin price movements and forum discussion. Check out our snapshot charts and see when there is an opportunity to buy or sell Bitcoin. CryptoCompare needs javascript enabled in order to work. Follow these instructions to activate and enable JavaScript in Chrome. PC. To the right of the ... Bitcoin had been closing in on $10,000, but it fell nearly 6% Sunday and was down another 2% Monday to just over $9,300. Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (), has been a bitcoin bear for ...

[index] [17359] [30403] [40332] [22028] [9983] [32451] [26848] [26137] [24925] [40356]

Free Litecoin App Hack - Earning app hack 2019

Gossip Room est une communauté sur les réseaux sociaux, créée il y a 7 ans, qui regroupe aujourd’hui des millions de passionnés d’actualité TV, people, série... Download Preston's 1 page checklist for finding great stock picks: http://buffettsbooks.com/checklist Preston Pysh is the #1 selling Amazon author of two boo... In this tutorial, I will show you how to retrieve LIVE stock information using the Excel Stocks Data feature. The Excel Stock Data type is a feature availabl... Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway chairman and CEO, talks about volatility in the market, the value of American business and what to look for when investing... The difference between the buy and sell price (also known as bid and ask) is one of those things that mystifies newbies. We’re not used to having two prices ...

#