In the Daily: Token Delistings, Paybear Is Savvy, Revolut and Hackers

In the Daily: Token Delistings, Paybear Is Savvy, Revolut and Hackers

In this edition of The Daily, crypto exchange Upbit is preparing to delist four tokens, while several projects have accused Kucoin of suggesting market making services to pump their volume and avoid delisting. Also, crypto payment processor Paybear has rebranded to Savvy, and British online bank Revolut is hiring hackers to test its systems.

Also read: Quadrigacx Transfer, Tokenized Bonds, Beam Investment, Rakuten Pay

Upbit Marks Tokens for Delisting

South Korean crypto exchange Upbit has added several tokens – blocktix (TIX), salus (SLS), salt (SALT) and wings (WINGS) – to a category of digital assets that can be delisted in the future. The trading platform provided the reasons for its decision in an announcement published on its website.

The company explained for example that Blocktix, a project to build an event ticket sales platform, has not launched any working products for a long time and is not developing. Similar conclusions have been drawn regarding Wings Dao, a crypto price forecast service, and Salus, a proof of stake coin whose low liquidity exposes it to manipulation.

The salt token has been added to the list due to an inspection launched by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC is investigating the connection between Salt Landing Holdings Inc. and Shapeshift CEO Erik Voorhees, as well as the possibility of fraud in the distribution of the tokens during the 2017 initial coin offering.

Upbit now expects to receive clarifications from the projects and if they are not satisfactory, the exchange will proceed with the delisting of their tokens.

In the Daily: Token Delistings, Paybear Is Savvy, Revolut and Hackers

Kucoin Accused of Blackmailing Coin Projects

Four token projects have reportedly been asked by crypto exchange Kucoin to pay up to $180,000 in fees for volume-boosting services. After their daily trading volumes fell into the bottom 18 percent on the Hong Kong-based platform, Jibrel, Encrypgen, Publica, and Unikrn were told there’s a quick way to recovery, The Block reported, quoting different sources.

Talal Tabbaa, COO of Jibrel, told the outlet that the startup was advised in an email how to improve the volume of its crypto to avoid the risk of being delisted. “Then they recommended market making firms that would help us reach the minimum daily volumes they set for projects. I was honestly shocked at the requests they were making,” he added.

The market makers were supposed to help the project reach a minimum trading volume and remain listed on the exchange. Tabbaa believes that was a proposal to conduct wash trading. “I’m 100% sure. Whenever there’s a guarantee, you know there’s something wrong,” he noted. His company turned down the $180,000 offer.

The team of another project, Encrypgen, was also told how to increase its trading volume through a marketing campaign promoted by Kucoin and allegedly offered at a price of $90,000 in BTC. After the CEO of the company David Koepsell refused to pay for the service, Kucoin eventually delisted its token.

Payment Processor Paybear Rebrands to Savvy

Crypto payment processor Paybear, a company based in the Swiss canton of Zug, has changed its brand name to Savvy. The startup claims to be working with over 3,000 merchants. It now offers an updated version of its core merchant API called Savvy Merchants and a new Savvy Wallet with support for multiple cryptocurrencies. The company, which also says it has already processed over $10 million worth of transactions, is currently expanding its offering into the consumer market. That strategy is part of Savvy’s plans to invest into other areas that demonstrate how cryptocurrencies can be spent and used.

Revolut to Hire Hackers

U.K.-based fintech startup Revolut is planning to improve its cyber security with the help of a team of hackers who will be tasked with breaking into its systems. The plan is to expose potential weaknesses in order to prevent real cyberattacks, data breaches and fraud, The Independent reported.

In the Daily: Token Delistings, Paybear Is Savvy, Revolut and Hackers

According to Paul Heffernan, the online bank’s chief information security officer, the team consisting of five computer experts will monitor security operations and browse the dark web for potential threats. “One of the responsibilities of this team is to come in and just hack all of our own systems for us,” Heffernan explained. The specialists will be hired in the next three months.

What are your thoughts on today’s news tidbits? Tell us in the comments section.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

At there’s a bunch of free helpful services. For instance, have you seen our Tools page? You can even lookup the exchange rate for a transaction in the past. Or calculate the value of your current holdings. Or create a paper wallet. And much more.

Tags in this story




















The Daily






wash trading

Lubomir Tassev

Lubomir Tassev is a journalist from tech-savvy Bulgaria, which sometimes finds itself at the forefront of advances it cannot easily afford. Quoting Hitchens, he says: ”Being a writer is what I am, rather than what I do.“ International politics and economics are two other sources of inspiration.

Blockchain Company CasperLabs Appoints Ethereum Researcher Vlad Zamfir as Lead Architect

Blockchain protocol research and development company CasperLabs has appointed Ethereum Foundation researcher Vlad Zamfir as lead consensus protocol architect, a Medium post by the company reveals on Feb. 22.

CasperLabs is a company trying to develop the so-called correct-by-construction Casper proof-of-stake (PoS) Ethereum (ETH) consensus algorithm. In a PoS cryptocurrency, block creators are chosen by random selection with the consideration of the user’s wealth in the network and, sometimes, the age of his assets that is often referred to as the “coin age.”

Vlad Zamfir infamously stated in March 2017 that Ethereum is not safe, scalable and is an immature technology, while urging the community to not rely on it for critical applications when it’s avoidable.

As Cointelegraph reported in December last year, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin declared that future blockchains with sharding based on PoS will be “thousands of times more efficient.” The higher efficiency, according to Buterin, will make many new decentralized applications (DApps) practical, since the fees would only be a fraction of their current prices.

In the CasperLabs Medium post, Zamfir stated that he believes PoS consensus protocols that are more secure than the blockchains in existence are possible, adding:

“However, I am not sure if the Bitcoin and Ethereum blockchain communities are going to be able to upgrade their protocols.”

In May 2018, a Cointelegraph analysis explained that Casper is expected to help solve excessive energy consumption and “issues with equal access to mining hardware, mining pool centralization, and an emerging market of ASICs.” Alongside sharding, PoS is intended to be Ethereum’s on-chain scaling solution.

Ethereum (ETH) Long-term Price Analysis –– February 23


Ethereum (ETH) Long-term Price Analysis –– February 23


ETHUSD Long-term Trend – Ranging

  • Distribution territories: $180, $200, $220
  • Accumulation territories: $100, $80, $60

Ethereum’s price has recently entered a range after seeing a notable uptrend between February 17 and 18. The cryptocurrency has been hovering around the $140 mark.

Ethereum, ETHUSD, Cryptocompare chartEthereum Chart by TradingView

The cryptocurrency is seemingly seeing the same price action it saw between January 3 and 9. The 14-day SMA has surpassed the 50-day SMA, while the price line is still above both. The Stochastic Oscillators are consolidating within the overbought zone, which indicates the bulls’ pressure hasn’t been weakened.

ETH’s price has been rebounding through a gradual process, and to maintain its current movement it needs to gain momentum between the $140 and $120 marks. Traders are advised to wait for a proper buying set up.

The views and opinions expressed here do not reflect that of and do not constitute financial advice. Always do your own research.

How to Pay Employees With Bitcoin in 2019

pay send bitcoin pay employees in bitcoin How To

How to Pay Employees With Bitcoin in 2019

If employers want to compensate workers in an unconventional way, they may think about doing so with bitcoin. It’s an option some companies have pursued, but it’s not always as straightforward as some enterprises may assume.

Work With a Specialty Company or Accountant

Bitwage is a company that has specialized in the emerging desire that employers have to pay their workers in bitcoin.

Taking this approach does not require employers to go through an onboarding process, and employees get their wages in less than 48 hours no matter where they are. The company made headlines recently by adding the option for U.S.-based employers who receive W-2s to opt for getting paid in bitcoin.

The Future of the Digital Wallet

As of 2017, about 200 employers used Bitwage, and approximately 95 percent of those used the service to pay international workers.

BitPay is another company that got into the bitcoin payroll realm. In 2014, it launched an application programming interface (API) that allowed employers to pay people in bitcoin. However, the current version of the BitPay website doesn’t mention that offering anymore. That likely means Bitwage is the only option for now.

Alternatively, some companies that set up the possibility for people to get paid in bitcoin consulted with accountants who knew the cryptocurrency landscape and helped employers navigate it. If employers are looking for the most straightforward way to go about this type of payment, working with a company like Bitwage is the best bet.

Potential Reasons to Hold Off for Now

Although the option to pay people in bitcoin exists, some caveats could make them want to stick with traditional forms of payment. For example, if companies have remote workers in other countries, the tax implications for bitcoin vary depending on where a person pays taxes.

Also, as the above section shows, assistance is still limited if employers have questions about how to get started. Some businesses may decide that trying to pay their employees with bitcoin 00 is more trouble than it’s worth.

That’s an especially likely conclusion to make if a company leader doesn’t believe there is sufficient interest in bitcoin payments. At Coinbase, for example, people can choose that payment type, but less than half participate.

When employers want to give their workers other options for getting paid, setting up an employee share ownership plan (ESOP) could be a more viable choice. It offers several advantages, including letting employees own stakes in a company through a trust fund and having the ownership amount go up as seniority grows.

Student loan payoffs are another popular but unconventional way to compensate employees. The perk could be especially attractive if loan debt is a significant source of stress for workers.

Which Companies Have Paid in Bitcoin?

It should be evident by now that idea of getting paid for work in bitcoin is still an emerging option that many companies are still only exploring. However, some pioneering enterprises have moved forward by offering it to their employees.

One is GMO Internet Group. It’s a Japan-based internet company that announced the option for people to get their wages in bitcoin would start as of February 2018.

There’s also Earn, which gives gig economy workers the chance to get paid in bitcoin for completing tasks. Working for Bitcoins is a similar site that helps freelancers find clients that will pay them in bitcoin.

Still Not a Mainstream Choice

When employers want to pay their workers with bitcoin, a company such as Bitwage will likely be the most seamless way to do it.

Although some companies let people receive bitcoin payments, the option is still not common in the workplace.

Enterprises should keep that in mind as they consider whether now is a good time to investigate paying in bitcoin or if they should wait to see if a larger adoption rate occurs.

[Note: This guest article was written by Kayla Matthews.]

Also read:

Paying Salaries in Bitcoin is Becoming Trendy

What do you think about getting paid in bitcoin? Share your thoughts below!

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

Thailand Greenlights Japanese Exchange to Operate 4 Crypto Businesses

Thailand Greenlights Japanese Exchange to Operate 4 Crypto Businesses

The Thai government has issued four licenses to a new crypto exchange. Prior to this, only existing exchanges that were in business before the country’s crypto regulation took effect were approved. The first licensed new exchange in Thailand is a subsidiary of a regulated Japanese exchange, Bitpoint.

Also read: SEC Chair Explains Key Upgrades Needed for Bitcoin ETF Approval

New Crypto Exchange Licensed

Japanese corporation Remixpoint Inc. announced on Thursday that its Thai subsidiary, Bitherb Co. Ltd., has obtained four different crypto-related licenses to operate in Thailand. The announcement concurs with the information posted on the website of the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Remixpoint also operates Bitpoint Japan, one of 17 government-approved Japanese exchanges.

With the new licenses, Bitherb can legally operate as a crypto asset exchange, a digital token exchange, a crypto asset broker, and a digital token broker. Currently, it is the only company approved to operate as a digital token broker in the country.

Thailand Greenlights Japanese Exchange to Operate 4 Cryptocurrency Businesses

Bitherb is a crypto exchange and management company co-founded by Bitpoint Japan and Asia Herb Association Bangkok Co. Ltd. The latter owns 60.5552 percent of Bitherb while the former owns 39.4446 percent. The president of Bitpoint Japan, Oda Genki, also serves as an officer of the new Thai entity. Bitpoint also operates in other countries including Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Panama.

Japanese Exchange Approved to Operate 4 Cryptocurrency Businesses in Thailand

Four Licenses

The Thai SEC’s website lists all companies that have been approved to operate crypto-related businesses in Thailand. The country enacted its crypto regulation in May and subsequently approved four companies that had been in business before the regulation took effect. Two companies were rejected.

Licenses have been granted to companies in five categories to date: crypto asset exchanges, digital token exchanges, crypto asset brokers, digital token brokers, and crypto asset dealers. Four companies have been approved to operate both crypto asset and digital token exchanges: Bitcoin Co. Ltd., Bitkub Online Co. Ltd., Satang Corp. Co. Ltd. and now Bitherb. Licenses to operate as a crypto asset broker have been granted to Coins Th. Co. Ltd. and Bitherb. Meanwhile, only Bitherb has been approved as a digital token broker and only Coins Th has been approved as a crypto asset dealer.

Thailand Greenlights Japanese Exchange to Operate 4 Cryptocurrency Businesses
Licenses Bitherb has obtained from the Thail SEC and the finance ministry.

The Thai SEC launched a website last month called “Siang Soong” which means “high-risk” to help educate the general public about cryptocurrencies and tokens. Rapee Sucharitakul, Secretary-General of the Thai SEC, said that “Digital assets are useful as funding tools … and as a medium of exchange.” However, he added that it is a high-risk asset suited for people with the knowledge and understanding of the technology and not necessarily for general investors.

What do you think of Bitpoint getting four different crypto licenses to operate in Thailand? Do you think many more exchanges will follow suit? Let us know in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

Tags in this story


asia herb


















Digital Currency


















Virtual Currency

Kevin Helms

A student of Austrian Economics, Kevin found Bitcoin in 2011 and has been an evangelist ever since. His interests lie in Bitcoin security, open-source systems, network effects and the intersection between economics and cryptography.

Canadian Banks Wary of QuadrigaCX Assets’ Origins, Cite Money Laundering Concerns

Canadian banks have showed hesitation concerning the management of insolvent cryptocurrency exchange QuadrigaCX’s assets, national public broadcaster CBC reports on Feb. 22.

QuadrigaCX has faced financial difficulty following the sudden death of its founder Gerry Cotten, who was the allegedly only one with access to the exchange’s cold wallets.

As Cointelegraph reported earlier this week, QuadrigaCX has sent its remaining crypto assets from its hot wallets to Big Four auditing firm Ernst & Young, the court-appointed monitor overseeing the case. During Friday’s court hearing, lawyers for the Bank of Montreal and the auditing firm reportedly said that the banks are uncomfortable managing the funds, citing the uncertainty of their origin.

Elizabeth Pillon, a lawyer representing Ernst and Young, is quoted by CBC saying that she doesn’t blame the banks for their hesitation since there are allegedly money laundering issues. Pillon also reportedly noted:

“The monitor has serious concerns about finding another institution to hold these funds.”

According to the article, at the end of Friday’s hearing, Justice Michael Wood of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court issued an order that will eventually see the QuadrigaCX money deposited in a Royal Bank account.

Ernst and Young will then use these funds to pay for the ongoing court proceedings, and “the money could also be used to partially compensate 115,000 users of the QuadrigaCX exchange who are owed $260 million” in crypto and cash, CBC notes.

The unwillingness to hold QuadrigaCX’s funds also manifested during the time of its operations, when the exchange was unable to get a bank account because of banks’ reluctance and instead turned to third-party payment processors.

As Cointelegraph reported in November last year, when the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce froze the accounts of the payment processor, the court ruled in favor of the bank, citing concerns over identifying the identities of the funds’ owners.

Cryptocurrency Business Use “Reverse Merger” to Enter Mainstream Markets

Cryptocurrency Business Use “Reverse Merger” to Enter Mainstream Markets

Staying true to their creative nature, several cryptocurrency businesses, especially the exchange platforms are following the “reverse merger” approach to move close to mainstream markets, reports South China Morning Post, February 22, 2019.

Taking the Back-Door Entry

Leave it to the brains in the crypto industry to circumvent any obstacle thrown their way.

An increasing number of cryptocurrency exchanges are inching closer to mainstream financial markets by purchasing listed companies and then aiming to raise firms by camouflaging as a veteran of the traditional financial services industry they once despised.

The latest example of the aforementioned approach is February 11, 2019, deal which saw the US-based crypto broker-dealer Voyager Digital sneak its way into the Toronto Venture Exchange after it acquired a controlling stake in a mineral exploration company called UC Resources.

A major upside to this “back door” approach is that it doesn’t require the companies to go through the excruciating and tiring process of a full initial public offer (IPO).

Fei Ding’an, managing partner at Ledger Capital, a digital asset investment firm said:

“Many [cryptocurrency] exchanges have put a lot of strategic effort into trying to legitimize their operations and their reputations, and for some there’s an assumption that having some exposure to the traditional public market will help.”

In fact, Voyager Digital isn’t the first firm to follow the relatively less straining route to mainstream markets.

In January 2019, Star Xu led OKC Holdings acquired 60.5 percent stake in a Hong Kong-listed construction firm named LEAP Holdings for $61.69 million.

Regaining the Lost Confidence

Exposure to mainstream markets could help re-establish the confidence lost in cryptocurrency businesses in recent times.

The industry, especially the cryptocurrency exchanges, have had their goodwill tarnished continually due to unfortunate events like hack attacks, money laundering, and security mechanism failures.

BTCManager reported on September 19, 2018, how the New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood’s office slammed cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance,, and Kraken for running their operations without obtaining the mandatory licenses and breaking the city’s digital currency regulations.

On a more recent note, the dramatic story surrounding Canada’s Quadriga CX has again highlighted the need for a robust and secure exchange platform that puts customer’s safety at the top of their priority list.

Like BTCMANAGER? Send us a tip!

Our Bitcoin Address: 3AbQrAyRsdM5NX5BQh8qWYePEpGjCYLCy4

51% Attacks for Rent : The Trouble with a Liquid Mining Market

Anthony Xie is the founder of HodlBot, a tool that helps investors diversify their portfolios and automate their trading strategies.


In order to remain decentralized, cryptocurrencies using a proof-of-work system must not allow a single party to control the majority of total hashing power.

But as the global pool of hashing power grows more liquid, cryptocurrencies need to pass another important test. They must be able to resist an attack from the total rentable global hashing power for their specific algorithm. Otherwise, arbitrageurs may find it financially attractive to rent hashing power in order to perform 51% attacks.

There are a few things preventing this from happening:

  • Algorithm-specific miners — Many rigs are optimized for a certain hashing algorithm, and switching to another, e.g. SHA-256 → X11, is unfeasible.
  • Illiquid mining market — Most of the global hash power is illiquid and not rentable. Therefore, a large upfront investment is required to build significant hashing power. The upfront cost for an attack is almost always not worth it.
  • Opportunity cost — Cryptocurrencies are usually designed to heavily favor good actors by providing them with greater rewards for acting in the benefit of the entire network. Any attack must outweigh the risk of failure including loss of mining rewards, loss of reputation and damage to the network. Long-term miners do not want to destroy their future earning potential by successfully attacking a network, shaking market confidence, and causing the price to fall.

But times are changing. The mining market is becoming more liquid.

Why is the liquid mining market growing?

Computer storage was once an illiquid market, now it is an extremely liquid online commodity. The same thing is happening to hash power.

There are two major forces driving this.

  1. The long-run price increase of cryptocurrency will incentivize miners to invest in hashing power until any incremental gain is equal to the cost. In other words, if prices continue to go up, so will global hashing power.
  2. The total percentage of hashing power for rent will increase because buyers and sellers both benefit from the ability to rent and lend respectively. Separation of concern leads to higher degrees of specialization and increased operational efficiency. This is why hardware manufacturers sell their mining rigs and don’t mine themselves. If renters focus all of their time on finding opportunities with the highest amount of ROI, they are likely going to be the best at extracting value per unit of hashing power.Conversely, lenders can de-risk their business because their rental income is implicitly diversified across each entire hashing algorithm. In this world, lenders can simply focus on rental relations, asset utilization, and upkeep.

Rent-a-miner attacks are already possible

Crypto51 calculates how much it would cost to rent enough hashing power to match the given network hashing power for an hour. NiceHash does not have enough hashing power for most larger coins, so this figure is sometimes theoretically above 100 percent.

Hash rates are from Mine the Coin, coin prices are from CoinMarketCap, and rental pricing is from NiceHash.

A few caveats:

  • The quoted attack costs do not include the money you earn in the form of block rewards, so in many cases, the costs will actually be substantially lower.
  • Crypto51 is quoting the spot price for what is available on NiceHash. In real life, the more you rent, the more expensive it will be because of supply and demand.

Coins vulnerable to rent-a-miner attacks

Ranked by Market Cap

ETP is the #91 ranked coin on CMC. You can rent up to 21x the network’s hashing power. The cost of an attack is only $162 per hour. ETP/BTC and ETP/USD pairs are available on Bitfinex.

Vulnerable coins assuming 2x the rental capacity

Currently, these coins are out of reach since the total rental capacity available on NiceHash is not enough to fully match the network’s hashing power.

But let’s imagine the likely circumstance that NiceHash is able to 2x their total rental capacity. Now coins like ETC (rank 18), BCN (rank 40), are easily in reach.

Vulnerable coins assuming 5x the rental capacity

A 5x increase in rental capacity puts coin like DASH (rank 15) and BTG (rank 28) in danger.

So what if 51% attacks are possible? How do attackers make money?

Fortunately, it’s impossible to ever create a transaction for a wallet that you do not own the private key to. But, controlling the majority hashing power means you can execute a double spend attack by temporarily reverting certain transactions on the ledger.

The mechanics of a double spend attack

When miners find a new block, they are supposed to broadcast this to all other miners so that they can verify it, and add a new block to the blockchain. However, a corrupt miner can create their own blockchain in stealth.

To execute a double-spend, the attacker will spend his or her coins on the truthful chain. But they will leave out these transactions on the stealth chain.

If the corrupted miner can build a longer chain faster than all the other miners on the network, they can broadcast the stealth chain to the rest of the network.

Because the protocol adheres to the longest chain, the newly broadcasted corrupt chain will become the de facto, truthful blockchain. The transaction history for the attacker’s previous spend will be erased.

Note that just because a miner controls 51% of hashing power, does not mean they will always have a longer chain. In long-run they will probably have a longer chain. To guarantee this in the short-run, an attacker would likely want to control closer to 80% of the network power.

Where to spend the coins? Exchanges are likely the target

For a double-spend to pay-off, you need to find a way to actually extract value from the spent coins. If you can’t spend the coins in the first place, there’s no point.

The most likely place an attacker would spend their coins on is an exchange because they are the single biggest buyers of various cryptocurrencies.

Here’s what the attack would look like:

  • Choose a target network that looks profitable
  • Accumulate a significant amount of coins on the target network
  • Rent NiceHash hashing power and silently grow the stealth chain
  • Trade these coins on an exchange for another currency e.g. BTC
  • Withdraw BTC to another wallet.
  • Broadcast the stealth chain to the network
  • Get the initial coins back
  • Repeat with a different exchange.

How exchanges will likely respond

As you can probably imagine, exchanges do not enjoy being bamboozled. If this kind of behavior becomes too costly for them, they will likely respond by increasing security surrounding withdrawal periods, deposit periods, and account verification.

Waiting longer for withdrawal will make it more costly for attackers, as they must then maintain the majority hashing power for longer. But this also draws the ire of legitimate traders and exchange users who already complain about the inordinate time it takes to get their cryptocurrencies out.

Another way exchanges may respond is by carefully screening coins that are so easily compromised. However, delisting coins also mean a reduction in trading volume and revenue. I hope this happens, because altcoins that are solely used for speculation, are in dire need of an existential threat.

Ultimately, we’ll likely see a combination of both. The harder it becomes to successfully get away with a double-spend attack, the less money an attacker can justify spending. In the long-run, the balance of these two forces will converge on some market equilibrium.

How cryptocurrencies will respond

Altcoins may find new ways to combat this threat by:

  • Using more obscure algorithms for which there are few miners. This is at best a band-aid solution. Fewer miners for your algorithm means it’s difficult to grow your hashing power. If your network grows, then the algorithm will no longer be obscure.
  • New projects may be to stake their security on the blockchains of larger networks. e.g. ERC-20. Pushing for new consensus algorithms that are more resilient to 51% attacks e.g. proof of stake. POS isn’t perfect though and has challenges of its own.

Big is beautiful

How much larger is the rental market going to grow? It’s not inconceivable to witness a 100x increase, so how many coins are really safe?

Coins with high market caps and low cost of attack are particularly fallible. Given that this is true, will the market respond accordingly by discounting insecure coins? Conversely, will the market place a premium on cryptocurrencies with mammoth mining networks?

To quote a Hacker News comment:

“Rent-a-miner attacks seem like another amusing example of when the emergence of a market can break a system. Satoshi foresaw people trying to mount a 51% attack by buying a ton of machines, and so he went to great lengths to ensure this was unlikely using mining. I don’t think Satoshi foresaw the liquid AWS-like market for instant hashing power. The ability to mount a limited-time 51% attack makes the attack literally 1000x easier than a buy-machine 51% attack.”

Oil slick image via Shutterstock

Coinbase CEO on Misconceptions About Cold and Hot Storage of Private Keys


On Thursday (February 21st), Brian Armstrong, Co-Founder and CEO of Coinbase, decided to address, in an article for Fortune, four common misconceptions about cold and hot cryptoasset custody solutions.



by explaining that “hot” in this context means online (i.e. connected to the internet) and “cold” means offline (i.e. not connected to the internet); naturally, the former implies a much greater risk of attack by hackers.

First, Armstrong says that it is not true that “you can’t trade crypto using funds in cold storage.” In fact, he says, some crypto custody solutions, such as Coinbase Custody, “let you trade over-the-counter (OTC) using delayed settlement,” which means that they let you trade the cryptoassets they are holding for you in cold storage, and the actual transfer out of cold storage only happens after the trade has been executed.

Another company that allows this is BitGo, which


on January 16th that it had partnered with Genesis Global Trading (one of the largest crypto over-the-counter brokers) to allow BitGo Trust clients to “easily execute buy and sell orders without having to manage keys or move their assets from the industry’s most secure cold storage.”

BitGo launches partnership with Genesis Global Trading. Now BitGo clients can Buy/Sell with Genesis directly from cold storage

Second, Armstrong notes that it is wrong to believe that “you can’t ‘stake’ (or earn interest on) funds in cold storage.” One example of a crypto project that uses a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism with a staking model that works with cold storage is Tezos, and he explains below:

“… you can delegate your funds in cold storage to a “baker” and earn interest. The baker, which acts as the staking equivalent of a miner in the Bitcoin example, keeps a smaller percentage of funds online—and those don’t need to be customer funds. In other words, customer funds are kept safely offline but are still fully able to participate in the network, earning a yield for the customer.”

Third, the Coinbase CEO argues that cold storage does not mean “relying on a single authorized user who could lose funds,” and that a “well-designed crypto custody solution doesn’t rely on any single person,” rather using “multiple keys to achieve consensus and redundancy,” with larger transactions requiring more signatures.

Fourth, he explains that although hardware security modules (HSMs) as part of a custody architecture can provide very good security, they are not as quite safe as cold storage, which forces hackers to perform some kind of physical attack in order to get access to private keys.

Finally, he explains that there is a place for both hot and cold storage solutions:

“Hot storage is best when customers need real-time access to funds, measured in minutes or seconds. In exchange for this, there is some additional security risk, which can be mitigated, in keeping funds live on the Internet.

Cold storage is best when security is paramount, typically when storing larger amounts. As I mentioned above, you can still trade and stake funds in cold storage, but the price you pay is that the time it takes to withdraw funds is typically measured in hours. Depending on how difficult you want to make the withdrawal of funds that may be a pro, not a con.”

Featured Image Credit: