EOS Long-term Price Analysis – 24 November

/latest/2018/11/eos-long-term-price-analysis-24-november/

EOS Long-term Price Analysis – 24 November

eos-long-term-price-analysis-24-november

EOSUSD Long-term Trend – Bearish

Distribution territories: $6, $7, $8

Accumulation territories: $3, $2, $1

This week’s trading sessions have seen EOS lose a significant portion of its value against the USD. A strong Japanese bearish candlestick emerged on November 19, breaking the cryptocurrency’s expectations to move north past some distribution territories.

EOS, EOSUSD, Cryptocompare chartEOS Chart by TradingView

Last week, EOS saw its price decline significantly. Its 50-day SMA is located above the 14-day SMA. Its price is below both SMAs. The Stochastic Oscillators moved into the oversold zone and are currently consolidating within it, suggesting the bears are still strong.

The bearish trend is expected to last for the next few days, until a prove movement manages to break northwards of the $3.8 and $4 marks. The $4 and $3 marks could, however, turn out to be EOS’ new range.

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

Free Software Messiah Richard Stallman: We Can Do Better Than Bitcoin

Richard Stallman, the fervently committed founder of the free software movement, is discussing the term “libertarian,” when he stops talking abruptly and says, “Hello?”

I tell him I’m still listening, but he explains that the confused greeting wasn’t intended for me. Instead, he says a man’s voice – neither mine nor an echo of his – had just cut in with one word: “liberty.”

“Does that sort of thing happen a lot?” I ask. I hadn’t heard anything.

“Yes,” he says. “It wasn’t a voice I recognize.” He added, “It could be … ”

Then a quick burst of static made his next words inaudible.

It was a strange incident, but apparently not a new experience for Stallman, whose emails urge any NSA or FBI agents reading to “follow Snowden’s example” and blow the whistle.

Stallman seems to check all of the old school cypherpunk boxes: in addition to being an Edward Snowden admirer, he’s a hacker of the original ’70s and ’80s generation, a privacy activist, and a frequent invoker of liberty. As a result, cryptocurrency enthusiasts could be forgiven for thinking Stallman was also head-over-heels for bitcoin.

He’s not.

Before his oration on libertarianism was interrupted, he said that the right-wingers who made up a significant portion of bitcoin’s early adopters don’t really deserve the label. His own pro-freedom views are more “libertarian” than bitcoiners’ “anti-socialism,” he argued.

As we spoke, it became clear that Stallman doesn’t find the decade-old technology all that appealing, for more reasons than just politics.

“I have never used it myself,” he told CoinDesk.

If that’s surprising, keep in mind that fine distinctions matter a great deal to Stallman. For example, he wrote a 9,000-word explainer on the difference between the terms GNU and Linux.

In 40-ish words: GNU, which Stallman proposed in 1983, is an operating system using exclusively free software. Linux, created years later by Linus Torvalds, is a kernel. Many refer to packages combining the two as “Linux,” but Stallman insists that the proper term is GNU/Linux or just GNU.

He also wrote 3,000 words on the differences between free software and open source software. Advocates of both push for the freedom to use, study, change and redistribute software, but Stallman said that those similarities conceal “a deeply important moral disagreement” centered on freedom and human rights, which the free software movement stresses.

The GNU Project, which Stallman founded, is working on an alternative digital payments system called Taler, which is based on cryptography but is not – forgive the hair-splitting – a cryptocurrency.

The Taler project’s maintainer Christian Grothoff told CoinDesk that the system is, rather, designed for a “post-blockchain” world.

Concerned with privacy…

It doesn’t even seem like the technology has been around long enough to already be thinking of a world after it, but to Stallman, bitcoin isn’t suitable as a digital payment system.

His biggest complaint: bitcoin’s poor privacy protections.

He told CoinDesk, “What I’d really like is a way to make purchases anonymously from various kinds of stores, and unfortunately it wouldn’t be feasible for me with bitcoin.”

Using a crypto exchange would allow that company and ultimately the government to identify him, he said. And as for mining the bitcoin himself, it’s a big investment and besides, he continued, “I’ve got other things I’d rather do.”

Asked what he thought about so-called privacy coins, Stallman said he’d gotten an expert to assess their potential, and “for each one he would point out some serious problems, perhaps in its security or its scalability.”

And speaking broadly, Stallman continued:

“If bitcoin protected privacy, I’d probably have found a way to use it by now.”

…But not ‘perfect’ privacy

That pessimism aside, the GNU Project’s Taler does share some aspects with cryptocurrency projects – most notably it aims to fill the same niche.

Start with Taler’s intellectual lineage. It’s based on blind signatures, a cryptographic technique invented by David Chaum, whose DigiCash was among the first attempts at creating secure electronic money. Plus, Taler’s attempt to create a digital money that resists surveillance by governments and payments companies aligns it with many cryptocurrency projects.

Yet, Taler does not attempt to bypass centralized authority.

Payments are processed by openly centralized “exchanges” rather than peer-to-peer networks of miners because, Grothoff said, such a system “would again enable dangerous, money laundering kind of practice.”

Indeed, in a break with the anti-government ethos that has tended to characterize bitcoin and some of its peers, Taler’s design explicitly tries to block opportunities for tax evasion.

Speaking to this, Stallman told CoinDesk, “We need a state to do many vital jobs, including fund research, fund education, provide people with medical care – provide everyone with medical care – build roads, maintain order, provide justice, including to those who are not rich and powerful, and so the state’s got to bring in a lot of money.”

What a break from the political leanings of many of bitcoin’s first adherents.

Stallman continued:

I wouldn’t want perfect privacy because that would mean it would be impossible to investigate crimes at all. And that’s one of the jobs we need the state to do.”

Privacy in the Taler system, then, is limited to users spending their digital cash. They are shielded from surveillance because, Grothoff said, “the exchange, when coins are being redeemed, cannot tell if it was customer A or customer B or customer C who received the coin, because they all look identical from the exchange.”

“Nobody,” he added, “exactly knows who has how many tokens.”

Merchants (or anyone) receiving payments, on the other hand, do so visibly and in the open, making it possible for governments to assess taxes on their income – not to mention harder for the recipients to participate in money laundering.

A place for crypto?

While Taler is not a cryptocurrency and doesn’t have a native asset (there are no talers or TalerCoins), as a new payment rail for existing assets, the system could support cryptocurrency at some point.

Just as euros (the first currency that will be supported by the system), dollars and yen could all be sent using Taler, so could bitcoin.

Similarly, while Taler is not a blockchain, a blockchain-based system could take the place of a bank within the system.

For users to be able to move euros into the Taler wallet, though, Taler exchanges will need to interact with the traditional banking system to withdraw that money. In this same way, a blockchain-based system could work with Taler exchanges to allow users to get access to their cryptocurrency.

Grothoff compared the act of moving bank deposits to a Taler digital wallet to taking cash out of an ATM. Coins in the wallet are stored locally on a user’s device, and if a user loses the key to their wallet, there’s nothing that can be done to recover it, much like the crypto space’s use of private/public key pairs.

Currently, Taler is in talks with European banks to allow withdrawal into the Taler wallet and also re-deposit from the Taler system back into the traditional banking system.

While the launch date on the project’s website still lists 2018, Grothoff said, it’s dependent of how quickly discussions with banks can be wrapped up. And he said, “The banks are not necessarily easy or cheap to deal with.”

Although, nothing about the traditional banking system per se is essential to Taler’s functioning (except perhaps for regulatory compliance). In principle, the “register-based system” that Taler plugs into could be a bank account or, in theory, a blockchain, said Grothoff.

If Taler gains traction, developers can experiment with different implementations and integrations – using banks or blockchains or whatever other register system they prefer. After all, Grothoff said:

“It’s free software.”

Stallman image via Wikimedia Commons/NicoBZH

Lead Monero Dev Slams BAT Policies, Brave Founder Clarifies

The lead developer for Monero slammed BAT over its policies and “awful design decisions,” putting Brave founder Brendan Eich on the defensive.

Monero Dev Compares BAT to The Mafia

Monero frontman Ricardo “fluffypony” Spagni took to Twitter on Thanksgiving not to give thanks, but to give Basic Attention Token (BAT) a verbal beating, comparing the utility cryptocurrency token developers to “the mafia.” The heavily opinionated developer also called BAT “centralized, permissioned, and thus entirely disinteresting and better done with a database instead of a blockchain.”

Spagni’s comments come after he discovered a “loophole” that allows BAT devs to “steal funds from users.” “The BAT ToS let’s them steal ‘unclaimed’ tokens after 90 days, but they can also use ‘Sybil attack investigation’ and KYC/AML excuses to prevent you from claiming your coins for 90 days,” he alleges.

He asserts that Brave features an overly complicated AML/KYC process disguised as a backdoor, allowing them to hold BAT tokens hostage that were initially intended for content creators.

Brave’s Eich Responds, Clarifies BAT Clawback

While Spagni is only looking out for cryptocurrency investor’s best interests, his comments are exceptionally accusatory and negative despite BAT creator and founder of the Brave browser Brendan Rich’s track record of success in creating game-changing internet technologies. Eich first’s contribution to the world was his development of the JavaScript programming language, and after that he co-founded Mozilla – the company behind the Firefox browser best known for its privacy features.

Eich explains that certain countermeasures are required to prevent “hundreds to thousands of fraudulent users” from accepting grants from Brave’s  User Growth Pool (UGP) and forwarding it to fake content creators. The UGP is designed to grant users with BAT tokens who are encouraged to tip content creators and plant the seeds of the content monetization platform Brave ultimately intends to be.

As for “stealing” BAT, Eich refutes the claim, and clarifies that Brave can only clawback BAT tokens granted from the UGP that go unused – a user’s imported BAT cannot be accessed in any way. “We’re not going to hold a potential grant in limbo forever waiting for it to be used,” Eich explained. The firm makes this clear to users up front, and shows an expiration date on the unused funds. He also clears the air around his company’s access to BAT holdings rightfully owned by individual users. “The only person who can move BAT from a wallet is the person who has that wallet’s key. If we’re talking about BAT that you own, Brave doesn’t have the key,” Eich said in an interview. “There’s nothing we can do to touch your BAT. BAT in a wallet you control cannot be ‘confiscated.’ KYC has nothing to do with this fact, and in any event, user-provided wallet KYC is not yet implemented.”

Related Reading: Basic Attention Token Nosedives 20% Amidst SEC Crackdown Concerns

BAT has been a hot topic amongst the cryptocurrency community as of late, as the utility token was recently listed on Coinbase and saw rapid price gains that eventually turned into losses as concerns mounted around ERC20 tokens like BAT. Last month the operator of decentralized ERC20 trading platform EtherDelta was charged with operating an unregistered securities exchange. Fears over ERC20 tokens being deemed a security by the Securities and Exchange Commission led to a sell off of the Ethereum-based token.

Sweden Braces For Migrant Caravan Of Norwegian Bitcoin Miners

sweden norway bitcoin mining Mining

Sweden Braces For Migrant Caravan Of Norwegian Bitcoin Miners


Data center managers in Sweden are expecting a deluge of inquiries from cryptocurrency mining operations in Norway. The Norwegian authorities this week revoked energy tax subsidies for the sector, throwing the future of many companies into doubt.


‘The Dirtiest Form of Cryptographic Output’

Up until this week, mining firms in Norway qualified for the same electricity tax discount as other heavy users. Businesses with a capacity of over half a megawatt, pay only 0.48 Norwegian Krone (5.6 cents) per kilowatt-hour. With that subsidy now rescinded, miners will pay the standard rate of 16.58 Krone, or nearly $2 per kilowatt-hour.

The change comes into effect from January 2019, and such a dramatic price rise will devastate the industry in Norway. Many firms invested in the country for its cool climate and cheap hydro-electric power. They are now disappointed that this move was not put to the industry for prior consultation.

Parliamentary representative, Lars Haltbrekken, explained the motivation for the move:

Norway cannot continue to provide huge tax incentives for the dirtiest form of cryptographic output like bitcoin. It requires a lot of energy and generates large greenhouse gas emissions globally.

Norway’s Loss a Gain for Sweden?

Of course, this has left data center managers in Sweden rubbing their hands with glee, as Norway’s Scandinavian neighbor becomes the obvious alternative. Sweden charges a similar 0.5 Swedish Krona per kWh for users over 0.5 MW, and also offers reduced electricity rates for smaller users up to 0.1 MW.

When asked if he would be contacting the companies who are losing out due to the Norwegian changes, Boden Business Agency director, Erik Svensson said:

I think the companies in Norway are contacting us, they know where we are.

One major player who has already put its planned Norwegian projects on ice is Bitmain. However, it has confirmed that Sweden is an attractive alternative. Bitmain’s head in Norway, Julie Hvideberg, said:

We have already talked with our Norwegian partners… saying that we must stop the project. We are a global company and can move to Sweden or Denmark, but our Norwegian partner loses a big contract.

Still, before everyone starts envisaging Sweden as some kind of promised land of milk and honey, take note. Things can also go awry for crypto-entrepreneurs there, as reported by Bitcoinist earlier this month.

Will Bitcoin miners move to Sweden where electricity is cheaper? Share your thoughts below!


Images courtesy of Shutterstock

XRP is Now ‘Being Used More Than Bitcoin’, Ripple’s Chief Strategist Claims

/latest/2018/11/xrp-is-now-being-used-more-than-bitcoin-btc-ripple-s-chief-strategist-claims/

Cory Johnson, the chief market strategist at Ripple Labs, recently claimed that the Bitcoin network “has some real technological limitations” – which include “how many transactions it can do per hour…let alone…nobody even talks [any more] about per minute.”

Johnson added that there are severe “restrictions around [bitcoin] mining and how mining is increasingly expensive … and consumes power … and also the way it [ineffectively distributes] power to the miners … presently, [about] 80% of all bitcoin is being mined in China.”

Bitcoin Miners Have Too Much Power

Johnson, a Bloomberg media editor-at-large, further noted: “There’s a tremendous amount of power that Chinese miners have over the Bitcoin network. I think that this was unintended by the designer of bitcoin, whoever she is. [But] there are other technologies. My company [Ripple Labs] has chosen to develop technology around XRP.”

Johnson continued: 

XRP does not have mining. XRP does 1500 transactions [per] second. My company [Ripple Labs] has over a 150 customers in finance all over the world. [These include large] banks [and] remittance companies. Many of them are using XRP, [although] all of them are not. [The token] is being used to do transactions across borders [in order to] lower costs from 400 basis points to 40 basis points. And, from 4 days to two minutes.

Bitcoin Built Using “Poor Technology”

According to Johnson, transaction processing times can only be reduced from days to minutes or seconds by using digital currencies. However, the New York University graduate also thinks that the Bitcoin network will not be able to handle a large number of transactions as it is based on “poor technology.”

Although Johnson acknowledged he doesn’t know what bitcoin (BTC) may be worth, he does believe: 

Digital assets that show fundamental use cases … and not just show it, but demonstrate it will develop a fundamental value. What that value is, [we] will have to figure out for ourselves. But I think that Bitcoin doesn’t work very well and [Ripple, the company, realized] that a long time ago. So, I am not surprised that [bitcoin is not performing well].

XRP’s Market Capitalization Down From $106 Billion To $16 Billion

Going on to discuss how XRP, the cryptocurrency developed by Ripple Labs, has been performing, Johnson pointed out that the token is actually up over a 100% this year. He also claimed that XRP is currently being used more than BTC.

However, XRP’s price is actually down considerably since the beginning of the year. On January 3, XRP was trading at around $2.75 and its market capitalization was over $106 billion. Currently, XRP is trading at only about $0.4060 according to CryptoCompare data, and its market capitalization has fallen sharply to just around $16 billion.

Many More People Want To Use XRP

It must be noted, however, that current market prices of cryptocurrencies may not be the best way to assess how well they may be performing and how much confidence investors and traders might have in their long-term potential.

As CryptoGlobe reported in mid-August, Wirex, a zero-commission crypto and fiat currency trading platform with over 1.8 million users, had conducted a survey via Twitter asking which cryptocurrency: bitcoin (BTC), litecoin (LTC), ethereum (ETH), or ripple (XRP) its followers prefer.

Notably, 81% said they would prefer to use XRP for daily purchases, and only 10% said they’d use BTC. Meanwhile, just 6% of survey respondents preferred LTC and only 3% wanted to use Ethereum’s native token, ether, for everyday transactions.

The SEC’s Recent Rulings Are More About Exchanges Than ICOs

Noelle Acheson is a veteran of company analysis and member of CoinDesk’s product team.

The following article originally appeared in Institutional Crypto by CoinDesk, a newsletter for the institutional market, with news and views on crypto infrastructure delivered every Tuesday. Sign up here.


With the market reeling from the SEC’s settlement last week with two ICO issuers for not registering their tokens as securities, something significant has been overlooked.

Before we get to that, let’s briefly review what happened.

Last week the SEC reached settlements with AirFox and Paragon in its first cases brought purely for lack of registration, rather than for fraudulent activity. In characteristic overreaction, the market seemed to assume that ICOs were now “over.” This is far from true. What is “over” (finally!) is the vapid hype of token structures that don’t make sense, fund-raisings based on no business plan and ICOs that followed the “me too” model.

A new phase, a more realistic and constructive one, is just beginning.

Earlier this month, an SEC director revealed that the agency plans to release “plain English” guidance for when a token is and is not a security. Analysts have been poring over the subsequent official statement summarizing recent rulings for a sign of this. They haven’t found it.

Exchange fire

What seems to have been largely overlooked is that the statement also shines the spotlight on crypto exchanges. This is likely to have a much bigger impact on the sector in the short term.

Last week, the SEC announced a settlement with the founder of EtherDelta, a “decentralized exchange” for ethereum-based tokens, who had been accused of knowingly breaking securities laws by neither registering the platform with the SEC nor operating under an exemption. This was the SEC’s first enforcement action against a token exchange for failing to register.

In its statement, the SEC outlines what exactly is considered an “exchange,” and under what circumstances a token trading venue would be required to register – basically, in all circumstances in which tokens change hands on a platform.

Remember the report by the New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on crypto exchanges from a couple of months ago? It gave a hint at what was to come: In the introduction it specifies “virtual asset trading platforms now in operation have not registered under state or federal securities or commodities laws.” Now, the SEC and the OAG are two very different regulators, with different remits and methods. But the objective is the same: to protect the investor.

The OAG’s report goes on to point out that digital asset platforms present an additional risk to the investor – token buyers and sellers can deal directly with them, whereas traditional exchanges operate with the public via the additional buffer of broker-dealers. In the crypto world, the platform is usually the trading venue and the broker-dealer. Even more reason, one can infer, for the regulators to focus their attention on the middlemen.

Fair exchange

An important detail is that the SEC has not yet prosecuted an exchange – EtherDelta was not the subject of the settlement, its founder was, and he sold the business in December of last year.

It will, therefore, be interesting to see what information comes to light in the first case brought against a trading platform for failure to register – and whether we will see crypto exchanges pre-empting the scrutiny by voluntarily doing so.

When this happens, we won’t be able to say we didn’t see it coming – and we should welcome the development.

While market attention seems to be focused on the ICO cull stemming from the now inevitable cost of security registration – and while it is a huge pity that so many investors will end up losing money on already-issued tokens that disappear as a result – its market impact is more dramatic than meaningful.

Exchange registration, on the other hand, will have a deeper impact on crypto assets going forward. It will bring upheaval in some business models, incur significant additional costs in compliance and paperwork, and perhaps trigger a sector concentration.

However, and more importantly, greater oversight over the middlemen will lead to the construction of a stronger infrastructure, that can work with regulators and institutions to bring increasing clarity and investment to the asset class.

SEC image via Shutterstock

索尼入局区块链游戏,这条路可行吗?

Plague Hunter可能是区块链游戏从小厂商、小众游戏类型向大厂商、主流游戏类型过渡迈出的第一步。下文作者奉政坊,来源链得得内容开放平台计划“得得号”。

近日有消息称,索尼将在明年5月推出一款游戏Plague Hunter(瘟疫猎人)。这款游戏虽然还有半年才会发行,但却已经引起了不少注意,原因在于在这款游戏中,玩家可以在基于区块链技术的市场上交易其游戏资产,据称交易市场将使用以太坊区块链技术。


目前在Steam平台上已经可以看到这款游戏的页面。从预告片来看,这是一款2D的横版过关动作游戏,画风较为阴暗,其故事设定也是疫后废土。但据开发人员透露,Plague Hunter将是一款战略RPG游戏,其中还会有PVP元素。


区块链游戏已经有很多先例了,但是目前的区块链游戏玩法大多受到很大的局限,简单养成类的游戏占据了大多数,且往往缺乏游戏性,因此像加密猫这类的游戏虽然喧腾一时,但日活等关键数据随后就出现了明显的下降,生命周期相对于普通游戏来讲短了不少。


而此次Plague Hunter则是少见的国际游戏大厂介入区块链领域,而且还会登录主机PS4、Switch、Xbox等;而且,作为RPG的游戏形式,算得上是少见的建立在成熟主流游戏类型之上的案例。


值得注意的是,Plague Hunter还与时下的区块链技术进行了结合,结合点位于游戏资产交易环节。尽管在Steam等平台上,游戏资产的交易已经是较为成熟的现象,但是对于某一款游戏来讲,建立长期稳定的游戏经济生态还是非常困难的事情,这一方面说明传统游戏经济生态的匮乏,另一方面也说明区块链技术是为游戏赋能,建立经济生态的重要方向。


传统游戏难以建立生态的关键因素大概有以下几点:


1.游戏资产的发行呈严重的中心化,完全由游戏厂商控制,因此随时面临贬值的危险。


2.游戏资产的价值和游戏生命周期完全绑定,一旦游戏进入衰退期,游戏资产贬值迅速。


3.游戏厂商为避免影响玩家消费,对游戏资产的交易进行限制,或者根本没有为经济生态提供机制上的可能。


4.在游戏厂商无法为游戏经济生态提供管理、支持的情况下,玩家在进行自发的场外交易时容易被骗,体验较差。一些第三方交易平台应运而生,但实际情况比较复杂。


针对这几点来考察,区块链技术是否能够解决以上问题?


关于第一点,区块链的核心功能之一就是去中心化。即使现阶段做到完全去中心化还是不可能的,区块链对于改变游戏厂商和玩家之间完全不对等的关系仍然能够起到巨大的作用。


关于第二点,区块链无法改变这一点,因为区块链并没有改变游戏的核心玩法。但是如果通过打通不同游戏间的资产,在区块链上实现互通,也能够实现对这一点的改善。


关于第三点,这一点受到游戏厂商和游戏行业大环境的限制,区块链能直接影响的部分较小。


关于第四点,基于区块链的第三方交易平台能够解决第三方平台的信任问题,甚至可以使用智能合约来完成交易,对于提升玩家的体验,乃至对于游戏厂商来说都能产生积极的影响。


Plague Hunter可能是区块链游戏从小厂商、小众游戏类型向大厂商、主流游戏类型过渡迈出的第一步。


对于玩家来说,如果游戏资产可以在游戏内部、乃至不同游戏之间,通过区块链技术进行可靠的交易,意味着玩家在游戏上花的每一分钱都可以得到最大限度的利用,节省玩家的开支,玩家甚至还可以通过游戏资产交易致富。


而对于游戏厂商来说,虽然短期内会影响其直接收入,但是在这样的大趋势下,谁能够在新的环境中摸索出可靠的新盈利模式,就能找到新的增长点、新的玩法,就等于找到了新的机会。


其实,早在今年8月,媒体就曾报道,索尼向美国专利和商标局(USPTO)提交了两项区块链硬件产品专利,这体现了索尼相当注重区块链开发。


游戏可以看作我们生活的复杂现实世界的简化,现实中的经济关系及规律也适用于游戏;因此,当经济体的核心是货币时。对于游戏来说,如何寻找到合适的Token体系来营造游戏生态,就是一项极为重要的课题。


索尼已经先行,这一创举势必对游戏从业者、用户带来重要的启发。本文仅代表作者观点,不代表链得得官方立场

钛媒体&链得得联合打造的音频科普课

《精通区块链》第二季重磅上线。

👇识别图片二维码或点击阅读原文👇

开始学习《精通区块链》吧。

下载链得得App学习效果更佳哦!

阅读原文或扫描上图二维码,查看并订阅「精通区块链」,每天五分钟,精彩不容错过!

Ethereum (ETH) Long-term Price Analysis – 24 November

/latest/2018/11/ethereum-eth-long-term-price-analysis-24-november/

Ethereum (ETH) Long-term Price Analysis – 24 November

ethereum-eth-long-term-price-analysis-24-november

ETHUSD Long-term Trend – Bearish

Distribution territories: $220, $240, $260.

Accumulation territories: $100, $80, $60.

Ethereum’s price has been ranging in the last few trading sessions before the crypto market’s big fall, between the $180 and $160 price territories. The cryptocurrency featured short ups and downs at the time.

Ethereum, ETHUSD, Cryptocompare chartEthereum Chart by TradingView

On November 18, the cryptocurrency saw its price move north to test the upper side of its range, but then started falling on the next day. On November 19, it plummeted from the $177 mark to under $120 on November 13.

The 14-day SMA is currently below the 50-day SMA and they’re both above ETH’s price line. The Stochastic Oscillators dipped into the oversold zone and are consolidating within it. This has shown a strong potential for a bearish trend in the next few days.

A breakout at this point isn’t something to talk about, although a reversal could in time come when ETH hits the $120 or $100 mark.

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

科普 | 极简 Ethereum Plasma Debit 和 More Viable Plasma 介绍

看完上篇 Plasma MVP 跟 Plasma Cash 的介绍,感觉 Plasma MVP 目前还处于是概念上的阶段,正式上线好像还有段距离。Plasma Cash 每个 coin 都是不可分割的,在实际上的使用上有点困难。而本篇是要接续介绍Ethereum researcher 更新的提案:Plasma Debit 以及 More Viable Plasma


Plasma Debit


Plasma Debit 要解决的就是 Plasma Cash 每笔进帐不可分割的问题。Plasma Cash 的账户里只有一个值(而且值等于1),在 Plasma Debit 改成两个值 a 跟 v。

举例来说:(1) 甲存了5 ETH 进入Plasma chain 后,v=5, a=5;(2)甲转 2 Plasma token 给乙,v=5, a=3。可以想作是信用卡的最高额度(v) 跟 还可以使用的额度(a)

但是,这里有个问题,在最一开始大家的 a 跟 v 的值都一样,代表着大家不能相互转账。什么意思呢?举例来解释一下:

  1. 甲、乙各存了 5ETH、7ETH 进 Plasma chain,此时甲:(v=5, a=5)、 乙:(v=7, a=7)

  2. 甲想转账给乙,但因为乙的 v=a,若甲转给乙则会造成乙的 a>v 的状况,这在设计上是不允许的(信用卡公司给你5万的额度,总不能刷超过5万吧) 因此,为了要有流动性,operator 可以透过不同的 function 存钱进你的账户(也就是某个coin),也就意味着你的 v 值会变被增加(当然会需要付一些手续费给operator),以上例来说

  3. operator 提供 2ETH 的额度给乙(v=9, a=7)

  4. 甲就可以转 2ETH 给乙(甲:(v=5, a=3), 乙:(v=9, a=9))

目前 Plasma Debit 的设计类似 payment channel,每个 coin 的拥有者跟 operator 建立一个双向的 payment channel(提案中多处都在模拟 Lightning Network 的channel,不过我不够熟悉 payment channel,就不在这里提出比较),所以在交易时,都是透过 operator 做中介做交易。由于channel 结构上的问题,目前这个提案,只限于单一个 operator。


More Viable Plasma


More Viable Plasm(MoreVP)是基于 Plasma MVP 作发展,改进提款的流程(Exit Game)。 上一篇 Plasma MVP 只有简单介绍概念,没有特别着墨在 exit 的部分,因为 MoreVP 是针对 exit game 的部分做改进,所以这次会对 exit game 的部分在做多一些的解释。

在Plasma MVP中,有人要离开 plasma chain(把钱提出)时,需要大家的签名(confirmation signature),而 confirmation sign 对使用者非常的不方便,每次有人离开,都需要收集签名。但移除了 confirmation sign,operator 就很容易可以作怪,例如不打包使用者的 tx(in-flight tx),甚至可以凭空铸币。MoreVP 改变了原本离开 plasma chain 的排序机制,在 MoreVP 中越新的 input(youngest input)有越高离开 plasma chain 的优先权。此外,挑战期(challenge period)也改成两段式。

整理一下:

MVP的 exit game

  1. 越旧的 UTXO 的优先权越高

  2. 送出交易需要签名,离开时也需要签名(confirmation signature)

  3. 单一挑战期(需要 exit bond)

MoreVP 的exit game

  1. 越新的 input(youngest input)优先权越高

  2. 只需要送出交易的签名,不需要 confirmation signature

  3. 两段式挑战期(需要 exit bond 跟 piggyback bond)

接下来再深入一点介绍两段式的挑战,这里只针对 worst case(byzatine 共识且是 in-flight tx)作讨论,因为被打包的的 tx 不会有问题,就照正常程序离开即可。in-flight tx 就是还没被打包的 tx,无论是还没被打包或是被 operator 恶意不打包。

当有人要离开 plasma chain 时,要先压钱作担保(exit bond),任何想一起离开的人需要压附带担保(piggyback bond),如果没有附带担保(piggyback bond)就不能离开。此时,进入第一阶段挑战期

第一挑战期,原则上就是让大家提出要离开的这个 tx 是不是无效的或被花过的。如果是,提出证明的 tx‘ 来更换原本的 tx,提出证明的人可以拿到上一个的附带担保(piggyback bond),然后压上新的 piggyback bond。然后一直直到没人提得出新的证明为止。

若有人挑战,就进入到第二阶段

第二阶段,上一阶段只有提出挑战,但是没有人去确认,而这阶段就是去确认/验证第一阶段的挑战,如果验证后是正确的,则第一阶段的挑战者可以拿到申请离开人的 exit bond,并且申请者不能离开。若无人能验证,则退还 exit bond,此时申请者也不能离开(不能把 plasma chain 的钱提出)。 若第一阶段无人挑战,则有申请离开者就顺利离开。 有没有觉得听完有点头昏眼花 2333,这里有提案者的图解。

– source: ethresear.ch –

今天的介绍大概就到这边,有任何的错误或是意见欢迎指教!


原文链接: 

https://kimiwublog.blogspot.com/2018/10/ethereum-plasma-debit-and-more-viable.html
作者: Kimi Wu

本文为台湾社区成员作品,为阅读便利修改部分术语并转为简体中文。EthFans 经作者授权再出版。


你可能还会喜欢:

Vitalik谈|一种权益证明设计哲学

干货 | Solidity 安全:已知攻击方法和常见防御模式综合列表,Part-6:拒绝服务、时间戳攻击

观点 | 代币化经济学 Part I:不是啥都需要代币化

分叉危机仍未解除,BCH市值又被恒星币超越

昨日,恒星币(Stellar,XLM)暂时以微弱的优势(35.15亿美元的市值)超越Bitcoin Cash(BCH)的市值(35.07亿美元)。

尽管XLM的逆袭并未持续很长时间,但BCH的交易量已经跌到了不足1亿美元。相比之下,以太坊(ETH)的交易量超过了20亿美元,而当时比特币的交易量为50亿美元。

BCH交易量骤降或许是因为在11月15号的硬分叉之后,很多交易所依然没有开放该币种的存取服务。

就算是已经支持BCH交易的运营商也需要至少20个区块的确认,也就是说,用户需要等待相当长的一段时间。因此BCH的链上活动受到了阻碍,其价格相较分叉之前也跌去了三分之二。

其实XLM价格也面临着大幅下跌,其短暂上升至市值排名的第四位,更多的原因在于其跌幅较小,而非看涨情绪。

XLM赶超BCH,听起来就像是瑞波币(XRP)的翻版。自2016年ETH登上市值排行第二位之后,XRP多次超越ETH,如今已经在第二名的位置上站稳了脚跟。

其中的原因或许是XRP和XLM用的都不是PoW机制。其发行所受限制较少。

XRP采用的共识机制解释起来很复杂,简单来说就是你可以选择20个你信任的节点。只要80%的节点是诚实的,也就是说即使攻击向量有20%,那么网络就是安全的。

由于存在信任需求,瑞波实验室会给验证节点特定的权限,他们管理着一个推荐节点列表。

而XLM则没有节点列表,其网络对所有人开放。你仍然需要选择20个节点,并且信任它们,但是人们在选择受信节点时会产生许多由20个节点组成的重叠网络,因此很难修改历史。

这里存在一个明显的攻击向量就是你可以创建数百万个节点来为自己的节点投票,从而破坏共识或者修改历史。

然而,通常情况下,节点存在的时间越长,权力就越大,因此你的攻击可能需要一些时间和小心的策划。

但显然这类攻击不存在过高的经济激励,很多开发者也并不愿意运行XRP和XLM验证节点。这或许是因为两者的网络中都不存在智能合约,而且不是对开发者完全开放的。XRP没有“代币化”的能力,而XLM的运作风格很像比特币的彩色币。这两种币都是在以太坊之前出现的,当时尚未有人注意到智能合约和世界计算机的概念。

相比之下,PoW机制已经存在近10年的时间。因此,与其进行基本面分析,倒不如说XLM和XRP超越BCH和ETH只是暂时的趋势,是交易者暂时的选择,与技术无关。


回复 区块链报告 免费下载 《37份国内证券行业发布的区块链研究报告》

回复 工信部 免费下载 《中国区块链技术和应用发展白皮书》

回复 比特币白皮书,免费下载《比特币:一种点对点的电子现金系统》

回复 以太坊,免费下载《以太坊白皮书》

回复 侧链 免费下载《侧链白皮书:用楔入式侧链实现区块链的创新》

回复 欧洲央行 免费下载《欧洲央行分布式账本技术报告》

回复 高盛 免费下载 

回复 闪电网络 查看《详解最近大热的闪电网络、雷电网络和CORDA到底是什么》

回复 闪电网络白皮书 免费下载《比特币闪电网络白皮书:可扩展的 off-chain 即时支付》

回复 麦肯锡 免费下载《麦肯锡区块链报告:银行业游戏规则的颠覆者》

回复 IBM  免费下载《IBM 区块链热点技术与应用》

回复 毕马威 免费下载《毕马威区块链研究报告:价值互联的不变协议 》

回复 金融科技 免费下载《中国领先金融科技50强》

回复 直播间 查看往期所有大咖视频+文字版集合

回复 喵观察查看往期所有区块链优质话题大集锦

回复时戳资本可获得时戳资本所有研报下载链接