Colin Harper

Five Years in the Making, Bisq Exchange Launches Its Bitcoins DAO

Bisq

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are one of crypto’s more novel and ambitious applications — one that Bitcoin, until recently, has had nothing to do with.

In practice, they’re a bit younger than Bitcoin forks and older than smart contract-focused blockchains. The idea is that you can devise a decentralized governance system using the blockchain’s cryptographic controls — rule of code, so to speak. Using tokenomics and technical schemes, the DAO affects certain laws over its participants, incentivizes them to play by the rules and encourages the community to hold itself accountable.

Dan Larimer’s BitShares, with its delegated proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, was the first DAO, followed by Dash. Since these trailblazers went live, DAO endeavors have become dominated by the Ethereum ecosystem, including, most notably, the eponymous and disastrous The DAO — best known for forfeiting millions in ether to the void after an incompetent coder unwittingly deleted a wallet library — and Maker, among others.

Perhaps because of Bitcoin’s limited scripting language and, conversely, Ethereum’s rich scripting language, Ethereum has been the frontrunner for popular DAOs in recent memory, while one has never launched on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Until now, that is.

Bisq Gets an Upgrade

Bisq, one of the Bitcoin community’s only truly decentralized exchanges, introduced version 1.0 of its software this week. Along with other ancillary upgrades, the release dropped a bombshell by furnishing Bitcoin with its first DAO.

“Bisq’s DAO, launched on Monday, April 15, is (to my knowledge) the only attempt of its kind to decentralize a project’s management and funding to the extent it does,” Steve Jain, a Bisq contributor, told Bitcoin Magazine.

With its intention to migrate toward distributed governance, Bisq will strive for an even greater degree of decentralization than it already features. Its software operates on Tor, and each user must run their own separate instance of the program (akin to running a node on a much smaller scale) to access the exchange, making it completely peer-to-peer.

The privacy-minded exchange offers a rare, KYC-resistant fiat ramp for bitcoin trading, allowing users to facilitate fiat exchange with payment apps, bank wires and even hard cash swaps, like LocalBitcoins offers. With each trade, bitcoin is locked away in multi-signature contracts, requiring arbitrators to resolve any conflicts should a dispute arise in a trade.

Jain said that this version upgrade was a long time coming.

“The DAO was intended to be a part of Bisq from the day it was first conceived in 2014,” he revealed, adding that this launch has been in the works for five years — meaning that its development predates even the infamous Ethereum DAO. Now that it’s live, he believes that the program has realized an even truer version of itself, one that separates it from the pack.

“From this standpoint, Bisq is a totally different beast —in terms of software and governance — than any other exchange,” he claimed.

How the DAO Works

Bisq’s governance will revolve around a token, but speculators need not apply — the project isn’t launching an ICO. Instead, each BSQ token will be minted through a process known as coloring.

Colored coins, so-called because they are distinguished from regular coins on the blockchain, are simply satoshis marked for a specific use case. To create tokens for Bisq, for example, users submit satoshis to the DAO, which are then “painted over” to represent BSQ. These tokens give users the ability to participate in the Bisq DAO.

This participation can take many forms. For traders on the platform, BSQ will give them trading discounts, not unlike BNB coin for Binance users, but this token’s use case is more dynamic than that. Contributors, for instance, can submit a compensation request to the network for payment in BSQ after finishing a project for the DAO. The community then votes on whether or not compensation should be awarded, and the developer submits satoshis to mint the colored BSQ tokens.

More than just developers, DAO contributors could be designers, support staff, social media managers or writers. These contributors can also stake BSQ in a bond to fill a high-trust position in the DAO, like a back end engineer, copywriter or social media representative. If these de facto employees are caught slacking off or acting up, the community can confiscate their stakes as punishment.

“It’s a dynamic system of stakeholders acting in their own best interests … And notably, there are no gatekeepers to manage it all,” Jain said. “BSQ is bought on the open market, and it’s issued by collective stakeholder voting. Personal vendettas, bank tantrums, government policies, company rules … none of these things can get in the way of someone doing work and getting paid for it.”

To start, 3,657,480 BSQ has been minted to compensate a team of more than 200 contributors for their five years of labor to get Bisq and its nascent DAO up and running. Going forward, Jain told us that new BSQ will be put into circulation every month to fulfill compensation requests. Any BSQ used for trading fees, on the other hand, will be burned and taken out of supply entirely.

Should I Trust the Government?

For some, the DAO’s attempt to realize cohesive-yet-anarchic governance is utopian at best and foolhardy at worst. Critics point to Ethereum’s DAO and the ensuing hard fork as a bailout of sorts — the crypto equivalent of the windfalls Washington bestowed on Wall Street during the Great Recession.

Other criticisms point to the notion that incentives aren’t powerful enough to keep bad actors in line, or that governance systems, depending on structure, give these bad actors mechanisms to game the system and circumvent checks and balances.

Bisq’s own governance is twofold. Voter clout is determined on a weighted basis (how many BSQ tokens you own) or merit (your reputation on the network). Voting based on token count is a red flag for many — it’s one of the reasons people look at EOS’ block producer elections as a pay-for-play playground, for instance. When asked if he felt that a stake-based voting model might enable vote buying and give the 1 percent an opportunity to out-influence the other 99, Jain noted optimism around the intentions of stakeholders.

“[To vote you must] allot a certain amount of the BSQ you own for your voting weight,” he said. “You must own this BSQ, and yes, you can buy as much of it as you want on the open market. We think that’s fair. Presumably, assuming no bad intentions, someone with a lot of money who really believes in the Bisq network may want to buy a lot of BSQ to have a big influence in its decisions.”

He continued to qualify that merit “is worth more than pure stake weight.” Basically, someone who contributes to the network has more of a say in voting than someone who bought their tokens; if I earn 10,000 BSQ tokens, for example, even if I sell them, my vote holds more clout than someone who bought 10,000 BSQ on the market. Merit will decay on an annual basis, as well, meaning contributors have to keep working on the ecosystem to maintain or bolster their reputations.

“Lastly, the merits ‘stack,’ so if I have 10,000 BSQ of merit and 5,000 BSQ in my BSQ wallet, I can stake 5,000 BSQ for a combined voting weight of 15,000 BSQ,” Jain said.

With this governance structure in place, Jain emphasized that one of the most significant — and exciting — differences with this version upgrade is that contributors can finally get paid for their work. This work, he continued, includes “growing liquidity, expanding to new markets and finally integrating SegWit.” Lightning Network integration is a bit further off, though, as it doesn’t fit well into Bisq’s complex architecture.

Even as the DAO is launched and Bisq has achieved a greater degree of decentralization than before, Jain said that Bisq’s community is “focused on further decentralizing the network.” This means a new trading scheme which removes arbitrators from the multisignature process and replaces them with mediators “for a more private, quick and decentralized trading experience where less trust is required.”

Ultimately, he concluded, the idea and final goal is that “users shouldn’t have to trust Bisq for anything.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Five Years in the Making, Bisq Exchange Launches Its Bitcoin DAO

Bisq

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are one of crypto’s more novel and ambitious applications — one that Bitcoin, until recently, has had nothing to do with.

In practice, they’re a bit younger than Bitcoin forks and older than smart contract-focused blockchains. The idea is that you can devise a decentralized governance system using the blockchain’s cryptographic controls — rule of code, so to speak. Using tokenomics and technical schemes, the DAO affects certain laws over its participants, incentivizes them to play by the rules and encourages the community to hold itself accountable.

Dan Larimer’s BitShares, with its delegated proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, was the first DAO, followed by Dash. Since these trailblazers went live, DAO endeavors have become dominated by the Ethereum ecosystem, including, most notably, the eponymous and disastrous The DAO — best known for forfeiting millions in ether to the void after an incompetent coder unwittingly deleted a wallet library — and Maker, among others.

Perhaps because of Bitcoin’s limited scripting language and, conversely, Ethereum’s rich scripting language, Ethereum has been the frontrunner for popular DAOs in recent memory, while one has never launched on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Until now, that is.

Bisq Gets an Upgrade

Bisq, one of the Bitcoin community’s only truly decentralized exchanges, introduced version 1.0 of its software this week. Along with other ancillary upgrades, the release dropped a bombshell by furnishing Bitcoin with its first DAO.

“Bisq’s DAO, launched on Monday, April 15, is (to my knowledge) the only attempt of its kind to decentralize a project’s management and funding to the extent it does,” Steve Jain, a Bisq contributor, told Bitcoin Magazine.

With its intention to migrate toward distributed governance, Bisq will strive for an even greater degree of decentralization than it already features. Its software operates on Tor, and each user must run their own separate instance of the program (akin to running a node on a much smaller scale) to access the exchange, making it completely peer-to-peer.

The privacy-minded exchange offers a rare, KYC-resistant fiat ramp for bitcoin trading, allowing users to facilitate fiat exchange with payment apps, bank wires and even hard cash swaps, like LocalBitcoins offers. With each trade, bitcoin is locked away in multi-signature contracts, requiring arbitrators to resolve any conflicts should a dispute arise in a trade.

Jain said that this version upgrade was a long time coming.

“The DAO was intended to be a part of Bisq from the day it was first conceived in 2014,” he revealed, adding that this launch has been in the works for five years — meaning that its development predates even the infamous Ethereum DAO. Now that it’s live, he believes that the program has realized an even truer version of itself, one that separates it from the pack.

“From this standpoint, Bisq is a totally different beast —in terms of software and governance — than any other exchange,” he claimed.

How the DAO Works

Bisq’s governance will revolve around a token, but speculators need not apply — the project isn’t launching an ICO. Instead, each BSQ token will be minted through a process known as coloring.

Colored coins, so-called because they are distinguished from regular coins on the blockchain, are simply satoshis marked for a specific use case. To create tokens for Bisq, for example, users submit satoshis to the DAO, which are then “painted over” to represent BSQ. These tokens give users the ability to participate in the Bisq DAO.

This participation can take many forms. For traders on the platform, BSQ will give them trading discounts, not unlike BNB coin for Binance users, but this token’s use case is more dynamic than that. Contributors, for instance, can submit a compensation request to the network for payment in BSQ after finishing a project for the DAO. The community then votes on whether or not compensation should be awarded, and the developer submits satoshis to mint the colored BSQ tokens.

More than just developers, DAO contributors could be designers, support staff, social media managers or writers. These contributors can also stake BSQ in a bond to fill a high-trust position in the DAO, like a back end engineer, copywriter or social media representative. If these de facto employees are caught slacking off or acting up, the community can confiscate their stakes as punishment.

“It’s a dynamic system of stakeholders acting in their own best interests … And notably, there are no gatekeepers to manage it all,” Jain said. “BSQ is bought on the open market, and it’s issued by collective stakeholder voting. Personal vendettas, bank tantrums, government policies, company rules … none of these things can get in the way of someone doing work and getting paid for it.”

To start, 3,657,480 BSQ has been minted to compensate a team of more than 200 contributors for their five years of labor to get Bisq and its nascent DAO up and running. Going forward, Jain told us that new BSQ will be put into circulation every month to fulfill compensation requests. Any BSQ used for trading fees, on the other hand, will be burned and taken out of supply entirely.

Should I Trust the Government?

For some, the DAO’s attempt to realize cohesive-yet-anarchic governance is utopian at best and foolhardy at worst. Critics point to Ethereum’s DAO and the ensuing hard fork as a bailout of sorts — the crypto equivalent of the windfalls Washington bestowed on Wall Street during the Great Recession.

Other criticisms point to the notion that incentives aren’t powerful enough to keep bad actors in line, or that governance systems, depending on structure, give these bad actors mechanisms to game the system and circumvent checks and balances.

Bisq’s own governance is twofold. Voter clout is determined on a weighted basis (how many BSQ tokens you own) and on merit (your reputation on the network). Voting based on token count is a red flag for many — it’s one of the reasons people look at EOS’ block producer elections as a pay-for-play playground, for instance. When asked if he felt that a stake-based voting model might enable vote buying and give the 1 percent an opportunity to out-influence the other 99, Jain noted optimism around the intentions of stakeholders.

“[To vote you must] allot a certain amount of the BSQ you own for your voting weight,” he said. “You must own this BSQ, and yes, you can buy as much of it as you want on the open market. We think that’s fair. Presumably, assuming no bad intentions, someone with a lot of money who really believes in the Bisq network may want to buy a lot of BSQ to have a big influence in its decisions.”

He continued to qualify that merit “is worth more than pure stake weight.” Basically, someone who contributes to the network has more of a say in voting than someone who bought their tokens; if I earn 10,000 BSQ tokens, for example, even if I sell them, my vote holds more clout than someone who bought 10,000 BSQ on the market. Merit will decay on an annual basis, as well, meaning contributors have to keep working on the ecosystem to maintain or bolster their reputations.

“Lastly, the merits ‘stack,’ so if I have 10,000 BSQ of merit and 5,000 BSQ in my BSQ wallet, I can stake 5,000 BSQ for a combined voting weight of 15,000 BSQ,” Jain said.

With this governance structure in place, Jain emphasized that one of the most significant — and exciting — differences with this version upgrade is that contributors can finally get paid for their work. This work, he continued, includes “growing liquidity, expanding to new markets and finally integrating SegWit.” Lightning Network integration is a bit further off, though, as it doesn’t fit well into Bisq’s complex architecture.

Even as the DAO is launched and Bisq has achieved a greater degree of decentralization than before, Jain said that Bisq’s community is “focused on further decentralizing the network.” This means a new trading scheme which removes arbitrators from the multisignature process and replaces them with mediators “for a more private, quick and decentralized trading experience where less trust is required.”

Ultimately, he concluded, the idea and final goal is that “users shouldn’t have to trust Bisq for anything.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Binance Delists Bitcoin SV

Binance

The cryptocurrency exchange Binance is officially removing Bitcoin SV (BSV) from its trading options, according to a company blog post.

The delisting comes after Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (aka CZ) threatened to delist the Bitcoin Cash fork coin in response to Craig S. Wright, the coin’s creator, threatening Lightning Torch prometheus Hodlonaut with a lawsuit.

Craig Wright is not Satoshi.

Anymore of this sh!t, we delist! https://t.co/hrnt3fDACq

— CZ Binance (@cz_binance) April 12, 2019

Per the blog post, “All trade orders will be automatically removed after trading ceases in each respective trading pair” but withdrawals will be open until July 22, 2019.

Officially, the blog post cited a failure to meet Binance’s standards as the reason for the delisting.

“At Binance, we periodically review each digital asset we list to ensure that it continues to meet the high level of standard we expect,” the post reads. “When a coin or token no longer meets this standard, or the industry changes, we conduct a more in-depth review and potentially delist it. We believe this best protects all of our users.”

These standards include things like team commitment, development activity, network strength, cooperation with the Binance team and whether or not the project has been pegged with fraudulent and/or unethical conduct.

Craig Wright vs. Hodlonaut

Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist, has been steeped in Bitcoin community skepticism (if not ire) for his long-held assertion that he is the true identity behind Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin’s pseudonymous founder. The community has branded him “Faketoshi” for this claim, inspiring such Twitter hashtags as #CraigWrightIsAFraud.

When the trend took off, Wright threatened legal action against anyone who calls him a fraud on the grounds of libel, taking aim at no individual in particular. This nebulous threat, though, was finally substantiated when Wright sent a cease-and-desist order to Hodlonaut.

The anonymous bitcoiner then deleted his Twitter account at the behest of his legal council and, though Wright can only serve him the threatened lawsuit if he obtains his physical address — an effort that Wright’s colleague, Calvin Ayre, has aided him in by launching a doxing campaign through his website CoinGeek — community members launched a fundraiser to cover Hodlonaut’s legal costs. Three days in, the campaign has raised $28,000 and reached its soft cap just a day after its launch.

Announcing a crowdfunding campaign to help @hodlonaut defend against unfounded legal attacks. Any remaining funds will be donated to @btcven. Please spread the word and donate!https://t.co/X95BoQbO8D

In the bitcoin community we stand up for each other. #WeAreAllHodlonaut 💪 pic.twitter.com/jD6hmAMJUv

— elizabeth stark (@starkness) April 12, 2019

After cajoling Wright and Ayre in a series of tweets, the podcaster behind “What Bitcoin Did,” Peter McCormack, dogpiled onto the looming legal proceedings, receiving a cease-and-desist letter similar to the one sent to Hodlonaut and responding in kind with a tongue-in-cheek response to Wright’s legal team.

Given that many assume Craig Wright’s claim as the inventor of Bitcoin is fraudulent and the lawsuits he has launched to defend this claim, Binance’s standard of not supporting allegedly unethical or fraudulent projects may have motivated the delisting.

Even if this isn’t the case, some Bitcoin community members contend that Bitcoin SV doesn’t meet the typical technical standards for a reputable exchange anyway, given how many transaction confirmations top exchanges usually require before they recognize deposits.

Coins with weak PoW hashrates are a headache for exchanges, as their transactions can cheaply be reversed (double spent). Here’s Kraken compensating for that, by only acknowledging deposits after many confirmations. (Via @minefarmbuy) pic.twitter.com/EGYGiPh5c6

— Tuur Demeester (@TuurDemeester) April 15, 2019

Coinbase require 1008 confirmations for BSV. That’s ~1 week!https://t.co/PoHqB6hS06 pic.twitter.com/5PtntN0Vpq

— Luke Childs (@lukechilds) April 15, 2019

Following news of the delisting, Bitcoin SV’s price fell dramatically and it is currently down roughly 8 percent on the day, trading at about $64.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Vidi, Vici, Satoshi: The Lightning Torch Has Reached Its Final Destination

Lightning Torch Finish

The Lightning Torch, a Lightning Network payment that has been forwarded to bitcoiners around the world via Twitter, has run its course and reached its end in the charitable hands of Bitcoin Venezuela.

It’s grown a lot since we last covered it in February. In fact, the term “Torch” doesn’t seem to do it justice anymore. At this point, it could rightly be called a bonfire.

Admittedly, it’d be impossible to pass a bonfire around the world (a Torch sounds much more feasible), but the Lightning Torch doesn’t care much for the impossible or implausible. Ten years ago, the prospect of passing a digital payment to every continent shy of Antarctica would have been unthinkable. Even less thinkable: this payment chain would be passed uninterrupted (well, mostly uninterrupted, save two kinks) over 275 times with hardly anyone’s own opportunism getting the better of it.

It’s intersected with economically sanctioned countries like Iran, fallen into the hands of a Finnish model, been highly publicized after Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey took part and become a gleaming example of bitcoin’s resilience as a currency that has no regard for borders, edicts or politics.

As the Torch enters its final stretch, it has cleared a series of significant hurdles; from escaping greedy hands to transcending economic sanctions, the Torch has more than lived up to the hopes of its Prometheus.

“I never expected it to go anywhere,” Hodlonaut, the Torch’s creator, told Bitcoin Magazine. “It was just a fun little thing that I did; it’s not like I sat and planned this out.”

Igniting the Flame

Like any Twitter trend that goes viral within a niche community, the Lightning Torch began as a bit of “fun.” Hodlonaut, whom I have described as an astronautical tomcat before (and will again and again), wanted to spread excitement for and awareness of the Lightning Network, so he decided to send 100,000 satoshis to the first person in his tweet thread that he trusted.

It came with a catch — or at least an expectation. The recipient would have to add 10,000 sats and then pass it on to someone else, then that person would add more, and so on.

Some LN fun..

– I send 100k sats with https://t.co/va7XSnFii0 to the first person I choose to trust that replies to this.
– That person adds 10k sats and sends 110k to someone (Either from reply to a new tweet, or this thread)

.. and so on

How many sats before it breaks?

— hodlonaut🌮⚡🔑 (@hodlonaut) January 19, 2019

“If somebody asked me on the first day, ‘How far do you think it would go?’ I would have said, ‘10 or 20 hops,’” Hodlnaut recalled. Turns out, he was lowballing it. After 292 passes, it would reach the 4.29 million satoshi limit Hodlonaut set for it.

The seminal passes were mainly lowkey Bitcoin enthusiasts and/or professionals just looking to get in on the fun. They included a couple of duplicate passings, as interest wasn’t fully fledged. Everything ran pretty smoothly during the Torch’s first days and (nearly) everyone played nice. I say “nearly” because, on the 14th pass, the Torch ran into a problem.

What if I Decide it to keep it? 😂what will happen to me ?

— sirLordBTC (@SerWisdom69) January 20, 2019

sirLordBTC (who, with an EPIC name like that, we’re not surprised tried to screw the system), absconded with the Torch when it was worth under $10. So, all in all, it’s not like he profited much from his sophomoric trick — he likely just wanted to be a contrarian little edgelord.

Hodlonaut actually predicted that, after those first 10 to 20 successful hops, at some point the Torch would be stolen. Technically, his foresight was accurate but, thankfully, the sender, Ruben Johansen, refueled the Torch with 250,000 satoshi and passed it along to someone else. Cracking on, the only other trouble the Torch had would come at 2.51 million satoshis, when pseudonymous user eduard_btc decided to “seize” it because he could.

So I’m currently proudly holding the Lightning Torch.

I’ll seize it because i can, and no one can stop me. This is bitcoin,

Lightning Network is unfairly cheap and fast #LNTrustChain #bitcoin #reckless

— Eduard ⚡️ (@eduard_btc) January 31, 2019

He received a lot of heat in the ensuing Twitter thread, wherein he justified his decision with the whole “don’t trust, verify” schtick. Still, he eventually buckled under the communal pressure as the general consensus was that he was acting like a jerk, so he sent it back to sender Klaus Lovegreen, who had already pledged to reup the balance and pass it on to a more trustworthy individual.

Building Heat

Barring those two outlying users, the Torch’s movement has been largely uninterrupted. And it eventually made its way to plenty of big name bitcoiners.

An early one of these was Pierre Rochard. A staunch Bitcoin maximalist, Rochard’s popular Lightning node launcher has garnered him a reputation for being one of the space’s premier Lightning Network enthusiasts and educators, so it made sense that he’d hop on so early, and it’s fitting that he’d get to take part.

From here, the flame would pass between the hoi polloi and high profiles alike. Jack Mallers, Brooke Mallers, Nicolas Dorier, D. Dickerson, John Carvalho and the Bitrefill team, Armin Van Bitcoin, Zack Voel, Anthony Pompliano and even Andreas Antonopoulos would all hold the Torch before it hit the 150 passes mark. Halfway to 300 passes, the Torch’s popularity definitely reached a tipping point.

At this juncture, Matt Odell reached out to Twitter Co-Founder and CEO Jack Dorsey, who responded by sending Odell an invoice. Crypto Twitter freaked out, the news made industry (and mainstream) media headlines and the Torch’s prominence blazed forth, putting it in the hands of even more bitcoin (and other cultural) leaders.

From Dorsey, it would go to Lightning Labs Co-Founder Elizabeth Stark. The next 85 passes would be populated by industry heavyweights like Samson Mow, Riccardo Spagni, Alena Satoshi, Whale Panda, Giacomo Zucco, Changpeng Zhao (who took the opportunity to shill BNB), Justin Sun (who took the opportunity to shill TRON), Erik Voorhees, Meltem Demoirs, the BitMEX Research team, Ben Davenport, Randy Brito, the CoinGecko team, Boxmining, Mia Tam, Andy Cheung, Charlie Shrem, Vijay Boyapati, Adam Back, Reid Hoffman — and even the team here at Bitcoin Magazine.

Later on in its lifespan, it would also pass through the hands of the team at Slush Pool, Peter Wuille, Jill Carlson, Laura Shin, Peter McCormack, the “Free Ross Ulbricht” campaign and our own Aaron van Wirdum.

With names like these partaking, the Torch’s popularity was hotter than ever. What started as a fun experiment had grown into a cultural movement of sorts with multiple components. This memetic metamorphosis (both the cultural evolution of the Torch and its meme value) has even been chronicled in the artistic renderings of CryptoScamHub. In short, the Torch became immensely popular and graduated to full meme status; the tracking of it has become a sort of pastime in the bear market and big names fanned its popularity.

But this popularity also had the unintended consequence of shutting common bitcoiners out. Some on Twitter complained that the surplus of elites vying for the Torch meant that they had become overrepresented in the pool of passers. Tweeting his opinion, Hodlonaut agreed and suggested that it would be wise to keep the process from devolving into exclusivity.

“It looked at some point like it would turn into something that was unavailable to the common guy,” he told Bitcoin Magazine. “I think fortunately we ended up with a good balance overall. There have been periods of only high-profile people, but pretty organically, it ended up in the hands of lower-profile people.”

Circumventing Sanctions, Reaching Disadvantaged Populations

Following a particularly long strand of high-flying passers which ended with Bitcoin Magazine, the Torch not only landed in the hands of under-the-radar bitcoiners, but it would blaze on in some of the areas that need bitcoin the most.

“Bitcoin is a safe-haven,” Ziya Sadr, an Iranian Bitcoin enthusiast and technology writer who took the Torch, told Bitcoin Magazine.

Around the time we took the Torch, a groundswell of community sentiment was pushing for Sadr to accept the Torch on behalf of Iran. The symbolic move would speak volumes to the power of permissionless, censorship-resistant currency, given the international sanctions that have economically annexed the country from the bulk of the world and its government’s repressive stance against technology and financial tools (bitcoin being no exception here).

There was a general fear that, as a financial instrument, bitcoin is prone to the financial sanctions that the U.S. government has levied against Iran. As a U.S.-based company, Bitcoin Magazine’s owner, BTC Inc, didn’t want to take the risk. We even asked the U.S. Treasury on Twitter if sending bitcoin to Iran this way would be permissible (and didn’t get a reply).

So we sent it to Welsh bitcoiner Bitgeiniog instead, who (as promised) passed it on to Sadr in what they called a “cypherpunk, authoritarian-busting move.” For Sadr, who believes that the fretting over sanctions “triggered people to think that bitcoin isn’t what it’s meant to be: a tool to defy censorship which will not conform to governments and sanctions,” the historic moment was incredibly moving and had a significant impact on the Iranian Bitcoin community.

“It was a very bold and public experiment, getting in touch with sanctioned people, people who are exiled from the rest of the world,” he said. “This carried a lot of optimism for the Iran Bitcoin community, and this community represents the rest of people in Iran: the Bitcoin community has people from every category; there are businessmen, investors, entrepreneurs, teachers. It gave us promise; it proved to us that Bitcoin is borderless.”

Hodlonaut said something similar about the Iranian pass in our conversation, namely that the “main takeaway [is that the Torch] connects people directly.”

Sadr said that this gesture of goodwill shows that the Iranian Bitcoin community, which some of us in the West may ignore, “is on equal ground” with the rest of the world.

I’d venture to say they’re even on higher ground. In a country where MasterCard and PayPal are banned (and your bank account can be frozen if you’re caught transacting with either), bitcoin offers a tenable alternative to an unstable economic climate.

It even opens up access to the web at large, said Sadr. He purchased a virtual private network using bitcoin from NordVPN, something he couldn’t dream of doing with the rial, given international sanctions. Telegram, YouTube, Twitter, you name it — all of these are blocked in Iran, but they’re accessible with a VPN.

Sadr, who freelances in exchange for bitcoin to make ends meet, said that bitcoin is increasing in popularity as the rial’s value plummets. People are attracted to earning their wages in foreign currency and bitcoin is more attractive still, given its ability to circumvent the government’s vice grip on personal finances.

“There’s a very active black market — everything is a black market in Iran. Foreign currency markets are black market, so it’s actually the norm,” Sadr said.

LocalBitcoins and Telegram chats are part of this black market and have become common watering holes, and there are two Iran-specific exchanges that people will use to trade, despite the government’s best efforts to block the URLs to these sites.

For the Iranian Bitcoin community and its online hubs, Sadr said that “the number has been growing, even though it’s a bear market — we still see, regardless of all the FUD that’s being spread in the media and the space, the numbers are growing in the communities that I’m active in.”

As part of the Persian New Year custom, Sadr and his bitcoin buddies have been giving people money. But for this year’s holiday, they’re not passing out rials — they’re sending sats through the Lightning Network or through mainnet. He thinks that the token of gratitude will help to educate his countrymen and help ease their access to a financial system that they otherwise might not be able to leverage.

“I meet a lot of people who know that they can use bitcoin to transfer money easily, but they just haven’t tried it yet,” Sadr said.

The Torch’s Legacy

The situation in Iran calls to memory Venezuela’s own political and economic hardship. The Torch has made it there, too — multiple times in fact. The Torch ultimately reached Bitcoin Venezuela, a charity organization which has fed thousands of economically dispossessed citizens thanks to cryptocurrency donations. As its final bearer, Bitcoin Venezuela will blow the Torch out and transmute its altruistic embers into food, necessities and medicine for Venezuelans in need. A number of community members have pledged to match this donation.

We had to do a second take (big TXs are a challenge with LN right now!), but here’s documentation from the receiving node. @AaronvanW @BitcoinMagazine @TheBlock__ @pierre_rochard @francispouliot_ @adam3us @Chris_Stewart_5 @starkness @jack @BitcoinErrorLog @Excellion @johanth pic.twitter.com/agAjqj96na

— torkel (@torkelrogstad) April 11, 2019

The Lightning Torch may have begun as fun, but its intersection with economically and politically destabilized areas is anything but trivial. Its ability to transcend borders, nationalities and ideologies is testament to the fact that Satoshi’s gift to the world (and its grassroots community) is resilient and, by and large, chock-full of goodwill.

“I think that says a lot about this community,” Hodlonaut mused. “People are good in this space. I’ve seen so much positive stuff coming out of this.”

The “random” and “organic” trajectory of the Torch, he continued, “tells volumes about the global nature of bitcoin.” Sure as Satoshi, the proof is in the numbers.

In total, 278 unique participants from 56 countries have sent the Torch to every continent except for Antarctica (though one passer did place their phone on a rock from Antarctica while receiving it, but that really only counts in spirit). Just over 7 BTC has been transacted (roughly 700 million satoshis!) over a period of 83 days.

So inspiring is this experiment-turned-movement that it has spawned offshoots. Obscure altcoin Ravencoin had an on-chain version, and there’s one called the Tiny Torch that has taken off on Bitcoin’s Lightning Network, too. While he had it, Litecoin creator Charlie Lee intimated that he would fork the Torch to Litecoin’s Lightning Network. This didn’t go over too well, though, and Lee eventually removed the tweet with this claim (some saw it as self-promotion and Hodlonaut wanted to make sure there was no confusion between offshoots and the #LNTrustChain hashtag that has demarcated the Torch’s movement).

Hodlonaut doesn’t want the original to fork either, less it get “stale.” He said that a finish line is necessary and that, without it, the Torch loses its significance.

He also told Bitcoin Magazine that keeping track of the Torch’s movement and documenting the phenomenon on its website has been a taxing, “around the clock” job. Given how much impact the Torch has had, we asked him what would be next when this was all over.

“I think I need a vacation,” he chuckled in response.

Well, he’s more than earned one, and thanks to the number of ancillary torches that have proliferated under the light of the original, he can take his rest while the influence of his creativity shines forth in multiple iterations. Much like Satoshi passing the Torch of his creation to a decentralized community of developers and enthusiasts, Hodlonaut’s ingenuity has been passed to a community eager to continue this exercise of trust.

So, the Lightning Torch’s creator can take his vacation; Bitcoin doesn’t take vacations.

To see all of the places the Torch has been, you can track its movements here. If you would like to join others in donating to Bitcoin Venezuela, please visit the charity’s website.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

With Latest Partnership, Ledger Vault Offers a Fix to Crypto’s Custody Problem

thumbnail_ledger-legacy-trust.jpg

Within the sphere of traditional finance, at least, crypto has a custody problem. The problem? Crypto is complicated, security is tricky and — if we’re being frank — the suits don’t know a bit from a byte (or a blockchain from a cloud server).

In fact, you could rightly say that what makes crypto, well, crypto actually makes them nervous. Unlike settling traditional assets, you can’t reverse a bitcoin transaction, the blockchain offers no internal or centralized controls and there’s no one to go to if you muck up a transaction. Bitcoin is everything that the traditional finance sector is not, so it’s understandable that Wall Street and friends would be wary of holding an asset they don’t understand and can’t control.

And holding is precisely the issue. In its many ETF rejections, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission returns to the same problem (among others like market maturity) ad infinitum: ETF providers must ensure proper custody for crypto assets so mismanagement doesn’t throw investor funds into the void.

So how do we give these institutions proper custody to appease both them and the regulators? Striking up a partnership with Legacy Trust, a Hong Kong-based asset management firm, French hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger thinks it’s whipped up a solution.

Introducing Ledger Vault

“We want to be the technology provider for the folks who want self-custody, [to] have their own keys and be their own bank, but we also want to provide it to the larger institutions that want to provide a service into the marketplace,” Demetrios Skalkotos, global head of Ledger Vault, told Bitcoin Magazine.

The Ledger Vault bills itself as the world’s first institutional-grade, multi-authorization wallet management tool. During our interview, Skalkotos told us that the Ledger Vault separates itself from other custody solutions by being more holistic in its approach, encompassing both hardware and software technology solutions. As a tech company first, he elucidates, they’re not concerned only with business practices.

“We are a hardware/software security company. Most of the folks in the market today are process-oriented solutions rather than technology-oriented solutions.”

These solutions involve one of Ledger’s existing devices, the Ledger Blue, its BOLOS operating system and a hardware security module (HSM). The BOLOS operating system, which powers the Ledger Blue, interacts with the HSM, which is used to store keys for transaction and fund management authorization. Skalkotos says that the combination of the two pieces of hardware and Ledger’s proprietary software create an “encrypted endpoint and secure channel” to allow the Ledger Blue and the HSM to talk to each other. This, in turn, allows users to facilitate multi-authorized transactions.

To set this up, each of the account’s multiple stakeholders generate a key/seed, which are then combined to create a master seed. Then, the shared owners devise the account’s governance scheme (like how many people are needed to sign off on a transaction) and appoint administrators. These administrators can designate account operators and assign them varying degrees of responsibilities/permissions. Ultimately, the administrators are in charge of setting rules for transactions, such as timelocks, authorization requirements, etc. But, depending on permissions, operators could have the ability to create, authorize or cancel transactions.

Preferring the phrase multi-authorization rather than multi-signature, Skalkotos said that this scheme allows for a great degree of flexibility for fund management. The solution allows its users to set up multiple wallets and offers four levels of governance, ranging from what Skalkotos called a “warmer” variant, which only requires two to three approvers, to a “colder” one that would need eight to nine approvers. The latter, which would be much slower, would likely be used by a trust and could be a treasury wallet of sorts.

“In essence, you’re eliminating the single point of failure. What you’re providing is a device to initiate and approve a transaction as a part of a bigger governance scheme.”

The solution could be used by any flavor of financial firms who want to add crypto assets to their portfolio, including hedge funds, family offices, banks and trust companies. It could also be used by exchanges to bolster their security and custody practices. While Ledger Vault was built primarily for institutional custody, however, Skalkotos told us that they are “working at all levels from a retail side and institutional side.”

They’re also working to build additional services on top of the solution, including staking services (the solution accommodates ERC20 tokens) and bolting on liquidity options.

With a global team presence in San Francisco, New York, Paris and (with this latest partnership) Hong Kong, Ledger boasts of growing a “diversified group of international clients across the board” since Ledger Vault went into beta in January 2019.

–end–

“We provide a technology platform for the industry, whether its family offices, crypto hedge funds, banks and trust companies, and custodians to self manage their assets or be able to provide a platform for services to the marketplace. So if a legacy trust company is hearing demand from their customers and they want to provide custody for the digital asset space, our platform will offer that.

“We have a global enterprise sales and technical team.” team in france, ny, and san francisco, people in hong kong

“They’re ranging from exchanges, to trust companies and banks, to family offices and hedge funds.”

“On the enterprise side, we’re working with a hardware security module, and our operating system, BOLOS, is interacting with the operating system of the HSMs. We also provide the customers the ledger blue devices, which are specifically built for the enterprise customers, so they’re authentication devices. That’s how we created that encrypted endpoint, secure channel in between talking to the HSM and the ledger blue device for initiation of transactions and approval of transactions.”

“multi-authorisation”

“You can create as many wallets as you want to. We have four layers of governance, and you can devise the governance rules and policies per each wallet independently. So I may have one wallet that’s very warm, it has two or three approvers and is going to a very direct whitelist and moves rather quickly. I could have another wallet that could be a treasury wallet that has 8 or 9 approvers and may have a time limit around it so it acts as if it were an offline, cold wallet solution.”

Could build other service on top of it, like staking and offer certain liquidity options

“We’re really a security software company.”

Clients and partnerships forthcoming

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Sparkswap, World’s First Lightning Atomic Swap Exchange, Now in Beta

Sparkswap

Bitcoin’s first decentralized exchange to make use of the Lightning Network’s Atomic Swaps is now in beta.

Sparkswap, an exchange with backing from Pantera Capital (which announced its ambitious mission to become the most decentralized bitcoin exchange on the market in August 2018), has now opened its beta to users. Leveraging the Lightning Network, the exchange is non-custodial and trading is decentralized. Users will be able to execute buy and sell orders between each other directly and, thanks to atomic swapping, they’ll also be able to trade coins across blockchains.

“At no point can either Sparkswap or your counterparty deprive you of your assets — the trades either complete or they do not,” Sparkswap Founder Trey Griffith told Bitcoin Magazine. “We are also a venue for trading, not an over-the-counter service like ShapeShift, so users are trading with each other.”

For this mainnet launch, Sparkswap will only feature a bitcoin and litecoin trading pair, but it could feasibly support other atomic swap-friendly cryptocurrencies like decred, vertcoin or komodo. Griffith added that the exchange also has “plans to accommodate many other cryptocurrencies, including beyond Bitcoin Script-based projects.” The technology, Griffith said, can accommodate other payment channel networks that aren’t necessarily compatible with the Lightning Network, so long as certain criteria are met.

Sparkswap orderbook

To access the exchange, users need to download Sparkswap Broker, the exchange’s open-source software. This kit includes everything needed to bootstrap both a Bitcoin and Litecoin full node, as well as Bitcoin and Litecoin Lightning nodes for running payment channels. If you’re already running full nodes, then you’re free to use these, though Griffith said that, for now, the exchange’s inaugural users cannot leverage their own Lightning nodes or custodial Lightning services.

When we asked if the exchange will evolve to support other Lightning Network technology like Submarine Swaps in the future, Griffith said that the semi-on-chain nature of this technical trick doesn’t fit Sparkswap’s use case.

“Our focus is on making cryptocurrency trading fast enough for professional users without sacrificing Bitcoin support and self-custody,” Griffith said. “Submarine Swaps by their nature are on-chain for half of the transaction, so while they provide an important service for the network (as evidenced by Lightning Loop), they don’t fit the needs of the product that we’re building [or] our users.”

Debuting at the outset of 2018, the Lightning Network continues to enjoy increasing developer activity and impressive growth. With technical solutions, wallets and services proliferating, as well as community initiatives like the Lightning Torch, becoming some of the industry’s new favorite pastimes, Griffith believes that optimism has supplanted the doubt that used to surround the Lightning Network in the infancy of its construction. For him, Sparkswap harnesses both this positive outlook and the payment network’s great promise, and there’s not a better time to be working toward the future of Bitcoin.

“I’ve been building on Lightning since late 2017 when it was still ‘never going to ship,’ so from my perspective these projects and efforts have been under the surface for a long time, but are now finally breaking through,” Griffith said. “Lightning is certainly not a finished product, but it has a ton of interesting applications, including near-instant cross-chain swaps like Sparkswap, that I’m excited to see get built out and gain usage. Collectively, we’re building the infrastructure that is going to power a Bitcoin-based financial system, and that makes this a very exciting time to be in this industry.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Op Ed: CCID’s Crypto Rankings Are Pointless (and They’re Not Official)

China Flag

But what isn’t an opinion is the fact that the Chinese government had nothing to do with these ratings, despite the popular perception that it does.

The government doesn’t sponsor the rankings, it doesn’t endorse them and it sure as hell doesn’t make them. You have to understand this in order to rationalize the congratulatory and reinforced cognitive bias that TRON, NEO and EOS bagholders must feel when these ratings come out.

The latest iteration of CCID’s “Global Public Blockchain Technology Assessment Index” ranks EOS as the number one project, followed by TRON, Ethereum and BitShares. Bitcoin comes in at number 15.

“Hallelujah! The Chinese government says my bags are as good as gold! Justin Sun really is the messiah!” To the moon. Epic lambo time. Real millionaire hours. The sentiment and response to these rankings is generally something along these lines (think I’m making this up? Just check Twitter).

Why the Chinese government’s apparent stamp of approval is a plus to these people is lost on me — this is the same country that has banned over-the-counter (OTC) cryptocurrency exchanges and has a generally hardline stance against cryptocurrencies. But not to worry because, again, the ratings aren’t really coming from the Chinese government but from an independent ratings agency affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

Still, whether a government or private entity, the source of the information doesn’t change the underlying point: these ratings (and the projects they tout) are a worthless assessment of the crypto industry’s frontrunning assets.

Not Government Vetted at All

This isn’t the first time that CCID has released cryptocurrency ratings and, by extension, it’s not the first time that these have been erroneously attributed to the Chinese government. Perhaps the name CCID looks stately and official to some readers, but Primitive co-founder Dovey Wan told me that this is the unofficial English name for the institute. In Mandarin, the company’s name (“赛迪,” which translates to “SadiiWang”) has no reference to China in it.

The misconception might also stem from the fact that when the first ratings were introduced in the summer of 2018, Chinese media framed the ratings as coming from China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. In a South China Morning Post article entitled “China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology to publish ratings for blockchain projects — including bitcoin,” for example, journalist Amanda Lee writes that the CCID operates “under” the industry while also calling it a “government-backed institute.”

Saying that the CCID is “under” or “backed by” China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is not inaccurate, it is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Reporting that this support means that all of the institute’s research is straight from the government’s mouth would be akin to saying that scientific research funded by U.S. government grants are the product of the U.S. Office of Science.

“The part about being state-owned is overplayed by the western audience; they don’t have any government structure in place dictating what they do or don’t do on a day-to-day basis,” Ben Yorke, an American blockchain and technology blogger living in China, told me. “In China there are over 150,000 SOEs [state-owned-enterprise] that can claim ‘the backing’ of the government.”

On Twitter, Yorke opined how western audiences reacted to the ratings (yet again) because, as he told me over our DM conversation, “the majority of people with experience in China would ignore a list like this.”

Yorke contacted the curator of the list and explained that “the guy I spoke with on the phone straight up said that the rankings are their independent thing … [they] aren’t endorsed by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, which is what we’d be looking for if the rankings were more official.”

One glance at CCID’s Baidu Baike page (what amounts to China’s wiki) and it’s clear that the company is an independent media and IT consultant firm.

No Equal Footing

Even if the rankings were “more official,” it’d be hard to take them any more seriously. But since they aren’t official, we’ll focus on why we should take them less seriously.

For one, “CCID’s services are opt-in. They don’t rank everyone, which seriously throws into question the integrity of the ratings system,” Yorke told me. He knows this because he asked the team at VeChain, a Chinese blockchain project which he has close ties to, why it wasn’t included and it said that it decided not to take part.

This opt-in model also raises questions about the rank of many companies in the top 10. How, for example, could a project that has never been on the rankings before suddenly make an appearance in the top five? I think it probably started playing ball. And given the open prevalence of bribery in many Chinese business practices, it’s possible to speculate that some form of pay to play was part of the process.

“It’s hard to verify, but this is China — paying for favors is pretty run of the mill here. I would be shocked if they didn’t have deals in place with some of the projects on the list,” Yorke told me when I asked if my assumption was fair.

At any rate, given the opt-in nature of these ratings, it should come as no surprise, then, to see that six out of the top 10 projects are predominantly Chinese — a Chinese company showing some indications of favoritism toward its compatriots.

And this is getting to the crux of it. If these ratings were evaluating the robustness, security, decentralization and value of a public chain — tenets that many in the community would uphold as positives for what would give a blockchain its underlying value — there’s no reason why bitcoin should be 15th behind a slew of dubious competitors.

Why Are These Rankings Dubious?

Critics would point out that TRON has been accused of plagiarizing its white paper while its founder, Justin Sun, is notorious for throwing money around to hype the project (including during a botched Twitter giveaway); EOS ran a year-long ICO that netted $1 billion in contributions but, to date, can be seen as little more than a “glorified cloud server” (which is hardly decentralized); NEO, like TRON and EOS, isn’t decentralized either and relies on the NEO foundation largely for project development; and Steem’s token supply was subject to a staggering 80 percent pre-mine (!).

As for the rest, the list is populated by projects that most people outside of the shitcoin speculator milieu have never heard of, like NULS, Ontology and GX Chain. The bottom line: these projects are judged on criteria (like “creativity”) that have little to do with what many cypherpunks and cryptographers would deem valuable when examining the value of a public chain.

While “Basic-tech” [sic] and “Applicability” are also among these criteria, there’s no rationale given behind what makes most of these projects superior or even relevant in the category of public blockchains. How, for example, can you praise the underlying technology of some of these projects as being the best in the blockchain industry when centralized ones like EOS, TRON and NEO can hardly be considered blockchains at all?

All in all, we can hardly trust these ratings to be objective or even professionally curated. It’s the same problem that people have with Weiss Ratings’ own cryptocurrency grades. In its latest iteration, Weiss gave EOS, XRP and Bitcoin the top three spots, respectively. The discrepancy (besides EOS) between the two lists alone should be enough to dismiss these lists as ill-informed and, really, a reckless strategy for evaluating investments. Why would we listen to people who have no experience in cryptography telling us which cryptocurrency is the best investment?

Unfortunately, the practice of rating investments is deeply embedded in the current financial system, so it was more or less inevitable for this to seep into the crypto industry as well. Suffice it to say, the hazards are all the same and the writing has long been on the wall for the dangers that this practice represents. Case in point: the triple-A-rated securities and debt instruments that were ranked by credit ratings agencies played a big role in the Great Recession and the 2008-2009 subprime mortgage crisis.

Satoshi built Bitcoin to escape these structures, not to replicate them. So if you want my two sats, don’t pay these ratings any mind and if they affirm your crypto biases, it might be constructive to look elsewhere to evaluate your investments. Because these rankings are not coming from the Chinese government (and it wouldn’t matter even if they did) and they sure aren’t coming from legacy institutions who didn’t care about bitcoin until it hit $20,000.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Innisfil Becomes First City in Canada to Accept Bitcoin for Municipal Taxes

Canada Bitcoin

Ohio might have made history as the first city to accept cryptocurrency for corporate taxes, but one Canadian town is adding its name to the books by becoming the first in North America to permit its citizens to pay their personal taxes in bitcoin.

The tiny town of Innisfil (with a population of 36,500), situated about 45 minutes north of Toronto, just approved an initiative that will allow its residents to satisfy their municipal taxes (income taxes and property taxes) in bitcoin, beginning in April 2019.

Andrei Poliakov, the founder and CEO of Coinberry, told Bitcoin Magazine that the exchange has been in talks with officials for some months, after Kyle Kemper of the Blockchain Association of Canada connected the private and public entities. A live hearing was held on March 27, 2019, to pass the initiative and it went off without a hitch, Poliakov said.

“The staff, councils and mayor of the town of Innisfil are extremely forward thinking and innovative,” Poliakov enthused. “Coinberry approached the town with a proposal to start accepting property taxes in cryptocurrency and, after several months of discussions, we were able to make Bitcoin history in Canada yesterday!”

Coinberry is poised to play an integral role for Innisfil residents who utilize the new option.

“Payments will be processed through Coinberry Pay, a cryptocurrency payment processing solution developed by Coinberry for use by municipalities, charities, merchants and individuals looking to accept payments, donations or tips in cryptocurrency,” Poliakov said.

The payment solution is hosted by Coinberry but taxpayers will have to go through a government website to pay their taxes. Once a payment is processed through Coinberry, the exchange will convert it to Canadian dollars and then pass it on to Innisfil’s municipal government.

Poliakov told Bitcoin Magazine that the trend has a chance to catch on with neighboring towns as well, and his hopes are to eventually encourage the city council of Toronto to adopt the option. But he and other proponents won’t truly be satisfied until the Bitcoin bug bites every layer of Canada’s political system — all the way up to the federal level.

“The goal with Coinberry Pay in general, and with the current initiative specifically, is to bring about the mass adoption of cryptocurrency as a method of payment in Canada,” said Poliakov. “We are in discussion with a number of parties both within government and the private sector to utilize our solution. Our goal at Coinberry is to make crypto simple — we will continue to expand our cryptocurrency payment processing service to municipalities and other government agencies in the near future. We truly believe in the benefits of mass adoption of cryptocurrency and are working very hard to make that a reality.”

To start, bitcoin will be the only available cryptocurrency option for citizens to break the fiat tax barrier, but Poliakov said that Coinberry Pay will be adding ether, litecoin, ripple and bitcoin cash soon, as well.

The initiative is a significant win for both Canadian citizens and the cryptocurrency industry and, given that an exchange spearheaded the initiative, it’s likely restored some community trust in the industry following the ongoing QuadrigaCX debacle. With a municipal government choosing to place its trust in both Coinberry and bitcoin, the industry and its flagship asset is one step closer to achieving greater understanding and de-stigmatization with the populace at large.

“Once again, we are proud to be first in taking this bold step by offering this new, exciting payment option to our residents,” Innisfil Mayor Lynn Dollin said in a press release. “There’s no doubt that cryptocurrency is growing in usage and popularity. By getting into this now, we are making sure our municipality is ahead of the game, and signalling to the world that we truly are a future-ready and innovative community.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Sats Back: How the Ebates of Bitcoin Plans to Convert Holders to Spenders

lolli.jpg

“The merchants don’t want the banks either — that’s the alignment no one talks about. Look at what Kroger did. They pulled out of Visa. The retailers are on the good side.”

Alex Adelman, co-founder and CEO of Lolli, should know. After graduating from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2011, the entrepreneur started Cosmic, an e-commerce gateway “with the idea to democratize commerce, allowing anyone to buy anything anywhere,” he told Bitcoin Magazine. The company, after an initial acquisition by PopSugar Inc., would end up in the hands of e-commerce cashback giant Ebates, and Adelman and his CTO, Matt Senter, would stay on staff after the buyout.

Now, the duo are taking their experience working at Ebates and their original dream to “democratize commerce” to a new network of technology and clientele: Bitcoin.

From Cash Back to Sats Back

While working at Ebates, Adelman told us that he learned “why people buy, how people use cashback programs,” — the hows and whys that would eventually lay the foundation for building Lolli’s bitcoin-back platform.

From craft beer memberships to VPNs to clothing, you can shop for just about anything on Lolli, though Adelman says travel is the most popular category (this is perhaps due to the fact that most airline booking sites, like CheapOAir, which accepts crypto as payment, give a flat rate in bitcoin back rather than a percentage).

Like Ebates’ own model, Lolli’s is simple and enticing: Shop online with Lolli’s participating retailers and earn a variable amount of bitcoin back as a reward. Launched just six months ago, the platform already has 10,000 active users, Adelman told Bitcoin Magazine, and it’s struck up partnerships with retail and online service leaders like Walmart, Overstock and Bookings.com. These are just a few names out of the 500 partners Lolli has brought to the platform as it continues to sprout and grow.

The seeds for the company were sown over five years ago when Adelman was on a trip to New York while he was still building Cosmic. He was couch surfing at the time while navigating the choppy waters of New York’s sea of industry, attempting to form partnerships and secure capital for his first startup.

Adelman said he doesn’t like the “Hollywood-ization” of those moments when the entrepreneurial light bulb clicks on and a business idea shines forth. But he also said that, if he could pick a moment when the initial spark for Lolli’s conceptualization was kindled, it was one fateful night at a New York bar when he met the soon-to-be co-founder of Blockstack, Ryan Shea.

“A couple of years into [Cosmic], we learned about bitcoin. On a trip to New York, I bumped into Ryan Shea randomly through a friend of a friend at a bar, and he had just learned about bitcoin and he talked my ear off for like three hours. And everything he said resonated with me,” Adelman said.

“Everyone has that friend or that moment. I was obsessed. Everything we were building was on top of fiat rails and all breakages we were seeing were with payments. We were getting taxed by every single one of these layers that has no real purpose or reason.”

Still, it would take years of careful deliberation and focus before Adelman and Senter would go full bitcoin with Lolli. Adelman’s glad they waited, telling Bitcoin Magazine that he doesn’t think they “would have had the same success if we tried to implement it five years ago.”

Originally, though, the team wasn’t going to build it for Bitcoin. After leaving Ebates, Adelman said that he and Matt toyed with Solidity to see if they could build a DApp for this use case. He was on a bit of an altcoin kick, he admits, and thought that Ethereum might be a good fit for the platform. That was until he took a walk in Washington Square Park with friend and fellow Bitcoiner Arjun Balaji.

“I was talking about some of the stuff we were building in Solidity and he asked pretty bluntly, ‘When’s the last time you read the Satoshi Whitepaper?’ And truthfully, I hadn’t read it in a couple years. It’s so basic, so I felt like I knew it,” he said.

“I read it again, and it hit me like this source of truth. And speaking candidly, I said, ‘What am I doing? Everything’s in Bitcoin. That’s where it starts.’”

“So I started the concept for this idea that was so simple: Ebates but for bitcoin. Giving people cash back in the form of bitcoin as a way to distribute bitcoin to more people.”

Between Adelman’s background of shopping Cosmic to retailers over the last seven years and Senter’s developing skills, “all these things beautifully came together, and Matt and I just started building.”

Matt hammered out a prototype in “about two weeks,” and Adelman began shopping around this beta to some retailers.

Turning Holders into Spenders

Today, Lolli continues to grow and, as it grows, Adelman believes that not only will it bring more people into the bitcoin ecosystem to passively earn the cryptocurrency, but it will eventually convert holders into users. Then, the companies that participate in the sats-back program will be incentivized to accept bitcoin as more users leverage the program and show interest in spending their bitcoin on actual services.

“The next stage — these earners are going to become spenders. Once they hold bitcoin, they’re going to want to spend it.”

For now, though, he says that the retailers are just happy to have the additional coverage. It wasn’t hard to convince them to play ball, he told us, because much like with Ebates, the cost is negligible and can be seen as a marketing expense. Lolli drives users to their sites because, like with Ebates, “people are loyal to [the service], not the particular brands.”

After these users purchase goods on these sites, Lolli receives a commission from that purchase and they credit the user’s account with bitcoin that the company buys from “top OTCs,” Adelman said. He emphasized that all user information is anonymized (the retailers don’t see names, only user IDs when someone shops using the service) and that the company does not make money by selling data, a misconception that the company has been crusading against online.

When asked whether or not the platform would expand to other cryptos, Adelman said he’s a big believer in free markets, and that people can spend their bitcoin or trade it for other cryptos if they wish. So, for now, he’s loyal to bitcoin, and he would rather focus on enriching the platform’s functionality before adding support for other coins.

In the works, for instance, is a category search function that will allow users to type in the item or services they’re searching for on the site to streamline their search. Until that feature is ready, customers can reach out to Lolli customer support to request an item and they will search for participating retailers to find the best deal for you. Adelman believes that this human factor and customer service will ultimately allow his new company to outcompete the legacy cashback company he came from.

“It’s all about good branding. We want people to associate good customer service with bitcoin. And if we can do that, it’ll mean more people defaulting to Lolli for bitcoin over Ebates in the long run.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Tether Updates Website, Says USDT Backed by “Reserves,” Not Just Cash

Tether reserves.jpg

Tether just updated its website to clarify that each of its USDT tokens, which it used to claim were “always backed 1-to-1 with traditional currency,” are backed by assets other than fiat currency.

Now, the website instead reassures its patrons that it’s always “100% backed by [its] reserves.” It clarifies this vague language, even legalistic language, by saying these reserves “include traditional currency and cash equivalents and, from time to time, may include other assets and receivables from loans made by Tether to third parties, which may include affiliated entities.”

Despite the fact that some of Tether’s collateral might not actually be in fiat, the revised notice concludes by saying, “Every Tether is also 1-to-1 pegged to the USD, so 1 USD₮ is always valued by Tether at 1 USD.” The older version read, “1 USD₮ is always equivalent to 1 USD.”

Tether’s statement that it values each of its tokens at $1 is not the same as saying that each token is backed by $1; rather, each token’s dollar value is instead derived from Tether’s valuation of its assets. This clarification will likely embolden Tether’s more staunch opponents, who have argued that Tether is insolvent. While there’s never been any evidence to suggest that Tether does not have the reserves to back the coins in circulation, the company has routinely refused to submit to a formal audit, opting instead for attestations from a law firm in the past.

This update seems to at least lend credence to these insolvency concerns, which have been most thoroughly vetted by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who released a report with a thesis that hinges on the belief that Tether’s issuance inflated the market during the 2017 bull run. It should be noted that this report has been refuted by other academics who took issue with the professors’ methodology.

Still, Tether claims that there are more than enough assets in its coffers to cover circulating supply. On its transparency page, the company records that it has $23 million more assets under its name than liabilities.

“From time to time, Tether reviews its Terms of Service and Risk Disclosures to ensure that they remain appropriate and up to date. Our most recent revisions were intended to update our disclosures to reflect Tether’s growth and operations and to be consistent with the types of disclosures used by other institutions,” a Bitfinex team member told Bitcoin Magazine, responding on behalf of Tether.

“The only change is that the composition of the assets that provide that backing includes a combination of cash, cash equivalents, and may also include other assets or receivables from loans issued by Tether,” they concluded.

With the language presented on the website and by this representative, Tether’s assertion that its backing may include “cash equivalents” and “other assets and receivables from loans made by Tether to third parties” reads like fractional reserve banking practices. This modern banking practice, which some believe helped to precipitate the 2008 financial crisis, allows banks to hold only a portion of its customer deposits on site, opting instead to loan the overwhelming majority of these funds to institutions and generate debt in place of physical assets.

“Fractional reserve banking is a banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash on hand and are available for withdrawal. This is done to expand the economy by freeing up capital that can be loaned out to other parties,” Investopedia explains.

The fear of many Tether detractors is that the company is running a fractional reserve, a concern that was aggravated by the apparent inability to redeem USDT for cash through Tether’s website or Bitfinex, an exchange run by the same management as Tether. Tether’s cash portal, however, has reportedly been up-and-running since late 2018.

Given that the market’s largest stablecoin has been so opaque in its operations, the controversy surrounding Tether has provided fertile ground for competition. Through 2017–2018, there was a proliferation of fiat-backed stablecoins like TrueUSD, Gemini USD, USD Coin and the Paxos Standard, all of which are attempting to be an institutional and regulation grade alternative to the market’s first fiat stablecoin.

To bolster their credibility, the companies behind these coins have employed some of the U.S.’s top accounting firms to run an audit of their business and finances, something that Tether’s own executives have called impossible in the past, given the stigmatized nature of cryptocurrency companies.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Reacting to Public Ire, Coinbase Drops Neutrino Execs With Hacking Team Ties

Coinbase hacking team cuts.jpg

After a week of community discontent, cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase has decided to sever its business relationship with Neutrino employees who previously worked at the notorious Italian malware/software provider Hacking Team.

Blaming “a gap in [Coinbase’s] diligence process,” CEO Brian Armstrong writes in a Medium post that Coinbase “did not properly evaluate everything from the perspective of our mission and values as a crypto company.”

“We took some time to dig further into this over the past week, and together with the Neutrino team have come to an agreement: those who previously worked at Hacking Team (despite the fact that they have no current affiliation with Hacking Team), will transition out of Coinbase. This was not an easy decision, but their prior work does present a conflict with our mission. We are thankful to the Neutrino team for engaging with us on this outcome.”

Last week, Neutrino’s link to Hacking Team came to light thanks to Twitter commentators like Block Digest’s “Janine.” At least three individuals in Neutrino’s core team (CEO Giancarlo Russo, CRO Marco Valleri and CTO Alberto Ornaghi) had been principal employees of Hacking Team, as well as Luca Guerre, an intern-turned-software-engineer at the company.

Coinbase did not disclose which team members would be let go, so there’s no information to indicate how many other Neutrino employees might be affected by the severance. Armstrong also offered no timeline in his post for when these departures would take place.

Disbanded in 2016, Hacking Team made headlines during its business’ zenith for selling surveillance malware to authoritarian governments. Their software’s use has been implicated in inumerable privacy and human rights abuses, including the death and imprisonment of journalists and civil rights activists.

News of Hacking Team’s abuses spread like wildfire through the community, in part stoked by tenacious media coverage and social media backlash, culminating in a #DeleteCoinbase campaign.

And apparently, this heat was enough for Coinbase to decide to dissolve its connections with the people previously associated with Hacking Team.

Previously, the exchange had defended its acquisition in a blanket statement sent to the press. Coinbase stated that it “does not condone nor will it defend the actions of Hacking Team,” but that it wasimportant for [it] to bring [blockchain analysis services] in-house to fully control and protect our customers’ data, and Neutrino’s technology was the best we encountered in the space to achieve this goal.”

A few days after this response to the situation, Coinbase’s Director of Institutional Sales, Christine Sandler, would tell Cheddar that the need to bring these services in-house to protect data was due to its former blockchain analysis providers monetizing user data, something that is against Coinbase’s privacy policy.

In his post, Armstrong mentions that Neutrino was also acquired because their old providers didn’t support all the assets [the exchange] wanted to have on [its] platform,” so it “examined the players, found that Neutrino had some of the best technology in this area, and decided to acquire them.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Coinbase Bought Neutrino Because Its Old Analysis Providers Sold User Data

Coinbase confidential.jpg

Coinbase’s Director of Institutional Sales, Christine Sandler, said in an interview last week that, in part, the exchange acquired controversial software firm Neutrino because its prior blockchain analysis providers were selling customer data.

“The compelling reason for making the acquisition was that Neutrino had some industry leading, best in class technology. It was important for us to migrate away from our current providers. They were selling client data to outside sources and it was compelling for us to get control over that and have proprietary technology that we could leverage to keep the data safe and protect our clients,” Sandler said in an interview with Cheddar.

In its current privacy policy, Coinbase asserts that it only shares customer information with third parties for fraud prevention and legal compliance as well as for “bill collection, marketing, and other technology services.” The same active policy says that they will personally never sell client information, transaction or personal, and nor will these third parties.

https://twitter.com/J9Roem/status/1102240022055604224

Sandler’s slip up tells another tale. If her statement is true, then Coinbase may have inadvertently violated its terms of use. Coinbase users believed that their data was only being shared for regulatory purpose, not being monetized, as Jill Carlson points out on Twitter:

“Selling data is very different from collecting it for regulatory purposes. I consented to Coinbase collecting my data for KYC/AML purposes. I did not knowingly consent to Coinbase collecting my data to sell to other parties.”

Seeing as their prior providers breached this trust, Coinbase’s acquisition of Neutrino makes sense; out with the old and in with the (hopefully more trustworthy) new. In one of its news blurbs, cryptocurrency media platform Messari indicates that the purchase was likely made to minimize counterpart risk by bringing analysis services in house. Most all other exchanges use the same providers, a source told Messari, so going with the new kid on the block was likely the only way Coinbase could make sure the provider would do as they’re told.

“A source with knowledge of the situation explained there wasn’t much of a choice for Coinbase, as almost all regulated crypto exchanges likely use one of several large blockchain analytics tools, including those from industry leaders Elliptic and Chainalysis. The source said that those firms had moved to a ‘give-get’ data model, where Coinbase would only have been permitted to use the service in return for providing its own data. Coinbase ‘brought that capability in house so they weren’t in a situation where using a 3rd party tool was making it better’ as a surveillance tech.”

Still, if Coinbase was looking for a team it could trust, Neutrino’s past is far from trustworthy. The company’s three executives used to run a business called Hacking Team, which sold surveillance malware to authoritarian regimes around the world which precipitated, among other human rights abuses, the monitoring, imprisonment and death of journalists and regime dissidents.

Neutrino’s past has it and Coinbase embroiled in intense community scrutiny, and the collective ire has manifested in a #DeleteCoinbase campaign on Twitter.

Coinbase claims that Neutrino offer best-in-class software, hence why they’re the best fit for AML/KYC compliance and other business-related transaction analysis. But even disregarding the questions of trust that Neutrino’s past may muster, the company’s pedigree might not even be all that up-to-snuff.

Jesse Powell, CEO of Kraken exchange, said that Neutrino was disqualified “due [to its] risks” in a compliance evaluation. Even without this risk, they came in last for actual product when compared to four other providers.

“I asked our Compliance team what they thought of Neutrino,” Powell tweeted. “Fortunately, they’d just completed an evaluation. Neutrino came in last place on product (out of the 5) but was disqualified anyway due to the risks. However, other factors are important in M&A: cost, culture fit.”

BHB Network head Giacomo Zucco told Bitcoin Magazine that his company gave a negative evaluation of Neutrino’s services for similar reasons that Kraken’s compliance review raised red flags. Zucco told Bitcoin Magazine that, when BHB Network evaluated a live demo of Neutrino’s blockchain analysis technology for a client in February 2017, the company refused to let BHB test the tech using their own addresses.

The demo was conducted using “pre-defined addresses,” he said, and the team argued that they couldn’t open source the software because the technology had its own “secret” source that they couldn’t give away.

“We didn’t actually get so far. After the demo, I had some doubts about the ‘secret source’ claims. Then we googled names and that was enough for me to tell my client to pass,” Zucco told Bitcoin Magazine.

At the time of publication, Coinbase had not returned Bitcoin Magazine’s request for comment.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

This Crypto Art Auction Lets Venezuelans Dismantle Maduro Bolivar by Bolivar

cryptograf venezuela.jpg

To donate to causes aiding those in Venezuela, please visit #AirdropVenezuela’s website or Bitcoin Venezuela’s website. To partake in cryptograffiti’s charity auction, please visit the donation page and tune in to the live stream here.

“Literally and figuratively, the Venezuelan people are bringing down Maduro.”

This is how cryptograffiti described his latest work, a charity piece that he will be auctioning off online through a live stream in Colombia. The mural, constructed entirely of 1,000 bolivars, is painted over with a portrait of Nicolas Maduro, the autocratic leader of Venezuela whose power has been constitutionally challenged by opposition leader Juan Guaido since January of this year. In the painting, Maduro’s mouth is censored with a blue bar bearing the hashtag #AirdropVenezuela, an ironic nod to the political and economic repressions the Venezuelan people have endured while also applauding their ability to persevere through this hardship.

As usual with the crypto artist’s symbolic and subversive work, the auction comes with a twist — a deconstructive one.

With each donation, a bolivar from the mural will be torn off by a Venezuelan citizen. Broadcasted from Cúcuta, Colombia, a city bordering Venezuela, the cross-border protest will allow the Venezuelans to vent political frustrations and simultaneously attract donations for aid.

“The piece-by-piece dismantling of the bolivars by those choosing to donate crypto is meant to represent a new beginning made possible by a new form of money not controlled by any one authority. There is also symbolism in how these donations have the ability to come from outside of a region known for heavily regulated currency controls,” cryptograffiti told Bitcoin Magazine.

The auction will also accompany a live art session where Venezuelan children will create pieces to be sold at a later date.

Since the death of Hugo Chavez in 2013, the policies of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro have thrown the country into economic and social turmoil. With an economy ravaged by hyperinflation, rampant poverty and crime have furnished a worsening humanitarian crisis. The crisis reached a bloody impasse on February 21, 2019, as Venezuelan forces opened fire on protesters at the Brazilian border after the government refused to accept humanitarian aid.

It’s proven difficult for aid to penetrate the country’s borders. But bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have become a vestige of monetary hope for Venezuelan expats who want to send money back home, and cryptograffiti’s auction will leverage crypto’s borderless nature to buy aid from within the country.

In a partnership with AirTM as part of their #AirdropVenezuela campaign, cryptograffiti is directing all donations, which can come by way of cash deposits on AirTM, bitcoin and a host of altcoins, to the philanthropic campaign. As a wider effort, AirdropVenezuela’s goal is to send $1,000,000 worth of cryptocurrencies to 100,000 families in Venezuela. Even just $10 worth of cryptocurrencies “can help a family purchase food, medicine, and scarce imported goods. Access to digital money can help introduce Venezuelans to cryptocurrencies, online freelancer platforms, ecommerce, investments, donations and other income generating web-based opportunities,” the campaign states.

For the art auction in particular, the charity collective has set its fundraising goal at $10,000. Fifty percent of these funds will go to rebuilding the auction venue, the Fundación Renacer, a daycare that provides support for families affected by the financial crisis, while the remaining 50 percent will be distributed with the rest of the funds raised by AirdropVenezuela at the end of April.

I’m in Cúcuta where Venezuelan refugees are arriving by the thousands for food, medical aid & to live free from oppressive rule. @theAirtm & I have teamed up as part of their #AirdropVenezuela campaign to raise funds for those in need via an interactive mural live-streaming now pic.twitter.com/NDVlHCAgId

— cryptograffiti (@cryptograffiti) February 26, 2019

Crypto education company Cripto Conserje will oversee the reconstruction of the daycare, and during the auction, it will host information sessions on how to access, use and store cryptocurrencies, including teaching attendees how to use coins distributed at the event to purchase food kits from one of the auction’s partners.

This education will hopefully unlock crypto’s potential for an economically disenfranchised population that needs it most. For Venezuelans, bitcoin and the like can provide a censorship-resistant method to store and transfer value, something AirTM’s services are trying to make more accessible for Latin American and, more urgently, Venezuelan citizens who lack access to robust banking and a sound currency. The application accommodates more than 200 deposit and withdrawal methods, including crypto, to convert currencies to USD in order to store value and protect it “from possible devaluations.”

When bitcoin is used in Venezuela, it is often as a go-between for a foreign currency and the bolivar or some other, stronger one like the dollar.

Eduardo Gomez, head of support at Purse.io, for example, told Bitcoin Magazine that when Venezuelan expats send money back home with bitcoin, they will typically sell it through LocalBitcoins to a Venezuelan trader, who will then deposit bolivars into the bank account of the expat’s relative. As the economic situation has only degraded further in 2018-2019, LocalBitcoins has seen rapidly increasing trading volumes in Venezuela.

Occasionally, your technically minded Venezuelans will sell the bitcoin themselves for USD (or another foreign currency) and deposit that money into a foreign bank account as savings. Either way, cryptocurrencies typically serve just as an intermediary for value transfer, one that circumvents the tight remittance controls and fee gouging that the Venezuelan government effects with its monopoly over currency conversion and international money transfers.

The AirdropVenezuela campaign wants to take the extra step in getting beneficiaries to use crypto instead of relying on Venezuela’s failing fiat currency. The campaign will donate and educate these citizens on crypto’s significance in their situation, as well as alerting them to online economies that may allow them to receive crypto as payment, such as freelancing.

This is how Gomez, who has been living on bitcoin since 2012, is pulling his family out of poverty. He began receiving bitcoin for freelance translation work online, and after leaving Venezuela, he trades bitcoin for bolivars on LocalBitcoins to send his family funds.

Cryptograffiti hopes his latest work will expose a grim situation which has continued to experience much deserved attention under the international spotlight as of late. But as much as it exposes the severity of the situation, he hopes that the part-performance art, part-visual art will reveal (and convince people of) the solution to these economic woes.

“After reciting the tired ‘maybe it doesn’t apply as directly to you, but Bitcoin is important in authoritarian regimes’ line one too many times, I wanted to do something to contribute to Venezuela and experience the situation first-hand,” he said.

“I’ve been thinking a lot about collaborative art as of late and how it helps spread the message and engage viewers. This led me down the path of a mural that was made up of many different parts that would be interactive in some fashion.”

After the auction is over, two pieces — Maduro’s left and right eyes — will be signed by cryptograffiti and one will be sent to the highest bidder based on his or her preference. The other will go to another donor chosen at random.

Cryptograffiti’s auction is the latest in artist-led philanthropy efforts. Billionaire business mogul Richard Branson hosted a charity concert in Cúcuta last Friday. Branson hoped the concert would raise awareness and some £100 million for the people of Venezuela, and it attracted an appearance by opposition leader Guaido.

In the realm of crypto philanthropy, Bitcoin Venezuela, a charity organization founded by Randy Brito, also exports bitcoin funding for aid inside the country. Subsisting on donations in the ballpark of $100, the organization sends funds into the country to workers on the ground who provide food, clothes, medical supplies and other provisions to struggling Venezuelans. Once the Lightning Torch, a Lightning network payment experiment that has been making global rounds, reaches the network’s channel limit, its creator, hodolnaut, intends to have the final sum donated to the charity.

Image courtesy of cryptografitti.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

QuadrigaCX and the Million Dollar Questions: What We Do and Don’t Know

QCXthumbnail.jpg

QuadrigaCX Exchange’s founder, Gerald Cotten, passed away more than two months ago, and with his death, the keys to the exchange’s cold storage allegedly went to the grave with him.

This is the story that QuadrigaCX is sticking to in the posthumous mess that has followed its founder’s death. The situation has been likened to a second Mt. Gox, with some of the biggest differences being that we don’t know whether or not QuadrigaCX is solvent and there’s no hard evidence of foul play on behalf of the exchange. But there are also more questions than answers, and lack of hard evidence or transparency in the situation (including, whether or not there are cold wallets and whether or not QuadrigaCX is being honest about not having access to them) is the exchange’s closest resemblance to Mt. Gox: no one’s completely sure of what happened and what’s going on.

This has led media, social media commentators and other community voices to see the facts of the case through different lenses. Some have argued that QuadrigaCX has no cold wallets, others have said they must be lying about not having access to these funds. One bold camp has even called the likelihood of Cotten’s death into question. This conspiracy is tenuous, as death certificates are public (even if Cotten’s name is misspelled as “Cottan” on the certificate, likely an honest mistake made by crossing the language barrier); Globe and Mail reporters even traveled to Jaipur and spoke with doctors who verified his death.

Those doctors, the accounts recall, also signaled that Cotten’s death was unconventional, as was how the body was handled — but more on that later.

QuadrigaCX would keep Cotten’s death from the public and its clients for about a month, enough time for his widow, Jennifer Robertson, to transfer the contents of her husband’s estate as set out in his will — a document updated two weeks prior to his death — into her name. All the while, customers complained about their perpetual struggle to withdraw cash and coins from the exchange. It has since ceased operations due to its self-proclaimed inability to access cold wallets to address these liquidity issues.

Plenty of affected users think the funds are gone and the wallets don’t exist, and evidence — some hard, some soft — is piling up to suggest that there’s something amiss with how things stand now.

After corresponding with multiple persons who either knew Cotten well, were QuadrigaCX customers or who were associated with the exchange’s business, Bitcoin Magazine learned that questions have surrounded QuadrigaCX’s operations for some time — enough to warrant skepticism about the story it’s been presenting.

This account will give an overview of what we know so far. It attempts to be thorough but not exhaustive and to treat conspiracies with skepticism while not ignoring them.

Trouble Brewing

Gerald Cotten died unexpectedly on December 9, 2018, while vacationing in India. His sudden death has been framed as the culmination of Cotten’s seven-year battle with Crohn’s disease, though Cotten’s death at the age of 30 is rare for people with the disease. He passed away while under care at Fortis Escorts Hospital in Jaipur, India, where he was reportedly honeymooning with his newly wedded wife, Jennifer Robertson, when he had some extreme gastrointestinal pain.

Though Dr. Sharma originally diagnosed traveler’s diarrhea on Cotten’s first visit to the hospital, Cotten’s condition quickly deteriorated. Twenty-four hours later, after being readmitted, Cotten died of cardiac arrest induced by septic shock when his intestines were perforated, the death report notes.

The doctor told the Globe and Mail that Cotten’s death was “medically unusual,” particularly the way his condition dramatically worsened so rapidly. He and his staff are even a bit “[unsure] about the diagnosis.”

No autopsy was performed, and the apparent mysteries surrounding Cotten’s death become more complicated as he was prepped for burial. Dr Semmi Mehra, an embalming specialist at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, whom Robertson attempted to employ for Cotten’s embalming, refused because the body came from the hotel the couple were honeymooning at instead of from the hospital where Cotten passed.

“That guy told me the body will come from the hotel. I said: ‘Why the hotel? I’m not taking any body from the hotel, it should come from Fortis’,” Dr. Mehra told the Globe and Mail.

She would direct them to a public medical college in the area who would ultimately embalm the deceased crypto tycoon, the Globe and Mail reports.

Cotten’s death left the company’s leadership without a clear successor, as Cotten left no directions for appointing a new CEO, an oversight that complicates the exchange’s apparent inability to access cold wallet funds. An emergency shareholder meeting was called on January 25, 2019, to appoint new directors. The meeting resulted in Jennifer Robertson, her stepfather Thomas Beazley and Jack Martel being elected to the board. The meeting supposedly took place over a conference call, according to a conversation Bitcoin Magazine had with Michael Patryn, the exchange’s co-founder who claims to have distanced himself from the exchange since March 2016.

Two sources who knew Cotten told Bitcoin Magazine that they were shocked to hear that Cotten hadn’t put contingency plans in place for his sudden passing, saying that this was out of character for a man who always had security at the forefront of his mind.

“This is the part that gets a little bit hairy,” Michael Perklin, Shapeshift CISO, told Bitcoin Magazine. “For a business to operate for six years and not have a business continuity plan? That’s reckless. I was incredibly shocked to learn that they couldn’t access the wallet. Gerry was a very smart man. It was inconsistent with his personality to not have a backup if he was hit by a bus. We’re definitely missing important pieces of this,”

He added, “Gerry updated his will two weeks before his death. That proves that he is thinking about these things.”

QuadrigaCX waited more than a month to make Cotten’s death public, and they waited longer still to admit that the company was having trouble mustering up the liquidity to honor withdrawals.

By the time the exchange shut down, Jennifer Robertson had gone through probate to transfer the assets in Cotten’s estate to her name. During this in-between period, she listed (and allegedly sold) Cotten’s sailboat/yacht and placed four properties in a trust called the Seaglass Trust, reportedly taking out a second mortgage on two of these. One of these properties, Cotten and Robertson’s former home at 71 Kinross Court, Nova Scotia, has been sold, while another property in Kelowna, British Columbia, has also been sold, an anonymous source told Bitcoin Magazine.

Liquidity Issues

Before Cotten’s death, users embattled in months-long withdrawal issues aggravated the exchange’s reputation and troubled history. Even as early as March 2018, bad press plagued the exchange for a delayed withdrawal of over $100,000. This issue could be the consequence of the exchange’s tenuous relationship with its Canadian banking partners, a struggle that culminated in November 2018 as the Canadian Supreme Court ruled to take control of $21.6 million after the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) froze accounts related to QuadrigaCX’s business. It also lost a not-insignificant sum of ether to a smart contract bug in June of 2017, worth $17 million CAD at the time.

QuadrigaCX’s banking difficulties have been a recurring theme in the exchange’s five-year history, according to multiple Bitcoin Magazine sources, all of whom asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the ongoing case.

One long-time QuadrigaCX user filed a ticket on August 14, 2018, after attempting to withdraw cash in late July. QuadrigaCX support’s initial reply oddly claims, “Both have been processed and arrive in a few years [sic].” After the user continued to complain about not receiving their funds, a follow-up email stated, “There is no issue, just ongoing issues … with the banks,” — the exchange’s familiar mantra in response to withdrawal issues.

After going round-for-round over email with QuadrigaCX support for weeks, this customer received his funds nearly two months after he requested them and a month after he opened a support ticket.

This experience seems par for the course, as another user complained that withdrawal requests for himself and others have been marked as complete after a similar, month-long, back-and-forth exchange with QuadrigaCX, but the funds have still not been deposited into their accounts.

“They stopped replying to my emails after January 11,” this user told Bitcoin Magazine. He said that he’d initiated a withdrawal request on December 8, 2018, which was marked as completed on December 22, 2018, despite no funds hitting the user’s bank account. This particular individual has $2,000 tied up. We’ve spoken to an individual with a similar experience who is missing $1,100 and another who has lost more than $1 million CAD after failing to have withdrawals satisfied.

A Canadian business strategies and best-practice professional, who asked to remain anonymous, also attested to Bitcoin Magazine that QuadrigaCX’s relationships with banks were a stressed and constant “struggle.” They even introduced Cotten and QuadrigaCX to a potential banking partner, but, after the company failed to provide “beneficial ownership information,” the bank refused to do business with the exchange (QuadrigaCX’s failure to provide this information, the source said, may have to do with the connections between Michael Patryn and ex-con Omar Dhanani, something we’ll go over more in the “Loose Ends” section of this article).

These issues, the source believes, are a plausible reason behind QuadrigaCX’s multiple shell companies (QuadrigaCX Fintech Solutions Corporation and Whiteside Capital Corporation).

The death of the exchange’s CEO seems to have either exacerbated these banking problems or exposed them to the public more thoroughly. And while Perklin called QuadrigaCX ’s money transfer issues unsurprising, some aspects of the exchange’s withdrawal process were anything but — specifically, offering hard cash withdrawals in the mail or in-person as a preferable option.

Multiple clients have reported receiving thousands of dollars via Canada Post. Speaking to a few of these users, Bitcoin Magazine verified these reports: One of these individuals told us that, while the three packages they received listed QuadrigaCX, Vancouver, as the return address, Canada Post’s tracking information lists the packages’ origin as Richmond, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; and Sherwood Park, Alberta.

Besides using Canada Post, QuadrigaCX offered hard cash withdrawals via in-person pickups. This practice, while not totally unheard of in the cryptocurrency industry, is virtually non-existent for retail exchanges (Coinsquare, one of the only legitimate exchanges to have offered it, no longer does). More than just unconventional, the makeshift, lax nature with which the exchange went about processing these withdrawals is suspect.

One of Bitcoin Magazine’s sources recalled driving six and a half hours to the Laval pickup location in late January, after “getting the runaround” since November, wherein each attempt to transfer cash ended in its being processed and cancelled. This process went on for weeks; the client even attempted to transfer the money into ether to withdraw to another exchange but hit the same dead end. When the users tried to get answers, their queries were met by silence on social media, support tickets and calls to QuadrigaCX’s offices.

“We had enough after Christmas and chose to pick up our cash at the location in Laval. They sent us an email confirming it was processed and would be available on Jan 21 at 10am,” the source explained. “We drove 6.5 hours to that location, only to find a nonexistent office suite with a mailbox drop there. No person. No one in the building knew of that company either. We called and left messages on that number provided and drove home. He finally called us a week later saying QuadrigaCX wasn’t giving him the cash to hand out but if they did give him our cash (they were supposed to give him 5k) he would reserve our amount out of that and text us to come pick it up. Two days later he texted us and said they aren’t giving him the money and he will be in touch.”

That was the last time they heard from QuadrigaCX’s cash lackey, who, judging by his responses, had little connection to the exchange besides being an intermediary for cash payments. Days later, the exchange would announce Gerry’s death and its likely insolvency.

As noted earlier, QuadrigaCX’s banking relationships were non-existent, and Robertson admits in her affidavit that the exchange “had no corporate bank accounts.” Cash would likely be hard to come by for an exchange with no corporate account with a licensed bank or fiduciary partner. Instead, the exchange had to rely on a patchwork banking system which consisted of nine or so payment processors, including the Canadian-based Bylls and Billerfy.

Billerfy CEO Jose Reyes was involved in the November 2018 proceedings that ended in the Canadian Supreme Court freezing $25 million CAD tied to the exchange’s business. According to court documents, he had three personal accounts frozen along with two corporate accounts for Costodian Inc., another payment processor QuadrigaCX used for its business, for which Reyes is the sole director and officer. Reyes had transferred some $1 or 2 million CAD to his personal account from Costodian’s corporate accounts, making it unclear to the court as to the ownership of the millions in deposits from 388 users.

“CIBC has not been able to determine to what extent the Depositors, Costodian, Reyes, QuadrigaCX and/or Billerfy Labs Inc. (“Billerfy”) are entitled to the Disputed Funds,” the court order states.

The $25 million is still stuck in limbo, along with $5 million more in CAD that the exchange holds in bank notes for funds held by other payment processors. Ernst & Young (EY), as monitor over the legal proceedings, has contacted the processors to collect this debt. In its second report, the monitor revealed that it had received $20 million in bank draft notes from Costodian, though it must wait for the approval of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) to clear wires for the bank drafts to be deposited into a disbursement account that the monitor oversees.

In its second report, EY also indicated that Robertson and QuadrigaCX ’s litigation coffers are running low, insinuating that they are not far off from running out of funds entirely. If the RBC clears the bank draft wires into the disbursement account, this will keep the exchange’s legal operations afloat amidst the courtroom proceedings and restructuring.

Entering the Courtroom

After going offline on January 28, 2019, for reported maintenance, the exchange came out publicly to say that it did not have access to its cold storage, as Cotten had been the sole guardian of the wallet’s keys. In a sworn affidavit filing with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Cotten’s widow Jennifer Robertson said that the funds are likely lost.

“QuadrigaCX’s inventory of cryptocurrency has become unavailable and some of it may be lost.”

On February 5, 2019, the exchange filed for investor protection with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. EY was appointed as monitor over the case, giving the firm legal rights to oversee a compensation account for QuadrigaCX users as well as monitor the exchange’s current cryptocurrency balances and any hardware that may contain company information (namely, keys/seeds for the alleged cold storage).

In its first report as legal monitor, EY reported that it had begun funding the debtors’ compensation account with $150,000 CAD which Robertson supplied out of her own personal finance. More notably, the firm reported that QuadrigaCX “inadvertently” sent some $460,000 CAD worth of bitcoin to the cold wallets its employees reportedly can’t access. Perhaps in response to this blunder, the firm has taken control of QuadrigaCX’s remaining hot wallet funds, as well as the funds that were accidentally transferred, and placed them in their own cold storage, the monitor’s second report reveals.

As with other exchange scandals in the industry, it didn’t take long for QuadrigaCX to rack up an adversarial list of investor-led reclamation suits. With funds for more than 100,000 users so far unaccounted for, Canada’s premier law firms lined up to represent the thousands who have come forth to challenge the company in court. These lawyers had a court date on February 14, 2019, to determine who would win the right to represent aggrieved clients in the legal proceedings looming ahead.

After delaying the decision a week due to the strength of the competing firms, presiding Nova Scotia Court Justice Wood ultimately gave the bid to Miller Thompson and Cox & Palmer for its apparent expertise with the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), a piece of Canadian litigation that affects insolvency cases, and digital assets.

“Miller Thompson has additional depth in certain areas, including larger CCAA proceedings and cryptocurrency … The relationship between the two firms has been thought out carefully with a view to minimizing costs. Cox & Palmer will deal with their areas of expertise, including local litigation practice and court appearances. Miller Thompson will provide expertise in dealing with large creditor groups and cryptocurrency technology,” the judge wrote in a court order.

The case will re-enter the legal arena on February 22 for the next round of proceedings.

Where’d the Funds Go?

QuadrigaCX claims that the funds are inaccessible, but some creditors and blockchain professionals alike are starting to think the funds aren’t actually there.

For starters, QuadrigaCX has refused to attest to their cold storage reserves by making the public address for these wallets public. One Reddit user, dekoze, claims to have tracked funds from a hot wallet address listed in Robertson’s affidavit to five wallets that could constitute part of the exchange’s cold wallets. These wallets recently had 104.365 BTC sent and split between them, an amount nearly on par with the 103 BTC that QuadrigaCX “inadvertently” sent to its cold wallets on February 6, 2019.

Other blockchain transaction analysis suggests that QuadrigaCX has been cycling funds through competing exchanges, and they’ve also found little evidence that any cold wallet reserves exist.

James Edward (@ProofofResearch) first dropped this bombshell. Taking deposit addresses provided by QuadrigaCX customers, his transaction analysis of the Bitcoin blockchain found no trace of cold wallet reserves. Instead, it found a dizzying trail of transactions to and from popular exchanges like Kraken, Bitfinex and Poloniex, something he reinforced with later research using the wallets unearthed by dekoze (which Edward, in this newest research, actively disputes are cold wallets).

Taylor Monahan, the CEO of Ethereum wallet MyCrypto, corroborated Edward’s findings with her own analysis of the Ethereum blockchain. Like Edward, she found no convincing evidence that QuadrigaCX operated with cold wallet storage, and she also followed a tortuous trail of transactions that led to other exchanges like Bitfinex and, most notably, ShapeShift.

“It’s just bizarre,” she told Bitcoin Magazine.

“Totally hypothetical, it’s possible that QuadrigaCX has some hidden cold storage somewhere if, and only if, instead of going between a hot and cold wallet, they went directly from user deposit addresses to the cold wallet. Now, I went through their transactions for over three years, and it’s very hard for me to imagine that … with all the practices I’ve seen and how they operate and how often they move funds that they have a mechanism to put funds into the cold wallet that no one noticed.”

Hidden or not, she’s not convinced that the cold wallets are there, though, because she only found one instance of a cold wallet holding some 4,000 ether for more than a year, after which portions of these funds were sent to hot wallets for QuadrigaCX or competing exchanges. For the rest of the wallets that Monahan tracked, she believes that QuadrigaCX could have been market making to improve the appearance of exchange liquidity.

“This would mean having to source coins from an external source in order to fulfil withdraw requests because they’re playing with their own money,” she qualified. “Even if that’s the case, I cannot imagine why they would exchange ether through ShapeShift. This was something they did consistently over the years.”

Now, an exchange sending funds to another exchange isn’t anything new; exchange-to-exchange arbitrage and inter-trade is common in the industry. But QuadrigaCX ’s activity doesn’t make much sense, Monahan told Bitcoin Magazine, especially the millions in ether that was sent to ShapeShift, which charges higher fees than other exchanges for the convenience of instant cryptocurrency swaps.

The movement of funds could be customers depositing of their own volition, something that Monahan takes into account in her analysis. She says that those withdrawals are likely denoted by multi-numerical values, while funds QuadrigaCX was sending itself may be represented by rounded off numbers.

“When you look deeply into how an operation does something … everyone has their little quirks. For Quadriga, for example, they love to send exact amounts.”

The rationale for cycling funds through different exchanges amounts to a fractional reserve system, the same practice banks use today to shuffle credit. Basically, if QuadrigaCX did not have enough in their wallets to cover a massive withdrawal in bitcoin, they would send ether to something like ShapeShift to convert these funds to bitcoin to honor the withdrawal.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong believes this is the most likely scenario. In a Twitter thread, citing the exchange’s own internal transaction analysis, he speculates,“Patterns of sends from cold storage suggest they tried keeping [the] exchange afloat, and maybe attempted to trade their way out of a hole” — a hole that was in part dug by the exchange losing roughly 67,000 ether to a contract bug. That was in June 2017, after which time the exchange began draining their “cold wallets,” Armstrong holds.

Couple this with the 2018 bear market and you have a solvency crisis.

“This implies that at least a few people inside QuadrigaCX knew that they were running fractional. If so, then it’s possible that untimely death of their CEO was used as an outlet to let the company sink,” he concludes.

In our conversation, Monahan noted decreasing transaction volumes following 2017, something that could either be attributed to Armstrong’s conclusion or to the anemic nature of the market in the bearish slump that began in 2018.

“You can definitely tell that the amount of money being moved around was very high in 2017 and has been dwindling, and previous to 2017, you see less activity. Whether that indicates something on QuadrigaCX’s end is hard to say because every exchange is going through this [after the 2017 bull run].”

When asked about the strength of such transaction analyses, Perklin cautioned that “the only way to get a map of all of QCX movements would be to get all the deposit addresses.”

Loose Ends and Conspiracy Theories

For all that we do know about QuadrigaCX, there’s also plenty we don’t know — as well as lots of unsettling middle ground between the two.

Take, for instance, that a multitude of users who report receiving payroll deposits from RNC Inc., a company believed to be Robertson Nova Management Inc., a real estate management company registered in Robertson’s name. In the reply-to lines of emails confirming these deposits are listed one of two emails tied to Robertson. These deposits contradict Robertson’s sworn affidavit that she was not involved in the company’s business when Cotten was alive.

Questions also loom over the identity of Michael Patryn, QuadrigaCX ’s co-founder, who told Bitcoin Magazine that he cut ties with QuadrigaCX in March 2016. He left amidst a wider company exodus which gutted the shareholders sitting on the company’s board of directors. These directors, Patryn claimed, were upset with Cotten’s decision not to take the company public on the Canada Stock Exchange, a promise he made a year prior in 2015 which helped lead to the company raising $850,000 CAD in a private fundraising round. That same year, the exchange published its last financial audit, posting revenues of barely $80,000 CAD.

Patryn, who owns roughly 17 percent of the company’s shares, bought many of the shares off these individuals because “he wanted to make things right,” claiming that many of these shareholders were personal friends and invested because they “trusted” him.

Meanwhile, some skeptics don’t trust that Patryn is being honest about his identity. Critics and internet sleuths have argued that “Michael Patryn” is an alias for “Omar Dhanani,” an ex-con from California who was pegged for identity theft and fraud in 2004 after a sweeping bust of members involved in the cybercrime syndicate ShadowCrew. Omar Dhanani allegedly began using the alias Omar Patryn in 2005, according to a forfeiture case, and he was deported back to Canada in 2008.

The connections between Michael and Omar rest on the shared surname, as well as the presence of Dhanani’s relative, Nazmin Dhanani, on a company filing for MPD advertising that Michael Patryn made in 2009. Michael Patryn would start the Midas Gold Exchange, an online e-currency exchange that had ties with the Liberty Reserve in 2009, a private e-currency enterprise that was shuttered in 2013 by U.S. officials for money laundering and whose founder was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. Midas Gold racked up a notorious reputation for fraudulent activity during its short lifespan.

The conspiratorial web connecting Omar/Michael is documented elsewhere, so we won’t indulge it any further here. If the connections hold true, though, it paints a poor picture for the moral constitution of at least one of the company’s founding members.

And it could explain the suspicious structure of the company’s operations. Amber Scott, the founder of Canadian Outlier Solutions, an anti-money laundering consulting firm, told Bitcoin Magazine, “QuadrigaCX was always ‘outside of my risk tolerance.’ Like many others in the community, I’m left wondering what I could have done differently to warn people when I saw red flags.”

A look into the company’s structure would be enough to give one pause. In her affidavit, Robertson revealed that, after 2016, “most of the business … was being conducted by Gerry wherever he and his computer were located.” The rest of the company’s employment base consisted of seven contractors, one of which, Alex Hanin, acted as the exchange’s sole developer, while the rest were a mixture of customer service representatives, social media managers and client verification employees.

One of these alleged employees hosted an AMA on the QuadrigaCX subreddit, which has since been deleted after the contractor reported that he was facing legal action from Jennifer Robertson’s legal council. Among other unverified claims, he alleged that QuadrigaCX was fraudulent from the start and that Jennifer and Gerry’s involvement from 2016 onward should be the chief area of concern for investigators, insinuating that Patryn and Lovie Horner, Patryn’s supposed partner, are no more than red herrings.

To attest to the veracity of his insider status, the contractor posted screenshots of the company’s Rocket Chat, as well as a photo of the funeral pamphlets used for Cotten’s funeral. Community members immediately raised questions as to why JA Snow Funeral Home, who hosted the burial, was misspelled as JS Snow on the pamphlet (though this could feasibly be a typo given the placement of “a” and “s” on a QWERTY keyboard).

A source with a computer science background shared an IP analysis of the image provided with Bitcoin Magazine, pinpointing the photo to a Halifax airport IP on the day following the funeral.

This IP tracking and the contractor’s testament is not conclusively hard evidence of foul play, but the threat of legal action and the deletion of the AMA and the contractor’s Reddit account adds to the pile of questions surrounding the case.

As legal proceedings progress, we will update this article with further information.

Reporter Jessie Willms contributed additional notes and research to this story.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Living on Bitcoin for a Week in San Francisco

When I decided, maybe against my better judgement, to live on bitcoin for a week, the plan was met by a combination of cautions and jokes from friends and loved ones: “Just don’t starve,” “Well, it’s the New Year…

Wrap Your Head Around This: BTC Is Now Featured as a Token on Ethereum

wrappedbtc.jpg

It happened: Bitcoin is now an Ethereum token.

Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC), an ERC-20 token with a 1-1 peg to bitcoin, went live on the Ethereum network on the final day of January, “the first token that makes Bitcoin compatible with the Ethereum chain,” its architects say.

Kyber Network, Bitgo and Ren spearheaded the “community led” initiative, which has spread its reach to AirSwap, BitGo, Blockfolio, Compound, DDEX / Hydro, Dharma, Gnosis, GOPAX, Kyber Network, Loopring Protocol, MakerDAO, OmiseGO, Prycto, Ren, Set Protocol, and TheOcean. These members of the WBTC DAO are a mixture of liquidity, infrastructure and custodial partners. The token’s network will rely on some of them to facilitate BTC to WBTC swaps for its users.

To exchange their BTC for WBTC or vice versa, users must enter into a request with a WBTC merchant, someone who basically “sells” (or more accurately, distributes) WBTC to users in exchange for bitcoin (or bitcoin in exchange for WBTC) and go through KYC. These merchants act as a go-between for the user and the network’s liquidity pool, the custodians.

That merchant takes this request to a custodian, who will either deny or honor the request and mint or burn WBTC for the user. Minting and burning takes place directly between the merchant and the custodian through an atomic swap, a protocol that allows users to trustlessly trade assets cross-chain —in this case, BTC and WBTC.

To trigger the process, a merchant would submit a minting request to an Ethereum smart contract while simultaneously sending bitcoin to the custodian.

“The custodian then waits for 6 confirmations on the bitcoin chain, and approves the minting request on the Ethereum network, and the approval triggers the mint operation in which the merchant gets the WBTC,” Yaron Velner, the CTO of Kyber Network, told Bitcoin Magazine.

The user is not involved in this swap in this first swap in any way. To claim their tokens/bitcoin, the user then has to enter in either an atomic swap or a trusted exchange with the merchant.

Kyber Network and Republic Protocol will kickstart the network as its first merchants, and

Eight Wrapped Bitcoin community members(AirSwap, Dharma, ETHfinex, GOPAX, Kyber Network, Prycto, Ren and Set Protocol) will kickstart the network’s WBTC and BTC liquidity vehicle as merchants, while BitGo will be the sole custodian to start.

Members of the WBTC DAO will oversee a multisignature wallet that will handle the permissions and keys necessary for assigning or retracting merchant and custodian roles.

The (Peg) Ins and Outs

The project promises to bring Ethereum smart contract utility to bitcoin and the benefit of bitcoin’s liquidity to ether’s token market.

Currently, Ethereum dominates the decentralized exchange (DEX) landscape, and there’s no way for traders to directly trade their bitcoin for tokens (they have to go through centralized exchanges for that). Giving traders the option to import bitcoin to Ethereum to trade its value as an ERC-20 token, WBTC could unleash a sea of bitcoin liquidity into Ethereum’s Decentralized Exchanges — this is likely why IDEX, the largest DEX on Ethereum, is involved, along with Airswap, DDEX, ETHfinex and others).

As an ERC-20 token, WBTC can also execute smart contracts, meaning dApps could use the token (like WBTC community partners Compound, Dharma, dYdX, bZx, Gnosis, Maker and Set protocol), and developers can start building new applications on WBTC. Wholesale, the project sells itself as “[combing] the benefits of Ethereum and Bitcoin, making it simple to handle the wrapped currency with only the Ethereum node.”

It’s an ambitious project, bringing together crypto’s two most valued networks, one that wants to utilize the best of both cipher worlds. It’s one, though, that Wrapped Bitcoin is backing up with immediate utility and liquidity at launch, but it’s also one that comes with tradeoffs.

“Kyber Network and Ren have procured an initial amount of WBTC tokens from their own Bitcoin inventory to provide initial liquidity and make WBTC immediately available for swaps with users. BitGo will be the initial custodian,” a press release states.

“Eight initial merchants will be facilitating conversion between WBTC and BTC: AirSwap, Dharma, ETHfinex, GOPAX, Kyber Network, Prycto, Ren, and Set Protocol.”

The token service is starting centralized, and you have to go through KYC to be verified with merchants to submit token minting or burning requests. BitGo will be the sole custodian from the beginning, meaning that all swaps will be conducted by the blockchain and wallet services company.

“Various decentralized and centralized exchanges have also procured WBTC inventory to support liquidity for the token with the live supply of WBTC observable on the WBTC dashboard,” the press release also states.” WBTC will also have usage on a handful of dApps out the gate, including “bZx, Compound, Dharma, dYdX, and DApps and wallets integrated with Kyber Network.” CoinGecko, the project’s market data partner, will be covering WBTC data.

Cautions and Clarifications

The service is fairly centralized out of the gate, something the project recognizes in its whitepaper, describing its structure as a “federated governance model.” Even if the merchants are distributed (and sparsely at that for the time being), BitGo’s custody of pegged-in bitcoin is both a counterparty risk and single point of failure. Of course, BitGo has multisignature and cold wallet services to mitigate these risks.

But for a project that brands itself as giving users an out from centralized services like exchanges, it offers a similar degree of centralization with just a few more steps (instead of submitting your coins to the custody of a centralized exchange, you’re putting them in custody with a separate company and then using the tokens of credit this company gives you (instead of the credit you’d use on the centralized exchange) to trade them elsewhere.

Still a functional bitcoin-to-ethereum bridge is a novel addition to the industry’s architecture, something that RSK is working on and Blockstream could theoretically build with Liquid. And, as Vitalik Buterin said on Twitter, Liquid’s federated sidechain is semi-subject to the same centralization as Wrapped Bitcoin, but Liquid’s liquidity partners are more evenly distributed (and don’t require a third party for custody).

WBTC, like Liquid, could sufficiently decentralize in the future given enough adoption, Buterin concludes.

Sidechains like Liquid work in exactly the same way. Granted Liquid currently has more participants, but I hope WBTC can decentralize somewhat over time too.

— Vitalik Non-giver of Ether (@VitalikButerin) January 30, 2019

Wrapped Bitcoin lists BitGo as its “initial” custodian, leaving a vague sense that more will come in the future, but they will have to be regulated to hold the bitcoin, the project’s whitepaper makes clear If its influence fans out, more merchants and custodians could provide some risk mitigation and help the project decentralize. Its website has open applications for partnerships, keeping with the initiative’s claim to be a community-driven effort.

“The fundamental design of WBTC and the continuing commitment of all members to openness will form the essential building blocks for a transparent process framework and governance structure. Relying on these foundational principles, WBTC will remain a firmly community-led initiative into the future, focused on driving continued innovation for the enhancement of the entire ecosystem.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Cboe Files (Again) for (Yet Another) Bitcoin ETF

That didn’t take long.Barely a week after the Chicago Board of Exchange (Cboe) withdrew its application with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to list the world’s first bitcoin exchange traded fun…

Blockstream Breaks into Japanese Market with JPY Stablecoin, Partnership

crypto garage.jpg

Blockstream is partnering with Japanese fintech giant Digital Garage to bring a JPY stablecoin to the Bitcoin network.

To spearhead the project, Blockstream and the ¥120 billion (just over $1 billion) firm are working under the label Crypto Garage with the help of Tokyo Tanshi, the “largest inter-dealer broker in Japan w/ billions in trades daily,” according to Samson Mow, Blockstream’s chief strategy officer.

The collaborative is building the yen-pegged coin (JPY-TOKEN) on Blockstream’s Liquid network, a Bitcoin sidechain that tacks additional technical features onto the blockchain, like smart contracts.

It’s also the inaugural asset for SETTLENET, a new Liquid product suite that Blockstream claims will “enhance trading efficiency and security for participants in the Bitcoin market.”

“SETTLENET will definitely make it easier for Liquid Issued Assets to be created. Currently savvy users can already create assets with command line tools, but having GUI’s and frameworks for asset issuance will speed up adoption,” Mow wrote to Bitcoin Magazine via email.

Leveraging SETTLENET, Crypto Garage’s JPY-TOKEN can be atomic swapped for L-BTC, a Liquid asset token that maintains a 1-1 peg to bitcoin on the Bitcoin mainnet. Like its dollar, pound and euro counterparts, JPY-TOKEN will go 1-for-1 with the yen.

By the Book

The partnership has Blockstream embedded with two of Japan’s fintech heavyweights, so Blockstream is operating within the bounds of Japan’s financial regulations.

Both Blockstream’s blog post and Samson Mow’s tweet on the announcement stressed that the Japanese Financial Services Agency has approved the product.

https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/1087559149376995333

To assist the exchanges that will be issuing and redeeming the asset, the product suite will come with an authorizer, a “rule-based transaction authorization” tool that will let users process payments under pre-set conditions.

“[The Authorizer] will help ensure regulatory compliance for certain transactions that may need to stay within a certain group of users. For example, a security token offering may only able to be transacted amongst accredited investors,” Mow added in our correspondence.

To start, the JPY-TOKEN liquidity partners, the trusted parties who facilitate the swaps between Liquid and Bitcoin’s networks, “will be limited to FSA licensed crypto exchanges in Japan,” Mow indicated.

“It’s not yet clear what the exact distribution model will be for the JPY stablecoin,” he added.

“A Natural Extension”

Mow stated that the partnership had been some time in the making.

One of Blockstream’s board members, Reid Hoffman, connected the company with Joi Ito, the director of the MIT Media Lab and one of Digital Garage’s co-founders. The blue chip would become a lead investor in Blockstream’s $55 million Series A funding round, after which time Samson wrote that they “started to explore a technology partnership to focus on blockchain initiatives in Japan.”

That exploration would begin to materialize in 2017 as Digital Garage Labs, Digital Garage’s research and development arm, which Tokyo Tanshi, a Japanese brokerage services company, would join in the same year.

Samson calls Crypto Garage “a natural extension of [these] relationships,” the culmination of each company’s professional relationships after Blockstream fully committed to the project.

Before Crypto Garage, Blockstream had helped Digital Garage use Blockstream’s enterprise-facing blockchain platform, Elements, “to develop real-time exchange systems for loyalty points and digital currencies, as well as regional money systems,” Mow told Bitcoin Magazine.

Under this new partnership, Blockstream will take in another $10 million in funding from Digital Garage, which it will use to focus on Liquid, its cryptocurrency data feed and “new product lines.”

SETTLENET Sets Expectations for Future of Liquid

While the JPY-TOKEN will position Blockstream in the Japanese market, SETTLENET isn’t confined to its first asset.

“SETTLENET will provide Liquid Network participants, including cryptocurrency exchanges, OTCs and financial institutions, with the functions required for issuance, trading and transaction monitoring of digital assets,” the suite’s website states.

As Mow indicated, it’s made to make the process of issuing Liquid assets easier. In the future, he’s hopeful that it will be used to support more sidechain assets that can interoperate with Bitcoin’s network.

Mow believes that the JPY-TOKEN could be the first of many stablecoins native to Blockstream’s Liquid, telling Bitcoin Magazine that interest from stablecoin creators could mean more to come soon.

“We’ve been in talks with many of the stablecoin issuers and I think there’s a lot of interest to leverage something robust and secure like Liquid — there’s also the added bonus of confidentiality for stablecoin transactions within Liquid thanks to the Confidential Assets feature, and multisig issuance so multiple parties have to sign off on any new issuances. You can expect more stablecoins on Liquid soon!”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Living on Bitcoin Day 6: An Artist, a Dev and a Moon Boy Walk Into a Bar…

LOB Day6.jpg

This is the fifth instalment of reporter Colin Harper’s “Living on Bitcoin” experience in San Francisco. Find out what happened to him earlier on Day 1 , on Day 2 , on Day 3 , onDay 4 and on Day 5.

On day six I woke with a renewed sense of energy. My last two days in San Francisco were booked up with plenty to do, and yesterday’s purchase had reinvigorated the experiment’s sense of purpose.

That morning I wrote, paid Kashmir back for the breakfast (she got into her Coinbase account) and set out for two days of Bay Area shenanigans that would include meeting a local crypto artist, getting tipsy with bitcoin and sleeping (and sailing) in the East Bay on a boat that threatened to capsize.


Around 1:00 p.m. I caught an Uber into the Financial District to meet up with Dustin, a multi-talented developer who had responded to a Reddit thread I made leading up to my week here. He invited me sailing, but the weather was sketchy — it had been raining for the better part of my time in San Francisco and there were winds and storms in the forecast — so we decided to meet at Digital Garage, a coworking space on Market Street that accommodates many cryptocurrency projects.

I was loitering in the lobby when he passed me, and we registered who the other was immediately. Big, tall, bearded with long, blonde hair, a tremendous smile and goofy disposition, he crossed from the other end of the lobby to greet me.

He’s got the hair, the beard, the “No worries, dude” vibe. We’re going to get along great.

We did.

As we entered the working space, I was pleased to see a cryptograffiti original on prominent display, which added an air of authenticity to both his presence in the space and to the San Francisco crypto community for supporting a local, industry-specific artist.

Posting up at a table in the working space, we hit it off and began jumping from one crypto topic to the next. Turns out, he’s a lone-wolf dev who’s building a hardware wallet with bluetooth-enabled mobile controls — not unlike Ledger’s own Nano X, I suggested. He hadn’t heard of it before.

“Well, they might have the bluetooth, but I doubt it’s trustless and multi-sig,” he tells me, going on to say that he knows of no other trustless hardware wallet. Interest piqued, I surveyed his app and the hardware wallet prototype, which he’s also building himself.

“You’re just a one-man band, aren’t ya?” I remarked, impressed, after learning that he was building everything himself.

He’s a bit of a crypto OG, it seems. He’s been in the space since 2011 and hangs around the Bitcoin Core internet relay chat (IRC), where he says he’s been humbled on a few occasions. I asked for his veteran perspective to help explain why I couldn’t find any more stores in the area that accept bitcoin. He suggests that it’s intertwined in the same trend that has made Silicon Valley so banal to him.

“Bitcoin has really exacerbated the aspects of Silicon Valley I don’t like,” he admits. “It has an appreciation for altcoins or stablecoins, but not really for bitcoin, hard money. I think there’s this culture in San Francisco that just idolizes what investors like, what’s new. I heard someone say Silicon Valley is about new things — bitcoin isn’t new anymore.”

Everyone’s just looking for “the next big thing” or “the next Bitcoin.” They’re not going to find it, was more or less his view, and he believes that the focus shouldn’t be creating something new but improving what we already have.

“I’ve heard it said that the East Coast owns things while the West Coast makes things,” he theorized, “and if that stereotype were true I could see more people taking bitcoin.

“I think the challenge is that the majority of people don’t understand security stuff. The people who buy these don’t understand half of it. The challenge is teaching them,” he said, broaching the evergreen topic on the “how-tos” of adoption.

Our conversation was kinetic and animated as we touched on a wide range of crypto-related topics. I’m not surrounded by developers much in Nashville (especially not crypto/blockchain ones), so the opportunity to talk to one who knew the ins-and-outs (and knew them real well) left my curiosity welling with streams of new, if half-hatched, bitcoin applications and infrastructural ideas.

We talked crypto assets insurance (a concept which we both had previously hatched complementary business models for), his conceptualization that the network serves users and not miners (he believes that “hashing wars” are irrelevant, since, ultimately, the users will decide which chain they buy in to) and his surprising penchant for interacting with some of the space’s most prodigious and controversial celebrities without knowing who they are.

At one point, he had left his laptop at the Crypto Castle only to retrieve it, unmolested, from the same couch he left it on a month later, though he didn’t really know who Jeremy was. I brought up Brock Pierce and his benevolent-or-parasitic (depends on who you ask) ventures in Puerto Rico. When Dustin was still involved in the Valley’s tech party scene, he was acquainted with him before either even knew about bitcoin.

“Ohhh, that’s Brock Pierce. I know him — I just didn’t know his name. We used to party a lot 10 years ago. That’s hilarious.”

Everyone knows everyone in this industry, and the degrees of separation between connections is often slim. It’s like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon but with Bitcoin.

He would reaffirm this observation throughout our talks. For instance, he had applied for Coinbase back in 2013, a job he didn’t end up getting — though Armstrong’s consolation prize was pretty nice.

“He gave me a bitcoin,” he said, smiling and holding up his hands like he was holding something ethereal. “It was like 34 bucks then.”

The literal token of gratitude for being one of Coinbase’s first applicants.

That would have been sometime in 2013, maybe even right before Hill’s article. Funny, he was probably up for the position of Coinbase’s third employee.


I ordered some pad thai for lunch on Uber Eats, tried to manage some work but was ultimately distracted by my on-going, engaging conversations with Dustin. He’d agreed to go with me to the Bitcoin meetup at Stookey’s that night. To kill time until then, we decided we would give BitPay an office visit. I wanted to ask them about the decreasing presence of bitcoin-accepting merchants in the bay area, and see if the trend was national and global.

I called the office but only succeeded in leaving a voicemail, so we decided that running the errand on foot would give us our best shot. BitPay has two offices listed on Google. One was, no doubt, a mailing address but we had no way of figuring out which one.

The rain-soaked walk was made easier thanks to our umbrellas (Hans had graciously loaned me his, a feeble but functional black pocket umbrella). On our way, we took a detour so that I could try out a bitcoin ATM.

The experience wasn’t as gratifying as I had hoped, mainly because it didn’t feel like actually buying bitcoin — it was more like buying credit or a coupon for bitcoin, the opposite of what I had been doing all week: using bitcoin to buy credit and coupons in the form of gift cards.

The Coinme ATM was located in something of a mall a block over from the Moscone Center. I decided to use cash, but upon using the machine, any chance of anonymity was promptly thwarted.

First, it asks you to insert your ID, followed by a request to take a picture to verify that identity (that I would have to basically do know-your-customer (KYC) verifications twice to buy bitcoin with cash was anathema to me). After this it asked me for my phone number and email address, which I found ironically less intrusive after having to be photo identified. When all this was done, it printed a slip of paper with a username and password, along with a URL at which I could access the $10 worth of bitcoin I had bought.

Cool, I can’t even access it yet and don’t even hold the keys. Certainly different from when Hill used a makeshift, trustless prototype at Internet Archives in 2013 before the first crypto ATMs had been produced. Back then, it was just a computer and a cash box, which any employee could use to withdraw or deposit bitcoin for cash. Same concept, but more anonymous, easy and endearingly janky (you had to trust people not to steal cash from it, though).

The disheartening and borderline frustrating experience (it felt a bit cheap, a normal monetary transaction service masquerading as a crypto one) was aggravated when a Ramen vending machine 20 yards away teased cryptocurrency as a purchasing option, only to qualify the payment as “Coming soon!” at checkout.

We went on with our search for BitPay, but it was ultimately fruitless. At the first location, our call on the building’s outside directory went unanswered. At the second, we were told that BitPay no longer occupied space in the building, so we decided to pack it in.

Fighting the wind that had whipped up in our mile or so walk, we took refuge in an Chinese food joint that Dustin was fond of. We split a helping of kung pao chicken, which I repaid in bitcoin. Dustin had become an IRL intermediary through which I could enjoy those elusive dining-in-with-bitcoin experiences.


Dinner finished, we found our way to Stookey’s, an intimate, cooly lit bar that could comfortably seat maybe 30 people. We were fashionably late and took a seat at the rightmost end of the bar. I was unpleasantly unsurprised to discover that no one else had shown up for the meetup yet. For the first 30 minutes, we were the only ones, it seemed, a disappointing situation that was becoming par for the course in a week of almosts.

But it was also a win. I got to spend my bitcoin again, this time on a delicious pisco sour (a Peruvian, egg-white cocktail with a pisco base, bitters and limes) and enough beer and other cocktails to get a buzz on and cringe at the thought that the prices were not too far off from Nashville’s own.

Striking up a conversation with a wispy black-haired guy who “is kinda a tech geek,” Dustin asked him if he was there for the meetup. He said no, admitting that he was a bit skeptical of the whole thing. He rehashed an old misperception that I’ve heard from numerous naysayers, and the fact that I’m forgetting it now is either a testament to the cocktails’ potency or to the fact that most arguments against bitcoin (especially from the underinformed) have all been packaged into a nebulous hodgepodge of complaints that, in their ubiquity, have begun to resemble each other).

Dustin and I hit it off with one of the bartenders, who showed a greater-than-average understanding of crypto — so much so that he had educated opinions on forks, proof of work vs. proof of stake, and Ethereum’s Constantinople upgrade. He’s been invested for two-and-a-half years, though he had been tuned into the market and started conducting due diligence two years before that.

I asked if any of the crypto-focused co-owners were around so I could grill them. One of them, a close friend of his, was sojourning in Mexico, as one does when crypto rich. Our bartender was a more-than-adequate stand-in for my questions, seeing as he’d been at the bar for two years, so I asked him if he’d noticed a drop-off in Bitcoin meetup interest.

“They go up and down. We’re in between,” he said, conceding that they had been considering scaling the meetups down from weekly to quarterly.

He also shared his personal experience of the hassles that come with accepting bitcoin, particularly in times of network bloat. “Fees were getting ridiculous on BitPay,” he told me. “A $14 cocktail becomes a $24 cocktail and people don’t want to pay.”

“How many people pay in bitcoin, would you say?” I asked him.

“A few, mostly during the meetups obviously. Every now and then, someone will be a few drinks in, realize we take it and then want to pay that way.”


After about an hour, I turned to my left to observe a room whose patronage had thinned out in tandem with the vanishing contents of our glasses. With the room cleared, I could make out two dudes having an enlivened conversation two seats down from us: one, tall and thin-ish; the other, shorter and bulky, with blond hair.

“I think that’s Dan Held,” I told Dustin, referring to the blond character. True to form, Dustin didn’t seem to know who Dan was, showing the willful introversion of a man who is more preoccupied with the code of the industry over its personalities.

I went over and introduced myself, thanking Dan for an op-ed he had recently submitted to Bitcoin Magazine and telling him a bit about my experiment. I related it back to Kashmir Hill’s own, where he was featured in the final day of her 2014 excursion.

Dan invited me to get coffee the next day, but I said it would be tricky given my schedule. I would be busy in the morning and evening, and I had plans to meet up with cryptograffiti, a San Francisco-based crypto artist, in the afternoon.

He gave a half-cocked smile and nodded to the man he had been talking with.

“No way, seriously?” I said, shocked at the serendipity.

“Yeah, that’s me,” the tall man responded with a grin.

With introductions made, we talked a bit, and I learned (not to any surprise) that the artist was a maximalist of sorts.

“Bitcoin is my baby,” he said with the simultaneous seriousness and self-aware waggishness of a true believer.

Like Dustin, cryptograffiti was an OG. Always jumping at the chance to glean another point of view, I relayed the frustrations that had obstructed my week on bitcoin, and I asked why there were so few people at the meetup.

“People stopped going to meetups because the focus had changed. It was too financial. People started shutting you down if you knew what you were saying,” he said.

It’s all wrapped up in the paradigm shift the crypto community has experienced since 2013, he believes. Like Dustin, he thinks the altcoin boom exposed how mercurial community attention can be and diverted much of the excitement for bitcoin toward the industry’s new and shiny offspring.

“It’s cool to be contrarian. Everyone is looking for the next thing.”

Dustin joined the conversation, along with another meetup latecomer: a short, spiky-haired Ethereum “moon boy” with wide, distant eyes whom I had met at the conference and who claimed he had conceptualized a “decentralized, global supercomputer” in high school before Ethereum had even existed.

Sure thing, bud.

The meetup, while small, felt profound. It was small, but it was also quality and included a diverse sample of the industry’s many players. It was eclectic and intimate, much like the “Bitcoin at $100” meetup that Hill was a part of. Only ours was smaller, something I would not have anticipated when I started this.

But there was probably a greater diversity of professional specializations in the industry at this meetup: a one-man developer team who seemed to personify Bitcoin’s open-source nature, a Texas boy who had become one of the crypto space’s most recognized entrepreneurs, a San Francisco-based DJ-turned-artist whose crypto-themed artwork sells for five figures (yes, really), a Nashville-based journalist who didn’t know squat about Bitcoin until 2017 and was thrilled just to worm his way into this milieu, and the Ethereum moon boy who did brand relations for an Ethereum-built project.

Bitcoin and crypto had all given us the opportunity to pursue passions and careers within the industry.

Even if its use as an IRL payment has regressed, the impact of the network has been far reaching — the industry is more active than ever. This thought enlivened me.


Dustin had offered me a bed on his boat for the night, something I wasn’t about to pass up, especially with a few drinks in me. It was across the way in Berkeley, so we took the BART. I paid Dustin for a ticket and then a 15-minute drive from Oakland put us at the harbor.

The boat’s exterior gave the impression of a modest and relatively well-maintained sailboat. Below deck, the haphazard displacement of various sundries and provisions presented the habitat of a man who probably had the madness to create things few people could.

The night winding down, we decided to watch/play Black Mirror’s Bandersnatch on Netflix. The choose-your-own-adventure movie’s interactive nature gives a new dimension to Black Mirror’s typical rabbit-hole examination of technology and human frailty. We had both watched it before and wanted to see what different endings we could get.

Even if tenuous, the connection between the protagonist’s struggle to create a choose-your-own-adventure game (it’s also glaringly meta, like a lot of Black Mirror’s concepts) in the seminal days of the video game industry and my own struggle to spend bitcoin became apparent.

What alternative endings, universes, paths had I not confronted, found or gone down in the course of my own adventure? Maybe I’d missed some opportunities where I could’ve used my bitcoin. Or maybe this was the most optimal path: I had met Held and cryptograffiti at a meetup and was about to sleep on a boat, owned by a developer whose myriad and disparate interests and lifestyle were like something out of a book.

What other endings are out there? I thought to myself, the boat gently rocking to the bay’s swaying tide.

It was an easy and comfortable sleep.


As Kashmir Hill did in her original journey, Colin is accepting BTC tips to help him along the way.

Tip jar: 3CnLhqitCjUN4HPYf6Qa2MmvCpSoBiFfBN

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Living on Bitcoin Day 5: An In-Store Buy At Last (Spoiler: It’s Pot-Related)

Living on Bitcoin Day 5: An In-Store Buy At Last (Spoiler: It’s Pot-Related)

This is the fifth instalment of reporter Colin Harper’s “Living on Bitcoin” experience in San Francisco. Find out what happened to him earlier on Day 1 , on Day 2 , on Day 3 and on Day 4.

I woke up in a millionaire’s bed today, something I never thought I’d say because I ain’t gonna make a million bucks, and I always doubted I could’ve finagled my way into the bed of someone who had.

Jeremy’s room is your prototypical festival bro living space: Bob Marley poster in one corner, jam band festival posters for Camp Bisco and Gathering of the Vibes (among other music festivals) tacked above a 50-inch, Toshiba plasma screen, which was leaning against the wall and propped up on the box it came in. A tangled cluster of conference passes (many speaker or VIP) hung from a back wall above the felt loveseat.

Below one of the room’s three windows, there’s a bookcase sectioned off into six cubbies, which include Hunter S. Thompson, Michael Lewis, Truman Capote, and some self-help and econ/business books. Almost poetically, a book called Ego is the Enemy appropriately placed in a cubbie diagonally opposite to the one housing Tucker Max’s Assholes Finish First.


On the third floor, I made the coffee I bought at Whole Foods, warmed one of the croissants and did some work.

Over Slack, my colleague Aaron van Wirdum suggested I try a map called Bitcoin Map on the Google Play store to see if it had any bitcoin-accepting places listed that I could be missing. I pulled it up, browsed some places I had previously tried but knew no longer did. Then, I glanced at Haight-Ashbury on the map one last time and noticed a smoke shop and one-time hookah lounge that accepted bitcoin.

On the off chance, I called them up.

“Do you guys still accept bitcoin?”

“Yes, we do.”

“Seriously?!”

“Yes.”

Exuberant, I let a triumphant expletive slip and thanked the woman, assuring her that I would be by later that day.

It would be a smoke shop that becomes the first place where I can spend some bitcoin, I thought to myself.

With that victory, my spirits were lifted and I began to make preparations for my day. Needing to get more credit for Uber, I tried out Gyft, a gift card purchasing platform that made Hill’s second run at this in 2014 so much easier. Vinny Lingham started it, and the platform accepts other forms of payment than just bitcoin.

I couldn’t use it though. I tried to buy an Uber gift card, but my Samourai wallet wouldn’t accept the BitPay QR as valid (which, given Samourai’s general crypto maximalism, made sense and also seemed to sum up the difficulties of the experiment to that point). I opted for Bitrefill again.

Then I started doing some research on Kraken and Coinbase’s locations in San Francisco. According to Google, they have the same office address, which I found odd.

Putting the address into my Uber app, I decided to make my way to the heart of San Francisco’s Financial District to see if I could pester my way into either or both offices. “Just show up and ask to talk to people,” Hill’s advice echoed in my head.

The addresses I got on Google led me to a mailing address, but then a bit of sleuthing got me addresses (supposedly) of the actual offices for both Kraken and Coinbase. Kraken’s, though, turned out to be a FedEx, which led me to think that my informant was screwing with me or that Kraken had registered that address intentionally so as to not be bothered.

Coinbase’s office was right, so I cut the informant some slack. I secured a receptionist’s number from the security desk in the lobby but didn’t really have time to make an appointment for later. This wasn’t 2013 anymore: I couldn’t just drop in on their three employees in an apartment office anymore. This was 2019 and Coinbase had become a unicorn with more than 500 employees and six offices in three countries.


The rain was light but steady when I was searching for Kraken and Coinbase’s offices, but it would come down progressively harder the longer I walked. I passed a Target on my route in which I could have bought an umbrella (Paxful and Gyft have Target cards), and it highlighted a problem with banking on bitcoin through gift cards. You have to preplan your purchases, or else you have to stop, connect to wifi, and use an exchange that takes bitcoin to buy new cards before you can redeem them.

It seems obvious, but it’s not as seamless as cash, debit or credit. Even so, there aren’t so many hoops to jump through — just enough to make doing so outside in the rain an inconvenience.

My denim jacket was thoroughly soaked, so I stopped inside a Starbucks and ordered a coffee with a Starbucks gift card I bought on Paxful. I ordered a seasonal latte, basic white boy that I am, but I had the barista only pump about a third of the usual flavor shots into it because I don’t like drinking syrup.

While downtown, I visited Quantstamp’s offices, as Christian had set me up with a buddy of his who worked there, Jared let me in and we talked crypto. He mentioned a bubble tea cafe nearby that used to accept crypto, but it proved to be yet another red herring, making me worry that maybe the smoke shop on Haight might not either.

Ubering back to the castle, I sent some additional funds to my Samourai wallet ahead of my trip to the shop. Rachel wanted to come along, partly I think for the fun of it but also because she was fiending for some Juul pods and was banking on my generosity to secure her some.

We reached the smoke shop shortly before close as one employee was busy allocating merch to a back closet. It was what you expected from a smoke shop: pieces, bongs and actual tobacco pipes in various sizes and in a motley of translucent, glass-infused colors. They sell smokes and vaping supplies too, but no Juuls or Juul pods (to Rachel’s great dismay).

Approaching the counter, I try to confirm what I’d been told over the phone.

“Y’all take bitcoin, right?”

“Bitcoin? Yes, I think,” said the middle-aged, Asian woman, hesitantly. “We used to at least. Ask him,” she says, pointing to the man stacking the backroom with inventory.

Her husband, a middle-aged, white guy with glasses, a mariner’s cap and close-shaven beard, who looks like he might read communist theory and know his way around a VPN, dashed my bitcoin-spending hopes with his answer.

“I don’t think so. Honey, do we still have the payment processor?” he asked.

They didn’t. Snapcard, which may have very well been the same defunct-processor that Woot Bear used, was no longer in service, so they stopped taking it some time ago. They had originally decided to start accepting bitcoin in 2013-2014 when it was “cool” to do so, and the husband was kicking himself for not doing it sooner.

“People would want to come in and buy rolling papers and we didn’t want to take it, which was stupid,” he chuckled.

I asked if they still had a Coinbase account to which I could send bitcoin, but the wife said that her son held the account and they didn’t know how to use it. After a few more failed attempts at trying to find a solution, I gave up, thanked them and left the shop.

As I left, I was convinced there was some grand conspiracy to keep me from spending bitcoin, until the woman peeked her head out of the shop to beckon us back.

“I think we figured it out,” she said.

Eager and a bit antsy, I leaned over the counter to observe her Coinbase app while I tried for the items I had picked out (a glass piece that’s totally not for me and white sage for the castle). As it turned out, they weren’t verified with Coinbase, so they could only buy/sell on Coinbase and not send/receive. This annoyed me: Why do one when you can’t do the other?

“It’s ok,” I said, resigned at this point.

But the woman insisted. She was nice enough to let me just scan the QR code for her son’s wallet, and she even gave me a five buck discount on the piece.

Effusive, I thanked them and asked for their names, which they prefered I not publish here. Apparently, San Francisco is not too friendly to tobacco shops.

“The city is trying to annex the smoke shops,” the husband told me. That coupled with the stigma of bitcoin and the illicit drug market’s symbiotic dependence on the dark web (and the fact that the business is basically a head shop) made them wary enough of potentially damaging publicity.

The fact that the transaction almost happened then didn’t, only to almost not happen and then succeed was representative of how the experiment has been panning out so far. The bitcoin PoS was makeshift, but it finally happened, and I was happy enough to finally get the first IRL transaction out of the way, even if it came on day five. It was also directly peer-to-peer — no middleman payment processor involved, which I liked.

Finally, something to write home about.


Returning to the castle, I would spend the rest of the night fraternizing with the residents who were quickly becoming acquaintances and friends. They all had their own goals and projects, and the interactions in my short time with them will be worth a story one day.

There’s Rachel, who’s known Jeremy since 2015; Liz, the Queen of the Castle (obviously); Michael, a laid back relations or community manager who “kinda does crypto but not really;” Orest and Aymard, who work at Ausum Ventures with Jeremy; Teddy and Hans, who are building a blockchain query database for legal documents; Vivian, the VP of the same self-driving car startup, comma.ai, that used to reside in the castle’s basement; and a prodigious, 18-year-old developer-entrepreneur who runs his own AI financial consultation startup and whom Jeremy referred to once as his “protégé.”

“So, are you like the wunderkind developer prodigy of the house?” I asked him.

“Pretty much. But it’s not just that.”

“What, like you’re also the wunderkind entrepreneurial prodigy?”

“Something like that,” he responded with a smile and honest innocence.

He told me he would rather not be identified in the article because the banks and other businesses he works with don’t know that he’s still a kid, he confessed. That he had operated so long without them finding out was astounding to me.

The Prodigy began his company when he was a freshman in high school. No, not college (he never took that road), high school. In the company’s early stages, he decided to go all in on his vision.

“So I pretty much left high school.”

No diploma or degree to speak of, he moved to San Francisco when he was 15. In what would have been his sophomore year, he was focused on driving business growth while his peers were testing for learner’s permits.

An early investor in Ethereum and a sometimes crypto-head, he met Jeremy at a crypto castle party in 2017, and Jeremy would take him under his wing and offer him a home.

Now he works out of the community surrounded by the advice and the tutelage of the castle’s residents, who, while still young entrepreneurs themselves, have plenty of experience and tips to impart to the kid.

I highlighted The Prodigy here because or his age and precociousness but also because the whiz-tech kid who eschews education in favor of just doing makes for a pretty good story. Realistically, I could have profiled some of the other residents and their endeavors as well (for instance, I plan on doing an article on some of the innovative, impactful startups Ausum Ventures has invested in).

But The Prodigy particularly personified the house’s ethos: driven, focused, entrepreneurial and hardworking.

“Do you do drugs or drink?” I asked him.

“No. Never.”

“Good. Don’t,” I advised him.

Truth is, considering the portrait of the millionaire party boy that has been painted of Jeremy in the past, the castle was nothing like that. It wasn’t like the mainstream coverage would imply: no end-to-end daily benders or booze-infused ragers. I don’t think anyone even touched a drink while I was there. Everyone was busy working. As Rachel would tell me, “No one drinks here. They all have shit to do.”


As Kashmir Hill did in her original journey, Colin is accepting BTC tips to help him along the way.

Tip jar: 3CnLhqitCjUN4HPYf6Qa2MmvCpSoBiFfBN

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Living on Bitcoin Day 4: The Uphill Climb

LOBday4.jpg

I woke up in a state of amazement: In my three days of living on bitcoin, I had managed to survive on a handful of services and the generosity of friends.

Hungry for any place that would let me spend it, I was more determined than ever to call up every single store in the Bay Area that might accept bitcoin. A few, like Bamboo Asia and Ramen Underground, were closed yesterday, so I still had a small, if shrinking, beacon of light at the end of a tunnel of rejection.

Most places weren’t open yet, so I had a call with my editor, who was keen to hear about how it had been both too simple and hopelessly difficult.

“Well hey, there’s the angle,” she suggested.

It was an angle, but it was also a dead end of sorts. I needed to find someplace to finally spend my bitcoin to make my day-to-day purchases different for a change (though going shop-to-shop in unsuccessful attempts to spend it and acting like a hungry lunatic on Haight street could also be considered “something different”).

A bit of work, a bit of coffee, a bit of social media trumpeting and it’s 11:00 a.m. Excited by the prospect of hopefully going out for lunch for once this week, I called up Bamboo Asia first.

“Hello, is this Bamboo Asia?”

“Yes it is,” a woman responded over the phone.

“Do y’all still accept bitcoin?”

“What?”

“Do you still take bitcoin?”

“Bit … coin?” she stuttered, a bit confused.

“I take that as a no, then?”

“No.”

“Okay, thank you,” I hung up.

Strike one.

Next up: Ramen Underground:

“Yes, hello, do you take bitcoin?”

“Bit what?”

“Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency.”

“Oh. No.”

Strike 2.

Then, I dialed Numa, a sushi joint that had slipped through yesterday’s round of solicitations:

“Do you accept bitcoin?”

“Do we have corn?”

Uh, no.

“No, no, do you take bitcoin — as a method for payment?”

“I’m sorry. I don’t know what that is,” she said hesitantly.

“It’s internet money. It —”

“Oh, no, no, no — no, not that, sorry.” She quickly cut me off.

Strike 3.

Well, in reality, there were many more strikes than that. I even called Siegel’s Clothing Superstore and Tuxedo, just for hell of it.

Over the phone, the question like an incessant recording (at this point, everytime I ask, I close my eyes and squinch my face up in embarrassed anticipation for the answer).

“I — I don’t think so, but let me check — can you hold on a minute?”

“Absolutely,” I answer, excited at the prospect of potentially something to go on.

“For the current sale, I’m sorry, no, they don’t accept bitcoin. No Apple Pay. Just Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and, of course, U.S. cash.”

Yep, I expected as much.

There was one last hope, but I was beginning to doubt that even Stookey’s, a bar I’d been told takes bitcoin by someone other than Google, would take it. If all else fails, maybe I’ll get to spend it there — eventually.


As night rolled around, I got ready to transition to the Crypto Castle. Queen Liz had granted me two night’s stay: On Tuesday, I’d be on the couches upstairs, but for Monday, I’d be sleeping in Jeremy’s room.

Oh. Ok.

The gesture took me aback for a second but it made sense for the bohemian-tech aesthetic that the house has going for it. That I would sleep in a millionaire’s bed one night and then a couch the next was humorous and exotic in a very benign way to me.

It was a short walk from Christian’s apartment, only half a mile, but distance can be deceiving when San Francisco’s hills tack on a couple hundred feet of elevation gain. Lugging my belongings in a 50-gallon hiking backpack, my daypack slung over my right shoulder, I schlepped myself up the hills that were sloping at a crazy 45 degrees.

I was partially heaving when I topped the hill, turned right on Kansas Street and stopped in front of the castle’s telltale blue door with a “Bitcoin Prefered Here” sticker in the window. I pressed the buzzer.

“Yes, who is it?”

“Colin — the Bitcoin journalist,” I responded, and soon heard the door’s unlatching click.

Hans, an Italian expat developer with a machine-learning background who’s relatively new to the space, let me in. He has rich olive skin and curly black hair, and an apprehensive but affable personality.

We walked over to Jeremy’s room as Hans recapped some of what Liz had told me.

“I’m finishing up some work right now, do you mind?” he asked as we entered the room. Apparently, Jeremy’s room is a free-for-all space; he would likely have it no other way.

“Of course not — work away,” I told him. I mean, it’s not really my place to dictate what he can and can’t do in a room that isn’t mine to begin with.

The in-and-out style of the house’s residents made for some brisk but pleasant introductions. I would meet Teddy, a tall, lanky and balding Ethereum-to-EOS developer who works with Hans. He’s a bit jumpy and is into Soylent (and keeps offering me some to drink). Diego, another developer who used to play soccer at Boston College, would also come through with Kingsley, an Australian venture capitalist.


I posted up upstairs and did some work, shot the bull with Crypto Castle denizens and made plans for the rest of the week. I also reviewed Kashmir Hill’s 2014 living on bitcoin series. She had held on to some of her coins (she had a few left) and they had appreciated in value from 2013 to 2014.

Her second series is even more entertaining than the first. With her bitcoins’ increased purchasing power, she could access more exotic experiences: She spends it on winery tours, a nice (boy, I mean nice) dinner and even a riotous strip club experience.

Reading her accounts, I feel a wave of envy and the sense of a missed opportunity. She had so many more ways to spend her bitcoin; in reality, five years later, my bitcoin doesn’t have the same reach and San Francisco has basically zero merchant presence. Even if I had 2–3 bitcoin like her at the time of this experiment, I wouldn’t have a way to spend it (unless I wanted to drop it on bottles at Monarch, but that’s not really my scene).

Toward the end of the day, the reality that I hadn’t had one, in-person exchange with a merchant of any kind deeply depressed me.

Why the hell am I even doing this, and why I am spending so much money here?

I could be doing this anywhere. I could be doing this back home. Even there — in little ol’ Nashville with its tinkertoy tech scene — I could have at least bought dinner at Flyte, the only restaurant in town to accept BTC. But it’s a pricey dine, so by the time the week was up I would have been out a month’s rent (or a week’s rent in San Francisco).

Dinnertime approaching, I decided to use a Whole Foods gift card to stock up on provisions. It was a five-minute walk from the castle, and Kashmir had used gift cards she purchased from Gyft on her second go-around, so I thought it was permissible to buy one off of Bitrefill myself.

At least I could tear into the San Francisco Whole Foods’ hot and cold takeaway bars, an unmatched cornucopia of grocery store self-serves. Turkey pot pie, steak fries, tabouli, butternut squash, kale salad, chicken salad, couscous, shrimp, croquettes, yams, all crammed into the brown to-go box. I also got some Peet’s coffee and almond croissants for the house (should have gone for whole bean because of course this house would also have a grinder).

While the young woman at the counter dealt with the somewhat clunky process of redeeming my gift card — after I’d had to go through the even clunkier process of buying bitcoin before buying said gift card before being able to buy the groceries in store — something Hill observes in her article resonated with me.

The process was more time consuming and labor intensive than paying in fiat, but it was also liberating in its own way.

Bitcoin had provided me the opportunity to purchase those groceries, just as it had allowed me to buy all my Uber Eats food up till now. The merchant/drivers didn’t know where the credit came from, nor where or how it was bought.

For Uber, KYC is a given. But with gift cards, you can use bitcoin to transact in near complete anonymity. You can bank like a ghost if you want, and you can buy most everything you need without leaving a trail of credit or debit. Like cash, bitcoin can be used as an anonymous transfer of value — you just need to transmute it into a different payment method for real-world use first. If you want to increase your anonymity, you can take steps to mask your network activity. (e.g., I started using the privacy-focused Samourai wallet on the fourth day after my BRD wallet became too unreliable).

With these thoughts, I returned home (unfortunately, uphill again). After hanging with the castle’s crew and eating my meal, I took my rest in the bed of a guy who probably didn’t even know I was sleeping there but would doubtless not care.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Living on Bitcoin Day 3: Brother, Can You Take a Sat?

LOB Day3.jpg

This is the third instalment of reporter Colin Harper’s “Living on Bitcoin” experience in San Francisco. Find out what happened to him earlier on Day 1 and on Day 2.

I woke up on day 3 and made a pact with myself: I had resolved to not rely on Uber Eats that day.

I still think that buying this credit from an exchange like Bitrefill or Paxful is in line with the experiment, but I haven’t made a PoS purchase yet and I want to make today about going out and actually using bitcoin with merchants.

Only once I ventured out to actually try this did I realize that the trend I unearthed yesterday would become an insurmountable obstacle.


I woke up in a bed this time (one had been freed up after Christian’s roommate and friends left to move to LA). Like the day before, I immediately hit the coffee and continued to work on the write-up of the previous day. Little of note happened. Christian left to go back to Nashville to then go to Miami for a conference. Riggins, who had slept on the couch the night before, went with him.

To prep for a day of no Uber Eats, I looked up some of the places that I hadn’t checked with yet to see if they still took bitcoin. The preliminary results were disheartening. Bamboo Asian and Ramen Underground are closed on Sundays. Three Babes Bakery no longer accepts crypto and neither does Elixart, even though their Nevada location does. So my prospects here in San Francisco were looking grim.

Surely somewhere, I thought.

Resolved to make something of the day, I decide that I should just throw myself out there and see if I could stumble upon a place that would take BTC. If all the online bitcoin-as-payment finders had it wrong, maybe there were a few stores that did accept it but weren’t listed.

Clinging to this hope, I ordered an Uber for Haight-Ashbury, starting off my search with a toy shop called Woot Bear that supposedly accepted bitcoin. I wasn’t holding my breath.


An Uber pool took me a block away from Woot Bear and Haight street. Walking that way, I took out a sign I had prepped for my promenade in San Francisco’s hippie district.

“If you buy me food or coffee, I’ll send you bitcoin. I’ll help you set up a wallet and be your friend!”

I figured the absurd gesture would be in character for Haight-Ashbury’s rabble of itinerants, tourists, burnouts and homeless population. People probably thought the sign was asking for handouts. It wouldn’t be the first time I would be mistaken for homeless (happened earlier this year while passing out Thanksgiving meals around Nashville).

Woot Bear’s caretaker was out for lunch, so I walked around, sign in front, and went searching for food (I hadn’t eaten yet) or any place that would take my coins. I didn’t expect to waltz into a place and find that they take bitcoin, no more than I expected someone to take my sign seriously. Still worth the attempt. The reactions themselves when I asked were worth it.

Finding a thrift store I visited last time I was in San Francisco, I went in and glanced at a few shirts. A tall woman with jet black hair was preoccupied with her phone behind the cashier’s desk.

After browsing some flannels, I walked up to ask a question I already knew the answer to.

“Yes?” she asked, a little annoyed, looking up from the phone after I had loomed over the desk for a few seconds.

“What are the chances you could be swayed to accept bitcoin?”

Lips pursed on a to-go drink straw, she slowly shook a lowered head.

“No.”

“Yeah, I expected as much,” I said resignedly.

A little farther down the strip, I walked into a run-of-the-mill smoke shop. I asked the dude working it if they accept bitcoin.

He just shook his head.

“Know of any places around Haight that do,” I asked, grasping at anything I could get.

“Nope. Cash is king here.”

Cash is king, I thought. Yeah, no kidding, bucko. What’d you expect?

I slipped into probably half a dozen more shops, receiving the same result and a mixture of reactions. One young, nose-studded barista looked like I had offended her with my question, another was simply amused and gave me a free coffee. Most young dudes that I asked would just laugh at the question, answering, “No, sorry!” with a grin. The majority of people were simply confused. Some probably didn’t know what it was, but they knew that they didn’t accept it.

A bit defeated, I went back to Woot Bear. Now that it was open, I asked the shopkeeper if they still accept bitcoin.

“Bitcoin?” she asked, pausing her phone conversation for a moment. “Oh, no, I’m sorry we don’t anymore.”

I expected as much — past results were becoming indicative of future ones.

I asked her why they’d stopped. She told me that, apparently, the payment processor they used was no longer operational.

Still, she went on to sing bitcoin’s praises emphatically to the fellow who was still on the other end of her phone call.

“Bitcoin was great!” she told him. “It was fee-less and it would automatically convert to money in your bank account.”

She was treating it like some arcane truth, stammering while explaining how they used to use it and the value it carried.

“I don’t know what it is,” she ultimately confessed.


Phone calls, store visits, solicitations, holding that sign like a lunatic. Nothing would bring me the opportunity to spend bitcoin.

I left Woot Bear — the coincidental significance of its name including “bear” only now starting to register — with my confidence in disrepair. Still, I tried a few more shops to no avail and had an encounter that I won’t recount here for fear of being put on an FBI watch list.

Stopping to record what just happened (and clueing my buddies in — we have a running tally on surreal encounters), I was interrupted by an older, flustered, Indian man.

“Is that you?” he asked, pointing to my sign as it rested on the shop’s sandwich-board sign.

Thinking he was interested in my sign (he was the first person to stop to read it), I enthusiastically replied in the affirmative.

“Well, stop it. This is my sign, my shop.” The man gestured at the storefront.

“Oh, sorry, I was just typing something up — just using your sign for a second.”

“Okay, I don’t care if you need it for a minute,” he said as he stepped farther out on the sidewalk, seemingly to monitor my loitering.

Walking to the panhandle of Golden Gate Park, I was resigned to not finding anywhere on Haight that would take bitcoin, but not to finding nowhere that would take it.

Posted up on a bench outside a public basketball court, I called up a few places I had left to check with.

Nothing.

They’d all stopped taking bitcoin some time ago. A tone of brisk agitation usually followed my questions.

Frustrated, I gave up. The constant Google queries, calls and typing — all my activity had been eating into my phone’s battery — with hunger eating at my concentration: I’d had enough. My phone was at 5 percent, so I called an Uber and retreated to the apartment.

I’m typing this in the Uber and it’s honestly hard to focus with this empty burning in my gut.

San Francisco’s roller coaster landscape didn’t help. Most of what I wrote in the Uber was crap.

Back at the apartment, I ordered Curry Up Now again. The deconstructed samosas and sexy fries were very much a transcendent experience, probably both because they were undeniably delicious and because my stomach was ready to turn in on itself.

I was fed, but I wasn’t satisfied. My pact was broken: I couldn’t use bitcoin in any stores or restaurants, and the reality was becoming very clear that I likely wouldn’t get the chance.

I wasn’t thriving like I would have hoped — or really expected. Sure, saying I’ve been surviving wouldn’t be quite right, because it’s been unequivocally easy to use Bitrefill to get more Uber credit. But there’s no diversity in purchases, just travel and food. Not only have I not been able to spend it in the city, but I haven’t been able to experience the different ways that I could spend it.

Frustrated and disappointed, I watched the Saints play (and beat) the Eagles in the NFC division round and wrote a little more. Another night of being fed by a friend, as Michelle cooked risotto and had her folks over.

Before dinner was served, I heard Michelle talk about the experiment with them. Her mother took to the topic with quick fascination but diagnosed the potential difficulties with it.

“Oh, that’s going to be tough, but if he can do it anywhere, it would be here,” her mom said.

Let me tell ya, lady — you have no idea.

As Kashmir Hill did in her original journey, Colin is accepting BTC tips to help him along the way.

Tip jar: 3CnLhqitCjUN4HPYf6Qa2MmvCpSoBiFfBN

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Living on Bitcoin Day 1: “That’s Not Going to Work”

san_fran1.jpg

“The point is to get people to think about bitcoin, not spend it. I don’t think it’s good for that. It’s not meant to be used like cash,” Jeremy Gardner, founder of Ausum Ventures, advised me.

“Satoshi created a decentralized store of value,” probably encapsulates his thesis that bitcoin is best unspent — better to hoard it like gold. To Gardner, using it as a currency is not only impractical. It is counterintuitive.

Well, I’m trying it anyway.

After all, journalist Kashmir Hill experimented with living on bitcoin as early as 2013, so it should be easier now, right? Well, it is and it isn’t. Nearly six years later, I’m discovering that, while bitcoin’s payment infrastructure has advanced, its use as a method of payment, at least in San Francisco, has seemingly regressed.


Before reporting to the conference I’m attending here in San Francisco, I had something important to do: I had to pay my respects to the pioneer.

Before leaving my home in Nashville to start my experiment, I reached out to Kashmir Hill, a former Forbes-gone-Gizmodo journalist who did this in 2013 (and again in 2014). She graciously took me up on my request to meet up so I could pick her brain and seek advice.

Getting to her was my first unbanked transaction. Transportation was a problem in her own experience until she got a bike, and even then, San Francisco’s hilly landscape is unforgiving, so it still wasn’t easy. It’s a way to get around, though, and I like the idea of being bike reliant for transport.

All of my attempts to buy or rent one on Craigslist haven’t come to anything yet, so that’ll have to wait.

I do have Paxful to buy Uber gift cards. Opting for this, I signed up for the exchange (where I had to give a phone number for authentication but no name) and transferred $25 worth of bitcoin from my BRD wallet. After executing a quick trade with one “Marxsmith,” I found myself with 25 bucks worth of Uber credit on my account.

Hill arrived at La Boulangerie shortly after my Uber dropped me off, immediately recognizable, thanks to the turquoise highlights that accentuated the tips of her hair.

When I thanked Hill for agreeing to meet with me, she replied she was naturally sympathetic to anyone who made the decision to live solely on bitcoin for a week. So sympathetic, she offered to pay my meal forward (the bakery doesn’t accept bitcoin). I insisted on repaying her for the cheese danish and latte, but she said that she’d need to see if she remembered her Coinbase login to give me her public address.

“I wrote the articles and pretty much forgot about bitcoin,” she joked.

It was during the first major media cycle that came along with the 2013 bubble that Hill experimented with living on bitcoin. Not many people knew what bitcoin was yet. A few mainstream journalists were starting to pump out articles about what was, to many, a novel experience in itself: buying bitcoin.

Hill’s editor wanted to take the novelty farther: “Don’t just buy bitcoin. Live on it for a week.” So she did.

“It was really on the fly — I got pretty lucky,” she laughed, calling the planning and execution “lackadaisical.”

If her approach was lax, the execution was anything but. She attended one of San Francisco’s famous “Bitcoin at $100” meetups (along with Ross Ulbricht of Silk Road fame), she shacked up in the crack-house-turned-hacker-hostel/cypher community, 20Mission, and she even toured Coinbase when it was “three guys in an apartment,” she put it.

As she mentioned this, a waiter brought our lattes. They were absurdly served in literal bowls about as big as my face.

At the end of it, she remarked that she had very much been assimilated into this community. Using the bitcoin that the community had tipped her throughout the week, she took about 50 or so of them out to a sushi dinner, an 8-something BTC meal that, in a few years, would have been worth an Ivy League education.

When I lived on Bitcoin in 2013, I treated a bunch of strangers to a sushi dinner that cost 10 bitcoin. At current valuation, that was a $99,000 sushi dinner!

— Kashmir Hill (@kashhill) November 28, 2017

The crypto community in 2013 was devout but scant, and so were the places Hill could spend bitcoin. Her entire experience was punctuated by a sense of getting by. This is best encapsulated by the final line of her 2013 series: “I survived.”

I compared notes with her about what I foresaw as being my biggest obstacles for the week, making mental notes to see if I could do more than “survive” and if 2013 might have actually been an easier year for the experiment.

As our conversation came to a close, Hill left me with a nugget of advice that I’d adopted as a mantra for my own iteration of the experiment.

“Don’t make the focus about yourself. Make it about other people, who the experiment allows you to access.”



Leaving La Boulangerie, I took an Uber back to the conference venue, where I made arrangements with Jeremy Gardner to visit a new project he’s working on and, of course, tour the infamous Crypto Castle.

We had a tight time frame; he was leaving for Park City, Utah, that night to go snowboarding.

“You can come by the castle tonight. Or later in the week, someone will let you in, show you around — I don’t care.”

We eventually settle on a 4:00 p.m. meeting outside of Monarch, a popular club wedged between San Francisco’s Mid Market and Tenderloin districts that accepts bitcoin by-the-bottle. It’s within walking distance of the conference which is good because my Uber credit was running low and the conference didn’t have any Wi-Fi for me to get on Paxful/Bitrefill to top it off.

The rest of the early afternoon was spent prepping for and moderating a panel, after which I scrambled around, looking for a USB-C charger to juice my phone and keep my financial lifeline alive (I had lost my charger that morning, of course). The conference tech staff was nice enough to lend me a charger, one of many acts of good will that seems to continually grace my experience.

When the time rolls around, Jeremy meets me with one of his business partners, Micah, who owns Monarch and another bitcoin accepting club in San Francisco, Great Northern. We hop one building over to their new project: a pawn shop that serves as the front for a speakeasy, both of which will accept bitcoin.

The shop had been a pawn for a while, Gardner said, buying, trading, selling and even offering loans and collateral for years before it shut down.

“All the snakey stuff,” he intimated.

Jeremy latched onto the speakeasy idea without much hesitation. He was disappointed that San Francisco only has two to its name and thought that the city ought to share with the rest of America in an emerging cultural trend (even Nashville has four or five).

“It’s more intimate and comfortable. It’s not the constant in-and-out traffic like at bars, so people stay longer.”

The pawn shop, with its display cases of cheap jewelry, tarnished silver and surprisingly intact china, is just a front, of course, but it adds an authentic element of secrecy to the bar. Jeremy wants to give the front its own distinguishing appeal. He wants it to only accept bitcoin.

“I’m imploring people to do that,” he said, breaking into a smile.

Micah scurried around, jotting notes and measurements before coming over to me and Jeremy and pouring us a glass of white wine (I’m not refined enough to know which type).

“Sorry, it’s just white,” he said.

“It’s alcohol, and that’s all that matters,” Jeremy replied.

Micah ran off to keep working, leaving Jeremy and me to a conversation on my experiment.

“Yeah, it’s an interesting one. People have done it before,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s good for that. It’s not meant to be used like cash but as a store of value. People don’t like volatility. They want certainty in their currency.”

He didn’t understand why I would spend my bitcoin and not hold on to it, and I told him I don’t see it as spending bitcoin but spending money I would otherwise have to on basic necessities. Jeremy said he’d be interested in a wallet that rebought spent bitcoin, but otherwise, he clings to the maxim that it’s better to hold than spend.

“The point,” he believes, “is to make people think about bitcoin — not spend it.”


We carried the conversation into an Uber on the way to the castle.

I asked Jeremy whether he considered himself a Bitcoin minimalist (he had made the somewhat common comparison between Bitcoin and Friendster earlier in our talk).

“Nah, I’d say I’m more of a shitcoin minimalist.”

Finally, we arrived at the castle. It lived up to its reputation. The outside was as unassuming as any of the nicer, multi-story boarding houses in the city’s Potrero Hill neighborhood, but the inside belied the true spirit of the castle: an eclectic, anything-goes hub of itinerant millennials who live free-of-charge thanks to a benevolent but prodigal 27-year-old member of the crypto riche.

“We had a self driving AI car startup here.” Jeremy gestures to the basement when we enter. “They got a couple mill in funding and moved out,” he added casually.

Up the staircase, the second floor hallways curled away from the stairwell with innumerable ownerless rooms.

“Vitalik has slept in this room a bunch of times,” Jeremy told me as he’s no doubt told countless before me.

“Bu this is where the magic happens,” he said as he came to the third floor. Up top, a lounging area with felt couches, a gas fireplace and a kitchen with a sticker-covered refrigerator that intrigued Business Insider and the New York Times when they profiled the place during the 2017 bullrun. The walls were hung with various print pieces, including a few of Banksy’s. I nearly asked, as a joke, if they were originals but held my tongue.

Jeremy had left to pack his things when Liz, a young realtor boarding at the house, joined me and Rachel, another border. Neither of them were particularly involved in crypto.

“Some of us don’t do anything with it, but others do,” she tells me. “It’s a healthy mix.”

We get on the topic of the experiment, and I bring up Jeremy’s latest venture. Rachel, who is seemingly Jeremy’s romantic interest, apparently had no idea and congratulated him when he returned to say goodbye.

“Oh yeah, it’s pretty cool,” he enthuses. He leans in to give Rachel a peck on the cheek.

“When will you be back?” she asks.

“I don’t know,” he admits. “Probably one to two months.”

Later, I asked Rachel if Jeremy meant what he said as he rushed off to catch an Uber to the airport.

“Absolutely. He means everything he says.”


Liz, aka the Queen of the Castle, has given me permission to stay a few days, and I think I’ll take her up on it later in the week. For the remainder of my initial visit, though, I charged my phone (still struggling here) and used Bitrefill to get more Uber credit. This was much quicker and easier than Paxful. The most KYC they ask is an email, and you can send the bitcoin from any wallet to retrieve the gift card code (Paxful requires you to deposit bitcoin into your account’s wallet to trade).

I spent the remainder of the night with my buddy and coworker Christian, who bought me dinner at the Irish Bank, a pub which I erroneously thought accepted bitcoin (I did pay him back in bitcoin). The goodwill of friends and fellow crypto geeks has been essential and I anticipate it will continue to be so throughout the week.

The rest of the night was a blur of exhaustion as we finished dinner and headed back to Christian’s apartment. I had been up since 6:00 a.m. From coffee with Hill to the conference to Jeremy’s speakeasy and Crypto Castle to pub to apartment, I had covered a lot of ground and met a great many people — some interactions and people I haven’t had time to cover in this sprawling account, including a few Crypto Castle residents who were building a rig to mine grin.

I got around, but I spent little bitcoin — unfortunately, none of it directly with any merchants. Hill covered my breakfast, though if she gives me a wallet address, I intend to reimburse her. The conference covered lunch. Bitcoin did buy me dinner, even if indirectly through Christian, and it did buy me Uber credit for transport — another indirect use, but as Christian pointed out to me, I was still supporting a use case and infrastructure.

I crashed on the couch around 12:30 a.m. and was content to know that I would have access to coffee in the morning.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Bitcoiner 2029: Another Ten Years On

2019 small

The following is an imaginative, fictitious account of what the world could look like in 2029 and how Bitcoin might evolve to revolutionize economic, monetary and free-market systems. Unfortunately, time machines haven’t been invented in this speculative future so we couldn’t verify the accuracy of the narrator’s experienceplease take the following story with a healthy grain of idealistic salt.

As I walked out on the tarmac, the West Coast winter climate, brisk and sharp, broke over me. The sun set over the west bay in a splendor of sherbert radiance. Some 20 miles away, I envisioned the sepia luster of the Golden Gate stretching across the bay, that bastion of 20th century industry blending with the gradually darkening backdrop of the day’s paling light.

Immediately I was taken back to my first crypto conference in the Bay Area some 11 years earlier — right on the brink of the crypto craze of 2017. A fledgling industry, we found ourselves positioned in an ecosystem that was challenging the economic norm with feverish and diehard persistence. Bitcoin was a revolution, and we were accelerating a movement that would disrupt the monetary realm as we knew it. It was a thrilling time; we were building the future.

Now, the same flutters of excitement I experienced in 2017 morphed into the euphoria of triumph. The future we imagined — we had built it.

An act of happenstance, the consequence of this triumph greeted me as I stepped from the tarmac into the warm, aseptic fluorescence of the SFO airport. Greeting me at the door like a stalwart guardian of old, its paint peeling and brittle from lack of care, a defunct currency exchange booth sat like the gutted relic of a different time.

The sight conjured memories of my childhood, when my father would vent about the fees charged for currency conversion at these booths.

“12 percent?” he’d say in disbelief. “It’s straight theft! Should have done it beforehand at the bank — of course, their rates are about as bad though,” he always conceded.

I laid my hand on the jaundiced linoleum countertop.

“You put up a good fight, old boy,” I muttered, giving the booth a sympathy pat.

A janitor within earshot looked up from the tile floor he was tending and flashed me a dubious look, complete with cocked eyebrow.

“Sorry, just reminiscing,” I replied awkwardly.

Gathering my composure, I headed to the baggage claim, collected my luggage and proceeded to the rideshare section of the terminal. I opened my Decentralift app and requested a car.


Standing in wait for my ride, I surveyed the news for the day on my BitLive app.

The New York Times: January 3, 2029: “In the New Year, POTUS, Congress Wrestle With New Economy”

The Wall Street Journal: January 3, 2029: “Investment Banks Faces Bankruptcy as Wall Street Debt Crisis Worsens”

Bitcoin Magazine: January 3, 2029: “China and Russia’s Mining War With the West Is About to Get More Entrenched”

Millennial Daily: January 3, 2029: “EU Parliament Convenes Emergency Session in Shadow of Global Economic Downturn”

The Times: “Pressure On: Parliament on Brink of Passing Crypto Tender Bill in Wake of EU’s Adoption”

I paid 1,000 sats for the NYT’s headliner, and I even shelled out for The Times article too, mainly for sentimental reasons.

Standing in waiting for my ride, I opened the NYT article and started reading.

Newly re-elected President Ables and the Democratic-controlled Congress continue to look down the barrel of a currency crisis as long-standing Wall Street Institutions like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan continue to fold under the pressures of bankruptcy.

These closures are the climax of a financial paradigm shift that began when Congress passed the “Cryptocurrency Tender Recognition Act” of 2027, legislation that categorizes cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin as legal tender under U.S. law. The law was prompted by the surging demand for bitcoin and other private currencies by U.S. employees and a wave of adoption as major brands, such as Apple, Amazon, Walmart, Nike and others began accepting bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as a sole method of payment.

Congress is meeting with the President and the Federal Reserve, as well as CEOs from the nation’s largest private banks, on Thursday to discuss the crisis and break ground on a relief plan.

“The COIN Act was a safety-net plan of sorts. It outfitted the United States with the most powerful mining operation on the planet, and we’ve been actively liquidating portions of our precious metal reserves in favor of bitcoin and other cryptos,” House Banking Committee Chair Vicente González told the New York Times.

“Still, the Thursday meeting is critically important. We also recognize the need to aid these financial institutions for the betterment of our economy and constituents as we confront a paradigm shift in monetary policy.”

Representatives from Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and the Federal Reserve declined the New York Times’ request for comment.

“Long time coming,” I muttered to myself.

European change was underway too, with the EU Parliament just recently voting to recognize bitcoin as legal tender. The legalization was, in part, encouraged by the actions of member states like Germany, France, Norway and Spain passing individual legislation to give cryptocurrencies status as legal tender as the euro’s popularity continues to peter out.

The rest of the EU will have some catch-up to play, though, I mused. Scandinavian countries (taking a bit of a cue from Canada) began establishing gargantuan mining farms in the early ’20s, making good use of the abundance of renewable energy these countries have produced with hydroelectric dams. No doubt that’ll cut into what González called “the most powerful mining operation on the planet.”

Not to mention that the resources Russia and China have been pouring into mining industries and the escalation of what’s shaping up to become a multinational, multi-decade mining war. Now that crypto is becoming the monetary standard for international trade, this ain’t your granddaddy’s trade war. What’s to come will make the Trump-era embargoes look like a training exercise.

I was about halfway through the article when my Decentralift pulled up. “Mike. B.’s Black 2027 Tesla Model S has arrived,” my phone chimed.

Using my Watchlet smart watch, I scanned a QR code on the outside of the backseat door handle, the RSK smart contract immediately unlocked the door, and I hopped in.

“Welcome to Mike B.’s self-driving car, Colin Harper!” the car grated, my name itself distinguished by that strange, too-mechanical accent when the AI jumps from its library of set phrases to something variable like a new passenger’s name.

“Thank you for choosing Decentralift today. Thanks to your dedication to responsible ridesharing, you’ve saved 2.14 grams of CO2 emissions.”

As the self-driving car drove on, a decade of perspective became my rearview. The first go-around, my Lyft fare was roughly $35 from the airport to my lodging at The Red Victorian. This time, my Decentralift was 14,000 sats.

I reviewed Mike B.’s reputation ratings on the Decentralift app. Mostly good — a 4.2 rating. A common qualm: riders complained that Mike’s car had an uncanny odor to it, a miasmic mixture akin to chlorine and pine-scented air fresheners. Many found it overbearing. My guess was that Mike was somewhat of an OCD neatfreak, probably cleans his car obsessively to rid it of the invisible remnants of the unknown strangers that use his vehicle each day.

A copy of Time magazine sat for leisure reading in the back pouch of the driver’s seat, and the very humanizing gesture struck me as playfully ironic coming from an autonomous vehicle. “From Renegades to Revolutionaries: How Bitcoin’s Earliest Evangelists Built Crypto Empires in the Shadows of Suspicion,” the cover read.

A decade ago, some outsiders might have called our work groundbreaking, and some still might have called us revolutionaries. Most of those willing to give the industry a pat on the back and a gold star were those already working in it. Even those who thought that there was good work to be done were somewhat skeptical.

But to many, we were rebels — or worse: anarchists, outcasts, basement dwellers, drug dealers, fraudsters, dark-web peddlers, money launderers, degenerate gamblers, tax evaders. Our currency was baseless, our intentions were unscrupulous, our technology was overhyped and our vision was dangerously contrarian.

Back then, the New York Times was publishing articles like “Everyone Is Getting Hilarious Rich and You’re Not”; now on the front page are stories about how bitcoin and crypto have begun to topple a nearly century-old fiat economy. Then, Nobel Prize economist Robert Shiller was calling it “an interesting experiment, but … not a permanent feature of our lives”; in 2028, Satoshi Nakamoto was the first pseudonymous/anonymous person(s) to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Out the right-hand window, a stretch of Bitcoin and crypto-related billboards advertised the very companies that those revolutionaries had built.

“No internet? No problem! Run a full Andromeda Node right from your mobile device to send and receive payments anytime, anywhere using Blockstream’s Bitcoin Satellite. To learn more, visit blockstream.com/satellite.”

Another board branded with the tagline, “Your data. Your content. Your value. Reclaim your online independence with Bitlive.” On it, a knight clad in binary code chainmail wielding a Bitcoin shield, defending against a dragon, blasting the shield with breath that appeared to consist partly of Terms of Use legal language.

I chuckled a bit to myself, calling to mind the inexhaustible list of ICOs and token projects that tried to solve the content monetization problem. Didn’t need a utility token for that. The irony that the billboard, in part, is a stand-in for the industry that BitLive replaced also struck me as good fun.

The rest of the drive was filled with physical reminders of the space’s progression. They rolled on, exit to exit, in the forms of billboards and company names emblazoned on the tops of skyscrapers. At one point, Zug, Switzerland, had earned the moniker Crypto Valley for the density of crypto companies attracted to the region for its accommodating legislation. Silicon Valley had caught up, along with plenty of other crypto hubs: Toronto, Canada; Vaduz, Lichtenstein; Seoul, South Korea; and others.

Our “far-flung” visions were materializing.

Renegades to revolutionaries.


I reached the Intercontinental a little before 6:00 p.m.

“Thank you for choosing Decentralift today, Colin,” the AI droned. “Would you like assistance with your luggage?”

“No, thanks,” I replied and grabbed my carry-on bag.

Walking into the hotel, I checked my reservation details on my watch and made straight for my room on the 21st floor. Beside the elevator was a conference banner, one of many on display throughout the hotel.

Welcome to Bitcoin 2029: The Premier Bitcoin Conference” it read. Below was an impressive list of speakers, some highly respected, old standards, others exciting new voices.

Andreas Antonopoulos was coming out of a hard-earned sabbatical. This was the first conference he’d be keynoting since 2026. Samantha Styles, who had made her name during the Hard Fork Wars of 2025, would be speaking on “Crises in Consensus and the Importance of Decentralized Governance.” Elizabeth Stark, Colter Simpson, Gail Tenpenny, Adam Back, Preethi Kasireedy and Jun Li were all giving tech demonstrations. Even Roger Ver was speaking, having come back to the Bitcoin community following the Bitcoin Cash Chain Split of 2018 and a five-year journey of introspection.

Reaching the 21st floor, I found my room and unlocked its door with my Watchlet. The room featured an expansive view of the city. Surveying the sprawling cityscape, I noticed a massive crowd of protesters concentrated in the Yerba Buena Gardens. The throng was spilling over from the adjacent Moscone Convention Center, pouring onto Howard Street and clogging its throughway to the detriment of any potential traffic — and to the detriment of attendees of the World Banking Expo, which was taking place in the convention center.

“Maybe Caleb is among them,” I wondered.

Cousin Caleb stayed on my mind as I left the hotel for a grocery run. A crypto donation center directly outside the entrance to the Intercontinental made his situation all the more poignant. I made my way to the burnt-orange box, no bigger than the neglected ATMs (bitcoin or traditional) whose ubiquitous uselessness still littered cities around the globe.

These donation centers dated back to the early ’20s, the project of an anonymous-yet-steadfast group of crypto philanthropists, but it wasn’t until the recent debt/monetary crises that they began propagating in record numbers overnight.

They were built to redistribute crypto wealth to nocoiners and those without proper access to bitcoin, people like Caleb. Caleb did put money into the ecosystem — he just put it in the wrong places. Like many others, he accepted his wages and converted paper into stablecoins. But he didn’t buy anything like Dai or an algorithmic-backed coin — he put his money into fiat-collateralized coins.

Cue the rapid devaluation of the dollar and the international monetary crisis. Hyperbitcoinization has been great for those of us who saw it coming, but it’s been painful for others and there’s plenty of work to be done to iron out the economic disparities.

I expect we’ll see many more protests like the one obstructing the World Banking Expo in the next decade, I thought, scanning my Watchlet to donate 0.0025 BTC to the cause.

As I stepped into the Locavore supermarket near my hotel, it made me grateful that not every service was exclusively online yet. Some IRL experiences can’t be beat, I thought.

Gathering my groceries, I checked the tracking information for each item on the blockchain. Now, it was easy to tell if a store was misrepresenting a product’s origin and whether or not its attributes, organic or otherwise, were correct. Locavore rarely faltered in its mission to provide “transparent and locally sourced food,” but I checked anyway — it was always entertaining to map the network of farms the food came from.

Perusing the aisles, certain items shared a bitcoin and USD price tag; others had their USD price tags removed entirely. I was a bit shocked to see USD denominations at all, but rationalized that slowly tapering off the dollar was probably a responsible move on the store’s part.

I proceeded to the checkout.

“Welcome, valued customer.” The self-checkout’s chipper tone belied in its automated voice. After I finished scanning my items, it asked if I would like to round up my purchase to donate to Crypto Giver, the same organization behind the donation boxes. Acquiescing, I paid and headed back to my hotel.


I made my way to the bar to grab a beer and prep for a panel I was moderating: “Banking the Unbanked and Unbanking the Banked: What Two Decades Have Meant for Adoption.” In the late ’10s, Bitcoin’s utility was on display in countries like Venezuela, Iran and Turkey. But the sudden onslaught of the Second Great Depression would give the first world a taste for what a decentralized monetary system meant for an economy entrenched in rampant inflation and debt-riddled chaos.

Maybe you think I’m being hyperbolic, but it wasn’t until a global economic crisis on par with (or more extreme than) the Great Recession that bitcoin could be truly battle tested. Satoshi created it in response to ubiquitous market disaster, but it would take another disaster (in part, incited by the same problems as the first) for the currency to function holistically as Satoshi intended: a global, permissionless currency that, freed from the centralized control of a monolithic entity, could flourish for the people as a hedge against inflation and monetary instability.

I ordered a stout as these thoughts crossed my mind and made their way into my notebook. The bar used the Andromeda satellite network to let me pay from my tab without having to connect to the internet, something that still blows my mind as I think back to the early days of Lightning.

Finishing my stout, I thought about some of the changes the last 10 to 15 years had seen: from layer 1 to layer 2 solutions, from lightweight wallet clients to lightweight nodes on smartphones, from Lightning to Andromeda, from basic payments to everyday smart contracts. What was originally a case for digital cash and a deflationary economy had put down its roots in the free market and grown into an ubiquitous, decentralized economy.

During my first trip to San Francisco, bitcoin was known only through hype and still regarded as a fringe technology. Now, it was changing how we interacted with everything: donations, groceries, hotel reservations and rideshares. It had become bigger than those skeptics could fathom and even bigger than what its early proponents could dream.

Leaving the bar, I made my way to a 7:30 speakers’ dinner at Cheekwood, the first restaurant in the U.S. to begin accepting crypto only as a payment method.

Just like the space’s early adopters, Cheekwood was mocked by food critics and related media. It wouldn’t last the month, they sneered. “Probably the most idiotic decision in San Francisco dining history,” one critic wrote.

But it thrived, and it has become a watering hole for crypto enthusiasts ever since.

It was all too fitting, then, that we chose to break bread at Cheekwood the eve before the conference. Far from a last supper, the meal personified all that the industry had been through in its two decades of existence: ingenuity, mockery, persistence and victory.

The decentralized future had won out.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Bitcoin Wallet Forced to Drop Key Privacy Features From Google Play App

Samourai.jpg

Privacy-focused bitcoin wallet Samourai is having its hand forced by Google.

According to a Samourai blog post, the wallet provider is disabling privacy features that are key to its design before its latest version, 0.99.4, hits the Google Play store tomorrow. The removed features include Samourai’s Stealth Mode, remote text message (SMS) commands, and SIM Switch Defense (a measure to protect against sim swaps).

The privacy restrictions only affect the version of the wallet available on Google Play. To bypass these restrictions, users can also download what Samourai calls the “non-nerfed version” of the wallet client’s latest version directly from the project’s Github. Down the road, the team also hopes to get the wallet, privacy features fully-enabled, listed on F-Droid and other alternative, open-source app stores, as well.

“In October, Google announced changes to their policies regarding SMS and Dialer permissions that apps are allowed to use. The way that our Stealth Mode, Remote SMS commands, and SIM Switch Defense work require use of these permissions,” a Samourai Wallet representative told Bitcoin Magazine in an email correspondence.

Samourai proceeded to file for an exemption, but they were notified of their exemption’s rejection just “a few days ago,” according to the representative.

“Unfortunately, they didn’t tell us anything specifically, we learned of everything through automated emails that could not be responded to,” they continued.

Samourai is only available for Android, in part because it can’t pin down iOS developers who “are willing to work for the passion of it over the profit,” the representative indicated. The project hasn’t “had much luck with iOS developers so far,” but it is “committed to bringing some version of Samourai to the iOS store eventually,” they claimed.

With these restrictions, Samourai lamented the changing landscape of Android over the past few versions. These changes have, in Samourai’s words, created a “walled garden,” something the wallet provider discusses in its blog post and reiterated in our correspondence.

“Very strict changes in background data a few versions ago meant that Samourai users would no longer receive alerts on incoming payments unless we routed all alerts through Google’s own servers. We obviously decided not to do that, but that was — in our view — the beginnings of the walled garden being built. The latest policy changes regarding SMS and Dialer permissions show a marked change of strategy for Google, bringing it closer in alignment with the Apple iOS Store than ever before.”

If users opt to download the wallet directly from Samourai’s Github, the team cautioned that they should “verify the integrity of the APK they download by comparing the SHA-256 hash of their APK with the SHA-256 hash published on Github.”

At time of publication, Google had not responded to Bitcoin Magazine’s request for comment.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

Cherry on Top: Bitcoin ABC, Bitmain, Ver Target of Suit Following BCH Split

Cherry on Top: Bitcoin ABC, Bitmain, Ver Target of Suit Following BCH Split

As if the drama surrounding the recent Bitcoin Cash split needed a sequel, the vaudevillian sideshow has reached a new stage: the legal arena.

A suit spearheaded by United American Corporation (UnitedCorp), a telecom company with a little-known blockchain subsidiary, BlockNum, is taking legal aim at Bitmain and its cofounder Jihan Wu; Bitcoin.com and its CEO, Roger Ver; Kraken and its CEO, Jesse Powell; and others. The suit “is seeking injunctive relief,” alleging that the defendants engaged in “collusion for the purpose of control of the [Bitcoin Cash] network.”

The suit indicates that it was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, UnitedCorp, and was launched on December 6, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

“We are bringing this suit on behalf of UnitedCorp because we believe strongly in the value and integrity of democratic, distributed and decentralized blockchain networks which will become more important with time. In order to maintain confidence in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin Cash, no person or entity can be allowed to control them,” Benoit Laliberte, president of UnitedCorp, stated in a press release.

An Attempt to Control

The lawsuit claims that during the recent November 15 Bitcoin Cash split, the defendants acted in unison to hijack the network and force an undemocratic protocol change.

“This action involves a scheme by a tight knit network of individuals and organizations to manipulate the cryptocurrency market for Bitcoin Cash, effectively hijacking the Bitcoin Cash network, centralizing the market, and violating all accepted standards, protocols and the course of conduct associated with Bitcoin since its inception,” the lawsuit reads.

An accusatory presentation entitled “Anatomy of a Fraud on the Bitcoin (Bitcoin Cash) Network” delves into the specific injunctions of each defendant. Notably, it claims that the defendants colluded with China, “operating with the support of the Chinese government to centralize the Bitcoin Cash network resulting in Chinese entities now having established dominance over this important segment of the cryptocurrency market with proprietary software checkpoints and instituting other means of control over the system.”

Defending its bold allegation, the document suggests that given its ongoing trade war and economic disputes with the U.S., China has a vested interest in “[controlling] the economy of the future through increasing control of the [Bitcoin Cash] digital currency network.” It goes on to say that the China International Capital Corporation (CICC) — what amounts to China’s central bank — holds the exclusive mandate to Bitmain’s forthcoming IPO, using this as ostensible evidence for Bitmain and the Chinese government’s ties.

The document continues to outline Jihan Wu and Bitmain’s alleged culpability in this conspiracy, indicating outright the weight that Bitmain’s mining pools carry in both the Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash networks. Specifically, it accuses Wu and his mining firm of “renting” hashpower from Bitmain mining pool contributors without their consent and redirecting some 90,000 ASICs to the Bitcoin ABC network in an effort to strongarm competitor Bitcoin SV’s hashing power.

Moving on to Bitcoin.com, CEO Roger Ver and communications ambassador Sterlin Lujan, the document highlights some seemingly extraneous yet potentially prejudicial facts about Ver’s life and cryptocurrency career, specifically his political affiliation as a libertarian/anarchist and his alleged involvement in the Silk Road. The document doesn’t make any overt accusations against Ver, only implicating him via his connection to Bitmain and Wu and Bitcoin.com’s mining support for Bitcoin ABC.

The presentation also targets Bitcoin ABC and its main developers, Amaury Sechet, Jason Cox and Shammah Chancellor, alleging that the Bitcoin ABC hard fork was “more than a benign network upgrade.” According to the document’s rationale, the upgrade’s primary components, namely the addition of an OP code for smart contract oracles and modification of checkpoints (a.k.a. deep reorg prevention) — which the plaintiff has called a “poison pill” elsewhere — were added after the fork and could set the stage for network centralization and manipulation.

“Combining this change with the hashing power of Bitcoin ABC backers amounts to centralization. They will be able to override any consensus reached by the rest of the network, forcing others to conform or create an unwanted hard fork,” it states.

On its final page, the presentation targets Kraken and its CEO, Jesse Powell, for supporting Bitcoin ABC’s implementation over Bitcoin SV’s and issuing caveats against the latter’s legitimacy.

Turning Back the Clock

The nucleus of the plaintiff’s argument centers on the allegation that the Bitcoin ABC camp and its supporters manipulated the Bitcoin Cash network during the November hard fork to artificially create a longer chain than Bitcoin SV.

Hashpower that was previously employed to mine on the Bitcoin network was one of the camp’s primary tools during the split, and the temporary boost in hashing power let Bitcoin ABC supporters hijack the Bitcoin Cash network, the plaintiff claims.

With these claims in mind, the filing charges the defendants with violating the Sherman Act (a federal act that bans monopolistic business dealings), equitable estoppel (a defensive doctrine that one party can invoke when they’ve been coerced into acting a specific way) and negligence, among others.

In response to the following charges, the plaintiff is seeking restitution and disgorgement of the defendants’ assets, and it’s also asking that the Bitcoin ABC team be barred from implementing checkpoints on the protocol and for the court to dial back the recent upgrade.

“Plaintiff seeks an injunction: (a) precluding Amaury Sechet,  Shammah Chancellor, and Jason Cox via Bitcoin ABC from continuing to implement checkpoints on the Bitcoin Cash network and any other implementation of the software that would prevent the resulting chains from being able to be re-merged; and (b) requiring them to return the blockchain to its previously decentralized form with the previous consensus rules,” the filing reads.

While “[returning] the blockchain to its previously decentralized form” is ambiguous, “with the previous consensus rules” seems to imply that the plaintiff is requesting that the court dial back the network to its previous state before the November 15 hard fork. This would require a complete network rollback, so the request is tinged with irony given the plaintiff’s complaints of Bitcoin ABC’s alleged manipulation and centralized practices.

A (Messier) Mess in the Making

At any rate, the lawsuit will only augment the furor that has surrounded the November split.

On the eve of the split, Craig S. Wright, Bitcoin SV’s front man, seemed to forecast the coming legal troubles. He tweeted that his side would help any miner in Bitcoin.com or Bitmain’s mining pools “start a long messy class action” if either organization redirected Bitcoin hash power to Bitcoin cash during the split.

Some Bitcoin Cash supporters have taken Wright’s words as an admission of guilt. Vin Armani, CTO at CoinText, for example, insinuated that the Bitcoin SV camp (and its primary proponents, Craig S. Wright and Calvin Ayre) is behind the lawsuit, calling UnitedCorps a “shell company.”

I’m not sure if there has been a more petty and lame move in the history of Bitcoin. The fact that this lawsuit was filed via a random OTC shell company is… wow!

There’s being a loser… and then there’s this.

I guess “miners choose” is actually “US federal judges choose.” https://t.co/dvO8n78WuB

— Ⓥin Ⓐrmani (@vinarmani) December 6, 2018

https://twitter.com/vinarmani/status/1070752064765132810

Chris Pacia, an OpenBazaar developer, has echoed Amrani’s sentiments. In a separate tweet, he claims that the lawsuit proves that Ayrehat Calvin Ayre, who owns Bitcoin Cash mining pool and news site CoinGeek, used his mining pool to mine a hidden chain on the Bitcoin ABC network, something that ABC’s checkpoint implementations quashed.

“After this lawsuit I’m now certain Calvin was mining a hidden chain to reorg BCH that he had to abandon when the checkpoint was announced,” the tweet reads.

Pacia continues to reprimand the action as “malicious,” saying it also “shows [the Bitcoin SV group lacks] even basic knowledge about the codebase of the chain they were trying to take over.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.