The best Bitcoin exchange TechRadar

MiniSwap -- A New Hybrid Incentive Model in DeFi

Cryptocurrency exchanges process over $20 billion in trade volume per day. Most of the transactions are going through centralized exchanges, where the users need to fully trust them for managing their assests and transactions. However, the risk of trusting these centralized exchanges has also been seen. For example, QuadrigaCX, which was the largest cryptocurrency exchange in Canada, lost $19 million of their customers' assets [1].
Decentralized Exchanges (DEXes) have been introduced to address this problem -- they allow traders to purchase and sell cryptocurrencies in a peer-to-peer manner, so no involvement of any trusted party is required. Atomic Swap is one of the promising technology for implementing a DEX. While it enables pure peer to peer trading, it also introduces problems such as unfairness and long confirmation latency. While existing work [2] has provided a solution towards a fair atomic swap protocol, the issue of long confirmation latency is inherent.
Another promising direction is leveraging liquidity pools. With liquidity pools, pairs of assets are reserved for trading. For any pair of assets supported by the liquidity pool, traders can exchange their assets without any third party. As traders can only perform the transactions if there are reserved assets, one core problem is how to attract liquidity providers to provide liquidity by reserving assets. It is not difficult to see that incentive [3,4], which has been a key component of all permissionless blockchains, can be equipped to incentivize liqudity providers. However, flawed incentive designs will lead to attacks and other concerns [5-13].
There are two main types of incentive designs, namely "trans-fee mining" and "liquidity mining". They are different from the Proof-of-X mining in blockchains for reaching consensus (a detailed analysis can be found in the survey [14]). Rather, they are used to incentivise users to join the ecosystem.
"Trans-fee mining" was proposed by FCoin in 2018 [15]. With FCoin, each time a transaction is created, 100% of its transaction fee will be returned in FCoin token to the payer as a reward. This is one incentive design to encourage traders to join the system. However, as FCoin may have no value to the trader, FCoin also introduces extra reward to all coin holders -- 80% of the transaction fee in its native currency (such as ETH) will be distributed to all coin holders. So, traders are incentivized to join the system, becoming a holder of FCoin token, and obtaining a share of the transaction fee of every transaction in the FCoin ecosystem.
While this had successful attracted traders, it is not sustainable. Rather than charging a trader to perform transactions, FCoin rewards traders. Profit-driven traders will create transactions at full speed to earn FCoin token and the share as a token holder. Indeed, the trading volume of FCoin was the top one among all exchange services, and the daily reward can be as high as 6000 BTC [16]. However, once all coins are minted, then the system would lose liveness as there is not enough supply to be distributed.
"Liquidity mining" aims at giving reward to the liquidity providers rather than the traders. There are different ways to implement liquidity mining. Compound [17] is a famous example of protocols deploying liquidity mining. With Compound, users become a liquidity provider by supply assets to a pool and obtain interests for its contribution (similar to depositing money into a bank). Liquidity providers first reserve some assets in the pool and obtain "cToken" of Compound which entitles the owner to an increasing quantity of the underlying asset. Users can use their "cToken" to borrow different assets available on the Compound and pay some interests to Compund. The borrowers may have some quick gains through the financial games [18]. Both borrowers and liquidity providers can withdraw their asset by trading them back with "cToken". Oners of "cToken" can also manage the business direction and decisions of Compound through weighted voting. The potential concern here is that rich users might be able to take over the control of the system.
Uniswap [19] is another popular DEX deploying liquidity mining. Uniswap incentivizes liquidity providers by giving them a share of the earned transaction fees. In particular, Uniswap changes each transaction a 0.3% fee, where 0.25% will be distributed to the liquidity providers, and 0.05% will go to the Uniswap account. One issue is how to incentivize traders. With Uniswap, traders are incentivized by the potential profit it can gain through the price difference between Uniswap and other exchanges. Uniswap price oracle is based on a constant function market makers [20,21], where the product of the number of reserved tokens is a constant. For example, if Uniswap has a pair of X token A and Y token B, then when a user using X' token A to buy Y' token B, the product of the reserved number of tokens should remain the same, i.e., XY = (X+X')(Y-Y'). The price of Uniswap (V1) is also defined in this way. This allows traders to speculate in the exchange market as the asset price on Uniswap is changed dynamically and is different from other exchanges. This, on the other hand, may have a security risk as the price can be easily manipulated. Uniswap (V2) fixed this problem by taking an accumulated price over a period of time [22]. However, as speculation/manipulation becomes harder, the trading volume may decrease.
MiniSwap [23] introduces a hybrid model (a mixture of "trans-fee mining" and "liquidity mining") to address the above issues. MiniSwap provides three types of rewards. For each trade with transaction fee f ETH in MiniSwap, a number of MiniSwap tokens (called MINI) worth 2f ETH will be minted. A (parameterized) portion of the tokens are given to the trader, and the rest are distribued to the liqudity providers. The transaction fee (f ETH) is used to exchange MINI in the liquidity pool. 50% of the obtained MINI will be distributed to all MINI holders, and the other 50% will be destroyed. In this way, both traders and liquidity providers are incentivized to join the ecosystem.
Recall that with FCoin, there is a problem when all coins are minted. MiniSwap has an upper bound (of 500,000 tokens) on the number of tokens can be created every day, and this limit reduces every month until a point where the limit (18,000 tokens) remains unchanged. This guarantees the sustainability of the system as the mining process can last for 100 years. The parameterized ratio of tokens as the reward to the trader and liquidity provider can also strengthen sustainability. It enables the system to dynamically balance the incentive of different parties in the system to make it more sustainable.
Overall, the MiniSwap hybrid model has taken the benefit of both "trans-fee mining" model and "liquidity mining" model, while eliminated the potential concerns. Formally defining and analyzing these models, e.g. through the game-theoretic approach [24], would be an interesting direction.
Reference
[1] The Guardian, Cryptocurrency investors locked out of $190m after exchange founder dies, 2019.
[2] Runchao Han, Haoyu Lin, Jiangshan Yu. On the optionality and fairness of Atomic Swaps, ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, 2019.
[3] Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system
[4] Jiangshan Yu, David Kozhaya, Jeremie Decouchant, and Paulo Verissimo. Repucoin: your reputation is your power. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2019.
[5] Joseph Bonneau. Why Buy When You Can Rent? - Bribery Attacks on Bitcoin-Style Consensus. Financial Cryptography and Data Security - International Workshops on BITCOIN, VOTING, and WAHC, 2016.
[6] Yujin Kwon, Hyoungshick Kim, Jinwoo Shin, and Yongdae Kim. Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash: Coexistence or Downfall of Bitcoin Cash, IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2019.
[7] Kevin Liao and Jonathan Katz. Incentivizing blockchain forks via whale transactions. International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2017.
[8] Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. Optimal Selfish Mining Strategies in Bitcoin. Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2016.
[9] Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer. Majority Is Not Enough: Bitcoin Mining Is Vulnerable. Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2014.
[10] Ittay Eyal. The Miner’s Dilemma. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2015.
[11] Miles Carlsten, Harry A. Kalodner, S. Matthew Weinberg, and Arvind Narayanan. On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward. ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016.
[12] Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi. Stubborn mining: generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016.
[13] Runchao Han, Zhimei Sui, Jiangshan Yu, Joseph K. Liu, Shiping Chen. Sucker punch makes you richer: Rethinking Proof-of-Work security model, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch, 2019.
[14] Christopher Natoli, Jiangshan Yu, Vincent Gramoli, Paulo Jorge Esteves Veríssimo.
Deconstructing Blockchains: A Comprehensive Survey on Consensus, Membership and Structure. CoRR abs/1908.08316, 2019.
[15] FCoin, https://www.fcoin.pro
[16] The Block Crypto. Cryptocurrency exchange Fcoin expects to default on as much as $125M of users' bitcoin, 2020.
[17] Compound, https://compound.finance.
[18] Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Bentov, Lorenz Breidenbach, Ari Juels. Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning, Transaction Reordering, and Consensus Instability in Decentralized Exchanges. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2020.
[19] Uniswap. https://uniswap.org
[20] Bowen Liu, Pawel Szalachowski. A First Look into DeFi Oracles. CoRR abs/2005.04377, 2020.
[21] Guillermo Angeris, Tarun Chitra. Improved Price Oracles: Constant Function Market Makers, CoRR abs/ 2003.10001, 2020.
[22] Uniswap V2.0 whitepaper. https://uniswap.org/whitepaper.pdf
[23] MiniSwap. https://www.miniswap.org
[24] Ziyao Liu, Nguyen Cong Luong, Wenbo Wang, Dusit Niyato, Ping Wang, Ying-Chang Liang, Dong In Kim. A Survey on Blockchain: A Game Theoretical Perspective. IEEE Access, 2019.
submitted by MINISWAP to u/MINISWAP [link] [comments]

[Part 1] KAVA Historical AMA Tracker! (Questions & Answers)

ATTN: These AMA questions are from Autumn 2019 - before the official launch of the Kava Mainnet, and it's fungible Kava Token.
These questions may no longer be relevant to the current Kava landscape, however, they do provide important historical background on the early origins of Kava Labs.
Please note, that there are several repeat questions/answers.

Q1:

Kava is a decentralized DEFI project, why did you implement the countries restrictions to run the node? Will there be such restrictions by the time of the mainnet?

Q2:

According to the project description it has been indicated that staking reward (in KAVA tokens) varies from 3 to 20% per annum. But how will you fight with inflation?

We all know how altcoins prices are falling, and their bottom is not visible. And in fact, we can get an increase in the number of tokens for staking, but not an increase in the price of the token itself and become a long-term investor.

  • Answer: Kava is both inflationary with block rewards, but deflationary when we burn CDP fees. Only stakers who bond their Kava receive inflationary rewards - users and traders on exchanges do not get this. In this way, rewards are inflated, but given to stakers and removed value from the traders who are speculating like a tax. The Deflationary structure of fees should help counterbalance the price drops from inflation if any. In the long-term as more CDPs are used, Kava should be a deflationary asset by design if all things go well

Q3:

In your allocation it is indicated that 28.48% of the tokens are in the "Token treasury" - where will these tokens be directed?

  • Answer: Investors in financing rounds prior to the IEO have entered into long-term lock-up agreements in-line with their belief in Kava’s exciting long-term growth potential and to allow the projects token price to find stability. Following the IEO, the only tokens in circulation will be those sold through the IEO on Binance and the initial Treasury tokens released.
  • No private sale investor tokens are in circulation until the initial release at the end of Q1 2020 and then gradually over the [36] months The initial Treasury tokens in circulation will be used for a mixture of ecosystem grants, the expenses associated with the IEO as well as initial market making requirements as is typical with a listing of this size. Kava remains well financed to execute our roadmap following the IEO and do not envisage any need for any material financings or token sales for the foreseeable future.

Q4:

Such a platform (with loans and stable coins) is just the beginning since these aspects are a small part of many Defi components. Will your team have a plan to implement other functions, such as derivatives, the dex platform once the platform is successfully launched?

  • Answer: We believe Kava is the foundation for many future defi products. We need stable coins, oracles, and other infrastructure first that Kava provides. Once we have that, we can apply these to derivatives and other synthetics more easily. For example, we can use the price feeds and USDX to enable users to place 100x leverage bets with each other. If they both lock funds into payment channels, then they can use a smart contract based on the price feed to do the 100x trade/bet automatically without counter party risk. In this way, Kava can expand its financial product offerings far beyond loans and stable coins in the future.

Q5:

There are several options for using USDX on the KAVA platform, one of which is Margin Trading / Leverage. Is this a selection function or a compulsory function? Wondering since there are some investors who don`t like margin. What is the level of leverage and how does a CDP auction work?

  • Answer: This is a good #Q . Kava simply provides loans to users in USDX stable coins. What the users do is completely up to them. They can use the loans for everyday payments if they like. Leverage and hedging are just the main use cases we foresee - there are many ways people can use the CDP platform and USDX.

Q6:

Most credit platforms do not work well in the current market. What will you do to attract more people to use your platform and the services you provide? Thank you

  • Answer: Most credit platforms do not work well in the current market? I think that isn't correct at least for DeFi. Even in the bear market, MakerDao and Compound saw good user growth. Regardless, our efforts at Kava to build the market are fairly product and BD focused. 1) we build more integrations of assets and expand financial services to attract new communities and users. 2) we focus on building partnerships with high quality teams to promote and build Kava's core user base. Kava is just the developer. Our great partners like Ripple, Stakewith.Us, P2P, Binance - they have the real users that demand Kava. They are like our system integrators that package Kava up nicely and present it to their users. In order to grow, we need to deepen our partnerships and bring in new ones around the world.

Q7:

KAVA functions as a reserve currency in situations where the system is undercollateralized. In such cases new KAVA is minted and used to buy USDX off the market until USDX becomes safely overcollateralized.

Meaning, there will be no max supply of KAVA?

  • Answer: Yes, there is no max supply of Kava.

Q8:

Why Kava?

  • Answer: ...because people are long BTC and the best way to go long BTC without giving up custody is Kava's platform. Because it is MakerDao for bitcoin. Bitcoin has a 10x market cap of ETH and Maker is 10x the size of Kava. I think we're pretty undervalued right now.

Q9:

How do you plan to make liquidity in Kava?

  • Answer: Working with Binance for the IEO and as the first exchange for KAVA to trade on will be a huge boost in increasing the liquidity of trading KAVA.

Q10:

Most crypto investors or crypto users prefer easy transaction and low fees, what can we expect from KAVA about this?

  • Answer: Transaction fees are very low and confirm if seconds. The user experience is quite good on Tendermint-based blockchains.

Q11:

How do I become a note validator on KavA?

Q12:

It is great to know that KAVA is the first DEFI-supported project sponsored by Binance Launchpad, do you think this is the meaning that CZ brings: Opening the DEFI era, as a leader, you feel like how ?

  • Answer: We are the first DeFi platform that Launchpad has supported. We are a very strategic blockchain for major crypto like BNB. Kava's platform will bring more utility to the users of BNB and the Binance DEX. It feels good of course to have validation from the biggest players in the space like Cosmos, Ripple, CZ/Binance, etc.

Q13:

Since decentralized finance applications is already dominating, how do you intend to surpass those leading in the market?

  • Answer: The leaders are only addressing ethereum. BTC, XRP, BNB, ATOM is a much larger set to go after that current players cannot.

Q14:

What does Ripple play in the Kava's ecosystem, since Ripple is like a top tier company and it’s impressive that you are partnered with them?

  • Answer: Ripple is an equity investor in Kava and a big supporter of our work in cross-chain settlement research and implementations. Ripple's XRP is a great asset in terms of users and liquidity that the Kava platform can use. In addition, Ripple's money service business customers are asking for a stable coin for remittances to avoid the currency heading risk that XRP presents. Ripple will not use USDC or other stable coins, but they are open to using USDX as it can be XRP-backed.

Q15:

Considering the connectivity, Libra could be the biggest competitor if KAVA leverages interchain for efficiency.

  • Answer: With regard to USDX, it is important to understand the users interacting with the Kava blockchain have no counterparty that people could go after for legal actions. A user getting a USDX loan has no counterparty. The software holds the collateral and creates the loan. The only laws that would apply are to the very users that are using the system.

Q16:

Wonder how KAVA will compete with the tech giants

  • Answer: Libra is running into extreme issues with the US Senate and regulators. Even the G7-G20 groups are worried. Its important to understand that Libra is effectively a permissioned system. Only big companies that law makers can go after are able to run nodes. In Kava, nodes can be run by anyway and our nodes are based all over the world. It's incredibly hard for a law maker to take down Kava because they would need to find and legally enforce hundreds of business in different jurisdictions to comply. We have an advantage in this way over the larger projects like Libra or Clayton.

Q17:

In long-term, what's the strategy that KAVA has for covering the traditional finance users as well? Especially regarding the "stability"

  • Answer: Technical risk is unavoidable for DeFi. Only time will tell if a system is trustworthy and its never 100% that it will not fail or be hacked. This is true with banks and other financial systems as well. I think for DeFi, the technical risk needs to be priced in to the expected returns to compensate the market. DeFi does have a better user experience - requiring no credit score, identity, or KYC over centralized solutions.
  • With our multi-collateral CDP system, even with it overcollateralized, people can get up to 3x leverage on assets. Take 100 USD in BTC, get a USDX loan for 66 USDX, then buy $66 BTC and do another loan - you can do this with a program to get 3x leverage with the same risk profile. This is enough for most people.
  • However, it will be possible once we have Kava's CDP platform to extend it into products that offer undercollateralized financial products. For example, if USER 1 + USER 2 use payment channels to lock up their USDX, they can use Kava's price feeds to place bets between each other using their locked assets. They can bet that for every $1 BTC/USD moves, the other party owes 3x. In this way we can even do 100x leverage or 1000x leverage and create very fun products for people to trade with. Importantly, even in places where margin trading is regulated and forbidden, Kava's platform will remain open access and available.

Q18:

In long-term, what's the strategy that KAVA has for covering the traditional finance users as well? Especially regarding the "stability"

  • Answer: Kava believes that stable coins should be backed not just by crypto or fiat, but any widely used, highly liquid asset. We think in the future the best stablecoin would be backed by a basket of very stable currencies that include crypto and fiat or whatever the market demands.

Q19:

Compound, maker they're trying to increase their size via the competitive interests rates. THough it shows good return in terms of growth rate, still it's for short-term. Wonder other than financial advantage, KAVA has more for the users' needs?

  • Answer: Robert, the CEO of Compound is an investor and advisor to Kava. We think what Compound does with money markets is amazing and hope to integrate when they support more than just Ethereum assets. Kava's advantage vs others is to provide basic DeFi services like returns on crypto and stable coins today when no other platform offers that. Many platforms support ETH, but no platform can support BTC, XRP, BNB, and ATOM in a decentralized way without requiring centralized custody of these assets.

Q20:

The vast majority of the cryptocurrency community's priorities is symbolic pricing. When prices rise, the community rejoices and grows. When they fall, many people begin to cast in a negative way. How will KAVA solve the negative problem when the price goes down? What is your plan to strengthen and develop the community to persuade more people to look at the product than the price?

  • Answer: We believe price is an important factor for faith in the market. One of Kava's key initiatives was selecting only long-term partners that are willing to work with kava for 2 years. That is why even after 6 months, 0 private investor or kava team tokens will be liquid on the market.
  • We believe not in fast pumps and then dumps that destroy faith, but rather we try and operate the best we can for long-term sustainable growth over time. It's always hard to control factors in the market, and some factors are out of our control such as BTC price correlations, etc - however, we treat this like a public company stock - we want long-term growth of Kava and try to make sure our whole community of Kava holders is aligned with that the best we can.

Q21:

Do you have any plans to attract non-crypto investors to Kava and how? What are the measures to increase awareness of kava in non-crypto space?

  • Answer: We are 100% focused on crypto, not the general market. We solve the problems of crypto traders and investors - not the average grandma who needs a payment solution. Kava is geared for decentralized leverage and hedging.

Q22:

Adoption is crucial for all projects and crypto companies, what strategy are you gonna use/follow or u are now following to get Kava adopted and used by many people all over the world?

Revenue is an important aspect for all projects in order to survive and keep the project/company up and running for long term, what are the ways that Kava generates profits/revenue and what is its revenue model?

  • Answer: We have already partnered with several large exchanges, long-term VCs, and large projects like Ripple and Cosmos. These are key ways for us to grow our community. As we build support for more assets, we plan to promote Kava's services to those new communities of traders.
  • Kava generates revenue as more people use the platform. As the platform is used, KAVA tokens are burned when users pay stability fees. This deflates the total supply of Kava and should in most cases give rise to the value of KAVA like a stock-buyback in the public markets.

Q23:

In order to be success in Loan project of Cryptocurrency, I think marketing is very important to make people using this service without any registration. What is main strategy for marketing?

  • Answer: Our main strategy is to build a great experience and offer products that are not available to communities with demand. Currently no DeFi products can serve BTC users for example. Centralized exchanges can, but nothing truly trustless. Kava's platform can finally give the vast audiences of BTC, BNB, and ATOM holders access to core DeFi services they cannot get on their own due to the smart contract limitations of those platforms.

Q24:

Currently, some project have policies for their ambassadors to create a contribution and attract recognition for the project! So the KAVA team plans to implement policies and incentives for KAVA ambassadors?

  • Answer: Yes, we will be creating a KAVA ambassador program and releasing that soon. Please follow our social media channels to learn about it in the coming weeks.

Q25:

Currently there are so many KAVA tokens sold on exchanges, why is this happening while KAVA is going to IEO on Binance? Are those KAVA codes fake or not?

  • Answer: For everyone's safety, please understand Kava tokens do not exist yet and they will only exist starting with the Binance IEO. Any other token listings or offerings of Kava are not supported by Kava Labs and I highly discourage you all from trying to get them there. It is most likely a big scam. Please only trust Binance for this.

Q26:

KAVA have two tokens, the first is called Kava - a governance and staking token; the second is called USDX - an algorithmically managed crypto-backed stable coin. What are the advantages of USDX compared to other stablecoins such as: USDT, USDC, TUSD, GUSD, ...?

  • Answer: USDX is one of the few stablecoins to be fully backed by crypto-assets. This means that we do not deal with fiat to back the value, and thus we don't have some of the issues when it comes to storing fiat funds with banks and custodians. This also makes our product fully digital and built for the future of crypto growth.

Q27:

As a CEO, does your background in Esports and Gaming industry help anything to your management and development of KAVA Labs?

  • Answer: Esports no. But having been a multi-time venture-backed foundeCEO and have gone through the start-up phase before has made creating and running a 2nd company easier. Right now Kava is still small, Fnatic had over 80 employees. It was at a larger scale. I would say developing software is much more than doing the hardware at fnaticgear.com

Q28:

Why did Kava choose to launch IEO on Binance and not other exchanges like: Kucoin, Houbi, Gate, ....?

  • Answer: Kava had a lot of interest from exchanges to partner with for IEO. We decided based on a lot of factors such as userbase, diverse exposure across multiple regions and countries, and an amazing team that provides so much insight into so many communities such as this one. Binance has been a tremendous partner and we also look forward to continuing our partnership far into the future.

Q29:

Currently if Search on coinmarketcap has 3 types of stablecoins bearing the USDX symbol (but these 3 stablecoins are no information). So, what will KAVA do to let users know that Kava's USDX is another stablecoin?

  • Answer: All these USDX have no volume or listings. We will be on Binance. I am not worried.

Q30:

In addition to the Token Allocation for Binance Launchpad, what is the Token Treasury in the Initial Circulating Supply?

  • Answer: This is controlled by Kava Labs, but with the big cash we have saved from fundraising, we see no reason why these tokens would be sold on the market. The treasury tokens are for use in grants, ecosystem growth initiatives, development, and other incentive programs to drive adoption of the platform.

Q31:

How you will compete with your competitors? Currently i don't see much but for future how you will maintain this consistency ? No doubt it is Great and Unique project, what is the main problem that #KAVA is currently facing?

  • Answer: Because our industry is just starting out, I don't like to think of them as our direct competitors. We are all working to grow the size of the pie rather than get a larger slice from a small pie. The one thing that we believe will allow us to stand apart is the community we are building. Being able to utilize our own community along with Cosmos and our other partners like Binance for the IEO, we have a strong footing to get a lot of early users onto our platform. Also, we are also focusing on growing Kava internationally particularly Asia. We hope to build our platform for an even larger userbase than just the west.

Q32:

How do you explain your project to a random person who has never heard of your project?

  • Answer: non-crypto = Kava is a lending platform for users of cryptocurrencies.
  • crypto = Kava is a cross-chain DeFi platform for loans and stablecoins backed by BTC, BNB, XRP, ATOM and other major cryptocurrencies.

Q33:

Will KAVA team have a plan on implementing DAO module on your platform since its efficiency on autonomy, decentralization and transparency?

  • Answer: All voting is already transparent on the Kava blockchain. We approved a number of proposals on our test net.

Q34:

how to use usdx token :only for your platform or you have plan to use usdx for payment ?

  • Answer: Payments is a nice use case, but demand for crypto payments is still small. We may choose to focus here later if demand for crypto payments increases. Currently it is quite small with the bulk of use remaining in trading and speculative use cases.

Q35:

Do you have plans to spread KAVA ecosystem across other continents. if yes, what are the strategies and how can I as a community member contribute to making it possible?

  • Answer: We are already across many continents - I don't think we are in antarctica yet. Africa might be light on nodes as well. I think as we grow on major exchanges like Binance, new node operators will get interested and help decentralize Kava further.

Q36:

Maker's CDP lending system is on top in this market and its Dominance is currently sitting on 64.90 % , how kava will compete will maker and compound?

  • Answer: adding assets like bitcoin which have more value and more users than ETH. It's a bigger market that Maker cannot compete with Kava in.

Q37:

Currently, the community is too concerned about the price. As prices rise, the community rejoice and grow, when falling, many people start throwing negatively. So what is KAVA's solution to getting people to focus on the project rather than the price of the token?

What is your plan to strengthen and grow the community to persuade more individuals to look at the product than the price?

  • Answer: We also share similar concerns as price and price direction is always a huge factor in the crypto industry. A lot of people of course are very short-term focused on flipping for bigger profits. One of the solutions, and what Kava has done, is to make sure that everything structured is for the long-term. So that makes sure that our investors and employees are all focused on long-term gains and growth. Locking vesting periods are part of that alignment. Another thing is that we at Kava are very transparent in our progress and development. We will be regularly posting updates within our own communities to allow our users and followers to keep up with everything we're up to. Please follow us or look at our github if you're interested!

Q38:

How did Kava get on Piexgo?

  • Answer: We did not work with Piexgo. We have not distributed tokens to any exchange other than Binance. I cannot speak to what is going on there, but I would be very wary of what is happening there.

Q39:

Why was the 1st round price so much lower than the current price

  • Answer: It is natural to worry that early investors got better pricing and could dump on the market. I can assure you that our investors are in this for the long-term. All private sale rounds signed 2 year contracts to run validators - and if they don't they forfeit their tokens. You can compare our release schedule to any other project. We have one of the most restricted circulating supply schedules of any project EVER and its because all our investors are commiting to the long-term success of the project and believe in Kava.
  • About the pricing itself - it is always a function of traction like for any start-up. When we made our public announcement about the project in June, we were only a 4 man team with just some github code. We could basically run a network with a single node, our own. Which is relatively worthless. I think our pricing of Kava at this time was justified. We were effectively a seed-stage company without a product or working network.
  • By July we made severe progress on the development side and the business side. We successful launched our first test net with the help of over 70 validator business partners around the world. We had a world-wide network of hundreds of people supporting us with people and resources at this point and the risk we would fail in launching a working product was much lower. At this point, the Kava project was valued at $25M. At this point, we had many VCs and investors asking for Kava tokens that we turned away. We only accepted validators that would help us launch the network. It was our one and only goal.
  • Fast forward to today, the IEO price simply reflects the traction and market demand for Kava. Our ecosystem is much larger than it was even a month ago. We have support from Ripple, Cosmos, and Binance amongst other large crypto projects. We have 100+ validators securing our network with very sophisticated high-availability set-ups. In addition, our ecosystem partners have built products for Kava - such as block explorers and others are working on native integrations to wallets and exchanges. Launchpad will be very big for us. Kava is a system designed to cater to crypto traders and investors and in a matter of days we distributed via Binance Launchpad and put in the hands of 130+ countries and tens of thousands of users overnight. It doesn't get more DeFi than that.

Q40:

What is the treasury used for?

  • Answer: Kava's treasury is for ecosystem growth activities.
  • Investors in financing rounds prior to the IEO have entered into long-term lock-up agreements in-line with their belief in Kava’s exciting long-term growth potential and to allow the projects token price to find stability. Following the IEO, the only tokens in circulation will be those sold through the IEO on Binance and the initial Treasury tokens released. No private sale investor tokens are in circulation until the initial release at the end of Q1 2020 and then gradually over the [36] months The initial Treasury tokens in circulation will be used for a mixture of ecosystem grants, the expenses associated with the IEO as well as initial market making requirements as is typical with a listing of this size. Kava remains well financed to execute our roadmap following the IEO and do not envisage any need for any material financings or token sales for the foreseeable future.

Q41:

Everyone have heard about the KAVA token, and read about it. But it would be great to hear your explanation about it. What is the Kava token, what is it's utility? :)

  • Answer: The Kava token plays many roles. KAVA is the native staking token of the Kava blockchain and is used for securing the network. KAVA is delegated to validators, basically professional node operators that run highly-available servers to secure the Kava blockchain. The top 100 validators by weight of staked KAVA earn block rewards that range from 3-20% APR based on the total amount staked in the network. These rewards are split between the validators and the KAVA holders.
  • When users of the platform repay their loans, they must a stability fee (a percentage of the loan) in KAVA tokens. These tokens are burned by the system, effectively deflating the total supply overtime as more users use the CDP system.
  • KAVA is also the primary token used in governance of the platform. KAVA token holders can vote on key system parameter changes and upgrades such as what assets to support, how much USDX in total can be loaned by the system, what the debt-to-collateral ratio needs to be, the stability fees, etc. KAVA holders have a very important responsibility to govern the system well.
  • Lastly, Kava functions as a "Lender of Last Resort" meaning if USDX ever gets undercollateralized because the underlying asset prices drop suddenly and the system manages it poorly, KAVA is inflated in these emergency situations and used to purchase USDX off the market until USDX reaches a state of being over collateralized again. KAVA holders have incentive to only support the good high quality assets so risk of the system is managed responsibly.

Q42:

No matter how perfect and technically thought-out a DeFi protocol is, it cannot be completely protected from any unplanned situations (such as extreme market fluctuations, some legal issues, etc.)

Ecosystem members, in particular the validators on whom KAVA relies on fundamental decision-making rights, should be prepared in advance for any "critical" scenario. Considering that, unlike the same single-collateral MakerDAO, KAVA will be a multi-collateral CDP system, this point is probably even more relevant here.

In this regard, please answer the following question: Does KAVA have a clear risk management model or strategy and how decentralized is / will it be?

  • Answer: Simialar to other CDP systems and MakerDAO we do have a system freeze function where in cases of extreme issues, we can stop the auction mechanisms and return all collateral.

Q43:

Did you know that "Kava" is translated into Ukrainian like "Coffee"? I personally do love drinking coffee. I plunge into the fantasy world. Why did you name your project "Kava" What is the story behind it? What idea / fantasy did your project originate from, which inspired you to create it?

  • Answer: Kava is coffee to you.
  • Kava is Hippopotamus to Japanese.
  • Cava is a region in Spain
  • Kava is also a root that is used in tea which makes your mouth numb.
  • Kava is also crow in Hindi.
  • Kava last but not least is a DeFi platform launching on Binance :)
  • We liked the sound of Kava it was as simple as that. It doesn't have much meaning in the USA where I am from. But it's short sweet and when we were just starting, Kava.io was available for a reasonable price

Q44:

What incentives does a lender get if a person chooses to pay with KAVA? Is there a discount on interest rates on the loan amount if you pay with KAVA? Do I have to pass the KYC procedure to apply for a small loan?

  • Answer: There is no KYC for Kava. Its an open blockchain software platform where anyone with a computer can connect to it and use it.

Q45:

Let's say, I decided to bond my cryptocurrency and got USDX stable coins. For now, it`s an unknown stable coin (let's be honest). Do you plan to add USDX to other famous exchanges? Also, you have spoken about the USDX staking and that the percentage would be higher than for other stable coins. Please be so kind to tell us what is the average annual interest rate and what are the conditions of staking?

  • Answer: Yes we have several large exchanges willing to support USDX from the start. Binance/Binance-DEX is one you should all know ;)
  • The average annual rates for USDX will depend on market conditions. The rate is actually provided by the CDP fees users pay. The system reallocates a portion of those fees to USDX users. In times when USDX use needs to grow, the rates will be higher to incentivize use. When demand is strong, we can reduce the rates.

Q46:

Why should i use and choose Kava's loan if i can use the similar margin trade on Binance?

  • Answer: If margin is available to you and you trust the exchange then you should do whatever is cheaper. For a US citizen and others, margin is often not available and if it is, only for a few asset types as collateral. Kava aims to address this and offer this to everyone.

Q47:

The IEO price is $ 0.46 while the price of the first private sale is $ 0.075. Don't you think that such price gap can negatively affect the liquidity of the token and take away the desire to buy a token on the exchange?

  • Answer: It is natural to worry that early investors got better pricing and could dump on the market. I can assure you that our investors are in this for the long-term. All private sale rounds signed 2 year contracts to run validators - and if they don't they forfeit their tokens. You can compare our release schedule to any other project. We have one of the most restricted circulating supply schedules of any project EVER and its because all our investors are commiting to the long-term success of the project and believe in Kava.
  • About the pricing itself - it is always a function of traction like for any start-up. When we made our public announcement about the project in June, we were only a 4 man team with just some github code. We could basically run a network with a single node, our own. Which is relatively worthless. I think our pricing of Kava at this time was justified. We were effectively a seed-stage company without a product or working network.
  • By July we made severe progress on the development side and the business side. We successful launched our first test net with the help of over 70 validator business partners around the world. We had a world-wide network of hundreds of people supporting us with people and resources at this point and the risk we would fail in launching a working product was much lower. At this point, the Kava project was valued at $25M. At this point, we had many VCs and investors asking for Kava tokens that we turned away. We only accepted validators that would help us launch the network. It was our one and only goal.
  • Fast forward to today, the IEO price simply reflects the traction and market demand for Kava. Our ecosystem is much larger than it was even a month ago. We have support from Ripple, Cosmos, and Binance amongst other large crypto projects. We have 100+ validators securing our network with very sophisticated high-availability set-ups. In addition, our ecosystem partners have built products for Kava - such as block explorers and others are working on native integrations to wallets and exchanges. Launchpad will be very big for us. Kava is a system designed to cater to crypto traders and investors and in a matter of days we distributed via Binance Launchpad and put in the hands of 130+ countries and tens of thousands of users overnight. It doesn't get more DeFi than that.
  • TLDR - I think KAVA is undervalued and the liquid supply of tokens is primarily from the IEO so its a safer bet than other IEOs. If the price drops, it will be from the overall market conditions or fellow IEO users not due private sale investors or team sell-offs.

Q48:

Can you introduce some information abouts KAVA Deflationary Fee Structure? With the burning mechanism, does it mean KAVA will never reach its max supply?

  • Answer: When loans are repaid, users pay a fee in Kava. This is burned. However, Kava does not have a max supply. It has a starting supply of 100M. It inflates for block rewards 3-20% APR AND it inflates when the system is at risk of under collateralization. At this time, more Kava is minted and used to purchase USDX off the market until it reaches full collateralization again.
  • TLDR: If things go well, and governance is good, Kava deflates and hopefully appreciates in value. If things go wrong, Kava holders get inflated.

Q49:

In your opinion what are advantage of decentralized finance over centralized?

  • Answer: One of the main advantages is not needing to pay the costs of regulation and compliance. Open financial software that is usable by anyone removes middle men fees and reduces the barrier for new entrants to enter and make new products. Also DeFI has an edge in terms of onboarding - to get a bank account or an exchange account you need to do lots of KYC and give private info. That takes time and is troublesome. With DeFi you just load up your funds and transact. Very fast user flows.

Q50:

Plan, KAVA how to raise capital? Kava is being supported by more than 100 business entities around the world, including major cryptocurrency investment funds like Ripple and Cosmos, so what did kava do to convince investors to join the project?

  • Answer: We have been doing crypto research and development for years. Ripple and Cosmos were partners before we even started this blockchain with Kava Labs. When we announced Kava the DeFi platform they knew us already to do good work and they liked the idea so they support us.
submitted by Kava_Mod to KavaUSDX [link] [comments]

How and why exchanges are manipulating the price in order to capitalize on the new market dynamics

The current market seems to be largely driven not by organic buying and selling, but by exchange driven manipulation of the spot market to exploit the current dynamics of leverage trading. We just saw it again now as they liquidated 3K longs but you can see this pattern of clear manipulation over and over in the last few weeks .
We have seen several forces set an incentive for exchanges to do this:
Some exchanges like Gemini have reacted to all of this by increasing their trading fees by 400%. Meanwhile Bitfinex specifically seems to be using its hefty weight to manipulate the price in order to capitalize on the record number of people using margin to bet.
Both longs and shorts are bets on the price moving up or down and they have a "liquidation price" at which they get liquidated by the exchange, essentially the exchange gets the entire stack they bet with and extracts a high market fee multiplied by the leverage. Since the exchanges know the characteristics of the outstanding shorts/longs, and since volume is low after these pumps or dumps leading to sideways drift, they can essentially engineer movements in price that create income in terms of liquidations. When there are lots of overleveraged shorts, an exchange can pump the price with bots briefly and collect the short position. Same with longs but in reverse, a quick burst of selling pressure.
You can see this in the most recent pumps too on Bitfinex, where 1K buy orders appear out of nowhere after long sideways movement only to be followed by either sideway movement or slow bleed on pathetic volume:
https://i.imgur.com/3YaWVBI.png
https://i.imgur.com/pvpcd7Z.png
Take a look at the most recent pump up to 7K, it instantanously liquidated about 700 short positions:
https://i.imgur.com/3sCLEB8.png
Now this last dump was a laddered 12.5K sell order on Bitfinex that liquidated around 3K long contracts
https://i.imgur.com/znYyUT8.png
Bitfinex tends to be where the big money traders move (their minimum deposit is 10K) so even if each long position was only 0.5 BTC on average they exchange would make a ton of money. If you look at the BitmexRekt twitter feed that shows a running list of Bitmex liquidations with humorous commetary, you will see many >$1 million dollar positions being liquidated during these moves.
This is what all the "Bart" formations we have seen stem from. Its not George Soros pumping Bitcoin for shits and giggles, nor is it the nebolous "whales". They have no incentive to try and pull off PnDs now that it only leads to either sideways movement or decline after the pump. A PnD only works if the delta between the top of the pump end point and dump initiation point is positive, while now it seems to be followed by sideways movement. Those who do want to bet on further upward movements seem to be doing it off the spot market, using margin with futures and perpetuity swaps on Bitmex. This makes the low volume spot market ripe for manipulation, exchanges like Bitfinex and Bitmex have every incentive right now to manipulate the price.
Looking back it seems almost inevitable that this would have happened, that traders would try to replicate the gains they saw by buying and selling on the spot market a few months ago by using increased leverage and derivatives. In December and January there were days where your holdings would increase by at least 20% no matter what you bought. Once you experience those 20% daily gains you don't want to go back to a market where it slowly bleeds down a few percent every week, so people jumped in on high leverage short positions to multiply their profit on those single percent moves down.
For the small time investor there really isn't much you can do to stop this. This is what being part of an unregulated market means, it means that things like wash trading and long/short liquidation hunting is allowed.
All you can really do if you're a trader is look at the current ratio of longs vs shorts on Bitfinex and be aware that once short contracts become too high its possible that an exchange may pump the price to profit on it, while if the longs become too dominant we may see a dump.
Edit: Bitfinex, not Bitfenix.
submitted by arsonbunny to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

A (hopefully mathematically neutral) comparison of Lightning network fees to Bitcoin Cash on-chain fees.

A side note before I begin
For context, earlier today, sherlocoin made a post on this sub asking if Lightning Network transactions are cheaper than on-chain BCH transactions. This user also went on to complain on /bitcoin that his "real" numbers were getting downvoted
I was initially going to respond to his post, but after I typed some of my response, I realized it is relevant to a wider Bitcoin audience and the level of analysis done warranted a new post. This wound up being the longest post I've ever written, so I hope you agree.
I've placed the TL;DR at the top and bottom for the simple reason that you need to prepare your face... because it's about to get hit with a formidable wall of text.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.

Let's Begin With An Ideal World
Lightning network fees themselves are indeed cheaper than Bitcoin Cash fees, but in order to get to a state where a Lightning network fee can be made, you are required to open a channel, and to get to a state where those funds are spendable, you must close that channel.
On the Bitcoin network, the minimum accepted fee is 1sat/byte so for now, we'll assume that ideal scenario of 1sat/byte. We'll also assume the open and close is sent as a simple native Segwit transaction with a weighted size of 141 bytes. Because we have to both open and close, this 141 byte fee will be incurred twice. The total fee for an ideal open/close transaction is 1.8¢
For comparison, a simple transaction on the BCH network requires 226 bytes one time. The minimum fee accepted next-block is 1sat/byte. At the time of writing an ideal BCH transaction fee costs ~ 0.11¢
This means that under idealized circumstances, you must currently make at least 16 transactions on a LN channel to break-even with fees
Compounding Factors
Our world is not ideal, so below I've listed compounding factors, common arguments, an assessment, and whether the problem is solvable.
Problem 1: Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash prices are asymmetrical.
Common arguments:
BTC: If Bitcoin Cash had the same price, the fees would be far higher
Yes, this is true. If Bitcoin Cash had the same market price as Bitcoin, our ideal scenario changes substantially. An open and close on Bitcoin still costs 1.8¢ while a simple Bitcoin Cash transaction now costs 1.4¢. The break-even point for a Lightning Channel is now only 2 transactions.
Is this problem solvable?
Absolutely.
Bitcoin Cash has already proposed a reduction in fees to 1sat for every 10 bytes, and that amount can be made lower by later proposals. While there is no substantial pressure to implement this now, if Bitcoin Cash had the same usage as Bitcoin currently does, it is far more likely to be implemented. If implemented at the first proposed reduction rate, under ideal circumstances, a Lightning Channel would need to produce around 13 transactions for the new break even.
But couldn't Bitcoin reduce fees similarly
The answer there is really tricky. If you reduce on-chain fees, you reduce the incentive to use the Lightning Network as the network becomes more hospitable to micropaments. This would likely increase the typical mempool state and decrease the Lightning Channel count some. The upside is that when the mempool saturates with low transaction fees, users are then re-incentivized to use the lightning network after the lowes fees are saturated with transactions. This should, in theory, produce some level of a transaction fee floor which is probably higher on average than 0.1 sat/byte on the BTC network.
Problem 2: This isn't an ideal world, we can't assume 1sat/byte fees
Common arguments:
BCH: If you tried to open a channel at peak fees, you could pay $50 each way
BTC: LN wasn't implemented which is why the fees are low now
Both sides have points here. It's true that if the mempool was in the same state as it was in December of 2017, that a user could have potentially been incentivized to pay an open and close channel fee of up to 1000 sat/byte to be accepted in a reasonable time-frame.
With that being said, two factors have resulted in a reduced mempool size of Bitcoin: Increased Segwit and Lightning Network Usage, and an overall cooling of the market.
I'm not going to speculate as to what percentage of which is due to each factor. Instead, I'm going to simply analyze mempool statistics for the last few months where both factors are present.
Let's get an idea of current typical Bitcoin network usage fees by asking Johoe quick what the mempool looks like.
For the last few months, the bitcoin mempool has followed almost the exact same pattern. Highest usage happens between 10AM and 3PM EST with a peak around noon. Weekly, usage usually peaks on Tuesday or Wednesday with enough activity to fill blocks with at least minimum fee transactions M-F during the noted hours and usually just shy of block-filling capacity on Sat and Sun.
These observations can be additionally evidenced by transaction counts on bitinfocharts. It's also easier to visualize on bitinfocharts over a longer time-frame.
Opening a channel
Under pre-planned circumstances, you can offload channel creation to off-peak hours and maintain a 1sat/byte rate. The primary issue arises in situations where either 1) LN payments are accepted and you had little prior knowledge, or 2) You had a previous LN pathway to a known payment processor and one or more previously known intermediaries are offline or otherwise unresponsive causing the payment to fail.
Your options are:
A) Create a new LN channel on-the-spot where you're likely to incur current peak fee rates of 5-20sat/byte.
B) Create an on-chain payment this time and open a LN channel when fees are more reasonable.
C) Use an alternate currency for the transaction.
There is a fundamental divide among the status of C. Some people view Bitcoin as (primarily) a storage of value, and thus as long as there are some available onramps and offramps, the currency will hold value. There are other people who believe that fungibility is what gives cryptocurrency it's value and that option C would fundamentally undermine the value of the currency.
I don't mean to dismiss either argument, but option C opens a can of worms that alone can fill economic textbooks. For the sake of simplicity, we will throw out option C as a possibility and save that debate for another day. We will simply require that payment is made in crypto.
With option B, you would absolutely need to pay the peak rate (likely higher) for a single transaction as a Point-of-Sale scenario with a full mempool would likely require at least one confirm and both parties would want that as soon as possible after payment. It would not be unlikely to pay 20-40 sat/byte on a single transaction and then pay 1sat/byte for an open and close to enable LN payments later. Even in the low end, the total cost is 20¢ for on-chain + open + close.
With present-day-statistics, your LN would have to do 182 transactions to make up for the one peak on-chain transaction you were forced to do.
With option A, you still require one confirm. Let's also give the additional leeway that in this scenario you have time to sit and wait a couple of blocks for your confirm before you order / pay. You can thus pay peak rates alone and not peak + ensure next block rates. This will most likely be in the 5-20 sat/byte range. With 5sat/byte open and 1sat/byte close, your LN would have to do 50 transactions to break even
In closing, fees are incurred by the funding channel, so there could be scenarios where the receiving party is incentivized to close in order to spend outputs and the software automatically calculates fees based on current rates. If this is the case, the receiving party could incur a higher-than-planned fee to the funding party.
With that being said, any software that allows the funding party to set the fee beforehand would avoid unplanned fees, so we'll assume low fees for closing.
Is this problem solvable?
It depends.
In order to avoid the peak-fee open/close ratio problem, the Bitcoin network either needs to have much higher LN / Segwit utilization, or increase on-chain capacity. If it gets to a point where transactions stack up, users will be required to pay more than 1sat/byte per transaction and should expect as much.
Current Bitcoin network utilization is close enough to 100% to fill blocks during peak times. I also did an export of the data available at Blockchair.com for the last 3000 blocks which is approximately the last 3 weeks of data. According to their block-weight statistics, The average Bitcoin block is 65.95% full. This means that on-chain, Bitcoin can only increase in transaction volume by around 50% and all other scaling must happen via increased Segwit and LN use.
Problem 3: You don't fully control your LN channel states.
Common arguments:
BCH: You can get into a scenario where you don't have output capacity and need to open a new channel.
BCH: A hostile actor can cause you to lose funds during a high-fee situation where a close is forced.
BTC: You can easily re-load your channel by pushing outbound to inbound.
BCH: You can't control whether nodes you connect to are online or offline.
There's a lot to digest here, but LN is essentially a 2-way contract between 2 parties. Not only does the drafting party pay the fees as of right now, but connected 3rd-parties can affect the state of this contract. There are some interesting scenarios that develop because of it and you aren't always in full control of what side.
Lack of outbound capacity
First, it's true that if you run out of outbound capacity, you either need to reload or create a new channel. This could potentially require 0, 1, or 2 additional on-chain transactions.
If a network loop exists between a low-outbound-capacity channel and yourself, you could push transactional capacity through the loop back to the output you wish to spend to. This would require 0 on-chain transactions and would only cost 1 (relatively negligible) LN fee charge. For all intents and purposes... this is actually kind of a cool scenario.
If no network loop exists from you-to-you, things get more complex. I've seen proposals like using Bitrefill to push capacity back to your node. In order to do this, you would have an account with them and they would lend custodial support based on your account. While people opting for trustless money would take issue in 3rd party custodians, I don't think this alone is a horrible solution to the LN outbound capacity problem... Although it depends on the fee that bitrefill charges to maintain an account and account charges could negate the effectiveness of using the LN. Still, we will assume this is a 0 on-chain scenario and would only cost 1 LN fee which remains relatively negligible.
If no network loop exists from you and you don't have a refill service set up, you'll need at least one on-chain payment to another LN entity in exchange for them to push LN capacity to you. Let's assume ideal fee rates. If this is the case, your refill would require an additional 7 transactions for that channel's new break-even. Multiply that by number of sat/byte if you have to pay more.
Opening a new channel is the last possibility and we go back to the dynamics of 13 transactions per LN channel in the ideal scenario.
Hostile actors
There are some potential attack vectors previously proposed. Most of these are theoretical and/or require high fee scenarios to come about. I think that everyone should be wary of them, however I'm going to ignore most of them again for the sake of succinctness.
This is not to be dismissive... it's just because my post length has already bored most casual readers half to death and I don't want to be responsible for finishing the job.
Pushing outbound to inbound
While I've discussed scenarios for this push above, there are some strange scenarios that arise where pushing outbound to inbound is not possible and even some scenarios where a 3rd party drains your outbound capacity before you can spend it.
A while back I did a testnet simulation to prove that this scenario can and will happen it was a post response that happened 2 weeks after the initial post so it flew heavily under the radar, but the proof is there.
The moral of this story is in some scenarios, you can't count on loaded network capacity to be there by the time you want to spend it.
Online vs Offline Nodes
We can't even be sure that a given computer is online to sign a channel open or push capacity until we try. Offline nodes provide a brick-wall in the pathfinding algorithm so an alternate route must be found. If we have enough channel connectivity to be statistically sure we can route around this issue, we're in good shape. If not, we're going to have issues.
Is this problem solvable?
Only if the Lightning network can provide an (effectively) infinite amount of capacity... but...
Problem 4: Lightning Network is not infinite.
Common arguments:
BTC: Lightning network can scale infinitely so there's no problem.
Unfortunately, LN is not infinitely scalable. In fact, finding a pathway from one node to another is roughly the same problem as the traveling salesman problem. Dijkstra's algorithm which is a problem that diverges polynomially. The most efficient proposals have a difficulty bound by O(n^2).
Note - in the above I confused the complexity of the traveling salesman problem with Dijkstra when they do not have the same bound. With that being said, the complexity of the LN will still diverge with size
In lay terms, what that means is every time you double the size of the Lightning Network, finding an indirect LN pathway becomes 4 times as difficult and data intensive. This means that for every doubling, the amount of traffic resulting from a single request also quadruples.
You can potentially temporarily mitigate traffic by bounding the number of hops taken, but that would encourage a greater channel-per-user ratio.
For a famous example... the game "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" postulates that Kevin Bacon can be connected by co-stars to any movie by 6 degrees of separation. If the game is reduced to "4 degrees of Kevin Bacon," users of this network would still want as many connections to be made, so they'd be incentivized to hire Kevin Bacon to star in everything. You'd start to see ridiculous mash-ups and reboots just to get more connectivity... Just imagine hearing Coming soon - Kevin Bacon and Adam Sandlar star in "Billy Madison 2: Replace the face."
Is this problem solvable?
Signs point to no.
So technically, if the average computational power and network connectivity can handle the problem (the number of Lightning network channels needed to connect the world)2 in a trivial amount of time, Lightning Network is effectively infinite as the upper bound of a non-infinite earth would limit time-frames to those that are computationally feasible.
With that being said, BTC has discussed Lightning dev comments before that estimated a cap of 10,000 - 1,000,000 channels before problems are encountered which is far less than the required "number of channels needed to connect the world" level.
In fact SHA256 is a newer NP-hard problem than the traveling saleseman problem. That means that statistically, and based on the amount of review that has been given to each problem, it is more likely that SHA256 - the algorithm that lends security to all of bitcoin - is cracked before the traveling salesman problem is. Notions that "a dedicated dev team can suddenly solve this problem, while not technically impossible, border on statistically absurd.
Edit - While the case isn't quite as bad as the traveling salesman problem, the problem will still diverge with size and finding a more efficient algorithm is nearly as unlikely.
This upper bound shows that we cannot count on infinite scalability or connectivity for the lightning network. Thus, there will always be on-chain fee pressure and it will rise as the LN reaches it's computational upper-bound.
Because you can't count on channel states, the on-chain fee pressure will cause typical sat/byte fees to raise. The higher this rate, the more transactions you have to make for a Lightning payment open/close operation to pay for itself.
This is, of course unless it is substantially reworked or substituted for a O(log(n))-or-better solution.
Finally, I'd like to add, creating an on-chain transaction is a set non-recursive, non looping function - effectively O(1), sending this transaction over a peer-to-peer network is bounded by O(log(n)) and accepting payment is, again, O(1). This means that (as far as I can tell) on-chain transactions (very likely) scale more effectively than Lightning Network in its current state.
Additional notes:
My computational difficulty assumptions were based on a generalized, but similar problem set for both LN and on-chain instances. I may have overlooked additional steps needed for the specific implementation, and I may have overlooked reasons a problem is a simplified version requiring reduced computational difficulty.
I would appreciate review and comment on my assumptions for computational difficulty and will happily correct said assumptions if reasonable evidence is given that a problem doesn't adhere to listed computational difficulty.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.
submitted by CaptainPatent to btc [link] [comments]

Recap of AMA with Zac on July 3 and Q2 report

Dear Pundians,
Thank you for participating in the AMA session with Pundi X co-founder and CEO Zac Cheah.
For those of you who may have missed it, the live recording of the AMA session held on July 3 at 10:00 am GMT+8, tackling Q2 progress and addressing questions and concerns by the community members, can be viewed here. A side note that today’s AMA video quality and setting was not ideal. We acknowledge this situation and will make improvement for our next AMA session.
You may also find a summary of the Q2 progress presentation as well as all the detail Q&A below.
## Pundi X Q2 2019 Highlights
* Pundi X has integrated more public chains into our products. In Q2, we completed integration of Binance Chain. NEM chain is in the work. As of today we’ve launched BNB, the Binance Chain native Coin and XEM, NEM native coin on Pundi X payment platform. We will integrate at least one more public chain in Q3.
* The transactions on XPOS for Q2 is 15.5 million in USD, which is close to 300% quarterly growth. The number of transactions is 29,367, which leads to a 11% growth QoQ.
* XPOS has successfully received FCC and KC certifications. A new certification for Latin American market is on the way. * To expand XPOS footprint, Pundi X’s integration with a new leading mainstream point-of-sales device is in the work. Stay tuned for the announcement.
* Pundi X Open Platform was launched in May, 2019, which now supports ERC20 and BEP2 token listing. Moving forward, we will continue to support tokens from other public chains.
* A 3,000 XPASS order from DigiX, a gold-based token, and a 10,000 XPASS order from BitCobie this quarter.
* XPOS is spread in use in over 30 countries. We’ve published a map of XPOS location of self-report XPOS merchant directory. You can find a list of selected XPOS merchants at [https://www.pundix.com/products\](https://www.pundix.com/products). * The QoQ growth of XWallet is tremendous at 43%. In the previous quarter, we have less than 20k users, whereas in Q2 we have hit 297k XWallet users.
More updates on XWallet:
* Supported BNB and NEM tokens; 2FA, face ID, and optimized SMS serviceAvailable on iOS, Android as well as in Samsung Galaxy Store
New features coming up in Q3:- DApp integration - Decentralized wallet- In-app crypto payments - Chat service, which will be compatible with a commonly used chat app- f(x) testnet features to be rolled out first in XWallet
## Other notices coming up in Q3 2019
* The Q2 token removal will take place on July 14, 2019, which will involve in total 34 billion of NPXS and NPXSXEM (22 million worth in USD) removal. In the past 365 days, we’ve removed a total of 36.1 million US dollar worth of NPXS and NPXSXEM.
Before Q2 removal, the total supply of NPXS ERC20 is 266,962,422,906.53 and NPXSXEM is 95,816,218,929. [See Q1 removal here.](/pundix/recap-of-ama-with-zac-on-july-3-and-q2-report-a23de165dd28)
* [NPXSXEM will be ported to Binance Chain from July 20](/pundix/npxsxem-will-be-on-binance-chain-c6485f17726b). * XPhone pre-order will start in late July with a new product name. Stay tuned. Check out the teaser video that we are releasing it across our communication channels. ## Q&A
## On XPOS
* **Where are we on official global location of XPOS?**
Zac: We have made a map on our official website that merchants can self report and feature their locations. It’s at [https://www.pundix.com/product\](https://www.pundix.com/product). We’ll be increasing and updating the map once we have permission form the merchants to update their locations.
* **The marketing from pundi has shifted from 100,000–700,000 xpos units by 2021 to 100,000. I understand the bear market has affected this but please share the strategy moving forward to hit your goal. How do you feel about hitting this goal?**
Zac: The 100K XPOS target has always been the initial goal and it’s stated in our whitepaper. And we are still working on achieving the goal by the end of 2021. Part of our growth strategy is to also explore the possibility to port our platform to traditional POS manufacturers to increase the adoption, which is ongoing at the moment.
* **1 year ago you sent 5000 XPOS somewhere. When, at least half of them, will be working? 3 year target was 100,000 by 2021. Now we have only 150 units, how do you expect to reach this goal?**
Zac: Yes, we have shipped thousands of XPOS to over 30 countries in the world. The 150 you’ve mentioned are the featured merchants which are published on the map. The active XPOS devices are deployed over 33 countries and we are actively talking to B2B partners to have higher wholesale and big deployments.
* **How many XPOS are live and used?**
Zac: We have gone through a very serious bear market, and some of the initial inbound requests for XPOS are not delivered. However, we are working slowly but surely with our Business Development team to not just roll-out into individual buyers, such as what we did on Pizza Day, but also to B2B partners. With the certifications approved, that will also help us to officially roll out to some of the key markets.
Individual merchants can use XWallet collection feature to accept crypto payment with QR code. For the merchants who have physical offline storefronts, they can use XPOS to enable the instant crypto transaction seamlessly. Moreover, as mentioned previously, we are exploring the integration on leading traditional POS terminal so that their distributors have option to enable crypto transaction feature. As for the challenge to adopt XPOS, it is the regulatory compliance in different countries. For this, our legal team think ahead and encourage our merchants to complete KYC.
I must be very honest to say the activation takes longer time than we expect but it will be worth at the end.
* **What’s the average number of transactions per xpos in use?**
Zac: The transaction number has increased very well. The number of each XPOS differs, due to the frequency of using crypto currency to purchase item or crypto assets. There’s no standard answer to this, but overall we see the transaction number and volume are going up.
* **How do you plan to reach the target of 100,000 by 2021?**
Zac: One of the challenges that we have is regulatory compliances in different countries. There are certain markets that do not allow crypto currencies and some require a clear approval for us to deploy XPOS. We are working on both challenges by talking to governments and applying for certifications. So how we plan to reach 100,000 XPOS user by 2021 is to work with distributors, B2B partners on a government / business level, and with existing POS companies to integrate our software solution into the system.
* **We understand as there was bear market and hence Xpos usage demand was low. Are you guys seeing growth of Xpos usage with current market conditions. Can you guys put some statistics comparison like last 30 days Xpos usage vs any month from bear market usage?**
Zac: It is very clear that as we moved out from the bear market, the demand for XPOS has been increasing. As we’ve shared just now both the transaction number and volume of Q2 have beaten Q1. We’ll be able to share more transaction numbers once we receive approval from our XPOS merchants.
One exciting thing is that, with the listing of different tokens, we also see users using these tokens as a way to transact on XPOS, which means we will be having more ways to transact and this is a growth point for XPOS.
* **When will there be more details for XPHONE and XPOS HANDY?**
Zac: For XPOS handy, we have finished production and it will be released in Q3
* **When will the iOS version of XWallet and XPOS be fully translated to other languages?**
Zac: Right now, the XWallet has Traditional Chinese, Korean, Spanish, German and English. With the latest version update, it now includes Portuguese. XPOS also comes with many languages and we hope to finish with more language, either working with professionals or volunteers. If you’re interested in volunteering, please contact us.
* **When will the Merchant back office have Product Registration and SKU id ability and also integrate with other POS software?** * **When will the top-up feature go away for XPOS to allow liquidity for XPOS**
Zac: We constantly update features in XPOS and merchant backend to make it easier for distributors and merchants to use. We understand that one of the ways for mass adoption is to enhance our distributor management system. With that, the distributors can manage manay XPOS at one time with different merchants.
Please stay tuned as we announce more and more functions of this feature.
## On Dubai
* **When will we see the deployment of the XPOS in Dubai?** * **Can we spend NPXS on the Dubai XPOS?**
Zac: As with all big projects there are a lot of moving parts, that includes working very closely with the local government, in Dubai’s case, the Credit Bureau of the Finance Ministry. Things are progressing for the Dubai project but due to confidentiality agreements with the parties involved, we cannot reveal much. All we can say is that we and our Dubai partners are working hard to have XPOS roll-out in the Dubai market and the UAE.
We are also discussing aggressively with Dubai partners whether to include crypto assets in the XPOS in Dubai. That clearly will involve local compliance and legal for that to happen.
* **Your system upgrades expect merchants to have downtime on their XPOS terminals, can you explain if you plan to run a business why this would be considered feasible (specially at the rate you have been doing your upgrades)?**
Zac: Yes, the benefit / strength of the XPOS is that most of the updates can be done on the fly. For example, when we have a token update on our XPOS where developers submit their tokens on Open Platform, the updates of this token are on the fly, which means that once we approve the token on our Open Platform, it will automatically appear on XPOS without any software updates.
The great thing that we believe about XPOS is not just the support of crypto assets, but also the ability to update most things on the fly, which means that whenever we have a good feature or a new token, the updates will be done instantaneously.
* **Can you guys arrange at least a community voting which is the next blockchain we would like to see next in XPOS? Voting will help to prioritize to chose the projects.**
Zac: One of the reasons why BNB is being listed on the XPOS is simply because of its popularity and also our user demand, in a way that we are already answering to our community’s request.
Right now, our main focus is getting all the tokens submitted on Open Platform to be listed on the XPOS. The submission process includes legal and compliance valid, so our legal and compliance teams are working hard to make sure that we have more tokens to roll out onto Open Platform, which means that they will be on XPOS, XWallet, and XPASS.
As to a specific voting mechanism, we’d like to consider that and hopefully we’ll be able to run a specific voting for the chain which users would like to see.
* **While comparing Xpos handy to Square POS devices at least with mobile it’s very cheap like under $30 and easy to use. When can we expect such light weight and cheaper version for XPOS? Is team working on such devices ?**
Zac: There are different POS companies around the globe and pour focus is to work with these POS companies with our software, so that a crypto sales feature will be part of the existing POS system. The more support of crypto asset usage using our software on existing POS, the better it is for global adoption.
We actually strongly believe that the pricing of our POS system is competitive in the market. And one of the great features of the XPOS is that the merchants will not need not to pay a certain percentage to existing acquirer but to be able to earn certain percentage from each transaction. That is the key differentiator for merchant to want to adopt this.
* **From the website with some of the key Countries for XPOS adoption looks great. However, the concern is for Venezuela, there is no reference link like the others have. Can you guys add the link with details to clear the ambiguity?**
Zac: Let’s give a little bit more patience so that we can actually release more information about our Venezuelan partnership. The good news is that we expect concrete news from Venezuela in the coming 2 weeks. So stay up-to-date about our Venezuelan roll out on XPOS, the best way is to subscribe to our telegram group for Venezuela.
## On Partnerships
* **Are there some major partnership in the works? I’m also interested in how you do immediate transactions? Do you anticipate scaling issues?**
Zac: The way XPOS is being designed is that when you use your crypto assets to purchase, it will have instantaneous confirmation because the action is an off-chain process. An on-chain action happens when a user who owns crypto assets in our system transferring the assets out of the Pundi X ecosystem to their own wallets; or to transfer crypto assets in Pundi X from an off-chain to a private wallet, which we will have very soon on XWallet itself.
That is why we are able to handle scaling. When a person wants to use crypto currency to buy a coffee, the transaction will happen instantaneously.
For specific partnership, especially with B2B partnership, we oblige to the NDA that we have signed. But if you follow us closely, you’ll know that we go to different parts of the world, talking to major companies to try to land more deals so that NPXS usage will increase dramatically.
* **Any big partnerships for making xphone or using the software for xBlockchain?**
Zac: These partnerships are also subjected to NDA, so please be patient for us to release more news.
* **When will XPOS have approval to process Visa and MasterCard payments?**
Zac: We have met representatives from these players including some of the key management people. They are obviously looking into crypto currency attentively, and we hope that there’s something we can do with MasterCard and/or Visa.
This is something that the community has suggested and we agree fully. Please allow us with some time to work on this. We have also showcased XPOS to the CEO of MasterCard. For what or when will anything happen, please wait for our official announcement.
* **What’s the status on Quantum fund and their contribution or involvement with Pundi’s project?**
Zac: We announced last year that we are creating a fund to invest in projects beneficial to our ecosystem. We’ve identified some interesting projects, and we have invested in at least 1 project. The reason why we’re investing in that project is because of the services that it will bring onto the Pindi X ecosystem. So the purpose of the investment of the companies is that these companies in turn will benefit on our ecosystem. This is our key consideration.
The team has evaluated the projects that will benefit the Pundi X / Function X ecosystem. Vic and his team will be able to reveal more details on the companies we have invested in and how they will contribute to our ecosystem in Q3.
* **Recent update on NPXSXEM is highly ambiguous as mentioned that it will be now BEP token and later once FX goes live it will get back to Fx platform. Why you guys had so rush to use Binance chain only for few months? Isn’t you guys switching to much in a short time span?**
Zac: Liquidity and utility have been an issue for NPXSXEM. Due to the design philosophy and the limit of token that can be created on NEM’s smart contract, we are only able to create a small number of tokens on NPXSXEM. By moving into the Binance chain for NPXSXEM, the BEP2 token version will be able to support all the NPXSXEM tokens, which means that we’ll migrate and also be able to make sure all the NPXSXEM tokens are under the same contract address.
We believe with the strong liquidity, we will be able to give our NPXSXEM token holders a good reason of what the token holders have been waiting for. We hope to bring NPXSXEM to match the level of NPXS.
* **When #XRP?**
Zac: Our OpenPlatform is a currency agnostic platform, which means that we will work on integrating public chain as well as tokens that are most requested by the users. We’ll also be looking into the listing of different tokens that are being mentioned by the community.
As said, we will have at least one more public chain integration in Q3, perhaps even more.
* **Are you as a company going to try and connect with libra? If they have said they want to be a payment remittance service, have Square, PayPal, Visa on board I as an investor would prefer you try to join them rather than beat such large competitors**
Zac: Of course, we’ll be delighted to work with Facebook and also the Libra coin. Pundi X and XPOS is a currency agnostic / currency neutral platform, if there’s opportunity to list Libra coin or work with Facebook in different ways to promote crypto currency adoption, we’ll certainly look into that and work on reaching out to them.
## On Trading
* **Can you confirm during AMA, Pundi team is not involved with any trading with their own token like selling over time to manage the fund to run the company.**
Zac: All the wallet addresses of the team holdings are disclosed and transparent. This is one of the first things that we did after ICO. Hence, our token holdings are transparent and everyone can monitor our fund transactions. Also, we have strict internal financial regulation and compliance, shows that we are here to build a long-term project.
The best way to make NPXS or the NPXSXEM to rise is real daily life use case.
* **When will you stop manipulating NPXS chart?**
Zac: Our focus has always been and will be building great products. The more product usage, the demands for NPXS and NPXSXEM will increase. Let’s address again that, Pundi X the company is NOT involved in any manipulation of the NPXS price.
There are trading teams, market makers, financial institutions that profit from the drop and rise of token prices in the crypto market. The good thing about NPXS is that we have managed to create a high liquidity by listing on 40+ exchanges and having global trades and demand from all over the world. We hope this and coupled with the fact that we are a solid product and roll out the use cases, the demand of NPXS will only continue to rise and will be able to deter any of the traders or speculators there is for NPXS.
These traders gain profit from manipulating tokens whether BTC or other tokens. In fact, the traditional financial markets have similar challenges as well. What I want to stress is that, we at Pundi X, do NOT speculate or manipulate the price. We work very hard to create demands for NPXS and as a company, it is only beneficial for us to see the prices of NPXS and NPXSXEM rise.
* **Can we please address the elephant in the room which is the Binance bot with huge sell walls and buy walls causing huge distress and concern among users?**
Zac: First, I cannot confirm nor deny that whether Binance has a bot. I think this is something that you need to ask Binance. We need to work with Binance because Binance has one of the biggest liquidities, if not the greatest liquidity, for NPXS. The best way to counter manipulators is to create more use case, more demand and more acceptance of our tokens.
* **Why on almost all exchanges do you not offer a USDT trading pair?**
Zac: We have USDT trading pairs on Bittrex, Bittrue, and more. In addition, we have fiat pairs in Korean Won, IDR, INR, and Turkish liras. We will continue to work on adding trading pairs for NPXS to make it more liquidate.
* **Why don’t you offer a stable coin sell and purchase on the xpos to help with adoption? Places in Africa with volatile currencies would go crazy for this.**
Zac: It’s a great observation. This is a request that’s been asked from many users. We’re working on stable coin listing on XPOS and hopefully it’ll come soon. Stable coin requires a greater compliance and legal validate, which we have been working on since months ago and we hope to have the stable coin up in XPOS soon.
* **When will you add an active tracker for coin burn, whether its measured in usd, NPXS or whatever you choose. The community has been asking for this on twitter, reddit and telegram for this entire year.**
Zac: It will be hard for us to have a daily tracker of the coin burn, but what we might be able to work on is a tracker which have shown all of the tokens that have been removed from the usage. Thank you for giving us this great suggestion and we will work on it in some form.
Zac: Our token supply has always been specified in our white paper, and as promised in our white paper, we will continue to remove tokens through usage and use cases, which we’re working on all the time.
* **Price movement. When will NPXS go to which price?**
Zac: We cannot comment on the change of the price. Our focus is on building products. We hope by doing that the NPXS value will go up. Again, there’s no way that we can comment on the price.
**I believe that burning tokens every 14 weeks keeps the price suppressed and will only lead to huge pumps and dumps. Imo, If the burns were more frequent, the price would move organically.**
Zac: We continue removing tokens quarterly per advised by our legal and compliance team.
**Is it mandatory npxs swap? What happens for token we have in binance?**
Zac: No it’s not a mandatory NPXS swap for FX.
**How many NPXS or NPXSXEM was converted?**
Zac: In Q2, we will remove 29B NPXSXEM and 9B NPXS.
## On XWallet
* **Why not put in XWallet like the place where we can buy and sell like restaurants and shops?**
Zac: You are correct. In fact, if you look at XWallet, there is a merchant feature, whereby you can register as a merchant. By becoming a merchant, you will be able to print out your QR code and stick it on your restaurant. People are able to make payment through this QR code. This will act like a mini-XPOS.
* **In addition to that having multiple different blockchain in XWallet will increase the XWallet adoption. Hence, we would like to see aggressive game plan and execution from the team and would like to hear that**
Zac: That’s a great suggestion. Every day we want to increase use cases for XWallet. In fact, our XWallet update is one of the most frequent in the market. Within 5 months, we have over 10 updates on iOS and Google Play. This does not include soft update which happens every several days. In my view, the effort is very tremendous.
* **Is there any plan to add Swap option within XWallet so that people can trade the coins within XWallet?**
Zac: Yes, there’s such plan and in fact there is an upcoming feature that people will be able to use coins in XWallet to exchange into other things. The exact form and format have not been reviewed. We hope to share more when we have concrete example. But what you suggested is what we are planning for months ago.
* **When will XPOS and XWallet have fiat on ramps?**
Zac: This is a good question. It’s not only involved with regulatory compliance but also involved the technical part. This is also something we are planning for months. Once approved, hopefully we are able to support fiat currency on ramps and off ramps on XWallet.
**On Others*\*
* **How is the internal organization doing? Currently how many employees work for Pundi? Currently how many job positions are open?**
Zac: Pundi X has grown tremendously. We are now having over seven offices around the globe. I’m sitting in the Singapore office. We have office in Jakarta, Taiwan, Tokyo, Shenzhen, São Paulo and London. These are the places we have physical offices and house approximately 100 full time employees of Pundi X.
The positions open from Pundi X are legal associate in Singapore and other offices. We are looking for more R&D people, especially in Taiwan. We are looking at marketing and PR people in different parts of the world. And we are looking for POS distributors. As a POS distributor, you will work with our business development team and also our technical team to roll out many XPOS which you have a network to control in your local market.
* **Would you consider removing the KYC to allow u.s. holder to stake and be rewarded?**
Zac: We would love to have more users, including US. However, our compliance and legal advisors have not allowed us to accept US holders to stake and be rewarded.
I’m sorry to say that but this is after serious consideration to make such a decision. In fact, it is a very hard decision because we have healthy user base in the US.
will continue to monitor the situation in the different markets and be compliant. There are also ways to be rewarded when using XWallet service without KYC. We are looking into to explore more on this and launch new features. Hopefully we are able to bring the beta version for you to test this week or next.
**On XPhone*\*
* **Where are we on pre-sale announcement of Xphone? It was highlights of Q2 goal. If we are getting delay, that’s ok. But at least community will have some clarification why it’s getting late and when approximately it coming?**
Zac: Pre-sale order will start this month. It’s likely the end of July. Pre-sale will take place in different channel including the official website and XWallet. Apart of our own channel, the pre-sale will go live on a 3rd party channel. People will be able to pre-order crypto either in crypto or in fiat.
* **Can you discuss in AMA, is participants can pay with Crypto or Credit/debit card or in both ways?**
Zac: As a crypto company, we prefer payment in crypto, but fiat, Visa, MasterCard, and other traditional payment methods will be accepted on different pre-order channels. Stay tuned for pre-order which will happen in late July.
* **Will the Xphone be open to purchase in all regions of the world?**
Zac: Yes, pre-orders will be able to be done on-line, and products will be shipped from our offices to users in different parts of the world.
* **Will the blockchain mode on the Xphone be operable during the testnet or will this function not work until mainnet?**
Zac: XWallet and XPhone are the first channel and avenue for Function X testnet, so once the testnet is operateble, we will start to engage certain services on XWallet and XPhone into Function X testnet, and ultimately into mainnet. Slowly but surely.
* **Does Xphone have hard protective cover,extra Sim slot, also is it enhanced with ip68 water rating?**
Zac: XPhone will not be waterproof, so please do not submerge XPhone into water. XPhone will definitely be eavesdrop-proof because we’re using a blockchain mode, only you and you control your own conversation.
* **Which country accept the Xphone?** * **Will I also be able to use the SIM-card?** * **The blockchain modus will work in every country (what in the absense of nodes)?** * **Will the XPhone I buy now support updates in the future?**
Zac: People from any country will be able to buy XPhone on-line. You will be able to use a SIM for we have built a SIM slot. Wherever you are, the XPhone can be turned on to become a node.
Will XPhone support future updates? Yes, of course. Just like the XPOS, we support silent update. It will be like how we support XPOS, many updates. The updates will always be supported on XPhone.
**On Function X*\*
* **When is the detail white paper coming for FunctionX? Why the team is very resistive to have well documented white paper? We need scientific approach and well documentation on FunctionX to have developers to be more involved.**
Zac: Yes, developer involvement is a key criterion of the growth of Function X. We have done 2 things, one is that we have set up Function X Foundation which is led by David Ben Kay and will involve third party adviser and board members. Second, we have set up a developer relations team led by one of our own members as well. This team will work on creating developer documents, developer demos and sample, so that excellent developers can tap into working with Function X resources.
The first version of developer documentation is ready in English and Chinese. We are still polishing up the documents and hopefully to release them soon.
We are also working with third party developers, and are engaging at least 2 third party developer companies, so that we can help create their services on Function X and also XWallet.
We are hoping to showcase a smooth and usable service to the audience, we think this is the key criterion of the Function X growth.
Thank you for this suggestion. We need to update more often on github developer documentation as well.
As for the white paper, we did not have one per se because Function X did not do an ICO. But we will continue to update our white paper and include not only technical details, but also details on the chain and how we can get more developers and users so that the future hardware will be added as a node and you will be rewarded financially, at least through our ecosystem genesis fund. Please stay tuned and there are a lot of things going on in the company. Each and one of us is working hard.
* **Why does the FX ecosystem need a decentralized OS?**
Zac: The mantra of Function X is decentralization and having private control of your data. A full private control of your data comes with a decentralized system not just in transmission of your data, but with the operating system built fully for decentralization , which includes a transmission protocol replacing http. The apps uploaded into Function X will be decentralized as well as the data that is stored on the app, which means that how BitCoin or crypto assets are verified on different nodes will also be part of the way we store data and content.
The decentralized OS is key to fulfilling a decentralized environment for a more private and free usage.
* **What about FX are you most excited about?**
Zac: We are actually creating a shift of how people view of blockchain and how decentralization is not just about transacting commercial commodity, but also data, including your identity, are all decentralized. That is what we are most excited about.
The only way for us to achieve this is to have developer support, for we need the developers to build on the foundation we have to offer those exciting services.
* **We understand that developing a new blockchain is time consuming. As a community we are in a dark space to understand where exactly the development of FX right now.**
Zac: We are working hard on creating the testnet and eventually the mainnet. For the latest updates of Function X, what I can encourage you to do is to go on and subscribe to the Function X telegram group where discussions are made. We have formed the Function X Foundation and created the developer relations team, so that the Function X progress will go smoother and with more partnership from outside, whether it’s developers, third party companies, teleco, etc.
* **When FX goes live on the mainnet, will FX coin be used to stake and earn NPXS? how will staking work on that new mainnet?**
Zac: The NPXS/NPXSXEM staking will last till March 9, 2020 as announced. What we are committed is to create more use cases. For FX tokens, the use cases will be focusing on the Function X Chain and the use cases on Function X that include DApp on Function X and different hardware/software services.
* **When fx testnet will be available?**
Zac: First I would like to thank you for your constant support. In Q3, we plan to open Function X testnet so that we will be migrating and creating certain use cases that can be used on Function X testnet, starting with our own XWallet. Which means, the XWallet will migrate some features into Function X testnet, and slowly followed by our other Pundi X products, including XPhones, XPASS, Open Platform and Function X own developer related products from third parties.
submitted by crypt0hodl1 to PundiX [link] [comments]

AMA - Community Edition

Updated:
11) $5m buyback
12) Release of yp part 3?
13) It is allegedly possible that ICX supply can be doubled in only 4 years thanks to a whopping 20% annual token inflation
14) One of the things that got me excited about crypto was that there was no inflation. I'm a bit disappointed in Icons approach here.
15) Where is the DEX?
16) How far are we from interoperability? Am I correct in saying that interoperability is years from completion?
I'll be answering all questions to the best of my knowledge, this list will update regularly.
1) Clear description how icx will go up by benefiting from the line partnership. -> 2 or 3 practical examples.
Don't forget Unchain is a joint venture, so Unchain is ICON's company as well, their success is directly beneficial to ICON. In a recent interview w Brad, Henry also shed some light regarding this JV and that it is way beyond a simple partnership agreement https://youtu.be/paFYyt1hVWc?t=155
2) Clear description how icx will go up by building private blockchains and connecting them. -> 2 or 3 practical examples.
I answered this to someone on telegram a couple days ago. Here's my example,
"So I asked what's the use for icx with private chains. They have no reason to connect to the public chain and they have no reason to tokenzie their business."
The missing link is interoperability. The private chains need a way to communicate w each other, this is actually how the ICON project was conceived. ICONLOOP(loopchain then) offered blockchain solutions to enterprises and consortiums, but they had no way to interoperate
So I think the argument originated from, if the design paradigm is emergent for private chains to go public, or interoperate through a public chain as a common block
We've heard about those use cases and see actual implementations from U-coin vending machines to hospitals making insurance claims etc
I agree in some cases it doesn't make sense for private chains to go public, if its designing a problem to solve, lets not do that
but i'd say, a random guess, that 90%+ of the private chains have a reason to connect, much like intranet/internet
Let me try another example, we've heard the hospital/insurance too many times
Let's say there's a trade financing supply system of a large manufacturer w thousands of vendors
before their enrollment, you'll probably need to do some identity and reputation check in the public chain (common services like ID validation should readily be available as a public service, like chainID)
that will validate their legitimacy.. then next step is prolly for the vendors who need the trade financing where they need a more complex system like a stable coin to avoid volatility.. and move the money around
instead of rebuilding a coin, they could adopt a coin system within the ICON network
then what happens next.. i guess disputes w goods lost or quality problems.. again, vendors can call for a public arbitration system where there'll be a network of lawyers who specialize in cross-border disputes or arbiters to provide the service
so we need a chain of services that can be called throughout the life cycle, interoperable between private and public chains
there are plenty more use cases, but its not a hard choice to make, its definitely possible to have a common meeting point while maintaining sensitive information within their local blockchain
In the example above, nothing is tokenized, their businesses are on the private blockchain without a native coin, but they use the common services from the public like stable coins or arbitration system
3) Monthly or quartal reports on partnerships, marketing, and the tech.
You mean something like this? https://medium.com/helloiconworld/icon-3q-achievements-8c42ea798a0b
4) Opinion why korean people dont bring icx volume on korean exchanges.
I don't think even president Moon has an answer to this :P But are people really this patriotic when it comes to money? Do Americans invest in American ICOs for being made in USA? I guess some will, but this is not (and shouldn't be) the main driving force of token demand.
5) Clarification what kind of understanding we should have about this 124 teampower - are they employees with 40 hours/week working contracts or just 2 hours, cooperations partners, freelancer, what ever.
I paid a visit to the KR office a couple months back, it was like a giant coding factory running full steam. I can attest to this, they're full time employees working around the clock.
6) Roadmap - stop giving yourself room for delays and interpretations by not offering a roadmap.
My suggestion on this one is to have a % completion roadmap with change logs. I think most people are more interested in progress, less deadlines.
7) Quarterly AMAs.
Sounds good.
8) Why the hell are ICON members still advisors at Sentinel Protocol, a ICO that promoted itself using icon as blockchain and then moving to EOS.
As far as I can tell, the two teams are still in good relationships. Timing was unfortunate, SP always had their first product (uppward) scheduled to launch shortly after their fundraising. Public presale also ended a lot faster than expected (scheduled to run for a week, ended in 3 minutes). During the period ICON was migrating to mainnet V3 and doing token swap. It made sense for them to deploy on a working platform, without compromising their schedule. Their team also said that they haven't ruled out the possibility to migrate back to ICON (although I think its less likely this day).
9) Spend some money on an english translation expert for you social media appearance.
The translations (YouTube subtitles) were a bit sloppy I agree, understandable enough but they should definitely spend more time proof reading, professional presentation is a thing.
10) How much from the received ICO money/ether has been provided directly or indirectly to iconloop.
The raised ETH from ICO are barely spent, you can check on etherscan from the contribution address.
11) $5m buyback
From the key announcement by ICON foundation’s CFO Jay, the repurchase program is a pending legal matter, after consultation with law firms they’ll proceed with the buyback. https://youtu.be/keDitkWssv8?t=160
The team stated two main intentions for conducting this program,
If you read between the lines from the buyback announcement https://medium.com/helloiconworld/key-announcements-from-icon-8ea0f5a18d6f
Repurchases under the foundation’s program will be made in open market or privately negotiated transactions subject to market conditions, applicable legal requirements, and other relevant factors.
What this is saying is that, the buyback has no intention to create short term pumps, otherwise all purchases would’ve been made in the open market under a timed schedule. What this also implies is that, there won’t be a public wallet with an open schedule, to avoid legal obligations (insider trading) or unintended purposes (manipulation).
So what is to be expected? Giving a deadline won't make sense because everything can be timed, so my take is that an announcement will be made after the repurchase has been completed. I don't think anyone can take advantage of this program but will still benefit directly with $5M worth of tokens off the market supply.
12) Release of yp part 3?
This is expectedly a highly anticipated yellow paper, as it will likely outline all the details we need to know about staking. This YP however is not just a simple table with your annual returns, this is also technically far more complex than the previous two YPs.
I provided a very simplified explanation for IISS in this thread: https://twitter.com/2infiniti/status/1020141186797846529
IISS is however a lot more complicated than this, it is a full AI based incentive scoring system to explore the optimal incentive scheme to vitalize the ecosystem. On top of incentives, it is also the base metrics for governance policies (voting). Incentives are designed with token economic studies, to reinforce target behavior, based on operant conditioning principles, eg. dormant accounts, distribution schemes based on activity levels, penalties for malicious nodes etc, and it is very difficult to get right.
If you look into the WP, IISS further explored with things like mitigation of inequalities, weighted average and adjustment, efficiency of IISS, fairness of distribution, prevention of misusage and many other topics explored in depth.
The point is, this YP is very complex, and personally I’d wish the team to take as much time as it needs to get it done right. IISS will ultimately decide the overall health of our ecosystem, its sustainability and well, our passive income.
With that said, I am also with you that I’d love to see the details asap, as I have plans to build a tool similar to the Virtual Step Calculator where people can easily calculate their returns. From the announcement at least, it does look like the team is close to completion and labeled the release "soon", so let's just have a little patience and let them do all the necessary last checks.
Also as a reality check, YPs are researches that need to be formalized, implemented and iterated enough times before an official release. So please don’t expect to start staking right away when YP pt3 sees the light.
13) It is allegedly possible that ICX supply can be doubled in only 4 years thanks to a whopping 20% annual token inflation
Please go to this thread for my explanation: https://twitter.com/2infiniti/status/1060397068852748288
14) One of the things that got me excited about crypto was that there was no inflation. I'm a bit disappointed in Icons approach here.
Most crypto token issuance models can be broken down into these 3 categories
All of the above models can work in their own ways, depending on the behavior its trying to incentivize. Sustainable crypto economies are backed by a recursive loop of value transfer that all participants are incentivized to participate in. The goal is to create an incentive loop that all parties act in their own self-interest, then creating greater value.
Let’s take a look at bitcoin’s incentive loop, a simple model where mining is profitable, more miners create more security and security adds intrinsic value.
Mine bitcoin -> market dynamics decide value -> incentive to mine -> security of network increases -> more incentive to mine ←|
Augur’s case
Trusted prediction platform -> more stakes in events -> more incentive for REP holders to verify truth -> more people verifying, more trusted ←|
In ICON’s case, incentives are centered around i_score, which is a function of activities within the network. The incentive loop would look something like this
I_score rewards and governance control (votes) -> more incentive to participate in activities and governance policies -> increased network security and activity ←|
Similar incentive loop found in SCORE
SCORE staking (virtual steps) -> increased activities -> sustainable SCOREs ←|
Now for continuous issuance models, the goals are no different from other models. They want to issue tokens, just enough that it is optimal for maintaining security and encourage participations, creating a healthy incentive loop.
But can’t these models infinitely issue to a point where my money is worth next to nothing?
Yes, this is in theory possible. For Ethereum, with majority of network miners approving such change (say removing ice age), and a new Ethereum client to accommodate this change, resulting in an issuance similar to a 51% attack. Since issued ETH is also linked to the value of a single token, this will render ETH much less valuable. In practice, this is extremely unlikely to happen, as miners are financially discouraged by doing so, since they have much more to lose, just part of the game theory.
ICON’s issuance is a system implementation which depends on activities happening in the network. There are also preventive measures such as issuance upper bound and representative mitigations. I explained issuance model in full in this thread: https://twitter.com/2infiniti/status/1060397068852748288
15) Where is the DEX?
For this one hear the explanation directly from Min: https://youtu.be/tk2tZpnrI0o?t=1662
16) How far are we from interoperability? Am I correct in saying that interoperability is years from completion?
Not entirely. Interoperability will likely take a few phases to roll out, what we should be anticipating for right now is BTP (Blockchain TransfeTransmission Protocol) specification.
What is exactly is BTP?
From the abstract level, BTP creates a mechanism by which two channels may pass messages to each other. BTP assumes that multiple channels (eg. private blockchains from ICONLOOP) running on the ICON network under their own state and logic, at the same time connecting to the base channel for consensus mechanism. This is the simplest form of interoperability.
Down the road we should expect more and more advanced versions, handling threat models, connection lifecycles, asynchronous requests, and all sorts of optimization and so forth. This is enabling interoperability between blockchains one phase at a time, gradually reaching the end game of hyperconnecting the world.
So how long is this going to take?
I do not know. But the purpose of this reply is to explain that interoperability is not an on-off switch, but will likely take many phases to roll out.
submitted by msg2infiniti to helloicon [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.54^2 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited

TL;DR
Details
(1) The current observed rates of increase in available network bandwidth (which went up 70% last year) should easily be able to support actual blocksizes increasing at the modest, slightly lower rate of only 54% per year.
Recent data shows that the "provisioned bandwidth" actually available on the Bitcoin network increased 70% in the past year.
If this 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth continues for the next 8 years, then actual blocksizes could easily increase at the slightly lower rate of 54% per year.
This would mean that in 8 years, actual blocksizes would be quite reasonable at about 1.548 = 32MB:
Hacking, Distributed/State of the Bitcoin Network: "In other words, the provisioned bandwidth of a typical full node is now 1.7X of what it was in 2016. The network overall is 70% faster compared to last year."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u85im/hacking_distributedstate_of_the_bitcoin_network/
http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/02/15/state-of-the-bitcoin-network/
Reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" for the next 8 years or so would effectively be similar to the 1MB "max blocksize" which Bitcoin used for the previous 8 years: simply a "ceiling" which doesn't really get in the way, while preventing any "unreasonably" large blocks from being produced.
As we know, for most of the past 8 years, actual blocksizes have always been far below the "max blocksize" of 1MB. This is because miners have always set their own blocksize (below the official "max blocksize") - in order to maximize their profits, while avoiding "orphan" blocks.
This setting of blocksizes on the part of miners would simply continue "as-is" if we reinstated Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" - with actual blocksizes continuing to grow gradually (still far below the 32MB "max blocksize" ceilng), and without introducing any new (risky, untested) "game theory" or economics - avoiding lots of worries and controversies, and bringing the community together around "Bitcoin Original".
So, simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would have many advantages:
  • It would keep fees low (so users would be happy);
  • It would support much higher prices (so miners would be happy) - as explained in section (2) below;
  • It would avoid the need for any any possibly controversial changes such as:
    • SegWit/Lightning (the hack of making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend" necessitated by Blockstream's insistence on using a selfish and dangerous "soft fork", the centrally planned and questionable, arbitrary discount of 1-versus-4 for certain transactions); and
    • Bitcon Unlimited (the newly introduced parameters for Excessive Block "EB" / Acceptance Depth "AD").
(2) Bitcoin blocksize growth of 54% per year would correlate (under Metcalfe's Law) to Bitcoin price growth of around 1.542 = 2.37x per year - or 2.378 = 1000x higher price - ie 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
The observed, empirical data suggests that Bitcoin does indeed obey "Metcalfe's Law" - which states that the value of a network is roughly proportional to the square of the number of transactions.
In other words, Bitcoin price has corresponded to the square of Bitcoin transactions (which is basically the same thing as the blocksize) for most of the past 8 years.
Historical footnote:
Bitcoin price started to dip slightly below Metcalfe's Law since late 2014 - when the privately held, central-banker-funded off-chain scaling company Blockstream was founded by (now) CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell - two people who have historically demonstrated an extremely poor understanding of the economics of Bitcoin, leading to a very polarizing effect on the community.
Since that time, Blockstream launched a massive propaganda campaign, funded by $76 million in fiat from central bankers who would go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeded, and exploiting censorship on r\bitcoin, attacking the on-chain scaling which Satoshi originally planned for Bitcoin.
Legend states that Einstein once said that the tragedy of humanity is that we don't understand exponential growth.
A lot of people might think that it's crazy to claim that 1 bitcoin could actually be worth 1 million dollars in just 8 years.
But a Bitcoin price of 1 million dollars would actually require "only" a 1000x increase in 8 years. Of course, that still might sound crazy to some people.
But let's break it down by year.
What we want to calculate is the "8th root" of 1000 - or 10001/8. That will give us the desired "annual growth rate" that we need, in order for the price to increase by 1000x after a total of 8 years.
If "you do the math" - which you can easily perform with a calculator or with Excel - you'll see that:
  • 54% annual actual blocksize growth for 8 years would give 1.548 = 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 = 32MB blocksize after 8 years
  • Metcalfe's Law (where Bitcoin price corresponds to the square of Bitcoin transactions or volume / blocksize) would give 1.542 = 2.37 - ie, 54% bigger blocks (higher volume or more transaction) each year could support about 2.37 higher price each year.
  • 2.37x annual price growth for 8 years would be 2.378 = 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 = 1000 - giving a price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars if the price increases an average of 2.37x per year for 8 years, starting from 1 BTC = 1000 USD now.
So, even though initially it might seem crazy to think that we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars in 8 years, it's actually not that far-fetched at all - based on:
  • some simple math,
  • the observed available bandwidth (already increasing at 70% per year), and
  • the increasing fragility and failures of many "legacy" debt-backed national fiat currencies and payment systems.
Does Metcalfe's Law hold for Bitcoin?
The past 8 years of data suggest that Metcalfe's Law really does hold for Bitcoin - you can check out some of the graphs here:
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
https://i.redd.it/kvjwzcuce3ay.png
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*22ix0l4oBDJ3agoLzVtUgQ.gif
(3) Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would provide an ultra-simple, ultra-safe, non-controversial approach which perhaps everyone could agree on: Bitcoin's original promise of "p2p electronic cash", 100% on-chain, eventually worth 1 BTC = 1 million dollars.
This could all be done using only the whitepaper - eg, no need for possibly "controversial" changes like SegWit/Lightning, Bitcoin Unlimited, etc.
As we know, the Bitcoin community has been fighting a lot lately - mainly about various controversial scaling proposals.
Some people are worried about SegWit, because:
  • It's actually not much of a scaling proposal - it would only give 1.7MB blocks, and only if everyone adopts it, and based on some fancy, questionable blocksize or new "block weight" accounting;
  • It would be implemented as an overly complicated and anti-democratic "soft" fork - depriving people of their right to vote via a much simpler and safer "hard" fork, and adding massive and unnecessary "technical debt" to Bitcoin's codebase (for example, dangerously making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend", making future upgrades much more difficult - but giving long-term "job security" to Core/Blockstream devs);
  • It would require rewriting (and testing!) thousands of lines of code for existing wallets, exchanges and businesses;
  • It would introduce an arbitrary 1-to-4 "discount" favoring some kinds of transactions over others.
And some people are worried about Lightning, because:
  • There is no decentralized (p2p) routing in Lightning, so Lightning would be a terrible step backwards to the "bad old days" of centralized, censorable hubs or "crypto banks";
  • Your funds "locked" in a Lightning channel could be stolen if you don't constantly monitor them;
  • Lighting would steal fees from miners, and make on-chain p2p transactions prohibitively expensive, basically destroying Satoshi's p2p network, and turning it into SWIFT.
And some people are worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, because:
  • Bitcoin Unlimited extends the notion of Nakamoto Consensus to the blocksize itself, introducing the new parameters EB (Excess Blocksize) and AD (Acceptance Depth);
  • Bitcoin Unlimited has a new, smaller dev team.
(Note: Out of all the current scaling proposals available, I support Bitcoin Unlimited - because its extension of Nakamoto Consensus to include the blocksize has been shown to work, and because Bitcoin Unlimited is actually already coded and running on about 25% of the network.)
It is normal for reasonable people to have the above "concerns"!
But what if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars - without introducing any controversial new changes or discounts or consensus rules or game theory?
What if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars using just the whitepaper itself - by simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize"?
(4) We can easily reach "million-dollar bitcoin" by gradually and safely growing blocks to 32MB - Satoshi's original "max blocksize" - without changing anything else in the system!
If we simply reinstate "Bitcoin Original" (Satoshi's original 32MB blocksize), then we could avoid all the above "controversial" changes to Bitcoin - and the following 8-year scenario would be quite realistic:
  • Actual blocksizes growing modestly at 54% per year - well within the 70% increase in available "provisioned bandwidth" which we actually happened last year
  • This would give us a reasonable, totally feasible blocksize of 1.548 = 32MB ... after 8 years.
  • Bitcoin price growing at 2.37x per year, or a total increase of 2.378 = 1000x over the next 8 years - which is similar to what happened during the previous 8 years, when the price went from under 1 USDollars to over 1000 USDollars.
  • This would give us a possible Bitcoin price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
  • There would still be plenty of decentralization - plenty of fully-validating nodes and mining nodes), because:
    • The Cornell study showed that 90% of nodes could already handle 4MB blocks - and that was several years ago (so we could already handle blocks even bigger than 4MB now).
    • 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth, combined with a mere 54% yearly increase in used bandwidth (plus new "block compression" technologies such as XThin and Compact Blocks) mean that nearly all existing nodes could easily handle 32MB blocks after 8 years; and
    • The "economic incentives" to run a node would be strong if the price were steadily rising to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars
    • This would give a total market cap of 20 trillion USDollars after about 8 years - comparable to the total "money" in the world which some estimates put at around 82 trillion USDollars.
So maybe we should consider the idea of reinstating Satoshi's Original Bitcoin with its 32MB blocksize - using just the whitepaper and avoiding controversial changes - so we could re-unite the community to get to "million-dollar bitcoin" (and 20 trillion dollar market cap) in as little as 8 years.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

End of day summary - 01/30

The Dow fell 362.59, or 1.37%, to 26,076.89, the Nasdaq lost 64.02, or 0.86%, to 7,402.48, and the S&P 500 declined 31.10, or 1.09%, to 2,822.43.
U.S. equities tumbled for the second day in a row on Tuesday, with health care and energy shares leading the retreat, as investors took another round of profits following solid gains over the first four weeks of 2018--the S&P 500's best start to a year since 1987. Adding in Monday's decline, the S&P 500 is down 1.8% for the week, while the Dow and the Nasdaq hold week-to-date losses of 2.0% and 1.4%, respectively.
10 of 11 sectors finished Tuesday in the red. The heavily-weighted health care group showed particular weakness, losing 2.1%, after AMZN, BRK.A, and JPM announced that they're forming a company focused on reducing health care costs for their U.S. employees. Health care providers like UNH, ANTM, and CI lost between 4.4% and 7.2% in reaction to the announcement.
Like health care, the energy sector was especially weak, losing 2.0%, as the price of crude oil declined for the second consecutive session; West Texas Intermediate crude futures dropped 1.6% to $64.54 per barrel and now sit about 2.5% below the three-year high they touched last Friday.
Meanwhile, Apple shares slipped about 0.6% after Bloomberg reported that the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating whether the U.S. tech giant violated securities laws concerning its disclosures about a software update that slowed older iPhone models. The U.S. government has requested information from the company, and the inquiry in in the early stages, according to Bloomberg. A similar report in the Nikkei Asian Review weighed on shares Monday.
The lightly-weighted utilities sector (+0.2%) was the lone advancer, but the telecom services sector (unch) finished not far behind.
Among the noteworthy gainers was AKAO, which rose 10% after it said that the FDA has classified the outcome of its fourth quarter 2017 reinspection of Pfizer's McPherson facility as Voluntary Action Indicated, or VAI, thus providing a "clear regulatory path" for the approval of plazomicin out of that facility.
Among the notable losers after reporting quarterly results were HOG, and AKS. Also lower was PE, which slid 14% after the stock saw several downgrades following the company's announcement of production guidance.
Elsewhere, equity indices in the Asia-Pacific region settled lower, with Japan's Nikkei (-1.4%) leading the retreat, while the Euro Stoxx 50 lost 0.9%. The U.S. dollar lost 0.1% against the euro (1.2396), 0.5% against the British pound (1.4144), and 0.1% against the Japanese yen (108.82).
At 9:00 PM ET, President Trump will deliver his first State of the Union address. The president is expected to look both forwards--by pushing for a bipartisan deal in Congress on immigration and infrastructure spending--and backwards--by touting the GOP's victory on tax reform.

Currency

The U.S. Dollar Index is off 0.1% at 89.24, struggling to distance itself from a three-year low.

Treasury

U.S. Treasuries ended Tuesday mostly lower, with longer-dated issues showing particular weakness. The yield on the benchmark 10-yr Treasury note climbed three basis points to 2.73%, while the 2-yr yield finished unchanged at 2.12%. Yields move inversely to prices.
Today marked the start of Fed Chair Janet Yellen's final FOMC meeting. There will be no press conference after tomorrow's 14:00 ET release of the January policy statement, which is not expected to raise the fed funds rate, but could have a pretty hawkish tone.

Commodity

Oil prices fell for a second day on Tuesday, driven by ongoing evidence of rising U.S. crude output, while wary investors sold off stocks, bonds and commodities.

Volatility

A measure of volatility on Wall Street on Tuesday rose to its highest level in more than 5 months as U.S. equity benchmarks extended a slide as the yield in a 10-year Treasury notes hovered around its highest level in more than three years. VIX was up at 14.85, up about 7.30%, marking its highest level since Aug. 18, 2017.

Crypto

Crypto fell on the news U.S. Regulators are sending subpoenas to crypto-exchange Bitfinex and Tether.

YTD

AH news

  • AMD
    4Q EPS: 8c vs 5c, Revenue: 1.48B vs $1.41B expected
    Sees Q1 Sales $1.5B-$1.6B vs $1.25 Est.
  • EA
    Q3 EPS: -60c, Revenue: 1.16B
    Sees 4Q EPS: $1.86 vs $1.08 expected
Summary scrapped from the interweb. Took 0.55 seconds.
submitted by hibernating_brain to thewallstreet [link] [comments]

A (hopefully mathematically neutral) comparison of Lightning network fees to Bitcoin Cash on-chain fees. [X-post from /r/btc

A side note before I begin
For context, earlier today, sherlocoin made a post on this sub asking if Lightning Network transactions are cheaper than on-chain BCH transactions. This user also went on to complain on /bitcoin that his "real" numbers were getting downvoted
I was initially going to respond to his post, but after I typed some of my response, I realized it is relevant to a wider Bitcoin audience and the level of analysis done warranted a new post. This wound up being the longest post I've ever written, so I hope you agree.
I've placed the TL;DR at the top and bottom for the simple reason that you need to prepare your face... because it's about to get hit with a formidable wall of text.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.

Let's Begin With An Ideal World
Lightning network fees themselves are indeed cheaper than Bitcoin Cash fees, but in order to get to a state where a Lightning network fee can be made, you are required to open a channel, and to get to a state where those funds are spendable, you must close that channel.
On the Bitcoin network, the minimum accepted fee is 1sat/byte so for now, we'll assume that ideal scenario of 1sat/byte. We'll also assume the open and close is sent as a simple native Segwit transaction with a weighted size of 141 bytes. Because we have to both open and close, this 141 byte fee will be incurred twice. The total fee for an ideal open/close transaction is 1.8¢
For comparison, a simple transaction on the BCH network requires 226 bytes one time. The minimum fee accepted next-block is 1sat/byte. At the time of writing an ideal BCH transaction fee costs ~ 0.11¢
This means that under idealized circumstances, you must currently make at least 16 transactions on a LN channel to break-even with fees
Compounding Factors
Our world is not ideal, so below I've listed compounding factors, common arguments, an assessment, and whether the problem is solvable.
Problem 1: Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash prices are asymmetrical.
Common arguments:
BTC: If Bitcoin Cash had the same price, the fees would be far higher
Yes, this is true. If Bitcoin Cash had the same market price as Bitcoin, our ideal scenario changes substantially. An open and close on Bitcoin still costs 1.8¢ while a simple Bitcoin Cash transaction now costs 1.4¢. The break-even point for a Lightning Channel is now only 2 transactions.
Is this problem solvable?
Absolutely.
Bitcoin Cash has already proposed a reduction in fees to 1sat for every 10 bytes, and that amount can be made lower by later proposals. While there is no substantial pressure to implement this now, if Bitcoin Cash had the same usage as Bitcoin currently does, it is far more likely to be implemented. If implemented at the first proposed reduction rate, under ideal circumstances, a Lightning Channel would need to produce around 13 transactions for the new break even.
But couldn't Bitcoin reduce fees similarly
The answer there is really tricky. If you reduce on-chain fees, you reduce the incentive to use the Lightning Network as the network becomes more hospitable to micropaments. This would likely increase the typical mempool state and decrease the Lightning Channel count some. The upside is that when the mempool saturates with low transaction fees, users are then re-incentivized to use the lightning network after the lowes fees are saturated with transactions. This should, in theory, produce some level of a transaction fee floor which is probably higher on average than 0.1 sat/byte on the BTC network.
Problem 2: This isn't an ideal world, we can't assume 1sat/byte fees
Common arguments:
BCH: If you tried to open a channel at peak fees, you could pay $50 each way
BTC: LN wasn't implemented which is why the fees are low now
Both sides have points here. It's true that if the mempool was in the same state as it was in December of 2017, that a user could have potentially been incentivized to pay an open and close channel fee of up to 1000 sat/byte to be accepted in a reasonable time-frame.
With that being said, two factors have resulted in a reduced mempool size of Bitcoin: Increased Segwit and Lightning Network Usage, and an overall cooling of the market.
I'm not going to speculate as to what percentage of which is due to each factor. Instead, I'm going to simply analyze mempool statistics for the last few months where both factors are present.
Let's get an idea of current typical Bitcoin network usage fees by asking Johoe quick what the mempool looks like.
For the last few months, the bitcoin mempool has followed almost the exact same pattern. Highest usage happens between 10AM and 3PM EST with a peak around noon. Weekly, usage usually peaks on Tuesday or Wednesday with enough activity to fill blocks with at least minimum fee transactions M-F during the noted hours and usually just shy of block-filling capacity on Sat and Sun.
These observations can be additionally evidenced by transaction counts on bitinfocharts. It's also easier to visualize on bitinfocharts over a longer time-frame.
Opening a channel
Under pre-planned circumstances, you can offload channel creation to off-peak hours and maintain a 1sat/byte rate. The primary issue arises in situations where either 1) LN payments are accepted and you had little prior knowledge, or 2) You had a previous LN pathway to a known payment processor and one or more previously known intermediaries are offline or otherwise unresponsive causing the payment to fail.
Your options are:
A) Create a new LN channel on-the-spot where you're likely to incur current peak fee rates of 5-20sat/byte.
B) Create an on-chain payment this time and open a LN channel when fees are more reasonable.
C) Use an alternate currency for the transaction.
There is a fundamental divide among the status of C. Some people view Bitcoin as (primarily) a storage of value, and thus as long as there are some available onramps and offramps, the currency will hold value. There are other people who believe that fungibility is what gives cryptocurrency it's value and that option C would fundamentally undermine the value of the currency.
I don't mean to dismiss either argument, but option C opens a can of worms that alone can fill economic textbooks. For the sake of simplicity, we will throw out option C as a possibility and save that debate for another day. We will simply require that payment is made in crypto.
With option B, you would absolutely need to pay the peak rate (likely higher) for a single transaction as a Point-of-Sale scenario with a full mempool would likely require at least one confirm and both parties would want that as soon as possible after payment. It would not be unlikely to pay 20-40 sat/byte on a single transaction and then pay 1sat/byte for an open and close to enable LN payments later. Even in the low end, the total cost is 20¢ for on-chain + open + close.
With present-day-statistics, your LN would have to do 182 transactions to make up for the one peak on-chain transaction you were forced to do.
With option A, you still require one confirm. Let's also give the additional leeway that in this scenario you have time to sit and wait a couple of blocks for your confirm before you order / pay. You can thus pay peak rates alone and not peak + ensure next block rates. This will most likely be in the 5-20 sat/byte range. With 5sat/byte open and 1sat/byte close, your LN would have to do 50 transactions to break even
In closing, fees are incurred by the funding channel, so there could be scenarios where the receiving party is incentivized to close in order to spend outputs and the software automatically calculates fees based on current rates. If this is the case, the receiving party could incur a higher-than-planned fee to the funding party.
With that being said, any software that allows the funding party to set the fee beforehand would avoid unplanned fees, so we'll assume low fees for closing.
Is this problem solvable?
It depends.
In order to avoid the peak-fee open/close ratio problem, the Bitcoin network either needs to have much higher LN / Segwit utilization, or increase on-chain capacity. If it gets to a point where transactions stack up, users will be required to pay more than 1sat/byte per transaction and should expect as much.
Current Bitcoin network utilization is close enough to 100% to fill blocks during peak times. I also did an export of the data available at Blockchair.com for the last 3000 blocks which is approximately the last 3 weeks of data. According to their block-weight statistics, The average Bitcoin block is 65.95% full. This means that on-chain, Bitcoin can only increase in transaction volume by around 50% and all other scaling must happen via increased Segwit and LN use.
Problem 3: You don't fully control your LN channel states.
Common arguments:
BCH: You can get into a scenario where you don't have output capacity and need to open a new channel.
BCH: A hostile actor can cause you to lose funds during a high-fee situation where a close is forced.
BTC: You can easily re-load your channel by pushing outbound to inbound.
BCH: You can't control whether nodes you connect to are online or offline.
There's a lot to digest here, but LN is essentially a 2-way contract between 2 parties. Not only does the drafting party pay the fees as of right now, but connected 3rd-parties can affect the state of this contract. There are some interesting scenarios that develop because of it and you aren't always in full control of what side.
Lack of outbound capacity
First, it's true that if you run out of outbound capacity, you either need to reload or create a new channel. This could potentially require 0, 1, or 2 additional on-chain transactions.
If a network loop exists between a low-outbound-capacity channel and yourself, you could push transactional capacity through the loop back to the output you wish to spend to. This would require 0 on-chain transactions and would only cost 1 (relatively negligible) LN fee charge. For all intents and purposes... this is actually kind of a cool scenario.
If no network loop exists from you-to-you, things get more complex. I've seen proposals like using Bitrefill to push capacity back to your node. In order to do this, you would have an account with them and they would lend custodial support based on your account. While people opting for trustless money would take issue in 3rd party custodians, I don't think this alone is a horrible solution to the LN outbound capacity problem... Although it depends on the fee that bitrefill charges to maintain an account and account charges could negate the effectiveness of using the LN. Still, we will assume this is a 0 on-chain scenario and would only cost 1 LN fee which remains relatively negligible.
If no network loop exists from you and you don't have a refill service set up, you'll need at least one on-chain payment to another LN entity in exchange for them to push LN capacity to you. Let's assume ideal fee rates. If this is the case, your refill would require an additional 7 transactions for that channel's new break-even. Multiply that by number of sat/byte if you have to pay more.
Opening a new channel is the last possibility and we go back to the dynamics of 13 transactions per LN channel in the ideal scenario.
Hostile actors
There are some potential attack vectors previously proposed. Most of these are theoretical and/or require high fee scenarios to come about. I think that everyone should be wary of them, however I'm going to ignore most of them again for the sake of succinctness.
This is not to be dismissive... it's just because my post length has already bored most casual readers half to death and I don't want to be responsible for finishing the job.
Pushing outbound to inbound
While I've discussed scenarios for this push above, there are some strange scenarios that arise where pushing outbound to inbound is not possible and even some scenarios where a 3rd party drains your outbound capacity before you can spend it.
A while back I did a testnet simulation to prove that this scenario can and will happen it was a post response that happened 2 weeks after the initial post so it flew heavily under the radar, but the proof is there.
The moral of this story is in some scenarios, you can't count on loaded network capacity to be there by the time you want to spend it.
Online vs Offline Nodes
We can't even be sure that a given computer is online to sign a channel open or push capacity until we try. Offline nodes provide a brick-wall in the pathfinding algorithm so an alternate route must be found. If we have enough channel connectivity to be statistically sure we can route around this issue, we're in good shape. If not, we're going to have issues.
Is this problem solvable?
Only if the Lightning network can provide an (effectively) infinite amount of capacity... but...
Problem 4: Lightning Network is not infinite.
Common arguments:
BTC: Lightning network can scale infinitely so there's no problem.
Unfortunately, LN is not infinitely scalable. In fact, finding a pathway from one node to another is roughly the same problem as the traveling salesman problem. Dijkstra's algorithm This is problem that diverges polynomial. The most efficient proposals have a difficulty bound by O(n^2).
Note - in the above I confused the complexity of the traveling salesman problem with Dijkstra when they do not have the same bound. With that being said, the complexity of the LN will still diverge with size
In lay terms, what that means is every time you double the size of the Lightning Network, finding an indirect LN pathway becomes 4 times as difficult and data intensive. This means that for every doubling, the amount of traffic resulting from a single request also quadruples.
You can potentially temporarily mitigate traffic by bounding the number of hops taken, but that would encourage a greater channel-per-user ratio.
For a famous example... the game "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" postulates that Kevin Bacon can be connected by co-stars to any movie by 6 degrees of separation. If the game is reduced to "4 degrees of Kevin Bacon," users of this network would still want as many connections to be made, so they'd be incentivized to hire Kevin Bacon to star in everything. You'd start to see ridiculous mash-ups and reboots just to get more connectivity... Just imagine hearing Coming soon - Kevin Bacon and Adam Sandlar star in "Billy Madison 2: Replace the face."
Is this problem solvable?
Signs point to no.
So technically, if the average computational power and network connectivity can handle the problem (the number of Lightning network channels needed to connect the world)2 in a trivial amount of time, Lightning Network is effectively infinite as the upper bound of a non-infinite earth would limit time-frames to those that are computationally feasible.
With that being said, BTC has discussed Lightning dev comments before that estimated a cap of 10,000 - 1,000,000 channels before problems are encountered which is far less than the required "number of channels needed to connect the world" level.
In fact SHA256 is a newer NP-hard problem than the traveling saleseman problem. That means that statistically, and based on the amount of review that has been given to each problem, it is more likely that SHA256 - the algorithm that lends security to all of bitcoin - is cracked before the traveling salesman problem is. Notions that "a dedicated dev team can suddenly solve this problem, while not technically impossible, border on statistically absurd.
Edit - While the case isn't quite as bad as the traveling salesman problem, the problem will still diverge with size and finding a more efficient algorithm is nearly as unlikely.
This upper bound shows that we cannot count on infinite scalability or connectivity for the lightning network. Thus, there will always be on-chain fee pressure and it will rise as the LN reaches it's computational upper-bound.
Because you can't count on channel states, the on-chain fee pressure will cause typical sat/byte fees to raise. The higher this rate, the more transactions you have to make for a Lightning payment open/close operation to pay for itself.
This is, of course unless it is substantially reworked or substituted for a O(log(n))-or-better solution.
Finally, I'd like to add, creating an on-chain transaction is a set non-recursive, non looping function - effectively O(1), sending this transaction over a peer-to-peer network is bounded by O(log(n)) and accepting payment is, again, O(1). This means that (as far as I can tell) on-chain transactions (very likely) scale more effectively than Lightning Network in its current state.
Additional notes:
My computational difficulty assumptions were based on a generalized, but similar problem set for both LN and on-chain instances. I may have overlooked additional steps needed for the specific implementation, and I may have overlooked reasons a problem is a simplified version requiring reduced computational difficulty.
I would appreciate review and comment on my assumptions for computational difficulty and will happily correct said assumptions if reasonable evidence is given that a problem doesn't adhere to listed computational difficulty.
TL;DR: While Lightning node payments themselves cost less than on-chain BCH payments, the associated overhead currently requires a LN channel to produce 16 transactions just to break-even under ideal 1sat/byte circumstances and substantially more as the fee rate goes up.
Further, the Lightning network can provide no guarantee in its current state to maintain/reduce fees to 1sat/byte.
submitted by CaptainPatent to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Live Bitcoin Chart Liquidation Watch: August 5 2020 - YouTube $9 Billion BTC On Chain Volume  Confidential Transactions  Poloniex Drama and Delistings EXPOSING the Seedy Underbelly of Crypto Exchanges Is the YOUTUBE vs. BITCOIN WAR already over??? Bitcoin Brief - Unhackable Exchanges, Congressman vs Libra, Stock to Flow Value

Bitcoin to Decouple from S&P 500, Dollar: Prominent Macro Analyst. Pal recently went as far as to say that he thinks that Bitcoin will seriously decouple from the stock market and the U.S. dollar. This comment comes after Bitcoin has had varying degrees of correlation with these two markets over the past few months. For instance, when the U.S ... See our list of cryptocurrency exchanges ️ Ranked by volume ️ Binance ️ Coinbase Pro ️ Huobi ️ Kraken ️ Bithumb ️ Bitfinex ️ And many more ️ Cryptocurrencies: 7,500 Markets: 31,616 Market Cap: $396,795,960,651 24h Vol: $73,836,651,066 BTC Dominance: 61.0% Block Weight is a new concept introduced in Segwit, and it’s calculated on a per-transaction basis. Each transaction has a “weight” which is defined this way: (tx size with witness data stripped) * 3 + (tx size) Non-Segwit transactions have zero witness data, so the weight for a non-Segwit transaction is exactly 4 times the size. Segwit ... After the Argentine peso dropped heavily on the region’s election day, bitcoin began trading as high as $12,000 on LocalBitcoins.com, or 10% higher than on most international focused crypto exchanges. It wasn’t long until we saw this trend play out once more, this time in Hong Kong with government protests heating up. Bitcoin began trading at a 4% premium and increased volume. Bitcoin Price (BTC). Price chart, trade volume, market cap, and more. Discover new cryptocurrencies to add to your portfolio. Bitcoin Price (BTC). Price chart, trade volume, market cap, and more. Discover new cryptocurrencies to add to your portfolio. Skip to content. Prices. Products. Company. Earn crypto. Get $171+ Sign in. Get started . Price charts Bitcoin price. Bitcoin price (BTC) Add to ...

[index] [44518] [29515] [9502] [39759] [42944] [23547] [10005] [14368] [22891] [39142]

Live Bitcoin Chart Liquidation Watch: August 5 2020 - YouTube

https://ToneVays.com Events --- Bitcoin: https://unconfiscatable.com/ Finance/Trading/Investing https://thefinancialsummit.com/ How to Use Bitcoin Tech: http... Bitcoin Report Volume 9 Huge Bitcoin sell off due to a compromised account - rollback https://support.mtgox.com/entries/20208066-huge-bitcoin-sell-off-due-to... Ledn's first product, Bitcoin-backed loans, gives hodlers access to dollar liquidity without having to sell their bitcoin. This lets you keep the any potential appreciation in your precious bitcoin. What do you believe the real value of Bitcoin is? Crypto exchanges massively faking volume, Bitcoin futures, and massive adoption news from around the globe. Sorry guys, I accidently deleted all ... ⚠️ Absolutely READ THE CHECKLIST BELOW before using Kraken.com: ⚠️ - Kraken has the best fees among the leading exchanges. - Perfect for Euro SEPA deposits and withdraws (super fast) - At ...

#