submitted by UMITop to u/UMITop [link] [comments]
Ethereum cryptocurrency that comes second in terms of capitalization on the crypto market is traditionally seen as fast and profitable. However, over the last few weeks it's had a rough patch. Since early August, the network has had huge queues of transactions pending processing while fees have skyrocketed and surpassed the historical high.
The main issue though is that even fees of a few dollars per transfer don't help get rid of the“traffic jams”. The cause of this is numerous DeFi projects and a huge number of financial pyramids based on the Ethereum platform. Both generate excessive load on the network.
The situation is downright unpleasant, and our users might question whether the UMI network could face a similar challenge? We'd like to assure you it could not. The UMI network is by default protected against these problems — it cannot have “traffic jams”, fees or financial pyramids. But first things first.
How has the Ethereum network ground to a halt?
In its report dated August 4, Arcane Research that provides analysis within the field of cryptocurrency stated that over the previous week the daily size of transaction fees in the Ethereum network has surged up to a record high for over two and a half years. On August 3, the median value #%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F)of the fee amounted to $0.82, with the overall amount of transaction fees totaling $2 mln. However, it only signaled the start of real problems.
Over the next week, fees continued to grow and by August 11 the median fee value almost doubled equaling $1.57. Larry Cermak, an expert at a big analytical and news-making crypto portal The Block, wrote in his August 15 tweet that over a week the total amount of transaction fees in the Ethereum network totaled $34.5 mln, having surpassed its historical high. Meanwhile, in the Bitcoin network that is seen as too expensive the fees were almost four times lower at $9 mln.
The total fee amount paid by cryptocurrency users over a week:
Historical Growth Chart for Ethereum Fees. Source
The existing situation shows that Ethereum is actually not as fast and profitable as commonly cited. Additionally, this could happen to almost any cryptocurrency except UMI that charges no fees whatsoever. We will tell you why.
Why have these problems emerged?
There is nothing unoriginal: the Ethereum network simply can't handle an increased load. Arcane Research analysts consider that a principal cause of this situation is the constantly increasing number of the DeFi ecosystem projects built on the Ethereum blockchain. Their number is growing all the time which causes the overload of the network. As of August 12, the total amount of funds in DeFi applications reached $4.3 billion which is 19.5% higher than that in the past week. At the time of writing this article, the amount surged to $6.21 billion. You can see the current data here. What is the most unpleasant about DeFi protocols is that a lot of them are scam projects.
Which is not the worst part though. There is also another factor that significantly slows down the Ethereum network. There are a lot of pyramid-like projects that are built on the EOS platform and use smart contracts. One of them is SmartWay Forsage, which regularly overloads the network with a large number of transactions, causes traffic jams, and, consequently, leads to increased fees (keep in mind that Ethereum miners choose transactions with a higher commission). Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum, revealed his disapproval of the SmartWay Forsage methodology and asked them to "leave and not pollute Ethereum ecology in the future". However, the project is slow to do this — it continues to deceive users.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of scam projects which abounds on the EOS network –– they continually emerge, work for a while, then go down as scams and are replaced with new ones. This never-ending stream of "investment projects" based on the Ponzi scheme overloads the system. This is the reason why Adam Back, a pioneer of the crypto industry and founder of the technology company Blockstream, equated Ethereum with such infamous projects as Onecoin and Bitconnect. Adam Back's solid dig at Ethereum became the subject of much debate among crypto enthusiasts.
Of course, it all doesn't mean that Ethereum is a bad cryptocurrency. On the contrary, it has a lot of advantages over other coins. But all that has happened exposes Ethereum's faults which must be eliminated. The problem is that they may not be fixable. It is far from certain that the developers will be able to get rid of all the defects as the system has huge scalability problems.
The crypto community has to admit that Ethereum, like other first-generation cryptocurrencies, has issues with capacity, fees, and scalability and is gradually becoming obsolete.
2020 is the time for young innovative cryptocurrencies such as UMI.
UMI is the flagship of new-generation cryptocurrencies.
In real fact, any cryptocurrency could face it. Each cryptocurrency charges fees which typically surge when the network is overloaded or the price is going up. Everyone will remember 2017 when in line with price growth and the network's overload Bitcoin transaction fee reached a high of around $40.
But when it comes to UMI, it works the other way round. The UMI network's advantages are high capacity, no fees, and scaling possibilities. It uses the best and fastest crypto industry solutions and excludes all inefficient methods by default. Smart optimization in combination with the Proof-of-Authority technology operating on the master node basis enables almost instant payments.
At the stage of network testing, an incredibly high capacity was achieved:
The UMI network can process transactions that Ethereum processes over a year in a few days and with no fees. More details
What is more important is that less than 0.001% of the network's overall potential is used now. The UMI network has a lot of reserve capacity and can handle hundreds of thousands of times heavier load. Moreover, with scaling possibilities, UMI can keep up with the times. The UMI code ensures the safe introduction of any upgrades — the network can be easily modified and scaled with cutting edge technology solutions. In other words, traffic jams will never pose a problem for us. UMI will instantly process all transactions, with no fees. Always.
A real-time speedometer displays the number of transactions processed by the UMI network per second. Link
Additionally, unlike Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies, the UMI's staking smart contract prevents possibilities of any pyramid schemes, meaning eliminates their negative influence. Our staking is completely safe and secured against scammers. Read more about this in our article. Any UMI staking structure could work forever. In other words, you can multiply your coins at a rate of up to 40% per month for an indefinitely long period of time.
UMI doesn't inherit the disadvantages of the first-generation cryptocurrencies. This is an innovative, carefully designed network based on state-of-the-art technologies. UMI is an ambitious step toward the future. And we're making it together right now!
Sincerely yours, UMI team
Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate.submitted by BitKan to btc [link] [comments]
bitkan.pro aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
Question 2: During the BCH fork to BSV hash war, why do you support BCH? What do you think of the differences between BSV and BCH?
Jiang: First of all, we have to figure out how did some of the key propositions of BSV came about. CSW seems to be the leader of the BSV community, but in fact CSW is just a chess piece. For example, CSW is in name the chief scientist of Nchain, but CSW has no shares in a series of BSV related companies such as Nchain, Coingeek etc. The true boss of BSV and the main backer behind CSW is Calvin Ayre, the casino tycoon.
Zhao Nan wrote two articles, which made the cause and effect of CA's capital layout clear:
"The capital layout of the casino tycoon Calvin Ayre" >>(Chinese)
"The ins and outs of the Calvin Ayre team" >>(Chinese)
Therefore, the ultimate goal of Calvin Ayre is to make money from the Canadian stock market through Coingeek. Coingeek develops its own mining machine, mines itself, controls the chain of BSV, and has the "CSW" as the gimmick, to tell us the story of BSV.
So BCH forks the BSV, which is a step in the entire capital layout of Calvin Ayre. It is not because there is any irreconcilable development direction, but because Coingeek needs to control the BCH. If it cannot be controlled, it will split into a chain that Coingeek can control completely. The whole thing is planned in advance, for example, bitcoinsv.org registration date is July 2, 2018, bitcoinsv.io is August 16, long before CSW began firing shots at ABC team.
CSW’s goal is to split the BSV from the BCH, so he must overstate many of his claims in order to create a split. If he puts forward a reasonable claim and BCH is a rational and pragmatic community, then he can't split. It is important to mention some very extreme claims that the BCH community can't accept, and then incite some community members through extremist claims, just like the Nazis do extreme propaganda and incitement, in order to split from the BCH.
CSW's extreme claims, such as:
1 Super block: BCH advocates large block expansion. What about CSW? He demands to upgrade the oversized block in a short time. The BCH 32MB block is sufficient and does not exceed the network load. CSW exerts that he will upgrade 128MB now. He will not wait till next year, and he intends to upgrade to 2g as well in 2019.
But the result? Don't even talk about 2G, the 100M block has exceeded the current network carrying capacity. After the BSV, because the block is too large, it is too late to spread across the entire network. There have been many deep rollbacks, April 18, 2019. At that time, the 578640 height 128M block resulted in 6 confirmed rollbacks, making the 6 confirmations unreliable.
On April 18, 2019, Beijing time, from 21:00 to 22:00, the deep recombination of up to six blocks occurred in the cobwebs of BSV (block height 578640-578645)
According to BitMEX Research, the BSV chain was rolled back by two blocks in the week. One of the orphaned blocks was about 62.6MB in size. This large block may be the cause of the roll back. In addition, BSV plans to launch an upgraded network called Quasar on July 24. The only change to this upgrade is to increase the default block size limit. It is reported that the expansion of block capacity will increase the probability of block reorganization: the large block has not yet been packaged, and multiple small blocks have made the block height overtaking, which will lead to block reorganization or even fork.
2 Lock-up agreement: A chain must stabilize the agreement. The agreement is greatly changed every time. It definitely affects the above development. If CSW proposes a stable agreement, then everyone agrees that he can't split it. What should he do? CSW is even more extreme, and I am going to set the protocol and lock it, even back to the original version of Bitcoin, which is ridiculous.
The environment has changed, and the agreement must change. For example, if the 0.1 version of Bitcoin is perfect, and the 14-day difficulty adjustment is not a defect, the BSV will not remove the BCH “not original” DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm, and switch back to 14 Day difficulty adjustment? Because once the BSV removes the BCH DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm, it will be directly cut and killed by the big calculation.
3 Computing power determines everything: Why does CW have the power to decide everything? Because the extremes did not dominate the community at the time, but CA's coingeek deployed a lot of mining machines to mine, which is very computationally intensive, so he advocated Force to decide everything, of course, he did not know that my calculations were more than him. I will talk about this later.
Because these claims are created for splitting, not natural development, so these claims will be internal contradictions. For example, CSW said that the agreement is to be locked, and that the computing power determines everything. Even decided to increase the total amount of 21 million, then who has the final say?
Why don't I support the development path of BSV? Because these extreme claims of CSW are all for the purpose of splitting, purposefully proposed, whether it is a large block, lock-up agreement, power calculation determines everything, in fact, it can not be implemented, of course, Will not support these extreme claims that can't actually fall.
In addition, these extreme claims will become a heavy liability for the development of BSV in the future. It is necessary to develop according to these extreme claims. In fact, we cannot do this. We must revise these extreme claims. The members of the community who were incited by these extreme claims will definitely not do it. Then, how do you say that BSV is still developing?
Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate.
bitkan.pro aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
Any computer that connects to the Bitcoin network is called a node. Nodes that fully verify all of the rules of Bitcoin are called full nodes.In other words, full nodes are what verify the Bitcoin blockchain and they play a crucial role in maintaining the decentralized network. Full nodes store the entirety of the blockchain and validate transactions. Anyone can participate in the Bitcoin network and run a full node. Bitcoin.org has information on how to set up a full node. Running a full node also gives you wallet capabilities and the ability to query the blockchain.
submitted by GTE_IO to u/GTE_IO [link] [comments]
News by Coindesk: Max Boonen
Carrying on from an earlier post about the evolution of high frequency trading (HFT), how it can harm markets and how crypto exchanges are responding, here we focus on the potential longer-term impact on the crypto ecosystem.
First, though, we need to focus on the state of HFT in a broader context.
Conventional markets are adopting anti-latency arbitrage mechanismsIn conventional markets, latency arbitrage has increased toxicity on lit venues and pushed trading volumes over-the-counter or into dark pools. In Europe, dark liquidity has increased in spite of efforts by regulators to clamp down on it. In some markets, regulation has actually contributed to this. Per the SEC:
“Using the Nasdaq market as a proxy, [Regulation] NMS did not seem to succeed in its mission to increase the display of limit orders in the marketplace. We have seen an increase in dark liquidity, smaller trade sizes, similar trading volumes, and a larger number of “small” venues.”Why is non-lit execution remaining or becoming more successful in spite of its lower transparency? In its 2014 paper, BlackRock came out in favour of dark pools in the context of best execution requirements. It also lamented message congestion and cautioned against increasing tick sizes, features that advantage latency arbitrageurs. (This echoes the comment to CoinDesk of David Weisberger, CEO of Coinroutes, who explained that the tick sizes typical of the crypto market are small and therefore do not put slower traders at much of a disadvantage.)
Major venues now recognize that the speed race threatens their business model in some markets, as it pushes those “slow” market makers with risk-absorbing capacity to provide liquidity to the likes of BlackRock off-exchange. Eurex has responded by implementing anti-latency arbitrage (ALA) mechanisms in options:
“Right now, a lot of liquidity providers need to invest more into technology in order to protect themselves against other, very fast liquidity providers, than they can invest in their pricing for the end client. The end result of this is a certain imbalance, where we have a few very sophisticated liquidity providers that are very active in the order book and then a lot of liquidity providers that have the ability to provide prices to end clients, but are tending to do so more away from the order book”, commented Jonas Ullmann, Eurex’s head of market functionality. Such views are increasingly supported by academic research.
XTX identifies two categories of ALA mechanisms: policy-based and technology-based. Policy-based ALA refers to a venue simply deciding that latency arbitrageurs are not allowed to trade on it. Alternative venues to exchanges (going under various acronyms such as ECN, ATS or MTF) can allow traders to either take or make, but not engage in both activities. Others can purposefully select — and advertise — their mix of market participants, or allow users to trade in separate “rooms” where undesired firms are excluded. The rise of “alternative microstructures” is mostly evidenced in crypto by the surge in electronic OTC trading, where traders can receive better prices than on exchange.
Technology-based ALA encompasses delays, random or deterministic, added to an exchange’s matching engine to reduce the viability of latency arbitrage strategies. The classic example is a speed bump where new orders are delayed by a few milliseconds, but the cancellation of existing orders is not. This lets market makers place fresh quotes at the new prevailing market price without being run over by latency arbitrageurs.
As a practical example, the London Metal Exchange recently announced an eight-millisecond speed bump on some contracts that are prime candidates for latency arbitrageurs due to their similarity to products trading on the much bigger CME in Chicago.
Why 8 milliseconds? First, microwave transmission between Chicago and the US East Coast is 3 milliseconds faster than fibre optic lines. From there, the $250,000 a month Hibernia Express transatlantic cable helps you get to London another 4 milliseconds faster than cheaper alternatives. Add a millisecond for internal latencies such as not using FPGAs and 8 milliseconds is the difference for a liquidity provider between investing tens of millions in speed technology or being priced out of the market by latency arbitrage.
With this in mind, let’s consider what the future holds for crypto.
Crypto exchanges must not forget their retail rootsWe learn from conventional markets that liquidity benefits from a diverse base of market makers with risk-absorption capacity.
Some have claimed that the spread compression witnessed in the bitcoin market since 2017 is due to electronification. Instead, I posit that it is greater risk-absorbing capacity and capital allocation that has improved the liquidity of the bitcoin market, not an increase in speed, as in fact being a fast exchange with colocation such as Gemini has not supported higher volumes. Old-timers will remember Coinsetter, a company that, per the Bitcoin Wiki , “was created in 2012, and operates a bitcoin exchange and ECN. Coinsetter’s CSX trading technology enables millisecond trade execution times and offers one of the fastest API data streams in the industry.” The Wiki page should use the past tense as Coinsetter failed to gain traction, was acquired in 2016 and subsequently closed.
Exchanges that invest in scalability and user experience will thrive (BitMEX comes to mind). Crypto exchanges that favour the fastest traders (by reducing jitter, etc.) will find that winner-takes-all latency strategies do not improve liquidity. Furthermore, they risk antagonising the majority of their users, who are naturally suspicious of platforms that sell preferential treatment.
It is baffling that the head of Russia for Huobi vaunted to CoinDesk that: “The option [of co-location] allows [selected clients] to make trades 70 to 100 times faster than other users”. The article notes that Huobi doesn’t charge — but of course, not everyone can sign up.
Contrast this with one of the most successful exchanges today: Binance. It actively discourages some HFT strategies by tracking metrics such as order-to-trade ratios and temporarily blocking users that breach certain limits. Market experts know that Binance remains extremely relevant to price discovery, irrespective of its focus on a less professional user base.
Other exchanges, take heed.
Coinbase closed its entire Chicago office where 30 engineers had worked on a faster matching engine, an exercise that is rumoured to have cost $50mm. After much internal debate, I bet that the company finally realised that it wouldn’t recoup its investment and that its value derived from having onboarded 20 million users, not from upgrading systems that are already fast and reliable by the standards of crypto.
It is also unsurprising that Kraken’s Steve Hunt, a veteran of low-latency torchbearer Jump Trading, commented to CoinDesk that: “We want all customers regardless of size or scale to have equal access to our marketplace”. Experience speaks.
In a recent article on CoinDesk , Matt Trudeau of ErisX points to the lower reliability of cloud-based services compared to dedicated, co-located and cross-connected gateways. That much is true. Web-based technology puts the emphasis on serving the greatest number of users concurrently, not on serving a subset of users deterministically and at the lowest latency possible. That is the point. Crypto might be the only asset class that is accessible directly to end users with a low number of intermediaries, precisely because of the crypto ethos and how the industry evolved. It is cheaper to buy $500 of bitcoin than it is to buy $500 of Microsoft shares.
Trudeau further remarks that official, paid-for co-location is better than what he pejoratively calls “unsanctioned colocation,” the fact that crypto traders can place their servers in the same cloud providers as the exchanges. The fairness argument is dubious: anyone with $50 can set up an Amazon AWS account and run next to the major crypto exchanges, whereas cheap co-location starts at $1,000 a month in the real world. No wonder “speed technology revenues” are estimated at $1 billion for the major U.S. equity exchanges.
For a crypto exchange, to reside in a financial, non-cloud data centre with state-of-the-art network latencies might ironically impair the likelihood of success. The risk is that such an exchange becomes dominated on the taker side by the handful of players that already own or pay for the fastest communication routes between major financial data centres such as Equinix and the CME in Chicago, where bitcoin futures are traded. This might reduce liquidity on the exchange because a significant proportion of the crypto market’s risk-absorption capacity is coming from crypto-centric funds that do not have the scale to operate low-latency strategies, but might make up the bulk of the liquidity on, say, Binance. Such mom-and-pop liquidity providers might therefore shun an exchange that caters to larger players as a priority.
Exchanges risk losing market share to OTC liquidity providersWhile voice trading in crypto has run its course, a major contribution to the market’s increase in liquidity circa 2017–2018 was the risk appetite of the original OTC voice desks such as Cumberland Mining and Circle.
Automation really shines in bringing together risk-absorbing capacity tailored to each client (which is impossible on anonymous exchanges) with seamless electronic execution. In contrast, latency-sensitive venues can see liquidity evaporate in periods of stress, as happened to a well-known and otherwise successful exchange on 26 June which saw its bitcoin order book become $1,000 wide for an extended period of time as liquidity providers turned their systems off. The problem is compounded by the general unavailability of credit on cash exchanges, an issue that the OTC market’s settlement model avoids.
As the crypto market matures, the business model of today’s major cash exchanges will come under pressure. In the past decade, the FX market has shown that retail traders benefit from better liquidity when they trade through different channels than institutional speculators. Systematic internalizers demonstrate the same in equities. This fact of life will apply to crypto. Exchanges have to pick a side: either cater to retail (or retail-driven intermediaries) or court HFTs.
Now that an aggregator like Tagomi runs transaction cost analysis for their clients, it will become plainly obvious to investors with medium-term and long-term horizons (i.e. anyone not looking at the next 2 seconds) that their price impact on exchange is worse than against electronic OTC liquidity providers.
Today, exchange fee structures are awkward because they must charge small users a lot to make up for crypto’s exceptionally high compliance and onboarding costs. Onboarding a single, small value user simply does not make sense unless fees are quite elevated. Exchanges end up over-charging large volume traders such as B2C2’s clients, another incentive to switch to OTC execution.
In the alternative, what if crypto exchanges focus on HFT traders? In my opinion, the CME is a much better venue for institutional takers as fees are much lower and conventional trading firms will already be connected to it. My hypothesis is that most exchanges will not be able to compete with the CME for fast traders (after all, the CBOE itself gave up), and must cater to their retail user base instead.
In a future post, we will explore other microstructures beyond all-to-all exchanges and bilateral OTC trading.
Fiber threads image via Shutterstock
Considerations of a reorg on the Bitcoin network to tackle the Binance hack sparks intense debate in the crypto community ; Consensus kicks off on Monday but ticket sales are reported to be 50% lower; The Diar newsletter shows the number of transactions taking place on Bitcoin approaching record levels while the fees remain far lower than peak levels; Controversy kicked off during the week ... Each block is simply a list of Bitcoin transactions. Smaller the block, fewer transactions it can contain. You could bypass this bottleneck by having blocks every minute or even ever 10 seconds. But, Bitcoin has a 10-minute block time, which makes the problem even bigger. The debate was all about increasing the block size. The Bitcoin block size debate continues to rage as the price of cryptocurrency experienced significant volatility last week. Many businesses and users in the Bitcoin Ecosystem support a block size increase to permit a higher transaction volume and speed so that Bitcoin can compete with mainstream payment systems. Bitcoin XT developer Mike Hearn wrote recently that the Bitcoin Core maintainers ... The fact that changes to Bitcoin Core are able to be made so quickly in times of crisis could have implications for any future changes to the block size limit. Although there are many contributors ... Biggest Average Bitcoin Block Size to Date. The latest data from Blockchain.com shows that February 12, 2019 saw an average block size of 1.305 megabytes, the biggest on record.. In fact, the blocks mined (approximately every 10 minutes) today by the Bitcoin network are now regularly bigger than 1MB. This was the previous limit that existed before Segregated Witness (SegWit) was introduced in ... The major selling point for Bitcoin Cash over BTC was supposedly the fact that the coin would scale better via bigger 32MB blocks. However, it appears that Bitcoin Cash miners are limiting block sizes to 2MB, which is more or less the limit for Bitcoin. The revelation raises questions as to whether BCH can continue to claim to be an upgrade from Bitcoin. Back in 2015, when bitcoiners tried to debate raising the block size, moderators from the most popular Bitcoin Reddit forum censored anyone who approved of raising the block size. Right now, in ...
[index]          
Crypto Exchanges OKEx and Binance are Attempting to Outcompete Coinbase https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/crypto-exchanges-okex-and-binance-are-attempting-to-... Will Bitcoin Block Size Reduction Argument Cause Another Crypto Conflict - Duration: 2 ... Binance JP Morgan’s Crypto Unlikely To Pose Immediate Threat To SWIFT Or - Duration: 3:28. Cryptology ... A couple of weeks ago I did a simple video outlining the fact that Binance had started to payout stakes on Stellar as well as the free airdrop of Stellar they had been staking without telling ... When Bitcoin was first created, Satoshi Nakamoto did not intentionally limit the block size, with the largest block reaching up to 32MB. At that time, an average block size is around 1 to 2 KB. Our analysis begins with coverage of the SegWit2x debate over increasing the Bitcoin block size from a 1 MB to a 8 MB limit in order to decrease transaction times and ease the increasingly heavy ... The block size however has been a topic of heated debate in the crypto community for quite some time. The Bitcoin Cash (or as Roger Ver loves to call it, “B-Cash”) fork was a direct result of ... Now the time of the block in the Bitcoin network is 10 minutes. After 85% of the capacity is gone, the block's time will be just over one hour. Transactions will be slower and the commission will ...