Bitcoin System App: Erfahrungen, Test & was aus 300€ wurde
Bitcoin System Official Site 2020 - BitcoinSystem.app
Comparisons of Bitcoin Cryptosystem with Other Common ...
Blockchain Cryptography - History Cryptosystem - DataFlair
Cryptography news and discussions
Cryptography is the art of creating mathematical assurances for who can do what with data, including but not limited to encryption of messages such that only the key-holder can read it. Cryptography lives at an intersection of math and computer science. This subreddit covers the theory and practice of modern and *strong* cryptography, and it is a technical subreddit focused on the algorithms and implementations of cryptography.
Drivechain RfD -- Follow Up | Paul Sztorc | Jun 10 2017
Paul Sztorc on Jun 10 2017: Hi everyone, It has been 3 weeks -- responses so far have been really helpful. People jumped right in, and identified unfinished or missing parts much faster than I thought they would (ie, ~two days). Very impressive. Currently, we are working on the sidechain side of blind merged mining. As you know, most of the Bitcoin cryptosystem is about finding the longest chain, and displaying information about this chain. CryptAxe is editing the sidechain code to handle reorganizations in a new way (an even bigger departure than Namecoin's, imho). I believe that I have responded to all the on-list objections that were raised. I will 1st summarize the on-list objections, and 2nd summarize the off-list discussion (focusing on three key themes). On-List Objection Summary In general, they were:
Peter complained about the resources required for the BMM 'crisis
audit', I pointed out that it is actually optional (and, therefore, free), and that it doesn't affect miners relative to each other, and that it can be done in an ultra-cheap semi-trusted way with high reliability.
Peter also asked about miner incentives, I replied that it is profit
maximizing to BMM sidechains, because the equation (Tx Fees - Zero Cost) is always positive.
ZmnSCPxj asked a long series of clarifying questions, and I responded.
Tier Nolan complained about my equivocation of the "Bitcoin: no block
subsidy" case and the "sidechain" case. He cites the asymmetry I point out below (in #2). I replied, and I give an answer below.
ZmnSCPxj pointed out an error in our OP Code (that we will fix).
ZmnSCPxj also asked a number of new questions, I responded. Then he
responded again, in general he seemed to raise many of the points addressed in #1 (below).
ZmnSCPxj wanted reorg proofs, to punish reorgers, but I pointed out
that if 51% can reorg, they can also filter out the reorg proof. We are at their mercy in all cases (for better or worse).
ZmnSCPxj also brought up the fact that a block size limit is necessary
for a fee market, I pointed out that this limit does not need to be imposed on miners by nodes...miners would be willing-and-able to self-impose such a limit, as it maximizes their revenues.
ZmnSCPxj also protested the need to soft fork in each individual
sidechain, I pointed out my strong disagreement ("Unrestrained smart contract execution will be the death of most of the interesting applications...[could] destabilize Bitcoin itself") and introduced my prion metaphor.
ZmnSCPxj and Tier Nolan both identified the problem solved by our
'ratchet' concept. I explained it to ZmnSCPxj in my reply. We had not coded it at the time, but there is code for it now . Tier proposed a rachet design, but I think ours is better (Tier did not find ours at all, because it is buried in obscure notes, because I didn't think anyone would make it this far so quickly).
Tier also advised us on how to fix the problem that ZmnSCPxj had
identified with our NOP earlier.
Tier also had a number of suggestions about the real-time negotiation
of the OP Bribe amount between nodes and miners. I'm afraid I mostly ignored these for now, as we aren't there yet.
Peter complained that ACKing the sidechain could be exploited for
political reasons, and I responded that in such a case, miners are free to simply avoid ACKing, or to acquiesce to political pressure. Neither affect the mainchain.
Peter complained that sidechains might provide some miners with the
opportunity to create a pretext to kick other miners off the network. I replied that it would not, and I also brought up the fact that my Bitcoin security model was indifferent to which people happened to be mining at any given time. I continue to believe that "mining centralization" does not have a useful definition.
Peter questioned whether or not sidechains would be useful. I stated
my belief that they would be useful, and linked to my site (drivechain.info/projects) which contains a number of sidechain use-cases, and cited my personal anecdotal experiences.
Peter wanted to involve miners "as little as possible", I pointed out
that I felt that I had indeed done this minimization. My view is that Peter felt erroneously that it was possible to involve miners less, because he neglected  that a 51% miner group is already involved maximally, as they can create most messages and filter any message, and  that there are cases where we need miners to filter out harmful interactions among multiple chains (just as they filter out harmful interactions among multiple txns [ie, "double spends"]). Peter has not yet responded to this rebuttal.
Peter also suggested client-side validation as "safer", and I pointed
out that sidechains+BMM is client-side validation. I asked Peter for CS-V code, so that we can compare the safety and other features.
Sergio reminded us of his version of drivechain. Sergio and I disagree
over the emphasis on frequency/speed of withdrawals. Also Sergio emphasizes a hybrid model, which does not interest me. If I missed any objections, I hope someone will point them out. Off-List / Three Points of Ongoing Confusion Off list, I have repeated the a similar conversation perhaps 6-10 times over the past week. There is a cluster of remaining objections which centers around three topics -- speed, theft, and antifragility. I will reply here, and add the answers to my FAQ (drivechain.info/faq).
This objection is voiced after I point out that side-to-main transfers ("withdrawals") will probably take a long time, for example 5 months each ( these are customizable parameters, and open for debate -- but if withdrawals are every x=3 months, and only x=1 withdrawal can make forward progress [on the mainchain] at a time, and only x=1 prospective withdrawal can be assembled [by the sidechain] at a time, then we can expect total withdrawal time to average 4.5 months [(.5)*3+3] ). The response is something like "won't such a system be too slow, and therefore unusable?". Imho, replies of this kind disregard the effect of atomic cross-chain swaps, which are instant. ( In addition, while side-to-main transfers are slow, main-to-side transfers are quite fast, x~=10 confirmations. I would go as far as to say that, just as the Lightning Network is enabled by SegWit and CSV, Drivechain is enabled by the atomic swaps and of Counterparty-like embedded consensus. ) Thanks to atomic swaps, someone can act as an investment banker or custodian, and purchase side:BTC at a (tiny, competitive discount) and then transfer those side-to-main at a minimal inconvenience (comparable to that of someone who buys a bank CD). Through market activities, the entire system becomes exactly as patient as its most-patient members. As icing on the cake, people who aren't planning on using their BTC anytime soon (ie "the patient") can even get a tiny investment yield, in return for providing this service.
This objection usually says something like "Aren't you worried that 51% [hashrate] will steal the coins, given that mining is so centralized these days?" The logic of drivechain is to take a known fact -- that miners do not steal from exchanges (by coordinating to doublespend deposits to those exchanges) -- and generalize it to a new situation -- that [hopefully] miners will not steal from sidechains (by coordinating to make 'invalid' withdrawals from them). My generalization is slightly problematic, because "a large mainchain reorg today" would hit the entire Bitcoin system and de-confirm all of the network's transactions, whereas a sidechain-theft would hit only a small portion of the system. This asymmetry is a problem because of the 1:1 peg, which is explicitly symmetrical -- the thief makes off coins that are worth just as much as those coins that he did not attack. The side:BTC are therefore relatively more vulnerable to theft, which harms the generalization. As I've just explained, to correct this relative deficiency, we add extra inconvenience for any sidechain thievery, which is in this case the long long withdrawal time of several months. (Which is also the main distinction between DC and extension blocks). I cannot realistically imagine an erroneous withdrawal persisting for several weeks, let alone several months. First, over a timeframe of this duration, there can be no pretense of 'we made an innocent mistake', nor one that 'it is too inconvenient for us to fix this problem'. This requires the attacker to be part of an explicitly malicious conspiracy. Even in the conspiring case, I do not understand how miners would coordinate the distribution of the eventual "theft" payout, ~3 months from now -- if new hashrate comes online between now and then, does it get a portion? -- if today's hashrate closes down, does it get a reduced portion? -- who decides? I don't think that an algorithm can decide (without creating a new mechanism, which -I believe- would have to be powered by ongoing sustainable theft [which is impossible]), because the withdrawal (ie the "theft") has to be initiated, with a known destination, before it accumulates 3 months worth of acknowledgement. Even if hashrate were controlled exclusively by one person, such a theft would obliterate the sidechain-tx-fee revenue from all sidechains, for a start. It would also greatly reduce the market price of [mainchain] BTC, I feel, as it ends the sidechain experiment more-or-less permanently. And even that di...[message truncated here by reddit bot]... original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/014559.html
That’s because Bitcoin - which, properly, is shorthand for consumer-friendly P2P cryptosystems - is the Internet in… https://t.co/yXcmhYjyek - Crypto Insider Info - Whales's
Posted at: August 25, 2018 at 08:22PM By: That’s because Bitcoin - which, properly, is shorthand for consumer-friendly P2P cryptosystems - is the Internet in… https://t.co/yXcmhYjyek Automate your Trading via Crypto Bot : https://ift.tt/2EU8PEX Join Telegram Channel for FREE Crypto Bot: Crypto Signal
Volkswagen / Bringing #blockchain systems to the road: We’re working full steam ahead on making super-safe #cryptosystems available to our customers. For filling the tank, unlocking your car – and all kinds of other possibilities: #bitcoin #ethereum #iota
Security/privacy researcher here. Time for a nitpicking post! I just watched last episode and, while I did not watch the show for its technical accuracy (after all, the whole show is based on the idea that Richard breaks a fundamental limit on compression), I felt particularly aghast as to how their discovery is treated. First of all, I'm going to reassure you: an IA suddenly learning by itself to handle new tasks is extremely far from the state of art. Current "IAs" are task-specific and will always run within the limits of the (simple) system they've been built for. But that's not the problematic part. Apparently, their IA learns to solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time. As depicted by the show, that is a HUGE deal. But the rest of the depiction is wrong. Let's sum up. They basically learn that:
2. they have a proof of it
3. this proof is a working implementation
And their conclusion is that this is a bad thing and that they should hide it because it would "be the end of privacy". It's a bit more complicated than that. They just reached a huge milestone on theoretical CS which have deep implications. The fact that it breaks all current implementations of cryptography is not a problem in itself. In fact, if they manage to proof that modern cryptography is based on a false premise (and I wouldn't like to scare you, but in reality, we actually don't know whether this premise is true or not), the problem is not the proof. No, they did not "build a monster". They proved that cryptography is built on quicksands. Hiding the truth won't change that, because it will eventually come out anyway. Instead, an ethical way to handle this situation would be to working on fixing this problem. Their release being shipped does not mean that anyone will notice that their system breaks ciphers on-the-fly. Richard had to dig into the system's logs, which nobody outside the company has access to, to notice and understand what was happening. In fact, it could take years before anyone notices. Cryptosystems handling the problem of a sudden computational power breaking ciphers in polynomial time do exist, e.g. quantum cryptography. They may still be experimental, but hey, Pied Piper now has a huge load of money, and they have time to work on the issue since they're the only ones to know about it, so spending the company's money to move to a new form of cryptography would be the most ethical way to handle this situation. But instead of that, they just bury their heads in the sand. Ironically, it is hinted that 3 of them work for the NSA, which is pretty much the least ethical thing to do with this knowledge, especially if your concern is privacy. Moreover, having a working implementation of solving a NP-hard problem in polynomial time would be a huge deal outside of cryptography! I can't even start to imagine the implications on different fields of science (climate modeling, chemistry, biology...). Hell, they could even take down the Bitcoin blockchain, ending the ecological disaster that it is. But maybe helping to model climate change or help develop new medicines does not satisfy their moral stances? (edited for formatting) (edit 2: I got the title wrong. What does not make sense is the characters' reaction more than the technical accuracy)
06-17 07:46 - 'Jesus H Christ you are a blithering idiot who understands nothing of mission critical engineering, the zero-tolerance for error of cryptosystems, or systemic risk. Did we not learn anything from the GFC of how fucked up fina...' by /u/SkyMarshal removed from /r/Bitcoin within 50-55min
''' Jesus H Christ you are a blithering idiot who understands nothing of mission critical engineering, the zero-tolerance for error of cryptosystems, or systemic risk. Did we not learn anything from the GFC of how fucked up financial systems can get when mismanaged. Do you not see that is also the most important consideration in cryptocurrency engineering? Make stupid blocksize increases, see the whole thing come crashing down a few years later, why can't you people grasp that. And most users don't understand the tradeoffs and don't know what the fuck they want until you show them anyway, they can be safely ignored. Core has far deeper insights on the matter than anyone else, having actually built the damn thing. Go back to your Classic playpen shilling for startups whose business models depend on no fees and let the adults in Core change the world please. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: SkyMarshal
The cryptosphere will tank if Biden is elected. Here is why.
Anyone that has been involved with the stock market for more than a few years, will know that certain assets or commodities will, at times, track the stock markets. Oil tracked the markets for years, precious metals have tracked the markets recently, and right now, bitcoin is tracking the markets. And because bitcoin is tracking the markets, altcoins are following bitcoin. I'm not saying ALL altcoins, but in general, all of the cryptosystem is tracking the US stock markets. Trump has pumped US markets to higher and higher levels, and will continue to pump markets if re-elected. With the money printer going BRrrrrrr, equities and real estate will climb higher and higher (which makes the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer). However, Biden wants to tax all stock market transactions which will literally drain your portfolios as the government steals more and more of YOUR MONEY, all in the name of taxes are good and evil wall street is bad, and whatever narrative they want to exhaust that month. Biden is a lifelong politician that hasn't done SHIT for the average American. Trump hasn't done much either, AFAIK, but has also had some stiff resistance.
ABCMint is a quantum resistant cryptocurrency with the Rainbow Multivariable Polynomial Signature Scheme.
Good day, the price is going up to 0.3USDT. ABCMint Second Foundation ABCMint has been a first third-party organization that focuses on post-quantum cryptography research and technology and aims to help improve the ecology of ABCMint technology since 2018. https://abcmintsf.com https://abcmintsf.com/exchange What is ABCMint? ABCMint is a quantum resistant cryptocurrency with the Rainbow Multivariable Polynomial Signature Scheme. Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology have attracted a significant amount of attention since 2009. While some cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, are used extensively in the world, these cryptocurrencies will eventually become obsolete and be replaced when the quantum computers avail. For instance, Bitcoin uses the elliptic curved signature (ECDSA). If a bitcoin user?s public key is exposed to the public chain, the quantum computers will be able to quickly reverse-engineer the private key in a short period of time. It means that should an attacker decide to use a quantum computer to decrypt ECDSA, he/she will be able to use the bitcoin in the wallet. The ABCMint Foundation has improved the structure of the special coin core to resist quantum computers, using the Rainbow Multivariable Polynomial Signature Scheme, which is quantum resisitant, as the core. This is a fundamental solution to the major threat to digital money posed by future quantum computers. In addition, the ABCMint Foundation has implemented a new form of proof of arithmetic (mining) "ABCardO" which is different from Bitcoin?s arbitrary mining. This algorithm is believed to be beneficial to the development of the mathematical field of multivariate. Rainbow Signature - the quantum resistant signature based on Multivariable Polynomial Signature Scheme Unbalanced Oil and Vinegar (UOV) is a multi-disciplinary team of experts in the field of oil and vinegar. One of the oldest and most well researched signature schemes in the field of variable cryptography. It was designed by J. Patarin in 1997 and has withstood more than two decades of cryptanalysis. The UOV scheme is a very simple, smalls and fast signature. However, the main drawback of UOV is the large public key, which will not be conducive to the development of block practice technology.
The rainbow signature is an improvement on the oil and vinegar signature which increased the efficiency of unbalanced oil and vinegar. The basic concept is a multi-layered structure and generalization of oil and vinegar. PQC - Post Quantum Cryptography The public key cryptosystem was a breakthrough in modern cryptography in the late 1970s. It has become an increasingly important part of our cryptography communications network over The Internet and other communication systems rely heavily on the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, RSA encryption, and the use of the DSA, ECDSA or related algorithms for numerical signatures. The security of these cryptosystems depends on the difficulty level of number theory problems such as integer decomposition and discrete logarithm problems. In 1994, Peter Shor demonstrated that quantum computers can solve all these problems in polynomial time, which made this security issue related to the cryptosystems theory irrelevant. This development is known as the "post-quantum cryptography" (PQC) In August 2015, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) released an announcement regarding its plans to transition to quantum-resistant algorithms. In December 2016, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced a call for proposals for quantum-resistant algorithms. The deadline was November 30, 2017, which also included the rainbow signatures used for ABCMint.
The ‘Trilemma’ of Blockchain space - Scalability, Security, and Decentralization - are the three things every blockchain is trying to solve simultaneously. But it’s easier said than done, as proven by the scalability issue faced by Ethereum. Higher scalability transcends to higher market adoption. This is where Cardano and Algorand have come into the picture. They have their similarities and differences that seem to work for them for now. Rather than telling you which one has more potential, it’s better to present the entire case and let you decide how they fare against each other.
Star Player of the Team
Anyone would agree that having a renowned and accomplished team player always gives a boost to the project.
Cardano’s Charles Hoskinson
If the name seems familiar, that’s because he is also the co-founder of Ethereum. A tech entrepreneur and mathematician with an interest in analytic number theory, Charles Hoskinson moved into blockchain space in 2013. He co-developed the Ethereum blockchain with Vitalik Buterin before leaving the project in June 2014. Hoskinson joined crypto and blockchain research firm IOHK to develop Cardano and since then has sponsored various blockchain research labs at the Tokyo Institute of Technology and the University of Edinburgh. He also founded Invictus Innovations. Hoskinson was the founding chairman of the education committee of the Bitcoin Foundation and established the Cryptocurrency Research Group in 2013. His current focus lies in educating people on the use of crypto and decentralization.
Algorand’s Silvio Micali
Unlike the innovators of other blockchain projects, Silvio Micali is already a famous name in cryptography long before he started developing Algorand. Deemed as one of the top cryptographers, he is a recipient of the prestigious Turing Award in 2012 and RSA prize for cryptography, Gödel Prize (theoretical computer science) in 1993, and ACM fellowship in 2017. Micali’s work spans around public-key cryptosystems, pseudorandom functions, digital signatures, oblivious transfer, and secure multi-party computation among others. In 1989, he co-invented Zero-Knowledge Proofs with Shafi Goldwasser and Charles Rackoff. He also developed Peppercoin, a cryptographic system for processing micropayments. A professor at MIT’s electrical engineering and computer science department since 1983, Silvio Micali is also working as a computer scientist at MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. His doctoral students include Shai Halevi, Mihir Bellare, Rafail Ostrovsky, Bonnie Berger, Rafael Pass, Chris Peikert, and Phillip Rogaway - each renowned in their respective fields.
Project Partners and Collaborators
For any business, partnerships and collaborations are the most important aspect since they drive growth and innovation.
Cardano has formed 17 partnerships so far that either enhance its capabilities or grow its business.
Metaps Plus: To integrate the ADA coins into the MeTaps Plus, South Korea’s one of the largest mobile payment platforms.
IBM Research: For a software distribution project commissioned by the European Union.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC): To develop a new commercial strategy, probably to bring enterprise users to Cardano.
New Balance: All customers can authenticate the footwear purchases on the Cardano blockchain.
SIRIN LABS: To integrate the Cardano blockchain in their blockchain smartphone FINNEY and its SIRIN OS.
Konfidio: To drive the adoption of the blockchain business model platform among corporations and governments.
Algoz: To offer liquidity solutions and trading solutions for its native ADA token.
Priviledge: To study and publish decentralized software updates Priviledge is a consortium of renowned companies and scientific universities with the European Union.
South Korea Government-Approved Trade Associations:Signed two MoUs with Korea Mobile Game Association (KMGA) and Korea Blockchain Contents Association (KBCCA) to implement Cardano for Korean mobile gaming and digital content.
Ethiopian Government: To develop a new digital payment system and combine it with identity cards using its Atala blockchain framework.
Georgian Government: Signed MoU to implement Cardano blockchain-enabled projects across education, business, and government services.
Cardano’s other major partnership includes Z/Yen Group’s Distributed Futures practice, COTI Network, and Ellipal Hardware.
Algorand’s innovativeness and potential to be the blockchain leader has helped it bag a plethora of valuable partnerships across the world. Here are a few partnerships out of the 17 -
International Blockchain Monetary Reserve (IBMR): To launch the Southeast Asia Microfinance Platform and create a stablecoin called Asia Reserve Currency Coin (ARCC) to encourage financial inclusion in Southeast Asia.
SFB Technologies: To build the infrastructure to create a CBDC (central bank digital currency) dubbed ‘SOV’ for the Marshall Islands.
Meld: To tokenize gold and track it over the supply chain using stablecoin for the Australian gold industry.
Caratan: To build financial tools and products to promote Fintech adoption at an institutional level.
Italian Society of Authors and Publishers (SIAE): To develop copyright management tools and services.
DUST Identity: To authenticate physical objects and validate transactions over the blockchain.
AssetBlock: A real estate startup launched its tokenized property investment platform on Algorand
PlanetWatch: Focused on environmental monitoring, the first "CERN Spin-off " labeled organization is building the world's first immutable air quality ledger on the Algorand blockchain using IoT technologies.
Other major partnerships include World Chess - the commercial arm of the World Chess Federation, Big Data company Syncsort, and Tether.
Both Cardano and Algorand use PoS or Proof of Stake consensus mechanism at their heart, but that’s where the similarity ends. Each of them has its own spin to it. In the PoS mechanism, a person can validate a block depending on how many stakes or coins he holds. The stake quantity determines the amount of mining power one has. So how does each of them differ?
Cardano’s version is called Ouroboros PoS.
Cardano allows stakeholders to pool their resources together in a single ‘stake pool’, thus delegating their stakes to the pool. This is because every elected stakeholder may not have the expertise to create blocks.
The physical timeline is divided into small blocks called ‘epochs’ that are made up of fixed slots. These epochs are cyclic.
Each such epoch consists of a set of pooled stakeholders.
While the endorsers are elected depending on the weight of the number of stakes held by them, a slot leader (for every epoch) is randomly chosen by a digital coin toss among stakeholders. When the endorsers approve the blocks produced by slot leaders, it gets added to the blockchain.
The slot leader also selects the slot leader for the next epoch through the ‘coin toss’.
Note that having a higher stake increases the probability of getting elected.
Currently, the list of validators is fixed and the succession is known beforehand.
With the launch of the Shelley mainnet, Cardano plans to remove the above issue. But this will be a hard fork. Here, the community will decide on block validators through staking.
The version Algorand uses is called PPoS (Pure Proof of Stake) consensus mechanism.
PPoS randomly selects a token holder as a block producer.
The proposed block gets approved by a committee of 1000 randomly selected token owners and then added to the blockchain.
The algorithm runs a cryptographically verifiable lucky draw over all the accounts to randomly select committee members as well as the block proposer.
This means the identities of the participants are unknown until the blocks are added to the chain.
This selection does not depend on the stake size of the nodes at all.
PPoS runs this lottery process in complete isolation with other nodes in the network.
The completely randomized election and secret identities of the committee members drastically reduce the chances of any foul playing within the network. As the number of users grows, the network gets stronger and more secure. Algorand’s PPoS has embraced a more egalitarian ecosystem to negate the wealth gap present in traditional PoS.
Currently, Cardano offers 50-250 TPS. But with incorporating sharding technology in its Ouroboros Hydra version, the scalability can increase to one million TPS theoretically. The processing speed will increase as more users or nodes join the network.
In Algorand, every lottery takes just a microsecond to run. Since such lotteries run independently of each other, multiple lotteries can run simultaneously. This inherently makes PPoS highly scalable. The mainnet itself has the capability to handle 1000 TPS.
Both Cardano and Algorand have sound tech and teams that believe in extensive research and meticulously designed products. Having an early start, there’s no denying that Cardano has established itself in a superior position thanks to the technological achievement, consistency, and transparency it has showcased. But with Algorand’s ecosystem growing fast, the competition has intensified. Algorand’s aim to bring full transparency, technological innovation, and successful partnerships just within a year have made it a prime challenger to Cardano. While referring to Algorand, Cardano chief Hoskinson voiced similar opinion - “... they are another one of the science coins and we all kind of support each other. Even though we get academically competitive, we're able to reference each other's work and learn from each other and grow from each other.”
The Research States That Crypto Custodians Are Not Entirely Disintermediated And Hold Legal Risks Since its start in 2008, the crypto sector drew the attention of almost everyone in the financial industry – from crypto enthusiasts to legislators. In the context of research on digital assets, conducted as a collaboration between Leiden Law School and Oxford University, Prof. Dr. Matthias Haentjens, Dr. Tycho de Graaf & Ilya Kokorin LLM published a 42-page document. The research paper examines the possible risks behind crypto customers’ involvement with crypto custodians. The researchers noted that in recent years several crypto exchanges shut down operations, including Cryptopia (New Zealand), BitGrail (Italy), and QuadrigaCX (Canada). The team at Leiden Law School also analyzed the legal standpoint behind crypto custodians’ insolvency, like the ownership of Bitcoin, as well as the mechanisms behind transferring ownership, if such exists. Prof. Dr. Matthias Haentjens and his colleagues found out that a large portion of all Bitcoin in circulation is held by crypto custodians, which means the cryptosystem is not entirely disintermediated. Despite offering free-of-charge entry, crypto exchanges often store Bitcoin in a pool, rather than a segregated address. The pooling creates difficulties in tracing the exact path of a given Bitcoin, as well as not clarifying whether the funds are used by someone else. However, the team proposes the prohibition or limitation of such Bitcoin re-usage by eliminating the use of pooled Bitcoin addresses and use of segregated addresses. From a legal standpoint, there is no big difference in the way a crypto custodian stores Bitcoin, whether in pooled or in segregated addresses. Segregated crypto addresses mean the crypto custodian allocates unique wallet addresses and private keys for each user. The lawyers considered that from a property law perspective, Bitcoin ownership can be qualified either absolute or contract-related. The absolute ownership is often referred to as a physical Bitcoin carrier. However, the team proposes the prohibition or limitation of such Bitcoin re-usage. The researchers concluded that it’s hard from a legal point of view for users to put claims for revendication in case of crypto custodian insolvency. However, in the cases of MtGox and BitGrail, such claims were referred to as pari passu with other unsecured claims, as the courts ruled that Bitcoin can’t bear signs of ownership.
I have 3,000 solar powered Artik 710’s (Mali GPU), can I cloud mine
Title says it all. I have 3,000 Samsung Artik 700’s that are solar powered (large panel grids) that I pay zero to power all day. Can I set these up as miners with slushpool and mine some bitcoin over the next 3 years? I was thinking cgminer for my mining application. 8x ARM® Cortex®[email protected] 3D graphics accelerator 1GB DDR3 @ 800MHz 4GB eMMC Edit: I said cloud mine. Someone already made fun of me. It’s Pool mining. Cryptographic Hardware Acceleration: Dedicated cryptographic acceleration hardware which provides support for random number generation, block cipher (AES/DES), Hash functions (SHA[1/2/3] with HMAC), and public key cryptosystem (RSA, ECDSA, DH, ECDH)
Greetings! 🤗 In this post, we will tell you about the advantages of the Stellar blockchain that is used in the OKSCHAIN project. 📌 OKSCHAIN is a decentralized financial ecosystem for a wide range of participants. Ecosystem partners use it to store digital assets, pay for goods and services, receive payments, use the service for exchanging digital assets and #P2P lending, and also invest in startups. 📌 The OKSCHAIN project will create a financial ecosystem that will bring together millions of users. To create this ecosystem, a blockchain infrastructure is required that is able to conduct a large number of transactions with high speed and low commission fees. #OKSCHAIN developers have chosen the Stellar blockchain operating on the SCP protocol for this task. Fork Stellar will be used to create the OKSCHAIN payment system and the blockchain infrastructure and ecosystem. 📌 Each user of the #Stellar crypto network can independently launch a node (transaction verification node) and select trusted nodes with which he is ready to cooperate. Together they form a “faction,” which, having gained a certain number of members, can become a “parliamentary majority” that controls the security of the system. The program code includes complete freezing of the stellar blockchain with inadequate behavior of the nodes. 📌 Thanks to the Stellar blockchain in the cryptosystem, you can perform cross-currency transfers. For example, when sending money to another country, you can buy cryptocurrency for euros or dollars from a credit card, and the addressee will receive it on his card in local or international currency. 📌 The main advantage of the Stellar blockchain is its high transaction processing speed, unlike bitcoin, in the Stellar system, the transfer is sent directly to the validator. Money is credited to the beneficiary's account 5 seconds after making the payment; Low power consumption and lack of mining, thanks to the implementation of the Stellar Consensus Protocol, the process of verifying transactions in the Stellar network is more energy efficient. ⚡️ Use the full potential of the OKSCHAIN platform! 🔔 Follow us on social media not to miss new posts! Find out more about the project HERE: https://okschain.com/en/ https://preview.redd.it/yh6pb76eqsx41.png?width=1201&format=png&auto=webp&s=0fd5efafe2e79d2d9f3b238f2d1f3c41bc2184dc
Bitcoin disrupted the traditional trusted third party structure in finance, challenging the need for trusted institutions like banks. Instead, it introduced decentralized transfers by distributing the process of validating transactions across the network’s participants. Furthermore, it ignored regulation and institutional control over monetary policy while embracing anonymity. Recent cryptocurrencies like Zcash and Monero have adopted this mantle, while conversely, Ripple and R3 CEV have focused on the needs of regulators. If Blockchain is to transform regulated industries such as finance, tools for regulatory integration must be created. At the same time, individual rights to privacy in financial transactions must still be protected, as Bitcoin allows. Celare solves this seeming contradiction through its innovative multi-layer architecture and has finally developed a cross-chain solution to the security and privacy of chain assets — Celare.
Celare Privacy Solution
Compared with the existing Blockchain privacy protection technology, Celare not only realizes the privacy protection of account information and transaction but also achieves the privacy protection of Turing’s complete smart contract input and output. The cryptographic algorithm used by Celare is the discrete logarithmic encryption and elliptic curve encryption, which are commonly used in modern public-key cryptosystems. Besides, Celare uses a non-interactive zk-SNARKs zero-knowledge proof system to completely address the issue of transactions being traced to expose user privacy. https://preview.redd.it/n22s4d7smhv41.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a9ef80b9747ea6ed8c0c75dbd68c67ee3a9fe69 zk-SNARKs is an encryption method based on purely mathematical theory. It is the same as the nature of Blockchain. The advantage of this method is that it does not need to rely on the external operating environment to be self-contained, so it has a wide range of application scenarios. It is worth noting that Celare chose a BLS12–381 curve with a higher safety level when specifically selecting the zk-SNARK zero-knowledge proof curve. According to the description in https://electriccoin.co/blog/new-snark-curve/, the BN128 curve is conservatively estimated, and the safety factor that can be achieved is only 110-bit, which is not the 128-bit security previously mentioned. To achieve 128-bit security, q≈2384 is required, and the order r-value of the corresponding BN curve will be increased to 2384. The increase of r value will affect the performance of multi-exponentiation, FFT, etc., thus changing the execution efficiency of zk- SNARKs, and secure multiparty computing also affects the unnecessary increase of key files. The BLS12–381 curve is a more cost-effective solution. https://preview.redd.it/i40k57mwmhv41.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aecdbe8545785ccb4e0edc9df587cd84f881c4db
Celare cross-chain smart contracts
Celare’s asset cross-chain logic is that the user locks the asset in the original chain and then issues the mapped asset on the target chain. At the same time, the user can apply for cash withdrawal in the target chain and finally unlock the original chain. You can understand that assets do not disappear in the original chain, but instead are kept by decentralized node protocols, or managed by a single individual or multi-person. The asset cross-chain mapping here uses the node relay mode. The node relay mode is an efficient and secure decentralized cross-chain mapping solution. The security of the cross-chain mapping is guaranteed by the original chain consensus algorithm and is the highest level of security. If the original chain cannot integrate the nodes of the target chain, then the original chain assets can only be managed by an individual or multiple signed address. If so, the target chain is hosted by the node protocol on the original chain. Celare supports high-level languages based on Web Assembly (WASM) compatibility, from C, C++ to Rust, which further enhances system performance. In contrast, EVM compatibility is provided in Celare systems (described in subsequent stacks) ), then all cross-chain assets also have EVM contract functionality. This has dramatically increased the scalability and expressiveness of Celare. https://preview.redd.it/knosekuymhv41.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efd0ed27db1c3c87a5673964305c2eb8f8e91306
Celare’s extensible scenarios
Developers can build a complete financial stack, designing ingenious applications to stimulate a new decentralized economy. Smart contracts are one of the essential technical foundations of value Internet networks. Still, the current frustrating situation is that the Blockchain systems currently running around the world do not support encryption protection for smart contracts, and the existing privacy protection mechanisms are used significantly reduced by the influence of this technical limitation. However, the emergence of Celare has broken this restriction, not only with privacy and cross-chain capabilities but also supports smart contract development on the chain. Starting with the Celare system, the issuance, and control of anonymous assets will no longer be exclusive to a few geeks who have in-depth knowledge of cryptography. Ordinary developers can issue their assets on the Celare chain as long as they have relevant business needs. Anonymous assets, establish their privacy ecology, which significantly expands the scope of application of Blockchain privacy protection technologies. https://preview.redd.it/y5pm51e1nhv41.jpg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b52fca218da30478354463ecfd5d53804ba44aae The Celare Project is a truly collaborative effort at an exciting stage of its development. With the future launch of the settlement layer, the world will be able to participate in the Celare platform. Celare will create a new world of decentralized applications that protect privacy while allowing for cross-chain — built on a world-class, stable, and secure platform. As the Foundation, we are excited to work with governments, enterprises, and individuals to share how this technology can be used. Contact Us: Twitter: @CelareCommunity Telegram：t.me/celarecommunity_en Reddit：u/Celarecommunity GitHub：Celaregithub
Technical: Upcoming Improvements to Lightning Network
Price? Who gives a shit about price when Lightning Network development is a lot more interesting????? One thing about LN is that because there's no need for consensus before implementing things, figuring out the status of things is quite a bit more difficult than on Bitcoin. In one hand it lets larger groups of people work on improving LN faster without having to coordinate so much. On the other hand it leads to some fragmentation of the LN space, with compatibility problems occasionally coming up. The below is just a smattering sample of LN stuff I personally find interesting. There's a bunch of other stuff, like splice and dual-funding, that I won't cover --- post is long enough as-is, and besides, some of the below aren't as well-known. Anyway.....
Yeah the exciting new Lightning Network channel update protocol!
Solves "toxic waste" problem. In the current Poon-Dryja update protocol, old state ("waste") is dangerous ("toxic") because if your old state is acquired by your most hated enemy, they can use that old state to publish a stale unilateral close transaction, which your counterparty must treat as a theft attempt and punish you, causing you to lose funds. With Decker-Russell-Osuntokun old state is not revoked, but is instead gainsaid by later state: instead of actively punishing old state, it simply replaces the old state with a later state.
Allows multiple participants in the update protocol. This can be used as the update protocol for a channel factory with 3 or more participants, for example (channels are not practical for multiple participants since the loss of any one participants makes the channel completely unuseable; it's more sensible to have a multiple-participant factory that splits up into 2-participant channels). Poon-Dryja only supports two participants. Another update protocol, Decker-Wattenhofer, also supports multiple participants, but requires much larger locktimes in case of a unilateral close (measurable in weeks, whereas Poon-Dryja and Decker-Russell-Osuntokun can be measured in hours or days).
It uses nLockTime in a very clever way.
No, it does not solve the "watchtower needed" problem. Decker-Russell-Osuntokun still requires watchtowers if you're planning to be offline for a long time.
What might be confused is that it was initially thought that watchtowers under Decker-Russell-Osuntokun could be made more efficient by having the channel participant update a single "slot" in the watchtower, rather than having to consume one "slot" per update in Poon-Dryja. However, the existence of the "poisoned blob" attack by ZmnSCPxj means that having a replaceable "slot" is risky if the other participant of the channel can spoof you. And the safest way to prevent spoofing somebody is to identify that somebody --- but now that means the watchtower can surveill the activities of somebody it has identified, losing privacy.
Requires base layer change --- SIGHASH_NOINPUT / SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT. This is still being worked out and may potentially not reach Bitcoin anytime soon.
Determining costs of routes is somewhat harder, and may complicate routefinding algorithms. In particular: every channel today has a "CLTV Delta", a number of blocks by which the total maximum delay of the payment is increased. This maximum delay is the maximum amount of time by which an outgoing payment can be locked, and needs to be reduced for UX purposes. Decker-Russell-Osuntokun will also add a "CSV minimum", a number of blocks, which must be smaller than the delay of an HTLC going through the channel. Current routefinding algos are good at minimizing a summed-up cost (like the "CLTV Delta") so the "CSV minimum" may require discovering / developing new routefinding algos.
Due to the "CSV minimum" above, existing nodes that don't understand Decker-Russell-Osuntokun cannot reliably route over Decker-Russell-Osuntokun channels, as they might not impose this minimum properly.
Multipart payments / AMP
Splitting up large payments into smaller parts!
There are at least three variants of multipart payments: Original, Base, and High.
Original is the original AMP proposed by Lightning Labs. It sacrifices proof-of-payment in order to allow each path to have a different payment hash. This is done by having the payer use a derivation scheme to generate each part's payment preimage from a seed, then having the split the seed (using secret sharing) to each part. The receiver can only reconstruct the seed if all parts reach it.
Base simply uses the same payment hash for all routes. This retains proof-of-payment (i.e. an invoice is undeniably signed by the receiver, including a payment hash in the invoice; public knowledge of the payment preimage is proof that the receiver has in fact received money, and any third party can be convinced of this by being shown the signed invoice and the preimage). The receiver could just take one part of the payment and then claim to be underpaid by the payer and then deny service, but claiming any one part is enough to publish the payment preimage, creating a proof-of-payment: so the receiver can provably be made liable, even if it took just one part, thus the incentive of the receiver is to only take in the payment once all parts have arrived to it.
High requires elliptic curve points / scalars. It combines both Original and Base, retaining proof-of-payment (sacrificed by Original) and ensuring cryptographically-secure waiting for all parts (rather than the mere economically-incentivized of Base). This is done by using elliptic curve homomorphism to addition of scalars to add together the payer-provided preimage (really scalar) of Original with the payee-provided preimage (really scalar) of Base.
Better expected reliability. Channels are limited by capacity. By splitting up into many smaller payments, you can fit into more channels and be more likely to successfully reach the payee.
Capacity on mutiple of your channels can be used to pay. Currently if you have 0.05BTC on one channel and 0.05BTC on another channel, you can't pay 0.06BTC without first rebalancing your channels (and paying fees for the rebalance first, whether the payment succeeds or not). With multipart you can now combine the capacities of multiple of your channels, and only pay fees for combining them if the payment pushes through.
Wumbo payments (oversized payments) come "for free" without having to be explicitly supported by the nodes of the network: you just split up wumbo payments into parts smaller than the wumbo limit.
Multipart will have higher fees. Part of the feerate of each channel is a flat-rate fee. Going through multiple paths means paying more of this flat-rate fee.
It's not clear how to split up payments. Heuristics for payment splitting have to be derived and developed and tested.
Payment points / scalars
Using the magic of elliptic curve homomorphism for fun and Lightning Network profits! Basically, currently on Lightning an invoice has a payment hash, and the receiver reveals a payment preimage which, when inputted to SHA256, returns the given payment hash. Instead of using payment hashes and preimages, just replace them with payment points and scalars. An invoice will now contain a payment point, and the receiver reveals a payment scalar (private key) which, when multiplied with the standard generator point G on secp256k1, returns the given payment point. This is basically Scriptless Script usage on Lightning, instead of HTLCs we have Scriptless Script Pointlocked Timelocked Contracts (PTLCs).
Enables a shit-ton of improvements: payment decorrelation, stuckless payments, noncustodial escrow over Lightning (the Hodl Hodl Lightning escrow is custodial, read the fine print), High multipart.
It's the same coolness that makes Schnorr Signatures cool. ECDSA, despite being based on elliptic curves, is not cool because the hash-the-nonce operation needed to prevent it from infringing Schnorr's fatherfucking patent also prevents ECDSA from using the cool elliptic curve homomorphism of addition over scalars.
Requires Schnorr on Bitcoin layer.
Actually, we can work with 2p-ECDSA without waiting for Schnorr. We get back the nice elliptic curve homomorphism by passing the ECDSA nonce through another cryptosystem, Paillier. This gets us the ability to do Scriptless Script. I think it has only 80-bits security because of going through Paillier though.
Basically the conundrum is: we could implement 2p-ECDSA now, hope we never have to test the 80-bit security anytime soon, then switch to Schnorr with 128-bit security later (which means reimplementing a bunch of things, because the calculations are different and the data that needs to be exchanged between channel participants is very different between the 2p-ECDSA and Schnorr). Reimplementing is painful and is more dev work. If we don't implement with 2p-ECDSA now, though, we will be delaying all the nice elliptic curve goodness (stuckless, noncustodial escrow, payment decorrelation) until Bitcoin gets Schnorr.
Elliptic curve discrete log problem is theoretically quantum-vulnerable. If we can't find a qunatum-resistant homomorphic construction, we'll have to give up the advantages (payment decorrelation, stuckless payments, noncustodial escrow over Lightning) we got from using elliptic curve points and go back to boring old hashes.
Ensuring that payers cannot access data or other digital goods without proof of having paid the provider. In a nutshell: the payment preimage used as a proof-of-payment is the decryption key of the data. The provider gives the encrypted data, and issues an invoice. The buyer of the data then has to pay over Lightning in order to learn the decryption key, with the decryption key being the payment preimage.
Enables data providers to sell data. This could be sensors, livestreams, blogs, articles, whatever.
There's no scheme to determine if the data provider is providing actually-useful data. The data-provider could just stream https://random.org for example. This is a potentially-impossible problem. Even if the data-provider provides a "sample" of the data, and is able to derive some proof that the sample is indeed a true snippet of the encrypted data, the rest of the data outside of the sample might just be random junk.
No more payments getting stuck somewhere in the Lightning network without knowing whether the payee will ever get paid! (that's actually a bit overmuch claim, payments still can get stuck, but what "stuckless" really enables is that we can now safely run another parallel payment attempt until any one of the payment attempts get through). Basically, by using the ability to add points together, the payer can enforce that the payee can only claim the funds if it knows two pieces of information:
The payment scalar corresponding to the payment point in the invoice signed by the payee.
An "acknowledgment" scalar provided by the payer to the payee via another communication path.
This allows the payer to make multiple payment attempts in parallel, unlike the current situation where we must wait for an attempt to fail before trying another route. The payer only needs to ensure it generates different acknowledgment scalars for each payment attempt. Then, if at least one of the payment attempts reaches the payee, the payee can then acquire the acknowledgment scalar from the payer. Then the payee can acquire the payment. If the payee attempts to acquire multiple acknowledgment scalars for the same payment, the payer just gives out one and then tells the payee "LOL don't try to scam me", so the payee can only acquire a single acknowledgment scalar, meaning it can only claim a payment once; it can't claim multiple parallel payments.
Can safely run multiple parallel payment attempts as long as you have the funds to do so.
Needs payment point + scalar
Non-custodial escrow over Lightning
The "acknowledgment" scalar used in stuckless can be reused here. The acknowledgment scalar is derived as an ECDH shared secret between the payer and the escrow service. On arrival of payment to the payee, the payee queries the escrow to determine if the acknowledgment point is from a scalar that the escrow can derive using ECDH with the payer, plus a hash of the contract terms of the trade (for example, to transfer some goods in exchange for Lightning payment). Once the payee gets confirmation from the escrow that the acknowledgment scalar is known by the escrow, the payee performs the trade, then asks the payer to provide the acknowledgment scalar once the trade completes. If the payer refuses to give the acknowledgment scalar even though the payee has given over the goods to be traded, then the payee contacts the escrow again, reveals the contract terms text, and requests to be paid. If the escrow finds in favor of the payee (i.e. it determines the goods have arrived at the payer as per the contract text) then it gives the acknowledgment scalar to the payee.
True non-custodial escrow: the escrow service never holds any funds.
Needs payment point + scalar.
Because elliptic curve points can be added (unlike hashes), for every forwarding node, we an add a "blinding" point / scalar. This prevents multiple forwarding nodes from discovering that they have been on the same payment route. This is unlike the current payment hash + preimage, where the same hash is used along the route. In fact, the acknowledgment scalar we use in stuckless and escrow can simply be the sum of each blinding scalar used at each forwarding node.
Privacy! Multiple forwarding nodes cannot coordinate to try to uncover the payer and payee of each payment.
The family of public-key cryptosystems, a fundamental breakthrough in modern cryptography in the late 1970s, has increasingly become a part of our communication networks over the last three decades. The Internet and other communication systems rely principally on the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, RSA encryption, and digital signatures using DSA, ECDSA, or related algorithms. The security of these cryptosystems depends on the difficulty of number theory problems such as Integer Factorization and the Discrete Log Problem. In 1994, Peter Shor showed that quantum computers could solve each of these problems in polynomial time, thus rendering the security of all cryptosystems based on such assumptions impotent. In the academic world, this new science bears the moniker Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC). In August 2015, the National Security Agency (NSA) published an online announcement stating a plans to transition to quantum-resistant algorithms. In December 2016, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced a call for proposals of quantum resistant algorithms with a deadline of November 30th 2017. In light of the threat that quantum computers pose to cryptosystems such as RSA and ECC, the once-distant need to develop and deploy quantum-resistant technologies is quickly becoming a reality. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are new financial instruments which are created to make financial transactions more efficient, cheaper, and decentralized. Their fundamental building blocks are cryptographic algorithms such as ECC digital signatures which are used to perform various functions to ensure the integrity and security of the whole system. However, the use of ECC signatures and other similar cryptographic algorithms means that quantum computing could pose a fatal threat to the security of existing cryptocurrencies, which deploy number theory-based public key cryptosystems extensively. The mission of the ABCMint Foundation is to successfully develop quantum-resistant blockchain technology. We also look to promote and support fundamental research for quantum computing technology and post-quantum algorithms.
The major goal of cryptography is to prevent data from being read by any third party. Most transmission systems use a private-key cryptosystem and this system uses a secret key to encrypt and decrypt data which is shared between the sender and receiver. Learn more about the Hamdan Token. Click Here: www.hamdantoken.io #hamdantoken #cryptocurrency #bitcoin #blockchain #btc #crypto #price #ethereum #ico #ltc #trading #eth #market #money #forex #trading #bitcoinmining #cryptonews #investment #entrepreneur #cryptotrading #business #forextrader #investing #bitcoinnews #litecoin #invest #binaryoptions #bitcoincash #coinbase #bitcoins #ripple #investor #trader #binance https://preview.redd.it/s8f7yffu9ab41.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b72350b63d0255c6f58ffbb002d0fda1e0f9ea96
Bitcoin isn’t going away; this crypto is still so popular, and it’s the oldest of cryptocurrencies. You haven’t lost out on the opportunity to trade. With Bitcoin System, the possibilities are endless. If you want to trade online and don’t have experience, this software can help. Even if you do have years of trading under your belt, it’s much easier with Bitcoin System. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are new forms of capital that any person can use from anywhere on the planet. We are creating a new world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into ... 5. Cryptosystem. We typically use one or more cryptographic primitives to develop a lot of complicated algorithms, referred to as a cryptographic system, or cryptosystem. Cryptosystems designs to produce specific functionality whereas guaranteeing certain security properties. cryptosystem ACT, COIN, Crypto, cryptocurrency-mining, cryptocurrency-top-story, cryptosystem, environment-conservation, Mining, mining-solutions “L'exploitation minière des crypto-monnaies nuit-elle à l'environnement?” 03/01/2020 - Commentaires fermés sur L'exploitation minière des crypto-monnaies nuit-elle à l'environnement? [ad_1] Le processus d'exploration de données est vital ... Comparisons of Bitcoin Cryptosystem with Other Common Internet Transaction Systems by AHP Technique . By Davor Maček and Dino Alagić. Abstract. This paper describes proposed methodology for evaluation of critical systems and prioritization of critical risks and assets identified in highly secured information systems. For different types of information assets or security environments it is ...
Bitcoin Aussie System Review & Bitcoin Aussie Trader ...
Welcome to our Prestige Options portal, your source for online trading and money-making opportunities. Here you'll find various sources of information to lea... Join my Torque team HERE: https://bit.ly/38dUNMG Free Marketing System: https://bit.ly/2PJhq44 Crypto Hacks To Your Inbox: https://bit.ly/2XSM7bL Per... Dan Tapiero, co-founder of Gold Bullion International, has grown increasingly focused on the potential for crypto to reorganize the entire world. In this con... #bitcoin #freebitcoin #earnbitcoin By Far The BEST Bitcoin Miner In 2020 (Profitable). This is a review on the most profitable, easy, and time-saving Bitcoin... Регистрация https://bit.ly/31if1Bc ВНИМАНИЕ!!! ПРЕДСТАРТ НОВОГО ТОПОВОГО ПРОЕКТА #SYNHROS !!! ВХОД ВСЕГО 0.01 ETH Одним из ...