Saturday, May 30, 2020

Bitcoin HODLing: Proper method to maximize earnings? (current BTC/USD price is $9,583.23)

Latest Bitcoin News:

Bitcoin HODLing: Proper method to maximize earnings?

Other Related Bitcoin Topics:

Bitcoin Price | Bitcoin Mining | Blockchain


The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools.


Is now a good time to buy Bitcoins? (Insider Information?)

BITCOIN: BUY NOW VS DON'T BUY NOW

Being in the Blockchain industry for over 4 years now, the question I was asked the most was "Is now a good time to buy Bitcoins?"

I have been mining fiat currencies for some time now to buy bitcoins and add them to my bitcoin savings address. As a person with values in the technology itself, I may not be the most appropriate person to discuss the monetary value of Bitcoin with. However, if you think about it, who would really be the best person to ask whether the monetary value of Bitcoin is really hitting its lows. Would anyone be able to say "You should buy now" with confidence? This is a difficult question to answer because not only is recommending an investment a sensitive topic itself, but it is more because no one really knows when the best time to buy would be.

Bitcoin fluctuates more than any other currency or investment asset. Therefore, it is particularly sensitive to all the good and bad news.

AREN'T YOU A BITCOIN INSIDER?

As many people say "Information is Key" when setting trading strategies, it is very important to capture the most accurate information as fast as possible. Sometimes people reach out to insiders to acquire this information.

Some people that are Bitcoin newbies considered me as a "Bitcoin Insider" and actually asked for insider information. However, as many of you would know, there is no such thing as an "insider" in Bitcoin. Bitcoin's price moves only with external factors and it is affected by factors from all over the world.

Furthermore, it is practically impossible to know in real time what is happening in each region in the world. Thus it is extremely rare to know in advance all the reasons that will have influence on the price fluctuations and on top of that, many events occur simultaneously around the world.

CAREFUL RECOMMENDATION

If someone asks if now is a good time to buy Bitcoins, or if you are reading this article, and considering to buy Bitcoins, I would advise to day-trade Bitcoins. As mentioned earlier, Bitcoin has great price volatility and no one can predict the direction of the price movements. Therefore, before firmly establishing your own trading strategies, I recommend short-term trading and trading perpetual contracts that allows you to profit on both the rise and fall in prices via derivatives exchanges.


[Daily Discussion] Sunday, May 31, 2020

Thread topics include, but are not limited to:

  • General discussion related to the day's events
  • Technical analysis, trading ideas & strategies
  • Quick questions that do not warrant a separate post

Thread guidelines:

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • Do not make posts outside of the daily thread for the topics mentioned above.

Other ways to interact:


[Altcoin Discussion] Sunday, May 31, 2020

Thread topics include, but are not limited to:

  • Discussion related to recent events
  • Technical analysis, trading ideas & strategies
  • General questions about altcoins

Thread guidelines:

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • All regular rules for this subreddit apply, except for number 2. This, and only this, thread is exempt from the requirement that all discussion must relate to bitcoin trading.
  • This is for high quality discussion of altcoins. All shilling or obvious pumping/dumping behavior will result in an immediate one day ban. This is your only warning.
  • No discussion about specific ICOs. Established coins only.

If you're not sure what kind of discussion belongs in this thread, here are some example posts. News, TA, and sentiment analysis are great, too.

Other ways to interact:


JP MorganΓ’€”Bitcoins Biggest EnemyΓ’€”Suddenly Appears To Be Going All In On Crypto (current BTC/USD price is $9,661.16)

Latest Bitcoin News:

JP MorganΓ’€”Bitcoins Biggest EnemyΓ’€”Suddenly Appears To Be Going All In On Crypto

Other Related Bitcoin Topics:

Bitcoin Price | Bitcoin Mining | Blockchain


The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools.


Two ebooks/guides - How to buy Bitcoin with CC/Wire + How to make passive income from cryptocurrency

https://fuk.io/free-cryptocurrency-ebooks-get-them-now/

Your social graph is dangerous in the age of deepfakes.

Your social graph is dangerous to you in the age of deepfakes. And everybody is creating it, and publishing it, and bragging about it. From linkedin to facebook, to police databases, to the metadata that the nsa collects. EVERYBODY is building your social graph.

The deepfake allows an attacker to weaponize your social graph. If they can deepfake your face onto the body of a pornstar who looks like you, that is when you are done. If you are on facebook, and they are your friend, they can see your friends... and befriend them.

This is a problem, because unless all of your friends are hiding their email addresses and messaging info, they can receive video. And people LOVE gossip. They LOVE juicy bits of info about other people. They LOVE that leverage it gives them. It's the nature of being human, and it requires a great amount of professionalism and morals to deny that juicy gossip.

Now the attacker has your friends list. He has their emails. He has your email. He has a way to anonymously accept your payment (thanks monero, bitcoin and zcash!) -,-

And the attacker can be in any country worldwide so your scammer is safe from retribution. He also might know your physical location, so he can create a list of payday advance loan offices near you. Guess what he does? He gets a list of payday loan offices and guides you through the process of sending him $1,000 in bitcoin. Let's say our attacker has an operation going.

ROLES: A social analyst, a payment specialist, a deepfake creation expert, a spearphisher who goes for the facebook/linkedin friendships, and the hitman who delivers the pay up or else email. Also, a leaker who works with the social analyst and the payment specialist to send the right emails to the right people to generate maximum fear and social pressure for the people to pay up.

This operation could EASILY hit 10-15 people per day, and they could probably get payments out of 30-50% of the targets. They might even be able to hit up to 100 people per day if they have a CRM and automated workflows. Let's say they can convert 50% of targets to sales. That is a profit of 50,000 PER DAY.

1.5 million per month.

18 million per year.

But that is if they have employees hitting their targets. What if its an AI driven campaign? I see thousands of targets exploited by this per day. I see billions in deepfake sextortion.

And I see a very compelling reason to delete facebook, or at the least delete all photos off facebook.

At the very least... delete your photos before some criminal enterprise starts doing this. It is only a matter of time.



Bitcoin: One size doesnt fit all for UTXO management (current BTC/USD price is $9,477.79)

Latest Bitcoin News:

Bitcoin: One size doesnt fit all for UTXO management

Other Related Bitcoin Topics:

Bitcoin Price | Bitcoin Mining | Blockchain


The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools.


Binance Support Number (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance Support Number (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• brand. πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Binance support number 1800-561-8025isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Binance support number 1800-561-8025has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1800-561-8025that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


Binance Customer Support Number (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance Customer Support Number (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• brand. πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Binance support number 1800-561-8025isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Binance support number 1800-561-8025has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1800-561-8025that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


Binance Customer Service Number (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance Customer Service Number (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• brand. πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Binance support number 1800-561-8025isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Binance support number 1800-561-8025has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1800-561-8025that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


Binance Customer Care Number (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance Customer Care Number (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• brand. πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Binance support number 1800-561-8025isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Binance support number 1800-561-8025has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1800-561-8025that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


Binance Customer Care (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance Customer Care (πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•) @ Binance Customer Service Number

Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao really doesn't want to tell you where his firm's headquarters is located.

To kick off ConsenSys' Ethereal Summit on Thursday, Unchained Podcast host Laura Shin held a cozy fireside chat with Zhao who, to mark the occasion, was wearing a personalized football shirt emblazoned with the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• brand. πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•

Scheduled for 45 minutes, Zhao spent most of it explaining how libra and China's digital yuan were unlikely to be competitors to existing stablecoin providers; how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s smart chain wouldn't tread on Ethereum's toes – "that depends on the definition of competing," he said – and how Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•had an incentive to keep its newly acquired CoinMarketCap independent from the exchange.

There were only five minutes left on the clock. Zhao was looking confident; he had just batted away a thorny question about an ongoing lawsuit. It was looking like the home stretch.

Then it hit. Shin asked the one question Zhao really didn't want to have to answer, but many want to know: Where is Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•'s headquarters?

This seemingly simple question is actually more complex. Until February, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•was considered to be based in Malta. That changed when the island European nation announced that, no, Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is not under its jurisdiction. Since then Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has not said just where, exactly, it is now headquartered.

Little wonder that when asked Zhao reddened; he stammered. He looked off-camera, possibly to an aide. "Well, I think what this is is the beauty of the blockchain, right, so you don't have to ... like where's the Bitcoin office, because Bitcoin doesn't have an office," he said.

The line trailed off, then inspiration hit. "What kind of horse is a car?" Zhao asked. Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•has loads of offices, he continued, with staff in 50 countries. It was a new type of organization that doesn't need registered bank accounts and postal addresses.

"Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•office," he said.

Zhao may have been hoping the host would move onto something easier. But Shin wasn't finished: "But even to do things like to handle, you know, taxes for your employees, like, I think you need a registered business entity, so like why are you obfuscating it, why not just be open about it like, you know, the headquarters is registered in this place, why not just say that?"

Zhao glanced away again, possibly at the person behind the camera. Their program had less than two minutes remaining. "It's not that we don't want to admit it, it's not that we want to obfuscate it or we want to kind of hide it. We're not hiding, we're in the open," he said.

Shin interjected: "What are you saying that you're already some kind of DAO [decentralized autonomous organization]? I mean what are you saying? Because it's not the old way [having a headquarters], it's actually the current way ... I actually don't know what you are or what you're claiming to be."

Zhao said Binance support number 1800-561-8025isn't a traditional company, more a large team of people "that works together for a common goal." He added: "To be honest, if we classified as a DAO, then there's going to be a lot of debate about why we're not a DAO. So I don't want to go there, either."

"I mean nobody would call you guys a DAO," Shin said, likely disappointed that this wasn't the interview where Zhao made his big reveal.

Time was up. For an easy question to close, Shin asked where Zhao was working from during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I'm in Asia," Zhao said. The blank white wall behind him didn't provide any clues about where in Asia he might be. Shin asked if he could say which country – after all, it's the Earth's largest continent.

"I prefer not to disclose that. I think that's my own privacy," he cut in, ending the interview.

It was a provocative way to start the biggest cryptocurrency and blockchain event of the year.

In the opening session of Consensus: Distributed this week, Lawrence Summers was asked by my co-host Naomi Brockwell about protecting people’s privacy once currencies go digital. His answer: “I think the problems we have now with money involve too much privacy.”

President Clinton’s former Treasury secretary, now President Emeritus at Harvard, referenced the 500-euro note, which bore the nickname “The Bin Laden,” to argue the un-traceability of cash empowers wealthy criminals to finance themselves. “Of all the important freedoms,” he continued, “the ability to possess, transfer and do business with multi-million dollar sums of money anonymously seems to me to be one of the least important.” Summers ended the segment by saying that “if I have provoked others, I will have served my purpose.”

You’re reading Money Reimagined, a weekly look at the technological, economic and social events and trends that are redefining our relationship with money and transforming the global financial system. You can subscribe to this and all of CoinDesk’s newsletters here.

That he did. Among the more than 20,000 registered for the weeklong virtual experience was a large contingent of libertarian-minded folks who see state-backed monitoring of their money as an affront to their property rights.

But with due respect to a man who has had prodigious influence on international economic policymaking, it’s not wealthy bitcoiners for whom privacy matters. It matters for all humanity and, most importantly, for the poor.

Now, as the world grapples with how to collect and disseminate public health information in a way that both saves lives and preserves civil liberties, the principle of privacy deserves to be elevated in importance.

Just this week, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the 9/11-era Patriot Act and failed to pass a proposed amendment to prevent the Federal Bureau of Investigation from monitoring our online browsing without a warrant. Meanwhile, our heightened dependence on online social connections during COVID-19 isolation has further empowered a handful of internet platforms that are incorporating troves of our personal data into sophisticated predictive behavior models. This process of hidden control is happening right now, not in some future "Westworld"-like existence.

Digital currencies will only worsen this situation. If they are added to this comprehensive surveillance infrastructure, it could well spell the end of the civil liberties that underpin Western civilization.

Yes, freedom matters

Please don’t read this, Secretary Summers, as some privileged anti-taxation take or a self-interested what’s-mine-is-mine demand that “the government stay away from my money.”

Money is just the instrument here. What matters is whether our transactions, our exchanges of goods and services and the source of our economic and social value, should be monitored and manipulated by government and corporate owners of centralized databases. It’s why critics of China’s digital currency plans rightly worry about a “panopticon” and why, in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, there was an initial backlash against Facebook launching its libra currency.

Writers such as Shoshana Zuboff and Jared Lanier have passionately argued that our subservience to the hidden algorithms of what I like to call “GoogAzonBook” is diminishing our free will. Resisting that is important, not just to preserve the ideal of “the self” but also to protect the very functioning of society.

Markets, for one, are pointless without free will. In optimizing resource allocation, they presume autonomy among those who make up the market. Free will, which I’ll define as the ability to lawfully transact on my own terms without knowingly or unknowingly acting in someone else’s interests to my detriment, is a bedrock of market democracies. Without a sufficient right to privacy, it disintegrates – and in the digital age, that can happen very rapidly.

Also, as I’ve argued elsewhere, losing privacy undermines the fungibility of money. Each digital dollar should be substitutable for another. If our transactions carry a history and authorities can target specific notes or tokens for seizure because of their past involvement in illicit activity, then some dollars become less valuable than other dollars.

The excluded

But to fully comprehend the harm done by encroachments into financial privacy, look to the world’s poor.

An estimated 1.7 billion adults are denied a bank account because they can’t furnish the information that banks’ anti-money laundering (AML) officers need, either because their government’s identity infrastructure is untrusted or because of the danger to them of furnishing such information to kleptocratic regimes. Unable to let banks monitor them, they’re excluded from the global economy’s dominant payment and savings system – victims of a system that prioritizes surveillance over privacy.

Misplaced priorities also contribute to the “derisking” problem faced by Caribbean and Latin American countries, where investment inflows have slowed and financial costs have risen in the past decade. America’s gatekeeping correspondent banks, fearful of heavy fines like the one imposed on HSBC for its involvement in a money laundering scandal, have raised the bar on the kind of personal information that regional banks must obtain from their local clients.

And where’s the payoff? Despite this surveillance system, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that between $800 billion and $2 trillion, or 2%-5% of global gross domestic product, is laundered annually worldwide. The Panama Papers case shows how the rich and powerful easily use lawyers, shell companies, tax havens and transaction obfuscation to get around surveillance. The poor are just excluded from the system.

Caring about privacy

Solutions are coming that wouldn’t require abandoning law enforcement efforts. Self-sovereign identity models and zero-knowledge proofs, for example, grant control over data to the individuals who generate it, allowing them to provide sufficient proof of a clean record without revealing sensitive personal information. But such innovations aren’t getting nearly enough attention.

Few officials inside developed country regulatory agencies seem to acknowledge the cost of cutting off 1.7 billion poor from the financial system. Yet, their actions foster poverty and create fertile conditions for terrorism and drug-running, the very crimes they seek to contain. The reaction to evidence of persistent money laundering is nearly always to make bank secrecy laws even more demanding. Exhibit A: Europe’s new AML 5 directive.

To be sure, in the Consensus discussion that followed the Summers interview, it was pleasing to hear another former U.S. official take a more accommodative view of privacy. Former Commodities and Futures Trading Commission Chairman Christopher Giancarlo said that “getting the privacy balance right” is a “design imperative” for the digital dollar concept he is actively promoting.

But to hold both governments and corporations to account on that design, we need an aware, informed public that recognizes the risks of ceding their civil liberties to governments or to GoogAzonBook.

Let’s talk about this, people.

A missing asterisk

Control for all variables. At the end of the day, the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency ultimately comes down to how much the rest of the world trusts the United States to continue its de facto leadership of the world economy. In the past, that assessment was based on how well the U.S. militarily or otherwise dealt with human- and state-led threats to international commerce such as Soviet expansionism or terrorism. But in the COVID-19 era only one thing matters: how well it is leading the fight against the pandemic.

So if you’ve already seen the charts below and you’re wondering what they’re doing in a newsletter about the battle for the future of money, that’s why. They were inspired by a staged White House lawn photo-op Tuesday, where President Trump was flanked by a huge banner that dealt quite literally with a question of American leadership. It read, “America Leads the World in Testing.” That’s a claim that’s technically correct, but one that surely demands a big red asterisk. When you’re the third-largest country by population – not to mention the richest – having the highest number of tests is not itself much of an achievement. The claim demands a per capita adjustment. Here’s how things look, first in absolute terms, then adjusted for tests per million inhabitants.

Binance support number 1800-561-8025has frozen funds linked to Upbit’s prior $50 million data breach after the hackers tried to liquidate a part of the gains. In a recent tweet, Whale Alert warned Binance support number 1800-561-8025that a transaction of 137 ETH (about $28,000) had moved from an address linked to the Upbit hacker group to its wallets.

Less than an hour after the transaction was flagged, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ• announced that the exchange had frozen the funds. He also added that Binance support number πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ•-*πŸ–πŸ’πŸ”-*πŸπŸ–πŸπŸ•is getting in touch with Upbit to investigate the transaction. In November 2019, Upbit suffered an attack in which hackers stole 342,000 ETH, accounting for approximately $50 million. The hackers managed to take the funds by transferring the ETH from Upbit’s hot wallet to an anonymous crypto address.


China: Parliament passes law allowing inheritance of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies; a changing ... (current BTC/USD price is $9,527.42)

Latest Bitcoin News:

China: Parliament passes law allowing inheritance of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies; a changing ...

Other Related Bitcoin Topics:

Bitcoin Price | Bitcoin Mining | Blockchain


The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools.


What Is Proof of Work (PoW)?

Contents

https://preview.redd.it/6xrtu2r56v151.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=21a0175a00217614738e88b6c9d47fd07e0ae305

Introduction

Proof of Work (commonly abbreviated to PoW) is a mechanism for preventing double-spends. Most major cryptocurrencies use this as their consensus algorithm. That’s just what we call a method for securing the cryptocurrency’s ledger.

Proof of Work was the first consensus algorithm to surface, and, to date, remains the dominant one. It was introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto in the 2008 Bitcoin white paper, but the technology itself was conceived long before then.

Adam Back’s HashCash is an early example of a Proof of Work algorithm in the pre-cryptocurrency days. By requiring senders to perform a small amount of computing before sending an email, receivers could mitigate spam. This computation would cost virtually nothing to a legitimate sender, but quickly add up for someone sending emails en masse.

What is a double-spend?

A double-spend occurs when the same funds are spent more than once. The term is used almost exclusively in the context of digital money — after all, you’d have a hard time spending the same physical cash twice. When you pay for a coffee today, you hand cash over to a cashier who probably locks it in a register. You can’t go to the coffee shop across the road and pay for another coffee with the same bill.

In digital cash schemes, there’s the possibility that you could. You’ve surely duplicated a computer file before — you just copy and paste it. You can email the same file to ten, twenty, fifty people.

Since digital money is just data, you need to prevent people from copying and spending the same units in different places. Otherwise, your currency will collapse in no time.

For a more in-depth look at double-spending, check out Double Spending Explained.

Why is Proof of Work necessary?

If you’ve read our guide to blockchain technology, you’ll know that users broadcast transactions to the network. Those transactions aren’t immediately considered valid, though. That only happens when they get added to the blockchain.

The blockchain is a big database that every user can see, so they can check if funds have been spent before. Picture it like this: you and three friends have a notepad. Anytime one of you wants to make a transfer of whatever units you’re using, you write it down — Alice pays Bob five units, Bob pays Carol two units, etc.

There’s another intricacy here — each time you make a transaction, you refer to the transaction where the funds came from. So, if Bob was paying Carol with two units, the entry would actually look like the following: Bob pays Carol two units from this earlier transaction with Alice.

Now, we have a way to track the units. If Bob tries to make another transaction using the same units he just sent to Carol, everyone will know immediately. The group won’t allow the transaction to be added to the notepad.

Now, this might work well in a small group. Everyone knows each other, so they’ll probably agree on which of the friends should add transactions to the notepad. What if we want a group of 10,000 participants? The notepad idea doesn’t scale well, because nobody wants to trust a stranger to manage it.

This is where Proof of Work comes in. It ensures that users aren’t spending money that they don’t have the right to spend. By using a combination of game theory and cryptography, a PoW algorithm enables anyone to update the blockchain according to the rules of the system.

How does PoW work?

Our notepad above is the blockchain. But we don’t add transactions one by one — instead, we lump them into blocks. We announce the transactions to the network, then users creating a block will include them in a candidate block. The transactions will only be considered valid once their candidate block becomes a confirmed block, meaning that it has been added to the blockchain.

Appending a block isn’t cheap, however. Proof of Work requires that a miner (the user creating the block) uses up some of their own resources for the privilege. That resource is computing power, which is used to hash the block’s data until a solution to a puzzle is found.

Hashing the block’s data means that you pass it through a hashing function to generate a block hash. The block hash works like a “fingerprint” — it’s an identity for your input data and is unique to each block.

It’s virtually impossible to reverse a block hash to get the input data. Knowing an input, however, it’s trivial for you to confirm that the hash is correct. You just have to submit the input through the function and check if the output is the same.

In Proof of Work, you must provide data whose hash matches certain conditions. But you don’t know how to get there. Your only option is to pass your data through a hash function and to check if it matches the conditions. If it doesn’t, you’ll have to change your data slightly to get a different hash. Changing even one character in your data will result in a totally different result, so there’s no way of predicting what an output might be.

As a result, if you want to create a block, you’re playing a guessing game. You typically take information on all of the transactions that you want to add and some other important data, then hash it all together. But since your dataset won’t change, you need to add a piece of information that is variable. Otherwise, you would always get the same hash as output. This variable data is what we call a nonce. It’s a number that you’ll change with every attempt, so you’re getting a different hash every time. And this is what we call mining.

Summing up, mining is the process of gathering blockchain data and hashing it along with a nonce until you find a particular hash. If you find a hash that satisfies the conditions set out by the protocol, you get the right to broadcast the new block to the network. At this point, the other participants of the network update their blockchains to include the new block.

For major cryptocurrencies today, the conditions are incredibly challenging to satisfy. The higher the hash rate on the network, the more difficult it is to find a valid hash. This is done to ensure that blocks aren’t found too quickly.

As you can imagine, trying to guess massive amounts of hashes can be costly on your computer. You’re wasting computational cycles and electricity. But the protocol will reward you with cryptocurrency if you find a valid hash.

Let’s recap what we know so far:

  • It’s expensive for you to mine.
  • You’re rewarded if you produce a valid block.
  • Knowing an input, a user can easily check its hash — non-mining users can verify that a block is valid without expending much computational power.

So far, so good. But what if you try to cheat? What’s to stop you from putting a bunch of fraudulent transactions into the block and producing a valid hash?

That’s where public-key cryptography comes in. We won’t go into depth in this article, but check out What is Public-Key Cryptography? for a comprehensive look at it. In short, we use some neat cryptographic tricks that allow any user to verify whether someone has a right to move the funds they’re attempting to spend.

When you create a transaction, you sign it. Anyone on the network can compare your signature with your public key, and check whether they match. They’ll also check if you can actually spend your funds and that the sum of your inputs is higher than the sum of your outputs (i.e., that you’re not spending more than you have).

Any block that includes an invalid transaction will be automatically rejected by the network. It’s expensive for you to even attempt to cheat. You’ll waste your own resources without any reward.

Therein lies the beauty of Proof of Work: it makes it expensive to cheat, but profitable to act honestly. Any rational miner will be seeking ROI, so they can be expected to behave in a way that guarantees revenue.

Proof of Work vs. Proof of Stake

There are many consensus algorithms, but one of the most highly-anticipated ones is Proof of Stake (PoS). The concept dates back to 2011, and has been implemented in some smaller protocols. But it has yet to see adoption in any of the big blockchains.

In Proof of Stake systems, miners are replaced with validators. There’s no mining involved and no race to guess hashes. Instead, users are randomly selected — if they’re picked, they must propose (or “forge”) a block. If the block is valid, they’ll receive a reward made up of the fees from the block’s transactions.

Not just any user can be selected, though — the protocol chooses them based on a number of factors. To be eligible, participants must lock up a stake, which is a predetermined amount of the blockchain’s native currency. The stake works like bail: just as defendants put up a large sum of money to disincentivize them from skipping trial, validators lock up a stake to disincentivize cheating. If they act dishonestly, their stake (or a portion of it) will be taken.

Proof of Stake does have some benefits over Proof of Work. The most notable one is the smaller carbon footprint — since there’s no need for high-powered mining farms in PoS, the electricity consumed is only a fraction of that consumed in PoW.

That said, it has nowhere near the track record of PoW. Although it could be perceived as wasteful, mining is the only consensus algorithm that’s proven itself at scale. In just over a decade, it has secured trillions of dollars worth of transactions. To say with certainty whether PoS can rival its security, staking needs to be properly tested in the wild.

Closing thoughts

Proof of Work was the original solution to the double-spend problem and has proven to be reliable and secure. Bitcoin proved that we don’t need centralized entities to prevent the same funds from being spent twice. With clever use of cryptography, hash functions, and game theory, participants in a decentralized environment can agree on the state of a financial database.