QuadrigaCX: Chef der Bitcoin-Börse hat Kundengelder verzockt

Free Coin Faucets

[link]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Newb Question: sending litecoin from quadriga to binance /r/QuadrigaCX

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: Newb Question: sending litecoin from quadriga to binance /QuadrigaCX submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

I just transferred BTC from my Binance to my Quadriga wallet...but Quad lists Bitcoin as "XBT" not "BTC" like Binance....Did i just lose my bitcoins? /r/Bitcoin

I just transferred BTC from my Binance to my Quadriga wallet...but Quad lists Bitcoin as submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bob The Magic Custodian



Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses.
Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes.

First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure:

Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:

But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are!

"On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid".
"Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since."

"As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!"
"Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?"

"Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party."
"Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!"

"What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven."
"Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!"

"We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies.
And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often".

How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen?
Just one.

Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so?
If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security.

The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle.

And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet?

Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds.
So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever.

Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see.
It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation.
A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7.

History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance.
Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.)
Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive.

Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today.
Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well.
Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do.

Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):



Thoughts?
submitted by azoundria2 to QuadrigaInitiative [link] [comments]

How To End The Cryptocurrency Exchange "Wild West" Without Crippling Innovation


In case you haven't noticed the consultation paper, staff notice, and report on Quadriga, regulators are now clamping down on Canadian cryptocurrency exchanges. The OSC and other regulatory bodies are still interested in industry feedback. They have not put forward any official regulation yet. Below are some ideas/insights and a proposed framework.



Many of you have limited time to read the full proposal, so here are the highlights:

Offline Multi-Signature

Effective standards to prevent both internal and external theft. Exchange operators are trained and certified, and have a legal responsibility to users.

Regular Transparent Audits

Provides visibility to Canadians that their funds are fully backed on the exchange, while protecting privacy and sensitive platform information.

Insurance Requirements

Establishment of basic insurance standards/strategy, to expand over time. Removing risk to exchange users of any hot wallet theft.


Background and Justifications


Cold Storage Custody/Management
After reviewing close to 100 cases, all thefts tend to break down into more or less the same set of problems:
• Funds stored online or in a smart contract,
• Access controlled by one person or one system,
• 51% attacks (rare),
• Funds sent to the wrong address (also rare), or
• Some combination of the above.
For the first two cases, practical solutions exist and are widely implemented on exchanges already. Offline multi-signature solutions are already industry standard. No cases studied found an external theft or exit scam involving an offline multi-signature wallet implementation. Security can be further improved through minimum numbers of signatories, background checks, providing autonomy and legal protections to each signatory, establishing best practices, and a training/certification program.
The last two transaction risks occur more rarely, and have never resulted in a loss affecting the actual users of the exchange. In all cases to date where operators made the mistake, they've been fully covered by the exchange platforms.
• 51% attacks generally only occur on blockchains with less security. The most prominent cases have been Bitcoin Gold and Ethereum Classic. The simple solution is to enforce deposit limits and block delays such that a 51% attack is not cost-effective.
• The risk of transactions to incorrect addresses can be eliminated by a simple test transaction policy on large transactions. By sending a small amount of funds prior to any large withdrawals/transfers as a standard practice, the accuracy of the wallet address can be validated.
The proposal covers all loss cases and goes beyond, while avoiding significant additional costs, risks, and limitations which may be associated with other frameworks like SOC II.

On The Subject of Third Party Custodians
Many Canadian platforms are currently experimenting with third party custody. From the standpoint of the exchange operator, they can liberate themselves from some responsibility of custody, passing that off to someone else. For regulators, it puts crypto in similar categorization to oil, gold, and other commodities, with some common standards. Platform users would likely feel greater confidence if the custodian was a brand they recognized. If the custodian was knowledgeable and had a decent team that employed multi-sig, they could keep assets safe from internal theft. With the right protections in place, this could be a great solution for many exchanges, particularly those that lack the relevant experience or human resources for their own custody systems.
However, this system is vulnerable to anyone able to impersonate the exchange operators. You may have a situation where different employees who don't know each other that well are interacting between different companies (both the custodian and all their customers which presumably isn't just one exchange). A case study of what can go wrong in this type of environment might be Bitpay, where the CEO was tricked out of 5000 bitcoins over 3 separate payments by a series of emails sent legitimately from a breached computer of another company CEO. It's also still vulnerable to the platform being compromised, as in the really large $70M Bitfinex hack, where the third party Bitgo held one key in a multi-sig wallet. The hacker simply authorized the withdrawal using the same credentials as Bitfinex (requesting Bitgo to sign multiple withdrawal transactions). This succeeded even with the use of multi-sig and two heavily security-focused companies, due to the lack of human oversight (basically, hot wallet). Of course, you can learn from these cases and improve the security, but so can hackers improve their deception and at the end of the day, both of these would have been stopped by the much simpler solution of a qualified team who knew each other and employed multi-sig with properly protected keys. It's pretty hard to beat a human being who knows the business and the typical customer behaviour (or even knows their customers personally) at spotting fraud, and the proposed multi-sig means any hacker has to get through the scrutiny of 3 (or more) separate people, all of whom would have proper training including historical case studies.
There are strong arguments both for and against using use of third party custodians. The proposal sets mandatory minimum custody standards would apply regardless if the cold wallet signatories are exchange operators, independent custodians, or a mix of both.

On The Subject Of Insurance
ShakePay has taken the first steps into this new realm (congratulations). There is no question that crypto users could be better protected by the right insurance policies, and it certainly feels better to transact with insured platforms. The steps required to obtain insurance generally place attention in valuable security areas, and in this case included a review from CipherTrace. One of the key solutions in traditional finance comes from insurance from entities such as the CDIC.
However, historically, there wasn't found any actual insurance payout to any cryptocurrency exchange, and there are notable cases where insurance has not paid. With Bitpay, for example, the insurance agent refused because the issue happened to the third party CEO's computer instead of anything to do with Bitpay itself. With the Youbit exchange in South Korea, their insurance claim was denied, and the exchange ultimately ended up instead going bankrupt with all user's funds lost. To quote Matt Johnson in the original Lloyd's article: “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.”
ShakePay's insurance was only reported to cover their cold storage, and “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held”. Physical theft has never, in the history of cryptocurrency exchange cases reviewed, been reported as the cause of loss. From the limited information of the article, ShakePay made it clear their funds are in the hands of a single US custodian, and at least part of their security strategy is to "decline[] to confirm the custodian’s name on the record". While this prevents scrutiny of the custodian, it's pretty silly to speculate that a reasonably competent hacking group couldn't determine who the custodian is. A far more common infiltration strategy historically would be social engineering, which has succeeded repeatedly. A hacker could trick their way into ShakePay's systems and request a fraudulent withdrawal, impersonate ShakePay and request the custodian to move funds, or socially engineer their way into the custodian to initiate the withdrawal of multiple accounts (a payout much larger than ShakePay) exploiting the standard procedures (for example, fraudulently initiating or override the wallet addresses of a real transfer). In each case, nothing was physically stolen and the loss is therefore not covered by insurance.
In order for any insurance to be effective, clear policies have to be established about what needs to be covered. Anything short of that gives Canadians false confidence that they are protected when they aren't in any meaningful way. At this time, the third party insurance market does not appear to provide adequate options or coverage, and effort is necessary to standardize custody standards, which is a likely first step in ultimately setting up an insurance framework.
A better solution compared to third party insurance providers might be for Canadian exchange operators to create their own collective insurance fund, or a specific federal organization similar to the CDIC. Such an organization would have a greater interest or obligation in paying out actual cases, and that would be it's purpose rather than maximizing it's own profit. This would be similar to the SAFU which Binance has launched, except it would cover multiple exchanges. There is little question whether the SAFU would pay out given a breach of Binance, and a similar argument could be made for a insurance fund managed by a collective of exchange operators or a government organization. While a third party insurance provider has the strong market incentive to provide the absolute minimum coverage and no market incentive to payout, an entity managed by exchange operators would have incentive to protect the reputation of exchange operators/the industry, and the government should have the interest of protecting Canadians.

On The Subject of Fractional Reserve
There is a long history of fractional reserve failures, from the first banks in ancient times, through the great depression (where hundreds of fractional reserve banks failed), right through to the 2008 banking collapse referenced in the first bitcoin block. The fractional reserve system allows banks to multiply the money supply far beyond the actual cash (or other assets) in existence, backed only by a system of debt obligations of others. Safely supporting a fractional reserve system is a topic of far greater complexity than can be addressed by a simple policy, and when it comes to cryptocurrency, there is presently no entity reasonably able to bail anyone out in the event of failure. Therefore, this framework is addressed around entities that aim to maintain 100% backing of funds.
There may be some firms that desire but have failed to maintain 100% backing. In this case, there are multiple solutions, including outside investment, merging with other exchanges, or enforcing a gradual restoration plan. All of these solutions are typically far better than shutting down the exchange, and there are multiple cases where they've been used successfully in the past.

Proof of Reserves/Transparency/Accountability
Canadians need to have visibility into the backing on an ongoing basis.
The best solution for crypto-assets is a Proof of Reserve. Such ideas go back all the way to 2013, before even Mt. Gox. However, no Canadian exchange has yet implemented such a system, and only a few international exchanges (CoinFloor in the UK being an example) have. Many firms like Kraken, BitBuy, and now ShakePay use the Proof of Reserve term to refer to lesser proofs which do not actually cryptographically prove the full backing of all user assets on the blockchain. In order for a Proof of Reserve to be effective, it must actually be a complete proof, and it needs to be understood by the public that is expected to use it. Many firms have expressed reservations about the level of transparency required in a complete Proof of Reserve (for example Kraken here). While a complete Proof of Reserves should be encouraged, and there are some solutions in the works (ie TxQuick), this is unlikely to be suitable universally for all exchange operators and users.
Given the limitations, and that firms also manage fiat assets, a more traditional audit process makes more sense. Some Canadian exchanges (CoinSquare, CoinBerry) have already subjected themselves to annual audits. However, these results are not presently shared publicly, and there is no guarantee over the process including all user assets or the integrity and independence of the auditor. The auditor has been typically not known, and in some cases, the identity of the auditor is protected by a NDA. Only in one case (BitBuy) was an actual report generated and publicly shared. There has been no attempt made to validate that user accounts provided during these audits have been complete or accurate. A fraudulent fractional exchange, or one which had suffered a breach they were unwilling to publicly accept (see CoinBene), could easily maintain a second set of books for auditors or simply exclude key accounts to pass an individual audit.
The proposed solution would see a reporting standard which includes at a minimum - percentage of backing for each asset relative to account balances and the nature of how those assets are stored, with ownership proven by the auditor. The auditor would also publicly provide a "hash list", which they independently generate from the accounts provided by the exchange. Every exchange user can then check their information against this public "hash list". A hash is a one-way form of encryption, which fully protects the private information, yet allows anyone who knows that information already to validate that it was included. Less experienced users can take advantage of public tools to calculate the hash from their information (provided by the exchange), and thus have certainty that the auditor received their full balance information. Easy instructions can be provided.
Auditors should be impartial, their identities and process public, and they should be rotated so that the same auditor is never used twice in a row. Balancing the cost of auditing against the needs for regular updates, a 6 month cycle likely makes the most sense.

Hot Wallet Management
The best solution for hot wallets is not to use them. CoinBerry reportedly uses multi-sig on all withdrawals, and Bitmex is an international example known for their structure devoid of hot wallets.
However, many platforms and customers desire fast withdrawal processes, and human validation has a cost of time and delay in this process.
A model of self-insurance or separate funds for hot wallets may be used in these cases. Under this model, a platform still has 100% of their client balance in cold storage and holds additional funds in hot wallets for quick withdrawal. Thus, the risk of those hot wallets is 100% on exchange operators and not affecting the exchange users. Since most platforms typically only have 1%-5% in hot wallets at any given time, it shouldn't be unreasonable to build/maintain these additional reserves over time using exchange fees or additional investment. Larger withdrawals would still be handled at regular intervals from the cold storage.
Hot wallet risks have historically posed a large risk and there is no established standard to guarantee secure hot wallets. When the government of South Korea dispatched security inspections to multiple exchanges, the results were still that 3 of them got hacked after the inspections. If standards develop such that an organization in the market is willing to insure the hot wallets, this could provide an acceptable alternative. Another option may be for multiple exchange operators to pool funds aside for a hot wallet insurance fund. Comprehensive coverage standards must be established and maintained for all hot wallet balances to make sure Canadians are adequately protected.

Current Draft Proposal

(1) Proper multi-signature cold wallet storage.
(a) Each private key is the personal and legal responsibility of one person - the “signatory”. Signatories have special rights and responsibilities to protect user assets. Signatories are trained and certified through a course covering (1) past hacking and fraud cases, (2) proper and secure key generation, and (3) proper safekeeping of private keys. All private keys must be generated and stored 100% offline by the signatory. If even one private keys is ever breached or suspected to be breached, the wallet must be regenerated and all funds relocated to a new wallet.
(b) All signatories must be separate background-checked individuals free of past criminal conviction. Canadians should have a right to know who holds their funds. All signing of transactions must take place with all signatories on Canadian soil or on the soil of a country with a solid legal system which agrees to uphold and support these rules (from an established white-list of countries which expands over time).
(c) 3-5 independent signatures are required for any withdrawal. There must be 1-3 spare signatories, and a maximum of 7 total signatories. The following are all valid combinations: 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7.
(d) A security audit should be conducted to validate the cold wallet is set up correctly and provide any additional pertinent information. The primary purpose is to ensure that all signatories are acting independently and using best practices for private key storage. A report summarizing all steps taken and who did the audit will be made public. Canadians must be able to validate the right measures are in place to protect their funds.
(e) There is a simple approval process if signatories wish to visit any country outside Canada, with a potential whitelist of exempt countries. At most 2 signatories can be outside of aligned jurisdiction at any given time. All exchanges would be required to keep a compliant cold wallet for Canadian funds and have a Canadian office if they wish to serve Canadian customers.
(2) Regular and transparent solvency audits.
(a) An audit must be conducted at founding, after 3 months of operation, and at least once every 6 months to compare customer balances against all stored cryptocurrency and fiat balances. The auditor must be known, independent, and never the same twice in a row.
(b) An audit report will be published featuring the steps conducted in a readable format. This should be made available to all Canadians on the exchange website and on a government website. The report must include what percentage of each customer asset is backed on the exchange, and how those funds are stored.
(c) The auditor will independently produce a hash of each customer's identifying information and balance as they perform the audit. This will be made publicly available on the exchange and government website, along with simplified instructions that each customer can use to verify that their balance was included in the audit process.
(d) The audit needs to include a proof of ownership for any cryptocurrency wallets included. A satoshi test (spending a small amount) or partially signed transaction both qualify.
(e) Any platform without 100% reserves should be assessed on a regular basis by a government or industry watchdog. This entity should work to prevent any further drop, support any private investor to come in, or facilitate a merger so that 100% backing can be obtained as soon as possible.
(3) Protections for hot wallets and transactions.
(a) A standardized list of approved coins and procedures will be established to constitute valid cold storage wallets. Where a multi-sig process is not natively available, efforts will be undertaken to establish a suitable and stable smart contract standard. This list will be expanded and improved over time. Coins and procedures not on the list are considered hot wallets.
(b) Hot wallets can be backed by additional funds in cold storage or an acceptable third-party insurance provider with a comprehensive coverage policy.
(c) Exchanges are required to cover the full balance of all user funds as denominated in the same currency, or double the balance as denominated in bitcoin or CAD using an established trading rate. If the balance is ever insufficient due to market movements, the firm must rectify this within 24 hours by moving assets to cold storage or increasing insurance coverage.
(d) Any large transactions (above a set threshold) from cold storage to any new wallet addresses (not previously transacted with) must be tested with a smaller transaction first. Deposits of cryptocurrency must be limited to prevent economic 51% attacks. Any issues are to be covered by the exchange.
(e) Exchange platforms must provide suitable authentication for users, including making available approved forms of two-factor authentication. SMS-based authentication is not to be supported. Withdrawals must be blocked for 48 hours in the event of any account password change. Disputes on the negligence of exchanges should be governed by case law.

Steps Forward

Continued review of existing OSC feedback is still underway. More feedback and opinions on the framework and ideas as presented here are extremely valuable. The above is a draft and not finalized.
The process of further developing and bringing a suitable framework to protect Canadians will require the support of exchange operators, legal experts, and many others in the community. The costs of not doing such are tremendous. A large and convoluted framework, one based on flawed ideas or implementation, or one which fails to properly safeguard Canadians is not just extremely expensive and risky for all Canadians, severely limiting to the credibility and reputation of the industry, but an existential risk to many exchanges.
The responsibility falls to all of us to provide our insight and make our opinions heard on this critical matter. Please take the time to give your thoughts.
submitted by azoundria2 to QuadrigaInitiative [link] [comments]

Bitfinex Must Answer NY AG Allegations It Hid Over $800M In Lost Funds

Cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex must answer allegations by the state of New York that the Hong Kong-based company hid more than $800 million in losses of client and corporate funds, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Thursday (July 9), according to Bloomberg.
Companies connected to Bitfinex have been accused by New York Attorney General Letitia James of the loss of commingled client and corporate funds, Bloomberg reported. The companies have insisted the cash was deposited with Crypto Capital Corp.
Investigators at the U.S. Department of Justice alleged Crypto Capital provided shadow banking services to several cryptocurrency exchanges, including Bitfinex, Binance, Cex.io, Coinapult and QuadrigaCX. The Panamanian company was indicted for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transfer service, Cointelegraph reported.
Crypto Capital President Ivan Manuel Molina Lee was arrested last year by Polish authorities on suspicion of laundering $350 million worth of funds from illegal proceeds and having ties to a global drug cartel, Cointelegraph reported. The company later collapsed.
In April of 2019, cryptocurrencies saw a double-digit percentage drop in bitcoin. On April 26, the price of bitcoin fell to $5,092, down from levels earlier that week that topped $5,580. The slide came as James accused Bitfinex of covering up missing funds through illegal transactions to the tune of $850 million.
Companies tied to Bitfinex also operate the stablecoin Tether, a conduit for trading in much of the cryptocurrency market globally, Bloomberg reported. The appeals court rejected the argument that Tether, with a market capitalization of more than $9 billion, is not a security or commodity and said the court has jurisdiction over its issuer.
The justices also rejected the companies’ argument that since they are not based in New York or serve local traders, they shouldn’t be answerable to or have to produce certain documents for New York authorities, Bloomberg reported. The court said New York traders had used Tether, and some of the companies’ staff worked in New York.
Originally posted
ByPYMNTS Posted on July 9, 2020
submitted by kjonesatjaagnet to JAAGNet [link] [comments]

Survey Responses Are IN!

I want to thank everyone who replied to our survey! Your feedback is extremely valuable!


Here are the results and how they're helping shape our direction.


What goals would you like to see us accomplish? What's most important to you in how this Quadriga situation ends?

This was an open-ended question and the answers varied widely (and there was definitely a lot of responses which mentioned multiple goals). Here's a summary:
The justice theme has been entirely overlooked by what we're doing. Discussing the idea on the Quadriga Uncovered Telegram group, it was determined that there was definite interest in a potential letter-writing initiative. One possibility would be sending letters to the RCMP to request the exhumation.


Is there any part of our initiative which confuses you?

Almost universally, there was no mention of any confusion.
The feedback we did receive:
Please feel free to reach out on Telegram and Reddit if there are any further questions!


Is it more important to you that we focus on (a) helping victims of Quadriga recover, (b) educating more people about Quadriga and other exchange fraud, or (c) preventing future exchange fraud events like Quadriga?

Of the first or only choice picked, 70% chose (a) helping victims of Quadriga recover, while 30% chose (c) preventing future exchange fraud events like Quadriga.
(a) was mentioned in 80% of cases, and top choice in 70%.
(b) was a second choice in 30% of cases and mentioned in 35%.
(c) was mentioned in 65% of responses and top choice in 30%.
The educational portion of our initiative was seen as the lowest value. We are floating the idea of replacing the Education goal with a separate Justice goal, which is composed of letter-writing and other advocacy to help speed up any potential criminal investigations.


What bothers you most about Canadian cryptocurrency exchanges?

The responses varied widely. Here's a selection:
There is clearly a lack of satisfaction.


Should preventing events like Quadriga focus more on regulatory reform (working with regulators) or trying to create change through setting the example on one exchange and go from there (similar to how "Tesla" has electrified vehicles)?

Overall summary:
Pressing forward on both fronts appears to make the most sense.


Would you rather have the recovery run inside of a for-profit exchange (sort of a marketing/promotion idea to push people onto a safer exchange) or as an independent group of affected users pushing for our own interests (working with the safer exchange and other businesses potentially similar to a labour union or political advocacy)?

The end result:
We will be working to run this independently, however working closely with our partner exchange as a joint project (and it is definitely a promotional tool for them).


If given the choice, would you prefer (a) $20 cash each year for 10 years (slower recovery with full choice), or (b) your choice of $200 worth of discounts on products/services that are donated by small businesses which you could use this year (faster recovery with less choices)?

60% indicated a preference for (b), and 40% had the preference for (a). There is clear interest in focusing on both, which will push the fastest and most flexible recovery.


Affected users have a liquidation option which allows non-victims to purchase their tokens on the exchange. How do you feel about charging non-victims a small fee (5 cents per token) that is split between funding the project and a pool for affected user payout?

50% expressed outright support for the idea. Below are more detailed responses and comments:
At the moment this has not yet been agreed upon by the partner exchange.


Have you discussed the project with anyone else who lost funds in Quadriga? What kind of feedback are you hearing?

40% said they've discussed it. 40% have not. 20% didn't answer (or it was hard to understand). Some of the responses:


Many affected users have strong privacy concerns and shame regarding what happened to them, such that they are even hesitant to share basic details. What do you feel is the best way to build trust and openness among the affected user community?

Here are some of the replies:

Notes: Percentages rounded to the nearest 5%.


Thank you very much for everyone who took the time to respond! We will continue to study your answers as we move forward!
submitted by azoundria2 to QuadrigaInitiative [link] [comments]

Centralized exchanges and their risks

Centralized exchanges and their risks
The ecosystem of 2Ether will include a decentralized exchange, 2EtherEx. How are decentralized exchanges – DEX – different from traditional centralized exchanges? Are they really better? What issues do they face? We'll tell you all about it a series of posts. This time, we'll look at centralized exchanges – why they have nothing to do with real decentralization and what risks they pose.
Big exchanges like Coinbase and Huobi allow you to trade in decentralized crypto assets, but they themselves are completely centralized. This is for three reasons:
1) All transactions are processed off-chain and recorded in the exchange's own database. All those thousands of trades made every day on Coinbase, for example, are never recorded on the blockchain.
2) Client funds are stored in a centralized way. When you deposit money on an exchange, it goes into the main wallet of the exchange. It's huge – there are millions of dollars' worth of crypto there. If you send money from your blockchain wallet, then this – and only this – operation is recorded on the blockchain. After this, the centralized exchange assigns you credit of sorts – it puts as much crypto on your individual account as you put in the main wallet. At the end of trading, when you want to withdraw your profits, you sort of exchange those credits for the real crypto, which gets sent to your wallet. This transaction is also recorded on the blockchain. But everything in between has nothing to do with decentralization.
3) The exchange management is centralized – it's in the hands of a few people. They can become very powerful, and their decisions influence what happens to your funds. For example, Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance, has such weight in the industry that he doesn't even comment on the potential of any coins. On the other hand, illegal actions taken by exchange executives can have terrible consequences. When the CEO of the Canadian exchange Quadriga was found dead in India, it turned out that almost $100 million were missing from the accounts. This money will probably never be found.
Centralization of exchanges has several more risks:
- Easy target for hackers. We've all heard about massive thefts from exchanges – sometimes up to $500 million. Since all the funds are stored together, exchanges' wallets are among the most attractive things to hack, so criminals keep trying.
- Market manipulations. Exchanges and their partners do lots of wash trading, fictitious deals, front-running, etc. It's estimated that over 80% of all Bitcoin trading volume is essentially fake. Exchanges want to be in the top-10 by volume – and most of their revenue comes from commissions. So they will allow bots and many dubious practices, even if their Terms of Use usually say that you can't manipulate the market in any way.
- Arbitrary actions. An exchange can suddenly close operations in a certain country, introduce an obligatory KYC, or delist an asset.
So if centralized exchanges are so risky, why do most traders use them? The reason is that they have some very serious advantages, too. We'll look at those advantages in our next post.
https://2ether.com/
Web site — https://2ether.com/ Twitter — https://twitter.com/2Ether_ Discord — https://discord.gg/TuqG4py Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/2Ethe Reddit — https://www.reddit.com/use2Ether Medium — https://medium.com/@2ether Teletype — https://teletype.in/@2ether Telegram — https://t.me/ether2support Telegram chat — https://t.me/blockchain_2ether
submitted by 2Ether to u/2Ether [link] [comments]

Buying Ripple in Canada?

I have been trying to invest a little in Crypto (Ripple) for a month now. I live in Quebec (Canada) and I can't figure out how to buy Crypto using CAD$. I am verified on the Quadriga exchange aswell as Coinsquare. But, Interac Online simply won't work. I've opened a bank account with Scotia Bank, but they unfortunately don't have Interac Online cards anymore. I've also opened an account with BMO, but their Mastercard Debit doesn't work with Interac Online. Tangerine doesn't work either. Is there any bank that are still issuing Interac Online compatible cards? I don't want to pay 10% fees for CC fund on Coinsquare. Thanks!
submitted by madspiritual to Ripple [link] [comments]

Day 4: I will repost this guide daily until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and transaction fees are low. ARE YOU PART OF THE SOLUTION? News: Unconfirmed TX's @ 174K, more exchanges adding SegWit, Core prioritizes SegWit GUI

NOTE Just a daily repost because original OP Bastiat seems to be offline (due to holidays I guess). However, this is quite important as I see much misinformation on which exchanges use segwit or not. Please upvote for awareness.
BACKGROUND
Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that:
If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
A few thousand bitcoin users from /Bitcoin switching to making their next transactions SegWit transactions will help take pressure off the network now, and together we can encourage exchanges/wallets to rapidly deploy SegWit for everyone ASAP. Let's make it happen. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently overflowing. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY SEGWIT & BATCHING STATUS
There are 2 different Segwit address formats.
  • p2sh - starting with a "3..."
  • bech32 - starting "bc1..."
Not many wallets/exchanges support bech32 yet and will claim the address is invalid if you try to send to it. bech32 ("native Segwit") is a mildly better solution compared to p2sh.
Exchange Batching Status Segwit (p2sh) Send to bech32
Binance Yes No No
Bitfinex Yes No No
Bitonic ? No No
Bitstamp Yes Yes No
Bittrex Yes ? ?
Coinbase/GDAX No No No
Gemini No No No
HitBTC Yes Yes ?
Huboi ? ? ?
Kraken No Yes ?
LocalBitcoins No ? ?
OKEx ? ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes ?
QuadrigaCX Yes Yes ?
Shapeshift Yes No No
Source 1
Source 2
WALLETS
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
TODAY's NEWS/DEVELOPMENTS/VICTORIES
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
  • No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unneccessary transactions for now.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
  • The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download Electrum v3.0.3 to generate a SegWit address.
    A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Transaction if the sending address is a SegWit address.
    Source
So what address can I send to safely, there is so much confusion?
  • As of right now...
Non-Segwit Transactions
non-Segwit address to…
non-Segwit address OK
3..... (Segwit) OK
bc1.... (Segwit) No (no support for them yet)
Segwit Transactions
3... address (Segwit) to…
non-Segwit address OK
3..... (Segwit) OK
bc1.... (Segwit) No (no support for them yet)
bc1... address (Segwit) to…
non-Segwit address OK
3..... (Segwit) OK
bc1.... (Segwit) OK
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
  • Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
    Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
  • The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
submitted by psycongoroo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Q2 - 2019 | Cryptocurrency Anti-Money Laundering Report Highlights:

  1. Thieves and scammers stole more than $4.26 billion from cryptocurrency exchanges, investors, and users in the first half of 2019.
  2. Users and investors lost approximately US$2.9 billion as “South Korean” Plus Token app and exchange went offline; Chinese police arrested six Chinese nationals in Vanuatu as the alleged perpetrators.
  3. Hackers used advanced cyberattack to steal $44 million from world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance.
  4. Update from Canadian court on QuadrigaCX collapse reveals long history of misappropriation of user funds by QuadrigaCX founder.
  5. Japanese exchange BITPoint hacked for $30 million.
  6. BestMixer mixing service seized by law enforcement authorities.
  7. European authorities seized three dark web markets and assets.
  8. CFTC charged Control-Finance in $147M Ponzi scheme.
  9. Facebook shook up crypto economy and woke up policy makers with Libra announcement.
  10. SIM Swapping victim won $75.8 million judgement against hacker.
  11. More sophisticated exchange hacks used advanced simultaneous takeovers of user and admin accounts.
  12. SEC sued Kik over $100 million unregistered ICO.
  13. CipherTrace research shows Bitcoin still dominates payment method in dark markets despite advent of privacy coins.
  14. Hack may have caused Bitcoin flash crash on Kraken.
  15. European authorities made arrests in two major typosquatting scams that cost exchange users tens of millions.
  16. $23 million in Bitcoin lost and co-owner found dead after Polish exchange Bitmarket shutters due to “liquidity issues.
  17. Iran accused US of attempting to block its virgin Bitcoin as means to compensate for financial hit from sanctions.
  18. UN published report on North Korean government hackers stealing $571 million from Asian exchanges to fund WMD and compensate for sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Full Report: Webpage or PDF
submitted by 2Panik to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Day 3: I will repost this guide daily until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and transaction fees are low. ARE YOU PART OF THE SOLUTION? News: Unconfirmed TX's @ 274K, more exchanges adding SegWit, Core prioritizes SegWit GUI

BACKGROUND
Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that:
If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
A few thousand bitcoin users from /Bitcoin switching to making their next transactions SegWit transactions will help take pressure off the network now, and together we can encourage exchanges/wallets to rapidly deploy SegWit for everyone ASAP. Let's make it happen. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently overflowing. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY SEGWIT & BATCHING STATUS
Exchange Segwit Status Batching Status
Binance ? NOT READY Yes
Bitfinex Ready ?
Bitonic Ready ?
Bitstamp Deployed Yes
Bittrex ? Yes
Coinbase/GDAX NOT READY No
Gemini Ready No
HitBTC Ready Deployed Yes
Huboi ? ?
Kraken Ready Yes
LocalBitcoins Ready ?
OKEx ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes
QuadrigaCX Deployed Yes
Shapeshift Deployed No
Source 1(https://web.archive.org/web/20171212214514/https://bitcoincore.org/en/SegWit_adoption/)
Source 2
WALLETS
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
TODAY's NEWS/DEVELOPMENTS/VICTORIES
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
  • No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unneccessary transactions for now.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
  • The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download Electrum v3.0.3 to generate a SegWit address.
    A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address.
    Source
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
  • Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
    Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
  • The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
Edit: Updated Segwit Exchange Status for Binance and HitBTC
submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Day 5: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and transaction fees are low. User demand from this community can help lead to some big changes. Have you joined the /r/Bitcoin SegWit effort?

SUMMARY
Segregrated Witness (SegWit) was activated on the Bitcoin network August 24, 2017 as a soft fork that is backward compatible with previous bitcoin transactions (Understanding Segregated Witness). Since that time wallets and exchanges have been slow to deploy SegWit, some admitting in December 2017 that they have not even started work. If users demand SegWit now it will temporarily releive the transaction backlog while bigger solutions like Lightning are developed.
TODAY's NEWS/DEVELOPMENTS/VICTORIES
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
BACKGROUND
Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that:
If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
A few thousand bitcoin users from /Bitcoin switching to making their next transactions SegWit transactions will help take pressure off the network now, and together we can encourage exchanges/wallets to rapidly deploy SegWit for everyone ASAP. Let's make 80%+ SegWit happen fast. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin.
  4. Spread the word! Conact individuals, websites, etc that use bitcoin, explain the benefits of SegWit to everyone, and request they make the switch
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently still quite backlogged. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange.
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY SEGWIT & BATCHING STATUS
Exchange Segwit Status Batching Status
Binance NOT READY Yes
Bitfinex Ready ?
Bitonic Ready ? Yes
Bitstamp Deployed Yes
Bittrex ? Yes
Coinbase/GDAX NOT READY No
Gemini Ready No
HitBTC Deployed Yes
Huboi ? ?
Kraken Ready Yes
LocalBitcoins Ready ?
OKEx ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes
QuadrigaCX Deployed Yes
Shapeshift Deployed No
Source 1
Source 2
SELECTED WALLETS THAT HAVE SEGWIT ALREADY
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
  • No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unneccessary transactions for now.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
  • The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download Electrum v3.0.3 to generate a SegWit address.
    A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address.
    Source
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
  • Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
    Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
  • The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
Edit: Bitonic batching status updated to 'Yes'
submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Day 9: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit, order batching, and Lightning payment channels are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Have you done your part?

BACKGROUND
Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated on the Bitcoin network August 24 2017 as a soft fork that is backward compatible with previous bitcoin transactions (Understanding Segregated Witness). Since that time wallets and exchanges have been slow to deploy SegWit, and the majority of users have not made the switch themselves.
On Dec 18 2017 Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that: If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
Mass SegWit use alone could empty the mempool, result in blocks that are not completely full, and make it possible to include transactions with $0 fee once again.
On Jan 11 2018 when BTC sends went offline at Coinbase the mempool began to rapidly empty. Later in the day when service was restored there was a sharp spike up in the mempool. Subsequently, that afternoon Brian Armstrong finally had to break his silence on the topic and admitted Coinbase is working on SegWit but has still not deployed it. It appears that this is an important data point that indicates if just a few major exchanges would deploy SegWit the high fees bitcoin is experiencing would be eliminated.
SegWit is just one technique available to exchanges and users to reduce pressure on the Bitcoin network. You can make the switch to SegWit on your next transaction, and pressure exchanges to deploy SegWit NOW along with other actions that will reduce their transaction impact on the network. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. If your wallet is not committed to implementing SegWit fast, speak out online any way you can and turn up the pressure. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin.
  4. Spread the word! Contact individuals, websites, etc that use bitcoin, explain the benefits of SegWit to everyone, and request they make the switch. Use social media to point out the benefits of SegWit adoption.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently still quite backlogged. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange.
BEYOND SEGWIT - BATCHING, PAYMENT CHANNELS, LIGHTNING
Batching is another great way that exchanges can reduce their fees. See: Saving up to 80% on Bitcoin transaction fees by batching payments. Despite the benefits of batching, some exchanges have been slow to implement it. Users should demand this or walk.
Beyond SegWit & Batching, Lightning Network integration will have even more effect. Lightning is now active and exchanges could setup payment channels between each other so that on-chain transactions need not take place. Some ideas have to outline how that might work are here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges. Which two bitcoin exchanges will be the first to establish a lightning channel between themselves and offer free/instant transfers between them for their customers? This will happen in 2018
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
NEWS/DEVELOPMENTS/VICTORIES
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY BATCHING & SEGWIT STATUS
Exchange Segwit Status Batching Status
Binance NOT READY Yes
Bitfinex Ready Yes
Bitonic Ready Yes
Bitstamp Deployed Yes
Bittrex ? Yes
Coinbase/GDAX NOT READY No
Gemini Ready No
HitBTC Deployed Yes
Huboi ? ?
Kraken Deployed Yes
LocalBitcoins Deployed Yes
OKEx ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes
QuadrigaCX Deployed Yes
Shapeshift Deployed No
Note: all exchanges that have deployed SegWit are currently only sending to p2sh SegWit addresses for now. No exchange will send to a bech32 address like the ones that Electrum generates
Source 1: BitcoinCore.org
Source 2: /Bitcoin
Official statements from exchanges:
SELECTED WALLETS THAT HAVE SEGWIT ALREADY
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
SegWitAddress.org Paper
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unnecessary transactions for now.
Why is SegWit adoption going so slowly? Is it a time-consuming process, is there risk involved, is it laziness, or something else?
SegWit will require some extra work to be done right and securely. Also, most exchanges let the user pay the fee, and up to now users have not been overly concerned about fees so for some exchanges it hasn't been a priority.
Once Segwit is FULLY adopted, what do we see the fees/transaction times going to?
Times stay the same - fees will go down. How much and for how long depends on what the demand for transactions will be at that time.
What determines bitcoin transaction fees, to begin with?
Fees are charged per byte of data and are bid up by users. Miners will typically include the transaction with the highest fee/byte first.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download the latest version of Electrum to generate a SegWit address.
A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address.
Source: HowToToken
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
Draw your own conclusions based on their own words:
March 2016 - Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has reservations about Core
Dec 2017 - Coinbase is STILL working on Segwit
P2SH/bech32 FAQs
What are the two SegWit address formats and why do they exist?
It's been a challenge for wallet developers to implement SegWit in a way that users can easily and without too much disruption migrate from legacy to SegWit addresses. The first wallets to enable SegWit addresses – Ledger, Trezor, Core, GreenAddress – use so-called “nested P2SH addresses.” This means they take the existing Pay 2 Script Hash address – starting with a “3” – and put a SegWit address into it. This enables a high grade of compatibility to exist wallets as every wallet is familiar with these addresses, but it is a workaround which results in SegWit transactions needing around 10 percent more space than they otherwise would.
Electrum 3.0 was the first wallet to use bech32 addresses instead of nested p2sh addresses.
Source: BTCManager.com
What is the difference in address format between SegWit address formats P2SH and bech32?
P2SH starts with "3..."
bech32 starts with "bc1..."
Which addresses can I send from/to?
P2SH Segwit addresses can be sent to using older Bitcoin software with no Segwit support. This supports backward compatibility
bech32 can only be sent to from newer Bitcoin software that support bech32. Ex: Electrum
Source: BitcoinTalk.org
Why did ThePirateBay put up two Bitcoin donation addresses on their frontpage, one bech32 and one not?
The address starting with a "3..." is a P2SH SegWit address that can be sent BTC from any bitcoin address including a legacy address. The address starting with a "bc1..." is a bech32 SegWit address that can only be sent to from newer wallets that support bech32.
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Best websites for Canadians?

What is the best website for Canadians to purchase and withdraw from? Not just bitcoin, but also others such advice litecoin.
submitted by chelsea1100 to BitcoinCA [link] [comments]

Day 7: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Do you want low tx fees, because this is how you get low tx fees

TL/DR
Bitcoin users can help lower transaction fees and improve bitcoin by switching to SegWit addresses and encourage wallets/exchanges to do the same.
SUMMARY
Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated on the Bitcoin network August 24 2017 as a soft fork that is backward compatible with previous bitcoin transactions (Understanding Segregated Witness). Since that time wallets and exchanges have been slow to deploy SegWit, some admitting in December 2017 that they have not even started work on integrating it. Others, such as Zebpay in India have already implemented SegWit and are reaping the benefits of reduced transaction fees. If bitcoin users demand SegWit now it will temporarily relieve the transaction backlog while more even more advanced solutions such as Lightning are developed.
Batching is another great way that exchanges can reduce their fees. See: Saving up to 80% on Bitcoin transaction fees by batching payments. Despite the benefits of batching, some exchanges have been slow to implement it.
There is an opportunity now for all bitcoin users to individually contribute to help strengthen and improve the bitcoin protocol. At this point, the process requires a bit of work/learning on the part of the user, but in doing so you'll actually be advancing bitcoin and leaving what could turn out to be a multi-generational legacy for humanity.
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
BACKGROUND
On Dec 18 Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that:
If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
A few thousand bitcoin users from /Bitcoin switching to making their next transactions SegWit transactions will help take pressure off the network now, and together we can encourage exchanges/wallets to rapidly deploy SegWit for everyone ASAP. Let's make 80%+ SegWit happen fast. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin.
  4. Spread the word! Conact individuals, websites, etc that use bitcoin, explain the benefits of SegWit to everyone, and request they make the switch
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently still quite backlogged. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange.
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY BATCHING & SEGWIT STATUS
Exchange Segwit Status Batching Status
Binance NOT READY Yes
Bitfinex Ready Yes
Bitonic Ready Yes
Bitstamp Deployed Yes
Bittrex ? Yes
Coinbase/GDAX NOT READY No
Gemini Ready No
HitBTC Deployed Yes
Huboi ? ?
Kraken Deployed Yes
LocalBitcoins Ready Yes
OKEx ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes
QuadrigaCX Deployed Yes
Shapeshift Deployed No
Note: all exchanges that have deployed SegWit are currently only sending to p2sh SegWit addresses for now. No exchange will send to a bech32 address like the ones that Electrum generates
Source 1: BitcoinCore.org
Source 2: /Bitcoin
Official statements from exchanges:
SELECTED WALLETS THAT HAVE SEGWIT ALREADY
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
SegWitAddress.org Paper
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
  • No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unneccessary transactions for now.
Why is SegWit adoption going so slowly? Is it a time-consuming process, is there risk involved, is it laziness, or something else?
  • SegWit will require some extra work to be done right and securely. Also, most exchanges let the user pay the fee, and up to now users have not been overly concerned about fees so for some exchanges it hasn't been a priority.
Once Segwit is FULLY adopted, what do we see the fees/transaction times going to?
  • Times stay the same - fees will go down. How much and for how long depends on what the demand for transactions will be at that time.
What determines bitcoin transaction fees, to begin with?
  • Fees are charged per byte of data and are bid up by users. Miners will typically include the transaction with the highest fee/byte first.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
  • The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download Electrum v3.0.3 to generate a SegWit address.
    A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address.
    Source: HowToToken
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
  • Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
    Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
  • The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
P2SH/bech32 FAQs
What are the two SegWit address formats and why do they exist?
  • It's been a challenge for wallet developers to implement SegWit in a way that users can easily and without too much disruption migrate from legacy to SegWit addresses. The first wallets to enable SegWit addresses – Ledger, Trezor, Core, GreenAddress – use so-called “nested P2SH addresses.” This means they take the existing Pay 2 Script Hash address – starting with a “3” – and put a SegWit address into it. This enables a high grade of compatibility to existing wallets as every wallet is familiar with these addresses, but it is a workaround which results in SegWit transactions needing around 10 percent more space than they otherwise would.
    Electrum 3.0 was the first wallet to use bech32 addresses instead of nested p2sh addresses.
    Source: BTCManager.com
What is the difference in address format between SegWit address formats P2SH and bech32?
  • P2SH starts with "3..."
    bech32 starts with "bc1..."
Which addresses can I send from/to?
  • P2SH Segwit addresses can be sent to using older Bitcoin software with no Segwit support. This supports backwards compatibility
    bech32 can only be sent to from newer Bitcoin software that support bech32. Ex: Electrum
    Source: BitcoinTalk.org
Why did ThePirateBay put up two Bitcoin donation addresses on their frontpage, one bech32 and one not?
  • The address starting with a "3..." is a P2SH SegWit address that can be sent BTC from any bitcoin address including a legacy address. The address starting with a "bc1..." is a bech32 SegWit address that can only be sent to from newer wallets that support bech32.
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Day 8: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit, order batching, and Lightning payment channels are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. BTC Core SegWit GUI coming May 1, Coinbase incompetence exposed, more exchanges deploy SegWit

BACKGROUND
Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated on the Bitcoin network August 24 2017 as a soft fork that is backward compatible with previous bitcoin transactions (Understanding Segregated Witness). Since that time wallets and exchanges have been slow to deploy SegWit, and the majority of users have not made the switch themselves.
On Dec 18 2017 Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that: If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
Mass SegWit use alone could empty the mempool, result in blocks that are not completely full, and make it possible to include transactions with $0 fee once again.
On Jan 11 2018 when BTC sends went offline at Coinbase the mempool began to rapidly empty. Later in the day when service was restored there was a sharp spike up in the mempool. Subsequently, that afternoon Brian Armstrong finally had to break his silence on the topic and admitted Coinbase is working on SegWit but has still not deployed it. It appears that the high fees bitcoin is experiencing could be easily addressed and need not exist.
SegWit is just one technique available to exchanges and users to reduce pressure on the Bitcoin network. You can make the switch to SegWit on your next transaction, and pressure exchanges to deploy SegWit NOW along with other actions that will reduce their transaction impact on the network. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. If your wallet is not committed to implementing SegWit fast, speak out online any way you can and turn up the pressure. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin.
  4. Spread the word! Contact individuals, websites, etc that use bitcoin, explain the benefits of SegWit to everyone, and request they make the switch. Use social media to point out the benefits of SegWit adoption.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently still quite backlogged. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange.
BEYOND SEGWIT - BATCHING, PAYMENT CHANNELS, LIGHTNING
Batching is another great way that exchanges can reduce their fees. See: Saving up to 80% on Bitcoin transaction fees by batching payments. Despite the benefits of batching, some exchanges have been slow to implement it. Users should demand this or walk.
Beyond SegWit & Batching, Lightning Network integration will have even more effect. Lightning is now active and exchanges could setup payment channels between each other so that on-chain transactions need not take place. Some ideas have to outline how that might work are here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges. Which two bitcoin exchanges will be the first to establish a lightning channel between themselves and offer free/instant transfers between them for their customers? This will happen in 2018
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
NEWS/DEVELOPMENTS/VICTORIES
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY BATCHING & SEGWIT STATUS
Exchange Segwit Status Batching Status
Binance NOT READY Yes
Bitfinex Ready Yes
Bitonic Ready Yes
Bitstamp Deployed Yes
Bittrex ? Yes
Coinbase/GDAX NOT READY No
Gemini Ready No
HitBTC Deployed Yes
Huboi ? ?
Kraken Deployed Yes
LocalBitcoins Deployed Yes
OKEx ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes
QuadrigaCX Deployed Yes
Shapeshift Deployed No
Note: all exchanges that have deployed SegWit are currently only sending to p2sh SegWit addresses for now. No exchange will send to a bech32 address like the ones that Electrum generates
Source 1: BitcoinCore.org
Source 2: /Bitcoin
Official statements from exchanges:
SELECTED WALLETS THAT HAVE SEGWIT ALREADY
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
SegWitAddress.org Paper
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unnecessary transactions for now.
Why is SegWit adoption going so slowly? Is it a time-consuming process, is there risk involved, is it laziness, or something else?
SegWit will require some extra work to be done right and securely. Also, most exchanges let the user pay the fee, and up to now users have not been overly concerned about fees so for some exchanges it hasn't been a priority.
Once Segwit is FULLY adopted, what do we see the fees/transaction times going to?
Times stay the same - fees will go down. How much and for how long depends on what the demand for transactions will be at that time.
What determines bitcoin transaction fees, to begin with?
Fees are charged per byte of data and are bid up by users. Miners will typically include the transaction with the highest fee/byte first.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download the latest version of Electrum to generate a SegWit address.
A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address.
Source: HowToToken
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
Draw your own conclusions based on their own words:
March 2016 - Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has reservations about Core
Dec 2017 - Coinbase is STILL working on Segwit
P2SH/bech32 FAQs
What are the two SegWit address formats and why do they exist?
It's been a challenge for wallet developers to implement SegWit in a way that users can easily and without too much disruption migrate from legacy to SegWit addresses. The first wallets to enable SegWit addresses – Ledger, Trezor, Core, GreenAddress – use so-called “nested P2SH addresses.” This means they take the existing Pay 2 Script Hash address – starting with a “3” – and put a SegWit address into it. This enables a high grade of compatibility to exist wallets as every wallet is familiar with these addresses, but it is a workaround which results in SegWit transactions needing around 10 percent more space than they otherwise would.
Electrum 3.0 was the first wallet to use bech32 addresses instead of nested p2sh addresses.
Source: BTCManager.com
What is the difference in address format between SegWit address formats P2SH and bech32?
P2SH starts with "3..."
bech32 starts with "bc1..."
Which addresses can I send from/to?
P2SH Segwit addresses can be sent to using older Bitcoin software with no Segwit support. This supports backward compatibility
bech32 can only be sent to from newer Bitcoin software that support bech32. Ex: Electrum
Source: BitcoinTalk.org
Why did ThePirateBay put up two Bitcoin donation addresses on their frontpage, one bech32 and one not?
The address starting with a "3..." is a P2SH SegWit address that can be sent BTC from any bitcoin address including a legacy address. The address starting with a "bc1..." is a bech32 SegWit address that can only be sent to from newer wallets that support bech32.
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Exchange Binance fiat  QuadrigaCX  Ethereum  Vitalik ... QuadrigaCX Crypto Currency Exchange How to buy Ripple XRP in Canada? Quadriga to Binance Your Bitcoin Is Not Safe! QuadrigaCX, Cryptopia, Binance, Gemini, Kraken - Exchanges Know The Risks Did CEO Of Quadriga Fake His Own Death For $180 Million? BEST CRYPTO EXCHANGES 2019? Programmer explains. How to buy Bitcoin/Cryptocurrencies in Canada using Quadriga (Altcoins, Ethereum, Litecoin) QuadrigaCX - Trading Bitcoin Cash - $700 In Minutes!  Live Trading

Quadriga hingegen sagt, dass es aufgrund des Disputes mit der Bank zu einer schweren Liquiditätskrise gekommen sei, weshalb Kunden wiederum mit Verzögerungen bei den Auszahlungen konfrontiert waren. Derzeit befindet sich Quadriga in einem Konkursverfahren und unter Gläubigerschutz. Sobald die Börse wieder Zugriff auf ihr Vermögen hat, wollen die Gerichte es an die Betroffenen verteilen. In an update with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice earlier today, EY confirmed that Quadriga’s creditors are asking for $171 million in payouts. These claims are from 17, 053 customers, all ... Binance Coin $ 23.72 8.76%. Chainlink $ 9.00 8.89%. Crypto.com Coin $ 0.152922 2.24%. Litecoin $ 43.78 6.65%. Alle Kurse . QuadrigaCX Bitcoin-Börsenchef Gery Cotten hat Millionen veruntreut . Startseite; Aktuelle Artikel im Überblick; Tech; Sicherheit; QuadrigaCX: Chef der Bitcoin-Börse hat Kundengelder verzockt . von Christopher Klee. Am 14. Juni 2020 14. Juni 2020 · Lesezeit: 3 Minuten ... Quadriga CX, znana, upadła giełda kryptowalut z Kanady, była ponoć piramidą finansową. Taką teorię wysnuli śledczy badający aferę związaną z firmą. Quadriga CX piramidą? „To, co miało miejsce na Quadriga, było staroświeckim oszustwem zapakowanym we współczesne technologie. Nie ma nic nowego w piramidach finansowych ... About 17,000 people have filed claims for refunds from the collapsed Canadian digital asset exchange Quadrigacx. Altogether, the claims, denominated in About Binance.com: New: If you want to buy Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies from the United States, visit Binance.US. European users can purchase crypto with EUR and GBP on Binance Jersey. Binance.com offers a wide range of cryptocurrencies with several payment methods, including credit card and bank wire transfers. Trade with 100+ altcoins with margin up to 125x […] Read Binance.com Review ...

[index] [17171] [18847] [4532] [7802] [21885] [2991] [8624] [11371] [5277] [15546]

Exchange Binance fiat QuadrigaCX Ethereum Vitalik ...

Tutorial on how to buy bitcoin from Canada. I also show how to buy any other coin you want to buy from Canada as well. https://www.quadrigacx.com/?ref=44ygih... How To Trade Bitcoin Cryptocurrency for ... Coin Bureau 177,481 views. 17:31. Coinbase, Binance, & Bittrex - Which Crypto Exchange To Use in 2019 - Duration: 41:22. The Cryptoviser 13,365 views ... Live Bitcoin Trading With DeriBot on Deribit DeriBot Backup 1,090 watching Live now How to Buy Bitcoin in Canada - Step by Step for beginners - Quadriga CX Tutorial Full Breakdown - Duration: 26:08. Bitcoin Exchange Quadriga FinTech Solutions Has an 80% Market Share in Canada - Duration: 2 ... QuadrigaCX and Binance Tutorial - How to trade Bitcoin and Alt Coins - Canada - Duration: 7:27 ... 2) NAV coin: Buy from Cryptopia/Binance and hold in NAV wallet you get 4% dividends 3) BTC: low supply and will only go up as this is the US$ of cryptos 4) ETH: Well funded project and backed by ... Your Bitcoin Is Not Safe! QuadrigaCX, Cryptopia, Binance, Gemini, Kraken - Exchanges Know The Risks the quadrigacx conspiracy, and grin developer being a baby and playing the worlds smallest violin. todays quadriga links - https://twitter.com/jespow/status/... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue

https://binary-option-uae.forexbinaryoption.info