Exploring Cryptocurrency

Hi all,

A colleague recently launched his long-anticipated YouTube channel, offering education and counsel to enterprise and commercial interests as they pertain to blockchain solutions. Maurice Kenny has proven himself a unique professional in the space - he clearly understands this stuff and how impactful it can be for businesses and the diverse array of applications therein.

Here is the first episode of his new podcast:


I thought this episode was a very pragmatic and concise introduction to some of the most outstanding misconceptions about blockchain architectures. Maurice touches on something very few individuals account for: the nature of hacking. There's a sort of semantic disconnect when discussing hacking, particularly in business or the media. What is largely determinant in assessing a system's vulnerability is the nature of exploits thereof. For example, we often hear about the "major security issues" of a blockchain such as 51% attacks, or account takeovers.

Maurice notes the impracticality of a 51% attack while doing his due diligence by acknowledging that it is a possibility that must be accounted for. We see an inverse correlation between a 51% attack and the scalability of the given network (or more specific and low-level, the number of nodes and the ease of operating them). The more nodes, the more complex (and therefore impractical) a forced hard-fork. This is intriguing when we consider things such as block size, alternative data structures, segregated witness, et cetera.

Second, Maurice makes mention of "hacking" incidents that have occurred, namely those causing great concern among analysts, economists, and reporters whose expertise in blockchain technologies is largely peripheral. Accounts are often compromised due to a lack of education about private key management and cryptographic security measures. Something as simple as two-factor authentication can comprise the difference between a compromised wallet and a secured wallet. My point is that many of the "hacks" we have seen are not exploits of intrinsic system vulnerabilities, but of sociological vulnerabilities spawned by the complex nature of these systems.

If a technology is complex and without accessible resources for proper usage, users will inevitably fall victim to tactics such as phishing, social-engineering, and corporeal theft (like an unlocked mobile phone running the Binance app being stolen from one's person). A lot of the system vulnerabilities called "hacks" are really just people mismanaging their information - and this is a symptom of the purveyors of those systems. I'm getting at something about which I've been long-impassioned: educating the layman on the proper usage of technologies such as wallet softwares.

In the context of business/enterprise interests, this semantic oversight can cause unnecessary panic. However, the onus does not rest upon the users, but us. Again, as purveyors of this technology, and moreover as champions of its adoption, we have a responsibility to educate others about best practices in this emergent space. I've said this many, many times and I will forever stand by it (it's probably my mantra by now).

Many in the crypto space blame the ignorance of media outlets or laggard, demurring "experts" who love to hate these technologies...and I understand this; I'm not always immune to this sentiment, either. But how do you combat disinformation? You educate people, and you do it using empirical, data-driven research and intelligence that is born from pragmatism as opposed to idealism. We don't need to be crypto-ideologues or zealots to challenge misinformation; we merely need to offer qualitatively sound information. And we need to make this tech more inviting and accessible to everyone. In short, zealotry is alienating. Let's stick to the facts.

Anyway, I commend Maurice for pointing this out far more concisely than I just did. But hey, I wanted to rant and this is a blog. I suppose that's what such a medium is for. Be sure to check out Maurice Kenny.

Until next time,
Matthew

Howdy all,

Please excuse my absence as of late; I recently relocated across the States and have been quite busy with some pressing affairs. That said, I do intend to return to the EC platform with a renewed vigor, offering even more research and insights into blockchain-based technologies and the projects that are bringing them into the purview of the public at-large.

This Summer, I want to explore various macro-concepts in the crypto-financial space. We'll be looking at overviews of crypto-financial regulation and law (incl. ICOs versus STOs), layer 2 solutions and amendments to projects with which we are familiar, and even futurist estimations of some of the most radical potential use cases in blockchain technology.

Furthermore, I will be resuming the weekly Q&A episodes, albeit on an admittedly protean basis - namely due to the aforementioned affairs. Nevertheless, I will do my best to accommodate any and all questions insofar as they abide by my long-standing criterion: I do not provide investment advice. You are always welcome to email me your questions (in fact, I encourage this); I can answer your questions prior to my recording the respective Q&A episode (i.e. you won't have to wait).

Last, I have been publishing many of my articles on the Medium platform, as it affords me a larger audience than Blogger. To be candid, the association of my name with the information I disseminate is pretty negligible - I sincerely just want to offer information to as many people as is possible. In other words, I don't have much interest in scaling my name or platform so much as I am passionate about offering empirically-driven, impartial education in the crypto space. If someone else's platform will allow me to do that, I'll gladly use it. So, be sure to find me there.

Best,
Matthew

Today, everything EOS! We’ll be learning all about project and cryptocurrency EOS, one of the major Ethereum contenders and decentralized applications (DApps) platform. We’ll learn about the history of EOS, its issuance model and ICO, its governance, and its unique implementation of the delegated proof-of-stake consensus model.

We’ll also take a look at the concerns surrounding EOS, from the “Tragedy of the Commons” to the “Nothing at Stake Problem”. These perspectives will allow us to look at EOS objectively, and furthermore better understand the varieties of consensus mechanisms (e.g. Bitcoin’s proof-of-work vs. Ethereum’s imminent hybrid PoW and PoS model, etc) and their implications on a blockchain network, its scalability, and security.

We now have a Twitter page @ECryptoPodcast! Be sure to follow for updates on new episodes and news in the crypto space. You can also submit questions for the weekly Q&A here.

Subscribe and listen on iTunes here.

Subscribe and listen on YouTube here.

Today, we’ll be learning all about the cryptocurrency project Nano (previously known as Raiblocks): the Nano network, the XRB token, and how it all works. We’ll delve into the unconventional and creative consensus mechanism behind Nano - a modified form of delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS), the usage of block-lattices and multiple blockchains, and directed acyclic graph (DAG), all of which combine to make Nano a formidable peer-to-peer payment solution that rivals Bitcoin.

All of these technologies and concepts combined make Nano one of the fastest payment systems in existence - processing transactions at a fraction of a second - and incredibly secure…all while giving the user autonomy and control over their XRB tokens.

For a Nano speed test, check out nanospeed.live. Special thanks to Nano community member and representative rockmsockmjesus for providing resources that made this episode possible. You can learn more about their project by visiting nanocenter.org.

NOTE: The Nano community was kind enough to point out a few slip-ups that I want to clarify:
At 5:30 I said that the only two parties needed to validate a transaction are the sender and receiver. For confirmation, the network still needs to vote on the block.At 13:30 I mention UDP. Note that Nano will be switching to TCP soon for better bandwidth throttling and other advantages.At 14:15 I used the OLD ticker, XRB. With the rebranding, the ticker has been changed to NANO. Thanks!
We now have a Twitter page @ECryptoPodcast! Be sure to follow for updates on new episodes and news in the crypto space. You can also submit questions for the weekly Q&A here.

Subscribe and listen on iTunes here.

Subscribe and listen on YouTube here.

One of the remarkable phenomenon you see when you follow so very closely the cryptocurrency community and the somewhat insulated news sources and culture(s) therein is this concept of 'crypto bashing'.

And I mean this in a unique context, qua - like I said - the crypto community. This isn't a more macrocosmic context, such as JPM Chase publicly chastising Bitcoin and blockchain for years only to develop their own proprietary token asset that runs on a permissioned blockchain, or Warren Buffet  (in my opinion, the most antiquated and therefore overrated investor alive) despising cryptocurrencies because he self-admittedly can't understand them...the solution to which, in his expired mind, is deeming them "worthless".

No, I'm not talking about all the hate our community receives from the mainstream world, a world that largely doesn't even know what a consensus algorithm is and yet takes up the mantle in admonishing crypto investors, developers, and users. (And by the way, these same people don't even realize half the institutions they use are already running a blockchain or otherwise distributed system that wouldn't exist without Bitcoin and Nakamoto's white paper...)

I'm talking about hate within our own community, and I'm moreover referring to two specific projects: Ripple and TRON.

Many in the cryptocurrency community - especially those on Reddit (but then again, Reddit is for the most part a consortium of video game-fixaed 20-something white males who each have a PhD in Arguing on the Internet), incessantly moan and complain about how Ripple is evil for working with banks and how TRON is a giant "s**tcoin" or scam project.

I can't even enumerate the myriad reasons these sentiments are absurd. Let's get TRON out of the way:

How would an Sun, who graduated from billionaire business magnate Jack Ma's private business school (which has an application process more difficult than Harvard and Yale combined, requires one to have founded and run a business with millions in annual revenue just to apply, and accepts something like a mere 40 students per year) be a scammer? How does that make sense? Build an entire mainnet, open international offices, develop two development standards, and host international conferences...that's an even bigger front than Bernie Madoff! I mean, Madoff just had a reputation as an investor...Sun has a reputation plus all these things.

Let's remember that Sun is a businessman, a marketer, not a computer scientist before we complain about TRON's "partnerships" (which is an A-freakin-plus for adoption efforts, by the way). He's a businessman, and that's why he has a massive, transparent team of developers et al who have worked very hard to build TRON into one of the most creative, forward-thinking crypto projects in existence. They have more DApps than Ethereum and EOS combined and they have more users of DApps than any other network. Their mainnet is incredible, interesting, fun, and affords autonomy to up-and-coming devs and rewards community/network participants.

Should we discredit that because a Chinese-English speaker and volunteer translated the TRX white paper by using translation tools and copying generalized statements? Really, check out what was plagiarized: not technical specs, not infrastructure, but vague catch-all, SEO-optimized abstracts.

And what about Ripple?

Are we truly so arrogant as to think that cryptocurrency is going to get anywhere without SEC regulation? Without corporate interest? Did we think that banks would just sit back and let blockchain technology remain in the Wild West and not partake? Ha! At least Ripple took the initiative to open a dialogue with these people, to create a connection between our community and the centralized world. This is invaluable.

What about remittance payments, pre-funded Nostro accounts, and forex issues? It's easy for those of us who are fortunate enough to reside in developed countries like the United States, Britain, Germany, etc to forget that XRP is immeasurably valuable to people in developing "third world" countries. These people don't have access to banks (30% of the human population, to be precise). If they do, they have access to corrupt banks, or banks that don't have these aforementioned Nostro accounts and thus require massive fees and wait-periods sometimes weeks long in order to process remittance payments. This is the money being sent home so someone's family can eat. This is what XRP facilitates.

But maybe you disagree, or perhaps none of that matters to you. Then I ask you this: what about the fake ICOs? What about the fact that BitConnect happened? What about the thousands of blatant ETH investment scams, ponzi schemes (purchasable trading bots much?), fake projects?

My point today - as I rant, as I commit my thoughts to the page in brilliant vernacular form(lessness) - is that the energy we spend "bashing" legitimate projects could be better utilized focusing on actual threats and plagues to our community.

You don't have to like Ripple or TRON; you don't have to believe they're going anywhere or worth one IOTA (ha!). But is the energy expended on perpetuating FUD about these projects properly allocated when someone new to this space - someone we should have been available to instead of bickering on Reddit - just lost 10 ETH to a scam project? On that note, this person will now vow to never use crypto again, and tell everyone they know how awful it is. Great.

This is why I support all legitimate projects. I don't care which one is going to make me money. Hell, personally I couldn't care less about video games, and yet I support multiple platforms that deal exclusively with gaming. This is because everyone is a node, a part of a larger dialogue that is about finding that killer app, finding that perfect consensus mechanism, increasing adoption, increasing use-cases. Sure, I have my personal investment choices, but you won't hear me shaming any legitimate project that is actively contributing to this space. I leave my feelings out of it.

Just some thoughts to consider.

Today’s episode is a strange one, a curious one, a bizarre saga of resource warring, imposters, and a crypto community in disarray.

We will learn everything there is to know about Bitcoin Cash by reviewing this odd saga of hard forks in the Bitcoin network, the scalability argument that began way back in 2009, block size limitations in the blockchain, and the recent transition into BCHSV and BCHABC.

You’ll learn what these cryptocurrencies are, why they exist, what makes them different from Bitcoin as we go down a rabbit hole of the bemusing story of Craig Wright aka The “Real” Satoshi Nakamoto and Roger Ver.

Today’s episode also features a quick news flash about the goings on in Venezuela, where hyperinflation has caused the emergence of a government supported remittance program for Bitcoin and Litecoin…which may very well become the first instances of decentralized cryptocurrencies becoming a sort of “official” currency of a nation!

We now have a Twitter page @ECryptoPodcast! Be sure to follow for updates on new episodes and news in the crypto space. You can also submit questions for the weekly Q&A here. Our podcast is also on iTunes here.

On our first weekly Q&A we answer listener questions ranging a variety of cryptocurrency and blockchain related topics, namely cryptocurrency investing:

Will the bear market end in 2019? Where is Ethereum’s price headed? Why does Ethereum infrastructure use RLPx encoding instead of protobuf? Is Bitcoin a ponzi scheme?! Many great questions, some silly questions, all serious and thorough answers.

Exploring Cryptocurrency publishes our weekly Q&A every Monday. All listeners are invited to ask a question (or questions) which we will address the following week. All we ask is that questions are kept civil and are relevant to crypto and blockchain technology, investing, culture, news, etc. Any questions regarding how to perform illicit activities will not be addressed.

You can submit questions on our blog at ExploringCryptocurrency.blogspot.com OR by emailing Matthew directly at [email protected].

We now have a Twitter account @ECryptoPodcast! Be sure to follow for updates on new episodes and news in the crypto space. You can also submit questions for the weekly Q&A here.

Find us on iTunes! Check the link below to subscribe and receive automatic updates on new episodes.

Since early 2018, the cryptocurrency market has seen a considerable bear trend that is unlike any market correction or bearish environment we (namely those of us who have been involved in this market long enough to see such corrections and volatile fluctuations) have witnessed.

We saw the outcome of the Mt. Gox hack, we've seen dramatic market corrections, we've endured long bear trend markets. "We're used to it", we say; "this is what the cryptocurrency market does, the FUD on the part of newcomers is unwarranted"! We tell ourselves, "This is just another typical crypto bear market; things will recover on their own."

But the stark reality here is that the market won't recover on its own. This is because this isn't just another market correction, or another volatile downtrend that will invariably be followed by new ATHs. The irony in all of this? It's the very people who are engaging in FUD that have created this perpetuated bear market.

Consider the inflated valuations of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in December 2017 and January 2018. Bitcoin, as we all know, hit an unprecedented ATH of nearly 20,000 USD and alt-coins followed suit, conforming to the inferable standard that the valuations of alt-coins are inextricably tethered to that of Bitcoin (with a few exceptions).

The increased media coverage of this incredible bull run appealed to the speculative minds of millions who had either never heard of Bitcoin et al, or had heard of cryptocurrencies but possessed no vested interest in them such that they wanted to enter the market. But hype about nearly every cryptocurrency valuation rising astronomically within a remarkably brief timespan - the "sentiment adoption" fueled by a Bitcoin reaching toward 20,000 USD - was ample invitation for these millions of people to enter the market.

And among these millions of people are millions of speculative, neophyte investors who are not equipped with a resilience to crypto-asset volatility. These are people who jumped on the bandwagon, bought in at ATHs, and watched their portfolios crumble to formidable lows in the subsequent weeks, months, and now, in excess of one year.

One can imagine the sentiment here: sell now, get out while you can.

What makes this bear market unique is that it is sustained by the negative sentiments - a sort of shroud of darkness - that loom over the cryptocurrency market. Now that we've millions of uninformed investors in the space, the cryptocurrency market is saturated with an inherited distrust in a suite of technologies that many of these individuals never understood (or really trusted) to begin with. They sell off their assets, and they won't buy in again.

Crypto-asset valuations will never rise per the cyclical trend we veterans had become so accustomed to; we cannot depend on the metrics of the past which dictate that the market will once again rise exponentially. Coupled with the aforementioned massive population of purveyors of negative sentiment and FUD is a world that is more cognizant of cryptocurrencies.

The media, governments, and financial institutions now recognize cryptocurrencies and the mainstream world is trying to establish and determine their place among finance and technology. This is a point of no return; this is the adoption we've wanted.

Despite so much (quite recent) wonderful news and adoption and applications and use cases of cryptocurrencies and blockchain implementations, the market remains in a perpetuated bearish trend because these accomplishments are obfuscated by the speculative investor. As long as we want prices to go up, as long as we see Bitcoin et al as merely a means to profit, we will be party in perpetuating what has been aptly dubbed the "Crypto Winter".

Henceforth, crypto-asset valuations will be contingent on the technologies themselves, their applications, their products, their relationships to law, regulation, and mainstream institutions. It is only by using cryptocurrencies and supporting their intended use cases and applications that we will once again see a bull market (but this time, a healthy bull market). It is only by paving the necessary infrastructure inversion that we will see a healthy cryptocurrency market. The only way to do this is to cooperate with regulation, support necessary and reasonable legal arbitration, and foster education.

Valuations can no longer be over-inflated; speculation is no longer met with reward. We are now in the new era of the cryptocurrency space: this isn't a speculation-compatible market anymore.

The cryptocurrency community is analogous to the dawn of the internet, the dot-com bubble, and the subsequent survivalism of tech-giants like Apple, Google, and Amazon. We have this emergent, radical, disruptive technology that will see a "pruning" many times over. We have a community and global discourse founded on a technology that will see an extensive genealogy of applications. Projects will come to fruition, contribute to this dialogue, and fade away as a concise composite of blockchain-based technologies and a decentralization of societal utilities slowly emerges.

We are but a small link in the chain (I wish I had rendered this pun intentionally, but alas, I did not); we are trailblazers, executors of the greatest technological innovation of our time. Vested in us is this responsibility as arbiters, and to abuse this responsibility is a defiance of the very tenets of our own alchemy. Allowing real-world application of this technology to be superseded by the "HODL" diaspora and the memesis of speculation (or more aptly, gambling) is not within the best interest of the cryptocurrency heritage, but a self-serving disposition with a definitively unprofitable ending.

Thus we are given a choice: do we abuse this incredible innovation as a means to prospectively consolidate wealth, or do we support the projects therein by enacting their use-cases and doing our part to educate the millions who are drifting, lost in the mire of a broken community?

I choose the latter. I vow to support this technology in the interest of progress and not personal gain.
I commit to impart upon others what knowledge I have, and to maintain always a modicum of humility, that I can acquire more such knowledge so I may then relay it to these others.

There's nothing wrong with investing in cryptocurrencies - this is, after all, a valid and in many instances an intended use case. But if you are wholly and exclusively engaged in the "HODL" ethos, if you have never taken advantage of the utilities of the tokens you've invested in, if you collude within cryptocurrency and blockchain communities to exclude outsiders and newcomers, I implore you to consider and re-evaluate the role you are playing within the community-at-large. I challenge you to give back to a community that has granted you access to one of the most exciting moments in technological innovation.

And again, the irony here is that by choosing the latter, you will contribute to the finale of the "Crypto Winter". But more important, you will contribute to a cause, a movement, to progress. Isn't that worth more than money?