Connect with us

Blockchain

A Treatise on Bitcoin and Privacy Part 1: A Match Made in the Whitepaper

In Part 1 of 2, Giacomo Zucco explores the fundamental relationship between Bitcoin and privacy by going back to the beginning with the whitepaper.

The post A Treatise on Bitcoin and Privacy Part 1: A Match Made in the Whitepaper appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Published

on


Introduction

How one’s focus can shift in just two weeks! While today everybody in the Bitcoin space seems more concerned with price fluctuations in response to the global financial panic (understandably so), it’s important to remember perennial issues that never go away, like the importance of maintaining your privacy when you transact in bitcoin. Throughout this month especially, we’ve been hearing reports of KYC/AML-compliant exchanges freezing user accounts due to suspected use of CoinJoin software (more on that later), followed by yet another case of a famous and respected early Bitcoin proponent promoting his new illiquid altcoin as something that “will replace Bitcoin, which isn’t private enough!” 

If you want to take a short break from global pandemics, financial meltdowns and price volatility, here’s an attempt at analyzing claims, facts and context of this latest “Bitcoin drama.” To begin with, in Part 1 of this two-part series, we’ll start by looking at the fundamental relationship between Bitcoin and privacy by going back to the beginning with the whitepaper. Then, in Part 2, we’ll focus on some the ways that Bitcoin privacy is being maintained and improved upon — and strike down a few “red herrings.”

Money Needs Privacy

Bitcoin is designed to perform monetary functions, and money needs a strong separation of personal identity from specific monetary units and transactions in order to work sustainably at scale. There are at least two fundamental components to this separation.

Deniability

We could call the first component “deniability.” This describes the possibility for an individual using a monetary tool to credibly deny any connection with it later on.

The reason for this is that money has been developed to facilitate individual saving and voluntary exchange among people. But the positive-sum game of voluntary exchange is not the only way to increase one’s wealth: The other way is the negative-sum game of violent confiscation. As the sociologist and political economist Franz Oppenheimer brilliantly put it, there are two different paradigms for wealth acquisition within societies:

“These are work and robbery: one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. I propose in the following discussion to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the economic means for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the political means.”

While the temptation to resort to political means is always present in extended social contexts, it becomes particularly strong when money is involved: The same features that make money an especially good tool for exchange and for storing economically acquired wealth make it also particularly interesting as a target of confiscation — and as a way to store politically acquired wealth.

Individuals exchanging and storing money are more easily and more often targeted by political rent-seekers, since it’s most efficient to rob them than to rob participants in simple barter or insulated hermits who don’t exchange at all. Quite often political organizations prefer to present confiscation as conditional upon the specific type of exchange engaged in by the victim: taxes, imposts, tolls, tariffs, tributes, fines, bribes, penalties, excise duties, protection money, etc.

Privacy in communication is important, and economic exchanges are among the most important, sensitive, private and potentially dangerous forms of communication in adversarial environments. Money talks. Somebody whose financial and commercial life is completely exposed runs a higher risk of suffering robbery, blackmail, kidnapping or political expropriation.

For all these reasons, it becomes paramount for economic agents to be able to detach their own public identity from the specific monetary transactions they have taken part in and, thus, to be able to deny such connection.

Fungibility

The second component is called “fungibility.” By this, we mean the possibility for an individual receiving a monetary tool to safely ignore any connection between that tool and any particular individual or use case it interacted with in the past.

Fungibility is more an economical category than a political one: It basically means that any random amount of money is practically indistinguishable from any other, thus making the validation cost for a money receiver way lower. One $50 bill is as good as any other, and you don’t need to know who has used it in the past in order to accept or use it as payment today. Indeed, if a receiver had to evaluate the history of every individual unit before being able to assess its value, verification costs would increase exponentially.

Ironically, one of the relatively recent trends of “Know Your Customer” regulations around the world is, indeed, that money was mostly adopted as a way for merchants to avoid knowing (and trusting) their customers! Customers are already somehow required to “know their merchant,” since they have to trust them about the quality and the dependable delivery of the product or service they purchase. But merchants, when they scale up from trivial systems of barter or credit to actual markets, use money to be free from the burden of knowing all their customers. “KYC” regulation is just a political control tool marketed with a paradoxical expression which exudes economic illiteracy.

This isn’t an ideological problem but a functional one: A good cannot easily pass over many hands (as a monetary good is required to do) if every current receiver has to verify the entire political status of every previous owner in order to know how much political risk (including persecution, censorship, taxation, debt) he is actually inheriting. Non-fungible goods can’t work as money.

Some goods are ideal for mitigating both deniability and fungibility problems: “bearer instruments” which don’t carry the personal information of previous owners, making it easy for everyone to deny having been involved in any specific transaction.

Bitcoin: Born for Privacy

Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin as a tool for privacy. The entire cypherpunk quest, which Satoshi was an active part of and which the Bitcoin experiment is the coronation of, was all about personal and financial privacy. Most of the early messages and publications by Satoshi (including the famous whitepaper, which devotes a paragraph to it) are heavily concerned with its privacy features.

The first consideration made in the whitepaper about privacy is that centralized online payment intermediaries are easy targets for regulation. As such, it is easy to push these intermediaries to actively mediate disputes and thus to make most transactions reversible. This requirement, as a consequence, forces merchants, scared by risks of chargebacks, to be very “wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.” Merchants get pushed back to the “KYC paradox” once again. Being decentralized and impossible to regulate, Bitcoin cannot be forced to actively mediate disputes. For this reason, Bitcoin transactions can quickly become irreversible, making any inquiry into the personal identity of a payer absolutely redundant and unnecessary.

The second consideration concerns the fact that Bitcoin’s base layer (the “timechain,” developed to avoid double-spending without the need of a trusted third party) requires the publication of every settlement transaction, thus limiting the chance to apply the traditional “privacy through obscurity” technique of centralized providers. This limitation is mitigated by the anonymity of the cryptographic public keys, which are intended to be used only once, without any association with identities to work. In Satoshi’s words,

“The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the ‘tape,’ is made public, but without telling who the parties were.”

Privacy and Trust: All or Nothing

An interesting feature of this transparent setting, discussed by Satoshi and by many other early Bitcoin contributors and researchers, is the all-or-nothing nature of its privacy guarantees. A trusted third party can, indeed, promise to keep your sensitive information safe from potential kidnappers, robbers or stalkers, while still being forced to provide any detail to more powerful political entities (nation-states with their tax agencies, financial authorities, secret services, etc.). 

In a (pseudo)anonymous but public setting, it’s safe to assume that in every case where the latter type of adversary is able to access sensitive financial information, the former type will find a way as well. When somebody’s privacy on the timechain is broken, it is broken to the benefit of all snoopers with an internet connection: governments, bandits, hackers, business competitors, personal enemies, haters, ex-spouses, etc. This should serve as a strong incentive for users to protect their “on-chain” deniability, thus protecting fungibility for all.

Bitcoin base-layer transactions, on the other hand, already show perfect fungibility internally. What this means is that, although every transaction is public, there is no public data about who, within a certain transaction, was in control of the private keys that spent a specific input, or who is now in control of the private keys that will spend a specific output. 

Bitcoin’s rules assure us that the total amount of satoshis spent with all the inputs is equal to or less than the total amount of satoshis “locked” in all the outputs (transaction can’t create inflation, they can only leave out “blockspace fees” for miners). But there’s technically no way to be sure, from public timechain data alone, if a transaction with 10 inputs and 10 outputs is moving satoshis from one payer to ten payees, or from two payers to one payee, or from one entity to himself. Of course, some probabilistic inferences are possible, based on heuristics and common patterns, but nothing can be proven with public timechain data at the individual transaction level. 

While having one or more entities controlling the outputs is trivial, having more entities controlling the inputs is a little bit trickier, requiring some real-time coordination among all the payees before the transaction gets broadcasted. Luckily, though, the atomicity of Bitcoin transactions is such that this process doesn’t require any trust among different, unknown payees. 

The Fungibility Factor

This fungibility feature of Bitcoin transactions has been part of Bitcoin’s design since the very beginning, but its privacy implications were explicitly pointed out by different contributors only later on. Finally, in 2013, the label CoinJoin was created by Gregory Maxwell, to refer to the best practices a bitcoin wallet should implement in order to fully leverage such preexistent internal fungibility. Many variants of the technique have been proposed over time (PayJoin, JoinMarket, CoinSwap, P2EP and Zerolink implemented in wallets Wasabi and Samourai), all with the same goal: taking advantage of the fundamental fungibility of the protocol.

Another dynamic with the potential of boosting Bitcoin’s privacy is its layerization. Upper layers of the protocol stack, like the Lightning Network, don’t need to use the timechain to confirm every single transaction; rather transactions are only used as “anchors” to open and close “contracts” enabling payments elsewhere. Satoshi already imagined such kinds of “payment channels” early on:

“The parties hold this tx in reserve and if need be, pass it around until it has enough signatures. […] They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement. The party giving money would be the first to sign the next version. If one party stops agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime. If desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1 parties can push an unresponsive party out. Intermediate transactions do not need to be broadcast. Only the final outcome gets recorded by the network. Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.”

This did not turn out to be the exact way payment channels have been introduced (it was flawed), but they are now a common tool for many Bitcoin users. They can be used directly or collectively via routing. While often presented as a “scalability” solution, the Lightning Network and, in general, Layer 2 techniques have the big privacy advantage of massively reducing the amount of public information available on the timechain.

Starting Off on the Wrong Foot

Of course, it was not trivial to implement privacy best practices in everyday bitcoin wallets and tools. First of all, while reducing the amount of information leaked on-chain, Layer 2 techniques and CoinJoin often increase the amount of network-level information to manage and protect (mostly because of the need for real-time interactivity, up-to-date lists of reachable peers, publicly available liquidity, etc.). The Lightning Network, in particular, was not really easy to bootstrap until a protocol upgrade was adopted by users in late 2017.

While CoinJoin, unlike the Lightning Network, was possible to implement in theory since day zero (although with many practical challenges regarding coordination, liquidity and amount obfuscation), most actual bitcoin wallets didn’t bother to find a way to do it. By not doing so, they consolidated a dangerous trend: The large majority of on-chain transactions were considered as created, signed and broadcast by one single entity, in complete control of the private keys associated with all the inputs. Bitcoin transactions started to be seen as always one-to-one or one-to-many. Thus, one of the most effective fungibility features of the protocol hasn’t actually been turned into a wallet best practice until very recently, even though it has always been available.

But there’s more, unfortunately. Other, simpler best practices, included in Bitcoin’s design as trivial defaults, have been mostly ignored by tool builders who have been less concerned with privacy and more focused on user experience during the early years. One obvious example is address reuse. Satoshi’s words about the anonymity of public keys were written under the assumption that users would generate a one-off address every time they received bitcoin, which would then be discarded after it’s spent again and never reused. (Maybe the word “address,” itself, wasn’t a good choice after all, being often linked to permanent references: email, IBAN, ecc.; while the word “invoice,” now used for Lightning Network transactions, would have been a cleaner choice.) 

Implementing this design was not entirely trivial either (especially before the introduction of HD wallets which made it easier to re-derive thousands of keys with just one “master” backup). So we ended up with massive reuse of static addresses, decreasing the entropy and facilitating analysis and deanonymization. Users started to link the same address to their profiles on forums, social networks and blogs. For many early users, making a payment meant giving the payee a complete overview of all their past and future financial life in Bitcoin.

Another major incident was the proliferation of “light clients”: applications unable to download, validate and store the timechain directly, but able to store private keys and query other nodes (in the best cases, a trusted third party, like a wallet provider; in the worst cases, random nodes, in so-called “SPV wallets”) for the validity of the transactions involving the corresponding public keys. Besides creating a systemic risk in terms of security, these clients become a common hazard in terms of privacy.

Some other minor implementation best practices have been initially overlooked by tool providers in this regard (including privacy-oriented coin selection, merge-avoidance, change management, etc.), but, for the most part, these three practices represent the basis for the heuristics employed by “chain-analysis” companies hired by eavesdroppers to spy on Bitcoin users.

As of today, most of these problems have brilliant technical solutions and modern tools that implement them. But it’s difficult to push the best practices (which sometimes present small but existent coordination costs) in an ecosystem already “drugged” with easy, if dangerous, shortcuts. And privacy, as they say, loves company: Even if you have the best tools and follow the best practices, it doesn’t really help if you are the only one doing so (in fact, it may even hurt by making your efforts stand out in comparison, putting you under the spotlight).

In Part 2, we’ll look at some of the techniques that are threatening our privacy as bitcoin users, common misconceptions about privacy, and finally, how innovations in Bitcoin are going to make privacy more secure and easier to maintain.

This is an op ed contribution by Giacomo Zucco. Opinions expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bitcoin Magazine or BTC Inc.

The post A Treatise on Bitcoin and Privacy Part 1: A Match Made in the Whitepaper appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Source: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/a-treatise-on-bitcoin-and-privacy-part-1-a-match-made-in-the-whitepaper?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-treatise-on-bitcoin-and-privacy-part-1-a-match-made-in-the-whitepaper

Blockchain

ETH Options launches on PowerTrade

Published

on

PowerTrade, the most sophisticated crypto options trading platform, announces the addition of ETH options. PowerTrade’s addition of ETH options trading comes just as the asset retests its all-time-high with key resistance levels along the way—likely resulting in market volatility and presenting the ideal time for options trading.  

Given many crypto exchanges are not designed to support the complexity of options trading, the options market has been underserved until now. PowerTrade is specifically designed to support crypto options, enabling professional and retail traders to maximize ROI through an easy-to-use interface that aims to provide better prices at higher volumes with less capital. As the only crypto exchange that offers options priced in USD with SPAN (Standard Portfolio Analysis of Risk) margin, PowerTrade holds great appeal for traders seeking to discover new ways to make greater profits.

The ETH options are portfolio (SPAN) margined with the BTC options market, allowing for complex options strategies.  Also known as Portfolio Margin, SPAN margin takes traders’ entire portfolio risk into account when determining margin requirements, not just the risk of a trader’s individual positions.

This means if a trader has multiple positions that offset each other when the market moves, the required collateral will be much lower than the typical crypto margin exchange. The benefit of SPAN is that after calculating the worst-case daily move for one particular open position, some positions end up in profit, not requiring any margin and enabling unrealized gains to offset margin obligations for losing positions or new positions.

In the maturing crypto market, the integration of SPAN is integral in empowering traders to maximize ROI.

Tom Howard, Business Development & Growth at PowerTrade, expressed, “We’re very pleased to be able to offer ETH options trading to the wider crypto market at such a pivotal time in Ethereum’s development. Because PowerTrade’s platform is easy to use and mobile-first with low minimums and low fees, it truly puts the power of ETH options into the hands of traders.”

PowerTrade is now allowing all users to trade and earn up to $1,888 with PowerRewards.

Here’s how: 

  • Deposit funds up to $1,000 min. and earn $20
  • Trade min. $1,000 worth of crypto options (BTC/ETH) and earn $30
  • Earn additional rewards as you trade higher, up to $1,888
  • Must complete steps above and apply to earn rewards

For more information about PowerRewards, view our blog

To stay up-to-date on our latest news and developments, please join our Telegram channel and follow us on Twitter

About PowerTrade

PowerTrade is an easy-to-use crypto options trading platform, enabling traders to maximize ROI through an intuitive interface that provides better prices and lower margin requirements.

At PowerTrade, it’s easy for anyone to get started trading with as little as $1 USD and continue trading with simple, fast, mobile-first trading for crypto options.

 Disclaimer: This is a paid post and should not be treated as news/advice.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.

Click here to access.

Source: https://ambcrypto.com/eth-options-launches-on-powertrade

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Real Madrid Player Gareth Bales Announces NFT Collection on Crypto.com

Gareth bales NFT collection

Rate this post Real Madrid star Gareth Bales, has become the latest sports celebrity to announce an NFT collection. In a recent press release, Bales announced that he is partnering with London-based artist, Dines, to release limited edition NFTs on Crypto.com. Real Madrid Star Gareth Bale Is Dropping an NFT Collection via Crypto.com Real Madrid winger Gareth Bale is following Lionel Messi’s lead in launching limited edition nonfungible tokens (NFTs), which will debut on September 28.  The Welsh football legend is airdropping two types of digital collectibles through Crypto.com. One of these categories comprises poster-like images of Bale’s career highlights, while the other comprises 3D reimaginations of his memorable bicycle goal from the 2018 UEFA Champions League.  To bring this project to life, Bale collaborated with the British artist DINES, who has previously worked with the likes of Nike, EA Sports, Adidas, and Levis.  “I am thrilled to partner with Crypto.com and London-based artist DINES, to release my line of NFTs. Over the course of my career, I have had the privilege to play for incredible fanbases around Europe and the world. Now, I look forward to giving something back to my supporters in the form of digital assets that you cannot find anywhere else,” Bale said in the press statement. He added that he sees Blockchain and NFTs as a new medium to raise awareness for causes. And through this initiative, he’ll be able to help Velindre Cancer Centre, which will receive a portion from all the sales.  Crypto.com Thrilled About the Partnership Commenting on the partnership with Bales, Crypto.com Executive Vice President and Global Head of NFT Joe Conyers III said that he was delighted to support an important cause. He explained: “Gareth is a football icon. Whenever we get to introduce a globally celebrated athlete to the NFT space, and welcome their fans into our community, it is a historic moment that we really cherish. We are honored to work with Gareth and DINES on this collection celebrating his storied career, and to do so in support of such a worthy cause makes it that much more special.” It is worth noting that Bale is one of Real Madrid’s most expensive transfers to date. The player was signed to the La Liga club for $117 million in 2013.

The post Real Madrid Player Gareth Bales Announces NFT Collection on Crypto.com appeared first on Cryptoknowmics-Crypto News and Media Platform.

Published

on

Real Madrid star Gareth Bales, has become the latest sports celebrity to announce an NFT collection. In a recent press release, Bales announced that he is partnering with London-based artist, Dines, to release limited edition NFTs on Crypto.com.

Real Madrid Star Gareth Bale Is Dropping an NFT Collection via Crypto.com

Real Madrid winger Gareth Bale is following Lionel Messi’s lead in launching limited edition nonfungible tokens (NFTs), which will debut on September 28. 

The Welsh football legend is airdropping two types of digital collectibles through Crypto.com. One of these categories comprises poster-like images of Bale’s career highlights, while the other comprises 3D reimaginations of his memorable bicycle goal from the 2018 UEFA Champions League. 

To bring this project to life, Bale collaborated with the British artist DINES, who has previously worked with the likes of Nike, EA Sports, Adidas, and Levis. 

“I am thrilled to partner with Crypto.com and London-based artist DINES, to release my line of NFTs. Over the course of my career, I have had the privilege to play for incredible fanbases around Europe and the world. Now, I look forward to giving something back to my supporters in the form of digital assets that you cannot find anywhere else,” Bale said in the press statement.

He added that he sees Blockchain and NFTs as a new medium to raise awareness for causes. And through this initiative, he’ll be able to help Velindre Cancer Centre, which will receive a portion from all the sales. 

Crypto.com Thrilled About the Partnership

Commenting on the partnership with Bales, Crypto.com Executive Vice President and Global Head of NFT Joe Conyers III said that he was delighted to support an important cause. He explained:

“Gareth is a football icon. Whenever we get to introduce a globally celebrated athlete to the NFT space, and welcome their fans into our community, it is a historic moment that we really cherish. We are honored to work with Gareth and DINES on this collection celebrating his storied career, and to do so in support of such a worthy cause makes it that much more special.”

It is worth noting that Bale is one of Real Madrid’s most expensive transfers to date. The player was signed to the La Liga club for $117 million in 2013.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Inteligence Amplifed.
Click here for Free Trial.

Source: https://www.cryptoknowmics.com/news/real-madrid-player-gareth-bales-announces-nft-collection-on-crypto-com/

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Making sense of the path Bitcoin’s price will take in the near future

Published

on

Each time a halving occurs, Bitcoin sees a dramatic surge to a new all-time high, beyond many expectations. Bitcoin’s value sees regular pumps, followed by regular dumps until it eventually stabilizes with a new bottom. For some months, it trades relatively sideways until a second surge begins.

Based on this narrative, can Bitcoin record a new ATH in 2021? 

Analyst Bit Harington, in a series of tweets presented a similar scenario inspired by Bitcoin’s bull runs, post halving.

Source: Twitter

Bitcoin’s halving event in 2012 and 2016 saw the token rise by more than 600%, when measured from the resistance/support (R/S) line. Analysts (in the past and even now) perceive the halving as a bullish event. The said analyst is no different. He opined,

“What if…? Bitcoin

[R=Resistance, S=Support] From the R/S line Bitcoin pumped ~6X after halving 1 (~$200 to ~$1200) and also ~6X after halving 2 (~$3K to ~$20K)…”

In 2020-2021, Bitcoin witnessed an immense surge; a surge from below $4,000 to rising to above $60,000. (see chart below). Well, now, maintaining the $60k mark as the same R/S line – a clear bullish breakout looks imminent.

Exploring further 

Dutch trader and analyst Michaël van de Poppe too added some support to the aforementioned analysis. As per his tweet, it would lead Bitcoin prices to the $250,000-$350,000 range. Poppe, on the same thread, added,

“This makes a ton of sense and in line with my ideas too. Somewhere (in) 2017 we are. Heavy breakout to come at a later stage to ~$250-350K and then landing on $65K in the bear market for Bitcoin.”

Having said that, he hinted at a possible correction as well. The bear market could push Bitcoin prices back toward $65,000. Apart from this, other members in the community too agreed with the aforementioned analysis. Now, needless to say, a certain group completely slammed the said thesis. Something that remains common within the crypto world. For instance,

Where to Invest?

Subscribe to our newsletter

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.

Click here to access.

Source: https://ambcrypto.com/making-sense-of-the-path-bitcoins-price-will-take-in-the-near-future

Continue Reading
Blockchain4 days ago

Over 40 days after Ethereum’s EIP-1559, here’s where it stands

Blockchain4 days ago

Cardano Sees an Influx in Smart Contracts ! But There’s a Twist

Blockchain3 days ago

After Targeting BlockFi, State Regulators Now Set Their Eyes On Celsius

Uncategorized3 days ago

NBA 2K22 Limitless Spot-Up and Chef Badges Explained

Uncategorized3 days ago

What is The Old Gym in NBA 2K22 Next Gen?

Uncategorized4 days ago

NFTs Are the Building Blocks of the Metaverse — Here’s How It’s Being Built

Blockchain4 days ago

EY Taps Polygon Network to Improve Enterprise Clients’ Experience 

Uncategorized3 days ago

Best Dribble Pull-Up in NBA 2K22: Which to Use

Blockchain3 days ago

Matic Price to hit $1.75 in the next leg up! Launch on Bitfinex to be the Catalyst?

Uncategorized4 days ago

Shiba Inu (SHIB) Rises to Range High

Blockchain3 days ago

Flux Pools autoriza o pagamento de ativos paralelos em mais de 300K Flux!

Uncategorized4 days ago

The Head of Diem wants you to trust Facebook, but is he fighting a losing battle?

News4 days ago

XRP Lawsuit: Here’s Why Experts Think Ripple Could Win the Case Against SEC

Blockchain3 days ago

All you need to know about MATIC before investing

Blockchain5 days ago

EY Integrates with Polygon Protocol: Advances NFT Issuance

Blockchain3 days ago

Smart Contracts Running on Bitcoin? Internet Computer Founder Explains How It’s Possible

Uncategorized1 day ago

PetPals, One Of The First Play-To-Earn NFT Web-Based Games Is Out Now

Uncategorized5 days ago

Solana (SOL) outperformed top 10 cryptos with $50 million in institutional inflows last week

Blockchain4 days ago

EOS: Why there’s a question mark attached to its long-term trajectory

Blockchain4 days ago

Shiba Inu’s days in the sun may be over; here’s why

Trending