Connect with us

Blockchain

The Blockchain Immutability Myth

Where flexible thinking is preferable to dogmatism “The highest good, than which there is no higher, is the blockchain, and consequently it is immutably good, hence truly eternal and truly immortal.”— Saint Augustine, De natura boni, i, 405 C.E. (with minor edits) If you ask someone well-informed about the characteristics of blockchains, the word “immutable”… Read more »

Published

on

Where flexible thinking is preferable to dogmatism

“The highest good, than which there is no higher, is the blockchain, and consequently it is immutably good, hence truly eternal and truly immortal.”
— Saint Augustine, De natura boni, i, 405 C.E. (with minor edits)

If you ask someone well-informed about the characteristics of blockchains, the word “immutable” will invariably appear in the response. In plain English, this word is used to denote something which can never be modified or changed. In a blockchain, it refers to the global log of transactions, which is created by consensus between the chain’s participants. The basic notion is this: once a blockchain transaction has received a sufficient level of validation, some cryptography ensures that it can never be replaced or reversed. This marks blockchains as different from regular files or databases, in which information can be edited and deleted at will. Or so the theory goes.

In the raucous arena of blockchain debate, immutability has become a quasi-religious doctrine – a core belief that must not be shaken or questioned. And just like the doctrines in mainstream religions, members of opposing camps use immutability as a weapon of derision and ridicule. The past year has witnessed two prominent examples:

  • Cryptocurrency advocates claiming that immutability can only be achieved through decentralized economic mechanisms such as proof-of-work. From this perspective, private blockchains are laughable because they depend on the collective good behavior of a known group of validators, who clearly cannot be trusted.
  • Scorn poured on the idea of an editable (or mutable) blockchain, in which retroactive modifications can be made to the transaction history under certain conditions. Mockers posed the question: What could possibly be the point of a blockchain if its contents can easily be changed?

For those of us on the sidelines, it’s fun to watch the mudslinging. Not least because both of these criticisms are plain wrong, and stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of immutability in blockchains (and indeed any computer system). For those short on time, here’s the bottom line:

In blockchains, there is no such thing as perfect immutability. The real question is: What are the conditions under which a particular blockchain can and cannot be changed? And do those conditions match the problem we’re trying to solve?

To put it another way, a blockchain’s transactions are not written into the mind of God (with apologies to Augustine above). Instead, the chain’s behavior depends on a network of corporeal computer systems, which will always be vulnerable to destruction or corruption. But before we get into the details of how, let’s proceed by recapping some basics of blockchains themselves.

Blockchains in brief

A blockchain runs on a set of nodes, each of which may be under the control of a separate company or organization. These nodes connect to each other in a dense peer-to-peer network, so that no individual node acts as a central point of control or failure. Each node can generate and digitally sign transactions which represent operations in some kind of ledger or database, and these transactions rapidly propagate to other nodes across the network in a gossip-like way.

Each node independently verifies every new incoming transaction for validity, in terms of: (a) its compliance with the blockchain’s rules, (b) its digital signature and (c) any conflicts with previously seen transactions. If a transaction passes these tests, it enters that node’s local list of provisional unconfirmed transactions (the “memory pool”), and will be forwarded on to its peers. Transactions which fail are rejected outright, while others whose evaluation depends on unseen transactions are placed in a temporary holding area (the “orphan pool”).

At periodic intervals, a new block is generated by one of the “validator” nodes on the network, containing a set of as-yet unconfirmed transactions. Every block has a unique 32-byte identifier called a “hash”, which is determined entirely by the block’s contents. Each block also includes a timestamp and a link to a previous block via its hash, creating a literal “block chain” going back to the very beginning.

Just like transactions, blocks propagate across the network in a peer-to-peer fashion and are independently verified by each node. To be accepted by a node, a block must contain a set of valid transactions which do not conflict with each other or with those in the previous blocks linked. If a block passes this and other tests, it is added to that node’s local copy of the blockchain, and the transactions within are “confirmed”. Any transactions in the node’s memory pool or orphan pool which conflict with those in the new block are immediately discarded.

Every chain employs some sort of strategy to ensure that blocks are generated by a plurality of its participants. This ensures that no individual or small group of nodes can seize control of the blockchain’s contents. Most public blockchains like bitcoin use “proof-of-work” which allows blocks to be created by anyone on the Internet who can solve a pointless and fiendishly difficult mathematical puzzle. By contrast, in private blockchains, blocks tend to be signed by one or more permitted validators, using an appropriate scheme to prevent minority control. Our product MultiChain uses a technique called “mining diversity” which requires a minimum proportion of the permitted validators to participate in order to create a valid chain.

Depending on the consensus mechanism used, two different validator nodes might simultaneously generate conflicting blocks, both of which point to the same previous one. When such a “fork” happens, different nodes in the network will see different blocks first, leading them to have different opinions about the chain’s recent history. These forks are automatically resolved by the blockchain software, with consensus regained once a new block arrives on one of the branches. Nodes that were on the shorter branch automatically rewind their last block and replay the two blocks on the longer one. If we’re really unlucky and both branches are extended simultaneously, the conflict will be resolved after the third block on one branch, or the one after that, and so on. In practice, the probability of a fork persisting drops exponentially as its length increases. In private chains with a limited set of validators, the likelihood can be reduced to zero after a small number of blocks.

Nonetheless, it’s important to remember that each node is running on a computer system owned and controlled by a particular person or organization, so the blockchain cannot force it to do anything. The purpose of the chain is to help honest nodes to stay in sync, but if enough of its participants choose to change the rules, no earthly power can stop them. That’s why we need to stop asking whether a particular blockchain is truly and absolutely immutable, because the answer will always be no. Instead, we should consider the conditions under which a particular blockchain can be modified, and then check if we’re comfortable with those conditions for the use case we have in mind.

Mutability in public chains

Let’s return to the two examples cited in the introduction, in which the doctrine of immutability has been used as a basis for ridicule. We’ll begin with the claim that the consensual validation procedures used in permissioned blockchains cannot bring about the “true immutability” promised by public chains.

This criticism is most easily addressed by pointing to the vulnerability of public blockchains themselves. Take, for example, the Ethereum blockchain, which suffered a devastating exploit in June 2016. Someone found a coding loophole in a smart contract called “The DAO”, in which almost $250 million had been invested, and began draining its funds at speed. While this clearly violated the intentions of the contract’s creators and investors, its terms and conditions relied on the mantra that “code is law”. Law or not, less than a month later, the Ethereum software was updated to prevent the hacker from withdrawing the cryptocurrency “earned”.

Of course, this update could not be enforced, since every Ethereum user controls their own computer. Nonetheless, it was publicly supported by Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum’s founder, as well as many other community leaders. As a result, most users complied, and the blockchain with the new rules kept the name “Ethereum”. A minority disagreed with the change and continued the blockchain according to its original rules, earning the title “Ethereum Classic”. A more accurate choice of names might be “Ethereum compromised” and “Ethereum the pure”. Either way, democracy is democracy, and (the pragmatic and popular) “Ethereum” is now worth over ten times (the idealistic but sidelined) “Ethereum Classic”.

Now let’s consider a less benevolent way in which public blockchain immutability can be undermined. Recall that block creation or “mining” in bitcoin and Ethereum uses a proof-of-work scheme, in which a mathematical problem must be solved in order to generate a block and claim its reward. The value of this reward inevitably turns mining into an arms race, with miners competing to solve the problems faster. To compensate, the network periodically adjusts the difficulty to maintain a constant rate of block creation, once every 10 minutes in bitcoin or 15 seconds in Ethereum.

In the last 5 years, bitcoin’s difficulty has increased by a factor of 350,000×. Today, the vast majority of bitcoin mining takes place on expensive specialized hardware, in locations where the weather is cold and electricity is cheap. For example, $1,089 will buy you an Antminer S9, which mines blocks 10,000 times faster than any desktop computer and burns 10 times more electricity. This is all a long way from the democratic ideals with which bitcoin was created, even if it does make the blockchain extremely secure.

Well, kind of secure. If someone wanted to undermine the immutability of the bitcoin blockchain, here’s how they would do it. First, they would install more mining capacity than the rest of the network put together, creating a so-called “51% attack”. Second, instead of openly participating in the mining process, they would mine their own “secret branch”, containing whichever transactions they approve and censoring the rest. Finally, when the desired amount of time had passed, they would anonymously broadcast their secret branch to the network. Since the attacker has more mining power than the rest of the network, their branch will contain more proof-of-work than the public one. Every bitcoin node will therefore switch over, since the rules of bitcoin state that the more difficult branch wins. Any previously confirmed transactions not in the secret branch will be reversed, and the bitcoin they spent could be sent elsewhere.

By now, most bitcoin believers will be laughing, because I wrote “install more mining capacity than the rest of the network put together” as if this is trivial to achieve. And they have a point, because of course it’s not easy, otherwise lots of people would already have done it. You need a lot of mining equipment, and a lot of electricity to power it, both of which cost a ton of money. But here’s the inconvenient fact that most bitcoiners brush over: For the government of any mid-size country, the money required is still small change.

Let’s estimate the cost of a 51% attack which reverses a year of bitcoin transactions. At the current bitcoin price of $1500 and reward of 15 bitcoins (including transaction fees) per 10-minute block, miners earn around $1.2 billion per year ($1500 × 15 × 6 × 24 × 365). Assuming (reasonably) that they are not losing money overall, or at least not losing much, this means that total miner expenses must also be in the same range. (I’m simplifying here by amortizing the one-time cost of purchasing mining equipment, but $400 million will buy you enough Antminer 9s to match the current bitcoin network’s mining capacity, so we’re in the right ball park.)

Now think about the reports that bitcoin is being used by Chinese citizens to circumvent their country’s capital controls. And consider further that the Chinese government’s tax revenues are approximately $3 trillion per year. Would a non-democratic country’s government spend 0.04% of its budget to shut down a popular method for illegally taking money out of that country? I wouldn’t claim that the answer is necessarily yes. But if you think the answer is definitely no, you’re being more than a little naive. Especially considering that China reportedly employs 2 million people to police Internet content, which totals $10 billion/year if we assume a low wage of $5,000. That puts the $1.2 billion cost of reversing a year of bitcoin transactions in perspective.

Even this analysis understates the problem, because the Chinese government could undermine the bitcoin network much more easily and cheaply. It appears that the majority of bitcoin mining takes place in China, due to low-cost hydroelectric power and other factors. Given a few tanks and platoons, China’s army could physically seize these bitcoin mining operations, and repurpose them to censor or reverse transactions. While the wider bitcoin world would undoubtedly notice, there’s nothing it could do without fundamentally altering the governance structure (and therefore nature) of bitcoin itself. What was that about censorship free money?

None of this should be construed as a criticism of bitcoin’s design, or a prediction that a network catastrophe will actually happen. The bitcoin blockchain is a remarkable piece of engineering, perhaps even perfect for the purpose its creator(s) had in mind. And if I had to put money on it, I would bet that China and other governments probably won’t attack bitcoin in this way, because it’s not in their ultimate interest to do so. More likely, they’ll focus their wrath on its more untraceable cousins like Dash, Zcash and Monero.

Nonetheless, the mere possibility of this form of interference puts the cryptocurrency immutability doctrine in its place. The bitcoin blockchain and its ilk are not immutable in any perfect or absolute sense. Rather, they are immutable so long as nobody big enough and rich enough decides to destroy them. Still, by relying on the economic cost of subverting the network, cryptocurrency immutability satisfies the specific needs of people who don’t want to trust governments, companies and banks. It may not be perfect, but it’s the best they can do.

Rewriteable private chains

Now let’s move on to private blockchains, designed for the needs of governments and large companies. We can begin by noting that, from the perspective of these organizations, immutability based on proof-of-work is a commercial, legal and regulatory non-starter, because it allows any (sufficiently rich) actor to anonymously attack the network. For institutions, immutability can only be grounded in the good behavior of other similar institutions, with whom they can sign a contract and sue if need be. As a bonus, private blockchains are far less costly to run, since blocks only need a simple digital signature from the nodes that approve them. So long as a majority of validator nodes are following the rules, the end result is stronger and cheaper immutability than any public cryptocurrency can offer.

Of course, immutability is still easy to undermine if all the participants in a chain decide to do so together. Let’s imagine a private blockchain used by six hospitals to aggregate data on infections. A program in one hospital writes a large and erroneous data set to the chain, which is a source of inconvenience for the other participants. A few phone calls later, the IT departments of all the hospitals agree to “rewind” their nodes back one hour, delete the problematic data, and then allow the chain to continue as if nothing happened. If all the hospitals agree to do this, who’s going to stop them? Indeed, apart from the staff involved, who will even know that it happened? (It should be noted that some consensus algorithms like PBFT don’t provide an official mechanism for rollbacks, but this doesn’t help with governance since nodes are still free to bypass the rules.)

Now consider a case where most of a private blockchain’s participants agree to rewind and remove some transaction, but a few withhold their consent. Since every organization’s node is under its ultimate control, nobody can force the minority to join the consensus. However, by sticking to their principles, these users will find themselves on a fork being ignored by everyone else. Like the virtuous proponents of Ethereum Classic, their place in heaven may well be assured. But back here on earth, they will be excluded from the consensus process for which the chain was deployed, and might as well give up completely. The only practical application of transactions outside the consensus is to serve as evidence in a court of law.

With this in mind, let’s talk about the second case in which the doctrine of blockchain immutability has been used to ridicule ideas. Here, we’re referring to Accenture’s idea of using a chameleon hash to enable a block buried deep in a chain to be easily replaced. The primary motivation, as described by David Treat, is to allow an old problematic transaction to be quickly and efficiently removed. Under the scheme, if a block substitution does occur, a “scar” is left behind which all participants can see. (It should be noted that any later transactions that depend on the deleted one would need to be removed as well.)

It’s hard to overstate how many people poured scorn on this idea when it was announced. Twitter and LinkedIn were aghast and aflutter. And I’m not just talking about the crypto crowd, which takes sporting pleasure in mocking anything related to enterprise blockchains. The idea was broadly slammed by private blockchain advocates as well.

And yet, under the right conditions, the idea of allowing blockchains to be modified retroactively via chameleon hashes can make perfect sense. To understand why, we begin with a simple question: in this type of blockchain, who would actually have the power to replace old blocks? Clearly, it can’t be any unidentified network participant, because that would render the chain ungovernable.

The answer is that a chameleon hash can only be used by those who hold its secret key. The key is required to enable a new version of a block, with different transactions, to be given the same chameleon hash as before. Of course, we probably don’t want centralized control in a blockchain, so we can make the scheme stronger by having multiple chameleon hashes per block, each of whose key is held by a different party. Or we might use secret sharing techniques to divide a single chameleon hash key between multiple parties. Either way, the chain can be configured so that a retroactive block substitution can only occur if a majority of key holders approve it. Is this starting to sound familiar?

Allow me to render the parallel more explicit. Let’s say that we share control over chameleon hashes between those same validating nodes which are responsible for block creation. This means that an old block can only be replaced if a majority of validating nodes agree to do so. And yet, as we discussed earlier, any blockchain can already be retroactively modified by a majority of validating nodes, via the rewind and replay mechanism. So in terms of governance, chameleon hashes subject to a validator majority make no difference at all.

If so, why bother with them? The answer is: performance optimization, because chameleon hashes allow old blocks to be substituted in a chain far more efficiently than before. Imagine that we need to remove a transaction from the start of a blockchain that has been running for 5 years. Perhaps this is due to the European Union’s right to be forgotten legislation, which allows individuals to have their personal data removed from companies’ records. Nodes can’t just wipe the offending transaction from their disks, because that would change the corresponding block’s hash and break a link in the chain. The next time the blockchain was scanned or shared, everything would fall apart.

To solve this problem without chameleon hashes, nodes would have to rewrite the early block without the problematic transaction, calculate the block’s new hash, then change the hash embedded in the next block to match. But this would also affect the next block’s own hash, which must be recalculated and updated in the subsequent block, and so on all the way along the chain. While this mechanism is possible in principle, it could take hours or days to complete in a blockchain with millions of blocks and transactions. Even worse, while engaged in this process, a node may be incapable of processing new incoming network activity. So chameleon hashes provide a far more computationally efficient way to achieve the same goal. If you imagine a bad transaction as a rock buried many miles underground, chameleon hashes can teleport the rock to the surface, instead of making us dig all the way down, retrieve the rock, and fill in the hole.

Immutability is nuanced

By reviewing the risks of proof-of-work blockchains and the technical value of chameleon hashes, I hope to have convinced you that blockchain immutability is far more nuanced than a “yes or no” question. To quote Simon Taylor quoting Ian Grigg, the question must always be “who are you and what do you want to achieve?”

For cryptocurrency believers who want to avoid government-issued money and the traditional banking system, it makes perfect sense to believe in a public proof-of-work blockchain, whose immutability rests on economics rather than trusted parties. Even if they must live with the possibility of a large government (or other wealthy actor) bringing down the network, they can take solace in the fact that this would be a painful and expensive operation. And no doubt they hope that cryptocurrencies will only get more secure, as their value and mining capacity continues to grow.

On the other hand, for enterprises and other institutions that want to safely share a database across organizational boundaries, proof-of-work immutability makes no sense at all. Not only is it astoundingly expensive, but it allows any sufficiently motivated participant to anonymously seize control of the chain and censor or reverse transactions. What these users need is immutability grounded in the good behavior of a majority of identified validator nodes, backed by contracts and law.

Finally, for most permissioned blockchain use cases, we probably don’t want validator nodes to be able to easily and cheaply substitute old blocks in the chain. As Dave Birch said at the time, “the way to correct a wrong debit is with a correct credit”, rather than pretending that the debit never took place. Nonetheless, for those cases where we do need the extra flexibility, chameleon hashes help make blockchains a practical choice.

 

Please post any comments on LinkedIn.

 

Source: https://www.multichain.com/blog/2017/05/blockchain-immutability-myth/

Blockchain

Solana, Polkadot, Algorand: What is the Bitcoin effect on these altcoins

Published

on

With the market trading in red today pretty much all coins including Bitcoin and Ethereum are falling. However, there are some coins that made excellent gains in the last 2 months which are now facing huge price falls as well.

Which alts though?

Solana, Polkadot, and Algorand were three altcoins that successfully rallied between July and August. Polkadot rose from $12.34 all the way to $34.45 registering a 214.33% growth. Similar gains were observed for Algorand as the coin breached $2 and marked a 230.26% rise. 

The most gains were seen by Solana holders though mainly because the altcoin shot up 713.94%. An increase this high was the result of the NFT hype which took it up from $26.68 to $191.07

Solana’s 713% rise | Source: TradingView – AMBCrypto

In fact, Solana and Algorand even registered new all-time highs during this time period. But each of these coins is now observing significant price falls as well. 

In the last 24 hours ALGO fell by 15.26%, DOT came down by 14.37% and SOL lost 16.8% of its price as of press time.

A huge reason behind this fall is also their exhausted momentum since even after the September 7 fall, DOT and ALGO witnessed another price rise before they finally hit a slowdown.

Algorand’s 15.26% drop | Source: TradingView – AMBCrypto

Owing to this investors are possibly getting rid of their holdings in both spot and derivatives markets. Sell volumes at the time of this report have increased and liquidations rose to millions for all 3 altcoins. Since SOL gained the most, it lost the most as well and its liquidations touched $25 million.

Solana liquidations at $25 million | Source: Coinalyze – AMBCrypto

Can Bitcoin save them?

Well since Bitcoin’s price movement commands the market’s movement it is obvious that BTC needs to reduce losses first. But more importantly, these assets’ correlation to Bitcoin will determine how much they will be affected by BTC. Right now Algorand is at the lowest at 0.57, followed by Solana at 0.7, and at the highest is Polkadot (0.88)

However, surprisingly, investors are most positive about Algorand of all three hoping for a recovery soon.

Investor sentiment | Source: Santiment – AMBCrypto

Once Bitcoin and Ethereum change their movement, other coins would follow suit. And that’s when some recovery can be expected.

Where to Invest?

Subscribe to our newsletter

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.

Click here to access.

Source: https://ambcrypto.com/solana-poladot-algorand-what-is-the-bitcoin-effect-on-these-altcoins

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Kraken Daily Market Report for September 19 2021

Published

on


Overview


  • Total spot trading volume at $598.4 million, the 30-day average is $1.36 billion.
  • Total futures notional at $223.4 million.
  • The most traded coins were, respectively, Bitcoin (-2.2%), Ethereum (-3.1%), Tether (0%), Solana (-9.9%), and Cosmos (+8.8%).
  • Cosmos continues its hot streak, up 8.8%. Also strong returns from OMG (+10%).

September 19, 2021 
 $598.4M traded across all markets today
 Crypto, EUR, USD, JPY, CAD, GBP, CHF, AUD 
BTC 
$47237. 
↓2.2% 
$159.9M
ETH 
$3328.3 
↓3.1% 
$112.5M
USDT 
$1.0001 
↓0.01% 
$66.5M
SOL 
$152.62 
↓9.9% 
$39.4M
ATOM 
$44.205 
↑8.8% 
$34.8M
ADA 
$2.2816 
↓3.7% 
$33.9M
DOT 
$33.828 
↓2.9% 
$28.0M
USDC 
$1.0 
↓0.01% 
$19.8M
ALGO 
$1.975 
↓4.8% 
$16.0M
XTZ 
$6.5085 
↑1.1% 
$16.0M
XRP 
$1.0480 
↓2.5% 
$11.6M
LINK 
$27.364 
↓3.3% 
$8.56M
DOGE 
$0.2329 
↓3.3% 
$7.51M
LTC 
$181.89 
↑0.24% 
$7.26M
OMG 
$9.6562 
↑10% 
$6.8M
KSM 
$400.45 
↓4.2% 
$6.65M
EOS 
$4.912 
↓9.9% 
$4.86M
CRV 
$3.0345 
↑5.8% 
$4.84M
BCH 
$610.63 
↓3.2% 
$4.79M
DYDX 
$14.288 
↓12% 
$4.55M
MATIC 
$1.3112 
↓4.1% 
$4.14M
XLM 
$0.3134 
↓2.7% 
$3.04M
MOVR 
$387.12 
↓2.1% 
$2.95M
MINA 
$5.38 
↑1.7% 
$2.88M
ZEC 
$133.55 
↓3.8% 
$2.77M
TRX 
$0.1037 
↓2.0% 
$2.4M
AAVE 
$339.02 
↓4.5% 
$2.29M
SC 
$0.0180 
↓5.1% 
$2.02M
XMR 
$260.10 
↓4.2% 
$1.99M
FLOW 
$20.114 
↓2.9% 
$1.93M
DAI 
$1.0002 
↑0.01% 
$1.85M
ANT 
$5.9664 
↓3.2% 
$1.76M
MLN 
$123.19 
↑2.4% 
$1.72M
SNX 
$12.82 
↑1.7% 
$1.47M
DASH 
$192.81 
↓3.6% 
$1.32M
NANO 
$5.5184 
↓0.9% 
$1.31M
OXT 
$0.3665 
↓2.7% 
$1.29M
ETC 
$55.316 
↓2.8% 
$1.26M
SRM 
$9.8570 
↓8.9% 
$1.23M
KAVA 
$6.0120 
↓4.3% 
$1.09M
CQT 
$1.193 
↓2.6% 
$907K
ICX 
$1.7976 
↓6.7% 
$837K
SDN 
$5.84 
↓2.7% 
$819K
KEEP 
$0.4473 
↓6.4% 
$809K
UNI 
$23.906 
↓2.3% 
$807K
WAVES 
$27.5 
↓5.1% 
$798K
KAR 
$9.941 
↓11% 
$790K
FIL 
$83.437 
↓1.0% 
$725K
YFI 
$32933. 
↓2.6% 
$649K
COMP 
$392.7 
↓2.1% 
$599K
QTUM 
$12.145 
↓3.3% 
$577K
OCEAN 
$0.7578 
↓5.7% 
$577K
SUSHI 
$12.017 
↓5.3% 
$513K
REN 
$0.8905 
↓5.9% 
$501K
GRT 
$0.8017 
↓3.4% 
$429K
RARI 
$19.69 
↓7.9% 
$406K
KNC 
$1.7345 
↓3.5% 
$339K
STORJ 
$1.3421 
↓3.9% 
$318K
PAXG 
$1763.7 
↓0.21% 
$305K
BAT 
$0.7403 
↓1.3% 
$269K
CTSI 
$0.6513 
↓3.6% 
$268K
AXS 
$63.35 
↓2.2% 
$245K
ENJ 
$1.5619 
↓4.9% 
$220K
LSK 
$3.6100 
↓0.6% 
$216K
ZRX 
$1.047 
↓5.4% 
$207K
EWT 
$10.199 
↓4.7% 
$197K
BAL 
$24.71 
↓3.9% 
$191K
MIR 
$3.6362 
↓3.0% 
$177K
CHZ 
$0.3165 
↓3.6% 
$156K
1INCH 
$2.9619 
↓4.3% 
$142K
GNO 
$265.44 
↓5.0% 
$141K
PERP 
$14.055 
↓5.7% 
$139K
MANA 
$0.7986 
↓2.8% 
$136K
BADGER 
$20.576 
↓8.8% 
$136K
OGN 
$1.0027 
↓5.0% 
$125K
MKR 
$2730.0 
↓2.9% 
$115K
INJ 
$10.950 
↑2.0% 
$99.1K
REP 
$25.857 
↓1.8% 
$95.5K
LPT 
$18.11 
↓4.2% 
$89.2K
ANKR 
$0.0947 
↓0.3% 
$76.3K
LRC 
$0.4531 
↓1.5% 
$71.4K
GHST 
$1.6867 
↓1.2% 
$56.2K
BAND 
$8.852 
↓4.2% 
$48.2K
SAND 
$0.7381 
↓4.7% 
$43.9K
TBTC 
$48240. 
↓3.4% 
$32.5K
REPV2 
$25.234 
↓3.7% 
$27.3K
BNT 
$3.923 
↓1.3% 
$15.5K
WBTC 
$47699. 
↓0.4% 
$12.3K



#####################. Trading Volume by Asset. ##########################################

Trading Volume by Asset


The figures below break down the trading volume of the largest, mid-size, and smallest assets. Cryptos are in purple, fiats are in blue. For each asset, the chart contains the daily trading volume in USD, and the percentage of the total trading volume. The percentages for fiats and cryptos are treated separately, so that they both add up to 100%.

Figure 1: Largest trading assets: trading volume (measured in USD) and its percentage of the total trading volume (September 20 2021)



Figure 2: Mid-size trading assets: (measured in USD) (September 20 2021)



###########. Daily Returns. #################################################

Daily Returns %


Figure 3: Returns over USD and XBT. Relative volume and return size is indicated by the size of the font. (September 20 2021)



###########. Disclaimer #################################################

The values generated in this report are from public market data distributed from Kraken WebSockets api. The total volumes and returns are calculated over the reporting day using UTC time.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.

Click here to access.

Source: https://blog.kraken.com/post/11070/kraken-daily-market-report-for-september-19-2021/

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Major Blockchain Scalability Coming To Cardano Thanks To The Incoming Hydra Upgrade

Published

on

As ADA Spirals Into Massive Advancement, Cardano Launches Next Phase Of Project Fund to Strengthen Its Ecosystem

Advertisement &  & 

Key takeaways

  • Cardano, having launched Alonzo, now aims to deploy Hydra.
  • Hydra is a layer 2 scaling solution that will make the real-world application of Cardano possible.
  • Development of Hydra to be discussed during Cardano Summit 2021.

There are quite a number of exciting developments happening in the Cardano network. The Alonzo upgrade that happened recently was a significant milestone in the Cardano journey. With it, the network can deploy base-level scripting capability for smart contracts that will, in turn, enable further innovation and network development. 

Having achieved this feat, the next milestone the network is aiming to reach is the deployment of Hydra, a key layer-2 solution to further improve Cardano’s scalability by layering a new protocol on top of the existing layer 1 blockchain. According to Charles Hoskinson, Hydra is already in development on the Alonzo hard fork. 

In an explanatory video, David Orr of IOHK asserts that while Cardano can and does change transaction fees to balance costs, it cannot keep transaction costs low enough for micro-payments to be feasible with just its base layer. He notes that Cardano cannot also handle storage problems that will arise from the growing storage of transaction history, on just its layer 1. Hence the necessity for Hydra.

With Hydra, the network aims to maximize throughput and minimize latency while incurring low to no costs, and greatly reducing storage requirements. It will do this by providing a more efficient means of processing transactions off-chain for a set of users while using the main-chain ledger as the secure settlement layer. This will also ensure that Hydra keeps security guarantees while remaining loosely coupled to the main chain. 

Advertisement &  & 

While many speculate that the deployment of Hydra will see the blockchain reach a throughput of millions of transactions per second, the developers at IOHK have stated that the figures are just aspirational targets and may not be the actual figures.

“Terms like ‘one million TPS (transactions per second)’ have been used before. It is a bold number, and while this remains as an aspirational target, the ultimate goal of any system is the flexibility to grow capability with demand.” 

However, they remain optimistic that the addition of an increasing number of Hydra on the network will improve user experience on the entire network.

“In principle, by adding increasing numbers of Hydra heads to the system, arbitrarily high throughput can be achieved by the system as a whole.”

Currently, the development team is focused on building the hydra-node and the Hydra Head protocol until it becomes “a solid and stable foundation for the community (and us!) to build real-world applications.” It is expected that Hydra development will also be a key subject of discussion at the Cardano summit 2021 taking place between September 25 and 26.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.

Click here to access.

Source: https://zycrypto.com/major-blockchain-scalability-coming-to-cardano-thanks-to-the-incoming-hydra-upgrade/

Continue Reading
Uncategorized5 days ago

Wicked Craniums are now Nifty Gateway!

Uncategorized5 days ago

Acorns Hires Former Amazon Executive as President, Hints at Crypto Options

Uncategorized4 days ago

Swissquote Confirms European Expansion Plan, Focusing on Crypto

Blockchain5 days ago

Biggest Crypto Adoption Rumours: Apple, Amazon, and Walmart

Blockchain4 days ago

Massive NFT and Token Giveaway from Polker as Staking is Announced!

Uncategorized5 days ago

Head of Australian Crypto Exchange Says Regulations Are Beneficial

Blockchain5 days ago

The Signal and the Noise

News5 days ago

Evaluating Credit Card Debt Relief Options

Uncategorized4 days ago

Bingbon Launches its Carbon Free and Afforestation Project

Uncategorized4 days ago

Nickelodeon All-Star Brawl will include DLC fighters post-launch

News4 days ago

Gods Unchained and Guild of Guardians Layer 2 Solution Immutable Raises $60 Million

Blockchain5 days ago

What’s Behind Elrond (EGLD) Daily Surges?

Blockchain5 days ago

Public.com Inks Deal with NFL Star to Advise on Financial Literacy Programs

Blockchain2 days ago

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

Uncategorized5 days ago

This needs to happen before Peter Schiff will buy Bitcoin (BTC)

Blockchain4 days ago

Opensea NFT marketplace Accuses Senior Employee of Insider Trading

Blockchain4 days ago

Grab a spot in Tomi’s presale by bagging an NFT – 260+ ETH raised!

Blockchain5 days ago

Venture Firm Raises $350 Million to Double Down on Its Cryptocurrency Involvement

Blockchain4 days ago

Kanga Exchange Partners with Tenset for an Exclusive Public Sale of KNG Token

Blockchain3 days ago

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

Trending