Showing posts with label Bitcoin Magazine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bitcoin Magazine. Show all posts

Friday, March 15, 2019

MIT Bitcoin: Legislators Discuss Regulation, Potential of Blockchain Tech

MIT SEC.jpg

On March 9–10, 2019, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology hosted a two-day event, the MIT Bitcoin Expo 2019. Put together by the student-organized MIT Bitcoin Club, the conference welcomed more than just Bitcoin voices from every corner of the industry. One of those voices was that of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce.

Peirce sat down with Gary Gensler, ex-chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management and senior advisor to the director of the MIT Media Lab, to discuss the progress of the SEC’s efforts to regulate the cryptocurrency industry. Notably, Gensler and Peirce launched into a discussion on what regulators can do better to protect investors from fraud and malicious actors.

Before the debate began, both Gensler and Peirce expressed their appreciation for the emerging technology. “It’s a new way to have tamper resistant data amongst the consensus of multiple parties,” Gensler said. “My research is mostly around the business of blockchain technology and … trying to find where are the real use cases where traditional data structures don’t work as well.”

Peirce expressed her own support for the space in relation to the SEC’s ongoing efforts to properly regulate it. “We have rules on the books that we have to enforce, but on the other hand, we don’t want to stop people from doing things that are going to make society a better place to live, that are going to make people’s lives easier, and enable people to interact in ways that they have not been able to in the past.”

Later in the presentation, the two veteran regulators went on to discuss what the government can do to protect investors by possibly regulatinged cryptocurrency exchanges.

Gensler believes that “exchanges are the gateway to get good public policy, particularly around AML laws, but also around investor protection.” He continued, “In essence, that there’s not a manipulated market with frontrunning and manipulation with the order books and the like.”

The discourse was ongoing, and the most significant takeaway was that regulators like Peirce and the SEC acknowledge that, again, perhaps the current system of rules don’t apply perfectly. How could securities-based regulations be placed on all cryptocurrencies, even those that are officially defined as not securities?

The SEC, according to Peirce, is working on what may be an alternative set of rules for exchanges that do not violate the rules of listing unregistered securities. Bitcoin, which is not a security, falls neatly into this alternative rule set. And, though it is currently unclear what the exact precedents will be, Peirce’s thoughts around the subject at MIT’s latest Bitcoin Expo were nothing short of encouraging for Bitcoin’s regulatory future.

“People regulate each other in their interactions with one another, and that’s sort of the whole purpose of the Bitcoin idea … that it would be this community that would be able to regulate itself. So as problems arise, people in the community are thinking about how to deal with those problems.

“I think these markets could regulate themselves if we lived in a world that allowed that,” Peirce added.

Peirce has made similar remarks about the SEC’s awareness of the Bitcoin community’s tendency to self-regulate in the past.

Gensler and Peirce also discussed the topic of initial coin offerings (ICOs) and what is being done to provide clarity to people participating in the once-booming phase. Peirce went on to explain that the SEC has already provided some clarity for investors who want to create a company, raise funds from investors and then distribute returns based on the company’s performance. For these individuals, the existing securities rules will apply to their tokens.

There are, however, the countless number of tokens that claim to be used as a utility on the network they belong to, but originate through an ICO in which they accept funds from investors in exchange for these tokens. There are still a plethora of unanswered questions around these.

“That’s where we need to do a better job,” Peirce said, “in providing guidance in how does it change from one thing to another.” Eventually, she said, the SEC wants to remove the big gray cloud hanging over these project’s heads.

Overall, the uplifting theme of the entire discussion could be summarized by an exchange between Peirce and a member of the audience, addressing the current system that discourages equal opportunity in retail participation.

The audience member asked, “It may be hubristic, but many of us are not independently wealthy and we still believe we can make good investment decisions, and right now we’re excluded from participating. How can we move the accredited investor laws away from wealth thresholds and toward something that’s far more reasonable and accessible to mainstream investors?”

“Our accredited investors rules … I personally think those rules are not consistent with what this country is about,” Peirce admitted, “which is about people taking opportunities, taking their talents and intelligence and applying it to make their lives better. We’ve put this artificial barrier in place so that people can’t do that.”

As far as whether or not these opinions will translate into legislature, time will tell. The entire MIT Bitcoin Expo 2019 livestream recording can be viewed here.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Thursday, March 14, 2019

CipherTrace Partners with Maltese Regulators to Manage Risk of Financial Crimes

Project_-_Sketch_1_159.jpg

CipherTrace, a blockchain analytics company, is partnering with the Republic of Malta’s sole financial regulatory agency to ensure that all crypto transactions within the country are free of money laundering and other similar financial crimes.

As the Times of Malta reported on March 11, 2019, the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) has enlisted the help of U.S.-based company CipherTrace to audit cryptoasset services that operate within Malta’s jurisdiction.

The MFSA will require potential cryptocurrency agents, like individuals operating exchanges, wallets and ICOs, to formally register with the MFSA. CipherTrace will then “provide the MFSA with powerful oversight tools to automate regulatory processes and audit the risk management of virtual asset businesses licensed in Malta,” claimed CEO Joseph Cuschieri.

Blockchain analytics companies, which have proliferated in the bear market, have come under public scrutiny as of late for their stated goal of deanonymizing blockchain transactions and the privacy implications that this presents. One such company, Chainalysis, made a public statement of their privacy policies in early March to try and pre-empt some of these criticisms.

Malta sits at an interesting crossroads in this particular issue as a result of this. Attempting to position itself as a blockchain hub for quite some time, the government has passed laws to attract crypto businesses, and has met with a degree of success. With these moves, however, the risk of financial crimes has increased. As such, the Times of Malta reported that the timeline for Malta’s approval of crypto licenses “[depends] on the due diligence assessment — including competence in the field of anti-money laundering and the counter funding of terrorism.” CipherTrace, it seems, is the latest of several blockchain companies to earn the Maltese government’s confidence. Using its tools, the MFSA could keep tabs on a number of financial crimes.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Blocktream’s Satellite Messaging API Is Now Available on Mainnet

BS Sat API MN.jpg

Blockstream has launched its satellite messaging application programming interface (API) on mainnet. Essentially, this means users can now broadcast data via the company’s satellite network and pay with Lightning payments.

No Internet? No Problem

Blockstream's satellite service was established with the aim of replacing the Bitcoin network's dependence on land-based internet connections with actual satellites, thereby putting the network within reach of the world's population.

According to the blockchain-based startup, the satellite network makes 24-hour broadcasts of the Bitcoin network all over the world, ensuring that the blockchain is protected from interruptions, providing users around the world with the ability to access Bitcoin with the use of a satellite receiver instead of an internet connection.

Transmitting Data via Blockstream

Developers can use Blockstream's RESTful API or can submit their messages through the website. Using the website to send messages is quite straightforward. The user has to select the “Broadcast a Transmission” option and upload the file (which could be encrypted, if it's intended to go to a specific user).

The next step is to bid for a price for transmission. The auction process determines the priority given to your transfer. Per the details on the site, the "minimum bid is 50 mSat/byte. Use the minimum bid price or bid more to give your transmission higher priority in the queue."

Once a bid is chosen, the system will generate an authentication code and transmission ID, which can be used to "delete or re-prioritize (bump) your transmission in the queue." Once these details are saved in a secure location, then payment is made via Lightning. Once the Lightning payment is made, the transmission will be queued.

Blockstream's satellite service was launched back in 2017 with the aim of connecting Bitcoin users, particularly in areas where they struggle with low internet penetration and online freedom.

Upon its launch, the satellite's focus was on transmitting messages to receivers in Europe, Africa and the Americas. The company further expanded to the Asia-Pacific region in December 2018, while adding support for Lightning network payments.

At the time, Blockstream CEO Adam Back said, “We see the increased robustness of the Bitcoin network and the lower cost of participation contributing to helping businesses rely on the service for backup and for emerging markets to use as their primary access to the Bitcoin network at a lower cost.”

With the Lightning network service, the satellite messaging API will now allow users to send encrypted messages to each other from anywhere on Earth and make payments for receiving those messages.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Samsung Galaxy S10 Wallet Supports Ether, CryptoKitties — But Not Bitcoin

samsung wallet.jpg

When leaked pictures of Samsung’s latest smartphone went viral, the crypto sphere lost its mind over a singular feature: a built-in cryptocurrency wallet.

Samsung would quickly deny rumors that the S10 contained a baked-in hardware wallet. Well, the wallet definitely exists. It’s just missing a few features you might expect of a crypto wallet. Specifically, it doesn’t support bitcoin — only ether and ERC20 tokens — which would be akin to your broker at Charles Schwab or Fidelity telling you that your 401(k) lets you invest in silver, copper and other metals but not gold.

The Wallet

I bought my S10 yesterday and downloaded the wallet first thing this morning from Samsung’s Galaxy Store (interestingly, it’s not available on the Google Play Store). Upon setting up the wallet, the app asks for permissions, like access to your phone’s calling function, storage, camera and body sensors, and it asks you to sign in with either a Samsung or Google account.

I tried to take screenshots of the process, but when you try this, an error message reads: “Can’t take screenshots due to security policy.” So there’s a plus-one for mindful security practice even if the app’s asking for access to your phone leaves you wary.

Setting up the wallet is pretty standard procedure. You can either import an existing wallet using your seed phrase or create a new one. If creating a new one, you’ll be asked to enter a 6-digit PIN, and after you confirm this PIN, you’ll be given a 12-word seed phrase (aka recovery phrase or mnemonic phrase).

The device will warn you to store the phrase on another device (or, if you’re being really security minded, offline entirely), adding that if you lose it, then your wallet will be lost to the blockchain abyss if you need to recover it for whatver reason (instances where you might need to recover your wallet: your phone gets broken, your phone gets stolen or Thanos secures all the Infinity Stones). The app also assures you that Samsung has no access to your wallet, but that anyone with your seed phrase does.

After you promise that you’ve written down the seed phrase safely like an obedient little enthusiast, like any responsible wallet, it will randomly select three of these words (numbered 1–12) for you to regurgitate to the app to prove that you didn’t ignore the most important step in setting up a wallet.

Bitcoin When?

Once you’ve done this, your wallet is set up and you can start sending and receiving ether and ERC20 tokens.

Yep, just Ethereum stuff: no bitcoin. The wallet comes with innate support for ether, TrueUSD, Basic Attention Token, Augur’s REP, Chainlink, the Paxos Standard, Maker, USD Coin, BNB and ZRX, among others. You can also add a “custom token” like you can for other Ethereum wallet services such as MyCrypto and MyEtherWallet: this means that you can tell the wallet to recognize any ERC20 token by entering its token contract address, its name, its symbol (ticker) and its decimals.

It also comes with intrinsic support for two dApps: the Enjin Coin wallet, the eponymous cryptocurrency for Korean gaming company Enjin; and the notorious CryptoKitties. Enjin has been touted as a token platform that will revolutionize in-game purchases and ownership (what amounts to tokenizing cosmetics, items and other content). CryptoKitties, depending on who you ask, is either a really cute crypto trend or the virtual reincarnation of Beanie Babies with even more irrational buyer’s mania. It made headlines in 2017 when the dApp clogged up the Ethereum network.

According to BREAKERMAG’s coverage of the wallet, COSMEE, a cosmetic token that rewards users for things like reviews of beauty products, is also supported. The app reportedly features the CoinDuck payment portal for point-of-sale and merchant payments, as well.

Samsung has given no indication as to why it chose to support only Ethereum out of the gate, and it has also given no promise or timeline for integrating bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies in the future.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

Proposed Texas Bill Would Require ID Verification for Crypto Use

Project_-_Sketch_1_155.jpg

A bill proposed by the Texas legislature will require that all receivers of cryptocurrency in regular transactions verify the identity of the cryptocurrency sender before accepting any payment. If passed, the measure will go into effect on September 1, 2019.

In its current form, the text of the bill itself is brief, providing very few clues as to how such an ambitious task will be carried out. Apart from definitions of basic terms, the bill’s most concrete requirement is that “before accepting payment by a digital currency, a person must verify the identity of the person sending payment,” with an exception to be made if both parties are already using “digital currency that allows the true identities of the sender and the receiver to be known before a person has access to another person’s digital wallet.”

The bill also lays some vital groundwork for developing the tools to eventually carry out this plan. It indicates that, if passed, it would have “the Texas Department of Banking, Credit Union Commission, Texas Department of Public Safety, and State Securities Board” collaborate to develop the identification tools, and in cooperateion with law enforcement agencies.

Regulators in several countries have had an ongoing struggle to reckon with this technology and integrate it into their financial regulations and legal systems. This Texas bill, for instance, could be incredibly difficult to enforce, even with the cooperation of several regulatory agencies, given the censorship-resistance of cryptocurrency transactions.

Instead of trying to police the development of cryptocurrency, other states have attempted to accommodate cryptocurrency into their state’s financial business laws. On multiple occasions, Wyoming, for example, has shown a willingness to become a regional hub for crypto-asset businesses. In February, the state’s legislature enacted two cryptocurrency laws, one that allows individuals and businesses to directly own crypto-assets without needing an intermediary for custody, and one that deems that “virtual currency is intangible personal property and shall be considered money.”

As a somewhat incredible cross-party cooperation in these politically fractious times, many crypto-friendly initiatives in Wyoming received bipartisan support, with bills being proposed jointly by representatives from both major parties.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Saturday, March 9, 2019

Decentralized Exchange Hodl Hodl Is Launching a Bitcoin-Based Prediction Market

hodlhodl prediction.jpg

Hodl Hodl, a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency exchange, has announced that it is launching a prediction market on Bitcoin. Slated for launch in the spring of 2019, it would be the first Bitcoin-based prediction market to go live on Bitcoin’s mainnet.

A prediction market is a novel application of blockchain technology. The betting platforms allow users to secure odds, futures and outcomes with smart contracts. Two users place funds (traditionally, ether) into a smart contract to bet on futures for any given outcome; when the outcome arrives, the smart contract automatically pays out to the winner.

Most prediction markets are built on blockchains with a more flexible smart contract language, like Ethereum. Augur, for example, pioneered the model when it launched in July 2018 as the first decentralized prediction market to make use of Ethereum’s ERC-20 token contract. Other prediction markets have followed suit, including Gnosis on Ethereum and Bhodi on QTUM.

Despite Augur’s frontrunning status, Hodl Hodl believes that it can improve on aspects of the platform’s operations — specifically, in its solution to the “oracle problem:” How, for example, does the smart contract know who wins the World Cup, if bitcoin closed above $3,850 by midnight on March 8, or who won an election?

You need software and people (oracles) to feed this data to the smart contract. The inherent counterparty risk becomes an issue of trust and accuracy: How do you keep oracles honest and how do you verify their inputs? To mitigate this risk, Augur leverages decentralized oracles. Multiple users are in charge of inputting data/results to make sure that the reported results of an outcome are accurate and that the smart contract pays out to the winning prediction.

Decentralizing the sources of inputs, in theory, should ensure that every prediction market’s payout is consistent with real-world outcomes, but some opponents argue that there aren’t enough participants on these decentralized platform to prevent bad actors from gaming the system.

“We're approaching this slightly differently,” Roman Snitko, Hodl Hodl’s chief technology officer, told Bitcoin Magazine. “The oracle [is] the two parties participating in a contract. In case of a dispute, Hodl Hodl steps in with its third key and is able to influence the decision.” It is the company’s belief that, whereas a decentralized system for judging bet outcomes can be influenced by bad actors, a peer-to-peer contract might be more ironclad.

To contrast with the established model of prediction markets, on February 27, 2019, Hodl Hodl announced their own prediction market, the first to be built on the Bitcoin blockchain. Additionally, their oracle system, according to Snitko, “is not decentralized — we have a central server. But we're non-custodial. In the case of a prediction contract, both parties lock bitcoins in a 2-of-3 [key] escrow. Both of their keys are required to send the locked funds somewhere — unless they both sign the release transaction, bitcoins cannot be moved from there.”

Under this system, there is no incentive to try and dispute the outcome of a bet, as the funds will not be released if the two parties disagree. If someone fudges the results of an outcome and both parties claim the coins, a tiebreaker ensues.

“In case of a dispute,” said Snitko, “both parties may actually never come to a decision to unlock the funds, in which case Hodl Hodl can step in and use its third key along with one of the parties keys to unlock funds in their favor. Hodl Hodl cannot unilaterally move bitcoins to wherever it wishes to because we still need one of the user's keys (which we don't have) to sign the release transaction.” The company warns, however, that forcing the impartial mediator to step in may negatively impact a user’s ability to convince other users to enter new contracts.

One solution to this problem could be having a third party mediator who, unlike Hodl Hodl, is not a stakeholder in the situation in any regard. Snitko is entertaining the idea, telling Bitcoin Magazine that “in the future we might have a user group called ‘mediators’ who would take on the role Hodl Hodl currently performs in case of a dispute — with a third key.” He added, however, “it's probably wrong to call that party an oracle, as the decision is not made by that single party.”

“At launch,” he said, “we want to keep it as simple as possible and then see what needs to be improved.”

Bitcoin Magazine asked Hodl Hodl to explain how its reputation system works but has not yet received a response.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Coinbase Purchased Neutrino for $13.5 M, Acquisition Contract Shows

Untitled-1.jpg

Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase purchased controversial Italian software services provider Neutrino for $13.5 million (€12 million), a copy of a legal document dated February 15, 2019, and shared with Bitcoin Magazine reveals. The hard numbers of the acquisition were previously unknown.

The document leak comes after a week of turbulent developments following the February 19 acquisition. Community members, namely Block Digest podcast member Janine, began to raise ethical concerns stemming from the company’s shared past with Hacking Team, an Italian, man-in-the-middle software provider whose malware and spyware has been linked to human rights and privacy abuses around the globe.

This revelation invoked strong reactions among some community members, eventually manifesting in the #DeleteCoinbase movement. Coinbase ultimately buckled under the mounting pressure, announcing that it would be parting ways with Neutrino staff with ties to Hacking Team. Per the deal, Neutrino would “continue to operate as a standalone business based out of [Coinbase’s] London office,” meaning CRO Marco Valleri, CTO Alberto Ornaghi and CEO Giancarlo Russo were originally slated to stay on as executives until the severance.

Marco Valleri and Alberto Ornaghi were both founders of Hacking Team, and Neutrino’s CEO, Giancarlo Russo, joined Hacking Team in 2004 as COO. At their new company, each executive held 22 percent of its shares — in capital allocation, $5,650 each (€5,000). The other 33 percent of shares, valued at $8,500 (€7,500), was held by 360 Capital, a French-Italian venture capital firm registered in Paris which invested $565,000 (€500,000) in the project in April 2017.

The document says that Coinbase agreed to purchase “the units of the respective total ownership representing the entire share capital of the Company.” Proportional to their shares in Neutrino, from the acquisition, Ornaghi, Russo and Valleri will each receive $2,951,792.91 (€2,608,916.11), while 360 Capital will receive $4,993,401.86 (€4,413,374.16). On the day the contract was signed, the acquisition’s notary paid each executive $487,045 (€430,471) and 360 Capital $4,055,107 (€3,584,071). The remaining $8,332,534 (€7,364,637) was transferred to a Credit Suisse trust account associated with the company, though it’s unclear how or when the remaining capital will be disbursed to the former shareholders.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Reacting to Public Ire, Coinbase Drops Neutrino Execs With Hacking Team Ties

Coinbase hacking team cuts.jpg

After a week of community discontent, cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase has decided to sever its business relationship with Neutrino employees who previously worked at the notorious Italian malware/software provider Hacking Team.

Blaming “a gap in [Coinbase’s] diligence process,” CEO Brian Armstrong writes in a Medium post that Coinbase “did not properly evaluate everything from the perspective of our mission and values as a crypto company.”

“We took some time to dig further into this over the past week, and together with the Neutrino team have come to an agreement: those who previously worked at Hacking Team (despite the fact that they have no current affiliation with Hacking Team), will transition out of Coinbase. This was not an easy decision, but their prior work does present a conflict with our mission. We are thankful to the Neutrino team for engaging with us on this outcome.”

Last week, Neutrino’s link to Hacking Team came to light thanks to Twitter commentators like Block Digest’s “Janine.” At least three individuals in Neutrino’s core team (CEO Giancarlo Russo, CRO Marco Valleri and CTO Alberto Ornaghi) had been principal employees of Hacking Team, as well as Luca Guerre, an intern-turned-software-engineer at the company.

Coinbase did not disclose which team members would be let go, so there’s no information to indicate how many other Neutrino employees might be affected by the severance. Armstrong also offered no timeline in his post for when these departures would take place.

Disbanded in 2016, Hacking Team made headlines during its business’ zenith for selling surveillance malware to authoritarian governments. Their software’s use has been implicated in inumerable privacy and human rights abuses, including the death and imprisonment of journalists and civil rights activists.

News of Hacking Team’s abuses spread like wildfire through the community, in part stoked by tenacious media coverage and social media backlash, culminating in a #DeleteCoinbase campaign.

And apparently, this heat was enough for Coinbase to decide to dissolve its connections with the people previously associated with Hacking Team.

Previously, the exchange had defended its acquisition in a blanket statement sent to the press. Coinbase stated that it “does not condone nor will it defend the actions of Hacking Team,” but that it was important for [it] to bring [blockchain analysis services] in-house to fully control and protect our customers' data, and Neutrino’s technology was the best we encountered in the space to achieve this goal.”

A few days after this response to the situation, Coinbase’s Director of Institutional Sales, Christine Sandler, would tell Cheddar that the need to bring these services in-house to protect data was due to its former blockchain analysis providers monetizing user data, something that is against Coinbase’s privacy policy.

In his post, Armstrong mentions that Neutrino was also acquired because their old providers didn’t support all the assets [the exchange] wanted to have on [its] platform,” so it “examined the players, found that Neutrino had some of the best technology in this area, and decided to acquire them.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Coinbase Bought Neutrino Because Its Old Analysis Providers Sold User Data

Coinbase confidential.jpg

Coinbase’s Director of Institutional Sales, Christine Sandler, said in an interview last week that, in part, the exchange acquired controversial software firm Neutrino because its prior blockchain analysis providers were selling customer data.

“The compelling reason for making the acquisition was that Neutrino had some industry leading, best in class technology. It was important for us to migrate away from our current providers. They were selling client data to outside sources and it was compelling for us to get control over that and have proprietary technology that we could leverage to keep the data safe and protect our clients,” Sandler said in an interview with Cheddar.

In its current privacy policy, Coinbase asserts that it only shares customer information with third parties for fraud prevention and legal compliance as well as for “bill collection, marketing, and other technology services.” The same active policy says that they will personally never sell client information, transaction or personal, and nor will these third parties.

Sandler’s slip up tells another tale. If her statement is true, then Coinbase may have inadvertently violated its terms of use. Coinbase users believed that their data was only being shared for regulatory purpose, not being monetized, as Jill Carlson points out on Twitter:

“Selling data is very different from collecting it for regulatory purposes. I consented to Coinbase collecting my data for KYC/AML purposes. I did not knowingly consent to Coinbase collecting my data to sell to other parties.”

Seeing as their prior providers breached this trust, Coinbase’s acquisition of Neutrino makes sense; out with the old and in with the (hopefully more trustworthy) new. In one of its news blurbs, cryptocurrency media platform Messari indicates that the purchase was likely made to minimize counterpart risk by bringing analysis services in house. Most all other exchanges use the same providers, a source told Messari, so going with the new kid on the block was likely the only way Coinbase could make sure the provider would do as they’re told.

“A source with knowledge of the situation explained there wasn't much of a choice for Coinbase, as almost all regulated crypto exchanges likely use one of several large blockchain analytics tools, including those from industry leaders Elliptic and Chainalysis. The source said that those firms had moved to a ‘give-get’ data model, where Coinbase would only have been permitted to use the service in return for providing its own data. Coinbase ‘brought that capability in house so they weren’t in a situation where using a 3rd party tool was making it better’ as a surveillance tech.”

Still, if Coinbase was looking for a team it could trust, Neutrino’s past is far from trustworthy. The company’s three executives used to run a business called Hacking Team, which sold surveillance malware to authoritarian regimes around the world which precipitated, among other human rights abuses, the monitoring, imprisonment and death of journalists and regime dissidents.

Neutrino’s past has it and Coinbase embroiled in intense community scrutiny, and the collective ire has manifested in a #DeleteCoinbase campaign on Twitter.

Coinbase claims that Neutrino offer best-in-class software, hence why they’re the best fit for AML/KYC compliance and other business-related transaction analysis. But even disregarding the questions of trust that Neutrino’s past may muster, the company’s pedigree might not even be all that up-to-snuff.

Jesse Powell, CEO of Kraken exchange, said that Neutrino was disqualified “due [to its] risks” in a compliance evaluation. Even without this risk, they came in last for actual product when compared to four other providers.

“I asked our Compliance team what they thought of Neutrino,” Powell tweeted. “Fortunately, they'd just completed an evaluation. Neutrino came in last place on product (out of the 5) but was disqualified anyway due to the risks. However, other factors are important in M&A: cost, culture fit.”

BHB Network head Giacomo Zucco told Bitcoin Magazine that his company gave a negative evaluation of Neutrino’s services for similar reasons that Kraken’s compliance review raised red flags. Zucco told Bitcoin Magazine that, when BHB Network evaluated a live demo of Neutrino’s blockchain analysis technology for a client in February 2017, the company refused to let BHB test the tech using their own addresses.

The demo was conducted using “pre-defined addresses,” he said, and the team argued that they couldn’t open source the software because the technology had its own “secret” algorithm that they couldn’t give away.

“We didn't actually get so far. After the demo, I had some doubts about the ‘secret source’ claims. Then we googled names and that was enough for me to tell my client to pass,” Zucco told Bitcoin Magazine.

At the time of publication, Coinbase had not returned Bitcoin Magazine’s request for comment.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Saturday, March 2, 2019

Op Ed: Defining Decentralization: How Ambiguity Continues to Divide Crypto

GP Puey.jpg

There are many keywords in blockchain, but few spark as much emotion as “decentralization.” For many of us, it was the dream of decentralization that inspired us to embark into the industry in the first place — the driving force encouraging us to explore the many industries and practice areas that could be positively impacted by this technology.

To say that decentralization is an important element of cryptocurrency’s potential would be a gross understatement. However, I do believe that the crypto community is misguided in its belief that decentralization is an end-all be-all solution to the ills of centralization as we know it. Yes, decentralization can help eliminate some of the inherent problems of centralized infrastructure, but is decentralization necessarily our objective? In the pursuit of mass adoption, decentralization shouldn’t be our goal, but instead a means to achieve the many different, and equally important, goals that exist for cryptocurrency users.

In the pursuit of mass adoption, decentralization shouldn’t be our goal, but instead a means to achieve the many different, and equally important, goals that exist for cryptocurrency users.

When I first fell down the Bitcoin rabbit hole five years ago, I too thought decentralization was the “holy grail” for the success of the industry. I recognized (and still do) the fundamental problems with centralization and shared in the idealistic vision of keeping cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ether decentralized amidst rapid advancements in the industry.

In time, however, I came to realize that decentralization is a broad concept that can be costly, difficult to implement, and, most of all, hard to define. Because each person enters the community with their own definition for “decentralization,” they’re far more likely to prematurely reject projects that don’t meet their vision. In many ways, this conflict has served as the catalyst driving many coins, and their respective communities, to hard fork from one another.

In searching for a solution, I posit that developers and investors alike must be willing to compromise in order to appeal to a general public that could care less about the word “decentralization” and more about the words “fast, cheap, convenient, accessible or private.” If your product is too difficult, expensive or inaccessible, your target audience simply won’t use it.

As is the case with most things in cryptocurrency, distinctions in decentralization are not always black and white. While one person might define decentralization as each person running their own node, another might define it as having multiple competing development teams working on a given protocol, while yet another person might define it as the distribution of mining power. None of these individuals are wrong by any means, but because they disagree, they are more likely to accuse one another of inherent centralization.

Herein lies the problem: Because there’s no agreed-upon standard for decentralization, it’s impossible for the cryptocurrency community to come to a consensus about which projects are actually decentralized. It can’t be the goal if there’s no metric for how to successfully achieve it.

Consider the role of decentralized exchanges (DEXs), for example. While most exchange platforms serve as intermediaries for the efficient trading of cryptocurrency between users, DEXs can take the intermediary out of the equation — simply connecting the buyer and the seller through a cryptocurrency transaction. There are clear benefits to decentralizing this process:

  1. Eliminating custodial risk by allowing each user to control their funds;
  2. Allowing broader access to the exchange from anyone in the world;
  3. Allowing broader access to any cryptocurrency asset; and
  4. Providing privacy with no Know-Your-Customer (KYC) requirements.

While some of the most decentralized exchanges are able to accomplish all of the above, they must make huge compromises in user experience (UX), speed and cost in order to do so. For example, the most complained-about issue with centralized exchanges is the security risk of centralized funds. But while several DEXs are able to solve issue #1, they still require KYC protocols and limit the types of assets listed on the exchange. As a result, these DEXs are subjected to criticism for “not being decentralized.” If solving a security issue was their goal, however, then they’ve made huge strides in their achievements and deserve recognition.

If we truly expect the industry to grow, crypto projects must be willing to accept a balance of centralization and decentralization in order to achieve the end goals of the community. This doesn’t mean that we have to gather crypto’s brightest minds in one room to formally decide on a definition of the word “decentralization;” we wouldn’t want them to. It does, however, mean that individuals within the broader blockchain community should stop using their own understanding of decentralization as a litmus test for the success of other projects.

Instead, investors should step back and ask themselves what their goals were when they got involved in this technology, and then see if the projects they support or work on align with those goals. Once we take a step back and realize that decentralization is actually a blanket term covering many different mindsets and perspectives, we will finally be able to embrace the many diverse projects that have the potential to drive the industry forward.

Over the years, I’ve spoken to many friends and colleagues on this issue, and I’ve come to the conclusion that 100 percent decentralization doesn’t exist. There is always going to be some degree of compromise required between parties in order to create a fully functioning and scalable project or platform.

That being said: Is this necessarily a bad thing? We’re not, at least in the near future, going to see decentralized projects overpower the internet or abolish the federal reserve. However, as cryptocurrency gains momentum with mainstream audiences, we’re more likely to see diversification in the types of platforms (both centralized and decentralized) that are made available to us. It may not look exactly like what we envisioned when we first jumped down the cryptocurrency rabbit hole, but that doesn’t mean it will be any less impactful or important.

This is a guest post by Paul Puey. Views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Friday, March 1, 2019

Stanford Student Calls Out Crypto Professor for Inaccurate Bitcoin Lecture

stanford xrp.jpg

In January of 2019, student Conner Brown attended a guest lecture by a Professor Susan Athey at the University of Stanford Graduate School. She gave a presentation to his “Evolution of Finance” class titled “Blockchain and the Future of Finance.” According to Brown, the presentation contained “multiple misstatements” about Bitcoin and its fundamentals.

After the presentation, Brown was dissatisfied with how Bitcoin was referenced by Athey during the lecture to a room comprised (mostly) of people who were unfamiliar with the fundamental concepts behind the technology. This prompted him to write an email to the Stanford Graduate School Board, expressing his concerns.

Brown says that the only response he has received from the university thus far is an email stating, “We will get back to you on this.” That’s when he posted his complaint on Twitter.

What She Got Wrong

Athey, who Brown told Bitcoin Magazine is also slated to teach an entire course at Stanford next semester called “Cryptocurrencies,” claimed that not only is Bitcoin "controlled by a small group of miners in China," but that it also “wastes electricity by stealing from rivers to solve useless math problems.” Athey also mentioned that bitcoin is "secured economically and not cryptographically."

In her presentation degrading the first digital, decentralized currency, Athey drew comparisons to what she considered a better solution in Ripple’s technology, using XRP. Specifically, she cited exchange rate volatility, trust issues with exchanges, and long transaction times as drawbacks to using Bitcoin (stating that, subsequently, exchanges needed to buy bitcoin). Athey then, according to her presentation, explained how Ripple’s XRP, xRapid API, and overall consensus mechanism provide an alternative that is faster, cheaper, more secure, and more energy friendly than Bitcoin.

In protest, Brown composed a letter addressed to the Graduate School of Business, expressing his thoughts that certain statements about Bitcoin should have been subject to “high caliber discussion and peer review.”

In addressing Athey’s claims against Bitcoin, Brown properly explained where Athey missed key concepts.

Addressing her claim on mining centralization by a small group in China, Brown explained that Athey was conflating mining nodes with full nodes and had used this misrepresentation to position Ripple as a better alternative to Bitcoin. He also countered by explaining that miners often compile their resources together in a mining pool, but there are many individual miners in these pools and not one entity can completely control Bitcoin.

To Athey’s claim that Bitcoin is secured economically and not cryptographically, Brown pointed out that she is once again conflating two different things: Stealing funds by cracking the encryption of the wallet and using mining power to 51% attack a network.

Conflict of Interest?

As the matter came to light on Twitter, it was pointed out that Athey was welcomed to the Ripple Labs Board of Directors back in April 2014, where she still maintains an active role. When Nic Carter asked on Twitter if Athey had made any disclosure before her presentation, she replied directly: “Five minute verbal introduction discussing my background in the space — no way to miss it!”

Whether or not Athey had any ill-intent in her presentation, Brown told Bitcoin Magazine that is not what mattered to him.

“It concerns me that my classmates’ first introduction to Bitcoin contained severe factual errors along with strong anti-Bitcoin rhetoric. The academy is not a place for marketing, but rigorously testing ideas. If a professor has a potential conflict of interest, they should be held to the highest standards of scrutiny and peer review.

“That being said, Bitcoin is a creature of the internet. Its properties are difficult for academics to appreciate due to its deeply interdisciplinary and evolutionary nature. This makes it difficult for developing a curriculum because of the siloed design of academic disciplines and the slow pace of the peer review process. The internet will always be the best place to pursue a Bitcoin education.”

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Blockchain Advocacy Coalition Sponsors Bill to Allow Crypto for Legal Cannabis Tax

BAC Weed bill.jpg

Activist group Blockchain Advocacy Coalition (BAC) has sponsored a bill in California’s 19th State Assembly District, set to allow legal cannabis businesses in the district to pay their state taxes using cryptocurrency. The bill was proposed by Assemblymember Phil Ting on February 20, 2019.

If put into law, it would affect California's many cannabis businesses.

Logistical Barriers: Delivering Bags of Cash

One of the most prominent driving factors behind this bill, and where the decentralized nature of financial blockchain technology really has a chance to shine, is the fact that banks lack cooperation with these businesses. Citing a conflict with federal law, many financial institutions refuse to let cannabis businesses open bank accounts, thereby cutting off this multibillion-dollar industry from using digital money transfers.

“The current recommendation from the state of California to cannabis businesses is that they use armored vehicles to pay their taxes,” said Alexandra Medina of the BAC. “That’s inefficient and risky. It’s closer to how one might pay taxes during the gold rush, with a stage coach and gunman, than how you would expect California to accept taxes in 2019.”

This current approach is a logistical “nightmare for cities, the state and businesses,” she claimed. It’s dangerous to money couriers, and it forces revenue agencies “to count tens of thousands of bills,” causing tax offices to “smell like weed and fabric softener.”

So far, there has been little progress made to alleviate the situation. “The previous state treasurer convened a working group to solve this issue, and a year later their report did not have a solution,” said Medina. The physical cash transport is “a problem the state has tried and failed to solve.”

Opportunities for Blockchain and Open Finance

Medina called the new bill “a great use case for blockchain and open finance.” To this end, the Blockchain Advocacy Coalition will help educate policymakers about the basics of digital currency and blockchain technology in the hopes of getting the bill passed.

The group has already hosted roundtables for the state’s new treasurer, Fiona Ma, and Governor Gavin Newsom. “They are both very tech savvy and innovative leaders for our state,” said Medina. “Now is a really good time to introduce something like this.”

In the grander scheme, Medina believes that “California has the opportunity to turn around a lack of regulatory clarity” and serve as an example for other states in the Union.

Getting the Bill Passed

At present, getting the bill passed is the group’s main concern. The bill recommends using a stablecoin for these tax payments, but in its current form it will not be prescribing a specific stablecoin. For now, according to Medina, the bill’s supporters will “work to create standards for what kind of coins and wallets the state uses to make sure we have the highest degree of stability and safety for both the state and businesses.”

Medina claimed that the group has already supported two bills that were signed into law in the last year. This new bill will start going through the assembly committee(s) in March and April and has until the end of May to pass the Assembly. Then it will repeat the process with the Senate; it has to get through committee and through the Senate floor by September 13, 2019. If all of these processes go smoothly, and the governor signs it into law by October 13, 2019, Medina expects the bill to be implemented by June 2020.

Medina said that in the BAC’s previous campaigns, over 50 businesses signed support letters for their initiatives, and the group “would like an even stronger showing this year.”

She added that the group has plans to organize “a blockchain education day, where industry advocates can meet with legislators 1:1 and answer questions about the technology and bill,” before the vote reaches the Senate.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Grim Stories of Ethical, Privacy Abuses Emerge About Coinbase’s New Partners

Neutrino Coinbase

When Coinbase acquired Neutrino for an unspecified amount in February 2019, the news looked like business as usual: A cryptocurrency juggernaut had made another acquisition. But the company in question, specifically the ties it has to the unethical practices of one of its predecessors, suggests that the monolithic Coinbase may be joining the oligarchic ranks of its privacy-hostile, too-big-for-consumer-comfort counterparts in legacy tech.

The Ties That Damn

On its website, Italian blockchain analysis company Neutrino proudly advertises that its proprietary software offers all-in-one “solutions for law enforcement” and “financial services.” Its two flagships, XFlow nSpect and XFlow nSight, are billed as “comprehensive solution[s] for monitoring[,] analyzing and tracking cryptocurrency flows across multiple blockchains.” nSight was built to help exchanges and financial service companies like Coinbase to stay regulatorily compliant. nSpect, on the other hand, was built for “criminal investigations and intelligence gathering” and is specifically marketed toward law enforcement.

Continuing on with their work at Coinbase, the Neutrino team, a three-man show consisting of CEO Giancarlo Russo, CRO Marco Valleri and CTO Alberto Ornaghi, are no strangers to building complex computer monitoring software for law agencies.

In another life, they did it as Hacking Team, the notorious Italian software services firm whose dubious business practices made them an antagonist of the wider tech and privacy community. Hacking Team got their start when Valleri and Ornaghi (under the aliases NaGa and ALoR) sold man-in-the-middle attack software to the police force of Milan, Italy, in 2003. These two founders would later be joined by Russo, who acted as COO of the company.

Throughout its history, Hacking Team sold its services to oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Sudan, Kazakhstan, Bahrain and Turkey, among others. These services centered around Hacking Team’s proprietary Remote Control System (RCS) software, a Trojan horse malware that gives users the ability to remotely access files, record keystrokes, take photos and read emails from any infected device.

Email leaks reported by The Intercept trace the team’s cyber footprints to human rights abuses around the world. Hacking Team’s RCS technology was used by the Ethiopian government (which ranks as one of the most oppressive in Africa, with a penchant for silencing free speech) to surveil and interfere with the operations of Ethiopian Satellite Television and Radio, a news outlet run by Ethiopian expats. The technology helped the Turkish government to spy on an American, and it was also sold to the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service in 2012 for a whopping €960,000 (around $1,210,000 at the time), though the team shuttered Sudan’s access to their software in 2014 when the government’s clumsy implementation of the software showed that they weren’t “enough prepared for the product usage,” Hacking Team emails reveal. It also played its part in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Saudi Arabia and the assault and arrest of UAE activist Ahmed Mansoor.

Reporters Without Borders labeled Hacking Team as one of five “Enemies of the Internet” in 2013 for its role in humanitarian abuses against journalists.

During the 2012 uprisings in Morocco that were inspired by the Arab Spring movement, RCS, under the control of the Moroccan government, singled out Mamfakinch.com, an outlet that published journalists who were vocal critics of the regime. The leaked emails prove that Hacking Team had been selling its software to Morocco since 2010. This would culminate in Mamfakinch’s hardware being infected by a Trojan horse virus, which originally masqueraded as a news tip.

“Mamfakinch.com came as the first citizen media portal to document protests, providing tools like mapping of protests and also articles. At the time it started, I was not a member. I was asked to join later by one of the co-founders,” Zineb, a pro-democracy activist who was involved with Mamfakinch, told Bitcoin Magazine.

The outlet employed the help of the Citizen Lab to dismantle the virus and trace it back to its Hacking Team source, though most of the damage had already been done by the time they consulted this help.

“Moroccan activists suffer tremendously from what government surveillance provides them with, and former ones like myself have seen what that can be like. From physical threats to family threats, and even worse threats to fellow activists who were part of the human rights and digital rights effort in Morocco,” she said.

Hacking Team repeatedly refused to disclose its clients, and the internal emails betray that, more often than not, when their ties to human rights abuses and oppressive regimes were unearthed by international media, they always tried to mitigate the scrutiny and severity of the ensuing bad press.

In June of 2014, a U.N. panel inquired into Hacking Team’s business with Sudan for violating sanctions regarding weapons exports to the country. The U.N. considered Hacking Team’s software a weapon of sorts, something that Russo refutes in internal emails while also emphasizing that the team wants to keep its name clear from any records regarding the investigation.

“It looks like their focus is to trace every single armament,” wrote Russo. “We absolutely need to avoid being mentioned in these documents.”

Why Coinbase (and We) Should Care

The U.N. investigative panel would mark the beginning of Hacking Team’s unraveling. By March 2016, the Italian government revoked Hacking Team’s export license after an Italian PhD student was murdered in Cairo, Egypt. Hacking Team’s software was allegedly involved in the crime. With the company’s revenue streams severely restricted, Hacking Team was on its last financial leg.

Conveniently, Neutrino was founded the same year that Italian officials revoked Hacking Team’s export license, “very obviously around the time that they would have been desperate for money and needing to start fresh somehow,” Janine, a member of crypto podcast Block Digest who initially raised the alarm about Hacking Team and Neutrino’s ties, told Bitcoin Magazine.

Bitcoin Magazine spoke to Janine to learn more about the possible ramifications of this acquisition. In addition to her work at Block Digest, Janine has been a consistent and reliable whistleblower for industry developments that could indicate privacy threats. In the past, she also helped dissect community concerns surrounding the privacy implications of Bitfury’s Peach Lightning suite.

As with the Bitfury situation, Janine has covered every angle of Neutrino and Hacking Team’s shared past on Twitter, and she helped Block Digest produce a two-hour segment on the subject, as well.

Since Neutrino was acquired by Coinbase, the team is more than financially secure. Furthermore, as part of the deal, it will continue to act autonomously out of Coinbase’s London office. The exchange framed the buyout as a means to outfit itself with the proper tools to remain KYC- and AML-compliant with regulators. Janine points out that the company will likely make use of XFlow nSight to this end, though she’s also worried that Neutrino’s technology will come with more serious privacy trade-offs than nSight’s base functionality.

“The chain analysis stuff is not really that interesting to me; it is how much access Coinbase will give to Neutrino,” she told Bitcoin Magazine.

More specifically, she expressed concern about Money Module, a Hacking Team software that allows the user to access devices and private keys. Janine is also suspicious of the backdoors that Hacking Team coded into their software: “They likely had access to whatever data these government clients were collecting from their targets.”

If Coinbase forks over too much data to Neutrino for transaction analysis, and if a backdoor to the software exists in tandem with Money Module, this could spell disaster for user privacy and private key security.

That this backdoor may exist alongside a vehicle for stealing user funds is disturbing — even more disturbing, Janine and other critics have suggested, is Coinbase’s ability to overlook the history of unethical business practices of Neutrino’s team.

When Bitcoin Magazine reached out to Coinbase to ask about the acquisition and how it plans to use Neutrino, the exchange sent back a general statement, indicating that they are aware of and don’t condone Hacking Team’s practices. But this past behavior is not enough for Coinbase to distance themselves from a team whose expertise is in line with its vision:

We are aware that Neutrino’s co-founders previously worked at Hacking Team, which we reviewed as part of our security, technical and hiring diligence. Coinbase does not condone nor will it defend the actions of Hacking Team. Increasingly, third-party blockchain analysis companies are requesting customer data from cryptocurrency companies that they serve. It was important for Coinbase to bring this function in-house to fully control and protect our customers’ data and Neutrino’s technology was the best we encountered in the space to achieve this goal.

Zineb, who is also a crypto enthusiast, told us that it’s disheartening to see the same privacy-compromising and autocratic software eke its way into the cryptocurrency space. You expect this from the legacy tech industry, she expressed, but you don’t expect it in an industry whose tenets rest on privacy, freedom and censorship resistance.

“To have Coinbase acquire anything run by anyone ever associated with Hacking Team is alarming,” she said. “Perhaps Coinbase is clueless as to WHY it’s important to protect [these virtues], but I’m not. When banks freeze or easily hand over private financial information of dissidents in autocratic countries, that’s when a system like [Bitcoin] is needed.

“They say this is to protect user data. But how can they possibly trust that those who engaged in such appalling actions would somehow have Coinbase user data privacy’s best interest at heart? I can’t say much for others but I can only speak for myself: I won’t be using any of their tools in the future, and shame on them for allowing the Hacking Team people to continue to thrive."

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

QuadrigaCX and the Million Dollar Questions: What We Do and Don’t Know

QCXthumbnail.jpg

QuadrigaCX Exchange’s founder, Gerald Cotten, passed away more than two months ago, and with his death, the keys to the exchange’s cold storage allegedly went to the grave with him.

This is the story that QuadrigaCX is sticking to in the posthumous mess that has followed its founder’s death. The situation has been likened to a second Mt. Gox, with some of the biggest differences being that we don’t know whether or not QuadrigaCX is solvent and there’s no hard evidence of foul play on behalf of the exchange. But there are also more questions than answers, and lack of hard evidence or transparency in the situation (including, whether or not there are cold wallets and whether or not QuadrigaCX is being honest about not having access to them) is the exchange’s closest resemblance to Mt. Gox: no one’s completely sure of what happened and what’s going on.

This has led media, social media commentators and other community voices to see the facts of the case through different lenses. Some have argued that QuadrigaCX has no cold wallets, others have said they must be lying about not having access to these funds. One bold camp has even called the likelihood of Cotten’s death into question. This conspiracy is tenuous, as death certificates are public (even if Cotten’s name is misspelled as “Cottan” on the certificate, likely an honest mistake made by crossing the language barrier); Globe and Mail reporters even traveled to Jaipur and spoke with doctors who verified his death.

Those doctors, the accounts recall, also signaled that Cotten’s death was unconventional, as was how the body was handled — but more on that later.

QuadrigaCX would keep Cotten’s death from the public and its clients for about a month, enough time for his widow, Jennifer Robertson, to transfer the contents of her husband’s estate as set out in his will — a document updated two weeks prior to his death — into her name. All the while, customers complained about their perpetual struggle to withdraw cash and coins from the exchange. It has since ceased operations due to its self-proclaimed inability to access cold wallets to address these liquidity issues.

Plenty of affected users think the funds are gone and the wallets don’t exist, and evidence — some hard, some soft — is piling up to suggest that there’s something amiss with how things stand now.

After corresponding with multiple persons who either knew Cotten well, were QuadrigaCX customers or who were associated with the exchange’s business, Bitcoin Magazine learned that questions have surrounded QuadrigaCX's operations for some time — enough to warrant skepticism about the story it’s been presenting.

This account will give an overview of what we know so far. It attempts to be thorough but not exhaustive and to treat conspiracies with skepticism while not ignoring them.

Trouble Brewing

Gerald Cotten died unexpectedly on December 9, 2018, while vacationing in India. His sudden death has been framed as the culmination of Cotten’s seven-year battle with Crohn’s disease, though Cotten’s death at the age of 30 is rare for people with the disease. He passed away while under care at Fortis Escorts Hospital in Jaipur, India, where he was reportedly honeymooning with his newly wedded wife, Jennifer Robertson, when he had some extreme gastrointestinal pain.

Though Dr. Sharma originally diagnosed traveler’s diarrhea on Cotten’s first visit to the hospital, Cotten’s condition quickly deteriorated. Twenty-four hours later, after being readmitted, Cotten died of cardiac arrest induced by septic shock when his intestines were perforated, the death report notes.

The doctor told the Globe and Mail that Cotten’s death was “medically unusual,” particularly the way his condition dramatically worsened so rapidly. He and his staff are even a bit “[unsure] about the diagnosis.”

No autopsy was performed, and the apparent mysteries surrounding Cotten’s death become more complicated as he was prepped for burial. Dr Semmi Mehra, an embalming specialist at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, whom Robertson attempted to employ for Cotten’s embalming, refused because the body came from the hotel the couple were honeymooning at instead of from the hospital where Cotten passed.

“That guy told me the body will come from the hotel. I said: ‘Why the hotel? I’m not taking any body from the hotel, it should come from Fortis’,” Dr. Mehra told the Globe and Mail.

She would direct them to a public medical college in the area who would ultimately embalm the deceased crypto tycoon, the Globe and Mail reports.

Cotten’s death left the company’s leadership without a clear successor, as Cotten left no directions for appointing a new CEO, an oversight that complicates the exchange’s apparent inability to access cold wallet funds. An emergency shareholder meeting was called on January 25, 2019, to appoint new directors. The meeting resulted in Jennifer Robertson, her stepfather Thomas Beazley and Jack Martel being elected to the board. The meeting supposedly took place over a conference call, according to a conversation Bitcoin Magazine had with Michael Patryn, the exchange’s co-founder who claims to have distanced himself from the exchange since March 2016.

Two sources who knew Cotten told Bitcoin Magazine that they were shocked to hear that Cotten hadn’t put contingency plans in place for his sudden passing, saying that this was out of character for a man who always had security at the forefront of his mind.

“This is the part that gets a little bit hairy,” Michael Perklin, ShapeShift CISO, told Bitcoin Magazine. “For a business to operate for six years and not have a business continuity plan? That’s reckless. I was incredibly shocked to learn that they couldn’t access the wallet. Gerry was a very smart man. It was inconsistent with his personality to not have a backup if he was hit by a bus. We’re definitely missing important pieces of this,”

He added, “Gerry updated his will two weeks before his death. That proves that he is thinking about these things.”

QuadrigaCX waited more than a month to make Cotten’s death public, and they waited longer still to admit that the company was having trouble mustering up the liquidity to honor withdrawals.

By the time the exchange shut down, Jennifer Robertson had gone through probate to transfer the assets in Cotten’s estate to her name. During this in-between period, she listed (and allegedly sold) Cotten’s sailboat/yacht and placed four properties in a trust called the Seaglass Trust, reportedly taking out a second mortgage on two of these. One of these properties, Cotten and Robertson’s former home at 71 Kinross Court, Nova Scotia, has been sold, while another property in Kelowna, British Columbia, has also been sold, an anonymous source told Bitcoin Magazine.

Liquidity Issues

Before Cotten’s death, users embattled in months-long withdrawal issues aggravated the exchange’s reputation and troubled history. Even as early as March 2018, bad press plagued the exchange for a delayed withdrawal of over $100,000. This issue could be the consequence of the exchange’s tenuous relationship with its Canadian banking partners, a struggle that culminated in November 2018 as the Canadian Supreme Court ruled to take control of $21.6 million after the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) froze accounts related to QuadrigaCX's business. It also lost a not-insignificant sum of ether to a smart contract bug in June of 2017, worth $17 million CAD at the time.

QuadrigaCX's banking difficulties have been a recurring theme in the exchange’s five-year history, according to multiple Bitcoin Magazine sources, all of whom asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the ongoing case.

One long-time QuadrigaCX user filed a ticket on August 14, 2018, after attempting to withdraw cash in late July. QuadrigaCX support’s initial reply oddly claims, “Both have been processed and arrive in a few years [sic].” After the user continued to complain about not receiving their funds, a follow-up email stated, “There is no issue, just ongoing issues … with the banks,” — the exchange’s familiar mantra in response to withdrawal issues.

After going round-for-round over email with QuadrigaCX support for weeks, this customer received his funds nearly two months after he requested them and a month after he opened a support ticket.

This experience seems par for the course, as another user complained that withdrawal requests for himself and others have been marked as complete after a similar, month-long, back-and-forth exchange with QuadrigaCX, but the funds have still not been deposited into their accounts.

“They stopped replying to my emails after January 11,” this user told Bitcoin Magazine. He said that he’d initiated a withdrawal request on December 8, 2018, which was marked as completed on December 22, 2018, despite no funds hitting the user’s bank account. This particular individual has $2,000 tied up. We’ve spoken to an individual with a similar experience who is missing $1,100 and another who has lost more than $1 million CAD after failing to have withdrawals satisfied.

Michael Perklin said that QuadrigaCX has had banking troubles “[ever] since day one.”

“I know how very difficult it was to get a banking relationship,” he said in reference to the stubborn nature with which Canadian banks treat corporate accounts with cryptocurrency companies.

Continuing, Perklin said that "any companies that dealt with cryptocurrencies in Canada, like QCX, faced huge problems opening and maintaining bank accounts. QCX rotated through multiple bank accounts for years to stay ahead of the account closures. While this may have seemed shady, it was the only way for QCX to continue serving customers."

A Canadian business strategies and best-practice professional, who asked to remain anonymous, also attested to Bitcoin Magazine that QuadrigaCX’s relationships with banks were a stressed and constant “struggle.” They even introduced Cotten and QuadrigaCX to a potential banking partner, but, after the company failed to provide “beneficial ownership information,” the bank refused to do business with the exchange (QuadrigaCX’s failure to provide this information, the source said, may have to do with the connections between Michael Patryn and ex-con Omar Dhanani, something we’ll go over more in the “Loose Ends” section of this article).

These issues, the source believes, are a plausible reason behind QuadrigaCX’s multiple shell companies (QuadrigaCX Fintech Solutions Corporation and Whiteside Capital Corporation).

The death of the exchange’s CEO seems to have either exacerbated these banking problems or exposed them to the public more thoroughly. And while Perklin called QuadrigaCX ’s money transfer issues unsurprising, some aspects of the exchange’s withdrawal process were anything but — specifically, offering hard cash withdrawals in the mail or in-person as a preferable option.

Multiple clients have reported receiving thousands of dollars via Canada Post. Speaking to a few of these users, Bitcoin Magazine verified these reports: One of these individuals told us that, while the three packages they received listed QuadrigaCX, Vancouver, as the return address, Canada Post’s tracking information lists the packages’ origin as Richmond, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; and Sherwood Park, Alberta.

Besides using Canada Post, QuadrigaCX offered hard cash withdrawals via in-person pickups. This practice, while not totally unheard of in the cryptocurrency industry, is virtually non-existent for retail exchanges (Coinsquare, one of the only legitimate exchanges to have offered it, no longer does). More than just unconventional, the makeshift, lax nature with which the exchange went about processing these withdrawals is suspect.

One of Bitcoin Magazine’s sources recalled driving six and a half hours to the Laval pickup location in late January, after “getting the runaround” since November, wherein each attempt to transfer cash ended in its being processed and cancelled. This process went on for weeks; the client even attempted to transfer the money into ether to withdraw to another exchange but hit the same dead end. When the users tried to get answers, their queries were met by silence on social media, support tickets and calls to QuadrigaCX's offices.

“We had enough after Christmas and chose to pick up our cash at the location in Laval. They sent us an email confirming it was processed and would be available on Jan 21 at 10am,” the source explained. “We drove 6.5 hours to that location, only to find a nonexistent office suite with a mailbox drop there. No person. No one in the building knew of that company either. We called and left messages on that number provided and drove home. He finally called us a week later saying QuadrigaCX wasn't giving him the cash to hand out but if they did give him our cash (they were supposed to give him 5k) he would reserve our amount out of that and text us to come pick it up. Two days later he texted us and said they aren't giving him the money and he will be in touch.”

That was the last time they heard from QuadrigaCX’s cash lackey, who, judging by his responses, had little connection to the exchange besides being an intermediary for cash payments. Days later, the exchange would announce Gerry’s death and its likely insolvency.

As noted earlier, QuadrigaCX’s banking relationships were non-existent, and Robertson admits in her affidavit that the exchange “had no corporate bank accounts.” Cash would likely be hard to come by for an exchange with no corporate account with a licensed bank or fiduciary partner. Instead, the exchange had to rely on a patchwork banking system which consisted of nine or so payment processors, including the Canadian-based Bylls and Billerfy.

Billerfy CEO Jose Reyes was involved in the November 2018 proceedings that ended in the Canadian Supreme Court freezing $25 million CAD tied to the exchange’s business. According to court documents, he had three personal accounts frozen along with two corporate accounts for Costodian Inc., another payment processor QuadrigaCX used for its business, for which Reyes is the sole director and officer. Reyes had transferred some $1 or 2 million CAD to his personal account from Costodian’s corporate accounts, making it unclear to the court as to the ownership of the millions in deposits from 388 users.

“CIBC has not been able to determine to what extent the Depositors, Costodian, Reyes, QuadrigaCX and/or Billerfy Labs Inc. (“Billerfy”) are entitled to the Disputed Funds,” the court order states.

The $25 million is still stuck in limbo, along with $5 million more in CAD that the exchange holds in bank notes for funds held by other payment processors. Ernst & Young (EY), as monitor over the legal proceedings, has contacted the processors to collect this debt. In its second report, the monitor revealed that it had received $20 million in bank draft notes from Costodian, though it must wait for the approval of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) to clear wires for the bank drafts to be deposited into a disbursement account that the monitor oversees.

In its second report, EY also indicated that Robertson and QuadrigaCX ’s litigation coffers are running low, insinuating that they are not far off from running out of funds entirely. If the RBC clears the bank draft wires into the disbursement account, this will keep the exchange’s legal operations afloat amidst the courtroom proceedings and restructuring.

Entering the Courtroom

After going offline on January 28, 2019, for reported maintenance, the exchange came out publicly to say that it did not have access to its cold storage, as Cotten had been the sole guardian of the wallet’s keys. In a sworn affidavit filing with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Cotten’s widow Jennifer Robertson said that the funds are likely lost.

“QuadrigaCX's inventory of cryptocurrency has become unavailable and some of it may be lost.”

On February 5, 2019, the exchange filed for creditor protection with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. EY was appointed as monitor over the case, giving the firm legal rights to oversee a compensation account for QuadrigaCX users as well as monitor the exchange’s current cryptocurrency balances and any hardware that may contain company information (namely, keys/seeds for the alleged cold storage).

In its first report as legal monitor, EY reported that it had begun funding the debtors’ compensation account with $150,000 CAD which Robertson supplied out of her own personal finance. More notably, the firm reported that QuadrigaCX “inadvertently” sent some $460,000 CAD worth of bitcoin to the cold wallets its employees reportedly can’t access. Perhaps in response to this blunder, the firm has taken control of QuadrigaCX's remaining hot wallet funds, as well as the funds that were accidentally transferred, and placed them in their own cold storage, the monitor’s second report reveals.

As with other exchange scandals in the industry, it didn’t take long for QuadrigaCX to rack up an adversarial list of investor-led reclamation suits. With funds for more than 100,000 users so far unaccounted for, Canada’s premier law firms lined up to represent the thousands who have come forth to challenge the company in court. These lawyers had a court date on February 14, 2019, to determine who would win the right to represent aggrieved clients in the legal proceedings looming ahead.

After delaying the decision a week due to the strength of the competing firms, presiding Nova Scotia Court Justice Wood ultimately gave the bid to Miller Thompson and Cox & Palmer for its apparent expertise with the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), a piece of Canadian litigation that affects insolvency cases, and digital assets.

“Miller Thompson has additional depth in certain areas, including larger CCAA proceedings and cryptocurrency … The relationship between the two firms has been thought out carefully with a view to minimizing costs. Cox & Palmer will deal with their areas of expertise, including local litigation practice and court appearances. Miller Thompson will provide expertise in dealing with large creditor groups and cryptocurrency technology,” the judge wrote in a court order.

The case will re-enter the legal arena on February 22 for the next round of proceedings.

Where’d the Funds Go?

QuadrigaCX claims that the funds are inaccessible, but some creditors and blockchain professionals alike are starting to think the funds aren’t actually there.

For starters, QuadrigaCX has refused to attest to their cold storage reserves by making the public address for these wallets public. One Reddit user, dekoze, claims to have tracked funds from a hot wallet address listed in Robertson’s affidavit to five wallets that could constitute part of the exchange’s cold wallets. These wallets recently had 104.365 BTC sent and split between them, an amount nearly on par with the 103 BTC that QuadrigaCX “inadvertently” sent to its cold wallets on February 6, 2019.

Other blockchain transaction analysis suggests that QuadrigaCX has been cycling funds through competing exchanges, and they’ve also found little evidence that any cold wallet reserves exist.

James Edward (@ProofofResearch) first dropped this bombshell. Taking deposit addresses provided by QuadrigaCX customers, his transaction analysis of the Bitcoin blockchain found no trace of cold wallet reserves. Instead, it found a dizzying trail of transactions to and from popular exchanges like Kraken, Bitfinex and Poloniex, something he reinforced with later research using the wallets unearthed by dekoze (which Edward, in this newest research, actively disputes are cold wallets).

Taylor Monahan, the CEO of Ethereum wallet MyCrypto, corroborated Edward’s findings with her own analysis of the Ethereum blockchain. Like Edward, she found no convincing evidence that QuadrigaCX operated with cold wallet storage, and she also followed a tortuous trail of transactions that led to other exchanges like Bitfinex and, most notably, ShapeShift.

“It’s just bizarre,” she told Bitcoin Magazine.

“Totally hypothetical, it’s possible that QuadrigaCX has some hidden cold storage somewhere if, and only if, instead of going between a hot and cold wallet, they went directly from user deposit addresses to the cold wallet. Now, I went through their transactions for over three years, and it’s very hard for me to imagine that … with all the practices I’ve seen and how they operate and how often they move funds that they have a mechanism to put funds into the cold wallet that no one noticed.”

Hidden or not, she’s not convinced that the cold wallets are there, though, because she only found one instance of a cold wallet holding some 4,000 ether for more than a year, after which portions of these funds were sent to hot wallets for QuadrigaCX or competing exchanges. For the rest of the wallets that Monahan tracked, she believes that QuadrigaCX could have been market making to improve the appearance of exchange liquidity.

“This would mean having to source coins from an external source in order to fulfil withdraw requests because they’re playing with their own money,” she qualified. “Even if that’s the case, I cannot imagine why they would exchange ether through ShapeShift. This was something they did consistently over the years.”

Now, an exchange sending funds to another exchange isn’t anything new; exchange-to-exchange arbitrage and inter-trade is common in the industry. But QuadrigaCX ’s activity doesn’t make much sense, Monahan told Bitcoin Magazine, especially the millions in ether that was sent to ShapeShift, which charges higher fees than other exchanges for the convenience of instant cryptocurrency swaps.

The movement of funds could be customers depositing of their own volition, something that Monahan takes into account in her analysis. She says that those withdrawals are likely denoted by multi-numerical values, while funds QuadrigaCX was sending itself may be represented by rounded off numbers.

“When you look deeply into how an operation does something … everyone has their little quirks. For Quadriga, for example, they love to send exact amounts.”

The rationale for cycling funds through different exchanges amounts to a fractional reserve system, the same practice banks use today to shuffle credit. Basically, if QuadrigaCX did not have enough in their wallets to cover a massive withdrawal in bitcoin, they would send ether to something like ShapeShift to convert these funds to bitcoin to honor the withdrawal.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong believes this is the most likely scenario. In a Twitter thread, citing the exchange’s own internal transaction analysis, he speculates,“Patterns of sends from cold storage suggest they tried keeping [the] exchange afloat, and maybe attempted to trade their way out of a hole” — a hole that was in part dug by the exchange losing roughly 67,000 ether to a contract bug. That was in June 2017, after which time the exchange began draining their “cold wallets,” Armstrong holds.

Couple this with the 2018 bear market and you have a solvency crisis.

“This implies that at least a few people inside QuadrigaCX knew that they were running fractional. If so, then it's possible that untimely death of their CEO was used as an outlet to let the company sink,” he concludes.

In our conversation, Monahan noted decreasing transaction volumes following 2017, something that could either be attributed to Armstrong’s conclusion or to the anemic nature of the market in the bearish slump that began in 2018.

“You can definitely tell that the amount of money being moved around was very high in 2017 and has been dwindling, and previous to 2017, you see less activity. Whether that indicates something on QuadrigaCX's end is hard to say because every exchange is going through this [after the 2017 bull run].”

When asked about the strength of such transaction analyses, Perklin cautioned that “the only way to get a map of all of QCX movements would be to get all the deposit addresses.”

Loose Ends and Conspiracy Theories

For all that we do know about QuadrigaCX, there’s also plenty we don’t know — as well as lots of unsettling middle ground between the two.

Take, for instance, that a multitude of users who report receiving payroll deposits from RNC Inc., a company believed to be Robertson Nova Management Inc., a real estate management company registered in Robertson’s name. In the reply-to lines of emails confirming these deposits are listed one of two emails tied to Robertson. These deposits contradict Robertson’s sworn affidavit that she was not involved in the company’s business when Cotten was alive.

Questions also loom over the identity of Michael Patryn, QuadrigaCX ’s co-founder, who told Bitcoin Magazine that he cut ties with QuadrigaCX in March 2016. He left amidst a wider company exodus which gutted the shareholders sitting on the company’s board of directors. These directors, Patryn claimed, were upset with Cotten’s decision not to take the company public on the Canada Stock Exchange, a promise he made a year prior in 2015 which helped lead to the company raising $850,000 CAD in a private fundraising round. That same year, the exchange published its last financial audit, posting revenues of barely $80,000 CAD.

Patryn, who owns roughly 17 percent of the company’s shares, bought many of the shares off these individuals because “he wanted to make things right,” claiming that many of these shareholders were personal friends and invested because they “trusted” him.

Meanwhile, some skeptics don’t trust that Patryn is being honest about his identity. Critics and internet sleuths have argued that "Michael Patryn" is an alias for "Omar Dhanani," an ex-con from California who was pegged for identity theft and fraud in 2004 after a sweeping bust of members involved in the cybercrime syndicate ShadowCrew. Omar Dhanani allegedly began using the alias Omar Patryn in 2005, according to a forfeiture case, and he was deported back to Canada in 2008.

The connections between Michael and Omar rest on the shared surname, as well as the presence of Dhanani’s relative, Nazmin Dhanani, on a company filing for MPD advertising that Michael Patryn made in 2009. Michael Patryn would start the Midas Gold Exchange, an online e-currency exchange that had ties with the Liberty Reserve in 2009, a private e-currency enterprise that was shuttered in 2013 by U.S. officials for money laundering and whose founder was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. Midas Gold racked up a notorious reputation for fraudulent activity during its short lifespan.

The conspiratorial web connecting Omar/Michael is documented elsewhere, so we won’t indulge it any further here. If the connections hold true, though, it paints a poor picture for the moral constitution of at least one of the company's founding members.

And it could explain the suspicious structure of the company’s operations. Amber Scott, the founder of Canadian Outlier Solutions, an anti-money laundering consulting firm, told Bitcoin Magazine, “QuadrigaCX was always ‘outside of my risk tolerance.’ Like many others in the community, I'm left wondering what I could have done differently to warn people when I saw red flags.”

A look into the company’s structure would be enough to give one pause. In her affidavit, Robertson revealed that, after 2016, “most of the business … was being conducted by Gerry wherever he and his computer were located.” The rest of the company’s employment base consisted of seven contractors, one of which, Alex Hanin, acted as the exchange’s sole developer, while the rest were a mixture of customer service representatives, social media managers and client verification employees.

One of these alleged employees hosted an AMA on the QuadrigaCX subreddit, which has since been deleted after the contractor reported that he was facing legal action from Jennifer Robertson’s legal council. Among other unverified claims, he alleged that QuadrigaCX was fraudulent from the start and that Jennifer and Gerry’s involvement from 2016 onward should be the chief area of concern for investigators, insinuating that Patryn and Lovie Horner, Patryn’s supposed partner, are no more than red herrings.

To attest to the veracity of his insider status, the contractor posted screenshots of the company’s Rocket Chat, as well as a photo of the funeral pamphlets used for Cotten’s funeral. Community members immediately raised questions as to why JA Snow Funeral Home, who hosted the burial, was misspelled as JS Snow on the pamphlet (though this could feasibly be a typo given the placement of “a” and “s” on a QWERTY keyboard).

A source with a computer science background shared a metadata analysis of the image provided with Bitcoin Magazine, pinpointing the photo to a Halifax airport IP on the day following the funeral.

The source clarified that "the location was purely a long/lat that the iPhone's software embeds into the photo. The guy could've been using a VPN from [anywhere] and it would still say the pic was taken in the Halifax airport. He could take the photo with no internet connection and it would be tagged by the phone's GPS."

This IP tracking and the contractor’s testament is not conclusively hard evidence of foul play, but the threat of legal action and the deletion of the AMA and the contractor’s Reddit account adds to the pile of questions surrounding the case.

As legal proceedings progress, we will update this article with further information.

Reporter Jessie Willms contributed additional notes and research to this story.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.



from Bitcoin Magazine