Ethereum ClassicEthereum Classic ETC news

Ethereum's fork, backed by that part of comunity who declined to reverse transactions after DAO attack
Price, 24h
5.43 USD / 0.00102900
-4.25% / -1.16%
Volume, 24h
148,591,526 USD
17.47%
Marketcap
595,084,565 / 0.35%
Emission
52%
Chart price/vol/NIS 7d
Asset details

World latest news

ETC Labs Launches EtherNodes Driving Up the Numbers for Ethereum Classic (ETC)

While the start of the year was considerably uneventful for Ethereum Classic (ETC), the token which was hard forked from ETH, it seems that the situation has slowly started to change right now. A new important upgrade on the network was made now that EtherNodes has been launched by ETC Labs. ETC is showing very […]
Bitcoin Exchange Guide

Ethereum Classic (ETC) Developers Reveal Major Mainnet Updates For Q1 2019

Ethereum Classic network is going through a major change in consensus, moving from Proof-of-Work(PoW) to Proof-of-Stake(PoS) for better scalability solutions. Ethereum’s move is being associated with its major concerns regarding the scalability problems that the network has faced in recent times as well as to make the network more decentralized application(Dapp) friendly. The community has […]
Bitcoin Exchange Guide

Ethereum Classic [ETC]: Network numbers shoot up in the wake of EtherNode’s launch by ETC Labs

Ethereum Classic’s [ETC] start to 2019 was quite uneventful as the Ethereum [ETH] hard fork was focused more on building its repositories, rather than partnerships and flashy developments. ETC ‘s upgrade phase has been obvious for some time now, with the focus on the network’s all-important Atlantis Network upgrade. Latest reports reveal that the network numbers for ETC are healthy, as evidenced by factors like increase in market cap, transaction rate, and active addresses. The 24-hour statistics indicated that the cryptocurrency’s market cap had shot up to $657 million, while the trading volume held between the range of $390 million-$392 million. The 24-hour transaction rate was 41,618, which was much higher than the low 30 thousands that the cryptocurrency previously scaled. Diligent fans of the cryptocurrency were ecstatic upon hearing the news, with @Drake_10 tweeting, “Perfect, that’s what all of us want to hear, We instantly retweeted this to our strong crypto community!” The team at Ethereum Classic is concerned with the value of personal data and how it has grown exponentially over the past decade. Another point taken into consideration by ETC was the magnitude of the effects of personal data and its inherent value. Taking data safety into consideration, Ethereum Classic Labs launched EtherNode which, according to the organization, is “the trio making trust minimization a reality.” ETC Labs elucidated, “We’re building infrastructure software and hardware to transform the way people connect to and interact with Ethereum blockchains. The EtherNode is a robust piece of hardware designed to not only host nodes but also serve as the base of a secure smart home network. It’s an easy plug and play way to reduce dependencies on 3rd party node hosts made possible by EnOS, the Linux based blockchain OS we’ve assembled.” The post Ethereum Classic [ETC]: Network numbers shoot up in the wake of EtherNode’s launch by ETC Labs appeared first on AMBCrypto.
AMBCrypto

Five most prolific 51% attacks in crypto: Verge, Ethereum Classic, Bitcoin Gold, Feathercoin, Vertcoin

51% attacks are a cryptocurrency’s worst nightmare. These attacks destroy confidence in a project and emphasize the need for carefully designed proof-of-work consensus. Below is a list of the five most prolific 51% attacks in crypto. Understanding 51% Attacks A 51% attack can occur when an attacker gains control of more than 50% of a network’s hashrate (the total mining power used to validate transactions on the network). Once an attacker has 50% or more of the hashrate on a network, they can invalidate transactions and even double-spend coins—invalidating the immutability and trustworthiness of a blockchain. 51% attacks are more expensive and difficult to execute on blockchains backed by more mining power. Simply put, it’s more expensive to control half of a network with more hashrate. For instance, crypto51.com estimates that it would cost $380,000 to carry out a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network for an hour. Conversely, only $8,100 is needed to attack Bitcoin SV in the same time period. Currently, Bitcoin has a hashrate of 38,000 PH/s compared to BSV’s 860 PH/s. Mining centralization is also a factor as a mining pool with more than 50% of a blockchain’s hashrate can also carry out a 51% attack. For instance, concerns were raised when the BTC.TOP mining pool controlled as much as 50.2% of the Bitcoin Cash hashrate at a point in January 2019. Coins that Suffered Attacks Feathercoin (FTC), Vertcoin (VTC, Bitcoin Gold (BTG), Ethereum Classic (ETC), and Verge (XVG) have all suffered 51% attacks. All of the listed cryptocurrencies have relatively low hashrates relative to the total amount of available hashrate within their algorithm family, which made them susceptible to attack. The chart below compares the hashrates of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Vertcoin and Bitcoin Gold over the past year. Bitcoin’s higher hashrate makes it less prone to a 51% attack. Source: BitInfoCharts 5. Feathercoin Feathercoin is a Litecoin clone that shares its 2.5 minute block time and the scrypt mining algorithm. The altcoin is currently ranked 461st on the list of cryptocurrencies on coinmarketcap.com. Feathercoin barely receives any notice today but was a top cryptocurrency around the time it suffered a 51% attack. Source: CoinMarketCap The Jun. 8th attack on the Feathercoin network started with a marked increase in the network’s hashrate. It was suspected that the additional mining power came from miners on scrypt-based pools. According to the founder of Feathercoin, the miners were looking to benefit from the increased profitability on mining Feathercoin due to a change in difficulty. A total of 80 blocks were orphaned in the initial attack. Orphaned blocks are valid blocks on a network that are later replaced because a longer chain with greater proof-of-work takes precedence. This means confirmed FTC transactions were reversed in the attack. Some miners also ended up wasting effort on mining blocks that were eventually replaced on the chain. The problem was compounded when the official Feathercoin website suffered a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack around the same time. According to Tradeblock, exchanges had to increase Feathercoin confirmation requirements to ensure that only valid transactions on the right chain were processed. The advanced checkpointing (ACP) feature was also introduced by the Feathercoin team to prevent future 51% attacks. However, the attack still devastated confidence in FTC and it has since fallen into obscurity. 4. Bitcoin Gold Bitcoin Gold was the second fork of Bitcoin when it went live in November 2017 (amidst a few technical issues that occurred pre-launch). Albeit being marketed as a cryptocurrency supporting decentralized mining through an ASIC-resistant mining algorithm, critics of the cryptocurrency called it a “cash grab.” Yet, most bitcoin holders were given free BCG coins relative to their holdings of Bitcoin, so most welcomed the “free money.” In a May 11th blog post, the Bitcoin Gold team made Bitcoin Gold (BTG) holders aware of attempts to attack the Bitcoin Gold network. Exchanges were also asked to guard against the attack since potential attackers were likely to profit by double spending coins in exchange transactions. The blog post was updated on the 24th of May to announce that a dreaded 51% attack occurred on the network between the 16th and the 19th of May 2018. The attack on Bitcoin Gold also involved rented hashpower from cloud mining services. Bitcoin Gold—already one of the worst performing cryptocurrencies in 2018—faced even more problems after the attack. Bittrex delisted BTG following the BTG team’s refusal to pay compensation of 12,372 BTG. Exchanges including Bittrex, Binance, Bithumb, Bitinka, and Bitfinex lost an estimated $18 million worth of coins due to the double spend attack. Bittrex blamed the Bitcoin Gold team for negligence and demanded compensation in order to keep the cryptocurrency listed. In response, the Bitcoin Gold team stated that 51% attacks are a known risk in the ecosystem. They added that the BTG organization was not responsible for the attack since it was not caused by flaws in the Bitcoin Gold blockchain or code. Additionally, the team cited warnings it gave prior to the attack as well as the assistance it gave exchanges for defending themselves. The BTG team also claimed that the network upgrade carried out in July 2018 will reduce the likelihood of another attack on the network. Bittrex ended up delisting the coin, along with several others. Bitcoin Gold still survived as the 27th most capitalized coins on CoinMarketCap. 3. Vertcoin The 51% attack on the Vertcoin network occurred between October and December 2018. Coinmonks estimated that a total of $100,000 worth of coins were double spent by an attacker in eight reorganizations of the Vertcoin blockchain. A chain reorganization or reorg occurs when a miner with more than 50% of hashrate comes up with an alternative transaction history by creating an extension of any chain and eventually replaces the network’s transaction history. In the attack, transactions in some orphaned blocks were double spent in the eventual accepted transaction history. A total of 71,000 VTC ($50,000) were double spent. In the ensuing panic, the price per VTC decreased from $0.7 to $0.3 per coin. Gert-Jaap Glasbergen, a Vertcoin developer, attributed the attack to the availability of cloud mining services and the release of specialized mining hardware for Vertcoin. Cloud mining services like NiceHash made it easy for an attacker to rent mining power at lower costs (purchasing and installing mining hardware for the same purpose is more expensive). Vertcoin has since updated its mining algorithm to Lyra2REV3 in order to render specialized mining hardware ineffective for mining Vertcoin. There is also on-going development on Verthash, a new algorithm that will completely eliminate the use of specialized mining hardware on the Vertcoin network. The new Verthash algorithm is expected to tackle the problem of surges in hashrate due to rented GPUs. Vertcoin went from 138th in coin rankings in September of 2018 to 162nd today. 2. Ethereum Classic Ethereum Classic is the original version of Ethereum that remained after the core team created a fork by reversing the infamous DAO Hack on the Ethereum network. Proponents of Ethereum Classic were in favor of maintaining an untampered transactions history. However, Ethereum Classic went on to become the less popular version. Cryptoslate extensively covered the $1.1 million dollar heist that occurred in the 51% attack on the Ethereum Classic blockchain. The incident was first reported by Coinbase in a Jan. 7th blog post. It was revealed that a total of 219,500 ETC worth $1.1 million were double spent in eleven reorganizations of the blockchain starting on Jan. 5th. Coinbase and Kraken promptly halted trading in Ethereum Classic as a result. The ETC price plummeted due to the attack but has since recovered. The chart below shows the ETC price from the day of the attack to date. Source: www.coinmarketcap.com Following the incident, the Ethereum Classic team blamed the attack on insufficient hashrate and the malicious “bad actor” miner identified as Private Pool 0x3ccc8f74. Once again the team decided to not reverse the attack. A list of steps to avoid future 51% attacks was also made public. This includes the creation of a monitoring and alert system to detect attacks faster. A proof-of-work (PoW) algorithm change to minimize NiceHash renting attacks was also proposed. 1. Verge Currency In an interview with CryptoSlate, Justin Sunerok, the founder of Verge described the cryptocurrency as “a privacy coin designed for everyday use.” The privacy coin uses five different mining algorithms. Miners of the cryptocurrency are obliged to use a different algorithm for each block to reduce the likelihood of a single entity controlling majority hashrate on the network. Interestingly, this multi-algorithm system was created as a fix for a previous attack suffered by the network in 2016. In April 2018, an attacker exploited a bug in the Verge code and made away with at least 20 million Verge (XVG) coins, worth approximately $170,000. As explained by Bitcointalk forum user ocminer, the bug allowed a malicious miner to submit mined blocks with false timestamps. The attacker then mined multiple blocks within one-second intervals exploiting one of the five mining algorithms. In an attempt to solve the problem, the Verge team executed a hard fork that created new problems with wallets. In spite of the fix, Verge suffered a similar attack a month later. In his CryptoSlate interview, Justin Sunerok mentioned that the series of attacks on the Verge network “did not affect confidence in the project.” He added that the Verge community was as vibrant as ever. Since April of 2018, Verge fell from 26th in the ranking to its current position at 50th. The post Five most prolific 51% attacks in crypto: Verge, Ethereum Classic, Bitcoin Gold, Feathercoin, Vertcoin appeared first on CryptoSlate.
Cryptoslate

Ethereum Classic vs Ethereum (ETC vs ETH): What’s the Difference?

Ethereum Classic vs Ethereum (ETC vs ETH) A first look at any crypto market spreadsheet will show two different types of Ethereum, one being Ethereum (ETH) and the other being Ethereum Classic (ETC). The two cryptocurrencies not only share the same name but also share an interesting story that is one of the most pivotal events in all cryptocurrency history. The battle between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic is one of ethics and ideologies. Before there were the two different Ethereums we see now, there was only one Ethereum. Since then, $50 million was stolen by an unknown hacker or hackers, and this resulted in two distinct camps of people in the cryptocurrency world being formed. Here’s how Ethereum – as we now know it – came to be, and how it compares to Ethereum Classic. An Introduction to Ethereum In broad strokes, both Ethereum and Ethereum Classic are platforms on which various applications can be built. A smart contract is a contractual state that is stored in the blockchain, and it executes when certain conditions are met. They are controlled and enforced by the blockchain, which serves as an objective and unbiased third party to the transaction.  These smart contracts essentially run the entire ecosystem of Ethereum. Since these contracts are automated and enforced, transactions and applications that run on the Ethereum platform have become very appealing to all sorts of different applications. These applications, referred to as DAPPs (decentralized apps) have a wide variety of functionalities and purposes, all using the Ethereum platform to function. To get an idea for the myriad of different DAPPs out there, take a look at the State of the Dapps. Enter the DAO The most pivotal moment in the ETC vs ETH split has to do with an organization known as the Decentralized Autonomous Organization, or the DAO. The DAO was essentially a decentralized sort of venture capital or hedge fund that was going to fund decentralized applications (DAPPs) built on the Ethereum ecosystem. The way the DAO was set up would give funders the power to say which DAPPs get funding. The investors would have to buy DAO Tokens using Ether as the currency to buy them. The DAO tokens integrated holders into the DAO system and gave them a certain amount of voting power. The way DAPPs were to get approved had a pretty straightforward process. First, they would have to be white-listed by reputable figureheads in the Ethereum community who acted as curators. Next, the DAPPs would be voted on by those who held DAO tokens. Once the proposal got an approval of 20% in the vote, they would then get a share of the DAO funds required to get started. The flexible process and seemingly immense potential the DAO offered had gathered a frenzy of people jumping in to get in on the action. Within the first month of the DAO’s formation, it raised over $150 million of ether. Funders that wanted to exit out of the DAO had access to an exit door called the “Split Function”. This “Split Function” would give the funder the ether they had invested, and give them the option to create their own “Child DAO”, which essentially acted as a smaller version of the DAO. The only stipulation was that the funders had to hold their ether for 28 days before they could spend them. This “Split Function” exposed a giant loophole in the DAO system. At its peak, although the DAO raised around $150 million by crowdfunding, it had some serious security problems. The structure, particularly the “Split Function”, behind the DAO itself wasn’t particularly air-tight, and on June 17th, 2016, some unknown person or persons took around $50 million. Some people claim it was a hack, but to call it a hack would severely overestimate the technical prowess necessary to break into this poorly guarded platform. In other words, the system could have been broken into by anyone with a few basic skills. The DAO Hack – The ETC vs ETH Origin To exit the DAO, all someone had to do was send a request and the splitting function would then refund the user their Ether in exchange for their DAO tokens, and update the ledger with the transaction and update the internal token balance. The hacker made a recursive function in the request, which essentially allowed them to repeat the request multiple times for the same DAO tokens before the transaction could be registered. To further emphasize how big of a loophole this was, keep in mind that the recursive function was able to run and run until a THIRD of the DAOs funds were siphoned out. At the time, the DAO had a massive percentage (around 14%) of the total amount of Ethereum in existence. With $50 million, about a third of the DAO’s initial funds stolen, the DAO and Ethereum communities went into disarray. They rapidly started scrambling for solutions to this problem. The majority decision for a solution was that Ethereum needed to create a fork, or stop the blockchain entirely and create something new from scratch. This “something new” is what we now see as Ethereum (ETH). Ethereum Classic (ETC) is, as the name would suggest, the first Ethereum still using the original blockchain. The decision to fork naturally caused a lot of division and controversy, and although a majority voted to fork the blockchain, there was still a small but significant percentage (roughly 10%) of people that were loyal to the original blockchain. The Ethereum chain that forked was able to get back the $50 million that was hacked. ETC vs ETH – The Differences Ethereum (ETH) functions on a brand new blockchain, and the vast majority of miners, users, and protocol from the previous version of Ethereum use this new version. Ethereum is actually a fork of Ethereum Classic. Ethereum Classic (ETC) runs on the same protocol doing a similar function, but it does have some distinct differences in its community. The 10% or so people from the original Ethereum are relatively in the shadows and are loyal to the concept of the immutable ledger. ETC primarily has value because of the speculator market, much like many of the other alt-coins out there. Ethereum (ETH), on the other hand, is more like a software company that wants to grow and could possibly have more hard forks in the future. The leaders of the ETH community are far more public in nature than those in the ETC world. ETH primarily has value due to a mix of the speculator market, but more so due to its use of case scenarios and community support. The Ethereum Alliance, for example, consists of billion-dollar firms such as Accenture, JP Morgan, Microsoft, and UBS. This support, in turn, has added credit to ETH over ETC. It can be argued that both ETH and ETC have some distinct strengths and weaknesses, but the power largely rests with ETH as it has a market cap of roughly $15 billion, whereas ETC has one of around $1.5 billion. ETC vs ETH – The Ideological Split By this point in our discussion, you should have a fairly in-depth understanding of the differences between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. To explore further, we start to reveal some of the ideological differences between both communities. These ideological points are important to understand because ideologies attract communities, and the community support behind most cryptocurrencies is what ultimately determines their long-term value. Although a fork, Ethereum is now the more popular chain. It’s important to distinguish that Ethereum had no blame in what happened with the DAO, as the DAO ran completely independent of Ethereum. However, the $50 million hack dismantled the public belief in Ethereum and the price dropped from $20 to $13. The decision to fork was ultimately based on the fact that the missing $50 million of Ether was still on the hacker’s child DAO, and it couldn’t be accessed for 28 days due to the DAO smart contract. The Ethereum community had one of three options:    Inaction – Do Nothing: The “code is law” approach was an integral component to many of the immutable blockchain believers that supported Ethereum. These supporters were largely the group that stuck around for ETC. The majority of people weren’t happy with $50 million disappearing, so they decided to take action and cast their vote elsewhere.    Soft Fork: A soft fork essentially gave holders the choice of whether to update or not. Whatever decision they chose, updated and non-updated holders could still interact. The concept behind the soft fork was to isolate and segregate all the blocks that contained the hacker’s transactions with the goal of stopping them from moving their stolen ether. The Soft Fork posed a problem, as it would result in a “Denial of Service” attack vector. The DoS attack essentially was a manipulation of how miners are rewarded in the Ethereum ecosystem, and for this reason, the community chose to go with the Hard Fork.    Hard Fork: The main distinction between soft and hard forks is that hard forks did not allow updated and non-updated holders to interact. If you didn’t join the upgraded blockchain, you would not be able to interact with users of the new system. The community chose the Hard Fork… The way the hard fork worked is that the ETH we know today split off from the main block chain at a particular point. This particular point was around block 1,920,000 – right before the DAO hack. So, how did this solve the DAO attack issue? The hard fork helped to refund everyone who had invested into the DAO, using what is referred to as a refund smart contract. For every 100 DAO, token holders were given 1 ETH. Gavin Wood, the co-founder of Ethereum, called this moment “the single most important moment in cryptocurrency history since the birth of Bitcoin.” By now, you should have some idea of how this event split up the Ethereum community. Ethereum was first created as a stance against financial corruption. The immutable blockchain was meant to be free from the human tendency to corrupt. The DAO hack (which had nothing to do with the integrity of the Ethereum platform) split the Ethereum community because the decision to hard-fork – and essentially manipulate the blockchain – went against the original purpose of Ethereum in the first place. Ideologists that were unshaken in their beliefs stuck with ETC, whereas others split off into Ethereum for the sake of the survival and flourishing of the community. There is a natural antagonism between the two groups for this reason. Additionally, many anti-Ethereum people jumped into the ETC camp to further cause disruption in the Ethereum community. ETC vs ETH – The Issues In the ETC vs ETH debate, both sides make valid arguments, and each chain isn’t without their faults. Ethereum Classic baseUrl = "https://widgets.cryptocompare.com/"; var scripts = document.getElementsByTagName("script"); var embedder = scripts[ scripts.length - 1 ]; (function (){ var appName = encodeURIComponent(window.location.hostname); if(appName==""){appName="local";} var s = document.createElement("script"); s.type = "text/javascript"; s.async = true; var theUrl = baseUrl+'serve/v3/coin/chart?fsym=ETC&tsyms=USD,EUR,CNY,GBP'; s.src = theUrl + ( theUrl.indexOf("?") >= 0 ? "&" : "?") + "app=" + appName; embedder.parentNode.appendChild(s); })(); The biggest issues with ETC is that it isn’t backward compatible with the ETH Hard Fork, and that many big players of the Ethereum community are now using ETH. Since ETC isn’t backward compatible with the Hard Fork, users of ETC won’t be able to enjoy the updates being built on ETH, such as Ethereum’s move from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake. Ethereum baseUrl = "https://widgets.cryptocompare.com/"; var scripts = document.getElementsByTagName("script"); var embedder = scripts[ scripts.length - 1 ]; (function (){ var appName = encodeURIComponent(window.location.hostname); if(appName==""){appName="local";} var s = document.createElement("script"); s.type = "text/javascript"; s.async = true; var theUrl = baseUrl+'serve/v3/coin/chart?fsym=ETH&tsyms=USD,EUR,CNY,GBP'; s.src = theUrl + ( theUrl.indexOf("?") >= 0 ? "&" : "?") + "app=" + appName; embedder.parentNode.appendChild(s); })(); The biggest issues with ETH is that now that the hard fork seal has been broken, many are speculative that there could be more hard forks in the future. Since the Ethereum community could come together to make a substantial change in the price and future of the blockchain, something hailed for its ruthless mathematical objectivity. Some people have become rightfully speculative or downright conspiracy-driven that leaders in the Ethereum community could manipulate a hard fork in the future. This risk adds some volatility to the long-term price. ETC vs ETH – Final Thoughts In the battle of ETC vs ETH, the vast majority of crypto supporters have chosen to favor Ethereum. The above issues with ETH are only mentioned for the sake of fairness to both communities, but as a crypto enthusiast, you should be aware of all the available information. While Ethereum (ETH) may be looked at as a mutation and violation of the principles of immutability behind Ethereum, it also serves as a landmark victory for the Ethereum community being able to come together and handle the worst hack in cryptocurrency history. An argument can be made that if not for the hard fork, Ethereum, the platform that allows countless innovative and spectacular Dapps to run, might not exist today. As you can see, both camps of the ETC vs ETH argument make solid points. The power of Ethereum lies in its community since it is a platform that allows others to build projects that could revolutionize virtually any industry. Ethereum Classic, however, is stained with the unfortunate history of the DAO. The core idea behind the DAO could have made a substantial impact on the future of technology, and the core flaws in its security gave birth to a stronger platform. The sheer market cap size and strong community behind Ethereum (ETH) foreshadow a bright future. ETC, on the other hand, appears to be slowly shrinking in market cap comparison to the rest of the crypto world and consists more of a combination of immutable blockchain loyalists, ETH antagonists, and general market speculators. But with the addition of Ethereum Classic to Coinbase, it looks as if the ETC vs ETH competition may not be settled just yet. The post Ethereum Classic vs Ethereum (ETC vs ETH): What’s the Difference? appeared first on CoinCentral.
Coin Central
More news sources

Ethereum Classic (ETC) news by Finrazor

HIGHLIGHT

Binance Launches Testnet of Decentralized Exchange

The world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance announced the launch of Binance DEX testnet. Binance DEX is said to be secure and scalable – with a block interval of one second. User account registration is now open. Testnet went live on Wednesday morning, 20 February 2019

Read more
DIGEST

This week has been eventful in the crypto world. Ripple tries to rebrand its XRP coin, South Korea and China may lift their ICO ban, Bittrex is launching USD trading pairs and EOS’ long-awaited mainnet is soon to go live.

Read more
DIGEST

Daily, May 30, ’18

John McAfee, Crypto addiction, Tokyo Stock Exchange, ETC fork, Spencer Bogart, Buda exchange, Xi Jinping, ICON, SEC

Read more
FACT

Crypto Briefing

EOS ($13.05) is the leader of loss dropping by 6.7%

DIGEST

Casper code release, EOS launches Space Invaders, Bill Gates against BTC, Palihapitiya defends BTC, McAfee's prediction, Fundstrat's prediction, Novogratz partners with Bloomberg, Kohn's opinion, ETH image, Vitalik Buterin about privacy, SEC about understanding crypto, NYSE launches BTC trading desk, Telegram Passport test, Nvidia's revenue, blockchain development in China

Read more

Trending

Hot news

Hot world news

Biggest weekly losers: XRP, Litecoin [LTC], Stellar Lumens [XLM] fall by 10%; market tanks after Bitfinex-Tether fiasco

The market saw prices of most major cryptocurrencies soar earlier this week. However, the weekend has led to a new turn of events as coins are now being dragged into bearish territory. Among the top-10 coins, the five cryptocurrencies that saw the biggest fall were Stellar Lumens [XLM], EOS, Cardano [ADA], XRP, and Litecoin [LTC]. The fall in prices was a result of the Bitfinex-Tether fiasco. New York State’s Attorney General’s [NYAG] office revealed that iFinex, the company behind the crypto-exchange Bifinex, may be violating New York Law. This announcement was in relation to activities that “may have defrauded” local investors who trade in cryptocurrencies. Stellar Lumens [XLM] Source: Trading View Stellar Lumens [XLM] was valued at $0.1158 on April 20 and fell by 14.68% over the week. At press time, the coin was valued at $0.0990 with a market cap of $1.88 billion. The 24-hour trading volume was noted to be $276 million, as the coin fell by 4.50% over the past day and continued to dip by 0.43% within the past hour. EOS Source: Trading View EOS, at the beginning of the week was valued at $5.47, after which it fell by 13.97% over the past seven days. At press time, the coin was valued at $4.70, with a market cap of $4.43 billion. The 24-hour trading volume of the coin was $2.62 billion as it fell by 1.91% over the past day. The coin, at press time, was falling by 0.14% and failed to recover. Cardano [ADA] Source: Trading View Cardano [ADA] fell by 13.41% over the week, which resulted in its price falling from $0.0769 to $0.0690. The market cap of the coin was reported to be $1.78 billion and the 24-hour trading volume was $108 million. Over the past 24-hours, the coin fell by 4.47% and continued to fall by 1.35% within the past hour. XRP Source: Trading View At the beginning of the week, XRP was valued at $0.3325, after which it slipped by 11.88% and, at press time, was valued at $0.2929. The market cap of the coin was noted to be $12.30 billion and the trading volume of the coin was $1.36 billion. XRP fell by 2.49% over the past day and by 0.50% over the past hour. Litecoin [LTC]  Source: Trading View Litecoin [LTC] noted a fall of 10.79% over the past week, which reduced the price of LTC from $81.33 to $72.64. The market cap of the coin was $4.46 billion with a 24-hour trading volume of $3.15 billion. The price of the coin fell by 0.77% over the past 24-hours and by 0.94% within an hour. The post Biggest weekly losers: XRP, Litecoin [LTC], Stellar Lumens [XLM] fall by 10%; market tanks after Bitfinex-Tether fiasco appeared first on AMBCrypto.
AMBCrypto

Bitfinex: $850M Lost Tether ‘False Assertion’

Following the New York Attorney General’s accusations of a $850M cover-up by Bitfinex, the company has issued its response. Binfinex refutes the claims as ‘riddled with false assertions’ and that the funds are not lost.  The Cover-Up Claims According to the NY Attorney General’s claim, Bitfinex lost $850 million of customer money. This had been sent to, and seized by payment processing firm, Crypto Capital Corp. The allegation goes on to say that Bitfinex used cash reserves from affiliated stablecoin, Tether, to cover the shortfall. The AG, Letitia James, claims this ‘loss of funds’ and movement of reserves was not disclosed by operator of both Bitfinex and Tether, iFinex. Therefore, it had “engaged in a cover-up to hide the apparent loss of $850 million of co-mingled client and corporate funds.” At press time, the price of USD Tether 00 has fallen bellow its $1 peg. Meanwhile, its stablecoin competitors such as USD-Coin 00  and TrueUSD 00 are now trading at a slight premium. This suggests that investors are likely swapping their tethers  to avoid any further surprises. Worth noting, Bitcoinist reported yesterday that the supply of tethers has reachd an all-time high. ‘Bitfinex and Tether are Financially Strong’ Bitfinex responded today by claiming that the AG’s filings: …were written in bad faith and are riddled with false assertions, including as to a purported $850 million “loss” at Crypto Capital. It claimed that these funds were not lost, but had “been, in fact, seized and safeguarded,” and it was actively working to get those funds released. It went on to chastise the AG for not doing more to aid and support its recovery efforts. Both Bitfinex and Tether are financially strong – full stop. And both Bitfinex and Tether are committed to fighting this gross overreach by the New York Attorney General’s office against companies that are good corporate citizens and strong supporters of law enforcement. Bitfinex and Tether will vigorously challenge this, and any and all other actions, by the New York Attorney General’s office. The Double Standards Caitlin Long pointed out on Twitter, that even if the allegations were true, the NY AG was guilty of double standards. From 2009-12, Merrill Lynch, according to the SEC: commingled customer funds, used them to cover its own obligations, & had it failed its customers would have been exposed to a “massive shortfall in the reserve account.” Which is essentially what the AG is accusing iFinex of. But whilst the SEC dealt with the Merrill Lynch case without causing panic and customer withdrawals, the move by the AG has sparked just that for iFinex. 7/ So…#NewYork did good investigative work here but needs to be called to task on why the double standard, and why the "gotcha" approach? Why not do the same to #WallSt firms when they play similar shell games??? — Caitlin Long (@CaitlinLong_) April 26, 2019 She also urged exchanges to clean up their acts regarding transparency and proof of solvency, to avoid such situations. The Problem? The Attorney General’s filing, asserts that the Tether funds were extended as a line of credit, over three years, with a 6.5% interest rate. An iFinex share charge, of 60,000,000 shares, secured the loan. Entrepreneur and commentator, Alistair Milne, Tweeted the situation rather succinctly, concluding that, as long as “Bitfinex trades profitably, no problem.” TL:DR the Tether/Bitfinex news:Bitfinex have borrowed ~700mil from TetherBitfinex pay a 'fair' interest rate on this loan60million shares in Bitfinex were pledged as collateralIf CryptoCapital release the USD, no problemIf Bitfinex trades profitably, no problem — Alistair Milne (@alistairmilne) April 25, 2019 Which brings us back to transparency and disclosure. If iFinex told customers and investors about this alleged ‘seizure’ and ‘loan’, then would they now have a problem? And is the AG’s ‘gotcha’ approach really warranted in any case? Is the NY Generaly Attorney acting in ‘bad faith’? Share your thoughts below! Images via Shutterstock The post Bitfinex: $850M Lost Tether ‘False Assertion’ appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.
Bitcoinist

New York Attorney General’s Office Accuses Bitfinex Of Covering $850 Million Losses Using Tether Funds

If you are our BitcoinExchangeGuide’s regular reader. You should already know about the shady connection between Bitfinex and Tether. This Thursday, a document by the New York Attorney General’s (NYAG) office revealed that iFinex, the company behind both Tether (USDT) and Bitcoin exchange Bitfinex, is being sued. In the press release, the attorney general Letitia […]
Bitcoin Exchange Guide
By continuing to browse, you agree to the use of cookies. Read Privacy Policy to know more or withdraw your consent.