Bitcoin Cash ABC’s rolling 10 block checkpoints

Abstract: We evaluate Bitcoin Cash ABC’s new rolling 10 block checkpoint system. The new system does defend against “deep” hostile reorgs; however, it increases the risk of consensus chain splits and provides new opportunities for a would-be attacking miner. Another tradeoff is that the change increases the damage hostile miners can do to the network, but it reduces the potential reward for such behaviour. It is not clear at this point if this change is a net benefit, although it is a fundamental change to the system and it may therefore be better to spend more time assessing the dynamics involved before the network adopts this technology.


Bitcoin Cash ABC added a new rolling checkpoint system in software version ABC 0.18.5, which was released on 21st November 2018. Essentially, the new mechanism finalizes a block once it has received 10 confirmations, which prevents large blockchain reorgs. Therefore even if an alternative chain has more proof of work, if it conflicts with a checkpoint, the node will not switch over to the most work chain.

This feature may have been added as a defence against potential attackers including from supporters of the rival Bitcoin Cash SV chain, who have indicated they may wish to attack Bitcoin Cash ABC.

Security Analysis of the New Checkpointing Mechanism

The new rolling checkpoint mechanism includes a trade-off:

  • The risk of a deep reorg is reduced.
  • The risk of a consensus chainsplit is increased.

Network Risk Analysis of the New Checkpoint System

Latency issues Attack scenario
Reorg risk

No change

It it unlikely that latency problems will cause nodes to be out of sync with each other by 10 blocks, therefore, this is largely a non-issue, in our view. The new checkpointing system is therefore not likely to cause problems here. Although with a block size of up to 32MB, there could be some latency issues in a small number of circumstances and it is possible nodes could be out of sync by 10 blocks.

The checkpoint doesn’t seem to solve any issues to do with latency. If latency issues cause a 10 block reorg, the user may want to follow the most work chain. Therefore we do not think there is any benefit here.

Risk reduced

The risk of a deep hostile reorg is now reduced or limited to 10 blocks.

Consensus split

New small risk introduced

In the unlikely scenario that poor network connectivity causes nodes to be out of sync with each other by 10 blocks or more, the conflicting checkpoints could cause a consensus split resulting in two or more coins.

New risk introduced

Although the reorg risk is now reduced, the hostile miner now has a new attack vector. The attacker can attempt to mine a 10 block long (or longer) chain in secret and then publish the chain at a time designed to cause conflicting checkpoints on the network, causing a chain split.

Attacking Miner: An Alternative Option to a Reorg

As indicated above, if a hostile miner is producing a shadow chain, once this diverges from the “honest” chain by more than 10 blocks, it is essentially useless as it cannot reorg the honest chain, even if it has more work. Therefore the attacker might as well give up and stop extending the shadow chain.

However, this also means that as soon as the 10th block since the split has been produced on the “honest chain,” the attacker might as well publish the shadow chain at this point, depending on the attacker’s objectives. (i.e. release the shadow chain as soon as the attacker receives the block in red indicated in the below diagram.) This could then cause a consensus chain split, with some nodes having received the red block first and some receiving the shadow chain first, resulting in conflicting checkpoints.

(Source: BitMEX Research)

This attack may cause a consensus chain split, which could be just as damaging to the network as continuing on to do a hostile reorg. It is also cheaper than continuing on to do a deep reorg, since the hostile miner can stop earlier. Therefore it is not clear to us why this new checkpointing defence is a material improvement. Although the risks in this section are unlikely to materialise (and could require the attacker to have a majority of the hashrate), they seem at least as likely to occur as the problem the new checkpointing system is trying to mitigate against.

Advantages of the Checkpointing System

  • Although the new checkpointing mechanism may have a limited impact on security within a 10 block window, when looking back more deeply from the current chain tip, security may be increased over longer timeframes. This may be very useful to some exchanges or merchants who can now wait for more than 10 blocks before crediting a user account and achieve a higher level of assurance. However, a key focus of Bitcoin Cash is to increase transaction speeds, so this benefit may not be desirable for the Bitcoin Cash community.
  • Although a new attack vector is opened up by this mechanism, providing a new way for hostile miners to instigate a consensus split as we explained above, the incentive to do this is less clear than for a “normal” deep reorg attack. A normal reorg attack can be used to initiate a double spend against an exchange, whereby the attacker could profit. While it is possible to also attempt a double spend attack using this new chain split-related attack vector, the outcome is less clear, as it is not obvious which side (if any) will be the winner or which chain an individual exchange may follow. Therefore, although this attack is potentially more devastating on the network, the incentives for it are less obvious. We view this as a significant positive.

Other issues

Centralisation and More Developer Power

Another common criticism of checkpoints is that it gives developers more power and increases centralisation since developers normally manually insert the checkpoints when they release new versions of the software (like Bitcoin used to have). However in our view, this does not apply in this case as the checkpoints are automatically generated by the node software and not manually generated by the development team. Therefore this a non-issue.

Long Range Attack and the Initial Sync

As Eric Wall explained on Twitter, the new checkpoint mechanism opens up the ability to sybil attack nodes not on the latest chaintip. For example, nodes still in the initial sync or nodes related to users who temporarily shut down their nodes for several days. An attacker needs to launch his own relay nodes and generate a new 10 block long chain at any point in the past.

This lower work chain can then be broadcast to nodes (including the specific targeting of nodes not at the current tip), potentially causing these nodes to conduct the checkpoint prematurely, on an alternative chain. Not only does this leave these nodes on a different chain, but this chain is under the control of the attacker. This seems to be a significant flaw of the checkpointing system.

Satoshi’s “original vision” appears to imply that the ability of nodes to be switched off and then verify what happened when it was gone is potentially important:

Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
(Source: Bitcoin Whitepaper)

To some extent this Bitcoin Cash ABC upgrade abandons that philosophy, and requires nodes to be online 24×7.


The new Bitcoin Cash ABC checkpointing system is a fundamental change to the core network and consensus dynamics, resulting in a number of trade-offs. These changes may not have been adequately explored before the upgrade. Although we do not think it is likely such a change will result in an immediate crisis, it’s not likely to prevent one either.

Overall Summary of the Checkpointing System’s Impact


  • Reduces the incentive for a miner to attack the chain
  • Provides more assurances for merchants and exchanges for transactions with over 10 confirmations


  • Increases the ability of a miner to instigate a devastating attack on the network
  • Introduces new attack vectors on nodes which are still syncing to the main chain updated to estimate the value of mining losses since the Bitcoin Cash split

Abstract: Bitcoin Cash successfully split into two coins on 15th November 2018, Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin Cash SV. BitMEX Research sponsored a website, to track the two chains. There is now a “hashrate war” between the two coins and the hashrate is higher than one would expect given the price of the coins, such that miners are making large losses. The website has now been updated to help estimate the value spent mining on each side of the split and the loses miners may therefore be making.

(Notes: Screenshot of updated website)

Estimating the accumulated mining losses so far

Based on the mining spend since the split figure provided, one can estimate the total expected losses, based on the price of the respective coins, as the table below shows:

Bitcoin Cash ABC Bitcoin cash SV
Mining spend since the split US$887,963  US$520,115
Coins mined 2,337.5 2,012.5
Coin price US$261 US$97
Potential mining revenue US$610,087 US$195,212
Total Net profit/(loss) (US$277,875) (US$324,904)
Profit Margin (45.5%) (166.4%)

(Source:, Poloniex price data)
(Notes: Data as at 18:30 UTC on 16 Nov 2018. Mining spend calculated assuming standard Bitmain S9 miner performance and electricity cost of US$50 per MWh)

Although the table above shows that both sides are making losses, it illustrates why the ABC side may be in a stronger financial position than SV. Not only is ABC in the PoW lead (both with respect to the number of blocks and accumulated work), but the SV miners have larger expected losses than ABC miners, due to the lower price of the SV coin. The SV losses are also larger relative to the potential revenue, with a profit margin of minus 166.4% compared to ABC on minus 45.5%.

Despite this situation, one should of course be aware that the prices of these coins are volatile and highly uncertain. There is no guarantee that either side will be able to sell the coins they mined. However, the ABC side does have a reasonably liquid futures market.

What will happen next?

Mining is currently continuing on both sides, with neither side willing to back down over the fight for the most work chain. Despite the bleak financial situation, the rhetoric on the SV side remains strong, with Coingeek stating that they may be prepared to keep this up for “months and months”.

This will bleed Bitmain’s cash and cryptocurrency reserves, because we are prepared to fight for months and months. If I were a shareholder or investor in Bitmain, I’d be asking why Jihan Wu is spending all your money to control BCH when Bitmain’s business supports multiple cryptocurrencies.”
(Source: Coingeek)

However, with just around 24 hours passing since the split and SV miners already US$324,904 in the red, using our conservative assumptions, we would be surprised if the situation continues like this for months.


While the rhetoric from either side is strong, in a way the hashrate battle is totally pointless. Users and investors are free to choose the ABC or SV side of the split no matter which chain has the most blocks or highest accumulated work. The narrative of being the higher work chain appears important to proponents of the two coins, but the prudent think to do would be to step back and mine the most profitable coin.

In our view, as the accumulated losses gradually start to increase, it is inevitable that the parties involved step back and allocate the hashrate such that its distributed in a proportional way to the prices of each coin. How long this will take, we do not know, but the website should provide a useful tool. It can help asses the extent to which financial pressure is building on each side in this somewhat pointless hashrate war.



加密币交易平台行业详细报告(来自 CryptoCompare )

摘要:我们对加密币交易所的整个生态圈进行了深入的报道。我们按照所有可能的特征(交易所类型,交易所覆盖区域和交易对)都整体市场进行了细分。我们也使用了多元的指标来评估交易的稳健性和真实性,包括网络流量,平均交易规模,委托列表深度,安全性和价格可靠性等。该报告出自 CryptoCompare ,内容用了 CryptoCompare 的综合定价指数( CCCAGG )作为大部分的分析基础。

(备注:当前 CCCAGG 成分交易所,按 24 小时流量计算)


请点击此处下载 CryptoCompare 报告的 PDF 版本



主要交易所在 10 月的新闻

  • 据报道, Bitstamp 被一家比利时投资公司 NXMH 以 4 亿美元收购了。
  • Gemini 上的全数加密资产现在已由 Aon 保险公司来承保。
  • Coinbase 在 CENTRE Consortium 宣布 Circle 合作后,为其交易平台和 USDC 增加了 0x 。
  • 韩国交易所 Bithumb 开始了新的 DEX ,而 Huobi 和 OKEX 推出了稳定币 GUSD , TUSD , PAX 和 USDC 。
  • Chainalysis 将协助 Binance 遵守全球的反洗钱( AML )法规。
  • Coinfloor 成为第一个获得直布罗陀许可证的交易所。



与期货交易量( 32 亿美元)相比,现货量占总市场量(不到 70 亿美元)近四分之三。 BitMEX 和 BitflyerFX 平均占总交易量的四分之一以上,而 CME 和 CBOE 等传统交易所占比不到 1% 。

在整体市场总交易量中,提取流动性费用( Taker Fee )的交易所占现货市场交易量的 90% ,而基于其他交易费用作为利润和免费交易的交易所则占总交易量的 10% 。

提供法币兑加密币交易的交易所只占现货市场交易量的四分之一(约 20 亿美元),而提供密货币兑加密币的交易所占比约四分之三(约 47 亿美元)。然而,就交易所数量而言,大约一半的交易所提供法币兑加密币交易。


“交易即挖矿” 交易所交易量

按 24 小时平均交易量计算,交易量最高的 “交易即挖矿” 交易所是 EXX( 1.6 亿美元),其次是 Coinex ( 1.14 亿美元)和 Coinbene ( 1.13 亿美元)。根据 CryptoCompare ,”交易即挖矿” 交易所 24 小时平均交易量仅超过 5.5 亿美元。这占过去 30 天总交易量约 10% 。



CryptoCompare 上排名前 5 位的去中心化交易所的 24 小时平均交易总量略低于 240 万美元。这仅占总交易量的 0.4% 。以 24 小时平均交易量计算, CryptoCompare 上排名前三的交易所是 Waves Dex , IDEX 和 Dex 。



以 24 小时平均交易量计算, Binance 仍然是交易量最高的交易所,平均为 9.77 亿美元。其次分别是 OKEX ( 4.05 亿美元)和 Bitfinex ( 3.68 亿美元)。 Yobit提供最多数量的交易对,数量达到为 7,032 对,其次是 Cryptopia ( 4,321 对)和 CCEX ( 2,140 对)。



在过去30天内,美元占 BTC 兑法币一半的交易量,其次是日元( 21% )和韩元( 16% )。比特币兑韩元( KRW )的交易量在 10 月 7 日之后大幅上涨。该交易对在此之前仅占平均前五名的比特币交易量的十分之一。在 10 月 7 日至 15 日期间,它的占比上升到了三分之一,韩国交易所 Bithumb 的交易量也大幅飙升,增长达到 230% 。



马耳他注册的交易所每日总交易量最大,达到近 14 亿美元,其次是在韩国(约 8.4 亿美元)和香港(约 5.6 亿美元)。在前十大交易量最大的国家中,大型交易所的数量在美国最多,其次是英国和香港。做为在马耳他注册的交易所, Binance 和 OKEX 占了其交易量的绝大部分,而 Bithumb 和 Upbit 则在韩国占主导地位。



CoinEx 是一家著名的 “交易即挖矿” 交易所,相对其他前 25 位的交易所,其交易频率相对较高,而每笔交易规模较小。 它的平均每天进行近 176,000 笔交易,每笔交易金额为 125 美元,很可能是算法交易的结果。相比之下, Bithumb 和 HuobiPro 的平均交易规模分别约 3,000 和 1,500 美元,并且每日交易次数明显较低( 12 – 18,000 )。



IDAX 和 CoinBene 的日平均访问量似乎比同等规模的交易所低。 Binance 的日平均访问人数最多,与其高交易量一致。与此同时, Coinbase , 和 Bittrex 等交易所的日访问量明显高于其他相似规模的交易所。与同等规模的交易所相比, ZB 和 EXX 每日所吸引的访客量明显较少。



与 CoinEx , ZB 和 Coinbene 等交易所相比, ItBit , Kraken 和 Bitstamp 的交易市场相对稳定。由于在我们所分析的时间段内,它们的平均委托列表的深度相对较浅,因此这些交易所显得不那么稳定。



24 小时平均交易量排在前 100 的交易所中,只有 86% 的交易所的官网页面同时拥有公共隐私政策和条款和条件的资料。三分之一的大型交易所将绝大多数用户的资金存放在冷钱包中,在这些交易所中, itBit , Coinfloor , Bitfinex 和 Coinbase 等交易所是离线存放用户资金规模最大的几家交易所。前 100 的交易所中,有 11% 在过去曾遭受到黑客攻击。


了解你的客户 ( KYC )

只有不到一半的大型交易所要有严格的 KYC 要求,而超过四分之一的交易所不要求 KYC 。



本节旨在介绍整个加密币交易市场的宏观概况。其中有趣的是过往现货交易量与期货交易量的比例。我们还将评估一下收费交易所,免费交易所及 “交易即挖矿” 交易所的交易量的比例。最后,我们将看一下提供加密币兑加密币交易及提供法币兑加密币交易的交易所的交易量。




现货交易量达到近 70 亿美元,而在这段期间,期货交易量达到 32 亿美元。

BitMEX ( XBT / USD 永续合约)和 BitflyerFX ( BTC / JPY 期货合约)等期货交易所平均交易量占整体市场交易量不到四分之一。 CME 和 CBOE 等传统期货交易所仅占总市场的很小一部分,平均不到 1% 。


历史 BTC 兑美元期货合约交易量

BitMEX 的比特币兑美元的永续合约交易量依然继续主导着比特币对美元的期货市场。

与 CME 和 CBOE 的交易量相比, BitMEX 在过去一个月中占据了超过 90% 的市场份额。



收取接受者费用( Taker fee ) 的交易所的交易量约占现货市场交易量的 90% 。

另一方面, “交易即挖矿” 交易所的交易量仅占现货市场交易总量的 9% 左右,而提供免费现货交易的交易所的交易量仅占市场总量的 1% 以下。






在撰写本文期间,加密币交易市场的平均交易量为 52.6 亿美元。

调整后的现货交易量不包括 “交易即挖矿” 交易所及免费交易所的交易量。


历史 BTC 兑法币现货交易量 – 前五大法币

从 10 月 7 日开始,韩元( KRW )兑比特币的交易量大幅增加。

BTC 兑 KRW 此前仅占排名前五位的比特币交易所的交易量的平均的十分之一。在 10 月 7 日至 15 日期间,它增长了 230 %。这一增长源于韩国交易所 Bithumb 的交易量飙升。


BTC 与各种法币交易的比例

在过去 30 天内,美元占 BTC 兑法币交易量的一半,其次是日元( 21% )和韩元( 16% )。



24 小时平均美元交易量排名

交易所 24 小时交易量(百万美元) 代币 交易对
Binance 977.5 160 408
OKEX 405.0 171 511
Bitfinex 368.5 96 281
Bithumb 323.2 13 13
HuobiPro 310.2 128 293
HitBTC 295.2 427 889
ZB 247.6 58 167
Upbit 211.0 132 261
Bibox 208.9 87 210



交易所 24 小时交易量(百万美元) 代币 交易对
Yobit 27.7        1,180        7,032
Cryptopia 3.5            785        4,321
CCEX 0.1            628        2,140
EtherDelta 0.2        2,058        2,059
HitBTC 295.2            427            889
TradeSatoshi 0.1            200            840
Bittrex 49.1            514            637
Livecoin 12.5            249            595
WavesDEX 0.9            163            592
IDEX 0.7            563            563
OKEX 405.0            171            511
Kucoin 10.1            189            450
Binance 977.5            160            408
Gateio 48.8            172            358
Zecoex 1.4            119            342


历史 24 小时交易量 – 前 8 大交易所

24 小时现货交易量排名最高的交易所是 Binance ,平均交易量达到近 9.8 亿美元。

根据 24 小时平均交易量计算,紧随 Binance 其后的是 OKEX 和 Bitfinex ,分别为 4.05 亿和 3.68 亿。

10 月 7 日后, Bithumb 的交易量从平均 1.4 亿美元飙升至平均 6.4 亿美元。此后,总部位于新加坡的 BK Global Consortium 收购了该交易所控股股权。

根据 CrypoGlobe , Bitfinex 在 10 月 15 日的交易量激增的原因是因为 Bitfinex 与 Coinbase 的比特币交易溢价在当时达到了 11.28% 的历史最高水平。


24 小时月平均交易量 – 顶级交易所

Bithumb 的平均交易量增长了 187% ,而 Binance 和 OKEX 的交易量分别下降了 8% 和 35% 。

韩国交易所 Bithumb 的平均交易量从 8 月/ 9 月的 9,600 万美元大幅增加到 9 月/  10 月的 2.76 亿美元。与此同时, Binance 在同一时期的交易量从 9.74 亿美元下降至 8.93 亿美元。最后,第二大交易所的 24 小时交易量, OKEX ,从 6.55 亿美元下降至 4.23 亿美元。



交易所在各个国家经营着它们的业务,以服务于更广泛的全球加密币交易社区。它们经常更换它们的经营地点,以避免在那些会限制它们运营方式的管辖权内经营它们的业务。以下国家分析旨在点出根据 24 小时交易量,交易所注册地排名前十的国家 。


十大交易所法律司法管辖区 –   24 小时交易量与交易次数


马耳他交易所的日交易量仅为 14 亿美元,其次是韩国(约 8.4 亿美元)和香港(约 5.6 亿美元)。在排名前十的交易大国中,大型交易所主要在美国,英国和香港。


十大交易所法律司法管辖区 – 按对成交量的影响力

Binance 和 OKEX 占了马耳他交易量的绝大部分,而 Bithumb 和 Upbit 在韩国占主导地位。

十大交易所法律司法管辖区 – 交易所细分和数量

著名的美国交易所包括 Coinbase , Poloniex 和 itBit ,而韩国的交易所包括 Upbit , Bithumb 和 Coinone 。

香港的交易所包括 HitBTC , CoinEx 和 Bit-Z ,而偏远地区的交易所包括塞舌尔的 HuobiPro ,萨摩亚的 ZB 和瓦努阿图的 Coinbene 。





加密币兑加密币与法币兑加密币 –  24小时平均交易量及交易所数量

平均而言,仅提供加密币兑加密币交易的交易所占现货交易市场总量约四分之三(约 47 亿美元)。

那些提供法币兑加密币的交易所平均只占市场交易总额的四分之一(约 20 亿美元)。就交易所数量而言,大约一半的交易所只提供着加密币兑加密币交易。





24 小时平均交易频率与平均交易规模 – 前 25 大交易所

CoinEx 是一家著名的 “交易即挖矿” 交易所,与其他交易量排名前 25 名的交易所相比,其交易频率明显较高,而单笔交易额度由相对较小。

由于它的单笔交易额度约为  125 美元,每日交易量近 176,000 笔,这可能是因为交易员正在使用算法交易。相比之下, Bithumb 和 HuobiPro 的平均单笔交易额分别为 3,000 和 1,500 美元。

24 小时平均交易频率与平均交易规模 – 大型交易所

24 小时平均交易量(百万美元) 平均单笔交易额度(美元) 24 小时交易数量(千笔)
1 Binance 977.5 950 95.7
2 OKEX 405 701 48.5
3 Bitfinex 368.5 1,438 38
4 Bithumb 323.2 2,788 12.4
5 HuobiPro 310.2 1,483 18.7
6 HitBTC 295.2 2,873 12.1
7 ZB 247.6 702 29
8 UPbit 211 732 22.5
9 Bibox 208.9 1,253 16.4
10 EXX 159.9 1,134 24.1
11 BitZ 143.9 2,333 8
12 IDAX 131.5 520 37.4
13 CoinEx 113.6 125 175.6
14 CoinBene 113.2 298 35.2



此分析针对 CryptoCompare 总交易池中的大型交易所的网页流量统计信息。它基于类似的分析,该研究试图在分析每个特别的域名的用户访问量与该域名后续 24 小时的交易量之间的联系。该分析假设交易所吸引的访客越多,其交易量就越高。


每日平均访客人数与 24 小时交易量 –  超过 100,000 的 Alexa 排名

IDAX 和 CoinBene 的平均每日访问量似乎比同等规模交易所的每日访问量低。

上图仅表示出在 Alexa 排名高于100,000的交易平台。这样做的原因是,根据 Alexa 的说法,任何低于此水平的排名可能都不具有统计意义。  

我们可以看到 IDAX 和 CoinBene 等交易所的每日平均独立访客数量低于其他类似规模交易所的交易量,如 Kraken , Bitstamp 和 CoinEx 。

Binance 的每日平均访客人数最多,与其高交易量一致。与此同时, Coinbase , 和 Bittrex 等交易所的日访问量明显高于其他日交易量相近的交易所。在 Coinbase 的案例中,这可以归因于交易所的声誉和年龄。

每日平均访客人数与 24 小时交易量 – 所有 Alexa 排名

与同等规模的交易所相比, ZB 和 EXX 每日吸引的访客量明显较少。  

无论 Alexa 排名是否低于 100,000 ,上图显示了 24 小时交易量排名的前 20 位。值得注意的是,交易所 ZB 和 EXX 的访问者数量明显低于同规模交易所。  

这些交易所的日均交易量保持在 2.48 亿美元和 1.6 亿美元之间。尽管如此,他们每天的独立访客数量不超过 700 人。  

虽然仅分析 Alexa 排名低于 100,000 的交易所可能出现统计上的错误,但为了减轻任何潜在风险,这些交易所将被标记,直到得到它们进一步澄清。



以下委托列表分析是基于每个大型交易所 10 天内每隔 10 分钟就其委托列表深度的快照所得来,以便调查各种加密币交易所的交易稳定性。在此背景下,平均深度下降的定义是将指定市场的价格拉低 10% 所需的累积量(以美元计)。我们将其与日平均交易量排名前 5 的交易所平均数值进行比较。该分析的结果是我们能够基于深度降低与每日平均交易量与委托列表深度的比率来评估该交易所的稳定性。



相对而言, CoinBene , ZB 和 CoinEx 的市场是最薄的。  

尽管交易对的平均交易量相对较大(约 1,200 万美元),但 CoinBene 的平均委托累计深度下降(委托购买方)总计仅为 33,000 美元。换句话说,为了将价格向下移动 10% ,交易员需要卖出价值 33,000 美元的货币。  

相比之下, Kraken 虽然有着差不多的日均交易量(约 1 ,350 万美元),但它的平均委托累计深度为 420 万美元。这几乎是 CoinBene 的 130 倍,因此表明该交易所更加稳定。


平均深度下降与 24 小时平均交易量比 (某交易对)

与 CoinEx , ZB 和 Coinbene 等交易所相比, ItBit , Kraken 和 Bitstamp 的市场相对稳定。  

例如, ZB 的深度与交易量之比仅为 0.4% 。即为了将价格下调 10% ,交易员只需卖出平均每日成交量的 0.4% 。 在CoinEx ( 0.7% )和 CoinBene ( 0.3% )的情况下,这些比率同样相对较低。  

与此同时, Bitstamp 和 ItBit 等其他交易所的比率分别为 30% 和 40% 。这是 CoinBene 的 100 倍。


“交易即挖矿” 交易所

“交易即挖矿” 交易所 24 小时平均交易量

根据 CryptoCompare , “交易即挖矿” 交易所平均 24 小时总交易量超过 5.5 亿美元。这占了过去 30 天总交易量约 10% 。



24 小时 DEX 平均交易量

CryptoCompare 上排名前 5 位的去中心化交易所的 24 小时平均交易总量不到 2.4 亿美元。这仅占市场总交易量的 0.4% 。


安全性分析 –  24 小时交易量排名前 100 名的交易所

此安全性分析旨在考虑在 24 小时内交易量排名前 100 的交易所在官网页面有否公共隐私和条款和条件页面的比例。此外,我们还分析了过去被黑客攻击的交易所的比例,以及用户资金的冷钱包与热钱包存储的比例。从理论上讲,交易所“冷藏”(即离线)存储的资金数量越多,暴露给黑客的资金就越少。


在 24 小时交易量排名的前 100 的交易所中,只有 86% 同时拥有公共隐私政策和条款和条件页面。






itBit , Coinfloor , Bitfinex 和 Coinbase 等交易所是“冷藏”用户资金比例最高的几个交易所。



11% 的大型交易所过去曾被黑客入侵。


排名前 100 名的交易所对 KYC 的要求

只有不到一半的大型交易所有严格的 KYC 要求,而超过四分之一的交易所不要求 KYC 。  

那些部分要求(25%) KYC 的交易所需要 KYC 验证才能实行某些功能,例如提取法币,交易法币对或增加最大交易额。



我们已经开始对新交易所的交易进行检查。快照数据无法捕捉波动性,因此这些交易图根据其对 CCCAGG 的影响来评估交易特性。我们准备了上个月每个新交易所的排名前 5 个交易对的 CCCAGG 与所有交易的图表。



BCEX 的两个交易对显示出高波动性。我们可以看见大量的买入委托,这表明市场非常薄弱。因此,此交易所的价格不会很好地反映加密币的价格,因此我们不会将其包括在内。



CoinTiger 上的排名第一的交易对与 CCCAGG 一致,但由于交易量异常,在考虑纳入 CCCAGG 之前应该进一步监控它的走势。



IcoinBay 上的交易对与 CCCAGG 一致。该交易所可能包含在 CCCAGG 中。



在被考虑纳入 CCCAGG 之前,其最大交易对的闪电崩盘引发了更长的评估期。



Liqnet 上的交易对与 CCCAGG 一致。但是,我们可以观察到有大量的 API 停机时间。交易所的 API 质量将受到监控,如果 API 规定有所改进,交易所将被考虑包含在内。



与 CCCAGG 不一致,因此 P2PB2B 有理由被排除在外 。



StocksExchange 显示出一些不寻常的交易活动和闪电崩盘。由于该交易模式,交易所不将被包括在内。



BTC 兑美元的评估和未来交易所的方法论


为了在交易所之间进行比较,我们需要确定加密币的交易价格。所有  30天内 BTC-USD 对的交易均进行了整理并绘制。在这段时间里,有大约 650 万笔交易。交易被绘制在图表中,颜色表示该区域中的密度。


过去 30 天所有 BTC 对 USD 的交易

该图表代表了 30 天期间 BTC-USD 交易对的整个生态系统。然后我们在用其生成 BTC 的代表价格。我们选择中位数来计算加密币的价格。使用这一措施背后的原因是交易数据含有大量异常值。为了使计算易于处理,我们将每 1 小时的交易分割开来,并计算每个小时的中位数。  


然后在交易数据上每一个小时画上它们的中位数,然后检视上图的最高交易密度,其 表示它是对加密币交易价格的良好估计。


超过30天的 BTC 兑美元的交易,每小时中位数价格线

CryptoCompare 的 CCCAGG 是交易价格的汇总,旨在反映资产的当前交易价格。可以通过将 CCCAGG 价格与中位数交易价格进行比较来验证其价格的合理性。我们可以看出,这两项指标之间存在一致性,表明 CCCAGG 正准确的捕捉着市场交易价格。






BitMEX (

BitMEX 研究赞助链条分叉监控网站

摘要:我们很自豪地宣布由 BitMEX 研究赞助的新网站 上线了。该网站连接到几个不同的网络节点,包括比特币和比特币现金的网络。它显示了所监控的区块链的有关信息。该网站可用于监控系统升级(软分叉或硬件叉时)期间的网络动态,并可能有助于检测无意识的共识错误。特别感谢斯左思·普布斯( Sjors Provoost )开发该网站。


( 2018 年 11 月 3 日的网站截图)



该网站目前连接着以下 13 个节点:

比特币节点 比特币现金节点
Bitcoin Core Bitcoin ABC 0.18.2
Bitcoin Core 0.17.0 Bitcoin ABC 0.18.0
Bitcoin Core 0.16.3 Bitcoin ABC 0.17.2
Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Bitcoin ABC 0.16.2
Bitcoin Core 0.10.3 Bitcoin ABC 0.14.6
Bitcoin SV 1.0.1
BUCash 1.5.0

(截至 2018 年 11 月 4 日由 运行的节点)


该网站主要面向比特币现金,与5个比特币节点相比,它运行着8个比特币现金节点。这样做的原因是为了关注即将推出的比特币现金硬分叉,其中有几个不同的节点设计用于监控不同链条的动态。 网站也可用于监控该系统升级期间的情况。比特币现金硬分叉完成后,该网站的目的是将重点转移到比特币上。我们计划运行更多不同版本的比特币核心 ( Bitcoin Core )(尤其是旧版本),以及独立实施,如 Bcoin , BTCD 和 Libbitcoin 等网络。这可能有助于发现共识错误,例如 2018 年 9 月发现的通胀错误 CVE-2018-17144 。网站的代码将是开源的,这可能有助于鼓励其他组织衍生出多个节点并用类似的方式来监控网络。



在北京时间 2018 年 11 月 16 日 00:40 左右,预计比特币现金将产生硬分叉。有产生以下三个竞争链的可能:

  • 由 Bitcoin ABC 实施的硬分叉
  • 由 Bitcoin SV 实施的第二个硬分叉
  • 可能是原始的规则链



客户端 评论
Bitcoin ABC 根据过去的中位数, Bitcoin ABC 在0.18.0之后的版本预计将在北京时间 2018 年 11 月 16 日 00:40 左右激活硬分叉。在此之前, Bitcoin ABC 的版本预计不会跟随这个新的链条系统。


在我们看来, Bitcoin ABC是最受欢迎的实施方,而大多数比特币现金用户的可能会支持硬分叉并跟随新的链条。我们不清楚旧版本的 Bitcoin ABC 会怎么发展;然而,最有可能的结果是它的原始链上不再产生额外区块。

Bitcoin SV Bitcoin SV (或  Bitcoin Satoshi Vision )是由克雷格史蒂文赖特( Craig Steven Wright )推广的客户端,他通常被称为“假中本聪”。 2016 年,赖特先生制作了他声称可以证明他是中本聪的证据,然而这很快就发现只是一个从比特币的区块链中复制出来并一种奇怪的方式呈现出来的数字签名。

Bitcoin SV 也有可能在 Bitcoin ABC激活硬分叉的同时激活,但是,这个硬分叉应该与 Bitcoin ABC 不兼容。

我们认为, Bitcoin SV 很可能得到的用户支持是有限的。然而,一些大型比特币现金采矿池,看似会支持 Bitcoin SV 或与赖特先生有着某种关联:

  • Coingeek : 25% 的股份( Calvin Ayre 拥有的一个矿池,据称是赖特的金主和支持者)
  • BMG 池: 12.5% (另一个被认为与赖特有关的矿池, BMG 是赖特公司 nChain 集团的其中一个部门)
  • SV 池: 7% 的市场份额(专门设置来支持 Bitcoin SV的池)

除此之外,市值 6,500 万加元的加拿大上市矿业公司 Squire Mining( SQR CN ),可能会支持 Bitcoin SV 。

根据 Squire 演示给投资者的公司介绍,斯特凡·马修斯( Stefan Matthews )是一名董事,而彭博( Bloomberg )的数据显示他拥有该公司 9.3% 的股份。此外, 2016 年 6 月一本关于赖特的“ The Satoshi Affair ”暗示着马修斯是赖特的长期亲密朋友。马修斯是“ nChain ”的首席执行官,“ nChain ”是另一家深深陷入“骗子”诡计的公司。 Squire的向其投资者演示的公司介绍说马修斯先生是:

目前是 nChain 集团的董事长,该集团以区块链和比特币研究领域的全球领导地位而闻名。 BMG 是 nChain 集团的其中一个部门

因此我们认为,尽管缺乏社区 Bitcoin SV 硬分叉的支持,但该链条可能具有相当大的哈希,即使只是在某段有限的时间内。然尽管 nChain , Coingeek 赖特在市场制造了许多营销的噪音,但我不确定与体相关的采池是否实际上运行着 Bitcoin SV 。即使 Bitcoin SV 确具有大量多数哈希,如果比特币现金忽略它,该链条几乎没有市场影响力。我们认为这是最可能的果。

Bitcoin Unlimited 还有第三个名为 Bitcoin Unlimited 的客户端。这个组的 BUCash 1.5.0 客户端旨在跟随 Bitcoin ABC的硬分叉。早期版本可能表现不同。

虽然看起来大多数人将支持 Bitcoin ABC 的分叉,但每个客户端的行为以及他们将遵循哪条区块链仍然存在很大的不确定性。因此, BitMEX 研究赞助了这个新网站,该网站并在硬分叉前上线了。随着下周事件的开展,该网站可以为一些利益相关的参与者提供有用的信息。


BitMEX (

Detailed Report Into The Cryptocurrency Exchange Industry (From CryptoCompare)

Abstract: We present an in depth report into the cryptocurrency exchange ecosystem. The market is broken down by almost all the possible characteristics (Exchange type, exchange region and trading pairs). The robustness and authenticity of exchanges are evaluated  using metrics such as web traffic, average trade sizes, order book depth, security polices and price reliability. The report was produced by CryptoCompare and uses the CryptoCompare’s Aggregate Pricing Index (the CCCAGG), for much of the analysis.


(Note: Current CCCAGG Constituent Exchanges, Sized by 24H Volume)


Please click here to download a PDF version of CryptoCompare’s report


Executive Summary

Major Exchange News in October

  • Bitstamp was acquired by Belgium-based Investment Firm NXMH for ~400 million USD according to reports.
  • Cryptoassets on Gemini are now fully insured with Aon.
  • Coinbase adds 0x to its trading platform as well as USDC after announcing its collaboration with Circle on the CENTRE Consortium.
  • Korean exchange Bithumb starts a new DEX, while Huobi and OKEX list stablecoins GUSD, TUSD, PAX and USDC.
  • Chainalysis will help Binance comply with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations around the globe, and
  • Coinfloor becomes the first exchange to obtain a Gibraltar license.

Exchange Market Segmentation

Spot volumes constitute less than three quarters of total market volumes on average (less than 7 billion USD) compared to futures volumes (3.2 billion USD). BitMEX and BitflyerFX average more than one quarter of total volumes while traditional exchanges such as CME and CBOE constitute just under 1%.

Within total spot volumes, exchanges with taker fees represent approximately 90% of the exchange spot market volumes, while transaction-fee based and no-fee exchanges represent the remaining 10%.

Exchanges that offer fiat to crypto pairs constitute just under a quarter of spot market volumes on average (~2 billion USD) while exchanges that offer only crypto to crypto pairs constitute approximately three quarters (~4.7 billion USD). In terms of exchange count however, approximately half of all exchanges offer fiat to crypto pairs.

Transaction-Fee Mining Volumes

The top trans-fee mining exchange by average 24h volume was EXX (160 million USD), followed by Coinex (114 million USD) and Coinbene (113 million USD). The total average 24h-volume produced by trans-fee mining associated exchanges on CryptoCompare totals just over 550 million USD. This constitutes approximately 10% of total exchange volume over the last 30 days.

Decentralized Exchanges

The total average 24h-volume produced by the top 5 decentralized exchanges on CryptoCompare totals just under 2.4 million USD. This constitutes just 0.4% of total exchange volume. The top 3 on CryptoCompare by 24h volume include Waves Dex, IDEX and Dex.

Volume, Pairs and Coins

Binance remains the top exchange in terms of 24h volume with an average of 977 million USD. This is followed by OKEX (405 million USD) and Bitfinex (368 million USD). Yobit offers the highest number of pairs at 7,032, followed by Cryptopia (4,321) and CCEX (2,140).

Bitcoin to Fiat Volumes

The US Dollar represented half of BTC fiat trading on average over the past 30 days, followed by JPY (21%) and KRW (16%). Bitcoin trading to Korean Won (KRW) increased sharply after the 7th of October. The pair previously represented a tenth of bitcoin trading among the top 5 fiats on average. Between the 7th and 15th of October it represented a third on average, a 230% increase stemming from Korean exchange Bithumb’s spike in trading volumes.

Country Analysis

Maltese-registered exchanges produce the highest total daily volume at just under 1.4 billion USD, followed by those based legally in South-Korea (~840 million USD) and Hong Kong (~560 million USD). Among the top 10 volume-producing countries, the highest number of large exchanges (with significant volume) are based legally in the USA, the UK and Hong Kong. Binance and OKEX represent the vast majority of Malta’s volumes, while Bithumb and Upbit dominate in South Korea.

Trade Data Analysis

CoinEx, a well-known trans-fee mining exchange, has a significantly higher trade frequency and lower trade size than other exchanges in the top 25. This may point to algorithmic trading, given its almost 176 thousand trades a day at an average trade size of 125 USD. In contrast, Bithumb and HuobiPro had an average trade size of just under 3,000 and 1,500 USD respectively and significantly lower trades per day (12-18 thousand).

Web User Analysis

IDAX and CoinBene appear to have lower average daily visitors compared to similarly sized exchanges by daily volume. Binance has the highest average daily visitor count, in line with its high trading volumes. Meanwhile, exchanges such as Coinbase, and Bittrex have significantly greater numbers of daily visitors than other exchanges with similar daily volumes. ZB and EXX attract significantly lower daily visitors than similarly-sized exchanges.

Order Book Analysis

ItBit, Kraken and Bitstamp have relatively more stable markets compared to exchanges such as CoinEx, ZB and Coinbene. These exchanges appear significantly less stable given their relatively low average order book depth values over the specified period of analysis.

Exchange Security

Out of the top 100 exchanges by 24h volume, only 86% have both a public privacy policy and a terms & conditions page. A third of top exchanges store the vast majority of users’ funds in cold wallets. Exchanges itBit, Coinfloor, Bitfinex and Coinbase are among those that store the highest proportion of users’ funds offline. As a proportion of the top 100 exchanges, 11% have been hacked in the past.


Just under half of top exchanges impose strict KYC requirements, while more than a quarter do not require KYC.

Total Exchange Volumes and Market Segmentation

This section aims to provide a macro view of the cryptocurrency exchange market as a whole. An area of interest is the proportion of spot trading vs futures trading historically. We will also assess the relative proportion of exchange volumes that represent exchanges that charge fees, as well as those that implement models with no-fees or trans-fee mining. Finally, we will take a look at exchange volumes that represent crypto-crypto exchanges versus those that represent fiat-crypto exchanges.

Historical Spot vs Futures Volumes

Spot volumes constitute three quarters of total market volumes on average.

Total spot volume averaged less than 7 billion USD, while futures volume averaged over 3.2 billion USD over the period of analysis.

Futures exchanges such as BitMEX (XBT to USD perpetual futures) and BitflyerFX (BTC to JPY futures) average just under a quarter of total cryptocurrency market volumes. Traditional exchanges such as CME and CBOE trading bitcoin futures, only constitute a very small proportion of the total market at just under 1% on average.

Historical BTC to USD Futures Volumes

BitMEX’s Perpetual Bitcoin to USD Futures volumes continue to dominate the Bitcoin to USD futures market

When compared to CME’s and CBOE’s futures volumes, BitMEX has represented an average of just over 90% of the market over the last month.

Historical Spot Volumes Segmented by Predominant Fee Type

Exchanges with taker fees represent approximately 90% of the exchange spot market volumes.

On the other hand, exchanges that implement transaction-fee mining represent just over 9% of the total spot market, while those that offer no-fee spot trading represent just under 1% of the market.

Historical Crypto to Crypto versus Fiat to Crypto Exchange Spot Volumes

Exchanges that offer fiat to crypto pairs constitute just under a quarter of spot market volumes on average.

Adjusted Historical Spot Volumes

The cryptocurrency exchange market trades an average of 5.26 billion USD in adjusted volumes over the period of analysis.

Adjusted spot volumes exclude all exchanges that operate trans-fee mining or no-fee trading models.

Historical BTC to Fiat Spot Volumes – Top 5 Fiat Currencies

Bitcoin trading to Korean Wan (KRW) increased sharply from the 7th of October.

BTC to KRW previously represented a tenth of bitcoin trading among the top 5 fiats on average. Between the 7th and 15th of October it represented a third on average, a 230% increase. This increase stems from Korean exchange Bithumb’s spike in volumes.

Proportion BTC Trading to Various Fiat Currencies

The US Dollar represented half of BTC fiat trading on average over the past 30 days, followed by JPY (21%) and KRW (16%).

Summary of Volumes, Coins and Pairs

Top Exchanges by Average 24H Volume in USD

Exchange 24H volume (USD million) Coins Pairs
Binance 977.5 160 408
OKEX 405.0 171 511
Bitfinex 368.5 96 281
Bithumb 323.2 13 13
HuobiPro 310.2 128 293
HitBTC 295.2 427 889
ZB 247.6 58 167
Upbit 211.0 132 261
Bibox 208.9 87 210

Top Exchanges by Number of Pairs

Exchange 24H volume (USD million) Coins Pairs
Yobit 27.7        1,180        7,032
Cryptopia 3.5            785        4,321
CCEX 0.1            628        2,140
EtherDelta 0.2        2,058        2,059
HitBTC 295.2            427            889
TradeSatoshi 0.1            200            840
Bittrex 49.1            514            637
Livecoin 12.5            249            595
WavesDEX 0.9            163            592
IDEX 0.7            563            563
OKEX 405.0            171            511
Kucoin 10.1            189            450
Binance 977.5            160            408
Gateio 48.8            172            358
Zecoex 1.4            119            342

Historical 24h Volume – Top 8 Exchanges

The top exchange by 24h spot trading volume was Binance with an average of just under 980 million USD.

By average 24h volumes, Binance was followed by OKEX and Bitfinex with volumes of 405 million and 368 million respectively.

Bithumb saw a 356% spike in trading volumes from an average of 140 million USD to an average of 640 million USD after the 7th of October. This follows after Singapore-based BK Global Consortium bought a controlling share in the exchange.

Bitfinex saw a spike in volumes towards the 15th of October as the Bitcoin premium on Bitfinex vs Coinbase reached an all-time high of 11.28% according to CrypoGlobe.

Month on Month Average 24H Trading Volume – Top Exchanges

Average Bithumb volumes increased 187%, while those for Binance and OKEX dropped by 8% and 35% respectively

Korean exchange Bithumb saw a significant increase in average trading volumes from 96 million USD between August/September to 276 million between September/October. Meanwhile, Binance’s volumes over the same time period dropped from 974 million USD to 893 million USD. Finally, the 2nd largest exchange by 24h volumes, OKEX, saw trading volumes drop 655 million USD to 423 million USD.

Country Analysis

Exchanges maintain operations in a variety of countries, in order to serve the wider global community of cryptocurrency traders. They often change legal jurisdiction to avoid regulation in countries that might restrict their abilities to conduct business as they wish. The following country analysis aims to highlight the top 10 legal jurisdictions by the total 24h volume produced by the top exchanges legally based in each jurisdiction.

Top 10 Exchange Legal Jurisdictions – 24h Volume vs Exchange Count

Maltese-based exchanges produced the highest total daily volumes, while the highest quantity of top exchanges are based in the USA and the UK.

Maltese exchanges produce the highest total daily volume at just under 1.4 billion USD, followed by those based legally in South-Korea (~840 million USD) and Hong Kong (~560 million USD). Among the top 10 volume-producing countries, the highest number of exchanges (with significant volume) are based legally in the USA, the UK and Hong Kong.

Top 10 Exchange Legal Jurisdictions – Constituent Exchanges by Impact on Volume

Binance and OKEX represent the vast majority of Malta’s volumes, while Bithumb and Upbit dominate in South Korea.

Top 10 Exchange Legal Jurisdictions – Constituent Exchanges and Count


Well-known USA-based exchanges include Coinbase, Poloniex, and itBit, while those in South Korea include Upbit, Bithumb and Coinone.

Hong Kong exchanges include HitBTC, CoinEx and Bit-Z, while those in more remote jurisdictions include HuobiPro in the Seychelles, ZB in Samoa and Coinbene in Vanuatu.

Pair Offering Analysis

The following analysis aims to highlight both the total volumes produced by crypto-crypto vs fiat-crypto exchanges as well as the total number of exchanges that fall within each category.

Crypto to Crypto vs Fiat to Crypto – Average 24H Volume and Exchange Count

On average, exchanges that offer only crypto-crypto pairs constitute approximately three quarters of the total spot trading market (~4.7 billion USD)

Those that that offer fiat-crypto pairs constitute only a quarter of the total exchange market (~2 billion USD) on average. In terms of exchange count, approximately half of all exchanges offer crypto-crypto.

Trade Data Analysis

This analysis aims to shed light on the trading characteristics of given exchange. It helps to answer whether an exchange’s volumes might be the product of consistently large trades, or the product of many small trades which may suggest the use of algorithmic trading or bots.

Average 24H Trade Frequency vs Average Trade Size – Top 25 Exchanges

CoinEx, a well-known trans-fee mining exchange, has a significantly higher trade frequency and lower trade size than other exchanges in the top 25.

This may point to algorithmic trading, given its almost 176 thousand daily trades at an average trade size of 125 USD. In contrast, Bithumb and HuobiPro had an average trade size of just under 3,000 and 1,500 USD respectively.

Average 24H Trade Frequency vs Average Trade Size – Top Exchanges

Exchange AVG 24H Volume (Millions) Average Trade Size (USD) Trades in 24H (Thousands)
1 Binance 977.5 950 95.7
2 OKEX 405 701 48.5
3 Bitfinex 368.5 1,438 38
4 Bithumb 323.2 2,788 12.4
5 HuobiPro 310.2 1,483 18.7
6 HitBTC 295.2 2,873 12.1
7 ZB 247.6 702 29
8 UPbit 211 732 22.5
9 Bibox 208.9 1,253 16.4
10 EXX 159.9 1,134 24.1
11 BitZ 143.9 2,333 8
12 IDAX 131.5 520 37.4
13 CoinEx 113.6 125 175.6
14 CoinBene 113.2 298 35.2

Web Traffic Analysis

This analysis examines the web traffic stats of the top exchanges within CryptoCompare’s total pool of exchanges. It is based on similar studies that have attempted to make a connection between the number of unique web users per domain and the subsequent 24h trading volume for that specific domain. This analysis assumes that the more unique visitors an exchange attracts, the higher its trading volume.

Average Daily Visitors versus 24H Volume – Alexa Rankings Above 100,000

IDAX and CoinBene appear to have lower average daily visitors compared to similarly sized exchanges by daily volume.

The figure above represents the top exchanges by volume that have an Alexa ranking above 100,000. The reason for this is that according to Alexa, any ranking below this may not be statistically significant.

What we can see that exchanges such as IDAX and CoinBene have lower Average Daily Unique Visitor numbers than other exchanges with similar volumes such as Kraken, Bitstamp, and CoinEx.

Binance has the highest average daily visitor count, in line with its high trading volumes. Meanwhile, exchanges such as Coinbase, and Bittrex have significantly greater numbers of daily visitors than other exchanges with similar daily volumes. In Coinbase’s case, this can be attributed to the exchange’s reputation and age.

Average Daily Visitors versus 24H Volume – All Alexa Rankings

ZB and EXX attract significantly lower daily visitors than similarly-sized exchanges.

The above figure represents the top 20 exchanges by 24h volume regardless of whether their Alexa rankings are below 100,000. Noticeably, unique visitor counts for exchanges ZB and EXX are significantly lower than other exchanges within a similar 24h volume band.

These exchanges maintain average daily trading volumes of 248 million and 160 million USD
respectively. Despite this, their daily unique visitor counts amount to no more than 700 visitors per day.

Although there is a chance that these web statistics may present errors given Alexa rankings below 100,000, in the interests of mitigating any potential risks, these exchanges will be flagged until clarification is provided.

Order Book Analysis

The following order book analysis investigates the relative stability of various cryptocurrency exchanges based on snapshots of the average order book depth for the top markets on each exchange in 10-minute intervals over a period of 10 days. In the context of this analysis, average depth down is defined as the cumulative volume required (in USD) to reduce the price of a given market by 10%. This is compared to the average daily volume for the top 5 pairs. The result of this analysis is that we are able estimate the relative stability of a given exchange based on the ratio of depth down to average daily pair volume.

Average Order Book Depth Down vs Average Daily Exchange Pair Volume

In relative terms, CoinBene, ZB and CoinEx have the thinnest markets.

Despite relatively large average volumes per top pair (~12 million USD), CoinBene’s average order book cumulative depth down (order book buy side) totals only 33 thousand USD. In other words, to move the price 10% downwards, a trader would need to sell 33 thousand USD worth of currency.

In contrast, Kraken which has similar average daily pair volumes (~13.5 million USD), has an average order book cumulative depth of 4.2 million USD. This is almost 130 times larger than that of CoinBene’s and therefore suggests a much more stable exchange.

Average Depth Down to Average 24H Pair Volume Ratio

ItBit, Kraken and Bitstamp have relatively more stable markets compared to exchanges such as CoinEx, ZB and Coinbene.

In the case of ZB for instance, its depth to volume ratio was just 0.4%. I.e. in order to move the price down 10%, a trader would only need to sell 0.4% of average daily pair volume. These ratios are similarly low in the case of CoinEx (0.7%) and CoinBene (0.3%).

Meanwhile other exchanges such as Bitstamp and ItBit, had ratios of 30% and 40% respectively. This is a factor of 100 times greater than those of CoinBene’s for instance.

Transaction-Fee Mining Exchanges

Average 24H Trans-Fee Mining Volumes

The total average 24h-volume produced by trans-fee mining associated exchanges on CryptoCompare totals more than 550 million USD. This constitutes approximately 10% of total exchange volume over the last 30 days.

Decentralized Exchanges

Average 24H DEX Volumes

The total average 24h-volume produced by the top 5 decentralized exchanges on CryptoCompare totals just less than 2.4 million USD. This constitutes just 0.4% of total exchange volume.

Security Analysis – Top 100 Exchanges by 24H Volume

This security analysis aims to evaluate a pool of the top 100 exchanges by 24h volume considering the proportion of exchanges with both a public privacy and a terms & conditions page. In addition, we analyse the proportion of exchanges that have been hacked in the past as well as the publicly stated proportion of cold wallet vs hot wallet storage for users’ funds. In theory, the higher the amount of funds stored in “cold storage” (i.e. offline), the less exposed the funds held by a centralized exchange will be to hackers.

Proportion of Exchanges with both a Public T&C and Privacy Policy Page

Out of the top 100 exchanges by 24h volume, only 86% have both a public privacy policy and terms & conditions page.

Proportion of Users’ Funds Held by Exchanges in Cold Storage

A third of top exchanges store the vast majority of users’ funds in cold wallets.

Proportion of Users’ Funds in Cold Storage by Exchange

Exchanges itBit, Coinfloor, Bitfinex and Coinbase are among those that store the highest proportion of users’ funds offline.

Proportion of Exchanges Hacked in the Past

11% of top exchanges have been hacked in the past.

KYC Requirements Among the Top 100 Exchanges

Just under half of top exchanges impose strict KYC requirements, while more than a quarter do not require KYC.

Those that impose partial requirements (25%) require KYC verification in order to conduct certain activities such as to withdraw fiat, to trade fiat pairs, or to increase maximum trading amounts.

Trade Data Assessment of New Exchanges

A visual inspection of the trades on the new exchanges is now carried out. Snapshot data cannot capture volatility, so these trade graphs allow the characteristic trading to be assessed in light of its effect on the CCCAGG. Graphs were produced of all trades vs the CCCAGG for the top 5 trading pairs for each new exchange over the last month.


BCEX displays high volatility on both of the pairs that it trades. Buying of large amounts of the order book is visible, suggesting a very thin market. The price on this exchange will accordingly not reflect the price of the cryptocurrency well, so it will not be included.


Top trading pairs on CoinTiger display agreement with the CCCAGG, but due to anomalous volumes further monitoring will be carried out before considering inclusion into the CCCAGG.


Pairs on ICoinBay show agreement with the CCCAGG. This exchange is a possible inclusion to the CCCAGG.


A flash crash on the largest trading pair elicits a longer period of assessment before consideration for inclusion into the CCCAGG.


Pairs on Liqnet show agreement with the CCCAGG. However, large amounts of API downtime can be observed. The quality of the exchange API will be monitored and the exchange will be considered for inclusion in the event of an improvement in API provision.


Poor agreement with the CCCAGG gives grounds to exclude P2PB2B.


StocksExchange displays some unusual trading activity and a flash crash. The exchange will not be included due to trading behaviour.

Example Assessment of BTC to USD and Future Exchange Methodology Additions

This section provides a quantitative analysis of trade data received from exchanges. The purpose is to provide an understanding of what the exchange trading ecosystem looks like, and to allow for selection of exchanges that best represent the price of a cryptocurrency.

In order to make comparisons across exchanges, an estimate of the trading price of the cryptocurrency needs to be ascertained. For the BTC-USD pair, all trades over a 30-day period were collated and plotted. In this time period, there were around 6.5 million unique trades. The trades are plotted such that colour indicates the density of points in the area.

All BTC to USD trades over 30 days

This graph represents the entire ecosystem of the price of BTC-USD trading over a 30-day period. This is now used to generate a representative price for BTC. The median was selected to calculate a trading price for the cryptocurrency. The motivating factor behind this measure being used was the large number of outliers in the trade data set. To keep the computation tractable, trades were grouped into 1-hour long time bins, and the median for each of these bins was computed.

For the purposes of this investigation, volume weighting was not used. This was due to high volume buying up of order books being observed when looking at individual exchange trade data. It was hypothesised that the arithmetic median would better reflect the mid-price of the order books of the exchanges, as the majority of trades take place at the mid-price. The median should therefore reflect the price that the average trade was carried out at.

The 1-hour median line was then plotted on the trade data, and a visual inspection of a section of the above graph shows that the line follows the highest trade density, which is indicative that it is a good estimate of the trading price of the cryptocurrency.

BTC to USD trades over 30 days with hourly median price line

CryptoCompare’s CCCAGG is an aggregation of trade prices, and aims to reflect the current trading price of an asset. It is possible to validate the CCCAGG price by comparing it to the median trade price. It can be seen that there is agreement between the two measures, suggesting that the CCCAGG is accurately capturing the trading price.

CCCAGG Price vs Median Trade Price for BTC to USD



BitMEX Research Sponsors Fork Monitoring Website

Abstract: We are proud to announce the launch of, a new website sponsored by BitMEX Research. The website is connected to several different nodes, both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash implementations. It displays various pieces of information regarding the chains followed. This website can be useful for monitoring the situation during network upgrades (softforks or hardforks), as well as being potentially useful in helping to detect unintentional consensus bugs. Thanks to Sjors Provoost for helping develop the site.


New Website:


(Website screenshot as at 3rd Nov 2018)


The website is currently connected to the following 13 nodes:

Bitcoin Nodes Bitcoin Cash nodes
Bitcoin Core Bitcoin ABC 0.18.2
Bitcoin Core 0.17.0 Bitcoin ABC 0.18.0
Bitcoin Core 0.16.3 Bitcoin ABC 0.17.2
Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Bitcoin ABC 0.16.2
Bitcoin Core 0.10.3 Bitcoin ABC 0.14.6
Bitcoin SV 1.0.1
BUCash 1.5.0

(Nodes run by as at 4 November 2018)

The website is primarily geared towards Bitcoin Cash, running 8 Bitcoin Cash nodes compared to 5 Bitcoin nodes. The reason for this is the upcoming Bitcoin Cash hardfork, where several different nodes appear designed to follow different chains.

The website may also be useful in monitoring the situation during this upgrade. After the Bitcoin Cash hardfork is complete, the website’s intention is to move some of the focus over to Bitcoin. The plan is to run more versions of Bitcoin Core (especially older versions), as well as independent implementations such as Bcoin, BTCD and Libbitcoin. This may be helpful in spotting any consensus bugs, such as the inflation bug CVE-2018-17144, which was discovered in September 2018. The website’s code will be made open source, which may hopefully encourage other organisations to spin up multiple nodes and monitor the chains in a similar way.

The Bitcoin Cash hardfork

At around 16:40 UTC on 15th November 2018, Bitcoin Cash is expected to hardfork. There is potential for three competing chains:

  • a hardfork implemented by Bitcoin ABC
  • a second hardfork implemented by Bitcoin SV
  • potentially the original rules chain

A list of some of the main clients and their respective positions on the hardforks is provided below:

Client name Comments
Bitcoin ABC Versions of Bitcoin ABC after and including 0.18.0 are expected to activate a hardfork at around 16:40 UTC on 15 November 2018, according to the median past time. Versions of Bitcoin ABC prior to this, are not expected to follow this new chain.

In our view, Bitcoin ABC is the most popular implementation and the economic majority of Bitcoin Cash users are likely to support the hardfork and follow the new chain. It is unclear to us what will happen to older versions of Bitcoin ABC; however, the likely outcome is that no additional blocks are produced on the original chain.

Bitcoin SV Bitcoin SV (or Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision) is a client promoted by Craig Steven Wright, who is popularly known as the “Fake Satoshi”. In 2016, Mr Wright produced what he claimed was proof that he was Satoshi, however it quickly emerged that this was a digital signature copied from Bitcoin’s Blockchain, presented in a manner designed to be confusing.

Bitcoin SV is also expected to activate a hardfork at the same time as Bitcoin ABC, however, this hardfork is supposedly incompatible with Bitcoin ABC.

In our view, Bitcoin SV is likely to have limited support from users, investors and traders. However, some of the large Bitcoin Cash mining pools, apparently support Bitcoin SV or are otherwise affiliated with Mr Wright:

  • Coingeek: 25% share (A pool owned by Calvin Ayre, allegedly a financial backer and  supporter of Wright)
  • BMG Pool: 12.5% (Another pool believed to be linked to Wright, with BMG being a division of Wright’s company nChain Group)
  • SV Pool: 7% market share (A pool set up to support Bitcoin SV)

In addition to the above, the listed Canadian mining company Squire Mining (SQR CN), with a CAD$65 million market capitalisation, is likely to be supporting Bitcoin SV.

According to Squire’s investor presentation, Stefan Matthews is a director while Bloomberg data shows that he owns 9.3% of the company’s shares. Furthermore, a June 2016 book on Wright entitled “The Satoshi Affair” implies that Matthews is a long standing and close friend of Wright. Matthews was the CEO of “nChain”, another company deeply involved in the shenanigans of the “Fake Satoshi”. Squire’s investor presentation states that Mr Matthews:

is currently the chairman, of the nChain Group, known for global leadership in blockchain and Bitcoin research. BMG, a division of the nChain Group

Therefore we believe it is likely that despite the lack of community support for Bitcoin SV’s hardfork, the chain could have considerable hashrate, even if it’s only for a limited period. Although, despite all the noise and promotion generated by nChain, Coingeek and Wright, we do not know for sure if the mining pools related to these entities are actually running Bitcoin SV. Even if Bitcoin SV does have significant or even majority hashrate, if the Bitcoin Cash economy ignores it, the chain should have little financial impact. We view this as the most likely outcome.

Bitcoin Unlimited There is a third client group called Bitcoin Unlimited. This group’s BUCash 1.5.0 client is designed to follow the hardfork of Bitcoin ABC. Earlier versions may behave differently.

While it appears that the economic majority will support Bitcoin ABC’s hardfork, there is significant uncertainty over how each client will behave and which chains they will follow. Therefore, BitMEX Research has sponsored this new website which has launched before the hardfork is due to occur. This will hopefully provide useful information to some stakeholders, as the events get underway next week.


与比特币核心( Bitcoin Core )竞争

摘要:我们研究了 “比特币核心” 软件项目的能量和动态,并且我们分析了可以与该项目竞争的各种不同方式。我们说明了一般对于比特币核心软件存储库具有改变或阻止改变比特币共识规则的独特能力的误解。我们还讨论了其他常见的误解,并解释如果比特币核心存储库被恶意行为者入侵或删除,比特币应该基本上不受影响。



(资料来源: Bitcoin ABC , Bitcoin UASF , BTCGPU , Bitcoin XT , BTC1 , Bitcoin Classic , Bitcoin Cash Cobra , Bitcoin SV , Bitcoin Unlimited , BitcoinX , Bitprim , Bcoin, Parity Bitcoin , BTCD , Libbitcoin , Caesure , Bits of Proof , Bitcoinj , Ufasoft Coin , Bitcrust , Picocoin , Bitcoin Addrinex , Bitcoin Knots , Bitcoin-RBF , 比特币 BitMEX 研究)




竞争形式 解释
链条之间的竞争 这是指竞争软件项目故意对用户当前运行的网络实行一组不同的共识规则,这包括硬分叉和软分叉。在某些情况下运行这样的软件可能被认为是有风险的,因为它可能将代币分拆成两条链条。


因此,这种竞争是在不同的代币/链条之间,而不仅仅是与比特币的不同应用竞争。事实上,如果有人使用比特币核心的软件进行软分叉并改变共识规则,大多数代码仍然是由同一个开发团队编写出来的,因此它并不真正意义上的 “竞争”,而是推出一个新的代币,而该代码还是由同一个团队写的。

独立应用方面的竞争 这种形式的竞争是出现在当比特币不使用比特币核心代码的情况下,通常这时候会使用新的编码语言;试图尝试使用其他语言带来一些其他优势。



其他软件项目带来的竞争(既不会改变共识规则也不会重新更改代码库) 不尝试改变共识规则或不编写新的独立代码库,我们依然可以与比特币核心竞争。我们可以通过造成项目软分叉,然后仅进行非共识更改来实现此目的。





这个话题已在比特币社区广泛讨论,主要是在 2015 年夏天到 2017 年 11 月的“区块大小争论”的背景下。我们不会在本报告中重复所有这些论点,我们将集中阐明竞争类型的不同之处。

赞成竞争 反对竞争



最好尽量避免共识规则间的竞争,因为这样做会带来风险并损害代币的稳定性。如果发生争议,应以现有的共识规则为准,这使得代币保留原有的规则(例如 2,100 万上限)并成为比特币的关键独特属性。因此,在没有广泛同意的情况下改变共识规则可能导致的破坏是比特币一个特征。



  1. 得到整个社区及代币用户和技术专家广泛同意。还必须为用户升级其客户端留出足够的时间。
  2. 如果程序员不确定是否有足够数量的用户升级到新规则,这可能会导致推出新代币。在这种情况下,可能需要各种安全措施,如强大的双向重放保护和链条擦除保护(用于完全验证客户和轻客户),以降低用户失去资金的风险






赞成竞争 反对竞争
虽然一个主导的应用软件可以保护网络免于意外的共识错误,但它可能使代币暴露在某些类型的关键错误,例如导致客户端崩溃或允许意外代币通胀发生的错误。最近的一个例子是 CVE-2018-17144 ,这是一个在 2018 年 9 月才被发现的关键通胀漏洞。


例如,如果有十个独立的应用,每个具有 10% 的市场份额,那就算其中一个应用崩溃或引起错误通胀,仍然有 90% 的网络正常运作。因此,网络将变得更有弹性。所以客户用户运行的多样性是关键优势。


我不相信比特币的兼容应用是一个好主意。这么多的设计取决于所有节点在锁步中获得完全相同的结果,以至于第二种实现会对网络造成威胁。 MIT 许可证与所有其他许可证和商业用途兼容,因此无需从许可的角度重写它。

第二个版本对我来说会带来巨大的开发和维护麻烦。在没有第二个版本锁定的情况下升级网络时保持向后兼容性是很困难的。如果第二个版本搞砸了,用户体验会对两者都产生严重影响,尽管它至少会强化用户保留正式版本的重要性。如果有人准备分叉第二个版本,我将不得不提出许多关于使用少数人使用的版本的风险的免责声明。这是一个少数人服从多数人的设计,如果存在任何分歧,大多数人会获胜,对于少数人的版本来说的伤害这可能相当大,我宁愿不碰它,只要只有一个版本,我就没有需要第二个版本的必要。 (资料来源: Bitcointalk

虽然十个流行的应用可能是好的,但问题是如何从一个主导实现到多样化的过渡,同时避免没有系统出现危机,例如两个流行的独立应用,各具有 50% 的市场份额,这使网络易受共识错误的影响。因此,更好的计划可能是拥有一个受到高度审查的主导实施,以将共识错误降至最低。这样,网络对于所有用户来说都是可靠的,即便 10% 的少数链条的问题留给 10% 用户承担 。




因此,从理论上讲,比特币永远不需要纠结在谁控制 Github 中特定软件存储库的或者谁拥有对存储库的访问权限的争论。在我们看来,许多这些明显的问题都是基于一种误解,这种误解是由那些欣赏竞争软件项目的某些风险但却无法在不同类型的竞争中进行适当区分的人所产生的。因此,许多人似乎高估了比特币核心软件存储库的功能,认为任何竞争都有风险或某种程度上不可接受。



在 2013 年之前,没有名为比特币核心的软件项目。 中本聪客户端有时被称为参考应用或比特币-QT / Bitcoind 。然后在 2013 年 2 月,着名的比特币程序员加文安德烈森( Gavin Andresen )向比特币基金会论坛发帖询问:

今天在 IRC 中有一些关于重命名比特币-Qt 和参考应用的讨论;我认为你们中的一些人可能想到更好的名称。





从此许多人开始将软件项目称为 “比特币核心”,但实际项目内容上没有任何改变。然后,比特币核心慢慢发展成一个强大的品牌,代表了谨慎和稳定,或者正如加文( Gavin )在当时所说,“[它]就像一块石头一样坚硬”。


“区块大小争论” 所带来的冲击






实际上,在 2017 年夏天,在某些方面,与比特币核心竞争的比特币 UASF 客户端推翻了比特币核心并故意改变了网络共识规则。因此,由区块大小的争论得出比特币核心是最强大的这种结论是有问题的。


BitMEX 研究正在推出一个与比特币核心竞争的新客户端(仅用于说明目的)

今天假设 BitMEX 研究宣布一个新的客户端与比特币核心竞争 – 比特币 BitMEX 研究。由于它是比特币核心的软分叉,因此它不会像中本聪所担心的那样无法兼容程序错误的风险。 BitMEX 研究客户端也不会改变比特币的共识规则,因此对有争议性的区块链分叉的担忧不适用。因此,如果比特币核心存储库被劫持或删除,代码库仍然可以使用比特币 BitMEX 研究客户端或任何其他客户端进行改进。



在区块大小的争论解决之后,人们过分强调比特币核心软件库的强大功能。现在常见的问题是 “谁控制着存储库?”,“如果他们删除比特币核心 GitHub 怎么办?”。在我们看来,这些问题可能说明了他们缺少了对比特币的了解。

人们倾向于寻找控制比特币协议规则的人。在区块大小的争变之前和期间,许多人认为是矿工,大企业或加文安德烈森( Gavin Andresen )控制着比特币规则。这场争辩所带来的一个意想不到的负面后果是,许多人似乎改变了他们的观点,认为比特币核心有控制权,而这是一种不正确观点。事实是,尽管很难理解,最终还是由用户最终控制着比特币。


当然,这可能是不现实的,实际上, ASIC 制造商,大型采矿场,程序员,大型托管方,大型交易所甚至个人软件库都具有很大的影响力。用户最终具有控制权的想法, 可能比较理想主义。然而,“用户控制着他们的钱”又代表了什么?如果我们不认为用户控制着比特币,那么比特币又有什么意义呢?





BitMEX (

SegWit 与比特币现金交易量更新和比特币现金投资者流量更新

摘要:在 2018 年 3 月,我们写了一篇关于 SegWit 容量增加的文章,并将其与比特币现金交易量进行了比较。我们关注的另一个话题是代币自分拆以来在区块链上第一次汇入及汇出(根据我们 2017 年 9 月的报告)。在本文中,我们将简要我们跟踪的指标进行更新。数据显示, SegWit 的增长是强劲而且持续的,而比特币现金的交易量也从低点逐渐增加到比特币交易量的 9% 左右。截至 2018 年 10 月,自分叉以来,大多数分割的代币基本没有被汇出过。

SegWit 交易量 – 比特币交易量百分比(日数据)

(资料来源: BitMEX 研究,比特币区块链)


自 2017 年 9 月我们发布第一篇关于该主题的文章以来,在比特币系统上, SegWit 的采用率已大大提升。现在采用率接近 50% ,并且在整个期间的增长是渐进且持续的。



(资料来源: BitMEX 研究,比特币区块链,比特币现金区块链)

如上图所示,从 2018 年 3 月我们就该主题作出评论后,比特币现金交易量从比特币交易量的约 10% 下降至 6% 左右。然后在 2018 年夏末,比特币现金交易量再次回升,重回 10% 左右的水平。在 2018 年 8 月和 2018 年 9 月发生的 “压力测试” 使得比特币现金数据有所偏差。然而,与过去六个月比特币相比,每日比特币现金交易量百分比中位数为 9.0% ,与之前低位 5% 和 6% 相比有所回升。



(资料来源: BitMEX 研究,比特币区块链,比特币现金区块链)

自比特币现金推出以来,已发生过 2,210 万次 SegWit 交易,仅比 1,890 万累计比特币现金交易数量多 17.0% 。尽管如上图所示,压力测试似乎使得比特币现金的数据有些偏差。


在 2017 年 7 月的压力测试之前, SegWit 交易量为 1,550 万,比比特币现金交易量多 95.1% 。



(资料来源: BitMEX 研究的原始图


至于我们关于投资者流量的分析系统标示出,分叉之前存在的 910 万比特币自分叉以来已至少移动过一次,而另一方面,比特币现金的该数字为 860 万。如上图所示,自分叉以来第一次转移代币的梯度在分叉的两侧变平,可能表明投资者流量的进一步显着变化的可能性是相对低的。





BitMEX (

Competing with Bitcoin Core

Abstract: We examine the power and dynamics of the “Bitcoin Core” software project and we draw distinctions between the various different ways one can compete with the project. We address the misconception that the Bitcoin Core software repository has the unique capability to change or prevent changes to Bitcoin’s consensus rules. We also discuss some common misconceptions and explain that if the Bitcoin Core repository becomes hijacked by nefarious actors or deleted, Bitcoin should be largely unaffected.

Venn diagram illustrating the various ways to “compete” with Bitcoin Core

(Sources: Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin UASF, BTCGPU, Bitcoin XT, BTC1, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Cash Cobra, Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Unlimited, BitcoinX, Bitprim, Bcoin, Parity Bitcoin, BTCD, Libbitcoin, Caesure, Bits of Proof, Bitcoinj, Ufasoft Coin, Bitcrust, Picocoin, Bitcoin Addrinex, Bitcoin Knots, Bitcoin-RBF, Bitcoin BitMEX Research)

The three kinds of competition

One can categorise competing software projects with Bitcoin Core into three different groups:

Type of competition Explanation
Competition between chains This is when the competing software project deliberately has a different set of consensus rules to the implementations the users currently run. This includes both hardforks and softforks. Running such software can be considered risky in certain circumstances, as it can split the coin into two chains.

Therefore this kind of competition is between different coins/chains, rather than  merely competing with a different implementation of Bitcoin. Indeed if one does a software fork of Bitcoin Core and changes the consensus rules, most of the code is still likely to be written by the same development team, so it is not really competing against the team, but potentially launching a new coin whose code was written by that same team.

Competition between independent implementations This form of competition occurs when Bitcoin is re-implemented without using the code from Bitcoin Core. Typically a new coding language is used; to try to capture some advantages other languages may have.

Like the above form of competition, many consider this form of competition risky, as it may increase the chance of unplanned chain splits, caused accidentally by different consensus rules. The alternative client needs to match the consensus behaviour of the software users currently run, even matching bugs or unintended behaviour in the majority client.

Other competing software projects (which neither change the consensus rules nor re-implements the codebase) One can compete with Bitcoin Core by neither trying to change the consensus rules nor by writing a new independent codebase. One can do this by creating a software fork of the project and then making only non consensus changes.

This type of competition does not share many of the risks mentioned above.

The debate over competing consensus rules

This topic has been widely discussed in the Bitcoin community, largely in the context of the “blocksize war”, which ran from the summer of 2015 to November 2017. We are not going to repeat all those arguments in this report, where the primary purpose is to articulate the different types of competition.

In favour of competition Opposed to competition
Competition over the rules should be encouraged, since this ensures the coin is flexible and able to adapt and compete. The model of the status quo ruleset always prevailing mean that the rules may never change, even when the case is highly compelling, as in this contentious environment a minority will always oppose any change.

Competition over the rules is far less likely to cause significant disruption than many people think. In reality large businesses and the community will quickly rally behind one coin and change the client they run to follow the economic majority or hashrate majority.

It is best to try to avoid competition over the consensus rules, as doing so is risky and damages the stability of the coin. In the event of a dispute, the existing consensus rules should prevail, this keeps the existing rules of the coin, such as the 21 million cap robust, a key and unique property of Bitcoin. The disruption which can be caused by changing the consensus rules without widespread agreement, is therefore a highly desirable characteristic of Bitcoin.

Changing the consensus rules should therefore occur in one of the following two ways:

  1. With widespread agreement across the community of coin users and technical experts.  Sufficient time must also be given for users to upgrade their clients
  2. If developers are unsure if a sufficient number of users will upgrade to the new rules, this could result in the launch of a new coin. In this case various safety measures such as strong two way replay protection and chain wipeout protection (for both fully verifying clients and light clients) may be necessary to reduce the risk of users losing funds

(If the change in the rules is a softfork (as opposed to a hardfork), it may be possible to prevent a chainsplit if the majority of miners upgrade)

The debate on competing independent implementations

As above, this is also a very controversial and divisive topic, however we still think it’s a fundamentally different issue to competition over deliberate changes to the consensus rules.

In favour of competition Opposed to competition
Although one dominant implementation may protect the network from unexpected consensus bugs, it may leave the coin exposed to certain types of critical bugs, such as bugs which caused clients to crash or allow unexpected coin inflation to occur. A recent example of this is CVE-2018-17144, a critical inflation bug only discovered in September 2018.

If, for example, there were ten independent implementations, each with a 10% market share, if a bug occurred on one of the implementations which caused it to crash or caused inflation, 90% of the network could continue as normal. The network would therefore become more resilient. Diversity of the clients users run is therefore a key strength.

The strongest opponent of this form of competition was probably Satoshi, he/she famously said:

I don’t believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It’s hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there’s any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I’d rather not go into it, and I don’t have to as long as there’s only one version.
(Source: Bitcointalk)

Although ten popular implementations might be good, the issue is the transition from one dominant implementation to a diversity of popular clients, without entering dangerous territory such as two popular independent implementations, each with a 50% market share, leaving the network vulnerable to consensus bugs. Therefore a better plan may be to have one dominant implementation which is highly scrutinized, to keep consensus bugs to a minimum. This way the network may be reliable for all users, even 10% of a minority chain may be a problem for that 10%.

Other competing clients

Even if one really likes a robust ruleset, opposes competition over the consensus rules and one religiously follows Satoshi’s negative view about competing implementations, this does not mean one cannot have competing software projects. The competition can simply be in the white area, outside of the circles in the above venn diagram. This form of competition, which neither initiates a deliberate change to the consensus rules nor re-implements the code, is not controversial at all, as far as we can tell.

Therefore in theory Bitcoin never needs to suffer from the apparent problems of who controls a particular software repository in Github or arguments over who has commit access to the repository. In our view, many of these apparent problems are based on a misunderstanding, by people who appreciate some of the risks of competing software projects, but fail to distinguish appropriately between the different types of competition. Therefore many seem to overestimate the power of the Bitcoin Core software repository, thinking that any competition is risky or somehow unacceptable.

Bitcoin Core’s genesis

Prior to 2013, there was no software project named Bitcoin Core. The Satoshi client was sometimes just called the reference implementation or Bitcoin-QT/Bitcoind. Then in February 2013, Gavin Andresen, a prominent Bitcoin developer, posted to the Bitcoin Foundation forum asking:

There was some discussion about renaming Bitcoin-Qt and the reference implementation in general in IRC today; I thought some of you smart people might have good name ideas.

Mike Hearn, another developer, then responded:

Oh good, about time. This has irritated me for a while. How about Bitcoin Core?
(Source: Bitcoin Foundation Forum)

Many then started referring to the software project as “Bitcoin Core”, but nothing actually changed. Bitcoin Core then began to develop a strong brand, associated with prudence and stability, or as Gavin said at the time, “[its] like a rock”.

The impact of the “blocksize war”

During the blocksize war, many characterised the debate as being Bitcoin Core vs miners or large businesses, with the Bitcoin Core side opposing hardforks and blocksize limit increases. In our view the characterisation was mostly incorrect. However, many who made this characterisation then subsequently concluded that Bitcoin Core won, since there was no hardfork. This same group therefore currently overestimate the power of Bitcoin Core, in our view.

Bitcoin Core is not as powerful as many people think

It is not the Bitcoin Core software repository that defines Bitcoin’s consensus rules. The rules are defined by the clients economically significant users currently run. These are typically previously released versions of Bitcoin Core. The Bitcoin Core software project cannot change what software users are running and the users are a lot more independent minded than many people think, in our view. Even if Bitcoin Core had released a hardfork client, which increased the blocksize limit, it is not clear if the community would have upgraded. Therefore concerns about the Bitcoin Core software repository becoming deleted, hacked or hijacked should be far less of an issue than many people think. If this happens it will not affect clients users are already running and if further upgrades or improvements are needed, one can simply switch to a different repository or many different repositories, without worrying about any coordination problem or other risks.

Actually, in the summer of 2017, in some ways, a client competing with Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin UASF, overthrew Bitcoin Core and deliberately changed the networks consensus rules. Therefore, concluding that Bitcoin Core is all powerful, is the wrong lesson to learn from the blocksize war.

BitMEX Research is launching a new client to compete with Bitcoin Core (For illustrative purposes only)

Today BitMEX Research is announcing a new client to compete with Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin BitMEX Research. Since it is a software fork of Bitcoin Core, it carries none of the risks of not being bug for bug compatible, like Satoshi was concerned about. The BitMEX Research client also doesn’t change Bitcoin’s consensus rules, so the concerns about contentious chainsplits do not apply. Therefore, if the Bitcoin Core repository gets hijacked or deleted, the codebase can still improve using the Bitcoin BitMEX Research client or any other set of clients.


Following the resolution of the blocksize war, there is too much emphasis on the power of the Bitcoin Core software repository. Common questions now are “Who controls the repository?”, “What if they delete the Bitcoin Core GitHub?”. In our view, these questions may illustrate one is missing the point of Bitcoin.

People tend to look for somebody who is in control of Bitcoin’s protocol rules. Prior to and during the blocksize war, many thought it was miners, large businesses or Gavin Andresen. One of the unexpected negative consequences of that war is that many seem to have switched their opinions to believing Bitcoin Core is incharge, an equally flawed view. The truth is, as hard as it is to appreciate, end users are ultimately in charge of Bitcoin.

Of course this could be unrealistic, in reality, ASIC manufacturers, large mining farms, developers, large custodians, large exchanges and even an individual software repository are highly influential. We may be idealistic in saying that users are ultimately in control. However, isn’t that what “user controlled money” means? If one doesn’t think users control Bitcoin, what exactly is Bitcoin for anyway?



SegWit vs Bitcoin Cash transaction volume update & Bitcoin Cash investor flow update

Abstract: In March 2018, we wrote a piece on the SegWit capacity increase and compared it to Bitcoin Cash transaction volume. Another topic we have focused on is coins moved for the first time since the split, on both sides of the chain (our September 2017 report). In this piece we briefly provide an update on the metrics we were tracking. The data shows that SegWit is enjoying strong and consistent growth, while Bitcoin Cash volume is also slowly increasing from its lows, to around 9% of Bitcoin transaction volume. As at October 2018, very few pre-split coins are moving for the first time since the fork.



SegWit transaction volume – Percentage of Bitcoin transaction volume (Daily data)

(Source: BitMEX Research, Bitcoin blockchain)

On the Bitcoin network, SegWit adoption has grown substantially since our first article on the topic in September 2017. Adoption now approaches 50% and the growth has been reasonably consistent and gradual throughout the period.


Daily transaction volume

(Source: BitMEX Research, Bitcoin blockchain, Bitcoin Cash blockchain)

As the above chart indicates, Bitcoin Cash transaction volume declined from the c10% of Bitcoin level in March 2018, when we last commented on the topic, to around 6%. Then in the late summer of 2018 Bitcoin Cash volume picked up again, to around the 10% level. The Bitcoin Cash numbers are somewhat skewed by the “stress tests” which occurred in August 2018 and then September 2018. However, the median daily Bitcoin Cash percentage transaction volume compared to Bitcoin in the last six months is 9.0%, a recovery compared to earlier lows of around 5% or 6%.


Cumulative transaction volume since the launch of Bitcoin Cash

(Source: BitMEX Research, Bitcoin blockchain, Bitcoin Cash blockchain)

Since the launch of Bitcoin Cash, 22.1 million SegWit transactions have taken place, only 17.0% more than the cumulative number of Bitcoin Cash transactions, which stands at 18.9 million. Although, as the chart above illustrates, this appears to be skewed somewhat by the stress tests.

Prior to the start of the stress tests, in July 2017, there had been 15.5 million SegWit transaction, 95.1% more than the number of Bitcoin Cash transactions.


Coins moved for the first time since the fork

(Source:, Original chart idea from BitMEX Research)

As for our investor flow analysis system, 9.1 million Bitcoin which existed prior to the spit has moved at least once since the fork, compared to 8.6 million Bitcoin Cash. As the chart above indicates, the gradient of the spend for the first time since the fork lines are flattening out on both sides of the split, potentially indicating further significant changes in the investor flow dynamics are unlikely.


Tether – 波多黎各第二季度数据和贵族银行正寻找买家

摘要: 2018 年 2 月我们曾推测贵族银行(“ Noble Bank ”)可能是 Tether 的主要储备银行。彭博社近期报道,贵族银行可能正面临着财务危机。据说 Tether 正在接洽其他银行并打算分散其资金储备,这一假设得到波多黎各第二季度财务数据的支持。


波多黎各 2018 年第二季度财务数据

尽管 Tether 持续增长,包括贵族银行在内的国际金融实体( IFE )类别的银行存款余额(为29 亿美元)在本季度下降了 18.4% ,如下图所示。在我们看来,这些数据支持了 Tether 正在将其存款从贵族银行转移到波多黎各之外的其他银行的推断。 Tether 内部知情人士也告诉 BitMEX 研究团队, Tether 的存款已经分别存入多个其他银行。


波多黎各的 IFE 总存款与 Tether 余额之比(百万美元)。(资料来源: IFE 报表, BitMEX 研究, Coinmarketcap )



波多黎各出现了与加密币相关的大量现金 。根据波多黎各银行监管机构的数据,截至 2017 年底,所谓的国际金融实体(如贵族银行)持有的现金和等价物从一年前的 1.91 亿美元飙升至 33 亿美元。截至今年 6 月 30 日,总数已下降至 26 亿美元。知情人士今年早些时候表示,岛上的大部分资金都是由贵族银行控制的。



彭博社还报道称,纽约梅隆银行不再是贵族银行的托管银行。看来 Tether 依然在积极开发更多的储备银行。



BitMEX (

ICO 项目账户所持有的以太币

摘要:继 2017 年 9 月我们发布的第一篇关于 ICO 团队成员和顾问的文章,我们将在本报告中与 TokenAnalyst 一起追踪所有 ICO 项目的以太币余额。我们来看看每个项目以太币所筹集的金额和因以太币价格变化而产生的收益或损失的美元价值。我们得出的结论是,虽然最近以太币价值的下降,但在宏观层面,这些项目似乎已经出售了绝大部分部分所筹集的以太币(以美元计算)。在某些依然持有的以太币的项目上,即使按目前约 230 美元的价格计算,这些项目仍然存在未实现的收益,而不是未实现亏损。

222 个 ICO 项目所筹集的以太币 – 宏观分析

以太币 百万美元
EOS 筹集的以太币 7,211,776 3,824
其他项目筹集的以太币 7,972,003 1,639
所有项目筹集的以太币 15,183,779 5,463
EOS 出售的以太币 (7,211,776) (3,892)
其他项目汇出或出售的以太币 (4,113,345) (1,560)
所有项目汇出或出售的以太币 (11,325,121) (5,452)
以太币余额(截至 2018 年 9 月) 3,858,659 830

(资料来源:以太坊区块链, BitMEX 研究, TokenAnalystToken Data , Etherscan 的价格数据)


由以太币价格变化产生的整体收益和亏损 – 百万美元

EOS 项目收益 68
其他项目实现以太币总收益 692
其他项目实现以太币总损失 (34)
净实现收益 727
EOS 未实现收益 n/a
未实现以太币总收益 403
未实现以太币总损失 (311)
净未实现收益 93
净收益 819

(资料来源:以太坊区块链, BitMEX 研究, TokenAnalystToken Data , Etherscan 的价格数据)



  1. 该分析仅考虑了我们在以太坊区块链上跟踪的 ICO 项目的以太币余额。项目筹集以太币以外的加密币及项目自身发行的新加密币都不在考虑范围 。因此,我们报告中的总额会低于其他一些研究报告的总额。因此,虽然我们的数据可能偏低,但至少可以保证我们的计算方式是相对独立于项目之外的。与此同时,在项目的归集上也可能存在漏网之鱼包括 Tron ,由于我们尚未确定其账户地址。
  2. 项目所筹集的以太币是以该项目账户在任何时间点( EOS 除外)所持有的以太币的最高值来计算。这将导致一些不准确之处。
  3. 以太币兑美元的价格则是使用项目 ICO 期间内以太币兑美元的平均价格来计算。因此,该算法是相对粗略和不完全准确的。
  4. 实现收益的估算是通过每个月的月尾对每个项目的账户地址的以太币余额进行计算,然后查看以太币持有数量的减少。然后使用月均以太币价格来估算出售的以太币兑美元的价值。这可能不完全准确的,项目可能继续持有以太币或者不直接用以太币来兑换美元。
  5. 虽然我们认为我们在估算大致上是可靠的,但在个别项目层面,我们的数据可能不完全精准。对于任何错误或不恰当的假设,我们深表歉意。



以太币价格从 2017 年 12 月左右的 1,400 美元高位下跌了近 85% 。正如我们当时提到的那样,以太币和其他相关加密币价值的关联性很强,并且存在显着的下行风险。以太币价值的大幅下跌导致一些人质疑由于 ICO 项目集中持有大量以太币,因此未来可能陷入“价格下跌漩涡”。该理论认为,许多 ICO 项目在账户里持有大量以太币,随着以太币的价格下降,这些项目将 “恐慌性抛售”,担心他们成为最后套现的以太币持有人。

Read more “ICO 项目账户所持有的以太币”