The Price Crash & The Impact On Miners

Abstract: Cryptocurrency prices have fallen significantly in the past few weeks. In this note, we analyse the impact this price decline may have on the mining industry. The Bitcoin hashrate has fallen around 31% since the start of November 2018, equivalent to around 1.3 million Bitmain S9 machines. We conclude that many miners are struggling; however, we point out that not all miners have the same costs and that it’s the higher cost miners who switch off their machines first, as the price declines.

 

Overview

Since the start of November 2018, the Bitcoin price is down around 45%, while in the same period the amount of mining power on the Bitcoin network has fallen by around 31%. According to our estimates, this represents around 1.3 million Bitmain S9 miners being switched off. The mining industry may therefore be under considerable stress right now, due to the falling prices of cryptocurrency.

The prices have so far caused two large downward difficulty adjustments to Bitcoin, 7.4% and 15.1%, on 16th November and 3rd December, respectively. The 7.4% adjustment was the largest since January 2013 and the 15.1% adjustment was the largest since October 2011. The charts below are based on the daily chainwork and therefore reflect changes in network difficulty.

Bitcoin Daily Work Compared to the Falling Price

(Source: BitMEX Research, Poloniex)

Daily Mining Revenue and Cost

As the chart below illustrates, Bitcoin mining industry revenue has fallen from around $13 million per day at the start of November to around $6 million per day, at the start of December. This drop in incentives was even larger than the fall in the Bitcoin price, due to a delay in the way difficulty adjusts. In the six-day period ending 3rd December, 21.8% fewer blocks than the expected 144 per day were found, as miners left the network before the difficulty adjusted, and as a result, fewer blocks were found. Therefore in the short term, there was a 21.8% fall in mining incentives on top of the impact of the declining price.

Bitcoin Daily Mining Revenue and Expected Electricity Spend – US$m

(Source: BitMEX Research, Poloniex)

(Notes: Assumes an electricity cost of US$0.05 per KWH, assumes advertised Bitmain S9 specification)

 

Bitcoin Cash ABC Daily Mining Revenue and Expected Electricity Spend – US$m

(Source: BitMEX Research, Polonies)

(Notes: Assumes an electricity cost of US$0.05 per KWH, assumes advertised Bitmain S9 specification)

 

Ethereum Daily Mining Revenue and Expected Electricity Spend – US$m

(Source: BitMEX Research, Polonies)

(Notes: Assumes an electricity cost of US$0.05 per KWH, assumes 32Mh/s at 200W)

Miner Profit Margins

The chart below shows that prior to the recent crash, the industry was making gross profit margins of around 50% (these figures assume electricity is the only cost included in gross profits), while after the price crash, this fell to around 30% for Bitcoin and 15% for Ethereum.

Miner Profit Margin

(Source: BitMEX Research, Poloniex for prices)

Ethereum Mining Profitability

In the period, the Ethereum hashrate has only fallen by 20%, much lower than Bitcoin, (representing around 1.5 million high-end graphics cards), while the price decline has been more significant than Bitcoin, at 54%. Therefore, gross profit margins have declined even more sharply for Ethereum, but it is not clear exactly why this is the case.

There are a few potential reasons. It could be that Ethereum miners are more hobbyist minded and less profit focused, or Ethereum miners could have started from a higher gross profit margin position than Bitcoin, so they are less inclined to monitor the network and switch the miners off when necessary. As the data shows, Ethereum miner gross profit margins now appear significantly lower than Bitcoin, falling to 15% in the last few days, so this could change (Note: This analysis only included electricity costs, when including other costs, mining may be a loss making operation).

Bitcoin Cash ABC Mining Profit Margins

As the above chart shows, the Bitcoin Cash ABC gross profit margin went negative during the split into two coins, Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin Cash SV. The two camps mined uneconomically in a race to have the most work chain. Ten days after the split, on 25th November, the profitability of mining Bitcoin Cash ABC rapidly climbed up to around the same levels as Bitcoin. This appeared to indicate the end of the “hashwar,” which proved to be almost completely pointless, as the war ending had no clear noticeable impact on either the coins or their value.

As the latest data in the below table shows, the two sides are getting closer again with respect to total work since the split and its possible uneconomic mining resumes.

Bitcoin Cash ABC Bitcoin Cash SV
Log2(PoW) 87.753365 87.747401
Blocks                          560,091                              560,081
Cumulative total since the split
Log2(PoW) 82.189 81.875
Blocks                                   3,325                                   3,315
Mining electricity spend $7,939,318 $6,389,264
Coin price (Poloniex) $108 $94
Estimated mining gross profit/(loss) ($3,450,568) ($2,494,139)
Gross profit margin (76.9%) (64.0%)
Assume leased hashrate
Estimated leasing costs $14,608,345 $11,756,245
Estimated mining gross profit/(loss) ($10,119,595) ($7,861,120)

(Source: BitMEX Research, Poloniex for prices)

Flaws in the Above Analysis

The above gross profit margin charts do not show a complete picture. While the revenue figures are likely to be accurate, the only cost included is electricity. Obviously miners have other costs, such as the capital investment in the machinery as well as maintenance costs and building costs. Therefore, although the charts below show that the industry is highly profitable when only considering electricity costs, given other costs, the recent price crash is likely to have sent almost all the miners into the red. This indicates that miners invested too much in equipment and have achieved large negative ROIs.

Electricity Cost is Not Uniform

Another crucial point not reflected in the above analysis is the variance in electricity rates. The charts above assume a flat cost of $0.05 cent per KwH; however, not all miners have the same electricity costs and there will be a distribution.

As we mentioned above, 31% of the hashrate was shutdown in the period, logically those with the highest electricity costs should turn off their machines first. Therefore the average electricity cost on the network should have fallen considerably in the past month.

The below chart is an illustration of the above, it assumes that electricity costs are normally distributed with a standard deviation of $0.01 per KwH and that higher-cost miners switch their machines off first. Although this assumption is likely to be highly inaccurate and energy prices will not be normally distributed across the mining industry, from a macro level it illustrates a point and it may be more accurate than the above chart.

According to this analysis, average Bitcoin mining gross margins have only declined from around 50% to 40%, implying a far more healthy situation for the remaining miners.

Bitcoin Mining Gross Profit Margin (Illustrative)

(Source: BitMEX Research, Poloniex for prices)

When evaluating the potential negative impact of price declines on Bitcoin, analysts sometimes forget that not all miners have the same costs. It is these cost variances that should ensure the network continues to function smoothly despite large sudden price declines and allows the difficulty to adjust.

What Caused the Price Crash?

There has been considerable speculation around the causes of the price crash, with some saying miners sold Bitcoin in order to finance a costly hashwar in Bitcoin Cash. The cryptocurrency intelligence monitoring platform Boltzmann flagged to us that their platform had detected unusually large miner selling of Bitcoin on 12th November, a few days before the Bitcoin Cash split.

Boltzmann detected that net Bitcoin sales from miners were “17.5 standard deviations below [the] 3-month trailing average.” On further analysis, it appears these miners may have been a member of Slushpool.

Bitcoin miner net flow & price

(Source: Boltzmann, 12 hour aggregation of miner net flow)

Conclusion and Price Commentary

While it may be true that mining pools selling Bitcoin to fund losses in the Bitcoin Cash hashwar may have been a catalyst for the reduction in the price, we think it’s easy to overestimate the impact of this. We are in a bear market and prices are falling regardless of the news or investment flows.

Furthermore, in a bear market prices seem to fall on non-news or bad news and ignore good news, while in a bull market the reverse appears true. We think it’s likely that prices would have been weak regardless of any miner selling prior to the Bitcoin Cash split. For cryptocurrency, trader sentiment is king.

This is likely to be a very tough time for the mining industry. However, for miners with lower costs, our basic analysis indicates that the situation may be better than people expect. If the miners acquired their equipment from Bitmain at below-cost prices, they could still be in the green, even when including depreciation and other administrative expenses.

比特币现金 ABC 滚动 10 个区块检查点

摘要:我们评估比特币现金 ABC 的新滚动 10 个区块检查点系统。新系统确实可以抵御“深层”的恶意重组;然而,它增加了共识链分裂的风险,并为潜在矿工提供了攻击系统的机会。另一个权衡是,这种变化会增加了有敌意的矿工对网络可能造成的伤害,但同时它也降低了此类行为的潜在回报。目前尚不清楚这种变化是否利大于弊。由于这对系统的改变是根本性的,因此在网络采用该技术之前花费更多时间评估可能带来的后果会更好。

概述


比特币现金 ABC 在软件版本 ABC 0.18.5 中添加了一个新的滚动检查点系统,该系统发布于 2018 年 11 月 21 日。基本上,新机制在收到 10 个确认后才会锁定一个区块,这可以防止大区块链接重组。因此,即使替代的那条区块链具有更多的工作证明,如果它与检查点冲突,节点也不会切换到那条拥有更多工作证明的区块链。

 

此功能可能已被添加作为对潜在攻击者的防御系统。潜在攻击者包括来自竞争对手比特币现金 SV 区块链的支持者,不排除他们攻击比特币现金 ABC 的可能。

 

新检验点机制的安全性分析


新的滚动检查点机制包括妥协:

  • 深度重组的风险降低了。
  • 共识链破裂的风险增加了。


新检查站系统的网络风险分析

 

延迟问题 攻击场景
重组风险 没变

延迟问题不太可能导致节点在 10 个区块时仍然不同步。因此,在我们看来,这不是个问题。因此,新的检查点系统 在这点上不大可能引起问题。虽然在区块大小高达 32MB 的情况下,可能有少数情况会出现一些延迟问题,并且可能有出现 10 个区块节点仍然不同步。

检查点似乎没有解决任何与延迟有关的问题。如果延迟问题导致 10 区块重组,则用户可能希望使用最大工作量的区块链。因此,我们认为这里没有任何优势。

风险降低

深度恶意重组的风险现在减少或限制在10个区块内。

共识分叉 引入新的小风险

在小概率情况下,不良的网络连接导致节点在 10 个区块以上产生不同步,冲突的检查点可能导致共识分裂,从而产生两个或更多个代币。

引入新风险

虽然现在重组风险降低了,但有敌意的矿工现在有一个新的攻击目标。攻击者可以尝试秘密挖掘 10 个以上的区块,然后在网络上的检查点会导致分歧的时间点发布该链条,从而导致区块链分叉。

 

有敌意的矿工:重组的另一种选择

如上所述,如果一个有敌意的矿工正在制造一条影子链,一旦这条影子链与原先“诚实”的链条偏离了 10 个区块后,它就基本上没用了,因为即使它有更多的工作,它也无法改变“诚实”的链条。 因此,攻击者也可以放弃并停止扩展影子链。

然而,这也意味着,一旦自“分裂”后产生到第 10 个区块,攻击者就会在此时发布影子链,取决攻击者的目标。 (即一旦攻击者收到下图中指示的红色区块,就释放影子链)。当一些节点首先接收到红色块,一些节点首先接收影子链时可能导致共识链分裂,结果造成检查站出现冲突。

(资料来源: BitMEX 研究)

这种攻击可能导致共识链分裂,这可能与继续进行恶意重组一样将对网络造成严重破坏。由于有敌意的矿工可以提前停止攻击,因此也比继续进行深层重组划算。因此,我们不清楚这种新的检查点防御有任何实质性的帮助。尽管本节中提到的风险可能是小概率事件(并且可能要求攻击者拥有大部分哈希值),但它们似乎就是新检查点系统试图规避的问题。

 

检查点系统的优点

  • 虽然新的检查点机制可能对 10 个区块内的安全性帮助不大,但从当前区块链更深入地回顾时,在更长的时间范围内安全性可能会增加。这对某些交易所或商家非常有用,他们现在可以在记录用户账户或转账之前先等待超过 10 个区块,以确保更高的安全性。然而,比特币现金的一个关键优势是提高交易速度,因此这比特币现金社区可能不是一个显著的好处。
  • 虽然通过这种机制开辟了一个新的攻击渠道,为有敌意矿工提供了一种新的攻击方法,如上所述,造成共识分裂,但这种做法能带来的回报不如“正常”深度重组攻击那么明显。正常的重组攻击可以就交易所的双重花费进行攻击,从而获利。虽然攻击者也有可能使用这种新的链分裂渠道进行双重花费攻击,但结果是不太明确的,因为不确定哪一方(如果有的话)将成为胜利者及交易所最后会遵循的哪条链。 因此,虽然这种攻击在网络上可能更具破坏性,但对它所能带来的收益却不那么明显。 我们认为这是一个重要的好处。

 

其他问题

 

中心化和更多开发人员

对检查点的另一个常见批评是它为开发人员提供了更多的功能并强化了系统中心化,因为开发人员通常在发布新版本的软件时手动插入检查点(比如比特币曾经有过)。 但是在我们看来,这不适用于这种情况,因为检查点是由节点软件自动生成的,而不是由开发团队手动生成的。因此这不是个问题。

 

远程攻击和初始同步

正如埃里克沃尔( Eric Wall )在推特上解释的那样,新的检查点机制使得 sybil 攻击可用于 最新区块以外区块。 例如,仍处于初始同步中的节点或与暂时关闭数天的用户节点。 攻击者需要在过去的任何时刻启动自己的中继节点并生成新的 10 个区块的长链。

然后可以将这条 工作量较低的链条广播到节点(包括不在当前链条尖端的节点), 导致这些节点在备用链条上过早地执行检查。这不仅会将这些节点留在不同的链上,而且这个链也在攻击者的控制之下。这似乎是检查点系统的一个重要缺陷。

中本聪的 “原始愿景” 似乎暗示能够验证节点被关闭后发生了什么很重要:

节点可以随意离开并重新加入网络,接受工作量证明链条作为他们离开时发生的事情的依据。

(资料来源:比特币白皮书

在某种程度上,比特币现金 ABC 升级放弃了这种理念,并要求节点全天候在线。

 

结论

新的比特币现金 ABC 检查点系统是对核心网络和共识动态的根本性改变,其中有利也有弊。这些利弊可能在升级之前尚未经过充分的探讨。虽然我们认为这种改变不太可能立马造成重大危机,但似乎它也无法有效避免这种危机在未来发生。

 

检查点系统影响总体概述

好处:

  • 减少恶意矿工攻击链条的动机
  • 就超过 10 个区块确认的交易向商家和交易所提供了更多的保证

 

弊端:

  • 增加矿工造成对网络产生破坏性攻击的能力
  • 在与主链同步的节点上引入新的攻击渠道

 

 

欢迎转载,请注明文章来自

BitMEX (www.bitmex.com)

Резервы Ethereum на счетах ICO-проектов

1 ОКТЯБРЯ 2018 Г.

BITMEX RESEARCH

Аннотация. В сентябре 2017 г. мы уже публиковали статью, посвященную ICO-проектам, но в ней основное внимание уделялось командам и консультантам. В этом обзоре мы совместно с порталом TokenAnalyst рассмотрим изменение резервов Ethereum на балансах ICO-проектов в динамике. Мы проанализируем количество привлеченного в ETH капитала и объемы прибыли и убытков в долларовом эквиваленте в результате изменения цены Ethereum по каждому проекту. Мы придем к выводу, что недавнее падение курса EТН практически не отразилось на проектах, так как по большому счету они уже продали почти все собранные в ходе ICO монеты Ethereum (в долларовом эквиваленте). По состоянию на сегодняшний день, при текущей цене $230 монеты Ethereum, еще оставшиеся на балансе ICO-проектов, представляют собой скорее нереализованную прибыль, чем убыток.

Нажмите здесь, чтобы скачать статью в формате pdf

Объемы Ethereum, собранные 222 ICO-проектами: макроанализ

ETH Млн долларов США
ETH, собранные EOS 7,211,776 3,824
ETH, собранные другими проектами 7,972,003 1,639
Общий объем собранных ETH 15,183,779 5,463
ETH, проданные EOS (7,211,776) (3,892)
ETH, переведенные/проданные другими проектами (4,113,345) (1,560)
Общий объем переведенных/проданных ETH (11,325,121) (5,452)
Остаток ETH на балансе (сентябрь 2018 г.) 3,858,659 830

(Источники: блокчейн Ethereum, BitMEX Research, TokenAnalyst, Token Data, информация о ценах – Etherscan)

Общая прибыль и убытки в связи с изменениями цены ETH – млн долларов США

Реализованная прибыль
Прибыль проекта EOS 68
Валовая реализованная прибыль других проектов в ETH 692
Валовые реализованные убытки других проектов в ETH (34)
Суммарная реализованная прибыль 727
Нереализованная прибыль
Нереализованная прибыль EOS n/a
Валовая нереализованная прибыль в ETH 403
Валовые нереализованные убытки в ETH (311)
Суммарные нереализованные убытки 93
Итого суммарная прибыль 819

(Источники: блокчейн Ethereum, BitMEX Research, TokenAnalyst, Token Data, информация о ценах – Etherscan)

Примечания.

  1. В анализе учитываются только монеты ETH на балансе ICO-проектов, которые нам удалось отследить в блокчейне Ethereum. Средства, собранные в других валютах, а также баланс новых токенов, выпущенных проектами, не учитывались. Поэтому полученные итоговые показатели могут оказаться ниже, чем в других источниках. Хотя приведенные нами цифры могут быть занижены, по крайней мере можно быть уверенным в том, что они были получены независимым образом. При этом мы не рассматривали некоторые проекты — например, Tron — так как не смогли установить адрес или кластер адресов их казначейских кошельков.
  2. Оценка стоимости собранных ETH выполнялась на основе самой высокой стоимости ETH в кластере адресов каждого проекта (за исключением EOS) в каждый момент времени, поэтому возможны некоторые неточности.
  3. Оценка стоимости собранных средств в долларовом эквиваленте выполнялась на основе средней цены ETH в период проведения ICO, поэтому эту оценку следует считать приблизительной и ненадежной.
  4. Расчет оценочной стоимости реализованной прибыли выполнялся следующим образом: баланс ETH на конец каждого месяца для кластера адресов каждого проекта сравнивался с балансом предыдущего месяца. Затем мы использовали среднемесячную цену ETH для расчета стоимости проданных ETH в долларовом эквиваленте. Не исключено, что эти результаты неточны и что ETH еще остаются на балансе проектов или что монеты ETH могли быть проданы не за доллары.
  5. Хотя мы считаем, что на макроуровне наши расчеты заслуживают доверия, на уровне конкретных проектов полученные нами цифры, скорее всего, не совсем точны. Мы приносим извинения за возможные ошибки или неуместные предположения.

Комментарий относительно общего объема резервов и продаж Ethereum

Цена Ethereum упала почти на 85% по сравнению с пиком $1400, зафиксированным в декабре 2017 года. Как мы отмечали в статье, опубликованной в тот период, стоимость ETH и связанных с ним криптовалют была высокой, поэтому существовал значительный риск ее понижения. Обвал цены ETH заставил многих задуматься о том, не привела ли высокая концентрация резервов ETH у ICO-проектов к возникновению «спирали снижения цен». Эти предположения основывались на теории о том, что многие ICO-проекты владеют большим количеством ETH и что по мере падения цены ETH они начнут в панике избавляться от криптовалюты, боясь оказаться последними и не успеть распродать свои запасы.

Результаты нашего анализа, как и анализа команды портала TokenAnalyst, показывают, что на макроуровне эта теория не подтверждается. Мы проанализировали 222 проекта, которые собрали ETH на сумму 5,5 млрд долларов и, по всей видимости, уже продали монет на примерно ту же сумму (всего на 11 млн долларов меньше). В настоящее время эти ICO владеют 3,8 млн ETH, что составляет около 25% от изначально собранного объема Ethereum. Но, если считать в долларовом эквиваленте, эти проекты по сути продали примерно такой же объем Ethereum, что и собрали, поэтому в итоге у них остается еще 830 млн долларов в ETH.

Эти цифры несколько искажают показатели проекта EOS, которому удалось собрать впечатляющую сумму — около 70% от объема ETH (в долларовом выражении), собранного всеми проектами из нашего списка, если наши оценки верны. Но даже без учета EOS, общая картина остается аналогичной той, что мы описали выше: в долларовом выражении ICO-проекты продали почти столько же EТН, сколько изначально собрали.

Несмотря на падение цены ETH на 85% по сравнению с пиком, реализованная прибыль ICO-проектов от продажи Ethereum составила 727 млн долларов, причем зачастую продажа состоялась еще до последнего падения курса. На балансе этих проектов еще остается 3,8 млн ETH, и они едва ли сильно повлияют на стоимость токенов Ethereum, ведь это довольно небольшая сумма по сравнению с общим объемом ETH в обращении — 102 млн. В то же время на макроуровне ICO-проекты могут чувствовать себя достаточно уверенно и не станут в панике распродавать ЕТН.

Что до нереализованных прибыли и убытков, то чистая прибыль ICO-проектов составила 93 млн долларов (при цене ETH в уровне $215). Многих может удивить, что у ICO до сих пор осталась чистая нереализованная прибыль, но, как показывает график ниже, значительная часть резервов ETH была получена еще до начала ценового ралли в конце 2017 года. При этом некоторые отдельные проекты могут нести значительные убытки. Валовой нереализованный убыток, т.е. сумма всех убытков для проектов, потерявших деньги на Ethereum, составил 311 млн долларов, что с лихвой перекрывается 403 млн долларов валовой нереализованной прибыли.

Общий объем резервов ETH 222 ICO-проектов (ежедневные данные) по отношению к стоимости Ethereum

(Источники: блокчейн Ethereum, BitMEX Research, TokenAnalyst, Token Data, информация о ценах – Etherscan)

Как показывает график, за 26-месячный период максимальный объем резервов ICO-проектов в ETH составлял всего 5,1 млн, что значительно меньше, чем собранные 15,2 млн (или 8,0 млн без учета EOS). Это может свидетельствовать о том, что ETH, собранные более ранними ICO-проектами, были реинвестированы в новые проекты — либо напрямую, либо опосредованно, после продажи на рынке (что вероятнее всего).

Данные по резервам ETH с разбивкой по ICO-проектам

Топ 20 ICO-проектов по величине прибыли, полученной в результате изменения стоимости резервов Ethereum (млн долларов)

 

(Источники: блокчейн Ethereum, BitMEX Research, TokenAnalyst, Token Data, информация о ценах – Etherscan)

Топ 20 ICO-проектов по общему объему убытков в результате изменения стоимости резервов Ethereum (млн долларов)

(Источники: блокчейн Ethereum, BitMEX Research, TokenAnalyst, Token Data, информация о ценах – Etherscan)

Рейтинг проектов по заявленной сумме собранных средств в долларовом эквиваленте

ICO

Собрано ETH (по данным анализа BitMEX Research)

Стоимость собранных ETH (млн долларов) (по данным анализа BitMEX Research) Всего собрано (млн долларов) (по данным Token Data)
EOS 7,211,776 3,824.0 4,234.3
Tezos 361,122 88.1 230.6
Filecoin 461,442 150.4 200.0
Sirin Labs 88,906 64.1 157.9
Bancor Protocol 193,830 76.5 153.0
Polkadot 306,276 93.6 144.3
Status 299,902 105.1 107.7
Envion 46,735 42.0 100.0
Kin 168,732 46.1 98.5
TenX 210,500 64.1 83.1
BankEx 65,129 39.2 70.6
Kyber Network 95,947 24.7 49.3
Gridplus 10,410 3.1 45.7
Fusion 50,224 42.6 41.7
Bloom 43,871 27.5 41.4
Monetha 95,000 36.9 36.4
AirSwap 76,625 23.0 36.3
Basic Attention Token 57,645 13.2 36.0
Ether Party 12,105 3.7 33.5
Request Network 100,000 33.7 33.3
Civic 40,000 13.0 33.0
Raiden Network 109,532 32.7 31.9
Polybius 27,502 8.2 31.6
Electrify 10,639 9.1 30.0
Storj 122,000 19.2 30.0
Sentinel Protocol 26,548 15.1 27.5
Paypie 61,082 18.5 26.8
Tierion 95,985 18.9 25.0
Aragon 277,199 24.1 25.0
Atonomi 42,847 26.0 25.0
aeternity 74,271 17.8 25.0
0X 84,647 25.3 24.0
Enjin Coin 61,584 19.0 23.0
Aventus 59,882 20.3 20.1
Uptoken 5,449 2.1 18.9
Change 48,129 14.3 17.5
Covesting 2,121 0.9 17.4
Decent Bet 52,558 16.0 16.2
ETHLend 36,486 11.9 16.1
Maecenas 50,066 14.6 15.7
Cofoundit 61,800 15.0 14.9
GATCOIN 8,975 5.4 14.7
TTC 20,489 14.1 14.2
Mysterium Network 56,322 12.9 14.1
Pindify 78,032 46.7 14.0
POA Network 41,176 13.7 13.7
Cobinhood 32,064 9.5 13.4
Dragonchain 24,972 7.6 13.2
FOAM 38,028 15.0 12.7
Gnosis 250,000 12.5 12.5
iExec 120,883 5.8 12.2
Adshares 5,492 2.2 12.1
Santiment 45,002 12.0 12.1
Populous 15,310 5.2 10.8
Iconomi 314,939 4.0 10.7
Playkey 10,248 3.6 10.5
Mercury Protocol 15,732 5.1 10.5
Metronome 26,389 13.1 10.2
District0X 43,169 9.1 9.8
Indorse 22,800 7.4 9.0
Golem 820,003 8.3 8.6
Aion 26,920 8.2 7.8
Coindash 43,488 8.3 7.5
SingularDTV 570,002 6.8 7.5
Atlant 9,294 2.8 6.6
DOVU 8,542 2.7 6.3
DigixDAO 466,648 3.5 5.5
FirstBlood 465,313 6.1 5.5
Augur 610 0.0 5.3
Humaniq 41,456 2.0 5.2
STeX 3,819 1.2 4.5
Matryx 4,209 1.3 4.5
Auctus 4.0
ALIS 13,183 3.9 3.8
Crystal Clear Services 3,542 1.1 3.4
Melonport 8,028 0.1 2.9
Bitjob 8,034 2.3 2.8
Swarm Fund 2,825 0.8 2.5
Blockbid 2.4
Mingo 3,305 2.2 2.4
Privatix 43 0.0 2.4
Wolk 17,338 5.1 2.2
Herocoin 41,044 12.1 2.0
Total 15,034,170 5,427 6,764

(Источники: блокчейн Ethereum, BitMEX Research, TokenAnalyst, Token Data, информация о ценах – Etherscan, перекрестная ссылка – Diar)

(Примечание: итоговые показатели немного ниже, чем в первой таблице этого разбора, поскольку в таблицу в начале статьи не были включены небольшие проекты)

Особенности проекта EOS

Как уже упоминалось выше, поскольку команда EOS регулярно продавала ETH в течение периода ICO, для анализа резервов Ethereum этого проекта необходимо было использовать другую методику. Мы обнаружили 171 «внутреннюю транзакцию» EOS по выводу ETH за пределы кластера адресов проекта. Общая стоимость переведенных криптомонет составила 7,2 млн ETH или 3,9 млрд долларов США (исходя из цены ETH на конец дня каждого перевода средств). Используя эти цифры и среднюю стоимость ETH в период ICO, мы считаем, что EOS удалось собрать Ethereum на сумму 3,8 млрд долларов, что довольно близко к опубликованным цифрам – 4,2 млрд долларов (по всей видимости, эта сумма включает средства, собранные в других валютах помимо ETH).

Учитывая это, мы не настолько уверены в том, что баланс в 7,2 млн ETH появился не в результате двойного учета (т.е. команда EOS получила инвестиции в виде ETH, а затем повторно использовала эти монеты ETH в ICO для искусственного увеличения показателей), как в случае других проектов. Тем не менее, у нас нет оснований считать, что повторное использование действительно имело место, да и 7,2 млн монет Ethereum, выведенных из смарт-контракта, могут в какой-то мере служить гарантией того, что эти средства действительно были собраны. Мы лишь обращаем ваше внимание на то, что степень нашей уверенности в данных об этом проекте ниже, чем в данных других проектов, включенных в наш анализ в рамках выбранной методики исследования.

Заключение

Мы пришли к выводу, что изменение цены ETH влияет на резервы ICO значительно меньше, чем считают многие. По большому счету, проекты ICO или их команды неплохо обогатились — по крайней мере, с точки зрения собранного Ethereum. Как инструмент для привлечения средств ICO действительно имели феноменальный успех — до такой степени, что даже значительная девальвация Ethereum в будущем едва ли испортит картину и мало отразится на этом успехе.

Неясно, что это значит с точки зрения ценовой динамики ETH в будущем, но мы считаем, что нам удалось продемонстрировать необоснованность тезиса о «панической продаже» — если даже она произойдет в будущем, то далеко не в ожидаемом масштабе.

Безусловно, эффективность инвестирования средств этими проектами и разработка практичных продуктов или услуг — совсем другой вопрос. На наш взгляд, некоторые из этих ICO-проектов имеют довольно низкий уровень подотчетности: например, о них трудно найти даже такую информацию, как сведения об объеме и валюте (валютах) собранных средств, использованных Ethereum-адресах и о том, были ли эти резервы проданы или потрачены. По этой причине инвесторов в эти ICO-проекты может ожидать разочарование. По сути, многие из этих проектов конкурируют за один скудный ресурс — разработчиков. В этой связи можно отметить, что объем капитала, полученного этими ICO, может привести к «раздуванию» цены на этот ресурс (возможно, менее опытных разработчиков). Это может не только отрицательно сказаться на криптовалютной экосистеме из-за повышения затрат на реализацию проектов, но и в некоторой степени навредить стартапам в технологической сфере в целом, причем на много лет. Оправдан ли наш цинизм или нет – покажет только время.

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.

Overview

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.

Conclusion

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

Positives:

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

Negatives:

  • 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

 

비트코인 캐시 ABC의 10가지 규칙적인 블록 체크포인트

요약: 저희는 이번 보고서에서 비트코인 캐시 ABC의 새로운 10가지 규칙적인 체크포인트 시스템을 평가할 것입니다. 새롭게 구상된 이 시스템은 “심각한” 공격적인 리오그 (reorg, 블록체인에서 몇 개의 연속된 블록이 변경되었을 경우 발생)로부터 보호해줍니다; 하지만 해당 시스템은 합의된 체인 분할의 위험성을 증가시키고 악의적인 마이너가 되고자 하는 이들에게 새로운 기회를 제공합니다. 또 다른 상충점은 공격적인 성향의 마이너들이 네트워크에 미칠 수 있는 피해를 증가시키지만, 이러한 행동에 대한 잠재적 보상이 감소한다는 것입니다. 비록 이는 시스템의 근본적인 변화이기 때문에 네트워크가 해당 기술을 채택하기 전, 그와 관련된 역학을 평가하는데 더 많은 시간을 투자하는 것이 나을 수도 있지만, 이 변화가 순수한 이득만을 가져다 줄 것인지 현재로써는 불확실합니다.

개요

비트코인 캐시 ABC는 2018년 11월 21일 출시된 소프트웨어 버전 ABC 0.18.5에 새로운 규칙적인 체크포인트 시스템 (rolling checkpoint system)을 추가했습니다. 기본적으로 이 최신 메커니즘은 10번의 승인을 받았을 때 블록을 완결시킴으로써 대규모의 블록체인 리오그 (reorg)를 방지합니다. 따라서 대안 체인에 더 많은 작업 증거 (proof of work)가 있더라도 체크포인트와 충돌하는 경우, 노드가 가장 활발하게 작업 중인 체인으로 전환되지 않습니다.

이 기능은 경쟁사인 비트코인 캐시 SV 체인의 지지자를 포함한 비트코인 캐시 ABC를 공격하려는 잠재적 공격자들에 대응하기 위한 대비책으로 추가되었을 것으로 예상됩니다.

새로운 체크포인트 메커니즘의 보안성 분석 

새로운 규칙적인 체크포인트 메커니즘에는 다음과 같은 상충점이 존재합니다:

  • 심각한 리오그 위험성이 감소합니다.
  • 합의된 체인 분할의 위험성이 증가합니다.

새로운 체크포인트 시스템의 네트워크 위험성 분석

대기시간 지연 문제 공격 시나리오
리오그 위험성 변경 사항 없음

대기시간 지연 문제로 10개의 블록마다 노드 간의 동기화가 이루어지지 않을 가능성은 낮으므로 저희는 이것이 크게 문제가 되지  않는다고 생각합니다. 따라서 새로운 체크포인트 시스템은 이 부분에서 문제를 발생시키지 않을 것입니다.

블록 사이즈가 최대 32MB인 블록이라도 소수의 상황 하에서는 몇 가지의 대기시간 지연 문제가 발생할 수 있으며 노드가 10개의 블록마다 동기화되지 않을 수 있습니다.

체크포인트는 대기시간 지연과 관련된 그 어떠한 문제도 해결하지 못하는 듯 합니다. 만일 대기시간 지연 문제로 인해 10개의 블록 리오그가 발생한다면, 사용자는 가장 작업이 활발한 체인의 뒤를 따르려 할 것입니다.

 

위험성 감소

심각하고 공격적인 리오그의 위험성이 줄어들거나 10개의 블록에 제한됩니다.

합의된 체인 분할 새로 생겨난 작은 위험성

네트워크 연결 상태가 좋지 않아 노드가 서로 10개 블록 이상으로 동기화되지 않는 경우, 상충하는 체크포인트가 합의된 체인 분할을 야기해 두 개 혹은 그 이상의 암호화폐를 생성할 수 있습니다.

새로 생겨난 위험성

리오그 위험성은 이제 감소했지만, 악의적인 마이너들은 새로운 공격 매개체를 갖게 되었습니다. 공격자는 블록 10개 길이의 (혹은 더 긴) 체인을 비밀 리에 채굴한 뒤, 네트워크 상에서 체크포인트가 상충할 수 있는 시간대에 체인을 게시하여 체인 분할을 일으킵니다.

악의적인 마이너: 리오그를 위한 대안적 옵션 

위에서 언급했듯, 악의적인 마이너가 쉐도우 체인 (shadow chain)을 생산하고 있을 경우, 이것이 한 번 “정직한” 체인에서 10개 블록 이상으로 멀어지면 작업량이 더 많더라도 정직한 체인 (honest chain)을 리오그할 수 없기 때문에 본질적으로 쓸모가 없게 됩니다. 따라서 공격자는 이를 포기하고 쉐도우 체인의 연장을 중단할 것입니다.

하지만 이는 “정직한 체인”에서 분할 이후 10번째 블록이 생성되자마자 공격자가 목표에 따라 이 시점에서 쉐도우 체인을 게시할 수도 있음을 의미합니다. (예. 공격자가 아래 다이어그램에 빨간색으로 표시된 블록을 수신하자마자 쉐도우 체인을 게시) 이로 인해 합의된 체인 분할이 발생할 수 있으며, 일부 노드는 빨간색 블록을 먼저 수신하고 다른 노드는 쉐도우 체인을 먼저 수신하여 체크포인트가 충돌하게 됩니다.

(출처: BitMEX Research)

이 공격은 합의된 체인 분할을 야기해 공격적인 리오그를 지속함으로써 네트워크에 손상을 입힐 수 있습니다. 또한 이는 악의적인 마이너가 공격을 더 일찍 멈출 수 있기 때문에 심각한 리오그를 지속하는 것보다 경제적입니다. 따라서 저희는 새로운 체크포인트 방어책이 실질적인 개선안이라고 확신하지 않습니다. 이 부분의 위험성이 실제로 발생하지 않는다 해도 (또한 공격자에게 해시래이트의 대부분을 차지하도록 요구할 수 있더라도), 최소한 새로운 체크포인트 시스템이 완화하려고 하는 문제만큼이나 발생할 가능성이 높다고 생각합니다.

체크포인트 시스템의 장점

  • 새로운 체크포인트 메커니즘이 10개의 블록 윈도우 내에서 보안성에 제한적인 영향을 미칠 수 있지만, 현재의 체인 끝에서 전반적으로 체인을 되돌아 볼 때 보안성은 더 긴 기간 동안 강화될 수 있습니다. 이는 사용자 계정에 입금을 하고 더 높은 수준의 보장성을 확보하기 전에 블록 10개 이상을 기다릴 수 있는 일부 거래소 또는 판매자에게 매우 유용할 수 있습니다. 하지만 비트코인 캐시의 핵심 초점은 거래 속도를 높이는 것이므로 비트코인 캐시 커뮤니티에서 이러한 이점의 가치는 높지 않습니다.
  • 위에서 설명했듯 새로운 공격 매개체가 해당 메커니즘에 의해 공개되어 공격적인 마이너들이 합의된 체인 분할을 일으킬 새로운 길을 열어주었지만, 이에 대한 인센티브는 “정상적인 (normal)” 심각한 리오그 보다 명확하지 않습니다. 정상적인 리오그 공격 (normal reorg attack)은 거래소를 상대로 한 이중 지불 공격 (double spend attack)에 이용될 수 있습니다. 새로운 체인 분할 관련 공격 매개체를 이용하여 이중 지불 공격을 시도할 수 있지만, 어느 쪽 (만일 있다면)이 승자가 될 것인지 또는 각 거래소가 어떤 체인을 따를 것인지 분명하지 않기 때문에 그 결과는 확실하지 않습니다.

다른 쟁점들

중앙화와 개발자의 권한 

체크포인트에 대한 또 다른 흔한 비판은 새 버전의 소프트웨어를 출시할 때, 일반적으로 개발자가 체크포인트를 수동으로 삽입하기 때문에 그들에게 더 많은 권한이 부여되고 중앙화가 심화된다는 것입니다 (비트코인이 그러했듯). 하지만 저희는 체크포인트가 개발팀에 의해 직접 생성되는 것이 아닌 노드 소프트웨어에 의해 자동으로 생성되기 때문에 이 경우에는 앞서 말한 쟁점이 문제가 되지 않는다고 생각합니다.

장거리 공격과 초기 동기화

Eric Wall이 트위터에 설명했듯, 새로운 체크포인트 메커니즘을 통해 가장 최근 생성된 체인의 끝이 아닌 노드에 시빌 공격 (sybil attack, 계정 무한생성)을 가할 수 있게 되었습니다. 예를 들어, 이는 초기 동기화 (initial sync) 상태에 있는 노드이거나 노드를 며칠 동안 일시적으로 중지한 사용자와 관련된 노드입니다. 공격자는 자신만의 릴레이 노드 (relay node)를 만들고 과거의 어느 시점에서든 블록 10개 길이의 새로운 체인을 생성해야 합니다.

작업이 활발하지 않은 해당 체인 (the lower work chain)은 노드 (현재 체인 끝에 있는 노드가 아닌 다른 특정 노드를 대상으로)로 전파될 수 있으므로 잠재적으로 이러한 노드는 대안 체인 상에서 너무 이른 시기에 체크포인팅을 할 수 있습니다. 이는 앞서 말한 노드를 다른 체인 상에 남겨둘 뿐만 아니라, 해당 체인을 공격자의 통제 하에 두게 합니다. 이것은 체크포인트 시스템의 중대한 결함인 듯 합니다.

사토시가 구상했던 “본래의 비전”은 노드가 꺼져있을 때 일어난 일을 확인하는 기능이 향후 중요해질 것이라는 그의 생각을 나타내는 듯 합니다:

노드는 자유롭게 네트워크를 떠날 수도 있고 다시 합류할 수 있으며, 작업증명방식 (POW, proof-of-work)의 체인을 노드가 꺼져있는 동안 일어난 일에 대한 증거로 받아들입니다.
(출처: 비트코인 백서)

비트코인 캐시 ABC 업그레이드를 위해서는 앞서 언급한 철학을 어느 정도 포기하고, 노드를 항상 온라인 상태로 유지해야 합니다.

결론 

새로운 비트코인 캐시 ABC 체크포인트 시스템의 핵심 네트워크 및 합의 역학에 대한 근본적인 변화로 많은 상충점이 생겨났습니다. 이러한 변화들은 업그레이드 전에 제대로 발견되지 않았을 수 있습니다. 저희는 이런 변화가 즉각적인 위기를 초래할 것이라고 생각하지 않지만, 위기 발생 시 이를 막기는 힘들 것이라 생각합니다.

체크포인트 시스템의 영향에 관한 전반적 요약

장점:

  • 마이너가 체인 공격 시, 그에 대한 인센티브 감소
  • 10개 이상의 승인이 있을 경우, 거래와 관련된 판매자 및 거래소에 더 많은 보증을 제공

단점:

  • 마이너가 네트워크에 치명적인 공격을 가하는 기능이 향상됨
  • 메인 체인과 동기화 중인 노드에 대한 새로운 공격 매개체 제공

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

 

执行摘要


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。

 

交易所市场细分

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% 。

 

去中心化交易所

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 。

 

交易量,交易对和代币

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)。

 

比特币兑法币交易量

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% 。

 

国家分析

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。

 

交易数据分析

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 )。

 

网页用户分析

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 , Cex.io 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。

 

委托列表分析

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。

 

交易所安全性

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 。

 

总交易量和市场细分

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。

 

历史现货市场与期货市场交易量

现货交易量占总市场量的四分之三。

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。

 

按收费方式划分的历史现货交易量

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。

 

历史加密币对加密币与法币对加密币的交易所的现货交易量

提供法币兑加密币的交易所的交易量占现货市场总交易量的四分之一。

 

调整后的历史现货交易量

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% )。

 

交易量,代币和交易对摘要

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

 

交易对数量排名

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。

 

国家分析

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

注册在马耳他的交易所的日交易量最高,而大型交易所注册地的数量最多的是在美国和英国。

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 。

 

交易对分析

以下分析旨在显示出加密币兑加密与法币兑加密币的交易总量的分别以及每个类别内的交易所数量。

 

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。

 

交易数据分析


该分析旨在阐明特定交易所的交易特征。它有助于回答交易所的交易量是否是由少量大额交易带来的,或由大量小额的交易所产生,这些小额交易可能体现背后投资人正使用着算法交易或计算机交易。

 

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


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

 

网页流量分析

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 , Cex.io 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。

 

委托列表分析


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。

 

平均委托列表深度下降与每日平均交易量(某交易对)

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% 。

 

去中心化交易所

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。


公共条款和隐私政策页面的比例

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。

 


交易所“冷藏”持有的用户资金比例

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。

 

个别交易所冷藏用户资金比例

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。

 

过去被黑客攻击的交易所比例

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。

 

新交易所的交易数据评估

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

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

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

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

 

Iqfinex

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

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。

 

P2PB2B

与 CCCAGG 不一致,因此 P2PB2B 有理由被排除在外 。

 

StocksExchange

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

本节提供了交易所交易数据的定量分析。目的是了解交易所交易生态系统,并选择最能代表加密币价格的交易所。  

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。  

出于本次分析的目的,我们并未将交易量进行加权计算。这是由于在查看个别交易所交易数据时观察我们到大量买入委托。我们假设中位数将更好地反映交易所委托的中间价格,因为大多数交易均以中间价格完成交易。因此,中位数应反映平均交易价格。  

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。

 

CCCAGG价格对比BTC对美元中位数的交易价格

 

 

欢迎转载,请注明文章来自

BitMEX (www.bitmex.com)

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 ForkMonitor.info 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。

新网站:ForkMonitor.info

( 2018 年 11 月 3 日的网站截图)

 

概述

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 0.17.0.1 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
BUCash 1.3.0.1

(截至 2018 年 11 月 4 日由 forkmonitor.info 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。


forkmonitor.info 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。

 

比特币现金硬分叉

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

 

下面列出了一些主要客户名单及其在硬分叉上的各自看法:

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)
    (资料来源: cash.coin.dance

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。

欢迎转载,请注明文章来自

BitMEX (www.bitmex.com)

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, Cex.io 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.

KYC

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, Cex.io 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

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.

CoinTiger

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.

iCoinBay

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

Iqfinex

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

Liqnet

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.

P2PB2B

Poor agreement with the CCCAGG gives grounds to exclude P2PB2B.

StocksExchange

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

 

 

비트멕스 리서치가 후원하는 포크 모니터링 웹사이트

요약: 저희는 비트멕스 리서치 (BitMEX Research)팀이 후원하는 새로운 웹사이트 ForkMonitor.info의 출시를 발표하게 되어 매우 기쁘게 생각합니다. 해당 웹사이트는 비트코인 구현체와 비트코인 캐시 구현체의 여러 노드와 연결되어 있습니다. 본 웹사이트는 앞으로 소개할 체인에 관한 다양한 정보를 제공합니다. 이 웹사이트는 네트워크 업그레이드 (소프트포크 혹은 하드포크) 도중 발생하는 상황을 모니터링하는데 유용할 뿐만 아니라 의도치 않은 합의 버그 감지에도 도움이 됩니다. 본 웹사이트 개발에 많은 도움을 준 Sjors Provoost 님께 감사를 표하는 바입니다.

 

새 웹사이트: ForkMonitor.info

 

(2018년 11월 3일 기점의 웹사이트 스크린샷)

개요

현재 본 웹사이트는 다음 13개 노드에 연결되어 있습니다:

비트코인 노드 비트코인 캐시 노드
Bitcoin Core 0.17.0.1 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
BUCash 1.3.0.1

(2018년 11월 4일 기준 forkmonitor.info에서 실행된 노드)

해당 웹사이트는 우선적으로 5개의 노드를 실행하는 비트코인 보다는 8개의 노드를 실행하는 비트코인 캐시에 최적화되어 있습니다. 왜냐하면 곧 시행될 비트코인 캐시 하드포크에서 여러 노드가 서로 다른 체인을 따라가도록 설계되어 있기 때문입니다.

forkmonitor.info는 업그레이드 진행 상황 모니터링에도 유용합니다. 비트코인 캐시 하드포크가 완료된 후, 해당 웹사이트는 비트코인에 조금 더 중점을 둘 것입니다. 이 계획은 Bcoin, BTCD 및 Libbitcoin과 같은 독립적 구현체들뿐만 아니라, 더 많은 비트코인 코어 버전 (특히 이전 버전)을 실행하기 위한 것입니다. 이는 2018년 9월에 발견된 인플레이션 버그인 CVE-2018-17144와 같은 합의 버그를 발견하는 데 유용할 것입니다. 웹사이트의 코드는 오픈 소스로 구성될 것이며, 이는 다른 조직 및 기관들이 여러 노드를 회전시키고 비슷한 방식으로 체인을 감시하는 데에 도움을 줄 것입니다.

비트코인 캐시 하드포크

2018년 11월 15일 16시 40분 (UTC) 경, 비트코인 캐시의 하드포크가 진행될 예정입니다. 이와 관련해 3개의 체인이 경쟁할 가능성이 있습니다:

  • 비트코인 ABC가 구현한 하드포크
  • 비트코인 SV가 구현한 두 번째 하드포크
  • 본래의 합의 규칙 체인 (잠재적으로 가능성 있음)

주요 클라이언트의 목록 및 하드포크 상 클라이언트의 각 포지션은 다음과 같습니다:

클라이언트 명 설명
비트코인 ABC 과거 평균 시간을 고려할 때, 0.18.0 버전을 포함하여 그 이후 출시된 비트코인 ABC 버전은 2018년 11월 15일 16시 40분 (UTC)경에 하드포크를 실행할 것으로 예상됩니다. 해당 버전 이전에 출시된 비트코인 ABC 버전은 새로운 체인을 따르지 않을 것으로 예상됩니다. 저희는 비트코인 ABC가 가장 인기있는 구현체이며, 수익성을 추구하는 비트코인 캐시 사용자들의 대다수는 하드포크에 찬성하고 새로운 체인을 따를 것이라 생각합니다. 비트코인 ABC 구 버전에 어떤 일이 일어날 지는 불분명합니다; 하지만, 본래의 체인 (original chain)에서 추가 블록이 생산되지 않을 가능성이 높습니다.
비트코인 SV 비트코인 SV (또는 비트코인 Satoshi’s Vision)는 “가짜 사토시”로 널리 알려진 Craig Steven Wright 가 대중화시킨 클라이언트입니다. 2016년, 그는 자신이 사토시임을 증명하기 이를 위해 제작했지만, 곧 이해하기 어려운 방식으로 비트코인 블록체인에서 복사된 디지털 서명임이 드러났습니다.  비트코인 SV 역시 비트코인 ABC와 동시에 하드포크를 시행할 것으로 예상되지만, 이 하드포크는 비트코인 ABC와 양립할 수 없는 것으로 추정됩니다.

저희는 비트코인 SV가 사용자, 투자자, 그리고 거래자들에게 제한적인 지지를 받을 것이라 생각합니다. 그러나 대규모 비트코인 캐시 마이닝 풀 중 일부는 비트코인 SV를 지원하거나 최소한 Wright와 관련이 있는 것으로 보입니다:

  • Coingeek: 25%의 지분 (Wright의 재정상 후원자로 알려진 Calvin Ayre 의 풀)
  • BMG Pool: 12.5%의 지분 (Wright와 관련이 있는 것으로 보이는 또 다른 풀, BMG는 Wright 소유 nChain의 자회사)
  • SV Pool: 7%의 시장 점유율 (비트코인 SV 지원을 위해 설립된 풀)
    (출처: cash.coin.dance)

이외에도 시가총액이 6천 5백만 캐나다 달러인 캐나다 마이닝 상장 업체 Squire Mining (SQR CN)사는 비트코인 SV를 지원할 것으로 보입니다.

Squire 사의 투자자 소개에 따르면, Stefan Matthew는 이사직을 맡고 있으며 블룸버그는 그가 회사 주식의 9.3%를 보유하고 있다고 전했습니다. 또한, 2016년 6월 Wright를 다룬 “The Satoshi Affair”을 통해 Matthews가 Wright의 오래된 가까운 친구임을 알 수 있습니다. Matthews는 “가짜 사토시”의 속임수에 깊게 관여된 “nChain”의 CEO 였습니다. Squire 사의 투자자 소개는 Matthews를 다음과 같이 설명합니다:

그는 현재 블록체인 및 비트코인 연구 분야의 글로벌 리더인 nChain 그룹의 회장이며 BMG는 nChain 그룹의 자회사입니다

따라서 저희는 비트코인 SV의 하드포크를 위한 커뮤니티 지원이 부족하지만, 일정 기간 동안 이 체인은 상당한 해시래이트를 가질 수 있을 것이라 생각합니다. nChain, Coingeek, Wright가 일으킨 논란과 홍보에도 불구하고, 저희는 이들과 관련된 마이닝 풀들이 실제로 비트코인SV를 실행하고 있는지 확신할 수 없습니다. 비트코인 SV가 엄청난 혹은 대부분의 해시래이트를 가지고 있다 하더라도, 비트코인 캐시 경제가 이를 무시한다면, 해당 체인에 자금 관련 영향은 거의 없을 것입니다. 저희는 이것이 가장 유력한 결과라고 생각합니다.

비트코인      언리미티드 세 번째 클라이언트는 비트코인 언리미티드 (Bitcoin Unlimited)라 불리는 그룹입니다. 이 그룹의 BU 캐시 1.5.0 클라이언트는 비트코인 ABC의 하드포크를 따르도록 설계되었습니다. 이전 버전은 이와 다르게 실행될 수 있습니다.

경제적 이익을 추구하는 다수의 사람들이 비트코인 ABC의 하드포크를 지지할 것으로 보이지만, 각 고객이 어떻게 행동하고 어떤 체인을 따를 것인지에 대해서는 상당한 불확실성이 존재합니다. 따라서, 비트멕스 리서치 팀은 하드포크 시행 전에 해당 웹사이트를 후원했습니다. 이 웹사이트가 다음주 진행될 행사에서 주주들에게 유용한 정보를 제공할 수 있기를 바랍니다.

BitMEX Research Sponsors Fork Monitoring Website

Abstract: We are proud to announce the launch of ForkMonitor.info, 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: ForkMonitor.info

 

(Website screenshot as at 3rd Nov 2018)

Overview

The website is currently connected to the following 13 nodes:

Bitcoin Nodes Bitcoin Cash nodes
Bitcoin Core 0.17.0.1 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
BUCash 1.3.0.1

(Nodes run by forkmonitor.info 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 forkmonitor.info 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)
    (Source: cash.coin.dance)

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。

 

维恩图说明了与比特币核心“竞争”的各种方式

(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)

 

三种竞争形式

可以将比特币核心的竞争软件项目分为三个不同的组别:

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。

 

与上述竞争形式一样,许多人认为这种形式的竞争存在风险,因为不同的共识规则可能会意外增加链条分裂的可能性。替代客户端需要匹配当前运行的软件用户的共识行为,甚至匹配大多数客户端中的错误或意外行为。

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。

 

该竞争模式并不具有上述提到的许多风险。

 

关于共识规则竞争的争论

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
应该鼓励共识规则的相互竞争,因为这可以确保代币具有灵活性并能够适应竞争。规则现状总是普遍存在的模式意味着规则可能永远不会改变,就算在新的规则是非常吸引的情况下也是如此。因为在这个有争议的环境中,少数人总是会反对任何改变。

 

与许多人的想法相反,其实规则间的竞争不太可能对系统造成重大破坏。实际上,大型企业和社区将迅速统一支持一枚代币,并改变他们客户的运行模式,以遵循经济导向或哈希值多数。

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。

 

因此,更改共识规则只应该适用于以下两种方式:

  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

 

(如果规则的变化是一个软分叉(而不是硬分叉),如果大多数矿工升级,可能会阻止链条分割)

 

关于独立应用方面竞争的争论

如上所述,这也是一个非常有争议的话题,但我们仍然认为,这与蓄意改变共识规则的竞争是一个根本不同的问题。

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。

这种形式的竞争最强烈的反对者可能是中本聪,他/她曾经说过:

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 。

 

其他竞争客户

即使一个人真的喜欢有一个强有力的规则集,反对共识规则的竞争,另一个人虔诚地遵循中本聪对竞争的负面看法,这并不意味着我们不能拥有竞争的软件项目。竞争可以简单地出现在上面维恩图中的圆圈之外的白色区域。这种形式的竞争既不会引发对共识规则的蓄意改变,也不会重新实施代码,这种竞争形式是不会引发争议的。

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。

 

比特币核心的起源

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。

另一个程序员回应道:

也该是时候更名了,这个名称使我恼火了很久。从今以后叫它“比特币核心”如何?

(资料来源:比特币基金会议论坛

 


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

在区块大小的争论期间,许多人将辩论定性为比特币核心与矿工或大型企业之间的战争,比特币核心方面反对硬分叉并反对加大区块大小。在我们看来,该表述不太正确。然而,相信该的人随后得出了结论,他们认为比特币核心获胜了,因为没有发生硬分叉。因此,我们认为这些人高估了比特币核心的力量。

 


比特币核心并不像许多人想象的那么强大

比特币核心软件存储库不能制定比特币共识规则。规则是由当前运行的具有经济意义的用户来制定的。这些通常是比特币核心之前发布的版本。在我们看来,比特币核心软件项目无法改变用户运行的软件,用户比许多人想象的更加独立。即使比特币核心已经实行硬分叉,然后增加了区块大小,但我们不清楚用户会否更新。因此,对比特币核心软件存储库的删除,黑客攻击或被入侵的担忧应该远远不如许多人想象的那么严重。如果发生这种情况,它不会影响客户端用户的运行,如果需要进一步升级或改进,我们可以简单地将其切换到不同的存储库或许多不同的存储库,而不必担心任何兼容问题或其他风险。

 

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。

 

结论

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?

 

 

 

欢迎转载,请注明文章来自

BitMEX (www.bitmex.com)

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。

 

日交易量

(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。

 

自比特币现金推出以来的累计交易量

(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% 。

 

代币自分叉后第一次转移

(资料来源: Forks.network 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。

 

 

 

欢迎转载,请注明文章来自

BitMEX (www.bitmex.com)