Crypto Angels Space💰🚀
30 subscribers
239 photos
2.62K links
Bitcoin and altcoins news, market analysis and reviews of blockchain technology. Latest news about ICO with independent ratings and analytics. Join now @cryptoangelspace

Supporting by @rodmanqs
Download Telegram
private keys remain private.But private communication is not all Alice and Bob can do. Alice can also cryptographically “sign” any piece of data (and so can Bob). To do so, Alice must mathematically combine her private key with this data. The result will be another seemingly random string of numbers known as the “signature.” Once again, it’s impossible to recreate Alice's private key from the signature (with or without the piece of data). It’s all still a one-way street.The interesting thing about this signature is that Bob (or anyone else) can check it against Alice’s public key. This tells Bob that it was indeed Alice that created the signature with her private key (and the added piece of data). This can, in turn, mean whatever Alice and Bob want. For example, it can mean that Alice agrees with the content of the data (just like a handwritten signature).A blind signature then takes all this one step further. This time, Bob first generates a random number, called a “nonce,” and mathematically combines this with the piece of data. This “scrambles” the piece of data to make it seem like yet another random string of numbers. Bob can then give the scrambled data to Alice for her to sign. Alice cannot tell what the original data looks like, so she is “blind signing” it. The result is a “blind signature.”Now, the interesting thing about this blind signature is that it’s not just linked to Alice’s keys (like any signature would be) and the scrambled data. The same blind signature is also linked to the original, unscrambled data. Using only Alice’s public key, anyone can check that Alice signed a scrambled version of the original data — including, of course, Alice herself, if she does get to see the original data later on.eCashThis blind signature scheme is the trick that Chaum used to create a digital money system.To realize this, Alice from the above example would actually be a bank: Alice Bank. This is a regular bank, like banks exist today, where customers have bank accounts with (in this example) U.S. dollar deposits. Let’s say Alice Bank has four customers: Bob, Carol, Dan and Erin. And let’s say that Bob wants to buy something from Carol.First, Bob requests a “withdrawal” from Alice Bank. (Ideally, he had already made this withdrawal earlier — but never mind that for now.) To make this withdrawal, Bob actually creates “digital banknotes” himself, in the form of unique numbers: “serial numbers.” On top of that, he scrambles these banknotes, as shown above. These scrambled banknotes are sent to Alice Bank. Having received the scrambled banknotes from Bob, Alice Bank then blind signs each scrambled banknote and sends them back to Bob. For each signed, scrambled banknote that she sends back, Alice Bank subtracts one dollar from Bob’s bank account.Now, because Alice Bank blind signed the scrambled banknotes, her signature is also linked to the original, unscrambled banknotes. So, Bob can now use the original, unscrambled banknotes to pay Carol by simply sending them to her.As Carol receives the banknotes, she should forward them to Alice Bank. Alice Bank then checks that she indeed blind signed each of the banknotes, which her blind signatures allow her to do: they are linked to her own keys. Alice Bank also checks that the same banknotes (serial numbers) haven’t already been deposited by someone else in order to ensure that they haven’t been double-spent.As the banknotes check out, Alice Bank adds the equivalent number of dollars to Carol’s bank balance, and lets Carol know. Upon this confirmation, Carol knows she’s been paid valid banknotes by Bob and can safely send him whatever he was buying from her.
The basic idea behind eCash. Source: faculty.bus.olemiss.edu/ (http://faculty.bus.olemiss.edu/breithel/b620s02/riley/Digital%20Cash-Web%20Page.htm)Of key importance, Alice Bank will see the unscrambled banknotes for the first time only when Carol deposits them! As such, Alice Bank has no way of knowing that the banknotes were Bob’s. They could just as well have come from Dan or Erin.As such, Chaum’s solution offers privacy in payments. This was not new in itself, of course: private payments were the norm in those days. But it was new in digital form. Hence, Chaum’s analogy: cash. Electronic cash. eCash.DigiCashBy 1990, a little under 10 years after finishing his first papers (younger cryptocurrency developers like Matt Corallo, Vitalik Buterin and Olaoluwa Osuntokun still hadn’t been born), David Chaum founded DigiCash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiCash). The company was based in Amsterdam, where Chaum had been living for a couple of years, and specialized in — indeed — digital money and payment systems. These included a government project to replace toll booths (which was eventually cancelled) and smart cards (akin to what we call hardware wallets today). But DigiCash’s flagship project was its digital cash system, eCash. (The system was called eCash, while the money in the system was dubbed “CyberBucks,” comparable to using capital-letter Bitcoin for the protocol and lower case bitcoin for the currency.)
The technical team in the early days of DigiCash. (Chaum not pictured.) Source: chaum.com/ecash (http://chaum.com/ecash)At a time that Netscape and Yahoo! were leading the tech industry to new heights, and where some thought micropayments, not advertisements, would be the revenue model for the web, DigiCash was considered a rising star by tech entrepreneurs of the day. Of course, Chaum and his team had much faith in their technology as well.“As payments on the network mature, you’re going to be paying for all kinds of small things, more payments than one makes today,” Chaum told the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/business/attention-internet-shoppers-e-cash-is-here.html) in 1994, of course, emphasizing the importance of privacy in such a world. “Every article you read, every question you have, you’re going to have to pay for it.”That year, after four years of development, the first successful payments were tested (https://chaum.com/ecash/articles/1994/05-27-94%20-%20World_s%20first%20electronic%20cash%20payment%20over%20computer%20networks.pdf), and later that same year eCash trials began (https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/business/attention-internet-shoppers-e-cash-is-here.html): Banks could acquire a license from DigiCash to use the technology. Interest was significant. By late 1995, eCash was licensed (https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/23/business/today-shoppers-on-internet-get-access-to-electronic-cash.html) to its first bank: the Mark Twain Bank in St. Louis. Moreover, by early 1996, one of the biggest banks in the entire world got on board (https://web.archive.org/web/19961102121355/https://www.digicash.com/publish/ec_pres5.html): Deutsche Bank. Credit Suisse (https://www.americanbanker.com/news/credit-suisse-digicash-in-e-commerce-test), a second major player joined later, and several other banks across different countries — including the Australian Advance Bank (https://web.archive.org/web/19961102121407/https://www.digicash.com/publish/ec_pres6.html), Norway’s Norske Bank (https://web.archive.org/web/19970605025912/http://www.digicash.com:80/publish/ec_pres8.html) and Bank Austria (https://web.archive.org/web/19970605025912/http://www.digicash.com:80/publish/ec_pres8.html) — would follow suit.Yet, what’s perhaps more interesting than the deals DigiCash struck are the deals it did not. Two of the three major Dutch banks — ING and ABN Amro — are said to have (https://web.archive.org/web/19990427142412/https://www.nextmagazine.nl/ecash.htm) made DigiCash partnership deals worth tens of millions of dollars. Similarly, Visa reportedly offered a $40 million investment, while Netscape had interest as well: eCash could have been included in the most popular web browser of that era. Still, the biggest offer of all probably came from none other than Microsoft. Bill Gates wanted to integrate eCash into Windows 95 and is said to have offered DigiCash some $100 million to do so. Chaum, so the story goes, asked for two dollars for each version of Windows 95 sold. The deal was off.While a rising star in the minds of technologists of the day, DigiCash seemed to have trouble making a financial deal that would help it to realize its full potential.By 1996, DigiCash employees had seen one failed deal too many and wanted a change in policy. This change came in the form of a new CEO (https://www.americanbanker.com/news/digicash-sends-signal-by-hiring-visa-veteran): Visa veteran Michael Nash. The startup also got a fund injection, while MIT Media Lab founder Nicholas Negroponte was made chairman of the board. (Through its Digital Currency Initiative, the MIT Media Lab employs several Bitcoin Core contributors today.) The DigiCash headquarters were moved from Amsterdam to Silicon Valley. Chaum remained part of DigiCash, but now as CTO.It wouldn’t make much difference. After several years of trials, eCash wasn’t catching on with the general public. The banks that got on board were experimenting but did not really push the
technology; by 1998, Mark Twain Bank had only enrolled 300 merchants and 5,000 users. While a final deal with Citibank came close — it could have given the project a good push — this bank ended up walking out for unrelated reasons.“It was hard to get enough merchants to accept it, so that you could get enough consumers to use it, or vice versa,” Chaum told Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1101/6411390a.html&refURL=&referrer=#54f14f16715f) in 1999, after DigiCash had finally filed for bankruptcy. “As the Web grew, the average level of sophistication of users dropped. It was hard to explain the importance of privacy to them.”The Spawning of a Cypherpunk DreamDigiCash failed, and eCash failed with it. But even though the technology did not succeed as a business, Chaum’s work would inspire (http://randomwalker.info/publications/crypto-dream-part1.pdf) a group of cryptographers, hackers and activists, connected through a mailing list. It was this group — which included DigiCash contributors like Nick Szabo and Zooko Wilcox-O’Hearn — that would come to be known as the cypherpunks.Perhaps a bit more radical than Chaum himself ever was (https://youtu.be/R4JKSlBWKRY?t=16s), the cypherpunks kept the dream of an electronic cash alive, proposing alternative digital currency systems throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. In 2008, about 10 years after DigiCash’s demise, Satoshi Nakamoto sent his proposal for an electronic cash to the de-facto successor of the then-defunct cypherpunk mailing list: Bitcoin.Bitcoin and eCash have little in common from a design perspective. Crucially, eCash was centralized around DigiCash and could not really be its own currency. Even if every single person in the world would only use eCash for all their transactions, banks would still be necessary to offer account balances and confirm transactions. This also means that eCash — while providing privacy — was not as censorship resistant. Where Bitcoin was able to keep WikiLeaks funded even through a banking blockade, for example, eCash could not have done the same thing; banks could still have blocked WikiLeaks’ accounts.Still, Chaum’s work on digital currency, dating back to the early 1980s, remains relevant. While Bitcoin itself does not employ blind signatures, scaling and privacy layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol could. Bitcointalk (https://bitcointalk.org/) forum and r/bitcoin (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/) subreddit moderator Theymos, for example, has been a champion of an eCash-like scaling sidechain for Bitcoin (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/) for some time. Adam Fiscor, a leader (https://medium.com/@nopara73/summary-privacy-work-in-cryptocurrencies-703d5e2231e6) in the domain of Bitcoin transaction privacy today, is realizing (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/hiddenwallet-and-samourai-wallet-join-forces-make-bitcoin-private-zerolink/) coin-mixing services utilizing blind signatures, as once proposed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0) by Bitcoin Core contributor Greg Maxwell. And yet-to-be-announced Lightning Network technology could utilize blind signatures to improve security.And Chaum himself? He returned to Berkeley, where he is responsible for a long list (https://chaum.com/publications/publications.html) of publications, many in the field of digital elections and reputation systems. Perhaps, some 20 years from now, an entirely new generation of developers, entrepreneurs and activists will look back at these as the groundwork for a technology that is about to change the world.This article is partly based on two articles published in the 1990s: “E-Money (That’s What I Want) (https://www.wired.com/1994/12/emoney/)” by Steven Levy for Wired, and “Hoe DigiCash alles verknalde (https://web.archive.org/web/19990427142412/https://www.nextmagazine.nl/ecash.htm)” (Translated: “How DigiCash Blew Everything
(https://cryptome.org/jya/digicrash.htm)”) by an unknown author for Next! Magazine. There is also a wealth of information on chaum.com/ecash (http://chaum.com/ecash).



This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/).
​​BitFence. Remove Hackers from you network

PROBLEM: 100% of companies in the world are getting attacked by the hackers and the average detection time is 256 days (2015 Ponemon Report) leading to enormous economic and privacy damages. Similar attacks repeated against multiple targets before they are detected, understood and mitigated.

SOLUTION: BitFence Detects, deflects, and counteracts attempts at unauthorized use of information systems and gives your security team an unfair advantage over hackers.

HOW IT WORKS: Community members "mine" hackers by running honeynet nodes are rewarded with HNY tokens. We correlate information together and provide 0-day threat feeds to customers who can purchase subscription with HNY tokens. Patent pending.

Better protection from hackers at lower cost. We take care of your security, so you can concentrate on growing your business.

BitFence offers the most efficient and cost effective protection from hackers compared to FireEye, McAfee, RSA and others.

Protection provided by BitFence will block high risk hosts, malicious payloads, viruses, malware, suspicious addresses automatically within seconds everywhere around the globe after threat is "mined" by the network of our StingMiners and risk scored with BitFence Engine.

HNY Utility Token Sale (TGE)

âś… Token Type: ERC20
âś… Token Minting Model: No pre-mint, minted on purchase, immediate delivery
âś… TGE Structure: 30 days pre-sale + 60 days sale
âś… Accepted payment methods: ETH, BTC, LTC, DASH
âś… Absolute Max number of HNY minted: 1,000,000,000
âś… Base HNY Price: 1 ETH = 6000 HNY
âś… Volume Discounts: Starts from 10 ETH = 10%, 20 ETH = 20%, etc.

Join TGE: https://bitfence.io/
​​Gamblica
Gamblica - international gaming platform developed for players by players. Players always got cheated. Until now.

Gamblica platform will be offering wide range of gambling activities:
âś… Roulette and slot machines
âś… Poker room, sports betting

All of it running on completely transparent and secure smart contract system.

As it often happens, the coolest thing about Gamblica is buried deep in smart contracts and arcane cryptographic theories. No

one, literally not one person, can compromise the game's outcome.

Our Random Number Generator — all capitals, of course — requires several parameters to generate a random number. Each of those parameters is independent from others; some are generated by Ethereum blockchain.

When they all come together in our dearly beloved RSA PRNG algorithm — we should probably come up with a cooler name for this one — your game's security becomes virtually impenetrable.

The Token Sale is held for two main purposes:
âś… To put the GMBC token into circulation
âś… Attracting funds for developing and promoting the GMBC platform

The total number of 1 000 000 000 GMBC will be issued. 544 000 000 tokens will be distributed during the Token Sale. Tokens will be distributed through a smart contract, whose code will be published for public audit before the distribution. The funds raised during the sale will be used to launch the platform, integrate the token, and finance the advertising
and marketing campaigns.
2% of the total supply will be reserved for founders and partners, 20% for the game fund,
10% for the team, 3% for the bounty program, and 5% for the advisory board. The majority of tokens (60%) will be sold during the Token Sale.

After the Token Sale, a further centralized distribution of tokens will take place at the expense of the fund replenished by lost tokens.
Their value will be determined by market quotations; it is guaranteed that the surplus of supply that may be created by the additional sale and the subsequent risk of a decline in the
market value will be taken into account. The placement mechanism should minimize this risk in order to protect the rights of the Token Sale participants (for example, by extending the process over time).

Join Token Sale
Telegram Chat
EOS is scheduled to migrate from the Ethereum network to its own on June 2, 2018, and a slew of candidates are vying for one of twenty-one supernodes that will support this new mainnet. Since the first week of March, the platform’s Steemit account, EOS Go (https://steemit.com/@eosgo), has posted weekly reports on the organizations that have submitted themselves for consideration.
A mixture of big and little fish, the candidate pool includes upward of 50 different organizations (https://forums.eosgo.io/discussion/659/calling-all-eos-block-producers). Some are groups of regional enthusiasts that bear the EOS name next to their home country or city, such as EOS Detroit, EOS Rio and EOS Canada. Others represent blockchain industry movers, such as Bitfinex, Huobi, AntPool, Wancloud and OK Blockchain Capital. As this previous sample suggests, an overwhelming number of candidates competing for the coveted supernodes come from Chinese organizations.Also known as block producers, supernodes operate as part of EOS’s delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) consensus mechanism. Under DPoS, validators serve a function similar to that of miners who secure proof-of-work systems. Community members will vote on delegates to represent them on the network, and these delegates are charged with accruing, processing and mining transactions into blocks. They’ll also be responsible for broadcasting these blocks and the network’s distributed ledger to other minor nodes that support the network.In order to keep block producers honest, the network implements a continuous voting process that places supernode operators up for reelection every 21 blocks. EOS’s framework only accommodates 21 supernodes, so candidates must prove their worth to win over the voter pool. If chosen, these organizations will represent the network’s backbone, so potential supernode operators must show community members that they represent their best interests, both in terms of resources and integrity. In return, block producers receive block rewards and network prestige for their contributions to the blockchain.Like political campaigns on parade, a variety of big players in the blockchain industry have submitted their candidacy, touting the benefits and worth that they could bring to the EOS ecosystem.For many of these bids, this worth is tangible. With a focus on infrastructure, Wancloud (http://www.wancloud.io/), a neutral and open-sourced blockchain platform backed by Wanxiang Blockchain Labs (http://www.blockchainlabs.org/), has committed (https://steemit.com/wancloud/@eoswancloud/introduction-to-wancloud-block-producer) its IT framework and expertise to the EOS community. Adding to its resume of supporting nodes for BitShares, Stellar, Qtum and Factom, Wancloud plans on using data centers in Hong Kong, the United States, Singapore, South Korea and Japan to run its supernode. As an existing blockchain and cloud services provider, Wancloud also features API kits, developers tools, and a community of enterprises and developers that would, in its words, “guarantee the sustainable development of the platform in the future” and “accelerate the promotion of EOS with respect to its industrial and enterprise adoptions.”Similarly, venture capital firm OK Blockchain Capital has proposed an investment fund that it claims will provide over $100 million toward the development of EOS-based projects in the future, such as token projects, DApps and smart contracts. Using its partnership with OKEx and its own exchange, OKCoin.com, the group has also committed to “[promote] the circulation of EOS and EOS-based projects in digital asset markets all over the world.”Bitmain’s mining arm, AntPool (https://coinlive.io/terminal/antpool-officially-participates-in-eos-super-node-campaign), is also a contender. As part of its campaign (https://www.eosantpool.com/), AntPool is offering a “strong developer community … to be a guardian of EOS cybersecurity construction.” It also believes that its capital
allocation and infrastructure of over 2,000 servers make it an ideal candidate for maintaining a supernode. ViaBTC, another Chinese mining pool, has announced its candidacy, leveraging its case for a supernode with its developer community and existing infrastructure, as well.  Huobi, a top exchange out of China, announced (https://twitter.com/blockproducers/status/988728690593882112) its candidacy today, April 24, though it has not released an outline of its benefits as of this writing.Like many of the other bidders, cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex is making a commitment with its own exchange servers that are monitored “with around-the-clock, military-grade security,” according to a Bitfinex blog post (https://medium.com/bitfinex/bitfinex-eos-block-producer-candidate-7ae59c1f3898). In addition, the exchange is developing EOSfinex, a decentralized exchange built on EOS, and it’s making a pledge to organize hackathons, developer meetups and online/offline workshops to foster EOS’s adoption and development. Most of the projects make promises to provide developing talent, technological infrastructure and incubation funds for the EOS ecosystem. Acting as a block producer will require energy/computation-intensive hardware and painstaking maintenance, so it’s obvious that candidates must have adequate framework and talent to support a supernode. EOS has also made it clear that it will take a hands-off approach to platform development and adoption. As such, candidates are pledging capital, establishing incubators and designing education programs to build up EOS’s ecosystem and convey their commitment to the project.In theory, EOS’s DPoS consensus model is meant to provide frictionless, feeless transactions, all while avoiding the centralization that ASIC mining pools have brought to proof-of-work networks like Bitcoin. To some (https://medium.com/@Vlad_Zamfir/against-on-chain-governance-a4ceacd040ca), these promises are too good to be true, at least too good to be decentralized. On his self-titled website, Vitalik Buterin argues (https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html) that DPoS invites bribery and alliances that defeat the entire purpose of democratic, on-chain voting. For a system like EOS, he claims, delegates can buy votes by promising higher dividends to its voters (in DPoS networks, voters place votes using the network’s currency and, in return, are usually rewarded with payouts from a delegate’s block rewards). These kickbacks can become even more complicated if delegates form informal alliances, what Buterin brands “political parties” or “cartels.” Such alliances would create a centralized governance structure that “contradicts explicit promises made by DPoS proponents.”
Source: Block Producer Candidate Report (https://steemit.com/eos/@eosgo/block-producer-candidate-report-7-april-18-2018)To date, Chinese entities seem especially interested in securing EOS supernodes, a phenomenon that may run the risk of centralizing EOS infrastructure within a single sphere of influence. Given the number of block producer candidates from China, the same centralization Buterin warns of in his blog post may be in the realm of possibility. As with Bitcoin mining, this concentration of resources may amount to nothing, but it does raise questions as to the merits of DPoS systems to avoid such centralization as we see EOS’s supernodes campaign veer toward this end.



This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/).