Posted on

United American Corp. (UnitedCorp), a digital technologies company focused on developing products related to blockchain technologies, and cryptocurrency mining (among other practices) has decided to take legal action against the most critical players on the BCHABC camp of the infamous “BCH hash war“, accusing them of manipulating not only the market but also the core functioning of the entire blockchain.

The lawsuit was filed before the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA and in the first place goes directly against Bitmain, Inc., Saint Bitts LLC d/b/a Bitcoin.com (“Bitcoin.com”), Roger Ver, Bitmain Technologies Ltd, Bitmain Technologies Holding Company (together with Bitmain, Inc. and Bitmain Technologies Ltd., “Bitmain”), Jihan Wu, Payward Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Kraken (“Kraken”), Jesse Powell, Amaury Sechet, Shammah Chancellor and Jason Cox.

BCH ABC: Were Developers Hijacking the Blockchain?

The essence of the lawsuit is that the defendants participated in a premeditated scheme in which, in a dishonest way and contrary to the interests of the users, they illegally exercised their power as administrators of various pools to illegally use hash power in an unnatural manner to ensure that they have the longest chain with the most significant proof of work. After consolidating this domination, they arbitrarily implemented a series of checkpoints to prevent a return to previous blocks.

“By essentially bringing in mercenaries from another network (the BTC network) to temporarily mine the Bitcoin Cash network during the software upgrade and then leave, Bitmain and Bitcoin.com effectively hijacked the blockchain. Their actions diluted the “vote” being exercised by the existing nodes during the upgrade, violated the ground rules of the network that other users had relied on and respected for years, and artificially pumped up the chain implementation with computer hashes to dominate the temporary software upgrade
But the scheme did not end there. The next day on November 16, 2018, BitcoinABC through defendants Amaury Sechet, Shammah Chancellor, and Jason Cox, implemented a “poison pill” in the chain referred to as a checkpoint.”.
The implemented checkpoint is problematic because it also “centralized” what should be a decentralized market due to the way the checkpoint was added and its location close to the tip of the blockchain
The decision by Bitcoin ABC to “lock down” the blockchain after an arbitrary number of blocks close to the tip of the blockchain – through a mechanism referred to as“checkpoints” and “Deep Reorg Prevention” – will allow anyone with 51% hashing power to quickly cement control of the blockchain ledger. They would also cement control over future changes to Bitcoin cash functionality as well as changes to the consensus rules. Combining this checkpoint power with the hashing power of Bitcoin ABC backers amounts to centralization. Anyone who combines hashing power and checkpoints in this fashion will be able to override any consensus reached by the rest of the network, forcing others to conform or create an unwanted hard fork.”

Not Just a “Developer Thing”

Similarly, UnitedCorp states that the rest of those involved were aware of the damage their actions could cause since the “conspiracy” had been planned for a long time. Not only did it involve people in the world of mining, but it also used programmers, communicators and even exchanges like Kraken which already manifested its pro-BCHABC stance before there was any result:

Indeed, as early as the next day after the update, individuals in the cryptocurrency industry such as Andreas Brekken (self-proclaimed “advisor to some of the most successful blockchain projects in the world” and software engineer at Kraken), held online forums acknowledging that Bitcoin ABC developers and crypto exchanges such as Kraken agreed to implement centralized checkpoints.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjAHJY0QZhs; see also
https://brekken.com/about. Brekken goes on to admit in the video “this has been planned for a long time” and “we knew within 30 minutes we had it.” “

BCH Hash War: A Lose-Lose Situation

The results of the BCH War were catastrophic, as recognized by virtually the entire community of crypto users. The market crash affected the normal functioning of UnitedCorp’s economic activities, for which they hope to obtain compensation if the Court determines that these losses occurred as a result of the dishonest actions taken by the defendants:

“As a result of the aforementioned market manipulation, the value of the cryptocurrency that Plaintiff mines in its BlockchainDomes has fallen significantly. The combined value of the forked currency is lower than the pre-fork currency, and the resulting confusion has been severely detrimental to the market overall. Some trading platforms have chosen to list only one of the two resulting currencies, thus reducing liquidity and the value of the currencies.”

UnitedCorp bases its claim on the fact that the aforementioned individuals came together to plan and execute actions that resulted in a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and section 4 of the Clayton Act. For this reason, it expects not only that the implementation of checkpoints and similar changes will be prohibited, but also that the blockchain will be restored to “its previously decentralized form with the previous consensus rule.”

BCH ABC vs BCH SV comparison.<br /> Graphs: Coinlib

So far, there has been no pronouncement by those accused. The full text of the lawsuit is available here

The post appeared first on Ethereum World News.

Posted on

UnitedCorps Launches Suit Against BCH ABC Supporters. “Bitmain and Bitcoin.com Hijacked the Blockchain”

United American Corp. (UnitedCorp), a digital technologies company focused on developing products related to blockchain technologies, and cryptocurrency mining (among other practices) has decided to take legal action against the most critical players on the BCHABC camp of the infamous “BCH hash war“, accusing them of manipulating not only the market but also the core functioning of the entire blockchain.

The lawsuit was filed before the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA and in the first place goes directly against Bitmain, Inc., Saint Bitts LLC d/b/a Bitcoin.com (“Bitcoin.com”), Roger Ver, Bitmain Technologies Ltd, Bitmain Technologies Holding Company (together with Bitmain, Inc. and Bitmain Technologies Ltd., “Bitmain”), Jihan Wu, Payward Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Kraken (“Kraken”), Jesse Powell, Amaury Sechet, Shammah Chancellor and Jason Cox.

BCH ABC: Were Developers Hijacking the Blockchain?

The essence of the lawsuit is that the defendants participated in a premeditated scheme in which, in a dishonest way and contrary to the interests of the users, they illegally exercised their power as administrators of various pools to illegally use hash power in an unnatural manner to ensure that they have the longest chain with the most significant proof of work. After consolidating this domination, they arbitrarily implemented a series of checkpoints to prevent a return to previous blocks.

“By essentially bringing in mercenaries from another network (the BTC network) to temporarily mine the Bitcoin Cash network during the software upgrade and then leave, Bitmain and Bitcoin.com effectively hijacked the blockchain. Their actions diluted the “vote” being exercised by the existing nodes during the upgrade, violated the ground rules of the network that other users had relied on and respected for years, and artificially pumped up the chain implementation with computer hashes to dominate the temporary software upgrade
But the scheme did not end there. The next day on November 16, 2018, BitcoinABC through defendants Amaury Sechet, Shammah Chancellor, and Jason Cox, implemented a “poison pill” in the chain referred to as a checkpoint.”.
The implemented checkpoint is problematic because it also “centralized” what should be a decentralized market due to the way the checkpoint was added and its location close to the tip of the blockchain
The decision by Bitcoin ABC to “lock down” the blockchain after an arbitrary number of blocks close to the tip of the blockchain – through a mechanism referred to as“checkpoints” and “Deep Reorg Prevention” – will allow anyone with 51% hashing power to quickly cement control of the blockchain ledger. They would also cement control over future changes to Bitcoin cash functionality as well as changes to the consensus rules. Combining this checkpoint power with the hashing power of Bitcoin ABC backers amounts to centralization. Anyone who combines hashing power and checkpoints in this fashion will be able to override any consensus reached by the rest of the network, forcing others to conform or create an unwanted hard fork.”

Not Just a “Developer Thing”

Similarly, UnitedCorp states that the rest of those involved were aware of the damage their actions could cause since the “conspiracy” had been planned for a long time. Not only did it involve people in the world of mining, but it also used programmers, communicators and even exchanges like Kraken which already manifested its pro-BCHABC stance before there was any result:

Indeed, as early as the next day after the update, individuals in the cryptocurrency industry such as Andreas Brekken (self-proclaimed “advisor to some of the most successful blockchain projects in the world” and software engineer at Kraken), held online forums acknowledging that Bitcoin ABC developers and crypto exchanges such as Kraken agreed to implement centralized checkpoints.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjAHJY0QZhs; see also
https://brekken.com/about. Brekken goes on to admit in the video “this has been planned for a long time” and “we knew within 30 minutes we had it.” “

BCH Hash War: A Lose-Lose Situation

The results of the BCH War were catastrophic, as recognized by virtually the entire community of crypto users. The market crash affected the normal functioning of UnitedCorp’s economic activities, for which they hope to obtain compensation if the Court determines that these losses occurred as a result of the dishonest actions taken by the defendants:

“As a result of the aforementioned market manipulation, the value of the cryptocurrency that Plaintiff mines in its BlockchainDomes has fallen significantly. The combined value of the forked currency is lower than the pre-fork currency, and the resulting confusion has been severely detrimental to the market overall. Some trading platforms have chosen to list only one of the two resulting currencies, thus reducing liquidity and the value of the currencies.”

UnitedCorp bases its claim on the fact that the aforementioned individuals came together to plan and execute actions that resulted in a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and section 4 of the Clayton Act. For this reason, it expects not only that the implementation of checkpoints and similar changes will be prohibited, but also that the blockchain will be restored to “its previously decentralized form with the previous consensus rule.”

BCH ABC vs BCH SV comparison.<br /> Graphs: Coinlib

So far, there has been no pronouncement by those accused. The full text of the lawsuit is available here

The post UnitedCorps Launches Suit Against BCH ABC Supporters. “Bitmain and Bitcoin.com Hijacked the Blockchain” appeared first on Ethereum World News.

Posted on

Bloomberg Research: Tether (USDT) Could Be Used for Price Manipulation on Kraken

Tether (USDT) does not cease to generate controversy as a result of accusations that cast doubt on its integrity. A few hours ago, a new study concluded that there are serious indications of its use for market manipulation on the Kraken Exchange.

A Bloomberg research team took on the task of analyzing Kraken’s data after Andrew Rennhack, a former professional poker player and now an active member of the crypto community, published a series of articles in which he talked about his suspicions.

Rennhack analyzed the data from Kraken’s public order book and found that Tether (USDT) was behaving somewhat illogically when compared to the rest of the cryptocurrencies or even to the standard market rules.

As a result, the Bloomberg News team decided to carry out its own analysis, relying on several experts to avoid inconsistencies.

What Did They Found?

The methodology was much more meticulous than Rennhack’s, but the experts seem to agree with his view after analyzing the data:

Bloomberg News did its own analysis, pulling more than 56,000 trades placed on the exchange between May 1 and June 22 and sharing the information with New York University Professor Rosa Abrantes-Metz and former Federal Reserve bank examiner Mark Williams. Both agreed that they’d never seen a market behave like Kraken, where large Tether orders fail to sway prices much.

The studies looked at several atypical situations in the orderbook:

  1. Unusually large trading volumes in sudden moments
  2. Prices not affected by these large buy and sell orders
  3. In contrast, smaller orders affected prices more strongly
  4. Purchase orders that an average person would not do. Going as far as five decimals:

According to the researchers, these situations are definite red flags of dishonest practices known as wash trades: Irregular cases that are illegal in traditional markets but not yet regulated in the crypto sphere.

Tether (USDT): A Trusty Coin?

This is not the first scandal involving Tether (USDT). On June 13, John Griffin, a Professor at the University of Texas published a study in which he concluded that the use of this stablecoin in Bitfinex gave evident signs of market manipulation to raise the price of Bitcoin artificially.

Bitfinex Chief Executive Officer JL van der Velde denied these allegations in an emailed statement according to Bloomberg:

“Bitfinex nor Tether is, or has ever, engaged in any sort of market or price manipulation … Tether issuances cannot be used to prop up the price of Bitcoin or any other coin/token on Bitfinex.”

J. L. van der Velde

So far, Kraken has not made official comments regarding the studies conducted by Bloomberg or Rennhack.

loading…

Posted on

Half of all EOS tokens held by just ten addresses

There has always been the underlying concern that Bitcoin whales can and do manipulate the markets by dumping large quantities of them at any given time. We have seen the results of this time and time again, the prime example being the Mt Gox selloffs. The question of whether other altcoins can suffer the same fate should be raised, especially as so few addresses hold so many coins for many of them.

According to research from six independent snapshots of EOS ownership it was revealed that only ten addresses hold almost 50% of the total supply. Almost 500 million EOS tokens equating to 49.67% of the total 1 billion supplied are held in 10 addresses. The company behind the EOS ICO, Block.one, holds 100 million tokens, or 10% of the total. In addition to the $4 billion they already raised this awards them a further $1.5 billion.

The other nine addresses are difficult to distinguish but the smallest one holds 20.6 million and the other eight addresses hold 380 million EOS tokens. This makes the top ten EOS holders very powerful indeed, they can do pretty much what they want with the market should they agree on it as a single entity.

It has been speculated though that exchanges could be responsible for these addresses and the top traders for EOS currently are Bithumb, Huobi, OKEx, Upbit and Bitfinex in that order. Total trade volume over the top five is $832 million at the moment. Total trade volume for EOS over the past 24 hours has been just under $1.5 billion giving these five exchanges over half the volume. Binance and Block.one addresses are likely to make up another two of the top ten EOS rich list.

The figures posted went on to state how powerful the top thousand addresses were. Combined, the top 1000 addresses holds 858,120,383 tokens, or almost 86% of the total. It was speculated that the rest of the EOS holders had very little influence over the ecosystem;

“For everyone else ranked 1001 or lower on the EOS rich list, even if all the remaining 162,930 accounts voted the same way, that would still only be worth 13.86% of the votes, and we would still need the support of those in the Top 1000 to vote the same way as us. If The Top 1000 (or even the Top 100 or less) decides to go one way, there’s nothing the remaining 162,930 accounts will be able to do about it.”

This scenario is likely to be similar for many of the top cryptocurrencies so we really have a long way to go before any of them can claim to be truly ‘decentralized’.

Posted on

OKEx Denies Manipulation Claims After Bitcoin Futures Rollback

Hong Kong-based cryptocurrency exchange OKEx has pushed back against allegations that it manipulated its bitcoin futures market last week.

As CoinDesk previously reported, OKEx rolled back futures trades due to what it called an “irregular” sell-off on Friday. At the time, futures prices sharply diverged from the underlying price of bitcoin, leading to a series of liquidations and the eventual rollback, which was initiated that afternoon. At one point, the futures price dropped to as low as $4,755 after an earlier fall to around $5,200.

Yet the developments also sparked widespread criticism across social media, which included allegations that OKEx played a role in manipulating the market. In a statement published Tuesday, OKEx rebutted the claims, stating that “we are not directly involved in the trades” and that it undertook the rollback in an effort to protect its customers.

OKEx said:

“We, as a trading platform, do not make profit from the price volatility, but generate income from trading fees. We have no reason to, and have never and will not, manipulate the prices of any of our market.”

In the blog, the exchange highlighted several images circulated via social media that it claimed were fake. The images, OKEx said, were used in an effort to make it seem like the exchange was engaging in manipulation.

OKEx also clarified that it put new rules in place to prevent a similar sell-off from occurring, which went into effect on March 30.

“In light of this problem, new ‘price limit rules’ were immediately launched to prevent similar incidents from occurring,” OKEx said. “We deeply apologize for the inconvenience caused.”

Market graph image via Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.