The Privacy Coin Guide Part 1

The Privacy Coin Guide Part 1

What is the Privacy Coin Guide?

If you're looking for a quick and easy way to assess what the best privacy coin in the current space is, which has the best features, or which is most likely to give high returns, then this is not that guide. My goal is to give you the power to make your own decisions, to clearly state my biases, and educate. I really wanted to understand this niche of the crypto-space due to my background and current loyalties, and grasp the nuances of the features, origins and timelines of technologies used in privacy coins, while not being anything close to a developer myself. This is going to be a 3-part series, starting with an overview and basic review of the technology, then looking at its implications, and ending with why I like a specific project. (Part 1 is split in two for this video series, because it’s a lot of information to take in) It might be mildly interesting or delightfully educational. Sources will be included in the description. Cryptocurrencies are young and existing privacy coins are deploying technology that is a work in progress. This series assumes a basic understanding of how blockchains work, specifically as used in cryptocurrencies. If you don't have that understanding, might I suggest you get it? Because cryptocurrencies have a long way to go before reaching their end-game: when the world relies on the technology without understanding it. So, shall we do a deep dive into the privacy coin space?

Tags: history of privacy coins, comprehensive overview, privacy coin timeline, privacy cryptocurrencies, privacy technology, history of bitcoin, monero, particl, first privacy coin guide, privacy coin guide, dash, zerocoin, zerocash, navcoin, informed privacy coin guide, genuine privacy coin guide, comprehensive privacy coin guide, zt-starks, news, coin analysis, zk-snarks, ringct, ring confidential transactions, coinjoin, bitcoin, ethereum, privacy coin matrix, zcoin, zclassic, Mimblewimble, grin,Monero, zt-starks, Sigma Protocol, Sapling protocol, dandelion bip, matthew green, ian miers, cryptography, Gregory Maxwell, Monero research labs, shen noether, decentralization, crypto enthusiast

The Truth About Altcoins

The Truth About Altcoins Thumb

Have you noticed that as the price of Bitcoin goes up, altcoin prices go up? And have you also noticed that as the price of Bitcoin goes down, altcoin prices go down? This might seem like basic information if you are already a crypto-enthusiast. But perhaps, like myself, you would like to have a deeper understanding of what exactly is happening with the price volatility of alt-coins and why they so closely follow the troughs and peaks of Bitcoin. I also wanted to play around with concepts from traditional economic theory, such as supply and demand, and cross-price elasticity, to help frame what is going on. 

The Pattern

Let’s start with the observable phenomenon. Taking a broad view of the crypto market from 2013, we can see that most cryptocurrencies follow a similar price movement. [1] And Bitcoin’s oscillations are slightly more stable in their volatility than those of the altcoins that accompany it. The pattern is obvious and is the market indication of an industry that is speculative due to being in its early stages. There have been multiple waves of entry into the market by new coins and new adoption as users discover crypto, each wave larger than the one before. But this growth due to ideation and discovery is not the same as projects actually differentiating themselves to the point of establishing their own economies, independent of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was the forerunner of a new kind of money, allowing a re-energising of existing industries, particularly those in the finance sector. What followed, the generation of alternatives to Bitcoin, altogether created a whole new industry itself. But the fact that altcoin prices follow Bitcoin’s price is the clearest signal that the industry is still speculative. But how exactly does that work and what does that mean?

Complementary Goods

Looking through a traditional economic lens, bitcoin and altcoins are viewed in the minds of consumers (users) as complementary goods (coins). This is what the price movements show and how the markets behave, even if that’s not what projects or users claim. Complementary goods are those that have joint demand. [2] This means that as the demand for Good A, let’s say Bitcoin, goes in a certain direction, the demand for Good B, let’s say an altcoin, goes in the same direction. The same also goes for price, which is directly related to demand. These relationships between goods are also described as cross-price elasticity, because the change in demand of one good is often compared to the change in price of another good. The opposites of complementary goods are substitute goods, where as demand for one falls, usually due to higher prices, demand for the other rises since the buyer can use it as a cheaper substitute. In our example here, the complementary relationship means that users are viewing alternative cryptocurrencies not as substitute goods but complementary goods that come along with Bitcoin. Examples of complementary goods are cars and gasoline, where the demand for gasoline is dependent on the number of cars being used that require it.

For crypto, this complementary relationship is a sign of dependence and inadequate differentiation in the market. Many of these altcoins were established to be a better version of bitcoin, faster, more private, with more functions. The price movement should show that these Bitcoin alternatives are substitutes if consumers were really using them as such; but it doesn’t. Furthermore, many of these altcoins are not trying to be used like Bitcoin, but are tokens for innovative ways of implementing existing types of businesses. However, the market shows that they are currently considered similar and serving the same need in the users’ minds. If coins are not related to a cash use like Bitcoin at all, their price activity should be different, neither perpetually similar or opposite, since they are providing an unrelated service. And if they are to be substitutes to Bitcoin, then we should see an inverse relationship in ongoing countertrends.

This is one way of understanding what is going. It is likely due to the immaturity of the crypto industry, and Bitcoin being the first-comer, with many people associating cryptocurrency with Bitcoin itself. Newcomers may enter the market and put their funds in Bitcoin only, giving Bitcoin dominant market-share, another way of looking for independence vs. dependence. The users who use Bitcoin may use other altcoins but leave most of the money that they bring into the space in Bitcoin. Looking at market behavior, Bitcoin is akin to the personal computer, the real innovation, and all the other altcoins are like CDs and DVDs, ideas to play around with. I didn’t say it. The market did.


There is another important factor to consider when it comes to price activity, however, that could be obscuring signals of actual consumer behavior. Something else is occurring on exchanges as Bitcoin falls and rises. You would think that when someone in Paris sells Bitcoin to someone else in Europe, assuming they are on a regional exchange, that the price of another unrelated altcoin couldn’t fall because no one has the speed to actually sell something at exactly that time. How could the sale of an altcoin match up perfectly with the sale of Bitcoin? The answer is trading bots. There are trading bots that are constantly arbitraging against Bitcoin. What this means is that there are a significant number of exchange transactions that aren’t real buys and sells from real people using these tokens for real things, depending on your perspective. That’s why altcoins can follow the price so closely. Take a look at your favorite altcoin in a chart that’s matched up with a Bitcoin chart in its observable time period and units of time. For example, as the price of BTC goes up sharply, a bot will often sell an altcoin in order to get BTC as it is going up. Then, once BTC flatlines it immediately buys back the altcoin it sold. This is in an effort to get more of either coin, trying to suck the equity out of the gap. It also happens when BTC goes down, where an altcoin will be dumped to buy BTC. In general, the volume of the movement may differ but the timing is always the same, even in small units of time. (I am not a trader and this is not trading advice.) Many altcoins are at the whim of what trading bots do, if not at the whim of human traders as well who trade against BTC. Regardless, if authentic consumer behavior can be obscured by this kind of trading, that in itself is an indicator of a lack of true adoption and creation of an independent economy.

“The Network Effect”

One final thing to consider is the higher volatility that altcoins can have compared to BTC, which is volatile itself. On top of arbitrage bots linking pairs together, most altcoins tend to be valued against BTC and are only able to be bought with BTC. There are much more BTC pairings than altcoin pairings. So altcoins tend to be more volatile, due to what I call a network effect, that depends on the number of exchanges available for an altcoin and the number of pairings it has available. The more pairings you have to go through to exchange an altcoin for fiat, the more transaction fees have to be paid. Going from BTC to USD is longer and costlier than going from ETH to BTC to USD. This is one hindrance of buying and selling an altcoin, compared to BTC. Altcoins also have fewer exchanges available for buying or selling. This makes their swings more extreme. When you decide to sell an altcoin, lowering the price, there are less buyers available to bring the price back. Buyers compete in numbers and speed to affect how low the price is able to get. But someone who decides to sell BTC has more choices available, due to the number of exchanges. The amount of ‘points’ on the network available to respond to your transaction request, due to exchanges, affects how long transactions take and quickly prices can be bid back up, or vice versa. Minor fluctuations for BTC become depressing consequences for altcoins. To put it into perspective, Bitcoin’s availability of buyers and exchanges is still limited compared to those of fiat currencies, which less volatile, with much more volume and choices available to immediately counter bid, up or down, when someone posts a transaction.

Altcoins with Independent Economies

So what’s the takeaway after understanding why altcoins have such a devotion to Bitcoin? Whenever we see a sustained counter trend of an altcoin, that is when we will know that a coin has differentiated itself enough to establish its own independent economy. This is different from a temporary pump and dump. It can only happen when adoption begins to occur, allowing the volume of buying and selling between humans to outrun the arbitrage, potentially showing an inverse relationship as a substitute to Bitcoin, or unrelated price movements if it has nothing to do with what Bitcoin offers. This is when you will know, apart from what I or the media or your favorite crypto news source says, that true differentiation and adoption is occurring, and crypto is finally exiting the era of speculative trades.

There are many projects that have the potential to form their own independent economies. But projects are at different stages of speculation versus substantive development that will bring adoption. How many crypto projects are being used or traded for the application itself? There are almost none. Bitcoin itself is the closest. Ethereum was one of the first coins to break away from Bitcoin’s movement. It was, at one point, bringing in outside money from its ERC20 tokens, enabling it to have some of its own economy for some time. It could truly breakaway from crypto speculation in time as projects develop. But its price independence did not sustain itself and continuously reduces as projects cash out their Ethereum to pay for development in the bear market. EOS, due to its similarity to Ethereum, is also likely to establish an independent economy. One coin I am bullish on is Particl, as with the right volume of sales per day on its marketplace, public or private, trading bots can no longer drag the price wherever Bitcoin goes. It’s my hope that Particl is among the first real wave of adoption outside of speculation projects. Nothing says independent economy quite like a marketplace, and it is already in its testing phase. There are substitutes to Bitcoin such as Bitcoin Cash that for a moment also displayed counter trends. There are coins that you will have more insight on than I do. Eventually, there will be other anchor or reserve currencies because they will have their own use cases, regardless of whatever is happening with other projects. For now, altcoins are tethered to Bitcoin because cryptocurrency technology is in a phase of early development, and they lack independent economies of their own. It’s no wonder that if Bitcoin fell off a cliff, all of crypto would too.

How Amazon is Bad for Business

When you think about privacy violations, do you think about 1984 style mass surveillance? Many people do. But there are other large and powerful entities that can commit another form of privacy infraction — that against the business owner. A larger company that provides a service to a smaller one can use its access to the smaller company’s business data as a way to compete with the smaller, dependent business.

This is called “opportunistic behavior” aka ‘screwing partners over’, and happens specifically when two businesses enter into a contract with each other but are both serving customers in the same industry, and one decides to take advantage.

Amazon, the focus of this article, does this through the use of private-labels, where they launch their own brand of a popular product or service. The most known version of this is Amazon Basics, which offers many low-priced, off-brand alternatives to electronics products, aiming “to give customers the ultimate in selection and value”. Launched in 2009, Amazon Basics has come to dominate the online market-share for many electronics products, such as batteries, accessory cables, and speakers. A prime (pun intended) example of this is that, as of 2016 Amazon Basics dominated up to 31% of all online battery sales, and up to 94% of online battery sales. For the first quarter of 2018, Amazon also took home 61% of all private-label sales, most being electronic, compared to other retailers such as Walmart and Target.

What’s the issue? Amazon does not have to expose itself to the risk of launching a new product, responding to customer needs or doing research and development. They can simply use sales data on their platform to know which products are selling well, then ‘low-key’ copy the winning products, in concept, design and features, cleverly avoiding patent issues that may arise concerning design, and aided by a near-infinite budget. Amazon can have its market research done for it, with short-term benefit to the consumer, long-term benefit to Amazon, and an all around disadvantage to the original seller. For sellers, the online channel has become a direct competitor.

I started with Amazon but this issue concerning private-labels, and competition against sellers is not just limited to Amazon or tech products. Supermarkets often also have private-labels, or any retail store that has greater selling power than those that rely on their services. They compete for shelf-space with their sellers and already-established brands. Technology goods and services have a greater potential for innovation however, as there is more room for incremental and new advances in technology-oriented products than non-technology products. Amazon gets its own test market, while innovative sellers are disincentivized from creating useful products. They are disincentivized for fear of despotic competitiveness from the best channels to reach consumers.

And what does this have to do with crypto?

Crypto is built on blockchain technology, built for decentralization. Platforms such as marketplaces can be built on blockchains, which are resistant to centralized power imbalances where only central participants receive benefits. In the case of marketplaces, both the sellers and buyers can own the platform so that the sales channel, Amazon in our example, does not make major decisions that only benefit it.

The key detail that gives sales channels this power to undermine its sellers is ownership and control over sales data. An alternative is to provide a medium for sellers and buyers to transact on, where sales data is not automatically shared because there is no central ‘owner’ of the platform, while there is still a way for over-arching decisions to be made.

I am going to be realistic here, Amazon probably will not go away, and Amazon dominates markets because it is doing a good job of satisfying consumers and shareholders. Amazon does not force sellers to use its platform. The use of private-seller data may not seem like a problem to consumers. But it is a problem for both small and large businesses. And it is a problem for consumers in the long run, since innovation is stifled and competition (on the platform) is rigged. There has to be a trade-off between customer satisfaction coming from lower prices, and customer satisfaction from valued innovation. It is a given that consumers respond to price. Privacy-focused marketplaces may at first be a niche interest for privacy-oriented consumers and producers, but there is room to improve customer satisfaction over time. Eventually platforms will have the convenience and reliability of Amazon while allowing sellers to successfully sell the products that they designed. Privacy-enabling blockchains that are the medium for transactions, give sellers and buyers a novel alternative.

This article is part of an ongoing series on privacy that I’m doing as part of my work with Particl, a crypto-based privacy platform that is creating its first dAPP, a marketplace. See the video version here. All opinions are my own. 

TRANSCRIPT Particl Commercial ft. Sad Crypto Enthusiast

TRANSCRIPT  Particl Commercial ft. Sad Crypto Enthusiast


This is the story of a sad crypto-enthusiast. During the dark ages of crypto, earning passive staking income, came with rampant paranoia and costs that were too high to bear. Every night was fueled with the fear and gripping terror, that your tokens could be stolen at any second. Crypto enthusiasts would go to ANY length to have security.



Breaking News: Crypto-Enthusiasts fear that AI is hacking crypto and nothing is quantum resistant anymore



After Desi-Rae followed these simple instructions, life was much improved. That Desi-Rae that had grown a beard, was stressing out, chugging coffee, and staying up all night managing 40 virtual private servers, has found a new lease on life.

Desi-Rae quit stressing out with Particl and support.

Side effects include increased time for: bird watching, stargazing, having an existential crisis over Infinity War, FUDing on rival crypto telegrams, watching litebit keep everyone together, giving mad props to tecnovert for saving us all, practicing camping in Fortnite, buying into Tesla Roadster hype, reading thousands of headlines but tens of articles, maintaining a machete collection and sharpening your gurkha, and making money while sleeping.

Get involved with Particl today and talk to a community member about a plan that’s right for you. Some people can have serious reactions to Particl that are life-changing. If you notice happiness, comfort, or changes in behaviour that are not typical for you, please go to the Particl Telegram and report your symptoms right away.



“The urges to stress out over money and worry about its security aren’t like they used to be.”



Disclaimer: This video is for entertainment purposes only, and is an embellished announcement of the release of Particl’s new quantum-resistant, cold storage and cold staking solution, a first in crypto.

What Is "Blockchain" And How Does It Work?

This is both a video and text post, where I walk through the technical fundamentals of blockchain technology, focusing on Bitcoin's blockchain.

This is both a video and text post, where I walk through the technical fundamentals of blockchain technology, focusing on Bitcoin's blockchain.

Blockchains explained!! I’m going to go from a bit of a technical perspective. And then make another video in the future about the impact it has had and will have.

The blockchain can be thought of as a distributed ledger system. The key terms here are distributed and ledger, distributed being the opposite of centralized or being in one location; and ledger being a continuous recording of events, usually meaning transactions. You could also think of recording students coming and leaving school for example. I’m going to start with an overview and then go into detail.

Blockchains comprise of data or information that’s organized in succeeding blocks, one after the other in a chronological or time-based order to form a chain. The block is just collection of information collected in a standardized format among all the blocks. So the blockchain is non-physical and can be though of as a database, so you can expect to find the same fields, for example date or amount, within each block, but the data attached to those fields change, capturing what happens one moment to the next. 

Before getting into what is actually in the blocks and what happens when a new block is added, let’s look at why it’s distributed.

It is distributed because, by design, the information is not owned or updated by one person or one central group. This is called distributed consensus. There is a network of people participating, that can be joined by anyone through a connection point called a node, usually a computer interface. The information can be updated by anyone on the network who has the right resources to do so and can be verified by all the nodes. There are ways to verify that the information recorded is accurate and make it almost impossible for those updating the blockchain to change it in their favor, much more so than the centralized ledgers that have existed in human history.

One thing to note is that the blockchain, as it is information, is written in programming languages. But the specific language can change depending on the blockchain, and as well the kind of content stored within it. The blockchain itself is just specifying what kind of information and how it should be written, but the programming language used to do it can change. So Bitcoin, arguably the most popular use of a blockchain, is just a blockchain being used as a cryptocurrency. Bitcoin’s blockchain doesn’t have the same content as another’s say Ethereum, is not necessarily written in the same language, and does not serve the same purpose. Regardless there can be commonalities between different blockchains, such as the basic structure, and methods used to secure the information on it.

That’s really all you need to know for a basic understanding, that a blockchain is decentralized information stored in blocks and that it is continually updated by over time, But I’m going to go into more detail, using Bitcoin as the example.

For Bitcoin, it’s a peer-to-peer or distributed monetary system or peer to peer electronic cash system as coined by its mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. It’s a way to define and store value, move that value from person to person, accurately track that movement, make sure the right person is doing the movement, as well as give the ability to mine or add to the already existing amount. The blockchain itself is the mechanism by which this is done. There are no physical coins just information, but for lack of a better term, from a coin is first created, one can track it’s location as belonging to one person, and then it’s movement as bits of it or all of it is moved from person to person. So the ledger or blockchain is actually tracking who spends how much, with whom, and when. When there is a transaction, there are inputs and outputs created to say how much was received, and how much was spent. The unspent amount is still seen as remaining at the address because it can be calculated that a certain amount was received, and a certain amount not spent and so can be spent. 

Instead of a person, an address is used, in this case a string of characters, which may or may not be able to be linked to an individual. The address is actually a key (actually a hash of a key/that’s a simplification), just one of a key-pair, something used in public-key or asymmetric cryptography. The address that is recorded on the blockchain as having sent or received funds, is the public address that someone can share, but only the owner of the other key in the pair, that’s the private key or private address, has the ability to spend the funds once received. For more information on public-key cryptography, watch my video ‘What is Cryptography?’ or read up some more on your own.

The blockchain just records how the funds are moving. When someone unlocks their wallet with their private key and decides to send it to someone else’s address, that is their public key, this transaction information is broadcast to the rest of the network. There are special nodes on the network, called miners who are able to write that transaction to the blockchain. The transaction is not complete until this is done. The first step is to verify that the sender has those funds to be spent, because the history of all transactions on the blockchain can be checked, and so unspent amounts calculated. The second step is to record the new transaction with others broadcasted around the same time, onto the blockchain by compiling it so that it forms a block, and then adding that block to the blockchain. Miners do both of these steps.

Since anyone can decide to be a miner and participate in the blockchain, there has to be a system to decide which miner gets to do it. First of all, at this point, for bitcoin, miners have to have specialized computers called ASICS (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) built specifically for mining crypto, that allow them to write to the blockchain. Back in the day, one could have used a regular old CPU. But things got a little difficult over time as I’ll explain. This is because they have to compete to figure out who gets the right to add the next set of transactions to the blockchain. They do this by performing a calculation that takes a very long time, figuring out a hash that begins with a certain number of zeros. A hash is the output after shortening an arbitrarily sized string of characters, to a specific length. Blockchains use a cryptographic hash function, which among other features, means one can’t figure out the original information from looking at the hash, and changing even one character in the original information, drastically changes the resulting hash. Bitcoin specifically uses SHA-256 (secure hash algorithm). Different mining computers have different hash rates, but the idea is that since many miners are working to solve this problem at the same time, the probability of the correct hash being found can be predicted to make it so that only one miner at a time will be likely to find it, and so be able to write the new block, and it also decreases the chances of one miner being able to do it successively and so write information in their favor. Miners are basically just arbitrarily adding characters, that is searching for a nonce (exactly what it sounds like), to the new set of transactions to be put in the new block, until the right combination is found that results in the right hash with the correct number of zeros at the beginning.

Screen Shot 2018-05-09 at 16.16.53.png

Each block generally has multiple transactions in it. And the information in one block is actually a hash of the previous block as a header, the current transactions being written, and some extra characters that are combined with those two in order to come up with this hash that has a special number of zeros. The time it takes for all the different miners on the blockchain network to compete, and then one miner winning, is about 10 minutes. So a new block is added every 10 minutes. The number of zeros needed is lengthened gradually in order to keep that time being 10 minutes. This is necessary because more miners with faster computers participate in the network overtime, so the difficulty of the hashing problem has to increase as well to maintain that 10 minute time-frame. This time and method of competing for the right to add a block, is specific to bitcoin, although other blockchains can have it too. This kind of right to add a block through calculating hashes is called proof-of-work mining. Even though it takes a very long time to calculate the hash, it does not take such a long time for other miners to verify that that hash is correct. This continuous process of each new block being compressed to form its own hash, then that hash being merged with new transaction information to form the next block hash, results in what is called a merkle tree. Although one can look back in time to view every transaction that ever occurred on the blockchain, the continuous compiling of the previous hash into the next, results in data integrity, where one can quickly check that the most recent block information is true. Blockchains can also be viewed as merkle tress, with a new hash being formed combining all previous hashes, so one cannot lie about what happened before, like saying you never spent money you did spend, as it would change the whole blockchain.

Continuing our explanation of how this works in bitcoins blockchain, I mentioned that the block itself contains a hash of the previous block, the new transactions, and then the extra information to find the right hash. Because each new block has the last block’s hash in it, and the hash changes if anything from the original message is changed, this prevents anyone from tampering with the blockchain.

The important thing to note here is that the miners competing for the right to add the next block of data with new transaction information, prevents what is called a double-spend attack from happening, that’s someone spending the same funds twice and trying to lie to the network. Because all the miners receive new transaction broadcasts, they all begin to compile new blocks whenever they receive those transactions, and then take some time to figure out what the right nonce is to be added. The first one to win the proof of work, broadcasts his version of the blockchain with their new block, and that is accepted because other miners can see that the transactions in it were viable, by checking what’s unspent at that address, and they can see that the right nonce was found. At this point, miners begin to compile the next block using this newly accepted blockchain, referencing the hash of this newly accepted block. If two miners somehow solve this at the same time, a very low probability, two versions of the blockchain are created with different transaction ordering, and both broadcasted. Each miner begins working to add the next block based on whichever one is received first. The longest version of the blockchain is the one that is accepted as valid.

If someone were to attempt to double-spend by sending a transaction then trying to send again when they don’t have the funds, they would write a new block spending funds they already spent elsewhere, replacing the one with the initially spent funds, and other miners would then deny the second transaction which could hurt the receiver. But this bad person would have to do this faster than other miners can write the blockchain. This would be very difficult to do because they would need to have the computing power necessary to outcompete the other miners, with their version of the blockchain that is longer than everyone else’s. They have to write all the new blocks based off of their new deceitful block since all blocks reference the one prior, and it has to be longer than everyone else’s to be accepted by the rest of the network. Because other miners were already working on writing the new block when the first transaction was sent to the first receiver, and they have been adding to it, they have the hash from the block with the correct information, included in all subsequent blocks, and they statistically speaking are faster at writing them than the bad person could ever be. That person can’t just slip in her second transaction that robs from the initial receiver, because she has to write that block, plus all the next blocks until it is longer than the other chain that other miners on the network are already creating. The odds of this dishonest person or miner being able to do this and write this second transaction to the blockchain, creating the longest one, faster than everyone else, is very very low, as thought out in the original idea for Bitcoin.

This is why it’s suggested that after sending or receiving funds, one wait for a certain number of confirmations (as in new blocks being added) to make sure that enough time has passed where a dishonest person’s probability of catching up to recreate a new chain where your funds are spent again, is negligibly low. There is the issue of mining pools being able to combine computing power and so having the ability to do double-spend attacks. The benchmark is having over 51% of hashing power on the network. At this point in Bitcoin, this is only solved by mining pools deciding to limit themselves. Another method of attack is to cripple other nodes and so automatically defer mining power to other miners who may then have the majority of it, thus being able to keep writing the blockchain which is likely to end up being the longest one. Other blockchains such as Particl or what Ethereum plans to do with CASPER, run on proof of stake instead to provide distributed consensus.

Apart from verifying that the transaction is valid, and ordering the transactions, miners also create new bitcoins in the first transaction that is added to the block. This is called the block reward and is an incentive for miners. This block reward is set to decrease every few years until it is no more. In the future, when there are no more block rewards, miners will be able to receive transaction fees based on simple economics, deferring to the participants willing to pay the higher fees for their transactions. 

As a side note, this hashing to write blocks, and use of the public and private key pair for sender verification, is the only cryptography that actually exists in bitcoin, and data is not actually encrypted on the blockchain. One cannot undo hashes to decrypt the data and see what was there, and the actual transactions are recorded because one can look back at transaction history for each block, but that is not hidden. The “cryptographic” security of the bitcoin blockchain is in the fact that only the person with the right private key can move their funds, that the address is not necessarily linked to a person, that distributed consensus is needed to verify transactions, and that the data (in a merkle-tree structure) cannot be altered after it is written. Other blockchains are emerging, such as privacy coins, like Particl, that provide much more security and there are also other blockchain solutions that encrypt the data itself before it is written to the blockchain.

To recap, a blockchain acts as a public ledger, recording information, transactions in the case of bitcoin, in a time based manner, using a decentralized network to update it. It is immutable meaning once the data is there it cannot be changed. It is publicly verifiable and doesn’t rely on one institution to update or validate it, It is secure in that it uses cryptography in the form of a public and private key system to ensure that only the right persons can move funds. The major issue it solves is that it removes the need for trust and discourages fraudulence from a centralized institution. It does not only have to be used as an electronic payment system as in cryptocurrencies, but any database with records can use a blockchain as its underlying technology.

I have to add that this is not a perfect explanation, because it would take a long time, especially the intricacies because adding a detail means explaining it. I hope that was really useful. Leave any comments or questions below. I’d love to read them. I’ll be talking about the implications of blockchain technology in the future. 

Learn more: How Bitcoin Works Under the Hood by Curious Inventor

Proof of Stake vs. Proof of Work | Who Will Win?!

CR0013 2 Proof of Stake vs Proof of Work | Who Will Win?.jpg

Why Proof of Stake Wins. The battle between proof of work aka POW and proof of stake aka POS is raging. I'm placing my bets.

Is proof of stake better than proof of work? In my opinion, yes. Here’s why:  

Blockchains are essentially distributed ledgers created for the storage of data. In cryptocurrencies, they are used to store transaction information, verifying their accuracy and ordering them chronologically. Because the blockchain is distributed with many participants on the network, there has to be a way of deciding who gets to write the next set of transactions, so that there is only one unique blockchain. There has to be what is called distributed consensus. When the first cryptocurrencies were created, proof of work was this method of creating distributed consensus, by having special nodes called miners compete to solve a cryptographic problem. This solved the problem of needing honest nodes to validate transactions, because there was a method of competition to select who writes the next block, and then the rest of the network could also verify that the recorded transactions were true after the work had been completed. Incentive was also provided to the miners in the form of a block reward, or creation of a new token/coin on the blockchain, when a new block was written.

This proof of work method of distributed consensus has some disadvantages that are increasingly becoming a problem in the cryptocurrency world. These include a concentration of mining power which defeats the goal of decentralization of cryptocurrencies as well as the environmental impact which is still in its early stages if true cryptocurrency adoption emerges in the future. Centralization comes in the form of mining equipment manufacturers being limited to a few companies, the fact that only certain people can afford mining equipment, that mining is concentrated geographically, and that mining pools can now overtake the network and write transactions in their favor if they choose to or deny service to others. The high electricity costs resulting from proof of work mining is only expected to increase as cryptocurrency adoption grows, and will still add a hefty weight to the transaction fees if there are no block rewards in the future. In the case of Bitcoin, where mining fees will eventually be reduced to zero, there is also the issue of less incentive for miners to remain loyal to the network when mining another cryptocurrency may produce greater profits. Loyal and dedicated nodes are necessary to secure the blockchain and provide distributed consensus.

These disadvantages of proof of work mining have been known for a long time, but many of the problems were not immediate before the scaling of cryptocurrency networks to what they are today. It is important to note that proof of work has its advantages in that it solved the problem it was created for, namely that of getting honest nodes to validate and record transactions. Due to some of its disadvantages however, another alternative called proof of stake has arrived that can provide distributed consensus just as well, if not better.

For proof of stake cryptocurrencies, instead of having miners compete through solving a cryptographic problem, the next node to write the block is chosen depending on their proof of ownership or proof of stake in the network. There is some variety in how exactly this is determined, but the amount of stake is generally dependent on the amount of coins a holder has as well as the length of time they have been participating in the network. So instead of the probability of being chosen to write the next block being depending on mining power, the probability is dependent on the holder’s ‘stake’ or investment, meaning amount and time in the network. These nodes are called stakers or foragers and new coins are ‘minted’ rather than mined’. The effect of this on solving the centralization and environmental issues of proof of work coins like Bitcoin, is significant. Many proof of stake coins began as proof of work coins and then decided to switch to proof of stake. Examples of proof of stake coins include  peercoin, lisk, nxt, particl. Ethereum is also on its way to becoming a proof of stake coin. There are also delegated proof of stake coins which are not to be confused with regular proof of stake coins and those have a slightly different system, which I will not get into here.

The first obvious issue that a proof of stake system of distributed consensus solves is that of reducing electricity costs. Proof of stake blockchains do not need its validators to initially purchase and update expensive mining equipment. Proof of stake also requires more loyalty on the part of the stakers than proof of work does from its miners. Proof of stake can also give rise to the monopoly issue, created through wealth disparities or mining pools, as large holders have greater chances of earning more. However, it is more difficult for someone to own 51% of the coins on a network due to prohibitive costs than for someone to have 51% of the mining power, and thus become a dishonest node. This scenario of sufficient mining power being concentrated for an attack to occur, has already been reached and its negative effect has only been mitigated due to the choice of mining pools, requiring trust. The cost to invest 50% of bitcoin’s market cap, not assuming the price will go up as someone buys that much, is far greater than the cost to buy the mining equipment to achieve 51% of the mining power. It is also more likely for an individual with concentrated power on the network to use it benevolently, in the case of proof of stake, because their major investment is the coin itself, and reducing trust by double spending or denying service, would negatively impact their own capital. There are also variations on how proof of stake can be implemented to ensure some distribution for how often a staker gets to write to the blockchain based on how recently they did it. And the likelihood of a node being chosen also depends on its time invested not only amount. Other advantages of proof of stake include lower transaction fees due to lower hardware and software costs to keep the network running, faster validation times, and a smaller chance of honest nodes leaving as miner rewards are reduced overtime. There is a lower likelihood of over-reaching governments being able to create prohibitive barriers to entry, such as needing a license to mine, since only running software is less conspicuous than running specialized mining equipment.

Understanding that the power and promise of blockchain technology lies in its decentralized nature, as opposed to the centralized institutions of today, methods of decreasing centralization through proof of stake are more likely to succeed in the long run than only relying on proof of work as it exists today.

What is Cryptography?

CR0009 1 What is Cryptography?.jpg

This is both a video and a text post, walking through the fundamentals of cryptography and how they apply to blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies.

I am going to mull over some of the ideas and information I learned while doing research on cryptography. Cryptography arose out of the need for people communicating to ensure that the message is received by the correct person and also received accurately, meaning not having been tampered with. It’s a way to secure communication.

Cryptography is the term most commonly used but it’s actually just one half of the equation, the other being cryptanalysis, and both coming under the term cryptology which is the study of both cryptography and cryptanalysis. Cryptography does not only involve the encryption of data but means a way of scrambling information, or protecting information from unwanted third parties, or sometimes all parties but while maintaining data integrity. I speak more about this at the end of this article.

So cryptography specifically is the process of applying a formula or algorithm to a message so that it is indecipherable to everyone except the intended recipients. Cryptography, in the form of encryption, uses an encryption algorithm, an algorithm being a set of rules that define a process applied to a given input to get a given output. Cipher is the term used to describe the encryption algorithm and the cipher-text is the resulting information that is produced after applying the formula or algorithm to the original message or plain text.  Cryptanalysis is the method of deciphering the encrypted data by figuring out the pattern in the cipher-text that gives a clue as to what the original message was so you could work backwards to figure out the original method. This decryption or pattern analysis happens both at the recipient’s end when intended, but can also occur if an unwanted third party or eavesdropper is able to figure out the plain text by analyzing the cipher, or somehow getting the key. I’ll explain what a key is in a second.

Encryption algorithms used to involve letter substitution, and these evolved over time. But more modern methods involve multiple alphabets and converting between letters and numbers as well. In the past, people would come up with encryption algorithms that they kept secret as they assumed keeping the method of encryption secret led the to channel being very secure. But, counterintuitively, making the encryption algorithm public is the best way to ensure it is secure. Through elimination, cryptographers could find the most secure algorithms if they had not been broken as others kept trying over time. Thinking that a code was secure just because the people working on it thought it was secure resulted in even wars being lost (the enigma machine). Nowadays, there are standardized algorithms that have not yet been broken.

But because the encryption formulas are standardized so they are less likely to be broken, there has to be a way to make sure that not anyone who knows the formula can get the message. The way this is solved is through the use of keys. Even though there is an encryption formula, there are different keys that define what the cipher-text is when applied to the plain text or what the plain text is when applied to the cipher-text, that is encryption and decryption keys, respectively. So the encryption algorithm works with keys. Keys are the “key” to deciphering the text and the crux of the security. So the key has to be sent over a secure channel, say in person. There is symmetric cryptography where the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt the message and there is asymmetric or public-key encryption, where there is both a public and private key. 

In asymmetric cryptography, public and private keys work as a pair where someone could publish their public key so anyone can send a message to them specifically, but only that person with the private key is able to decrypt and read the message. Using a public and private key pair, the private key need not be shared with anyone. Multiple public keys can be generated from a private key, which adds another layer of security. A private key can also be used for authentication purposes as a digital signature, because a message can be encrypted with a private key as it is sent, and then the receiver can verify that it is sent from the right person using that person’s public key. 

It’s important to note the use of hash functions in cryptography, where a string of data can be output to a specified character length ‘hash’. When signing with the private key by generating an encrypted message using that key, it’s not the whole message that is verified but a hash of the message. The hash or short version of the message will change with a slight change in the original message and is different if signed by the sender who does not have the right private key. So, the receiver can use the public key also to verify that the right private key signed the message by looking at the hash of that message.

I hope this is not too confusing when I talk about signing a message with a private key and the person with the public key being able to verify that the message is from the right person. Remember that the key is what is used to encrypt or decrypt. So a message, though it may use the same encryption algorithm as another’s, will not produce the same cipher-text and so plaintext if it uses another person’s key. As a side note, each encryption algorithm has a set number of keys and the security of the encryption algorithm is dependent on this, as a hacker could attempt to decipher a message by going through all possible keys. But the encryption algorithms used by blockchain technologies such as bitcoin have such a large amount of possible keys that it would take a really really really long time, basically infinite in human terms, to go through them all with current day computer processing power. 

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as you will figure out once you begin to use them, use public-key encryption, where a wallet which is simply a storage of data is created having both a public key and a private key. The individual with the correct private key has the right to send and receive ‘messages’ or ‘funds’ from their wallet. But anyone with their public key can send funds to them. Each party can verify who is sending and receiving and whether or not the transaction information can be recorded to the blockchain. If this is all too confusing, you basically have to keep your private key very safe, only using it to access your wallet, but you can share your public key in order to send and receive funds.

I really like to think of cryptography as the solution to a problem. If I wanted to send a message to a specific person using the video format on YouTube, I would be aware that everyone watching, and also the people on YouTube who are not the intended recipients of the message, are able to listen. So, I am communicating across an open channel. Just thinking of the top of my head, maybe I could somehow scramble my message, maybe by speaking in reverse. What I do can’t be random, because it has to have a formula so that the original message can be heard accurately. But it also has to be a bit more secure then being played in reverse, so it would change slightly depending on who the recipient is, and they would be the only one able to actually play the original message, even if the basic algorithm is that it is played in reverse. Other real world applications of securing an open channel include uploading or download packets of data over the internet or when using cell phone networks.  We can encrypt data on our hard drives or phones using software. There are also messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal that focus on encrypted communication. But data security goes beyond this to preventing social engineering attacks such as phishing emails to collect the necessary information like passwords to unlock or un-encrypt data. So the whole system has to be looked at and not solely rely on cryptography. Cryptography solves the problem of communication over an insecure channel.

EDIT: After writing and sharing this video, a reddit user clearly clarified for me that  encryption is only one of the branches of cryptography. This can be compared to examples such as signing, commitment schemes, private information retrieval, offline digital cash, etc., which also fall under cryptography.

Learn more:

Why Privacy Matters: Creating a trust-less solution

Copy of 83f58-1nllxygc8fewgcwj7exaung.png

Photo by Josh Hallet:

Recently, I was browsing the internet when I came across a couple of articles about how Facebook had suspended the account of Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that had been involved in aiding political campaigns by harvesting the online profiles of about fifty million of its users. Even though there were a variety of responses, many users seemed deeply concerned by the thought that their privacy was being robbed.

To begin with, privacy in cyberspace involves the ability to choose what information one would like to share about oneself. It is one of those familiar values that seems unproblematic until we start to think about it. According to Wikipedia, privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby express themselves selectively. The Merriam-Webster dictionary describes privacy as the quality or state of being apart from company or observation; seclusion or solitude.

At the beginning, I mentioned that privacy was being robbed. I would like to focus on the word “robbed” because it came up very quickly when I started contemplating the concept of privacy. When you are being robbed of something, it means that you own it. Your thoughts and expressions that you put out into the world originate and emanate from you as an individual. You might use someone else’s medium to share them with the world, but they are still coming from you. Even though you are using someone else’s property, you are only using it as a channel for a specific purpose and once it falls outside that purpose then there is a violation of your privacy. However, privacy here doesn’t exclusively mean protecting ourselves and our contents from someone else. It also entails trying to protect someone else from something, for example, a small child who might be vulnerable. Sometimes there are things that you know might harm someone in some way, hence, you try to keep that information from them, or provide guidance when and where necessary. So privacy doesn’t have to be all about protecting yourself; it might also mean protecting someone else.

However, privacy doesn’t necessarily have to be about protection at all, it could just be about creation and creating oneself. The way I see the world is that we are all sort of art in motion. What I mean by this is that we are all creating ourselves. It might not be that you fear someone seeing something; it might just be that you wish to present yourself or be perceived in a certain way. If someone takes that ability away from you, they are essentially meddling with how you choose to express yourself into the world.

Modern Day Application of Privacy

Privacy is definitely a fundamental human right. We may not need the UN Human Rights Charter to tell us so, but it does. But different countries have different ideas of what should and should not be protected. Privacy laws protect different types of information and they are not only concerned with the medium that you use to communicate information but also in the storage of your personal information. Some of that kind of information could be medical information. For example when you go to the doctor, you have to share some information with the doctor but you are only sharing such in the context of helping you get well. There are laws that prohibit the doctor or someone else from using that information for a different purpose. There are also financial privacy laws as well as those that are about protecting one’s privacy in their home.

Current Trends

There is increasing institutional interference in the average person’s command of his privacy, through legal and illegal means. Just as in the United States where there exists a Foreign Intelligence Survey Act, and the NSA gets surveillance warrants against foreign spies, countries that have authoritarian regimes tell their citizens what they basically can or cannot do and monitor them to see their activities. However, it’s important to understand that it’s not just the government that wants access to user data. With the continuing emergence of new technologies, we must become more careful and critical with regard to commercial interests for whom personal data is a valuable commodity to be bought and sold. Many vendors of online products have begun to incorporate personalization features into their search-and-retrieval interface, inviting users to create personal profiles and online repositories where they can record their research interests, search strategies, and favorite articles.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to protect user privacy since our understanding of privacy has shifted as our technology has shifted. This is due to the fact that the way we share our personal information has become more complex over time and the laws over time have had to expand and become as complex. The reality now is, even though there are laws that are put in place to protect our human right to privacy, it requires trust.

The real solution would be to create a system that is trust-less, where we do not need to rely on others or technology that is not completely dependable. We may not always need to rely on MasterCard or Visa or the storage of our medical information in databases with compromised security. And that is the next advancement for humans when it comes to our relationship with privacy. Privacy and trust are closely intertwined. If we can decrease the level of trust required for strangers to run our technology efficiently, we can be more sure to protect our privacy while advancing technologically.

In conclusion, privacy is a huge part of our social experience and how we interact with the world. The way we interact with the world is becoming even more complex and so the technology that we use has to match. The best scenario is to have a “trust-less” system where, for example, in the case of what happened with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, all the users who were giving different responses, are able to decide how much they are willing to share, without having to depend on the words of private companies.

The above article is based on a video I made as I thought about privacy: