Seems counterintuitive, especially since the layer-two technology for transacting off-chain, is touted as a way to revolutionize the protocol to scale – more users and more transactions. And yet, there’s this incompatibility between new off-chain lightning transactions and old-school on-chain bitcoin ones.
One developer, though, has been working on a possible solution, and it was inspired by an interoperability technology that’s been slowly gaining steam – atomic swaps.
Lightning Labs developer Alex Bosworth was looking into atomic swaps, a technology that allows the native cryptocurrency of one blockchain to be traded with another with no middleman when it hit him that it could be used to swap lightning for old-style on-chain bitcoins.
Called “submarine swaps,” that technology is now being tested on the live lightning network.
Although, trying it out might actually be dangerous. Much like even transacting on the still-nascent lightning network, Bosworth admitted when he announced the project’s mainnet launch that using submarine swaps at this stage is a risky venture.
“There’s still lots to build, but it’s more fun to try on mainnet,” he tweeted, using the “reckless” hashtag, what’s become a rallying cry for developers utilizing the experimental technology with real money.
For his work, Bosworth has set up a connection between the bitcoin blockchain and the lightning network with the technology. Currently, the tech only supports funds being sent from a blockchain to the lightning network, and not yet the other way around.
But swapping lightning network payments for on-chain coins should be possible one day as well.
And, far beyond that, Bosworth envisions a future when every bitcoin or cryptocurrency wallet someday supports the technology, and as such, it would be just as easy to send litecoin, dogecoin or any coin to a lightning address.
An ethereum test
Meanwhile, this multi-coin world Bosworth is itching for is already being tested.
Jason Wong, an aviation software developer also interested in cryptocurrency, started playing with submarine swaps not long ago, starting by showing something priced on the lightning network can be bought using litecoin.
“Same chain swap is good but cross-chain swap is even better,” as Wong put it in a recent blog post.
But Wong told CoinDesk he wanted to go even further.
“It will reach … more users if submarine can support ethereum,” he said.
So, a couple weeks ago he implemented another version of the technology, allowing items priced on lightning to be purchased with ether, the native cryptocurrency of the ethereum blockchain, the second largest by market cap. And with Bosworth’s help, Wong showed that the trade can be executed.
While the technology is novel, there are serious use cases for it as well.
One is “refilling” lightning channels, which will very likely be a common need.
That’s because one tricky thing about lightning is that users need to set up channels with a set amount of money in them. This process of setting up a channel costs on-chain transaction fees, and those have been known to surge when more people are using the cryptocurrency.
Say you open a lightning channel for $20 dollars worth of bitcoin. But then you quickly use up those funds transacting with others.
Instead of opening a completely new channel – and incurring more transaction fees – a slightly cheaper route would be topping up the existing channel by using a submarine swap to trade on-chain funds for extra off-chain funds.
At sites like Satoshis.place, made solely for lightning payments, with submarine swaps users could then potentially pay in whatever coin they want, be it on-chain bitcoin, ethereum, litecoin and many more.
Perhaps, though, one of the more interesting use cases for submarine swaps is crypto-to-crypto exchange. While atomic swaps are usually seen as the main technology working toward this goal (allowing users to transfer bitcoin to litecoin or dogecoin to ethereum), in some ways submarine swaps could do the job even better.
That’s because in order to make an atomic swap, lightning needs to be enabled on both cryptocurrencies, and for right now, only a handful of cryptocurrencies have a functioning lightning network.
But with submarine swaps, only one side of the trade needs lightning.
This type of swap then, according to Bosworth, requires less work from developers who want to support a variety of different coins, without having to go through the time-consuming process of integrating each one individually.
Speaking from a developer’s perspective, Bosworth told CoinDesk:
“I want to support your choice of coin spends, but I don’t want to add support for lots of different coins.”
‘Utopian swap future’
Bosworth’s ambitions for swaps go beyond these uses, though.
In a lecture describing his vision for the tech a couple months back, Bosworth went as far as to envision a “utopian swap future” – highlighting a variety of swap types.
Beyond submarine swaps, for instance, HTLCswaps could allow users to trade lightning payments trustlessly for data.
Still, there’s a long way to go before that future comes to pass, even as it relates specifically to submarine swaps. For instance, through testing Bosworth has uncovered “a lot of challenges.”
“My concept was that swaps could be something that were very cheap to provide, like that a mobile phone could do,” he said, outlining that one problem with that particular notion is that submarine swaps are more challenging to execute when a blockchain is seeing higher transaction volume.
Since the bitcoin testnet is currently being blasted with transaction spam, clogging up the network, Bosworth found that out the hard way when he was experimenting with the technology there.
Yet, it hasn’t stopped his pursuit. Instead, Bosworth’s short-term goal is to figure out a way to scan through this spam efficiently, in hopes of ensuring smartphones could always handle a submarine swap.
Submarine interior 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.
Sep-8-2018 09:23:37 AM
By admin SEP 08, 2018Job.com Ico Review : Welcome to requirment revalution ICO REVIEWNo comments
Job.com is evolving the traditional recruitment model using matching technology, smart contracts on the blockchain, enhanced feedback and financial incentives. The combination of Job.com’s protocol and our token economy will fulfill our mission to realign the industry away from costly middlemen toward a decentralized reward-based community.
Token Name Job.com
Token Symbol JOBTK
Social Media Job.com Ico Review : Welcome to requirment revalutionJob.com Ico Review : Welcome to requirment revalutionJob.com Ico Review : Welcome to requirment revalution
Hard cap 25,000,000 USD
Token for sale 384,615,385 JOBTK (38%)
Token Price 0.065 USD
Whitepaper Click Here For View Whitepaper
Website Click Here For Visit ICO Homepage
Regulatory status uncertain in Singapore
The regulation of digital tokens and/or cryptocurrencies such as Job Tokens is still in a
very nascent stage of development in Singapore. There exists a high degree of uncertainty as to how tokens and token-related activities are to be treated.
No regulatory supervision
Neither Job.com nor its affiliates are currently regulated or subject to the supervision of any regulatory body in Singapore. In particular, Job.com and its affiliates are not registered with MAS in Singapore as any type of regulated financial institution or financial advisor.
Uncertainties in tax characterization and tax treatment
The tax characterization of Job Tokens is unclear. Accordingly, the tax treatment to which they will be subject is uncertain. All persons who wish to purchase Job Tokens should seek independent tax advice prior to deciding whether to purchase any Job Tokens.
Key factors for our success
The ambition is to revolutionize the Recruitment world, and with your support, will have the power to carry out this revolution.
uniquely positioned to use a large data set including successful client placement to
train new technologies, such as AI.
During the candidate’s journey through the hiring process, progress is held in a smart
contract which is used for every hire on job.com.
Paul Sloyan CO-FOUNDER & CHAIRMAN
Arran Stewart CO-FOUNDER
Matthew Roszak ADVISOR
Also Read – Click Here for Read All ICO Review
Quote This article is writing on 21 Aug 2018 based on information available online & news portal. If you feel it’s outdated or incorrect, please write here to update it. Mail us: support@coinw
Not all the websites Which listed in Top List are 100% safe to use or investment. We do not promote any of those. Due diligence is your own responsibility. You should never make an investment in an online program with money you aren’t prepared to lose. Make sure to research the website. So Please take care of your investments. and be on the safe site and avoid much losing online.
The post Job.com Ico Review : Welcome to requirment revalution appeared first on Coinworldstory.
Sep-8-2018 09:16:00 AM
It’s turning out to be an unexpected benefit of the initial coin offering (ICO) model, whereby startups and projects fuel and fund their projects with a scarce digital asset they create. In short, these projects can use the token to price their services, and then strategically alter the economics of the money supply to which they have a direct relationship.
To that end, burning tokens, or destroying the cryptographic keys to these assets so they can’t ever be recovered, has proven to be a selling point for investors, with ICO white papers finding projects promising they will destroy new tokens as they return to the issuer as earnings. Essentially the ask is, if you buy our token now, these companies promise potential backers they’ll trash them as they earn them back.
However unorthodox, one thing is clear: speculators appear to love the model.
Take Switzerland-based Eidoo, which just announced that it was burning 1 percent of the total supply of the EDO tokens it created when it did its ICO in November.
Its latest blog post reads: “The excellent news is that we will destroy 920,000.00 EDO tokens starting from August 31st. This means that we are going to permanently remove one percent of the total supply of EDO tokens.”
Sure enough, EDO’s price spiked nearly 40 percent shortly after the post above came out.
For Eidoo, this means it earned the tokens it created back as revenue from helping startups to run ICOs on its app. But since it isn’t going about this process alone (the company says it has 200,000 users eager to get in on more sales), it’s jettisoning a full half of the money it brought in by burning the tokens.
The twist is, Eidoo is a major holder of EDO tokens, meaning it’s a win-win for the company and investors.
As Eidoo’s Amelia Tomasicchio told CoinDesk:
“Burning 50 percent of our revenue is not really creating any loss for the company itself, but it is creating value for the entire EDO token holders.”
A new direction
Sure, there may not be guarantees that Eidoo’s model will work in the long run, but industry insiders argue counter-intuitive practices like this come with the territory in eras of financial experimentation.
“This is a 1.0 attempt to manage how an economy would work,” author, investor and crypto startup advisor William Mougayar told CoinDesk, adding: “They all want to play Fed Reserve Chairman or Chairwoman.”
Mougayar said he expects more companies to handle their crypto finances in creative ways, which doesn’t mean that all the ideas are good. Destroying part of a company’s revenue may seem disconcerting, or even signal to consumers that it is over-priced.
As Mougayar said, it’s a pattern that can never work for a company that isn’t delivering a service in demand.
“This model has been adopted during the recent months by a variety of projects in the space, however, Eidoo has been quite unique in burning so many tokens in such a short timespan – thanks to a very high revenue coming from the service usage of the recent months.”
Founded in 2016 to make crypto easier and more mobile friendly, Eidoo started burning early on. After its $27.9 million ICO in November left a little over 9 percent of the tokens designated for the sale unsold, it burned them, as it had promised to do.
The burning continues later this month, and so far, it’s winning the project attention.
“Projects burn their own tokens to remove them from the market to demonstrate consumption – as a result this creates further scarcity, thereby affecting the market cap, and arguably is a form of price manipulation,” Lisa Cheng of the Vanbex Group, a blockchain services company.
Follow the exchanges
But Eidoo’s upcoming burn won’t be the most significant instance in recent memory, as crypto exchanges that have launched their own tokens have most readily embraced the model.
In July, Binance burned 2.5 million of its BNB tokens (which it uses for discounts on its exchange) worth approximately $30 million, according to a blog post (that’s more than the whole market cap of all the EDO tokens). When it created the token, the company committed to burning 20 percent of its token profits each year.
Even more aggressively, they say they will do it up until they’ve gone through half the BNB token supply.
Still, there’s utility beyond the depreciating supply. The Binance token has been used to lower the cost of transactions for users, helping to bring more people onto the platform, as Mohamed Fouda explained in a recent Medium post about why exchanges are launching tokens. Effectively, they leverage their large volume to drive up the value of their stored supply of tokens, offloading revenue to token appreciation.
But it only works if people want to come. Mougayar gave the example of a tavern.
“If I bribe you with a free beer, you may come once,” he said, but visitors that don’t like the place won’t come back. Similarly, a company that uses a token to provide early discounts to bring people in still need to deliver a strong product.
The idea is spreading across exchanges. KuCoin is using 10 percent of its profits each quarter to buy back and burn its own tokens.
Even Eidoo will launch its own decentralized exchange or “hybrid exchange” in a few weeks, with plans to use EDO there as well.
But while buybacks and burning can boost price, it could present other problems for projects.
Eidoo calls its token a utility token. “The way a given token works defines its very nature. Regulators themselves are already doing a good job trying to define the different categories of tokens which are being used today,” Tomasicchio wrote.
U.S. regulators, though, have indicated which category tokens with burn functions fall into.
“I would caution those exploring this concept to check with their jurisdiction as the recent SEC announcements have been quite clear that burning tokens would constitute the actions of a security,” Cheng wrote.
In particular, she looked to the Munchee decision from last year, in which the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) specifically pointed to the company’s promise to destroy tokens as an example of increased value “derived from the significant entrepreneurial and managerial efforts of others.”
It is well established in equity markets that buy backs are a way to support the price of a stock. If a company has cash reserves and flat growth, as Apple has had from time to time, it can be a way to keep the mass of its investors loyal by stabilizing the stock price.
We have seen this pattern come to crypto as well. U Network recently did a buyback to power its growth effort. Going further and burning is adds complexity, but the SEC appears confident it can draw a parallel to what token issuers are doing with examples from equities markets.
“I’m not sure this will stand the test of time,” Mougayar said.
“The sky is not the limit.”
Bitcoin in fire image via Shutterstock.
Sep-8-2018 08:38:39 AM
Software licensed under open source licenses (OSS) is fundamental to the success of blockchain projects. Such licenses permit collaborative, decentralized development, encourage swift adoption by users and enable the community to “fork” the project to resolve strategic disputes.
In fact, OSS licenses are used by both of the two major public blockchains, ethereum and bitcoin, as well as many other major blockchain projects, including the HyperLedger programs and R3’s Corda.
However, OSS licenses are generally quite different from traditional proprietary software licenses. The importance of selecting the right OSS license and complying with the terms of that license is rarely discussed by the blockchain community.
If blockchain projects seek adoption by enterprises, the OSS license for the project will have a material impact on the rate of adoption. Even for established projects like ethereum, potential enterprise users carefully consider the OSS licenses that may be used.
For example, Jerry Cuomo of IBM recently noted on Frederick Munawa’s Blockchain Innovation podcast that the complexity of the OSS licenses for ethereum was one of the reasons IBM decided to shift from ethereum to its own blockchain project, which eventually became part of the HyperLedger project.
Prospective enterprise users of a blockchain project will decide which blockchain project to adopt by applying the same criteria that they use for adopting other OSS licensed projects: (1) the complexity of the OSS project license or licenses; (2) the potential difficulty of complying with the obligations of such OSS license; and (3) the potential challenges of integrating a blockchain project with other software projects.
OSS licenses vary dramatically in their terms. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has approved 83 licenses as “open source.”
However, the full complexity of OSS licensing is suggested by the SPDX project, managed by the Linux Foundation, which has identified 345 “major” licenses; Black Duck Software lists 2,500 versions of OSS type licenses in its Knowledge Base, which covers more than 530 billion lines of OSS code from over 9,000 forges and repositories of open source projects. Black Duck notes that 94 percent of OSS projects are licensed under the top 10 OSS licenses.
The two major types of OSS licenses are “copyleft” and “permissive.” Ethereum is primarily licensed under two copyleft licenses: the Lesser General Public License version 3 (LGPLv3) and the General Public License version 3 (GPLv3). On the other hand, Bitcoin Core is licensed under the MIT license, the most popular permissive license.
Copyleft licenses impose the most restrictive terms on the use of the OSS. The best-known example of a copyleft license is the General Public License version 2 (GPLv2), which is used for Linux operating system program.
According to Black Duck Knowledge Base, the GPLv2 is the second most popular license, adopted by 14 percent of OSS projects. The GPLv3 used by Ethereum is the updated version of the GPLv2, published in 2007. The most fundamental characteristic of a copyleft license is its “reciprocal” provision: the legal requirement that both the original OSS and all “derivative works” of the original OSS be distributed solely under the terms of the copyleft license. “Derivative work” is a technical term under U.S. copyright law, describing work based on one or more preexisting works that represent an original work of authorship.
Copyright law was originally designed to protect books, songs and films, but also protects software. One example is the series Game of Thrones which is a derivative work based on the novel series of the same name. Although derivative work generally means a modification of the software, a derivative work may be created in other ways: for example, two programs that are compiled together are frequently considered a derivative work.
However, the application of copyright law to software continues to be uncertain. Consequently, the integration of copyleft licensed projects with projects licensed under other OSS licenses or proprietary licenses involves a complex legal analysis.
Compliance with copyleft license is significantly more challenging than compliance with permissive licenses: copyleft licenses have more complex obligations, and the lack of clarity of copyright law as applied to software creates other problems. The OSS community that supports copyleft licenses is very concerned about misuse of OSS by proprietary vendors.
This community is quite aggressive in seeking compliance with such licenses from users. Virtually all of the litigation concerning OSS licenses has been brought over enforcement of copyleft licenses.
“Permissive” licenses impose very few terms on the use of the OSS, generally only requiring a user to include notices and a copy of the license. Unlike copyleft licenses, they do not include “reciprocal” obligations.
The OSS community that supports permissive licenses generally believes that permissive licenses encourage more rapid adoption of an OSS project and that the “reciprocal” terms of copyleft licenses are not necessary for the successful development of a blockchain project.
The best-known example of a permissive license is the MIT license used by bitcoin. According to Black Duck Knowledge Base, 38 percent of OSS projects have adopted the MIT license, making it the most popular OSS license.
Most blockchain projects have not historically focused on the importance of an OSS license choice. However, carefully considering the choice of license and taking the time to understand the differences in compliance requirements and approach to enforcement should allow projects to reap long-term benefits.
Not only will the license choice affect the willingness of enterprises to adopt the project but the chosen license will also dictate the compliance philosophy and community culture of the project.
Sep-8-2018 08:24:13 AM