Connect with us

Ethereum News

Hacker Gives Back Ethereum Domains They Got In Auction Bug



Hacker Gives Back Ethereum Domains They Got In Auction Bug
Hacker Gives Back Ethereum Domains They Got In Auction Bug

The hacker who stole 17 Ethereum domain names during the Ethereum Name Service’s (ENS) auction decided to return them all.

On Oct. 4, digital-collectibles marketplace OpenSea said that all of the stolen ENS names were returned successfully and that bidding on domain names will restart again in the coming weeks. In the beginning of September, the ENS bidding process was exploited by a hacker who managed to steal 17 domain names for lower bids than other users placed. OpenSea, who ran the auction, explained that a bug distributed ENS domains to participants who did not hold the highest bid. The stolen domain names, which included apple.eth, defi.eth, wallet.eth, and pay.eth were all blacklisted and the hacker was promised an attractive offer for returning the domain names. OpenSea said:

“We appreciate the work you’ve done exposing vulnerabilities in the auction system. […] To compensate for the work you’ve done to expose these vulnerabilities, we’re prepared to offer you 25% of the winning bid price of each name you return. We’ll also refund your purchase price.”

One domain, coffeshop.eth, has already received a bid of 100 wrapped Ether (WETH), worth around $14,000 at press time.

Australian citizen Katherine Nguyen pleaded guilty to stealing $450,000 in XRP in January 2018. She hacked into the email account of a man with the same last name and proceeded to steal all of his XRP, before unlocking his account two days later. Cybercrime Squad Commander Arthur Katsogiannis said at the time:

“It’s a very significant crime and it’s the first we know of its type in Australia where an individual has been arrested and charged for the technology-enabled theft of cryptocurrency.”

Ethereum News

Will ETH 1.0 and ETH 2.0 have the same price?



Will ETH 1.0 and ETH 2.0 have the same price?

As final preparations are underway for the beginning of the process to launch ethereum 2.0, starting with the deposit contract and testnet which should be out soon, many are wondering whether there will be two different coins at different prices.

As you may know, ethereum is to launch the Proof of Stake (PoS) Beacon chain which is a completely new blockchain that can be described as midway between a testnet and a mainnet or a dummy blockchain.

Anyone can send eth to this blockchain by sending it to the deposit contract once it goes out, which then basically destroys this eth and gives you the same amount on the beacon chain.

So there will not be two coins, it’s not a fork, it’s more of a migration. However, initially this eth on the beacon chain won’t quite be able to move, with it just for staking. Making it effectively locked eth.

There were some whispers at Devcon about exchanges providing liquidity for this eth2.0, so at some point, exchanges will have to decide whether they list it as just eth or whether they add a new listing of eth2 or beth.

That’s because the Proof of Work (PoW) chain will continue running for at least three years or more at the same time as the PoS chain. Yet while eth can be transferred to PoS, it can not be transferred back to PoW.

Danny Ryan, the eth 2.0 coordinator, suggested this is more of a sort of policy decision, rather than because technically it can’t be done.

He said allowing transfers back to PoW would slow down the eth 2.0 development, but technically you would “require 1.0 clients to be light clients of 2.0 and finalize 1.0 with 2.0 and expose beacon chain state root to 1.0 [and] add additional consensus rules to 1.0 and 2.0 to handle the reminting on 1.0 with proof of burn on 2.0.”

So you’d do the same thing as for the transfer to the Beacon but in reverse. Making eth on PoW or PoS indistinguishable.

It’s not clear they plan to add this transfer, however, with much seemingly in flux. Justin Drake, seemingly the mastermind of this eth 2.0 plan, and ethereum’s co-founder Vitalik Buterin have suggested it might be implemented by the end of 2020, but Joseph Lubin of ConsenSys stated phase 1 and 2 are to be merged and are likely to go out by the end of 2020.

So what exactly is the situation remains somewhat unclear, but exchanges have a few options.

ETH 2.0 Listing Politics?

From what we understand exchanges will be able to list ethereum coins on the Beacon chain soon after it launches, with validators seemingly able to transfer eth to other validators.

It’s not clear whether such eth can be transferred to someone that just has a beacon chain address, or whether there will be non-validator addresses at all on the beacon chain, to begin with.

That’s because the beacon is meant to be just a coordinator of where and which shard the eth should validate, but there would initially be no shards in which to move and do things, with it being a dummy blockchain to start off.

Why this eth would be listed at all during this period is not very clear. Obviously stakers might want to not stake anymore and give this eth to someone else who doesn’t want to bother going through the deposit contract, but they could also just wait.

Otherwise, you’d think there would have to be an eth1 and eth2 listing as they obviously sort of different coins because one has the defi and everything, while the other is just staking.

If they wait instead for full sharding before listing, then arguably it’s still two different coins because one is on the PoS chain, while the other is on PoW.

To what extent they’re different coins may depend on how wallets are implemented and just what the addresses are.

If we’d have two different address formats, which you’d think there would be as it’s different blockchains/networks, then trying to send PoS eth to a PoW address might be no different than sending it to a bitcoin address.

That suggests there might be no choice but to have two listings, as the only way these blockchains can connect is through a “centralized” point by going through the deposit contract at either end.

Otherwise, they’re kind of different worlds with no relation to each other from a usability perspective until they merge with eth1 becoming a shard of eth2.

So there might actually be no listing politics as it may be the case objectively there will have to be two listings, to begin with until the merger, but that can become quite a bit messy.

Primarily because which one is actually eth? They both are, but at least for some time, they’re not quite one eth.

Twilight Cryptoeconomics

Analyzing this from the prospective of a consensus that two eths will initially be listed, is not easy at all because eth1’s supply will fall as it burns, while eth2’s supply will rise to the same extent.

People will not have both eth1 and eth2, so it wouldn’t be a ‘doesn’t matter because the combined price’ situation.

So as supply falls you’d think eth1’s price would rise, but only if demand remains constant or increases. Some such demand might actually fall as it goes to eth2, otherwise the latter wouldn’t have a market.

Eth1 would probably be the dominant chain for some time because eth 2 would basically have to start from scratch presuming they have different addresses which you’d think they would.

So this is both a migration and a split like btc/bch but without cloning accounts in as far as every single eth business/service would have to upgrade.

It’s different networks. Even with eth1 sharded into eth2, the eth infrastructure might itself be “sharded.” Hence perhaps why Buterin initially said such merger would be in many, many years.

Does it Matter?

Not if you have eth1, excluding what demand it might attract because of the eth2 plans. That’s because if eth2’s price is much higher, then you just go to eth2.

Likewise, if the price of eth1 is much higher, since technically apparently it’s just a smart contract deposit to go back from eth2, you just go to eth1.

Meaning at an individual level it might not matter much, and this ability to go back and forth can be done by bots, but it’s not clear whether much value would be lost to these bots as unlike in a chain-split, everyone has only one coin, yet there could well be two different prices.

Nor is it clear which one would be called eth exactly. Justin Drake, as far as we are aware, distinguished some time ago between eth and beth, unless we misremember and it was someone else. Point being ethereans themselves are already calling the place they’re going beth.

The Ethereum Foundation has the trademark for ethereum as far as we are aware, but it’s not clear whether there’s any trademark for eth. So there could well be a situation where what is intended to be eth ends up being beth.

Making all this quite a bit of a mess that can’t even be avoided because obviously it’s a fairly big ecosystem with some unfriendly exchanges which, in some cases, should be expected to do what is the most damaging for eth.

Or there are just two eths with their own use cases during some transition period of years, with this then somehow to become one eth even though you have to move the entire global network, without a clear answer as to why they should move.

Capacity, obviously, but BCH has capacity yet not much use. Eth has smart contracts dapps, is more decentralized, and has adoption, but that’s eth1.

Does MakerDAO, for example, go to eth2, when, how? Do they just cut it off at eth1 and pack their bags to eth2, or copy-paste on eth2 with it being on both. If the latter, how long would that take after the launch?

Replicate that for the entire ecosystem, and you have to wonder whether this isn’t going into some wilderness.

Continue Reading

Bitcoin News

Millions of Crypto Users Can Now Buy Bitcoin, Ethereum and Dai Via Apple Pay and Google Pay



Millions of Crypto Users Can Now Buy Bitcoin, Ethereum and Dai Via Apple Pay and Google Pay

Millions of Apple Pay and Google Pay users can now purchase crypto through Wyre. The company’s new products are designed to make purchases of Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH) and Dai (DAI) extremely simple and fast.

Users will be able to integrate three different Wyre V2 products. The first two are available today, and the third option will be available by the end of October, according to the announcement.

    1. A full-featured, Wyre-branded Apple Pay/Google Pay checkout that you can integrate into your web app
    2. A white-label-able Apple Pay/Google Pay button that you embed into your web app
    3. A guide/process to white-label an Apple Pay/Google Pay button into your mobile app using Wyre as a service provider. (Available by the end of October)

The company says new accounts can launch after two clicks by pulling a user’s KYC/AML information from Apple Pay or Google Pay.

Only after a user surpasses certain thresholds – $250 for one-time withdrawals/$1,500 for a lifetime – will they be required to submit more documentation.

“A significant pain-point that we received feedback on was our KYC process. Users shouldn’t have to manually enter their information, and they certainly shouldn’t be required to upload documents until it’s needed for higher limits. We’ve simplified this process by using the information already provided by Apple Pay and Google Pay.”

Apple Pay users can log in using their iPhones, with desktop browser login for Google Pay users. In two taps and 60 seconds, users can specify the amount of crypto they want, add an address and confirm the purchase.

Earlier this year, mobile wallet BRD partnered with Wyre to offer US customers at 1,700 banks a way to purchase Bitcoin, Ehtereum, and Dai using bank transfers. Wyre, which is focused on increasing fiat on-ramps to bridge the world of traditional money with cryptocurrency, is working on consumer-friendly products that are easy enough for grandma to navigate.

Says Spencer Chen, vice president of global marketing at BRD,

“Wyre has a vision of being Stripe for crypto.” 

According to data compiled by Statista, Apple Pay has over 383 million users worldwide and is one of the most prominent mobile payment providers with a global iPhone user base reach of 43% as of December 2018.

Continue Reading

Ethereum News

Cryptocurrency And Blockchain News Update 15th October 2019



Coinbase Opens New Branch In Ireland

In recent days, Zeeshan Feroz, the CEO of the United Kingdom branch of Coinbase, announced that the exchange had become “one of just a few companies,” to have received an e-money license in Ireland. Coinbase opened its first office in Dublin, Ireland, on October 2018 to help expand its operations in Europe and as a contingency plan for when the U.K. leaves the EU. With this further push into Europe, what happens next for Coinbase and its competitors?

Ripple Brings 3 Services Together

Ripple, the blockchain firm behind crypto-asset XRP, has combined three of its services into features of its RippleNet offering. A company’s spokesperson explained that now, “instead of buying xCurrent or xVia, customers will connect to RippleNet — on-premises or through the cloud — and instead of buying xRapid, clients will use On-Demand Liquidity.” The company also believes that moving from a suite of services to offer a network to its customers is a natural evolution of its strategy due to the growth of its user base and development of its standard.

Deutsche Bank And EOS Launch Bond

The dBonds team recently managed to tokenize the Deutsche Bank bond on the EOS mainnet. Which was made possible through their agreement with an authorized UK based custodian, Queen Street Finance, and their stable-coin standard DUSD, already issued on EOS.

Will The S.E.C.Take Down TON?

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it is suing two offshore entities, Telegram and its wholly-owned subsidiary, TON Issuer, for holding an unregistered token sale. According to the complaint filed in the federal district court in Manhattan on the same day, Telegram sold approximately 2.9 billion crypto tokens, called Grams (GRM) to 171 buyers for a total of $1.7 billion. Around a quarter of that sum, $424.5 million, allegedly belonged to 31 purchasers based in the U.S.  

When Is Ethtereum Moving To POS?

After the long-awaited shift to the proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus algorithm is implemented in Ethereum’s (ETH) blockchain, it would become more secure and costly to attack than Bitcoin (BTC) this is according to Vitalik Buterin the co-founder of Ethereum. Buterin has voiced this opinion during Devcon 5, the Ethereum developers conference that took place in Osaka on Oct. 8–11. He specifically noted that — after the transition to PoS — a higher cost of a potential attack would make Ethereum the safer network than Bitcoin.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2015 Crypto Global News Team.