China Controls about 74% of BTC Mining Power

Source: BitCoinMagazine, Oct 2018
<researcstudy available HERE>

A recent study titled “The Looming Threat of China: An Analysis of Chinese Influence on Bitcoin,” jointly researched by Princeton University and Florida International University researchers, suggests China’s mining scene has an overwhelming influence over Bitcoin, something that could invite network manipulation.

China, which the researchers refer to as the “most powerful adversary to Bitcoin,” has long been known as the country with the largest numbers of miners in the world and the home to Bitmain — the company responsible for mining roughly half the world’s bitcoins.

Bitcoin’s network is largely dependent on miners, who use a vast amount of computing power (hash rate) to verify transactions, find blocks to continue the network’s ledger and mint new bitcoin — and 74 percent of that computing power currently resides in China, according to the study.

Controlling 51 percent of the network’s hash rate opens the threat of a 51% attack, a scenario where miners can modify transactions on the ledger for their own economic gain.

Related Resource:, Oct 2018

Bitcoin represents the opposite view compared to Chinese centralization. While Bitcoin is a decentralized network, the Chinese government did everything as possible to control every market in the country as possible.

The study concludes that China is a threat to Bitcoin. However, if the government decides to start mining virtual currencies or attacking the network, other miners around the world could defend Bitcoin’s blockchain by adding more hashing power.


Tokens as Investments

Source: Medium, Sep 2018

one of the key paradoxes that is hardly ever addressed when people throw money at various crypto projects is this:

When I invest in a token, I am hoping someone in the future will want to buy it at a higher price to use the platform. However, why would anyone buy my tokens to use the platform if the price of the token keeps increasing as I expect it to?

people will tend to hoard store of value forms while minimizing the time as well as amount for medium of exchange or utility forms. This effectively means that the less the medium acts as a store of value, the more likely we are to trade it only when we require access to the platform.

As such, the costs of using the platform becomes the determining demand factor for such tokens. If the token price and transaction costs are not decoupled, the network will not be able to scale. Even if completely decoupled, the token’s value will only grow linearly with the demand for the underlying utility and as covered in the section above, market dynamics are constantly pushing the costs of such utility downwards.


Social Scalability

Source: Unenumerated <Nick Szabo blog>, Feb 2017

the secret to Bitcoin’s success is that its prolific resource consumption and poor computational scalability is buying something even more valuable: social scalability.

Social scalability is the ability of an institution –- a relationship or shared endeavor, in which multiple people repeatedly participate, and featuring customs, rules, or other features which constrain or motivate participants’ behaviors — to overcome shortcomings in human minds and in the motivating or constraining aspects of said institution that limit who or how many can successfully participate.

Social scalability is about the ways and extents to which participants can think about and respond to institutions and fellow participants as the variety and numbers of participants in those institutions or relationships grow. It’s about human limitations, not about technological limitations or physical resource constraints.

Even though social scalability is about the cognitive limitations and behavior tendencies of minds, not about the physical resource limitations of machines, it makes eminent sense, and indeed is often crucial, to think and talk about the social scalability of a technology that facilitates an institution.

The social scalability of an institutional technology depends on how that technology constrains or motivates participation in that institution, including protection of participants and the institution itself from harmful participation or attack. One way to estimate the social scalability of an institutional technology is by the number of people who can beneficially participate in the institution.

Another way to estimate social scalability is by the extra benefits and harms an institution bestows or imposes on participants, before, for cognitive or behavioral reasons, the expected costs and other harms of participating in an institution grow faster than its benefits.

The cultural and jurisdictional diversity of people who can beneficially participate in an institution is also often important, especially in the global Internet context. The more an institution depends on local laws, customs, or language, the less socially scalable it is.

Without institutional and technological innovations of the past, participation in shared human endeavors would usually be limited to at most about 150 people – the famous “Dunbar number”. In the Internet era, new innovations continue to scale our social capabilities.

Innovations in social scalability involve institutional and technological improvements that move function from mind to paper or mind to machine, lowering cognitive costs while increasing the value of information flowing between minds, reducing vulnerability, and/or searching for and discovering new and mutually beneficial participants.

Alfred North Whitehead said, “It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.”

Friedrich Hayek added: “We make constant use of formulas, symbols, and rules whose meaning we do not understand and through the use of which we avail ourselves of the assistance of knowledge which individually we do not possess. We have developed these practices and institutions by building upon habits and institutions which have proved successful in their own sphere and which have in turn become the foundation of the civilization we have built up.”

WeWork @ Robinson Road/Singapore


CZ (Binance CEO) echoes the 2,000,000X gain;




Singapore: Tokens as Non-Securities

Source: FinRazor, Sep 2018

a representative of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has spoken that the central bank has not yet considered any token as securities.

So far Singapore’s central bank perceived none of the tokens they considered are qualified to be regulated under its securities law.

Pang discussed the guidelines in A Guide to Digital Token Offerings which was published by MAS in 2017. In the guidelines tokens were categorized into three separate types:

  • Utility Tokens — are mined solely for accessing particular services provided by the company. MAS has no intention to regulate this token type.
  • Payment Tokens — can be used as a means of payment and holds value. By the end of 2018, a payments bill will be made into law.
  • Security Tokens — possess a promise or rights to a company’s future earnings.

Related Resource: Coindesk, Sep 2018


Responses to Buterin’s No More 1,000X opportunities for the Blockchain space

CZ – Binance “;

Justin Sun – TRON “;