Bitcoinmagazine

Gemini Exchange To Acquire License To Operate In United Arab Emirates BtcCasey Jun 1, 2023 Gemini’s move is another sign of exchanges seeking alternatives to the American market as regulatory uncertainty takes its toll.

Bitcoin Magazine

Gemini Exchange To Acquire License To Operate In United Arab Emirates

Gemini’s move is another sign of exchanges seeking alternatives to the American market as regulatory uncertainty takes its toll.

------------------------------------------------ Gemini, a global cryptocurrency exchange, has announced [1] its plans to acquire a cryptocurrency license in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in a move to expand its services. Describing the UAE's position as a forward-thinking financial hub, Gemini aims to tap into the country's growing market. The company is committed to becoming a global entity, according to the announcement, by meeting local regulatory requirements and understanding the needs of UAE crypto investors. Gemini's decision to apply for a license comes as a result of its findings from the 2022 Global State of Crypto Report. The report revealed a significant increase in cryptocurrency adoption among individuals in the UAE, with many using it for in-person purchases. Additionally, the study indicated a strong intention among non-owners to enter the cryptocurrency space. Speaking about the application, Gemini leadership expressed their vision of providing a safe, secure, and user-friendly platform for customers in the UAE and beyond. The company stated that it is eager to serve the rapidly growing and vibrant crypto community in the region. In January, Gemini co-founder Cameron Winklevoss wrote a letter to its parent company [2] Digital Currency Group (DCG) alleging that DCG defrauded Gemini customers in relation to Gemini Earn. Prior to that, Gemini was sued by the CFTC [3] for “misleading the regulator in conversations concerning the launch of bitcoin futures contracts.” Gemini's move into the UAE highlights the country's emerging status as a bitcoin hub. In addition, it highlights the continued flight of major exchanges out of the U.S. as a result of tightening regulations. At the beginning of May, Coinbase introduced its new international exchange arm [4] called Coinbase International, with the company stating that “countries around the world are increasingly moving forward with responsible crypto-forward regulatory frameworks to strategically position themselves as crypto hubs.” ------------------------------------------------ Links: [1]

X (formerly Twitter)

Gemini (@Gemini) on X

1/ We’re coming to the UAE! 🇦🇪 We’re thrilled to announce that Gemini will soon begin the process of acquiring a crypto license to serve...

[2]

Bitcoin Magazine

Gemini’s Winklevoss Alleges DCG, Genesis Defrauded His Exchange And 340,000 Users

Cameron Winklevoss, president and co-founder of Gemini, has written an open letter demanding Barry Silbert’s removal as CEO of Digital Currency G...

[3]

Bitcoin Magazine

Winklevoss-Owned Bitcoin Exchange Gemini Being Sued By Regulators

Gemini, a cryptocurrency exchange, is being sued by the CFTC on allegations of false statements made to obtain certification for bitcoin futures co...

[4]

Bitcoin Magazine

Coinbase Introduces International Exchange In Bid To Expand Beyond U.S. Markets

The largest cryptocurrency exchange in America is now offering perpetual futures to residents in eligible jurisdictions.

#UAE #Gemini #Exchanges #Middleeast ------------------------------------------------

CleanSpark Announces Purchase Of 12,500 Antminer S19 XP Bitcoin Miners BtcCasey Jun 1, 2023 The publicly traded bitcoin mining company is once again expanding its inventory of deployable miners this year in its quest for 16 EH/s.

Bitcoin Magazine

CleanSpark Announces Purchase Of 12,500 Antminer S19 XP Bitcoin Miners

The publicly traded bitcoin mining company is once again expanding its inventory of deployable miners this year in its quest for 16 EH/s.

------------------------------------------------ CleanSpark Inc. [1] has announced the purchase of 12,500 Antminer S19 XP bitcoin mining machines for a total price of $40.5 million. The machines were acquired at a lower price than the current market average, costing $23 per terahash, according to a press release shared with Bitcoin Magazine. The purchase agreement states that 6,000 of the machines will be shipped in June, with the remaining 6,500 set for shipping in August. Zach Bradford, CEO of CleanSpark, expressed his confidence in the purchase, stating, "This purchase ensures that we are prepared to meet and potentially exceed our year-end target of 16 EH/s and also positions us to be one of the most power-efficient miners on an energy-per-hashrate basis." He further highlighted the optionality provided by the additional machines, allowing the company to replace less efficient units if the economics support it. CleanSpark reported that it has been taking advantage of discounted machine purchases during the crypto bear market. In February, the company acquired 20,000 Antminer S19j Pro+ units [2], followed by the purchase of 45,000 Antminer S19 XP units in April [3]. Gary A. Vecchiarelli, CFO at CleanSpark, emphasized the importance of these purchases in preparation for the upcoming bitcoin halving, stating, "the efficiency of these machines also results in less power consumed per bitcoin mined compared to older generation miners, which should translate to higher margins." CleanSpark's recent purchases of bitcoin mining machines demonstrate the company's commitment to expanding their mining capacity and staying competitive in the market. With fees from Ordinals inscriptions boosting the revenue for miners, it is expected that large players like CleanSpark will continue to bolster their miner inventory. ------------------------------------------------ Links: [1]

CleanSpark

CleanSpark

CleanSpark has a strong heritage in energy innovation and a proven track record of delivering reliable, large-scale power solutions.

[2]

Bitcoin Magazine

CleanSpark Acquires 20,000 Bitcoin Miners For New Facilities

The new miners will contribute to CleanSpark’s ongoing expansion, just as the Bitcoin market ramps up.

[3]

Bitcoin Magazine

CleanSpark To Nearly Double Bitcoin Mining Capacity With $144.9M Antminer Purchase

The public mining company has purchased 45,000 Antminer S19 XP miners in line with its goal of reaching 16 EH/s by end of year.

#Antminer #Mining #CleanSpark #PublicMiners #Asics ------------------------------------------------

Should A Bitcoin Wallet Have Rights? Artem Afian Jun 1, 2023 Like corporate entities or intelligent robots, Bitcoin wallets are poised to gain legal rights of their own.

Bitcoin Magazine

Should A Bitcoin Wallet Have Rights?

Like corporate entities or intelligent robots, Bitcoin wallets are poised to gain legal rights of their own.

------------------------------------------------ This is an opinion editorial by Artem Afian, a lawyer and “legal futurist” at Hiveon, a crypto mining ecosystem that offers services for Bitcoin mining hardware. ------------------------------------------------ I want to draw your attention to the fact that Bitcoin transactions ultimately occur between wallets [1]. There are humans behind wallets, but this connection is not really what’s important. The pseudonymity of Bitcoin is thanks to the fact that there is no direct connection between the wallet and the person who owns it. It is what distinguishes a Bitcoin wallet from any other financial instrument. No matter how much regulators try to change this, the core of the technology remains the same. What does this mean? It means that, soon, wallets will be recognized as entities deserving of legal rights. First, humanity began to recognize animal rights [2]. Now, there is talk about the legal rights of a robot [3]. Soon, the rights of a Bitcoin wallet will come to the fray. When one talks about the rights of robots, they usually refer to some imitation of human will that is deserving of legal recognition. We understand that a robot does not have a soul in the same way that a human does, but at the same time, it performs rather complex actions, which gives rise to legal consequences. For many of us, a robot or a Bitcoin wallet is something inanimate and devoid of a soul and, perhaps, therefore undeserving of legal protections. But we recognize the rights of companies and corporations and, of course, it is difficult to imagine more soulless forms than those. It turns out that the subjects of law can be inanimate. So, what is the difference between a Bitcoin wallet and a legal entity? A legal entity is simply a set of files in a specific registry. Lawyers even have a theory of the “fiction of a legal entity [4].” We will calmly confirm that the legal entity is an American corporation. We can quickly check this. But how to check that a legal entity was created, say, under the laws of the country of Swaziland? Even if I show you documents that prove it, they are unlikely to tell you anything. So, if I tell you that you are dealing with a foreign company, you most probably just have to believe it. Nevertheless, this legal entity, displayed as it is only on paper, has some rights. So, the Bitcoin wallet that exists is even more tangible than many legally-protected entities. Therefore, one more conclusion: Since legal entities have rights, then a wallet may have rights. Just like legal entities, wallets perform transactions, and just like legal entities, wallets can change their owners. This fact never changes: if robots or legal entities are deserving of legal rights, so too are Bitcoin wallets. I think Bitcoin is an exciting new space and that we still have a lot to explore. Now, my idea that Bitcoin wallets will inevitably receive legal rights of their own may seem crazy, but many more discoveries await us. This is a guest post by Artem Afian. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine. ------------------------------------------------ Links: [1]

Bitcoin Magazine

What Are Bitcoin Wallets?

Bitcoin wallets can be hardware products, or software running on mobile, the web or through apps. Some of the most popular bitcoin hardware wallets...

[2]

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Laws that Protect Animals

In the United States, animal protection laws can be enacted and enforced at every level of government. Most animal protection legislation happens a...

[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/robots-ai-legal-rights-3c47ef40 [4]

LII / Legal Information Institute

legal fiction

. ------------------------------------------------

The Debate Around “Cursed” Ordinal Inscriptions Craig Deutsch May 31, 2023 Inscriptions that do not get indexed by the ord protocol are known as “cursed,” but whether or not to include them is an ongoing conversation.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Debate Around “Cursed” Ordinal Inscriptions

Inscriptions that do not get indexed by the ord protocol are known as “cursed,” but whether or not to include them is an ongoing conversation.

------------------------------------------------ After only four months since the protocol was launched, ord has its first contentious debate about what are known as “cursed” inscriptions. The simplest definition of a cursed inscription is any inscription that does not currently get indexed and identified by ord. This term came about as a catchall when some people incorrectly used or purposefully misused opcodes to create inscriptions that were not able to be indexed by ord and would therefore be unrecognized and not given an inscription number. This issue was first mentioned on April 25 in the ord github [1] and the interim fix proposed by then lead developer Casey Rodarmor was to, “Modify ord to recognize the above currently invalid inscriptions, including retroactively in old blocks, but consider these new inscriptions ‘cursed’ and assign them negative inscription numbers.” Funnily enough, the example inscription code on the Ordinals docs website would have been a cursed inscription.

X (formerly Twitter)

cbspears ◉ (@cbspears) on X

It appears that the example Inscription on https://t.co/PlAUW6wwEv itself would have initially been a "cursed" inscription (and probably still is)....

[Link to embedded Tweet.] There are many ways cursed inscriptions can be created. Any inscription with multiple inputs/outputs would be considered cursed. As shown above, certain misuse of opcodes such as OP_1 can lead to cursed inscriptions. Alternatively, the introduction of OP_66 using a value of “cursed” intentionally made these types of inscriptions by having an even numbered opcode which is not indexed by ord. Unless already defined in the spec, even numbered opcodes are not recognized because they are reserved for future protocol development. The full list of ways to create cursed inscriptions from issue #2045 [2] is as follows: • Multiple inscriptions per transaction, for efficient batching. • Inscriptions on inputs after the first, which is useful for collections. • Multiple inscriptions on the same sat, so that the entire history of a sat doesn’t need to be checked to determine if a new inscription is valid. • Inscriptions with unrecognized even headers, so that new even headers don't cause upgraded clients to disagree about inscription numbers. There are a couple specific debates around cursed inscriptions. One of the disputes comes from the way that these inscriptions are currently numbered. Cursed inscriptions are numbered negatively in the order of their creation. Because of this numbering system and naming convention, some people purposefully chose to create inscriptions and collections that appear “cursed” whether by flipping the image of a positively numbered inscription or using a more sinister image theme when inscribing. The question is: Should these be appended to the index of positively numbered inscriptions or should they keep their negative inscription number when the code is updated? Additionally, another contentious conversation is what to do about the certain type of cursed inscriptions that used the OP_66 opcode in their creation. Because this opcode is not recognized by ord and even numbered opcodes are intentionally left out for future development use, it is debatable whether inscriptions using this opcode should be included in the cursed set or if they should be rejected. At the present time, the issue around the even number opcode [3] is listed in the ord github. There are many comments in support of including these inscriptions in the index, but the lead maintainers of the protocol seem to be against it. As of now, the current stance by the developers is that these inscriptions would be unbound, meaning that they would not be assigned to a specific satoshi. Remember, ordinal theory works based on a first in, first out tracking system for satoshis. Each inscription is assigned to the first satoshi in the genesis transaction when the inscription is created. This type of lens for looking at bitcoin allows images, files, text, etc. to be tracked and transferred. If a cursed inscription is unbound, it would not be associated with a specific satoshi and therefore would be unable to be transferred to another address. Many people who are inscribing are hoping to be able to sell or transfer their inscription to another person. While the inscriptions using this opcode will live forever on the Bitcoin blockchain, if these inscriptions are classified as unbound and unassigned to a specific satoshi, users who minted cursed inscriptions using this opcode would be unable to sell or transfer them. Herein lies one of the bigger concerns for people who are spending money on transaction fees to create cursed inscriptions. If they are unable to sell them in the future, significant funds would have been wasted on fees. Many users have responded to the github issue, expressing support for including these inscriptions, but the code’s maintainers are not in favor of recognizing cursed inscriptions using the OP_66 even numbered opcode. On May 30, the new lead maintainer of ord, Raphjaph, wrote [4], “As the protocol currently stands inscriptions are not valid if they use an unrecognized even tag, so this change already makes a concession by recognizing them. For now they are unbound but we might reconsider this and bind them in the future if there are strong reasons.” This response is not what many inscribers were hoping to hear. Similar to Bitcoin, ord is open-source software so users can fork the code if they wish to recognize these specific types of cursed inscriptions. This contentious debate is ongoing and the path forward for ord remains to be seen. Users who spent significant sums on transaction fees may be willing to switch to a new version of ord that will recognize their cursed inscriptions, but this is only a theoretical path forward at this time. Regardless, Ordinals are a new technology being built on Bitcoin. Whether inscriptions are a flash in the pan or if they have lasting power may depend on how this issue gets resolved. ------------------------------------------------ #Inscriptions #Debate #BitcoinDeveloper #Ordinals Links: [1]

GitHub

Cursed Inscription Tracking Issue · Issue #2045 · ordinals/ord

It would be desirable to modify ord to recognize the following: Multiple inscriptions per transaction, for efficient batching Inscriptions on input...

[2]

GitHub

Cursed Inscription Tracking Issue · Issue #2045 · ordinals/ord

It would be desirable to modify ord to recognize the following: Multiple inscriptions per transaction, for efficient batching Inscriptions on input...

[3]

GitHub

Unrecognized even tags are unbound and assigned negative inscription numbers by raphjaph · Pull Request #2109 · ordinals/ord

[4]

GitHub

Unrecognized even tags are unbound and assigned negative inscription numbers by raphjaph · Pull Request #2109 · ordinals/ord

------------------------------------------------

Liquidators Of Sam Bankman-Fried’s Alameda Research Have Scavenged $110 Million Of Bitcoin After Losing Billions BtcCasey May 31, 2023 Analysis by Arkham Intelligence indicates that Alameda's liquidators have managed to acquire slightly more than 4,000 bitcoin.

Bitcoin Magazine

Liquidators Of Sam Bankman-Fried’s Alameda Research Have Scavenged $110 Million Of Bitcoin After Losing Billions

Analysis by Arkham Intelligence indicates that Alameda's liquidators have managed to acquire slightly more than 4,000 bitcoin.

------------------------------------------------ Liquidators in charge of the recovery of assets for the now-disgraced Alameda Research [1] hedge fund founded by Sam Bankman-Fried currently control over $110 million worth of bitcoin held in various wallets, according to a report supplied by blockchain analysis firm Arkham Intelligence [2]. These wallets have been receiving BTC from exchanges and cold wallets as recently as March 2023, the report revealed. The aggregation of these wallets provides insights into the liquidators' collection of BTC from Alameda's holdings. A recent transaction in April involved a 1 BTC test from Alameda's Merchant wallet. This BTC was later sent to a holding address now under the control of Alameda's Liquidators, known as 'Alameda Merchant 1.' Since the beginning of 2023, this address has accumulated 3,581 BTC, worth approximately $97.19 million at current prices. The report states that “In total, Alameda’s liquidators have managed to secure 4,083 BTC (currently $110.81M) sourced from: • Other Alameda Wallets: 34.94 BTC (currently worth $948.27K) • Deribit: 467.366 BTC (currently worth $12.68M) • WBTC Custodian: 2997 BTC (currently worth $81.34M) • Bitfinex: 298.027 BTC (currently worth $8.09M) ° Unlabelled Wallets (possibly an Exchange): 286.7 BTC (currently worth $7.78M)” [A screenshot from the provided report.] “However, this is only a fraction of the BTC that Alameda controlled in the past,” the report noted. “Wallets connected to this network of Alameda’s BTC activity were worth at peak over $800M, with Alameda likely holding more BTC in Centralized Exchanges or unlinked Cold Wallets.” Arkham Intelligence stated that it will continue to monitor the on-chain activity of Alameda’s liquidators. ------------------------------------------------ Links: [1]

Bitcoin Magazine

The FTX Ponzi: Uncovering The Largest Fraud In Crypto History

Modern day alchemy, unsurprisingly, failed. A deep dive into FTX and the events leading to the collapse of the now notorious crypto exchange.

[2]

Arkham | Deanonymizing The Blockchain

See intelligence on the addresses, entities, individuals, and assets most important to you.

------------------------------------------------