Posts made by fonzie

Due to additional security requirements added recently, some phones will get this error. Unfortunately, you cannot do anything for this issue right now. Please wait and we'll update if something changes.

This is a known bug. This is only happening when trying stake from the airdrop page.

You can stake normally through the 'Get Quota' button when you're inside your wallet's Vite asset page.

You don't need the address. Go to the Mining section on the exchange, then go to staking and add your stake there.

Check the FAQs under ViteX section of the forum:

https://forum.vite.net/topic/2332/how-do-i-transfer-assets-from-my-wallet-to-trade-on-vitex

https://forum.vite.net/topic/2333/how-do-i-move-assets-from-vitex-to-my-exchange-wallet

I believe your issue was solved by the operator. Please mark this as solved.

Maybe check the firewall settings? Connection might be blocked.

Also, it is not a great idea to run a full node using a personal PC/laptop. It requires uninterrupted reliable connection. Most who have tried to run using their personal machines have run into connectivity problems.

Can you please provide step-by-step what you did and what happened? Right now, it is not that clear.

Also, please provide the vite address using which you were placing the trades.

Awesome! Good luck!

Can you share a screenshot of the airdrop screen?

Go to the second tab on the app (tap on the middle bottom icon).

More airdrop details at:
https://forum.vite.net/topic/1972/vite-airdrop-rules-update

I am not sure. Not a dev

Did you change the number of allowed connections/peers in the config file? I think by default it is 10, if I remember correctly.

You can check your node (connections and block progress) on the below link (sometimes it is overloaded and doesn't work):

https://explorer.vite.net/FullNode

Great!

You're on v2.3.1?

And it's the same error every time you try to run your node?

How much RAM does your node have?

Bakkt, the long-awaited Bitcoin (BTC) futures platform from the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), has begun testing the delivery of BTC futures, according to an official tweet on July 22.

Per the tweet, user acceptance testing for Bitcoin daily and monthly futures began today with participants from around the world.

The platform initially announced the launch of futures testing in June, when Bakkt COO Adam White stated, “On July 22, two days after Apollo 11’s 50th anniversary, Bakkt will initiate user acceptance testing for its Bitcoin futures listed and traded at ICE Futures U.S. and cleared at ICE Clear US.”

White then said that the introduction of Bitcoin futures will help usher in more institutional participation in cryptocurrency markets.

Bakkt’s Bitcoin futures are physically delivered via a process called warehousing, which will purportedly bode well from a price discovery standpoint, but cause some concern among regulators.

Bakkt has experienced several delays regarding its launch as regulators like the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission investigated the platform’s compliance procedures and its possible effect on markets.

Last week, Sam Doctor, the managing director and quant strategist at Fundstrat Global Advisors, predicted that full futures trading on Bakkt will launch this quarter. Doctor said:

“There appears to be a critical mass of adopters ready to come on board on Day 1 of the Bakkt launch, with the sales team gaining traction among brokers, market makers, prop trading desks and liquidity providers.”

Source: Cointelegraph

Venezuelans traded more bolivars for Bitcoin (BTC) than ever before last week, but the statistics say more about fiat than cryptocurrency.

Yet another Bitcoin volumes record for Venezuela
Data from Coin Dance, which tracks trading activity on P2P exchanges Localbitcoins, Paxful and Bisq, confirmed the seven days to July 20 were Venezuela’s biggest on record.

During that period, users on LocalBitcoins alone generated volumes of over 57 billion bolivars, beating the previous all-time high of 49 billion, which appeared in the previous week.

Weekly LocalBitcoins Volume (Venezuelan Bolivar) Courtesy of Coin.dance

As Cointelegraph reported, Venezuela’s currency continues to suffer from runaway inflation, which estimates claim has reached 10,000,000%, leading citizens to resort to alternative means of storing value.

The country’s official alternative, state-issued digital currency Petro, was declared a failure by a United States nonprofit this month.

But there’s a catch
Yet as the bolivar count on Localbitcoins keeps growing, in Bitcoin terms, the number is falling. The 57 billion figure for last week equated to just 574 BTC — considerably less than in some previous weeks earlier this year.

Underscoring the weakening bolivar, Venezuela’s cryptocurrency trading is not supported by the government, which also imposed embargoes on foreign currency.

Earlier this year, the Lightning Torch transaction relay raised 0.4 BTC ($4,000) in funds among Bitcoin users for Venezuelans unable to escape the country.

Source: Cointelegraph

Are Bitfinex and Tether in trouble? Maybe, but the thing is, we don't know just how much trouble, because the stablecoin issuer has challenged the New York State Office of the Attorney General's (OAG) case against them. In claims filed in April, Attorney General Letitia James asserted that Bitfinex defrauded its customers, having lost $850 million in client and corporate funds, and then having attempted to cover up this loss by secretly helping itself to around $900 million of Tether's cash reserves.

Serious charges, but they're denied by Bitfinex and Tether’s parent company, iFinex, which responded in April that the OAG's claims were "riddled with false assertions" and that the lost $850 million is being safeguarded, although it didn't specify whether this amount is being held by Crypto Capital Corp. (which initially received it) or by some other entity. Regardless, iFinex has applied to have the case dismissed, arguing that the OAG has no legal basis to sue it for the simple reason that Bitfinex wasn't operating in New York during the period at issue.

However, while a New York judge has questioned the attorney general's "vague, open-ended" claims and asked for a more precisely constructed revision, recent news surrounding theclosing of a New York-based bank account indicates that Tether and Bitfinex may very well have been operating in the state of New York. This would suggest that the OAG's claims are legally valid and that Bitfinex and Tether may end up facing serious repercussions. But even if it does, certain crypto-related legal experts suggest that this wouldn’t necessarily be such a huge blow to crypto, which will endure with or without the liquidity provided by the Tether stablecoin, USDT.

The New York connection
On July 10, it was reported that the crypto-friendly Metropolitan Commercial Bank had closed accounts associated with iFinex. The company and its affiliates had held these accounts for around five months, after which they were closed, with iFinex itself stating that they were discontinued largely because of inactivity. According to iFinex:

"Metropolitan Commercial Bank had limited, corporate operating accounts with Tether Holdings LTD, iFinex Inc, and Digfinex Inc, all with negligible activity, and requested the accounts to be closed after less than 5 months of the accounts being opened."

As Cointelegraph has reported previously, iFinex denies that Bitfinex and Tether were operating in New York, and it's partly on this basis that the company believes the OAG's case should be thrown out. For its part, the OAG claimed in an affirmation filed in July that iFinex opened the accounts in December 2017 and "transacted in those accounts thereafter." Similarly, it also notes that it held accounts with another New York-based bank, Signature Bank, and "transacted in those accounts until at least April 2018. During that time period, transactions were initiated in those accounts by a senior executive of Respondents located in New York."

But even if iFinex held accounts with New York-based banks, there's still no guarantee the OAG can legally establish that Bitfinex and/or Tether were actually operating in New York and serving New York-based customers. As crypto-specialized lawyer Preston Byrne told Cointelegraph, the simple fact of having an account with a New York-based bank isn't likely to be enough on its own to legally establish operations in the state. He added:

"The short answer is that it depends on what the company is doing and what jurisdictional hook the state uses to regulate the conduct. For any company, the outcome of this analysis will be very fact-dependent. To the extent there is any possible nexus with New York State, businesses really should confer with New York counsel for that advice."

Other lawyers agree that the simple possession of a New York-based account isn't enough on its own to prove anything. Aviya Arika, a lawyer and the chief of blockchain at Aviya Law, explained to Cointelegraph that, during her time as a lawyer, she has opened dozens of bank accounts for clients in numerous nations when responding to the question of whether iFinex having New York-based accounts proves that it operated in the state. Arika said:

"This experience has taught me that having a bank account in country x doesn’t necessarily mean the company is targeting or soliciting clients in that country. Therefore my answer would be negative."

"I don’t see a mandatory connection between the two," she clarified, noting that, conversely, it's also possible to target New York clients and have your bank account anywhere else in the United States. Arika also pointed out that iFinex isn't the only crypto-related company to have set up with Metropolitan and that it's likely many other clients of the bank don't operate in New York State. She said:

"Metropolitan Bank has become very popular in crypto talk and I’m pretty sure not all companies who have accounts there are working with clients in New York. Because of the relative scarcity of crypto friendly banks, companies are not being as picky as to narrow down their options and approach only those within their target markets."

The outcome
The above would suggest that the OAG may struggle in establishing that Bitfinex and/or Tether operated in New York. Nonetheless, it needs to be underlined that the attorney general is indeed making the claim that Bitfinex and Tether served New York-based customers and didn't only have bank accounts located in the state. For example, in its affirmation from early July, Assistant Attorney General Bryan M. Whitehurst wrote that "documents obtained by the OAG in the course of its investigation demonstrate that Respondents did in fact allow customers located in New York to transact on the Bitfinex trading platform after January 30, 2017," which is when Bitfinex announced that it was officially barring New Yorkers from the exchange.

The affirmation then proceeds to cite various pieces of evidence that Bitfinex was serving New York-based customers. For example, Whitehurst refers to enclosed evidence (not publicly available) of correspondence between Bitfinex and a digital currency trading firm located in New York, which used Bitfinex to trade on behalf of numerous "offshore vehicles” and which "conducted significant activity on the Bitfinex trading platform through at least early 2019." Likewise, the OAG also cites evidence that Bitfinex set up an account for Galaxy Digital and "associated entities," as well as evidence testifying to the use of Bitfinex by New York-based traders as late as 2019.

Given that these aren't the only pieces of evidence the OAG claims to possess, it would seem that iFinex may not be successful in having the case thrown out. That said, there still isn't certainty that the attorney general will succeed in proving a link with New York because, as Aviya Arika indicates, other factors complicate the issue. "Another interesting issue here would be the non-solicitation issue," she said. "What the court’s approach will be if Tether had allowed NY residents to transact but had not solicited or targeted them and had created the relationship with them completely passively."

Also, proving an operational link with New York is one thing, but proving the defrauding of customers — which the Attorney General is ultimately attempting to substantiate — is another. And it's precisely here that the biggest uncertainty resides, with Byrne affirming that, because of the infancy of the legal battle, it would be unwise to stick your neck out with a decisive prediction either way. Byrne clarified: "It's impossible to know at this phase. I would imagine both sides of this litigation are keeping their cards close to the vest."

Still, even with this uncertainty, it’s unlikely that the New York attorney general would have sued iFinex if it didn’t believe it had a strong case, as suggested by Aaraon Kaplan, a former lawyer who is now the CEO of New York-based trading platform Prometheum. He told Cointelegraph:

“The outcome of the NY AG’s case against Tether will be determined by the facts and circumstances. The attorney general tends to only bring cases they believe they have a good chance of winning. I anticipate that the NY Attorney General believes the state has a very strong case against Tether.”

Implications
But assuming for the sake of argument that Bitfinex and Tether had defrauded customers by covering up an $850 million loss, it would be interesting to consider the kind of impact their defeat in a legal battle would have on iFinex and on the wider cryptocurrency industry. For one, it's likely that iFinex would be hit with a hefty fine, and given that Bank of America had to pay a $42 million penalty in 2018 in connection with electronic trading fraud, it's possible that any fine it could potentially receive would be somewhere in the same region, although it is known that other firms have paid billion-dollar fines to the state of New York in recent years.

"The penalties Tether would face would be heavy fines that it would probably not recover from," Arika said. This is a grave prediction, and while a $42 million-dollar fine probably wouldn't be financially ruinous for iFinex, the damage to its reputation could be more far-reaching — as could be any legal orders it receives concerning its business practices in the U.S. (e.g., the New York attorney general has shut down companies in the past). And if we take the absolute worst-case scenario — the closure of iFinex and the end of Tether — then the implications for crypto could be very ominous. Byrne has also added that a bad outcome for Tether may affect the crypto market negatively:

"As to the wider market, all indications are that Tether plays an increasingly important systemic role in the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency markets. Removing Tether from these markets for any reason would be likely to create a severe liquidity crunch among a number of overseas exchanges that rely on Tether for USD liquidity and could lead to substantial market disruption."

Indeed, USDT has been pivotal in crypto bull markets over the past couple of years, with this year’s rally coming amid a doubling of the Tether supply. In fact, the supply of USDT more than doubled momentarily on July 13, when Tether printed 5 billion USDT tokens, only to burn them almost immediately after. According to the company’s chief technology officer, Paolo Ardoino, this was simply the result of putting a decimal point in the wrong place during the transfer of 50 million Omni-based USDT tokens to the Tron blockchain. However, given that Tether hadn’t been entirely honest regarding its 1:1 backing of USDT, for instance, a number of suspicious tweeters raised the entirely speculative possibility of foul play.

Tether’s past importance to crypto aside, other experts believe that the cryptocurrency market would continue to exist and thrive without Tether. As Weiss Ratings' Juan Villaverde told Cointelegraph in a recent article, the post-April bull market has arguably seen Bitcoin become less dependent on the liquidity provided by USDT, saying, "Let’s not forget that the rally we’ve seen in Bitcoin accelerated around late April, precisely when the market was concerned about the sustainability of USDT as an asset class." Villaverde continued on to clarify that much the same thing had occurred in October, when Bitcoin jumped by over 10% intraday, despite question marks surrounding the transparency of the Tether stablecoin. His point was that the market had already spoken on the issue of USDT, telling us that, even with doubts concerning the stablecoin’s sustainability, the markets were liquid enough to soak up any capital flight.

This may be an optimistic view of things, but Villaverde isn't the only commentator who believes that Tether's hypothetical collapse wouldn't have massive knock-on effects for crypto. In much the same vein, Arika also believes that a hypothetical proof of Tether's fraudulence wouldn't irreparably affect the cryptocurrency industry's reputation, saying:

"If Tether turns out to be a bad actor it would be unfortunate but it shouldn’t stain the whole crypto market. Bad actors exist in every industry. The problem is the negative buzz and the false reaffirmation that the crypto industry is fishy. Generally I think that the creation of case law and pragmatic application of the law to crypto companies is beneficial and constitutes a natural development."

Kaplan agrees, explaining that a potential loss for Tether could be beneficial for crypto insofar as the industry is in dire need of standardization. According to Kaplan:

“The crypto industry needs to realize that in order for crypto to go mainstream there needs to be integrity in the market. That integrity will either be forced upon the industry by regulators and legal actions, or will require standardization and best practices to eliminate activities like commingling customer and exchange funds.”

Taken together, the above observations point to two main points: 1) there isn't enough public evidence right now to conclude either way on whether iFinex defrauded New York-based customers; and 2) even if such evidence emerges and the New York OAG wins its case, the cryptocurrency industry will live on regardless. In other words, you should be worried about Tether's fight with New York only if you happen to be Tether.

Global oil operators can save at least 30% by using blockchain in their infrastructure, according to data by blockchain startup Data Gumbo.

Andrew Bruce, CEO of American blockchain startup Data Gumbo, discussed blockchain-powered automated contract execution in the oil industry on Bloomberg Commodities Edge on July 19.

When asked how much oil industry players can save by implementing blockchain applications such as blockchain-based contract execution instead of traditional paper contracts, Bruce argued that such solutions could save at least 30%, referring to internal studies by the company. According to Data Gumbo’s data, oil and gas market accounted for $2.6 trillion by 2017.

In May 2019, Data Gumbo raised $6 million from major global energy companies, including Equinor’s venture subsidiary Equinor Technology Venture and Saudi Aramco’s venture arm Saudi Aramco Energy Ventures. With a total funding of up to $9.3 million, investors expect the company to improve oil and gas supply chains by eliminating disputes and delivering automated transactions, as well as reducing reconciliation times in the supply chain.

On July 18, co-founder of American tech giant Apple Steve Wozniak was reported to invest in Efforce, a new blockchain-enabled energy saving firm in Malta.

Previously, Cointelegraph reported that Philip Morris estimated its potential blockchain-powered savings to account for $20 million. Philip Morris’ global head of tech innovation said that manual work and the associated counterfeit risks end up costing the industry and governments $100 million a year.

Source: Cointelegraph

Great news! Can't wait for ViteX

The United States Congress’ hearings on Libra are over. First, on July 16, the Senate Banking Committee held a testimony on Facebook’s cryptocurrency project, which was followed by a meeting organized by the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee on the next day. David Marcus, a Facebook executive and head of the social media giant’s crypto subsidiary, Calibra, testified on behalf of Libra at both hearings. The legislators extensively interviewed him for two days in a row, mainly inquiring about the project’s privacy and safety. Here are the main outtakes from those sessions.

Senators used the opportunity to grill Facebook
The lawmakers didn’t hold back. For instance, during the Banking Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio said Facebook shows “breathtaking arrogance” in its attempt to launch a cryptocurrency, given its involvement in a number of high-profile privacy scandals. He then went as far as to say that Facebook “broke journalism” and “helped incite a genocide," referring to the conflict in Myanmar.

When Brown asked Marcus, "Do you really think people should trust Facebook with their hard-earned money?" Marcus replied that Facebook “will have no special privilege,” the senator then interrupted, “Mr. Marcus, you know better than that.” Brown then referred to Libra as a “recipe for more corporate power over markets and over consumers.”

Rep. Maxine Waters, another vocal opponent of Libra, who has previously requested Facebook to halt the development of the project “given the company’s troubled past,” continued to criticize the social media behemoth in Congress. She opened the July 17 hearing with an indictment of Facebook’s past behavior, saying that the company has “demonstrated pattern of failing to keep consumer data private on a scale similar to Equifax,” a large scale data breach that took place in 2017. Additionally, Waters stated that Facebook “allowed malicious Russian state actors to purchase and target ads,” which purportedly influenced the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

Further, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to Facebook as “a surveillance corporation” in her statement. Regarding the membership of the Libra Association, Ocasio-Cortez asked, “Were they [the members] democratically elected?” After Marcus answered that they were not, but that the association is governed by membership standards, Ocasio-Cortez summed up Libra as “a currency controlled by an undemocratically-selected coalition of largely massive corporations.”

“This is a godsend to drug dealers and tax evaders,” Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat from California, said of Libra during the latter hearing.

“Trust” was a key topic
Prior to the hearings, Marcus published a blog post emphasizing that Libra users will not have to put their trust in Facebook. Perhaps forseeing the scandals-related backlash, the Calibra CEO wrote:

“Bottom line: You won’t have to trust Facebook to get the benefit of Libra. And Facebook won’t have any special responsibility over the Libra Network. But we hope that people will respond favorably to the Calibra wallet. We’ve been clear about our approach to financial data separation and we will live up to our commitments and work hard to deliver real utility.”

Rep. Madeleine Dean addressed that assumption during her statement, referring to the record-breaking fine that Facebook is reportedly facing as a result of the 2018 Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal:

“No, we do need to trust you. We absolutely need to trust you. [...] Could you be specific as to the wrong-doing that generated a $5 billion fine? It’s tough to trust when the collection, storage and misuse of the information of your customers generated a $5 billion fine.”

Curiously, during the testimonies, Marcus stressed several times that trust is “primordial.” At some point, Brown could not resist asking, “What the hell does that mean that ‘trust is primordial?’” to which Marcus succinctly replied, “It means we need to continue to do better.”

Facebook denied being a bank, but its future regulators remain unknown
Facebook has previously denied that the Libra Association would fall under bank rules, but Rep. Ed Perlimutter from Colorado challenged that statement in Congress. “We think you’re a bank, but you’re not quite like a bank,” he said at the hearing. “If you’re bank, we regulate the heck out of you. That is the resistance you’re feeling.”

In response, Marcus said the governing body behind Libra has “no plans to engage in banking activities.” He added that Libra is not an investment “because it is designed for stability,” meaning speculators wouldn’t buy it to trade and earn profits.

Rep. Jim Himes from Connecticut suggested that Libra resembles an exchange-traded fund (ETF), which is a kind of investment fund that is tied to the price of an underlying asset — a commodity, an index, bonds or a basket of assets — like an index fund and is traded on exchanges. Indeed, Libra will be backed by a reserve of assets ostensibly “designed to give it intrinsic value” and to mitigate volatility fluctuations. These assets consist of a basket of bank deposits and short-term government securities that will be held in the Libra Reserve for every Libra coin that is issued, according to the white paper.

Finally, Gary Gensler, a former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), told the House committee in written testimony that the fund backing Libra is “a pooled investment vehicle that should, at a minimum, be regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

Marcus admitted he would accept his full pay in Libra (after being asked four times)
At some point during the hearing on Tuesday, Brown reteriated that he thinks it’s “delusional” that people would trust Facebook with their “hard-earned” money. He then asked Marcus, “Will you accept all of your compensation in that new currency?”

Calibra CEO first attempted to dodge the question by arguing that Libra is “not designed to compete with bank accounts.” Brown quickly interrupted, saying: “That’s not the point. The question is: Will you accept all of your compensation in this new currency that you want us to trust you [with] so much?”

Marcus continued his argument that Libra won’t be competing with bank accounts, but Brown pressed on. “That’s really avoiding the question,” the senator said. “Do you trust your currency so much that you and your team are willing to see a 100% of your compensation be paid to you in that currency?”

The Facebook executive replied: “Trust all of my assets in Libra? Yes, I would.” Brown repeated his question for the fourth time, demanding a straight answer as to whether Marcus is ready to receive 100% of his salary in Libra. Finally, the Calibra CEO cracked: “I would because it is backed one-for-one with a reserve.”

Libra will be AML- and KYC-compliant, but specifics remain unclear
Rep. David Scott highlighted that Facebook hasn’t offered any “concrete details” in regard to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) measures. “What do you see as the responsibilities of Libra to combat money laundering, to protect our financial system,” he asked.

Marcus replied that Libra “will have an AML program and will have guidelines for all the members to enforce the AML, KYC, CFT standards.” Notably, the Calibra CEO added. “Blockchain gives additional information to law enforcement and regulators compared to our current system.”

Facebook is not sure whether Libra will be available to people banned from the social media platform

During the July 16 hearing, Rep. Sean Duffy asked Marcus, “Who gets to use Calibra and Libra?” The Facebook executive answered that by saying: “Anyone that can open an account, goes through KYC, in countries where we can operate.”

Duffy pressed on: “Who can use a $20 bill? [...] This $20 bill doesn’t discriminate on anything. You can be a murderer, say horrible things, you can say great things. This $20 bill can be used by every single person that possesses it. With regard to your network, can Milos Yianopolous and Louis Farrakhan use Libra?” both are people who have been banned from Facebook. “I don’t know yet, congressman,” Marcus replied.

Facebook was asked about Switzerland
The fact that Libra Association is based in Switzerland seemed like another red flag for the legislators. “Why are you doing this in Switzerland and why are you using a basket of currencies?” asked Rep. Patrick McHenry from North Carolina. “Why not the good old American dollar?” To answer this point, Marcus attempted to reassure the legislators:

“The choice of Switzerland has nothing to do about evading responsibilities or oversight. The goal of Switzerland is to home this Libra Association in an international place.”

Separately, Waters noted that Switzerland “has a history of creating a haven for criminals and shady corporations” during her statement.

Republicans seemed a bit more relaxed about Libra
While the general attitude toward Libra during the hearings was rather hostile, some Republican politicians seemed a bit more accepting of the idea, despite what President Donald Trump recently had to say on Twitter about cryptocurrencies and Facebook’s project specifically. “Quite frankly, I don’t care for Facebook,” said Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Republican from Georgia. “But I do appreciate anyone who challenges the status quo.”

Similarly, McHenry said: ”We’re here to go beyond the headlines. [...] Washington must go beyond the hype to ensure that we are not the place where innovation goes to die.”

Facebook won’t launch Libra before sorting out regulatory concerns
During the July 17 hearing on Libra with the House’s Financial Services Committee, Marcus reassured the representatives that Facebook would not launch Libra before it has addressed all regulatory concerns.

Rep. Nydia Velazquez asked Marcus, “Will you commit yourself to not launch before all the concerns from the Federal Reserve and other regulators are addressed?” In response, Marcus said, “Absolutely, congresswoman. And I want to reiterate this commitment that this was the spirit in which we announced.”

Overall, it seems that Facebook hasn’t lost hope. “Many thanks to Chair @RepMaxineWaters, Ranking Member @PatrickMcHenry, and the rest of the House Financial Services Committee for devoting so much time to discuss Libra today,” Marcus tweeted after two days of hearings. “We will take the time to get this right.”