cryptocurrency

The Lightning Network has long been the best way to transfer bitcoins instantly and at no cost.  However, the second layer network may well have a major competitor, namely Ethereum.  150% more BTC on Ethereum According to the latest data, there are  around 150% more bitcoins in circulation on the Ethereum network than on the Lightning Network  . In fact, the  Ethereum  network  hosts 2,297 BTCs in the form of WBTC  , a tokenized version of Bitcoin on Ethereum, or just over $ 20 million, according to data from DeFiPulse. Amount of WBTC involved in Ethereum.  Source  . For its part, the  Lightning Network has a capacity of 928 BTC  or about $ 8.1 million, as shown by the data from  Bitcoinvisuals  : Obviously,  these data do not take into account the rate of use of the two solutions  .  Although there are more bitcoins involved in Ethereum,  that doesn't necessarily imply that  Ethereum  is used more than the Lightning Network for BTC transfer  . Where do all these

The occurrence  of Bitcoin halving  was the big topic of conversation this week in the cryptosphere.  While one could expect this division by two of the mining awards of BTC to make miners reluctant, it appears on the contrary that a new  mining  pool  has chosen this timing to reveal itself! A mysterious pool called "Lubian.com" According to statistics from  BTC.com  , a new  Bitcoin  mining pool  has  risen to 6th place  in the BTC network's  hashrate  (its computing power). Spotted and listed only since May 12, the  Lubian.com  pool  -  obviously of  Chinese origin  according to its site  - would have started production  just two weeks before the halving  , by mining a first block on  April 27  (the block N ° 627 441 to be precise). As we can see below, this pool contributed  6% of the  total  hashrate  of consensus by Proof of Work (PoW) of Bitcoin during the  last 3 post-halving days  . Percentage contribution of mining pools to computing power on Bitco

It's the coup de grace!  The SEC complaint against the anonymous messaging platform Telegram has just been validated by the American authorities.  Much more than a simple court decision, it is a whole community that is helplessly witnessing the end of a major project. Inflexible justice The  legal battle  had indeed started last October, after the enthusiasm aroused by the ICOs but also the legal limits which they caused.  Telegram and its founder Pavel Durov decided to offer a digital token for its users and raised  $ 1.7 billion from  investors. After hard work of more than two years aiming to offer a  blockchain more efficient than Bitcoin & Ethereum  , according to its creator, the judge of the American court has just ruled and delivered his verdict: The token “GRAM” emanating from the “TON” platform may not be distributed in the United States and worldwide. “Unfortunately, the American court ended the TON project.  How? 'Or' What ?  Imagine that seve

The blockchain trilemma is between security, decentralization and scalability of their network.  Some such as EOS, Tezos and XRP have relied heavily on scalability to display good transaction speeds, but the latter seem quite meaningless.  Explanations. Scalability: a strong point still not very useful? A recent  study  , on  highly scalable blockchains  , has just been published by researchers from  Imperial College  London and the  Center for Blockchain Technologies  at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). The study focused on  3 months of observation of transactions  on the  EOS  ,  Tezos  (XTZ) and  XRP  blockchains  , from October 1, 2019 to January 1, 2020 more precisely. And the picture is not good to see: despite the high transaction rates announced by the  EOS  ,  Tezos  (XTZ) and  XRP  blockchains  , a large part of on-chain transactions  "do not give rise to a transfer of real value"  , according to the report. Already, researchers not

In the Ethereum ecosystem, smart contracts are king.  Unfortunately, their possibilities are limited and in many cases, the use of an off-chain resource is necessary.  This is particularly the case when generating a random number, a problem that Chainlink wishes to solve with Chainlink VRF. The hell of the random Those who are familiar with computers know this:  generating a random number in a computer way is a real headache.  Indeed, random numbers fall into two categories: Pure random numbers  , derived from the observation of a physical event (  throw from right away, throw from coin, etc.  ) The so-called pseudo-random numbers  , from a computer operation. Unfortunately for developers,  the use of pseudorandom numbers can have serious consequences for the security of the application  .  This is all the more important in the context of blockchains, where dapps must manage funds. Until now, developers of decentralized applications had two possibilities to generate ra