Kraken has added Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Ripple (XRP) to Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Ethereum Classic (ETC), Augur (REP), Monero (XMR), and Tether (USDT) bringing its margin trading offering to a total of eight cryptocurrencies.

Margin trading of all eight will be available on all of Kraken’s platforms. The latter site boasts an improved user interface and integrated charts and tools as well as supporting mobile trading.

Kraken’s news release adds:

Please note that BCH and XRP are not collateral currencies. This means you cannot open margin positions against the value of your BCH or XRP balances.

Exchange users are advised to keep balances of collateral currencies while trading and to be careful when trading collateral currencies into BCH and XRP with margin positions open, as account equity will be reduced.

Kraken then steps into the advantages of margin trading:

Margin trading allows you to leverage your account for greater profits, while also assuming greater risk.

Whilst also warning of the risks of greater losses and that margin positions can be forcibly closed if losses are great in order to protect leveraged funds.

“This means that you may be forced to take a large loss on a trade rather than having the option to try and wait for a more favorable price.”

Kraken points to its own margin trading guides and the heightened risk does mean that inexperienced traders should research the trading option thoroughly.

In June 2018 Korea judged Coinone’s margin trading to be illegal gambling. In October Poloniex announced it was removing margin products for U.S customers to remain regulatory compliant and Japan is still toying with capping cryptocurrency margin trading.

Kraken itself hit the news this September when a New York State Attorney referred Kraken, as well as Binance and Gate.io, to the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) for potential violation of New York’s virtual currency regulations. Kraken’s CEO, Jesse Powell, was critical of New York’s “controlling” behavior and hadn’t returned a questionnaire that was part of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) report.

According to CoinMarketCap, Kraken is currently the 27th cryptocurrency exchange by adjusted trading volume.

Credits to Melanie Kramer

The so-called “hash war” over the future of bitcoin cash is over – and what remains appears to be a persisting rivalry between the forces behind what are now two distinct cryptocurrencies.

Created in November when the blockchain underwent a controversial system-wide upgrade (also called a hard fork), there remains a segment of the bitcoin cash community that follows a new software protocol called Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision, or BSV.

With the remaining community following a competing implementation of bitcoin cash called Bitcoin Adjustable Blocksize Cap, or ABC, the expectation shortly after the split was that one blockchain would quickly overtake the other.

In part, these expectation were stoked by rumors of an impending “hash war” in which SV proponents would redirect computation energy also called hash power – normally used to mine blocks on a blockchain – to sabotage operations on the ABC chain.

But following the hard fork that led to a split the bitcoin cash blockchain, Craig Wright – the one-time Satoshi Nakamoto claimaint, chief scientist at nChain and one of the leading figureheads for BSV – denied plans of chain attacks, instead calling for a strategy called “persistence hunting.”

He told CoinDesk:

“This is long term. People have got to understand that we are not taking the quick easy path and if they don’t like it that’s too bad.”

Now, nearly one month after the fork occurred, proponents on the SV side, including Wright, are focusing efforts on developing SV’s brand and attracting adoption among users and businesses.

Though on this front, Roger Ver – CEO of bitcoin.com and outspoken supporter for Bitcoin ABC – argued at a CNBC event in Tokyo last week the SV side was still losing.

“The ABC version of bitcoin cash has more hashrate, more exchanges, more wallets, more everything. The BSV coin – I wish them good luck – but it’s a separate project and it’s not bitcoin cash. They have … less everything,” said Ver.

As such, the two coins – while no longer engaged in a battle over sustained computation energy or hash power – are nonetheless in fierce competition with one another to achieve the highest degree of user adoption.

After all, the original vision of bitcoin cash, still championed by Bitcoin ABC and SV supporters alike, is the creation of a global peer-to-peer payments network.

Both see the ultimate use case for their respective cryptocurrencies as a digital form of cash, certain proponents on the Bitcoin SV side even go so far as to say that in the long-run there will exist only one cryptocurrency.

Speaking to CoinDesk, Lorien Gamaroff CEO of BSV wallet Centbee said:

”There will be one bitcoin. I think that all these other coins – all these thousands of them – will disappear and only bitcoin [SV] will survive and that’s bitcoin in its original form.”

A “pro-business” move

Straying from the original design of bitcoin in an important way, bitcoin ABC developers implemented a contentious upgrade five days following the bitcoin cash split.

The changes to the network were two-fold:

  1. Block finalization: The history of blocks on the bitcoin ABC blockchain can only be reorganized – or “reorged” in short – back to ten blocks. This means that transactions featured in a block that has been added to by a minimum of 10 blocks are final. In other words, these transactions cannot be changed even if a longer running version of the ABC chain proposes alternative transaction history.
  2. Reorg threshold: In addition, for a longer running bitcoin ABC chain to reorg even less than ten of the most recent validated blocks, the length of the chain must feature twice as many blocks as the number it seeks to reorg. This means that for an opposing chain to attempt a four block reorg, this chain must present not only five newly rendered blocks but eight.

Outside of preventing a maliciously mined version of the bitcoin ABC blockchain from overtaking the network, this upgrade dubbed “Bitcoin ABC 0.18.5″ poses benefits to businesses and cryptocurrency exchanges operating on the network.

Speaking to CoinDesk, Tanooj Luthra – ex-Coinbase engineer and current CTO for blockchain startup Elph – explained:

“It’s definitely a pro-business, wallets, operations heavy move … If you don’t have some amount of guarantee that a transaction has been finalized how can you ever actually use the currency? How can you actually buy a good with it?”

Viewing the traditional guarantee of “proof-of-work” or the longest running chain as an ideological preference, Luthra explained that in practice reliance on hash power did not hold practicality for smaller cryptocurrencies like bitcoin ABC.

As such, he predicted strengthened support from exchanges and businesses exchanging funds on the network as a result of this upgrade.

To Luthra’s point, three cryptocurrency exchanges – Coinbase, Bitso and Gemini – have since allocated the bitcoin cash ticker symbol “BCH” to the Bitcoin ABC blockchain. They have also additionally refrained from adding support for users looking to trade the Bitcoin SV cryptocurrency citing continued “uncertainty” over its future as in the case of Gemini.

Outside of these three, other exchanges have enabled support to Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV either allocating the bitcoin cash symbol to Bitcoin ABC or differentiating it from Bitcoin SV as “BAB/BCHABC.” These exchanges include but are not limited to: OKEx, Kraken, Poloniex, Bitfinex, and CoinEx.

The makings of ‘sound money’

And though Bitcoin SV is currently unlisted by certain cryptocurrency exchanges, it’s value on the exchanges that do allow SV trading has climbed in recent days to sit almost at par with the ABC coin.

Having grappled over the past week on the five exchanges listed above, bitcoin ABC looks to hold a slight price advantage over the other – both being valued below $100 at the time of publication.

Confident that the SV platform will “ramp up” in profitability over time, Steve Shadders – Bitcoin SV developer and director of solutions and engineering at nChain – told CoinDesk:

“Substantial businesses and organizations have committed to building on the SV blockchain … I’m very confident about the future of bitcoin SV because the businesses that have pledged to support us are the ones that have real sustainable business models.”

Pointing to the official bitcoin SV website, Shadders noted that two dozen cryptocurrency services and ten different wallet applications currently support the nascent blockchain network.

One of these very businesses being Centbee, Gamaroff added that his convictions about the SV blockchain came down to believing in its future as “sound money.”

Rejecting all new and controversial changes to protocol – apart from increases to block size – bitcoin SV supporters like Gamaroff believe in “a fixed protocol set in stone.”

“Every coin out there wants to be sound money but nobody realizes that for it to be sound, it needs to be unchangeable,” said Gamaroff.

Echoing these sentiments, Ryan X Charles CEO of MoneyButton – an online payments tool listed to operate on the SV network – told CoinDesk before the split that the “burden to businesses” of continual changes to the protocol was “well-intentioned but not based on operating a … business.”

At the same time, supporters of ABC like Luthra maintain that changes to the code – as opposed to reducing the stability of a network – are healthy signs indicating prolonged usability.

Speaking to ABC’s most recent upgrade 0.18.5, he told CoinDesk:

“It’s a really good sign that [ABC developers] are trying to get more widespread adoption and make things little bit more usable and little bit more practical.”

Though several businesses, such as CoinText and BitPay, have already announced their support of the new bitcoin ABC network, a full list to indicate the relative number of competing services on ABC has yet to be created.

As such, with the bitcoin cash hash war having come and gone, the renewed battle between these two camps are unlikely to be solved on the basis of hash power any longer. Leaving it up to market forces now to decide the fate of bitcoin ABC and SV, the key question to ask moving forward will be: who is using which network?

Credits to Christine Kim

One month has officially passed since the bitcoin cash blockchain underwent a hard fork on November 15, resulting in the creation of two distinct networks.

They’re now commonly referred to as Bitcoin Cash ABC and Bitcoin SV. Yet in the weeks that followed the mid-November fracture, there is still no favorite in terms of overall price.

Bitcoin cash is designed in such a way that, every six months, its users must ‘fork’ the blockchain and adopt a software upgrade with changes determined by the project’s open-source software developers.

If the developers and miners reach consensus as to what the upgrades should be, the main chain stays intact and simply adopts the software upgrade known as a ‘soft fork’.

All bitcoin cash forks had fallen under the ‘soft’ category, but circumstances were different with the latest fork. This time around, the upgrades could not be agreed upon and tension grew among developers, so the main chain experienced a divisive hard fork – in other words, it split into two separate chains with their own cryptocurrencies.

Since the fork, both BCHABC and BSV have been trading on public cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance and Coinbase, but after 30 days of wild volatility and drastic swings in hash power, their prices stand just $10 apart.

Where are they now?

Bitcoin cash prices reached a peak of $621 in November but had fallen 32 percent to $421 on Nov. 14, the day before the scheduled fork. according to CoinDesk’s pricing data.

After the split, the two newly created cryptocurrencies bitcoin cash ABC and Bitcoin SV hit the market and began trading at $295 and $90 respectively on the Binance exchange.

It should be noted that multiple exchanges including Poloniex and Bitfinex engaged in ‘pre fork trading’ before the fork took place.

These experimental markets involved the trading of ‘IOU’ token place holders for BCHABC and BSV redeemable post-fork, theoretically allowing exchange users to decide amongst themselves which fork to support.

For much of November, BCHABC was the distinct price leader, at times valued as much as 10 times that of its counterpart.

The difference between the two narrowed as the month elapsed, so much so that Bitcoin SV was able to take a brief price lead on Dec. 6.

Since the fork, the broader cryptocurrency market has witnessed a significant sell-off of more than $80 billion in terms of total capitalization. As a result, the two forks depreciated greatly in price.

At the time of writing, BCHABC (currently trading under the BCH ticker on many exchanges) is valued at just $80, while BSV is $70, according to CoinMarketCap, so it’s clear the public has yet to pick an undisputed favorite.

Looking forward

While the long term success of BCHABC and BSV will likely be dictated by usage and hash power, technical analysis can be applied to their price charts so a more immediate direction of the assets prices can be anticipated.

As can be seen in the BSV/USDT chart above, price began forming a bearish consolidation pattern known as the descending triangle on Nov. 26, which broke down on Dec. 16.

The break of triangle support at $84 opened the doors for more depreciation with just two notable support levels nearby: $74 and $54. Based on the large size of the triangle pattern, it seems the lower support level is likely to be reached although the oversold conditions seen on the intraday relative strength index (RSI) may slow the fall.

There is less to glean from the BCHABC chart since it has been in a steady, near 80 percent downtrend ever since hitting the market.

With no known support levels nearby, it’s difficult to predict where its price may eventually pick up bid although oversold conditions are evident on the higher time frame charts, so sellers may soon take a breather allowing for a corrective bounce.

Needless to say, it’s unlikely either of the newly forked cryptocurrencies pick up strong big until bitcoin and the broader market does as well.

Disclosure: The author holds BTC, AST, REQ, OMG, FUEL, 1st and AMP at the time of writing.

Credits to Sam Ouimet

An explosive Medium.com article by pseudonymous developer _unwriter, who primarily works on two Bitcoin Cash infrastructure projects call BitDB and BitSocket, both of which are critical to several Bitcoin Cash-community outfits, levies a number of serious accusations against the Bitcoin ABC development team as well as Bitcoin.com and affiliated Bitmain. The heartfelt article is worth the read if one wishes to understand the Bitcoin SV point of view.

Over the course of several paragraphs (we paraphrase except where the quotation is in blockquotes or quotation marks), _unwriter declares the following points:

  • Bitcoin Cash ABC became centralized regardless of their intentions through the use of checkpoints following the hard fork.
  • Bitcoin Cash ABC rushed a flurry of patches in the wake of the fork and potentially did irreversible harm.
  • Bitcoin is defined by how it scales and by how it is secured. In his or her view, if these things are not both on chain and by the rules of proof of work – which he further declares is a “way of life” – then they are not Bitcoin.
  • Bitcoin Maximalism is a common sense approach to development.
  • “I don’t want to invest my time and resources working on a platform that can easily undermine my ‘permissionless innovation’ anytime. For example, if you happen to build anything that competes with wormhole, expect it to get sidelined in various subtle ways, so subtle that you won’t even realize it until it just hits you in the form of an ABC protocol update.”
  • Finally, Bitcoin Cash ABC is no longer a reasonable platform for him to develop on.

He or she used the following video as evidence that Bitcoin ABC contingents were openly celebrating the use of “potentially illegal” (paraphrase) checkpoints in its cut-throat race to “win the ticker” or to retain the BCH symbol across exchanges, a move that particularly miffed billionaire crypto investor and CoinGeek owner Calvin Ayre, who asked that both chains rename themselves in terms of trading symbol.

“Zero Moral Hazard”

The anonymous contributor comes across as sincere and dedicated to his single-minded cause. He begins the article by stating that he has never met any developers in person and thereby never been influenced by anyone. He simply wants to “build what Bitcoin needs” and be judged “on what he builds.”

It seems that when Bitcoin Core development reached a stalemate as regards a blocksize increase – over which the industry was split – he chose Bitcoin Cash, believing it to be continuing on the truest interpretation of the Bitcoin vision. Later, he seems to feel he is once against resisting those who would pervert a pure vision of Bitcoin, in his view. While he claims to have remained apolitical essentially until now, the piece is overall polemic in the extreme. As an example:

In the past you may have heard some anti bitcoin cash people criticize how “Bitcoin Cash development is centralized”. To be clear, this has never been the case, at least until this “hash war”. […] As of today, no one can deny the reality that the only client that has the ultimate power in Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin ABC. Everyone else has become decimated to the point where they simply function as a “follower client”. ABC doesn’t even need to discuss anything with the other teams. They can simply add new features arbitrarily in a “permission-less” manner, and push it out.

To illustrate his point, he notes that Bitcoin Cash ABC has released several versions in a very short span of time, fracturing the network and making it unreliable.

This article is not intended to summarize the source article in anyway, nor does the author claim to fully understand all the technical workings of the modern Bitcoin implementations being discussed. For a deeper understanding of the SV viewpoint, however, the author does recommend said source article.

According to _unwriter, there are a number of things deeply wrong with the Bitcoin Cash ABC community. In essence, he fears that the centralization of the “exchange cartel” combined with the power of the Bitmain-backed Bitcoin ABC development team presents an inexcusable level of centralization and potential for overall network failure in the future. While he doesn’t say it outright, the gist of his charges is that the protocol only matters to the proponents of Bitcoin ABC insofar as it suits their business interests – and those are subject to change in the future. Furthermore, as he states in the middle of the article:

What’s interesting about this centralized checkpoint is that it provides both the reason AND the means for a powerful adversary to take down the network in the future. They simply need to attack the associated ABC cartel, leveraging the centralized checkpoint to do whatever they want to the chain once compromised. And you wouldn’t even know what went on as a user.

He also expresses sympathy for Bitcoin Unlimited, the lone peacenik among implementations which earnestly attempts to keep up with the changes of both sides of the fork:

Second, these amendments have added needless technical debt and serious security vulnerabilities, which is why they’ve been releasing patch after patch — to fix the bugs they introduced with the patch before. The reckless rapid fire releases resulted in the network being split among multiple nodes, each with different versions of rules (I’m only talking about ABC clients, imagine what this means for other clients like Bitcoin Unlimited who have to keep up with following these patches every day to stay in the game. And as far as I know, Bitcoin Unlimited was the only client that has even attempted to follow ABC’s continuous delivery).

I think these “follower node” developers (Bitcoin Unlimited, etc.) may have some irrational hope that this power dynamic will change somehow in the future, but this time it’s different. You’ve lost the moment you let ABC upgrade with a centralized checkpointing system and conspire with external actors to execute on their goal. You have not given power to ABC, but to external centralized actors.

He rounds out his article with two bombastic statements. The first is that “the inventor of Bitcoin is Adam Smith.” Secondly, proof of work is not just an algorithm – it’s a way of life.

He uses the first statement to mute discussion of the Satoshi whitepaper and really diverges from other SV supporters in that he doesn’t seem to care who invented it. The same as he is anonymous, Satoshi Nakamoto was. His point is that “The “Proof of Work” concept is simply an algorithm that implements free market capitalism as first conceived by Adam Smith.”

There are those who would argue that public blockchains are inevitably economically agnostic, but all exchange commodities wind up in a socialist category of some sort or another. Further, the incentive to mine is not always the acquisition of wealth; there are occasions when even the selfish miner is doing the a public service at a loss. But perhaps the most damning evidence against the “independent free thinking super-capitalist” interpretation of Bitcoin is the need for a functioning network that actually obeys the laws of consensus. This has been the contention of the most level-headed Bitcoin (Bitcore) Maximalists from day one: there is no consensus for blocksize increases, so there will be no blocksize increases. Consensus is expressed by miners. It is potentially true that there is an insufficient ability for the economic majority to express itself, but Bitcoin is not a democracy, no matter what it is. There are even those who believe that Bitcoin has gone from being a technology to being a philosophy.

Yet, _unwriter is not looking to win anyone over, even if his rhetoric inadvertently highlights the right questions about the Bitcoin ABC brand of the Bitcoin Cash fork:

I don’t have to be friends with any company or any miner. All I need to do is build, and people will use it. As long as you build something useful, you are judged by what you build, instead of who you know.

Such sentiments will resonate to the core of any crypto-believer, and certainly whether he wants to or not, he’s made plenty of friends through the virtues of his work and even the rigidness of his strongly held ideals. Whether or not one or both or more networks will flourish or sputter is for the future to decide. But in his _unwriter’s view, his lot was properly cast when he threw it in with Bitcoin SV, which he says “is the real Bitcoin” and further underscores his point by saying that this is a plain fact. If nothing else, the article shows that both sides have seriously committed, sincere elements, just as both sides of the original Bitcoin fork did.

Credits to P. H. Madore

In the past 24 hours, the cryptocurrency market added $7 billion to its valuation as Bitcoin and Ethereum rebounded by around five percent.

Bitcoin (BTC) successfully defended a relatively weak support level at $4,000 with strength and Ethereum (ETH) prevented a further drop below the $110 level.

However, based on the level of the momentum of major cryptocurrencies throughout the past several days, if the dominant cryptocurrency does not cleanly breakout of the $4,000 to $4,200 range, a short-term drop to the mid-$3,000 region still remains a possibility.

Where Bitcoin and Ethereum Go Next?

Bitcoin and Ethereum remain as the only two cryptocurrencies to hold a strong daily trading volume. As of December 1, the daily volume of BTC hovers at around $5.5 billion, while that of ETH is stable at $2 billion.

The daily volume of ETH is larger than the daily volume of Ripple (XRP), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), and Stellar (XLM) combined.

Several reports released in the past month have shown that the recent sell-off of ETH was not hugely affected by the liquidation of ETH by initial coin offering (ICO) projects.

Chris Burniske, a partner at Placeholder VC, said:

“So, in reality just $8 million worth of ICO treasuries’ ETH directly hit exchanges during November 14–30, 2018. Given the data we have, we are confident to say that ICO projects reacted to the market conditions, rather than dictated them.”

The high daily volume of ETH and BTC suggest that the two cryptocurrencies are not free falling with low sell-pressure, unlike the majority of major cryptocurrencies and small market cap cryptocurrencies in the market.

The danger and the risk of trading low volume cryptocurrencies in a highly volatile period is that if sell orders hit the market, digital assets with low volume will be the first to fall by a significant margin.

A high daily volume is also what allowed BTC and ETH to recover by more than five percent in the past 24 hours while XRP and BCH demonstrated a daily increase in price in the range of 1.5 percent to 3 percent.

If BTC and ETH can breakout cleanly above major resistance levels, which are estimated to be $4,300 for BTC and $120 for ETH, then the two cryptocurrencies could lead the market through a strong short-term rally.

But, if the two assets continue failing in breaking out of their respective resistance levels, it will be challenging for the market to see a major upward price break.

Fundamentals Show Ethereum is in a Good Position

Joseph Todaro, a managing partner Blocktown Cap, reported that the Ethereum blockchain network is settling $500 million in daily transaction volume from 600,000 daily transactions, and virtually every emerging decentralized application (dApp) or project is being built on Ethereum.

“$500 mil daily transaction volume, 600,000 daily transactions, 1/3 reduction in issuance Q1, ETH locked up keeps growing (ie dai), down 92%, absolutely terrible press, basically anything of interest is built on ETH,” Todaro said.

Credits to Joseph Young

Large market cap cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Ripple (XRP), and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) have dropped in value once again.

In the past 24 hours, the cryptocurrency market lost more than $6 billion, as its valuation dropped from $142 billion to $136 billion.

Bitcoin, which seemed to be demonstrating a fairly strong price movement in the last two days from November 28 to 29, experienced a $150 price drop, becoming vulnerable to falling below the $4,000 mark.

$3,700

Depending on the volume of the cryptocurrency, technical analysts see the price of Bitcoin in danger of dropping below $4,000 to around $3,600 to $3,800 in the short-term.

Alex Kruger, an economist and cryptocurrency trader, said on November 29, prior to BTC’s abrupt 3 percent drop, that a breakout of the $4,400 mark could potentially lead to BTC achieving $4,800 to $4,900.

Bitcoin failed to engage in an upward movement above the $4,300 mark, falling back down to $4,100. At the time, Kruger said:

“Looking for $4,800 – $4,900 if $4,400 gets breached. That’s the base of Nov 19 and right above 20EMA. Starting with 4800 interested in shorts. This was initially 4400, changed plan. Below $3,700 exit longs. Too soon to short the lows again, would like prior consolidation for that.”

The analyst stated that a bottom was established shortly after Bitcoin recovered beyond the $4,000 this past week, but emphasized that a proper bottom is yet to be formed by the dominant cryptocurrency that would allow it to breach major resistance levels in the $5,000 to $7,000 range.

“That’s a static/base trading game plan with rough levels. Decision making is actually dynamic. All of this is irrelevant for investors. Based on the macro landscape, IMO the bottom is not in, regardless of how great the chart may look,” he added.

Technical analysts like Mayne also suggested that the price of BTC will likely remain in the range between mid-$3,000 to mid-$4,000 throughout the foreseeable future, unless the asset initiates a major price increase within a 24-hour span, as it did on November 28 by recording a 13 percent price surge.

Tokens Bleed Out

Between November 28 and 29, as Bitcoin increased from mid-$3,000 to $4,200, both large and small market cap tokens recorded an average gain of 20 percent against the U.S. dollar.

Over the past 24 hours, tokens recorded losses in the range of 10 to 15 percent, nearly deleting all of their weekly gains.

0x (ZRX), Polymath (POLY), and Ziliqa (ZIL) are amongst the worst performing digital assets on the day, with ZIL recording a steep 14 percent decline in value.

In a period in which 0x and BAT are performing poorly against the U.S. dollar even with the listing by Coinbase that clears the assets from being considered as securities in the U.S. market, tokens are expected to continue seeing large losses in the short-term.

The U.S. federal court recently ruled a case in favor of an ICO project against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the case could lead investors to believe that high profile projects that have the resources to comply with local regulations could be protected from the SEC.

Credits to Joseph Young

The bitcoin cash price on Monday made a charge back toward the $200 level, bolstered by the announcement that CoinGeek had formally called for an end to the “hash war” that had threatened to destabilize the BCH network following this month’s contentious hard fork.

Bitcoin Cash Price Crosses $200 But Pares Gains

After entering the day trading near $180, BCH traded down to about $175 before staging a major ascent at approximately 10:00 UTC.  At several points, BCH/USD crossed $200, though it was never able to break past an intraday high of $204 and has since pared its gains and ebbed back to a present value of $194 as of the time of writing. This represents a 24-hour increase of about 17 percent and translates into a $3.5 billion market cap.

bitcoin cash price chart
BCH/USD | Bitstamp

The BCH rally was accompanied by about $275 million in daily trading volume, much of which was concentrated on South Korean cryptocurrency exchanges. Upbit’s BCH/KRW trading pair alone accounted for more than a third of BCH’s global volume, while the Malta-based Binance attracted approximately 20 percent of bitcoin cash volume to its USDT and BTC markets.

bitcoin cash price trading volume nov. 26
Source: CoinMarketCap

CoinGeek Calls off BCH ‘Hash War’

While the crypto market as a whole saw a moderate recovery on Monday, bitcoin cash was far and a way the large-cap index’s top performer, as no other top 10-cryptocurrency managed to rise more than 7 percent.

At least some of its ascent may be attributable to today’s announcement that CoinGeek — previously the largest bitcoin cash mining pool and the chief backer of BCH splinter group Bitcoin SV (BSV) — had formally called for a permanent blockchain split between BCH and BSV, complete with replay protection to protect user funds on both networks.

Previously, BSV’s formal stance had been to resist calls for a permanent split, alleging that BSV-aligned miners would repeatedly attack the Bitcoin ABC chain (now called “Bitcoin Cash” on most exchanges and crypto services) until it capitulated to the BCH version promoted by CoinGeek founder Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright.

However, as predicted, BSV backers began to waver on that stance after it became clear that they did not have the dominant hash power they expected to have following the Nov. 15 hard fork. Accordingly, they have resigned themselves to the fact that, to survive, they must relinquish the BCH branding and carry on as a separate, minority blockchain — at least in the near-term.

“After Bitcoin Core became SegWit coin last year, our mission has always been to make sure the original Bitcoin survives and succeeds. With its series of radical and unilateral code changes in just the last week, ABC’s BCH has departed so far from the original Bitcoin that it is now an alt-coin developer experiment and we no longer have any interest in it or its tarnished brand,” said Calvin Ayre in a press release. “Bitcoin SV fought to preserve the Satoshi Vision and is the original Bitcoin. We will now focus entirely on building upon an already vibrant Bitcoin SV ecosystem.”

He concluded:

“Although ABC may keep the damaged BCH ticker symbol, BSV is winning over BCH’s native application ecosystem in droves. We look forward to out-competing BCH (and BTC) in the marketplace, rather than in further chain battles.”

Credits to Josiah Wilmoth

The latest Bitcoin Cash hard fork had ramifications on the entire crypto community. Independent of whether you trade BCH, its recent split had disastrous financial consequences for many… and inspired some unorthodox moves from others.

Malta-based exchange OKEx left traders furious last week after taking the decision to change the terms on $135 million Bitcoin Cash derivatives contracts.

As one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges (and part of a handful to offer derivatives trading as well as spot) OKEx has gained in popularity. It’s also ramped up the trading volume, handling some $1 billion or more of crypto trades daily. That’s a lot of transactions.

OKEx Changing the Contract Terms

The OKEx decision to change contract terms involved futures in Bitcoin Cash. The fork was causing headaches and hash wars all round and splitting the crypto community down the middle. So, the exchange took matters into its own hands. It forced the early settlement of all Bitcoin Cash contracts without warning on November 14–right before the fork took place and just as prices were beginning to freefall.

This decision went against the stance that the exchange had previously announced on November 9, that it would list Bitcoin ABC after the fork. This decision was in line with most other exchanges. In the event that two chains could not co-exist after the fork and BSV emerged victoriously, futures contracts in ABC would likely settle worthless. Traders began to make adequate adjustments, selling contracts, and pricing for this risk.

So, upon the news of early settlements, derivatives traders on OKEx were left hit by an ice-cold shower in the middle of winter. One trader quoted in Bloomberg Qiao Changhe said that his fund lost $700,000. The hedging position it was forced to take by OKEx was not reflective of prevailing market prices at the level it closed. Qiao will now be reducing his $5-million fund’s usage of the exchange.

Traders Calling Contract Changes “Fiddling”

Qiao isn’t alone in fleeing from the exchange. Plenty of other traders will also be scaling back or cutting ties completely. Qiao said:

“OKEx is losing its credibility… The futures contract became something nonsense, not something we could use to hedge.”

In a statement, OKEx pointed to the extreme volatility behind their decision, saying:

“Due to the upcoming hard fork, strong volatility is observed in the BCH spot and futures markets. We expect an even greater volatility during the hard fork that may cause large-scale impacts, such as cascade liquidation.”

They went on to call the outcome “unpredictable” and say that the exchange:

“may lack time to respond to the market.”

They also explained why no prior notice was given as a bid to reduce the chances of market manipulation:

“It has come to our concern that an early announcement may make room for market manipulation and cause loss to our users. Therefore, we decided to give a short notice in order to maintain the fairness and stability of the market.”

While this may sound plausible, OKEx is the only exchange who made the decision to force an early settlement of Bitcoin Cash contracts. This is something that may not be illegal but is certainly unorthodox–and highly unpopular with traders, leaving many reeling from losses.

OKEx Accused of Market Manipulation

Despite their statement to the contrary, the Malta-based exchange has also been openly accused of market manipulation. In an article on Medium by Amber AI, the author states:

“Over the past week we have seen behavior indicative of market manipulation by OKEx, and estimate $400mm+ of futures contracts have been forced into liquidation as a result.”

Today, OKEx released a statement in response to this article, discrediting the author’s claims of having a Hong-Kong based company and institutional account as fictitious. Moreover, the account Amber AI was an individual and not based in Hong Kong. They went on to reinforce the reason behind the early settlement as being:

“Based on the consideration of market integrity and customer interests. The early settlement was implemented in accordance with clause 2.5 of OKEx Futures Trading User Agreement, “If market anomalies occur before or after settlement and delivery, which results in wide fluctuation of futures index or abnormal clawback rate, we may postpone or early settlement and delivery as the case may be. We shall post an announcement regarding detailed rules.”

OKEx insists that upon seeing the large-scale impact that the BCH hard fork was going to have on the futures market, the exchange felt duty-bound to protect its customers as well as the markets, adding that:

“In the absence of evidence, Amber AI alleged us for trading against our own customers and manipulating the markets. These are completely false allegations and the defamatory statements have caused serious damages to OKEx’s reputation. We reserve all rights to take further legal actions against Amber AI for interfering OKEx’s business… We reaffirm that we will NEVER trade against our customers and manipulate the market.”

Not the First Time the Exchange Has Been Criticized

It’s not the first time that OKEx has been criticized. In August, it imposed losses on its clients after saying that it was unable to cover the shortfall of a major wrong-way bet by one of its users, throwing its risk management ability into question.

To add fuel to the fire, the day after the Bitcoin Cash futures contracts settled, on November 15, the exchange suffered a malfunction and traders were unable to execute orders for more than two hours during a time of extreme and heightened volatility.

When you consider that mainstream adoption of crypto is a long way from getting off the ground and that the community as a whole is dogged by reports of scams, hacks, and criminal activity; this latest move by OKEx does little to boost investor confidence. In fact, it serves to further highlight what can happen when trading on unregulated crypto exchanges.

Credits to Christina Comben

Over the past 24 hours, the crypto market has lost about $4 billion of its valuation against the US dollar.

Major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Ethereum (ETH), and Ripple (XRP) extended their losses by 2 to 8 percent. The price of BCH dropped from $236 to $215, by nearly nine percent.

In the last two to three hours, BCH, BTC, ETH, and XRP demonstrated a slight recovery in both volume and price, but the momentum of the entire market remains a concern to short-term traders.

Some Tokens Recording Unexpectedly Large Gains

While large market cap digital assets recorded minor losses, small market cryptocurrencies and tokens demonstrated gains in the range of 5 to 20 percent.

Basic Attention Token (BAT), the native cryptocurrency of Brave Browser, increased from $0.16 to $0.185, by around 16.5 percent. Since the listing of BAT by Coinbase, the third largest crypto-to-fiat exchange in the world behind Bithumb and Bitfinex, the price of BAT dropped by more than 56 percent.

However, in comparison to many ERC20 tokens and consideration of the significant price surge BAT experienced in the build-up to the Coinbase listing, BAT has performed relatively well against both Bitcoin and the US dollar.

Bitcoin also fell by 35 percent in the past week, as the crypto market experienced a wipeout of over $60 billion.

Two major factors are expected to have contributed to the recent short-term corrective rally of tokens: extremely oversold conditions for small market cap tokens and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s caution towards initial coin offering (ICO) projects.

Every digital asset listed by Coinbase, which includes 0x (ZRX) and Brave Attention Token (BAT), meets the criteria of the SEC of a non-security. In May, when Coinbase initially released its plans to integrate Zcash (ZEC), Stellar (XLM), Cardano (ADA), ZRX, and BAT, the company emphasized that it will only pursue its plans if it can be certain that the tokens comply with existing regulations enforced by the SEC.

In the months to come, as SEC’s Enforcement Division co-director Stephanie Avakian said at the Investment Adviser Association Conference in Washington, D.C., the SEC plans to crackdown on dozens of ICOs acknowledged by securities by the commission.

Avakian said:

“We are very active, and I would just expect to see more and more.”

A handful of tokens could perform well against the US dollar, but generally, most tokens in the market are expected to drop substantially in price.

State of the Market

The cryptocurrency market is demonstrating oversold conditions following a steep decline in valuation. If Bitcoin can maintain strength in the low range of $4,000 to $4,500, it could lead to a several-month-long consolidation period.

However, if BTC falls below the $4,000 mark, which traders fear, then a short-term turn around for the dominant cryptocurrency by the year’s end will become increasingly unlikely.

With tokens on a downtrend, apart from several projects like BAT and ZRX that have been listed by Coinbase, the rest of the market could continue to extend its losses in the upcoming days.

Credits to Joseph Young

As the dust begins to settle from last week’s Bitcoin Cash hard fork, crypto exchanges are now signaling which version will receive the “BCH” ticker symbol, as well as to what extent and on what terms they will support the other blockchain.

US crypto exchange Kraken, like the majority of other BCH trading platforms, has elected to list Bitcoin ABC’s BCH implementation under the “bitcoin cash” label while also opening trading markets for Bitcoin SV (BSV) — the chain launched by Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre through their respective crypto companies, nChain and CoinGeek.

However, Kraken included a lengthy disclaimer in the announcement, stating that BSV is “extremely high risk” and does not meet the exchange’s usual listing requirements.

“WARNING: Bitcoin SV does NOT meet Kraken’s usual listing requirements. It should be seen as an extremely high-risk investment. There are many red flags that traders should be aware of,” the post read, before listing a litany of reasons why investors should only purchase BSV with eyes wide open:

  • No known wallets supporting replay protection (be careful!)
  • No support in major block explorers
  • Miners apparently subsidized or operating at a loss
  • Representatives threatening and openly hostile toward other chains
  • Chain’s survival may be mutually exclusive with other chains
  • Supply is temporarily constrained because of limited wallet support
  • Some large holders have indicated they’d be dumping everything ASAP
  • Kraken has done only very minimal code review

Further still, the San Francisco-based crypto exchange noted that BSV partisans have threatened to attack BSV holders who use or otherwise provide support for the other chain. If that happens, the post warned, the exchange would “socialize” losses among all BSV holder on Kraken, which is particularly noteworthy since users cannot currently withdraw BSV into user-controlled wallets.

“Custodial losses taken on due to attacks originating from nChain or its affiliates will be socialized among all BSV holders on Kraken. Given the volatile state of the network and threats that have been made, Kraken cannot guarantee perfect custody of BSV.”

As of the time of writing, bitcoin cash (whether listed under BCH or an “IOU” symbol such as BCHABC) was trading at a 165 percent premium to BSV, while the latter’s markets had been more heavily traded.

Credits to Josiah Wilmoth