Bitcoin AT $46K, Will The Market See $50K Before The Next Bear Market?

Bitcoin is roaring right now price-wise. The price of the coin shows no signs of slowing down following the price rally from the past three weeks. Every time it seems like there is a slowdown, the price picks up again, breaking new resistance points that had before held it back. The run-up from a price range of the low $30,000 has now seen the digital asset price break into the $46k territory.

Despite what might be a slowing down, the digital asset has not lost its position. Rather taking small steps in either direction but ultimately maintaining its position on the charts. $46,800 still remains the price to break at this point, as bitcoin continues to shy away from hitting it.

Related Reading | Crypto Market Cap Inches Closer To $2 Trillion, What To Expect From The Market

5 BTC + 300 Free Spins for new players & 15 BTC + 35.000 Free Spins every month, only at mBitcasino. Play Now!

Bitcoin Over 24 Hours

Bouncing between $45,000 and $46,000 has been the order of the day for the past 24 hours. Growth patterns showing bounce patterns that would most likely end up charging either direction, up or down. The bulls continue to have the superior hold on the price, with bitcoin having closed out in the green 15 days out of the past 22 days.

Bitcoin price chart from

Bitcoin price chart from

Bitcoin post 3.38% gains in 24 hours | Source: BTCUSD on

Gains continue to be the order of the day. The price of the digital asset is mostly higher each day than the last, sending crypto portfolios into the green after two brutal months of soul-crushing red markets.

Get 110 USDT Futures Bonus for FREE!

Bitcoin price has grown 3.38% in the last 24 hours. Amounting to over a $1,000 price change in the asset in the span of a day. Although the charts haven’t been completely green this past day. A dip saw the price of the digital asset plunging towards the low $45,000. But this would prove to be just a blip since the asset recovered and went up in the $46,000 range.

Momentum Continues To Hold Up

This momentum is the kind that could see the price of BTC ricocheting off the charts following a bounce, sending the price of the coin barreling towards $50k. But the price could just as easily crash back down to set the market back into a stretched-out bear market.

It is crucial to maintain momentum following the increase in the price of an asset. Because any lapse in momentum would just as easily send the price crashing back down to where it was coming from. Sometimes even lower than the beginning points of the rally.

Related Reading | Bitcoin Price Breaks $45,000 For the First Time In Over 2 Months, Is $64,000 Possible Again?

If this momentum holds up, then indicators point that the market will most likely hit $50k before there is any significant dip in the price of bitcoin that would put the market in bear territory.

The price movements continue to fuel larger-than-life bitcoin price predictions, with analysts believing that the digital asset is bound for $100k by the end of the year. Even though a $50k price point would be a more realistic prediction, these $100k predictions are not without their merits.

Featured image from The Independent, chart from


Tagged : / / / / / / / /

New Implementation For Bitcoin Mixing Service CoinJoin Improves Sybil Resistance

The Bitcoin Optech newsletter provides readers with a top-level summary of the most important technical news happening in Bitcoin, along with resources that help them learn more. To help our readers stay up-to-date with Bitcoin, we’re republishing the latest issue of this newsletter below. Remember to subscribe to receive this content straight to your inbox.

This week’s newsletter follows up on a previous description about fidelity bonds in JoinMarket and includes our regular sections with the summary of a Bitcoin Core PR Review Club meeting, suggestions for preparing for taproot, announcements of releases and release candidates, and descriptions of notable changes to popular infrastructure projects.


  • Implementation of fidelity bonds: the JoinMarket 0.9.0 implementation of coinjoin includes support for fidelity bonds. As previously described in Newsletter #57, the bonds improve the sybil resistance of the JoinMarket system, increasing the ability for coinjoin initiators (“takers”) to choose unique liquidity providers (“makers”). Within days of release, over 50 BTC (currently valued at over $2 million USD) had been placed in timelocked fidelity bonds.

    Although the specific implementation is unique to JoinMarket, the overall design may be useful in other decentralized protocols built on top of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Core PR Review Club

In this monthly section, we summarize a recent Bitcoin Core PR Review Club meeting, highlighting some of the important questions and answers. Click on a question below to see a summary of the answer from the meeting.

Prefer to use txindex if available for GetTransaction is a PR by Jameson Lopp which improves the performance of GetTransaction (and, by extension, the getrawtransaction RPC for users) by utilizing the transaction index (txindex) when possible. This change fixes an unexpected performance loss in which a call to getrawtransaction on a txindex-enabled node is significantly slower when called with the hash of the block that includes the transaction. The review club evaluated the cause of this performance issue by comparing the steps to retrieve a transaction with and without txindex.

  • What are the different ways GetTransaction can retrieve a transaction from disk?

    The transaction can be retrieved from the mempool (if unconfirmed), by retrieving the entire block from disk and searching for the transaction, or by using txindex to fetch the transaction from disk by itself.
  • Why do you think that performance is worse when the block hash is provided (when txindex is enabled)?

    Participants guessed that the bottleneck was in the deserialization of the block. Another process unique to fetching the entire block – albeit less time-consuming – is a linear search through the entire list of transactions.
  • If we are looking up the transaction by block hash, what are the steps? How much data is deserialized?

    We first use the block index to find the file and byte offset necessary for accessing the block. We then fetch and deserialize the entire block and scan through the list of transactions until we find a match. This involves deserializing about 1-2MB of data.
  • If we are looking up the transaction using the txindex, what are the steps? How much data is deserialized?

    The txindex maps from transaction id to the file, block position (similar to the block index), and the offset within the blk*.dat file where the transaction starts. We fetch and deserialize the block header and transaction. The header is 80B and allows us to return the block hash to the user (which is information not stored in the txindex). The transaction can be any size but is typically thousands of times smaller than the block.
  • The first version of this PR included a behavior change: when an incorrect block_index is provided to GetTransaction, find and return the tx anyway using the txindex. Do you think this change is an improvement, and should it be included in this PR?

    Participants agreed that it could be helpful but misleading, and that notifying the user of the incorrect block hash input would be better. They also noted that a performance improvement and behavior change would be best split into separate PRs.

Preparing For Taproot #8: Multisignature Nonces

A weekly series about how developers and service providers can prepare for the upcoming activation of taproot at block height 709,632.

In last week’s column, we wrote about multisignatures and gave an example using MuSig2. Our description appears to have been technically correct, but several cryptographers who contributed to MuSig2 worried that the way we suggested using it was dangerous. We updated our description to address their immediate concerns and then began researching the issue more thoroughly. In this post, we’ll look at what we learned may be the greatest challenge for safely implementing multisignatures: avoiding nonce reuse.

To validate a signature in Bitcoin, you fill out a publicly known equation with the signature, the message that was signed (e.g. a transaction), your public key, and a public nonce. It’s only possible for you to balance that equation if you know your private key and the private form of the nonce. Thus anyone seeing such a balanced equation considers the signature for that message and public key to be valid.

The motivation for including the signature and the message in the equation is obvious. The public key is a stand-in for your private key. What’s the public nonce for? If it wasn’t there, every other value in the equation except for your private key would be known, meaning we could use basic algebra to solve for that single unknown value. But algebra can’t solve for two unknown values, so the private form of the nonce serves to keep your private key secret. And, just as your public key is a stand-in for your private key in the signature equation, the public form of the nonce stands in for its private form.

Nonces in this context are not only numbers used once but numbers that must only ever be used once. If you reuse the same nonce with two different signatures, the two signature equations can be combined, the nonce can be canceled out, and someone can again solve for the only remaining unknown value—your private key. If you use BIP32 standard derivation (non-hardened derivation), which likely nearly all multisignature wallets will do, then the revelation of one private key means the reveal of every other private key in the same BIP32 path (and possibly in other paths as well). That means a multisignature wallet which has received bitcoins to a hundred different addresses will have every one of those addresses compromised for the signer who reuses even a single nonce.

Single-sig wallets, or those using script-based multisig, can use a simple trick to avoid reusing nonces: they make their nonce dependent on the message they’re signing. If there’s any change to the message, the nonce changes, and so they never reuse a nonce.

Multisignatures can’t use this trick. They require each cosigner contribute not just a partial signature but also a partial public nonce. The partial public nonces are combined together to produce an aggregated public nonce which is included with the message to sign.

That means it’s not safe to use the same partial nonce more than once even if the transaction stays the same. If, the second time you sign, one of your cosigners changed their partial nonce (changing the aggregated nonce), your second partial signature will effectively be for a different message. That reveals your private key. Since it’s impossibly circular for every party to make their private nonce dependent on all the other party’s partial public nonces, there’s no simple trick to avoid nonce reuse in multisignatures.

At first glance, this doesn’t seem like a big problem. Just have signers generate a new random nonce each time they need to sign something. This is harder to get right than it sounds—since at least 2012, people have been finding bitcoin-losing bugs in wallets that depended on generating random nonces.

But even if a wallet does generate high-quality random nonces, it has to ensure each nonce is only used a maximum of a single time. That can be a real challenge. In the original version of our column last week, we described a MuSig2-compatible cold wallet or hardware signing device that would create a large number of nonces on its first run. The wallet or device would then need to ensure each of those nonces was never used with more than one partial signature. Although that sounds simple—just increment a counter each time a nonce is used—it can be a real challenge when dealing with all the ways software and hardware can fail by accident, not to mention how they can be affected by external and possibly malicious intervention.

Perhaps the easiest way for a wallet to reduce its risk of nonce reuse is to store nonces for as short a time as possible. Our example from last week suggested storing nonces for months or years, which not only creates a lot of opportunity for something to go wrong but also requires recording nonces to a persistent storage medium which may be backed up and restored or otherwise put into an unexpected state. An alternative way to use MuSig2 would be to only create nonces on demand, such as when a PSBT is received. The nonces could be kept in volatile memory for the short time they were needed and so be automatically destroyed (made unreusable) in several cases of the unexpected happening, such as a software crash or a loss of power.

Still, the cryptographers working on this problem seem very concerned about the lack of foolproof way to prevent nonce reuse in the original MuSig protocol (MuSig1) and MuSig2. MuSig-DN (deterministic nonce) does offer a solution, but it’s complex and slow (an alpha implementation takes almost a second to create a nonce proof on a 2.9 GHz Intel i7; it’s unknown to us how long that might take on a 16 MHz hardware signing device with a much less sophisticated processor).

Our advice to anyone implementing multisignature signing is to consider stopping by the #secp256k1 IRC room or another place where Bitcoin cryptographers congregate and describe your plans before you make any major investments of time or resources.

Releases And Release Candidates

New releases and release candidates for popular Bitcoin infrastructure projects. Please consider upgrading to new releases or helping to test release candidates.

  • C-Lightning 0.10.1 is a release that contains a number of new features, several bug fixes, and a few updates to developing protocols (including dual funding and offers).
  • Bitcoin Core 22.0rc2 is a release candidate for the next major version of this full node implementation and its associated wallet and other software. Major changes in this new version include support for I2P connections, removal of support for version 2 Tor connections, and enhanced support for hardware wallets.

Notable code and documentation changes

Notable changes this week in Bitcoin Core, C-Lightning, Eclair, LND, Rust-Lightning, libsecp256k1, Hardware Wallet Interface (HWI), Rust Bitcoin, BTCPay Server, Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), and Lightning BOLTs.

  • Bitcoin Core #21528 aims to improve the p2p propagation of full node listening addresses. Exposure to a diverse set of addresses is important for nodes to be protected against network partitions such as eclipse attacks. When Bitcoin Core nodes receive an address message containing 10 or fewer addresses, they forward it to 1 or 2 peers. This is the primary technique used to self-advertise addresses, so sending to peers that would not relay these addresses would effectively stop or “black hole” the propagation through the network. Although propagation failures cannot be prevented in the malicious case, this patch improves address propagation for the honest cases, such as for block-relay-only connections or light clients.

    This update identifies whether or not an inbound connection is a candidate for forwarding addresses based on whether it has sent an address related message over the connection, such as addr, addrv2, or getaddr. This behavior change could be problematic if there is software on the network that relies on receiving address messages but never initiates an address-related message. Therefore, the author took care to circulate this proposed change before it was merged, including posting it to the mailing list and researching other open source clients to confirm compatibility.
  • LND #5484 allows storing all data in a single external Etcd database. This improves high-availability deployments by making cluster leadership changes instantaneous. The corresponding LND clustering documentation was previously covered in Newsletter #157.
  • Rust-Lightning #1004 adds a new event for PaymentForwarded that allows tracking when a payment has been successfully forwarded. Since successful forwarding may earn fees for the node, this allows tracking that income for the user’s accounting records.
  • BTCPay Server #2730 makes the amount optional when generating invoices. This simplifies the payment flow in cases where the operator delegates the choice of the amount to the user, e.g. when topping up an account.

Find the original post here.

Please subscribe to the Bitcoin Optech newsletter directly to receive this content straight to your inbox every month.


Tagged : / / / / / / /

‘Sorry for the Lie’: Ethereum NFT Fraud Fame Lady Squad Comes Clean

In brief

  • The developers of a popular NFT collectibles project called Fame Lady Squad admitted Tuesday that they are not women, as previously stated.
  • Control of the project’s smart contract has been transferred to collectors in the FLS community.

As the market for NFT digital collectibles rapidly expands, the crypto industry’s pseudonymous nature can make it difficult to truly know where projects came from—and to trust who’s behind them. Many NFT collectors found out the hard way this week after the creators of a prominent women-centric project admitted that they lied about being women themselves.

Fame Lady Squad (FLS) is an Ethereum-based NFT collection that launched in July, claiming to be the “first female avatar project of all time,” per its Twitter profile. (For the uninitiated, an NFT is a special type of cryptocurrency that can be used to demonstrate proof of ownership in digital items, and the market for them in the art and gaming worlds has exploded over the last year.)

The run of 8,888 individual Fame Lady Squad NFTs—purportedly created by a trio of women: Cindy, Kelda, and Andrea—was quickly minted and snatched up by collectors. An engaged community of fans sprung up around the project, and secondary market prices started to climb.

Even investor and social media influencer Gary Vaynerchuk—an NFT creator himself and new owner of a $3.7 million CryptoPunk NFTespoused his love for Fame Lady Squad on Twitter, and the project earned a mention in a recent The New Yorker article. Amidst a recent uptick in NFT market trading volume, Fame Lady Squad seemed poised to continue rising in demand.

But in recent days, questions around the origins of the Fame Lady Squad project got louder. Twitter sleuths such as @FedorLinnik @dearesthaley, and @NFT_Marty shared lengthy tweet threads that connected the dots between numerous recent NFT collectibles projects that appeared to come from the same source or share creators, including Cyber City Girls Club and Unicorn GG Club.

Prominent NFT collector Pranksy tweeted on Tuesday that they “failed to properly do my own research” when buying a Cyber City NFT, and suggested that it had been “​​made by a dev team that seems to be churning out a new project daily.”

Pranksy added that the team had been “so brash” about promoting its next project, Unicorn GG Club, and wondered, “The questions here are what actually makes a [profile picture] project valuable? Is the dev team, the community, the time taken to create it?”

While those are questions for NFT collectors to ponder, the Twitter allegations increasingly pointed to false information provided by project developers. FedorLinnik, a developer behind other crypto projects, claimed that the evidence pointed to a group of Russian men who had been “minting new NFT projects like a conveyor” this past spring. They appeared to be behind Fame Lady Squad and the other new projects, as well.

Coming clean

Although Fame Lady Squad’s developers initially pushed back, citing “false statements” and claiming jealousy from rival NFT creators, they eventually dropped the charade following increased pressure from the community of collectors.

On Tuesday, developer Max Rand tweeted that he was one of the people behind the Fame Lady Squad and other projects, alongside a pair of collaborators: D Mefi, who briefly deleted his Twitter account, and another unnamed associate. “Sorry for the lie,” Rand tweeted. “I was too afraid to say this because of [a] lot [of] threats [on] my side, my stupidity and not understanding US market culture rules.”

The Fame Lady Squad’s official Twitter account went further with its explanation. “Let’s make it clear: Fame Lady Squad was created by a male team and we are very sorry for not saying this previously. But it doesn’t mean that it is a scam or a fraud,” the team tweeted. “We realised that there is an absolute lack of female projects in the space. And, because we are really fascinated by the power of women, we made this successful project.”

Meanwhile, the Cyber City Girls Club NFT project—which was originally credited to a pair of women developers of Asian heritage—explained its own deception in a tweet thread.

“Sorry to everyone who had bought into this project because it was created only by 2 Asian women,” the tweet thread began. “CCGC was created by a team of 6 people, only 2 of them were women. We will extend the roadmap and give more value to the holders. Have a good night!”

While the Unicorn GG Club NFT project didn’t have the same kind of problematic false representation issue at its core, the development team—which included Rand and D Mefi—opted to pause selling NFTs amidst the wider controversy. “I don’t trynna escape, just clear my mind,” tweeted co-creator “Trible Penguin,” via the official account. “We don’t do [fucking] rug pulls Memecoin but I’m really [afraid of] the bullying. I’m so sorry for the waiting.”

Accusations that the same developers are behind the Queenship NFT project—which features illustrations of Black women and was purportedly developed by Black women—have yet to be confirmed. The Fame Lady Squad Twitter denied the connection earlier this week, and Rand again denied his involvement today in a message to Decrypt. The Queenship website is now unavailable, and the project’s last tweets from Monday railed against speculation regarding its origins.

Also, the team behind NFT Project Bulls On the Block—which some Twitter sleuths suggested was also associated with the same developers—denied any association with the FLS creators following a recent giveaway promotion.

A change of plans

It’s a mess, to say the least. Collectors who purchased NFTs from the Fame Lady Squad in particular feel duped, believing that they had bought into a project created by and targeted at an under-represented audience in the crypto space. Prices for the FLS NFTs sank in value at secondary marketplace OpenSea yesterday as collectors attempted to panic-sell their NFTs, fearing fading demand amidst a seemingly untenable path forward for the project.

For its part, the creators of Fame Lady Squad are attempting to make good in the form of money. Rand claimed that he and his collaborators will create a $100,000 grant fund to help support new NFT projects and artists, with Rand telling Decrypt that it will launch “soon” in “some days.” Unicorn GG added that it had donated 5 ETH (about $15,700) to Virunga National Park in Africa’s Democratic Republic of the Congo, providing an Etherscan link as proof.

Distressed at yesterday’s revelations and the swirling accusations in the days prior, some prominent Fame Lady Squad community members began pushing for a different kind of resolution, to try and reclaim a future for the project. Noted NFT collector Artchick detailed a potential way forward in a reply to Rand’s confession tweet on Tuesday.

“This is over for you,” Artchick told Rand. “If you want to do the right thing, I can broker a deal where you hand over control of your smart contract, and holders of FLS NFTs have a chance to recoup their losses and potentially thrive. Put the contract in the hands of the community.” (A smart contract is a bit of code that performs instructions and powers NFTs and decentralized apps, or dapps.)

That’s exactly what happened. After putting the decision up to a Twitter vote, the Fame Lady Squad developers transferred control of the NFT project’s smart contract to her. Artchick, in turn, transferred the contract to prominent FLS community member “Bored Becky,” who will run the project with other members.

According to Artchick’s tweets, the developers will no longer profit from secondary sales. Decrypt reached out to both Artchick and Bored Becky about the transition, but did not hear back by press time. We will update this article if they respond.

Asked why his team gave up control of Fame Lady Squad, Rand told Decrypt simply, “Because the community wanted it,” adding a smiley face. Co-creator D Mefi responded to a tweet today defending his team’s actions, stating: “​​We didn’t fuck anyone. We created a project that benefited a lot of people and invited many new to the space. I know the reason why you are upset, we apologised for making this mistake and made good decisions to let FLS thrive again.”

Secondary market prices for the NFTs have surged back above the levels seen before the team’s confession, while collectors hailed the move and community members excitedly began discussing the new path forward. No similar plans have been unveiled for transferring control of the related NFT projects, however.

As of now, the Fame Lady Squad community looks to have secured a positive resolution after such unsettling revelations. However, it’s unclear whether the recently-launched Cyber City Girls Club project will recover after this week’s news: those NFTs are selling for about 0.01 ETH (about $32) on OpenSea, compared to a floor of 0.13 (about $420) for the FLS collectibles.

Pranksy’s aforementioned tweet pondered what makes NFT avatar collections valuable, and as this situation demonstrates, there can be a link between the stated origin story and the perceived value of artwork. It’s a subjective thing, but when that worth is generated based on fabrications—not helped at all by the pseudonymous nature of crypto—then investors can be duped and find themselves with NFTs that shed much of their expected value.

Not every story like this will have a happy ending.


Tagged : / / /

Traders hope for a new altcoin season now that Bitcoin turned $45K to support

This week the total cryptocurrency market capitalization bounced back to $1.9 trillion, which was a 20% weekly increase and the highest level seen since May 20.

While the fresh bullish momentum attracted the attention of investors, Bitcoin’s (BTC) move from $33,400 to $45,900 was pretty much in line with the rest of the market.

Whether Bitcoin will finally break the $46,000 resistance remains an open question. However, the longer it takes, the higher the odds that altcoins will outperform the leading cryptocurrency.

Total crypto market cap. in USD million (right) and Bitcoin dominance (left). Source: TradingView

Not every altcoin performed similarly and only 14 of the top 100 from CoinMarketCap outperformed Bitcoin by 3% or more.

Top weekly performers among the 100 largest. Source: CoinMarketCap

ICP, RVN, VGX and EGLD followed Bitcoin’s 40% rally

Internet Computer (ICP) announced on July 30 that within two weeks of its launch, the Fleek application reached 700 website deployments. Fleek allows one to build websites and front-end for decentralized applications on the Internet Computer blockchain with frictionless hosting. 

According to the Dfinity Foundation blog, Fleek created an alternative open-source gateway to the blockchain so Internet Computer smart contracts data could be freely accessed using regular browsers.

Ravencoin (RVN) also became the most profitable coin to mine using graphic cards, according to data from and the network surpassed Ethereum (ETH).

Voyager’s breakout was caught by the VORTECS™ indicator

Voyager Digital, the company behind Voyager Token (VGX), acquired crypto trading and payments startup Coinify for $85 million. On August 1, Voyager also launched the VGX web swap 2.0 and staking portal.

VORTECS™ data from Cointelegraph Markets Pro began to detect a bullish outlook for VGX on July 31, before the recent price rise.

The VORTECS™ Score, exclusive to Cointelegraph, is an algorithmic comparison of historical and current market conditions derived from a combination of data points, including market sentiment, trading volume, recent price movements and Twitter activity.

VORTECS™ Score (left) vs. VGX price (right). Source: Cointelegraph Markets Pro

As displayed above, the VORTECS™ Score for VGX climbed to 90 high on Aug 3, 30 hours ahead of the 23% price to $3.50.

Lastly, Elrond (EGLD) announced a $20 million funding from Moonlorian Blockchain Business Laboratory. According to Elrond’s blog, the blockchain firm is already incubating several projects in domains such as tokenization, NFT, traceability and loyalty platforms.

On the other hand, only six projects presented a negative performance over the last seven days.

Bottom weekly performers among the 100 largest. Source: CoinMarketCap

Flexa (AMP) rallied 90% from July 22 to 29 as Binance US announced the token listing. However, the altcoin quickly retraced 26% from the $0.083 top on July 29.

Theta Fuel (TFUEL) faced a similar movement as it rallied 63% from July 20 to 25 during the launch of protocol 3.1.0 and reached a $0.368 top. The hard fork created a more efficient block proposal protocol, optimized the blockchain database and added support for Ethereum RPC API.

Altcoin holders certainly have reasons to celebrate, but investors should be mindful that an eventual Bitcoin price correction will likely cause traders to quickly capture profits from the most volatile altcoins.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.