Connect with us

#Ethereum

ETH Daily Trading Signals: 16 October

Published

on

Dominant bias for ETHEREUM (ETH) – Ranging

Resistance Levels – $230, $240, $250

Support Levels – $180, $170. $160

 

Ethereum is in a range-bound market in its medium-term outlook. The bullish pressure from $189.00 in the support area after the bullish railroad of 12th October has progressively pushed the cryptocurrency up initially to $203.70 and finally to $242.62 in the resistance area. The lack of momentum for continued upward movement shed almost 50% of the initial upward price movement as the candle closes with a wick.

 

 

The bearish railroad formation at $221.03 also signal bears returned within the range. The relative strength index is at 68% and its signal points down which implies downward momentum.

ETH is in consolidation and trading between $239.98 in the upper supply area and at $189.43 in the lower demand area of the range. A breakout at the upper supply area or breakdown at the lower area may occur traders should wait for this to occur before taking a position.

#Ethereum

Why Ethereum has no future

Published

on

There are various limitations of this platform which lead us to predict that Ethereum has no future at all. Let us have a glance at the factors

During its starting days, Ethereum used to be one of the most popular platforms in crypto space. It has a huge number of users and was on peek in the related field. However, technology evolved with time, new alternative projects in the crypto space emerged with more features. The competition began between several similar projects. Since the features of Ethereum were not up to the latest expectation and imaginations in the blockchain technology, people started moving away from this platform.

There are various limitations of this platform which lead us to predict that Ethereum has no future at all. Let us have a glance at the factors which enable us to think of a dark future for Ethereum.

 

1. The old-fashioned concept of Ethereum Gas:

In the Ethereum platform, when you initiate to buy order in perspective of the coin, you have to pay a transaction amount for the same. But the main reason is, this transaction fee is paid in Ethereum gas. Not only this fee, but the selection of transaction by the miner is also done on the basis of the gas price. You can’t pay this transaction fee along with the transaction. This is a major drawback of this platform. This process enhances a kind of dependency on the gas which may lead to conflict in the network of Ethereum. These kind of features are troublesome and lead to think of other alternatives to this platform.

 

2. The poor speed of transaction:

Scalability has been a major concern for the crypto space for a long time. While some of the organizations have fastened their speed of transactions. While in the case of Ethereum, the no of transactions per unit time is not so good. It is not as efficient seen as other faster alternatives. Why would someone use a platform with such slow scalability if the other options have a high speed of transactions? Many trades have suffered from this disadvantage and there does not seem any improvisation in the same by Ehereum leading the traders to think of its depletion from the crypto space in future.

 

3. The transition from POW to POS:

Ethereum is undergoing a transition from the existing consensus protocol known as proof of work (POW) to a complete new consensus protocol known as proof of stake (POS). However, some severe issues in the architecture can be caused if this change does not go smoothly. Eventually, this may lead to cause a crash of the system. And crashing in an intermediate state could lead to the security breach, loss of coins and lead to vulnerabilities to the network which any investor would never wish to. Also, some traders predict that proof of stake (POS) is a destructive algorithm for crypto space, so, even if the transition goes smoothly, there is no guarantee that using POS would lead Ethereum to be at the same level of facilities as provided by its alternatives.

 

4. Lack of proper documentation:

When it comes to the worst quality of documentation, no other platform can beat Ethereum. It has the worst documentation among all other alternatives.  Good quality of documentation helps the users to become developers. The available content on the website is outdated and not helpful at all. They don’t even match the basics requirements for development. The absence of proper documentation stops developers to enhance new technological skills to the Ethereum.

 

5. No option for offline transactions:

Ethereum is a completely online supported platform. You require internet for using this platform. If you wouldn’t have access to the internet, eventually, you wouldn’t have access to Ethereum. While, there are alternatives who can run offline also, why people will use only online mode supported platform.

 

6. The high cost of writing data on storage:

The cost of writing data on storage on this platform is very high which is not preferable not all. Although, any amount of data can be stored on the blockchain, due to the high cost of writing, storing process is not feasible for a very large data. However, there are alternatives available which sort out this limitation of this platform. In the world completely surrounded with large data, if there are possible options which allow writing data on a relatively low cost, obviously people will tend towards the cheaper options. Since Ethereum has no plan to reduce this cost, the future of this platform could not be said secure.

 

7. High Emerging Competition:

Continuously, the competition is increasing in the market. The competitors are growing and noticing the limitation of current existing platforms at the micro level. They are using the latest technologies and most importantly, learning from the flaws that are still in the market and are reported to be improved by the users. They are using these shortcomings to boost their features and are coming with the products that are relatively better in term of performance, cost as well as security. Now, if Ethereum’s drawbacks and new features will be present in new alternatives, the platform will lose its audience and hence the future of Ethereum seems to be diminished and on the verge of extinction.

 

Ethereum ruled the crypto space for a very long time. But it is facing a huge competition and severe issue in the present time. It has already lost a huge section of its users to other available alternatives in the same domain. If the platform doesn’t come with a quick and efficient solution to these issues, the days are not far when a sentence like ‘Ethereum was once used to be a platform in crypto space’ will be addressed. Surely, as per the current scenario, the future of Ethereum looks diminishing day by day.

Continue Reading

#Centralization

How Proof of Stake is Devastating for the Crypto Space?

Published

on

Proof of Stake, although tries to solve the problems of decentralization and scalability to some extent at together, somewhere it fails in the security.

The space and industry of the crypto world are undergoing a major changing phase. The world was never going nuts about this industry to this level. Crypto space has occupied a prominent place in the transaction world. Now, with the significant changes going on, significant challenges are knocking the door of crypto space. Several things need to be upgraded as per the requirement.

Till some years ago, crypto space was using a consensus rule known as Proof of Work (POW). POW provided security and reliability during mining of nodes. However, there were some limitations like massive energy consumption, low accessibility of mined data, etc. which led to thinking of some other alternatives too. The new consensus protocol was named as Proof of Stake (POS). But still, the consequences of this new algorithm for mining are too destructive for crypto space.

 

This article focusses on the factors proving how proof of stake is devastating for the crypto space:

 

New safety and legal challenges:  

POS is a new consensus algorithm and has a set of new financial and business protocols for mining of crypto network, and this is no certainty that these protocols will maintain the security and trust as provided by POW. And if these challenges are avoidable, then that’s not a problem, but in case, if they are not preventable, no one in the crypto space would wish to take the risk about the security and privacy wallet and crypto account. Thus, using POS may lead to some unknown security breaches in the crypto industry.

 

The problem of Monopoly in POS:

In POS, the network is authorized and control by the stakeholders having a majority of the stake. They can control the financial as well as a professional system to a considerable extent. This leads to the problem of monopoly in the market of crypto space. The significant stakeholders can make an important decision without informing the developers, designers, financial. If the decision is in right directions, then there is no problem, but if they start to decide to fulfill their greed, this will affect all other in the network. This may lead to a centralized form of the crypto network which in some cases is preferable while non-acceptable in few cases.

 

The problem of 51% stake:

It is possible that a cluster of small and medium stakeholders join together and gather 51% of the total stake. In that case, as per POS, any stakeholder having 51% of the entire stake would be the major and control the network. These cluster of stakeholders can control those having even 49% of the total stake. Also though to gain 51% of the entire stake, a considerable amount will be needed but if by any means, it is achieved then it will become the most superior and will make rest as their slaves. And apparently, the crypto industry will not accept this kind of possible scenario.

 

The possibility of losing ‘vote’ in the network if hacked:

If your wallet is hacked and you are using POW protocol, you will only lose your coins, but your ‘value’ in the network will remain same, i.e., you will have your mining control still. But, if you are using POS and your account is hacked, then your coin would be lost as well as you would lose your value in the network too. This means you would lose your mining authorization and control over the network. This means that even though POS overcomes some drawbacks of POW, but is more prone to forget everything in case of hacking.

 

Inefficient solution to initial distribution:

Proof of Stake, in which the amount of stake a person has a very strong point, the problem of the absence of an efficient algorithm for initial distribution. In a team, how it should be determined that who will be getting the coins initially to stake them, this problem may lead to conflict among the team members which is not a good impact and sign for crypto market. This problem needs to have an optimal solution.

 

Nothing at Stake’s problem:

Ideally, if you have two forks and you want to choose the better one, you will select the better fork as per you and will continue, but in POS, the situation is not same. Here, the fork may choose all chain forks and thus may lead to a false double pace of spending without having any stake. This problem may devastate the crypto network. This type of problem was not possible in POW where the factor of computational complexity was not ignored, hence, complexed and costly chain were left but POS leads to this problem, and it is not a good sign for the future of crypto space.

 

Conclusion:

The crypto space is affected mainly by three factors: Security, Decentralization, and Scalability. And it is nearly impossible to present an efficient solution to all three at the same time. Proof of Stake, although tries to solve the problems of decentralization and scalability to some extent at together, somewhere it fails in the security. This article explains the reasons through which it can be depicted that proof of stake (POS) is devastating the crypto space and there must be alternatives or efficient solutions to accept proof of stake as the standalone consensus algorithm for the crypto market.

Continue Reading

#Ethereum

Ethereum hard fork vulnerability: Constantinople delayed yet again.

Published

on

Ethereum Constantinople hard fork after ChainSecurity, smart contract auditing firm has found a major vulnerability in one of the objectives of the upgrade.

Ethereum’s Constantinople hard fork after ChainSecurity, a smart contract auditing firm has found a major vulnerability in one of the objectives of the upgrade.

ChainSecurity said yesterday that EIP 1283, which was one of the planned changes is vulnerable to attacks as it can provide hackers a loophole in the smart contract code to take over the user’s funds. As a result, the ethereum developers, the client developers as well as all other projects have agreed to delay the Constantinople hard fork for the time being till the issue is evaluated and resolved.

The next date for the Constantinople hard fork shall be decided on 18th of January during the Ethereum dev call which would include people such as Vitalik Buterin, Nick Johnson, Hudson Jameson, Evan Van Ness, Afri Schoedon and others.

The ethereum developers have decided to delay the Constantinople hard fork for now as according to them the issue might take longer to be resolved. The Constantinople hard fork was earlier planned to be executed on 17th January at around 04:00 UTC.

 

Constantinople Vulnerability:

According to Joanes Espanol, the CTO of Amberdata, the vulnerability found in the EIP 1283 is known as Reentrancy Attack. The following attack allows the hacker or attacker to reenter the identical function multiple times in the absence of the user knowing about the state of affairs. Under the Reentrancy attack, the hacker or the attack could withdraw the user’s funds forever.

According to ChainSecurity, the storage operations on the ethereum network is currently costing 5000 gas which exceeds the 2300 gas which is sent while calling a contract using ‘send’ or ‘transfer’ function. After Constantinople is implemented dirty storage operations will start to cost 200 gas and the attacker contract can then use 2300 gas stipend to control the endangered contract’s variable.

This is the second time that the Ethereum hard fork Constantinople is being delayed. Previously, it was scheduled to be launched last year but was delayed due to issues with the Ropsten testnet.

Continue Reading

Trending