The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted people’s lives, the relationship between governments and citizens, and the entire world economy, and of course, it has had a major impact on the United States presidential election.
Due to social isolation, a large number of American voters opted to vote by mail, which increased vote counting time, led candidate and acting President Donald Trump to judicialize the electoral process with actions in several states, and triggered intense debates about the veracity and legitimacy of the current American electoral system.
Related: Blockchain voting systems could be the future, but current flaws persist
The current voting system in the digital age
Currently, many have proposed “mobile” voting as an alternative more compatible with current times, allowing people to vote without leaving their homes.
We are able to shop online, there are professions that are performed 100% remotely — which has intensified with the current pandemic — but electoral participation still needs to be exercised in person and in a specific location.
Now, does this not go against the digital age where information and technology serve as facilitators of communication, data transfer and business transactions?
How does one make mobile, or remote, voting possible without compromising the security of electoral participation? The addition of blockchain solutions to the mobile voting process can give confidence to the electoral system and bring peace to the electoral process.
Related: Electronic voting with blockchain: An experience from Naples, Italy
The combination of sequential hashing and cryptography in a distributed structure allows for the protection of voters’ identity and the verification of absolutely all votes entered in the blockchain platform, which can enable secure and transparent voting mechanisms with electoral vote monitoring.
Imagine how good it would be to check if your vote was actually counted for the candidate chosen by you, with the absolute guarantee of the secrecy of your vote? All of this is possible with blockchain technology.
Related: The promise and reality of blockchain’s role in global elections
American electoral jurisdictions and blockchain-based pilot projects
Electoral jurisdictions in several U.S. states have tested mobile-application-based blockchain voting for state, federal and municipal elections — primarily to enable remote voting by military and civilian residents abroad via smartphones and tablets, rather than the traditional and mail, fax and paper methods.
West Virginia, for example, enabled mobile voting via blockchain for its state and federal elections back in 2018. Denver, Colorado; Utah County, Utah; and two counties in the state of Oregon also tested pilot projects for their 2019 municipal elections. In total, 29 counties in five states tested Voatz’s mobile voting app in official elections.
In all of the examples mentioned above, to the surprise of many and according to the authorities responsible for voting via blockchain, the electoral process proved to be easier and more accessible.
For that reason, there are already advocates of the use of blockchain in American elections.
The positions of American political personalities on mobile voting
As a result of the good performance mentioned in the previous paragraphs, there are already notable figures in American politics raising the banner of blockchain mobile voting, such as Bradley Tusk — an American businessman, philanthropist, political strategist and founder of Tusk Philanthropies; Mike Queen — deputy chief of staff to the West Virginia Secretary of State; and Jocelyn Bucaro — director of elections in Denver.
But because we are living in the age of polarization, there are also people strongly against mobile voting, including voting via blockchain. In that sense, we can refer to Jeremy Epstein, a member of the Association for Computing Machinery’s US Technology Policy Committee. Here, it is important to note that Epstein — who was a vice chair of the committee at the time — co-authored an electoral security report titled “Email and Internet Voting: The Overlooked Threat to Election Security,” which was developed in conjunction with Common Cause, the National Election Defense Coalition and the R Street Institute.
The report points to blockchain and internet voting as a target for online attacks by foreign intelligence, saying the transmission of ballots over the internet — including by email, fax and blockchain systems — makes them vulnerable.
Despite the pros and cons, are there solutions already in place that can protect citizens from electoral fraud? How would identity verification be used in the process? What projects and solutions can we think of implementing for identity verification in the voting process, and how would they work?
A blockchain solution that can enable a virtual election in the U.S.
The Voatz application, for example, looks for vulnerabilities and signs of commitment or vulnerability from the start. If the app finds that a smartphone has been compromised, it does not allow the user to vote. If the application passes security tests and third-party tools linked to it, the voter is authenticated on their mobile phone by a fingerprint or facial recognition.
The voter then provides their government identification, usually a driver’s license or passport, and takes a selfie for further authentication. Finally, the voter touches the fingerprint reader of their cell phone to verify that the smartphone is actually in the voter’s hands. In this step, the Voatz application combines the selfie taken by the voter with the image of the identity document and, after rechecking all the registration information given, confirms that the voter can vote.
Voters can use their own additional authentication factor, such as an Apple Watch, Google Authenticator or a YubiKey. And if they wish, they can still receive an SMS message or email as an additional authentication factor.
Cybersecurity in a blockchain vote
Regarding cybersecurity, as “all” software has vulnerabilities, it cannot be ignored that denial-of-service and distributed denial-of-service attacks are legitimate risks in a mobile vote. Therefore, it is important to look for backup methods for possible infrastructure failure in the case of a DoS attack on the mobile voting system.
The blockchain part of the process is the least worrying in terms of security. It is just one component of the voting process, which also includes the steps of identity security, verification and validation.
Blockchain, in the case of Voatz, is for the specific application for which it was built: to distribute voting records so that it is more difficult to attack remotely. It also has cryptographic audit evidence of each transaction.
The main security risk in voting via blockchain is in the interface with the electoral jurisdiction, where the ballot is also printed with a hash or encrypted key on top. After it is stored, it is finally digitized in the election systems and software ballot-reading systems. At this stage, the electoral process “is out of reach” for Voatz.
In addition to cybersecurity issues, another point in a blockchain vote that has been questioned is: How would the voting book be processed and the ballots verified in a blockchain solution?
Taking the Voatz app as an example again, it uses a 32-node blockchain infrastructure on Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure, each hosting 16 nodes in the United States. Cloudflare is among several companies that provide DDoS-protection services, and Voatz has said that the system employs end-to-end encryption and multi-factor authentication for infrastructure nodes.
Another blockchain voting solution was used in Colombia in 2016. “Blockchain Voting for Peace” is a case study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development of a referendum held in Colombia back then. In it, the nonprofit organization Democracy Earth Foundation creates a blockchain platform to allow Colombians living abroad to symbolically participate in the plebiscite on the peace treaty between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, commonly known as FARC. The interesting thing here is the possibility of democratic coverage provided by the blockchain.
From what we have seen so far, it is not an exaggeration to imagine that in the near future, many countries will see blockchain technology as an ideal voting method for a society that is increasingly digitized faster than ever.
However, even if the maturity of the technology is reached and it effectively brings greater legitimacy to the electoral process and veracity to the voting system, will we be able to overcome the cultural barriers and digital illiteracy that still exist in today’s world?
The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Tatiana Revoredo is a founding member of the Oxford Blockchain Foundation and is a strategist in blockchain at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford. Additionally, she is an expert in blockchain business applications at MIT and is the chief strategy officer of The Global Strategy. Tatiana has been invited by the European Parliament to the Intercontinental Blockchain Conference and was invited by the Brazilian parliament to the public hearing on Bill 2303/2015. She is the author of two books: Blockchain: Tudo O Que Você Precisa Saber and Cryptocurrencies in the International Scenario: What Is the Position of Central Banks, Governments and Authorities About Cryptocurrencies?
Blockchain-based voting systems have potential despite security concerns
The 2020 United States presidential election was met with an increase in mail-in ballots due to COVID-19 concerns. Yet while many Americans stayed away from polling stations this year, postal delays, rejected ballots, and other challenges emerged.
Unsurprisingly, better ways for casting votes during major elections quickly became a hot topic of discussion. This has also led some in the crypto community advocating with renewed vigor for a blockchain-based voting system to be used in the future presidential elections.
While the promises of blockchain include trust, transparency and immutability, a group of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory pointed out security flaws associated with blockchain voting systems. The researchers published a report on Nov. 6 explaining that online voting is fatally flawed since such systems are vulnerable to large-scale cyber attacks. The report specifically discusses blockchain-based voting systems like Voatz, which has been used in U.S. municipal elections, yet reportedly suffers from data security issues.
Security aside, blockchain voting systems may be viable
Despite security concerns, some still believe that blockchain-based voting systems will be leveraged in major elections moving forward. Maxim Rukinov, head of the Distributed Ledger Technologies Center of St. Petersburg State University, told Cointelegraph that blockchain allows for a system of fair elections to take place within a trusted environment between participants who generally do not trust each other: “With blockchain you can make voting available and increase the transparency of any election. In a perfect scenario, the results of such a vote cannot be faked.”
Rukinov shared that he has been working with a team of researchers to develop an online voting system specifically designed for enterprise use. Known as “CryptoVeche,” Rukinov explained that this particular system stores voting results in a blockchain, which is a type of distributed ledger. As such, the system is highly secure against external and internal hacks.
Alex Tapscott, co-founder of the Blockchain Research Institute and a book author, explained this in detail for a New York Times article published in 2018, even before the COVID-19 pandemic brought new challenges to light. Tapscott pointed out that in elections, trust is concentrated within government agencies, which are extremely vulnerable to hacks, fraud, and human errors. To put this into perspective, a study released last year shows that local and federal government entities have fallen victim to 443 data breaches since 2014, but those mostly included lost hardware, mailing errors, and paper breaches.
Tapscott noted that a blockchain system relies on distributed network computers to verify transactions. Once verified, results are recorded in blocks that are linked cryptographically to the preceding block. A secure ledger is then formed, which is transparent to all network participants, yet remains immutable and tamper proof. This feature is also important for ensuring that individuals only cast a single vote, as blockchain-based systems are meant to prevent double-spending.
Don Tapscott, well-known author and co-founder of the Blockchain Research Institute further told Cointelegraph that votes cannot be sent online today because internet-based systems do not work well for such applications:
“If we transmit information like a vote on the Internet we’re actually sending a copy of that file; the original remains in our possession. This is acceptable for sharing information but unacceptable for transactions with assets, like money, securities, songs or recording votes in elections.”
As such, Tapscott noted that within a blockchain-based system, public trust in the voting process is achieved through cryptography, code, and collaboration among citizens, government agencies, and other stakeholders.
Technical challenges must be overcome
Of course, there is no denying that technical challenges related to blockchain-based voting systems remain. In addition to the security concerns mentioned by MIT researchers in their recent report, Rukinov acknowledged that developing an online voting system is challenging.
Rukinov further explained that with blockchain systems the accuracy of transactions, in this case, voter registration is verified by a consensus mechanism between different members of the network. However, when it comes to voting systems independent observers must also be one of the parties involved with the consensus, meaning they would have to hold several validation nodes.
According to Rukinov, in most cases the number of nodes owned by the network organizer are greater than the number of independent nodes. So in the case of a blockchain-based voting system, an attack may occur when those who control more than half of the resources have the ability to change data at random. Rukinov pointed out that this problem is not the case for all types of consensus mechanisms.
Lior Lamash, Founder and CEO of GK8, a cybersecurity company, also told Cointelegraph that while the immutable nature of blockchain makes it an effective platform to ensure the integrity of the voting process, several vulnerabilities remain. Specifically speaking, Lamash noted that voter identification is problematic when using blockchain-based voting systems:
“The security aspect of blockchain-based voting is tricky. On one hand, the blockchain itself is completely secured from even state-level hackers, as it employs hundreds of thousands of nodes on multiple servers across the globe. The challenge would be in securing the ‘endpoints’ of this network – individual ballots and voting stations.”
Moreover, Lamash noted that while each ballot stores a user’s private keys, a hacker could obtain that information and manipulate the entire election process: “This issue is quite similar to the challenge that banks and other financial institutions face when offering blockchain-based services.”
Although challenges remain with blockchain-based voting systems, it’s clear that blockchain has huge potential for use in future elections. Dylan Dewdney, chief executive officer of Kylin, a cross-chain platform designed for Polkadot-based data economy, told Cointelegraph that the trusted outcome of an election must also be taken into consideration. He further determined that blockchain being applied for data validation is highly useful in this case.
According to Dewdney, a decentralized infrastructure could help improve the trusted outcome of an electoral process. Dewdney explained that Kylin has created a data validation process using an oracle node, which serves as an information feed. An arbitration node is then used to judge if that data is valid or not. Dewdney said:
“Anyone operating an arbitration node would have an excellent incentive to challenge inaccurate information as they would be rewarded in a native token to do so. Similarly, providing accurate, validated (challengeable) information as a premium data feeder to consumers like news organizations, is incredibly valuable as a premium data feed in a data marketplace.”
Although Kylin is a solution that can easily be applied in the decentralized finance space, the same concept can be used for voting systems. “Decentralized validation of local electoral results could provide a very powerful tool against some of the problems we are currently seeing.” He further added: “This could easily operate as the linked consensus of the validated API feeds of literally thousands of local election results reported to websites within a Dapp developers premium data sourcing.”
Rukinov believes that the ideal blockchain-based voting system must cater to voter eligibility, verifiability, and immutability. He mentioned that these features can be achieved in the future through cryptographic protocols including digital signatures, zero-knowledge proofs, and homomorphic encryption: “In order to achieve additional benefits, it’s necessary to add the possibility of cancelling the registration; observers being able to detect the facts of falsification; and the permanence of the register change history.”
BIS report suggests ‘embedded‘ monitoring tool for stablecoins
Facebook’s proposal for its digital currency, Libra, was a wake-up call for international regulatory agencies, finance ministries and central bankers. All these actors recognized that the company’s reach across its three platforms had the potential to accelerate adoption of a global stablecoin to an unprecedented extent.
In a new paper from the Bank of International Settlements, three analysts have proposed that the novelty of Libra and other proposed global stablecoins demand that regulators reimagine the possibilities for monitoring and supervising their issuance and circulation.
Libra’s potential for rapid mass adoption across multiple jurisdictions would require authorities to develop dynamic and adaptable tools for supervision and enforcement, the analysts wrote. While challenging, they argued that the nature of the digital stablecoin can itself offer new enforcement mechanisms:
“Stablecoin proposals are one area where embedded supervision may work in practice. Information is a central function of regulation, both from the standpoint of enhancing market functioning and efficiency, and as from the standpoint of supervision, whether for purposes of market integrity, customer and investor protection, or prudential supervision.”
This “embedded supervision” would make a direct and automated data reporting provision a registration requirement for all prospective stablecoin issuers.
As the analysts point out, this is already the case for some existing non-stablecoin digital payment platforms such as AliPay and WeChat Pay in China.
Stablecoins that use distributed ledger technology can generate secure information and support automated monitoring of the ledger, reducing the need for issuers to actively collect, verify and report data to public authorities.
Broadly speaking, there are three aims of introducing embedded supervision for stablecoins: reducing the costs of compliance, thereby leveling the playing field for large and smaller private actors; developing an open-source suite of monitoring tools that can clarify how regulatory frameworks can be applied; and ensuring the legal finality of payments, which remains distinct from economic and contractual finality.
After a careful analysis of the various challenges presented by this model, the authors argue that a better solution could, ultimately, be to embed fiat currencies within a similar paradigm.
Central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, would not present the same “conflicts of interest” that privately-issued stablecoins represent. The authors therefore conclude with the suggestion that stablecoins may be an experimental proposal that points the way to innovation within the existing system, not beyond it:
“In the same way that stablecoins from previous centuries […] were an evolutionary step on the road to central banking, today’s stablecoins could too eventually give way to other reforms. This may include robust sovereign-backed alternatives and new means to connect central bank money across borders.”
Putting data on blockchain doesn’t mean it’s correct
Until recently, the use of blockchain in elections was perceived as nothing more than an experiment. However, during the recent United States presidential election, some tried to turn the public’s perception of the possibilities of blockchain technology. For example, the Associated Press, one of the largest U.S. media outlets, published the election results on the Ethereum and EOS blockchains.
Does this results call, however, suggest that the time to use blockchain in elections has come, and does it make sense to use the technology if the information source is centralized?
Being on a blockchain doesn’t make data trustworthy
Criticizing the AP as a data source may seem strange, given that it has been calling U.S. presidential elections since 1848. Perhaps, its nearly 200-year reputation was a reason why two decentralized platforms, YieldWars and Polymarket, chose to use AP data as an oracle for the 2020 elections prediction market. A YieldWars spokesperson called the AP “arguably the most trusted news outlet in the world.” Still, the word “arguably” suggests that data validity might still be in question.
And many people have indeed done just that — considered the AP an insufficiently reliable oracle for use in tandem with trustless blockchains. Some Twitter users met the news with both skepticism and outrage.
Commenting on the validity of such a data source, Juan Aja Aguinaco, co-founder of Shyft Network — a public attestation network for assigning context, trust and validation to data — noted an interesting trend: In some instances, particular outlets showed somewhat different results from one another. Moreover, according to him, the press is not responsible for making that kind of call, as “They do so because it’s what drives readership and ratings, but it’s not up to them to determine the winners of the elections.” He further assumed that the issues raised against the AP being considered an oracle might be valid, with a caveat:
“IF the purpose of using AP, or any other unofficial source of information, as an oracle for a prediction market is fair game as long as the participants fully understand what that means and the fact that AP can say one thing, but until the legal processes are over, the official results are undetermined.”
Still, the risk of any data fraud is minimal with media outlets such as the Associated Press, according to Thomas Stubbings, chairman of the Austrian Cyber Security Platform. He told Cointelegraph: “Probably few people would argue that AP is a more reliable source than, let’s say Breitbart News. Therefore, the reliability and trustfulness of a source like AP can be considered as given.”
By feeding bad data, the AP would effectively destroy its 100-year-old reputation as an unbiased reporter of elections, according to Artem Kalikhov, chief product officer of Waves Enterprise — the company whose technology was recently tested during Russia’s elections. He opined in an interview with Cointelegraph: “Since the data is cryptographically signed, the oracle node can’t manipulate it, only AP could taper with it, which is unlikely to happen.”
But what if the media is attacked by fraudsters? Although there is a possibility that a media outlet could be hacked and fake news spread, this would be noticed rather quickly. Stubbings said:
“Hacks which have a public impact are noticed very fast. As soon as there is any reasonable doubt, cybersecurity and forensic experts would jump in and examine the situation. And if there has been a hack or fraud — it will be found. Therefore, the possibility that an acknowledged medium can be hacked and fake information can be spread over a long time is absolutely impossible.”
He also suggested that a centralized media source could be more reliable than social media, which — ironically — seems to be more decentralized. “If it’s possible to centrally control such a media (like Facebook), it is possible to manipulate decentralized opinions from a central position,” said Stubbings, who added that this is what happened with Cambridge Analytica in 2016, where voters were centrally manipulated.
At the same time, Stubbings noted that any source is only as valid as the trust that is associated with it. The question “When is a source trustworthy?” is much more difficult to answer. Does this mean that the reputation of a trusted news source doesn’t guarantee that it’s actually trustworthy?
Decentralized oracles are not a solution
As it turns out, even if centralized, a trusted data source can supply information about elections to a blockchain. From that moment onward, the data cannot be deleted or changed. However, the question of how blockchain can verify the authenticity of the information remains open.
The problem is that today, smart contracts are not able to check whether the source of real-world information is reliable and complete. All that a smart contract can do is ensure the fulfillment of the prescribed conditions — for example, launching the function of replacing the president’s name on a platform after receiving information of their victory.
The good news is that there is a technology that can verify information, unlike a smart contract, and transfer it to a blockchain. These are trustless information providers — or oracles, as they are called in the blockchain space. However, not every information provider can be a true oracle. The oracle must be able to check the validity of the data — and, therefore, of the source of the information itself — and provide data on a wide range of events from the real world. Thus, having a reliable source of information is essential for the oracle to be reliable and complete.
In a conversation with Cointelegraph, Alice Corsini, chief operating officer at Provable Things — a platform that develops decentralized solutions, including oracles — agreed that when it comes to sensitive operations like political elections, it’s key for anyone to be able to verify the authenticity of data managed by oracles: “On this extent, oracles can adopt security technologies such as Trusted Computing for enabling data-authenticity verification and making the process transparent.”
Today, there are two main approaches to achieving the reliability of oracles. The first is oracle consensus, through which information is verified by several independent validators at once. In the second approach, the user themself chooses the source of information on the internet. Such a solution, for example, is offered by Provable Things, where TLSNotary proofs are used for proving the correct operation of the oracle. TLSNotary proofs provide cryptographic evidence that the data received from the selected source has been transferred to the smart contract unchanged.
Nevertheless, the problem of the reliability of the source itself remains unresolved. While both approaches guarantee the transfer of data from the source to the contract, they do not guarantee the integrity of the source, even if the oracle validators themselves chose it.
Speaking on the use of data published by the AP, Waves Enterprise’s Kalikhov suggested that although blockchain is already being used in national elections, this specific project does not bring real blockchain-based value to the voting process, as it’s only about fixing results in an immutable environment: “In case of oracle approach we still rely on traditional methods of vote collection and keeping vote secrecy before data gets to blockchain.”
More means better?
Some suggest that using multiple data sources and oracles together provides the best results in terms of the reliability and trustworthiness of the voting process. This means that using multiple media sources instead of just the AP might bring more trust to the process — even better if they are both local and foreign, and include social media.
An anonymous co-founder of YieldWars previously told Cointelegraph that future elections and prediction markets will be able to offer a more robust collection of oracles: “I envision there being multiple oracles like AP and I predict in the next election that we will see that. Having a number of trusted oracles settling markets should settle virtually all disputes.”
Kylin Network, a provider of decentralized oracles that recently received a Web 3.0 grant for building data infrastructure, offered to solve the problem of trustworthy data sources by collecting information about a particular event from indirect sources. So, the greater the number of these sources, the better. Dylan Dewdney, CEO of the platform, explained to Cointelegraph:
“So, to determine the election result, posts on social networks with the appropriate tags and date, the number of mentions of the presidential candidate on the Internet, publications in the media, etc. can be taken into account at the same time.”
Dewdney also noted that oracles must process large amounts of data simultaneously to ensure correct results. The best way to maintain that performance, according to him, is to make sure oracles have a stake in the game against a challenge or arbitration nodes.
This way, decentralized application developers can use such platforms to provide a validated premium data feed of their results of calls and validate all the API feeds to the chain. It’s in the interest of data providers to distribute accurate information because if it is challenged, they stand to lose the money they stake, as Dewdney added. “So, as a premium data feeder that has undertaken a validation process that is both decentralized and apolitical, the data I can provide — in this case, election results — becomes very valuable, and access to it, very valuable.”
In part, the experience of rewarding validators for providing information is used in the prediction markets. For example, the platform Augur uses the “wisdom of the crowd” principle to predict future events. Users predict the possible outcomes of these events by buying shares of the reward for correctly guessing the results. This approach results in economic motivation for the participants to ensure a correct prediction, and in the event that they are incorrect, they lose their stake. The forecast in this case is the weighted average of the expectations of all users.
The use of prediction markets greatly increases the completeness of the information provided, as anything can be predicted — if there are enough stakers — and reliability is provided by the economic motivation of the participants.
Has the time for blockchain in voting come?
Ultimately, the mere fact that the Associated Press interacted with blockchain to record voting results is not direct evidence that blockchain’s time in elections has come. Ashley Pope, co-founder of Fortis Block — a company that provides solutions for secure blockchain voting and digital elections for government, enterprise and nonprofits — claimed that instead, the news has shown the limitations and pain points of the current voting system:
“A large part of election processes worldwide are completed manually using a combination of paper/pencil/pen, and in some cases software. Voting is by and large stuck in the 1850’s. We bank online, pay taxes online and go to the doctor online yet voting is still completed manually. ”
Although the use of blockchain can technologically make elections transparent and reliable for voters, the problem of trust in authorities and the media, psychologically, may remain the same, according to Aguinaco: “Most people are distrustful of politicians and of the processes that get them elected. We could be using a 99% secure system and there would still be conspiracy theories, unrest, etc.”
In general, the use of blockchain in voting can have a positive effect on the electoral process. However, the transition to decentralized voting is not yet possible due to the laboriousness of organizing the process and its complexity for voters. It might, however, be more realistic in the short term to use decentralized oracles to validate votes. Although existing solutions provide a sufficiently reliable transfer of this information, the underlying issue of its original reliability still remains unsolved.
Filecoin storage tops 1 billion GB as tokenized FIL launches for use in DeFi
Coinbase Will Suspend All Margin Trading Tomorrow
Tesla CEO Elon Musk Becomes World’s Second-Richest Person as Company Approaches $500B Market Value
Filecoin storage tops 1 billion GB as tokenized FIL launches for use in DeFi
Coinbase Will Suspend All Margin Trading Tomorrow
Tesla CEO Elon Musk Becomes World’s Second-Richest Person as Company Approaches $500B Market Value
DeFi3 days ago
Yield-generating stablecoin project Origin Dollar exploited for $7M
Regulations3 days ago
Crypto lobby defends self-hosted wallets and P2P from rumored gov’t crackdown
Market2 days ago
What SEC Chairman Jay Clayton Stepping Down Means for Markets
Bitcoin2 days ago
Bitcoin Rebounds Off of Key Support Level as Analysts Eye Upside
Bitcoin2 days ago
Russia’s Gazprombank debuts Bitcoin trading in Switzerland
Market2 days ago
Ethereum 2.0 Delayed Launch Can Affect Its Dominance in DeFi Market
Blockchain1 day ago
Putting data on blockchain doesn’t mean it’s correct
Blockchain2 days ago
The word ‘decentralized’ has lost all meaning — Enough is enough