LBANK INFO CRYPTOCURRENCY

I'm familiar with Liquid and Rootstock to issue tokens on Bitcoin, but they require trusting a separate system like a federation or a separate chain. Is there a way to issue fungible tokens directly on Bitcoin and Lightning, without relying on a sidechain or a trusted federation? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/h8uCYSn via IFTTT

I'm researching how RGB uses Taproot commitments (Tapret, LNPBP-12) and ran a transfer experiment on testnet: 64a14551...c20b6b . The RGB client output shows the state anchored at tapret1st:64a14551...c20b6b:1 — a standard P2TR output on-chain. My understanding is that Tapret inserts an unspendable 64-byte OP_RETURN leaf into the script tree at depth 1, shifting existing scripts one level deeper. This changes the Merkle root, which changes the output key (P2TR address) via the BIP-341 tweak formula. Two questions: If Script_A was originally at depth 1 (single-leaf, empty Merkle path in the control block), after Tapret insertion it moves to depth 2. Does the original control block become invalid? Does the spender need to reconstruct it with the Tapret leaf hash included in the Merkle path? Since the Merkle root changes with every new Tapret commitment, does RGB always derive a fresh P2TR address for each state transition — even if the internal key P remains the same? ...

I have two testnet4 nodes, both running Bitcoin Core v30.2 and I use estimatesmartfee API calls to guess fees on the network. I have noticed over time that the estimates vary widely on both nodes and sometimes also by the conf_target . Is there any possibility to make this estimate more reliable? E.g. it currently return on node01 : $ bitcoin-cli estimatesmartfee 3 economical { "feerate": 0.00000974, "blocks": 3 } $ bitcoin-cli estimatesmartfee 10 economical { "feerate": 0.00100314, "blocks": 10 } $ bitcoin-cli estimatesmartfee 50 economical { "feerate": 0.00000988, "blocks": 50 } (please note that the conf_target: 10 has larger fee than for conf_target: 3 ). and on node02 : $ bitcoin-cli estimatesmartfee 3 economical { "feerate": 0.00100369, "blocks": 3 } $ bitcoin-cli estimatesmartfee 10 economical { "feerate": 0.00063429, "blocks": 10 } $ bitcoin-cli...

In Pieter Wuille's recent answer [Why did BIP-342 replace CHECKMULTISIG with a new opcode] , BIP-342's deliberate minimization of semantic changes was attributed to the expectation that "those could always be introduced with later softforks that redefine OP_SUCCESSes." I'm curious about the granularity of this reservation: Were specific opcode candidates (e.g., CHECKSIGFROMSTACK, CAT, TXHASH) already on the radar when OP_SUCCESS positions were allocated, or was the allocation purely abstract — "reserve space for unknown future use"? Was there discussion about classes of additions (introspection opcodes, signature variants, hash operations) that would or wouldn't be appropriate candidates for OP_SUCCESS redefinition vs. requiring a deeper softfork? Are there design properties an opcode SHOULD have to be a clean OP_SUCCESS redefinition (vs. requiring more invasive consensus changes)? I ask because the activation-path mechanics matter for how com...

How long should pruning—say, from 794GB blockchain down to last 2GB—take? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/WJHfx1z via IFTTT

Legacy CHECKMULTISIG has FindAndDelete attached to it. SegWit v0 already removed FindAndDelete and kept CHECKMULTISIG working fine. So for tapscript, the simple path was: keep CHECKMULTISIG, say FindAndDelete doesn't run here. BIP-342 didn't do that. It disabled CHECKMULTISIG completely and added CHECKSIGADD, so multisig is now a sequence of opcodes plus a comparison. That's a much bigger change than just fixing the bug. I'd like to understand why. A few things I'm curious about: Was a "clean CHECKMULTISIG" ever considered, and why was it rejected? Was the main reason batch verification with Schnorr, or something else? Or was it a deliberate choice to move away from opcodes that pack whole patterns, toward smaller primitives that script authors combine themselves? The last one matters to me because if it's a real design shift, it probably also shapes how future opcodes (CAT, CSFS, etc.) should look. If anyone was part of those discussions, I'd lo...

I've been reading Robin Linus's "Binohash" paper ( Binohash:transaction introspection without softforks , https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/binohash-transaction-introspection-without-softforks/2288 ) and trying to understand the grinding process. My rough understanding: The spender chooses subsets of signatures from a fixed pool embedded in the locking script Each subset changes the scriptCode via FindAndDelete before hashing The goal is to find a subset where the resulting sighash satisfies a leading-zero condition So in practice this looks like a search problem over combinatorial subsets rather than a simple nonce space. Compared to Bitcoin mining: Mining hashes a fixed-size header with a changing nonce Binohash requires modifying KB-sized script data (via FindAndDelete) before each hash Each transaction defines its own independent search space My questions: Is it reasonable to think of this as a kind of PoW, or is that a misleading analogy? What ac...

You can read the full article to confirme reality at: https://strat-ga.vercel.app/rangebtcarticle4878974412026 That take overfits the chart: a dip under 60k and a bounce into a big round zone does not prove a clean structure shift or a straight run to about 95k. The 70k to 72k area is still just a range until price proves it with sustained strength and follow-through. The 72k and 80k levels are conditions, not facts yet. Past action does not lock in the next leg; the breakdown vs recovery story is still open until those levels are clearly reclaimed and held. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/V72odie via IFTTT

When I implemented a Silent Payments send on testnet, I used a Taproot key-path spend as input. In that case, the sender's public key is directly readable from the witness. But I'm not sure this holds for all input types. For example, in a P2WPKH input the pubkey is in the witness, but for a Taproot script-path spend it may not be directly recoverable. Does BIP352 require the sender's input pubkey to be recoverable? And if the sender uses an input type where the pubkey is not visible, does the protocol break down? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/McDr6Lv via IFTTT

THE SILENT GOODBYE NOTHING ENDED SUDDENLY. HIS BUSY LIFE ONCE MADE SENSE—UNTIL IT DIDN’T. HE GREW DISTANT, LESS PRESENT, LESS INVOLVED. THERE WAS NO CLEAR ENDING, JUST SPACE. EVENTUALLY, I DISCOVERED HE WAS WITH A COWORKER. HUB CAN HELP YOU WITH YOUR RECOVERY hubbolt20@gmail.com from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/KJmXHlx via IFTTT

In a single-signer Taproot address, the BIP86 tweak has a clear meaning: the output commits to no script tree, only a key path. But in a two-party MuSig2 channel, I think it does something extra. Without the tweak, Alice could in principle embed a hidden script path into the funding output — one that lets her spend unilaterally. If both sides independently apply the BIP86 tweak and verify the resulting output key matches, it is effectively a mutual confirmation: "nothing is hidden in this output." So my question: in a MuSig2 channel context, is this the intended security guarantee of BIP86 — preventing the counterparty from embedding a hidden script path? Or does the channel protocol have separate mechanisms that already cover this? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/iW3qtxj via IFTTT

What are the impacts of the current ongoing war on Bitcoin and the broader cryptocurrency market, and how could disruptions to ASIC hosting and mining operations directly affect Bitcoin’s price, network stability, and decentralization? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/zUkJAnp via IFTTT

Background: I am trying to reconstruct a P2SH redeem script created in early 2026. I have the base data, but there is a 1-bit discrepancy in the resulting Hash160. ​The Data: ​Target Hash160 (Blockchain): 8d2c7a6a124d1551884798d76c8aedab36908bf3. ​Current Script (pt_hex): 0400f6f87bb17576a91470b38fc510ae4a633b4410a25a17c16bbd215cd888ac. ​Calculated Hash from pt_hex: 8d2c7a6a124d1551884798d76c8aedad36908bf3 (Note the 'd' vs 'b' difference). from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/57G42WF via IFTTT

In CCQ Advanced Tools --> export Wallet --> export XPUB --> Master XPUB In Blue Wallet Import --> Scan QR code in display It imports as derivation m44. While it should import as derivation m. CCQ can't sign. Resolution without having to put the seed in electrum as comment under Need help moving funds from legacy address, Coldcard won't sign psbt Export/Backup wallet from Blue Wallet Import as watch only legacy in sparrow wallet Manually fill in the fingerprint as given on CCQ Change derivation to m Create psbt and save it to microsd. Sign psbt with CCQ. Want to thank sjorsprovoost to put us in the right path and stack exchange for the above directional. Can't comment under the post yet as we don't have sufficient points to comment. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/tOBpmq5 via IFTTT

Running StartOS 0.3.5-1 with LND 0.20.1 and Bitcoin Core. Trying to connect LND to an external Railway backend over Tor. The problem: LND's Control Interface onion address is unreachable externally. What works: Start9 system onion loads fine in Tor Browser Bitcoin Core has 12 active peer connections over Tor (outbound) LND is Running and Synced to chain and graph curl via SOCKS5 to DuckDuckGo onion works fine What doesn't work: curl via SOCKS5 to LND onion returns SOCKS5 error 5 Bitcoin Core Peer Interface onion also unreachable Tor Browser shows "Unable to connect" for all service onions What I've tried: Reset Tor without wipe state (multiple times) Reset Tor with wipe state Full system restart Turned off "Use Tor for all traffic" and "Stream Isolation" in LND config Previously saw overloaded guard node warning — fixed with wipe state reset Conclusion: Start9's own hidden service publishes fine, but none of the installed service hidd...

Anyone care to audit the code?? https://github.com/SystemThreat/NEX from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/kAOgL6p via IFTTT

I'm researching how RGB uses Taproot commitments (Tapret, LNPBP-12) and ran a transfer experiment on testnet: 64a14551...c20b6b . The RGB client output shows the state anchored at tapret1st:64a14551...c20b6b:1 — a standard P2TR output on-chain. My understanding is that Tapret inserts an unspendable 64-byte OP_RETURN leaf into the script tree at depth 1, shifting existing scripts one level deeper. This changes the Merkle root, which changes the output key (P2TR address) via the BIP-341 tweak formula. Two questions: If Script_A was originally at depth 1 (single-leaf, empty Merkle path in the control block), after Tapret insertion it moves to depth 2. Does the original control block become invalid? Does the spender need to reconstruct it with the Tapret leaf hash included in the Merkle path? Since the Merkle root changes with every new Tapret commitment, does RGB always derive a fresh P2TR address for each state transition — even if the internal key P remains the same? ...

When spending a Taproot script-path output with SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT (BIP118), I want to understand what exactly is committed to regarding the script tree. Specifically: if two UTXOs have the same executed leaf (same TapLeaf hash) but different TapTree structures (different Merkle paths), will the same APO signature validate against both? I constructed a multi-round Eltoo chain on Inquisition signet, and observed that the APO signature can still be reused across rounds and successfully spend the output. I also confirmed that the same APO signature can spend two different UTXOs with identical scripts and amounts ( tx1 , tx2 ). This suggests that the signature commits to the TapLeaf hash, but not the full Merkle path — and I’d like to confirm whether this is the correct interpretation. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/8RLqVjy via IFTTT

How come Bitcoin community is not acting on this huge threat? They keep saying it is a FUD instead of getting together and coming up with ideas. Without proper roadmap Bitcoin will be eliminated within next 4 years! https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/03/28/watch-out-bitcoin-devs-google-says-post-quantum-migration-needs-to-happen-by-2029 from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/ZDH2Nzc via IFTTT

I'm looking for a web-based wallet, web3 service or exchange that uses their own, non-bip39 wordlist. My backup phrase contains the words ministry, goodbye, distribute, and formal - these are not written down incorrectly, since this is an actual screenshot with the full recovery phrase. The only issue is that I don't remember which service I used this for. I signed up for quite a few back in the day and typically made screenshots rather than write down the words. Unfortunately, this particular screenshot does not contain the name of the service or the url... Any help would be appreciated! from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/1UwgueD via IFTTT

With OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS), signatures are verified against an explicit message rather than the transaction sighash. This seems to allow the same (sig, message) pair to be reused across different UTXOs, unless something binds the message to a specific context. Some discussions (e.g. by Jeremy Rubin https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2024/12/02/csfs-ctv-rekey-symmetry/ ) mention re-keying or laddering constructions to mitigate this. My question is: How exactly do CSFS laddering or re-keying schemes prevent cross-UTXO replay in practice? What is the binding mechanism — is it based on chaining commitments, updating keys per step, or something else? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/NYzps2H via IFTTT

I’ve been testing simple opcode combinations — CHECKSIG, CSFS, IK+CSFS....trying to get a feel for what each one actually binds. It feels like the challenge is less about expressiveness, and more about choosing the right kind of binding. I’m wondering: Do developers see this as its own discipline — not Ethereum-style contracts, but something like designing Bitcoin’s contracts within constraints? Does that map to a distinct kind of engineering role over time? Or is this still just considered script work? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/7xwDKoX via IFTTT

I can't transfer my paper wallet BTC to my wallet (Android); I only get the notification "bad connection to Electrum network". How can I solve the issue and access my BTC? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/MYw2lnU via IFTTT

I’ve been running opcode composition experiments (e.g. CAT+CSFS, IK+CSFS) on signet. Related: #130613 , #130598 , Delving thread In several cases, the script validates correctly, but still feels structurally unsafe (e.g. replay, cross-UTXO reuse, weak binding). My question: How do experienced developers recognize these issues early, before they turn into real vulnerabilities? In particular, how do you reason about whether a construction is "too general" or insufficiently bound? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/1lGnXZD via IFTTT

Following up on #130598 . I built a CAT + CSFS oracle-style script on signet ( commit , reveal ): OP_CAT OP_SHA256 <oracle_pubkey> OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK Witness: [sig, PART1, PART2] Message: SHA256(PART1 || PART2) Since CSFS only checks the message, the same (sig, PART1, PART2) appears to be reusable across multiple UTXOs with compatible scripts. For price oracles this is usually acceptable. But if the goal is single-use authorization (i.e., the signature should only be valid for one specific UTXO): Is committing to the outpoint inside the message the only general approach? Or is there a script-level pattern that avoids requiring the oracle to wait for the UTXO to exist before signing? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/wHOPXSB via IFTTT

How long should pruning—say, from 794GB blockchain down to last 2GB—take? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/5XNnAg6 via IFTTT

What happens if Bob keeps the Musig2 nonces used in the last multisig transaction? Can Bob use Alice's disclosed nonces to steal monies from the second transaction? I would say no since the second transaction would use different unspent inputs than the first transaction. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/3znZXTW via IFTTT

I have used bitcoinj v0.2 From wich I have a base64 string of 12 bytes 16 characters and a base58 string of 34 characters that is 25 bytes. it has a xor test in that string so I have a matching 10 bytes from the base64 string with a matching 16 bytes from that base58 string But how do I use them? Is this aes-128? so the 16 bytes is a encrypted seed? Or do I have to join then togheter to get a 26 bytes raw private key It's from the time before WIF thanks from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/xJ34Lh2 via IFTTT

I ran a CSFS experiment on Bitcoin Inquisition Signet and got a spend confirmed: https://mempool.space/signet/tx/cc1b6d352f75348b6a52c7f5c68fc5caea2512423e08011e8f69a9bb85195f97 The tapscript is simply: <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK The witness provides (sig, msg, script, control_block) . Since (sig, msg) becomes public after spending, if another UTXO is later sent to the same script, anyone could reuse the exact same pair to spend it — because CSFS only enforces: schnorr_verify(pubkey, msg, sig) with no commitment to the spending transaction. By contrast, OP_CHECKSIG signatures commit to the input outpoint, so cross-UTXO reuse is impossible. This leads to three questions: Is cross-UTXO signature reuse an intentional property of CSFS, or a risk that must be handled at the script level? What are the standard patterns to prevent unintended reuse — include the outpoint in msg ? combine with OP_CHECKSIG ? In oracle constructions where reuse is desirable (e.g., attesting...

my original Email address: alstone777@rocketmail.com I had a message a couple years ago t: theartmonster777@gmail.com I purchased bitcoin in 2010, 10 dollars worth, and it is worth a lot now I might of used paypal to purchase this bitcoin from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/5UkjpbO via IFTTT

Taproot is often described as making Bitcoin “more programmable”. However, Bitcoin still executes the same stack-based Script VM, without loops or persistent state. Taproot increased expressiveness without changing the VM. What specific protocol changes made this possible? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/4ePhoXU via IFTTT

I need help trying to update my wallet info mation before they close my account I keep getting emails from Google forms saying to update my Bitcoin wallet info but it wont tell me we're to go to do it from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/P8OKXQw via IFTTT

In a recent discussion about Bitcoin’s architecture (< https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/130583/is-bitcoin-better-understood-as-a-state-machine-or-a-database/130585?noredirect=1#comment146364_130585> ), Pieter Wuille noted that even the concept of the UTXO set itself postdates Satoshi’s departure, suggesting that some of the mental models we use today emerged later as the system evolved. Looking at the evolution of Bitcoin’s spending mechanisms, many features appear to follow a commit–reveal pattern（ When — and why — did Bitcoin Script shift to a commit–reveal structure? ）. However, many modern cryptographic systems instead follow a different structure: commit → prove → verify I’m curious: Is the current commit–reveal pattern a fundamental property of Bitcoin’s design, or could future extensions push the system toward proof-based validation mechanisms? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/KdJ6ykH via IFTTT

Bitcoin is commonly described as a “decentralized database,” but looking at how a full node actually works, that framing feels a bit off. Blocks form an append-only transaction log. Nodes replay that log to derive the current UTXO set, which Bitcoin Core stores in LevelDB (chainstate/). That’s not really how traditional databases work — it feels closer to event sourcing or a replicated state machine where the ledger state is derived rather than primary. So which mental model is actually correct? • Is the UTXO set the “database “? • Or is the block log canonical, with the UTXO set essentially being a cache that could be reconstructed? Is there anything from early mailing list discussions or Satoshi’s design notes that addresses this directly? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/97PciCx via IFTTT

Using bitcoin core v29.2 I use importdescriptors like this in a POST request: http://user:password@localhost:48332/wallet/FullyNoded-3f892a938a83d0a79b37415718c0961bbd2dd368f7cb4fa55a4a6de4f2d1d9da request: ["id": "4305A6A4-212B-4A4E-8BC9-9449A0BD9B98", "method": "importdescriptors", "params": ["requests": [["desc": "tr(025650b14f8625b1904178493c1622ff4c93686fee8477484af0845c8b2cd9ea5f,and_v(v:multi_a(1,[96d7aac2/48h/1h/0h/3h]tpubDEezkCUbL6Ej2Z54Vrb7nAveezdQdcuY2bDuekM6EPCmEno5pKX2Qv2c9CYGwbfMNDr4QQsWQr8LMj1pNMhEiXUfVzAvqcsGkVT8cpqgEUH/0/0,[fc909fda/48h/1h/0h/3h]tpubDFhkGDGS53dvC7EcRu4bXsyXuBXN6PnVLvTyuvBJop7MceUBsSonGGE98LrqyQGd7ZMebEi2FC8Yqsdd9irs64sReNWtMSJXf8jaMb292t8/0/0),after(1769616990)))#qr3jf3qm", "internal": false, "timestamp": 1769617431, "active": false, "label": "1 of 2", "next_index": 0], ["next_index": 3, "active...

Re-reading the whitepaper, Section 2 describes ownership as transferring coins directly to the next owner's public key — which maps to P2PK. That's the last standard type where the full spending condition is visible in the output. Every format since then does the reverse: commit to a hash, reveal the preimage at spend time. P2PKH started it — hides the pubkey behind a hash, revealing it only at spend time. P2SH, P2WSH, and eventually Taproot all extend the same logic, with Taproot pushing it furthest by hiding an entire Merkle tree of scripts. Was this a deliberate design direction, or did each upgrade respond to its own pressures independently? Is there a mailing list thread or BIP discussion where this pattern is explicitly articulated? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/DsYl6g1 via IFTTT

The conversation around real-world asset (RWA) tokenization is heating up, and the numbers are staggering. After digital asset securities firm Securitize highlighted the potential for a $400 trillion global asset market to move on-chain, attention quickly shifted to the blockchains positioned to support that scale. The XRP ecosystem, specifically the XRP Ledger, is increasingly being discussed as a possible infrastructure layer for this next phase of financial digitization. How The XRP Ledger Supports Asset Tokenization Crypto commentator Archie is sounding the alarm for the XRP community, pointing to Securitize teasing a massive $400 trillion real-world asset (RWA) opportunity that could reshape global finance and potentially position the XRP Ledger at the center of the shift. According to Archie’s post on X, a recent update from the tokenization giant stated that only about $25 billion in assets have been tokenized, with an estimated $400 trillion in traditional assets.  Thi...

Former Ripple Chief Technology Officer (CTO) David Schwartz has addressed speculation that the crypto firm can block transactions on the XRP Ledger (XRPL) . He explained the only way this could happen amid claims that the network is centralized.  Ripple CTO Emeritus Explains How An XRP Transaction Can Be Blocked In an X post , the former Ripple CTO said that there is no way to prevent valid transactions on the XRP Ledger unless users agree to change the validity rules to make them invalid. Schwartz made this statement in response to whether Ripple or he, as one of the original developers , can freeze a wallet and prevent a transaction.  Meanwhile, in response to who can unlock and lock escrows, the former Ripple CTO said that anyone who wants to escrow tokens can lock them in escrow. Once an escrow expires, anyone can unlock it. Schwartz also addressed claims that the XRPL Ledger was centralized because Ripple has a “Unique Node List,” which effectively makes the validator...

British gamblers searching for ways to bet with cryptocurrency are more likely to end up on an illegal website than a regulated one. That is part of what prompted the UK Gambling Commission to start asking whether something needs to change. Tim Miller, the regulator’s executive director for research and policy, told an industry gathering in London last Thursday that the Commission now wants to look seriously at allowing crypto to be used as a payment method at licensed online gambling platforms in Great Britain. Illegal Sites Are Driving The Conversation Miller’s case for taking another look at crypto payments was not built purely on demand, though he acknowledged that appetite among bettors is growing. He made the remarks during the Betting and Gaming Council’s annual general assembly. The more pointed argument was about where that demand currently goes. According to reports , Miller told attendees that crypto ranks among the two most common search terms that lead British gambler...

Bitcoin’s long-term structure has always been examined through the perspective of its halving cycle, and one crypto pundit believes the pattern is pointing to a clear price bottom.  The analysis centers on a recurring time-based rhythm tied to each halving event, and it proposes a specific window for when accumulation could begin again. Crypto pundit Blockchainedbb projected that the Bitcoin phase may be heading into another structured reset phase that drags on for a while, and it may not be until Q4 2024 before the best time for buying BTC presents itself. The Bitcoin 135-Week Rule Before Halving The timing framework is based on a recurring pattern observed ahead of Bitcoin’s halving events, highlighted by pundit Blockchainedbb. According to his analysis, each previous major Bitcoin cycle price low formed somewhere around 135 weeks before a halving takes place. The weekly chart shared in the analysis shows previous halving dates, including May 11, 2020, and April 19, 2024, ...

Ripple is reshaping how builders on the XRP Ledger get funded in 2026, arguing that the ecosystem has reached a point where support needs to flow through more than Ripple-linked programs alone. The change matters because it signals a deliberate move away from a relatively centralized funding structure toward a broader network of DAOs, independent hubs, universities and venture partners. In its latest ecosystem update , Ripple said more than $550 million has already been deployed into XRPL initiatives since 2017, spanning non-equity grants, builder incentives, strategic partnerships and growth programs. Since 2021, those efforts have included hackathons, builder bounties, XRPL Grants and the XRPL Accelerator, with nearly 200 projects supported across areas including payments, DeFi, tokenization, AI, gaming, e-commerce and enterprise finance. XRP Ledger Enters New Phase The core message is that 2026 marks a structural pivot. Ripple said ecosystem funding has historically flowed throug...

It has been a brutal few months for Dogecoin in terms of price action. At the time of writing, Dogecoin is trading just below $0.10, below all of its moving averages, and sitting more than 86% below its all-time high.  The price action looks bad for Dogecoin; however, a look at the on-chain data tells an entirely different story of resilience and network activity that’s being ignored. If history is any guide, this is exactly the kind of environment before a major recovery. Dogecoin’s Network Growth Price is often the last thing to move during rallies. Before any significant rally materializes, bullish sentiment tends to show up first in the data, and right now, Dogecoin’s network data is showing signs that demand serious attention. At the time of writing, daily active addresses are currently around 54,500, having recently spiked to nearly 58,000 this week.  Even more notable is the longer-term trend. As noted by crypto analyst PennybagsCX on X, average address activi...

Building software has never been against the law. But in recent years, some crypto and blockchain developers have found themselves facing federal criminal charges simply for creating tools that others used to move cryptocurrency — even when those developers never held a single dollar of anyone’s money. A new bill introduced in the US House of Representatives is aimed squarely at closing that gap. A Bipartisan Push To Protect Developers Representatives Scott Fitzgerald, Ben Cline, and Zoe Lofgren announced Thursday that they are sponsoring the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act. The legislation targets a specific section of federal law — Section 1960 — which currently prohibits the operation of unlicensed money transmitting businesses. The bill would tighten the definition so that the law applies only to those who actually hold or control other people’s digital assets. Developers who write code, maintain networks, or build platforms without ever touching user funds...

On-chain data shows spot demand for Bitcoin is returning as the Apparent Demand metric has started to grow for the first time since late November. Bitcoin Apparent Demand Has Seen Its 30-Day Sum Turn Green In a new post on X, CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno has discussed the latest trend in the Apparent Demand of Bitcoin. This on-chain indicator provides an estimate for the spot demand for the cryptocurrency that’s present on the network right now. It does so by comparing two metrics: the mining issuance and change in the 1-year inactive supply. The mining issuance is the amount of the asset that miners are ‘minting’ on the blockchain every day through their mining activities. It can be considered as a measure of the asset’s total production. In contrast, the 1-year inactive supply, corresponding to coins dormant since more than one year ago, represents the cryptocurrency’s inventory. When the value of the Apparent Demand is positive, it means the decrease in the inven...

Michael Saylor used his Strategy World 2026 keynote on Feb. 25 to argue that Bitcoin-backed “digital credit” is moving beyond Wall Street wrappers and toward programmable distribution on crypto rails, naming Solana and Ethereum as part of that future. The pitch matters because it pushes Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury model into a broader product thesis: use Bitcoin as the capital base, then package credit, yield and liquidity for corporates, retail investors and eventually tokenized markets. Bitcoin Capital, Credit Product Saylor framed Bitcoin as the foundation of the stack and Strategy’s Stretch (STRC) as the credit layer built on top of it. In his telling, the company’s business is no longer just accumulating Bitcoin, but “converting capital into credit” by using long-duration capital structures to strip cash flow from a volatile asset and deliver it as a steadier yield product. “What is Strategy doing? Our company is converting capital into credit. We’re converting economic wealt...

A finance veteran is pushing back against critics who have dismissed a $100 XRP price prediction , suggesting that those on the opposing side may simply be missing the bigger picture. He boldly argues that double- and triple-digit prices are inevitable, pointing to its underlying technology as the driving force that could carry the asset toward this ambitious milestone with relative ease.  Why The XRP Price Could Reach $100 Without Hassle Paul White Gold Eagle, a financial industry expert, is standing firm in his ambitious prediction that XRP will reach $100, firing back at skeptics who have written off the possibility . After spending 10 years working in bank operations, the veteran stated on X that his experience inside the financial system gave him a perspective most retail investors do not have.  Unlike front-facing roles where employees interact directly with customers, Paul White Gold Eagle revealed that operations work exposed him to the infrastructure that keeps b...

Following a brief and sudden market-wide uptick, the Ethereum price is drawing closer to the pivotal $2,100 mark again, recording a 12% rise in the past day. Despite the bounce on Wednesday, the broader market of ETH is still quite bearish, but bullish sentiment appears to be gaining momentum in the Spot ETFs sector. Sharp Decline Meets Quiet Ethereum Spot ETF Inflows The recent price movement of Ethereum has been quite harsh, with steep declines and ongoing volatility significantly impacting market sentiment. However, beyond the persistent waning price action, a different narrative is unfolding in the Ethereum Spot Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) . Despite the sell-off, causing ETH’s price to drop from $4,900 to under $2,000, spot ETF flows show renewed interest and, in certain situations, ongoing capital allocation. This discrepancy between robust ETF demand and poor price performance raises the possibility that institutional and long-term investors are seeing the decline as an oppo...

Crypto asset manager Bitwise just made one of its boldest moves yet. The company has acquired Chorus One , a staking infrastructure firm that manages more than $2.2 billion in assets across dozens of blockchain networks. The deal brings 50 Chorus One employees into Bitwise’s growing onchain division, where several billion dollars in crypto assets are already being staked by clients. Financial Terms Undisclosed Chorus One has been in the staking business since 2018. Over those years, it built a client base that includes family offices, large funds, exchanges, high-net-worth individuals, and custodians — the kind of institutional relationships that take years to earn. Its founder and CEO, Brian Crain, will stay on in an advisory role as the rest of the team folds into Bitwise Onchain Solutions. Reports say the financial terms of the deal were not made public. Bitwise did not disclose how much it paid. What is clear, though, is what the company gets out of it. The acquisition exte...

Solana (SOL) is attempting to stabilize after weeks of selling pressure, with price action now centered around a critical technical zone that could determine its next directional move. Related Reading: MoneyGram Joins Cardano’s Midnight As Federated Mainnet Validator After falling from recent highs near $86, the Solana price rebounded from support around $75–$76 and climbed back above $80, drawing renewed attention from traders and institutional investors watching for signs of a broader recovery. Recent market data shows Solana price in a consolidation phase, where improving derivatives positioning and fresh ETF inflows are beginning to offset weak sentiment caused by declining network activity and external market shocks. ETF Inflows Signal Institutional Re-Engagement A key catalyst behind the latest recovery has been renewed institutional demand. U.S. spot Solana ETFs recorded approximately $3.78 million in net inflows on February 24, reversing a stretch of outflows that had coi...

The crypto market is showing renewed strength after several days of volatility, with prices rebounding as traders reposition ahead of key U.S. economic data. A mix of technical recovery, macroeconomic expectations, and market structure dynamics has helped digital assets regain momentum. After recent selling pressure drove prices toward critical support levels, buyers stepped back in, triggering a broad recovery led by Bitcoin and several high-performing altcoins. The move comes as investors increasingly focus on upcoming U.S. labor market data. Market Rebound Signals Bearish Exhaustion The total cryptocurrency market capitalization has added tens of billions of dollars over the past 24 hours, climbing back toward the $2.3 trillion region after earlier losses. Analysts point to signs of bearish exhaustion, with stabilizing price action suggesting that sellers may be losing control in the short term. Bitcoin reclaimed the $65,000 level and continues to trade within a multi-week cons...