Leading Global Bitcoin Adoption, HashingSpace Corporation Uplifts to the OTCQB

Bitcoin Magazine
Leading Global Bitcoin Adoption, HashingSpace Corporation Uplifts to the OTCQB
Site-screenshot (1)

Bitcoin Press Release: US Based HashingSpace Corporation Announced it has been uplifted to a higher reporting status on the OTC Market. HashingSpace will now be listed as OTCQB: HSHS. HashingSpace provides scalable datacenter and technology infrastructure for the global adoption of Bitcoin including Bitcoin ATMs and hosted ASIC mining.

WENATCHEE, WA / July 29, 2015 / HashingSpace Corporation (OTCQB: HSHS), a company focused on the global adoption of Bitcoin, announced today that it has officially been uplifted to a higher reporting status. HashingSpace will no longer be listed on the Pink Sheets and has been moved to OTCQB status.

HashingSpace Corporation submitted all the mandatory documents and has successfully met all of the initial requirements to receive this upgrade. The upgrade became official on July 23, 2015.

“We are pleased to learn that we have been upgraded to a higher status,” stated Terry Taylor, Chief Financial Officer of HashingSpace. “This upgrade reflects on our plan to bring better value to our shareholders. This shows that we are current in our SEC compliance reporting and will undergo an annual verification and certification process. Providing accurate information to our investors is a top priority.”

Included in our new OTCQB designation will be real-time level 2 quote display. Quotes can be found at www.otcmarkets.com

Weekly OTC Market Reports summarizing the activity in our security will be available.

All company information, including stock trading, filings, and market data related to the company, is reported under the new upgrade, OTCQB: HSHS.

HashingSpace Corporation’s business will provide a wide range of services to include:

· HASHHOSTING   Servers fully managed and specifically set-up for ASIC MINING
· CLOUDHASH      Cloud mining servers that can be rented with full hashing power
· HASHMINING      Our own Mining Farm
· HASHATM          Owner and operator of Bitcoin ATM machines
· HASHWALLET   Bitcoin consumer wallet for bitcoin banking and transactions
· HASHPOOL        Public Stratum and P2Pool (Web/IOS/Droid)
· HASHTICKER     Free Ticker for tracking Bitcoin Value (Screen Saver/Web/IOS/Droid)
· HASHVAR          A wholesaler of Bitcoin servers and Bitcoin ATM machines

About HashingSpace Corporation

HashingSpace Corporation is a Bitcoin ASIC mining company, hosting provider, and service provider of blockchain transactional services. HashingSpace’s high density datacenters are designed to meet the demanding power and cooling needs of client hosted Bitcoin mining gear with unparalleled pricing, cooling and green energy. The Corporation is continuing to expand its datacenters to satisfy the shortage of low cost hosting facilities catering to the Bitcoin and blockchain mining and transactional verification services industry specifically.

HashingSpace Corporation manages HashWallet, a Bitcoin wallet; HashPool, a Bitcoin
mining pool; and HashATM, the owner and operator of Bitcoin ATM machines. The company is a wholesaler of Bitcoin mining servers and Bitcoin ATM machines. Bitcoin businesses interested in reselling HashingSpace products and services are invited to reach out to HashingSpace Corporation for more information.

HashingSpace Corporation is headquartered in Wenatchee, Washington. For more information, visitwww.hashingspace.com.

Any unreleased services or features referenced in this or other press releases or public statements may not be currently available and may not be delivered on time or at all. Customers who purchase HashingSpace services should make their purchase decisions based upon features currently available. For more information please visit http://www.hashingspace.com or call 1-855-HASHING (427-4464).

Safe Harbor Statement

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward-looking statements are based on the current plans and expectations of management and are subject to a number of uncertainties and risks that could significantly affect the Company’s current plans and expectations, as well as future results of operations and financial condition. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

For more information please visit: http://www.hashingspace.com/

Company Contact:

HashingSpace Corporation
5042 Wilshire Blvd. #26900
Los Angeles, CA, 90036
855 – HASHING (427-4464)

Investor Relations:

Email: ir@hashingspace.com


This press release is for informational purposes only. The information does not constitute investment advice or an endorsement by Bitcoin Magazine or BTC Media, LLC. Bitcoin Magazine does not certify the accuracy of the above information provided by HashingSpace Corporation.

About Bitcoin PR Buzz:

Bitcoin PR Buzz has been proudly serving the PR and marketing needs of Bitcoin and digital currency tech start-ups for over 2 years. Get your own professional Bitcoin and digital currency Press Release. Click here for more information.

The post Leading Global Bitcoin Adoption, HashingSpace Corporation Uplifts to the OTCQB appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Settling the Block Size Debate

This is a guest post by Eric Lombrozo, the Co-CEO and CTO of Ciphrex Corp., a software company pioneering decentralized consensus network technology. Lombrozo is also a founding member of the CryptoCurrency Security Standards Steering Committee and has been a longtime contributor to the open source Bitcoin core development effort.


In the last few months, a contentious debate has arisen surrounding the issue of a hardcoded constant in the consensus rules of the Bitcoin network. While on the surface it appears to be a simple enough change, this single issue has opened up a veritable Pandora’s box.

What is the block-size limit and why is it there?

When the Bitcoin network was in infancy, several assumptions had to be made regarding what kind of computational resources a typical Bitcoin node would have. Among these resources were network bandwidth, storage space and processor speed. If blocks were allowed to grow too big they would swamp these resources, making it easy to attack the network or discourage people from running a node. On the other hand, if blocks were too small, network resources would be underutilized unnecessarily, keeping the number of transactions too low. Despite the fact that available computational resources vary widely between devices and computer technology continues to evolve, for the sake of simplicity, a size was chosen: one megabyte.

It all comes down to economics

The block size limit is, at its core, an economic decision. It balances transaction load with availability of computational resources to handle the load. Block space is subject to the same economic principles of supply and demand as any other scarce resource.

In the early days of the Bitcoin network, it was expected the transaction load would remain well below the proscribed limit for some time. However, it was anticipated that eventually blocks would fill up as more and more nodes joined the network.

In order to deal with resource scarcity, a transaction fee had already been introduced into the protocol design. The idea was that a fee market would naturally develop, with those wanting their transactions to get more highly prioritized for processing offering to pay higher fees. Until fees could sustain the network, an inflationary block reward subsidy which halves every 210,000 blocks (about once every four years) would provide incentive for miners to continue building blocks.

The problem is that there’s sort of a chicken-and-egg situation inherent in this. As long as block space is abundant, there’s little incentive to develop the proper infrastructure to accommodate a fee market. Until recently, most of this infrastructure has assumed abundance. Block space scarcity requires a significant change to how we propagate transactions. However, these problems are only now starting to get addressed as we start having to deal with scarcity.

As the block reward subsidy continues to decrease over time, fees will become more and more important as a means for paying for the network. Blockchains are expensive to maintain – and block space isn’t free. Someone needs to foot the bill. Removing scarcity by increasing block size shifts the costs from transaction senders to validator nodes – the very nodes upon which we vitally depend for the continued secure operation of the network.

But isn’t the block size limit about scalability?

A major misconception that has arisen around this issue is that this is all about being able to scale up the network. Scalability is indeed a serious concern – recently there’s been some significant progress in addressing this via noncustodial offchain payment channels, but it is tangential to this discussion and beyond the scope of this article. The block-size limit is about economics, not about scalability. Hopefully, we can clear up this misconception once and for all.

In computer systems, scalability is the property of a system to be able to continue to operate within design specifications as we increase the amount or size of data it must process. Since computational resources are finite, any real-world computer system has limits beyond which it will no longer behave desirably.

A maximum block size was imposed on the Bitcoin network to make sure we never surpass this limit. Undesirable behavior isn’t merely a matter of annoyance here – the security of the network itself is at stake. Surpassing the operational limit means the security model upon which the network was built can no longer be relied upon.

One of the assumptions in this security model is that it is reasonably cheap to validate transactions. Beyond a certain block size, the cost of transaction validation grows beyond what the honest nodes in the network can bear or are willing to bear. Without proper validation, no transaction can be considered secure.

Raising the block size limit can only securely increase the number of transactions the network processes as long as the limit still remains below the point where validation starts to fail.

Can’t we make optimizations to the software to reduce validation cost?

Yes, we can. There are a number of areas that could still be improved; among them are block propagation mechanisms, compression or pruning of data, more efficient signature schemes, and stronger limits on operation counts. Many of these things are indeed good ideas and should be pursued. Everything else remaining equal, reducing the cost of validation can only improve the network’s health. However, barring a major algorithmic breakthrough along with a substantial protocol redesign and/or a sudden acceleration of Moore’s Law and Nielsen’s Law, there’s a hard theoretical limit to how much we can really do to reduce costs.

Even given these optimizations, the computational cost of validation grows at a greater-than-linear rate with block size. Roughly, this means that multiplying the block size by X raises the cost of validating the block by a factor larger than X. We’d still be many orders of magnitude shy of being able to satisfy global demand if we expect to include each of everyone’s transactions in the blockchain and also expect the network to continue to function properly. Block space is inherently scarce.

At what point does validation start to fail?

There is strong evidence we’re quickly nearing this point if we haven’t already passed it. The computational cost of validation is increasing at a far faster rate right now than the cost of computational resources is decreasing. In addition to the superlinear complexity inherent in the protocol, the protocol design has two fateful errors that further compound the problem: It assumes miners will properly validate blocks and that clients will be able to easily obtain reasonably secure, short proofs for their transactions that they can check for themselves.

But don’t miners validate blocks?

Sometimes. That’s the first error. They have at least some incentive to do so. However, miners don’t get paid to validate blocks. They get paid for finding nonces that make blocks hash within a target, aka proof-of-work. It doesn’t really matter who validates the blocks they build upon. They do lose their rewards if their own block is invalid or they mine atop an invalid block, but as long as those who are feeding them blocks almost always feed them valid blocks, it can actually be rational to cut corners on validation to save costs. The occasional invalid block might statistically be more than offset by the cuts in nominal operational expenses. This scenario has something of a tragedy of the commons element to it.

Particularly costly for miners is propagation latency. The longer it takes them to receive, validate, and propagate a new block, the higher the chance someone else will beat them to it. Also costly for miners are maintenance and support for validation nodes to make sure they correctly adhere to the consensus rules. Then there’s the actual cost of the computational resources required to run the node. And even if the miner is willing to incur all these costs, a software bug could still cause them to mine an invalid block. And all the above would be true even without adding mining pools to the picture, which greatly amplify validation errors.

These concerns are not merely hypothetical musings. This scenario has already come to pass. Around July 4, 2015, a network fork occurred exactly for these reasons, which caused many clients, websites and online services to accept invalid blocks. Rather than putting up with the costs of validation themselves, they were relying on the miners to validate for them…and the miners themselves were not validating. The costlier validation is, the more likely such scenarios become.

Unfortunately, the protocol currently lacks a means to directly compensate validators securely. If we could do this it would likely lead to a much more robust and secure economic model.

Why can’t clients validate the blocks themselves?

While the resource requirements to run a full validation node are still within the capabilities of modern servers, they have greatly surpassed the capabilities of smaller devices, particularly mobile devices with intermittent or restricted network connections. Even most desktop and laptop systems are already heavily taxed by having to validate one megabyte blocks – and the need to run one’s own validation node greatly degrades the end-user experience.

The second fateful error in the protocol design is the assumption that despite it not being practical for most users to run a full validation node, they’d still be able to request from other nodes reasonably secure, short proofs that the blocks and transactions they’ve received are valid. But a satisfactory mechanism for this has so far failed to materialize. This issue is greatly exacerbated when miners also fail to do proper validation. Instead, most clients are currently relying on centralized services to perform the validation for them – and sadly, the July 4, 2015 fork demonstrated that even with good intentions, these centralized services cannot be counted upon to always properly validate either.

What can we do about all this?

Like it or not, the era of block space abundance is coming to an end. Even if after addressing all the above concerns we agreed it was safe to raise the size limit, sooner or later we’ll bump up against the new limit…probably sooner rather than later. And if we raise it without carefully addressing the above concerns as well as the enormous risk associated with incompatible changes to consensus rules, we risk nothing short of a collapse of the network security model, making the issue of block size moot.

Regardless of whether – and when – we ultimately end up increasing the block size limit, we are already dealing with scarcity. Nodes that relay transactions on the network are already being forced to prioritize them to reduce memory load and avoid denial-of-service attacks. Spam attacks are already causing some blocks to fill up. A fee market is already starting to develop. I trust human ingenuity to find a good way forward presented with these challenges.

Regarding validation costs, I’m hopeful that eventually we’ll be able to make it cheap and efficient for everyone to properly validate – or at worst, develop mechanisms for securely outsourcing and enforcing validation. This will require substantial reengineering of the protocol – and perhaps of the Internet itself. Even if this is still a few years off, given all the major developments occurring in this space I believe it will eventually happen. For now, I would strongly urge caution when doing anything that further increases validation costs.


Photo Tiger Pixel / Flickr

The post Settling the Block Size Debate appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Bitcoin’s Largest Publicly Traded Company Bridges Gaps to the Banking Industry

As Bitcoin usage grows worldwide and attracts the attention of more governments and regulators, the complexities of ensuring compliance across different jurisdictions become greater and greater. Many quickly growing Bitcoin startups struggle with this issue and lack the knowledge base to ensure that compliance is sufficient.

Taking it a step further, even if local regulations in an area are relatively lax, operating a financial services business without a bank account can prove tremendously difficult. And due to the fact that Bitcoin businesses are considered high risk and banks operate very conservatively, obtaining a local banking partner can be very difficult.

“If we look at what’s going on the U.K., the country is very laissez-faire with regulation, but the banks won’t work with the Bitcoin companies because their risk levels are much lower,” one NY-based Bitcoin executive said in an interview with Bitcoin Magazine.

Vogogo is a risk-management and payment processing specialist that has taken the approach of integrating their technology to the back-end of bitcoin companies technology, enabling the Bitcoin companies to operate with a level of risk management and compliance that the banks find appropriate. By gaining access to the banks through Vogogo, Bitcoin companies can then offer their users around the world better options to conveniently and quickly convert fiat money into digital currencies and back again.

The San Francisco-based exchange Kraken announced that it would be entering Canadian borders in a partnership with Vogogo.

“We see a lot of opportunity for Kraken in Canada and we’re counting on Vogogo’s expertise in risk management and payment processing to make it possible for Canadians to move their dollars safely and efficiently to and from Kraken,” CEO Jesse Powell said in a prepared statement.

In addition to Kraken, Bitstamp also partnered with Vogogo to help it expand into both Canada and the United States.

“Bitstamp has partnered with the risk management and payment processing specialist Vogogo to support its expansion into the U.S. and Canadian markets. This will allow our customers to explore a revolutionary new technology in a safe and compliant manner,” said the Bitstamp team in an announcement on their blog.

Vogogo Speeds Up Market Penetration

The value for both Kraken and Bitstamp: Vogogo already has the technology, the team, the know-how and the necessary partnerships with traditionally risk-adverse banks. To attempt to develop these requirements on their own would have taken Kraken or Bitstamp a significant amount of time and resources with no guarantee that they would have ever has found success. Consider how long it has taken any bitcoin exchange to get a bank behind it.

“We’re excited, but perhaps more importantly, we are focused on working with Kraken and playing our part in enabling and accelerating their growth. We will continue to provide secure, effective and compliant access to global banking and payment networks allowing Kraken to look forward and focus on being the very best at their business,” said Vogogo CEO Geoff Gordon in a statement announcing the Kraken partnership.

It is very hard to run a business without a bank. By partnering with Vogogo, Bitcoin companies that are going to increasingly come under the auspices of regulators will be able to more rapidly get their operation rolling due to the relationships Vogogo has. Further, they’ll be able to get funds into their exchanges much more simply.

“We’re looking forward to providing fast settlement and liquidity that will enable the Canadian market for bitcoin and Bitcoin businesses to flourish,” said Kraken’s Powell in a statement. Faster market penetration allows for that.

The post Bitcoin’s Largest Publicly Traded Company Bridges Gaps to the Banking Industry appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

London Mayoral Candidate Wants to Track £17 Billion City Budget in Real Time on the Blockchain

Felix Online, the student magazine of Imperial College London, has published an interview with the Respect Party candidate for mayor of London, George Galloway.

The Respect Party is a left-wing U.K. political party founded in 2004 as an offspring of the Stop the War Coalition, opposing the Iraq War. The Party has been compared to “anti-establishment” political parties such as Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain.

Galloway, a controversial politician who appeared in the Big Brother reality show in 2004, joined the Respect Party after having been expelled from the Labour Party.

The Felix Online interview covers many topics of interest to London residents. Galloway is determined to “run Uber out of town” and formulates radical proposals for solving social issues.

“On the housing area for example, we intend to purchase any house that is unlived in for a year to tackle the prevalence of hundreds of thousand of properties in London that are not actually being bought as houses but bought merely to park mainly foreign money beyond the reach of their own regulators and media and so on, and this is simply unacceptable,” says Galloway.

In foreign policy, Galloway supports the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is “a strong supporter of Europe and strong opponent of the way that Europe is currently run.” On immigration, he thinks that London is a great city because it’s a multicultural city in which the minorities are now the majority.

Galloway’s Mayor’s Chain will be especially interesting to Bitcoin Magazine readers.

“I’m going to put the entire £17 billion budget online in real time in blockchain and this will allow the public in to see exactly what’s coming in and exactly what’s going out, and where it’s going to, and make representation about it,” says the London mayoral candidate.

In the proposed plan, every detail of the budget approved by sessions of the council would be logged on a special blockchain called the Mayor’s Chain. The rule would be that if an item is not registered on the Mayor’s Chain, it doesn’t exist and cannot be paid. This would ensure that everything is fully transparent from the start.

“So for example if the mayoralty transferred today 50,000 pounds for such and such a service, members of the public instantaneously can say, ‘I know that that same service could be provided much more cheaply,’ and we’ve identified that we can make very substantial savings in the budget, perhaps 900 million pounds saving, just by public participation,” says Galloway. “So we’d be the only government in the entire world whose entire budget was transparently online and influenceable, and I think it might just set a trend.”

Galloway may be a controversial politician, and he might not have much chance of becoming the next mayor of London, but his Mayor’s Chain proposal seems a real killer app that could – and should – be adopted by cities and nations worldwide. The citizens could look up all bids, contracts and expenses on a public tamper-proof blockchain, vote on proposals for the allocation of public funds (perhaps via small token payments from registered addresses), and spot corruption and inefficiencies immediately.

It would be a real, disruptive, world-changing killer app.

Photo Vince Millett / Flickr

The post London Mayoral Candidate Wants to Track £17 Billion City Budget in Real Time on the Blockchain appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.

Purse.io Sees Record New Users and $24,000 in Purchases on Amazon Prime Day

It wasn’t just regular consumers who were able to benefit from the much-anticipated Amazon Prime Day. Purse.io, the escrow service that connects users with bitcoin to users with Amazon gift cards, saw a significant amount of growth leading up to the big day.

“We had the highest number of new users in a single week,” Andrew Lee, CEO of Purse, said in an interview with Bitcoin Magazine. There were a total of 2,145 new users during the week.

However, the people weren’t just signing up and then forgetting about the website. Instead, they were actively participating on the site, purchasing goods. What surprised the team, though, was that it wasn’t just prime purchases that people were making.

“There was a lot of hype around the Prime Day event, but when we look at the specific orders, users didn’t just order necessarily prime deals but whatever they needed to buy,” Lee told Bitcoin Magazine.

All told, Prime Day was a success for Purse. During the week, there were a total of 1,050 total transactions made on the site. On Prime Day itself, approximately $24,000 was spent on the site.

How Purse.io Works

 One of the benefits of bitcoin is that it is money for the Internet. The problem for many users is that Amazon does not yet accept it. Purse enables a trusted exchange where a user with gift cards is able to exchange the value on those cards for bitcoin.

And there is a lot of available money on gift cards. According to a New York Post article, $44 billion has been left unused on gift cards since 2008. And that number is continuing to grow. There are billions of dollars of unused Amazon gift cards.

Purse enables the user to sell their gift cards for bitcoin, usually at a discount anywhere from 5 percent to 50 percent. These gift-card holders buy an item for the bitcoin holder. The bitcoin is then held in escrow, and when the purchase is completed and the item is delivered, the bitcoin is released to the gift-card holder.

Purse has become quite a success among bitcoin users. According to Lee, more than $500,000 is transacted on the website each month, with more than 45,000 users spending more than $2 million through the site over the past year.

Purse Going Forward

Purse announced Tuesday a series of changes to its platform, including a complete redesign and a new shopping cart to enable the easy addition and removal of items. These moves are an effort to increase the likelihood that people will use bitcoin to make purchases.

“Bitcoin commerce needs to make economic sense for everyone involved in a transaction. It’s only a matter of time before we see large retailers, such as Expedia or Overstock, exit Bitcoin. They have already cited low usage,” said Lee in a blog post titled Bitcoin Commerce is Broken. “We’ll be introducing solutions [that] will allow consumers to spend bitcoins at any merchant with a discount, and a whole lot more.”

The post Purse.io Sees Record New Users and $24,000 in Purchases on Amazon Prime Day appeared first on Bitcoin Magazine.