Who is to blame for the Coinbase bank-draining incidents? According to the company, unapproved USD charges were due to "recent MCC code change by the card networks and card issuers charging additional fees." Translation: Visa and its cronies are now classifying crypto-purchases as cash advances and levying interest on each one. A clever prank by the plastic purveyors, sure, but what was the intended effect? By effectively censoring transactions with a perceived competitor, Visa makes the case for the Bitcoin network. In our view, Coinbase won this round with a smug disclaimer:
1/ We have determined that the erroneous credit and debit charges are the result of Visa reversing and recharging transactions. This was not done by Coinbase. We are working with Visa to ensure all affected customers are reimbursed.
"We propose a similar formula — the Price-to-Metcalfe Ratio (PMR) — and propose that it may have some advantages over NVT; however, we recognize that more research is needed before an optimal PMR is determined."
"At the core of this survey is a catalogue of security attacks on Bitcoin, together with known defences or mitigations where applicable. We’ve touched on many of these before in one way or another, but it’s helpful to see them all in one place."
"Today, many people see cryptocurrencies as anonymous, untraceable digital money—and indeed, some of the first uses were to launder money and buy illegal drugs. But that reputation for privacy isn’t entirely warranted, as shown by the capture of Gal Vallerius."