When chains and blocks serve no useful purpose
About 18 months have passed since the finance sector woke up, en masse, to the possibilities of permissioned blockchains, or to use the more general term, “distributed ledgers”. The period since has seen a tsunami of activity, including research reports, strategic investments, pilot projects, and the formation of many consortia. No one can accuse the banking world of not taking the potential of this technology seriously.
Naturally, the explosive growth in blockchain projects has driven the development of permissioned blockchain platforms, on which those projects are built. For example, our product MultiChain has tripled in usage over the past year, whether we measure web traffic, monthly downloads or commercial inquiries. And of course, there are many other platforms, such as BigChainDB, Chain, Corda, Credits, Elements, Eris, Fabric, Ethereum (deployed in a closed network), HydraChain and Openchain. Not to mention still more startups who have developed some kind of blockchain platform but have not made it publicly available.
For companies wishing to explore and understand a new technology, an abundance of choice is generally a good thing. However, in the case of blockchains, which still remain loosely defined and poorly understood, this cornucopia comes with a significant downside: many of the available “blockchain” platforms don’t actually address the core problem they are meant to solve. And what is that problem? Allow me to quote the succinct video definition by Richard Gendal Brown, CTO of R3, in full:
A distributed ledger is a system that allows parties who don’t fully trust each other to come to consensus about the existence, nature and evolution of a set of shared facts without having to rely on a fully trusted centralized third party.
To take an extreme example, consider a bunch of Lego bricks tied together with string. If we use the term “block chain” to describe this fashion item, who’s to say that we’re not describing it accurately? And yet, that particular chain of blocks will not help multiple parties to safely and directly share a database without a central intermediary. Similarly, many “blockchain” platforms do something related to chains of blocks, but also lack the necessary properties to serve as the basis for a peer-to-peer database.
Another chain of blocks that does not help with database sharing – source.
Minimum viable blockchain
In order to understand the basic requirements of a distributed ledger, it helps to clarify how these systems differ from regular databases, which are controlled by a single entity. For example, let’s consider a simple system for tracking who owns a particular company’s shares. The ledger, as implemented in a database, has one row for each owner containing two columns: the owner’s identifier, such as their name, and the corresponding quantity of shares.
Here are six crucial ways in which this system could fail its users:
- Forgery: Transferring shares from one person to another without the sender’s permission.
- Censorship: Refusing to fulfill someone’s request to transfer some shares elsewhere.
- Reversal: Undoing a transfer that took place at some point in the past.
- Illegitimacy: Changing the total quantity of shares in the system without a corresponding action by the issuer.
- Inconsistency: Giving different responses to inquiries from different users.
- Downtime: Not responding to incoming requests for information at all.
Because of all these possibilities, the shareholders must maintain a high level of trust in whoever is managing this ledger on their behalf. Building and running an organization worthy of that trust comes with substantial hassle and cost.
Blockchains or distributed ledgers remove the need for this kind of central database operator, by allowing the users of a database to interact directly with each other on a peer-to-peer basis. In our example, the stockholders could safely hold their shares on a blockchain which they collectively manage, and make transfers to each other instantly over that chain. (The disadvantage is a significant loss of confidentiality between the chain’s users, which we won’t address here but I’ve previously discussed at length.)
All this brings us back to the question of blockchain platforms. In order to serve as a viable basis for peer-to-peer database sharing, a blockchain has to protect its participants against all six types of database failure – forgery, censorship, reversal, illegitimate transactions, inconsistency and downtime. While many products in the market fulfill these requirements, quite a few of them come up short. I call these blockchains “half-baked” because they may address some of these risks, but not all. In some respects at least, the database’s users remain dependent on the good behavior of a single participant, which is precisely the scenario we want to avoid.
These half-baked blockchains come in any number of varieties, but three archetypes stand out as the most common or obvious. I’m not going to name individual products because, well, I don’t want to offend. The blockchain startup community is small enough that most of us know each other through conferences and other meetings, and the interactions tend to be positive. Nevertheless, if blockchains (in the sense of useful peer-to-peer databases) are ever going to emerge as a coherent product category, it’s important to distinguish between half-baked and real solutions.
The one validator blockchain
One pattern we’ve seen a few times is a blockchain in which only one participant can generate the blocks in which transactions are confirmed. Transactions are sent to this one node instead of being broadcast to the network as a whole, so their acceptance is subject to this party’s whims rather than some kind of majority consensus. Still, once a block has been built by this central party, it is broadcast to the other nodes in the network, who can independently confirm the validity of the transactions within, and record the new block locally and permanently.
To return to our six forms of database malfunction, this type of blockchain is far from useless. Transactions must be digitally signed by the entity whose funds they move, so they cannot be forged by the central party. They cannot be reversed because each node maintains its own copy of the chain. And transactions cannot perform illegal operations like creating assets out of thin air, because every node independently validates each transaction for correctness. Finally, each node maintains its own copy of the database, so its content is always available for reading.
Unfortunately, four out of six is not enough. The validating node can easily censor individual transactions, by refusing to include them in the blocks it creates. Even if the operators of this node are honest, a system or communications failure can render it unavailable, causing all transaction processing to come to a halt. In addition, depending on the setup, the validating node may be able to transmit different versions of the blockchain to different participants. In terms of censorship and consistency, the database still contains a single point of failure, on which all the other nodes rely.
One platform offers a twist on this scheme, in which blocks are centrally generated by a single node, but a quorum of other designated nodes signs them to indicate consensus. In terms of the risk of inconsistency, this certainly helps. The nodes in the quorum will only lend their signatures to a single version of the blockchain, which can therefore be considered as authoritative. Nonetheless, the quorum nodes cannot help if the block generator censors transactions, or loses its connection to the Internet. Ultimately, this type of blockchain still uses a hub-and-spoke architecture, rather than a peer-to-peer network.
The shared state blockchain
Technically speaking, there are many similarities between blockchains and more traditional distributed databases such as Cassandra and MongoDB. In both cases, transactions can be initiated by any node in the network, and must reach all the other nodes as part of a consensus about the database’s developing state. Both blockchains and distributed databases have to cope with latency (communication delays which stem from the distance between nodes) and the possibility of some nodes and/or communication links intermittently failing.
Distributed databases have been around for a while, so any blockchain platform developer would do well to understand their consensus algorithms and the strategies they use to globally order transactions and resolve conflicts. Nonetheless, it’s important not to take the comparison too far, because blockchains must contend with a crucial additional challenge – an absence of trust between the database’s nodes. Whereas distributed databases focus on providing scalability, robustness and high performance within a single organization’s boundaries, blockchains must be redesigned in order to safely traverse those boundaries.
To return to our six types of database risk, a node in a distributed database need only worry about downtime, i.e. the possibility of other nodes becoming unavailable. Nodes can safely assume that every transaction and message on the network is valid, and are not concerned with forgery, censorship, reversal, illegitimacy or inconsistency. Their worst problem is dealing with two simultaneous but valid transactions, initiated on different nodes, which affect the same piece of data. Solving these conflicts is by no means trivial, but it’s still a lot easier than worrying about “Byzantine faults“, in which some nodes deliberately act to disrupt the functioning of others.
A database can only be shared safely across trust boundaries if nodes treat all activity on the network with a certain degree of suspicion. For example, every transaction which modifies the database must be individually digitally signed since, in a peer-to-peer architecture, there is no other way to know its true point of origin. Similarly, every incoming message, such as the announcement of a new block, has to be critically assessed for its content and context. Unlike in distributed databases, nodes must not be able to immediately and directly modify another node’s state.
Some “blockchain” platforms have been developed by starting with a distributed database, and sprinkling some features on top to make them more blockchainy. For example, by grouping transactions into blocks and storing hashes (digital fingerprints) of those blocks in the database, they aim to add a form of immutability. But unless each node can be sure that its list of hashes cannot be modified by another node, this type of immutability is easily gamed. The standard response to these criticisms is that every security problem can be solved with sufficient time and coding. But this is rather like holding some prisoners in an open field, and trying to stop them escaping with tripwires and ditches. It’s far safer to use a purpose-built concrete structure, whose doors are locked and whose windows are barred.
The one cloud blockchain
By far the strangest phenomenon I’ve seen is blockchain platforms which can only be accessed through their developer’s cloud-based platform-as-a-service. To be clear, we’re not talking about some of a blockchain’s participants choosing to host their nodes on their cloud provider of choice, such as Microsoft Azure or Amazon Web Services. Rather, this is a blockchain which can only be accessed through APIs exposed by the servers of a company “hosting” it.
Let us grant, for argument’s sake, that a centralized blockchain provider genuinely has a group of nodes running under its control. What difference does this make to the users of the system who are sending API requests and receiving responses? The participants have no way of assessing if everyone’s transactions have been processed without omission or error. Perhaps the central service is malfunctioning, or perhaps it is censoring or reversing some transactions deliberately. And if you believe the blockchain provider has no reason to do this, why not use them to host a regular centralized database instead? You’ll get a more mature product with better performance, and suffer none of the risks of working with new technologies. In short, centralized blockchains are about as useful as Lego on a string.
Solving the mystery
We’ve now seen three types of platform which market themselves as “blockchains”, and indeed make some use of a chain of blocks, but which don’t solve the fundamental problem for which these systems are designed. To recap, this is to enable a single database to be safely and directly shared across trust boundaries, without a central intermediary.
Apart from pointing at this peculiar phenomenon, I believe it’s instructive to consider what might underlie it. Why are so many blockchain startups building products which don’t fulfill the promise of this technology, often achieving no more than traditional centralized or distributed databases? Why are so many talented people wasting so much of their time?
I can see two main classes of explanation – technical and commercial. To start with the technical, it is rather tricky to create distributed consensus systems which can tolerate one or more nodes behaving maliciously in unpredictable ways. In the case of MultiChain, we somewhat cheated, by using bitcoin’s battle-hardened reference implementation as a starting point, and then replacing proof of work by a structurally similar consensus algorithm called “mining diversity”. Teams developing a blockchain node from scratch have to think deeply about asynchronous and adversarial processes – a combination which few programmers have experience of. I can certainly understand the temptation to take a shortcut, such as using a single node to generate blocks, or piggybacking on an existing distributed database, or only running nodes in a trusted environment. Choosing any of these undoubtedly makes life easier for developers, even if this undermines the entire point.
As for commercial reasons, every startup seems to be approaching the blockchain opportunity from a different angle. Here at Coin Sciences, we’re focused on becoming a (database) software vendor, so we’re distributing MultiChain for free while developing a premium node with additional features. Other startups want to sell subscription services, so they will naturally build a platform which customers cannot host themselves. Some are hoping to centrally control a blockchain or help their partners to do so (an odd ambition for a disintermediation technology!) and are naturally drawn to consensus algorithms that rely on a single node. And finally, there are companies whose primary goal is to sell consulting services, in which case their platform need not function at all, so long as its website brings in some large customers.
Perhaps another issue is that some blockchain companies are being run by people who are undoubtedly bursting with talent, but lack a deep understanding of the technology itself. In startups carving out a new field, it’s probably vital for strategic decisions to be taken by people who understand the nature of that field and how it differs from what came before. Not a few blockchain startups appear to have painted themselves into a corner by pursuing a product vision which is attractive to their customers, but cannot actually be built.
As a user of blockchains, how can you avoid being caught by these fallacies? When evaluating a particular blockchain platform, be sure to ask whether it fulfills the six requirements of safe peer-to-peer database sharing: prevention of downtime and inconsistency, as well as transaction forgery, censorship, reversal and illegitimacy. And beware of explanations that consist of too much mumbling or hand waving – they probably mean that the answer is no.
Please post any comments on LinkedIn.
Top 10 Blockchain-as-a-Service (BaaS) Providers
BaaS or Blockchain-as-a-Service is a paid blockchain-based cloud service that blockchain companies provide to customers. BaaS provides customers with the ability to build, host, and use their own blockchain apps, smart contracts, and any other digital services on a distributed network.
It is important to clarify that the BaaS concept is derived from the concept of SaaS (Software as a service) and works similarly to it.
How does BaaS work?
According to the BaaS concept, blockchain companies install, manage, and maintain, blockchain-based cloud platforms in addition to providing the tools necessary to build blockchain applications to customers in return for a fee.
The future of the BaaS industry
Currently, the global revenue from blockchain services is estimated at $ 2.5 billion and by 2025 this number is expected to rise to $ 19.9 billion.
Overall, the business value of blockchain solutions will increase to more than $ 360 billion by 2026, with estimates of this number reaching $ 3 trillion by 2030.
The previous figures clearly show the future of the industry as well as explain the huge and successive investments in the blockchain business in general.
Advantages of using the BaaS model
The BaaS model provides its users with many advantages, most notably high data security, efficiency, scalability, unlimited customization potential, as well as it is compatible with current cloud services.
In addition to the above, the adoption of the BaaS model reduces administrative burdens and provides better management and recruitment of resources.
Moreover, the BaaS model is easy to use and affordable, given the value it offers.
BaaS vs owning a blockchain-based cloud platform
The BaaS model is a better solution for business than having a blockchain-based cloud platform in all aspects. Owning a blockchain-based cloud platform is hugely costly due to start-up costs (infrastructure, personnel, software, licensing, hardware, consulting, and more), retirement costs (decommissioning of server racks), and operational costs (monitoring, cost per transactions, bandwidth expenses).
In addition to the above, owning a blockchain model means fully assuming administrative responsibilities.
While in the BaaS model, the cost is significantly lower because you only pay for the service you get. The service price in the BaaS model is subject to several factors, including the transaction rate, the maximum number of concurrent transactions, the payload size on transactions, and so on.
Also, in the BaaS model, all administrative burdens are borne by the provider.
How to choose the right BaaS provider?
There are a number of points to consider when selecting a BaaS provider. For instance, the provider’s experience and reputation, the security of the platform, the technical support as well as the ease of use and pricing.
In addition, it must be ensured that the platform integrates with the existing operating systems and software.
It should also ensure that the platform supports smart contract integration and deployment, identity access management (IAM) system, different runtimes, and frameworks.
Top 10 Blockchain-as-a-Service (BaaS) Providers
Blockwell is one of the world’s leading providers of blockchain solutions to governments, enterprises, and end-consumers. Founded in 2018 by experts who have contributed for 20 years in developing emerging technologies for some of the largest companies in the world.
Blockwell aims to assist organizations in adopting blockchain solutions by providing consulting and a cloud blockchain platform in addition to a distinct and diverse set of tools and programs.
Blockwell aims to help everyone generate profits by allowing them to build and expand blockchain tools, services, and products.
Currently, content creators rely on existing toolkits developed by Blockwell, set their own commission structures, and earn percentages as they sell and promote their tools around the world.
During the past two years, Blockwell has developed blockchain solutions for cryptocurrency businesses around the world.
In addition, Blockwell has vetted dozens of token contracts for some of the most popular exchanges in the world, prevented and stopped hacks saving individuals millions of dollars, built successful token-swaps tools, and analytics tools.
Blockwell’s previous work includes the names of many well-known businesses such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, Disney, GoPro, Paramount, Mattel, Universal, Lucas Arts, Suzuki, Epson, Time Warner Cable, Guitar Center, Beachbody, Marriott, Jaiyen Eco-Resort and more.
Blockwell has an impressive list of tools and applications. Notable among them are Blockwell Wallet, Pride Token, Fire Tokens, EgoCoins, iBlockwell, Blockwell Book, Sheets-n-Blocks – Blockchain, Contract Tool, VoteBlock, API Miner, Smart License Creator, Blockwell Prime, Listener, Token Swapper, Blockwell Daico, Blockwell Telescope, Blockwell Spyglass, Blockwell Velvet, Blockwell KYC Form Builder, Non-Fungible Token Creator, BW, and Dumbapps.
In addition to apps and tools, Blockwell has launched a store for DApps named “Well Spring” that has 16 working apps so far.
Blockwell backed tokens are valued at over $ 80M.
Regarding the future, Blockwell is seeking to expand by investing $ 10M. The company plans to obtain it by selling 100MM tokens to investors.
Amazon introduced its BAAS service called “Amazon Managed Blockchain” in 2018 through its cloud arm, Amazon Web Services (AWS). Amazon Managed Blockchain is a managed service that makes it easy to create and manage scalable blockchain networks using open source frameworks including Ethereum and Hyperledger Fabric.
Moreover, Amazon allows customers who want to manage their own network to go ahead, but it is an option that needs experience in dealing with AWS Blockchain Templates.
Amazon also enables companies to integrate their blockchain-based networks and business processes to improve IT infrastructure, business processes, human resources, financial transactions, and supply chains.
In addition to the above, Amazon provides AWS Key Management Service to secure Hyperledger Fabric’s CA (Certificate Authority) and Amazon QLDB technology to manage augmented ordering service.
The BAAS offer from Amazon is characterized by flexibility in identifying resources to suit companies’ needs.
Amazon customers’ list includes star names like Nestlé, BMW, Accenture, Sony Music Japan, and the Singapore Exchange.
IBM is one of the world’s most important BaaS service providers. Forbes selected it among the top 50 blockchain companies, thanks to its blockchain platform “IBM Blockchain“, which it launched in 2017.
IBM Blockchain is a fully-integrated distributed ledger technology platform that enables businesses to “’develop, govern, and operate a blockchain ecosystem quickly and cost-effectively on a flexible, cloud-based platform by using Kubernetes.
Partnerships have been vital to IBM’s continuous BaaS expansion. it created the Trust Your Supplier platform alongside blockchain firm Chainyard and also pioneered the Contingent Labor platform in conjunction with IT People.
As well as IBM Blockchain has joined The Linux Foundation’s Hyperledger Project to evolve and improve upon earlier forms of blockchain. Instead of having a blockchain that is reliant on the exchange of cryptocurrencies with anonymous users on a public network (e.g. Bitcoin), a blockchain for business provides a licensed network, with known identities, without the need for cryptocurrencies.
IBM Blockchain Platform has been used widely in industries such as food supply, media, advertising, and trade finance.
Microsoft is one of the oldest BaaS service providers as it has been in the market since 2015 when it launched Azure Blockchain Service.
Microsoft aims through its BaaS service to enable users to build public, private, and consortium blockchain environments with industry-grade frameworks and bring their blockchain apps to market.
Microsoft provides three products to customers: Azure Blockchain Service, Azure Blockchain Workbench, and Azure Blockchain Development Kit.
Azure is compatible with other Microsoft products such as Logic Apps and Flow, making it a great choice for organizations looking to harness blockchain such as General Electric and T-Mobile.
Microsoft Azure’s most prominent features are the support of several Blockchain frameworks, including Quorum, Corda, Hyperledger Fabric, and Ethereum. Plus, ease of deployment using Azure CLI, Azure Portal, or Visual Studio Code with the Azure Blockchain extension. Azure also supports full monitoring and logging.
The above helped Microsoft to forge important partnerships with prominent entities such as its partnerships with Ripple and BitPay.
Alibaba is one of the leading blockchain solutions providers around the world. The well-known Chinese company introduced its BaaS service in 2018 through its cloud platform.
Alibaba has an active research team and has registered many patents on blockchain during the past period.
Utilizing Quorum, Hyperledger Fabric, and the Ant Blockchain, the platform integrates Alibaba Cloud’s Internet of Things (IoT) and anti-counterfeiting technologies to create blockchain solutions for product traceability.
Alibaba’s BaaS offering provides diverse solutions to meet user needs including encompasses enterprise-level BaaS services, an agile BaaS platform that supports private deployment, and specific blockchain solutions for container services.
Software giant Oracle unveiled its BaaS service in 2017. The service, called “Oracle Blockchain Cloud Service”, aims to provide an enterprise-grade distributed ledger platform that can help businesses to “increase trust and provide agility in transactions across their business networks.”
Oracle enables its service users to provide permissioned blockchain networks for private or consortia models, enroll member organizations, and run smart contracts to update and query the ledger in addition to many other benefits.
Also, Oracle enables its service users to use its other solutions such as Oracle Supply Chain Management (SCM) Cloud, Oracle Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Cloud, and other Oracle cloud solutions.
R3 launched its BaaS service called “Corda” to enable companies to transact directly and privately using smart contracts.
Corda is an open-source blockchain platform that works on minimizes blockchain nodes’ deployment time by a few minutes, allowing enterprises to host the Corda network in a few clicks.
Interoperability, security, and privacy are the foundations of the finance-focused Corda.
Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) recently hired Corda service to streamline financial processes and enhance settlements
Corda provides users with the following benefits: Easy cloud-based deployment and quick setup of nodes with Docker, a Built-in blockchain application firewall to provide additional security, as well as R3’s Interoperability feature that allows developers to work with more than one application at the same time.
It is worth noting that R3 has developed solutions for more than 300 clients in addition that it has partnerships with many prestigious institutions such as Barclays, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and more.
SAP launched its BaaS service “Leonardo” in 2017. Through its service, SAP aims to help companies transition into the digital age through the use of distributed ledger technology.
Leonardo is a Hyperledger based service and resides in the SAP Cloud service, meaning it can be accessed from any device.
The platform provides plug-and-play blockchain solutions and allows for the easy setup and hosting of blockchain nodes.
SAP Leonardo functions as a blockchain cloud service, machine learning service, and supports the Internet of Things (IoT) in a single ecosystem.
SAP Leonardo provides its users with several benefits such as cloud deployment, monitoring of blockchain data in real-time, and more.
Well-known Chinese smartphone manufacturer Huawei launched its BaaS service in 2018. The service, called “BCS“, is based on Linux Foundation’s Hyperledger Fabric, a blockchain framework that allows components, such as consensus and membership services, to be plug-and-play.
With its BaaS service, Huawei aims to enable companies to develop smart contracts on top of a blockchain network for several use-case scenarios.
Huawei also works with enterprise customers to promote the deployment of blockchain solutions and applications and to build reliable, public infrastructure, and an ecosystem-based on blockchain and shared success.
According to Huawei, BCS enables enterprises to deploy blockchain technology within five minutes. It concentrates on nine application scenarios, including data assets, Internet of Things (IoT), operation, identity verification, data certification, data transactions, new energy, philanthropic donations, and inclusive finance.
Huawei has many and varied partnerships inside and outside the Chinese market, but the most prominent name remains the famous car manufacturer Honda.
Factom launched its BaaS service in 2017. The service, called “Factom Harmony“, aims to allow enterprises and software vendors to quickly add blockchain capabilities to any application or workflow using simple API calls.
Harmony also aims to enable users to create portable, archivable cryptographic proofs to use as trusted inputs for internal and external audits.
What sets Factom Harmony apart is that it reduces the time and resource requirements to perform audits and meet compliance objectives.
Author: Husayn Hashim
Bio: Husayn Hashim works as an author and programmer. He has been writing about blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies for si years. He’s interested in programming, technology, finance, and business. He loves writing and loves to share his knowledge with others.
U.S. crypto exchanges have a plan for the travel rule. Now they just have to get along
- A working group of 25 U.S.-based exchanges released a white paper this week outlining their platform to comply with FATF’s travel rule.
- The group includes some of the most prominent exchanges stateside, suggesting that the plan has legs.
- Now, the group has to develop a governance structure.
Exploring the current state of cryptocurrency taxation in the European Union
- By now, guidelines for taxation of cryptocurrency activities exist in most EU member countries. However, grey areas remain.
- Highly favorable tax treatments in some, and lack of taxation in other EU member countries enables regulatory arbitrage.
Malaysia Airlines Operates More Than 200 Rescue and Repatriation Flights During RMCO, CMCO
Water Treatment Chemicals Market to Surpass $85,341.8 Million Revenue by 2030: P&S Intelligence
Daqo New Energy Announces ADS Ratio Change and Further Amendment and Restatement to Deposit Agreement
Third party tests confirm HYZON Motors’ new liquid-cooled fuel cell stack leads the world in power density
Polyethylene Furanoate Films Market Size Worth $800.9 Thousand By 2035: Grand View Research, Inc.
Elkem signs MoU with FREYR for supply of battery materials
Air Canada Adding Doha To Its Route Network With A Boeing 787-9
Woman ‘locked in’ ambulance for Doha Airport genital exam
Singapore Airlines’ Fleet In 2020
ālea iacta est… PayPal crosses over to Bitcoin
Shanghai Dragons parts ways with 5 players including Geguri and Diem
The Great Maersk Shift
Why Are Jet Bridges Almost Always On The Left Of The Aircraft?
China Airlines And EVA Air Post Profits Amid Ongoing Crisis
Xinhua Silk Road : le secteur de l’énergie solaire de la Chine profitera d’une croissance accélérée dans le contexte de son objectif de carboneutralité
WestJet pilots protest ‘outsourced’ flights to Swoop in Calgary
WAAREE déploie ses ailes au niveau mondial et ouvre un franchisé en Afrique
Lessor Avation Says Virgin Australia Owes It Nearly $75 Million
Supertf takes shots at XQC and Forsen after beating their Minecraft speedrun times
Sodapoppin and Reckful’s VODs to be stored on server following Twitch DMCA takedowns
Doha airport forces genital exam on Australian women
RLCS X Winter Split is shifting formats, schedules
Seven reasons why I chose to do science in the government
Europe Imposes New Restrictions As COVID-19 Cases Soar
Heroic edge out Vitality in five-map thriller to win DreamHack Open Fall
TWU restart Virgin talks after ‘hybrid’ reassurances
SoNNeikO forms new Live to Win roster with iLTW, fn
Australia losing $319m a day in air travel
Team Liquid reportedly close to signing Alphari to multi-year deal
Where to get Cosmog in Pokémon Sword and Shield’s The Crown Tundra expansion
Legends of Runeterra’s live design lead Steve Rubin: “Seasonal Tournaments are the big news for now, but we’re always working on the next new thing”
JPMorgan: Bitcoin Price to See Long-Term Upside Trend due to One Important Component
Unexplored 2 Trailers: Every Trailer Released So Far
TOTW 5 Predictions FIFA 21: Who’s Getting in?
San Francisco Shock parts ways with Rascal
DreamHack Open tournaments announced for November and December
Carto Trailers: Every Trailer Released So Far
League of Legends Worlds 2020 Semifinals Recap
US Department of Homeland Security to Host Blockchain-Based Digital Wallet Event with $25K Reward
Swoop Reaffirms Commitment to Edmonton
Techcrunch1 week ago
Original Content podcast: It’s hard to resist the silliness of ‘Emily in Paris’
Startups1 week ago
Solve the ‘dead equity’ problem with a longer founder vesting schedule
Blockchain5 days ago
Bitcoinnami Officially Launches on October 21, 2020
Startups1 week ago
Three views on the future of media startups
Startups1 week ago
Pear hosted its invite-only demo day online this year; here’s what you might have missed
Startups1 week ago
VCs reload ahead of the election as unicorns power ahead
AI1 week ago
How AI Revolutionize the Way Video Games Developed and Played
Cyber Security1 week ago
TikTok Launched a Public Bug Bounty Program in Collaboration with HackerOne