 My fellow Americans, tonight I am speaking to you because there is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border. The U.S. government may have been shut down for a long time, but Cointelegraph didn't take any breaks, or the hardest working team in the crypto business. This week, the Winklevye confirmed in an AMA their commitment to a Bitcoin ETF. Japanese regulators, on the other hand, denied rumors that they were considering approving Bitcoin ETFs. This week, a 51% attack on Ethereum Classic, right-wingers love free speech in Bitcoin, 70% of central banks are interested in CBDCs, and Fortnite hasn't quite embraced the crypto future. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Molly Jane, and this is your weekly Hodler's Digest. After reaching the $4,000 benchmark last Sunday, Bitcoin could not keep it for long. Let's have a look at the latest market updates. On the 5th of January, major crypto exchange Coinbase detected an attack being carried out against Ethereum Classic, a cryptocurrency generated by an Ethereum fork, leading to a loss of reportedly over $1 million worth of cryptocurrency. According to Coinbase, a malicious agent took control of over 50% of the blocks making up the Ethereum Classic's network, leading to a so-called chain reorganization, in which nearly half a million dollars worth of tokens were spent twice. The attack was later confirmed by researchers at cryptoexchangegate.io and Chinese security firms SlowMist. In order to safeguard its customers, Coinbase, Kraken, and several other crypto exchanges have temporarily suspended Ethereum Classic deposits and withdrawals. A 51% attack refers to a specific entity taking control of more than 50% of the blockchain network, which can lead to the falsification of transactions and allow for double spending to take place. Even though they happen quite rarely, 51% of attacks are seen by many as a serious threat undermining the success of blockchain technology. In the wake of the attack on Ethereum Classic, creator of litecoin Charlie Lee underlined blockchain's intrinsic vulnerability to 51% attacks. He said, By definition, a decentralized cryptocurrency must be susceptible to 51% attacks, whether by hash rates, stake, and or other permissionless, acquirable resources. If a crypto can't be 51% attacked, it is permissioned and centralized. Other experts have pointed out that while 51% attacks are definitely a threat for relatively small altcoins, such as Ethereum Classic, they are unlikely to affect bigger players such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, as that would require for higher amounts of hash rate. We talked to Nick Cabessa, president of the organization Blockchain at Columbia at Columbia University, and asked him to give us his perspective on the issue. I think it becomes extremely difficult to do something like that to a chain the size of Bitcoin and Ethereum. But if there's anything that this attack has showed us, is that it's incredibly possible, and it's possible that it would happen to a top well-respected blockchain with significant amount of a minor community and developer community. So I think specifically Ethereum Classic was susceptible to something like this because of the maximalism and fundamentalism of Ethereum Classic, the fact that their big proponents of immunity, I think makes them a reputational target for a 51% attack to sort of prove that they're not 100% immutable and that things can be changed or reorganized. I think there's definitely room for Ethereum Classic in the future of blockchain, but serious changes will have to be made and new reasons for new reasons to use Ethereum Classic over other chains will have to come out. There have to be new competitive advantages in one way or another to Ethereum Classic because one of their strong suits was security and immutability and that's an argument that they just cannot make to the same full extent anymore. After the attack, the reputation of Ethereum Classic looks seriously compromised. We also talked to Ethereum Classic developers Donald McIntyre and Zach Belford and asked them to comment on the accident. It's a fallacy to say that because ETC has been attacked, that means a proof of work is not secure. That's ridiculous. In terms of what we spoke about, what to do. The first thing was to do the post mortem and we did the meeting today and we're going to do several more meetings to continue analyzing and analyzing the situation. One concrete security recommendation is to use from 2,500 to 5,000 confirmations for medium or large transactions. Study the possibility to implement a deep reorg protection in ETC, which I think is unlikely because it's also something that is untested, but it's something that is under review. Then to set a limit on the maximum size of the DAG is another thing. We will not apply any changes hastily without proper research. So there were double spans and there were victims of this attacker. That is something that we're not going to revert on chain. Of course, we can help with information to law enforcement or if there's any investigation, but the chain is never going to be reverted. In the early days of Bitcoin, it was getting 51% attacked all the time. All proof of work cryptocurrencies can be 51% attack. Ethereum Classics probably, or it's definitely not the cheapest one to 51% attack. But the fact of the matter is that our hash rates 4% of Ethereum and it's been that for a long time. The point there is that we shouldn't be looking at making protocol changes in times of crisis. This is something that is part of proof of work. I think that's one of the things that is going to reaffirm trust within the community is that there have been a lot of blockchains that have been 51% attacked in the last year or two and a lot of them have responded with protocol level changes, which to me shows a lot of immaturity and a lot of just not knowing or not understanding what proof of work is and how that like where this actually stems from and and why technically according to the protocol, it's not an attack. It's part of the protocol. Recent reports claiming that the popular video game Fortnite is accepting Monero for online payments turned out to be unfounded. The crypto community was filled with excitement when Monero's CEO Ricardo Spagny announced on Twitter that Fortnite will accept Monero as its payment method for its merch store. However, a few days later, CEO of Epic Games, Tim Sweeney, refuted the rumors in a tweet defining the adoption of Monero purely as accidental. With its over 125 million registered players, Fortnite could have played a major role in pioneering the integration of crypto in the gaming industry. In the last few years, other attempts to integrate the world of video games with blockchain technology turned out to be unsuccessful. One of the earliest examples of crypto games is Dragon's Tale, a 3D online game released back in 2013 in which players can stake Bitcoin while competing in a variety of mini challenges. Marking a deeper integration of blockchain into gaming, the card treating games spells of Genesis was released in September 2016. This was the first game to use the Bitcoin blockchain to store the collectible cards at the center of the game. But neither of the previously mentioned games can match the popularity of crypto kitties, the first Ethereum based video game. The Ethereum blockchain is at the core of crypto kitties, as it serves to guarantee the uniqueness of each digital cat owned by the players. However, while blockchain is still to gain traction as a genuine gameplay modifier, on the game developer's side, there is some exciting news. After raising $40 million in funds last September, Koko's Blockchain Expedition, a game development platform built on blockchain, launched its test net last week. Koko's Blockchain Expedition, or Koko's, BCX, is built with the Koko's engine, the top game engine in Asia and number two in the world by market share. It aims to create an open system where developers can create and test games built on different blockchains to further boost the integration of video games and crypto. Leading companies in both sectors came together last September to form the Blockchain Game Alliance. The group includes big names such as Consensus, Everdreamsoft and French gaming giant Ubisoft. One thing that blockchain is really good at is provide value to people that transparency, the immutability, so all those aspects provide a capacity to create new features. And those features are good for players. For example, if I'm a player and say I watch an advertisement like I do on a mobile phone, you know, for some games, I receive credits. But on a platform, you can actually receive some tokens. And those tokens, you can use them to buy games, you can use them to buy tournament entrance, for example. If I decide as a player to participate to a beta test, I can participate and I get paid for it by the developer in tokens again. So all those mechanisms provide me as a player the capacity to earn currency or money. And I can use that money to actually buy anything I want. We're working to allow people to make tokens to create their art. Now it's visual art, but as the time goes, it can be more things like levels or sounds or different aspects. And the game creator us here will be more like a moderator, like orchestra, someone who managed the orchestra. We are shaping our product to allow people to contribute to have a marketplace so people can enrich the game in a way that we even us didn't think of. And we're setting the stones to allow users to do that. Late last year, Google CEO Sundar Pitchai had to explain the not so tech savvy Republican senators by the Google search term idiot brought up pictures of President Donald Trump. While many were amused by the exchange, the real question concerning those senators is whether Google and more broadly big tech have a right wing bias. Two figures who agree with this sentiment are the host of Cogbrothers funded talk show, the Rubin report Dave Rubin and Andrew Torba, CEO of Gab, a so-called free speech social network. Recently, Rubin announced alongside another right wing or Dr. Jordan Peterson that they were leaving funding platform Patreon. This is no small gesture. Peterson's account makes over 30 K a month and Rubin's about 22 K. The reason for such an abrupt departure, a protest against alleged censorship on the part of Patreon. The victim of this assault on free speech in their minds is Sargon of Akkad, a far right YouTuber who was kicked off Patreon for using the N word on a separate platform. Patreon defended the move, citing its community guidelines prohibiting hate speech. Rubin clearly disagrees and plans to delete his Patreon on January 15. He announced an alternate censorship-resistant funding option. Bitcoin via Squares Cash App. One of the first Bitcoin patrons was, unsurprisingly, Gab, claiming to have transferred 0.0025 Bitcoin to Rubin's Bitcoin address. Gab's CEO, Andrew Torba, has been voicing similar concerns with regards to the stifling of free speech. Gab, which purports to be an uncensored space for free speech online, but critics called a far right echo chamber, had their Coinbase account closed for a likely promoting hate speech last year. Also last year, for example, the New York Times cited Gab as the social network where a Pittsburgh shooter posted his final message before shooting up the synagogue. Torba stated that the shooter did not represent the broader user base of his platform. Nonetheless, Gab's business account was reportedly shut down. Whether or not you give any credence to Rubin or Torba's views, it is clear that the decentralized utopia the Internet once was is now very dominated by huge centralized platforms that have complete control over a lot of our content and communications. One answer could be, ironically, to break up the big tech companies, regulate them by subjecting them to antitrust laws. That way, at least, they would be defended by the First Amendment, second only to the Second Amendment and the hearts of many conservatives. Last year, after heavily criticizing crypto, the IMF head came out in favor of CBDCs. Now it seems like they are growing in popularity across the globe. Seventy percent of the world's central banks are currently looking into launching digital currencies, otherwise known as CBDCs. This is according to a recently published survey by the Bank of International Settlements, BIS, in Switzerland, which compromises 60 central banks around the world. CBDCs are, of course, controversial in the crypto community because they would have legal tender status, be heavily regulated and, of course, be centralized. Of the 63 central banks surveyed, 22 are in advanced economies and 41 in emerging ones. That accounts for 90 percent of the world's economic output. The survey found that 70 percent were actively engaged in establishing a CBDC, or at least in the research phase. To date, only five banks have actually run pilots or test runs. Ahead of the pack are Uruguay and Sweden. The latter's Riksbank plans to launch the E-Krona pilot project this year and begin issuance as early as 2021. Uruguay, on the other hand, is in the lead. Their pilot project of the E-Peso successfully ended in April of last year. CBDCs do raise some very interesting questions regarding censorship, surveillance, and even the demise of stablecoins. Prominent Swedish YouTuber Yvonne-on-Tech last year voiced concerns that Swedes may be at risk in the future of going to the wrong protest and facing financial consequences. KPMG, for their part, released a report questioning the need for something like Tether if there ever will be a Fedcoin. We spoke to Thomas Moser of the Swiss National Bank about the emergence of CBDCs and what that could mean for a crypto-friendly nation like Switzerland. We are clearly, in terms, as you say, in terms of research, we are looking into it. But this is really theoretical research and also conceptual research. But we have not had the intention to try out the pilot or to put that into a proof of concept. So it's really theoretical research. But we came to the conclusion, like other central banks, that we do not think that at this stage, at least, that the benefits are larger than the negatives or disadvantages or the risks, at least, that we could see. If you would provide a CBDC, that would basically fulfill the function of a stable coin. Unless, again, you have all these ideological issues that you do not want to trust the central bank or if you have good risk, that you do not want to rely on the central bank currency. I mean, again, if you have a central bank that provides a currency with hyperinflation, I guess then that will clearly not be a good substitute for a stable coin. But in that case, the stable coin would probably not fix its value towards the national currency but towards the US dollar or the euro. Earlier this week, the French anti-establishment movement, known as the Yellow Jackets, called for the French public, to take part in a massive bank run as a means of protesting against the financial elite. Dubbed the collector's referendum, the initiative aimed at bringing people to withdraw their savings from banks and other financial institutions this Saturday. This, according to the activists, was going to be elected officials' worst nightmare and its goal was to scare the state completely legally and without any violence. The announced event resounded wildly within the crypto community, as it aligned with crypto and criticizing the flaws of the traditional financial system. Many saw a clear parallel between the Yellow Vest bank run and the Proof of Keys event, a protest against centralized crypto exchanges announced by entrepreneur Trace Mayer earlier this month. Mayer called upon traders to withdraw their funds from exchanges as a reminder of Satoshi's original vision of decentralization and monetary independence. While the French activists made no reference to crypto, by highlighting people's distrust towards traditional financial actors, the Yellow Vest protests could have a positive knock-on effect for the crypto industry. To underline the connection between crypto and the Yellow Vest movement, street artist Pascal Boyard hit a Bitcoin puzzle in his latest graffiti dedicated to the protest. According to the artist, solving the riddle will unlock a prize worth $1,000 in Bitcoin. Boyard said the enigma can be solved only by physically standing right in front of the graffiti. So what are you waiting for, Hotlers? Time to jump on the next flight bound for Paris. Charlie Lee has accused Bitcoin maximalist of being Bitcoin extremists. Do you agree? And where would you put yourself on his survey? Are you a Bitcoin extremist, Bitcoin maximalist, all-coin maximalist, or no-coiner? Comment below. This episode is sponsored by Trade Santa. Trade Santa is a cloud-based trading bot. Set it up in less than two minutes, trade multiple pairs, choose between long and short strategies, use tech analysis indicators, and see your results in real time. Trade Santa works 24-7 to get you the profit you set. The platform is already integrated with Binance, BitTracks, Bitfinex, and HitBTC. The link is in the description below. And as always, remember to like, subscribe, and hodl.