Loading...

Follow Coin ATM Radar Blog on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid
Coin ATM Radar Blog by Bitcoin Atm Statistics - 2w ago

April started with the Bitcoin price of $4,145 and encountered a high rise in the next 2 days, breaking the $5000 barrier. For the rest of the month, the price maintained the same level and the month ended with the price tag of $5,262 which is almost a 27% rise when compared to the price in the beginning of the month.

The number of new machines continued to grow at a relatively stable rate, following the rise of the Bitcoin price.

Period Start: 4495, Period End: 4703
Opened: 307, Closed: 99, Net Growth: +208(4.6%)

Change by Manufacturers
NameStartEndDiff
General Bytes14011467+66 (4.7%)
Genesis Coin14251470+45 (3.2%)
BitAccess275299+24 (8.7%)
Lamassu434451+17 (3.9%)
Coinsource193210+17 (8.8%)
Shitcoins Club4657+11 (23.9%)
Orderbob ATM113122+9 (8%)
zzBit1423+9 (64.3%)
Covault135142+7 (5.2%)
LightningXchange5255+3 (5.8%)
Coinme7071+1 (1.4%)
Bcash Greece Inc1718+1 (5.9%)
BitTeller1516+1 (6.7%)
ChainBytes1415+1 (7.1%)
CoinLogiq45+1 (25%)
wBTCb2928-1 (-3.4%)
Skyhook43-1 (-25%)
Fastcoin ATM10-1 (-100%)
Bytefederal3937-2 (-5.1%)

At the Manufacturers list, General Bytes continues to dominate with 66 new installations in April (4.7% increase). On the second place was Genesis Coin with 45 new machines (3.2% increase), followed by BitAccess with 24 new installations (8.7% increase).

We must point out that Fastcoin ATM only machine was removed within month.

Change by Operators

Operators who increased the number of machines by 4 or more over the past month:

NameStartEndDiff
CoinCloud242267+25 (10.3%)
CoinFlip Bitcoin ATMs163182+19 (11.7%)
Coinsource193210+17 (8.8%)
Shitcoins Club4657+11 (23.9%)
Digital Mint7787+10 (13%)
Localcoin145154+9 (6.2%)
zzBit1221+9 (75%)
Bitcoin of America135143+8 (5.9%)
Monte Frankfurter Ring GmbH19+8 (800%)
Pay DEPOT LLC135142+7 (5.2%)
Black Frog Blockchain Ventures LLC6067+7 (11.7%)
iQCashNow8894+6 (6.8%)
Kernel06+6
HILT1520+5 (33.3%)
Bitcoin Depot201205+4 (2%)
Delaware Kiosk, LLC610+4 (66.7%)
Freefall ATM GmbH59+4 (80%)

CoinCloud tops the Operators list with 25 new machines (10.3% increase), followed by CoinFlip Bitcoin ATMs with 19 new installations (11.7% increase). Coinsource came third with 17 new machines (8.8% increase).

Change by Countries
NameStartEndDiff
United States26032758+155 (6%)
Germany314+11 (366.7%)
Spain7381+8 (11%)
Canada624631+7 (1.1%)
United Kingdom211217+6 (2.8%)
Greece2329+6 (26.1%)
Romania3135+4 (12.9%)
Austria269272+3 (1.1%)
Hong Kong3639+3 (8.3%)
Switzerland5253+1 (1.9%)
Slovakia4243+1 (2.4%)
Poland3637+1 (2.8%)
Colombia3334+1 (3%)
Australia1819+1 (5.6%)
Dominican Republic1112+1 (9.1%)
Argentina910+1 (11.1%)
Ukraine910+1 (11.1%)
Singapore910+1 (11.1%)
Croatia56+1 (20%)
Turkey23+1 (50%)
India011
Czech Republic6766-1 (-1.5%)
Panama1110-1 (-9.1%)
Malta54-1 (-20%)
Portugal43-1 (-25%)
Liechtenstein30-3 (-100%)

United States remain the dominant country with 155 new machines (6% increase). This month Germany followed at second position, with 11 new installations (366.7% increase). This might be explained with regulatory clarification made by Berlin court last year and giving more clarity about licensing. Now operators in Germany are more active and currenthly there are already 21 machines in the country. Spain is a the third position with 8 new machines (11% increase).

India was the Country that installed its only machine in April. There were other attempts in the past, but machines were closed by regulators. It is a Buy/Sell machine manufactured by Lamassu and located in Gurugram.

Liechtenstein removed their only 3 machines

Cryptocurrencies Support

Find the latest stats of other cryptocurrency machines here.

Cryptocurrencies support saw the following increases over the past month:

NameStartEndDiff
Bitcoin45014698197 (4.38%)
Altcoins  altogether31513270119 (3.78%)
Litecoin29403057117 (3.98%)
Ether2474255884 (3.40%)
Bitcoin Cash1607168174 (4.60%)
Dash83384310 (1.20%)
Monero1491545 (3.36%)
Dogecoin8784-3 (-3.45%)
Zcash7672-4 (-5.26%)

The percentage of Bitcoin ATM’s supporting any of other cryptocurrencies dropped to 69.6% in April. Litecoin was the most added coin with 117 additions (3.98% increase), followed by Ether with 84 (3.40% increase). Bitcoin Cash came third with 74 additions (4.60% increase).

Summary

In April Bitcoin experienced a fair rise, General Bytes and Genesis Coin installed the most machines, India installed its first machine, Litecoin was the most added coin.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

In this video, that took place on the latest TABConf 2019 in February, you will hear Brandon Mintz, Founder and CEO of ATM Operator “Bitcoin Depot”, talking about Bitcoin ATMs.

TABConf 2019 - What You Didn't Know About the Bitcoin ATM Industry - Brandon Mintz - YouTube

Bitcoin Depot is the 2nd largest operator in the world with 200 machines all across the US with plans to expand to 350/400 by the end of the year. They use machines manufactured by Genesis Coin and offer Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin and Ether. Per Brandon, the difference between their product and others is that they offer a much quicker verification time. Also, he emphasizes the quality and availability of their live support as another big difference and advantage that Bitcoin Depot has to offer.

As an example on how important fast validation is, he mentioned how he missed out on a big price run-up while waiting a couple of weeks for Coinbase to verify his account, while on the other hand, he managed to acquire Bitcoin in just a couple of hours with cash into coins which was pretty unknown at the time. This really got him into the idea of Bitcoin ATMs.

Starting a Bitcoin ATM Business

Mintz talks about finding the correct software and hardware providers as a first obstacle on your way to a successful Bitcoin ATM business. He mentions that some providers didn’t have proper features required for doing KYC / AML compliant business. So, you have to read up an educate yourself on that topic before you make the initial move in order to avoid mistakes that can cost you thousands of dollars further down the road.

After that, you will need to find a bank which is willing to work with you, and banks in the U.S. are extremely strict on high-risk customers after something that was called Operation Choke Point that took place in 2013. They consider as a high-risk customer any sort of ATM or Kiosk where money is exchanged, and according to federal guidelines, Bitcoin ATM’s fall into that category.

The fact is that 99% of Crypto ATM’s work with cash, and when you work with cash it is very expensive because you have to somehow collect that cash from the physical ATM machine and bring it to a bank. So, you have to work with various armored providers which can be a problem. It turns out that people managing millions of dollars of cash on a daily basis get paid entry-level salaries, and it can sometimes be pretty shocking the mistakes that can be made by them when operating this type of business.

Another thing is setting up a technician network to secure the maintenance of your machines. This is a pretty long process and especially tricky if you wanted to go outside your local network since there are quite a few dozen of companies providing this service.

When it comes to startup capital, although it is very difficult to measure the volumes you will receive, according to Mintz the number is $25,000 per location to run a Bitcoin ATM properly which is definitely not cheap.

At the end there are Location and Marketing. Since only 2% of the population of the U.S. owns any sort of crypto and a lot of people still don’t even know that Bitcoin ATMs even exist, you need to target your Locations and Marketing activities to that tiny fraction of population and the best places for that are very dense metropolitan cities around the U.S.

Volume variance at Bitcoin ATM’s

The business is pretty stable regardless of the price of cryptocurencies. The industry also grows quickly (doubling every year). Volumes of Bitcoin Depot compared to major online exchanges like Bittrex, Binance, Gemini, Coinbase were much more stable. The volumes at exchanges at the end of 2017 ran up a lot (30x compared to today’s volumes). Bitcoin ATM’s target more every day users of the currency, rather than speculators, which makes volumes pretty stable. People use ATM’s more for utility purpose, e.g. quicker money transfer without foreign currency exchange fees, ability to pay international merchants.

The Importance Of Crypto ATM’s

Crypto ATM’s provide access to cryptocurrency to the under banked. 2-3 billion people in the world does not have access to bank accounts, which makes for third of the population. In U.S. a fifth of the population (60 million people) is under banked and can only deal with cash.

People can use Crypto ATMs to transfer money because it is much faster, they can send crypto and user will receive it on the other end in a matter of minutes, while using money transfer services it can take days. Also, the fees are lower.

Bitcoin ATM physical presence and instant verification provide users with a greater sense of trust, especially because with Crypto ATMs you do not need to leave your credit card or social security number on some sketchy website and you will be much more comfortable using something that you can see live, than choosing an online option.

The Future of Crypto ATMs

Brandon’s predictions for Crypto ATMs are exponential growth and mainstream acceptance. As, Crypto ATM’s have been doubling every year, he predicts that in a couple of years there will be an Crypto ATM at pretty much every gas station and convenience store. Because of that the adoption of cryptocurrency is going to become more mainstream.

Consequently , the underbanked population will use the machines more and more, since it is their only way into the crypto market.

So, to summarize, cryptocurrencies are going to become more heavily adopted and Crypto ATMs are going to play a big part in that.

There is also a QA session at the end of the video presentation.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

In the previous post we covered the case of bitcoin ATM operator, who got attacked by a group of criminals doing double-spend transactions and withdrawing cash and later reverting bitcoin transaction from ATM operator.

During research on this we contacted manufacturers of ATM’s and asked what are the settings available for operators to control 0-confirmation transactions and risk associated with them. We reached out to top 4 bitcoin ATM producers based on number of ATM’s installed worldwide as of today: Genesis Coin, General Bytes, Lamassu and Bitaccess. In this post we review what are the options with respect to risk control of double spends that are available at operators’ disposal and are provided by suppliers.

To refresh, in the previous post we made an assumption that following settings and limits could mitigate the loss significantly:

  • Limit the 0-conf transaction size;
  • Limit the cumulative size of 0-conf transactions across full ATM’s network;
  • Check for miner fee in order to process 0-conf when miner fee is large enough. This might not mitigate the attack in all cases, but can reduce the success rate of attack;
  • Whether software allows to differentiate and limit processing of 0-conf transactions when RBF-transaction is received (which makes it much easier to double spend).
Genesis Coin

Genesis Coin representative refrained to provide details about settings that are available for operators. At the same time, he ensured that Genesis Coin machines “include a highly sophisticated system for handling cash withdrawals, allowing the operator to define their risk profile and employ additional risk-mitigating strategies”. Also Genesis Coin have “never recommended the use of 0-conf and the system actively warns against allowing it, but will always allow the operator to define their own settings”.

General Bytes

It is possible to set support for 0-confirmation transactions at General Bytes machines for the following coins: BTC, LTC and DASH. Only few operators use this feature according to General Bytes representative.

When 0-confirmation acceptance is set, then “Risk Box” needs to be defined:

Risk Box setting at General Bytes bitcoin ATM

This is an amount per ATM that operator is willing to risk in all 0-conf transactions at given moment for particular ATM. If the total pending amount of all currently unconfirmed incoming transactions related to particular ATM is higher than risk amount then next customer has to wait for transaction to first get confirmed. This setting is only possible at each machine separately, and there is no way operator can set the total risk amount for all machines in the network, however, General Bytes representative confirmed that they plan to add such a feature in one of the next releases.

Additionally to this General Bytes software is equipped with verifications that in order for transaction to be 0-conf accepted, it has to be evaluated as low risk, meaning to have statistically sufficient mining fee to be added in block soon – otherwise confirmations are needed anyway. Operators cannot turn this setting off, which is an extra step to reduce risk.

While currently not supported, there is a plan to add a double-spend notification to server software in the near future. This means if there is a double-spend attack, operator will get notified immediately by email, and also 0-confirmation support will be deactivated automatically.

General Bytes representative also adds: “It is important to mention that protection against double-spend can never be achieved, it can be only made harder for thief achieve profit.
Double-spend is a bitcoin’s feature – unpleasant, but present. If an attacker sends transaction with high mining fee directly to mining pool it is up to a miner to decide which transaction he is going to be in next block he mines. Nobody on the network can influence that. Very few our operators use 0-conf on their machines and they understand the risk that double-spend represents.”

Also the company representative mentioned they support DASH’s InstantSend (InstantX) at their ATM’s which has reportedly solved double-spend issue for DASH transactions.

Lamassu

Lamassu machines operators need to set a global fiat amount, above which they require 1-confirmation before the customer can redeem cash out. This setting is flexible, as it can be set as 0, means all the transactions require 1-confirmation first before further processing. Also the settings can be differentiated for different coins, means operators can set some non-zero global amount for one coin (means there is a possibility to process 0-conf transactions), but set another coin to require 1-confirmation for all transactions and disallow 0-conf transactions. Such a threshold is applied to the whole network of machines, which reduces the risk of targeted double-spend attack covered in previous post a lot.

When 0-confirmation acceptance is set, operators have extra tools to control the risk. Lamassu has integration with Blockcypher module, which automatically checks the confidence of 0-confirmation deposits via the Blockcypher API. The operator defines their desired confidence factor (1-100), and if the deposit is shown to be below this (due to low transaction fees, unconfirmed inputs, RBF, or any other reasons), then the user is automatically redirected to the 1-confirmation flow, prompted to enter their phone number, and allowed to redeem only after a confirmation received. Blockcypher significantly penalizes their confidence factor for RBF transactions, and therefore this figures into the above.

It is important to mention that Blockcypher’s integration effectively prevents the cash to be withdrawn, if the received transaction is assumed high risk (based on the rating threshold set by operator). However, it can’t do anything to prevent double-spend attack once the transaction passed Blockcypher verification and cash was provided to customer. Lamassu representative confirmed that there is no alerting mechanism to detect after-the-fact double-spend attack, but the probability of this can be reduced via custom Blockcypher threshold setting. Also global amount of 0-conf transactions reduces the total risk.

Bitaccess

We also reached to fourth largest bitcoin ATM supplier on the market — Bitaccess — to ask about 0-conf settings and support at their machines. The company representative mentioned that years ago the 0-confirmation transaction were supported at their machines, but in 2016 they deprecated this functionality as they released a new feature to allow customers of any Bitaccess operator to remotely sell their BTC to a BTM. This means that users can initiate transaction online and send bitcoins in advance. While the phone needs to be provided, the customer then will receive an SMS when 1-confirmation is received, and then customer needs to visit machine only once and get the cash from it immediately, without need to wait.

Also the company representative mentioned that they plan to support lightning network transactions once the network capacity grows enough. Lightning network transactions can potentially decrease the risk of 0-confirmation.

Conclusion

Main bitcoin ATM producers (Genesis Coin, General Bytes, Lamassu) provide opportunity for operators to set up acceptance of zero-confirmation transactions. In general, all of providers have advanced tool to control the risk exposure in case of zero-confirmation double-spend attack, but there is still a way for improvement. Bitaccess chose a different approach and fully restricts operator and makes impossible to cash out against 0-conf transaction, to compensate for this they implemented a tool where cash out transaction can be initiated remotely over their website and customer needs to visit the machine only once when enough confirmations received.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Recently a news about 0-conf attack on bitcoin ATM operator circulated on the web. The attack was conducted by 4 unknown individuals in several cities in Canada back in September 2018. In total, they were reportedly able to withdraw / steal from operator $195K CAD (or $146K USD as of today’s rate).

Suspects in double spend attack on bitcoin ATM’s (Canada, September 2018)

Anyone with information about the identity of any of these suspects is asked to call the Calgary police service non-emergency line at 403-266-1234, regardless of what jurisdiction they live in.

In this post we try to look in details what this attack is about and why it could happen.
We try to have a deeper understanding of the problem and choice, which operators face.

Double spend attack description

This attack in general can be described as someone purchasing any goods or service by sending bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency) transaction and later on double-spending it (sending another transaction using the same UTXO (funds), but to a different destination address, usually own). At the moment around 40% of all crypto ATM’s support sell operations. That means users can send bitcoin or other cryptocurrency to ATM and get cash at the ATM. In case ATM supports withdrawal operations against zero-confirmation transaction, it introduces a risk for double spend: after getting cash from machine, attacker sends another transaction to the network with higher fees and forwarding funds to own bitcoin address. If miners replace the initial transaction with new one and mine the latter in the block (and this is generally accepted network behavior nowadays), attacker effectively gets cryptocurrency funds back and also receives cash from ATM.

This is what happened to one operator in Canada in September 2018. Four people (highly like working as a coordinated group) conducted 112 transactions at bitcoin ATM’s and got $195000 CAD in cash. The attack was conducted across 7 cities and lasted for 10 days.

Many people immediately jumped on the bandwagon to blame operator of ATM’s and their support for 0-confirmation transactions. But is it really that simple? Ironically, Peter Todd, who made double-spend on Bitcoin network much easier, was one of them:

It's unfortunate that this article doesn't mention the negligence of the ATM operator: they were accepting completely insecure zeroconf transactions. Readers will probably think this is a new flaw in Bitcoin.

CC: @globalnews You should fix your story.https://t.co/ooCXKiLeu0

— Peter Todd (@peterktodd) March 13, 2019
Why full RBF, accepted as a network standard, increased the risk of double spend

Peter Todd and David Harding reintroduced replacement of transactions on the Bitcoin network via BIP 125. In initial version of bitcoin client written by Satoshi Nakamoto, there was transaction replacement in place. At this stage it was based on transaction nSequence, means it was possible to issue a new transaction and nodes will accept it if the sequence ID was higher and replace existing transaction in the mempool. This feature was removed from the client in version 0.3.12 (September 2010). Satoshi Nakamoto commented on this removal: “Disable replacement feature for now”. Such a functionality was absent in the core client for many years since then.

The rule that was generally accepted by the network (miners, non-mining nodes) for many years was First-Seen-Safe (FSS). This means nodes, when receive transactions, were checking if there was another transaction in mempool already that was spending the same UTXO, and in case such transaction was found the new one was rejected to be included in the mempool of this node and also not propagated further to the network. This effectively limited the possibility to double spend. It was still possible to double spend such transactions back then (we wrote a post on how to push stuck transactions when using bitcoin ATM back in 2016), but this was on magnitude harder level to do than today. Miners varied in policies and could accept replacement transaction even without RBF (Peter Todd double-spent own transaction to Coinbase to buy reddit gold and released Python tool for doing that. Although he used very low fee for the first transaction, which prevented it getting into mempool of miners. So even with FSS rule, this transaction was practically invisble for the network, but was accepted by Coinbase, but could be easily prevented, and this made it possible to send another transaction which was mined. There were other tools like double-spender tool). With majority miners being honest and following FSS the risk of attack was much lower, especially when network was not congested and miner fee was irrelevant in amount compared to total block reward. Otherwise, it is a general for-profit incentive to include transaction with higher fees. However, when the number of such double-spend transactions was negligible and the miner fees themselves as a part of total block reward were negligible, absolute majority of miners followed FSS rule.

BIP 125 introduced so called Replace-By-Fee (full RBF) transactions. In general this allowed to flag initial transaction as RBF and send another transaction to the network, which replaces the previous transaction if the miner fees were larger. It was promoted as opt-in feature and was very controversial at the time. See an example of discussions on reddit that was happening back in 2016. Nonetheless, such significant change was added to bitcoin core software in version 0.12.0 (November 2016).

It was initially an opt-in behavior, but since version 0.16.0 (February 2018) RBF transactions were made default behavior (switched from opt-in to opt-out) and made transaction replacement a de facto standard on the network. Such change was connected to the 1Mb limit of the block, and there was needed a tool for ordinary users to replace stuck transactions. The most controversial attribute of RBF is that it allowed to send funds to absolutely different address (full RBF), which practically means users can double spend with standard software. Alternatively, the implementation could be disallowing changing output addresses (it was known as RBF-FSS), which potentially would reduce privacy and increase transaction size, but would prevent double spends. The limit was also that wallet needed to have another unused input, which was not always the case. There were other alternative options to push transactions like Child-Pays-For-Parent (CPFP), which in practice means if transaction is stuck, users need to issue a new transaction spending output from stuck transaction with high enough fee to push both transactions to the block. Drawback here is that two transactions are needed (less efficient use of block space) and also fees need to be increased more to cover both transaction instead of one.

In practice, the result of RBF is that it is now a standard on miners side that when they see a transaction with higher fee, they replace old transaction in mempool and mine on top of the new one, which exactly allowed attackers to double spend in the above mentioned bitcoin ATM case. This was not forbidden before RBF, but network was working on another premise, and double spend transactions were not propagated among absolute majority of nodes, and further not mined.

Let’s assume that network still runs on FSS as a standard rule today (it was de facto standard between 2010 and 2016, before RBF was introduced). To double spend at bitcoin ATM’s attackers would need a malicious miner in place to mine double spend transactions and connect to such miner directly in order to send transaction, while network would reject it. Let’s assume they have access to such a miner with 10% network’s hash rate. That means in 1/10 cases they would be able to double spend. Given that 10% is an average bitcoin ATM commission charged by operators, attacker won’t earn anything on this, but just get cryptocurrency sold at market rate in 9/10 cases for cash, which eliminates any motivation to conduct such an attack. Given that the activity is recorded by camera, and attacker will highly likely be caught and go to jail for this, this further reduces even tries of this. With full RBF accepted as a default rule it allowed to get double spent transactions in 100% cases, which is the key factor for successful attack in question.

Why bitcoin ATM operators enable 0-conf withdrawals

It is important to understand, why operators set to allow zero-confirmation transactions. This is done not for lack of understanding of risk. And this is not a single case with operator in this case. Operators know the business quite well. Here is what co-founder of HoneyBadger (Canadian operator that was hit in this case) writes:

The bitcoin ATM start-up @badger_coin that I co-founded in 2016 has been hit with sophisticated fraud. While it was known that accepting 0-confirmation transactions bears risk, there was a trade-off involved: instant and less safe vs long and safe.https://t.co/56WcFCoMeX

— Yuri de Gaia (@Y_deGaia) March 13, 2019

Instant withdrawals add a lot of value to end users, and improve the UX. Especially this makes sense when the main network becomes not reliable with respect to confirmations. BTC network functions on low fees for quite a while now (bear market period 2018-2019), however, there are periods when mempool increases unexpectedly and in case you send a transaction just before this happens, even with large enough miner fee at the moment it was sent out, it can still get over-bidden and then user is required to wait sometimes for several blocks before his transaction gets mined (in practice this might be 1-3 hours). Even if you include a ridiculously large miner fee, the blocks are still mined with probability targeting average time of 10 minutes between the blocks, but it can be 20-30-40 or more minutes quite often until the next block is found by chance. In this case, customer will still need to wait first confirmation, irrespective of how large the miner fee was set.

Here are several scenarios to consider for operator in favor of allowing instant cash outs:

  • Less risk for the customer of getting robbed. In case of instant payout, customer finishes transaction immediately and leaves the ATM with cash. In case, operator sets that user needs to wait for confirmations this potentially requires the customer either to wait nearby or come back later, which potentially increases the risk for such user to getting in trouble.
  • Convenience when travelling long distance. Although bitcoin ATM’s are much more popular than in the past and their number increases daily, machines are still unevenly distributed in some areas. This requires some users to travel 50 miles or more to get to closest bitcoin ATM. In case the user is not required to wait for confirmation, the withdrawal is immediate and user can travel back. Waiting for confirmations is in general waste of time for customers. Returning to ATM later is also not an option in this use case, as it requires a lot of traveling.
  • Less custodial risk for customers. Any funds sent to operator’s address are held and controlled by operator until customer receives cash. This is a risk for end-user, as once bitcoin is sent to operator, there is custodial risk involved. With cash withdrawals against 0-confirmation the risk is limited for a very short time (several seconds) and makes the user more likely to use such a machine. Also customer can split transaction into several small ones, and risk at any time only a portion of the total exchanged bitcoin funds. Main advantage here is that with 0-confirmation withdrawal several transactions can be executed one by one in a sequence within short time-frame and customer can leave the place with cash.

In general, it is obvious that accepting 0-conf is not that a crazy idea, for businesses targeting best user experience it was a generally accepted concept among operators. There are other factors to prevent fraud like cameras at place and camera on the ATM itself, which records the user while using the ATM. As we’ve seen there are pretty clear pictures of the attackers in this case (probably except the last one, who used sun glasses and probably fake beard and wig). But the rest 3 are easily visually identified. It is rather strange that police could not move forward on this case for long time.

Risk policy optimization

Another interesting circumstance about this case is that thieves were able to double spend 112 transactions over the course of 10 days. First of all $195K over 112 transactions is $1740 CAD ($1300 USD) per transaction on average, which is large amount for allowing zero-confirmation. Usually operators set smaller limits for instant cash-outs, like $500. Another aspect is 10 days period. From the perspective of risks involved, there should be close monitoring of such an activity. 10 days of ongoing attack without notice seems too long. We suspected that several operators could be hit over 10 days period and this could explain, why it went under radar for so long time. However, based on information received from industry participants, the attack was hitting one operator. We reached out to operator, but received no comments on this case.

Although the case of losing $150K as an operator sounds terrifying, this might not be that terrifying when looking from the perspective of business in general. The operator in question runs 70 ATMs across Canada (this is another reason that could allow attackers to go unnoticed longer as they used different machines in different cities). Assuming average revenue of $30K CAD ($23K USD) per machine per month, this results in turnover of $2.1 Mil CAD per month. The company charges 8-15% tiered fees on buy side and 17% on sell side. Taking average as 15% commission, this gives gross profit per month $315K CAD, and is larger than lost amount during attack. Definitely, the lost amount is significant, but it is not an amount that would lead to a bankruptcy according to the scale of business.

Most of the attackers have left clear camera records, which hopefully will lead to finding suspects and getting funds recovered.

There could potentially be better risk mitigation processes set in this case, which could prevent the whole thing from happening. Let’s assume that operator was to set $500 limit per 0-conf transaction and also set total risk at $3000 for all machines (amount of total pending 0-conf transactions at any moment). Additionally operator could have the check for the fee size, and allow 0-conf cash withdrawals only on transactions with high enough miner fees to be included in the next block. Such mitigation measures would effectively prevent any large scale double spend attack, however, fulfill needs of most legitimate customers, improving UX at the same time. Treating double spend is nothing else as finding a risk-balanced approach. Similar to the case when online merchants handle risks, accepting credit cards as a payment method, where fraud rates vary in 3-4% range. If for 1 attacker transaction there are 20 genuine users on average, this results in similar level 5% risk rate, which can be further mitigated by measures above + cameras coverage + KYC procedures (e.g. allowing 0-conf transaction only to customers, who fulfilled verifications).

Conclusion

This case demonstrates what kind of hard decisions are there for bitcoin ATM operators to take: finding a balance between good UX and limiting own risk exposure. This is another reason for the size of fees operators charge and users usually complain about. During research on this topic we reached to a number of market players (preferred to stay undisclosed) and some reported using 0-confirmation settings for particular type of transactions and having no double-spend issues for years.

We also contacted main manufacturers and providers of bitcoin ATM’s to find out what kind of features and settings are supported by each of them in regards to zero-confirmation transactions handling. These details will be covered in the next post from 0-confirmation series.

In the last post we will check what are the potential solutions developed for cryptocurrencies, which can prevent double spend attacks on the network layer level.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

At the beginning of February, the price of Bitcoin was $3,454 and it was stagnating for a week before it started to rise. It reached its peak at the $4,020 near the end of the month before it started to fall again. February ended with a price of $3,844 which is an 11% rise compared to the beginning of the month.

Bitcoin Price February 2019, source: blockchain.info

The number of new machines continued to grow at the relatively stable rate, although a bit slower than in previous month.

Period Start: 4291, Period End: 4387
Opened: 160, Closed: 64, Net Growth: +96(2.3%)

Change by Manufacturers
Name Start End Diff
General Bytes 1312 1361 +49 (3.7%)
Genesis Coin 1390 1410 +20 (1.4%)
Lamassu 439 449 +10 (2.3%)
Shitcoins Club 37 44 +7 (18.9%)
Orderbob ATM 102 108 +6 (5.9%)
BitAccess 248 251 +3 (1.2%)
Coinsource 187 190 +3 (1.6%)
RusBit 16 18 +2 (12.5%)
BBFPro 22 23 +1 (4.5%)
Robocoin Kiosk 4 5 +1 (25%)
Covault 117 116 -1 (-0.9%)
Trovemat 13 12 -1 (-7.7%)
zzBit 12 11 -1 (-8.3%)
wBTCb 33 30 -3 (-9.1%)

General Bytes and Genesis Coin continue to top the Manufacturers list with 49 (3.7% increase) and 20 new machines (1.4% increase) respectively. Lamassu followed at third place with 10 new installations (2.3% increase). Other Manufacturers increased their numbers by less than 10 in February.

The biggest decrease was experienced by wBTCb who had 3 machines removed (-9.1% decrease).

Change by Operators

Operators who increased the number of machines by 4 or more over the past month:

CoinFlip Bitcoin ATMs 133 149 +16 (12%)
BTC Management Gmbh 94 100 +6 (6.4%)
Bitcoin Depot 194 198 +4 (2.1%)
BTC Crown 6 10 +4 (66.7%)
Coinsource 187 190 +3 (1.6%)
iQCashNow 85 88 +3 (3.5%)
Shitcoins Club 31 34 +3 (9.7%)
Bitcoin Station 20 23 +3 (15%)
TAO BITCOIN LLC 14 17 +3 (21.4%)
Unbank 8 11 +3 (37.5%)
BudgetCoinz, LLC 2 5 +3 (150%)

In February there were only 4 Operators that increased the number of machines by more than 4. CoinFlip Bitcoin ATMs stays on the first place with 16 new machines (12% increase) followed by Austrian company BTC Management Gmbh with 6 new installations (6.4% increase), Bitcoin Depot with 4 new machines (2.1% increase) and BTC Crown with 4 new installations (66.7% increase).

Change by Countries
Name Start End Diff
United States 2413 2472 +59 (2.4%)
United Kingdom 203 210 +7 (3.4%)
Canada 627 633 +6 (1%)
Spain 71 75 +4 (5.6%)
Russian Federation 50 53 +3 (6%)
Slovakia 38 41 +3 (7.9%)
Austria 267 269 +2 (0.7%)
Switzerland 48 50 +2 (4.2%)
Netherlands 24 26 +2 (8.3%)
Greece 21 23 +2 (9.5%)
Australia 51 52 +1 (2%)
Poland 35 36 +1 (2.9%)
Italy 32 33 +1 (3.1%)
Colombia 30 31 +1 (3.3%)
Belgium 9 10 +1 (11.1%)
Mexico 9 10 +1 (11.1%)
Taiwan 8 9 +1 (12.5%)
Portugal 4 5 +1 (25%)
Peru 1 2 +1 (100%)
Turkey 1 2 +1 (100%)
Georgia 13 12 -1 (-7.7%)
Bahamas 1 0 -1 (-100%)
Czech Republic 67 64 -3 (-4.5%)

As expected United States tops the Countries list in February with 59 new installations (2.4% increase). United Kingdom is at second place with 7 new machines (3.4% increase), followed by Canada with 6 new installations (1% increase).

Bahamas lost its only machine in February, and the most reduction was in Czech Republic, where number of machines reduced by 3 (-4.5%).

Cryptocurrencies Support

Find the latest stats of other cryptocurrency machines here.

Cryptocurrencies support saw the following increases over the past month:

Name Start End Diff
Litecoin 2775 2895 120 (4.32%)
Bitcoin 4266 4380 114 (2.67%)
Altcoins Altogether 2996 3095 99 (3.30%)
Ether 2356 2431 75 (3.18%)
Dash 745 787 42 (5.64%)
Zcash 67 75 8 (11.94%)
Monero 125 132 7 (5.60%)
Dogecoin 82 87 5 (6.10%)
Bitcoin Cash 1426 1349 -77 (-5.40%)

The percentage of Bitcoin ATM’s supporting any of altcoins got to 70.6% in February. Litecoin was the most added coin with 120 machines more (4.32% increase). Ether was at the second place with 75 (3.18% increase) followed by Dash with 42 (5.64% increase). Bitcoin Cash experienced a decrease by being removed from 77 machines (5.40% decrease), which is mostly a result of Canadian company Localcoin removing BCH support from all of their machines.

Summary

In February the price experienced a small rise, General Bytes, and Genesis Coin installed the most machines, United States were the Country with most installations, Litecoin was the most added coin.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

In this video recorded at Bitcoin Wednesday on 2 August 2017, CEO of Lamassu, Zack Harvey talks about Bitcoin ATM’s, UX consideration they took and problems they had and provides some insight into the user habits.

Zach Harvey talks about Lamassu ATMs - YouTube

At the beginning of the video, Zach explains how Bitcoin is truly educational and teaches us the importance of scarcity – the 21 million. It also teaches us about custody, or how important it is for you to hold your own money, politics or how important the consensus is and many more things like security and the importance of decentralization. Bitcoin basically points out the flaws of the current financial system.

Zach emphasizes the meaning of a good UX as a focal point of every Bitcoin ATM. The reason being that Bitcoin is very hard to explain, and he claims that Lamassu machines do just that. They take this very complex technology and boil it down to a few simple actions. The idea is to provide the user’s access to Bitcoin and crypto without a need for an expert. The main concept is to provide people with an opportunity to experience cryptocurrency without a need of understanding it all in detail. This is well reflected in the fact that about 75% of the transactions are under $100, so it means that people want to firstly have a taste of Bitcoin and then try to further understand it.

Further on, he showed us a nice graph, provided by one of the operators who has 14 machines. This graph will show us what people are doing with Bitcoin ATM’s and help us analyze and understand their spending habits.

As you can see, about 30% of the transactions are actually under 10$. These are the people that are putting in small amounts of money, just to test it and see what’s happening. As we said, around 75% are under a 100$, a tiny fraction is over $1,000 and the rest is somewhere between $100 and $500.

He also showed another graph, that is similar, but it is actually a graph that displays specific bills. So, we can see that the majority is a $20 bill, which makes a lot of sense because all of the ATM’s in the U.S. dispense only $20 bills. Of course, you can see a bunch of spare change, somewhere between 10 and 30%, where people put in $5 or 10$ in the machine.

As a side note, he mentions the transaction fees which got up to $2 or $3 and that was a big problem for their operators. Because with $2 fee, they are not making a profit on a $20 bill, and the machine can accept it or reject it but cannot store a certain amount of bills. In other words, whatever bill you put in that is the actual amount.

So, if the operators refuse to accept less than $50, it would reduce the number of users by 30%, and that is if the transaction fee stays at $2 or $3. If the transaction fees get up to $10, then it would wipe up about 90% of their users.

There was also an interesting part, where Harvey showed a Bitcoin ATM map of Toronto where we can see that there are about 50 machines right now, so the area is relatively rich in Bitcoin. Yet, he got an e-mail from a convenience store owner in a Toronto area who says that he is getting questions from customers about why he is not having a Bitcoin ATM in the store. So, this is a kind of a vision into the future of how mainstream things are going and shows that people want to have a Bitcoin ATM at their walking distance.

As an example of how important UX is, and how it can confuse people, he used a comparison between an old interface on their machines and a new one. On the old one there are two panels, one on the left says, “I want Bitcoin” and one on the right says, “I want cash”. That caused confusion where random people started coming up to the machine and pressing the “I want cash” button thinking that they will get cash without having to do anything. So eventually they changed the right side to say, “Sell Bitcoin”.

Another example would be the adding of the Bitcoin Cash to the machine. Just imagine what would it look like if it says “I want Bitcoin cash” on the screen. The point here is to emphasize that there are a lot of things to consider when it comes to UX. The most important thing is to make it as simple and obvious as possible because sometimes people can make simple mistakes when they are stressed about giving away their hard-earned cash and getting something, they never saw before.

In other words, the anxiety of doing something that they do not understand which involves money can make people confused so you need to make everything ridiculously clear for them. Otherwise they will be less likely to use it.

Q&A Session
  • How do you see bitcoin ATM’s evolving with Lightning Network?

Lamassu team will wait and see. Zach mentions he is not sure whether LN will work as expected or not. If it does and it makes sense with correct fees, this is something Lamassu will experiment with.

  • For people cashing out EUR / Dollars, what is the recommended number of confirmations?

At the moment operators of Lamassu machines have only two choices: zero (recommended for smaller transactions) or one confirmation. Lamassu operators never had problems with 1 confirmation, as well as no problems with 0 confirmations yet. The problem with waiting for confirmation at a bitcoin ATM is the process flow. With 1 confirmation you need to send bitcoins to machine, and then need to wait around 10-20 minutes waiting for confirmation. Once there is a confirmation you get a code to your phone and then you can cash out. But this is totally different UX than sending bitcoin right to the machine and it dispenses in a moment later. That is why some people prefer to do 0-confirmation although there is a risk of double spend.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

The year 2019 started with a Bitcoin price of $3,752 and maintained a steady rise in the first 10 days when it went over a $4,000 margin. After, it started to decrease and continued to do so until the end of the month. January ended with a price of  $3,454 which is a 7.9% decrease when compared with the price at the beginning of the month.

Bitcoin Price January 2019, source: blockchain.info

Unlike the price downward trajectory, the number of new machines doubled compared to previous month.

Period Start: 4124, Period End: 4273
Opened: 222, Closed: 73, Net Growth: +149(3.6%)

Change by Manufacturers
Name Start End Diff
Genesis Coin 1304 1386 +82 (6.3%)
General Bytes 1258 1301 +43 (3.4%)
Shitcoins Club 29 37 +8 (27.6%)
BitAccess 241 247 +6 (2.5%)
Covault 112 115 +3 (2.7%)
Orderbob ATM 99 102 +3 (3%)
zzBit 10 13 +3 (30%)
ChainBytes 10 13 +3 (30%)
Lamassu 439 441 +2 (0.5%)
Bcash Greece Inc 15 17 +2 (13.3%)
BitXatm 66 67 +1 (1.5%)
BBFPro 21 22 +1 (4.8%)
Trovemat 12 13 +1 (8.3%)
Bitnovo 10 11 +1 (10%)
CoinLogiq 2 3 +1 (50%)
Coinsource 190 187 -3 (-1.6%)
Bytefederal 43 35 -8 (-18.6%)

We have two of the same names at the top of the Manufacturers list as in December, they just swapped places. Genesis Coin is at the top with 82 new machines (6.3% increase) and General Bytes is at the second place with 43 new installations (3.4% increase). These were the only two Manufacturers that increased their numbers by double figures in January. Shitcoins Club was on the third spot with 8 new machines (27.6% increase).

Bytfederal was the Manufacturer that experienced a fair decrease in January. They dropped their numbers by 8 machines (-18.6% decrease). Coinsource, represented as both operator and manufacturer of own machines, has closed 3 locations (-1.6%).

Change by Operators

Operators who increased the number of machines by 4 or more over the past month:

Name Start End Diff
Bitcoin Depot 151 194 +43 (28.5%)
Bitcoin of America 79 94 +15 (19%)
CoinFlip Bitcoin ATMs 120 133 +13 (10.8%)
RockItCoin 153 162 +9 (5.9%)
Shitcoins Club 23 31 +8 (34.8%)
CoinCloud 207 214 +7 (3.4%)
Bitcoin Station 16 21 +5 (31.3%)
Black Frog Blockchain Ventures LLC 50 54 +4 (8%)

Bitcoin Depot dominated the Operators list in January with 43 new installations (28.5% increase). The company entered the Chicago market with installation of 30 brand new machines there and doing 0% fee promo at all those location. They are followed by Bitcoin of America with 15 new machines (19% increase) and CoinFlip Bitcoin ATMs with 13 (10.8% increase). Rockitcoin steadily month over month increases their locations number, and now is the fourth largest operator in the world. In January 2019 they increased the network by 9 machines. There were only four Operators besides these that had increased their numbers by more than 4 during the last month.

Change by Countries
Name Start End Diff
United States 2295 2402 +107 (4.7%)
Canada 624 630 +6 (1%)
Spain 65 71 +6 (9.2%)
Switzerland 44 48 +4 (9.1%)
Austria 263 265 +2 (0.8%)
Romania 28 30 +2 (7.1%)
Colombia 27 29 +2 (7.4%)
Hungary 12 14 +2 (16.7%)
Georgia 11 13 +2 (18.2%)
Dominican Republic 9 11 +2 (22.2%)
Malaysia 8 10 +2 (25%)
Malta 3 5 +2 (66.7%)
Portugal 2 4 +2 (100%)
Czech Republic 65 66 +1 (1.5%)
Russian Federation 49 50 +1 (2%)
Slovakia 37 38 +1 (2.7%)
Italy 31 32 +1 (3.2%)
Netherlands 23 24 +1 (4.3%)
Greece 20 21 +1 (5%)
Slovenia 12 13 +1 (8.3%)
Bulgaria 3 4 +1 (33.3%)
Thailand 2 3 +1 (50%)
Germany 2 3 +1 (50%)
Liechtenstein 2 3 +1 (50%)
Andorra 0 1 +1

United States hugely dominate the bitcoin ATM market, and this month demonstrates this with prominent leading of the U.S. with respect to increased number of bitcoin ATM’s in operation with 107 new installations (4.7% increase). Canada and Spain followed with 6 new machines (1% increase) and (9.2% increase) respectively.

Andorra had its first machine installed in January. It is a buy only ATM manufactured by General Bytes.

Other Cryptocurrencies Support

Find latest stats of other cryptocurrency machines here.

Cryptocurrencies support saw the following increases over the past month:

Name Start End Diff
Altcoins 2644 2996 352 (13.31%)
Ether 2011 2356 345 (17.16%)
Litecoin 2433 2775 342 (14.06%)
Bitcoin 4106 4266 160 (3.90%)
Bitcoin Cash 1365 1426 61 (4.47%)
Dash 738 745 7 (0.95%)
Dogecoin 79 82 3 (3.80%)
Monero 124 125 1 (0.81%)
Zcash 69 67 -2 (2.90%)

The percentage of altcoins accepted in Bitcoin ATM’s got to 70% in January. Ether continued to be the most added coin with 345 new additions (17.16% increase). Litecoin was the second most added coin with 342 (14.06% increase), while Bitcoin followed with 160 (3.90% increase). Bitcoin Cash had 61 new machines (4.5% increase).

Summary

In January the prices experienced a downfall. Manufacturers Genesis Coin and General Bytes installed the most machines. Andorra installed its first ATM. Ether was the most added coin.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

In this video, you will hear first-hand experience form Matt who owns a chain of stores and decided to include Bitcoin ATM’s. He will try to get into a little more depth on the two different types of structures that most Bitcoin ATM companies have, and also which model he thinks is the best to chose going forward.

I got a Crypto ATM installed! How they work & my strategy with them! - YouTube

Before he decided on the operator, he reached out to three or four companies. Although the contract he signed is confidential, he will let us know a little bit about the different sorts of structure and how different companies operate the Bitcoin ATM machines. There are some basic structures that they all follow when offering their services to store owners.

Option 1: Rent a place to operator

One of these structure types is that you absolutely have no stake in the machine. You are getting a fixed amount of money per month just for having the machine in your store. This works out great for people who have convenience stores, gas stations or small retail stores and have no interest in the machine or what it’s about. It is a great way to bring extra foot traffic to the store and get anywhere from a hundred to several hundreds of dollars per month. It is completely hands-off. The machine gets dropped off to your store, you just plug it in and collect the money for hosting the machine. Ideally, you see the benefit in collecting rent and increased foot traffic of people coming in just to visit the machine and, hopefully, patronize your store.

Option 2: Buy ATM and operate yourself
On the other hand, you can buy the machine directly from the manufacturer or a reseller which basically makes you an owner-operator and you have to do pretty much everything with the machine. First of all, you have to pay the upfront cost for the machine. Then you need to set up all the wallets, fund the wallets and keep them funded. You have to handle cash logistics which means to get the money out of the machine or put the money in the machine if it is two-way. You need to get the money transmitter licenses that differ from state to state and are held on a federal level. That is something Mat did not want to be a part of because he thinks that putting your signature on that kind of forms opens you up to a lot of vulnerability. So, he really wanted to find a company that handled all of the licenses. Of course, there is a lot more upside when you are doing it by your self because you can control the fees and you can potentially make a lot of money here, especially if you are the only machine in town. But on the other hand, funding the machine and putting your signature on the transmitter licenses exposes you to greater risk. In the end, you have to weigh the pros and cons and make the decision.
Option 3:  Hybrid model
But then there is the middle, the direction in which Matt thinks the industry is heading as a whole, a hybridization. Matt, like most small independent operators, wants to spend as less time as possible dealing with the government agencies because it is just so time-consuming and of course, costs money. But, he is aware of the potential upside of having an ATM in the store and is not willing to take the monthly fee, even if it is a thousand dollars. So, he wants to take a bigger cut of those fees and for that, he is willing to pay a partial price for the machine. That way he will incur more risk by financing the machine, but the company will handle all the legal stuff, so he will have no part in that. Of course, since the risk is shared, the cut is smaller, but the upside is still bigger than taking the monthly fee.
In the end, Matt emphasizes the importance of mass adoption of the cryptocurrency and marks the ATM machines as the frontline of promoting the cryptocurrency to everyday people. He also states that we also need to make the crypto as easy as possible for those people since they have a crucial role on that path. It is annoying that there are a lot of developers and crypto gurus that have a kind of elitist stance and mentality. They do not want noobs coming in unless they’re gonna take the time to learn the cryptocurrency in detail and get familiar to all of this overly technical jargon. He insists that this kind of behavior is ridiculous because if you want to see crypto upsetting banks and major financial institutions then you need the noobs and the everyday people to come in and put their money in, and they are not gonna do that if they need to acquire a degree on blockchain to get involved.
Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

December opened with a price of $4,117 and continued to decrease until it reached the price of $3,225 in the middle of the month, which is the lowest price of Bitcoin in the entire 2018.  After, the price continued to rise and hit the highest mark in the past month at $4,179. December ended at $3,792 which is a 7,9% decrease in comparison to the beginning of the month.

Bitcoin Price December 2018, source: blockchain.info

Unlike the price downward trajectory, the number of new machines continues to grow at a slightly slower rate than in previous months.

Period Start: 4040, Period End: 4111
Opened: 173, Closed: 102, Net Growth: +71(1.8%)

Change by Manufacturers
Name Start End Diff
General Bytes 1208 1255 +47 (3.9%)
Genesis Coin 1280 1304 +24 (1.9%)
BitAccess 216 237 +21 (9.7%)
Orderbob ATM 88 101 +13 (14.8%)
BBFPro 14 19 +5 (35.7%)
Shitcoins Club 26 29 +3 (11.5%)
Bitnovo 8 10 +2 (25%)
Robocoin Kiosk 2 4 +2 (100%)
Lamassu 440 441 +1 (0.2%)
Cryptomat 0 1 +1
Coinsource 193 192 -1 (-0.5%)
BTC facil 26 25 -1 (-3.8%)
Trovemat 13 12 -1 (-7.7%)
BitTeller 18 15 -3 (-16.7%)
Covault 114 110 -4 (-3.5%)
BitXatm 70 65 -5 (-7.1%)
RusBit 49 16 -33 (-67.3%)

General Bytes continues to top the manufacturers list in this month with 47 new machines (3.9% increase) followed by Genesis Coin with 24 installations (1.9% increase). The change came in the third place where BitAccess took the place with 21 new machines (9.7% increase).

Another manufacturer installed its first ATM this month. Cryptomat, the Ukranian based company, installed a buy only machine in Lviv.

We also have to notice that Russian manufacturer RusBit had a significant decrease with 33 machines removed (67.3% decrease).

Change by Operators

Operators who increased the number of machines by 4 or more over the past month:

Name Start End Diff
CoinCloud 191 204 +13 (6.8%)
BTC Management Gmbh 78 91 +13 (16.7%)
Localcoin 135 145 +10 (7.4%)
Athena Bitcoin 77 84 +7 (9.1%)
RockItCoin 139 145 +6 (4.3%)
National Bitcoin ATM 24 30 +6 (25%)
CoinFlip Bitcoin ATMs 115 120 +5 (4.3%)
SP Bedarev A.A. 14 19 +5 (35.7%)
Kurant 42 46 +4 (9.5%)
Bitcoin Romania 11 15 +4 (36.4%)

In December, CoinCloud (6.8% increase) and BTC Management Gmbh (16.7% increase) shared the first place with 13 new installations. Localcoin followed by with 10 new machines (7.4% increase). These were the only 3 operators that increased their numbers by more than 10 in the past month.

Change by Countries
Name Start End Diff
United States 2239 2288 +49 (2.2%)
Canada 608 623 +15 (2.5%)
Spain 57 66 +9 (15.8%)
Austria 257 265 +8 (3.1%)
Romania 24 28 +4 (16.7%)
Argentina 4 8 +4 (100%)
United Kingdom 199 201 +2 (1%)
Switzerland 42 44 +2 (4.8%)
Vietnam 4 6 +2 (50%)
Australia 50 51 +1 (2%)
Italy 31 32 +1 (3.2%)
Poland 27 28 +1 (3.7%)
Colombia 25 26 +1 (4%)
Greece 19 20 +1 (5.3%)
Slovenia 11 12 +1 (9.1%)
Georgia 10 11 +1 (10%)
Ukraine 8 9 +1 (12.5%)
Dominican Republic 7 8 +1 (14.3%)
Malaysia 7 8 +1 (14.3%)
Bahamas 0 1 +1
Turkey 0 1 +1

In the countries list in December, the top remains unchanged where the United States dominate 49 new installations (2.2% increase). Canada took the second place with 15 new machines (2.5% increase), followed by Spain with 9 new machines (15.8% increase).

In the past month there were two Countries that had their first ATM installed:

  • The Bahamas – Buy only machine manufactured by General Bytes located in Nassau;
  • Turkey – Buy and Sell machine manufactured by General Bytes located in Istanbul.
Other Cryptocurrencies Support

Find latest stats of other cryptocurrency machines here.

Cryptocurrencies support saw the following increases over the past month:

Name Start End Diff
Ether 1882 2011 129 (6.85%)
Altcoins 2519 2644 125 (4.96%)
Bitcoin 4042 4106 64 (1.58%)
Monero 86 124 38 (44.19%)
Litecoin 2403 2433 30 (1.25%)
Bitcoin Cash 1338 1365 27 (2.02%)
Dash 722 738 16 (2.22%)
Zcash 60 69 9 (15.00%)
Dogecoin 77 79 2 (2.60%)

The number of other currencies accepted in Bitcoin ATM’s got to 64% this month. Ether was again the coin that was added at the most machines in December with 129 (6.85% increase). Like in November Bitcoin followed by with 64 (1.58% increase). Monero came in the third place with 38 (44.19% increase).

Summary

In December prices fluctuated and experienced a decrease at the end of the month. Manufacturers General Bytes and Genesis Coin installed the most machines. The Bahamas and Turkey installed their first machines. Ether was the most added coin.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview