text:
Binance Alternatives To Buy Crypto in the US [2020 Updated]
l Die besten Bitcoin Exchanges für deutsche Trader ...
8 Reasons to Buy Bitcoin Without Mentioning ... - binance.com
Bitcoin Alternativen: 7 interessante Kryptowährungen
Top 10 Bitcoin (BTC) Alternatives 2020 Finder UK
Top 10 Bitcoin (BTC) Alternatives 2020 finder.com
Playing with fire with FinCen and SEC, Binance may face a hefty penalty again after already losing 50 percent of its trading business
On 14 June, Binance announced that it "constantly reviews user accounts to improve (their) platform security and to comply with global compliance requirements", mentioning that "Binance is unable to provide services to any U.S. person" in the latest "Binance Terms of Use" attached within the announcement.
According to the data from a third-party traffic statistics website, Alexa, users in the U.S. form the biggest user group of Binance, accounting for about 25% of the total visitor traffic.
In the forecast of Binance's user scale compiled by The Block, the largest traffic is dominated by users in the U.S., surpassing the total of the ones from the second place to the fifth place.
Also, considering that the scale of digital asset trading for the users in the U.S. far exceeds that of the users of many other countries, it could mean that Binance may have already lost 50 % of the business income by losing users in the U.S. Apparently, such an announcement by Binance to stop providing services to users in the U.S. means Binance has no other alternative but "seek to live on."
So, what are the specific requirements of the U.S. for digital asset exchanges and which of the regulatory red lines of the U.S. did Binance cross?
Compliance issues relating to operation permission of digital asset exchanges
In the U.S., the entry barrier for obtaining a business license to operate a digital asset exchange is not high. Apart from the special licencing requirements of individual states such as New York, most of the states generally grant licences to digital asset exchanges through the issuance of a "Money Transmitter License" (MTL).
Each state has different requirements for MTL applications. Some of the main common requirements are:
Filling out the application form, including business address, tax identification number, social security number and statement of net assets of the owneproprietor Paying the relevant fees for the licence application Meeting the minimum net assets requirements stipulated by the state Completing a background check Providing a form of guarantee, such as security bonds
It is worth noting that not all states are explicitly using MTL to handle the issues around operation permission of digital asset exchanges. For instance, New Hampshire passed a new law on 12 March 2017, announcing that trading parties of digital assets in that state would not be bound by MTL. Also, Montana has not yet set up MTL, keeping an open attitude towards the currency trading business.
On top of obtaining the MTL in each state, enterprises are also required to complete the registration of "Money Services Business" (MSB) on the federal level FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Treasury Department) issued the "Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies" on 18 March 2013. On the federal level, the guideline requires any enterprise involved in virtual currency services to complete the MSB registration and perform the corresponding compliance responsibilities. The main responsibility of a registered enterprise is to establish anti-money laundering procedures and reporting systems.
However, California is an exception. Enterprises in California would only need to complete the MSB registration on the federal level and they do not need to apply for the MTL in California.
Any enterprise operating in New York must obtain a virtual currency business license, Bitlicense, issued in New York
Early in July 2014, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS) has specially designed and launched the BitLicense, stipulating that any institutions participating in a business relevant to virtual currency (virtual currency transfer, virtual currency trust, provision of virtual currency trading services, issuance or management of virtual currencies) must obtain a BitLicense.
To date, the NYSDFS has issued 19 Bitlicenses. Among them includes exchanges such as Coinbase (January 2017), BitFlyer (July 2017), Genesis Global Trading (May 2018) and Bitstamp (April 2019).
Solely from the perspective of operation permission, Binance has yet to complete the MSB registration of FinCEN (its partner, BAM Trading, has completed the MSB registration). This means that Binance is not eligible to operate a digital asset exchange in the U.S. FinCEN has the rights to prosecute Binance based on its failure to fulfil the relevant 'anti-money laundering' regulatory requirements.
Compliance issues relating to online assets
With the further development of the digital asset market, ICO has released loads of "digital assets" that have characteristics of a "security" into the trading markets. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed more comprehensive compliance requirements for digital asset exchanges. The core of the requirements is reflected in the restrictions of offering digital assets trading service.
In the last two years, the SEC has reiterated on many occasions that digital assets that have characteristics of a security should not be traded on a digital asset exchange
In August 2017, when the development of ICO was at its peak, the SEC issued an investor bulletin "Investor Bulletin: Initial Coin Offerings" on its website and published an investigation report of the DAO. It determined that the DAO tokens were considered 'marketable securities', stressing that all digital assets considered 'marketable securities' would be incorporated into the SEC regulatory system, bound by the U.S. federal securities law. Soon after, the SEC also declared and stressed that "(if) a platform offers trading of digital assets that are securities and operates as an "exchange," as defined by the federal securities laws, then the platform must register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be exempt from registration."
On 16 November 2018, the SEC issued a "Statement on Digital Asset Securities Issuance and Trading," in which the SEC used five real case studies to conduct exemplary penalty rulings on the initial offers and sales of digital asset securities, including those issued in ICOs, relevant cryptocurrency exchanges, investment management tools, ICO platforms and so on. The statement further reiterates that exchanges cannot provide trading services for digital assets that have characteristics of a security.
On 3 April 2019, the SEC issued the "Framework for 'Investment Contract' Analysis of Digital Assets" to further elucidate the evaluation criteria for determining whether a digital asset is a security and providing guiding opinions on the compliance of the issuance, sales, holding procedures of digital assets.
As of now, only a small number of digital assets, such as BTC, ETH, etc. meet the SEC's requirement of "non-securities assets." The potentially "compliant" digital assets are less than 20.
Early in March 2014, the Inland Revenue Service (IRS) has stated that Bitcoin will be treated as a legal property and will be subject to taxes. In September 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) stated that Bitcoin is a commodity and will be treated as a "property" by the IRS for tax purposes.
On 15 June 2018, William Hinman, Director of the Corporate Finance Division of the SEC, said at the Cryptocurrency Summit held in San Francisco that BTC and ETH are not securities. Nevertheless, many ICO tokens fall under the securities category.
So far, only BTC and ETH have received approval and recognition of the U.S. regulatory authority as a "non-securities asset."
Since July 2018, the SEC has investigated more than ten types of digital assets, one after another, and ruled that they were securities and had to be incorporated into the SEC regulatory system. It prosecuted and punished those who had contravened the issuance and trading requirements of the securities laws.
Although there are still many digital assets that have yet to be characterised as "securities", it is extremely difficult to be characterised as a "non-securities asset" based on the evaluation criteria announced by the SEC. As the SEC's spokesperson has reiterated many times, they believe the majority of ICO tokens are securities.
Under the stipulated requirements of the SEC, Coinbase, a leading U.S. exchange, has withdrawn a batch of digital assets. The assets withdrawn included digital assets that had been characterised as "securities" as well as those that have high risks of being characterised as "securities." However, it is worth noting that although the risk to be characterised as "securities" for more than ten types of digital assets, which have not been explicitly required by SEC to be withdrawn, is relatively small, they are not entirely safe. With the further escalation of the SEC's investigations, they could still be characterised as securities and be held accountable for violating their responsibilities. However, this requires further guidance from the SEC.
*Coinbase's 14 types of digital assets that have yet to be requested for withdrawal
Poloniex announced on 16 May that it would stop providing services for nine digital assets, including Ardor (ARDR), Bytecoin (BCN), etc. under the compliance guidelines of the SEC. On 7 June, Bittrex also announced that it would stop providing trading services to U.S. users for 32 digital assets. The action of the SEC on its regulatory guidance was further reinforced apparently.
In fact, it is not the first time that these two exchanges have withdrawn digital assets under regulatory requirements. Since the rapid development of digital assets driven by ICO in 2017, Poloniex and Bittrex were once leading exchanges for ICO tokens, providing comprehensive trading services for digital assets. However, after the SEC reiterated its compliance requirements, Poloniex and Bittrex have withdrawn a considerable amount of assets in the past year to meet the compliance requirements.
In conclusion, the takeaways that we have got are as follows: Under the existing U.S. regulatory requirements of digital assets, after obtaining the basic entry licences (MSB, MTL), exchanges could either choose the "compliant asset" solution of Coinbase and only list a small number of digital assets that do not have apparent characteristics of a security, and at all times prepare to withdraw any asset later characterised as "securities" by the SECs; or choose to be like OKEx and Huobi and make it clear they would "not provide services to any U.S. users" at the start.
Binance has been providing a large number of digital assets that have characteristics of a security to U.S users without a U.S. securities exchange licence, so it has already contravened the SEC regulatory requirements.
On top of that, it is also worth noting that the rapid development of Binance has been achieved precisely through the behaviours of "contrary to regulations" and "committing crimes." Amid the blocking of several pioneering exchanges, such as OKCoin, Huobi, etc. providing services to Chinese users in the Chinese market under new laws from the regulatory authorities, Binance leapfrogged the competition and began to dominate the Chinese market. Similarly, Binance's rapid growth in the U.S. market is mainly due to its domination of the traffic of digital assets withdrawn by Poloniex and Bittrex. One can say that Binance not only has weak awareness of compliance issues, but it is also indeed "playing with fire" with the U.S. regulators.
In April 2018, the New York State Office of Attorney General (OAG) requested 13 digital asset exchanges, including Binance, to prepare for investigations, indicating it would initiate an investigation in relations to company ownership, leadership, operating conditions, service terms, trading volume, relationships with financial institutions, etc. Many exchanges, including Gemini, Bittrex, Poloniex, BitFlyer, Bitfinex, and so on, proactively acknowledged and replied in the first instance upon receipt of the investigation notice. However, Binance had hardly any action.
Binance has been illegally operating in the U.S. for almost two years. It has not yet fulfilled the FinCEN and MSB registration requirements. Moreover, it has also neglected the SEC announcements and OAG investigation summons on several occasions. The ultimate announcement of exiting the U.S. market may be due to the tremendous pressure imposed by the U.S. regulators.
In fact, the SEC executives have recently stressed that "exchanges of IEO in the U.S. market are facing legal risks and the SEC would soon crack down on these illegal activities" on numerous occasions. These were clear indications of imposing pressure on Binance.
Regarding the SEC's rulings on illegal digital asset exchanges, EtherDelta and investment management platform, Crypto Asset Management, it may not be easy for Binance to "fully exit" from the U.S. market. It may be faced with a hefty penalty. Once there are any compensation claims by the U.S. users for losses incurred in the trading of assets at Binance, it would be dragged into a difficult compensation dilemma. It would undoubtedly be a double blow for Binance that has just been held accountable for the losses incurred in a theft of 7,000 BTC.
Coincidentally, Binance was tossed out of Japan because of compliance issues. In March 2018, the Financial Services Agency of Japan officially issued a stern warning to Binance, which was boldly providing services to Japanese users without registering for a digital asset exchange licence in Japan. Binance was forced to relocate to Malta instead. Binance may have to bear hefty penalties arising from challenging the compliance requirements after it had lost important markets due to consecutive compliance issues.
The rise of Binance was attributed to its bold and valiant style, grasping the opportunity created in the vacuum period of government regulation, breaking compliance requirements and rapidly dominating the market to obtain user traffic. For a while, it gained considerable advantages in the early, barbaric growth stage of the industry. Nonetheless, under the increasingly comprehensive regulatory compliance system for global digital asset markets, Binance, which has constantly been "evading regulation" and "resisting supervision" would undoubtedly face enormous survival challenges, notwithstanding that it would lose far more than 50 per cent of the market share.
https://www.asiacryptotoday.com/playing-with-fire-with-fincen-and-sec-binance-may-face-a-hefty-penalty-again-after-already-losing-50-percent-of-its-trading-business/
submitted by Fun_Judgment to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]
batching in Bitcoin
On May 6th, 2017, Bitcoin hit an all-time high in transactions processed on the network in a single day: it moved 375,000 transactions which accounted for a nominal output of about $2.5b. Average fees on the Bitcoin network had climbed over a dollar for the first time a couple days prior. And they kept climbing: by early June average fees hit an eye-watering $5.66. This was quite unprecedented. In the three-year period from Jan. 1 2014 to Jan. 1 2017, per-transaction fees had never exceeded 31 cents on a weekly average. And the hits kept coming. Before 2017 was over, average fees would top out at $48 on a weekly basis. When the crypto-recession set in, transaction count collapsed and fees crept back below $1.
During the most feverish days of the Bitcoin run-up, when normal users found themselves with balances that would cost more to send than they were worth, cries for batching — the aggregation of many outputs into a single transaction — grew louder than ever. David Harding had written a blog post on the cost-savings of batching at the end of August and it was reposted to the Bitcoin subreddit on a daily basis.
The idea was simple: for entities sending many transactions at once, clustering outputs into a single transaction was more space- (and cost-) efficient, because each transaction has a fixed data overhead. David found that if you combined 10 payments into one transaction, rather than sending them individually, you could save 75% of the block space. Essentially, batching is one way to pack as many transactions as possible into the finite block space available on Bitcoin.
When fees started climbing in mid-2017, users began to scrutinize the behavior of heavy users of the Bitcoin blockchain, to determine whether they were using block space efficiently. By and large, they were not — and an informal lobbying campaign began, in which these major users — principally exchanges — were asked to start batching transactions and be good stewards of the scarce block space at their disposal. Some exchanges had been batching for years, others relented and implemented it. The question faded from view after Bitcoin's price collapsed in Q1 2018 from roughly $19,000 to $6000, and transaction load — and hence average fee — dropped off.
But we remained curious. A common refrain, during the collapse in on-chain usage, was that transaction count was an obfuscated method of apprehending actual usage. The idea was that transactions could encode an arbitrarily large (within reason) number of payments, and so if batching had become more and more prevalent, those payments were still occurring, just under a regime of fewer transactions.
Some sites popped up to report outputs and payments per day rather than transactions, seemingly bristling at the coverage of declining transaction count. However, no one conducted an analysis of the changing relationship between transaction count and outputs or payments. We took it upon ourselves to find out.
Introduction to batching
A timeline
Bonus content: UTXO consolidation
Bitcoin uses a UTXO model, which stands for Unspent Transaction Output. In comparison, Ripple and Ethereum use an account/balance model. In bitcoin, a user has no balances, only UTXOs that they control. If they want to transfer money to someone else, their wallet selects one or more UTXOs as inputs that in sum need to add up to the amount they want to transfer. The desired amount then goes to the recipient, which is called the output, and the difference goes back to the sender, which is called change output. Each output can carry a virtually unlimited amount of value in the form of satoshis. A satoshi is a unit representing a one-hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin. This is very similar to a physical wallet full of different denominations of bills. If you're buying a snack for $2.50 and only have a $5, you don't hand the cashier half of your 5 dollar bill — you give him the 5 and receive some change instead.
Unknown to some, there is no hardcoded limit to the number of transactions that can fit in a block. Instead, each transaction has a certain size in megabytes and constitutes an economic incentive for miners to include it in their block. Because miners have limited space of 2 MB to sell to transactors, larger transactions (in size, not bitcoin!) will need to pay higher fees to be included. Additionally, each transaction can have a virtually unlimited number of inputs or outputs — the record stands at transactions with 20,000 inputs and 13,107 outputs.
So each transaction has at least one input and at one output, but often more, as well as some additional boilerplate stuff. Most of that space is taken up by the input (often 60% or more, because of the signature that proves they really belong to the sender), while the output(s) account for 15–30%. In order to keep transactions as small as possible and save fees, Bitcoin users have two major choices:
Use as few inputs as possible. In order to minimize inputs, you can periodically send your smaller UTXOs to yourself in times when fees are very low, getting one large UTXO back. That is called UTXO consolidation or consolidating your inputs.
Users who frequently make transfers (especially within the same block) can include an almost unlimited amount of outputs (to different people!) in the same transaction. That is called transaction batching. A typical single output transaction takes up 230 bytes, while a two output transaction only takes up 260 bytes, instead of 460 if you were to send them individually.
This is something that many casual commentators overlook when comparing Bitcoin with other payment systems — a Bitcoin transaction can aggregate thousands of individual economic transfers! It's important to recognize this, as it is the source of a great deal of misunderstanding and mistaken analysis.
We've never encountered a common definition of a batched transaction — so for the purposes of this study we define it in the loosest possible sense: a transaction with three or more outputs. Commonly, batching is understood as an activity undertaken primarily by mining pools or exchanges who can trade off immediacy for efficiency. It is rare that a normal bitcoin user would have cause to batch, and indeed most wallets make it difficult to impossible to construct batched transactions. For everyday purposes, normal bitcoiners will likely not go to the additional effort of batching transactions.
We set the threshold at three for simplicity's sake — a normal unbatched transaction will have one transactional output and one change output — but the typical major batched transaction from an exchange will have dozens if not hundreds of outputs. For this reason we are careful to provide data on various different batch sizes, so we could determine the prevalence of three-output transactions and colossal, 100-output ones.
We find it helpful to think of a Bitcoin transaction as a mail truck full of boxes. Each truck (transaction) contains boxes (outputs), each of contains some number of letters (satoshis). So when you're looking at transaction count as a measure of the performance and economic throughput of the Bitcoin network, it's a bit like counting mail trucks to discern how many letters are being sent on a given day, even though the number of letters can vary wildly. The truck analogy also makes it clear why many see Bitcoin as a settlement layer in the future — just as mail trucks aren't dispatched until they're full, some envision that the same will ultimately be the case for Bitcoin.
So what actually happened in the last six months? Let's look at some data. Daily transactions on the Bitcoin network rose steadily until about May 2017, when average fees hit about $4. This precipitated the first collapse in usage. Then began a series of feedback loops over the next six months in which transaction load grew, fees grew to match, and transactions dropped off. This cycle repeated itself five times over the latter half of 2017.
more like this on coinmetrics.io
The solid red line in the above chart is fees in BTC terms (not USD) and the shaded red area is daily transaction count. You can see the cycle of transaction load precipitating higher fees which in turn cause a reduction in usage. It repeats itself five or six times before the detente in spring 2018. The most notable period was the December-January fee crisis, but fees were actually fairly typical in BTC terms — the rising BTC price in USD however meant that USD fees hit extreme figures.
In mid-November when fees hit double digits in USD terms, users began a concerted campaign to convince exchanges to be better stewards of block space. Both Segwit and batching were held up as meaningful approaches to maximize the compression of Bitcoin transactions into the finite block space available. Data on when exchanges began batching is sparse, but we collected information where it was available into a chart summarizing when exchanges began batching.
Batching adoption at selected exchanges
We're ignoring Segwit adoption by exchanges in this analysis; as far as batching is concerned, the campaign to get exchanges to batch appears to have persuaded Bitfinex, Binance, and Shapeshift to batch. Coinbase/GDAX have stated their intention to begin batching, although they haven't managed to integrate it yet. As far as we can tell, Gemini hasn't mentioned batching, although we have some mixed evidence that they may have begun recently. If you know about the status of batching on Gemini or other major exchanges please get in touch.
So some exchanges have been batching all along, and some have never bothered at all. Did the subset of exchanges who flipped the switch materially affect the prevalence of batched transactions? Let's find out.
3.1 How common is batching?
We measured the prevalence of batching in three different ways, by transaction count, by output value and by output count.
The tl;dr.
Batching accounts for roughly 12% of all transactions, 40% of all outputs, and 30–60% of all raw BTC output value. Not bad.
3.2 Have batched transactions become more common over time?
From the chart in 3.1, we can already see a small, but steady uptrend in all three metrics, but we want to dig a little deeper. So we first looked at the relationship of payments (all outputs that actually pay someone, so total outputs minus change outputs) and transactions.
More at transactionfee.info/charts
The first thing that becomes obvious is that the popular narrative — that the drop in transactions was caused by an increase in batching — is not the case; payments dropped by roughly the same proportion as well.
Dividing payment count by transaction count gives us some insight into the relationship between the two.
In our analysis we want to zoom into the time frame between November 2017 and today, and we can see that payments per transactions have actually been rallying, from 1.5 payments per transaction in early 2017 to almost two today.
3.3 What are popular batch sizes?
In this next part, we will look at batch sizes to see which are most popular. To determine which transactions were batched, we downloaded a dataset of all transactions on the Bitcoin network between November 2017 and May 2018from Blockchair.
We picked that period because the fee crisis really got started in mid-November, and with it, the demands for exchanges to batch. So we wanted to capture the effect of exchanges starting to batch. Naturally a bigger sample would have been more instructive, but we were constrained in our resources, so we began with the six month sample.
We grouped transactions into "batched" and "unbatched" groups with batched transactions being those with three or more outputs.
We then divided batched transactions into roughly equal groups on the basis of how much total output in BTC they had accounted for in the six-month period. We didn't select the batch sizes manually — we picked batch sizes that would split the sample into equal parts on the basis of transaction value. Here's what we ended up with:
All of the batch buckets have just about the same fraction of total BTC output over the period, but they account for radically different transaction and output counts over the period. Notice that there were only 183,108 "extra large" batches (with 41 or more outputs) in the six-month period, but between them there were 23m outputs and 30m BTC worth of value transmitted.
Note that output value in this context refers to the raw or unadjusted figure — it would have been prohibitively difficult for us to adjust output for change or mixers, so we're using the "naive" estimate.
Let's look at how many transactions various batch sizes accounted for in the sample period:
Batched transactions steadily increased relative to unbatched ones, although the biggest fraction is the small batch with between 3 and 5 outputs. The story for output counts is a bit more illuminating. Even though batched transactions are a relatively small fraction of overall transaction count, they contain a meaningful number of overall outputs. Let's see how it breaks down:
Lastly, let's look at output value. Here we see that batched transactions represent a significant fraction of value transmitted on Bitcoin.
As we can see, even though batched transactions make up an average of only 12% of all transactions, they move between 30%-60% of all Bitcoins, at peak times even 70%. We think this is quite remarkable. Keep in mind, however that the 'total output' figure has not been altered to account for change outputs, mixers, or self-churn; that is, it is the raw and unadjusted figure. The total output value is therefore not an ideal approximation of economic volume on the Bitcoin network.
3.4 Has transaction count become an unreliable measure of Bitcoin's usage because of batching?
Yes. We strongly encourage any analysts, investors, journalists, and developers to look past mere transaction count from now on. The default measure of Bitcoin's performance should be "payments per day" rather than transaction count. This also makes Bitcoin more comparable with other UTXO chains. They generally have significantly variable payments-per-transaction ratios, so just using payments standardizes that. (Stay tuned: Coinmetrics will be rolling out tools to facilitate this very soon.)
More generally, we think that the economic value transmitted on the network is its most fundamental characteristic. Both the naive and the adjusted figures deserve to be considered. Adjusting raw output value is still more art than science, and best practices are still being developed. Again, Coinmetrics is actively developing open-source tools to make these adjustments available.
We started by revisiting the past year in Bitcoin and showed that while the mempool was congested, the community started looking for ways to use the blockspace more efficiently. Attention quickly fell on batching, the practice of combining multiple outputs into a single transaction, for heavy users. We showed how batching works on a technical level and when different exchanges started implementing the technique.
Today, around 12% of all transactions on the Bitcoin network are batched, and these account for about 40% of all outputs and between 30–60% of all transactional value. The fact such that a small set of transactions carries so much economic weight makes us hopeful that Bitcoin still has a lot of room to scale on the base layer, especially if usage trends continue.
Lastly, it's worth noting that the increase in batching on the Bitcoin network may not be entirely due to deliberate action by exchanges, but rather a function of its recessionary behavior in the last few months. Since batching is generally done by large industrial players like exchanges, mixers, payment processors, and mining pools, and unbatched transactions are generally made by normal individuals, the batched/unbatched ratio is also a strong proxy for how much average users are using Bitcoin. Since the collapse in price, it is quite possible that individual usage of Bitcoin decreased while "industrial" usage remained strong. This is speculation, but one explanation for what happened.
Alternatively, the industrial players appear to be taking their role as stewards of the scarce block space more seriously. This is a significant boon to the network, and a nontrivial development in its history. If a culture of parsimony can be encouraged, Bitcoin will be able to compress more data into its block space and everyday users will continue to be able to run nodes for the foreseeable future. We view this as a very positive development. Members of the Bitcoin community that lobbied exchanges to add support for Segwit and batching should be proud of themselves.
Remember that we said that a second way to systematically save transaction fees in the Bitcoin network was to consolidate your UTXOs when fees were low? Looking at the relationship between input count and output count allows us to spot such consolidation phases quite well.
Typically, inputs and outputs move together. When the network is stressed, they decouple. If you look at the above chart carefully, you'll notice that when transactions are elevated (and block space is at a premium), outputs outpace inputs — look at the gaps in May and December 2017. However, prolonged activity always results in fragmented UTXO sets and wallets full of dust, which need to be consolidated. For this, users often wait until pressure on the network has decreased and fees are lower. Thus, after transactions decrease, inputs become more common than outputs. You can see this clearly in February/March 2017.
Here we've taken the ratio of inputs to outputs (which have been smoothed on a trailing 7 day basis). When the ratio is higher, there are more inputs than outputs on that day, and vice versa. You can clearly see the spam attack in summer 2015 in which thousands (possibly millions) of outputs were created and then consolidated. Once the ratio spikes upwards, that's consolidation. The spike in February 2018 after the six weeks of high fees in December 2017 was the most pronounced sigh of relief in Bitcoin's history; the largest ever departure from the in/out ratio norm. There were a huge number of UTXOs to be consolidated.
It's also interesting to note where inputs and outputs cluster. Here we have histograms of transactions with large numbers of inputs or outputs. Unsurprisingly, round numbers are common which shows that exchanges don't publish a transaction every, say, two minutes, but instead wait for 100 or 200 outputs to queue up and then publish their transaction. Curiously, 200-input transactions were more popular than 100-input transactions in the period.
We ran into more curiosities when researching this piece, but we'll leave those for another time.
Future work on batching might focus on:
Determining batched transactions as a portion of (adjusted) economic rather than raw volume
Looking at the behavior of specific exchanges with regards to batching
Investigating how much space and fees could be saved if major exchanges were batching transactions
Lastly, we encourage everyone to run their transactions through the service at transactionfee.info to assess the efficiency of their transactions and determine whether exchanges are being good stewards of the block space.
Antoine Le Calvez has created a series of live-updated charts to track batching and batch sizes, which you can find here.
We'd like to thank 0xB10C for their generous assistance with datasets and advice, the people at Blockchair for providing the core datasets, and David A. Harding for writing the initial piece and answering our questions.
submitted by miguelfranco1412 to 800cc [link] [comments]
Kraken is a good Binance alternative as it is superior to Binance in terms of regulatory status since the company is fully regulated and licensed financial institution. Also, Kraken is one of rare exchanges that can compete with Binance's low fees. They do fall short in terms of listed coins as Binance is absolutely dominating this criterion no matter who is on the other side of the ... An in-depth look into 10 bitcoin alternatives 1. Litecoin (LTC) Created as "the silver to bitcoin's gold" by Google programmer Charlie Lee, Litecoin was launched in October 2011. Though also a peer-to-peer payment currency, Litecoin was designed to offer a few key benefits over bitcoin including reduced transaction fees and faster payment processing. I know you are looking for a Binance alternative and I am glad that you have found the correct page !! But before I tell you the similar sites like Binance, I would like to state a case. Everyone has their favorite cryptocurrency exchange, so does I. But in the cryptosphere, you cannot only rely on your likes and dislikes. I know many of you, just like me are a fan of Binance but there are ... Der Name dieser Bitcoin Alternative legt nahe, dass es ich um eine Variante von Bitcoin handelt, aber es ist eine eigenständige Entwicklung. Einer der Hauptunterschiede ist die Blockgröße. Diese wurde bei Bitcoin Cash zunächst auf ein Limit von 8 MB festgelegt (im Vergleich dazu Bitcoin: 1MB), später erhöhte sich sie weiter. Daraus folgt, dass Skalierungsprobleme, wie wir sie derzeit bei ... Ethereum was launched in 2015 by, the now famous, Vitalik Buterin. Its purpose was to improve upon Bitcoin's technology by introducing a programming language within a blockchain. It is the most famous Bitcoin alternative out there. Latest Coinbase Coupon Found: Verified Staff Pick. $10 Bonus For New Coinbase Users. Receive your $10 bonus when you sign up for a new Coinbase account & trade at ... Binance Research simulated different Bitcoin allocation techniques in existing diversified multi-asset portfolios. All simulated portfolios which included Bitcoin exhibited overall better risk-return profiles than traditional multi-asset class portfolios. These results show that Bitcoin provides active diversification benefits for all investors worldwide, following multi-asset strategies. With ... Global Alternative Investment. When it comes to considering which assets you want to get into for future gains, few are as global and accessible as Bitcoin. It is the rare asset class where people from various walks of life can get into, just add Internet access. Sometimes, you don't even need it, actually.) Bitcoin does not discriminate whether you're on your yacht in the Bahamas or ... An in-depth look into 10 bitcoin alternatives 1. Litecoin (LTC) Created as "the silver to bitcoin's gold" by Google programmer Charlie Lee, Litecoin was launched in October 2011. Though also a peer-to-peer payment currency, Litecoin was designed to offer a few key benefits over bitcoin, including reduced transaction fees and faster payment processing. Binance is looking to consolidate more bitcoin mining hashrate to its pool in Russia and the Central Asia region.. The world's largest crypto exchange is deploying a physical server node for its ... Die besten Bitcoin Exchanges für Trader 2020. Es gibt mittlerweile so gut wie keinen Menschen mehr, der den Bitcoin nicht kennt. Die Kryptowährung hat sich in den letzten Jahren von einem Geheimtipp zu einer schlagfertigen Alternative entwickelt und bildet heute die Grundlage für viele interessante Geschäftsmodelle.
[index] [7498] [1143] [15273] [9038] [5850] [10344] [2828] [3428] [13118] [13002]
Bitcoin Magazine Presents the Final Table for the Binance Charity Poker game 5/15
Binance vs Bittrex compared side-by-side to determine which exchange is best for trading cryptocurrency. After reviewing each exchange, there is a clear winner for buying and selling altcoins. [URGENT] Top 3 BEST Binance US Alternatives For US Citizens CryptoJack. Loading... Unsubscribe from CryptoJack? Cancel Unsubscribe. Working... Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe 74.4K. Loading ... KUCOIN EXCHANGE TUTORIAL! Registrierung, Einzahlung, Trading und KuCoin Shares! Binance Alternative ... Live Hack at CeBIT Global Conferences 2015 - Duration: 1:11:56. cebitchannel Recommended for ... Binance is blocking US residence soon. Are you wondering which alternative Bitcoin and Crypto exchanges to use? If so tune in! Become a CryptosRus INSIDER to gain exclusive insight on the market ... Since Binance is not going to be available in the US anymore after September 12th, here are some alternative exchanges to use. ----- Get Brave a... Bitcoin Magazine Presents the Final Table for the Binance Charity Poker game 5/15 ... Live Bitcoin Poker Night in the Bitcoin Lounge it's Friday NIGHT! - Duration: 4:23:35. Joe Saz 748 views. 4:23 ... Users are rewarded for simply depositing and holding coins on Binance as they normally would. With staking on Binance, users can receive staking rewards all while just being a regular Binance user. Binance US Shutting Down Alternative Bitcoin Fridays Subscribe for more awesome videos and a chance at Free Bitcoin! http://bit.ly/subscribecryptofish ... In this Binance tutorial, we walk you through the ID & Face Verification process which allows you to purchase cryptocurrency (xrp, btc, eth) on the platform. #Binance #BinanceTutorial # ...
binance bitcoin 28nm cpu
binance safe bitcoin purchase
binance openexchangerates bitcoin price
binance aurimas rapalis bitcoin news
binance bitcoin and fintrac
binance bitcoin future 2014 mp3
binance lentinus edodes mycelium bitcoin


text:
Boletus kermesinus es una especie de hongo boleto. Los cuerpos fructíferos son rojo oscuro con un sombrero pegajoso, y poseen un tallo reticulado. Fue descrito en el 2011, únicamente ha sido recolectado en la zona central de Honshu, Japón, donde crece en bosques subalpinos de coníferas.

Referencias

kermesinus

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Is this the most efficient way to simulate a "poker table" seating queue? I need to simulate a poker-table-like queue where the users take their positions based on the first available seat.
I've seen it done with lists, but I have solved it using bitwise ops.
def add_user_to_table(max_users=8):
    global tbl
    # simulate the first position: 00000001
    pos = 1
    # iterate through all positions. break once found empty position
    for i in range (0, max_users):
        if not (tbl & pos):
            # found an empty position...
            # return position, break, etc...
        else:
            # shift the bit 1 position left to check the next position
            # so after the 1st iteration pos will be 00000010
            pos = pos << 1

# main. Define a table with some users seated
# a table with seats 1, 3, 4, 6 taken
tbl = int('00101101', 2)
# now place the user on the first available seat (second seat in this example)
add_user_to_table()

In terms of performance (I will need thousands of tables with dozens of users), will this be the fastest and most efficient way?
Would lists/queues/deques etc. out-perform this method?

A: Your method will probably outperform lists/queues but there's only one way to find out. Simulate! Spawn processes/threads with 1000s of tables with different configs of users.
I bet you would have to do this anyway before releasing your system.

A: If you're going to twiddle bits for efficiency you might as well go all the way and use one of the many cool bit twiddling hacks for doing this kind of thing - see Position of least significant bit that is set
In particular, the for loop you gave for finding the lowest clear bit in the table can be replaced with:
pos = ~tbl & ~(~tbl -1)
If you need to find the number of the bit instead of the actual bit, there are an assortment of cool hacks for doing that quickly as well.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
What Can Maritime Historians Learn from Marine Science? The Concept of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
Poulsen, R. T. & Holm, P., 2007, In: International Journal of Maritime History. 19, 2, p. 89-112
What Can Public Administration Scholars Learn from the Economics Controversies in Public-private Partnerships?
Hodge, G. A. & Greve, C., 2021, In: Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration. 43, 4, p. 219-235 17 p.
What Can Socratic Philosophy Achieve? Plato's Conception of Care in the Light of Christine Korsgaard's Self-constitution
Thaning, M. S. & Gersel, J., May 2020, In: International Journal of Philosophy and Theology. 81, 3, p. 227-245 19 p.
What Can the Philosophical Framework be for a Transdisciplinary Theory of Embodied Interactive Meaning-making Participatory Behavior?
Brier, S., 2018, Gesture, Touch, and Embodied Meaning-making. Odense: Syddansk Universitet, p. 22-23 2 p.
What can Transport Deliver? Contrasting Scenario Pathways with New Technology Penetration
Kobayashi, S., Fulton, L. & Figueroa, M. J., 2017, Davis: University of California Press, 25 p. (Institute of Transportation Studies: Working Paper; No. UCD-ITS-WP-17-02).
What Can We Learn from a Well-Adapted Enterprise System? A Cases Study Approach
Svejvig, P. & Jensen, T. B., 2010. 41 p.
What Comes after, ever Closer Union'? From Teleology and the 'Managerial Constitution' to Democracy
Kjær, P. F., 2016
What Comes After Neoliberalism
Kjær, P. F. (ed.) & Buszewski, S. (ed.), 2020, Berlin : Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog GmbH.
What Comes After Neoliberalism? Four Propositions for a New Law of Political Economy beyond Structural Liberalism and Structural Marxism
Kjær, P. F., 2020, Berlin : Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog GmbH.
What Comes First? Exploring the Causal Effects of Consumer Emotion, Judgment and Willingness to Buy in Relation to Scented Food Products
Beckmann, S. C. & Hansen, T., 2011. 7 p.
What Complexity Assessments can Tell Us about Projects: Dialogue Between Conception and Perception
Geraldi, J., 2009, In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 21, 5, p. 665–678 14 p.
What Constitutes Successful African Enterprises? A Survey of Performance Variations in 210 African Food Processors
Hansen, M. W., Ishengoma, E. K. & Upadhyaya, R., 2018, In: International Journal of Emerging Markets. 13, 6, p. 1835-1854 20 p.
What Constitutes the Focal Points of Corporate Reputation? Product Design as Communication of Identity
Hobolt Jensen, P. & Kristensen, T., 2000, Proceedings of "4th International Conference on Corporate Reputation, Identity and Competitiveness". Copenhagen Business School, 18-20 maj 2000. p. 10
What Counts as Aesthetics in Science? A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of the Scientific Literature from 1970 to 2018
Anglada-Tort, M. & Skov, M., 10 Sep 2020, In: Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 16 p.
What counts as legitimate activism? Challenges to radical activism in (social) media
Uldam, J., 28 Jul 2016.
What Counts Most? How Price, Country of Origin and Nationality Dynamically Affect Consumer Preference
Bagdziunaite, D., Jensen, A. S., Auning-Hansen, J., Clement, J. & Ramsøy, T. Z., 2014, In: NeuroPsychoEconomics Conference Proceedings. 10, p. 39 1 p.
What Dead-and-Dying Platforms do for Internet Studies: Situating Technological Failure, Digital Afterlife, and the Web that Was
McCammon, M., Ruan, L., Miltner, K., Gerrard, Y., Montalbano, K., Mikołajewska-Zając, K. & Marton, A., 2021, Selected Papers in Internet Research 2021: The 22nd Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. Virtual Event. Chicago: AoIR, 21 p. (Selected Papers of Internet Research).
Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Article in proceedings › Communication
What Design and Influencing Factors Impact the Performance of Maritime Business Network? Results from an Empirical Analysis of the Maritime Industry in Bremen
Krajina, D. & Kotzab, H., 2013, Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Logistics: Resilient Supply Chains in an Uncertain Environment. Pawar, K. S. & Rogers, H. (eds.). Nottingham: Nottingham University Business School, p. 391-394
What Determines Joint Venture Termination? A Commentary Essay
Nielsen, B. B., 2012, In: Journal of Business Research. 65, 8, p. 1109-1111 3 p.
What determines patent value? Insights from the semiconductor industry
Reitzig, M., 2003, In: Research Policy. 32, 1, p. 13-26
What Did Greensill Capital Actually Do?
Leaver, A., 15 Apr 2021, In: The Guardian.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Contribution to newspaper - Newspaper article
Nielsen, R. K., 2 Jul 2014, In: Jyllands-Posten. p. 24
Research output: Contribution to journal › Contribution to newspaper - Comment/debate
What Difference do Governments Make? New Public Management Reforms in British and Danish Health Care
Pedersen, A. R. & McGivern, G., 2008, In: Tidsskriftet Politik. 11, 1, p. 65-81 17 p.
What do Big Data do in Global Governance?
Krause Hansen, H. & Porter, T., 2017, In: Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 23, 1, p. 31-42 12 p.
What do Codes of Conduct do? Hybrid Constitutionalization and Militarization in Military Markets
Leander, A., 2012, In: Global Constitutionalism. 1, 1, p. 91-119 29 p.
What Do Consumers' Fund Flows Maximize? Evidence from Their Brokers' Incentives
Christoffersen, S., Evans, R. & Musto, D. K., Feb 2013, In: Journal of Finance. 68, 1, p. 201-235
What do Corporate Staff Employees Learn About During Extended Business Trips: A Case Study of Short-Term Assignments in a Multinational Company
Søderberg, A-M. & Zølner, M., May 2010. 28 p.
What Do Entrepreneurs Talk About When They Talk About Failure?
Gartner, W. B. & Ingram, A. E., 2013. 15 p.
What Does a Fully Circular and Regenerate City Look Like?
Beye, A., 25 Aug 2020, REFLOW Project.
What does an Economic Paradigm Shift Look Like? The Danish Economic Council 1970-2012
Stahl, R. M., 8 Nov 2013. 12 p.
What Does Bankrupt Tell Us About World Polity Theory and Comparative Political Economy?
Campbell, J. L., 2011, In: Socio-Economic Review. 9, 2, p. 376-380
What Does it Mean to Call Someone a Stakeholder?
Archer, M., 2020, The Business of Society.
What Does it Take to Produce Interpretation? Informational, Peircean and Code-Semiotic Views on Biosemiotics
Brier, S. & Joslyn, C., Apr 2013, In: Biosemiotics. 6, 1, p. 143-159
What Does Location Choice Reveal About Knowledge-Seeking Strategies of Emerging Market Multinationals in the EU?
Jindra, B., Hassan, S. S. & Cantner, U., Feb 2016, In: International Business Review. 25, 1, Part A, p. 204-220 17 p.
What does the Minister do?
Holm Pedersen, L., Bhatti, Y. & Hjelmar, U., 2016. 24 p.
What Do I Get? The Everyday Politics of Expectations and the Subprime Crisis
Seabrooke, L., 2010, In: New Political Economy. 15, 1, p. 51-70
What do Numbers do in Global Governance?
Krause Hansen, H. & Porter, T., 2011.
What Do Numbers Do in Transnational Governance?
Krause Hansen, H. & Porter, T., Dec 2012, In: International Political Sociology. 6, 4, p. 409-426
What do patent indicators really measure: testing current theory on value drivers of innovations within a structural two-stage discrete choice simultaneous equation model
Reitzig, M., 2003, København, 25 p.
What Do People Want to Know? Information Avoidance and Food Policy Implications
Reisch, L. A., Sunstein, C. R. & Kaiser, M., Jul 2021, In: Food Policy. 102, 32 p., 102076.
What do Professional Forecasters' Stock Market Expectations Tell Us about Herding, Information Extraction and Beauty Contests?
Rangvid, J., Schmeling, M. & Schrimpf, A., Jan 2013, In: Journal of Empirical Finance. 20, 1, p. 109-129
What do Sociologists Bring to International Political Economy?
Campbell, J. L., 2009, Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy (IPE): IPE as a global conversation. Blyth, M. (ed.). London: Routledge, p. 260-273
What do supply chain managers do? A competence framework for supply chain managers
Gammelgaard, B. & Aagaard Andreassen, M., 2004, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference for Nordic Researchers in Logistics. NOFOMA 2004, 7-8 June, Linköping, Sweden. Aronsson, H. (ed.). p. 203-214
What Do We Know about Going Global Early? Liabilities of Foreignness and Early Internationalizing Firms
Bals, L., Berry, H., Hartmann, E. & Raettich, G., 2013, Philosophy of Science and Meta-Knowledge in International Business and Management . Devinney, T. M., Pedersen, T. & Tihanyi, L. (eds.). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, p. 397-433 (Advances in International Management, Vol. 26).
What Do We Know about the Role the Human Dimension Plays in Shaping a Sustainable Low-carbon Transport Transition?
Figueroa, M. J. & Lah, O., 2020, Energy and Behaviour: Towards a Low Carbon Future. Lopes, M., Antunes, C. H. & Janda, K. B. (eds.). London: Academic Press, p. 177-208 32 p.
What do we know - or not: About Ideas and Politics?
Campbell, J. L., 2008, Institutions and Politics: Festschrift in honour of Ove K. Pedersen. Nedergaard, P. & Campbell, J. L. (eds.). Copenhagen: Djøf Forlag, p. 157-176 20 p.
What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Sustainability? Towards a Definition of Sustainable Tourist Behaviour in Post-pandemic Greenland
Cooper, E., 2020.
What do You Learn from Your Audience?
Horst, M., 2010. 14 p.
What Drives Business Model Adaptation? The Impact of Opportunities, Threats and Strategic Orientation
Saebi, T., Lien, L. B. & Foss, N. J., Oct 2017, In: Long Range Planning. 50, 5, p. 567-581 15 p.
What Drives Ethics Education in Business Schools? Studying Influences on Ethics in the MBA Curriculum
Rasche, A. & Gilbert, D. U., 2015, Handbook on Ethics and Marketing. Nill, A. (ed.). Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 284-301 18 p. (Research Handbooks in Business and Management).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Les Galeries Norgate est le plus ancien centre commercial du Canada. Inauguré le 5 décembre 1950, il est situé sur le Boulevard Décarie, au nord du boulevard de la Côte-Vertu, dans l'arrondissement Saint-Laurent, à Montréal. Ce centre commercial possède un plan en « L », ceinturant un grand parc de stationnement d'où l'on peut accéder aux magasins. Il voisine, à l'est, la station de métro Côte-Vertu.

Histoire

Les Galeries Norgate ont été construites en 1949 par le promoteur immobilier Maxwell Cummings et l'architecte était . Le financement provenait de la famille Lupovich de Montréal. Moe et Sam Lupovich était les propriétaires des textiles Ideal Dress, un chef de file à l'époque de l'industrie du vêtement au Canada. Le centre commercial était toujours propriété de la famille Luponovich en 2010.

Ce centre commercial est le premier à voir le jour à Montréal.

Description
Les Galeries Norgate occupe le quadrilatère boulevard Décarie, boulevard de la Côte-Vertu, rue Saint-Gemain et rue Rochon. Il a une forme en L adossée aux rues Rochon et St-Germain, sur lesquelles se trouvent les entrées de service. Le devant du L, où se trouvent les vitrines des commerçants, fait face au boulevard Décarie et à un vaste stationnement. Une petite allée à la base des deux branches du L, permet d'accéder à la rue Rochon et comporte quelques boutiques. Il ne s'agit pas d'un centre à l'architecture exceptionnelle mais plutôt un bâtiment simple variant entre un et deux étages, selon les besoins des locataires.

De l'autre côté du boulevard Décarie se trouve la station de métro Côte-Vertu et le terminus des autobus de la STM, de la STL et de l'AMT ce qui fait de ce centre commercial un endroit très passant. Il est également situé près des CÉGEP de Vanier et Saint-Laurent, du centre hospitalier de longue durée de Saint-Laurent et du CLSC du même nom. Il a servi de point focal pour le développement de ce secteur de Montréal dans les années 1950 et 1960.

Controverse
Une enquête de la CBC en 2022 révèle que les voitures sont constamment remorquées, à l'aide d'un guetteur sur place et d'une dépanneuse. Les propriétaires ont autorisé le remorquage immédiat pour toute personne qui magasine dans le centre commercial mais qui part faire une course à proximité, même si c'est pour quelques minutes.

Notes et références

Liens externes

Centre commercial à Montréal
Histoire de Montréal
Saint-Laurent (Montréal)
Édifice construit en 1949


Monday is not as bad as we like to fuss about it.
" You're cheating yourself out of today. Today is calling to you, trying to get your attention, but you're stuck on tomorrow, and today trickles away like water down a drain. You wake up the next morning and that today you wasted is gone forever. It's now yesterday. Some of those moments may have had wonderful things in store for you, but now you'll never know.
I'll get through today, whatever it will bring, if you're my tomorrow.
Every morning you have two choices, continue your sleep with dreams or WAKE UP and chase your dreams. THE CHOICE IS YOURS.


Creating content takes a tremendous amount of time and resources. So there's nothing more frustrating than when you create content and your prospects seem to have their heads in the sand.
While it's easy to feel like giving up saying, "I guess content just doesn't work for us," don't. Content marketing has proven to be instrumental in effective sales and marketing efforts. Instead of throwing in the towel, identify what's going wrong and take action to fix it.
In our experience, there are four common reasons that content marketing fails to get traction.
I've covered the importance of buyer personas before, so I don't want to rehash that here. Bottom line is that if you don't know enough about your customers and their issues (from their perspective), then the only thing you can focus on is yourself and your offerings; and that's a recipe for failure. Like it or not, marketing and lead generation are in the publishing business and to succeed you must think like a publisher.
This means you can no longer take a one-size-fits-all approach with the content you create. Just yesterday, I was working with a client on their email newsletter. For several years, they've sent out one newsletter every month to every person in their database.
Yet their database consists of users or their service, the administrators of their service and prospects. This results in an email that everyone receives and no one values. Going forward, we are breaking that email communication into three different communications, geared to the appropriate segment. More work? Yes, but it will also enhance results.
I respond by asking if they've ever searched for a business idea or for information about an issue they're dealing with. I tell them that anyone who has done this, has read a blog. They may not have intended to read a blog, but inevitably their search led to a blog.
A common reason that people don't read an organization's content is because there's no sustained teaching point of view. Ensure that you are creating content that teaches something valuable to your customer. What are the issues that your customers are trying to understand, address and take action on. Even if those issues don't directly relate to your offerings, you'll gain valuable traction by focusing on those topics.
It is a myth that all you have to do is identify some keywords, write content based upon them and wait for the SEO traffic and leads to start flowing. If you want people to know about your content then you have to work almost as hard getting people to be aware of it as you do creating it.
This means that you must highlight your content on all pages of your website, ensuring that the resources and blogs you create are easy to find. You should add links to your blog to your email signature. Salespeople should regularly be sending blog posts and other premium content to their prospects to highlight your insights and demonstrate your thought leadership.
It also means that you must take social media seriously. That means Twitter accounts for the company and for key people that are regular contributors. All customer-facing employees need to be on LinkedIn and spend time contributing to conversations and sharing content.
Building an audience requires consistency. It's funny because I'm writing this at a conference that I happen to be attending with my brother. He made a comment to me that I must feel like I'm a slave to the blog. The reality is quite different. While it certainly takes time and commitment to create the content, the impact it's had on the business far, far outweighs the time and cost.
What I remember being a slave to is making phone calls every day to create any opportunity. I remember struggling to get people to understand who we were, what we did and why it mattered.
Today I get leads while I'm sleeping. When I make outbound calls to new leads, I'm greeted like an old friend. My sales process take less time than ever before. All of this is a result of the commitment Imagine has made to creating content consistently.
Does all of this take time? Yes it does, but the result is that you build a high value asset that scales leads and lowers your sales costs. While you can't directly equate the action to the outcome, the time and costs associated with effective content marketing are well worth it.


(Southern Metropolis Daily) The Case of Alleged Copyright Violation: Why Pirated Eileen Chang Books Are Everywhere. By Tian Zhiling. October 28, 2007.
On September 8, 1995, the talented writer Eileen Chang was found dead lying on a canvas bed in an apartment in Los Angeles, USA. According to the medical examiner, she had been dead three or four days already when found. Apart from a copy of the will mailed to Lin Shitong three years before (in February 1992), Eileen Chang left no word. She did not foresee that she would leave behind a massive fortune that led to copyright disputes. She did not foresee that her will would become an endless controversy.
On September 5, 2007, twelve mainland publishers issued a "joint declaration" in "News Publishing Daily" in which they question the validity of Crown Press (Taiwan)'s claim of owning the copyright to the Eileen Chang copyrights. The declaration stated: "Recently, we found out that Crown Press (Taiwan) is holding an unregistered copy of a will that Eileen Chang has personally stated is 'no longer valid.'" As proof, they offered the February 17, 1992 letter written by Eileen Chang and her estate executive Lin Shitong's essay <Fortunate to have known Eileen Chang>, both of which were published in Crown Press's 1996 book <Magnificence and Bleakness>.
The twelve publishers include Wenhui Publishers, Zhejiang Literature Publishers, Chinese Drama Publishers, Cultural Literature Publishers, Jinghua Publishers, Huashan Literature, Publishers, Chinese Huaqiao Publishers, Jiangsu Literature Publishers, Hunan Literature Publishers and Economic Daily News Publishers. Since the end of 2006, Crown Press has sued six of these publishers for copyright violation for ten book titles and asked that each publisher pay 500,000 yuan in damages. It is alleged that Crown Press intends to sue another dozen more publishers.
When the news about the lawsuit got out, the media were stirred up. On September 27, Crown Press (Taiwan) made a public rebuttal on the charges from the twelve publishers. The core of the debate revolves around two points: First, did the will of Eileen Chang go through the proper legal procedures to become legally valid? Second, if valid, does Eileen Chang's possessions include the copyrights.
The Eileen Chang study expert Jin Hongda is the editor of <The Collected Works of Eileen Chang> published by Anhui Literature Publishers and he has been sued by Crown Press for publishing Huaqiao Publishers' <The Supplement to the Collected Works of Eileen Chang>. Therefore, he played an important role in the declaration.
Jin Hongda told our reporter: "The letter of Eileen Chang and Lin Shitong's memorial essay stated clearly that Eileen Chang sent her will to Lin Shitong and asked whether he was willing to become the executor. If so, the will would be registered. At the time, Lin Shitong did not respond and Eileen Chang did not register. Therefore, this will is no longer valid because one procedural step is missing." Crown Press's lawyer Wang Yun said that this allegation is "deliberately misrepresenting the will and making unreasonable arguments."
At present, both sides are waiting for the court's decision. Once again, Eileen Chang's will and her copyrights have become the center of attention for everybody.
2. Is Lin Shitong the Estate Executor?
On February 14, 1992, Eileen Chang wrote down her Last Will and Testament in the state of California (USA) with two points: "First, when I pass away, I bequeath all my possessions to Stephen and Mae Soong. Second, I wish to be cremated immediately. My ashes shall not be stored, but they shall be spread over a desolate site. If on land, it should be spread widely across an uninhabited area."
Under the "estate executor" section, Eileen Chang put down the name of her Los Angeles friend Lin Shitong. Thirteen days later, Eileen Chang mailed a copy of her will to Lin Shitong. In her letter, she explained that she wanted to ask her uncle to represent her in mainland China and therefore needed a power-of-attorney form. Along the way, she went to the stationery store and purchased a will form. "So that any remaining money does not go to the government." In her letter, Eileen Chang told Lin Shitong: "I'm sorry that I did not ask you. I have included a copy for your reference. Please do not return it to me. The good thing is that the will only costs US$20. If there are problems, then I will set up a new will and this one will be superseded. Apart from some bank savings, I don't have anything valuable. It is very simple. If there is not enough money, Stephen and Mae Soong will make up the difference. Please let me know by calling me in the evening at 477-9453. If this is okay, I will register it."
Lin Shitong was a construction engineer in the United States. Through the introduction of Chuang Zhengxin, he got to know Eileen Chang. Later, Lin became the "agent" for finding apartments for Eileen Chang. According to <Fortunate to have known Eileen Chang>, Eileen Chang was scared of fleas in her last years and kept switching apartments in order to avoid the fleas that were causing her skin diseases. She moved among motels in Los Angeles, changing one every month on the average. Lin Shitong kept finding apartments and motels for her. The first time that Lin Shitong heard Eileen Chang spoke English was when he accompanied her to sign a new apartment lease contract.
As for that will, Lin Shitong recalled later in <Fortunate to have known Eileen Chang>: "... Eileen Chang sent over a letter with a will attached. After I read it, I thought that she was such a strange person to send me a will ... the will mentioned Stephen Soong, whom I don't know. The letter did not include their contact information. It only said that if I didn't want to be the executor, she would find someone else. I thought that this was not real. Wasn't Eileen Chang doing just fine? My mother is a lot older than her and she is doing just fine ... therefore, I put the letter aside and I did not reply to her. But to Eileen Chang, my non-response meant tacit acceptance. Afterwards, we never brought up this subject again. I almost forgot about it. In retrospect, if I knew how much trouble was involved in executing the will, I would have called her up to discuss, at the very least."
Three years passed. On September 8, 1995, Eileen Chang was found dead at her residence. The American female landlord immediately called Lin Shitong, because this is the only friend of Eileen Chang Reyher that she knew. Lin Shitong came over and saw the 75-year-old Eileen Chang lying peacefully on a canvas bed with her head facing the door. Her arms and legs were naturally placed and she appeared peaceful, except that she was quite emaciated. How to deal with Eileen Chang's affairs? Lin Shitong remembered the letter from Eileen Chang three years ago.
With the assistance of a lawyer, Lin Shitong carried out the contents of the will. He sent her possessions in more than a dozen medium-size boxes to Stephen Soong in Hong Kong, and he arranged for the cremation of Eileen Chang's body in Los Angeles. On the day of Eileen Chang's birthday (September 30), Lin Shitong and several other literary friends took the ashes of Eileen Chang and scattered them into the Pacific ocean mixed with red and white roses.
Yet, twelve years later, twelve mainland Chinese publishers detected "questionable points" in Lin Shitong's essay <Fortunate to have known Eileen Chang> and the letter from Eileen Chang to Lin Shitong. Jin Hongda believed that the legal process for the will had not been completed. Eileen Chang wrote "If this is inconvenient for you, I will write another will and this one becomes invalid." She also demanded Lin Shitong's response. But Lin Shitong never responded to Eileen Chang and she never registered the will. Therefore, this is an invalid will.
Crown Press's lawyer Wang Yun said that "this was a deliberate attempt to distort the true meaning of the words of Eileen Chang and Lin Shitong." He quoted Lin Shitong's essay: "But for Eileen Chang, my non-response would mean tacit acceptance" as well as Eileen Chang's March 12, 1992 letter to the Soong that "Lin Shitong agreed to become the executor" as evidence. He also pointed out that page 76 in Crown Press's <Magnificence and Bleakness> has Lin Shitong saying that he had executed faithfully all the requirements in Eileen Chang's will -- immediate cremation, scattering of the ashes in the ocean, sending the possessions to the Soong and so on. Lin Shitong also wrote: "I did everything that she wrote on the will. She would have approved what I did from the heavens above."
Wang Yun asserts: "Eileen Chang appointed Lin Shitong as her estate executor and he carried out all the duties of the will executor. This series of facts is very clear." Publisher Zhi An believes that neither side has sufficient proof and legal professionals should obtain more valid information about Eileen Chang's will in the United States.
3. Why was her estate given to Stephen Soong and Crown Press?
The twelve publishers all have a common question: In her will, why didn't Eileen Chang leave her possessions to her younger brother in Shanghai or the husband of her aunt, or even the daughter of her husband Ferdinand Reyher? Instead, she left her possessions to a friend in Hong Kong? Researcher Zhi An pointed out that apart from the validity of her will, Eileen Chang has a deep historical relationship with the Stephen Soong and Crown Press.
In July 1952, 32-year-old Eileen Chang left Shanghai and went back to Hong Kong University to "resume her studies which had been interrupted by the war." At the time, not many people know who Eileen Chang was. When she passed through customs, a young cadre started to scrap at her golden braces earnestly before declaring that they were only gold-plated. Thus, Eileen Chang was able to enter Hong Kong and found a translation job at the United States Information Services where she wrote the <Rice Sprout Song> and <Naked Earth> as well as getting acquainted with the Soongs.
Stephen Soong graduated from the Yenching University Western Literature Department. He was the director of the Translation Centre at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and he is known for his accomplishments in literary translations and criticisms and the study of <Dream of Red Chamber>. The Soong couple loved literature and got along with Eileen Chang. They became lifelong fans.
Zhi An said: "In 1955, Eileen Chang departed for the United States and got married to Ferdinand Reyher." She wanted to write in English, but her works were not being accepted. From 1956, with the help of Stephen Soong, Eileen Chang wrote a dozen screenplays for Cathay Motion Pictures."
Eileen Chang and Stephen Soong maintained a correspondence over a long time. Many of her works were went to Stephen Soong for review. In the book <Nightmare on the Red Chamber>, Eileen Chang wrote about her correspondence with Stephen Soong about her own progress. Eileen Chang's novel <Classmates> was published recently through her correspondence with Stephen Soong.
An important person who contributed to the fame of Eileen Chang in the second half of the twentieth century was C.T. Hsia. Based upon the recommendation of Stephen Soong, C.T. Hsia began to read the works of Eileen Chang. Zhi An said: "In the publication of the works of Eileen Chang in the 1960's by Crown Press, Stephen Soong played a critical role as the liaison person. Crown Press paid a relatively high fee for her works, and that guaranteed Eileen Chang a relatively decent life in the United States. During Eileen Chang's life, Crown Press published her collected works twice based upon her personally edited versions. Apart from the validity of her will, it is a fact that Eileen Chang has more than forty years of friendship with Stephen Soong and more than thirty years of business relationship with Crown Press."
In 1996, Crown Press published the novel <The Bitter Woman> by Eileen Chang. Since then, almost all of the works of Eileen Chang were published by Crown Press. In 1996, Crown Press published <Rice Sprout Song>, <Collected Short Stories by Eileen Chang> and <Rumors>. IN 1967, Crown Press published <The Relationship of Half a Lifetime>. During the 1970's and 1980's, Crown Press published <Zhang's Views>, <Nightmare of Red Chamber>, <The Sing-song Girls of Shanghai>, <Notes of Regret>, <Remaining Notes> and <Remaining Chapters>. Crown Press also published the <Completed works of Eileen Chang>. Zhi An said: "On account of this history, the Soongs assigned all the copyrights to Crown Press less than one year after Eileen Chang's death."
On January 1, 1996, Stephen and Mae Soong used an authorization letter, a publishing letter and power-of-attorney to give global rights for the publication, distribution, re-publishing and dissemination of the works of Eileen Chang exclusively to Crown Press for perpetuity.
In February 1996, Crown Press publisher Ping Xintao and his son Ping Yun went to meet with Stephen Soong in Hong Kong about the disposition of the possessions of Eileen Chang. Stephen Soong considered that there were so many Eileen Chang fans in Taiwan, and decided to choose "Taiwan as the final place for the possessions of Eileen Chang." "Apart from certain personal correspondence of Eileen Chang and clothing," all other possessions were shipped to Crown Press at the end of February 1996. Over the next few years, Crown Press held many Eileen Chang exhibits to showcase her possessions and works.
On December 3, 1996, Stephen Soong passed away and his assets were given to the widow Mae Soong. On August 30, 2002 and October 17, 2002, Mae Soong signed two authorizations: all rights to edit, publish and distribute the works of Eileen Chang were to be assigned forever globally to Crown Press. From thereon, Crown Press would be responsible for defending the copyrights of Eileen Chang everywhere.
In the joint declaration of the twelve mainland Chinese publishers, Eileen Chang's younger brother Zhang Zijing was still alive in Shanghai and therefore he should be the legal inheritor of the Eileen Chang estate. But Zhi An pointed out that her brother had no idea that she left Shanghai. In 1983, Zhang Zijing eventually made contact with her sister Eileen Chang in America and she only back wrote one letter in which the main point was that she could not send money to her brother: "I can barely get by, and I have no means of assisting you."
Apart from doubting the validity of Eileen Chang's will, the twelve publishers also brought up another issue: Did Eileen Chang's will about her possessions include her copyrights?
Jin Hongda said that based upon the correspondence between Lin Shitong and Stephen after Eileen Chang's demise, she did not speak of her copyrights at all. In the letter dated February 27, 1992 to Lin Shitong, Eileen Chang asked him to become her will executor and stated clearly: "Apart from some money in my bank savings account, I have nothing else. It is very simple."
In the March letter to Stephen Soong, Eileen Chang mentioned how she wanted to deal with her possessions: "If there is any money left: First, please pay some experts to translate; publish the unpublished works; ... Second, buy yourselves something as memorabilia. If there is more money left, I don't want to establish a foundation." Jin Hongda believes that Eileen Chang made no mention of her copyrights. As intangible assets, they must be appraised by the relevant departments and assessed estate taxes.
On this point, Crown Press's lawyer Wang Yun described it as "absurdity." He said that the notarized will of Eileen Chang clearly indicated that "all my possessions go to Stephen and Mae Soong." Legally speaking, this includes all tangible and intangible assets. It does not matter whether one consults any English legal dictionary or follow western custom, one has to reach that same conclusion.
Crown Cress obtained the copyrights to Eileen Chang's works in 1996. In March 1997, it authorized Huacheng Publishers to publish the eleven volume <Collected works of Eileen Chang>. Later, it authorized the Shanghai Antiquity Publishers to issue three Eileen Chang scholarly works: <The Nightmare of Red Chamber> and <The Sing-song Girls of Shanghai, Volumes 1 and 2>. Lawyer Wang Yun said: "Crown Press authorized mainland publishers such as the Shanghai Antiquity Publishers, Harbin Publishers, Tianjin People's Publishers and Beijing October Literature Publisher to publish books. But there has always been a large numger of unauthorized published works of Eileen Chang in mainland China." No Eileen Chang researcher can state for certain just how many Eileen Chang books have been pirated in mainland China.
Eileen Chang's msot famous works appeared between 1943 and 1945 during the era of the war of resistance against the Japanese. After the 1950's, the works of Eileen Chang vanished in mainland literature.
The first time when the mainland Chinese came cross public discussion of Eileen Chang was Zhang Baoxin's November 1981 article <The Legend of Eileen Chang> in <Wenhui Monthly>. In the mid 1980's, <Harvest> published <Love In A Fallen City>. The writer Ke Ling wrote <A Remote Message to Eileen Chang> and C.T. Hsia's <The Modern History of Chinese Literature> generated popular interest in reading Eileen Chang. The January 1985 <Zhang's Views> from the Shanghai bookstore was the first published work of Eileen Chang. In 1986, the People's Publishers issued <Legend>. In retrospect, none of these works were authorized. The work that truly made Eileen Chang popular was the <Collected Works of Eileen Chang> from Anhui Publishers in 1992. For the first time, the totality of the works of Eileen Chang was presented to mainland Chinese readers.
The editor of that work was Jin Hongda, who is a Eileen Chang specialist. He told our reporter that he was already writing a dissertation about Eileen Chang in the late 1970's. "In 1992, we worked through the Ke Ling connection and connected with Eileen Chang's aunt's husband Li Kaidi. We obtained the authorization of Eileen Chang. At the time, the royalty fees were low at about a few dozen yuan per thousand words. Eileen Chang did not accept the money herself. She authorized the publications in order to assist her relatives in mainland China."
According to the recollections of Anhui Publishers chief editor Fei Xian, they had originally treated Eileen Chang as an odd bet. At first, they printed only 3,000 copies. "Then she became popular and the publisher kept re-printing. The pirates also kept printing. Ultimately, we printed one or two hundred thousand copies. The pirates probably printed several times more than we did."
In the <Unfinished Legend>, Chen Yizhen pointed out that Eileen Chang once authorized her aunt's husband Li Kaidi to handle the mainland Chinese copyrights. "But the pirated editions proliferated, and there were more than thirty versions of Eileen Chang's works. When Eileen Chang found out, she was displeased. Li Kaidi asked to be relieved of his duties on grounds of old age." According to Eileen Chang specialist Chen Zishan said that Li Kaidi basically authorized Anhui Publisher's <Collected works of Eileen Chang>, Shanghai Literature Publisher's <Eileen Chang's Unusual Novels> and Zhejiang Publisher's <The Complete Collection of the Essays of Eileen Chang>.
Pei Shanming recalled that Crown Press objected to Anhui Publisher's <Collected Works of Eileen Chang>. They issued a letter of protest to Anhui Publishers to the effect that Crown Press has the right to manage the Chinese editions of the works of Eileen Chang, including the simplified character editions. "The protest did not achieve the desired effect. They spoke to us about collaborating but it was not about the four collections that we chose. Therefore, we did not reach an agreement." Ultimately, Crown Press asked for no more reprints after the authorized period ended.
Until Crown Press obtained the perpetual rights of publication in 1996, there had already been numerous pirated copies of the works of Eileen Chang. Dalian Publishers printed the sixteen volumes of <The Complete Works of Eileen Chang> without authorization, but that was later banned. Crown Press authorized Huacheng Publishers to issue the eleven volumes of the <Collected Works of Eileen Chang>. In 2003, Crown Press authorized Harbin Publishers to publish the <Treasured Complete Works of Eileen Chang>. In 2007, Crown Press authorized Beijing October Publishers to issue the six volume <Collected Works of Eileen Chang> edited by Chen Zishan.
In the meantime, there were large numbers of unauthorized publications of the works of Eileen Chang: Huaqiao Publisher's Eileen Chang series including four works by Eileen Chang; Wenhui Publishing's <Red Rose and White Rose>, China Drama Publishers' <The Bitter Woman>, China Drama Publisher's <The Completed Works of Eileen Chang>. Jinghua Publisher's included unauthorized works of Eileen Chang in its series famous classical works by famous writers. As for individual titles and works collected along with other writers, they are innumerable. In 2005, Crown Press workers found no less than 50 different unauthorized published works by Eileen Chang.
Wang Yun said that Crown Press issued a statement about copyrights in 2003 and stated clearly that opposes the copyright violations by the various publishers. In 2005, Crown Press initiated a legal complaint against Economic News Daily Publishers. But most publishers ignored the action. "The Jinghua Publisher and the Wenhui Publisher published books in violation of the copyrights in 2005."
Netizen Ah Guo is a fan of Eileen Chang. In his blog, he wrote in anger: "The Eileen Chang books that I have on hand are on all contrabands ... basically, the various editions of the works of Eileen Chang are pirated. Eileen Chang has become a person from the northern Song dynasty."
Research Zhi An believes: "Eileen Chang has been dead for only ten years. Even if her copyrights do not belong to Crown Press, it belongs to someone. Any unauthorized publication is a copyright violation. When these publishers say that they want to donate the royalties to establish some kind of organization, I feel that this is not meaningful legally speaking."
5. Crown Press seeks close to 1 million yuan in damages from mainland publishers.
Faced with the many copyright violation cases on mainland China, Crown Press tried to "clean up the mainland Chinese market before entering." At the time, Huacheng Publishers and Shanghai Antiquity Publishers had just reached the end of their three-year authorized period, and Harbin Publisher was just given the rights to publish the fourteen volumes of the <Treasured Collected Works of Eileen Chang>.
On July 18, 2003, Crown Press asked Harbin Publishers to issue the statement: "Harbin Publisher has obtained the sole legal rights for the works of Eileen Chang. All other mainland Chinese illegal publishers which publish, distribute or sell the works must cease their copyright violations immediately." In September, Crown Press boss Ping Xintao also declared that Crown Press owns the rights to all of the works of Eileen Chang.
Lawyer Wang Yun pointed out that these announcements did not have any obvious effects. Afterwards, "the copyright violations by the publishers became more hidden and cunning," such as not stating the printed quantities, or publishing the books in the annotated forms, or combining with the works of other authors, etc.
In October 2005, Crown Press sued Economic Daily News Publishers in the Number One Middle People's Court in Beijing for the illegal publication of <Red Rose and White Rose>, <Zhang's Views> and <Legend>. After court trials at two different levels, the Beijing Supreme People's Court ruled on June 15, 2006 that Economic Daily News must cease its copyright violations as well as pay damages to the amount of 400,000 yuan.
At the end of 2006, Crown Press sued six publishers for ten illegally published books. The complaint asked the publishers to cease their copyright violations, return the copies in the warehouse, destroy the master copies and print plates and pay damages to the amount of 500,000 yuan per book.
Wang Yun said that the amount of 500,000 yuan was brought up because most of the books did not have stated quantities, or else the stated quantities were far lower than the normal amount. "For example, China Drama Publishers said that it had printed 1,000 copies of <Rumors> and <Remaining Notes> and claimed that only 600 or so copies were distributed. But in the lawsuit, Bertelsmann alone was provided with 1,200 copies. Based upon Chinese law, when the rights owner cannot establish the actual number of books sold, he has to right to ask for compensation amount of 500,000 yuan or less. A basic principle of law is that 'nobody is entitled to profit from rights violation.' Not only must the rights violator cease its violations, it must accept responsibility in making economic compensation."
Crown Press claims that it does not receive a cent from any of the compensation paid as a result of these copyright violation cases. Instead, everything goes to Mae Fong Soong, the wife of Stephen Soong and the owner of the rights of the works of Eileen Chang. Furthermore, "the nonchalance and indifference of the twelve mainland Chinese publishers are absolutely incredible in the eyes of overseas publishers and they present a negative view about mainland Chinese publishing. Crown Press can only pursue the legal options to protect the legal rights of the works of Eileen Chang."
Eileen Chang researchers Chen Zishan and Zhi An both said that Eileen Chang was inattentive towards the management of her copyrights. Chen Zishan said: "She kept making a mess out of her affairs." Zhi An said, "Eileen Chang is an unusual type of person who does not care about the things that we care about. It is entirely possible that she did not have a legally perfect will."
Apart from the will stating that "all my possessions go to Stephen and Mae Fong Soong," all of the letters and documents of Eileen Chang show no indication that she had any specific explanation or arrangement about her intellectual property rights. Chen Zishan said that Eileen Chang became popular several years before her death and fanatic fans began to appear. The famous Eileen Chang fan Dai Wencai even picked through her garbage. "She should have realized that her works will be valuable after her death, but she did not."
Zhi An thought that this aspect of Eileen Chang's personality is easy to understand. She was lonely in her final years, she did not open her mailbox for two years and she did not have any friends. She moved constantly to evade fleas and her skin diseases, discarding all her furniture. Lin Shitong wrote that Eileen Chang did not even have a bed at home, and she only wrote on top of cardboard boxes. "I frequently said that it was absurd to believe that Eileen Chang became petty bourgeois. How can the petty bourgeoisie live such a life?" She exiled herself to a place that you cannot possibly go. Normal people cannot do that."
"On the other hand, you have to admit that it is the glory of a writer to become such a fanatic." Zhi An said that the reason why there is such a mass-scale phenomenon of copyright violations is because Eileen Chang is far too "popular." The key is that she has a very large group of Eileen Chang fans.
Zhi An said that among contemporary Chinese writers, no one has as many fans as Eileen Chang. Her influence is divided into many levels: there is the Eileen Chang school and there are the Eileen Chang fans. The Eileen Chang school included the many writers that she influenced, such as Zhu Tianxin and Zhu Tianwen of Taiwan, who imitated her writing style faithfully. Thus, Wang Dewei proclaimed Eileen Chang as the Grandmother Grandmistress while Jia Pingao once said, "It is my fortune to exist in the same world with Eileen Chang."
Next, Eileen Chang has a dedicated group of readers in the world of literature. Zhi An said: "I belong to the second type of people. I have read every word of Eileen Chang. As Hu Lancheng said, I think everything from Eileen Chang is good. More than a decade ago, I read <The Eighteenth Spring> and <The Relationship of Half a Lifetime> in parallel word by word, sentence by sentence. At the third level, there is the general public. The white collar university students belong to this level. Some of Eileen Chang's sayings such as 'be famous early' and 'a little evil, a little bad' are loved by young people. I once went to a university to talk about Eileen Chang, and people were sitting behind me and by my feet. The meeting room was packed."
Zhi An believes that a writer has two types of readers, one could be called literary readers and the other are the social readers. The former loves the works of the writer and the characters and therefore they read the goods. These are the Eileen Chang fans. The other type of people are also called Eileen Chang fans, who buy every book by Eileen Chang even though they don't necessarily read it. "Some university or secondary school students don't know what Eileen Chang wrote, but they know that Ang Lee made the movie <Lust, Caution>. So they go to the bookstore and purchase a copy. This latter type of people makes the number of readers swell and expand the copyright incomes. Unless a writer has this latter type of readers, she cannot sell too many books. This type of people did not exist while Eileen Chang was still alive."
Zhi An concluded that when Eileen Chang handed all her possessions to the Soongs, she did not realize that her works would involve such wealth. "I don't feel that she thought that she was giving any wealth to Stephen Soong."
Eileen Chang obviously did not think or care about the prosperity about her death. The "Eileen Chang fanatic fan" designer Deng Kunyan once said: "When you have an Eileen Chang, you do whatever you have to do at the right time." This saying is very appropriate to those publishers who profited from Eileen Change. A publishing insider said that there is almost no risk involved in publishing the works of Eileen Chang. Apart from the works of Eileen Chang, her biographies are also popular. Shangdong Picture News published <Romance of the brilliant Eileen Chang>, Fudan University Press published <Genuis female writer -- Eileen Chang>, Shaanxi People's Publishers published <Talented woman in a world of chaos -- Eileen Chang>, Shanghai Literature Publishers published <Eileen Chang in America -- Marriage and Later Years>, Guangming Daily Publishing published <The Re-appearance of the Rose: The Eileen Chang Photograph Album>, etc.
In recent years, Eileen Chang continued to be hot through the appearance of previously unpublished works such as <The Classmates> and <The Fragance of Flowers>. Movie adaptations also fan the popularity. Ann Hui's <Love In A Fallen City> and <The Relationship of Half a Lifetime>, Guan Jinpeng's <Red Rose and White Rose>, Hou Xiaoxian's <Flowers of the Sea> and the recent <Lust, Caution> from Ang Lee all brought another wave of Eileen Chang reading. October Literature Publishing recently obtained the rights to <Lust, Caution>. Zhi An said that a friend who never reads Eileen Chang books borrowed this book from him to read. Eileen Chang has become a top brand, as well as a disaster area for copyright violations.


"With classes for both children & adults, INNOVATIONS has indeed 'innovated' opportunities to learn, explore, and develop creative skills. They also feature a lot of events, and rents space to other teachers, organizations, and the community. Perfect place for creativity!"