Join 76,253 users and earn money for participation

CashAccount Report: May2021

2 196 exc boost
Avatar for JonathanSilverblood
Written by   236
5 months ago

It has been a year since I followed up on the adoption metrics for the CashAccounts payment aliasing protocol that stores your data on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.

While there hasn't been any significant recent developments, and users continue to ask on places like twitter and reddit as to why wallet developers haven't adopted the functionality yet, adoption continues to move and shows now signs of slowing down.

Disclaimer: Not all data is good data.

Like last years report, I've decided to exclude the some data that I feel severaly skews the statistics in an unreasonable ways:

bitcoincash: qrdk...3erp (creating one account per block to gather statistics).
bitcoincash:qqrr...xy5p (testing and vast majority of names are ytest).
bitcoincash:qzvm...w4qs (testing and vast majority of names ate testXX).
bitcoincash:qztp...dxe2 (programmatically created and likely test/spam).
bitcoincash:qqrw...2ghc (strong outliers with systematic name luckyXX or forumXX).
bitcoincash:qpeu...d2ds (strong outliers with systematic name pancakeXX).
bitcoincash:qqy9...tgx2 (strong outliers with systematic name ectest).
bitcoincash:qz3x...6x7c (strong outliers with systematic name testse).
baby636 (spammy nature across BCH ecosystem)
BABY636 (spammy nature across BCH ecosystem)

BitcoinCash (variation of Bitcoin)
Bitcoincash (variation of Bitcoin)
bitcoincash (variation of Bitcoin)
Bitcoin (variation of Bitcoin)
bch (variation of Bitcoin)
BCH (variation of Bitcoin)

Test (testing oriented name)
test (testing oriented name)
test2 (testing oriented name)
a (testing oriented name)

CashAccount (variation of CashAccount)
Cashaccount (variation of CashAccount)
cashaccount (variation of CashAccount)

50000 (numerical repetition)
30000 (numerical repetition)
25000 (numerical repetition)
20000 (numerical repetition)
10000 (numerical repetition)
5000 (numerical repetition)
4000 (numerical repetition)
3000 (numerical repetition)
2000 (numerical repetition)
1000 (numerical repetition)
500 (numerical repetition)
100 (numerical repetition)
50 (numerical repetition)
20 (numerical repetition)
10 (numerical repetition)
7 (numerical repetition)
5 (numerical repetition)
1 (numerical repetition)
0 (numerical repetition)

This list is not exhaustive and I know that there's still a some amount of test/experiment related data include, but I believe we get rid of ~90% of the non-user data this way.

Current usage and comparison to last year

year        accounts    unique_names  unique_payloads
----------  ----------  ------------  ---------------
2020:       7882        5241          6741
2021:       19418       12574         17435          

We now have almost 20,000 accounts with about 17500 unique payloads. There has been some growth (+146%) over the year as the adoption rate continues to increase. As always, we can't know how many actual users there are or how many accounts they have on average.

week after release  unique_names  unique payloads
------------------  ------------  ---------------
1                   1064          1092           

The fastest growing week since inception is still the very release week, but on week 90 we hit 970 unique payloads, which is getting close to the same level as the release week.

Looking at the state of the system at the end of the previous report, after the first wallets opted to automatically create cashaccounts for their users, we can see that average new paylods per week is about 220 per week:

week after release  unique_names  unique payloads
------------------  ------------  ---------------
61                  64            80             
62                  80            124            
63                  49            76             
64                  97            113            
65                  577           593            
66                  438           500            
67                  94            147            
68                  97            177            
69                  187           323            
70                  83            134            
71                  98            148            

Looking at the following 42 weeks, we can see a clear growth and only fell back under 100 per week at two occasions:

week after release  unique_names  unique payloads
------------------  ------------  ---------------
72                  199           254            
73                  118           162            
74                  468           496            
75                  74            107            
76                  428           483            
77                  88            143            
78                  135           186            
79                  171           216            
80                  233           290            
81                  126           172            
82                  107           161            
83                  428           504            
84                  148           221            
85                  143           218            
86                  168           237            
87                  160           217            
88                  132           171            
89                  355           397            
90                  924           970            
91                  219           234            
92                  331           362            
93                  159           187            
94                  94            124            
95                  114           155            
96                  113           146            
97                  129           152            
98                  155           260            
99                  163           214            
100                 61            110            
101                 39            72             
102                 64            105            
103                 55            95             
104                 77            138            
105                 99            178            
106                 80            141            
107                 156           284            
108                 180           340            
109                 353           679            
110                 138           229            
111                 127           205            
112                 267           508            
113                 314           606            
114                 252           488            

How has the user experience panned out?

One of the concerns of the CashAccount protocol is that multiple users registering their names at the same time will get longer and longer account identifiers and the value of the system would gradually erode.

Now that we have well over yet another year worth of data, we can take a look to see how common this is, and how strong of an impact it has had.

accounts  percent  account_collision_count  unique_names  unique_payloads
--------  -------  -----------------------  ------------  ---------------
653       3.4      2                        273           371            
116       0.6      3                        38            53             
48        0.2      4                        10            25             
45        0.2      5                        8             12             
6         0.0      6                        1             1              
10        0.1      10                       2             4              
1         0.0      17                       1             1                     

With a total of around 4.5% of registered accounts having had collisions, it now looks better than the 6.5% measured last year, but that might come down to better filtering of systematic, spammy and testing accounts. Regardless, we should quantify how strongly affected the accounts were by the collision mechanic:

accounts  percent  account_collision_length  unique_names  unique_payloads
--------  -------  ------------------------  ------------  ---------------
758       3.9      1                         298           406            
105       0.5      2                         39            64             
14        0.1      3                         6             10             
2         0.0      4                         1             1                         

about 3.9% of the accounts need to use a single extra number in order to ensure uniqueness and 0.5% need to use two digits extra. The system appears to be working as predicted, which is consistent with the fact that there still hasn't been any user complaints or user support requests on this matter the last year.

What about the error rate?

At the start of the system, there was some failed registrations on the blockchain where the party trying to register an account has properly indicated that they want to register a CashAccount by using the CashAccount protocol identifier, but have then failed to follow the specification. In the last year, this statistic has not changed as not a single failed registration has been detected since.

Where do we go from here?

With the protocol having been live for years now, I have found that it's convenient to use for the cases where it works out, but that wallet support is still abysmall. Reusable Private Addresses is still being worked on which would allow CashAccounts to function with reasonable privacy.

To get this system used more, what is needed now is probably a matter of user demand. If you are a user, go ask your wallet of choice to support the aliasing scheme you prefer.

If you are a developer, consider providing extra quality to your users - CashAccounts is a very easy to pick up protocol and it should only take you a few days to get it integrated from a technical standpoint.

Want to get involved? reach out to me on discord, twitter or just write a comment below.

18
$ 244.42
$ 200.00 from @MarcDeMesel
$ 20.00 from @codevalley
$ 10.68 from @TheRandomRewarder
+ 12
Avatar for JonathanSilverblood
Written by   236
5 months ago
Enjoyed this article?  Earn Bitcoin Cash by sharing it! Explain
...and you will also help the author collect more tips.

Comments

Where I can find a link to the website? I think searching for cash accounts will led to unrelated results

$ 0.00
5 months ago

One site you can use is https://cashaccounts.info

$ 0.00
5 months ago