First Peer-Reviewed Academic Bitcoin Journal, Ledger ...

Blockchain in the Public Sector – Webcast Q&A

Blockchain in the Public Sector – Webcast Q&A
Link to our website: https://block.co/blockchain-in-the-public-sector-webcast-qa/
Block.co fourth webcast titled "Digital Transformation of the Public Sector & The Upcoming Legislation of Blockchain Technology in Cyprus” was an immense success. We gathered some of the best experts in the field, Deputy Minister Kyriacos Kokkinos, Jeff Bandman, Steve Tendon, and Christiana Aristidou to share their experience and discuss with us the latest updates regarding Blockchain in the Public Sector.
In its fourth series of webcasts, Block.co gathered 281 people watching the event from 41 different countries, for a two-hour webcast where guests answered participants’ questions. Following the impressive outcome and response we received from the audience, Block.co’s team has done its best to address all the questions for which public information is available.
Below is a list of the questions that were made and were not answered due to time constraints during the webcast. For the remaining questions from our audience, the team will reach out to our distinguished guests to receive their comments and feedback. Please note, that the below information is only for informational purposes!
Question 1:
How can asset tracing be accomplished with bitcoins and cryptocurrency? And how can this be regulated?
Block.co Team Answer:
Digital Asset tracing may be accomplished with cryptocurrency intelligence solutions such as Cipher Trace and the ICE cryptocurrency intelligence program. FATF (Financial Action Task Force) embarked on a program of work from summer 2018 to June 2019 to strengthen and update the provisions dealing with virtual assets and virtual asset service providers. FATF updated Recommendations in October 2018 and Guidance in June 2019 include several new obligations that apply to VASPs. The so-called “Travel Rule” FATF announced in October 2019 agreed on the assessment criteria for how it will assess countries’ compliance with the new global standards. Under the Travel Rule, the transmitter’s financial institutions must include and send information in the transmittal order such as Information about the identity, name, address, and account number of the sender and its financial institution Information about the identity, name, address and account number of the recipient. The ”Travel Rule” is effectively being applied to cryptoasset transfers when there is a virtual asset service provider (VASP) involved. The scope of focus has broadened from “convertible” virtual assets to any virtual asset. Countries should make sure businesses can freeze crypto wallet or exchange accounts for sanctioned individuals.
Question 2:
Which kind of software or technical knowledge is required to develop cryptocurrency?
Block.co Team Answer:
It depends on the type of cryptocurrency you wish to create, as well as the preferred functionality and features, and characteristics of the token or coin (i.e. will it be pre-mined, what type of hashing or cryptographic algorithm will be used (i.e. proof of work (POW) or proof of stake (POS) or a hybrid of both), etc. Likewise, it is useful to utilize a programming language that is broadly used and supported by a vast and active development community; more data could be found here: more information could be found here: top programming languages in 2015/2016, published by IEEE here, and TIOBE. Hypothetically, you can utilize any programming language to make cryptocurrency digital money, however, the most widely recognized are C, C++, Java, Python, Perl. The beauty of cryptocurrencies is that you can literally have access to the entire Bitcoin and Ethereum open-source programming scripts, and create your alternate coin (altcoin).
Question 3:
Hello all, I want to know about the current status of the European Union Blockchain initiative in currency or public identity.
Block.co Team Answer:
Please refer to the European Services Blockchain Infrastructure (EBSI) website.
Question 4:
Mining is also the process of confirmation of transactions in the Bitcoin Blockchain. What is the process of confirmation of transactions in the Blockchain of an Organization? How do we call it?
Block.co Team Answer:
That would depend on the specific consensus algorithm used for the confirmation of transactions. The consensus algorithm is part of the blockchain protocol that defines the rules on how consensus is reached on that blockchain. In order to participate, entities on the blockchain must obey and follow the same consensus algorithm. Make sure to check our glossary for more information.
Question 5:
How does a small business implement blockchain into its current non-blockchain software systems? Who do they hire to install it?
Block.co Team Answer:
It is easy when there are APIs to connect the various software. For more information, you can check Block.co API.
Question 6:
What is your opinion on digitizing developing economies like India by using AI and blockchain?
Block.co Team Answer:
Watch a very interesting webinar on the matter by Mr. Prasanna:
Question 7:
Blockchain technologies have been around since 2008. What would you say has been the biggest obstacle in widespread adoption?
Block.co Team Answer:
In our opinion, the biggest obstacles are volatile cryptoasset prices, complicated UIs, undefined blockchain technology standards. Moreover, the legislation around the technologies is still now being developed and does not offer legal certainty for broader adoption.
Question 8:
Limitations to Blockchain Usability in the Public Sector?
Block.co Team Answer:
Blockchain in the Public Sector, like any other innovative concept with big potential, cannot be a solution to every problem. Users and developers are still figuring out technological and managerial challenges. From a technological perspective, some aspects such as platform scalability, validation methods, data standardization, and systems integration must still be addressed. From a managerial point of view, the questions include business model transformation, incentive structure, and transaction scale, and maturity. Read more here.
Question 9:
How can these blockchain initiatives be practical for the African context
Block.co Team Answer:
As long as the internet infrastructure is in place, these blockchain initiatives may have the same benefits for the African region.
Question 10:
What are some compelling use cases you’ve seen lately, and how do they serve to further legitimize blockchain as a solution?
Block.co Team Answer:
You can see the global trends from all around the world when it comes to further legitimization as a solution, with China leading the way. Read more here.
Question 11:
How does digital currency manage the issue of money laundering?
Block.co Team Answer:
Depends under which context you are looking at the term digital currency. A digital currency usually refers to a balance or a record stored in a distributed database, in an electronic computer database, within digital files or a stored-value card. Some examples of digital currencies are cryptocurrencies, virtual currencies, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and e-Cash. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an intergovernmental body established in 1989 on the initiative of the G7 to develop policies to fight money laundering. Since 2001 FATF is also looking into terrorism financing. The objectives of FATF are to set standards and promote effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing, and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. FATF is a “policy-making body” that works to generate the necessary political will to bring about national legislative and regulatory reforms in these areas. FATF monitors progress in implementing its Recommendations through “peer reviews” (“mutual evaluations”) of member countries. It is the global watchdog for anti-money laundering & counter-terrorist finance. In June 2019, it updated its guidance paper for Virtual Assets Service Providers (VASPs) regarding the transfer of digital assets. There was an insertion of a new interpretive note that sets out the application of the FATF Standards to virtual asset activities and service providers. To apply FATF Recommendations, countries should consider virtual assets as “property,” “proceeds,” “funds,” “funds or other assets,” or other “corresponding value.” Countries should apply the relevant measures under the FATF Recommendations to virtual assets and virtual asset service providers (VASPs). Read more about the FATF recommendations here).

https://preview.redd.it/58tt7mt1pld51.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=d24811c4864ebf02cb9aacc8d6b877a1fbc3756b
Question 12:
To what extent can blockchain be used to improve the privacy of healthcare?
Block.co team Answer:
Please refer to our previous webcast, blog, and articles for more information.
Question 13:
What is Blockchain technology in Shipping?
Block.co team Answer:
The shipping sector has been in the hold of phony maritime institutes charging exorbitant fees via agents, issuing certificates to candidates who do not have the imperative attendance, or those candidates who just pay the fees for the course and ask for the certificate. In view of these fake accreditations, the possibility exists that someone could be harmed or killed, and we could face any number of potential ecological disasters. Having the option to easily verify the genuine origin of a certificate by an approved maritime center is foremost for shipping companies to fast-track their operation and streamline their labor.
Question 14:
Different uses of blockchain other than cryptocurrency?
Block.co team Answer:
Please refer to our blog and glossary.
Question 15:
Upcoming trends in Blockchain concerning Advertising, Marketing, and Public Relations in the Public and Private sectors.
Block.co Team Answer:
Regarding the application of blockchain technology to media copyrights, please see Block.co use case proposal during the Bloomen Ideathon.

https://preview.redd.it/48zc8j38pld51.png?width=3622&format=png&auto=webp&s=79987d1dc7eb8d0c8e32dbce8680b17801d0d244
Question 16:
How to create a decentralized blockchain?
Block.co Team Answer:
An excessive number of individuals feel that blockchain is some supernatural innovation that makes up a decentralized system. In truth, this innovation only enables decentralization. Which means, it permits cryptocurrency to work in a decentralized way. Yet, it doesn’t give any guarantees that it will work that way. Along these lines, it’s really, some outer variables that decide genuine decentralization. Technology, itself never really guarantees it. That is the reason it’s a mistake to expect that if it’s a blockchain — it’s decentralized. From a technical perspective, both blockchains, centralized, and decentralized are comparative, as they take work on distributed peer to peer to network. This implies every node is individually responsible to verify and store the shared ledger. Both Blockchains utilize either a proof-of-work or proof-of-stake mechanisms to make a solitary record and they have to give upper and lower limits on the security and productivity of the system. For more information please refer to our infographic.
Question 17:
Dubai government Blockchain implementation progress?
Block.co Team Answer:
You can see more information here.
Question 18:
How Blockchain and IoT can be integrated to secure data being transmitted through IoT devices.
Block.co Team Answer:
You can read more about it here.
Question 19:
How can the Nigerian government use Blockchain to effectively implement its existing launched eGovernment master plan?
Block.co Team Answer:
Perhaps it can draw its attention to the initiatives of Dubai, Estonia, and Malta to prepare an implementation framework.
Question 20:
What impact is blockchain going to have in today world of business especially in the financial sector
Block.co Team Answer:
Please refer to our recent article titled Benefits of Blockchain Technology in the Banking Industry.
Question 21:
Is Blockchain Technology affect individuals?
Block.co Team Answer:
The social effect of blockchain innovation has just started to be acknowledged and this may simply be a hint of something larger. Cryptocurrencies have raised questions over financial services through digital wallets, and while considering that there are in excess of 3,5 billion individuals on the planet today without access to banking, such a move is surely impactful. Maybe the move for cryptocurrencies will be simpler for developing nations than the process of fiat cash and credit cards. It is like the transformation that developing nations had with mobile phones. It was simpler to acquire mass amounts of mobile phones than to supply another infrastructure for landlines telephones. In addition to giving the underprivileged access to banking services, greater transparency could also raise the profile and effectiveness of charities working in developing countries that fall under corrupt or manipulative governments.
An expanded degree of trust in where the cash goes and whose advantages would without a doubt lead to expanded commitments and backing for the poor in parts of the world that are in urgent need of help. Blockchain technology is well placed to remove the possibility of vote-apparatus and the entirety of different negatives related to the current democratic procedure. Obviously, with new innovation, there are new obstacles and issues that will arise, yet the cycle goes on and those new issues will be comprehended with progressively modern arrangements. A decentralized record would give the entirety of the fundamental information to precisely record votes on an anonymous basis, and check the exactness and whether there had been any manipulation of the voting procedure.
Question 22:
As Andreas Antonopoulos often says in his MOOC: ”is a blockchain even needed?” Ie. Are there better methods?
Block.co Team Answer:
In combination with nascent technologies, IoT, distributed computing, and distributed ledger technologies, governments can provide inventive services and answers for the citizens and local municipalities. Blockchain can provide the component to create a safe framework to deal with these functions. In particular, it can provide a safe interoperable infrastructure that permits all smart city services and capacities to work past presently imagined levels. On the off chance that there were better techniques, they would be researched.
Question 23:
Would any of this be also applicable to the educational sector (as part of the general public sector), and if so in which way?
Block.co Team Answer:
Yes, please refer to our Webcast on Education and our blog post.
Question 24:
Will we be able to get a hold of this recording upon completion of the meeting?
Block.co Team Answer:
Yes, here is a link to the recording of our webcast Blockchain in the Public Sector.
Question 25:
Was wondering if there are any existing universal framework in governing the blockchain technology?
Block.co Team Answer:
The short answer is NO, as this framework is currently being prepared in collaboration with the various Member States.
We would like to thank everyone for attending our webcast and hoping to interact with you in future webinars. If you would like to watch the webinar again, then click here!
For more info, contact Block.co directly or email at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
Tel +357 70007828
Get the latest from Block.co, like and follow us on social media:
✔️Facebook
✔️LinkedIn
✔️Twitter
✔️YouTube
✔️Medium
✔️Instagram
✔️Telegram
✔️Reddit
✔️GitHub
submitted by BlockDotCo to u/BlockDotCo [link] [comments]

A very complete list of bitcoin research articles

A very complete list of bitcoin research articles submitted by Argo_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

AMA: Ask Mike Anything

Hello again. It's been a while.
People have been emailing me about once a week or so for the last year to ask if I'm coming back to Bitcoin now that Bitcoin Cash exists. And a couple of weeks ago I was summoned on a thread called "Ask Mike Hearn Anything", but that was nothing to do with me and I was on holiday in Japan at the time. So I figured I should just answer all the different questions and answers in one place rather than keep doing it individually over email.
Firstly, thanks for the kind words on this sub. I don't take part anymore but I still visit occasionally to see what people are talking about, and the people posting nice messages is a pleasant change from three years ago.
Secondly, who am I? Some new Bitcoiners might not know.
I am Satoshi.
Just kidding. I'm not Satoshi. I was a Bitcoin developer for about five years, from 2010-2015. I was also one of the first Bitcoin users, sending my first coins in April 2009 (to SN), about 4 months after the genesis block. I worked on various things:
You can see a trend here - I was always interested in developing peer to peer decentralised applications that used Bitcoin.
But what I'm best known for is my role in the block size debate/civil war, documented by Nathaniel Popper in the New York Times. I spent most of 2015 writing extensively about why various proposals from the small-block/Blockstream faction weren't going to work (e.g. on replace by fee, lightning network, what would occur if no hard fork happened, soft forks, scaling conferences etc). After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks. They also convinced the miners and wider community to do nothing for years, resulting in the eventual overload of the main network.
I left the project at the start of 2016, documenting my reasons and what I expected to happen in my final essay on Bitcoin in which I said I considered it a failed experiment. Along with the article in the New York Times this pierced the censorship, made the wider world aware of what was going on, and thus my last gift to the community was a 20% drop in price (it soon recovered).

The last two years

Left Bitcoin ... but not decentralisation. After all that went down I started a new project called Corda. You can think of Corda as Bitcoin++, but modified for industrial use cases where a decentralised p2p database is more immediately useful than a new coin.
Corda incorporates many ideas I had back when I was working on Bitcoin but couldn't implement due to lack of time, resources, because of ideological wars or because they were too technically radical for the community. So even though it's doesn't provide a new cryptocurrency out of the box, it might be interesting for the Bitcoin Cash community to study anyway. By resigning myself to Bitcoin's fate and joining R3 I could go back to the drawing board and design with a lot more freedom, creating something inspired by Bitcoin's protocol but incorporating all the experience we gained writing Bitcoin apps over the years.
The most common question I'm asked is whether I'd come back and work on Bitcoin again. The obvious followup question is - come back and work on what? If you want to see some of the ideas I'd have been exploring if things had worked out differently, go read the Corda tech white paper. Here's a few of the things it might be worth asking about:
I don't plan on returning to Bitcoin but if you'd like to know what sort of things I'd have been researching or doing, ask about these things.
edit: Richard pointed out some essays he wrote that might be useful, Enterprise blockchains for cryptocurrency experts and New to Corda? Start here!
submitted by mike_hearn to btc [link] [comments]

Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto

A couple of years ago in the early months of the 2017, I published a piece called Abundance Via Cryptocurrencies (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/69d12a/abundance\_via\_cryptocurrencies/) in which I kind of foresaw the crypto boom that had bitcoin go from $1k to $21k and the alt-coin economy swell up to have more than 60% of the bitcoin market capitalisation. At the time, I spoke of coming out from “the Pit” of conspiracy research and that I was a bit suss on bitcoin’s inception story. At the time I really didn’t see the scaling solution being put forward as being satisfactory and the progress on bitcoin seemed stifled by the politics of the social consensus on an open source protocol so I was looking into alt coins that I thought could perhaps improve upon the shortcomings of bitcoin. In the thread I made someone recommended to have a look at 4chan’s business and finance board. I did end up taking a look at it just as the bull market started to really surge. I found myself in a sea of anonymous posters who threw out all kinds of info and memes about the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of different shitcoins and why they’re all going to have lambos on the moon. I got right in to it, I loved the idea of filtering through all the shitposts and finding the nuggest of truth amongst it all and was deeply immersed in it all as the price of bitcoin surged 20x and alt coins surged 5-10 times against bitcoin themselves. This meant there were many people who chucked in a few grand and bought a stash of alt coins that they thought were gonna be the next big thing and some people ended up with “portfolios” 100-1000x times their initial investment.
To explain what it’s like to be on an anonymous business and finance board populated with incel neets, nazis, capitalist shit posters, autistic geniuses and whoever the hell else was using the board for shilling their coins during a 100x run up is impossible. It’s hilarious, dark, absurd, exciting and ultimately addictive as fuck. You have this app called blockfolio that you check every couple of minutes to see the little green percentages and the neat graphs of your value in dollars or bitcoin over day, week, month or year. Despite my years in the pit researching conspiracy, and my being suss on bitcoin in general I wasn’t anywhere near as distrustful as I should have been of an anonymous business and finance board and although I do genuinely think there are good people out there who are sharing information with one another in good faith and feel very grateful to the anons that have taken their time to write up quality content to educate people they don’t know, I wasn’t really prepared for the level of organisation and sophistication of the efforts groups would go to to deceive in this space.
Over the course of my time in there I watched my portfolio grow to ridiculous numbers relative to what I put in but I could never really bring myself to sell at the top of a pump as I always felt I had done my research on a coin and wanted to hold it for a long time so why would I sell? After some time though I would read about something new or I would find out of dodgy relationships of a coin I had and would want to exit my position and then I would rebalance my portfolio in to a coin I thought was either technologically superior or didn’t have the nefarious connections to people I had come across doing conspiracy research. Because I had been right in to the conspiracy and the decentralisation tropes I guess I always carried a bit of an antiauthoritarian/anarchist bias and despite participating in a ridiculously capitalistic market, was kind of against capitalism and looking to a blockchain protocol to support something along the lines of an open source anarchosyndicalist cryptocommune. I told myself I was investing in the tech and believed in the collective endeavour of the open source project and ultimately had faith some mysterious “they” would develop a protocol that would emancipate us from this debt slavery complex.
As I became more and more aware of how to spot artificial discussion on the chans, I began to seek out further some of the radical projects like vtorrent and skycoin and I guess became a bit carried away from being amidst such ridiculous overt shilling as on the boards so that if you look in my post history you can even see me promoting some of these coins to communities I thought might be sympathetic to their use case. I didn’t see it at the time because I always thought I was holding the coins with the best tech and wanted to ride them up as an investor who believed in them, but this kind of promotion is ultimately just part of a mentality that’s pervasive to the cryptocurrency “community” that insists because it is a decentralised project you have to in a way volunteer to inform people about the coin since the more decentralised ones without premines or DAO structures don’t have marketing budgets, or don’t have marketing teams. In the guise of cultivating a community, groups form together on social media platforms like slack, discord, telegram, twitter and ‘vote’ for different proposals, donate funds to various boards/foundations that are set up to give a “roadmap” for the coins path to greatness and organise marketing efforts on places like reddit, the chans, twitter. That’s for the more grass roots ones at least, there are many that were started as a fork of another coin, or a ICO, airdrop or all these different ways of disseminating a new cryptocurrency or raising funding for promising to develop one. Imagine the operations that can be run by a team that raised millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on their ICOs, especially if they are working in conjunction with a new niche of cryptocurrency media that’s all nepotistic and incestuous.
About a year and a half ago I published another piece called “Bitcoin is about to be dethroned” (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/7ewmuu/bitcoin\_is\_about\_to\_be\_dethroned/) where I felt I had come to realise the scaling debate had been corrupted by a company called Blockstream and they had been paying for social media operations in a fashion not to dissimilar to correct the record or such to control the narrative around the scaling debate and then through deceit and manipulation curated an apparent consensus around their narrative and hijacked the bitcoin name and ticker (BTC). I read the post again just before posting this and decided to refer to it to to add some kind of continuity to my story and hopefully save me writing so much out. Looking back on something you wrote is always a bit cringey especially because I can see that although I had made it a premise post, I was acting pretty confident that I was right and my tongue was acidic because of so much combating of shills on /biz/ but despite the fact I was wrong about the timing I stand by much of what I wrote then and want to expand upon it a bit more now.
The fork of the bitcoin protocol in to bitcoin core (BTC) and bitcoin cash (BCH) is the biggest value fork of the many that have occurred. There were a few others that forked off from the core chain that haven’t had any kind of attention put on them, positive or negative and I guess just keep chugging away as their own implementation. The bitcoin cash chain was supposed to be the camp that backed on chain scaling in the debate, but it turned out not everyone was entirely on board with that and some players/hashpower felt it was better to do a layer two type solution themselves although with bigger blocks servicing the second layer. Throughout what was now emerging as a debate within the BCH camp, Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre of Coin Geek said they were going to support massive on chain scaling, do a node implementation that would aim to restore bitcoin back to the 0.1.0 release which had all kinds of functionality included in it that had later been stripped by Core developers over the years and plan to bankrupt the people from Core who changed their mind on agreeing with on-chain scaling. This lead to a fork off the BCH chain in to bitcoin satoshis vision (BSV) and bitcoin cash ABC.

https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/cbb50c322a2a89f3c627e1680a3f40d4ad3cee5a3fb153e5d6d001bdf85de404

The premise for this post is that Craig S Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. It’s an interesting premise because depending upon your frame of reference the premise may either be a fact or to some too outrageous to even believe as a premise. Yesterday it was announced via CoinGeek that Craig Steven Wright has been granted the copyright claim for both the bitcoin white-paper under the pen name Satoshi Nakamoto and the original 0.1.0 bitcoin software (both of which were marked (c) copyright of satoshi nakamoto. The reactions to the news can kind of be classified in to four different reactions. Those who heard it and rejected it, those who heard it but remained undecided, those who heard it and accepted it, and those who already believed he was. Apparently to many the price was unexpected and such a revelation wasn’t exactly priced in to the market with the price immediately pumping nearly 100% upon the news breaking. However, to some others it was a vindication of something they already believed. This is an interesting phenomena to observe. For many years now I have always occupied a somewhat positively contrarian position to the default narrative put forward to things so it’s not entirely surprising that I find myself in a camp that holds the minority opinion. As you can see in the bitcoin dethroned piece I called Craig fake satoshi, but over the last year and bit I investigated the story around Craig and came to my conclusion that I believed him to be at least a major part of a team of people who worked on the protocol I have to admit that through reading his articles, I have kind of been brought full circle to where my contrarian opinion has me becoming somewhat of an advocate for “the system’.
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-s-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-granted-us-copyright-registrations-for-bitcoin-white-paper-and-code/

When the news dropped, many took to social media to see what everyone was saying about it. On /biz/ a barrage of threads popped up discussing it with many celebrating and many rejecting the significance of such a copyright claim being granted. Immediately in nearly every thread there was a posting of an image of a person from twitter claiming that registering for copyright is an easy process that’s granted automatically unless challenged and so it doesn’t mean anything. This was enough for many to convince them of the insignificance of the revelation because of the comment from a person who claimed to have authority on twitter. Others chimed in to add that in fact there was a review of the copyright registration especially in high profile instances and these reviewers were satisfied with the evidence provided by Craig for the claim. At the moment Craig is being sued by Ira Kleiman for an amount of bitcoin that he believes he is entitled to because of Craig and Ira’s brother Dave working together on bitcoin. He is also engaged in suing a number of people from the cryptocurrency community for libel and defamation after they continued to use their social media/influencer positions to call him a fraud and a liar. He also has a number of patents lodged through his company nChain that are related to blockchain technologies. This has many people up in arms because in their mind Satoshi was part of a cypherpunk movement, wanted anonymity, endorsed what they believed to be an anti state and open source technologies and would use cryptography rather than court to prove his identity and would have no interest in patents.
https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/1fce34a7004759f8db16b2ae9678e9c6db434ff2e399f59b5a537f72eff2c1a1
https://imgur.com/a/aANAsL3)

If you listen to Craig with an open mind, what cannot be denied is the man is bloody smart. Whether he is honest or not is up to you to decide, but personally I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and then cut them off if i find them to be dishonest. What I haven’t really been able to do with my investigation of craig is cut him off. There have been many moments where I disagree with what he has had to say but I don’t think people having an opinion about something that I believe to be incorrect is the same as being a dishonest person. It’s very important to distinguish the two and if you are unable to do so there is a very real risk of you projecting expectations or ideals upon someone based off your ideas of who they are. Many times if someone is telling the truth but you don’t understand it, instead of acknowledging you don’t understand it, you label them as being stupid or dishonest. I think that has happened to an extreme extent with Craig. Let’s take for example the moment when someone in the slack channel asked Craig if he had had his IQ tested and what it was. Craig replied with 179. The vast majority of people on the internet have heard someone quote their IQ before in an argument or the IQ of others and to hear someone say such a score that is actually 6 standard deviations away from the mean score (so probably something like 1/100 000) immediately makes them reject it on the grounds of probability. Craig admits that he’s not the best with people and having worked with/taught many high functioning people (sometimes on the spectrum perhaps) on complex anatomical and physiological systems I have seen some that also share the same difficulties in relating to people and reconciling their genius and understandings with more average intelligences. Before rejecting his claim outright because we don’t understand much of what he says, it would be prudent to first check is there any evidence that may lend support to his claim of a one in a million intelligence quotient.

Craig has mentioned on a number of occasions that he holds a number of different degrees and certifications in relation to law, cryptography, statistics, mathematics, economics, theology, computer science, information technology/security. I guess that does sound like something someone with an extremely high intelligence could achieve. Now I haven’t validated all of them but from a simple check on Charles Sturt’s alumni portal using his birthday of 23rd of October 1970 we can see that he does in fact have 3 Masters and a PhD from Charles Sturt. Other pictures I have seen from his office at nChain have degrees in frames on the wall and a developer published a video titled Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 degrees where he went and validated at least 8 of them I believe. He is recently publishing his Doctorate of Theology through an on-chain social media page that you have to pay a little bit for access to sections of his thesis. It’s titled the gnarled roots of creation. He has also mentioned on a number of occasions his vast industry experience as both a security contractor and business owner. An archive from his LinkedIn can be seen below as well.

LinkedIn - https://archive.is/Q66Gl
https://youtu.be/nXdkczX5mR0 - Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 Degrees
https://www.yours.org/content/gnarled-roots-of-a-creation-mythos-45e69558fae0 - Gnarled Roots of Creation.
In fact here is an on chain collection of articles and videos relating to Craig called the library of craig - https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/94b361b205196560d1bd09e4e3b3ec7ad6bea478af204cabfe243efd8fc944dd


So there is a guy with 17 degrees, a self professed one in a hundred thousand IQ, who’s worked for Australian Federal Police, ASIO, NSA, NASA, ASX. He’s been in Royal Australian Air Force, operated a number of businesses in Australia, published half a dozen academic papers on networks, cryptography, security, taught machine learning and digital forensics at a number of universities and then another few hundred short articles on medium about his work in these various domains, has filed allegedly 700 patents on blockchain related technology that he is going to release on bitcoin sv, copyrighted the name so that he may prevent other competing protocols from using the brand name, that is telling you he is the guy that invented the technology that he has a whole host of other circumstantial evidence to support that, but people won’t believe that because they saw something that a talking head on twitter posted or that a Core Developer said, or a random document that appears online with a C S Wright signature on it that lists access to an address that is actually related to Roger Ver, that’s enough to write him off as a scam. Even then when he publishes a photo of the paper copy which appears to supersede the scanned one, people still don’t readjust their positions on the matter and resort back to “all he has to do is move the coins or sign a tx”.

https://imgur.com/urJbe10

Yes Craig was on the Cypherpunk mailing list back in the day, but that doesn’t mean that he was or is an anarchist. Or that he shares the same ideas that Code Is Law that many from the crypto community like to espouse. I myself have definitely been someone to parrot the phrase myself before reading lots of Craig’s articles and trying to understand where he is coming from. What I have come to learn from listening and reading the man, is that although I might be fed up with the systems we have in place, they still exist to perform important functions within society and because of that the tools we develop to serve us have to exist within that preexisting legal and social framework in order for them to have any chance at achieving global success in replacing fiat money with the first mathematically provably scarce commodity. He says he designed bitcoin to be an immutable data ledger where everyone is forced to be honest, and economically disincentivised to perform attacks within the network because of the logs kept in a Write Once Read Many (WORM) ledger with hierarchical cryptographic keys. In doing so you eliminate 99% of cyber crime, create transparent DAO type organisations that can be audited and fully compliant with legislature that’s developed by policy that comes from direct democratic voting software. Everyone who wants anonymous coins wants to have them so they can do dishonest things, illegal things, buy drugs, launder money, avoid taxes.

Now this triggers me a fair bit as someone who has bought drugs online, who probably hasn’t paid enough tax, who has done illegal things contemplating what it means to have that kind of an evidence ledger, and contemplate a reality where there are anonymous cryptocurrencies, where massive corporations continue to be able to avoid taxes, or where methamphetamine can be sold by the tonne, or where people can be bought and sold. This is the reality of creating technologies that can enable and empower criminals. I know some criminals and regard them as very good friends, but I know there are some criminals that I do not wish to know at all. I know there are people that do horrific things in the world and I know that something that makes it easier for them is having access to funds or the ability to move money around without being detected. I know arms, drugs and people are some of the biggest markets in the world, I know there is more than $50 trillion dollars siphoned in to off shore tax havens from the value generated as the product of human creativity in the economy and how much human charity is squandered through the NGO apparatus. I could go on and on about the crappy things happening in the world but I can also imagine them getting a lot worse with an anonymous cryptocurrency. Not to say that I don’t think there shouldn’t be an anonymous cryptocurrency. If someone makes one that works, they make one that works. Maybe they get to exist for a little while as a honeypot or if they can operate outside the law successfully longer, but bitcoin itself shouldn’t be one. There should be something a level playing field for honest people to interact with sound money. And if they operate within the law, then they will have more than adequate privacy, just they will leave immutable evidence for every transaction that can be used as evidence to build a case against you committing a crime.

His claim is that all the people that are protesting the loudest about him being Satoshi are all the people that are engaged in dishonest business or that have a vested interest in there not being one singular global ledger but rather a whole myriad of alternative currencies that can be pumped and dumped against one another, have all kinds of financial instruments applied to them like futures and then have these exchanges and custodial services not doing any Know Your Customer (KYC) or Anti Money Laundering (AML) processes. Bitcoin SV was delisted by a number of exchanges recently after Craig launched legal action at some twitter crypto influencetalking heads who had continued to call him a fraud and then didn’t back down when the CEO of one of the biggest crypto exchanges told him to drop the case or he would delist his coin. The trolls of twitter all chimed in in support of those who have now been served with papers for defamation and libel and Craig even put out a bitcoin reward for a DOX on one of the people who had been particularly abusive to him on twitter. A big european exchange then conducted a twitter poll to determine whether or not BSV should be delisted as either (yes, it’s toxic or no) and when a few hundred votes were in favour of delisting it (which can be bought for a couple of bucks/100 votes). Shortly after Craig was delisted, news began to break of a US dollar stable coin called USDT potentially not being fully solvent for it’s apparent 1:1 backing of the token to dollars in the bank. Binance suffered an alleged exchange hack with 7000 BTC “stolen” and the site suspending withdrawals and deposits for a week. Binance holds 800m USDT for their US dollar markets and immediately once the deposits and withdrawals were suspended there was a massive pump for BTC in the USDT markets as people sought to exit their potentially not 1:1 backed token for bitcoin. The CEO of this exchange has the business registered out of Malta, no physical premises, the CEO stays hotel room to hotel room around the world, has all kind of trading competitions and the binance launchpad, uses an unregistered security to collect fees ($450m during the bear market) from the trading of the hundreds of coins that it lists on its exchange and has no regard for AML and KYC laws. Craig said he himself was able to create 100 gmail accounts in a day and create binance accounts with each of those gmail accounts and from the same wallet, deposit and withdraw 1 bitcoin into each of those in one day ($8000 x 100) without facing any restrictions or triggering any alerts or such.
This post could ramble on for ever and ever exposing the complexities of the rabbit hole but I wanted to offer some perspective on what’s been happening in the space. What is being built on the bitcoin SV blockchain is something that I can only partially comprehend but even from my limited understanding of what it is to become, I can see that the entirety of the crypto community is extremely threatened as it renders all the various alt coins and alt coin exchanges obsolete. It makes criminals play by the rules, it removes any power from the developer groups and turns the blockchain and the miners in to economies of scale where the blockchain acts as a serverless database, the miners provide computational resources/storage/RAM and you interact with a virtual machine through a monitor and keyboard plugged in to an ethernet port. It will be like something that takes us from a type 0 to a type 1 civilisation. There are many that like to keep us in the quagmire of corruption and criminality as it lines their pockets. Much much more can be read about the Cartel in crypto in the archive below. Is it possible this cartel has the resources to mount such a successful psychological operation on the cryptocurrency community that they manage to convince everyone that Craig is the bad guy, when he’s the only one calling for regulation, the application of the law, the storage of immutable records onchain to comply with banking secrecy laws, for Global Sound Money?

https://archive.fo/lk1lH#selection-3671.46-3671.55

Please note, where possible, images were uploaded onto the bitcoin sv blockchain through bitstagram paying about 10c a pop. If I wished I could then use an application etch and archive this post to the chain to be immutably stored. If this publishing forum was on chain too it would mean that when I do the archive the images that are in the bitstragram links (but stored in the bitcoin blockchain/database already) could be referenced in the archive by their txid so that they don’t have to be stored again and thus bringing the cost of the archive down to only the html and css.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

在人脸识别数据库之后,中国3.64 亿社交媒体监视数据库外泄,包括 QQ 微信 YY 苹果云上贵州服务器 淘宝旺旺 QQ群,这些账户还被关联到用户的真实身份。

在人脸识别数据库之后,安全研究人员 Victor Gevers 报告了一个外泄的社交媒体监视数据库,包括了 3.64 亿用户的资料和聊天记录,这些账户还被关联到用户的真实身份。这并不令人感到意外,中国的社交网络已经全面推行后台实名制,通常是关联手机号码,而手机号码已完成了实名制推广工作。这个数据库监视的平台包括了腾讯旗下的 QQ 和微信,这两个服务在中国都有数以亿计的用户。
https://twitter.com/0xDUDE/status/1101909112131080192
Can anyone (from China) identify these Messaging services?

qg <-- QQ_group
qqmesg. <-- https://www.imqq.com/
wwmsg <--. WangwangAlibaban~Taobao
imsg – iMessage
qqmesg – Tencent QQ
wxmsg – Weixin, aka WeChat
yymsg – YY (China’s twitch)

In China, they have a surveillance program on social networks which looks like a jerry-rigged PRISM clone of the NSA.
So this social media surveillance program is retrieving (private) messages per province from 6 social platforms and extracts named, ID numbers, ID photos, GPS locations, network information, and all the conversations and file transfers get imported into a large online database.
Around 364 million online profiles and their chats & file transfers get processed daily. Then these accounts get linked to a real ID/person. The data is then distributed over police stations per city/province to separate operators databases with the same surveillance network name
With these "operator databases" the local law enforcement investigate 2600 to 2900 messages and profiles. The name new table per day to keep track of the progress. So they manually review the social media communication (public/private messages).
And the most remarkable part is that this network syncs all this data to open MongoDBs in 18 locations. "r_Capture_Time" : "2019-03-03 02:58:08.0", "r_QQMsg" : "2019-03-03 02:58:08 \"ζ°? 、XXX丶ζ说:!收【【【46--48道士号】】】卖的微信XXXXXXXXXXXぁ"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0woGfKWsAEEDbM.jpg
Victor,in China ISP use this software
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0ve-qPV4AA0Tl-.jpg
Massive Database Leak Gives Us a Window into China’s Digital Surveillance State
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/massive-database-leak-gives-us-window-chinas-digital-surveillance-state

Earlier this month, security researcher Victor Gevers found and disclosed an exposed database live-tracking the locations of about 2.6 million residents of Xinjiang, China, offering a window into what a digital surveillance state looks like in the 21st century.
Xinjiang is China’s largest province, and home to China’s Uighurs, a Turkic minority group. Here, the Chinese government has implemented a testbed police state where an estimated 1 million individuals from these minority groups have been arbitrarily detained. Among the detainees are academics, writers, engineers, and relatives of Uighurs in exile. Many Uighurs abroad worry for their missing family members, who they haven’t heard from for several months and, in some cases, over a year.
Although relatively little news gets out of Xinjiang to the rest of the world, we’ve known for over a year that China has been testing facial-recognition tracking and alert systems across Xinjiang and mandating the collection of biometric data—including DNA samples, voice samples, fingerprints, and iris scans—from all residents between the ages of 12 and 65. Reports from the province in 2016 indicated that Xinjiang residents can be questioned over the use of mobile and Internet tools; just having WhatsApp or Skype installed on your phone is classified as “subversive behavior.” Since 2017, the authorities have instructed all Xinjiang mobile phone users to install a spyware app in order to “prevent [them] from accessing terrorist information.”
The prevailing evidence of mass detention centers and newly-erected surveillance systems shows that China has been pouring billions of dollars into physical and digital means of pervasive surveillance in Xinjiang and other regions. But it’s often unclear to what extent these projects operate as real, functional high-tech surveillance, and how much they are primarily intended as a sort of “security theater”: a public display of oppression and control to intimidate and silence dissent.
Now, this security leak shows just how extensively China is tracking its Xinjiang residents: how parts of that system work, and what parts don’t. It demonstrates that the surveillance is real, even as it raises questions about the competence of its operators.

A Brief Window into China’s Digital Police State

Earlier this month, Gevers discovered an insecure MongoDB database filled with records tracking the location and personal information of 2.6 million people located in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The records include individuals’ national ID number, ethnicity, nationality, phone number, date of birth, home address, employer, and photos.
Over a period of 24 hours, 6.7 million individual GPS coordinates were streamed to and collected by the database, linking individuals to various public camera streams and identification checkpoints associated with location tags such as “hotel,” “mosque,” and “police station.” The GPS coordinates were all located within Xinjiang.
This database is owned by the company SenseNets, a private AI company advertising facial recognition and crowd analysis technologies.
A couple of days later, Gevers reported a second open database tracking the movement of millions of cars and pedestrians. Violations like jaywalking, speeding, and going through a red-light are detected, trigger the camera to take a photo, and ping a WeChat API, presumably to try and tie the event to an identity.

Database Exposed to Anyone with an Internet Connection for Half a Year

China may have a working surveillance program in Xinjiang, but it’s a shockingly insecure security state. Anyone with an Internet connection had access to this massive honeypot of information.
Gevers also found evidence that these servers were previously accessed by other known global entities such as a Bitcoin ransomware actor, who had left behind entries in the database. To top it off, this server was also vulnerable to several known exploits.
In addition to this particular surveillance database, a Chinese cybersecurity firm revealed that at least 468 MongoDB servers had been exposed to the public Internet after Gevers and other security researchers started reporting them. Among these instances: databases containing detailed information about remote access consoles owned by China General Nuclear Power Group, and GPS coordinates of bike rentals.

A Model Surveillance State for China

China, like many other state actors, may simply be willing to tolerate sloppy engineering if its private contractors can reasonably claim to be delivering the goods. Last year, the government spent an extra $3 billion on security-related constructionin Xinjiang, and the New York Times reported that China’s police planned to spend an additional $30 billion on surveillance in the future. Even poorly-executed surveillance is massively expensive, and Beijing is no doubt telling the people of Xinjiang that these investments are being made in the name of their own security. But the truth, revealed only through security failures and careful security research, tells a different story: China’s leaders seem to care little for the privacy, or the freedom, of millions of its citizens.
https://www.reddit.com/4832/comments/ax7e5s/%E9%BB%91%E5%AE%A2%E5%A4%A7%E6%8F%AD%E7%A7%98_%E6%8E%8C%E6%8F%A1%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E7%9B%91%E8%A7%86%E7%BD%91%E6%B0%91%E9%93%81%E8%AF%81/ 2019年3月4日,中国线民翻墙转贴,但相关资讯很快遭封杀。(推特截图)
中国监控网民在社交媒体活动的行为虽然早已公开化,但中方一直拒绝承认,亦没有收敛的意图。但是,一名黑客周一(4日)发布大量中国监控网民的证据,反映微信及QQ等聊天平台全无隐私保障,且随著中国网络公司的海外扩张,对其他国家构成严重威胁。

据网名Victor Gevers 的网络从业人士周一(4日)在推特透露,在中国电信骨干网的人脸识别数据库后,发现了18个分布式数据库,里面包含了微信、QQ、旺旺等6家社交网站的明文数据库,完整地记录了至少从2018年以来的这些用户的聊天记录。

此外,该监控系统每天大约处理3亿6千多万个在线个人资料及其聊天、文件传输,能检索每一个用户的私人信息,并提取名字、ID号、ID照片、GPS位置、网络信息,并将所有的对话和文件,传输在线数据库,并将这些私人信息和数据同步到每个省市警方。

根据这些数据库,各地的执法部门会调查2600到2900条消息和配置文件,并根据需要进行手动审查。

据悉,该黑客在数据库里逛了整整两周,看这些网民聊天,直到最后他通知运营商,他进了他们的数据库,然后,运营商才关闭了这18个数据库的访问。

据要求匿名的知情人告诉本台记者,骨干网,都是归属于运营商,是非常重要的网络,成本很高,一般不会商用,而官方将政府监控项目放在上面,也是为了让全国的警察能快速调取。

曾引言获罪被关押长达10年的维权人士任自元表示,这样监控系统,在中国很平常,并且随著技术的升级,他们已能做到动用机器筛选,然后再有针对性的转人工审查。对这样的监控项目,一直是中国政府最看重的事情之一。

任自元说:任何人的(资料)都在那儿,每个人的他都掌握。他已经可以做到这个了。对它来说,这是它的头等大事啊。它是由系统自动甄别的,然后系统自动甄别,再挑选一部分转人工啊。这个负责审查的人,它要调所有的看呀,他这样干。一些不重要的、保存一定时间之后会被删掉,自动删除的。反正公安系统的人都知道,他们自己的,也被监控的。老百姓很多不知道的。

熟知中美两国情况的杨宁远博士指出,在中国生活,被监控是普通的事情,只是这次被人发现了证据。他认为,在一个没有法制,可以随时践踏人权和法制的国家,这样的现象不足为奇。

杨宁远说:就是说现在发现证据了嘛,大家的言行被监控的了。我看到这个我觉得一点都不奇怪。这么多年,我这个手机被监控,我的所有的信息都被人看。在一个人可以随便失踪,被随便抓的国家,在一个冤假错案可以不平反,可以指鹿为马的国家,出现这种事情那太正常了嘛。

据知情人透露,随著大量海外人士使用微信和QQ等中国聊天软件,甚至用这些软件谈论和传递工作信息,也导致他们的信息已经没有任何秘密可言。

此外,随著此事被网民们从推特截图并转发到国内,引发了广泛的关注,但也因此给翻墙截图的网民带来危险。一位网民告诉本台记者,他现在只能迅速消除痕迹以免被抓。

本台致电运营商中网在线,但该公司的公开电话无人接听,并被自动转到了语音留言。

中国政府监视民众的通讯,一直是公开的秘密。但随著互联网的兴起,以及中国在通讯领域的迅速扩张,利用网络监控民众,也变得更为便捷。同时,中国的军情系统也不遗馀力地通过向海外推广微信等中国聊天软件,试图获取更多其它国家和民众的有价值的信息。


RFA 黄小山 / 覃晓言 2019-03-04
submitted by bilibilixionggui to saraba1st [link] [comments]

February report on ConsenSys spoke developments

We've got a full report on what the spokes at ConsenSys have been up to. Check out more here.
EDIT: Fixed broken link (Infura - Investing in the Decentralization of Ethereum” - Thanks u/shazow!)

Alethio

A comprehensive suite of blockchain exploration, analysis, and forecasting products for the Ethereum network.

Allinfra

All infrastructure, for all — platform for the tokenization of large scale unlisted infrastructure.

Bounties Network

Freelance task fulfillment, paying out in any Ethereum token upon successful completion.

Decrypt Media

A daily news site covering all things crypto and the advent of the decentralized web.

Endjinn

Simulate your key token mechanisms to get on the awesome future usage timeline.

Fathom

A decentralized peer assessment protocol forming the foundation of a universal academic system.

Gitcoin

The easiest way to leverage the open source community to incentivize or monetize work.

Grid+

Leverages the public Ethereum blockchain to give consumers direct access to wholesale energy markets.

Helena

A decentralized platform for curated fundamental token research and analysis.

Infura

A scalable, standards-based, globally distributed cluster and API endpoint for Ethereum, IPFS, and other infrastructures.

Kaleido

An all-in-one enterprise SaaS platform that radically simplifies the creation and operation of secure blockchain networks and accelerates the journey from PoC to Production.

Kauri

The Ethereum community’s technical knowledge network.

Liquality

Swap cryptocurrencies without middlemen.

LitePaper

A simple knowledge base for the crypto-verse.

Meridio

A blockchain platform for creating, managing, and transferring fractional real estate ownership.

MetaMask

MetaMask is a browser extension that allows you to run Ethereum dApps right in your browser without running a full Ethereum node.

Nethereum

A .NET integration library for Ethereum allowing users to interact with Ethereum clients like Geth or Parity using RPC.

OpenLaw

A blockchain-based protocol for the creation and execution of legal agreements in a user-friendly, compliant way.

PegaSys

A protocol engineering team building Ethereum tech for the public chain community and leading enterprises.

Rhombus

Securely connects smart contracts with accurate, computable real-world data.

Truffle

A development environment, testing framework, and asset pipeline for Ethereum-based smart contracts and dapps.

TruSet

Building multi-sided marketplaces to collect, validate, publish, and commercialize business-critical reference data.

uPort

A self-sovereign identity management platform that allows users to register their own identity on Ethereum, send and request credentials, sign transactions, and securely manage keys and data.
submitted by ConsenSys_Socialite to ethereum [link] [comments]

[Thursday, 17. October]

World News

The largest dark web child pornography site in the world has been taken down after IRS followed Bitcoin transactions
Comments | Link
Quebec to offer legal cannabis at $4.49 a gram, beating grey-market price
Comments | Link
HK protesters demand CCTV footage from Tiu Keng Leng school following death of 15-year-old student: Chan, a swimmer and a regular participant in the ongoing protests was last seen on Sept 19. Her body was found naked in the sea three days later.
Comments | Link

All news, US and international.

US Hearthstone players banned for Hong Kong protest
Comments | Link
A Lakers Fan Raised Almost $43k to Hand Out "Stand with Hong Kong" T-Shirts at the Season Opener
Comments | Link
Elijah Cummings, esteemed longtime Baltimore congressman, has died at 68
Comments | Link

Science

From 2007 to 2017, the number of suicides among people ages 10 to 24 increased 56 percent
Comments | Link
The “kids these days effect”, people’s tendency to believe “kids these days” are deficient relative to those of previous generations, has been happening for millennia, suggests a new study (n=3,458). When observing current children, we compare our biased memory to the present and a decline appears.
Comments | Link
The largest-ever natural experiment on wealth taxes found that they work as intended — both raising revenue and controlling income inequality. The taxes had the greatest impact on the top .1% wealthiest.
Comments | Link

/Technology

New Bill Promises an End to Our Privacy Nightmare, Jail Time to CEOs Who Lie: "Mark Zuckerberg won’t take Americans’ privacy seriously unless he feels personal consequences. Under my bill he’d face jail time for lying to the government," Sen. Ron Wyden said.
Comments | Link
The Public Is Clearly on the Side of Net Neutrality
Comments | Link
Marc Benioff says it's time to break up Facebook
Comments | Link

Sadly, this is not the Onion.

8 families find out they have been paying respects to the wrong graves for 39 years
Comments | Link
Paris zoo unveils the blob, an organism with no brain but 720 sexes
Comments | Link
Mum of 44 kids banned from having any more children
Comments | Link

Ask Reddit...

What is something most people need to hear but no one has the guts to tell people?
Comments
What would be the worst possible movie quote to yell as you climax?
Comments
Successful people who got crappy grades in high school or college - what are you doing now and how did (or didn't) your grades affect your success/career?
Comments

Sysadmin

Run from Adobe Creative Cloud
Comments
Rant: Make the password "1234"
Comments
Amazon’s Consumer Business Just Turned off its Final Oracle Database
Comments

Microsoft SQL Server

Favorite resources to learn SSRS and SSIS?
Comments

PowerShell

'DarkMode' in Azure Network Topology Visualizer
Comments
Best way to start learning Powershell?
Comments
PSUrlScanio - Powershell module for using the urlscan.io API. (v1.0 release)
Comments

Functional 3D Printing

A simple cover for our laundry room connections, pun added by the missus
Comments | Link
Needed a new dog treat lid. Flexible print.
Comments | Link
Drilling guide to find the middle of the wood and make a nice vertical hole :)
Comments | Link

Data Is Beautiful

[OC] Top 5 accidental causes of death in Chicago, IL
Comments | Link
Color-Balancing Vote Margins and Vote Totals in the US Election Map [OC]
Comments | Link
[OC] Highly rated horror movies are less likely to have many jump scares
Comments | Link

Today I Learned (TIL)

TIL that after years of competition between Chuck E Cheese and Showbiz Pizza, Chuck E Cheese went bankrupt and was bought by Showbiz Pizza, who then proceeded to rebrand their locations as Chuck E Cheese.
Comments | Link
TIL 5-10% of Melanesians (a dark-skinned Pacific Island people) have blonde hair. This is not due to mixture with European populations, but rather due to an independently arising mutation.
Comments | Link
TIL that according to Graham Nash, Jimi Hendrix was unbeatable at the game Risk, especially while on LSD.
Comments | Link

So many books, so little time

Anyone else re-read old favourites for stress relief?
Comments
Almost finished reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to my son for the first time!
Comments
Dracula
Comments

OldSchoolCool: History's cool kids, looking fantastic

The note my dad wrote to my mom on the back of his high school portrait when they were seniors. They ended up going to prom together and have now been married for 29 years :)
Comments | Link
After the assassination of senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, a lot of Americans went to see his funeral car as it traveled by rail from New York to Washington. A photographer who traveled with the casket took this photo as the train passed through Baltimore.
Comments | Link
Kid with Power Glove circa 1989
Comments | Link

aviation

Aww, now he can fly with the-
Comments | Link
Last flight to land in Jazan airport, saudi arabia before the airport close down due to massive sandstorm.
Comments | Link
Layers upon layers
Comments | Link

Reddit Pics

Though it has been around since the 1950s, the rockabilly culture is still going strong in Japan!
Comments | Link
10 year old kid standing tall after being arrested in Hong Kong for shouting “revolution of our time, glory to Hong Kong”
Comments | Link
A shirt I gifted my sister in 2013
Comments | Link

.gifs - funny, animated gifs for your viewing pleasure

The true heros of the sea
Comments | Link
Where did the human go?
Comments | Link
A breathtaking view of Switzerland from this hotel's pool
Comments | Link

A subreddit for cute and cuddly pictures

Golden boy gets distracted by another handsome golden boy.
Comments | Link
Bobcat after a boy saved him from a fire (not my clip btw)
Comments | Link
Does this mean we are Best Friends Now?
Comments | Link
submitted by DangerDylan to DangerDylanTLDR [link] [comments]

How PUBLISHprotocol uses blockchain technology to restore trust in journalism

How PUBLISHprotocol uses blockchain technology to restore trust in journalism

https://preview.redd.it/kap4cyna5qy21.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=30c2471f70434a9ececdc745043a014a19c8b99b
Fake news. Misinformation. Disinformation. Whatever you choose to call it and however serious the problem may be, it goes without saying that public perception of the media is at an all time low.
A survey conducted by the European Commission between November 13, 2017 and February 23, 2018 found that 99% of those surveyed claimed to have been exposed to fake news, mostly through social media platforms such as Facebook. A separate 2018 survey conducted by the PEW Research Center found that while more than two-thirds of US adults at least occasionally get news from social media platforms, a majority (57%) of these consumers say they expect the news they see to be largely inaccurate.
Facebook has taken steps to crack down on bad actors responsible for fake news within its ecosystem, but there’s only so much one can do in this age of unfettered permissionless publishing.

PUBLISHprotocol as a solution

Instead of trying to fight fake news at its source, PUBLISHprotocol offers a trusted platform for legitimate publishers as a means of restoring confidence in quality journalism and mitigating the influence of bad actors.
Through PUBLISHsoft, our proprietary blockchain-based content management system, publishers will have the option of publishing content in blockchain transaction comments, thereby rendering the content immutable and tamper-evident.
We’ve identified the FLO blockchain as a preferred blockchain for this because of its metadata feature and integration with the Open Index Protocol, which provides a standard for uploading content to the FLO blockchain.
In the beginning, the comments will include the article’s content, the time and date of submission, and the name of the writer. They will also include a hash of the article as stored on a distributed storage system (e.g., the IPFS), along with any files (e.g. pictures, videos) included in the original submission but deemed too unwieldy for blockchain transaction comments.
Publishers will nonetheless retain the ability to add, edit or delete content in the interest of maintaining their own voice. However, any modifications or retractions will remain visible for all to see via a blockchain explorer, thereby serving as a stamp of integrity and helping to restore trust among publishers that commit a certain percentage of news articles to the blockchain.

Looking forward

In the future, blockchain transaction comments will become more standardized in an effort to build a global database of articles that can be easily indexed, searched, and distributed. To achieve this, PUBLISHprotocol has entered into a strategic partnership with Alexandria and joined the IPTC to develop the world’s first standard for news dissemination using blockchain technology.

Did you know?

The idea of time-stamping digital documents using blockchain technology is not new. In his 2008 white paper ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,’ Satoshi Nakamoto includes references to three works by cryptographers Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta, the earliest of which dates back to 1991 and describes a procedure for time-stamping digital documents.
The duo, regarded by some as the co-inventors of blockchain technology, wanted to implement a system whereby a digital file (e.g., text, picture, video) could be rendered tamper-evident. In 1994 — 14 years before the conception of the Bitcoin network — they launched an information assurance software and services company called Surety along with its flagship service, AbsoluteProof.
According to its website, AbsoluteProof is “a cryptographic timestamping service that enables organizations or individuals to apply tamper-evident digital ‘Seals’ to all forms of digital information, providing long-term and independent proof that the information existed at a particular point in time and has not been altered since.” Similar to Bitcoin, the mechanism uses hash chain linking to attest to the authenticity of a document.

About PUBLISH, Inc.

PUBLISH, Inc. is blockchain-based software solutions provider for newspaper businesses. Its mission is to secure the editorial and financial independence of newspaper businesses using blockchain technology. Its initiatives include PUBLISHprotocol, an open source blockchain media protocol that promotes a participatory mode of news production and consumption; PUBLISHalliance, a consortium of media enterprises, technology providers, and academic institutions tasked with the development and proliferation of PUBLISHprotocol; and PUBLISHsoft, a proprietary content management system for newspaper newsrooms that facilitates the launch and management of a PUBLISHprotocol-based cryptographic token.
submitted by bolyus21 to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Georgia Tombstones (Part 2)

Georgia Tombstones (Part 2)
by Jayge 8^J
"Project Blue Beam is a conspiracy theory that claims that NASA is attempting to implement a New Age religion with the Antichrist at its head and start a New World Order, via a technologically-simulated Second Coming. The allegations were presented in 1994 by Quebecois journalist and conspiracy theorist Serge Monast, and later published in his book Project Blue Beam (NASA). Proponents of the theory allege that Monast and another unnamed journalist, who both died of heart attacks in 1996, were in fact assassinated, and that the Canadian government kidnapped Monast's daughter in an effort to dissuade him from investigating Project Blue Beam. The project was apparently supposed to be implemented in 1983, but it didn't happen. It was then set for implementation in 1995 and then 1996. Monast thought Project Blue Beam would be brought to fruition by the year 2000, really, definitely, for sure. The theory is widely popular (for a conspiracy theory) on the Internet, with many web pages dedicated to the subject, and countless YouTube videos explaining it. The actual source material, however, is very thin indeed. Monast lectured on the theory in the mid-1990s (a transcript of one such lecture is widely available), before writing and publishing his book, which has not been reissued by his current publisher and is all but unobtainable. The currently available pages and videos all appear to trace back to four documents: A transcript of the 1994 lecture by Monast, translated into English. A GeoCities page written by David Openheimer and which appears to draw on the original book. A page on educate-yourself.org, compiled in 2005, which appears to include a translation of the book from the French. Monast's page in French Wikipedia. The French Wikipedia article is largely sourced from two books on conspiracy theories and extremism by Pierre-André Taguieff, a mainstream academic expert on racist and extremist groups. From these few texts have come a flood of green ink, in text and video form, in several languages. Even the French language material typically does not cite the original book but the English language pages on educate-yourself.org. However, conspiracy theorists seem to use quantity as a measure of substance (much as alternative medicine uses appeal to tradition) and never mind the extremely few sources it all traces back to. Proponents of the theory have extrapolated it to embrace HAARP, 9/11, the Norwegian Spiral, chemtrails, FEMA concentration camps and Tupac Shakur. Everything is part of Project Blue Beam. It's well on its way to becoming the Unified Conspiracy Theory. Behold A Pale Horse, William Cooper's 1991 green ink magnum opus, has lately been considered a prior claim of, hence supporting evidence for, Blue Beam by advocates. The book is where a vast quantity of now-common conspiracy memes actually came from, so retrospectively claiming it as prior evidence is somewhere between cherrypicking and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. However, the following quotes, from pages 180-181, intersect slightly with the specific themes of Blue Beam: It is true that without the population or the bomb problem the elect would use some other excuse to bring about the New World Order. They have plans to bring about things like earthquakes, war, the Messiah, an extra-terrestrial landing, and economic collapse. They might bring about all of these things just to make damn sure that it does work. They will do whatever is necessary to succeed. The Illuminati has all the bases covered and you are going to have to be on your toes to make it through the coming years. Can you imagine what will happen if Los Angeles is hit with a 9.0 quake, New York City is destroyed by a terrorist-planted atomic bomb, World War III breaks out in the Middle East, the banks and the stock markets collapse, Extraterrestrials land on the White House lawn, food disappears from the markets, some people disappear, the Messiah presents himself to the world, and all in a very short period of time? Can you imagine? The world power structure can, and will if necessary, make some or all of those things happen to bring about the New World Order. “Without a universal belief in the new age religion, the success of the new world order will be impossible!” The alleged purpose of Project Blue Beam is to bring about a global New Age religion, which is seen as a core requirement for the New World Order's dictatorship to be realised. There's nothing new in thinking of religion as a form of control, but the existence of multiple religions, spin-off cults, competing sects and atheists suggest that controlling the population entirely through a single religion isn't particularly easy. Past attempts have required mechanisms of totalitarianism such as the Inquisition. Monast's theory, however, suggests using sufficiently advanced technology to trick people into believing. Of course, the plan would have to assume that people could never fathom the trick at all — something contested by anyone sane enough not to swallow this particular conspiracy. The primary claimed perpetrator of Project Blue Beam is NASA, presented as a large and mostly faceless organization that can readily absorb such frankly odd accusations, aided by the United Nations, another old-time boogeyman of conspiracy theorists. According to Monast, the project has four steps: Step One requires the breakdown of all archaeological knowledge. This will apparently be accomplished by faking earthquakes at precise locations around the planet. Fake "new discoveries" at these locations "will finally explain to all people the error of all fundamental religious doctrines", specifically Christian and Muslim doctrines. This makes some degree of sense — if you want to usurp a current way of thinking you need to completely destroy it before putting forward your own. However, religious belief is notoriously resilient to things like facts. The Shroud of Turin is a famous example that is still believed by many to be a genuine shroud of Jesus as opposed to the medieval forgery that it has been conclusively shown to be. Prayer studies, too, show how difficult it is to shift religious conviction with mere observational fact — indeed, many theologians avoid making falsifiable claims or place belief somewhere specifically beyond observation to aid this. So what finds could possibly fundamentally destroy both Christianity and Islam, almost overnight, and universally all over the globe? Probably nothing. Yet, this is only step one of an increasingly ludicrous set of events that Project Blue Beam predicts will occur. Step Two involves a gigantic "space show" wherein three-dimensional holographic laser projections will be beamed all over the planet — and this is where Blue Beam really takes off. The projections will take the shape of whatever deity is most predominant, and will speak in all languages. At the end of this light show, the gods will all merge into one god, the Antichrist. This is a rather baffling plan as it seems to assume people will think this is actually their god, rather than the more natural twenty-first century assumption that it is a particularly opaque Coca Cola advertisement. Evidence commonly advanced for this is a supposed plan to project the face of Allah, despite its contradiction with Muslim belief of God's uniqueness, over Baghdad in 1991 to tell the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Someone, somewhere, must have thought those primitive, ignorant non-Western savages wouldn't have had television or advertising, and would never guess it was being done with mirrors. In general, pretty much anything that either a) involves light or b) has been seen in the sky has been put forward as evidence that Project Blue Beam is real, and such things are "tests" of the technology — namely unidentified flying objects. Existing display technology such as 3D projection mapping and holograms are put forward as foreshadowing the great light show in the sky. This stage will apparently be accomplished with the aid of a Soviet computer that will be fed "with the minute physio-psychological particulars based on their studies of the anatomy and electro-mechanical composition of the human body, and the studies of the electrical, chemical and biological properties of the human brain", and every human has been allocated a unique radio wavelength. The computers are also capable of inducing suicidal thoughts. The Soviets are (not "were") the "New World Order" people. Why NASA would use a Soviet computer when the USSR had to import or copy much of its computer technology from the West is not detailed. The second part of Step Two happens when the holograms result in the dissolution of social and religious order, "setting loose millions of programmed religious fanatics through demonic possession on a scale never witnessed before." The United Nations plans to use Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" as the anthem for the introduction of the new age one world religion. There is relatively little to debunk in this, the most widely remembered section of the Project Blue Beam conspiracy, as the idea is so infeasible. Citing actual existing communication technology is odd if the point is for the end product to appear magical, rather than just as cheap laser projections onto clouds. This hasn't stopped some very strange conspiracy theories about such things popping up. Indeed, the notion of gods being projected into the sky was floated in 1991 by conspiracy theorist Betty J. Mills. And US general (and CIA shyster extraordinaire), Edward Lansdale, actually floated a plan to fake a Second Coming over Cuba to get rid of Castro. Step Three is "Telepathic Electronic Two-Way Communication." It involves making people think their god is speaking to them through telepathy, projected into the head of each person individually using extreme low frequency radio waves. (Atheists will presumably hear an absence of Richard Dawkins.) The book goes to some lengths to describe how this would be feasible, including a claim that ELF thought projection caused the depressive illness of Michael Dukakis' wife Kitty. Step Four has three parts: Making humanity think an alien invasion is about to occur at every major city; Making the Christians think the Rapture is about to happen; A mixture of electronic and supernatural forces, allowing the supernatural forces to travel through fiber optics, coax, power and telephone lines to penetrate all electronic equipment and appliances, that will by then all have a special microchip installed. Then chaos will break out, and people will finally be willing — perhaps even desperate — to accept the New World Order. "The techniques used in the fourth step is exactly the same used in the past in the USSR to force the people to accept Communism." A device has apparently already been perfected that will lift enormous numbers of people, as in a Rapture. UFO abductions are tests of this device. Project Blue Beam proponents believe psychological preparations have already been made, Monast having claimed that 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars and the Star Trek series all involve an invasion from space and all nations coming together (the first two don't, the third is peaceful contact) and that Jurassic Park propagandises evolution in order to make people think God's words are lies. The book detailed the theory. In the 1994 lecture, Monast detailed what would happen afterwards. All people will be required to take an oath to Lucifer with a ritual initiation to enter the New World Order. Resisters will be categorised as follows: Christian children will be kept for human sacrifice or sexual slaves. Prisoners to be used in medical experiments. Prisoners to be used as living organ banks. Healthy workers in slave labour camps. Uncertain prisoners in the international re-education center, thence to repent on television and learn to glorify the New World Order. The international execution centre. An as yet unknown seventh classification. Joel Engel's book Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek was released in 1994, shortly before Monast's lecture on Project Blue Beam: “In May 1975, Gene Roddenberry accepted an offer from Paramount to develop Star Trek into a feature film, and moved back into his old office on the Paramount lot. His proposed story told of a flying saucer, hovering above Earth, that was programmed to send down people who looked like prophets, including Jesus Christ.” All the steps of the conspiracy theory were in the unmade mid-'70s Star Trek film script by Roddenberry, which were recycled for the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Devil's Due, broadcast in 1991. There is no evidence of deliberate fraud on Monast's part; given his head was quite thoroughly full of squirrels and confetti by this time, it's entirely plausible that he thought this was the revelation of secret information in a guise safe for propagation. However, the actual source was so obvious that even other conspiracy theorists noticed. They confidently state it was obvious that Monast had been fed deceptive information by the CIA. Of course!" -- rationalwiki.org "Serge Monast was a Québécois investigative journalist, poet, essayist and conspiracy theorist. He is known to English-speaking readers mainly for Project Blue Beam and associated conspiracy tropes. His works on Masonic conspiracy theories and the New World Order also remain popular with French-speaking conspiracy theorists and enthusiasts." -- Wikipedia
"A human microchip implant is typically an identifying integrated circuit device or RFID transponder encased in silicate glass and implanted in the body of a human being. This type of subdermal implant usually contains a unique ID number that can be linked to information contained in an external database, such as personal identification, law enforcement, medical history, medications, allergies, and contact information. The first experiments with an RFID implant were carried out in 1998 by the British scientist Kevin Warwick. His implant was used to open doors, switch on lights, and cause verbal output within a building. After nine days the implant was removed and has since been held in the Science Museum (London). On 16 March 2009 British scientist Mark Gasson had an advanced glass capsule RFID device surgically implanted into his left hand. In April 2010 Gasson's team demonstrated how a computer virus could wirelessly infect his implant and then be transmitted on to other systems. Gasson reasoned that with implanted technology the separation between man and machine can become theoretical because the technology can be perceived by the human as being a part of their body. Because of this development in our understanding of what constitutes our body and its boundaries he became credited as being the first human infected by a computer virus. He has no plans to remove his implant. Several hobbyists have placed RFID microchip implants into their hands or had them inserted by others. Amal Graafstra, author of the book RFID Toys, asked doctors to place implants in his hands in March 2005. A cosmetic surgeon used a scalpel to place a microchip in his left hand, and his family doctor injected a chip into his right hand using a veterinary Avid injector kit. Graafstra uses the implants to access his home, open car doors, and to log on to his computer. With public interest growing, in 2013 he launched biohacking company Dangerous Things and crowdfunded the world's first implantable NFC transponder in 2014. He has also spoken at various events and promotional gigs including TEDx, and built a smartgun that only fires after reading his implant. Alejandro Hernandez CEO of Futura is known to be the first in Central America to have Dangerous Things' transponder installed in his left hand by Federico Cortes in November 2017. Mikey Sklar had a chip implanted into his left hand and filmed the procedure. Jonathan Oxer self-implanted an RFID chip in his arm using a veterinary implantation tool. Martijn Wismeijer, Dutch marketing manager for Bitcoin ATM manufacturer General Bytes, placed RFID chips in both of his hands to store his Bitcoin private keys and business card. Patric Lanhed sent a “bio-payment” of one euro worth of Bitcoin using a chip embedded in his hand. Marcel Varallo had an NXP chip coated in Bioglass 8625 inserted into his hand between his forefinger and thumb allowing him to open secure elevators and doors at work, print from secure printers, unlock his mobile phone and home, and store his digital business card for transfer to mobile phones enabled for NFC. Biohacker Hannes Sjöblad has been experimenting with NFC (Near Field Communication) chip implants since 2015. During his talk at Echappée Voléé 2016 in Paris, Sjöblad disclosed that he has also implanted himself between his forefinger and thumb and uses it to unlock doors, make payments, and unlock his phone (essentially replacing anything you can put in your pockets). Additionally, Sjöblad has hosted several "implant parties," where interested individuals can also be implanted with the chip. Researchers have examined microchip implants in humans in the medical field and they indicate that there are potential benefits and risks to incorporating the device in the medical field. For example, it could be beneficial for noncompliant patients but still poses great risks for potential misuse of the device. Destron Fearing, a subsidiary of Digital Angel, initially developed the technology for the VeriChip. In 2004, the VeriChip implanted device and reader were classified as Class II: General controls with special controls by the FDA; that year the FDA also published a draft guidance describing the special controls required to market such devices. About the size of a grain of rice, the device was typically implanted between the shoulder and elbow area of an individual’s right arm. Once scanned at the proper frequency, the chip responded with a unique 16-digit number which could be then linked with information about the user held on a database for identity verification, medical records access and other uses. The insertion procedure was performed under local anesthetic in a physician's office. Privacy advocates raised concerns regarding potential abuse of the chip, with some warning that adoption by governments as a compulsory identification program could lead to erosion of civil liberties, as well as identity theft if the device should be hacked. Another ethical dilemma posed by the technology, is that people with dementia could possibly benefit the most from an implanted device that contained their medical records, but issues of informed consent are the most difficult in precisely such people. In June 2007, the American Medical Association declared that "implantable radio frequency identification (RFID) devices may help to identify patients, thereby improving the safety and efficiency of patient care, and may be used to enable secure access to patient clinical information", but in the same year, news reports linking similar devices to cancer caused in laboratory animals had a devastating impact on the company's stock price and sales. In 2010, the company, by then called "PositiveID", withdrew the product from the market due to poor sales. In January 2012, PositiveID sold the chip assets to a company called VeriTeQ that was owned by Scott Silverman, the former CEO of Positive ID. In 2016, JAMM Technologies acquired the chip assets from VeriTeQ; JAMM's business plan was to partner with companies selling implanted medical devices and use the RFID tags to monitor and identify the devices. JAMM Technologies is co-located in the same Plymouth, Minnesota building as Geissler Corporation with Randolph K. Geissler and Donald R. Brattain listed as its principals. The website also claims that Geissler was CEO of PositiveID Corporation, Destron Fearing Corporation, and Digital Angel Corporation. In 2018, A Danish firm called BiChip released a new generation of microchip implant that is intended to be readable from distance and connected to Internet. The company released an update for its microchip implant to associate it with the Ripple cryptocurrency to allow payments to be made using the implanted microchip. In February 2006, CityWatcher, Inc. of Cincinnati, OH became the first company in the world to implant microchips into their employees as part of their building access control and security system. The workers needed the implants to access the company's secure video tape room, as documented in USA Today. The project was initiated and implemented by Six Sigma Security, Inc. The VeriChip Corporation had originally marketed the implant as a way to restrict access to secure facilities such as power plants. A major drawback for such systems is the relative ease with which the 16-digit ID number contained in a chip implant can be obtained and cloned using a hand-held device, a problem that has been demonstrated publicly by security researcher Jonathan Westhues and documented in the May 2006 issue of Wired magazine, among other places. The Baja Beach Club, a nightclub in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, once used VeriChip implants for identifying VIP guests. The Epicenter in Stockholm, Sweden is using RFID implants for employees to operate security doors, copiers, and pay for lunch. In 2017 Mike Miller, chief executive of the World Olympians Association, was widely reported as suggesting the use of such implants in athletes in an attempt to reduce problems in sport due to drug taking. Theoretically, a GPS-enabled chip could one day make it possible for individuals to be physically located by latitude, longitude, altitude, speed, and direction of movement. Such implantable GPS devices are not technically feasible at this time. However, if widely deployed at some future point, implantable GPS devices could conceivably allow authorities to locate missing persons and/or fugitives and those who fled from a crime scene. Critics contend, however, that the technology could lead to political repression as governments could use implants to track and persecute human rights activists, labor activists, civil dissidents, and political opponents; criminals and domestic abusers could use them to stalk and harass their victims; and child abusers could use them to locate and abduct children. Another suggested application for a tracking implant, discussed in 2008 by the legislature of Indonesia's Irian Jaya would be to monitor the activities of persons infected with HIV, aimed at reducing their chances of infecting other people. The microchipping section was not, however, included into the final version of the provincial HIV/AIDS Handling bylaw passed by the legislature in December 2008. With current technology, this would not be workable anyway, since there is no implantable device on the market with GPS tracking capability. Since modern payment methods rely upon RFID/NFC, it is thought that implantable microchips, if they were to ever become popular in use, would form a part of the cashless society. Verichip implants have already been used in nightclubs such as the Baja club for such a purpose, allowing patrons to purchase drinks with their implantable microchip. In a self-published report anti-RFID advocate Katherine Albrecht, who refers to RFID devices as "spy chips", cites veterinary and toxicological studies carried out from 1996 to 2006 which found lab rodents injected with microchips as an incidental part of unrelated experiments and dogs implanted with identification microchips sometimes developed cancerous tumors at the injection site (subcutaneous sarcomas) as evidence of a human implantation risk. However, the link between foreign-body tumorigenesis in lab animals and implantation in humans has been publicly refuted as erroneous and misleading and the report's author has been criticized over the use of "provocative" language "not based in scientific fact". Notably, none of the studies cited specifically set out to investigate the cancer risk of implanted microchips and so none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get implanted. While the issue is considered worthy of further investigation, one of the studies cited cautioned "Blind leaps from the detection of tumors to the prediction of human health risk should be avoided". The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) of the American Medical Association published a report in 2007 alleging that RFID implanted chips may compromise privacy because there is no assurance that the information contained in the chip can be properly protected. Following Wisconsin and North Dakota, California issued Senate Bill 362 in 2007, which makes it illegal to force a person to have a microchip implanted, and provide for an assessment of civil penalties against violators of the bill. In 2008, Oklahoma passed 63 OK Stat § 63-1-1430 (2008 S.B. 47), that bans involuntary microchip implants in humans. On April 5, 2010, the Georgia Senate passed Senate Bill 235 that prohibits forced microchip implants in humans and that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to require them, including employers. The bill would allow voluntary microchip implants, as long as they are performed by a physician and regulated by the Georgia Composite Medical Board. The state's House of Representatives did not take up the measure. On February 10, 2010, Virginia's House of Delegates also passed a bill that forbids companies from forcing their employees to be implanted with tracking devices. Washington State House Bill 1142-2009-10 orders a study using implanted radio frequency identification or other similar technology to electronically monitor sex offenders and other felons. The general public are most familiar with microchips in the context of tracking their pets. In the U.S., some Christian activists, including conspiracy theorist Mark Dice, the author of a book titled The Resistance Manifesto, make a link between the PositiveID and the Biblical Mark of the Beast, prophesied to be a future requirement for buying and selling, and a key element of the Book of Revelation. Gary Wohlscheid, president of These Last Days Ministries, has argued that "Out of all the technologies with potential to be the mark of the beast, VeriChip has got the best possibility right now"." -- Wikipedia
"In this latest book Joseph P Farrell examines the subject of mind control, but from a very unusual perspective, showing that its basic underlying philosophy, and goal, is not only cosmological in nature, but that the cosmology in view is very ancient, and that mind control of any sort, from the arts to hypnosis, remote electromagnetic technologies and “electroencephalographic dictionaries” has cosmological implications." -- Microcosm and Medium: The Cosmic Implications and Agenda of Mind Control Technologies publisher's description
submitted by anti-ZOG-sci-fry to u/anti-ZOG-sci-fry [link] [comments]

How To Use The Blockchain To Protect The Trillion-Dollar Intelligent Import And Export Logistics Business

How To Use The Blockchain To Protect The Trillion-Dollar Intelligent Import And Export Logistics Business
Original Korean article https://www.jinse.com/bitcoin/284405.html published 4th December 2018. The article has been translated via Google translate. Prof. Songjie's credentials are listed at the bottom of this post.

How To Use The Blockchain To Protect The Trillion-Dollar Intelligent Import And Export Logistics Business

On November 22nd, the 2018 Global Smart Container Industry Alliance Annual Meeting and Smart Container Standards Publicity Training Conference was held in Shenzhen. Waltonchain CTO Wei Songjie delivered a speech at the scene. Professor Wei expounded the origin and development of blockchain and proposed the solution of blockchain technology applied in intelligent import and export logistics for the first time. He said that compared with the traditional way of shipping, the application blockchain can improve the time efficiency of more than 50% in the intelligent logistics industry and reduce the management cost by more than 30%.

https://preview.redd.it/fftck08ux0421.jpg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=827c930fc221610a98127588e3fa81d36aa3b72b
The following is the full text of the speech:
Good afternoon everyone, I am Wei Songjie. Today, the theme I gave to everyone is "blockchain: data container, pass-through transport line, trust notary". Because today's conference theme is a smart container, I also borrowed a topic called a "data container." In fact, in our information security industry, we call this a data package or a package called data. They are actually quite similar in nature, and data is also goods. For us, data is something of value.
In today's speech, I mainly talk about three parts: blockchain + digital certificate capability, blockchain + port cargo application scenarios, blockchain + intelligent import and export logistics solutions. Some of these contents are exchanged with some experts in the logistics industry. Some of the things may not be too mature and accurate. I am as a layman in this swearing, and I would like to ask you.
The blockchain has been a hot word in recent years. In my opinion, the biggest use of the blockchain is not "speculation", "sell one", "sip", these are their superficial articles. The biggest feature of this technology is its digital passability.
Dr. Zhou’s speech just said that what is the core in the container-based goods circulation industry? He said that documents are the core. For the circulation of goods, we need a list to prove. In the field of our blockchain, we call this core a pass.
Let me talk to you quickly, what is the blockchain?
In fact, this year happens to be the tenth anniversary of the blockchain. As for its origin, at the earliest, it came out as the underlying technology of Bitcoin, and its data structure is a chain structure. So what is it used for? It is used to book bitcoin. For example, who transferred to whom, how to turn, and so on. It is a distributed ledger, a public ledger, distributed meaning that there is no central bank, not a single individual has the final say. It has a wide range of applications, but most of the current applications still revolve around its financial transaction attributes.
In our field of computer science, we have used the term blockchain for less than a decade, but we have used this technology for decades. What do we use it for? In fact, we used to call it a distributed database a long time ago. That is to say, the database that everyone uses now has (several) servers. That distributed data means that instead of having a centralized server to store data, it means that the data is distributed in many different places, so we call it a distributed database.
Of course you have a database, you always have software, but also have a system. So in fact we have studied more accurate nouns. For example, let me study the distributed system for more than ten years. At the same time, we also use the blockchain-related things to achieve the measurement and circulation of this value. This has actually been used since, for example, QQ has Q coins, many games have points or coins, so this is not new. Of course, we study from the perspective of how the entire process, including the value of commodity services, is measured and quantified.
In the end, what is the main feature of the blockchain and what is it used for? Be an endorsement of trust. Therefore, we often hear people say that I can't change the data on the blockchain. You can't lie to me. It can't be fake forged, can't be lost, and so on. In fact, its core is, if you believe it or not, you believe it, if you don’t believe it.
In fact, long ago we were able to do trust-based or data-based trust and verification. But what did we call it at that time? We call cryptography. So I often talk to my students during the exchange, the blockchain thing, now it can not be said to be a gimmick. Again, we rely on it to do research, write papers, and then do projects. In fact, it is more like an application innovation—that is, combining existing technologies in a new way and using them in newer ways. Broad application scenarios.
Which combination of technologies? The core of distributed systems, peer-to-peer networks, and cryptography is these. Therefore, those people say that the blockchain is very important, or very useful, and its elements are summed up in fact. Then what effect does it use to achieve these effects? I think it is the effect of interconnection, interoperability, mutual trust, mutual benefit and mutual integration.

https://preview.redd.it/q56zn8kvy0421.jpg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f00723c563bea43e476ad252e090a447d6f825c6
The Internet is easy to understand. In fact, our current information systems, including our devices, are rarely fragmented or run independently. Most of them are networked, including your mobile phone and computer. If you can't access the Internet, the mobile phone is not yet available. It’s a brick, right. No use. Now everyone can't do without the network. In fact, the blockchain is the same. Its underlying core is that it can be networked and does not depend on a specific or specific network. It does not depend on a specific server and does not depend on a specific SP (network service provider). I was able to connect to the Internet. This time we called P2P (peer-to-peer network), this is no stranger. Because a long time ago, I remember that I went to the movies and songs. The eDonkey used in that year was P2P. What it wants to achieve is interconnection, which means that you are not an individual, you are not separated, P2P technology is how to connect with others.
The second is interoperability. The reason for interoperability is because everyone wants to communicate. For example, everyone here is Chinese. If I speak a foreign language here, everyone knows English, and Japanese may understand it. But for example, Burmese and Vietnamese, you may not understand. At this time, what I said is still human, you are all human, but everyone does not understand, why is this? Because it does not have a valid specification. There is no rule that this field can only speak Chinese, or that this field can only say what you and I can understand, and this is the reason for interoperability. The blockchain, which defines a set of interworking rules or norms. Just like the (national container) standard we set here today, why should this standard be? Because if the standards are different, for example, the container you are ten meters high, my two or three meters high, then you said how to pull this truck? How can I store this warehouse? How do I load the goods? Right. This is the standard use.
The third is mutual trust. I just said, what is data? What is useful is the data. What kind of data is useful? Real is useful. Then how is it true? You have to be able to verify, or you have to be able to prove it. Therefore, the blockchain uses cryptography to achieve mutual trust. Think about it, the information system we use now, or the computer and related equipment, what is the most valuable, that is, data. In fact, if I lose a mobile phone now, I don't feel bad at all. Thousands of dollars can buy one back. But what is the pain? It's the address book, chat history, and photos inside, maybe there are sensitive photos. This kind of data is the most valuable.
The fourth is reciprocity. Blockchain It is the circulation or value sharing that can achieve this value. Of course, there is a lot of value in this system. In fact, it is a number. Just like we have mobile payments now, we rarely use money. Credit cards are not very useful, so money is a symbol for us, and the symbol is a number. It's the same, but this number is valuable, or the back of the number is money, and the blockchain can achieve this effect. Of course, if there are benefits, some people will suffer and some will take advantage of it. This is reciprocity. Our best effect is to achieve the Pareto improvement in economics. If I take advantage of it, you will not suffer. This is a win-win situation or a win-win situation. The blockchain can do this.
The fifth is called mutual integration. In other words, since everyone is living together in an ecological environment to live together, coexist, agree, and work together, then everyone must have a way to achieve consensus. For example, today, who should we listen to? Of course, we should listen to the organizer and listen to the host, because I recognize you as the host, right. But if there is a spoiler, he will not recognize it. He has not reached this consensus, and this matter is troublesome. So, inside the blockchain it has a series of algorithms and methods to achieve consensus. For us, the simplest consensus or the easiest to understand is that everyone votes. Who do you think is the moderator, who has the most votes, and who is the moderator, but the simplest (fairness) is often the hardest to achieve. But in fact, these (consensus) are the core elements of the blockchain, and what effect can be achieved with these elements, and what is the use of these effects, this is its definition. Now our country is working on the relevant standards for the blockchain, but before this appearance, whether it is the corporate or academic world, or our Internet enthusiasts or blockchain enthusiasts, they do not have a standard definition. Some people call it a distributed system, someone calls it a chain, and someone calls it a mesh structure. I have a little bit inserted here, although it is called a blockchain, but in fact, in terms of chain structure, the chain is one-dimensional, but it is a form, and the chain really has two-dimensional or even multi-dimensional structure, two Dimension is a mesh structure, multidimensional. We call it a complex mesh system. So the definition of it is really just a statement or two words.
Since I am not coming to invest, this is not a preaching. You can't just say its benefits, let's be honest, let's talk about some interesting things in this technology.
The first one is that many people say that the blockchain is very good and decentralized, but is it decentralized? This is really debatable. Absolute centralization or absolute centralization is definitely not good. After all, I am not the "center", right. If anyone is the "center", who will definitely say it. Therefore, everyone must be hoping to be able to be equal, to be able to disperse, to be able to participate in and to make decisions without their own centralization. But the blockchain, it is not really decentralized, he is not without a center, he just turned a center into a lot.
Who has the final say? Everyone has the final say. How do you say it? A lot of ways. For example, the easiest way to vote, one person, one vote, is now very popular is the calculation power, who counts fast, who has the final say. There is another way, that is, whose shares are large. One person, one vote is the same situation for everyone's shares. Based on POS (consensus mechanism), it is actually to look at the rights and interests, to see who owns the shares, and the big one he said is more than me. In addition to this, there are many other ways. So we say that the blockchain is actually multi-centered, and there is a problem with true decentralization. For example, one problem we often face now is its efficiency problem. Well, take Bitcoin as an example. Everyone often says that I can get money by buying coins. But you have to know that you are actually launching a transaction on the Bitcoin network or system, or I will transfer you a sum of money, you have to wait a long time to receive it - this is not a few minutes, a few seconds, but maybe a few Ten minutes, a few hours, or even a few days. Therefore, decentralization will have efficiency problems.
Many of the so-called public chain or blockchain systems we have seen now have this efficiency problem. In other words, he may have a process, the algorithm is correct, the technical line is right, there will be too many people, especially in China, because the most important thing in China is the user, the most important thing is the user. Scale, efficiency will have problems. So our current research direction, including our application scenarios, is mostly multi-centered. Therefore, we call this multi-centered, not a center, that is not good, it is the original system, not the real center.
The second one is called the virtual and real of trust. In fact, the data is placed on the blockchain, can you really believe it? Put the blockchain, is it true? Of course it is not the case. I put a bunch of garbage into the safe, it is still rubbish, it is not worth it. Therefore, it depends on the entire ecology of the data or the entire life cycle, especially the stage of data perception or acquisition.
We now use the blockchain, including our company, some of our projects. In fact, we use a combination of software and hardware to solve how to ensure that the data you get is first-hand data, no noise, no errors, no interference. There is no such forgery, and then put it on the blockchain immediately, so that I can guarantee that the next life cycle of this data is real and verifiable. So this is why many people think blockchain data is true. However, if you put it true, it is true. If you are on vacation, it is fake. It guarantees that this data has not been altered and can be verified, but does not guarantee its original authenticity.
The third is the truth and falsehood of our consensus. The fact is that the consensus reached by the blockchain algorithm is the correct consensus? The correct consensus is that the American president is Trump. Is he really getting a 50% (vote) +1 vote? No, everyone knows that Hillary’s votes are higher and they get the same amount of votes. It was only because of the rules of their electoral college that Trump was elected. What does this show? Explain that our consensus mechanism can actually determine whether our final consensus is a general consensus, a relative consensus, or a professional consensus, and it depends on the scenario. So, you should first think about using the blockchain, and then design a consensus mechanism. After all, there is no universal technology that is universally applicable.
The last one is called the right and wrong of the data. What does it mean? Here is to say that the data is placed on the blockchain, we can say that it can not be tampered, can not be forged, can not be changed, it will not be lost, but can this really achieve this effect? In this (blockchain) industry, we often hear news that a word is called a fork. In fact, this is to say that the original chain grows in a single item, and it grows more and more in a while. When it grows long, it splits. Why is it forked? Because there is no consensus. Because some people think that it should grow like this, some people think that they should grow into that, and then there are people on both sides to support, so they fork. So this shows that the right and wrong of the data depends on who? Depending on the user, it depends on the consensus results of the user. So these are relative, in fact nothing is absolute. Including our cryptography, are you absolutely safe, definitely not. As long as I can live long enough, then I will try hard, and one day I will be able to try it out, right. The only absolute thing in us (information technology) is that it is the quantum code, which is absolutely safe. But this is a bit of a problem.
So now, in less than a decade, the blockchain has evolved in three different phases.
We have phases 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, but it doesn't make sense to say that the specific technology is too boring. What we have to say is that 1.0 solves the problem that is too simple, that is, to record the account or to use it as a book; 2.0 can only fulfill the contract, can we say what we say, we write the program people like to write Some conditions are judged and looped. Actually, these conditions can be written in 2.0. What is the use of this condition? We will see it later. The direction that is currently developing is 3.0, 3.0 is to do things, that is to say, you This technology can not land, this is the third point. So, we are now between 2.0 and 3.0, almost the same period from 2.4 to 2.5.
Next, we make an analogy, an analogy between blockchain and data containers.
In fact, our blockchain really has blocks. Our data is really piece by piece. Each piece is called data encapsulation. This is a bit like we put a lot of goods in this container, and then lock the container, this is called a box of goods. For us, we are called a piece of data, and then we will lock this data. The lock on us is not an electronic lock. We call it a digital lock. In fact, it is a string of numbers used for verification to be used for signature. . This is one of our forms. This is not one-dimensional, but linear and two-dimensional. Containers, there are so many boxes, or so many pieces, they are also ordered, organized, we call Organize. Just like your box is to be numbered, then your box is to be neatly tidy, you can check it when you need it, and you can find it when you need it. So this is an analogy, for a bit more fun, a little fun.
The blockchain actually has many institutions now, and many countries are also used in the logistics industry, including import and export. For example, many countries in the United States, South Korea, and the Netherlands are doing it. Headed by IBM, they have a super-books alliance, and they also offer a range of solutions that can be used by everyone. Because their technology wants to be more versatile, there are actually a lot of data inconsistencies here.
So what does it do in the field of (container)? Or, what good is it? It has to solve the problem. One is inefficiency. Dr. Zhou also said that there are too many links, and then the people involved or the roles are too many and inefficient. The other is risky because this thing is not shipped. It is risky to pay, lose or lose money, pay taxes, and clear customs.
Then if we want to use it, for example, I want to use the blockchain to try it in this field, how can we try it? I think I can make three articles around my title, the first one is for data; the second is for value; the third is for trust.
In our blockchain, first, we can do the data bearer and ensure the integrity of the data. Second, we can quantify the data, especially the quantity and value of many such goods. Our measurability; the third is that we can trust, for example, authenticity, you remember so much, remember so many words, and then so many single-sub-services, using blockchain-related techniques to ensure that it can be accepted But it is really unrealistic because people will not accept it. In fact, Dr. Zhou said that the core of this industry, we are called documents. We can e-mail the documents. This technology is very ready-made, just saying how to use it. We are also doing application innovation, so we can use this framework of distributed architecture to achieve this electronic issuance of such notes or documents. But why is it not purely distributed or purely decentralized? Because of efficiency issues. Centralization efficiency is good, so he still has a data center placed there, and then the index of the data, the summary of the data, the keywords of the data, the hash of the data on the chain, so that people can be very fast, very Efficiently find the relevant data above, and then go to the original data center to get the original data.

https://preview.redd.it/zaoeu3fyy0421.jpg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=37e1886e14a730d6793bc8b4dfdb31d7a9e5c73b
At the same time, we can use the blockchain to implement this digitized sequence of processes. So you will look at the picture just now. The original picture has a lot of small arrows. It is actually talking about a sequence, just the picture. It's actually talking about the order, you can take the next step to do the next step, we call it timing. In fact, the blockchain can record and string these steps, and then tell you, now the entire business or the whole of our logistics is going to where it is, where is it stuck, and then how to go in the next step? Conditional judgment. How do the blockchain judge the conditions? Blockchain 2.0, support contract, right. So what is the contract? It is the program. I can write the program, what to do next, the blockchain can do this. In other words, in fact, many times we are concerned about timing, order. Where is the difference here? For example, this is what happened in a few months, and when the matter happened, this is absolute time. But many times, we are concerned about the relative time, who is who develops before and who is after whom, this logic or this real transaction makes sense. Just like you have to work first and then get paid, this is generally normal, but it is abnormal after working first. So this order is very important.
In addition, we can implement the submission and inspection of documents based on blockchain. Because you have data to always give people a home, you can find it when you need it, the blockchain can be done very quickly. In our words, the quick meaning is that its time is not exponential growth, not linear growth, we are talking about the size of the data (to grow). And when it comes to constant time, it means that no matter how much data you have, I can find the required data between the constants, and then check and verify that it is very efficient to submit and check the data. He has an ID and then has an electronic signature, and also checks the information. This blockchain is readily available.
The last one is that we can use the blockchain to implement this kind of supervision and management service for multiple roles, which means that you may be the owner. You may be a buyer, a seller, you may be a transit broker, you may be a carrier, you may be a customs officer, you may be in any role. So how can you have so many roles in the system? Because these roles are called users in our entire system, then the users actually have different ID addresses, ready-made. Just like the currency now, what is your wallet address? How do we ensure that different users have different permissions? We actually use certificates, we call Certificate, e-Cert. The more popular ones are passwords. Of course, now we often use multi-word authentication, which means that in addition to the password, you have to have a verification code or what character you have to identify, in fact, we use a certificate here. Certificates can be used to implement the setting and probability of this privilege for different roles.
Then all these things are put together, in fact we can transform the original process into a blockchain-based process. But this picture I just said, borrowed from a document. This may be just a general or a typical existing process, in fact, all of us or all of the roles can be in different blocks or different stages, with different blocks of blockchain. Is the data package to deal with, to achieve the whole process, to achieve the whole around the goods or around the entity, you are a box or a bag, we have to surround the virtual and electronic around the entity Data management and query verification This is a whole, we call it a typical system solution.
But this system is actually in use now, but it is not used for container management or for doing this import and export. What are we actually doing with this system? We are doing traceability of some of these items, such as typical clothing or food, where is it produced, and then through which links, then who is the wholesaler, who is the retailer, where is it, and then Have you ever retired or sold it to someone, and then did you go back to repair or have a return? In fact, our system is doing this. But this is no different because for us, these are all data. In fact, the data itself does not know what it means. The data itself is a character and a binary. So now we are running some of the green systems below, but it is a layman for this product.
So today, I am also grateful to all the invitations, and I will take the courage to take our set of things and put them in a new scene. This is called application innovation. The purpose of our 3.0 is to use it in more scenarios, and to use the effects, use the performance, and then use such an impressive, or acceptable, result.

https://preview.redd.it/5alntal0z0421.jpg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=58a685723da47dcb63019df15f987e086654d9a1
In the end, we return to our title, because my title says, the blockchain data container usually has a trusted notary, and each of these is actually meaningful. For example, the data container, which is actually implemented or for a specific scenario, such as the production and sales scene of the clothing we just mentioned, is actually the electronic standardization and intelligence of the data. This involves a lot of existing and popular technologies. For example, if there is more data, how do you analyze it? Here we will use data analysis, data mining and even data modeling methods. Data modeling that you may hear often is machine learning or deep learning, so this is part of intelligence. Standardization you are all experts. The pass-through transport line actually implements this automatic persistence and metering, but these three words have been discussed in general. Finally, trusting the notary, it realizes that around the authenticity, anti-counterfeiting and traceability of the data, it is not only reliable but also usable to build such a thing, not only usable, but also usable, not only usable, but also It is a system that is easy to use.
Finally, I am very grateful to everyone for spending more than 20 minutes. I am listening to my own industry or my own circle as a layman in this industry. I think we have to make the entire smart container to establish its industrial chain, ecological chain, value chain, etc. I think this is completely inseparable or impossible to leave information technology. Because a while ago our country strongly advocated that we call internet+, Internet+, in fact, it is now more accurate and accurate. It should be called information technology+. Otherwise, the internet+ you said may be artificial intelligence+, and then the future is Big data +, but they are all called information technology in our business, that is, Information Technology. Therefore, we are very eager to have the opportunity to use our knowledge in the field of information technology, and the meager ability to make a combination with everyone in the industry, including the specific and typical application scenarios, to truly realize our industry. A transformational upgrade of our industry. Then we realize the industrialization of our entire country called the industry 2.0 or the country we call the information age. Ok, thank you all.


Profile of Prof. Wei Songjie:
Doctor of Engineering (graduated from the University of Delaware), Associate Professor of Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Core Member and Master Supervisor of Network Space Security Engineering Research Institute, Block Chain Technology expert in the field of computer network protocol and application, network and information security. Has published more than 20 papers and applied for 7 invention patents. Previously worked at Google, Qualcomm, Bloomberg and many other high-tech companies in the United States, served as R&D engineer and technical expert; has a wealth of experience in computer system design, product development and project management.
submitted by Yayowam to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The Origins of the Blocksize Debate

On May 4, 2015, Gavin Andresen wrote on his blog:
I was planning to submit a pull request to the 0.11 release of Bitcoin Core that will allow miners to create blocks bigger than one megabyte, starting a little less than a year from now. But this process of peer review turned up a technical issue that needs to get addressed, and I don’t think it can be fixed in time for the first 0.11 release.
I will be writing a series of blog posts, each addressing one argument against raising the maximum block size, or against scheduling a raise right now... please send me an email ([email protected]) if I am missing any arguments
In other words, Gavin proposed a hard fork via a series of blog posts, bypassing all developer communication channels altogether and asking for personal, private emails from anyone interested in discussing the proposal further.
On May 5 (1 day after Gavin submitted his first blog post), Mike Hearn published The capacity cliff on his Medium page. 2 days later, he posted Crash landing. In these posts, he argued:
A common argument for letting Bitcoin blocks fill up is that the outcome won’t be so bad: just a market for fees... this is wrong. I don’t believe fees will become high and stable if Bitcoin runs out of capacity. Instead, I believe Bitcoin will crash.
...a permanent backlog would start to build up... as the backlog grows, nodes will start running out of memory and dying... as Core will accept any transaction that’s valid without any limit a node crash is eventually inevitable.
He also, in the latter article, explained that he disagreed with Satoshi's vision for how Bitcoin would mature[1][2]:
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy.
Gavin continued to publish the series of blog posts he had announced while Hearn made these predictions. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Matt Corallo brought Gavin's proposal up on the bitcoin-dev mailing list after a few days. He wrote:
Recently there has been a flurry of posts by Gavin at http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/ which advocate strongly for increasing the maximum block size. However, there hasnt been any discussion on this mailing list in several years as far as I can tell...
So, at the risk of starting a flamewar, I'll provide a little bait to get some responses and hope the discussion opens up into an honest comparison of the tradeoffs here. Certainly a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.
Personally, I'm rather strongly against any commitment to a block size increase in the near future. Long-term incentive compatibility requires that there be some fee pressure, and that blocks be relatively consistently full or very nearly full. What we see today are transactions enjoying next-block confirmations with nearly zero pressure to include any fee at all (though many do because it makes wallet code simpler).
This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo
Shortly thereafter, Corallo explained further:
The point of the hard block size limit is exactly because giving miners free rule to do anything they like with their blocks would allow them to do any number of crazy attacks. The incentives for miners to pick block sizes are no where near compatible with what allows the network to continue to run in a decentralized manner.
Tier Nolan considered possible extensions and modifications that might improve Gavin's proposal and argued that soft caps could be used to mitigate against the dangers of a blocksize increase. Tom Harding voiced support for Gavin's proposal
Peter Todd mentioned that a limited blocksize provides the benefit of protecting against the "perverse incentives" behind potential block withholding attacks.
Slush didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and neither did Eric Lombrozo, though Eric was interested in developing hard-fork best practices and wanted to:
explore all the complexities involved with deployment of hard forks. Let’s not just do a one-off ad-hoc thing.
Matt Whitlock voiced his opinion:
I'm not so much opposed to a block size increase as I am opposed to a hard fork... I strongly fear that the hard fork itself will become an excuse to change other aspects of the system in ways that will have unintended and possibly disastrous consequences.
Bryan Bishop strongly opposed Gavin's proposal, and offered a philosophical perspective on the matter:
there has been significant public discussion... about why increasing the max block size is kicking the can down the road while possibly compromising blockchain security. There were many excellent objections that were raised that, sadly, I see are not referenced at all in the recent media blitz. Frankly I can't help but feel that if contributions, like those from #bitcoin-wizards, have been ignored in lieu of technical analysis, and the absence of discussion on this mailing list, that I feel perhaps there are other subtle and extremely important technical details that are completely absent from this--and other-- proposals.
Secured decentralization is the most important and most interesting property of bitcoin. Everything else is rather trivial and could be achieved millions of times more efficiently with conventional technology. Our technical work should be informed by the technical nature of the system we have constructed.
There's no doubt in my mind that bitcoin will always see the most extreme campaigns and the most extreme misunderstandings... for development purposes we must hold ourselves to extremely high standards before proposing changes, especially to the public, that have the potential to be unsafe and economically unsafe.
There are many potential technical solutions for aggregating millions (trillions?) of transactions into tiny bundles. As a small proof-of-concept, imagine two parties sending transactions back and forth 100 million times. Instead of recording every transaction, you could record the start state and the end state, and end up with two transactions or less. That's a 100 million fold, without modifying max block size and without potentially compromising secured decentralization.
The MIT group should listen up and get to work figuring out how to measure decentralization and its security.. Getting this measurement right would be really beneficial because we would have a more academic and technical understanding to work with.
Gregory Maxwell echoed and extended that perspective:
When Bitcoin is changed fundamentally, via a hard fork, to have different properties, the change can create winners or losers...
There are non-trivial number of people who hold extremes on any of these general belief patterns; Even among the core developers there is not a consensus on Bitcoin's optimal role in society and the commercial marketplace.
there is a at least a two fold concern on this particular ("Long term Mining incentives") front:
One is that the long-held argument is that security of the Bitcoin system in the long term depends on fee income funding autonomous, anonymous, decentralized miners profitably applying enough hash-power to make reorganizations infeasible.
For fees to achieve this purpose, there seemingly must be an effective scarcity of capacity.
The second is that when subsidy has fallen well below fees, the incentive to move the blockchain forward goes away. An optimal rational miner would be best off forking off the current best block in order to capture its fees, rather than moving the blockchain forward...
tools like the Lightning network proposal could well allow us to hit a greater spectrum of demands at once--including secure zero-confirmation (something that larger blocksizes reduce if anything), which is important for many applications. With the right technology I believe we can have our cake and eat it too, but there needs to be a reason to build it; the security and decentralization level of Bitcoin imposes a hard upper limit on anything that can be based on it.
Another key point here is that the small bumps in blocksize which wouldn't clearly knock the system into a largely centralized mode--small constants--are small enough that they don't quantitatively change the operation of the system; they don't open up new applications that aren't possible today
the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk. Hardfork changes should only be made if they're almost completely uncontroversial--where virtually everyone can look at the available data and say "yea, that isn't undermining my property rights or future use of Bitcoin; it's no big deal". Unfortunately, every indicator I can think of except fee totals has been going in the wrong direction almost monotonically along with the blockchain size increase since 2012 when we started hitting full blocks and responded by increasing the default soft target. This is frustrating
many people--myself included--have been working feverishly hard behind the scenes on Bitcoin Core to increase the scalability. This work isn't small-potatoes boring software engineering stuff; I mean even my personal contributions include things like inventing a wholly new generic algebraic optimization applicable to all EC signature schemes that increases performance by 4%, and that is before getting into the R&D stuff that hasn't really borne fruit yet, like fraud proofs. Today Bitcoin Core is easily >100 times faster to synchronize and relay than when I first got involved on the same hardware, but these improvements have been swallowed by the growth. The ironic thing is that our frantic efforts to keep ahead and not lose decentralization have both not been enough (by the best measures, full node usage is the lowest its been since 2011 even though the user base is huge now) and yet also so much that people could seriously talk about increasing the block size to something gigantic like 20MB. This sounds less reasonable when you realize that even at 1MB we'd likely have a smoking hole in the ground if not for existing enormous efforts to make scaling not come at a loss of decentralization.
Peter Todd also summarized some academic findings on the subject:
In short, without either a fixed blocksize or fixed fee per transaction Bitcoin will will not survive as there is no viable way to pay for PoW security. The latter option - fixed fee per transaction - is non-trivial to implement in a way that's actually meaningful - it's easy to give miners "kickbacks" - leaving us with a fixed blocksize.
Even a relatively small increase to 20MB will greatly reduce the number of people who can participate fully in Bitcoin, creating an environment where the next increase requires the consent of an even smaller portion of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Where does that stop? What's the proposed mechanism that'll create an incentive and social consensus to not just 'kick the can down the road'(3) and further centralize but actually scale up Bitcoin the hard way?
Some developers (e.g. Aaron Voisine) voiced support for Gavin's proposal which repeated Mike Hearn's "crash landing" arguments.
Pieter Wuille said:
I am - in general - in favor of increasing the size blocks...
Controversial hard forks. I hope the mailing list here today already proves it is a controversial issue. Independent of personal opinions pro or against, I don't think we can do a hard fork that is controversial in nature. Either the result is effectively a fork, and pre-existing coins can be spent once on both sides (effectively failing Bitcoin's primary purpose), or the result is one side forced to upgrade to something they dislike - effectively giving a power to developers they should never have. Quoting someone: "I did not sign up to be part of a central banker's committee".
The reason for increasing is "need". If "we need more space in blocks" is the reason to do an upgrade, it won't stop after 20 MB. There is nothing fundamental possible with 20 MB blocks that isn't with 1 MB blocks.
Misrepresentation of the trade-offs. You can argue all you want that none of the effects of larger blocks are particularly damaging, so everything is fine. They will damage something (see below for details), and we should analyze these effects, and be honest about them, and present them as a trade-off made we choose to make to scale the system better. If you just ask people if they want more transactions, of course you'll hear yes. If you ask people if they want to pay less taxes, I'm sure the vast majority will agree as well.
Miner centralization. There is currently, as far as I know, no technology that can relay and validate 20 MB blocks across the planet, in a manner fast enough to avoid very significant costs to mining. There is work in progress on this (including Gavin's IBLT-based relay, or Greg's block network coding), but I don't think we should be basing the future of the economics of the system on undemonstrated ideas. Without those (or even with), the result may be that miners self-limit the size of their blocks to propagate faster, but if this happens, larger, better-connected, and more centrally-located groups of miners gain a competitive advantage by being able to produce larger blocks. I would like to point out that there is nothing evil about this - a simple feedback to determine an optimal block size for an individual miner will result in larger blocks for better connected hash power. If we do not want miners to have this ability, "we" (as in: those using full nodes) should demand limitations that prevent it. One such limitation is a block size limit (whatever it is).
Ability to use a full node.
Skewed incentives for improvements... without actual pressure to work on these, I doubt much will change. Increasing the size of blocks now will simply make it cheap enough to continue business as usual for a while - while forcing a massive cost increase (and not just a monetary one) on the entire ecosystem.
Fees and long-term incentives.
I don't think 1 MB is optimal. Block size is a compromise between scalability of transactions and verifiability of the system. A system with 10 transactions per day that is verifiable by a pocket calculator is not useful, as it would only serve a few large bank's settlements. A system which can deal with every coffee bought on the planet, but requires a Google-scale data center to verify is also not useful, as it would be trivially out-competed by a VISA-like design. The usefulness needs in a balance, and there is no optimal choice for everyone. We can choose where that balance lies, but we must accept that this is done as a trade-off, and that that trade-off will have costs such as hardware costs, decreasing anonymity, less independence, smaller target audience for people able to fully validate, ...
Choose wisely.
Mike Hearn responded:
this list is not a good place for making progress or reaching decisions.
if Bitcoin continues on its current growth trends it will run out of capacity, almost certainly by some time next year. What we need to see right now is leadership and a plan, that fits in the available time window.
I no longer believe this community can reach consensus on anything protocol related.
When the money supply eventually dwindles I doubt it will be fee pressure that funds mining
What I don't see from you yet is a specific and credible plan that fits within the next 12 months and which allows Bitcoin to keep growing.
Peter Todd then pointed out that, contrary to Mike's claims, developer consensus had been achieved within Core plenty of times recently. Btc-drak asked Mike to "explain where the 12 months timeframe comes from?"
Jorge Timón wrote an incredibly prescient reply to Mike:
We've successfully reached consensus for several softfork proposals already. I agree with others that hardfork need to be uncontroversial and there should be consensus about them. If you have other ideas for the criteria for hardfork deployment all I'm ears. I just hope that by "What we need to see right now is leadership" you don't mean something like "when Gaving and Mike agree it's enough to deploy a hardfork" when you go from vague to concrete.
Oh, so your answer to "bitcoin will eventually need to live on fees and we would like to know more about how it will look like then" it's "no bitcoin long term it's broken long term but that's far away in the future so let's just worry about the present". I agree that it's hard to predict that future, but having some competition for block space would actually help us get more data on a similar situation to be able to predict that future better. What you want to avoid at all cost (the block size actually being used), I see as the best opportunity we have to look into the future.
this is my plan: we wait 12 months... and start having full blocks and people having to wait 2 blocks for their transactions to be confirmed some times. That would be the beginning of a true "fee market", something that Gavin used to say was his #1 priority not so long ago (which seems contradictory with his current efforts to avoid that from happening). Having a true fee market seems clearly an advantage. What are supposedly disastrous negative parts of this plan that make an alternative plan (ie: increasing the block size) so necessary and obvious. I think the advocates of the size increase are failing to explain the disadvantages of maintaining the current size. It feels like the explanation are missing because it should be somehow obvious how the sky will burn if we don't increase the block size soon. But, well, it is not obvious to me, so please elaborate on why having a fee market (instead of just an price estimator for a market that doesn't even really exist) would be a disaster.
Some suspected Gavin/Mike were trying to rush the hard fork for personal reasons.
Mike Hearn's response was to demand a "leader" who could unilaterally steer the Bitcoin project and make decisions unchecked:
No. What I meant is that someone (theoretically Wladimir) needs to make a clear decision. If that decision is "Bitcoin Core will wait and watch the fireworks when blocks get full", that would be showing leadership
I will write more on the topic of what will happen if we hit the block size limit... I don't believe we will get any useful data out of such an event. I've seen distributed systems run out of capacity before. What will happen instead is technological failure followed by rapid user abandonment...
we need to hear something like that from Wladimir, or whoever has the final say around here.
Jorge Timón responded:
it is true that "universally uncontroversial" (which is what I think the requirement should be for hard forks) is a vague qualifier that's not formally defined anywhere. I guess we should only consider rational arguments. You cannot just nack something without further explanation. If his explanation was "I will change my mind after we increase block size", I guess the community should say "then we will just ignore your nack because it makes no sense". In the same way, when people use fallacies (purposely or not) we must expose that and say "this fallacy doesn't count as an argument". But yeah, it would probably be good to define better what constitutes a "sensible objection" or something. That doesn't seem simple though.
it seems that some people would like to see that happening before the subsidies are low (not necessarily null), while other people are fine waiting for that but don't want to ever be close to the scale limits anytime soon. I would also like to know for how long we need to prioritize short term adoption in this way. As others have said, if the answer is "forever, adoption is always the most important thing" then we will end up with an improved version of Visa. But yeah, this is progress, I'll wait for your more detailed description of the tragedies that will follow hitting the block limits, assuming for now that it will happen in 12 months. My previous answer to the nervous "we will hit the block limits in 12 months if we don't do anything" was "not sure about 12 months, but whatever, great, I'm waiting for that to observe how fees get affected". But it should have been a question "what's wrong with hitting the block limits in 12 months?"
Mike Hearn again asserted the need for a leader:
There must be a single decision maker for any given codebase.
Bryan Bishop attempted to explain why this did not make sense with git architecture.
Finally, Gavin announced his intent to merge the patch into Bitcoin XT to bypass the peer review he had received on the bitcoin-dev mailing list.
submitted by sound8bits to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

MLA 8 - Citing an Article from an Online Database - YouTube Using an Academic Database to Find Articles - YouTube Bitcoin explained and made simple  Guardian Animations ... How to Search Academic Databases for Research Papers How to Search Academic Databases  Research Skills  The ...

ScienceDirect: a multidisciplinary database featuring article from one of the largest academic publishers in the world 7. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) The DOAJ is very special academic database since all the articles indexed are open access and can be accessed freely of charge. Coverage: approx. 4.3 million items; References: NA Sci-Hub,mg.scihub.ltd,sci-hub.tw,The project is supported by user donations. Imagine the world with free access to knowledge for everyone ‐ a world without any paywalls. We collect a total of 253 articles directly related to bitcoin from the Scopus database. In addition to providing basic descriptive statistics of this dataset, we apply co-word analysis to separate the literature into groups. This is done by establishing a network in which articles are nodes and co-usage of the key terms links these articles. The network is then separated into groups based on ... Bitcoin, too, falls into this quadrant. Even in its early days, bitcoin offered immediate value to the few people who used it simply as an alternative payment method. (You can think of it as a ... Bitcoin Magazine provides news, analysis, information, commentary and price data about Bitcoin through our website, podcasts, research, and events.

[index] [190] [3605] [26424] [47480] [22795] [40802] [43546] [36685] [18343] [1672]

MLA 8 - Citing an Article from an Online Database - YouTube

In this video, we show you how to use an Academic Database to find journal articles about your topic. The database we use is called America: History & Life a... Using the Database’s "Citation Tool" or "Cite" Button – 0:26 How to Cite It Yourself – 2:17 How to research for a paper using academic databases and academic journals. We look at what is an academic journal and a peer-reviewed journal, what search t... Describes how to get articles from ProQuest Business Databases (a database paid for by the library from ProQuest). File Code: BR11-5. Hey there Bruins! Ready to get the most out of your article search? This tutorial will help you successfully navigate search filters, construct the effective...

#