Blockchain: Everything You Need to Know

The Monetary Sovereignty War-cry: Proof of Keys - [Jan/3➞₿🔑∎]

TO All Soldiers for Monetary Sovereignty:
Every January 3rd the Bitcoin community participates in a Proof of Keys celebration by demanding and taking possession of all bitcoins and other cryptocurrency held by trusted third parties on their behalf. You can do this by withdrawing all Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency to wallets where you hold the private keys and perform network consensus for validation.
On 9 Dec 2018 Trace Mayer introduced the annual Proof of Keys celebration.
This cultural tradition enables you, the individual, to prove your monetary sovereignty and strengthen the Bitcoin network by using a full-node for an economically substantive transaction(s). Together, on this day, all of us get to celebrate our monetary independence from trusted third parties (which are security holes!). And we strengthen the decentralization of the Bitcoin network in the process!

This is a way for you to invest in yourself. There are a lot of people who want to keep you weak, dependent and enervated when it comes to your monetary sovereignty. You must take the personal responsibility and summon the desire to take action to declare your monetary independence and prove to yourself that you, and no-one else, hold the private keys to your own money.

There has been much discussion on Reddit, Twitter and Youtube for those who need help with how to do this safely and securely. And those who were trained this year can become teachers next year. Even though we may be ensconced in our cold storage; we must never forget the new user and leave them behind and stranded on the battlefield of control over their money.

Some helpful interviews about Proof of Keys include Crypt0 News, Crypto Cast Network, Let's Talk Bitcoin - With Andreas Antonopolous and What Bitcoin Did. Some helpful discussion includes storing bitcoins , Bitcoin's Security Model and Bitcoin Miners and Invalid Blocks.

Perhaps most important is how this tradition helps educate, teach and train new users of Bitcoin. The effect on yourself is much more important than that on third parties or the Bitcoin network.

Hopefully, everything will go smoothly and there will be no losses of funds, no shady behaviors or delays by exchanges or other third-parties and no significant Bitcoin network congestion. But even if there is, those are very minor costs to pay in the battle for monetary sovereignty.

And if you already keep your bitcoins safely in cold storage and still want to join the community and participate then consider skipping a meal and instead buying $20+ worth of bitcoins and moving them into cold storage. Take more scarce territory on the Bitcoin blockchain!

After all, having Proof of Keys is much better than 'Proof of Roger', MtGox, Silk Road), Bitfinex, Bitstamp, or some other possibly untrustworthy third party!

There have even been some articles about third parties halting withdrawals in preparation like HitBTC.
This video of Roger Ver was recorded on July 14, 2013 at the MTGOX headquarters. MtGox declared bankruptcy Feb 2014 announcing 850,000 bitcoins belonging to customers were missing.
In conclusion, this magic Internet money thing is about a lot more than just making money. The battle over our monetary sovereignty is now a personal fight by each of us. We have rallied around the banner of Bitcoin because (1) it is the soundest and hardest money that is strictly limited in amount that the world has ever known and (2) it is a censorship-resistant decentralized network. But to maintain those properties requires eternal vigilance and protection by those who yearn for those protections.

Thus, this battle over monetary sovereignty has only two possible outcomes: either (1) control of their own lives by the people themselves the world over or (2) control of the people and their lives by political and economic elitists.

So, fellow soldiers on the battlefield of monetary sovereignty, every January Third join me in a Proof of Keys!

Sincerely,
Trace Mayer

submitted by bitcoinknowledge to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Dis-info Campaign Mega Thread

Hello,
I am going to run through some of the more prominent disinformation that has been thrown around in regards to Julian Assange and Wikileaks since the middle of October. This mega thread will hopefully dispel some of the more prominent and recurring arguments that have popped up over the last few months. If there is something here that needs to be added or was discussed incorrectly please let me know in the comments.
Edit: http://i.imgur.com/MfuN4tG.jpg
submitted by TrustyJAID to WhereIsAssange [link] [comments]

David Seaman is a Fraud, Ties to George Soros

If you don't know who David Seaman is, he's the self-appointed head spokesman of the Pizzagate movement. If you are a pizzagater, this association should make you very nervous, because David Seaman is a mentally unstable con man. Let's start with some background.
In 2007, Seaman began an internship with Jezebel. After only a few short months, he was so hated and reviled that Jezebel ran a hit piece on him, describing him as a "self-promotional whore" and then fired him. In the article, they publish a profile that Seaman had written about himself, which reveals the scary depths of his self-involved nature.
http://jezebel.com/270369/self-promotion-guru-david-seaman-totally-got-our-memo-shat-all-over-it
http://jezebel.com/274434/in-which-we-get-closure-with-self-promotional-whore-david-seaman
In 2008, Seaman wrote a book called, Dirty Little Secrets of Buzz: How to Attract Massive Attention for Your Business, Your Product, or Yourself. In this book, you can get advice such as "Always be controversial and outrageous in everything you do" and "Enemies are more important than friends." You'll also learn interesting tidbits such as how he loves Bill Maher and Michael Moore, and hates Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. This seems to be very contradictory, seeing as how he claims to be such a huge Donald Trump supporter. He also refers to himself as a "veteran promotional stunt planner," not a reporter or journalist. In the "About the Author" section, you'll find this info: Seaman is the founder of Shutterline Interactive, a vehicle for rapidly deploying new publicity stunts.
https://www.amazon.com/Dirty-Little-Secrets-Buzz-Attention/dp/1402213379
In August 2009, before the release of his book, Seaman claimed he would run naked through Times Square if his book didn't make the Top 100 list on Amazon. The book barely cracked the Top 200,000. He didn't follow through on the streaking promise. David Seaman has never met a promise that he didn't break.
http://www.adweek.com/digital/pewdiepies-downfall-shows-the-potential-dangers-of-social-influencer-marketing-for-brands/
Also in 2009, Seaman does an interview with Business Beat Live. In the interview he says, "I would protest gravity if I thought it was going to get me buzz".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkEA0CbVWU0
Seaman calls Joe Rogan a liar. He claims that Rogan promised him a role as a political contributor on his podcast, but never followed through. Rogan's producer, Brian Redban, implies in a tweet that Seaman is mentally unwell.
In the same article, he talks a little bit about he holds a grudge against his family because "they didn't have my back when I needed it". Knowing his history, he probably tried to con them, just like everyone else he's ever met.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-seaman/what-happened-to-bitcoin_b_11410280.html
If you are familiar with Seaman's Youtube channel, then you're aware that he is constantly shilling for Bitcoin and Goldmoney. Here's some info on Goldmoney:
"Goldmoney Inc has its headquarters located in Toronto Canada and in Saint Helier Jersey.[6] The company is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and has a market capitalization of $312 million as of February 27, 2016. GoldMoney Inc. investors and backers include Eric Sprott, Albert D. Friedberg, George Soros, Adam Fleming, and Canadian Banks Canaccord Genuity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldMoney
Yes that's right, one of the principle investors in Goldmoney is none other than George Soros! David Seaman can not claim ignorance on this subject either, because in an article on the Huffington Post he writes, "The company is funded by a number of savvy financial elites including precious metals entrepreneur Eric Sprott and the legendary Soros family."
For a guy who claims to hate pedophilia crimes and Hillary Clinton and John Podesta so much, why is he so proud to be associated with George Soros?
Also of note, Goldmoney paid for Seaman to attend this year's Super Bowl.
DavidSeaman recently won the #Supergold contest and got to go to the Super Bowl! 
http://community.goldmoney.com/discussion/2581/david-seaman-bitgold-goldmoney
Seaman's constant praise of Bitcoin is also curious, considering in July of last year he had this to say about Bitcoin in another Huffington Post article:
"The trolls and narrowminded Bitcoin bagholders pushing Ethereum “Classic” on an unsuspecting public are not the ultimate reason I’m selling off much of my Bitcoin tonight - that’s just another indication to me that Bitcoin is in a weak position. Ultimately, however, my decision is grounded in economic self-interest. I see optimism and amazing ideas being built out in Ethereum, and I don’t see anything close to this level in Bitcoin at the moment. Shortly after I file this story, I’ll be selling off 80% of my personal Bitcoin holdings; or more accurately, converting them into Ether, on Coinbase."
So he's bullish on Bitcoin, yet sold off 80% of his holdings? This guy just can't stop contradicting himself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-seaman/ethereum-classic-another_b_11173314.html
In August of 2016, Seaman claims to have been fired from the Huffington Post for writing an article about Hillary's health. This is false, as he couldn't be fired, because he was never on the HuffPo payroll. He was a contributor and unpaid blogger and had his publishing rights revoked, he was not fired. There is not a single person who has corroborated his claim that he was "fired" because of his Hillary article. Judging by his employment history, it's just as likely he was "fired" for being a self-promoting asshole.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-29/huffingon-post-revoked-publishing-access-journalist-after-post-hillarys-healthits-or
Let's move onto Pizzagate. Seaman started "reporting" on Pizzagate as early as November of last year. He owes the large following he has on Youtube and Twitter to the Pizzagate investigation, so you would think he would show some love for the hardworking Pizzagate investigators, right? WRONG. He's constantly taking credit for other peoples' work and has done exactly ZERO research on his own.
He has not evolved his coverage of Pizzagate one bit in over 3 months, it still consists mostly of "Hillary is evil, lock her up" "Podesta is a pedophile, lock him up". This guy is not a journalist, he's an anti-journalist.
There has been a lot of evidence discovered during the Pizzagate investigation, and there has also been a lot of stuff that has been proven to be fake. Seaman is constantly latching on to the most sensationalist, fake parts of Pizzagate and reporting it as fact and ignores all the valuable evidence that has been found. This has a huge negative effect on the credibility of Pizzagate.
He's repeatedly made claims that his life was in danger and "they" are out to get him. At one point he even claimed that 2 policemen were stationed outside his home for his protection. He claims to be so frightened for his life that he sleeps with a gun next to his bed. Of course, no one has ever been able to corroborate any of these claims.
Seaman has been an ardent supporter of Donald Trump, but just yesterday tweeted this: Was @realDonaldTrump's election just a brilliant head fake to give the potbellied pedophiles in the Deep State another 4 years of survival?
https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/831546919579119616
Today, he is back to being a Trump supporter and hashtagging MAGA on his tweets. He can't seem to keep his story straight for more than a day at a time.
He's repeatedly claimed that his work regarding Pizzagate is done and his place in the history books is secure, because the authorities are going to arrest everyone, and he won't speak about it anymore. Each of these claims has lasted about 5 minutes, until he starts talking about it again. In fact, he can't shut up about it, it's all he talks about.
A little over a week ago, Seaman went on an epic Twitter rant about Antarctica, Flat Earth theory, Mandela Effect, and aliens. This was an obvious attempt to lump Pizzagate in with fringe conspiracies. He then deleted his Twitter account. And then he reactivated his Twitter account. He then claimed Twitter deleted all his followers, except they didn't. This guy needs help.
He claims to have insider "sources". Every single time he's made a prediction based on his "sources", he's been wrong.
This past Sunday, February 12th, he sent out this tweet: Pizzagate is real. I was told arrests by midnight or early tomorrow, if that is not so, my source's confidentiality might dry up. Oops!
https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/830889197699526656
He was obviously trying to capitalize on the questionable claim by Youtuber Titus Frost, who made a video saying that child porn was found on Comet Ping Pong's website and that the police have been given all the evidence.
He was dead wrong, as usual. The next day, as people are questioning him and wondering if he will give up his source as he claims, he has another Twitter meltdown. His evidence that there should have been arrests is "Look at Tony Podesta's eyes". That's some quality journalism there, David. Constantly pressed to reveal his source, he says "My source is Wikileaks.org". Indicating that he has no source other than the Podesta emails that we've all read. He continues calling anyone who questions him shills, trolls, and David Brock employees for the rest of the day.
Later in the day, well past the timeline from his "source", he tweets a link to an article about the arrest of Jeffrey Sandusky. He claims this is a high level, high profile arrest and that his "source" was right all along.
https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/831233313478094848
During this same rant on February 13, he claims he was set up to be a fall guy, contradicting the later tweet that his "source" was right.
https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/831166795717423108
In this tweet, he throws the hardworking pizzagate researchers under the bus in an attempt to save his own credibility
https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/831167811363958784
If you've seen Seaman's YT videos, he's constantly talking about how Paypal and Youtube are out to get him by shutting off his income and trying to destory him financially. This of course leads to begging his fans for money via Patreon.
He's on pace to make $55,000 per year from Patreon, which he claims goes toward "legitimate production expenses."
In a tweet on 2/13/17, which is probably deleted because I can't find it, he claims he has $60,000 saved up and doesn't need money from his fans. So why are you constantly trying to get their money?
On February 14, in response to Hillary Clinton's Pizzagate tweet, he goes on yet another insane Twitter rant. He starts demanding justice and that people should take to the streets to protest. He sends crazy tweets directed at Hillary calling her evil bitch, a monster, a child rapist, and all sorts of other things. He calls for all the pedophiles to be hanged. Of course he provides no evidence for any of this like any sane Pizzagate investigator would do, he just screams about it like a lunatic.
He then starts tweeting falsities about Donald Trump, even though he claims to support him.
https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/831522338193575941
In this one, he claims Trump was planted by the Deep State to protect the pedophiles:
https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/831524560608440321
Go to his twitter page here: https://twitter.com/d_seaman to see all the ridiculous and demented things he is tweeting because frankly there are just too many to list. This is coming from a "respected" "journalist".
As you can see, all the information and evidence shows that David Seaman is clearly a fraudulent con man. He has been deceiving Pizzagate truthers from the very start, in an effort to boost his own fame and fortune. His intentions are not merely for personal gain either, he has been out to intentionally discredit Pizzagate by painting all investigators as unstable mentally ill lunatics. He has also had a massive negative influence on the credibility of Pizzagate, and he's reported it dishonestly and poorly the whole way and has repeatedly taken credit for other peoples' work.
This tweet, makes it abundantly clear what his agenda is. Someone asks him what he foresees for himself and he replies: Worldwide fame, or an untimely death.
https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/831331430433034240
If you are serious about Pizzagate and wanting to see the perpetrators held accountable for their crimes, you need to spread the word about the charlatan David Seaman, who claims to be on our side, but is clearly not.
.
.
.
EDIT - DAVID SEAMAN RESPONSE VIDEO
David Seaman made a response video to this post, when I posted it to voat last night. I encourage everyone who has read my post to watch it, to see firsthand how much of a liar and pathetic "journalist" Seaman is. His gullible followers ate it up as true to form he turned it around and pretends to be the victim.
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuJs3tBDKqI
-His posts on voat were deleted by a mod because he didn't follow the submission rules. He's completely lying about the photo ID stuff. The fact that he didn't have an account and doesn't even know the rules at the main pizzagate research forum goes to show just how much of a "researcher" he is.
-Claims that I'm accusing him of trying to sell his book. Complete and total lie, I never wrote or implied that a single time.
-Completely lies about the Super Bowl, no mention of Goldmoney.
submitted by roundhouse1776 to conspiracy [link] [comments]

CMV: 2014 was a horrible, no-good year

I maintain that 2014 was an unusually bad year, and a huge number of amazingly terrible events are concentrated in that year.
#CancelColbert
"CancelColbert" became a trending hashtag, thanks to Twitter activist Suey Park. The hashtag claimed that Stephen Colbert was racist for using "ching chong chinaman" as a part of his act, even though was obviously a joke meant to mock and satirize racists, not be one. The hashtag backfired and pretty much ruined Suey Park's life, as well as contributing to the over-sensitive social justice environment that most people agreed was terrible. But later it was announced that the humorous and successful Colbert Show would indeed be ending for unrelated reasons.
Russian invasion of Ukraine
In the first territorial conquest in Europe since World War II, in early 2014 Russia invaded and annexed the Crimea, and then went on to invade Ukraine. Obama didn't really stand up hard to Putin, he refused to even call it an invasion. The US and EU imposed some weak sanctions that didn't really do anything to move Putin.
MH370 disappearance
A large jet disappeared over Southeast Asia and no one has been able to find out. In addition to the loss of life, this was the start of a years long nightmare for the families of the victims, who have been tortured by endless inquiries and false hopes up to this day. It also resulted in a massive expenditure of resources in the search that ended up with nothing.
Rise of ISIS
No explanation needed. The rise of an explicitly theocratic, and totalitarian state in the Middle East that would result in a great deal more violence, including the beheading of journalists, happened this year. It extended the Syrian civil war and ended any hope of a legitimate opposition to Assad.
Newsweek Satoshi Nakamoto story
Newsweek published a story claiming to unmask the founder of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, but this was proven to be false. All that was accomplished was an apparently unrelated man got a ton of unwanted worldwide attention, and the journalist's highest profile story of her career blew up, and millions of people were misled in the process.
Michael Brown shooting
An 18 year old African American man was shot to death by the police. This led to massive riots and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, which ended up with yet another person dead, a police officer's life was ruined. The entire community of Ferguson was heavily damaged in the resulting violence, and racial tension exploded across the country after this. Polls of how people view race relations, which had been steady for decades, suddenly took a nosedive and we are still in a period of negative race relations now.
MH17 shootdown
Some rebels supplied by the Russian government shot down MH17 - the same airline that suffered the MH370 disappearance. It's such a tragedy for the airline to lose two planes in one year, through no apparent fault of its own. The shooters will never be held responsible because the Russian government will protect them.
Ebola Virus Disease
Ebola is a horrible disease that makes you bleed from your pores until you die. But until 2014, it was thought to be confined to Central Africa and easily controllable to very small outbreaks. But that year there was a huge outbreak in West Africa that killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. They will be forgotten because they were born in a poor developing country. Also some of the brave doctors and nurses who went to help were at high risk and many of them got Ebola and died.
Murder of Felina
Felina was a twitter citizen activist who rallied her fellow Mexicans to report criminal activity in Mexico's drug war through tweets. In this year, the gangs somehow tracked her down, knocked on her door. They forced her to tweet out a picture of herself looking defeated, then later tweeted out a picture of her dead body from her account. The drug lords sent a message that they were king, and the drug war has been accelerating in Mexico ever since.
#GamerGate
A massive controversy erupted online over games journalism, a seemingly obscure topic that nonetheless marked the beginning of the alt right. A lot of people like Milo Yiannopolis and Mike Cernovich first started getting really popular around this time. The alt right had its first big wins and basically took over the Internet. This was the beginning of today's online alt right and alt lite influence. It also resulted in a lot of people getting harassed and bullied online with no effective defense.
"A Rape on Campus"
Probably the worst piece of journalism of the decade. Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone published a liar's completely implausible account of being raped by a fraternity at UVA. After going massively viral, after a week or two the story turned out to be false, Rolling Stone didn't even verify basic facts or try to interview the accused. The fraternity was defamed, and real rape victims ever since then have had a harder time being believed. The story damaged Rolling Stone so bad, it contributed to the magazine's being sold off a couple years later.
Iggy Azalea called out for cultural appropriation
Iggy Azalea, a white Australian rapper, was called out for cultural appropriation, which is when a person of the wrong race uses the cultural symbols or clothing of another group. This is a completely stupid controversy since culture is by nature fluid and every race has borrowed and borrows from what other groups have made throughout history. Yet it has become something people bully each other over. Iggy was bullied out of the industry despite having some great songs and doing what she loved.
Republicans gain the Senate
Alright, if you're a Republican you probably don't consider this bad news, but if you're a centrist or a liberal it's definitely bad, since it means that the centrist judge Merrick Garland didn't get confirmed to the Supreme Court and now we will have 5-6 or more conservative judges on the court, completely wrecking its balance. Even if you're a conservative, the fact that the Republicans didn't even hold hearings on Garland's nomination was wrong.
Hillary Clinton decides to run for president
Apparently in December of this year is when Hillary Clinton decided to run for president. The Hillary Clinton campaign was one of the biggest disasters in history. She had to go through scandal after scandal, and the end result was two candidates that the majority of the country didn't like. We've been going into a more and more divisive political time ever since then.
In conclusion, 2014 was the worst year I'd say since 1997. Many negative events and/or trends started then, that are at the root of all our problems today. It's really remarkable how they all managed to happen in 2014. CMV.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
submitted by beet_0 to changemyview [link] [comments]

Link Collection - All Recent Core Team Communications (incl. Roadmap)

Last updated: Mar 29th, 2018

2 important things first:

General Note

Table of contents

  1. Communications
  2. Guides & Instructional links
  3. Key people to follow on Twitter
  4. Dash Core is hiring
  5. Quarterly Summaries
  6. Notable Core Team Proposals
  7. Dash Whitepapers
  8. Dash Technology Peer-reviewed
  9. Addendum: Misconceptions on Dash cleared up

Communications

  1. The birth of Dash's Governance: Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain
  2. 'We're Doing the Planning That Takes Us to 1 Billion" - Ryan Taylor, Dash Director of Finance
  3. The philosophy behind the DASH reward split by (now) Dash Core CEO Ryan Taylor
  4. Dash's Ryan Taylor at TNABC Bitcoin Miami 2017 (Best presentation on Dash so far!)
  5. What is DASH & Where Is It Going? 2017 DASH Open House
  6. Hong Kong | Research and Planning - by Evan Duffield
  7. Dash Roadmap to Evolution
  8. How To Enable On-Chain Scaling by Evan Duffield
  9. DFN - Interview with Evan on Dash's Roadmap
  10. Open Letter From Evan and Ryan Regarding Dash Marketing
  11. Wachsman PR - Q2 project closure report
  12. Interview With The Crypto Show! - Evan Duffield
  13. Dash Improvement Proposal No. 1 - DIP001
  14. Important information regarding wallet backups
  15. Dash Labs Network Update
  16. Copay Wallet going into closed Alpha Testing
  17. 1st Annual Dash Conference: London Keynote Professional HQ Recording
  18. DASH – DIGITAL CASH by Robert Wiecko at SWITCH! 2017
  19. Crucial information to all proposal owners: Do NOT use multisig addresses as payout destinations!
  20. Interview With Ryan Taylor, The CEO Of Dash Core Team
  21. Ryan Taylor at the World Blockchain Forum
  22. Ryan Taylor interview with Crypto Trader (MSNBC Africa)
  23. Dash Core Community Update
  24. Dash Core 12.2 Release
  25. Dash CEO Ryan Taylor: „Dash is in many ways a better Bitcoin“
  26. Update from Dash Core on Business Development
  27. How DASH is resistant to retargeting issues
  28. Dash presentation at the Euro Finance Tech in Frankfurt by essra
  29. Link collection of Dash's 2017 achievements
  30. What Is a DAO and Why Is It Revolutionary?
  31. Dash: The First DAO
  32. Welcome Bradley Zastrow - Director of Global Business Development
  33. Interview with Ryan Taylor, IR4 Podcast #12 (January 2018)
  34. Chuck Williams at Anarchapulco 2018 on Dash
  35. Dash Force Podcast E42 with Chuck Williams on Dash Evolution
  36. Evolution Demo #1 - The First Dash DAP
  37. Dash Force Podcast E43 - Feat. Fernando Gutierrez (Dash Core CMO)
  38. Our New Approach to Communications with the Community
  39. Dash Community Q&A - March 29th, 2018

Guides & Instructional links

  1. Dash Developer Documentation
  2. Upgrade Instructions for Masternodes (12.2)
  3. Upgrade Instructions for End Users (12.2)
  4. Upgrade Instructions for Masternodes (12.1)
  5. Upgrade Instructions for End Users (12.1)
  6. Paper Wallet Setup Guide
  7. Trezor Guide for Masternode Operators
  8. 8 Steps to a Successful Proposal
  9. Masternode Boot Camp by solarguy2003
  10. DASH 101 Video Series

Key people to follow on Twitter

  1. Ryan Taylor, CEO of Dash Core Inc.
  2. Fernando Gutierrez, CMO of Dash Core Inc.
  3. Bradley Zastrow, Chief of Business Development at Dash Core Inc.
  4. Andy Freer, CTO of Dash Core Inc.
  5. Chuck Williams, Head of UX Development at Dash Core Inc.
  6. Robert Wiecko, PM of Dash Core Inc.
  7. Joel Valenzuela, Dash Force
  8. Mark Mason, Dash Force
  9. Amanda B. Johnson
  10. Scott Farnsworth, The Dash Racer

Dash Core is hiring!

  1. Internship at Dash Labs
  2. DashLabs - Trezor Engineer
  3. GPU Accelerator Project
  4. DevOps Engineer @ Dash
  5. Infrastructure Manager @ Dash
  6. Sr. Backend Developer Role @ Dash

2017 Quarterly Summaries from Dash Core

  1. Dash Core Team Q1 2017 Summary Call
  2. Dash Core Team Q2 2017 Summary Call
  3. Dash Core Team Q3 2017 Summary Call
  4. Dash Core Team Q4 2017 Summary Call

2016 Quarterly Summaries from Dash Core

  1. Q1 2016
  2. Q2 2016
  3. Q3 2016
  4. Q4 2016

Notable Core Team proposals:

  1. Dash sponsored Blockchain Research in Arizona State University
  2. Conferences - The Trading Show
  3. Money 20/20 in London
  4. Conferences - BTC & Blockchain International Summit
  5. Dash Conference 2017 (London)
  6. Blockchain & Bitcoin Conference (Stockholm)

Dash Whitepapers

  1. Original Dash Whitepaper
Note: Previously the Evolution Whitepapers were linked in this section. These papers were written back in 2015 and are outdated, because Dash Evolution has seen a massive re-design and has been developed much further than those papers could have predicted. A new version will be posted here and elsewhere as soon as it is available.

Dash Technology Peer-reviewed

  1. Dash PrivateSend Peer Review by Kristov Atlas and Core Team's Response
  2. Dash Governance Peer Review by IOHK and Dash Core Team's Response

Addendum: Misconceptions on Dash cleared up

  1. What has Dash to offer other than features any other coin could just copy?
  2. InstantXploit? Cool Name, No Threat
  3. "Lazy Masternode" attack theory thoroughly debunked (see my comment)
  4. Hardware vs Software scaling - Why SegWit is not the savior of cryptocurrency
  5. How solid is PrivateSend, really? and Broken privacy promises vs Dash
  6. Dash has better wealth distribution than almost all top cryptos
  7. How is Dash NOT a ponzi scheme?
  8. PSA: DASH is not a CryptoNote clone - DashCOIN is
  9. Discussion/clarification on Dash's opensource approach
  10. Evil Masternode tyrants ruling over us?! and Masternodes in Dash = The rich get richer?
  11. Has Dash's development steadily declined over the past few months?
  12. The major advantage of optional privacy
  13. Ridiculous comments on Dash - by Kurt Robinson
  14. The Dash Masternode Network: A Response to Critics - by Eric Sammons
  15. Analysis of the first day in mining Dash by Ryan Taylor, (then) Director of Finance at Dash Core:
  16. How to Prevent the Hostile Takeover of a Blockchain: Eric Sammons on Dash Governance
  17. Official clarification on the "Instamine" issue (Fastmine actually)
  18. Evan Duffield has no more than 256,000 Dash and will give away 80% of that to fund DAOs within DASH. Follow-up: Part of the funds has already been used to found the Dash Labs research arm in Hong Kong. The lab is fully maintained through Duffield's private funding. No Treasury proposal for it exists.
  19. 10 Stupid Things People Say About Dash And How To Respond
  20. Sporks: One of the foundations of Dash's success
  21. There is no so called "Master Private Key" in Dash and there never has been. Sporks (explained above) have no relation to user funds, as the source code easily proves.
  22. Trolls vs. Users: The Limited Importance of Online Communities
  23. Dash PrivateSend and usage of denomination inputs
  24. Valuable link list from Dash Force member Mastermined
  25. "But Dash PrivateSend has a much smaller ambiguity set! Its privacy is broken!!!"
  26. Succinct refutation on Masternodes "artifically" blowing up the price & Evan Duffield being the only miner at launch
  27. Bitcoin Cash vs Dash
  28. "Dash rebranded from Darkcoin to distance itself from its dark history!!" -> Not at all. Nothing about its history is "dark" and more importantly this thread called "The Birth of Darkcoin" is stickied by Evan Duffield himself on the official main forum.
  29. "Evan Duffield lied about the launch time so he would get an unfair advantage at mining!" -> Quotes from the original launch thread on Bitcointalk: "Awesome! We'll be launching soon. Things are looking good." and "Launch is being moved to 11PM EST!". As the genesis block proves launch took place at 03:54:41 AM (UTC) on Jan. 19th, 2014 or 10:54:41 PM (EST), Jan. 18th, 2014. So if anything it was 5 minutes early.
  30. "But Litecoin is superior to Dash!!" - Really? Let's compare - Here's another sober look at the facts on this issue.
  31. Why Dash is not prone to cluster analysis attacks
  32. How "centralized" is Dash, really? & Which project is actually centralized here?
  33. From the day Dash started trading until late April 2014 anyone had the chance to buy Dash for less than 1 USD
  34. Dash Core developer MooCowMoo on alleged Masternode centralization and PrivateSend
  35. Why Masternodes have no incentive to vote in a proposal to pay themselves a large sum of Dash
  36. What is Dash's competitive edge?
  37. Why saying "Dash is a company" is false: Dash Core Inc., a company based in Scottsdale, Arizona is not the decentralized network called Dash. The network, consistent of over 4.5k globally distributed, decentralized Masternodes decided to hire and fund the company Dash Core Inc. to develop said network. This is the distinguishing property of Dash being a DAO, so it's understandable people have difficulty grasping the concept. Similarly Dash does not have a CEO, while Dash Core Inc. -obviously- has.
  38. Dash does not and never had a "dev tax": Dash has a Treasury and its distribution is being voted on each month. Only those funds that have been approved by the Masternode network go to proposal owners. The Treasury is capped at 10% of the accumulated block reward of one month. There is no central authority non-requested or non-approved funds go to and there never has been. Those funds are simply not created. So you can have months in which only 8% of the budget is being paid out, with the remaining 2% going to nobody due to not being mined.
  39. "B-but Evan Duffield can roll back the last 24 hours of the blockchain with the flick of a button!" Complete bullshit. The key in question refers to requiring a Masternode to re-validate its pre-existing blockchain in order to ensure it's on the right chain. Masternodes have nothing do with putting or removing transactions into or from the blockchain, only the miners can do that, thus claiming someone can "roll back the blockchain" in Dash is a malicious lie and a desperate attempt to make Dash look centralized when it's not. In short: No such button exists, ever existed or will ever exist.
  40. Why the total coin supply was changed or "The 84 million coin"-Question

General notes:

The Dash community is well aware that during most of its history this project has been under attack by competitors, many of which are trying to portray Dash (among many other things) as a failure. This is oxymoronic, because nobody hates on failures, especially not for 4 successful years in a row.
If you want a quick history lesson, here's a comment I made on where the Dash hate originated from back in 2014
Another, longer history lesson
Remain skeptical towards sensational accusations without evidence. Our community is helpful, knowledgeable and more than happy to answer any questions, as we have done many times on this subreddit. Still, we're all only human, have limited resources and we're just one project among many (always among the top, though!). Stakeholders and investors of other projects will always have an agenda to smear what they perceive as competition (I have yet to see our community actively go after other projects, though).
Just remember the Bullshit Asymmetry: "The amount of energy required to refute bullshit is at least an order of magnitude larger than to produce it." So it would be very unjust to expect a refutation on the spot all of the time. Prefer taking the initiative by asking the community directly about the claim you're confronted with. This community has proven many times to possess the integrity required to admit to technological shortcomings, but at the same time we'll never hesitate to call out illegitimate claims and accusations, of which there are many, for what they are.
The most common and most empty attack is "Dash is a scam".
More importantly you have to ask the critic just this one question: Who was scammed? The answer usually consists of complete silence or attempts to change the topic. This may sound all very defensive to someone who has never experienced the kind of FUD Dash has faced over the years, but the falsehoods we've refuted above are still being perpetuated by a very lonely but also very loud minority.

Not an ICO project

Regarding Dash's finances: Despite what many people assume influenced by the ICO insanity of the recent past, Dash did not have an ICO and Dash does not depend on 3rd party funding/investors. It is self funded from the blockchain and thus an entirely independent organization that does exactly what it wants, not what any angel investors want us to do. Dash is the first currency in history to achieve that.

Quick incomplete rundown of Dash's features

In fact Dash pioneered almost every single one of its features making it one of the most prolific innovators in the cryptocurrency space. Before Dash invented them, none of these features existed:
To re-iterate a previous point:
Dash has been copied by several dozen other projects either completely or through selected features indicating a strong approval of its technology within the wider cryptocurrency industry. The most copied feature by far is the Masternode system and the financial self-reliance it provides.
submitted by Basilpop to dashpay [link] [comments]

Open letter to the Bitcoin community

My goal with this post is to propose a dialogue between the opposing sides in block size conflict, namely Core and BU. I realise that many among you may not be receptive to the idea. Moreover, this post contains ideas which go against the dominant sentiment in both /bitcoin and /btc, and I'll be cross-posting it in both communities. Since there are back-and-forth accusations of censorship and living in an echo-chamber, I reckon that by posting something that makes both sides uncomfortable I'll be able to gauge which of the communities is most prone to censoring uncomfortable viewpoints.
Without further ado, here are the most important points I want you to consider:
A. Core's basic premise of off-chain scaling is technical superior. A lean main blockchain makes it easier and cheaper to run a full node, and therefore encourages decentralization. Moreover, do you really think it makes sense to record every single tiny transaction forever on the main chain? And please abstain from invoking "Satoshi's vision" as an argument. First, because Satoshi is not an omniscient infallible god. Second, because Satoshi has always shown himself to be a pragmatic individual, and if he were around I'm pretty sure he would agree that the various off-chain scaling proposals (LN, sidechains, etc) are more sensible.
B. Core's development team is larger and more capable. The recent Bitcoin Unlimited bug is just another symptom of a clear imbalance between the technical capability of the two teams. Even if you'd prefer a larger or unlimited block size you need to admit this!
C. Core messed up on the politics. The split between /bitcoin and /btc may had been avoided if the mods were more tactful and had not engaged in heavy-handed moderation. Also, the communication between Core developers and miners was neglected. And finally, not all mistakes are in the past. A recent example of how to grossly mishandle the political side comes from Luke Jr's hard-fork proposal. Now, I appreciate all the work Luke Jr has done for Bitcoin. I also realise he does not speak for Core. Nevertheless, having a prominent Core developer proposing a short-term decrease in block size in the current context is nothing short of a slap in the face to the other side.
D. Bitcoin Unlimited proponents also messed up on the politics. Hard fork threats are not conducive to a productive discussion. You may think Core's intransigence forced this move, but this sort of threat only causes the other side to dig in their heels. Moreover, holding Segwit hostage is simply unacceptable.
E. A contentious hard-fork is far more dangerous than an amicable one. This point is a criticism mainly to small-blockers who cite the dangers of a hard-fork as an absolute argument against a compromise for a moderate increase in block size (say to 2MB plus Segwit). Here's the thing: without some sort of agreement, Bitcoin is headed for a hard-fork anyway! Except it will be a contentious hard-fork, which is a lot more disruptive and dangerous than a hard-fork resulting from a compromise. The latter could be scheduled well in advance, would have the broad support of the community, and is unlikely to result in the creation of an altcoin. Moreover, the "no compromise hard-fork" intransigence is even more puzzling because many Core developers have already manifested their openness to an eventual hard-fork with a block size increase (Luke Jr's hard-fork proposal is again an example).
F. This conflict is seriously hurting Bitcoin. Potential investors and businesses see the community's inability to resolve this conflict as a sign of immaturity. Bitcoin's dominance in the crypto space is now only slightly more than 70% (it used to be much higher). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the conflict was a factor in the SEC's decision to deny the COIN ETF.

The way forward

With all the above in mind, how do we fix this situation? I reckon that a dialogue of representatives of both sides is imperative. I realise this has been tried in the past, but the manner in which it was conducted violated all the rules of "Negotiations 101". Therefore, here's a basic outline for how such negotiations should proceed:
1) A negotiation should start with one side making an overture. It doesn't matter which. It also doesn't matter if the overture is done publicly or privately.
2) Negotiations should start without preconditions. Anyone who says "We're only willing to negotiate if the other side does X and Y first" is typically not really willing to negotiate and just looking for an excuse.
3) When negotiations start, both sides should put out a statement simply saying that negotiations have started. While negotiations are ongoing, all statements should be joint statements, and each side should not be twitting about the progress or commenting about it on social media.
4) One-on-one private discussions are preferred. And by one-on-one I really do mean one person vs another person. The probability of failure in a negotiation is proportional to the number of individuals involved. This is because if multiple individuals are involved in each side, it's all too easy for a person to be more concerned with signaling allegiance to the in-group than to reach an agreement. When you want a negotiation to fail you invite a lot of people and call it a "roundtable".
5) While physical presence is usually preferred, online meetings are also fine. (Online may actually be better in this case, because the participants will be less pressured to get it right the first time.)
6) If the one-on-one discussion fails, it should be tried again with different individuals. You don't want personal animosity to get in the way of an agreement.
7) If the one-on-one discussions fail, a mediated discussion should be attempted.
8) At the end, a joint statement should be issued, even if its contents are simply "We agree to disagree".
9) Any agreement should be made public and written in clear and unambiguous language. Actions required from each party should not be vague or left to interpretation.

Frequently Asked Questions / Frequently raised objections

Q. I'm a small blocker. Wouldn't any compromise that increases the block size just encourage BU proponents to engage in similar shenanigans in the future?
A. Beware of the slippery slope fallacy. Moreover, if you're really confident that Segwit + LN + sidechains will really fix the scaling problem, then you should also be confident that once they are in use their advantages will be so obvious to everyone that the clamour for ever bigger blocks will simply die.
Q. Bitcoin should not care about politics, man!
A. Of course it should. What got us into this whole mess was technical people ignoring the political aspect that is present in all human activities.
Q. Won't the side that makes the overture look weak?
A. No. People are tired of this fight, and making an overture to negotiations actually makes you look reasonable. Refusing to negotiate signals that you're not very confident in your own position.
Q. We should never compromise on technical matters!
A. An agreement is not the same as a compromise. It may very well be that the outcome of the negotiation is that both sides agree to come up with a voting mechanism that takes into account the economic majority, the miners, and the users. And both sides agree to abide by the outcome of that vote.
Q. There's more than two sides to this debate!
A. You have to start somewhere. If Core and BU were to reach an agreement, that would go a long way towards bringing third parties on board.
Q. Just choosing a representative is impossible!
A. I don't think it's as hard as some claim. I've listened to several interviews with Core developers and BU proponents, and there's people on both sides that come across as being polite and reasonable, and I think they could reach an agreement if they were to engage one-on-one. However, there's also people who I would not put in charge of any negotiation. As much as I appreciate the work they've done for Bitcoin, I would not pick Luke Jr or Roger Ver, for instance.
Q. The other side is too entrenched. They'll never accept to dialogue!
A. If you really think that, make a public overture to a dialogue and prove you're the reasonable one.
Q. I'm a Core supporter. The recent BU bug shows they are finished. Why should we negotiate?
A. If you really think that, now is the perfect time to make an overture and be magnanimous.
Q. I'm a BU supporter. We'll have the majority of hashing power and Core knows it. Why should we negotiate?
A. If you really think that, then you have nothing to lose by making an overture and being magnanimous.
Q. The other side is simply acting in bad faith and/or don't have the best interests of Bitcoin at heart.
A. Beware of conspiracy theories. Moreover, do you really think that all the users on /bitcoin and /btc are part of some conspiracy? You should be trying to woe them to your side, not demonise them!
submitted by anna_loves_cats to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

Gregory Maxwell /u/nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."

UPDATE: This post was inspired by a similar previous post which also has lots of great points, but the current post has a slightly different focus because:
(1) This post assumes ignorance (not dishonesty) on the part of nullc.
(2) This post basically gives a list of a bunch of sources on Wikipedia talking about oligarchy and plutocracy, as a starting point for anyone interested in this stuff.
Gregory Maxwell nullc has repeatedly shown that he has a very weak grasp of the political and economic realities shaping our world today.
He should not be (actually nobody should be) in charge of setting major economic policies and parameters (eg money velocity aka "max blocksize") for the most important non-state-based currency in the history of humanity (Bitcoin).
Are serious investors and businesspeople going to believe in a new currency whose economic parameters (eg money velocity aka "max blocksize") are centrally planned by a private for-profit corporation Blockstream whose CTO and CEO (Gregory Maxwell nullc and Adam Back adam3us) have repeatedly shown that they are totally clueless when it comes to markets and economics?
I don't even know where to begin to school this guy on the reality of politics and economics in the world today. It would take literally years of reading up on events in the mainstream media and online in order for him to get familiar enough with this stuff to stop blurting out ridiculously ignorant statements like:
"Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks" is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies.
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/44meru/why_would_miners_go_against_their_own_interests/czrgb0d
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44p5tk/does_the_community_believe_that_gmaxwell_is_being/
Maybe the Wikipedia articles on "Oligarchy" or "Plutocracy" would be a good place for him to start reading up, so he can avoid making such ignorant public pronouncements in the future.
Meanwhile, it is obvious that this guy should not be in charge of centralized planning for Bitcoin's economic aspects such as "max blocksize".
Actually, blocksize is probably not a even a "parameter" which can be "pre-determined" by a C/C++ programmer.
Blocksize is more likely an "emergent phenomenon" which should probably be determined by the market itself.
Below are many, many links talking about how "oligarchy" and "plutocracy" have replaced democracy in politics and economics today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy#United_States
Some contemporary authors have characterized current conditions in the United States as oligarchic in nature.[8][9]
Simon Johnson wrote that "the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent," a structure which he delineated as being the "most advanced" in the world.[10]
Jeffrey A. Winters wrote that "oligarchy and democracy operate within a single system, and American politics is a daily display of their interplay."[11]
Bernie Sanders,opined in a 2010 The Nation article that an "upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class … In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country."[12]
The top 1% in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.[13] In 2011, according to PolitiFact and others, the top 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[14][15][16][17]
French economist Thomas Piketty states in his 2013 book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."[18]
A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University, and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, was released in April 2014,[19] which stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts."
It also suggested that "Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise."
Gilens and Page do not characterize the US as an "oligarchy" per se; however, they do apply the concept of "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey Winters with respect to the US. Winters has posited a comparative theory of "oligarchy" in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a "civil oligarchy" like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection.[20]
Gilens says that average citizens only get what they want if economic elites or interest groups also want it; that is, economic elites and interest groups are influential.[21] ...
In a 2015 interview, former President Jimmy Carter stated that the United States is now "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery," due to the Citizens United ruling, which effectively removed limits on donations to political candidates.[25]
Links for the above references (footnotes) in the Wikipedia article on "Oligarchy":
[8] Kroll, Andy (2 December 2010). "The New American Oligarchy". TomDispatch (Truthout). Retrieved 17 August 2012.
http://www.truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/93150:andy-kroll--the-new-american-oligarchy
It used to be that citizens in large numbers, mobilized by labor unions or political parties or a single uniting cause, determined the course of American politics. After World War II, a swelling middle class was the most powerful voting bloc, while, in those same decades, the working and middle classes enjoyed comparatively greater economic prosperity than their wealthy counterparts. Kiss all that goodbye. We're now a country run by rich people.
[9] America on the Brink of Oligarchy 24 August 2012 The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/magazine/books-and-arts/106430/money-politics-inequality-power-one-percent-move-on-effect
Winters conceives of oligarchy not as rule by the few, but as a kind of minority power created by great concentrations of material wealth. Compatible with a wide range of regimes, oligarchy can co-exist and even be “fused” with democracy as it is today in the United States.
[10] Johnson, Simon (May 2009). "The Quiet Coup". The Atlantic. Retrieved 17 August 2012.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/?single_page=true
The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.
[11] Winters, Jeffrey A. (November–December 2011) [28 September 2011]. "Oligarchy and Democracy". The American Interest 7 (2). Retrieved 17 August 2012.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2011/09/28/oligarchy-and-democracy/
Democratic institutions aren't sufficient in themselves to keep the wealthy few from concentrating political power.
[12] Sanders, Bernie (22 July 2010). "No To Oligarchy". The Nation. Retrieved 18 August 2012.
http://www.thenation.com/article/no-oligarchy/
While the middle class disappears and more Americans fall into poverty, the wealthiest people in our country are using their wealth and political power to protect their privileged status at everyone else's expense.
[13] "Tax Data Show Richest 1 Percent Took a Hit in 2008, But Income Remained Highly Concentrated at the Top. Recent Gains of Bottom 90 Percent Wiped Out". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 25 May 2011. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/tax-data-show-richest-1-percent-took-a-hit-in-2008-but-income-remained-highly-concentrated?fa=view&id=3309
[14] Kertscher, Tom; Borowski, Greg (10 March 2011). "The Truth-O-Meter Says: True - Michael Moore says 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined". PolitiFact. Retrieved 11 August 2013.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/ma10/michael-moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth-/
"Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans -- 400 -- have more wealth than half of all Americans combined," Moore avowed to tens of thousands of protesters.
"Let me say that again. And please, someone in the mainstream media, just repeat this fact once; we’re not greedy, we’ll be happy to hear it just once.
"Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals ... -- most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined."
[15] Moore, Michael (6 March 2011). "America Is Not Broke". Huffington Post. Retrieved 11 August 2013.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/america-is-not-broke_b_832006.html
America is not broke.
Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
Today just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.
Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have more loot, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.
[16] Moore, Michael (7 March 2011). "The Forbes 400 vs. Everybody Else". michaelmoore.com. Archived from the original on 2011-03-09. Retrieved 2014-08-28.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110309211959/http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/forbes-400-vs-everybody-else
According to the most recent information, the Forbes 400 now have a greater net worth than the bottom 50% of U.S. households combined.
[17] Pepitone, Julianne (22 September 2010). "Forbes 400: The super-rich get richer". CNN. Retrieved 11 August 2013.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/22/news/companies/forbes_400/index.htm
Forbes magazine released its annual list of the 400 richest Americans on Wednesday, and their combined net worth climbed 8% this year, to $1.37 trillion.
[18] Piketty, Thomas (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press. ISBN 067443000X p. 514
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a 2013 book by French economist Thomas Piketty. It focuses on wealth and income inequality in Europe and the United States since the 18th century. It was initially published in French (as Le Capital au XXIe siècle) in August 2013; an English translation by Arthur Goldhammer followed in April 2014.
The book's central thesis is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability.
[19] Gilens, Martin; Page, Benjamin (9 April 2016). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF): 6.
[20] Gilens & Page (2014) p. 6
https://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
[21] Prokop, A. (18 April 2014) "The new study about oligarchy that's blowing up the Internet, explained" Vox
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained
Study: Politicians listen to rich people, not you
Who really matters in our democracy — the general public, or wealthy elites?
[25] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-20150731
Former President Jimmy Carter had some harsh words to say about the current state of America's electoral process, calling the country "an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery" resulting in "nominations for president or to elect the president." When asked this week by The Thom Hartmann Program (via The Intercept) about the Supreme Court's April 2014 decision to eliminate limits on campaign donations, Carter said the ruling "violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy#Post_World_War_II
When the Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote the 2011 Vanity Fair magazine article entitled "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%", the title and content supported Stiglitz's claim that the United States is increasingly ruled by the wealthiest 1%.[34]
Some researchers have said the US may be drifting towards a form of oligarchy, as individual citizens have less impact than economic elites and organized interest groups upon public policy.[35]
A study conducted by political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern University), which was released in April 2014,[36] stated that their "analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts."
Links for the above references (footnotes) in the Wikipedia article on "Plutocracy":
[34] Stiglitz Joseph E. "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" Vanity Fair, May 2011; see also the Democracy Now! interview with Joseph Stiglitz: Assault on Social Spending, Pro-Rich Tax Cuts Turning U.S. into Nation "Of the 1 Percent, by the 1 Percent, for the 1 Percent", Democracy Now! Archive, Thursday, April 7, 2011
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent.
...
America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.
[35] Piketty, Thomas (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press. ISBN 067443000X p. 514: "the risk of a drift towards oligarchy is real and gives little reason for optimism about where the United States is headed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
[36] Gilens & Page (2014) Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Perspectives on Politics, Princeton University. Retrieved 18 April 2014.
PDF! www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf
Finally, it is worth mentioning the notorious "Plutonomy" memo prepared by analysts at Citigroup:
https://pissedoffwoman.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/the-plutonomy-reports-download/
Citigroup wrote memos in 2005 and 2006 addressed to investors, basically saying that the world is dividing up more and more into a small group of rich people who drive the economy, surrounded by a large number of poor people whose economic interests can be safely ignored.
As the above links show, it is shockingly naïve for Gregory Maxwell u/nullc to claim that policies for fiat currencies are determined by "democracies".
If he is this ignorant about the reality of so-called democracies and fiat currencies, one can only wonder how much other stuff he is ignorant about, in his ongoing misguided attempts to impose his own centralized economic planning on Bitcoin.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Endless Hack Stories

Endless Hack Stories
https://medium.com/@aegees.community/endless-hack-stories-737be488b714
https://preview.redd.it/g2sitto7s1221.jpg?width=5184&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de0927781bb9a37a91ce6e8598671b625f3a7bcd
Let’s face it, the internet has been buzzing with endless hack stories, one after the other — celebrities, politician, CEOs and even scientists have fallen victim in recent years. Vast swathes of sensitive and classified data have been leaked and exposed. We thought it would be a good idea to take a closer look at some of the higher-profile cases and ask; what happened, how, and what were the consequences?
Russia’s Alleged Election Hack
The 2016 US presidential election was the epicentre of a prolonged hacking scandal of a kind history had never seen before. As a candidate, Donald Trump was at first perceived by many as an unlikely contender because of his character, numerous eccentricities and patterns of behaviour that many thought to reveal downright buffoonery. Even so, in the end, he prevailed over the “perfect” Democratic candidate, former State Secretary, Hillary Clinton. The first scandal to rock the presidential race was the Democratic National Committee email leak. Almost 20 thousand emails to and from DNC staff members, including key officials, were allegedly stolen by Russian hackers and handed over to WikiLeaks. The publication was damaging, and the source was never disclosed.
The leaked content exploded like a bomb since it contained suggestions that the party leaders had worked to sabotage Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic Party’s nomination (as we all know, he ended his race on July 12, 2016, by formally endorsing Clinton to run against Trump). DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned in the scandalous aftermath.
Needless to say, that didn’t exactly help the Democrats in the following stages of the race and might well have actually contributed to Donald Trump’s ultimate victory. On July 31, in an interview with Fox News, Hillary Clinton openly accused Russia’s intelligence services of hacking into Democratic National Committee computers. Allegations that Russia interfered have pretty much been the focus of attention for America’s political elite ever since and been the catalyst for ever-more scandals. In late December 2016, President Obama’s administration ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US as a means of sanctioning Russia for “malicious cyber activity” referred to as ‘Grizzly Steppe’ in a new FBI report. The scandal expanded even further when the Director of National Intelligence released a joint intelligence report in early January 2017, followed by the US Department of Justice opening a Special Counsel investigation into the ‘Russian interference’.
Whether or not Russian intelligence services really did ‘hack’ the US election and tip the balance in Trump’s favour remains an open question to this day. What we can say for sure is that the hack contributed extensively to increasing tension between the two superpowers and no one can say for sure where it will all lead. If that doesn’t teach everyone a lesson about the importance of data security, we don’t know what will!
Sony Pictures Hack: Reputations in Tatters
Movie executives at Sony Pictures paid a heavy price in November 2014 for a massive data leak instigated by a hacker group calling itself “Guardians of Peace”. The hackers got their hands on personal information of about more than 47,000 current and former company employees; this included executive salaries, emails, copies of unreleased Sony films, and a whole host of other data. The attackers made threats and demands for payment without clearly specifying what they actually wanted, and while Sony tried to figure out the scale of the damage and how to respond, the bad guys started leaking the data.
What sparked the most public outrage were e-mail exchanges between Sony Pictures Chair, Amy Pascal and producer, Scott Rudin. First, it was revealed that Rudin had called actress Angelina Jolie “a minimally talented spoiled brat” in emails discussing her upcoming remake of the classic film Cleopatra (which, by the way, was never finished). To add insult to injury, there were further revelations of several racist jokes by Rudin and Pascal about none other than the then President of the United States, Barack Obama. The two had mockingly suggested they should mention films about African-Americans upon meeting the president at a forthcoming fundraising event. Both Pascal and Rudin were compelled to issue public apologies for their insensitive and insulting Jolie and Obama comments. We humbly suggest that no one would willingly trade places with those two.
Alonzo Knowles: Genius or Lousy Fence?
This curious story occurred in 2015; Alonzo Knowles, a 23-year-old Bahamian man, managed to develop a hacking scheme that allowed him to steal data concerning celebrities and famous athletes. His digital haul included unpublished film and TV show scripts, social security numbers, emails, passport details, unreleased music tracks and even sexually explicit videos. One script that’s known to have been hacked was, “All Eyez on Me”, a biopic about the legendary rapper, Tupac Shakur.
The hacker tried to profit from his theft by extorting money from some of his victims, their producers and show-runners. His actions came to official attention when “a popular radio host” contacted the executive producer of a TV show, saying scripts for the show had been offered for sale. The channel that broadcast the show contacted law enforcement authorities, and an undercover agent went to cut a deal with Knowles, who was operating under an alias, and the operation ultimately led to his arrest.
Knowles tried to sell a package of data and scripts for $80,000 but instead was sent to jail for 5 years. It seems he had a knack for grabbing the goodies but wasn’t very adept when it came to fencing them. In fact, he was very good at extracting information, he collected dossiers on as many as 130 stars!
Climategate: Global Warming, Huh?
This is a curious case because these hackers weren’t seeking to extort money or wield political influence, at least not directly. They behaved more like whistle-blowers. In November 2009, a server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was hacked by an external attacker who copied and released thousands of computer files and emails attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers. This was just weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change. The leak was following by an outcry from climate-change “sceptics” who argued that the documents conclusively showed how global warming was nothing more than a scientific conspiracy and that scientists had manipulated climate data.
Well, as many as eight committees investigated the allegations and leaked documents and found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct thus proving the theorists who denied climate change wrong. However, from the point of data security, this case demonstrates that even the world’s leading scientific institutions can be hacked. As for the “bad rep” after-effects, it must be acknowledged that, to this day, none of the official reports has succeeded in shaking off the sceptics; conspiracy theorists still refer to “Climategate” every now and then. Some things do tend to stick, don’t they?
Celebgate: Victims said it was “Equivalent to Sex Crime”
2014 saw a scandal in which hundreds of nude photos and videos of Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities were stolen from their Apple iCloud accounts and posted online, known as Fappening or Celebgate. Among other victims were Kim Kardashian, Kate Upton, Kelly Brook, Kirsten Dunst, a total of 100 stars! The hackers released some photos for free and exchanged others for Bitcoin (which were worth around $500 a piece at the time).
The fallout was massive, the victims were enraged, and the FBI investigated the outrageous violation of privacy. One interesting detail is that Apple later reported that the victims’ iCloud account information had been obtained using targeted attacks on usernames, passwords and security questions, such as phishing and brute-force guessing. Essentially they said that the breach had been made possible because the celebrities were careless and used weak passwords.
Celebgate remains the most significant leak so far of personal celebrity photos and details, we hope it stays that way.
All of this tells us again how vital user device security is. No one can promise a totally trouble-free life, not even us, but if you can’t be hacked, data security and privacy won’t be among the troubles you have to worry about. Wouldn’t that be good?
submitted by AegeesMessenger to u/AegeesMessenger [link] [comments]

Open letter to the Bitcoin community

My goal with this post is to propose a dialogue between the opposing sides in block size conflict, namely Core and BU. I realise that many among you may not be receptive to the idea. Moreover, this post contains ideas which go against the dominant sentiment in both /bitcoin and /btc, and I'll be cross-posting it in both communities. Since there are back-and-forth accusations of censorship and living in an echo-chamber, I reckon that by posting something that makes both sides uncomfortable I'll be able to gauge which of the communities is most prone to censoring uncomfortable viewpoints.
Without further ado, here are the most important points I want you to consider:
A. Core's basic premise of off-chain scaling is technical superior. A lean main blockchain makes it easier and cheaper to run a full node, and therefore encourages decentralization. Moreover, do you really think it makes sense to record every single tiny transaction forever on the main chain? And please abstain from invoking "Satoshi's vision" as an argument. First, because Satoshi is not an omniscient infallible god. Second, because Satoshi has always shown himself to be a pragmatic individual, and if he were around I'm pretty sure he would agree that the various off-chain scaling proposals (LN, sidechains, etc) are more sensible.
B. Core's development team is larger and more capable. The recent Bitcoin Unlimited bug is just another symptom of a clear imbalance between the technical capability of the two teams. Even if you'd prefer a larger or unlimited block size you need to admit this!
C. Core messed up on the politics. The split between /bitcoin and /btc may had been avoided if the mods were more tactful and had not engaged in heavy-handed moderation. Also, the communication between Core developers and miners was neglected. And finally, not all mistakes are in the past. A recent example of how to grossly mishandle the political side comes from Luke Jr's hard-fork proposal. Now, I appreciate all the work Luke Jr has done for Bitcoin. I also realise he does not speak for Core. Nevertheless, having a prominent Core developer proposing a short-term decrease in block size in the current context is nothing short of a slap in the face to the other side.
D. Bitcoin Unlimited proponents also messed up on the politics. Hard fork threats are not conducive to a productive discussion. You may think Core's intransigence forced this move, but this sort of threat only causes the other side to dig in their heels. Moreover, holding Segwit hostage is simply unacceptable.
E. A contentious hard-fork is far more dangerous than an amicable one. This point is a criticism mainly to small-blockers who cite the dangers of a hard-fork as an absolute argument against a compromise for a moderate increase in block size (say to 2MB plus Segwit). Here's the thing: without some sort of agreement, Bitcoin is headed for a hard-fork anyway! Except it will be a contentious hard-fork, which is a lot more disruptive and dangerous than a hard-fork resulting from a compromise. The latter could be scheduled well in advance, would have the broad support of the community, and is unlikely to result in the creation of an altcoin. Moreover, the "no compromise hard-fork" intransigence is even more puzzling because many Core developers have already manifested their openness to an eventual hard-fork with a block size increase (Luke Jr's hard-fork proposal is again an example).
F. This conflict is seriously hurting Bitcoin. Potential investors and businesses see the community's inability to resolve this conflict as a sign of immaturity. Bitcoin's dominance in the crypto space is now only slightly more than 70% (it used to be much higher). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the conflict was a factor in the SEC's decision to deny the COIN ETF.

The way forward

With all the above in mind, how do we fix this situation? I reckon that a dialogue of representatives of both sides is imperative. I realise this has been tried in the past, but the manner in which it was conducted violated all the rules of "Negotiations 101". Therefore, here's a basic outline for how such negotiations should proceed:
1) A negotiation should start with one side making an overture. It doesn't matter which. It also doesn't matter if the overture is done publicly or privately.
2) Negotiations should start without preconditions. Anyone who says "We're only willing to negotiate if the other side does X and Y first" is typically not really willing to negotiate and just looking for an excuse.
3) When negotiations start, both sides should put out a statement simply saying that negotiations have started. While negotiations are ongoing, all statements should be joint statements, and each side should not be twitting about the progress or commenting about it on social media.
4) One-on-one private discussions are preferred. And by one-on-one I really do mean one person vs another person. The probability of failure in a negotiation is proportional to the number of individuals involved. This is because if multiple individuals are involved in each side, it's all too easy for a person to be more concerned with signaling allegiance to the in-group than to reach an agreement. When you want a negotiation to fail you invite a lot of people and call it a "roundtable".
5) While physical presence is usually preferred, online meetings are also fine. (Online may actually be better in this case, because the participants will be less pressured to get it right the first time.)
6) If the one-on-one discussion fails, it should be tried again with different individuals. You don't want personal animosity to get in the way of an agreement.
7) If the one-on-one discussions fail, a mediated discussion should be attempted.
8) At the end, a joint statement should be issued, even if its contents are simply "We agree to disagree".
9) Any agreement should be made public and written in clear and unambiguous language. Actions required from each party should not be vague or left to interpretation.

Frequently Asked Questions / Frequently raised objections

Q. I'm a small blocker. Wouldn't any compromise that increases the block size just encourage BU proponents to engage in similar shenanigans in the future?
A. Beware of the slippery slope fallacy. Moreover, if you're really confident that Segwit + LN + sidechains will really fix the scaling problem, then you should also be confident that once they are in use their advantages will be so obvious to everyone that the clamour for ever bigger blocks will simply die.
Q. Bitcoin should not care about politics, man!
A. Of course it should. What got us into this whole mess was technical people ignoring the political aspect that is present in all human activities.
Q. Won't the side that makes the overture look weak?
A. No. People are tired of this fight, and making an overture to negotiations actually makes you look reasonable. Refusing to negotiate signals that you're not very confident in your own position.
Q. We should never compromise on technical matters!
A. An agreement is not the same as a compromise. It may very well be that the outcome of the negotiation is that both sides agree to come up with a voting mechanism that takes into account the economic majority, the miners, and the users. And both sides agree to abide by the outcome of that vote.
Q. There's more than two sides to this debate!
A. You have to start somewhere. If Core and BU were to reach an agreement, that would go a long way towards bringing third parties on board.
Q. Just choosing a representative is impossible!
A. I don't think it's as hard as some claim. I've listened to several interviews with Core developers and BU proponents, and there's people on both sides that come across as being polite and reasonable, and I think they could reach an agreement if they were to engage one-on-one. However, there's also people who I would not put in charge of any negotiation. As much as I appreciate the work they've done for Bitcoin, I would not pick Luke Jr or Roger Ver, for instance.
Q. The other side is too entrenched. They'll never accept to dialogue!
A. If you really think that, make a public overture to a dialogue and prove you're the reasonable one.
Q. I'm a Core supporter. The recent BU bug shows they are finished. Why should we negotiate?
A. If you really think that, now is the perfect time to make an overture and be magnanimous.
Q. I'm a BU supporter. We'll have the majority of hashing power and Core knows it. Why should we negotiate?
A. If you really think that, then you have nothing to lose by making an overture and being magnanimous.
Q. The other side is simply acting in bad faith and/or don't have the best interests of Bitcoin at heart.
A. Beware of conspiracy theories. Moreover, do you really think that all the users on /bitcoin and /btc are part of some conspiracy? You should be trying to woe them to your side, not demonise them!
submitted by anna_loves_cats to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why choose Uncloak as your cybersecurity solution?

“Cybersecurity risks are growing… Attacks against businesses have almost doubled in five years, and incidents that would once have been considered extraordinary are becoming more and more commonplace… Notable examples included the WannaCry attack — which affected 300,000 computers across 150 countries — and NotPetya, which caused quarterly losses of US$300 million for a number of affected businesses.”
Introducing Uncloak: the cybersecurity Blockchain DApp
With the incidence of cyber-attacks growing explosively conventional security measures are falling short. Centralised security systems have an inherent weakness because they present an easy target for hackers.
Uncloak is a DApp that solves this problem by using advanced EOS Blockchaintechnology and AI to stay a step ahead of hackers and cybercriminals.
Uncloak is a virtual cybersecurity consultant that enables companies to secure their computers without expensive software solutions and trained staff. The AI engine at the core of Uncloak is fuelled by a Blockchain secured network of threat bounty hunters and researchers, enabling Uncloak to predict and defend against emerging threats.
Uncloak: The future of Cyber Threat Detctions:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KBF__K397Lc

What the %#[email protected] is a DApp?
Blockchain is a pretty new concept for most people, so let’s take a minute and demystify some of the jargon around Uncloak.
DApp stands for decentralised application. We describe Uncloak as a DApp because unlike conventional cloud software it isn’t running on one central computer or server.
A DApp’s backend code is distributed across a peer-to-peer network, thus avoiding any single point of failure and protecting it from hacking. In Uncloak’s case, the network is managed by an EOS Blockchain system that verifies and secures interactions across the network.
The Blockchain application most people know about is Bitcoin, the controversial cryptocurrency which was the first real-world use of the technology. But Blockchain can do a lot more than just act as virtual money.
Blockchain technology facilitates collaboration; it’s known as a “distributed ledger” system because every participant, every user’s contributions are part of a permanent, verifiable record.
Conventional centralised software is insecure because, like a bank, it’s an attractive target for criminals. Blockchain platforms operate on the idea of smart contracts that enable a community of users to interact securely without the intervention of a central authority. That’s a very valuable characteristic in the context of cybersecurity because it removes the vulnerability inherent in a central authority. Uncloak’s Blockchain AI will coordinate threat intel and award bounties automatically.
Threat bounties are a core component of Uncloak. Participants in Uncloak who identify new “zero hour” cyber-threats will be automatically rewarded with tokenised bounties. The Uncloak threat bounty system will be managed by AI so that users will get the full benefit of new intel in real time.
How does Uncloak work?
Now we’ve covered some of the must-know jargon, let’s get to the machinery of Uncloak itself. It’s a cybersecurity solution and a threat bounty program and a Blockchain system… but how does it work?
Uncloak provides up-to-the-moment cyber-threat protection for users by coordinating the efforts of expert researchers and AI.
Powered by EOS blockchain technology, the architecture of Uncloak is a transparent peer-to-peer AI platform. Uncloak simultaneously allows IT specialists across the globe to collaborate on intercepting new cybersecurity threats and delivers that intel to users to protect them from attack.
There is a threat bounty system built into Uncloak that rewards participants for discovering and sharing new zero-hour vulnerabilities. Blockchain management of the Uncloak user community will mean that there are no delays between threats being detected and users being protected.
In a conventional cybersecurity software system, human analysts must verify and distribute new threat data, causing a lag time between the emergence of a threat and protection being implemented. Uncloak’s unique Blockchain AI structure solves that problem because participants in the system share intel directly, in real time.
Who needs Uncloak?
Every company is connected to the internet, even if it’s only through email inboxes and that makes them vulnerable to cybercrime.
The WEF’s 2018 Global Risks Report and recent data released by the FBI show that online attacks against businesses are increasing in number and severity year-on-year.
Businesses are looking for more effective ways to protect themselves, and in a world where new malware variants can sweep across the globe in minutes, a timely response is vital.
Companies will use Uncloak to get protection from new cyber-threats because the Uncloak Blockchain AI system will identify them faster than conventional centralised security software.
Cybersecurity researchers will participate in Uncloak’s threat bounty program because the peer-to-peer Blockchain structure will give them access to the latest verified intel faster than any other channel. Researchers and threat hunters will be able to collaborate seamlessly through the Uncloak Blockchain without bottle-necks caused by human verification.
Because Uncloak is powered by an AI engine, it will employ all the data from researchers and end-users to learn in real time and develop predictive solutions to new cyber-threats.
In our next article we’ll be interviewing Asad Mahmood, one of Uncloak’s key technical advisors, and asking him about the way Uncloak integrates AI and Blockchain. Asad is a Blockchain Engineer at *IBM,*a highly experienced AI software developer, and an expert at explaining complex ideas to regular people.
Don’t miss that conversation: follow our blog updates.
See Uncloak in action
Uncloak provides a unified solution to the fastest growing cybersecurity problems facing companies: identity theft, data-breaches, email fraud, malware, and hacking.
The Uncloak Blockchain system will bring businesspeople, security researchers and threat bounty hunters together to collaborate in the most effective way possible, eliminating the dangerous time-lags that exist in conventional security software.
Experience a demo of Uncloak right now on our website: go to https://demo.uncloak.io/
submitted by Uncloakio to u/Uncloakio [link] [comments]

Open letter to the Bitcoin community

My goal with this post is to propose a dialogue between the opposing sides in block size conflict, namely Core and BU. I realise that many among you may not be receptive to the idea. Moreover, this post contains ideas which go against the dominant sentiment in both /bitcoin and /btc, and I'll be cross-posting it in both communities. Since there are back-and-forth accusations of censorship and living in an echo-chamber, I reckon that by posting something that makes both sides uncomfortable I'll be able to gauge which of the communities is most prone to censoring uncomfortable viewpoints.
Without further ado, here are the most important points I want you to consider:
A. Core's basic premise of off-chain scaling is technical superior. A lean main blockchain makes it easier and cheaper to run a full node, and therefore encourages decentralization. Moreover, do you really think it makes sense to record every single tiny transaction forever on the main chain? And please abstain from invoking "Satoshi's vision" as an argument. First, because Satoshi is not an omniscient infallible god. Second, because Satoshi has always shown himself to be a pragmatic individual, and if he were around I'm pretty sure he would agree that the various off-chain scaling proposals (LN, sidechains, etc) are more sensible.
B. Core's development team is larger and more capable. The recent Bitcoin Unlimited bug is just another symptom of a clear imbalance between the technical capability of the two teams. Even if you'd prefer a larger or unlimited block size you need to admit this!
C. Core messed up on the politics. The split between /bitcoin and /btc may had been avoided if the mods were more tactful and had not engaged in heavy-handed moderation. Also, the communication between Core developers and miners was neglected. And finally, not all mistakes are in the past. A recent example of how to grossly mishandle the political side comes from Luke Jr's hard-fork proposal. Now, I appreciate all the work Luke Jr has done for Bitcoin. I also realise he does not speak for Core. Nevertheless, having a prominent Core developer proposing a short-term decrease in block size in the current context is nothing short of a slap in the face to the other side.
D. Bitcoin Unlimited proponents also messed up on the politics. Hard fork threats are not conducive to a productive discussion. You may think Core's intransigence forced this move, but this sort of threat only causes the other side to dig in their heels. Moreover, holding Segwit hostage is simply unacceptable.
E. A contentious hard-fork is far more dangerous than an amicable one. This point is a criticism mainly to small-blockers who cite the dangers of a hard-fork as an absolute argument against a compromise for a moderate increase in block size (say to 2MB plus Segwit). Here's the thing: without some sort of agreement, Bitcoin is headed for a hard-fork anyway! Except it will be a contentious hard-fork, which is a lot more disruptive and dangerous than a hard-fork resulting from a compromise. The latter could be scheduled well in advance, would have the broad support of the community, and is unlikely to result in the creation of an altcoin. Moreover, the "no compromise hard-fork" intransigence is even more puzzling because many Core developers have already manifested their openness to an eventual hard-fork with a block size increase (Luke Jr's hard-fork proposal is again an example).
F. This conflict is seriously hurting Bitcoin. Potential investors and businesses see the community's inability to resolve this conflict as a sign of immaturity. Bitcoin's dominance in the crypto space is now only slightly more than 70% (it used to be much higher). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the conflict was a factor in the SEC's decision to deny the COIN ETF.

The way forward

With all the above in mind, how do we fix this situation? I reckon that a dialogue of representatives of both sides is imperative. I realise this has been tried in the past, but the manner in which it was conducted violated all the rules of "Negotiations 101". Therefore, here's a basic outline for how such negotiations should proceed:
1) A negotiation should start with one side making an overture. It doesn't matter which. It also doesn't matter if the overture is done publicly or privately.
2) Negotiations should start without preconditions. Anyone who says "We're only willing to negotiate if the other side does X and Y first" is typically not really willing to negotiate and just looking for an excuse.
3) When negotiations start, both sides should put out a statement simply saying that negotiations have started. While negotiations are ongoing, all statements should be joint statements, and each side should not be twitting about the progress or commenting about it on social media.
4) One-on-one private discussions are preferred. And by one-on-one I really do mean one person vs another person. The probability of failure in a negotiation is proportional to the number of individuals involved. This is because if multiple individuals are involved in each side, it's all too easy for a person to be more concerned with signaling allegiance to the in-group than to reach an agreement. When you want a negotiation to fail you invite a lot of people and call it a "roundtable".
5) While physical presence is usually preferred, online meetings are also fine. (Online may actually be better in this case, because the participants will be less pressured to get it right the first time.)
6) If the one-on-one discussion fails, it should be tried again with different individuals. You don't want personal animosity to get in the way of an agreement.
7) If the one-on-one discussions fail, a mediated discussion should be attempted.
8) At the end, a joint statement should be issued, even if its contents are simply "We agree to disagree".
9) Any agreement should be made public and written in clear and unambiguous language. Actions required from each party should not be vague or left to interpretation.

Frequently Asked Questions / Frequently raised objections

Q. I'm a small blocker. Wouldn't any compromise that increases the block size just encourage BU proponents to engage in similar shenanigans in the future?
A. Beware of the slippery slope fallacy. Moreover, if you're really confident that Segwit + LN + sidechains will really fix the scaling problem, then you should also be confident that once they are in use their advantages will be so obvious to everyone that the clamour for ever bigger blocks will simply die.
Q. Bitcoin should not care about politics, man!
A. Of course it should. What got us into this whole mess was technical people ignoring the political aspect that is present in all human activities.
Q. Won't the side that makes the overture look weak?
A. No. People are tired of this fight, and making an overture to negotiations actually makes you look reasonable. Refusing to negotiate signals that you're not very confident in your own position.
Q. We should never compromise on technical matters!
A. An agreement is not the same as a compromise. It may very well be that the outcome of the negotiation is that both sides agree to come up with a voting mechanism that takes into account the economic majority, the miners, and the users. And both sides agree to abide by the outcome of that vote.
Q. There's more than two sides to this debate!
A. You have to start somewhere. If Core and BU were to reach an agreement, that would go a long way towards bringing third parties on board.
Q. Just choosing a representative is impossible!
A. I don't think it's as hard as some claim. I've listened to several interviews with Core developers and BU proponents, and there's people on both sides that come across as being polite and reasonable, and I think they could reach an agreement if they were to engage one-on-one. However, there's also people who I would not put in charge of any negotiation. As much as I appreciate the work they've done for Bitcoin, I would not pick Luke Jr or Roger Ver, for instance.
Q. The other side is too entrenched. They'll never accept to dialogue!
A. If you really think that, make a public overture to a dialogue and prove you're the reasonable one.
Q. I'm a Core supporter. The recent BU bug shows they are finished. Why should we negotiate?
A. If you really think that, now is the perfect time to make an overture and be magnanimous.
Q. I'm a BU supporter. We'll have the majority of hashing power and Core knows it. Why should we negotiate?
A. If you really think that, then you have nothing to lose by making an overture and being magnanimous.
Q. The other side is simply acting in bad faith and/or don't have the best interests of Bitcoin at heart.
A. Beware of conspiracy theories. Moreover, do you really think that all the users on /bitcoin and /btc are part of some conspiracy? You should be trying to woe them to your side, not demonise them!
submitted by anna_loves_cats to btc [link] [comments]

[Exclusive] Former Ethereum Core Deve on EOS Security Issues

[Exclusive] Former Ethereum Core Deve on EOS Security Issues
The other day, I had a chat with Gustav Simonsson on the pleasant Brooklyn riverside. As the developer who fixed many security bugs of Ethereum in the early days and participated the rescue fight during DAO crisis, Gustav has a lot to say about the recent EOS security issues. Here is the exclusive interview and transcript. Enjoy!
https://vimeo.com/277330269
GUSTAV: They didn't really have a security team. They didn't really have enough audits or enough public review before they launch it. It seems to me like they were developing up until the deadline they imposed on themselves. And then they're just trying to launch it. And then you find these critical bugs.
And the other thing is they're not defining the protocol in sort of a client agnostic way. There's no mathematical specification of the EOS protocol. They have a wiki page where to sort of describe how it works. But basically the EOS protocol is defined as whatever the C++ client does, which is kind of the same way that the Bitcoin protocol is defined.
If I have done [it], I would have at minimum two clients implementing the same protocol by two different teams. I would try to define a specification that both of these clients can follow. I would try to get, you know, much more academic review. You need to engage with not only security firms, not only open source developers, but also academics who are now studying this protocols for several years. You have to get diversity in the people who are reviewing the protocol and the clients. And you need to go through that.
https://preview.redd.it/ei6zuu2hbcd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=b9b3838223ae6fe7b0ae0a11478a5b98682037bf
BIANCA: So you weren't surprised they had problems?
GUSTAV: I was not surprised at all. I mean I haven't seen, I haven't heard about, any audits or any you know. They've paid out a few hundred thousand dollars to people who found bugs. So they did that right. But that was way too late. That's something you start with, you know, at minimum eight or twelve weeks before the launch.
You look at the top tech firms like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. They have this bug bounty programs, right? If you hack the backing server, you'd get something like 20 to 30 thousand dollars. And that kind of shows you how confident they are in their security.
The same thing should happen for every blockchain network that's live. The longer you’re live, the more money people should be able to give out to people who find critical bugs. I think in not too many years, we will see bug bounties where if you find a critical bug in a blockchain protocol or implement declines, then you will get one million dollars. I think that will happen in maybe as soon as five years.
BIANCA: And if the security is the weak point, why do you think people are so excited about it?
GUSTAV: I think very few people are aware of the security requirements, what you need to build new a blockchain. My generation of software engineers, we have been taught to move fast and break things. That doesn't work for building a blockchain. You can move really fast and you can break things while you're sort of in the prototype phase. You can use that approach to quickly develop the sort of the core client. But at some point, you need to take a lot of time to really lock down all the features, lock down the scope and work only on fixing security bugs. I think investors now are getting more and more educated about it. That's I think that's a good thing.
BIANCA: They are learning their lessons now.
GUSTAV: One good thing about the EOS launch is that it educates investors about the need for security, and how money is not enough. Money itself doesn't solve everything.
submitted by ox3tv to u/ox3tv [link] [comments]

Transcript of George Webb Video Series Part 229 "Hillary's Leakers, Hackers, and Henchmen" [@Georgwebb / #HRCRatline]

  • Day 59.12. Turns McCabe Knew Christopher Steele From EurAsia Days - YouTube
    • It's day 59 this is version 11
    • So Thomas Paine's out with another article today yeah--what it turns out that Christopher Steele--the first time he met Andrew McCabe, it wasn't last year
    • No no it wasn't
    • {{ GOWDYMODE Activated }} As a matter of fact, goes way back way back
    • Before Andy McCabe, before Andy McCabe--(I got to do the Gowdy) before Andy McCabe ever cayme to DC!
    • Before I knew Trey Gowdy!
    • Right and where it was is these guys all started in Boston
    • They're all in this Whitey Bulger thing
    • All the these corrupt agents they go back to Silk Road
    • They moved down to EDNY which is through the eastern district--that's the Brooklyn
    • It became part of that hit team homies hit team and then they moved over to SDNY to be when Comey moved over to the Southern District to New York down in Manhattan became part of that hit team
    • If you know the reputation of Southern District of New York, it's called the Southern District of Anywhere or Everywhere
    • That's when you can start going and going after FIFA guys you can you can take on people all over the world
    • You can go to Malaysia and go after people that are laundering money they're laundering money in Indonesia, put out the Panama papers to extort some more, you know, contributions for Hillary, right?
    • And then Andrew McCabe comes to DC
    • Now guess what? What did he do that before that?
    • He was the Russian organized crime--he was Russian organized crime
    • Where was?
    • (Huh? with it yeah yeah we're gonna get there with)
    • So EURASIA
    • {{ Gowdymode }} The YOUR (EUR) part of that is McCaybe!
    • The EU part that you're part of it is McCabe
    • The Asia part of it is OHR--you get it? YOU/OHR Asia EURASIA -- YOU(EU)-OHR(RO) Asia
    • It's your Asia its McCabe's Asia its McCabe and OHR, McCabe and OHR, McCabe and OHR
    • That's when he was working the Russian Eurasia organized crime, whatever the heck that thing is called
    • Eurasia organized crime whatever
    • And guess who his counterpart was?
    • {{ Gowdy }} A real spy guess who did the real work, you come heyre, yeah
    • So the real work was done by Christopher Stevens and all the Russian
    • TP: Christopher Steele
    • Chrisopher Steel sorry and all the real Russian spies he got out of Russia
    • PAPERCLIP 2
    • Whoever said Paperclip 2?
    • And that's how that happened
    • So that's what made Annie McCabe because he had a real spy and a real Intelligence officers, not really Christopher Steele
    • Christopher Steele is more like a like a concierge, "hey are you Russian guys happy? Can we get you any more about gay vodka? Can we get you any more Ukrainian girls?"
    • "I mean here we are at the Sun Hotel, I mean the piano bar. I mean I can get anything for you?"
    • That's Christopher Steel
    • He he doesn't--but the guys he got the Alperovitz guys, and I'm not talking about Dmitri, Mr. McAfee that I used to work with
    • I'm talking about the older Alperovitz mchao macaé
    • There's a spy that guy's a spy Mikhail is a spy
    • So I'm giving your dad some props here Dmitri or is it Dmitri Dmitri is the son that's right yeah Dmitri
    • Mikhail though was we I worked at McAfee with you Dimitri
    • This reminds me of that fail-safe movie
    • Now I know Moscow blew up Dimitri, don't yell at me to me, Dimitry remember that?
    • So yeah So I worked with him there
    • They wrote the viruses they wrote the viruses at McAfee at the end of the quarter and they'd sell a whole bunch
    • And people get there--so the CEOs could finish out their books
    • That's how they did it. It was virus-vaccine only with computers
    • This is old I've been that was I want to say 1999
    • They ran me out of there
    • Look at look at the record--they ran me out of there
    • They did the honey trap
    • Well anyway we'll get there later
    • But this is Boston Silk Road boyZ
    • Look at the Bitcoin, moving down to EDNY
    • That's your base, before you can jump over to SDNY
    • And then they came to DC after that
    • And they didn't do a damn thing
    • They didn't lift a finger
    • Christopher Steel and really it's Alperovich
    • So I'm gonna give some props here as John Henry who runs CrowdStrike: you made a good hire
    • You're like McCabe you're like--Adrian Hawkins, "hey you guys got hacked again--I'll call you back next month right"
    • Remember Adrian Hawkins?
    • DCCC oh yeah we saw the hack we just couldn't make it down that three blocks or four blocks to go over Capitol Hill and down to DNC and down trees DCCC
    • Hey you guys you got hacked again, I just wanted you to know
    • That's not law enforcement
    • Low-light cameras is not law enforcement
    • Entrapment's not law enforcement
    • Compromise is not law enforcement
    • If you want to learn about being a spy, talk to you Dimitry
    • Dimitri Alperovitz
    • Talk to Dmitri Alperovich
  • Day 59.12. If Seth Rich Really Was Helping Hillary With Resources For the Future, Draddle Dancing W - YouTube
    • Well here we are at Ocean City Maryland, and all I can say is coming into Ocean City and looking at Ocean City is like I said
    • This is Atlantic City: it's the same city--with the boardwalk and everything
    • But not only that just I said there's got to be a Trump Casino here somewhere?
    • Just I'm looking for the Trump Casino
    • {{ To someone }} Is there a Trump Casino here? Is there a Trump Casino here?
    • No no no Trump Casino here
    • So yeah I know I don't I'm just joking I'm just saying it looks
    • So much like Atlantic City that I'm looking for a Trump Casino
    • So yeah there you have it
    • Well we now know that this is not this is not New Jersey
    • This is this is Maryland
    • This is where Joe Capone on the fourth night that I had talked to him, at Lou's Bar and Grill, he said the night Seth Rich was killed, "I was in Ocean City that night"
    • (There's the there's the roller coaster the obligatory roller coaster.
    • Was Seth Rich involved in the drug business?
    • Oh GOD. Tell me that ain't true
    • Was Molly McCauley given the NOAA business--NOAA data, that she received from the Navy?
    • Was she giving that over to Imran?
    • Oh boy I hope not
    • Resources for the Future
    • Well if NOAA wasn't giving out TWICs, to bring people in to the country
    • If they weren't bringing in Ukrainian girls here by the hundreds, I might feel differently
    • But one thing I've learned through this whole thing is ratlines tend to fuse
    • They tend to fuse
    • And they tend to fuse over the whole world
    • And I'll use the CNN or PPN code word for world GPS, they tend to fuse over a GPS
  • Day 59.13. TWICs the Left Off Of Me, Coast Guard To the Right, Stuck ion the Middle With Andrew - YouTube
    • What a long day 13 today oh and we're not even done
    • So I didn't I was the last one I'm gonna label comedy, because it's satire
    • But I'm just saying if you were satiring that's how you would come about a
    • So sometimes there's satire mixed in
    • So you have to ask me when I'm meeting satire and I have intent and what I don't
    • But anyway here we are this is the inlet in this is the inlet in Ocean City and I don't know much about no Ocean City
    • But I do know that that's the inlet and I got my TWIC
    • I just got my TWIC from NOAA got my TWIC
    • So I don't need a visa I got my TWIC
    • So and it's its TWICie its TWICie but once you get you TWIC you don't need a visa
    • So I'm a fisherman I got my TWIC fisherman got my TWIC
    • Now I'm working, fishing with a string in Pakistan
    • Indonesia Philippines wherever and somebody says, "well, you know, if you hang around you bring some stuff in, other than fish, you're gonna be a citizen--we're gonna give you a visa. You get you EB-5. Get you a big boat like that Coast Guard Cutter"
    • Going by right there I should be over there I should be over there well let's go over there
    • Let's go see the Coast Guard Cutter it's kind of fun it's not the Coast Guard Cutter
    • Somebody said, "it's not the Coast Guard Cutter"
    • Well look at that that's US Coast Guard
    • That's US Coast Guard let's go find the Coast Guard Cutter
    • Let's go look at him
    • But if I have the Coast Guard go that way, and my fishing pier over here and then my TWICers not TWICer TWEATERS
    • I'm just saying TWICers if TWICers go this way
    • That's how I would do it if I was running a ratline
    • Now this is all speculative
    • And you never know what's satire what isn't
    • But there's our Coast Guard--that's just a little branch office
    • I think there's a main office here that's a little bit bigger by the bus station the guy told me
    • I think I can see it almost across the way but there's some communication facilities there
    • It looks like like kind of a satellite office
    • Nice sunset here
    • Beautiful evening here. For December it's awesome
    • And I'm guessing those look like Coast Guard boats, guessing those look like Coast Guard boats
    • So I think you have a layout here
    • Those are our guys
    • Now again, as I say in all these ratlines--and if you don't think they're Coast Guard somebody can correct me--but you don't
    • All the people involved 99.9% of the people involved are fantastic people that care very much about their coasts
    • And drug interdiction and human trafficking and all that stuff
    • If you just have a few people at the top, a few codes, if I can get a few codes to a few people, I can run my ratline
    • That's what I'm saying
    • Satellites, NOAA is going to be part of this--I can tell already just from metadata
    • And these TWICs they're coming from NOAA
    • These codes that are coming from the Coast Guard
    • Those are going to be two key pieces
  • Day 59.14. DeFeBo Pizza- You Made It To Heaven. - YouTube
    • It's day 59 and I'm here at DeFebo's it's almost sounds like a slang for when you get defibrillated
    • But I don't need to fibrillation but Defebos is a beautiful Italian restaurant here in Berlin
    • Berliner beautiful restaurant Italian restaurant the pizza here you see that woodfire pizza back there
    • Task Force amazing definitely do that
    • Now, I did have a chance to interview the folks across the street at the Masons Lodge
    • And I wanted to learn and one of the gentlemen there's a 32nd degree Mason
    • And just how it works
    • And those blue lodges are like the first three levels it's kind of like their feeder program to the Scottish rates[sic] {{ Rites }}
    • And I knew that they were associated with the Shriners Hospitals
    • There's a Shriner Hospital in Portland Oregon there's a burn center
    • I met a guy who was a head of the Burn Center in Houston I believe in Washington DC
    • And there's a burn center also in Philadelphia
    • What I didn't know is they pay all the expenses of the families if they're let's say this child is in a car accident, they commit to not only the transportation of the child and so forth but they also commit to supporting the family and all the expenses of the family
    • Which I thought hey man that's I mean I saw a lot of these kids
    • One of the guys I met who was the head of this and DC said if you ever have a problem with like you everything having a bad day I got a headache or something and you're feeling sorry for yourself, just take a little walk through the Burn Center and--it'll work you'll find your way you'll work it out
    • {{ 911: Yes, believe everything Masons tell you. Shriner hospitals aren't feeders for missing foster children ratlines }}
    • Now is it all the other things and and and
    • Now people say oh he's changing a story on the Masons
    • I'm just presenting new information and letting you decide
    • Now he did say that between 32 and 33 it's a huge jump
    • What's that he has a media he was 32 and something happens between 32 and 33
    • That I don't know he doesn't know either and but something happens between 32 and 33 yeah yeah there's a very select it sounds like the number of thirty twos going to the number 33
    • So I don't know if you have to be an undertaker or--whatever but something is there's something at 32 to 33 that's a big hurdle that he had not made yet
    • Here I'll leave you with all the beautiful Christmas lights here and beautiful barely and hb9 Berliner barrel
  • Day 59.15. Contempt of Congress. - YouTube
    • It's day 59 this is 15 and fairly late, but I'm fairly surprised that Bruce Ohr would not show at the Senate committee
    • No matter what you can go in and just take the fifth
    • It's a secret testimony, nobody's gonna know that you took the fifth
    • I mean it might leak that you took the fifth
    • So what that's your constitutional right but to not show
    • I think is a smoking gun it shows that there is something you're hiding
    • And all power granted by the Constitution comes with oversight
    • I mean there's no branch of the government that has no oversight
    • So by saying that there's an you're not answerable to anyone, I think this kind of started on a bad path with Pagliano, being in contempt of Congress, and there being no--
    • A private citizen in contempt of a subpoena from Congress
    • And there was no retribution no no reprisal no I mean no punishment for that
    • It's set off kind of this chain reaction, where we are the FBI in what are you gonna do about it?
    • We are the secret police we are all powerful
    • And we don't have to come to your stinking hearing
    • That's just I mean that's almost a coup
    • I mean that's if by saying there's no oversight: if Andrew McCabe doesn't show tomorrow--that's a coup
    • I mean that's it's not a overt hot war coup
    • But it's certainly a contempt of Congress, where you're saying you have no power over us we are the FBI
  • Day 60.1 - Operation Cassandra - Car Theft Ring in Va For Drugs and Weapons? - YouTube
    • It's Day 60 and a lot of people have probably seen this article already
    • It's in Politico and it's the back from story of how there's a used car network that sends used cars
    • This is out of Northern Virginia
    • To West Africa to ship arms in used cars then to send those used cars to Central America to pick up cocaine
    • Maybe it's paint cocaine who knows?
    • And then bring those back in to the United States in a guns for arms trade network
    • And it's going to be called Operation Cassandra
    • Now the objection I have here of this investigation with over thirty investigators and over eight years of investigation is they couch it and hide it behind Hezbollah
    • Americans don't really know what Hezbollah is
    • Objection I have to this
    • But here it is
    • This is a global threat--how Hezbollah turned trafficking cocaine and lauded money through used cars to finance its expansion
    • Now what they could have said was 'northern car Virginia car ring operates over eight years in Chantilly Virginia'
    • Or in wherever it operated out of
    • But here it is--we know Al Attar
    • We identified a lot our being a member of the CIA car dealership way back when when
    • This I think going back Allah tar is in the first 120 150 days
    • I'll go back and check it
    • But here it is Project Cassandra, launched in 2008, DEA amassed evidence, Middle Eastern political military organization
    • Now is this going to be Chagoury, the Lebanese finance man bagman for Hezbollah
    • I think it's going to be Chagroury
    • Here's the DEA facility it's located in Chantilly Virginia they use wiretaps undercover operations and informants to map out this illicit network
    • We know the ax wants have an affinity before Iran
    • We know that they have Al Attar is a key person that has supported them
    • We followed cocaine shipments right from Latin America West Africa
    • Has anybody ever heard of pain cocaine and Jaquaya? Has anybody ever heard of that?
    • So this, again, the problem here is fuzzy reporting
    • It's like well we're gonna describe everything in general, but we're not gonna actually say who the people are involved in the conspiracy on the ground okay
    • So here they say oh yeah we tracked all the the cash moving back and forth we tracked all the--cars going back and forth
    • But we're not gonna say dates times and places
    • We're just gonna just fog up the journalism, so that it just makes you afraid of 'terrorism', but doesn't actually get down to the facts of actually what happened
    • There's no timeline of events here, for instance
    • Very fuzzy
    • Talking about leaders very far away and and very difficult to pin down
    • Here's a Lebanese Bank why not name the Lebanese bank
    • If it laundered billions of dollars of drug profits why not name the Lebanese bank here right?
    • And then they talk about these kind of shadowy organizations inside the paramilitary organizations inside Iran
    • But again, why not be specific and
    • Again, this is Preet Bharara which is color of law
    • Well oh yeah we had an eight year investigation, but we wanted to do the Iran nuclear deal, so we we backed off on this deal
    • Why not be specific?
    • Why not say rather than Lebanese financial institution, why not say exactly what the institution is, and who the financier is?
    • Again, use cars to Africa not me--this is Preet Bharara saying this
    • and I think we talked about that before
    • Now there are people that are out there in Florida, which will say, "no theirs were never used--for guns in one direction and drugs into another one." These experts that say the trains are never used to move these cars around
    • Well: fine. Well I think you need to talk to DEA you guys need to get on the phone DEA right now, and get your facts straight
    • Because this is now an eight year process, which basically got shelved or or pushed under by Jack Lew and the people in the Justice Department with Eric Holder etc
    • Again, I know it's so give this a read and Politico it goes into some of the people
    • Now Trump is on the case here
    • Trump has kind of named a person in Iran as a drug kingpin--the number two guy in Iran, but you need to drill down to the people that are here in Virginia
    • That's the key!
    • So that's reporting
    • This is fuzzy "be afraid of Iran reporting"
    • You need to get down to actually who bought what cars, what day, and a timeline, have been disputable events
  • Day 60.2 - Response to Motion To Dismiss For Haseeb Rana - YouTube
    • This is Day 60 part 2 and we have Haseeb Rana's response back
    • He's obviously gonna motion for dismissal that's kind of the first check of the swords and the in the parry here
    • And this of course also happened in the Beck case, that our case is derivative of
    • And they claim of "worldwide conspiracy": no actually I don't
    • I talk about a conspiracy of about a mile square actually it's within walking distance a quarter mile of Capitol Hill
    • So and and basically the summary of the argument by the defense is: there's two things 1 standing and 2 cause
    • So we'll just take those one at a time
    • Now remember this is derivative of the case of DNC
    • This is Wilding versus DNC
    • Jared back this is one of the plaintiffs here in Wilding
    • Remember: that the judge here found in his final opinion, article 62, that there was standing,
    • Even in this case the DNC, where they didn't know anything about the Awans, they didn't know anything about Fusion GPS, they didn't know anything about the Podesta group, they didn't know anything about ARMZ, they didn't know anything they knew a little tiny bit about uranium one
    • But really didn't have a concept of ActBlue(s) or phishing attacks or the agreement with Hillary for America with the JCA agreement
    • None of that. None of that was known
    • And even at that here's the judges final opinion after it's all said and done
    • Again, they the defense quotes a flurry of--just a litany of lawsuits that are not related to the actual case
    • Which the actual case is gonna be a case that's tried already on this on similar grounds, that's derivative of this
    • They quote all this case law that just has nothing to do whatsoever with the case
    • When you when you go before a judge, you cannot waste their time, and their legal staffs' time
    • You have to go immediately to the most relevant facts and this has already been adjudicated
    • Now the basis of the standing has already been adjudicated by a judge
    • And he said, "yes there standing"
    • Now he said basically there was "weak standing"
    • So that's why the case was dismissed, but it moved forward
    • I'll just read judge Locke's opinion here "but the plaintiffs in this case do not allege a causal link between their donations and DNC statements."
    • Well I sure do, because Bernie went from town to town saying "hey--give me money, work the phones for me, knock on doors"
    • There's a whole bunch of people that did a whole bunch of statements here thinking they were sending their money to Bernie
    • Now with that JCA agreement, we know that it was swept
    • It was just swept directly to Brooklyn--swept directly to Brooklyn
    • They did not make this case. Jared did not make this case
    • I will
    • I don't I don't have that standing problem
    • So they lacked standing to assert that claim because they didn't make that connection
    • I certainly am going to make that connection
    • They talked about of fiduciary breach, which is not enough to--buffered by too many layers of speculation--I'm not buffering anything
    • I'm saying it's the Awans,
    • It's the Becerra server
    • It's the hack that occurred
    • It's Nancy Pelosi's cover up--get Imran in here
    • Here's the days that Imran was at DNC
    • Here's the inspector general's report
    • Here's the credit union report
    • Here's the night of the inauguration burglary report
    • Here's the John Wilkes phone booth report
    • Here is all the different police reports in Fairfax County of beatings...
    • And here's all the the problems with all these different companies--
    • So there's no lack of proof here, with the Awans
    • And remember the chairman of the DNC her right-hand man was Imran Awan
    • He was running around her laptop her life had her phones and her passwords
    • So the link is is is iron
    • There is a almost a meld between Imran Awan and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
    • Now we come to the idea of of Haseeb Rana, being hand-selected and selected surrogate
    • Now here I'm in a motion for oral argument, because my motion to compel discovery of those documents I just talked about, has not even been entered in by DC district
    • That's over seven days ago now--eight days ago
    • Now equally the production of documents is not there
    • And also production of discovery is not there
    • The judge has never seen this
    • He has no idea that there is a very strong case against Imran Awan
    • Just in documents that that could inform the court and
    • Again, we want to move towards judicial economy
    • We don't want to waste the Court's time we don't want to waste the staff of a court
    • So moving on I'm gonna quote where not my testimony not my testimony
    • I'm gonna quote the people that are actually the father of the defendant, saying "hey this is the situation"
    • So I'm gonna quote that article that Luke said, and I'm gonna just go down here
    • And this is my motion to oppose a motion to dismiss
    • We're gonna clean that up a little bit
    • But basically I go here and I say look with allegedly no-show employees connected to Imran, being added to numerous House offices, someone had to do the work
    • Imran enlisted an old high school friend Haseeb Rana for this purpose
    • Haseeb Rana did not respond in the comments but his father did
    • Tanwir Rana and he said, "hey they made him do all the work"
    • Here his father is saying, "Haseeb are the hands of Imran Awan and Rao Abbas"
    • "He is the hands the brain is Imran, the brain may be also a Rao Abbas, maybe that's the wheels, but but Haseeb is the hands"
    • So this conspiracy is one thing it's one body it's one corpus okay
    • So there's his father testifying, not something I'm asserting from a third party
    • So of course what it's not evidence yet, but I mean this leads you to believe that there's reasonable suspicion
    • And then you've got [Tanwir] saying, Imran manipulated his high school buddy Haseeb Rana into doing his work
    • Well if those were crimes if those were felonies you if did--that those were felonies that's the key question
    • There's clear evidence with all those documents that felonies were committed
    • My son is quiet
    • Imran's the opposite always relishing power and displays of influence
    • well that's fine I believe all that to be true I believe his father knows him pretty well here and then here here
    • Again, a direct linkage an iron linkage between Imran and Haseeb
    • Haseeb believed Imran hired him directly, although men were not part of the same company and were hired as different W2 employees of Congress
    • So here he signed an individual agreement--an employment agreement
    • He signed the Terms of Use Agreement
    • He signed to W2 in terms of filing his taxes
    • He had to understand that he worked directly for the Congress and had responsibilities
    • If you're taking orders from Imran and breaking your Terms of Use Agreement, your confidentiality agreement, your other agreements with equipment going to Pakistan, for instance, or money going to Pakistan, you're on the hook
    • There's no getting out of this you're on the hook
    • So again, a timeline of events
    • We're going to present this to the judge--a timeline of events
    • Imran basically Rayo hires Imran here after 2003
    • Imran gets bankruptcy in 2002
    • He starts this company the bankruptcy heads in May of 2002
    • And then he brings Rao in November, after they win the election
    • And he starts another mortgage company
    • Imran starts another mortgage company
    • And then Haseeb Rana comes in and Haseeb Rana is is employed in the Congress for two years and one month
    • And he works for six or seven different Congressmen
    • I'm sorry but you have to realize if you're a W2 employee and it says the US Congress on your check, your loyalty is to the US Congress while he's there
    • Well the CDW and some of the other things happen after he leaves, but you're still on the hook for stuff that happens while you're an employee in the United States Congress
    • There's a couple of good resources I wanted to point people to
    • This guy here which he's the litigation kind of guy
    • And I like him--I like watching him if people want to watch him at Steve V O N D R A N
    • And he's a good one and then there's other resources out here to wikiHow
    • Talks about responding to different motions...for people who are doing their own
    • For people are doing their own lawsuits
    • There's another interesting thing here with Haseeb
    • He's involved in this company a surgical company -
    • I think one's a surgical glove company and the other one looks like they do something for dentistry
    • Maybe it's the same company one's called triumph Surgical
    • And the other was Accu-surgident
    • So we don't know exactly what that is but there's the DUNS number for people who want to look up for it
    • My first question was do they do business with the Army or the Navy?
    • Do they do business with Fort Belvoir?
    • Is that Duns number in any contracts in any Federal contracts?
    • There's another company called S A M A W E E and I don't have a Duns number just yet for that
    • But I'm interested to see if they do any business in Fort Belvoir
    • But there you go
    • There's this period of hire Q1 of the 2013
    • Q1 of 2015 and then--1 2 3 4 5 6 7 has worked for seven different representatives in the house
    • Your loyalty's have to be to these representatives and the Congress and the rules of the Congress
    • The sergeant of arms it's not to Imran Awan
    • You may be from the same little village in Pakistan, but you still have to abide by your agreements
    • When you take the money when you take the money in your employment agreement, you have to go by the rules of your employer, not by somebody who you think got your the job
    • That's what it book kind of boils down to here
  • Day 60.3. Cops, Drugs, and JTTF. Symbiosis. - YouTube
    • This is Day 60 a little bit of a lockdown situation I think to just keep it everybody away for the vote this tax vote I think it's going to go until the middle of the night
    • So we'll see what happens
    • I think the vice president's coming up
    • So I think it's gonna be a close one you never know
    • So anyway yeah the Capitol Police are out
    • Now if they wanted to give me the Imran Awan police reports, while they're up here that would be awfully nice
    • So I saw that DNC also asked to dismiss motion to dismiss, which is really funny
    • It's like there's no basis here
    • Whoa what has happened since August of last August of this year, since the DNC case
    • The Awans, the break-ins on there was no connection to the DNC when Jared Beck had his case dismissed
    • Now we know the Awans did the DCCC, they did the DNC, Fusion GPS, McCAbe's paying Fusion GPS for the dossiers, bringing in spies, probably in Maryland
    • I mean so many things, going after the president
    • So this is the part that I really didn't want to say
    • I've always kind of been pushing this off in the background
    • But there is gonna be this drugs--I'm not saying that the FBI is in on it with for the drug piece, but there is sort of a symbiotic relationship a cops-and-robbers relationship
    • Where you go ahead and do your thing, and we'll look over this way, color a law, then every once in a while make a deposit, and we'll bust a couple of people and bring them in
    • It's kind of the old Chicago way
    • So then and I am going to be involved in try to break that up on the I-5 corridor
    • And I'll just let everybody know right now Fresno is the spot
    • And that's where the Hells Angels are based
    • And Jeanine and Linda Muller and the sex first and then the drugs
    • I never did any of the drugs
    • But I have been outspoken about JTTF ratline there
    • Again, I'm not saying they run the ratline, I'm just saying it's symbiotic
    • I'm just saying it's symbiotic
    • So there's your Capitol report
    • Andy McCabe actually is testifying just under my feet here, not too far from me
    • So hopefully he'll have good things to say
    • And he'll just fess up, own up
    • I filed my motion to oppose
    • Obviously, I opposed the motion for Haseeb Rana and you can read that now
    • Hopefully it'll get scanned
    • They'll scan in some of my stuff I'm still waiting for stuff eight days ago that hasn't been scanned
    • So hopefully they'll scan my stuff
    • And I'll be able to respond
    • And they won't just give me a default judgment, because they're not scanning my stuff

  • Day 61.1 Journalism BEGINS When You Get a Preet Christmas Present - YouTube
  • It's day 61 and this is part one
  • And this big Project Cassandra dropped yesterday in Politico
  • This part 1, part 2, part 3, very long article
  • I believe it was dropped by Preet Bharara and Andrew McCabe for their network here in Northern Virginia
  • And also Maryland,
  • Because this didn't come about
  • You don't interview 35 people and the whole thing perfectly fits together Day 1 unless you're trying to give it to somebody who's gonna bury the story
  • Take all the names out of it take all the who, what, when, where, just do the and why out of it and just say when things occurred
  • And a very light treatment on what actually happened
  • But if you haven't read the article it's very good
  • But now what's happening is the metadata is emerging
  • So people are coming in who are involved in this project because there were
  • So many people and this is going to show that the Awans are involved in this directly with Hezbollah
  • And I'll show you how
  • But for those who don't remember here's kind of the Mark Levin show yesterday where a guy was an investigator actually calls in
  • And he's talking about where they laundered the money through, what mosque they laundered the money through,
  • "It was 2009-2010 I'd have to go back and look at the reports, but it was around 2009, 2010. Mm-hmm go ahead I'm sorry I interrupted you--no no it's fine we also discovered they were the golden dawn dome mosque, we knew the exact mosque we knew where they were living. We knew who"
  • So that mosque if you remember that's the DAR all Harwich Dar al-Hirah mosque and what's important about this and where it's located is it's in unincorporated Fairfax County
  • So if you had a friend who is the intake officer at Fairfax County, you could make friends with them as far as who worked here and who came and went out of this mosque
  • And would provide protective cover for those people
  • For cover such people as murderers such as Arshad Mahmood
  • So if you go back to my first day in Washington DC, the brain of the operation is gonna be right here at the CIA car dealership at 724 South Washington Street
  • I can't remember how many videos I did there: lots
  • and then there Dar Al-Hirah was right next to it just outside a Falls Church
  • Arshad Mahmood's down here in Woodbridge
  • He's the enforcer for all these different ratlines
  • This is just gonna be one of a finger of the hand
  • There's give me five of these ratlines, mainly centered around the community colleges
  • And then this guy last night was calling in from Fredericksburg
  • And this is that Smuggler's Cove that I was talking about, where kind of Potomac bends at a 90-degree angle here by Mount Vernon
  • So what I'll do is I will just go quickly to my first day in Washington
  • And we can see what I said that that time
  • "IT's still there we don't know I just met Taggart at that moment-- we don't know but he did say this is kind of Herman United States Marine he did say unequivocally that Imran had left Blackberries which is interesting. If he is the beta expert for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Hillary and with black bears left in the home, that would be an interesting find"
  • So I think the important thing there is that even back at day 170, which is this is over two hundred and thirty days ago
  • Now, there was first day in Washington, if you look at it I had Light Bridge Communication, which still hasn't been reported on as far as the Imran working at light bridge
  • I had the satellite piece of this with kind of a NOAA piece, which still hasn't been reported on
  • I had DISA which is the Annapolis piece that where I went this weekend okay
  • So all these things in the first weekend and I had of course obviously Hawkshead to get the hard drive story
  • So this is a part that still hasn't been done on this story, with the Hezbollah, and it's and it's a spin
  • Now the press kids here in Washington DC are going to accept this as fact
  • But this is actually, I hate to say it, this is how it's done
  • You actually go to the neighborhood and you actually go to sorters or and the down involved in a murder a car dealer in near Richmond hired two MS-13 Gang Members
  • So I doubt he's still here but let's see if he aces and the this is also true for investigators--as far as not just journalists, but investigators--you need to go to the the front door
  • Just to show that I had said that this money-laundering was happening at the mosque and the Awans were the stolen cars
  • Still this is not come out yet and the NADRA bank connection to Firtash still has not come out yet
  • So we're seeing this, but here's EZ Car Buying and all the other metadata that just fits perfectly with this story about Hezbollah
  • Now remember they're in business with the top Hezbollah guy
  • Of course here's the favorite famous jeans video me asking people different questions at the different doors, more than eight years ago at one location and then here I'll stop that could it be more went to California
  • And that I think Suriyah Begum does end up going to California
  • But pretty quickly in one day I was able to go to most of the locations
  • And then of course there is me at the mosque that night
  • And here we go I'll just play a little short clip
  • I met the very famous star Dar Al Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church Virginia okay
  • So that's all I'll say for right now, but there's a lot more reporting to be done in the story
  • And what I like to do is take a great story like the one we have
  • Now if Cassandra and then pick up where that left off and move forward from that
submitted by 911bodysnatchers322 to TruthLeaks [link] [comments]

Mystery Founder Of Bitcoin: Uncovering Satoshi Nakamoto's Identity Of Bitcoin Matters  CNBC Wikileaks Mocking US Government Over Bitcoin Shows Why There Is No Stopping Bitcoin Bitcoin 2019: Assessing Bitcoin's Strengths and Weaknesses as a Payment Rail BITCOIN: Vizionary Overview with Top Leader Scott Schlemmer BITCOIN: Economic Revolution? [Feat. MICODE]

Bitcoin is a perfect case study for the possible inefficiencies of blockchain. Bitcoin’s “proof of work” system takes about ten minutes to add a new block to the blockchain. Contents1 PREFACE1.1 WARNING1.1.0.1 See Also2 What this Book is About2.1 Brief Glossary of Terms Used in This Book2.1.1 Other Books and Work Referenced Throughout3 ABOUT TRAUMA MIND CONTROL AND MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES3.0.0.0.1 See More4 About Deprogramming Techniques Explored within Deprogramming Modalities4.0.0.1 See Also4.1 Where is The Evidence?4.1.0.1 See Also4.2 Other Names Trauma Mind Bitcoin community have and how they use Bitcoin, i.e., as currency or asset. Thus, we analyze whether new users seek to mainly acquire Bitcoin for its alternative transaction purpose by analyzing Bitcoin is the most widely known distributed, peer-to-peer (P2P) payment network without existence of a central authority. In Bitcoin, users do not use real names; instead, pseudonyms are used. This means that everybody can have a look on the code, modify and correct the errors or weaknesses and create a new coin based on Bitcoin. Bitcoins are stored in digital wallets. A digital wallet is like a physical wallet, we can store money (cryptocurrencies) on it and also send coins to another wallet or receive coins from another wallet.

[index] [29685] [943] [3303] [22595] [19125] [888] [24880] [19461] [27532] [8885]

Mystery Founder Of Bitcoin: Uncovering Satoshi Nakamoto's Identity Of Bitcoin Matters CNBC

We reveal a unique way of looking at Bitcoin through turbulent levels. To become a premium member go to: https://leadingtrader.com/member2018 For more on Bit... Experts agree that uncovering Satoshi Nakamoto's identity could have an immense impact on bitcoin's economics and internal politics. » Subscribe to CNBC: htt... The End of the “Fiat Experiment” and the Rise of Bitcoin Interview With Anthony Pompliano - Duration: 19:24. Cointelegraph 37,879 views. 19:24. BULLS BACK!? URGENT WARNING FOR ALL BITCOIN HOLDERS OUT THERE!!! WE COULD PUMP TO THIS PRICE RIGHT NOW!!! ... Ray Dalio on the Economy, Pandemic, China's Rise: Full Interview - Duration: 29:20. Bloomberg ... Ripple XRP: Live interview on price & analysis with Brad Garlinghouse Ripple XRP 3,279 watching. Live now; How the blockchain is changing money and business ... Bitcoin, Ethereum, and all ...

Flag Counter