Unattractive and Overhyped? Peter Brandt Compares XRP to Fords Flop Car Edsel – U.Today

Posted on by

Alex Dovbnya

Trading legend Peter Brandt compares XRP to Fords biggest flop

XRP, the cryptocurrency associated with blockchain company Ripple, continues to face harsh criticism from unapologetic commodity trading veteran Peter Brandt.

In a recent tweet, he drew a hilarious comparison between the struggling token and Edsel, Fords most famous flop car.

Brandt tweeted out yet another insult directed at XRP in response to Onchain Capital CEO and CNBC Africa Ran NeuNer who crowned Chainlink (LINK) as the Tesla of the cryptocurrency industry.

Chainlink (LINK) has surged by yet another 45 percent over the past two days, surpassing Bitcoin in terms of trading volume on the Coinbase exchange.

Despite Zeus Capital actively working to spread FUD about Chainlink and short-sellers trying to catch the top, LINK keeps updating its all-time highs.

This is reminiscent of how the shares of the Elon Musk-helmed e-car manufacturer performed in early July before eventually taking a respite.

The price action of the LINK token is also eerily similar to that of XRP in late 2017. The latter, despite surging 43 percent over the past month, is down 7.69 percent from where it was trading one year ago.

Edsel, which took ten years and $250 mln to get planned and manufactured, is considered to be one of the biggest failures in the car industry and a synonym of a commercial flop. Shortly after its debut in 1957, Ford discontinued the production of Edsel just three years later.

Brandt is not the only only one who brings up Fords retro cars to make an argument about a cryptocurrency. Earlier this year, crypto baron John McAfee compared Bitcoin to Ford Model T, the first mainstream American car, to underscore how outdated its tech is.

View post:

Unattractive and Overhyped? Peter Brandt Compares XRP to Fords Flop Car Edsel - U.Today

Let Her Speak Convoy rolls through MH – The Baxter Bulletin

Posted on by

Scott Liles, Baxter Bulletin Published 8:44 p.m. CT Aug. 9, 2020

A decorated Chevrolet Malibu sits in a parking lot of the Arkansas State University-Mountain Home campus on Saturday before being taken out on the road as part of the Let Her Speak Convoy organized by the Baxter County Libertarian Party. Convoy participants hoped to raise awareness of Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen and publicize the reluctance of the Commission on Presidential Debates to allow third party candidates onto the debate stage.(Photo: Submitted photo)

Baxter County residents took to their vehicles Saturday to participate in the nationwide Let Her Speak Convoy to bring awareness to the exclusion of Libertarian presidential nominee JoJorgensen from the upcoming presidential debates.

Saturday's event in Mountain Home was one of many simultaneous Let Her Speak Convoys held in a nationwide "rolling protest" of theCommission on Presidential Debates' continued decision to silence all third party candidateslisted on the presidential ballot.

Jo Jorgensen(Photo: Submitted photo)

The local Let Her Speak Convoy was organized by the Baxter County Libertarian Party. Baxter County was one of five Arkansas counties to organize a convoy, and one of 153 convoys held across the U.S. on Saturday.

The Let Her Speak Convoy is believed to be the first nationwide rolling protest, and has been submitted to Guinness World Records for its consideration.

In Mountain Home, participants gathered on the campus of Arkansas State University-Mountain Home before driving convoy-styleon the Sheid-Hopper Bypass and through town on U.S. Highway 62/412.Participants decorated their vehicles with slogans like "#Let Her Speak," "#JoJo2020" and "Jo20.com." Some participants also shared the convoy on their social media channels.

Baxter County Libertarian Party chairman Kevin Vornheder said Saturday's event went better than expected.

"We knew the larger events would be the ones in Conway, Jonesboro, and northwest Arkansas but I was concerned we might find it a challenge to come through downtown in lunchtime traffic," he said. "We appreciate the Mountain Home Police Department for providing us with an escort, and are pleased that everything went smoothly."

Currently, the Commission on Presidential Debates invites candidates to debate if they have reached a 15 percent threshold in a series of national polls the Commission selects. Those polls typically do not include third-party candidates as an option, creating what opponents describe as "the illusion of a path to the debates."

In polls that include Jorgensen as a choice, the Libertarian nominee is polling at least 13 percent, a news release from the Libertarian Party said.

"Ideally, the Commission on Presidential Debates would include all candidates on enough state ballots to win the election," Vornheder said. "Ballot access is already a significant hurdle, so that alone would weed out mathematically non-viable candidates. But, since the Democratic and Republican parties who formed the CPD have an interest in excluding third parties, the other solution would be for the national media and professional polling organizations to include third parties in their polls."

Dr. Jo Jorgensen has aPh.D. in Organizational Psychology, a senior lecturer at Clemson University and an accomplished entrepreneur.The Libertarian Party is one of the only parties in the U.S. that has secured ballot access for presidential candidates in all 50 states.

The first televised presidential debates were held in 1960 and featured Republican nominee Richard Nixon and Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy. After their four televised debates, no additional presidential debates were held until 1976, with the League of Women Voters organizing three debates between Republican incumbent Gerald Ford and Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter.

The 1980 and 1984 presidential debates were also sponsored by the League of Women Voters, turning the televised events into a mainstay of the presidential election season.

In 1987,the Democratic and Republican parties created the Commission on Presidential Debatesto take over sponsorship of the debate and change the rules by which they were conducted.

In 2012, the minimum to participate in the presidential debates was 10 percent, but the CPD raised its threshold to 15 percent after Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson got 12 percent.

Read or Share this story: https://www.baxterbulletin.com/story/news/local/2020/08/09/let-her-speak-convoy-rolls-through-mh/3330813001/

Read the original post:

Let Her Speak Convoy rolls through MH - The Baxter Bulletin

Jo Jorgensen on Black Lives Matter: ‘I Think We Should Support the Protesters’ – Reason

Posted on by

It's Thursday in Nashville. Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen has parked her blue campaign bus in Centennial Park for her "Real Change For Real People" tour. There are tables with masks and hand sanitizer. Supporters gather early, their excitement seemingly unaffected by the pandemic precautions. A few cars slow down to observe the gathering in the park. After a mic check, Jorgensen is introduced and begins to speak.

Almost immediately, her speech covers the two most pressing topics of the summer: criminal justice reform and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Back in June, Jorgensen attended a Black Lives Matter vigil for victims of police brutality. Her presence there received mixed reviews, with libertarians who distrust the official Black Lives Matter organization for some of its political and economic views facing off those who believe libertarians should be present in the Black Lives Matter movement protests. (The differences between Black Lives Matter the organization and the movement are explained here.) Regardless of the potential backlash, Jorgensen doubled down on her stance.

"We need change, and I'm glad [the protests] are getting the attention," Jorgensen tells me on the bus after the speech.

Jorgensen says that the Libertarian Party agrees with the national Black Lives Matter organization on several issues, such as the drug war, no-knock raids, and qualified immunity.

"But their answer is more government," she says, and "big government is what got us here to begin with."

Jorgensen mentions a meeting she had with a Black Lives Matter activist in Tulsa, Oklahoma. (The activist was not affiliated with the official Black Lives Matter organization.) They discussed the government's role in discrimination, with Jorgensen pointing out that the buses in the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott were publicly run and that segregation laws were enforced even though black residents made up the majority of the ridership. "Now imagine today, if Uber decided to discriminate against the majority of their customers. What if they treated their best customers that way? They would go out of business," she argued. Jorgensen says the activist told her that the experience was "opening his eyes."

"Libertarians have been talking about these issues for 40 years," she says. "I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement." Jorgensen points to the people who have used the protests to loot and commit violence: "They are going around basically inserting themselves into peaceful protest. And I've seen many clips of the protesters saying, 'Stop it. Go away. You're not helping us. We don't want you here.'"

When the demonstrations first began in May, black organizers and protesters across the nation desperately attempted to keep the violence in check. In one video, D.C. protesters hand-deliver a young man to nearby police after seeing him destroy a sidewalk. In her firsthand account of the Nashville protests, author Nancy French tweeted a video of a black protester arguing with white protesters over property destruction.

"We need to do what we can to keep the protests on target," Jorgensen adds.

The conversation then shifts to the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We're all adults, and it shouldn't be against the law to be stupid," Jorgensen says.

Jorgensen notes that with personal freedom comes responsibility. While she doesn't support mask mandates ("unless we're talking about a government building") or even a forced vaccine in the event that one is developed, Jorgensen sees private companies enacting mask policies as a sign that most Americans are taking the pandemic seriously.

"That just shows what libertarians have been saying for decades, which is just because the government doesn't tell you to do it doesn't mean it won't get done," she says. "We still have entities who are requiring us to wear masks. We don't have to wait until the government tells us to. But this way, we have choice."

Jorgensen adds that private companies wouldn't enact mask policies if they thought doing so would harm their profits: "I don't think they'd be requiring a mask if they thought that people would stop shopping in their store and they'd go out of business. So ultimately this is coming from the individual."

What does Jorgensen think the executive branch should be doing in the pandemic? "I think the president has the obligation to lead the country and to get information out there to warn people," she says. She is upset at President Donald Trump for saying, "If you don't have [COVID-19] symptomsdon't get the test." Given the disease's asymptomatic spread and long incubation period, she says, this was irresponsible advice.

Jorgensen also notes the variety of ways the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies have restricted access to mass testing. Such testing, she notes, contributed greatly to South Korea's flattening of the outbreak curve.

"We lost tens of millions of jobs," she says. "If we had the testing out there, if we didn't have the FDA obstacles, if we didn't have so many other government obstacles, we could've had widespread testing. And then we could have known which people should have stayed home and which could go out."

Our conversation concludes with aquestion about the current debate over voting by mail.

"It's fine with me if we have mail-in votes," she says. "As long as we do it through FedEx."

See the article here:

Jo Jorgensen on Black Lives Matter: 'I Think We Should Support the Protesters' - Reason

Candidates promise retroactive PFD payments, but the Permanent Fund could struggle to meet demand – Anchorage Daily News

Posted on by

Ahead of Alaskas Aug. 18 statewide primary election, at least 31 incumbent lawmakers and challenger candidates have signed campaign promises to support a traditional Permanent Fund dividend and distribute four years of retroactive payments to Alaskans.

Those legislators and prospective legislators, mostly Republicans and Libertarians, say the dividend is an obligation of the state and is owed to the Alaskans. But figures published by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. indicate the fund could struggle to pay such a pledge, which would cost an estimated $4.8 billion. Thats based on analysis of legislation proposed in 2019 and 2020 by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, plus figures from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. this year.

While the fund contains $64.7 billion, most of that amount is either constitutionally protected or otherwise committed. According to the funds numbers, only $5.8 billion would be available for a payback plan.

There has to be a recognition now that the earnings reserve account is starting to get smaller, said Angela Rodell, CEO of the Permanent Fund Corp., referring to the spendable account within the fund.

Alaskans need to really think about what they need, she said.

Libertarian activist Michael Chambers organized the PFD-promise campaign, which calls for following a dividend-payment formula that remains in state law. (It hasnt been followed since 2016.) The promise also includes retroactive payments of about $7,000 per person.

They should pay back all the deductions, because thats the peoples money under the law, Chambers said.

Nearly a third of the candidates in this years legislative races have signed his PFD promise, and he said he expects more in the coming days.

Since 2018, the Permanent Fund has transferred money each year to the state treasury to pay for the annual dividend and the cost of state services. That transfer now accounts for almost three-quarters of the states expected revenue, and the Permanent Funds trustees have repeatedly urged the Legislature to not spend more than the transfer.

Money has already been earmarked for this years transfer and next years. The $5.8 billion, plus whatever the fund earns in the meantime, is whats left over, and as long as it remains unspent, it acts a buffer in case of market downturns. As the buffer shrinks, the chance of immediate crisis grows.

Even without additional spending for a payback, withdrawals are greater than earnings.

Between July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020, the funds value declined $1.6 billion because earnings were about 2% but the annual transfer amounted to 4.5% of the funds value. The decline is worse in real terms because it doesnt account for inflation.

Democratic Sen. Bill Wielechowski is seeking re-election to his Anchorage legislative seat and was the first Democrat to sign the PFD promise.

While the Permanent Funds earnings have dipped recently, the fund has earned 6.44% on average over the past five years. Thats enough to keep the fund growing, Wielechowski said, particularly if voters approve a ballot measure that would increase taxes on some North Slope oil fields.

I think when you factor in those things, youve got enough money in the earnings reserve to do it, he said of the payback.

In Southeast Alaska, incumbent Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, is being opposed in the primary by Michael Sheldon, a Republican who signed the promise and staunchly advocates a payback. Stedman, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said fulfilling the promise would require unfathomable changes to the state budget.

If that is the road (Alaskans) decide to go down, Stedman said of the PFD promise, were going to have severe budget reductions and massive tax increases to meet the constitutional obligation of a balanced budget.

Some payback plans also call for payments over several years, which would spread out the financial impact, but many candidates are calling for an immediate payment, in part because it would help Alaskas economy during the current pandemic.

A large proportion of the businesses here in Alaska have been devastated. With businesses devastated and people not getting unemployment checks, this is a perfect time to return the peoples money to its rightful owner, Chambers said.

Roger Holland, a Republican challenging Senate President Cathy Giessel in South Anchorage, agreed with that idea. He signed a promise on July 14.

The PFD may not go to (local) businesses, but it will for sure go to the economy and help the local economy carry itself along, he said.

In the race for Giessels seat, independent candidate Care Clift signed the PFD promise, as did Democratic candidate Lynette Moreno Hinz, who faces Carl Johnson in the Democratic primary.

Giessel herself declined an interview but referred to numerous prior statements on the PFD issue. In a Tuesday email newsletter, she wrote, I will continue to protect the Permanent Fund and the earnings reserve account from irresponsible spending. I will defend the Percent Of Market Value law, which defines reasonable PFDs as well as funding for core state services.

That law is what defines the annual transfer to the state treasury.

In a 2019 column submitted to the Daily News, she asked whether the consequences of a large PFD would be worth the gain.

Is the feast today worth the famine tomorrow? she wrote.

[Because of a high volume of comments requiring moderation, we are temporarily disabling comments on many of our articles so editors can focus on the coronavirus crisis and other coverage. We invite you to write a letter to the editor or reach out directly if youd like to communicate with us about a particular article. Thanks.]

Read more from the original source:

Candidates promise retroactive PFD payments, but the Permanent Fund could struggle to meet demand - Anchorage Daily News

Letter: Third-party candidates need to be heard – Gaston Gazette

Posted on by

By David Hoesly

MondayAug10,2020at7:38AM

The article in this mornings Gaston Gazette re the presidential debates reminded me of the history of debates in the U.S.

Elections, to be fair, need to be preceded by voters having the information to make up their minds. Inclusive debates are one way to provide that.

Exactly a century ago, led by the League of Women Voters, women took to the streets, demonstrating to gain their right, as citizens, to take part in elections.

A third of a century ago, the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed, and the Leagues historically fair-minded, inclusive sponsorship of debates was consigned to the dustbin of history.

The CPD ensures Americans wont hear third parties voices by requiring their candidates to poll above 15%, but guess what those third parties arent included in polls.

Dr. Jo Jorgensen, presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, has not been allowed in the debates, although the Libertarian Party is one of the few parties that has many times gained ballot access in all 50 states.

Establishment candidates have led us to the quagmire our once-great country is now in. Americans deserve to hear what Jo Jorgensen has to say; she should be included in the debates.

Let her speak!

David Hoesly is a member of the Public Policy Committee of the Libertarian Party of Gaston County.

Go here to read the rest:

Letter: Third-party candidates need to be heard - Gaston Gazette

Around Town: Rethinking political parties – Taft Midway Driller

Posted on by

In case you just returned from an extended trip to Mars, be advised there is an election right around the corner.

You cannot pick any news source that does not bombard you with stories on every subject that have been impacted by the poisonous partisan atmosphere that has developed in America in the last 16 years. I think the real shift in attitudes began during the Gore-Bush election debacle and has escalated since then.

Locally, we have county and municipal elections that do not feature the rancor and hate speech generated by the major parties at the state and federal level. We elect council members and supervisors on their ability to project a message that speaks to our local needs. They see what is needed then tailor their platform to what their constituents want.

State and federal political candidates from the two major parties do just the opposite. They strategize issues then let experts tell them what positions will resonate with the most voters. They use social media and clever ads to tell us what we should care about, why they should get our vote and, more importantly, why the other party is trying to destroy us.

Is it time to rethink the way our system is structured? Do you check the box on your federal taxes to donate a dollar to the presidential election process each year? Why dont we ask taxpayers to fund the development of new parties?

A multi-party system found in many western countries would greatly benefit America. Today we cannot get Democrats and Republicans to agree or compromise on anything without an ugly partisan public brawl that usually ends with the American taxpayer getting shafted. A Congress made up of members of multi-parties, with no one party in majority would require coalitions and negotiation continually. Current politicians do not make deals, they make demands.

Neither party is definable any longer. The Democratic Party has moved from its southern conservative roots in the late-1940s to adopt a platform as far right in 2020 as any ever seen in its history.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is quoted to have said, "I dont think the street will accept no action on this," while discussing police reform legislation in June. She is crafting legislation based on the will of street protesters. This is the "new" base the Democrats are reaching for to construct a winning coalition. Part of that recipe is acceptance of continuing anger and violence, which keeps the public mood unsettled and questioning of the future. That is good for a challenger.

Not long ago, the Republican party revitalized itself by backing the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party formula to rail against out-of-control spending and government growth. Republicans had effectively moved from the image of rich country club dilettantes to a party concerned about American jobs, industries and debt. Middle class voters came back to the party because it seemed to care more about them. That party is no more.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an economic upheaval. But the total abandonment of fiscal sense on the part of Republicans to participate in throwing billions of borrowed dollars at solutions that are not proven or sustainable leaves the party directionless. If you will stand for anything, you stand for nothing.

We have alternatives. The Libertarian Party vote grows each election year. Their basic belief in limited government, fiscal restraint and freedom embraces the founders dreams and sounds a lot like what "Reagan Republicans" used to profess. The 2020 Libertarian Presidential candidate is Dr. Jo Jorgensen, a Psychology professor at Clemson University. She is smart, articulate and will not be invited to the Presidential debates.

The major parties have divided our country. Yes, Mr. Trump has not been a healer, but he did not invent identity politics. Pandering to segments of the electorate because of their race or ethnicity will never be a unifying message as it specifically is not inclusive. Issues can divide reasonable people, but assuming you have the support of an entire group because of their race, ethnicity or economic status is certainly divisive, if not biased.

Our parties will not let us discuss issues. You are either for them or against them. The term "moderate" has left political speak. No one on either side can afford to be a moderate.

Both the left and right, through the years, have destroyed free speech, lives and livelihoods via public intimidation. The Republicans had a good run with Joe McCarthy and his Communist witch hunts. The ultra-progressive Democrats are wreaking havoc now with their "woke" attacks on anyone and everything they deem off the party line.

The truth is, we have invested too much power to form public opinion in both parties. They are thinking for us in order to act in their own self-interest. We need to break that hold, add new voices who listen to us first and then act in our interest.

My friends in the GOP will roast me for this thought, but one wonders what would happen if 80% of registered California Republicans voted for the Libertarian Ms. Jorgensen in November. Its not as if we are harming Mr. Trumps chances to win California, that ship sailed a decade ago.

Do we still have enough free will to even discuss a multi-party political revolution in America, or are the cards and big bucks too stacked against real freedom of choice?

Contact Pat Orr at avreviewopinion@gmail.com.

Excerpt from:

Around Town: Rethinking political parties - Taft Midway Driller

NATO Needs to Focus on the Black Sea – Defense One

Posted on by

Of two competing theories, the simpler explanation is to be preferred, wrote William of Ockham, an injunction that someWestern analystsand military leaders seem to have forgotten. After Russia sent troops into Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, many in NATO convinced themselves that Moscows next target would be the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The more logical inference is that Russia has military ambitions in the Black Sea region and that Western Alliance members should turn their focus thence.

There are three main reasons the Baltics are not the area of strategic vulnerability that some believe. First, Narva is not next, and it never was. The alleged threat of separatism from Russian-speakers in the Baltics is overblown. Despite tensions in the early 1990s, which culminated with a July 1993 autonomy referendum in Estonias third-largest city, Baltic Russian-speakers have never been the fifth column that some imagine them to be. And despite the persistence of restrictive citizenship laws for Russian-speakers in Latvia and Estonia, both governments have done an admirable job of addressing the social and economic concerns of their Russian-speaking regions, and of giving even non-citizens the right to vote in local elections.

Next, NATOs presence in the Baltics and Poland is the right size: large enough to present a credible deterrent to Russia, but not large enough to present an offensive military threat. NATO was right to beef up its presence in the Baltics after 2014. After all, the three tiny Alliance members are simply incapable of defending themselves alone in the unlikely event of war with Russia. But deployingseven full brigadestotaling 40,000 to 50,000 troops, as some analysts suggest, would be destabilizing. Russia would doubtless perceive this deployment as an offensive threat and increase its forces in response. The four NATO battle groups currently deployed one each to the three Baltic republics and Poland are important for their composition as much as their size. These5,000-plus troops could do no more than delay a Russian incursion while NATO deployed reinforcements. But the fact that 24 of the 30 NATO members contribute forces to the Alliances Enhanced Forward Presence mission makes it clear to Russia that NATO is united in its determination to defend the Baltics, and that war there means war with nearly all of NATO.

Lastly, there is no indication that Moscow has any intention of invading the Baltics. Russia has always seen the Baltics as different from the rest of the former Soviet Union. In short, when the Kremlin looks at Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania it sees Europe, and it had always played by different rules in Europe than in its self-designated near abroad. Anatol Lieven remarked on this Russian tendency in his book The Baltic Revolution:A large proportion of Baltic Russians have been prepared to acknowledge that the Balts have a superior civic culture, are cleaner, more orderly and harder working. They may qualify this by saying that Russian life is friendlier, or more humane, but this is the exact reverse of the usual colonizer: colonized self-images.

Russias behavior toward the Baltic States immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union made clear the extent to which it treats them differently. As it was intervening on behalf of separatist movements in Georgia and Moldova, it scrupulously avoided escalating the situation with the Russian-speaking minorities in Latvia and Estonia. Despite the fact that Moscow was exceptionally unhappy with the treatment of Russians speakers there, and had military forces deployed to both countries until 1994, it always expressed its grievances through official, institutional channels instead of trying to rally the Russian-speaking minorities to violence or intervening directly as it did elsewhere.Rather than fixate on the Baltics, where the threat is low and a deterrent force is in place, NATO should pay more attention to the Black Sea region. It is here that Russia has already intervened militarily, and is attempting to fracture the Alliance and erode confidence in its commitments. The Black Sea region also serves as the hub for Russias recent expansion into the Eastern Mediterranean and is critical to its efforts to support its intervention in Syria.

There are four main reasons the Black Sea region demands more attention.

First, three of the six littoral states Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey are NATO members and two Ukraine and Georgia were promised membership in 2008. Whether the Alliance should have committed to membership for Ukraine and Georgia is no longer relevant; it made the commitment and routinely reiterates it at NATO summits. Every year that the fear of Russias reaction delays progress on bringing Kyiv and Tbilisi into NATO erodes confidence in NATOs other commitments.

Next, an examination of Russian military activities in the last decade-plus leads to the conclusion that the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean is the area of greatest geopolitical importance for Russia. All of its military interventions in this period Georgia, Ukraine and Syria have occurred in this region, and Moscow clearly intends to challenge the West in this part of the world. NATO provides the best vehicle to meet this challenge and protect the important national interests Western states have in this region.

Third, the increasing alignment between Russia and Turkey deserves immediate and serious attention from all NATO capitals. If Moscow is able to pull Ankara into a strategic partnership that distances it from NATO, the security of the Alliance and all its members would suffer significantly. Turkey is ranked the worlds 11th-most powerful military by theGlobal Firepower Index. It has the second-largest overall military in NATO, after the U.S. Ankara is the second-largest land power in the Alliance, has the third-largest air force, and fields the fourth-largest navy. It is far from certain that a Russia-Turkey entente will endure: the two are on the opposite sides of the Libyan civil war, and their cooperation in Syria may still collapse over the issue of Idlib and the fate of Assad. And Ankara is an unpredictable and often frustrating ally. But neither the uncertainty of the Russia-Turkey rapprochement nor Turkeys erratic behavior outweigh its clear strategic importance to NATO. In addition to the military power it possesses, it anchors the Alliances southeastern flank and hosts bases critical to the projection of NATO power in the Black Sea region and beyond.

Finally, the Black Sea is an emerging energy hub that could allow Europe to diversify its energy sources away from Russia. But Turkey is key here, as well. The Turkish port of Ceyhan is the terminus of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which brings Azerbaijani oil to the world market. And Turkeys development of gas pipelines, storage facilities, and liquid natural gas terminals position it as apowerful middleman and alternative to Russia in energy supplies to Europe. With energy security an increasingly important component of national security, the emergence of the Black Sea as an energy hub provides an important opportunity for NATO members to erode Russias ability to use energy as a weapon in its foreign policy.

NATO has it right in the Baltics. Its presence is sized for the threat large enough to present a credible deterrent, too small to pose an offensive military threat and activate the security dilemma, causing Russia to increase its own forces in response. And NATO has been vigilant in exercising what it would take to rapidly reinforce the Baltics, through exercises likeDefender 2020. Before it was scaled back due to the coronavirus pandemic, Defender 2020 was billed as the third-largest exercise in Europe since the end of the Cold War. Plans for Defender 2021 are already underway.

The Black Sea region needs more attention. As Ben Hodges former U.S. Army-Europe commander and his co-authors argue, NATO should use theEnhanced Forward Presencemodel it deployed in the Baltics as a model for its Black Sea presence. This would entail beefing up the forces assigned to NATOs Multi-National Division-Southeast (MND-SE) in Romania, deploying integrated air and missile defenses, and increasing the air policing of the region, as NATO has done in the Baltics. In order to compensate for the Montreux Conventions limitations on the presence of warships from non-Black Sea littoral states, NATO could bolster its airborne maritime domain awareness assets deployed to the region.

None of these steps need to detract from NATOs presence in Poland and the Baltics the Alliance has sufficient assets to resource both its current presence there and the enhanced Black Sea presence argued for here. Indeed, as Hodges and his co-authors argue, balancing the Alliances posture between the Baltic and Black seas would eliminate any gaps or seams for Moscow to exploit.

See the article here:

NATO Needs to Focus on the Black Sea - Defense One

Greece looks to NATO to play its role with regard to Turkey | Kathimerini – www.ekathimerini.com

Posted on by

Greece expects NATO to play its role with regard to Turkish activities in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean, Prime Minister Mitsotakis has indicated, saying that the alliances hands-off approach is no longer acceptable to him.

I think within NATO it is very clear that this hands-off approach that oh we have two NATO partners so were not going to go into the details is no longer going to be accepted by me. I raised this with Secretary-General [Jens] Stoltenberg that were a NATO contributor and an ally and when we feel that a NATO ally is behaving in a way that endangers our interests, we cannot expect from NATO a similar approach of we dont want to interfere in your internal differences. This is profoundly unfair for Greece, Mitsotakis said during a conversation with former US ambassador to Greece and executive director of the Aspen Security Group, Nicholas Burns, at the online Aspen Security Forum on Wednesday.

I think the alliance will find itself faced with the reality that an important member behaves in a way that undermines the alliance and the interests of other members of the alliance. Its an issue we can no longer afford to put under the rug, he said, adding that Turkeys unreliable behavior within the alliance, also raises security concerns.

Purchasing the S-400 system is an issue of concern to all of us, including the US because it compromises the F-35, which is an integral part of NATO, he said referring to the missile defense system Turkey has acquired from Russia.

The United States should be alarmed by Ankaras activities in the Eastern Mediterranean but also its involvement in Libya, Mitsotakis said, adding that a visit to Washington last December gave him a sense that there is a bipartisan understanding that the relationship with Turkey is not the same that is was three, four years ago. Its not as predictable.

Pieces of legislation sponsored by Senator [Robert] Menendez clearly are an indication that there is a much better understanding in Washington of what is really happening in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Greek premier said in reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019.

Statements from the State Department have also been overall quite supportive of Greeces positions with a few exceptions, Mitsotakis said.

When there is encouragement for both parties to refrain this is a fundamentally unjust statement as far as Greece is concerned because we are not engaging in any provocative activity, he said.

Mitsotakis added that there also appears to be a much better understanding from within the European Union that Turkeys role in our part of the world is really not very constructive.

Ive made it very clear to our European partners that should Turkey pursue this activity, there need to be consequences, there need to be sanctions, he said.

Either the relationship is going to improve or if Turkey continues to violate the sovereign rights of Greece and Cyprus, the European Union has to react, the Greek prime minister said, stressing that Greece is not seeking to isolate Turkey but to encourage a more productive relationship.

Go here to see the original:

Greece looks to NATO to play its role with regard to Turkey | Kathimerini - http://www.ekathimerini.com

NATO change of command ceremony held in Turkey – Anadolu Agency

Posted on by

IZMIR, Turkey

Lt. Gen. Roger L. Cloutier on Tuesday took over the NATO Allied Land Command at a ceremony held in southwestern Turkey.

The command with its headquarters in Izmir, Turkey is responsible for advising the alliance on its land warfare.

Cloutier was preceded by Lt. Gen. John T. Thomson.

Many Turkish and foreign soldiers attended the change of command ceremony, including Commander of U.S. European Command Tod D. Wolters and Aegean Army Commander Ali Sivri.

In his speech, Wolters thanked Turkey for its hospitality and said that it is a great honor to work with the Turkish army.

"We are working with the Turkish army side by side. We are saying goodbye to Thomson, an American army legend, and welcoming another legend.

"Thomson served the American army for 34 years. [...] Cloutier also served in NATO successfully," Wolters said.

"Peace is a very difficult concept in 2020, considering all the security threats we face. There is also COVID-19, but we know that NATO soldiers will keep the peace as they have done for the last 70 years," he added.

For his part, Cloutier said: "The power of Land Forces Command comes from experienced leaders and soldiers working together under NATO flag. We are in a significant time in NATO Land Forces. The importance of the land forces is all the more visible now in the unstable security environment of today's world."

He added that Turkey feels like home, and Turkish society and the army is very hospitable.

"Thank you for hosting me. Izmir is a spectacular city. I am honored to be here," Clouiter said.

Thomson said he is honored to have served in Izmir, and they have performed outstanding teamwork during his service.

Read the original post:

NATO change of command ceremony held in Turkey - Anadolu Agency

Entheogens | Sacred Geometry

Posted on by

Some drugs are toxic.

Its no accident that the etymological origin of the word toxic stems directly from the Greek toxicon that refers to thebow used in poison arrows. The difference between a poison, a medicine and a narcotic is only one of dosage. Digitalis for example, is a popular cardiac medicine yet in higher doses it remains fatal.We all recognise the term intoxication with reference to alcohol but in reality any toxic substance (like cannabis) may alter our state.

Entheogenshowever, are non-toxic partly because they have no detrimental effects upon the human body and can pass from our system within minutes. They are oftenused in religious, shamanic or spiritual contexts. The word entheogen takes its origins from the Greek word entheos, which means full of the god, and genesthai, which means to come into being.

Entheogens are usually derived from plant sources and have been used in a variety of religious ceremonies. Throughout history, they have been employed all over the world by religious cultures. Entheogens are very different from pleasure drugs, which tend to stimulate the lower chakras of procreation and willpower.

The word endogenousrefers to any compound that is found and produced within the human body itself. Serotonin is one example, DMT is anotheras powerful endogenous entheogensthey can invoke mystical experiences when we dream.Because these entheogens possess the same basic structure as neurotransmitters, they are able to cross the human blood-brain barrier which allows them to have a dramatic effect upon human consciousness. In essence, we are all biologically and chemically sympathetic with these compounds:

Ancient initiates also used the fly agaricmushroomAmanita muscaria. This fungusis noted for its hallucinogenic properties which derive from the psychoactive constituents ibotenic acid and muscimol. Muscimol is a potent, selective agonist for the GABAA receptor that produces sedative, depressant and deliriant effects. The Amanita muscaria mushroom grows almost exclusively beneath pine trees; it cannot live without themand remains asymbiont.

When given Amanita muscaria the body begins to produce a superconductor called Pinoline. Pinoline induces cell replication in a state that is otherwise only activated in the womb and during a Near Death Experience (NDE).The pinealgland may then start to produce 5-MeO-DMT, a hormone that is highly luminiscent due to the amount of phosphene that it transmits onto the visual cortex.Eventually, the brain synthesizes DMT. This chemical has come to be known as the spirit molecule. It is the visual third eye neuro-transmitter.

Even at the very roots of our Christmas tradition is the secret of the Amanita muscaria mushroom. The legend of Santa Claus derives from shamans in the Siberian and Arctic regions who dropped into homes with bags full of magicmushrooms as presents in December.Santa wears red and white clothing and his sled is pulled by reindeer (famous for their play after eating this fungus).

Imagine your consciousness is a TV that has been tuned to the same channel your entire life. This awareness is the product of our rational western culture: it deals with everyday reality. Now image that with the help of entheogens you can overlay the channel for the first time. Using three eyes instead of just two, you can now experience multiple realms simultaneously. Amazingly, they are sympathetic with each other. But the experience is richer, more nuanced and carries deeper lessons.

From the plant kingdoms to the spirit domains you will discover that plants have been here much longer than humanity. Their wisdom may shock you as you start to become a fully-realised person.

Link:

Entheogens | Sacred Geometry

Video: What will NATO’s AWACS program look like in the future? – DefenseNews.com

Posted on by

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Link:

Video: What will NATO's AWACS program look like in the future? - DefenseNews.com

Will NATO Still Be Relevant in the Future? – The Washington Diplomat

Posted on by

By Larry Luxner

As NATO faces increasing criticism including from President Donald Trump that the military alliance is a drain on American taxpayers and no longer serves Washingtons defense needs, two former U.S. ambassadors have come to its defense.

On July 21,John Herbst, director of the Atlantic Councils Eurasia Center, andAlexander Vershbow, a distinguished fellow at the councils Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, made the case for NATOs continued relevance in the face of Russian belligerence led by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yet China, not Russia, is the real threat today, arguedJohn Mearsheimer, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, andDr. Sara Moller, an assistant professor of international security at Seton Hall University in New Jersey.

The four took part in a one-hourvirtual debate Is NATO still relevant? that was moderated byDr. Kori Schakeof the American Enterprise Institute.

Absolutely it is, said Vershbow, a former U.S. envoy to Russia and South Korea who also served four years as NATOs deputy secretary-general in Brussels.

NATO remains essential to deter Russian aggression, which is a real threat. Its also a standing coalition of like-minded democracies that the United States can still call upon to defend shared interests and project stability beyond NATOs borders, he said.

Herbst, who was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006, noted that Europe has enjoyed 75 years of peace and unprecedented prosperity thanks to the strong transatlantic relationship.

Foreign policy is more effective, more realistic and less risky when you have allies, and NATO is the premier alliance, he said, adding that not since the 1956 Suez crisis when Washington opposed the joint British, French and Israeli invasion of Egypt following that countrys nationalization of the Suez Canal have internal disputes been that dramatic. Despite past differences, however, NATO was essential to defeat the Soviet Union, and NATO is essential today.

Herbst added: China is the big problem, but Russia remains a major threat. Putins activities are truly destabilizing. The fact is that he launched a war in Europe the first time since World War II. We need him to stop, and NATO is the way to do it.

Mearsheimer, however, argued that Putin, aggressive as he may be, is not Washingtons biggest headache at the moment.

It boils down to whether or not the United States should remain militarily committed to NATO, whether we should keep large-scale military forces in Europe, said Mearsheimer. My answer to that is no.

The professor, who has published six books on international affairs, said the Pentagons chief priority right now is containing China.

Three areas of the world matter strategically to the United States: Europe, East Asia and the Persian Gulf. For the United States, the key question is whether or not theres a potential hegemon in one of those regions, Mearsheimer said. One of the reasons we stayed in Europe during the Cold War was because the Soviet threat was concentrated in Europe. The fact is there is no regional hegemon in Europe today or on the horizon and indeed there is a regional hegemon: China. That means the U.S. should concentrate all its military might in East Asia. That is what really matters. Europe does not matter very much at all.

Mearsheimer further argued that the U.S. and its allies, and specifically NATO, created the Russian threat in the first place, and that NATO, which was formed in 1949, has pushed Russia into the arms of the Chinese.

In November 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron told TheEconomistthatNATO was effectively brain deaddue to Trumps frequent complaints that many members were not spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense.

In fact, all NATO members including Germany, Europes most populous nation began increasing their defense budgets following Putins 2014 annexation of Crimea.

Even so, Moller, whos written extensively on NATO, the Middle East and nuclear weapons, said the 30-member alliance could soon become irrelevant because it lacks strategic focus.

A club whose members cant agree on the purpose of the club [is] a club that is in trouble, she said. During the Cold War, it had a very clear and defined purpose: it was to deter and defend against the Soviet Union. Since the 1990s, NATO has been engaged in never-ending transformations. The result has been mission creep. It gets into the peacekeeping business, the counterterrorism, nation-building business, security sector reform, counter-piracy, fighting illegal immigration. The result is that members want and expect different things from NATO. They no longer see eye to eye.

For example, she said, NATO member Turkey is purchasing advanced weapons systems from Russia while the French government is exploring rapprochement with Moscow.

This lack of consensus jeopardizes its future relevancy, Moller said, adding that the strategic deficit NATO faces today predates President Trump and his administration, so its a mistake to assume that come January 2021, if theres a change in occupancy in the White House, that NATO can just go back to business as usual. I dont see that happening.

Vershbow called for a new transatlantic bargain on burden-sharing, in which by 2030, Europe would pay for 50% of the critical capabilities now provided mainly by Washington.

This would equip them to handle most crises without U.S. support, and allow us to shift more of our assets from Europe to the Asia-Pacific, he said.

Yet Mearsheimer quickly dismissed that idea.

Were not going to get any military assistance from our NATO allies in containing China. Its going to be done by our Asian allies and the United States, he said. The Europeans dont spend enough money on defense, and they have remarkably little power projection capabilities.

Mearsheimer added: I dont dislike NATO, but we live in a completely different world. For most of my life, Europe was the most important area of the world. Thats no longer the case. The distribution of power has changed. Asia is the area that really matters the most to the United States today. The question is, what can Europe do [about China]? What can NATO do? My argument is it can do hardly anything. We have to wake up and smell the coffee.

But Vershbow insisted that NATO gives the United States something that its adversaries lack: a team of ready-made partners.

Having allies and institutions like NATO gives us an extraordinary advantage over Russia, China, and other adversaries, he said. There are often disagreements between the members, he conceded, and keeping the allies together is a 24/7 job, but allies usually find a way to resolve their differences, because alliance unity is too important to put at risk.

This article originally appeared on the Atlantic Council New Atlanticist blog and has been republished with permission by the Atlantic Council.

Larry Luxner is a contributor for The Washington Diplomat and a Tel Aviv-based freelance journalist and photographer who covers the Middle East, Eurasia, Africa and Latin America.Follow him on Twitter @LLuxner.

Read more:

Will NATO Still Be Relevant in the Future? - The Washington Diplomat

While Turkey Provokes Greece, NATO, EU Look The Other Way – The National Herald

Posted on by

ATHENS -- Able to block NATO which requires consensus among members and with the European Union afraid he'll flood the bloc with more refugees and migrants through Greece, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is getting a free pass from both.

That's the feeling, said The New York Times in a feature, from diplomats and analysts as the belligerent Erdogan, ruling Turkey like a quasi-dictatorship, keeps sending fighter jets and warships to violate Greek airspace and waters where he plans to send energy drill ships just as he's doing off Cyprus with no one moving to stop him.

Greek Prime Minister and New Democracy leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis' calls for the EU to hammer Turkey with hard sanctions were politely ignored after the bloc's leaders nearly apologizing for even thinking of getting tough issued only soft sanctions for the drilling off Cyprus, which he promptly ignored.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made no secret of his reluctance to do anything about Turkish aggression in the Aegean and East Mediterranean even as Greece and Turkey were at a conflict flash point after Erdogan said energy research would begin off Greek islands before German Chancellor Angela Merkel intervened.

Turkey and Greece belong to NATO, as does France, one of whose frigates was forced to withdraw from Turkish warships escorting escorting a vessel suspected of smuggling weapons into Libya, violating a United Nations arms embargo.

Turkey has made a deal with Libya that portion recognized by the UN despite violations of the arms embargo dividing the seas between them, claiming waters off Greek islands, including Crete, where the US Navy has a base on Souda Bay.

Turkish warplanes buzzed an area near the Greek island of Rhodes after Greek warships went on alert over Turkeys intent to drill for undersea natural gas there, the story noted before Turkey on Aug. 5 sent fighter jets into Greek airspace 33 times.

For all that, EU diplomats want no part of tangling with the tough guy Erdogan, the bloc and NATO said to believe Turkey is too big, powerful and strategically important at the crossroads of Europe and Asia.

Gone unsaid is that Turkey has failed for 15 years to advance talks to join the EU as Erdogan purged civil society, the judiciary, military, the education system and jailed journalists by the dozens, drawing only limp tweets of feeble protest in return.

Its getting hard to describe Turkey as an ally of the U.S., Philip H. Gordon, a foreign policy adviser and former assistant secretary of state who dealt with Turkey during the President Obama administration told the newspaper.

That puts Greece in the awkward position of hosting American troops for exercises, the Souda Bay navy base, signing a new military cooperation deal with Washington and engaged in a US-Greece Strategic Dialogue while fearing that President Donald Trump, who considers Erdogan a friend, would favor Turkey in a shooting conflict.

You cant say what U.S. policy on Turkey is, and you cant even see where Trump is, Gordon said. Its a big dilemma for U.S. policy, where we seem to disagree strategically on nearly every issue.

Analysts not identified told the paper that Stoltenberg is afraid to stand up to Erdogan and tolerates Turkish and American misbehavior the US is a member of the defense alliance that Trump has scorned.

Turkey has gone as far as purchasing S-400 missile defense systems from Russia technically an enemy and which could be used against Greece, but NATO did nothing about it, further emboldening Erdogan.

Former NATO Ambassador and one-time US Ambassador to Greece Nicholas Burns, now teaching at Harvard, said other countries in NATO have proved problematic for the alliance's timidity, but Turkey is the giant no one wants to confront, apart from Greece asking for action.

Every time we discuss Russia in NATO, everyone thinks of the S-400 and no one says anything, said one European diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. Its a major breach in NATO air defense, and its not even discussed, the diplomat said, not willing to go on the record despite reservations.

Unchecked by anyone, Erdgoan went so far as to convert the ancient Orthodox church of Aghia Sophia in Constantinople, which the world apart from Greece calls Istanbul, into a mosque and got away with it unscathed, still provoking.

See more here:

While Turkey Provokes Greece, NATO, EU Look The Other Way - The National Herald

NATO Support and Procurement Agency delivers second Airbus A330MRTT to the multinational unit – Aviation24.be

Posted on by

Today, the second Multinational MRTT Fleet (MMF) aircraft was delivered to the Multinational MRTT Unit (MMU), at the Main Operating Base in Eindhoven (The Netherlands). Upon completion of the acceptance process, the ownership of the aircraft was transferred (through OCCAR) from Airbus Defence and Space to the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), who manages the fleet on behalf of the nations. The aircraft will go straight into an airworthiness review, upon its arrival in Eindhoven.

The Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) fleet will soon enter into service to provide strategic transport, air-to-air refuelling and medical evacuation capabilities to its six participating nations (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Norway), demonstrating a best practice example of multi-national cooperation.

The first aircraft was delivered on 30 June 2020 and has been performing training missions for the unit for the last weeks. Now, it will undergo a routine maintenance check (A-check).

The third, fourth and fifth aircraft are currently under conversion at the Airbus DS facilities and the rest of the fleet will follow until the end of 2024. The full fleet will consist of eight Multi-role tanker transport aircraft, with an option to extend the contract up to 11 aircraft in the future. The aircraft are owned by NATO and managed by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) with the support of the Organization for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) on the acquisition phase.

In 2012, the European Defence Agency (EDA) started to address the long-standing European shortfall in the air-to-air refuelling capacity. Since then, this initiative has grown into a mature programme managed by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), on behalf of the nations.

The Netherlands and Luxembourg initially launched the programme in July 2016, with the first as the lead nation of the project. Germany and Norway joined in 2017, Belgium followed in early 2018 and the Czech Republic lastly joined the MMF programme in October 2019.

The MMF aircraft will be operated by the Multinational Multirole Tanker Transport Unit (MMU) comprising of military personnel from the participating countries. The unit is based in two permanent operating bases, the Main Operating Base in Eindhoven and the Forward Operating Base in Cologne-Wahn (Germany). Among the eight MMF aircraft, five will be based in Eindhoven, and three in Cologne.

Related

Excerpt from:

NATO Support and Procurement Agency delivers second Airbus A330MRTT to the multinational unit - Aviation24.be

Turkey is the elephant in the room at NATO, officials say – Ahval

Posted on by

Turkeys gradual distancing from Western values and aggression towards fellow NATO allies has not been addressed within the military alliance, diplomats and officials told the New York Times in an article published on Monday.

Turkey which is acting in an increasingly authoritarian, ambitious and assertive manner has become the elephant in the room for NATO that few within the alliance want to discuss, the NYT said, which cited European diplomats.

Turkey has stoked friction with the United States and the European Union on various issues. It has ignored U.S. opposition to purchasing Russian S-400 air defence systems, confronted a French frigate on a NATO mission enforcing a U.N. arms embargo on Libya in June and risked armed conflict with Greece over territorial rights and offshore resources in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Every time Russia is discussed within NATO, everyone thinks of the S-400 and no one says anything, one European diplomat said, according to the NYT.

The S-400 missiles would put Russian engineers inside a NATO air defence system should they be activated, giving them valuable insight into the alliances strengths while threatening to diminish the capability of the U.S.-produced, fifth-generation F-35 fighter jet, the NYT said.

The assumption is that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan wants to be able to shoot down U.S. and Israeli warplanes, which are the same jets as members of his own air force used in a failed military coup attempt in 2016, the newspaper said.

Its a major breach in NATO air defence, and its not even discussed, said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

NATO assumes that the United States and Turkey will somehow resolve the issue of the Russian missiles, according to the NYT. However, U.S. politicians who want to impose sanctions on Turkey differ with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has amicable relations with Erdoan.

The European Union and the United Nations also have no clear cut policy on Turkey or Libya, saidAmanda Sloat, a former U.S. State Department official who dealt with Turkey during the Obama administration.

Turkey now represents an open challenge to the alliances democratic values and its collective defence, but is too big, powerful and strategically important to allow an open confrontation, NATO officials told the NYT.

While other alliance members such as Hungary and Poland also fall short in terms of democratic values, only Turkey blocks key alliance business, Nicholas Burns, an international affairs professor at Harvard and a former NATO ambassador, told the NYT.

Since NATO operates by consensus, vetoes by Turkey can stall nearly any policy, a NATO official told the newspaper.

Turkey has blocked NATO partnerships for countries it dislikes, such as Israel, Armenia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, and for many months vetoed the alliances defence plans for Poland and the Baltic states.

The Turkish government also wanted NATO to designate armed Kurdish groups, including those fighting jihadist militant groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda in Syria, as terrorist organisations, something the alliance was unwilling to do, the NYT said.

Go here to read the rest:

Turkey is the elephant in the room at NATO, officials say - Ahval

Global Psychoactive Drug Market Forecast and Analysis (2019-2026), by Type, by Application, by Region. – Good Night, Good Hockey

Posted on by

Global Psychoactive Drug Marketwas valued at US$ XX million in 2018 and is expected to reach US$ XX million by 2026 at a CAGR of xx% over forecast period 2019-2026.

Global Psychoactive Drug MarketThe report study has analyzed revenue impact of COVID -19 pandemic on the sales revenue of market leaders, market followers and market disrupters in the report and same is reflected in our analysis.A psychoactive drugs changes brain function and results in alterations in perception, mood, behaviour, consciousness and cognition. These substances are be used medically, recreationally, to purposefully improve performance or alter ones consciousness entheogens for ritual, spiritual, shamanic purpose or for research.

REQUEST FOR FREE SAMPLE REPORT:https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/request-sample/36268

The global psychoactive drug market is mainly driven by, Rise in R&D expenditure, increased prevalence of diseases across the globe, increased geriatric population, rise in awareness regarding various diseases in developing countries, and rich pipeline of innovative treatment options are some factors that are expected to boost the global psychoactive drugs market during the forecast period.Moreover, increasing research and development activities in disease modifying drugs and surge in investment by key players in the clinical studies of advanced treatment options are expected to propel the global psychoactive drugs market over the forecast period.Psychoactive drugs misuse, dependence and addiction have resulted in legal measures and moral debate. Governmental controls on manufacture, supply and prescription attempt to reduce problematic medical drug use. Ethical Concerns have also been raised about over-use of these drugs clinically, and about their marketing by manufacturers.

Stringent government regulations, high cost of advanced treatments and severe side-effects associated with certain injectable treatments are expected to hamper the psychoactive drugs market.

Global Psychoactive Drug Market is segmented by type, by application and by region. By type market is segmented into stimulants, depressants, narcotics, hallucinogens, cannabis and others. Stimulate segment is expected to exhibit highest global market share at a CAGR of XX% over forecast period. Stimulants range from nicotine and caffeine to cocaine and crystal meth. Stimulants block the reuptake or reabsorption of neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine, which can lead to increased energy, panic and anxiety.By geography, the global psychoactive drugs market has been segmented into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa. North America dominates the global psychoactive drugs market owing to the low cost of manufacturing, acceptable regulatory scenario and presence of major players in the region.

Moreover, the market in Asia Pacific is projected to grow at a significantly high CAGR during the forecast period, owing to improving health care infrastructure, rising investments in research and development and increasing disposable income in countries such as China and India, and Japan.

Key players operating in global psychoactive drug market are Abbott Laboratories (U.S.), Sanofi S.A. (France), Cipla Limited (India), and Biocon Limited (India), Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (India), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (India), Cadila Pharmaceuticals (India), Lupin Limited (India), Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (India), Novartis International AG (Switzerland), Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited (India), and Alkem Laboratories Limited (India). These Drug companies discovered a way to synthesize medications rather than having to rely on extracts from natural products.

The objective of the report is to present a comprehensive assessment of the market and contains thoughtful insights, facts, historical data, industry-validated market data and projections with a suitable set of assumptions and methodology. The report also helps in understanding global psychoactive drug market dynamics, structure by identifying and analysing the market segments and project the global market size. Further, the report also focuses on the competitive analysis of key players by product, price, financial position, product portfolio, growth strategies, and regional presence. The report also provides PEST analysis, PORTERs analysis, and SWOT analysis to address the question of shareholders to prioritizing the efforts and investment shortly to the emerging segment in the global psychoactive drug market.

DO INQUIRY BEFORE PURCHASING REPORT HERE:https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/inquiry-before-buying/36268

Global Psychoactive Drug Market Segmentation by Types

Stimulants Depressants Narcotics Hallucinogens Cannabis Others (Inhalants, sports drugs, psychiatric medications, compulsive behaviours)Global Psychoactive Drug Market Segmentation by Application

Anaesthesia Pain management Mental disorders Recreation Ritual and spiritual OthersGlobal Psychoactive Drug Market Segmentation by Region

North America Europe APAC MEA& Africa Latin AmericaGlobal Psychoactive Drug Market Major players

Abbott Laboratories (U.S.) Sanofi S.A. (France) Cipla Limited (India) Biocon Limited (India) Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (India) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (India) Cadila Pharmaceuticals (India) Lupin Limited (India) Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (India) Novartis International AG (Switzerland) Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited (India) Alkem Laboratories Limited (India)

MAJOR TOC OF THE REPORT

Chapter One: Psychoactive Drug Market Overview

Chapter Two: Manufacturers Profiles

Chapter Three: Global Psychoactive Drug Market Competition, by Players

Chapter Four: Global Psychoactive Drug Market Size by Regions

Chapter Five: North America Psychoactive Drug Revenue by Countries

Chapter Six: Europe Psychoactive Drug Revenue by Countries

Chapter Seven: Asia-Pacific Psychoactive Drug Revenue by Countries

Chapter Eight: South America Psychoactive Drug Revenue by Countries

Chapter Nine: Middle East and Africa Revenue Psychoactive Drug by Countries

Chapter Ten: Global Psychoactive Drug Market Segment by Type

Chapter Eleven: Global Psychoactive Drug Market Segment by Application

Chapter Twelve: Global Psychoactive Drug Market Size Forecast (2019-2026)

Browse Full Report with Facts and Figures of Psychoactive Drug Market Report at:https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/global-psychoactive-drug-market/36268/

About Us:

Maximize Market Research provides B2B and B2C market research on 20,000 high growth emerging technologies & opportunities in Chemical, Healthcare, Pharmaceuticals, Electronics & Communications, Internet of Things, Food and Beverages, Aerospace and Defense and other manufacturing sectors.

Contact info:

Name: Vikas Godage

Organization: MAXIMIZE MARKET RESEARCH PVT. LTD.

Email: sales@maximizemarketresearch.com

Contact: +919607065656/ +919607195908

Website:www.maximizemarketresearch.com

The rest is here:

Global Psychoactive Drug Market Forecast and Analysis (2019-2026), by Type, by Application, by Region. - Good Night, Good Hockey

Another Day In Crypto, Warns Binance CEO After Nightmare Bitcoin Futures Spike To $100,000 – Forbes

Posted on by

Bitcoin, after suddenly soaring early last week, had a difficult day last weekend.

The bitcoin price briefly topped $12,000 only to flash-crash early on Sunday morning, pushing bitcoin back to just over $10,000.

Meanwhile, bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange Binance, the world's largest by volume, was having problems of its ownwith one trader briefly sending the price of some bitcoin futures to $100,000.

Bitcoin futures, allowing investors to speculate on the future price of bitcoin, have become ... [+] increasingly popular in recent years.

"Another day in crypto," Binance chief executive Changpeng Zhao, often known as CZ, warned via Twitter, revealing the bitcoin futures price spike and explaining, "a users [algorithm] went ballistic and sent multiple orders to achieve this."

Bitcoin futures trading, allowing investors to speculate on the future price of bitcoin, has surged in popularity over the last year or so, boosted by exchanges such as Binance, and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) offering long-awaited cash-settled bitcoin futures. CBOE, after rolling out the first bitcoin futures contracts in December 2017, decided to stop adding new ones in March this year.

According to a statement released by Binance after the "large price fluctuation," the "extreme" price movement in the bitcoin quarterly futures contract "did not cause any liquidations in user positions."

"We do have price band protection," CZ added, meaning the rogue trade did not cause other traders to lose the capital they'd used to speculate on the future bitcoin price.

The bitcoin futures spike to around $100,000 was explained by one user's algorithm going ... [+] "ballistic."

Despite assurances, the bitcoin futures price spike caused consternation among crypto traders.

"Crazy price spikes like this are a trader's worst nightmare," professional bitcoin and crypto trader and author of The Crypto Trader, Glen Goodman, said via email.

"Thankfully, Binance's systems ensured nobody's account was liquidated, but not all exchanges would be so responsible in a similar situation."

Bitcoin and crypto exchanges including Malta-based OKEx, Singapore-based Huobi and Saychelles-based BitMex, along with Binance, currently of no fixed address, dominate bitcoin futures trading, with billions of dollars' worth of contracts traded across the platforms every day.

"It's a wake-up call to all traders that you need to make sure you use a respected exchange for your trading," Goodman said, adding: "It's also a timely reminder that when you trade obscure derivatives like quarterly bitcoin futures, all it takes is one giant whale to corner all the little fish and liquidate their accounts."

Others, however, saw the bitcoin futures price spike as nothing more than an unfortunate blip for the burgeoning market.

"Bitcoin has come a long way in the past 11 years," Cory Klippsten, tech investor and founder of bitcoin buying app Swan Bitcoin, said via Telegram. "An event like this on a single exchange is no longer a cause for concern."

The bitcoin price has soared over the last month, adding a staggering 25% and pushing it above the ... [+] psychological $10,000 per bitcoin level.

Klippsten pointed to bitcoin's tumultuous history of spikes and crashes as evidence this latest roller coaster won't negatively impact bitcoin or cryptocurrency in the long term.

"Anomalies on individual exchanges don't seem to matter much for adoption," Klippsten said.

"The history of the space has been filled with flash crashes or spikes and exchange hacks, but observant people understand that it's a matter of improving on immature infrastructure, not a problem with cryptocurrency itself."

See the rest here:

Another Day In Crypto, Warns Binance CEO After Nightmare Bitcoin Futures Spike To $100,000 - Forbes

Bitcoin Cash Difficulty Algorithm Debate Heats Up With Fears of Another Chain Split – Bitcoin News

Posted on by

With a touch more than three months left until the next Bitcoin Cash upgrade, crypto proponents have been witnessing a new quarrel rise after last years contentious Infrastructure Funding Proposal (IFP). This time around, the tensions derive from the Difficulty Algorithm Adjustment (DAA) discussion which is a conversation about replacing the networks current DAA.

Every six months the BCH community plans for an upgrade and this coming November, a number of users are concerned about another chain split. There is a lot of infighting within the community at present and among BCH developers as well. The story allegedly derives from the DAA discussion, but there has been tension ever since the last quarrel over the IFP.

A Difficulty Algorithm Adjustment (DAA) is basically an algorithm that adjusts the mining difficulty parameter. Bitcoin (BTC) adjusts the mining difficulty parameter every 2016 blocks, but on August 1, 2017, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) added an Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA) algorithm that ran alongside the DAA. In November 2017, the DAA was changed on the BCH chain to adjust the mining difficulty parameter after every block. It also leverages a moving window of the last 144 blocks in order to calculate difficulty.

During the last year and a half, people have been complaining about the DAA as people believe it can be gamed. In the last year, the DAA subject has come up often and just recently the conversation has become more contentious. Recently, software developer Jonathan Toomim introduced a DAA concept called Aserti3-2d and the specification is available on Gitlab. The BCHN full node team has the code hosted on the Bitcoin Cash upgrade specifications page.

On July 23, 2020, Bitcoin ABC developer Amaury Schet announced the DAA called Grasberg via the Bitcoin ABC blog website. Following the release, Toomim published an article on the read.cash blog that argues against Grasberg. The engineer also described how members of the development teams have been squabbling in various online discussions. Toomim asserts that Grasberg is a big step on the path to corruption and it was not properly simulated.

On August 3, Bitcoin Cash developers met for a DAA meeting and BCHD developer, Chris Pacia, tweeted that the meeting did not go so well. Bitcoin Cash developer meeting blew up with multiple people walking out, Pacia tweeted after the meeting. Following Pacias statement, Ethereums Vitalik Buterin discussed the subject at length with BCH supporters from both sides of the argument.

I dont understand BCH people care so much about difficulty adjustment minutiae. I would say just use ethereums but honestly your algo is fine as is, Buterin tweeted. I will be honest; being optimistic that BCH development would improve once they got Craig out definitely is looking like one of my worst predictions, the Ethereum developer added.

Discussions about the quarrels between developers who work on the Bitcoin ABC implementation and the BCHN full node project are littered all over the Reddit forum r/btc. Additionally, there are lots of discussions on the read.cash blog and BCH fans are discussing the issue on Twitter as well. Most of the arguments pit the BCHN developers against the ABC developers, alongside the pros and cons of both Jonathan Toomims Asert DAA and the Grasberg DAA.

On August 5, 2020, a consortium of node implementations, infrastructure providers, services, engineers, and stakeholders published a post on the read.cash blog which explained that a number of actors will deploy the aserti3-2d difficulty adjustment algorithm (Asert DAA). We will deploy the aserti3-2d difficulty adjustment algorithm (Asert DAA) on Bitcoin Cash (BCH) on November 15th, 2020, as designed by Mark Lundeberg and implemented by Jonathan Toomim alongside other accredited contributors of the ecosystem, the consortium wrote. The announcement added:

The Aserti3-2d DAA is simple to implement, well-tested, and extensively simulated. It incentivizes consistent mining, achieves stability for transaction confirmations with low-variance 10-minute block targets, and is resistant to future drift.

The consortium announcement was digitally signed by Andrea Suisani (Bitcoin Unlimited), Andrew Stone (BU), Axel Gembe (Electron Cash), BCHD, Bitcoin Cash Node (BCHN), Calin A. Culianu (Electron Cash), Cashaddress.org, Cashfusion, Cashshuffle, Corentin Mercier (bitcash), Dagur Valberg Johannsson (BCHN, BU), Electron Cash, Fernando Pelliccioni (Knuth node), Freetrader (BCHN), Imaginary_username, James Cramer (SLP), John Nieri (General Protocols), Jonathan Silverblood (CashAccounts), Jonathan Toomim, Josh Green (Bitcoin Verde), Mark B. Lundeberg, Pokkst (bitcoincashj), Rosco Kalis (Cashscript), Tom Zander (Flowee), and Oscar Salas of Instabitcoin.net.

Many BCH supporters have said they dont want to see a split, while others believe that a split is inevitable. Bitcoin.coms CEO Dennis Jarvis discussed the situation on Twitter and said that the situation was sad to hear.

I hope everyone can come back together to work on the future roadmap. There are no good outcomes from forking/splitting for anyone who believes in the long-term value and usefulness of Bitcoin Cash, Jarvis tweeted. Bitcoin.coms CTO Emil Oldenburg also gave his opinion on Twitter.

A chain split would be terrible for BCH, Oldenburg said. We want BCH to win by being the easiest, most used, and most convenient payment option. Not win the crypto Darwin awards.

Its uncertain what will happen come November when the upgrade is planned if the signatories mentioned above choose to go with the aserti3-2d DAA and if ABC chooses to roll with Grasberg. Moreover, in ten days it is expected that a code freeze will take place on August 15, as it usually happens before the official upgrade.

Additionally, Viabtcs founder Yang Haipos Weibo account allegedly said that Coinex and Viabtc will initiate a fork as well by leveraging the ticker BCC. On August 5, 2020, Bitcoin ABC developer Amaury Schet tweeted about Yang Haipos statements.

Viabtcs [Yang Haipo] announced a fork of Bitcoin Cash under the ticker BCC, Schet tweeted on Wednesday. This is unfortunate, but also an amazing opportunity for those who have been unhappy with how things are going. Some will want to start a war. Those who want freedom must not let them.

What do you think about the arguments that are happening between Bitcoin Cash developers and community members? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Read the original:

Bitcoin Cash Difficulty Algorithm Debate Heats Up With Fears of Another Chain Split - Bitcoin News

Weaker Dollar Will Drive Bitcoin To New Highs – Forbes

Posted on by

Burning one hundred dollar

Last week, bitcoin was seemingly driven by one factor, the US dollar. This dynamic is easily seen when blotting the USD index (DXY) against bitcoin.

Tradingview.com

Furthermore, Digital Assets research firm, Delphi Digital notes Gold bugs have been rejoicing in recent weeks...dollar weaknesscoupled withdeeply negative real yieldshas created a perfect storm for gold and precious metals. Additionally, Delphi Digital states Golds latest surge puts it among this years best performing assets,outpacing global equities by 34 percentage points. Its 35% gain year-to-date through August 6th is also its best since the early 1970s.

https://www.delphidigital.io/

Golds impressive returns are only outmatched by bitcoin in 2020, i.e. 34% and 72%, respectively. Bitcoins superior performance suggests investors are beginning to truly see it as a store of value asset, and that it might be a 2:1 leveraged beta play on Gold given the current weak dollar environment.

Tradingview.com

The Delphi Digital team is not the only high profile analysts that share this weak dollar view. Recently, Qiao Wang, made a strong declaration on Twitter, telling traders to differentiate between normal and non-normal environments.

https://twitter.com/QWQiao/status/1290049669670662148

This notion flies in the face of previous statements made by the famous Macro Investor Raoul Pal, who has been vocally long USD since early 2020 believing a global shortage will lead to a dollar squeeze, thus price appreciation.

Qiao Wang says Raoul has been wrong on the USD thus far. Noting, time frame matters, e.g. the dollar can get stronger next week or handful of months, but over the next 2-5 years, the probability of it decreasing in value is quite high.

If the inverse correlation between bitcoin and the dollar is as pervasive as analysts suggest, then the technical analysis charts should corroborate as well.

Charts produced by the anonymous trader on Twitter, Rekt Capital, seemingly validate the aforementioned analysts. Rekt Capital notes Bitcoin has breached a multi-year resistance level. Any retraces are unlikely to dip below the multi-year trend line, i.e. the low to mid-$8000s...That being said, I'm looking for targets rather than retrace opportunities as this rally hasn't yet fully overextended.

twitter.com/rektcapital, tradingview.com

Additionally, Rekt Capital says Bitcoin has also managed to Weekly Close above a key historical area of supply ($11,400-$11,600) after consolidating within a classic continuation structure. The last time bitcoin managed a Weekly Close above this level was back in early December 2017, which could lead to a breach of $12,000 and an attempt towards $13,000.

twitter.com/rektcapital, tradingview.com

The future is unknowable, but massive global indebtedness, anemic economic growth, and exploding Central Bank balance sheets, seem likely to lead to a sustained period of dollar weakness, which has been reflected in store of value asset prices like bitcoin and Gold.

This dollar weakness coupled with a growing number of Millennials and Gen Z retail investors seriously allocating to digital assets like bitcoin, could be the perfect concoction for a multi-year bull market, which the technical analysis charts appear to suggest at the moment.

https://twitter.com/CanteringClark/status/1292582828694294530

Disclosure: The author owns bitcoin and ethereum.

For educational purposes only, not investment advice.

Continue reading here:

Weaker Dollar Will Drive Bitcoin To New Highs - Forbes

Tensions Flare: Is Bitcoin Cash Headed to Another Catastrophic Fork? – Cointelegraph

Posted on by

The Bitcoin Cash (BCH) community is divided over whether to change the cryptocurrencys difficulty adjustment algorithm, with a recent developer meeting reportedly concluding with attendees storming out of the event.

On August 4, Chris Pacia, the lead developer of the peer-to-peer marketplace OpenBazaar and a volunteer BCH developer, tweeted that multiple people walk[ed] out of the meeting as consensus was not reached over whether to make adjustments to Bitcoin Cashs difficulty algorithm.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin tweeted in reply that he doesnt understand with BCH people care so much given your algo is fine as is and added:

I will be honest; being optimistic that BCH development would improve once they got Craig [Wright] out is definitely looking like one of my worse predictions.

Some reports indicate that growing tensions over the difficulty algorithm may result in yet another BCH chain split. Outspoken Australian BCH proponent Hayden Otto tweeted: I will be sticking with the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) chain this coming chain split.

But speaking to Cointelegraph, Otto said his tweet was meant as a joke to troll those opposing BCHs core Bitcoin ABC developers.

He played down the significance of the community disagreeance as a trivial matter, but also said that enemy operatives who pose as BCH supporters are using the difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA) as a wedge issue to create chaos and sow division:

Changing the DAA has been made a priority issue by a select few people who want to stop miners gaming the current DAA by switching large amounts [of] hashrate to and from BCH which results in inconsistent block mining times, he said.

This really only affects people who are depositing to exchanges which require an unnecessary amount of confirmations for deposits, but doesn't affect the vast majority of people using BCH in a personal or business capacity where 0 confirmations are sufficient.

According to Otto, Bitcoin ABC announced a forthcoming overhaul to the difficulty algorithm come BCHs next scheduled upgrade on November 15. However, he asserts those who pushed for the adjustment remain unhappy because ABCs proposed upgrade doesnt go as far as the BCHN implementation that they have suggested.

Despite the disagreement, Otto believes that a BCHN chain split is unlikely, stating that the BCHN software is not widely adopted by miners and thus its supporters will not have a majority vote to get their desired changes through on the upgrade date.

They are now relying on proof of social media tactics in an attempt to persuade miners and businesses who run ABC to capitulate and swap over to the BCHN software.

Right now it's all just posturing online, but when it comes to the upgrade date I don't think the BCHN supporters will follow through on anything. They will be a minority chain and another split would be catastrophic for anyone following the minority chain, Otto concluded.

View original post here:

Tensions Flare: Is Bitcoin Cash Headed to Another Catastrophic Fork? - Cointelegraph