Columbus Ledger-Enquirer | Columbus State awarded $174000 from NSA to develop cybersecurity tool Columbus Ledger-Enquirer Further cementing its ambitions as a national powerhouse in cybersecurity education, Columbus State University announced Tuesday that it received a $174,000 grant from the National Security Agency to develop a new tool for rapid cybersecurity training ... |
See more here:
Columbus State awarded $174000 from NSA to develop cybersecurity tool - Columbus Ledger-Enquirer
For the past few years, there has been much discussion regarding the separation of these two agencies as CYBERCOM was co-located with NSA at its standing up to help get the organization on its feet. As their capabilities and capacities mature, there has arisen a heated argument between some in the executive branch and in Congress to split the two, something that was always envisioned with no clear timeline indicated.
According to officials, DoD does not have an official position on the advantages and disadvantages of the dual-hat leadership arrangement of NSA/CSS and CYBERCOM, GAOs report said. As of March 2017, DoD officials informed us that DoD had not determined whether it would end the dual-hat leadership arrangement and was reviewing the steps and funding necessary to meet the requirements established in the law.
Advantages include more in-depth coordination and collaboration, faster decision-making and more efficient use of resources.
Disadvantages, meanwhile, citing comments from officials canvased, include:
Congress has stipulated a series of measures the government must meet prior to severing the dual-hat, one of which is the cyber mission force must reach full operational capability, something that is not slated to occur until September 2018.
The GAO report also outlined, based on conversations with DoD officials, efforts to mitigate risks associated with ending the dual-hat. They include:
See more here:
What do DoD officials think of splitting NSA/CYBERCOM dual hat? - Federal Times
}ro*01IQ^Y=|[5X [U[o_<}=3$qvss"<=i:$d`R)K~:QN1VRA?ds_'4`U#:cy,Tzt:%^G<4OC6dF, NM2N 9:4i4s4,Od.XX$3N Continue reading here: Shadow Brokers investigation is focusing on former NSA insider - CyberScoop
From left, National Intelligence Director Dan Coats, National Security Agency director Adm. Michael Rogers and acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, arrive for the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, June 7, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
A Senate Democrat on the Intelligence Committee is pressing the nations top spy chief to clarify whether FISA Section 702, an expiring law used by the National Security Agency to conduct broad international surveillance, can be used to domestically target Americans.
Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden asked Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dan Coats in June ifthe government [can] use FISA Act Section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic.
Section 702 of the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act authorizes NSA to tap the physical infrastructure of internet service providers, like fiber connections, to intercept foreign emails, instant messages, and other communications belonging to foreign nationals as they exit and enter the U.S.
Unlike domestic NSA surveillance programs that largely collect metadata information like when a message was sent and received, but not the message itself Section 702 includes the actual content of intercepts.
Not to my knowledge, Coats responded during a congressional oversight hearing. It would be against the law.
Privacy advocates suspect Section 702 creates a loophole for NSA to incidentally collect data belonging to Americans that couldamount to millions of warrantless intercepts. Wyden, who as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee is privy to classified briefings from Coats and other intelligence agencies, seems to have suspicions of his own.
After the hearing reporters sought clarity from Coats, to which the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) responded in a letter.
Section 702(b)(4) plainly states we may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States. The DNI interpreted Senator Wydens question to ask about this provision and answered accordingly, the letter from ODNI reads.
Wyden cryptically responded to the ODNI letter, saying [t]hat was not my question, and asked Coats to provide a public response to my question, as asked during the hearing.
Coats has so far declined to provide that response. In a letter to Coats Monday Wyden again asked the DNI to respond publicly to the original question.
As I noted in my previous letter, following the hearing, your office responded from inquiries to reporters by answering a different question, Wyden wrote.
The episode is eerily reminiscent of a March 2013 exchange between Wyden and then-DNI James Clapper, when the senator famously asked the Obama administrations spy chief whether NSA collects any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.
No sir, Clapper answered. Not wittingly.
Months later Americans found out Clappers answer was untrue when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked the existence of widespread agency surveillance programs intercepting data belonging to millions of Americans. Clapper later claimed he thought Wyden was asking a different question: whether NSA was listening to Americans phone conversations.
I thought, though in retrospect, I was asked when are you going to startstop beating your wife kind of question, which is, meaning not answerable necessarily, by a simple yes or no, Clapper later told NBC. So I responded in what I thought was the most truthful or least untruthful manner, by saying, No.
Going back to my metaphor, what I was thinking of is looking at the Dewey Decimal numbers of those books in the metaphorical library, he continued. To me collection of U.S. persons data would mean taking the books off the shelf, opening it up and reading it.
Wyden, who knew Clappers answer was untrue from Senate intelligence briefings, recently said hed spent six months teeing it up to ask that question, and that hes been just as careful with the question he asked Coats, suggesting theres more to the answer than Coats provided in June.
Im not dropping this, Wyden said in July. And to say, Oh, he responded to something different, Ill let you draw your own conclusions on that.
Snowden in a March interview said using Section 702 to surveil Americans comes down to little more than word games.
These intelligence agenciestheyre saying to them, collect doesnt mean that we copied your communications, that we put it in the bucket, that we saved it in case we want to look at it, he told The Intercept. To them, collect means that they take it out of the bucket, and actually look at it and read it.
Section 702 expires at the end of December unless Congress renews the law.
Follow Giuseppe on Twitter
Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning
View post:
Senator Asks Spy Chief If Americans Are Targeted Under Expiring NSA Powers - InsideSources
A U.S. District Judge in Connecticut, writing a 104-page decision, on Tuesday ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violates the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vanessa Bryant, named to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, is the latests of several court ruling against DOMA.The law, which denies federal health and other benefits to same-sex couples, is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bryant ruled in a case brought by six same-sex couples and a widower, all legally married in the New England states of Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont. Marriage equality is now legal in six states and the District of Columbia.
Section 3 of the law violates the 5th Amendments guarantee of equal protection, ruled Bryant, in that it obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition, thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marital benefits.
A U.S. District judge in Connecticut ruled that a federal law defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional because it denies tax, health and other benefits to married gay couples in her state and others.
Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush, ruled today that the marriage restriction contained in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violates the Fifth Amendment right to equal protection.
Bryant wrote that the restriction obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition, thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marital benefits.
She also said many courts have concluded that homosexuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination.
Several courts across the country have made similar rulings. The Obama administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the issue.
The ruling came in the case of six married same-sex couples and a widower who sued after being denied federal benefits. The plaintiffs are from Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont.
Among the plaintiffs are Joanne Pedersen and her spouse, Ann Meitzen.
Im thrilled that the court ruled that our marriage commitment should be respected by the federal government just as it is in our home state of Connecticut, Pedersen said in a statement after the ruling was released.
She and Meitzen, of Waterford, Conn., were married in December 2008. Pedersen, a retired civilian employee of the U.S. Navy, is enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. She sought to get Meitzen covered under the plan, but her request was denied.
Meitzen has a chronic lung condition that affects her ability to work and wants to retire, but she cant because of the cost of her health insurance, Bryants ruling said.
Continue reading here:
Bush-appointed judge finds federal marriage ban unconstitutional - Wisconsin Gazette
John Castellano is Deputy Executive Assistant District Attorney and Chief Appellate Attorney in the office of Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County, New York.
The Supreme Courts grant of certiorari in United States v. Carpenter highlights the clash between established Fourth Amendment doctrines and what many argue are the heightened privacy concerns of a digital era. The court will consider the scope of the Fourth Amendments protection of information contained in a cellular carriers records that reflects the location of cell towers used to complete customers phone calls and convey their texts. At stake will be at least two traditional notions underlying the courts Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The first is the general understanding that information voluntarily exposed to others is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, and the second is the more specific third-party doctrine, which holds that government access to information collected by a private business in order to provide a service to a customer does not constitute a search.
In this case, the government obtained court orders under Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act for a total of 127 days of historical cell-site information regarding phones used by defendant Timothy Carpenter, who had been named by an accomplice as the mastermind of a string of nine commercial burglaries committed in and around Detroit. As the governments expert testified, the records provided the location of cell towers that handled the defendants calls and texts, and indicated that the defendants phone was within one-half to two miles of the specified tower and within a one-third or one-sixth radial wedge, or sector, of the tower. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit applied the third-party doctrine to hold that the Fourth Amendment did not protect this information, because the records obtained were those of the cellphone provider and reflected information collected by the provider in order to provide a service to the defendant. The court of appeals also noted that cellphone customers generally understand that when they use their cellphones for calls or texts, they are employing nearby cell towers and thus providing information to the carrier, including their general whereabouts.
The issue may not be so clear cut for some members of the Supreme Court, however. In a 2011 concurrence in United States v. Jones, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that, although the third-party doctrine was not at issue in that case, it might in the future be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. And Justice Samuel Alito, writing for himself and three other members of the court, noted in Jones that long-term monitoring of specific GPS-location data could impinge on expectations of privacy, but suggested that legislative solutions might be best suited to balance these concerns with public safety in an era of dramatic technological change.
The way in which the Supreme Court resolves these issues in Carpenter will undoubtedly revolve around how the justices view the scope of the issue presented. If the question is, as some suggest, whether the Fourth Amendment does anything to regulate government access to the nearly limitless information stored by telecommunications companies and internet service providers, many of the justices are likely to be reluctant to sign on to an expansive application of traditional doctrines. But if the issue is confined to the particular type of information involved in this case, the specific privacy interests at stake, the judicial mechanism Congress provided to restrict access to the information and the legitimacy of the governments interest in the information, the outcome may well be different.
The privacy concerns raised by the specific information at stake in this case may be far less significant than those attached to other types of information a digital consumer provides to carriers or internet providers. The information obtained in Carpenters case involved only the location of towers used to convey calls and messages, and not, notably, the content of any communication. As the 6th Circuit noted, in the telecommunications context, the Supreme Court has traditionally distinguished between content-related information and information about the mechanisms used to convey the message. And, whatever the precise contours of the line between content and non-content, in this case there seems little doubt that the information was not content-related.
Moreover, unlike the specific GPS coordinates in Jones, accurate to within 100 feet, the information in Carpenter was non-specific, placing the phone as far away as two miles from the towers, and only within a one-third or one-sixth sector of the tower. Nor is the tower identified in records like those at issue in this case necessarily the closest one to the caller, because two people making calls from the same car at the same time may be employing two different towers, depending on, among other things, whether one tower has reached its capacity.
This difference in specificity between GPS data and cell-site information would appear to be significant. Rather than allowing the government to observe what businesses or residences a phone subscriber visits, and thus, as Sotomayor feared, compile a comprehensive record of a persons public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations, the records in this case identified at best a general neighborhood or group of neighborhoods, which, in an urban context, potentially covers hundreds or thousands of businesses and residences.
Nor is the privacy interest in location information, something traditionally exposed to the public and observable by the government, greater than the privacy interest in other types of documents clearly covered by the third-party doctrine. Numbers dialed from a phone, for example, which are far more specific and in many ways more revealing than the location of cell towers, fall squarely within the third-party doctrine and may be accessed without resort to any court order, as the Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland. According to United States v. Miller, the same is true of bank records and other financial information, which many consider to be highly personal and private.
And although some litigants and commentators have challenged the voluntariness of a cellphone customers disclosure of location information, cellphone users, as the 6th Circuit noted, generally understand that the phone company completes calls by the use of cell towers and knows what towers are being used to complete a customers calls. Moreover, all carriers provide notice of their privacy policies, which routinely include warnings that information is collected in connection with the provision of a carriers services and that this information may be provided to law enforcement.
The notion that prosecutors routinely abuse their access to this type of information, effectively tracking the whereabouts of citizens for weeks or months and for little or no reason, lacks a legitimate foundation. For one thing, the government conducts no tracking when it gains access to this type of information: The phone company collects cell-site location information for its own purposes and the government, retrospectively, views it based on a court order. For another, prosecutors do not routinely access such information. In fact, in 2016, prosecutors in Queens, New York, the 10th most populous county in the nation with 2.3 million inhabitants, obtained historical cell-cite information only 92 times, each through a court order, out of the more than 54,000 prosecutions in the county that year. And most of those orders covered periods far less extensive than those in this case. Indeed, more than half of the Queens County orders covered 10 days or less, and an additional 22 percent covered 30 days or less. Only seven orders for the entire year exceeded 90 days, and most of those were issued in pattern robbery or burglary investigations like the one in Carpenter, in which a review of records over a longer time period was warranted.
Furthermore, prosecutors access to cell-site location information is limited by judicial intervention. The Stored Communications Act requires a court order based on specific and articulable facts establishing that the information requested is relevant and material to an investigation. Both the citizens affected and the time period covered by the records can be limited in this manner. This is precisely the type of statutory mechanism that Alito suggested in his concurrence in Jones would operate to protect any perceived privacy interest at stake. Indeed, subpoenas for potentially far more personal information, like bank information, credit card statements and call detail information, can be issued in most states without any such check.
Moreover, the legitimate interest of law enforcement in historical cell-site location information in certain cases is very compelling, because it provides an important investigative tool when it may be difficult or impossible to show probable cause. Orders may be used, for example, to obtain the location history of homicide victims to determine their whereabouts immediately prior to their deaths, thereby aiding in the investigation of relevant events and possible causes. Similarly, when multiple legitimate suspects could have motives for committing a crime, location information may exclude some or all of these suspects. Historical cell-site information can also be used to check the reliability of information provided by informants or contained in the statements of accomplices. And, when pattern crimes are alleged, review of cell-site location data can provide critical evidence of, for example, an individuals commission of serial killings or a persons participation in pattern robberies or burglaries like the one in this case, because presence at multiple crime scenes or other relevant locations over a period of many days or weeks is not likely to be mere coincidence. In this way, a Section 2703 order provides an essential investigative tool, often used in conjunction with subpoena requests and other investigative techniques, that imposes minimal intrusions on any legitimate expectations of privacy.
The Supreme Courts decision in Carpenter will thus likely turn on how broadly the justices view the question presented in the case. Whatever the outcome, the Supreme Courts decision is likely to be merely the opening salvo in the legal debate rather than a definitive resolution of the issues raised by law-enforcement access to cell-site location information.
Posted in Carpenter v. U.S., Summer symposium on Carpenter v. United States, Featured, Merits Cases
Recommended Citation: John Castellano, Symposium: Justices poised to consider, or reconsider, Fourth Amendment doctrines as they assess the scope of privacy in a digital age, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 1, 2017, 2:49 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-justices-poised-consider-reconsider-fourth-amendment-doctrines-assess-scope-privacy-digital-age/
Read more:
Symposium: Justices poised to consider, or reconsider, Fourth ... - SCOTUSblog (blog)
The bipartisan ECPA Modernization Act of 2017 introduced by Sens. Patrick LeahyPatrick LeahyDigital privacy bill still abandons probable cause for our papers Overnight Tech: Driverless car bill advances in House | Bezos now world's richest person | Tech groups hail new email privacy bill Senate panel advances measure to protect medical marijuana states MORE (D-Vt.) and Mike LeeMike LeeDigital privacy bill still abandons probable cause for our papers McConnell faces questions, but no test to his leadership Overnight Cybersecurity: Senate sends Russia sanctions bill to Trump | Senators unveil email privacy bill | Russia tried to spy on Macron with Facebook MORE (R-Utah) is a welcome correction to a legislative flaw in the Fourth Amendment protections of emails stored in the cloud. Because of a law created before the cloud came to be, emails stored longer than 18 months could be accessed by government agencies without a warrant signed by a neutral judicial officer after presentation of probable cause of unlawful activity.
Citing the most basic Fourth Amendment protocols against warrantless access to emails, the bill was introduced under the premise of fixing that flaw for these older emails in the cloud. The bill, though, still leaves open probable cause-free access to emails and other papers through use of judgeless administrative subpoenas.
A rule of construction in the ECPA Modernization Act that is entirely inconsistent with the sacrosanct warrant and probable cause provisions of the Fourth Amendment is that it shall [not] limit an otherwise lawful authority of a governmental entity to use an administrative subpoena authorized by Federal or State statute.
Administrative subpoenas, also called civil investigative demands, are search writs issued by government agencies and state attorneys general or prosecutors to disgorge private papers. They may be issued without probable cause, and require no before-the-fact review by neutral judicial officers. They may be enforced in court under threat of contempt and other penalties, and courts give Chevron deference to these writs, meaning the issuers of them may in large degree determine the scope of the laws they claim to be enforcing.
In these regards, administrative subpoenas are worse than the general warrants banned by the Fourth Amendment after Americas colonial experience with the Writs of Assistance, which in fact helped foster the American Revolution. The Writs of Assistance targeted colonial merchants, but were at least issued by judges who could determine that legitimate laws were being enforced. These colonial Writs required returns before judicial officers, and government searchers were subject to legislative penalties and even private lawsuits for exceeding the scope of the judicially authorized searches. Some colonial judges even refused to issue these Writs when government officials refused to provide facts under oath.
The administrative subpoena regime abandons the requirement of probable cause both before issuance by the searchers themselves and in after-the-fact judicial hearings to enforce them. Unlike the general warrants under which judges determined the scope of the searches in advance, although leaving the persons, businesses, and places to be searched up to the discretion of the government searchers, administrative subpoenas may be issued based on flawed interpretations of the law and without independently verified facts indicating law may have been violated by the targets.
Administrative subpoenas therefore lack the separation of powers found even in the Writs of Assistance regime. The discretion of searchers under the administrative subpoena regime is therefore broader and in many ways more dangerous to the Fourth Amendment right of security than the Writs of Assistance.
The Boston Globe recently reported that the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts is calling out the explosion in the use of these sanctioned fishing expedition tool[s], and how some state prosecutors have refused to disclose how many they issue. This mirrors my own experience with one state attorney general who ducked a Freedom of Information Act request about the quantity she issues, claiming attorney-client privilege among other excuses not to comply.
Administrative subpoenas are in fact impossible to reconcile with the Fourth Amendment. The very premise of the ECPA Modernization Act is that government may not violate the security of private records unless a judge has issued a warrant after hearing probable cause under oath that facts indicate a law is being broken. Government officials will exploit this expressly sanctioned loophole in the bill and subpoena emails directly from their targets in this probable cause-free administrative subpoena regime. Neither digital nor hard records will be safe from unreasonable government searches and compelled disgorgement.
Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate Affairs at American Target Advertising, Inc.
The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.
Read the rest here:
Digital privacy bill still abandons probable cause for our papers - The Hill (blog)
Shirley Tipton's Friday, July 28 Herald and News letter, "Johnson Amendment needs to be kept alive", deeply disturbs bothers and angers me.
This letter is predicated upon blatant ignorance! Her letter in essence is not only promoting continuing government censorship of the First Amendment and free speech by targeting and censoring pastors, but likewise defends another career criminal politician from America's shameful past.
I previously alluded to this in my Sept. 27, 2016 letter, also to the Herald and News, titled: "Trump description would fit LBJ well."
question: why are the worse socialists in America ignorant, deluded self righteous senior citizens who blindly "suck up to the party line," continue to re-elect repeat offenders to both houses of Congress and state legislatures, and stubbornly embrace the almighty nanny state?
Perhaps the links listed below will help expose and rebuke the unconstitutional 1954 Johnson Amendment which rightly is government censorship. These include:
"How the Johnson Amendment Threatens Churches's Freedoms" by Michelle Terry
"Come Out of Hiding Pastors, Trump Has Set You Free", May 11, 2017 by Dave Daubenmire.
This along with other credible writers such as Devvy Kidd, Chuck Baldwin, etc. remain archived
"Lawmakers Have a Plan to Stop IRS From Censoring the Free Speech of Pastors" by Rachel del
guidice", October 4, 2016.
Need I continue on? Probably not. Again, after reading Shirley Tipton's letter "I got heated up
like the barrel jacket on a World War II German MG-42 machine gun!" Yet, the Bible states: "Be ye angry and sin not, do not let the sun go down on your wrath."
I attempt to channel my anger into civic activism.
Read more:
Promoting First Amendment censorship | Letters | heraldandnews.com - Herald and News
As a chapter chair of College Republicans, I have never been more alarmed by the blatant attack on our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech than I am at the present.
Over the past decade (and particularly the past year), universities across the country have left conservative-leaning students and faculty reeling over their treatment of seemingly benign ideas. Organizations like Campus Reform were forced into existence as a response to faculty and administration officials on various campuses to expose behavior that was intended to stifle conservative views. While student groups like College Republicans and Turning Point USA are attempting to reverse the dangerous course that many of these campuses are set on, the have a long way to go before higher-education can be taken seriously again.
While stories about liberal campuses enforcing liberal policies and in some cases disenfranchising their conservative students go back many years, it appears that incidents have spiked over the past year in particular. It doesnt take much for many of us to recall the riots in Berkeley, California over Milo Yiannopoulos and the violence that was caused. However, the nonsense continues heavily in California, where a case in which conservative students at Orange Coast College allege that their college hired an investigator to harass them is only one of many in the state.
However, its clear that the problem isnt just California, its everywhere. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has logged hundreds of cases across the nation, including ones in Louisiana and Texas. The organization has handled cases at LSU, Texas A&M San Antonio, TCU, Texas Tech, and others over cases regarding free speech and other topics. As recently as yesterday, in a case that has not been noted by FIRE but rather by media outlets, a student government diversity chair from the University of Central Florida declared on social media that Trump supporters are not welcome on our campus. These cases are not isolated; they are rampant throughout the United States.
Today, that very same sort of case came to Southern Methodist University in the worst sort of way. Last week, the SMU chapter of Young Americans for Freedom submitted a request in order to place 2,977 flags in memory of the victims of the September 11th attacks. Not only was their request denied by SMU administration, but the administration included in its response letter that The University also respects the right of all members of the community to avoid messages that are triggering, harmful, or harassing. The SMU College Republicans, along with SMU College Democrats, Turning Point USA at SMU, Mustangs for Life, SMU Feminist Equality Movement, and SMU Young Americans for Freedom all responded with a fierce bipartisan rebuke of the administrations decision.
A flag memorial to honor those who lost their lives in the events of 9/11, or displays promoting the education and discussion of the pro-life, pro-choice movements among SMU students must not be viewed as attacks on others. In choosing to view these displays as such, SMU is deviating from its call as a center of higher learning. Its mission is to be a place where ideas are challenged and intellect thrives, not a place to hide or silence alternative points of view, reads the letter from the student groups to the SMU president. The letter is absolutely correct: inhibition of free speech, no matter which side of the spectrum, no matter how much you individually disagree with it, and no matter how stupid it may seem to you, is not good for a free society. Its insulting to the memory of the 2,977 victims of 9/11 to insinuate that a memorial to them would be triggering, and its even more disconcerting the standard that this policy would set. Colleges and universities will undoubtedly produce our nations next set of leaders, conservative or liberal. By teaching these students that its okay to void another persons opinion simply because it offends you in some way isnt diverse, and its intellectually bankrupt. In fact, its degrading the very purpose of our Constitution. It teaches potential future leaders that its okay to take away the rights of someone due to their opinions.
Luckily for us, it appears that the student body at Southern Methodist University at least understands that free speech is something to be valued. Lets hope that message is spread to the rest our campuses as well.
Link:
SMU Becomes the Face of the Collegiate War On The First Amendment - The Hayride
Last updated: 01 August 2017
Whether you're just worried about Facebook settings or you want to hide all your online movements, you need a privacy audit.
In an age of mandatory data retentionit's crucial to understand your privacy settings. What are you really sharing and with whom? And how do you hide what you want to hide online? Review the online services you use and work out how much of your personal information is getting out into the online world.
In this article:
So just how worried are you about online privacy? You need some level of concern because not everyone can be trusted online. Young people may not appreciate that what goes online stays online, and older people may have concerns about exposing themselves on the web.
To help guide you, we've created an easy ready reckoner for finding your paranoia level and then understanding what you could be sharing and how to protect yourself whether you're the next Snowden or just a little wary.
The thing to understand with any platform or service is that if it's free, your personal data is the currency. That goes for Facebook, Gmail and other free email services, Google and all its tentacles that follow you from a search all around the web, free public Wi-Fi, the list could go on.
The first place to start is Facebook, but the platform itself will always have dibs on your personal details. It's just the price of doing business with the social media giant. The only way around it is to avoid using it altogether or severely limit how much personal information you put into your profile, such as your school, workplace and country of residence.
If you can't kick the habit altogether, it might be worth reviewing your privacy settings. Log in and go to Settings > Privacy. Here you can restrict who sees your posts, who can contact you for a friend request and who can look up your profile. If you're worried about securing your login, under Security and Login choose two-factor authentication such as password and code, alerts for unrecognised logins and encrypted email notifications.
If you're prone to turning to 140 characters to express yourself, you might want to check your Twitter, particularly given the social media platform's changes to privacy settings. What a surprise, it's taking more of your information in the name of 'personalised' content (read: advertising and marketing using your social life as raw material) and data collection is automatically opted-in on your behalf.
Log in to Twitter, then go to Settings and privacy, then Privacy and safety. Here you can review how much of your personal details are revealed, such as your location, and set up tweet protection so you can approve who sees your tweets. To see how Twitter personalises content and collects and shares your data, go to Personalization and Data. This will tell you what personal information will be used to show you ads and even tap into the apps you have on your mobile device for targeting content.
Paranoia rating: X
If you're conducting a lot of your life online, a password manager will help securely store your passwords and potentially prevent accounts with simple passwords from being hacked. Simple passwords such as your child's name are easy to create and easy to remember, but they can leave you vulnerable to hacking. Our password manager reviews can help you find a program that will create unique, complex passwords that are securely stored so you don't have to remember or worse, write down all these passwords.
If you use Google to search the web a lot and you have one or more Google accounts such as Gmail, you're potentially gifting the search giant a lot of your private details. One way to see how much you've exposed is to review your footprint in Google MyActivity. Click on the Activity Controls tab to review your activity and see how your personal information is handled.
Paranoia rating: XX
If you think that governments around the world are giving themselves a little too much licence to access your personal movements online, it could be time to use a VPN. Virtual private networks (VPNs) help shield your web browsing, identity and location, creating a secure 'digital tunnel' between you and your online destinations. A VPN can also protect you from online identity theft while using a public Wi-Fi connection and is essential if you're doing any kind of shopping, financial or other sensitive transaction on public internet.
Not sure where to start? Our VPN reviewswill show you which services we recommend when it comes to protecting your privacy online.
A messaging app with good security is another way to protect private conversations via the net. Depending on the level of privacy you're looking for, you may want to go with a dedicated security-focused app such as Wickr, Confide or Tunnel, or perhaps one of the more popular apps such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and iOS Messages.
Paranoia rating: XXX
You might be plotting espionage, or you might just want to prevent government and business, as much as possible, from prying into your life online. If you fit this description, then there are a few things you won't want to go online without.
Your privacy toolkit won't be complete without email encryption. Emails aren't usually encrypted, which means that messages and attachments in your inbox and in transit can potentially be read. Luckily there are free email encryption programs that you can use without too much trouble that will protect your messages from prying eyes. Mailvelope works with Chrome and Firefox as a plugin and can work with Gmail, Yahoo Mail and Outlook.com.
Next up in your privacy toolkit will be Tor and the Tor browser. Tor, which is short for The Onion Router, is a network of secure computers provided by individuals to help others stay secure online. It's often used by dissidents, journalists, whistleblowers and activists in countries with hostile governments to hide their activity and communications online. Tor hides the 'header' or metadata that can reveal details such as the source, destination, size and timing of web traffic. There are mobile versions for Android, Orbot, and Onion Browser for iOS. If you need to send large files securely, the Onionshare uses the Tor network for anonymity.
If you would rather leave no trace of your web activity on the computer you're using, you can go one step further with Tails. It's a secure operating system that can run from a USB drive, storage cards or DVD that encrypts all of your files, emails and instant messaging traffic using the Tor network and can just plug in and then be removed after use.
Paranoia rating: XXXX
If after all of these measures you still think your privacy isn't fully protected, you might want to consult a higher source by reading The Art of Invisibility: The World's Most Famous Hacker Teaches You How to Be Safe in the Age of Big Brother and Big Data, by Kevin D. Mitnick. He was once a hacker, but has been a long-time security consultant and public speaker on issues of security.
Go here to see the original:
Theres no shortage of bitcoin in Philadelphia.
In Northern Liberties, the red-hot digital currencycan be bought ata shipping services storefront. In West Philadelphia, customers can fill their virtual wallets after toppingoff theirtanks at a Citgo gas station. And in Cheltenham Township, a bitcoin ATM will convert your cash to cryptocurrency at a Dollar Plus variety store, conveniently sandwiched between an Aldi supermarket and a pawn shop.
About two dozen machines or shops in the region will take regular cash and credit private bitcoin accounts, according to the website CoinATMRadar.com, which locates and maps bitcoin ATMs.Those accounts can then be used to pay for goods online without a credit card, remit payments quickly to family overseas, or cover bets placed on online gambling sites.
Sam Wood
A bitcoin ATM at the Dollar Plus variety store on Ogontz Avenue in Cheltenham Township.
They can also be used to buyillicit drugs over the Internet, according to federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations.
And the number of those bitcoin outlets appears to be growing. That should come as no surprise becausethe value of bitcoin has skyrocketed. In January 2015, the value of a single coin was about $220. In mid-May it spiked to more than$3,000. On Monday evening, one bitcoinwas trading comfortably at about $2,860.
Hedge funds have swept in to gamble on the digital currency. Celebrities and athletes, from Bollywood movie stars to boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr., have promoted cryptocurrency, pumping up popular interest across the globe.
Theres a lot of excitement about it, said Kevin Werbach, a Wharton School professor whostudies bitcoin and its underlying technology, called blockchain. Its a commodity, and demand is exceeding supply.
The magnitude of the rise this year has been a speculative bubble which will in time deflate, Werbach said. but how fast and how far we dont know.
The worlds dominant digital currency (there are more than 700), bitcoin operates independently of any government or bank. Transactions are recorded and verified on the blockchain database that is instantly shared on a worldwide network of computers. Industry analysts say that the technology underlyingthose transactions makes bitcoin more secure than using a credit card.
At Liberty Parcel, on the 800 block of North Second Street, a bitcoin ATM has been sittinginside the shops entrance for more than a year, where it simply occupies space. Its like a gumball machine in front of a pizza shop, said a clerk who did not want to be identified by name.
An average machine might exchange between $25,000 and $30,000 a month, said Neil Conner, a spokesman for Lamassu, a New Hampshire-based producerof bitcoin machines. Typically, stores where they are placed collect about $100 a month in rent.
Legitimate businesses accept bitcoin, most famously Microsoft (though only for games, movies, and apps in the Windows and Xbox stores) along with merchants on Etsy (an online marketplace for crafts) and Overstock.com. Some political action committees will accept donations in bitcoin.
Most bitcoin is traded on exchanges such as Coinbase and Poloniex, online operations thatmatch buyers and sellers. The exchanges, which typically charge a 2 percent fee, arestrictly regulated by federal and state agencies and follow the same rules as banks. Their clients include high-end investors, financial institutions, and speculators and have caught the attention of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, which last week announced it wants to regulate some transactions.
Bitcoin ATMs generally serve a less sophisticated clientele, according to industry experts. The machines charge steep fees up to 12 percent and rarely require more than a cellphone number to establish an identity. Bitcoin ATM companies have moved aggressively into areas that are underserved by banks.
Because they require so little identification, the ATMs frequently are used to buy bitcoin for nefarious reasons, according to federal agents. Most notoriously, bitcoin is the currency of choiceon the dark web, where its used to buy illicit narcotics. Its also used to extract payments from ransomware victims.
Because this is a private, decentralized currency, bitcoin itself has no way of telling if youre buying a bag of potato chips with it or a kilo of drugs, said Werbach, the Wharton professor.
Lamassus Conner said the bitcoin ATM machines allow new customers an easy way to experience the digital currency.
If youre looking to get your feet wet in cryptocurrency, bitcoin ATMsare the easiest on-ramp, Conner said. Whether its $5 or $100, its the least confusing way ofgetting involved.
Case to proceed against Montco man accused in $50M bitcoin heist Jul 27 - 8:07 PM
Feds: Jobless Montco man is no bit player in $50M bitcoin theft Jul 26 - 3:40 PM
Bucks burglary probe leads to a Montco hacker and possible $40M bitcoin theft Jul 24 - 8:32 AM
Published: August 1, 2017 3:01 AM EDT | Updated: August 1, 2017 5:31 AM EDT
We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.
Read more:
Bitcoin ATMs invade Philly, taking cryptocurrency to the masses - Philly.com
BigStock Image / Inked Pixels
Bitcoin has been gradually shedding its reputation as a fringe investment, as its value zig-zags into the stratosphere, and it becomes accepted by businesses such as Expedia and Microsoft. But while financiers have been paying more and more attention to cryptocurrencies, so have state governments.
On July 23, Washington became the latest state to regulate the digital currency market, ostensibly to protect consumers. The bill establishing the regulations, passed by the state legislature in April, has prompted both scorn and praise within the cryptocurrency community, and has led some Bitcoin-related businesses to shut down their Washington operations rather than comply.
The bills primary targets are digital exchanges, which allow customers to trade and deposit their Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other currencies. Every exchange with Washington customers must now operate under the states money transmitter laws, which have traditionally applied to businesses like Western Union. That includes an obligation to be licensed by the states Department of Financial Institutions, and to maintain virtual currency reserves equal to the funds they retain on behalf of customers.
In addition, exchanges must agree to third-party security audits of their systems, and post surety bonds of between $10,000 and $550,000, which work as security deposits in the event customers deserve compensation from an exchange.
We had these old regulations for money transmitters in the state, and they were clearly meant for older business models, said Charles Clark, who helped craft the new laws at the Department of Financial Institutions. The virtual currency industry had issue with that. This gives them some clarification and guidance.
Shortly after the regulations were signed into law, exchanges such as Bitfinex, Bitstamp, Kraken, and Poloniex pulled out of the state, and informed Washington customers they needed to take their business elsewhere. In a statement, Kraken said that while revenue continues to grow, operating costs have become prohibitive, primarily due to the high cost of continuing to meet the regulatory compliance requirements imposed by the state. Unfortunately it has become impractical for us to operate in Washington and we must discontinue service for all residents.
Others have taken to Reddit to respond to the regulations, accusing Washington of having a cryptohating legislature and being a very sorry state for any forward-thinking, technology enthusiast individual to reside in.
Clark said hes followed the online conversation and the news of exchange closures. He downplayed the fallout, noting that Washington issued a regulatory guidance paper on virtual currencies in 2014, and that new regulations are similar to those found in states like New York or North Carolina.
This legislation shouldnt have come as a surprise at all, said Clark.
Washingtons new policies were formed through discussions with a range of cryptocurrency industry groups, licensees, trade associations, the Chamber of Digital Commerce, and companies involved in the space, Clark said.
One of the companies participating in these discussions was Coinme, which operates Bitcoin ATMs in Washington, provides wallet services and facilitates the exchange of virtual currencies in 18 states and internationally. Coinme CEO Neil Bergquist praised Washington states approach, calling Washington a leader among the 50 states on regulating virtual currencies, and early on the draw in providing guidance to companies. He predicted the exchanges leaving the state wouldnt make too many waves.
As long as there are still some (exchanges) standing at the end of it, I think it will have a somewhat minimal impact on consumers, said Bergquist, who pointed out that the largest exchange, Coinbase, is still operating in Washington.
The cryptocurrency industry has been a boon to the state economy, Bergquist said, creating high-paying jobs and a number of new millionaires in recent years. But even as it gains in popularity, its still confusing and arcane to many government officials. Lawmakers must recognize the gaps in their knowledge, he said, or risk squashing innovation.
There are some states whose approach is unfortunate, and some are doing a better job because they actually do the work to understand it, Bergquist said. Its important that regulators, entrepreneurs, and customers are all part of that dialogue.
Where some governments have addressed the burgeoning cryptocurrency industry with regulations, others have taken a different approach. This past June, for example, Montana awarded a $416,000 grant to a Bitcoin mining firm, and Nevada passed a law specifically prohibiting Bitcoin transactions from being taxed.
See the original post:
New Bitcoin regulations shake up Washington state's cryptocurrency industry - GeekWire
August 02, 2017 06:00 ET | Source: SelectCore Ltd.
TORONTO, Aug. 02, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- SelectCore Ltd. (SelectCore or the Company) (TSX-V:SCG). SelectCore Ltd is pleased to announce the appointment of Aaron Grinhaus to our Advisory Board.
Aaron Grinhaus is an experienced business and tax consultant who has developed a niche expertise in the use of Fintech strategies, including the use of Blockchain technology, smart contracts and cryptocurrency to reduce business costs, hedge institutional friction and expedite capital raises and cross-border wealth transfer transactions.
Mr. Grinhaus is a business and tax lawyer by trade, and his firm, a mid-town Toronto, full service boutique law firm, was one of the first firms in Canada to publicly advise on the practical uses of Blockchain and shared ledger technology, as well as accept cryptocurrencies as payment. His firm's clients, which operate in a variety of industries and countries world-wide, leverage his knowledge and creativity in the area to plan for current and future business uses of the technology and its application in the business world.
Mr. Grinhaus frequently gives presentations on a variety of business and law related topics and has acted as chair, presenter and lecturer through a number of organizations including the Ontario Bar Association (OBA), Ontario Hospital Association, RBC Dominion Securities, Osgoode Hall Law School of York University and Michigan State University College of Law, among others. He is also heavily involved in the legal community having served on the Governing Council and several section executive boards of the OBA for over a decade and having served as Director and General Counsel for several not-for-profit and charitable organizations, such as the Mississauga Real Estate Board and the Canadian Association on Gerontology.
Mr. Grinhaus holds law degrees from University of Ottawa (LL.B.), Michigan State University College of Law (J.D.) and a Masters in Tax Law from Osgoode Hall Law School of York University (LL.M.).
Mohammad Abuleil, President and CEO SelectCore comments, "We take great pride in welcoming someone of Aaron's caliber to our Advisory Board. At SelectCore, we are preparing for the future as it relates to the Payments space. We have a defined strategy in creating ubiquitous cryptocurrency accessibility. Having the right braintrust guiding the company will ensure a self fulfilling prophecy of success."
Aaron Grinhaus adds, "Our team believes in growing with the technology and needs of our clients. From transferring wealth across borders without banks to executing contracts without lawyers, cryptocurrency platforms are on track to becoming the dominant means of exchange across the world.
About SelectCore (www.selectcore.com)
Established in 1999, SelectCore is a leading prepaid financial services provider. From prepaid mobile top-up to stored-value cards and remittance solutions, SelectCore services a market of millions of under-banked consumers, corporates and governments through its technology platforms. SelectCore was ranked by Profit100 as one of Canada's fastest-growing companies in 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. SelectCore was also ranked one of North Americas fastest growing companies on Deloittes 2011 Technology Fast 500.
Caution: Neither TSX Venture Exchange Inc. (TSXV) nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSXV) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
The securities offered have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of the securities offered in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.
Forward Looking Information:This news release contains forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Although First Global believes in light of the experience of its officers and directors, current conditions and expected future developments and other factors that have been considered appropriate, that the expectations reflected in this forward-looking information are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on them because First Global can give no assurance that they will prove to be correct. Readers are cautioned to not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Actual results and developments may differ materially from those contemplated by these statements. The statements in this press release are made as of the date of this release. First Global undertakes no obligation to comment on analyses, expectations or statements made by third-parties in respect of First Global, its securities, or financial or operating results (as applicable). First Global disclaims any intent or obligation to update publicly any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise, other than as required by applicable securities laws.
Go here to see the original:
After ongoing debates over how to scale the digital currency called bitcoin, some people have decided to make an entirely new currency called Bitcoin Cash.
It's a bit complicated for those who aren't in the bitcoin weeds. Essentially, political, technological, and ideological debates about growing bitcoin have come to a head. And some say that an entirely new currency called Bitcoin Cash could help scale bitcoin and bring it to the masses.
"The course of the summer has been a battle between competing visions," said Zaki Manain, an independent cryptocurrency expert. This week the competition is playing out.
In order for bitcoin to become a simple global payment system for anyone to use, it needs to get over its growing pains. For some, the solution to that is to make a whole new currency using similar software.
So what does that mean?
Let's start with why scaling bitcoin is tough.
Bitcoin is built on something called a blockchain. The bitcoin blockchain is a public ledger containing all the transaction data from anyone who uses bitcoin. Transactions are added to "blocks" or the links of code that make up the chain, and each transaction must be recorded on a block. But these blocks are full, and it is slowing transactions way down.
Currently, there are an average of about 1,700 transactions that can be saved per bitcoin block, at about three transactions per second, Manain said. That's not very much. (Visa, for example, handles thousands of transactions every second.)
Because the bitcoin blockchain is becoming too congested, someone could pay for something with bitcoin, but it wouldn't be approved for hours.
Related: What is bitcoin?
The bitcoin community tried to solve this problem by implementing a rule change to its software. Called "Segregated Witness," the rule change would let people put more transactions on each block. This, in technical terms, is called a "soft fork," and would not result in an entirely new cryptocurrency. The new rule is supposed be enacted this month.
For some, this was not enough. That's where Bitcoin Cash comes in.
Bitcoin Cash
The creation of Bitcoin Cash is what is called a "hard fork." The creators are releasing a completely new software that allows for eight times the number of transactions per block. This means Bitcoin Cash could process transactions faster.
Bitcoin Cash is not worth the same as bitcoin. As of this writing, a unit of Bitcoin Cash is valued around $240, but one Bitcoin is worth more than $2,700.
Like bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash relies on the community. It will only be successful if people decide en masse to create the blocks for the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. The first block was created Tuesday afternoon EST.
What it means for consumers and businesses
Anyone who owns bitcoin will also own the same number of Bitcoin Cash units. However, not all bitcoin exchanges (where people store their bitcoin) will accept Bitcoin Cash, and that could potentially hinder the widespread adoption of the new digital currency.
And in order for Bitcoin Cash to be used for mainstream transactions like buying coffee, businesses will have to accept it, regardless of whether they already accept bitcoin or not.
"This will be informative for how we deal with these systems in the future," Manain said. "Without a doubt this is going to be a blueprint, and we are going to learn a lot from this process."
CNNMoney (San Francisco) First published August 1, 2017: 2:09 PM ET
Link:
BBC News | Bitcoin splits as new currency takes off BBC News A new version of Bitcoin has been mined for the first time in the crypto-currency's history. Bitcoin Cash is the result of months of debate and development over how the currency would continue to evolve. Fears of large swings in the value of Bitcoin ... Bitcoin splits into two as transaction volumes increase Bitcoin dispute results in split-coin |
Here is the original post:
The price of the digital currency bitcoin fell on Tuesday, amid volatility stemming from a split in the cryptocurrency that occurred earlier in the day.
The price of a single bitcoin BTCUSD, +1.30% was down 5.7% at $2,710.39, according to cryptocurrency research-and-data site Coindesk. Ether, the digital currency that runs on the Ethereum network and is considered bitcoins chief rival, rose 2.6% to $209.91.
While bitcoin remains below an all-time high of more than $3,000 hit on July 11, it has been in a general uptrend since a recent bottom on July 16. Ether, meanwhile, has struggled ever since hitting a record of $395.16 on June 13.
The gyrations in bitcoin prices were largely due to the launch of Bitcoin Cash, a new version of bitcoin that followed a user-initiated fork in the digital currency. The split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash occurred at 8:20 a.m. Eastern.
Read more about the Bitcoin split
The fork follows a July agreement that was considered controversial in the industry. The agreement dealt with expanding the bitcoin trading network in order to help process transactions quickly and efficiently, an issue known as scalability.
Read more about bitcoin scalability
Forks of this kind pose a risk for users of the cryptocurrency during the transition phase. In the event that only a minority of the network computing power supports one of the branches there is a potential for this weaker branch to become orphaned by the network or, in certain circumstances, for the forks to converge resulting in the wipe out of the weaker branch, said Christian Kourtis, senior associate at Gowling WLG, a law firm that specializes in financial technologies.
The split caused some confusion at digital currency exchanges and brokerages, with some barring trades until they could confirm that their networks were stable amid the split. However, the volatility was seen as a short-term factor.
When we look back 30 days from now, this is essentially going to be a nonevent, Sheffield Clark, chief executive officer of Coinsource said in a statement.
Related: This is what it will take for bitcoin to become a legit currency
At current levels, bitcoin has a market capitalization of $44.45 billion, more than double the $20.51 billion market cap of Ether. The overall crypto universe has a market cap of $91.17 billion, according to the data site CoinMarketCap.
Over the long term, both bitcoin and Ether have been big gainers. Bitcoin prices have risen by nearly 180% thus far this year, while Ether has soared nearly 2,500%.
Go here to read the rest:
Bitcoin tumbles as 'split' takes effect; Ether rebounds - MarketWatch
Bitcoin has just undergone a contentious hard fork that cleaved it into two separate entities for the first time in the cryptocurrencys nearly nine-year history. In addition to the first version of bitcoin, there is now a new cryptocurrency called bitcoin cash that offers an eight-fold increase in transaction capacity.
For the last several years, the bitcoin infrastructure has been struggling to handle a growing number of transactions, and technical experts have said a new implementation of the currency will solve its back-logging issues.
That is what bitcoin cash promises. Like the original bitcoin, it uses the currencys principal innovation: the blockchain, an immutable ledger of all the transactions ever performed with the cryptocurrency. Now that there are two versions of the ledger, however, there could be some practical problems, like vanishing coins, and philosophical ones, like a communal agreement on which blockchain represents the one, true, bitcoin.
The first bitcoin cash block on its own blockchain was successfully created at exactly 2:12 p.m. ET, and the new currency is already trading at $210 USD per coin.
Read next: Bitcoins civil war threatens to blow up the cryptocurrency itself
See the original post here:
Bitcoin has split, and there are now two versions of the popular cryptocurrency - Quartz
Prior to the bitcoin cash hard fork, research firm Nchain conducted a workshop with the Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) team. The intent of the meeting was to signal joint support for new bitcoin scaling initiatives. The two groups explored ways to achieve greater bitcoin scaling in order to grow overall network capacity. They met in Vancouver, Canada on July 26.
Also read: Fork Watch: First Bitcoin Cash Block Mined Included Over 6k Transactions
According to an Nchain press release, the meeting focused on ways Nchain can help enhance the Bitcoin Unlimited protocol. Nchain is supposed to make the software into a certified, next generation version. The software will be rigorously tested for quality assurance. They will eventually release a version intended for mass consumer and small business usage.Stefan Matthews, Chief Executive Officer of the nChain Group, elaborated:
Nchain has confidence in Bitcoin Unlimited and BUs code. With improvements we can provide using nChains expertise, we are also confident that our certified version of Bitcoin Unlimiteds client software will address the needs of enterprise users, especially miners. nChain intends to make this certified version available for usage without charge, as part of our contributions to help achieve a faster, more powerful bitcoin network and exponentially higher bitcoin value for everyones benefit.
With the happening of the recent Nchain and BU workshop, there have been whispers either BU or Nchain has had a connection with bitcoin cash. Dr. Craig Wright of Nchain has already come out and falsified those claims. He also praised bitcoin cash. He said,
I recognize why I am a polarizing figure in bitcoin and understand why so much is written about me on the Internet and social media, even though most online posts are incorrect. The incorrect comments include anything suggesting that I am behind the Bitcoin Cash initiative; I am not. However, I applaud the efforts of whoever is behind Bitcoin Cash to achieve a truly decentralized, peer-to-peer electronic cash with higher, more efficient transaction capacity.
Both teams, however, have a problem with Segwit2x. Nchain supports the 2mb fork increase. However, Nchain claims it is not enough. In staying true to Satoshi Nakamotos original vision, Nchain wants to see larger scaling initiatives for the Segwit fork of bitcoin. Nchain said they will remain open for communication and new research development to help bootstrap bitcoin with more network capacity.
What do you think about this meeting? Will Nchain and BU succeed at scaling bitcoin? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!
Images courtesy of Shutterstock, prnewswire.com, and bitcoinunlimited.info
Do you agree with us that Bitcoin is the best invention since sliced bread? Thought so. Thats why we are building this online universe revolving around anything and everything Bitcoin. We have a store. And a forum. And a casino, a pool and real-time price statistics
See the rest here:
Image credit: Francis Storr/Flickr
Despite its reputation for getting constantly hacked, cryptocurrency like Bitcoin remains a hot commodity. If youve got a Satoshi or two in your wallet, you probably want to stay up to date on its value to make sure you dont lose your shirt if (lets be real, when) it crashes. Thats where Bitcoin Tracker comes in.
Unknown hackers made off with an estimated $32 million in hot cryptocurrency Ether, one of the most
Bitcoin Tracker, a free Chrome extension from developer Rahul Devaskar, lets you check out Bitcoins value every time you open a new web page.
After installing the extension, youll be able to pick your currency of choice and check out the current Bitcoin value. It also shows you its value whenever you open a new tab. There are other Bitcoin price trackers online, but Bitcoin Tracker seems the more polished of the bunch.
Devaskar wrote the extension after growing tired of missing out on buying Bitcoin during its lower price points. I built this tool to make sure that I dont miss on the next bitcoin price surge, Devaskar wrote. It has worked beautifully for me. Smart thinking. Buying Bitcoin when the price drops has proven a pretty effective way to make a quick buck in the short term, and sites like WhatIfBitcoin can show you how much money you would have made had you gotten in early.
Read the original here:
Bitcoin Chrome Extension Keeps You Up to Date on Price Fluctuations - Lifehacker
Last week, I wrote about the different methods used to calculate and express daily price changes in stocks and cryptocurrencies.
The big takeaway? Since cryptocurrencies trade in a 24/7 fashion, there is no closing price to quote. Instead, daily price changes are calculated by comparing the current price of the asset to the price of the same asset 24 hours earlier, and calculating the percent change between the two numbers.
Using this trailing 24-hour percent change calculation, however, can produce some very strange results.
As I wrote last week:
"What's the practical effect of this rolling denominator? In the simplest terms, it means that if you're just looking at the percentage change over the last 24 hours, you can't tell whether you're seeing real-time price movement in the cryptocurrency or just residual price volatility from the day before."
Today, I want to show you two examples of just how wildly distorting that rolling calculation can seem, using two hypothetical charts depicting bitcoin prices over a 48-hour timeframe.
In our first example, we have a chart that shows the price of bitcoin rising about 3percent in Day 1, as depicted by the yellow bar.
On Day 2, bitcoin essentially goes sideways for 24hours.
Now, take a look at what happens to the 24-hour price change during Day 2, as shown by the dark brown bar.
When Day 2 begins, the 24-hour change displays an increase of just over 3percent. As the day progresses, however, the 24-hour change begins to "roll off" until this figure hits zero on at 11:59pm.
Of course, all the 24-hour price change depicted by the brown bar during Day 2 happened when there was very little change in the value of bitcoin: the movement in 24-hour price change came entirely from "legacy" price volatility from the prior day.
The example shown in the second chart is even more unusual.
On Day 1, the price of bitcoin is very volatile.
Between 3 a.m. and 5:30 a.m., the price of bitcoin spikes up about 18percent on a straight price basis then bounces down a bit, between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., and finally crashes over 20 percent between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m.
On Day 2, bitcoin trades basically sideways all day.
As the price stays flat, however, the 24-hour price change bounces all over the map. First, the 24-hour price change crashes more than 15 percent, then it spikes up over 8 percent, crashes down around 15 percent again, and ultimately "rolls off" at zero at day's end showing absolutely no change over the course of the 24-hour period.
For investors especially retail investors new to the cryptocurrency space it's easy to see how the 24-hour percent change convention could be confusing.
If you're new to trading, you may want to check your charts twice.
Trading chartimage via Shutterstock. CoinDesk charts and data via Alex Sunnarborg
The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is an independent media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. Interested in offering your expertise or insights to our reporting? Contact us at [emailprotected].
Here is the original post:
The Problem with Bitcoin Price Charts (Explained in Two Charts) - CoinDesk