Twitter Users Blocked by Trump Seek a Reprieve, Citing First Amendment – New York Times

Posted on by

New York Times
Twitter Users Blocked by Trump Seek a Reprieve, Citing First Amendment
New York Times
This Twitter account operates as a 'designated public forum' for First Amendment purposes, and accordingly the viewpoint-based blocking of our clients is unconstitutional, the letter said. We ask that you unblock them and any others who have been ...
First Amendment group threatens to sue Trump for blocking Twitter usersThe Verge
Trump's Blocking of Twitter Users Violates First Amendment, Says Knight InstituteVariety
First Amendment Group Threatens Legal Action Against Trump for Blocking People on TwitterThe Intercept
The Hill (blog) -Poynter (blog) -Gizmodo
all 24 news articles »

Original post:

Twitter Users Blocked by Trump Seek a Reprieve, Citing First Amendment - New York Times

Red alert: The First Amendment is in danger – Salon

Posted on by

Of all the incredible statements issuing from the fantasy factory that is the imagination of Donald Trump, the one he recently made in a speech to graduates of the Coast Guard academy, that no politician in history and I say this with great surety has been treated worse or so unfairly sets an unenviable record for brazen ignorance plus a toxic mix of self-aggrandizement and self-pity. In his eyes, the most villainous persecutors are the mainstream fake news organizations that dare to oppose his actions and expose his lies.

So, having already banned nosy reporters from news corporations that he doesnt like, branded their employers as enemies of the nation and expressed a wish to departed FBI Director James Comey that those in the White House who leak his secrets should be jailed, why should there be any doubt that he would, if he could, clap behind bars reporters whom, in his own cockeyed vision, he saw as hostile? His fingers itch to sign an order or even better a law that would give him that power. Could he possibly extract such legislation from Congress?

Such a bill might accuse the press of seditious libel, meaning the circulation of an opinion tending to induce a belief that an action of the government was hostile to the liberties and happiness of the people. It also could be prohibited to defame the president by declarations directly or indirectly to criminate his motives in conducting official business.

With a net that wide, practically anything that carried even the slightest whiff of criticism could incur a penalty of as much as five years in jail and a fine of $5,000. Just for good measure, couple it with an Act Concerning Aliens, giving the president the right to expel any foreign-born resident not yet naturalized whom he considers dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States without a charge or a hearing.

How Trump would relish that kind of imaginary power over his enemies!

I didnt make up those words. They are part of actual laws the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in the summer of 1798 and signed by John Adams, our second president and titular leader of the conservative Federalist Party. Men were actually tried, imprisoned and fined for such sedition. If anyone believes that under the First Amendment gagging the media cant happen here, the answer is that it already has.

How did it happen? Just as it could happen again today in the midst of a national emergency. In Adams day, it was a war scare with France that produced a flurry of stand behind the president resolutions, a hugely expanded military budget (including the beginnings of the US Navy), demonstrations of approval in front of Adams residence and a conviction among the Federalists that members of Congress who talked of peace namely the Republicans, the pro-French opposition party who at that time were the more liberal of the two parties, [held] their countrys honor and safety too cheap.

In other words, just the kind of emergency that could be produced at any time in our present climate by a terrorist attack here at home genuine, exaggerated or contrived and pounced upon by the man in the White House.

Do I exaggerate? Read the chilling report of the April 30 interview between Jon Karl of ABC News and Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus, who said the president might change libel laws so he could sue publishers. When Karl suggested that this might require amending the Constitution, Priebus replied, I think its something that weve looked at, and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.

This is reality. A lying president aspiring to become a tinpot dictator is making his move. Its time to be afraid, but not too afraid to be prepared.

Lets briefly flash back to 1798. In the bitter contest between Federalists and Republicans, their weapons were the rambunctious, robust and nose-thumbing newspapers of the time, run by owner-editors and publishers who simply called themselves printers. They werent above dirtying their own hands with smears of ink, nor was there any tradition of objectivity. A British traveler of a slightly later time wrote that defamation exists all over the world, but it is incredible to what extent this vice is carried in America.

Nobody escaped calumny, not even the esteemed father of his country. Benjamin Franklin Bache, Republican editor of the Philadelphia Aurora, commented as George Washington departed office that his administration had been tainted with dishonor, injustice, treachery, meanness and perfidy . . . if ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by WASHINGTON.

Bache also had had harsh words for old, bald, blind, querulous, toothless, crippled John Adams, sounding very much like a pre-dawn Trump tweet aimed at some critic of His Mightiness. You might not find that kind of personal invective now in The New York Times or The Washington Post, but its familiar on right-wing talk radio and would sound at home coming from the mouths of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. The mode of dissemination changes; the ugliness at the core is unchanged.

Stung and furious, Adams and his Federalist supporters in Congress pushed the Sedition Act through Congress, though by a narrow majority. But could it survive a legal challenge from the Republican minority under the First Amendments guarantee of press freedom? The Federalists answered with a legal interpretation that the guarantee only covered prior restraint, which meant that a license from a government censor was required before publication of any opinion. Once it actually emerged in print, however, it had to take its chances with libel and defamation suits, even by public officials. Today,prior restraint is judicially dead, but the question of who is a public official and can be criticized without fear of retaliation in the courts continues to produce litigation.

But in 1787 argument made little difference. With the trumpets and drums of war blaring and thundering, the Constitution, as usually happens in such times, was little more than a paper barrier. Some provisions were added that would help the defense in a prosecution under its provisions. Moreover, the act was ticketed to expire automatically on March 3, 1801, the day before a new president and Congress would take office and either renew the law or leave it in its grave which is precisely what happened when Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans eventually won the 1800 election.

Nevertheless, during its slightly more than two years in force that produced only a handful of indictments, the Sedition Act did some meaningful damage. It produced what Jefferson called a reign of witches harmful enough to prove it was a travesty of justice, but not enough to become a full-blown reign of terror like the disappearances and executions of modern tyrannies.

The act never succeeded in its purpose of muzzling all criticism of the government, and in fact worked to the contrary. The toughest sentence 18 months in jail and a fine of $450 a huge sum in those days when whole families never saw as much as $100 in cash was imposed on a Massachusetts eccentric who put up a Liberty Pole in Dedham denouncing the acts and cheering for Jefferson and the Republicans. Other convictions for equally innocuous crimes defined by zealous prosecutors as sedition inflicted undeserved punishment by any standard of fairness. But two were especially consequential thanks to the backlash they produced.

One involved Matthew Lyon, a hot-tempered Vermont congressman, who ran a newspaper in which he accused Adams of a continual grasp for power and a thirst for ridiculous pomp that should have put him in a madhouse. For that he got a $1,000 fine and four months of jail time in an unheated felons cell in midwinter. But numerous Republican admirers raised the money to pay his fine. Asenator from Virginia rode north to personally deliver saddlebags full of collected cash. Lyon even ran for re-election from jail in December and swamped his opponent by 2,000 votes. His return to his seat in the House was celebrated joyfully by Republican crowds.

Jedidiah Peck from upstate New York was also indicted for his heinous offense of circulating a petition for the repeal of both the Alien and Sedition Acts. At each stop in his five-day trip to New York City for trial, the sight of him in manacles, watched over by a federal marshal, provoked anti-Federalist demonstrations. His case was dropped in 1800, and he was also easily re-elected to his seat in the New York assembly.

In fact, the entire Republican triumph in that years election was in good part a backlash to the censorship power grab of the Federalists. Literate voters of 1800, kept informed by a vigorous press, were not going to put padlocks on their tongues or take Federalist overreach lying down. Maybe it was from ingrained love of liberty or plain orneriness, or maybe because they were tougher to distract than we their heirs, beset by a constant barrage of entertainment, advertisements and other forms of trivial amusements.

Because that stream of noise is constant and virtually unavoidable by anyone not living in a cave, we are vulnerable to the tactic of the unapologetic Big Lie. If Trump keeps repeating fake news over and over at every exposure of some misdemeanor, eventually the number of believers in that falsehood will swell.

Genuine trouble is at our doorstep. If that statement from Reince Priebus is taken at face value, our bully-in-chief is looking for nothing less than control of the court of public opinion through management of the media by criminalizing criticism all behind a manufactured faade of governing in the name of the people.

With the example of 1798 before us, we need to resolve that any such effort can and must be met with the same kind of opposition mounted by that first generation of Americans living under the Constitution. If we want to be worthy of them, we need to use all our strength and resolution in deploying tactics of resistance. We need to fill the streets, overwhelm our lawmakers with calls and letters, reward them with our votes when they check the arrogance of power and strengthen their backbones when they waver. Any of us who gets a chance to speak at public gatherings and ceremonies should grab it to remind the audience that without freedom of speech, assembly and protest there is no real freedom. If the First Amendment vanishes, the rest of the Bill of Rights goes with it. And were dangerously close.

Read the rest here:

Red alert: The First Amendment is in danger - Salon

Twitter users, blocked by President Trump, say he’s violating the First Amendment – Akron Beacon Journal

Posted on by

PCEtLVBTVFlMRT1QRFRMX0hlZC0tPg==

PHA+TkVXIFlPUks6IFByZXNpZGVudCBEb25hbGQgVHJ1bXAgbWF5IGJlIHRoZSBuYXRpb24mIzgy MTc7cyB0d2VldGVyLWluLWNoaWVmLCBidXQgc29tZSBUd2l0dGVyIHVzZXJzIHNheSBoZSYjODIx NztzIHZpb2xhdGluZyB0aGUgRmlyc3QgQW1lbmRtZW50IGJ5IGJsb2NraW5nIHBlb3BsZSBmcm9t IGhpcyBmZWVkIGFmdGVyIHRoZXkgcG9zdGVkIHNjb3JuZnVsIGNvbW1lbnRzLjwvcD48cD5MYXd5 ZXJzIGZvciB0d28gVHdpdHRlciB1c2VycyBzZW50IHRoZSBXaGl0ZSBIb3VzZSBhIGxldHRlciBU dWVzZGF5IGRlbWFuZGluZyB0aGV5IGJlIHVuLWJsb2NrZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgUmVwdWJsaWNhbiBw cmVzaWRlbnQmIzgyMTc7cyAoYXQpcmVhbERvbmFsZFRydW1wIGFjY291bnQuPC9wPjxwPlRoZSBX aGl0ZSBIb3VzZSBoYXNuJiM4MjE3O3QgcmVzcG9uZGVkLjwvcD48cD5UaGUgS25pZ2h0IEZpcnN0 IEFtZW5kbWVudCBJbnN0aXR1dGUgYXQgQ29sdW1iaWEgVW5pdmVyc2l0eSBpbiBOZXcgWW9yayB3 cm90ZSB0aGUgbGV0dGVyIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiB0aGUgYmxvY2tlZCB0d2VldGVycy48L3A+PHA+ QWx0aG91Z2ggVHJ1bXAgc3RhcnRlZCAoYXQpcmVhbERvbmFsZFRydW1wIGFzIGEgcHJpdmF0ZSBj aXRpemVuLCB0aGUgaW5zdGl0dXRlJiM4MjE3O3MgbGF3eWVycyBhcmd1ZSBoZSYjODIxNztzIG1h ZGUgaXQgYSBnb3Zlcm5tZW50LWRlc2lnbmF0ZWQgcHVibGljIGZvcnVtIGJ5IHVzaW5nIGl0IHRv IGRpc2N1c3MgcG9saWNlcyBhbmQgZW5nYWdlIHdpdGggY2l0aXplbnMuIFRoZXkgc2F5IGl0JiM4 MjE3O3MgdW5jb25zdGl0dXRpb25hbCB0byBleGNsdWRlIHBlb3BsZSBmcm9tIHN1Y2ggYSBmb3J1 bSBiYXNlZCBvbiB0aGVpciB2aWV3cy48L3A+PHA+QmxvY2tpbmcgcGVvcGxlIG9uIFR3aXR0ZXIg bWVhbnMgdGhleSBjYW4mIzgyMTc7dCBlYXNpbHkgc2VlIGFuZCBjb21tZW50IG9uIHlvdXIgdHdl ZXRzLjwvcD4=

See the article here:

Twitter users, blocked by President Trump, say he's violating the First Amendment - Akron Beacon Journal

DeVos Appoints First Amendment Advocate to Key Position – Inside Higher Ed

Posted on by

The College Fix
DeVos Appoints First Amendment Advocate to Key Position
Inside Higher Ed
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has appointed Adam Kissel, formerly of the Koch Foundation and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs, the department confirmed Monday. Politico first ...
First Amendment crusader chosen for leading role in Trump's Department of EducationThe College Fix

all 74 news articles »

View original post here:

DeVos Appoints First Amendment Advocate to Key Position - Inside Higher Ed

The First Amendment protects speech that contradicts unions’ policy preferences – Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

Posted on by

This week PLF filed its opening brief in the Ninth Circuit in Associated Builders and Contractors-California Cooperation Committee v. Becerra, which challenges a California law that threatens to cut funding to speech contrary to unions policy preferences.

The lawsuit targets SB 954, which changed the way employers can distribute money under Californias prevailing wage law. That law requires contractors on public projects of over $1000 to pay employees the prevailing wage, a pre-determined rate set by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Contractors can satisfy that requirement by paying employees a combination of wages and benefits, including by donating money to industry advancement funds. SB 954 changed the law so that only union-backed industry advancement funds may now receive prevailing wage contributions. This threatens the survival of groups like ABC-CCC, which advocate against union interests and rely on prevailing wage contributions to fund their speech. Yet union-backed groups retain the status quo, and can continue to receive the same funding.

For many years, ABC-CCC was authorized to receive prevailing wage contributions. It used these funds to advocate for the open-shop industry, including advocating against the use of project labor and collective bargaining agreements in public projects. Project labor agreements are negotiated by unions prior to bidding on a project and require all bidders (whether unionized or not) to abide by union rules for the course of the job. This often requires bidders to accept the a pre-negotiated collective bargaining agreement. ABC-CCC publishes studies, hosts forums, testifies to government bodies, and writes amicus briefs outlining the costs of project labor agreements, and advocating against localities using them them. ABC-CCC therefore provides an important counterweight to union-backed industry advancement funds, which advocate in favor of project labor agreements.

SB 954, however, now requires that prevailing wage contributions to industry advancement funds be made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreementin other words, that they be supported by a union. As a practical matter, no collective bargainiang agreement will authorize a contribution to an organization that advocates against union interests. This means that ABC-CCC will stop receiving funding based solely on the content of its speech.

The blatant purpose of the law is to strangle the ability of open-shop organizations to fund their speech. Prior to the law, advocacy organizations of all viewpoints could receive prevailing wage contributions. Post-SB 954, only union-supported organizations can receive funding. The only thing that differentiates the groups eligible to receive funding is their perspective. Such viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment.

The district court, however, dismissed the case on the theory that the law was neutral on its face. But of course, though clothed in neutral terms, the law clearly allows unions to block funding to anti-union entities. This violates the First Amendments promise that public debate over public policy will be robust, and the government will not interfere with that debate merely because it prefers one perspective over another.

More here:

The First Amendment protects speech that contradicts unions' policy preferences - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

Levin: The Media Are Destroying the 1st Amendment, Freedom of the Press by Abusing It – CNSNews.com (blog)

Posted on by
Levin: The Media Are Destroying the 1st Amendment, Freedom of the Press by Abusing It
CNSNews.com (blog)
On his radio program Friday, nationally syndicated host Mark Levin slammed the media, saying that they are destroying the first amendment's freedom of the press provision by abusing it. The media are destroying the first amendment, stated Mark Levin.

View post:

Levin: The Media Are Destroying the 1st Amendment, Freedom of the Press by Abusing It - CNSNews.com (blog)

Billions of dollars, First Amendment protections, at stake in ABC lawsuit – Sioux Falls Argus Leader

Posted on by

A closer look at the case involving Dakota Dunes-based BPI and ABC News.

FILE - This March 29, 2012, file photo, shows the beef product that critics call "pink slime" during a plant tour of Beef Products Inc. in South Sioux City, Neb. An attorney for BPI on Tuesday, April 9, 2013, praised an Iowa judge's ruling that blocked the release of documents on food safety testing conducted for the Sioux Falls, S.D.-based company. Judge Dale Ruigh ruled last month that releasing the information would cause "irreparable harm" to BPI by revealing information about proprietary food-processing techniques.(Photo: Nati Harnik, AP)

Its a sure bet that the summer plans for 16 Union County, South Dakota residents look a lot different today than they did a week ago.

The 11 women and five men constitute the jury in the defamation lawsuit brought by Dakota Dunes-based Beef Products Inc. against ABC and Jim Avila, a senior correspondent for the broadcaster. BPIs $1.9 billion lawsuit is scheduled to last eight weeks, potentially concluding in late July.

The legal case:

BPI is bringing suit under a 1994 state law that makes it illegal to knowingly disparage agriculture products with falsehoods. The law allows for treble damages, which in BPIs case would amount to $5.7 billion.

South Dakota is one of 13 states with laws that protect agriculture from disparagement. State legislatures began passing the laws after a 1993 decision in Washington where a court rejected efforts by apple farmers to punish 60 Minutes for a story that questioned the use of pesticides on apples, said Dave Heller, the deputy director of the Medial Law Resource Center.

BPI filed suit in September 2012 following a series of negative reports aired by ABC about BPIs signature product, Lean Finely Textured Beef. Following the reports, many of BPIs major customers stopped buying LFTB, which was used as a lean beef filler in hamburger. The fallout from those reports forced the company to close three of four plants and eliminate half its work force.

More: Judge to lawyers in BPI case: Act like whiskey drinkers

Roy Gutterman, the director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, said the laws were intended to intimidate and chill news coverage. He noted that the term pink slime, which was used in ABCs broadcast to describe LFTB, was consistent with language used in the industry.

The pink slime case is an affront to the First Amendment, he said in an email. The damages being sought are outrageous.

Patrick Garry, a law professor at the University of South Dakota School of Law, said that BPI has a high bar because of First Amendment speech protections. BPI must prove that ABC acted with malice that it knowingly reported falsehoods with a desire to hurt BPI.

While the media has long-held legal protections, Garry wonders if this is the right case at the right time that could puncture some of those protections. BPI could have access to internal ABC documents showing the networks reports were biased, opening the door to a malice claim.

Steve Kay, who publishes Cattle Buyers Weekly, said it appeared to him that ABC set out to disparage a product that had been used around the world for years.

Im trying to be as neutral as possible, but by most standards of responsible journalism it appeared to be distorted and biased and extremely unreasonable, Kay said.

Eldon Roth, BPIs CEO, founded the company in 1981. He pioneered a method, Kay said, of extracting lean beef from fatty portions of cattle that had previously been rendered. BPIs method relied on centrifuges to extract the lean beef, which could then be added to hamburger, making a leaner product.

Roth further revolutionized the product following an E. coli outbreak that sickened hundreds in 1993 who ate hamburgers sold by Jack in the Box. He developed a process in which LFTB was treated with ammonium hydroxide to kill E. coli and other microbes.

The outcry is ironic, Kay said, because it was arguably the safest product on the market.

ABCs whole approach to BPI didnt make any sense to me, Kay said. It seemed to ignore the whole history of the product.

The damages:

ABC wasnt the first media outlet to report on the process of making LFTB. The New York Times discovered an email in which a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist described the product as pink slime. The paper referred to the email in a 2009 investigation, which uncovered reports of salmonella and E. coli in BPI products used in school lunches.

While no outbreaks were tied to BPI, the report by the Times included skepticism about the products safety among school lunch officials. In 2011, McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell abandoned LFTB.

Then came ABCs series of reports in March of 2012. Although the network broke little ground in terms of what had already been reported by the likes of The New York Times and others, its reporting set off a wave of negative reaction about LFTB. Grocers abandoned the product and USDA said school lunch programs didnt have to use beef that included LFTB.

BPIs revenues plummeted from $1.1 billion in 2011 to $400 million last year, Kay said. ABCs reports had an immediate and lasting impact on BPIs business.

No way has their business even more than partially recovered, Kay said.

Consumer transparency:

Much of the outcry about LFTB and a focus of ABCs reporting was on the use of ammonia to kill microbes. Although ammonia is used in other processed foods and was OKd by USDA for use at certain levels for LFTB, food advocates were outraged that it wasnt on the product label. Nor were consumers alerted to the fact that LFTB portions come from parts of the animal that had previously been rendered or used outside of the food chain.

Michele Simon, a public health attorney and author who wrote about the topic, and who was deposed in the case, said ABCs reports exposed the vast underbelly of the industrial meat system.

I dont think anyone was claiming it was unsafe, just disgusting, Simon said.

Kay, however, says it would be impractical to describe the processes of making hamburger with LFTB on product labeling. BPI, he added, has always been open about its product and the processes it used.

But Simon says the company had no answer about why it wasnt being more transparent. And she said she doesnt know why anyone in the news industry would have it out for BPI.

Its a typical shooting-the-messenger act, she said.

The outcome?:

ABC tried but failed to move the case from state court to federal court. The loss meant that it will be forced to defend itself in BPIs backyard.

Its hard to predict what will happen in this trial, Heller said in an email. ABC is in the plaintiffs home turf at a time of unprecedented hostility toward the press as purveyors of fake news. On the other hand, you will have a jury of average Americans probably more concerned with what they put on the family dinner table than the public relations of a beef processor.

Juries, Garry said, are often sympathetic to people who make defamation claims and give generous awards. But often, those awards are reversed on appeal, and Garry said he expects this case to be appealed, especially if the verdict goes against ABC.

Besides the Washington apple case that spurred state disparagement laws, Heller noted that nearly 20 years ago, Oprah Winfrey won a case in Texas after cattle ranchers attempted to silence her concerns about beef safety.

If the past is any track record, courts and juries will not be quick to shut down legitimate public debate about what we eat, he said.

While its true that opinions about food can substantially impact the bottom line of a manufacturer, thats a product of the free exchange of ideas, Heller said. We dont need the government to put its thumb on the scale and chill debate about what we are eating and how its made.

Read or Share this story: http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2017/06/04/billions-dollars-first-amendment-protections-stake-abc-lawsuit/362837001/

View post:

Billions of dollars, First Amendment protections, at stake in ABC lawsuit - Sioux Falls Argus Leader

How to Configure and Set-Up Jitsi – Liberty Under Attack

Posted on by

Download a PDF version of this article.

By: Shane Radliff

May 25, 2015

Jitsi is an open source platform similar to Skype and handles messaging, audio calls, and video calls. In addition to that, Jitsi comes stock with Off the Record (OTR) and Zimmerman Real Time Protocol (ZRTP) to provide secure communications.

OTR is the program used to encrypt messaging, while ZRTP is what encrypts VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) calls.

Since Jitsi comes stock with OTR and ZRTP, the install is quite simple; but to ensure simplicity and accuracy, I have decided to do a tutorial for the configuration and use of Jitsi on a Windows OS.

Note: I dont think the set-up for Windows vs. Mac is much different, so its possible you could use this for Mac OS too.

Downloading Jitsi and Setting up the XMPP Server

1. The first step is to download Jitsi.

2. While youre waiting for Jitsi to download, youll need to set-up an XMPP server. Head over to DuckDuckGo and sign-up. Note: make sure to remember your email (xxxx@dukgo.com) and password as you will need that to log-in.

3. After you have set-up your XMPP server through DuckDuckGo, youll need to open Jitsi.

4. Once Jitsi is open, youll click File and then Add New Account. It will give you a few options but youll want to login through the XMPP Server option (near the bottom of the list). Youll use the log-in information that you signed up with on DuckDuckGo. Note: the email will be something like: xxxx@dukgo.com.

Setting up Off the Record (OTR)

5. Next, find a buddy and add them. Youll do this by selecting the File dropdown and clicking the Add contact button.

6. Once you two are friends, youll need to highlight their name and click the message icon to start a conversation. Next, youll click the lock in the top right of the chat box. A dialogue should appear that states: John Doe is contacting you from an unrecognized computer. You should authenticate Youll then click the hyperlink to authenticate your buddy.

7. Once you click the link, a new window will appear. It will show your fingerprint and also the purported fingerprint of your buddy. At this point, you will have to use a separate channel to authenticate. That can be done by a VoIP call, phone call, or in person. Youll read your fingerprint and then your buddy will read theirs. If they match, then you will click Authenticate Buddy.

8.After you click Authenticate Buddy, check the chat window and make sure the lock is green and has no further warning messages. If its green, youre now using Off the Record encryption in your messages with the buddy you verified. Note: keep in mind, youll have to do it separately for everyone you chat with, but you will only have to do it once for each.

Setting up Zimmerman Real Time Protocol (ZRTP)

9. Highlight your friends name and click either the audio or video call button. It will take a few seconds for it to connect and then it should start ringing.

10.At that point, you will see a button in the middle of the call window that says connected with an unlatched lock. That is indicating that ZRTP is not connected.

11. After a few seconds, there will be window that opens up at the bottom of the call window.

12. At this point, the call is still not secure, and you will need to verify the key with your friend as an additional security measure. If the codes match, then you will click confirm and close out of that window. ZRTP should be connected and you can verify that by making sure the lock is now closed and green.

If you made it through all the steps and followed the instructions, you should have Jitsi, ZRTP, and OTR configured. If not, and youre having some problems or technical difficulties, please take a look at these two videos and they should be able to answer any questions. Alternatively, view the tutorial made by the Pillow Fortress blog by clicking here.

If for some reason those do not work, please email me or call me at 309-533-7857 and I will assist you with getting it configured properly.

Youve just taken a great step in ensuring private communications and have also began implementing a security culture.

I would further recommend encrypting your email as well. A colleague put together a great tutorial on setting up Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), which you can find here.

Lastly, if you feel like there is something missing in the tutorial or that something needs to be explained better, please let me know. This will be updated as needed when I get feedback.

Shane is the founder of Liberty Under Attack Radio, The Vonu Podcast, and LUA Publications, an independent publishing company. He has been a guest on many podcasts and radio shows and his work has appeared on sites all over the alternative media. When he's not producing content (which isn't often), he enjoys riding four wheelers, reading, and drumming.

See the original post here:

How to Configure and Set-Up Jitsi - Liberty Under Attack

What is Tor browser, and is it safe? | Komando.com

Posted on by

Q. I've heard you talk about a software called Tor before, but what does it do? Is it safe to download? And is it available to everyone? - Richard M.; listens on 880 AM WCBS, New York.

A. This is a great question, Richard, because Tor software is often the subject of controversy. If you're considering downloading this software, you need to be aware of the pros and cons, especially since Tor will allow you to browse through some pretty dark areas of the internet.

In its simplest definition, Tor is a web browser software that conceals your identity when you're online. It does this in a few different ways. First, it uses encryption to scramble the data that's being communicated within the network. Second, it routes that data between random servers within the Tor network to hide your online identity, including data tied to your personal IP address.

You've probably heard some unnerving things associated with Tor. We're not going to pretend there isn't truth to those claims. Tor can be used for good things and bad.

Positives: The best thing about Tor is that it provides anonymity for people who would wantto browse the web without being tracked by their internet service provider, websites, the government and other interest parties. You can also use Tor to access services that are blocked by some internet providers, or governments.

Note: If you'd like to increase your privacy online without downloading Tor software, click here for tips on disabling web browser tracking.

Negatives: It's true that Tor has a dark side. Not the software itself, but the places to where it grants access on the internet. You may have heard the term "Dark Web" before. This is a portion of the internet that is often used for illegal activities such as child pornography, the sale of drugs, prostitution, etc. Tor software is needed to access the Dark Web, so needless to say, using the software could lead you into some pretty dark places. Click here for more information on the Dark Web and what's hiding in the shadows of the internet.

The easiest answer: Yes, and no. The software itself is safe to use. And, if you're using it for its basic function of hiding your online identity, then you shouldn't run into any trouble. However, if you're using Tor with the intent of accessing the Dark Web, then you could easily encounter more than you bargained for.

Tor software is free to download, however, you may be asked by the software's developers to make a donation. You are not obligated to do so, but there are various sections of the Tor website where donations are requested.

Although Tor does have its benefits, it is an extreme way to obtain online anonymity, and should only be used by those who find it absolutely necessary. Because of the risks associated with the Dark Web, Tor may not be the best option for the average internet user. Instead, try the tips in these articles to gain more privacy online, no special software required.

Please share this information with everyone. Just click on any of these social media buttons.

Previous Downloads

Next Downloads

Link:

What is Tor browser, and is it safe? | Komando.com

Cryptocurrency ICO Education The Basics – The Merkle

Posted on by

Over the past few months, there has been an increased focus on cryptocurrency ICOs. These initial coin offerings are a great way for investors to buy into a project at an affordable price. At the same time, the project developers try to raise as much money as possible to finish their creation as soon as possible. It is a well-balanced ecosystem, but a lot of people are still confused about certain ICO aspects. In this series, we will try to address some concerns people still have.

As most people should be familiar with by now, buying into a cryptocurrency ICO is the same as backing a project on Kickstarter or IndieGala. Investors receive a reward for pledging money to the cause, even though not all of these projects may succeed in the end. Unlike traditional crowdfunding campaigns, cryptocurrency ICOs do not accept credit cards or other traditional payment methods. Most projects only accept investments in either Ether or Bitcoin, albeit some projects accept additional currencies and tokens as well.

There is another similarity to cryptocurrency ICOs and crowdfunding projects. It is always of the utmost importance to invest as early as possible. In the case of a cryptocurrency ICO, early investors often received a specific percentage of tokens on top of the regular amount. These bonuses can either be time-based or based on the amount of tokens sold already. As we have seen with a lot of recent ICOs, time to buy in is incredibly limited, though.

Even though these similarities between cryptocurrency ICOs and crowdfunding projects should not be overlooked, that is far as both concepts can be compared. With a crowdfunding project, backers can often get a refund of their money if the project fails to deliver. That is not necessarily the case with a cryptocurrency ICO, although most projects lock funds in a smart contract. By using this technology, it is a lot easier to refund investors if needed, albeit that happens very rarely these days.

Moreover, it is always a good idea to check how many tokens will be generated during a particular cryptocurrency ICO. A lot of projects issue a billion tokens or more, which theoretically makes it impossible for them to gain any major value. That is a common misconception, though, as cryptocurrency ICOs often increase their value a tenfold or more in the first few months. Most of these tokens are quickly listed on exchanges, which means there will be plenty of liquidity as well.

Speaking of the number of tokens being issued, there are two creation models projects can make use of. First of all, there is the static supply option with a predetermined value. This means a fixed number of tokens will be issued which will always be sold at the exact same price. This levels the playing field for both early and late investors alike. It is possible this method will be considered less attractive by speculators, since there is no option to buy cheaper coins. Then again, these tokens often see their value appreciate over time just as well as other projects.

The second option revolves around a static supply with a dynamic funding goal. The distribution of cryptocurrency ICO tokens is made based on how much money has been raised to date. More funds raised will result in a higher price per token. This also means early investors will see the value of their token increase during the remainder of the ICO. These are often the most popular types of ICOs, although they often reach their funding goal in minutes or hours.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

Follow this link:

Cryptocurrency ICO Education The Basics - The Merkle

AMD rallies as cryptocurrency miners snap up graphics chips – Reuters

Posted on by

By Noel Randewich | SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO Shares of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD.O) surged nearly 9 percent on Tuesday boosted by strong demand for its chips from cryptocurrency miners, leaving short sellers at a loss for the year.

A rally in cryptocurrency Ethereum has boosted demand for graphics chips used by people to "mine" it and other digital currencies, with some of AMD's processors sold out on Amazon.com (AMZN.O) and other retail websites.

Mining for cryptocurrency involves using networks of computers to validate transactions and prevent counterfeit by solving complex mathematical problems. New currency is generated as a reward to the computer operators.

The emergence of Bitcoin in 2009 made cryptocurrency mining popular. Recent rallies in the price of Bitcoin BTC=BTSP and newer digital currency Ethereum have rekindled interest.

Ethereum miners spending as little as $2,000 to build mining computers using graphics processing units, or GPUs, from AMD or its rival Nvidia (NVDA.O) could break even within three or four months, estimated RBC analyst Mitch Steves in a note to clients on Tuesday.

"We think economics suggests that GPUs continue to be sold out," Steves wrote. "We think GPU demand will remain robust as long as the return is under (about) one year."

As of Monday, AMD short sellers had been up about $15 million for 2017. But Tuesdays share surge left them at a loss of $125 million on paper for the year, according to S3 Partners, a financial analytics firm.

That follows losses of over $700 million for AMD short sellers last year, when the stock tripled.

The stock last traded up 7.3 percent at $12.06.

"There are going to be a lot of traders saying, 'This is the last straw. I'm out,'" said Ihor Dusaniwsky, S3's managing director of research.

AMD spokesman Drew Prairie acknowledged that interest from cryptocurrency miners was contributing to demand for the company's chips, but he stressed that game enthusiasts are the core market.

JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O), Intel Corp (INTC.O) and more than two dozen other companies have teamed up to develop standards to make it easier for enterprises to use technology related to Ethereum.

Adding to support for AMD's stock, Apple (AAPL.O) on Monday refreshed its lineup of Mac personal computers, including upgraded graphics chips from AMD.

(Reporting by Noel Randewich; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Russian security software maker Kaspersky Lab has filed antitrust complaints against Microsoft with the European Commission and the German federal cartel office, it said in a statement on Tuesday.

Amazon.com Inc said on Tuesday it would offer a discount on its popular Prime subscription service for shoppers who receive U.S. government aid, taking aim at a key customer base for rival Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Excerpt from:

AMD rallies as cryptocurrency miners snap up graphics chips - Reuters

Bitcoin Price on Track to hit US$3000, Total Cryptocurrency Market cap Surpasses US$102bn – The Merkle

Posted on by

Things are looking incredibly promising for Bitcoin and the BTC value right now. With the overall cryptocurrency market cap surpassing US$102bn, the fear of missing out is setting in around the world. A lot of consumers and investors want to ensure they make a strategic investment in cryptocurrency right now. As a result, the Bitcoin price keeps going up and is well underway to hit US$3, 000 in the near future.

Just yesterday, we discussed how the total cryptocurrency market cap would surpass US$100bn very shortly. Fast forward to today, and that is exactly what happened. As of right now, the total market cap sits at over US$102bn, and it seems there is still a lot of room for future growth. A lot of fresh capital has entered the cryptocurrency ecosystem, just as it has done so over the past few weeks.

Rest assured a lot of people are closely monitoring the Bitcoin price right now. A new all-time high has been set virtually every hour, and it looks like the momentum is not over just yet. Right now, one Bitcoin is valued at US$2,908. That means we are getting incredibly close to hitting US$3, 000. This value represents a target most experts claimed was well out of reach. Then again, one cannot properly predict how a free market will evolve despite technical analysis, charts and observations.

Even though Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency shooting up in value, it remains the most important one to a lot of traders. If Bitcoins value goes up, so will the value of other cryptocurrencies, digital assets, and tokens. It is in everybodys best interest to see the Bitcoin price appreciate over time. Then again, it is also possible a lot of investors will convert alternative currencies back into Bitcoin, which will lead to some volatility in these markets.

With close to US$2bn in 24-hour trading volume, it is evident demand for Bitcoin is not slowing down anytime soon. Korean exchanges have already projected the Bitcoin value at over US$3,000, although traders in these regions often pay a hefty premium to buy and sell Bitcoin. China has Bitcoin valued slightly higher compared to the American exchanges, although the gap is a lot smaller than most people would expect.

When looking past the Bitcoin trading volume generated by various alternative currencies and tokens for a moment, it is evident fiat currency-based trading is increasing in volume. The USD, KRW, CNY, and even EUR markets are all providing a lot of trading volume right now. This seemingly indicates people are converting their fiat currency to Bitcoin and vice versa. Based on the current charts, it looks like most people are actually buying Bitcoin, rather than selling it. This is a sign of FOMO settling in, although it is still too early to tell what is going on exactly.

For the time being, it is unclear what will happen to the Bitcoin price. The previous sharp increase in value was met with an equally sharp dip shortly after. It is possible Bitcoin will reach US$3, 000 without too many problems. On the other hand, the price may drop a fair before resuming this upward trend. Regardless of which scenario comes true, there will be plenty of eyeballs glued to Bitcoin trading charts over the coming days.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

The rest is here:

Bitcoin Price on Track to hit US$3000, Total Cryptocurrency Market cap Surpasses US$102bn - The Merkle

Pegged Cryptocurrencies and Credibility – Crypto Insider (press release) (blog)

Posted on by

The high volatility of exchange value is one barrier to the mass adoption of cryptocurrencies. But for those that have sought to address this with pegged exchange rates, success has been hard to find. Not impossible, though.

Though such currencies seek to eliminate the exchange-rate issue while enjoying the same ease and low-cost of Bitcoin transactions, its been argued that pegging to, say, the dollar, also pegs the currency to the vagaries of institutions like the US Government and Federal Reserve.

The advent of Blockchain 2.0 has enabled the launching of a variety of new digital assets, including currencies pegged to fiat currencies and to gold. Last month saw New Zealand cryptocurrency exchange Cryptopia announce New Zealands first cryptocurrency which will be pegged to the New Zealand dollar.

The main success so far is that of Tether, which is pegged to the US dollar and offers crypto versions of three currencies, known as: USDT, EURT and JPYT. Tether maintains its peg by keeping the US Dollar equivalent of all USDT value in reserves at all times.

Launched in early 2015, Tether has largely kept the peg in place since then. That is, until late April when it crumbled due to issues with the Taiwanese banks they use for receiving and sending USD withdrawals. All incoming international wires to Tether were blocked and refused by the banks. Since then, however, the value of USDT has rallied from $0.93, and it now trades at $1.02.

Other pegged cryptocurrencies have fared less well. CoinoUSD, NuBits, and BitUSD all eschewed the traditional currency pegging method of the holding of reserves in physical dollars or dollar-denominated debt securities.

CoinoUSD began trading in December 2014 and reached a market capitalization plateau of $2.7 million in early 2016. However, it shut down shortly after due to a glitch which flooded customers with free CoinoUSD units, making it impossible to maintain the exchange value at $1.

NuBits are notable for being the first decentralized cryptocurrency to maintain a $1 peg for a period of one year, having accomplished it in September 2015. However, in June 2016, NuBits suffered a devaluation crisis, with the price falling to 20 cents when its rate-pegging mechanism failed. Although the price later returned to par, today NuBits shows very little market activity.

BitUSD is built on the blockchain platform of the cryptocurrency BitSharesX. BitUSD uses a novel pegging system, involving BitShares, that so far has proven robust. The price of 1BitUSD has hovered around $1 and has not experienced any lasting devaluation. However, in part due to the declining use of BitShares, BitUSDs clientele went into serious decline not long after launch. In late April, however, there has been sudden renewed interest which has seen its market cap surge from below $110,000 to a high of just under $2.4m.

Tether slowly built its market cap and started 2017 at just below $10m. Since then it has also enjoyed a surge. Presently, it has reached its current high of $107m and is the outstanding dollar-pegged cryptocurrency.

Despite its surge in popularity, there is still a long way to go for all cryptocurrencies, of course, which have still to experience a full business and credit cycle. Bitcoin price volatility may eventually flatten out when digital currency becomes more widely accepted, but that is still a long way off.

Meanwhile, Tether offers that sought after exchange stability, but questions remain over its decision of a hard peg maintaining a value different to how the market would value it which has already failed.

Perhaps the greatest value of dollar-pegged cryptocurrencies is that they provide a gauge to how much of the demand for cryptocurrencies is transactional versus speculative.

Picture from Pixabay.

Read more from the original source:

Pegged Cryptocurrencies and Credibility - Crypto Insider (press release) (blog)

NuMelo Technology hires Henryk Dabrowski to lead cryptocurrency initiative – CryptoNinjas

Posted on by

NuMelo Technology (formerly Ciao Group) today announced bringing Henryk Dabrowksi on board to lead the companys new Cryptographic Enterprises Division.Mr. Dabrowksi comes to

NuMelo after leading Alternet Systems, Inc. (ALTI) in the development and eventual cash sale of ALYIs subsidiary mobile financial transaction software company, Utiba Americas.Utiba remains today as one of the leading mobile financial remittance systems in the world.

Mr. Dabrowksi will now lead NuMelos development of blockchain and Bitcoin solutions in addition to pursuing other cryptocurrency and cryptographic technology enterprise solutions.

NuMelos new, recently announced Cryptography Division is headquartered in the heart of Silicon Valley in San Jose.

Ciao Group is in the process of changing its name to NuMelo Technology first announced back in April as part of a business plan refresh. The refreshed business plan aimsto concentrate on developing locally sourced technology and telecommunication services within frontier and emerging economic markets.

Go here to see the original:

NuMelo Technology hires Henryk Dabrowski to lead cryptocurrency initiative - CryptoNinjas

Bitcoin’s King Solomon Moment – Slate Magazine

Posted on by

A bitcoin ATM in Barcelona in 2014.

Josep Lago/AFP/Getty Images

Back in early 2014, thanks to a confluence of digital malfeasance and wide-eyed optimism, bitcoin enjoyed a nice run in the headlines. Things have since quieted in the popular press, but venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and speculators have continued to work toward the promise of a secure, fast, and cheap payment system that cuts out fee-hungry banks and credit card companies. Following Bitcoins lead, theyve built dozens of competing cryptocurrency systems, and while digital coins arent part of most peoples everyday lives today, its increasingly clear that they will be, sooner or later.

Bitcoin itself, however, wont necessarily be part of the future it has ushered in. A broad surge in cryptocurrency values pushed the original recipe north of $40 billion in late May, but a long-standing issue that limits the systems capacity has left it struggling to give users what it says on the tin: a cheap, quick way to move money. Because bitcoin is open-source and democratically managed, a huge number of stakeholders are wrangling over how to solve this scaling crisis, which hinges on an obscure technical parameter.

In response, the bitcoin community has split into two factions that tout mutually incompatible solutions while accusing each other of incompetence, conspiracy, self-aggrandizement, and generally being the devil. On March 17, more than two-dozen bitcoin marketplaces issued a joint letter warning that there is a very real possibility that a Bitcoin network split may occur in the future if the conflict isnt resolved. It was one of the first high-level acknowledgments that, just as it begins to fulfill its promise, Bitcoin could be torn in half.

The idea of a Bitcoin split, or the extremely personal infighting that has made it a possibility, would have seemed laughable just a few years ago. Then, a tight-knit crew of bitcoin pioneers gleefully nerded out over an arcane innovation with world-changing potential. At the heart of bitcoins radical promise is the so-called blockchain, essentially a ledger where transactions are recorded. But instead of some spreadsheet living on a single computer, the blockchain exists on thousands of servers worldwide that constantly monitor one anothers copies of the ledger. This makes the network essentially unhackablean astonishing achievement of computer science and economic engineering.

Since a still-anonymous creator introduced bitcoin in 2009, its central innovation has given birth to a diverse and thriving ecosystem. There are now dozens of other cryptocurrency systems, with names like Ethereum, Dash, and Ripple, many with more features than Bitcoin. Perceived instability in Bitcoin could eventually push investors and developers to these alternatives. But more profoundly, Bitcoins inability to solve its own problems would cast doubt on its core libertarian-democratic premise: that people dont need the government or banks to manage their currency.

If Bitcoin were to split, it will be because it was just too successful for its own good. Public interest and transaction volume has grown more or less steadily for the past five years, and the blocks that make up the blockchainbundles of about 2,000 transactions compiled every few minutesare getting very crowded. Some transfers can currently wait hours, even days, to go through.

Users can pay a fee to have their money moved first, through a bidding process that is becoming increasingly fierce. Before 2014, bitcoin transactions were effectively free. By October, users had to pay operators about 13 cents to get speedy resolution. Today, that average fee is closer to 50 cents. That removes some of bitcoins appeal as an alternative to, say, Visa, which charges merchants about 10 cents for small transactions or about $1 for the average swipe.

Almost everyone admits this is a problem, but bitcoiners are divided into two camps over how to solve it. One faction is led by Roger Ver, a very early funder of Bitcoin startups who has relentlessly proselytized for the technology since 2011. Among the cultish ranks of bitcoin boosters, Vers commitment and vision earned him the nickname Bitcoin Jesus. Now, he has taken up the banner of Bitcoin Unlimited, a solution to the scaling issue that would directly increase the codes limit on how much data a block can hold.

While this would make bitcoin faster and cheaper for users, critics say it would also make it more expensive to run a server. For this heresy, Vers enemies have rechristened him the Bitcoin Antichrist. One of his main allies, the Chinese server manufacturer Jihan Wu, has been similarly dubbed Jihad Wu, complete with a satirical Twitter account that paints him as an ISIS-style terrorist.

The main competing proposal is offered by Bitcoins central development team, Bitcoin Core, and is known as Segregated Witness, or SegWit. It would free up a smaller amount of space for transactions, while making it easier for secondary systems to handle smaller transactions outside of the main, super-secure blockchain. But it could leave bitcoin proper nearly useless for small transactions.

This may sound like a technical squabble among quislings. But the two solutions imply two fundamentally different visions of what bitcoina system that currently has a higher market value than Credit Suisseshould be. Those who support Vers vision of larger blocks want bitcoin to be a day-to-day, open payments network, usable to buy anything from a cup of coffee to a car. Those who support SegWit are more likely to see bitcoin as digital gold, a long-term store of value that wouldnt move around that much. That would leave fees high but make paying them less necessary, while relying more on secondary systems.

The two factions congregate on separate, opposing Reddit forums where they each tout their solution while meme-trolling the enemy. Each accuses the other of sockpuppetingusing fake social media accounts to create the impression of popular support. (And each side, of course, denies in engaging in such behavior.)

If Bitcoin were a company, youd expect the CEO to sort out his or her underlings petty backbiting. But Bitcoin has no leaders. Instead, the miners that run Bitcoins servers essentially vote on any proposed changes. For years, the consensus version of the software was distributed by the slowly rotating Bitcoin Core team and adopted with little controversy. Core had no official authority, but its expertise was broadly trusted.

But many miners have lost faith in Core, accusing it of moving too slowly to tackle the scaling issue. According to tracking site Blockchain.Info, a little more than 40 percent of miners are currently signaling their support for Bitcoin Unlimited, compared with only 30 percent signaling for SegWit. If more than 50 percent of miners were to support Bitcoin Unlimited, they could force a shift in the entire network. Ver, though, says he would like to see much more decisive margins of support before any changes are implemented, and SegWit requires support from 95 percent of miners before it can be activated.

With each faction so firmly entrenched, theres no sign things will sharply swing either way any time soon. But a smaller group of miners could branch off to form a separate network and an entirely new currency. This split, known as a hard fork, is what the exchanges that issued the March letter were planning for.

Not everyone thinks a hard fork would be a bad thing. Anthony Di Iorio was one of the founders of Ethereum, the most prominent system to innovate on bitcoins core ideas. Should there be a hard fork, he predicts, youre going to have better growth. [Users] will be able to decide. Competition is good. Ver, unsurprisingly, describes a fork as not a big problem at all.

But othersnaturallydisagree. Reggie Middleton is a financial analyst focused on cryptocurrency and runs the decentralized trading platform Veritaseum. A Bitcoin Unlimited fork would be destructive to the economic value of the [Bitcoin] network as a whole, he says, in part because the strength of any payments system hinges on its size.

Middleton is also concerned about Bitcoin Unlimiteds implications for bitcoins governance. Like Ver and most longtime bitcoin supporters, hes a staunch critic of government and corporate power, attracted to bitcoin because it promises to free currency from control by old regimes. But Bitcoin Unlimiteds larger blocks would require more computing power, storage, and network bandwidth to process, which could concentrate mining in fewer hands, making the system both less secure and less democratic.

Once you centralize it, says Middleton, you open it to threats. It would become like the banking system, which is basically greedy middlemen who stand between you and your money. For bitcoin die-hards, there is no greater slur than comparing something to a bank.

For bitcoin die-hards, there is no greater slur than comparing something to a bank.

Ver thinks this position is ridiculous. Bitcoin was once a true grassroots project, with ramshackle servers toddling along in peoples basements and dorm rooms. But the system has already become vastly more power-hungry: Ver points out that a single usable mining server, and its voting power, today costs $1,000 or more. In other words, bitcoin is still a radical political project, but its also big business, and its time to come to terms with that.

Jeff Garzik has a unique perspective on the public bloodletting. Before spending four years as part of the Bitcoin Core team, Garzik was a leader at Red Hat, which helped make the open-source Linux system digestible for corporate users. Someone had to play that insulating role, because it was common for Linuxs democratic community of developers to engage in ideological warfare over lines of code.

But Garzik says that even Linuxs biggest battles cant compare to the hate swirling around bitcoins block-size debate. While Linux fights might have broken out over engineering approaches, and early bitcoin debates revolved around ideology and theory, Garzik thinks something much less abstract is driving bitcoins current unrest: money.

At this point, more than $1.5 billion in venture capital has gone to support blockchain startups, and many have business models that would be affected by how the block-size problem is solved. Blockstream, which employs some Bitcoin Core developers, builds sidechains, the sort of secondary system that would be more in demand if bitcoin itself doesnt start accepting more transactions. On the other hand, theres BitPay, which has sold merchants the idea of bitcoin as a low-fee retail payment system, and for whom the strangled state of the bitcoin blockchain has been a serious headache.

Youre asking developers, in effect, to pick winners and losers in the market, says Garzik.Theres no right answer.

But there could be a wrong answer. A miscalculated change could disrupt bitcoins basic economics, a fine balance of computing costs, coin value, and network demand. And all of those competing blockchains are waiting for a mistake. If bitcoin were to recede, that will be sad for me, says Ver. If theres another iPhone thats better, thats sad for my old iPhone. But it means we get to use a better one. Ver has outlined this endgame scenario on the same portal that he established years ago as a friendly invitation to new bitcoin users. Bitcoin Jesus is now preaching about the looming bitcoin apocalypse.

The viciousness and intractability of the scaling fight could suggest a flaw at the heart of bitcoins core democratic ideals. Maybe, in the end, we really do need authority figures to make big decisionsespecially when theres money on the line. But Charlie Shrem, another early bitcoin entrepreneur who now supports the SegWit solution, focuses on the fact that the software has stood firm amid the chaos. Changes that can hurt the network cant happen easily. Its the same thing with changes that can make the network better. Its what makes the network strong. Its beautiful. His opponent, Ver, sees the same silver lining.

Its not surprising that the two would share a sanguine perspective on the chaos gripping their lifes work. Though nominally antagonists today, Shrem and Ver have a friendship rooted in years in the bitcoin trenchesVers first investment was in Shrems bitcoin payment startup. Shrem says Ver (along with a lot of other people who hate each other on the internet) will attend his upcoming wedding.

In the aftermath of the exchanges March letter, the tension over scaling has continued to ratchet up slowly. New proposals have attempted to break the standoff between Bitcoin Unlimited and SegWit, including one that some say subverts bitcoins basic decision-making process. A version of the SegWit solution was successfully activated on the bitcoin alternative Litecoin, demonstrating that its ready for the big leagues. But still, the deadlock holds, bitcoin is left with the slow and expensive status quo, and neither side is truly happy.

And maybe thats just what democracy looks like.

This article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Read more here:

Bitcoin's King Solomon Moment - Slate Magazine

US bitcoin conman hit with $12m fine – BBC News – BBC News

Posted on by

BBC News
US bitcoin conman hit with $12m fine - BBC News
BBC News
The fraudulent scheme netted the Connecticut conman about $20m, say US prosecutors.
Bitcoin Ponzi schemes slammed with $12 million penalty | ZDNetZDNet
Person behind Bitcoin Mining Scam Faces $12 Million FinenewsBTC
SEC Wins GAW Miners' Bitcoin Ponzi Legal Case, Continues Litigation Against GarzaCryptoCoinsNews
SEC.gov
all 8 news articles »

See more here:

US bitcoin conman hit with $12m fine - BBC News - BBC News

Why Buy This Bitcoin ETF Instead of Actual Bitcoin? | Investopedia – Investopedia

Posted on by

If you're interested in getting invested in the digital currency world, now seems to be as good a time as ever. Bitcoin has seen repeated record-setting price levels, and a host of other digital currencies are becoming increasingly popular around the globe. And yet, there are some reasons why even seasoned investors may be reluctant to get involved in direct investments relating to cryptocurrencies. Fortunately for those people, there is an exchange-traded fund focusing on Bitcoin in particular that can simplify the process. It is called the Bitcoin Investment Trust (GBTC) and it is provided by Grayscale Investments. Here are some of the basic details about the new trust and its relationship to the digital currency itself.

The Bitcoin Investment Trust sported a tremendous 248% increase in the month of May. This far surpasses the gains of 72% overall for the Bitcoin-U.S. dollar currency cross. With that figure in mind, investors may be jumping to get access to GBTC shares. However, there are other factors to consider as well.

First, May's performance seems to be a relative anomaly for the trust. For two of the three months prior to May, Bitcoin performance superseded the trust's performance, which suggests that the two are actually more neck-and-neck than May's figure would suggest. Second, investors looking to buy into GBTC should keep in mind that it is currently trading at more than double the cost of Bitcoin itself even though the underlying asset is 100% Bitcoin Business Insider reports.

Potential investors are likely wondering why GBTC shares can be found at such a high premium over Bitcoin. The issue seems to lie in supply and demand. While Bitcoin demand has skyrocketed, GBTC has kept its shares outstanding close to 1.7 million in the two years that it has existed. In fact, the ETF seems unlikely to change the number of total outstanding shares in the future, according to the company's head of research, Ihor Dusaniwsky. He explains that "with the operational risk of buying and holding actual Bitcoins to support ETF creation very high, and difficult and expensive to insure, it is unlikely that GBTC's outstanding share amount will climb above 1.7 million anytime soon."

It is useful to note that GBTC didn't always seem this expensive in comparison with Bitcoin. Before Bitcoin's price spiked in the past several weeks, the trust traded on an average premium of just 10% above the crypto currency in 2017. The issue seems to have come about when Bitcoin's demand blew up and GBTC's supply did not change. As Bitcoin continues to spread further into the financial world, it will be interesting to see where GBTC's share prices go as well.

GBTC is traded on OTCQX.

Read the original here:

Why Buy This Bitcoin ETF Instead of Actual Bitcoin? | Investopedia - Investopedia

With bitcoin surge, cryptocurrencies top $100 billion in market capitalization – MarketWatch

Posted on by

The investment category of cryptocurrencies hit a new milestone on Tuesday, one that would have been unfathomable just a couple of years ago: $100 billion in combined market capitalization.

The break above the 12-digit threshold is largely attributable to bitcoin, which is by far the largest digital currency in the still-nascent category, and which has been on a tear lately.

Bitcoin BTCUSD, +8.61% has more than tripled in 2017, according to crypto pricing site CoinDesk, and on Tuesday it rose more than 7% to $2,879.80. Earlier, it hit a record above $2,900. Those gains have brought its market cap to $46.68 billion, accounting for nearly half of the entire category.

At its current size, bitcoin has surpassed the market capitalization of such major companies as Ford Motor Co. F, -1.16% Deere & Co. DE, -0.22% and Delta Air Lines Inc. DAL, -0.31% It is larger than more than two-thirds of the components of the S&P 500 SPX, -0.28%

The swift rise in bitcoin prices have raised concerns about valuation. On Tuesday, the billionaire Mark Cuban tweeted that bitcoin prices were in a bubble, adding, I just dont know when or how much it corrects. He also called cryptocurrencies more religion than asset.

Read: Heres how blindingly fast bitcoin has been surging

Related: 3 reasons why bitcoins surge may not be a bubble

And dont miss: Bitcoin is up over 400% in the past yearwhats stopping it from going mainstream?

There are more than 800 cryptocurrencies, according to CoinDesk, although most of them are thinly traded and have market capitalizations under $1 million. Only eight cryptocurrencies are worth more than $1 billion.

Besides bitcoin, ethereum is the most widely used product, with a market capitalization of nearly $24 billion. Ethereum has been an even bigger gainer than bitcoin in 2017. It started the year at $7.98 per coin, and is currently trading at $261a rise of nearly 3,200% year-to-date.

Ripplethe third-most valuable on this metric, and which is up more than 25% over the past weekrecently cracked $10 billion in value.

Link:

With bitcoin surge, cryptocurrencies top $100 billion in market capitalization - MarketWatch

PIAA SOFTBALL: Hamm, Kane pace Lady Comets win over Great Valley – Scranton Times-Tribune

Posted on by

DUNMORE One and two in the lineup gave Abington Heights the two-one punch it needed.

Leadoff hitter Mara Hamm sparked a two-run first and Alison Kane legged out an inside-the-park homer in the second, and that was just enough offense to send the Lady Comets into the PIAA softball quarterfinals with a 3-1 win over Great Valley in Mondays Class 5A first-round game at Penn State Worthington Scranton.

Abington Heights will play Donegal, a 3-2 winner over District 1 champ West Chester Henderson, on Thursday at a site and time to be determined.

It wasnt the gaudy offensive show that was the Lady Comets forte all season, but it was more than enough, as pitcher Meghan McGinley worked out of a couple jams, and her defense made the tough plays behind her.

Its important to get the momentum in the first inning, Hamm said. It helps us get that head start. I just wanted to get the momentum going.

I was going to hit the ball hard wherever it was pitched. Outside, I was going to right and inside I was going to turn on it.

Hamm sizzled the third pitch of the game for a double to right.

Ive never seen the kid intimidated as a freshman, Abington Heights coach John Kelly said. Thats tough to teach. Some seniors dont have that kind of confidence.

I hope the team sees a freshman has that kind of confidence in her ability. Shes done that every game.

A wild pitch moved Hamm to third and Kane followed with a four-pitch walk and took second on defensive indifference.

Cassidy Bartkowski drove in Hamm with a groundout and Kane sprinted home on another wild pitch to provide the Lady Comets (15-2) with an early cushion.

Its very important to start out strong, Kane said. Weve been on the flip side and then youre in the hole.

After two quick outs in the second, Kane ripped a ball through the hole at short. When the left fielder couldnt get there in time to cut it off, the ball continued to the fence, and Kane continued to circle the bases.

I knew I hit it hard and my coach kept waving me around, Kane said. He wasnt stopping me so Im glad I made it home safely.

I was a little surprised, but we work with speed in our game, stealing, sacrificing, everything. Thats my game and I got to put it on the field with an inside-the-park home run, so thats pretty cool.

Kellys advance scouting paid off on the play, too.

The biggest thing was we had two outs, and we saw them play last week and I saw where they really didnt hit their cutoffs, Kelly said. I told the girls we were going to be aggressive because their outfielders come up and just throw the ball. She did hit the cut, but Kane is so fast that with two outs we were taking a shot.

When the relay to the plate short hopped the catcher, Kane scored easily. But that was the end of the offense for Abington Heights as pitcher Morgan Orlowski settled down for Great Valley to allow only a third-inning single to Kaylee DeMatteo and Kanes double in the fifth.

She got better as the game went on, Kelly said of Orlowski. I think we got a little anxious and swung at a couple pitches we should have. We didnt play our best game but we pulled it out.

Meghan pitched a great game and kept us in. Thats what won it.

Great Valley (11-10) got three consecutive two-out singles off McGinley in the fourth, but she made big pitches when she needed them.

When we were in situations where I needed to throw strikes, I think I threw good strikes and threw them harder, McGinley said. I did a good job hitting my spots tonight.

Its really important because if you miss a spot just barely, you can end up giving up hits. The one inning, I missed spots and they ended up with a couple hits and a run.

But Abington Heights got a couple solid defensive plays, with Bartkowski making two sparking plays to keep the Patriots at bay.

Defensively we played very well, and Cassidy has been playing very well the last three or four games, Kelly said. If we keep up that defense and our bats come alive, well be alright.

Contact the writer:

mmyers@timesshamrock.com; 570-348-9100, ext. 5437;

@mmyersTT on Twitter.

Great Valley Abington Heights

ab r h bi ab r h bi

Bryan c 3 0 1 0 Hamm dp 4 1 1 0

Rubin 2b 2 0 0 0 Kane cf 2 2 2 1

Bevec 3b 3 1 1 0 Bartkowski ss 3 0 0 1

Orlowski p 2 0 1 0 Kozar 1b 2 0 1 0

Nadwodny ss 3 0 1 1 Kupinski c 3 0 1 0

Armand 1b 3 0 0 0 DeMatteo 3b 2 0 1 0

Bullock rf 3 0 0 0 Solan 2b 3 0 0 0

Barlow cf 2 0 0 0 McGinley p 3 0 0 0

McGarvey ph 1 0 0 0 Olevnik rf 3 0 0 0

CaMcCarthy dp 2 0 0 0 Fiorillo lf 0 0 0 0

CoMcCarthy lf 0 0 0 0

Totals 24 1 4 1 Totals 25 3 6 2

Great Val 000 100 0 1

Abington Heights 210 000 x 3

2B: Nina Kozar (AH), Mara Hamm (AH), Allison Kane (AH). HR: Alison Kane (AH).

Great Val IP H R ER BB SO

Orlowski, LP 6 6 3 3 2 1

Abington Heights IP H R ER BB SO

McGinley, WP 7 4 1 1 1 5

Records: GV 11-10, AH 15-2

Read the original:

PIAA SOFTBALL: Hamm, Kane pace Lady Comets win over Great Valley - Scranton Times-Tribune

Raiders down Comets in battle of ranked teams – Newton Daily News

Posted on by

COLLINS After starting the season 2-2, the Collins-Maxwell/Baxter softball team appears to be hitting its stride.

The Class 2A No. 4 Raiders won their sixth straight game following a 7-4 victory over 3A No. 12 North Polk during Heart of Iowa Conference play Monday.

The Raiders led 7-1 after four innings before holding off a late Comet rally.

Freshman Mikayla Houge improved to 5-0 in the circle. She allowed four runs on three hits, two walks and two hit batters. She also fanned six. North Polk scored all four of its runs on two home runs.

The Raiders (8-2 overall, 5-1 in the HOIC) scored two runs in the first inning. Senior Megan Ritter reached on an error and then junior Katie Camp walked. Both runners moved up a base on a Houge sacrifice bunt.

Senior Abbey Kahler drove in Ritter with an RBI groundout, and then senior Mikayla Eslinger made it 2-0 with an RBI double.

North Polk, which has lost three straight, pulled within a run in the top of the second when Sophie Swygman hit a solo home run.

CMB extended its lead to 6-1 in the bottom of the second.

Freshman Holly Jessen got a lead-off single. Ritter and Camp both drew two-out walks. Houge drove in two runs with an infield single after Ritter scored from second base. Kahler then drove in two more runs with a two-out double.

Ritter went back to work in the fourth inning. She walked with two outs, stole second and third and then scored on an error.

Rebecca Rimathe blasted a three-run homer in the sixth to pull North Polk (7-4, 5-1) within 7-4. Houge was able to shut the door with two groundouts and a strikeout in the seventh.

Houge went 2-for-2 with two RBIs and a sacrifice. Sophomore Hannah Caple had two hits, including a double off the fence.

Kahler had one hit and three RBIs, Eslinger had an RBI double and Holly Jessen singled and scored a run.

Ritter impacted the game without getting a hit. She walked twice, stole three bases and scored three runs. Camp had two walks and scored twice.

CMB plays BCLUW in a non-conference game at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday in Conrad.

Read the original post:

Raiders down Comets in battle of ranked teams - Newton Daily News