Monthly Archives: June 2020

Students petition for window commemorating eugenicist to be removed from college hall – The Tab

Posted: June 14, 2020 at 11:48 am

The petition surpassed 600 signatures in under a day

An online petition on website change.org demanding the removal of a stained-glass window in Gonville & Caius College commemorating biologist, statistician, and Eugenicist Ronald Fisher surpassed its original target of 200 signatures within a matter of hours.

The petitions description states that the panel, located in the college hall, is pointed out to school tour groups, prospective applicants and visitors as markers and emblems of Caius glorious academic history and yet makes no mention of Fishers significant contributions to the Eugenist movement nor is it accompanied by a college programme to educate students about Fishers racism.

The description goes on to state that, by having the panel in hall, Caius students and Fellows eat, converse and celebrate in space that also acts as a commemoration of our racist history.

Fisher was a member of the Eugenics Society (UK) at the University of Cambridge from 1910, and the petition goes into some detail on Fishers works, including The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection which devotes three chapters to his endorsements of colonialism, white supremacy and eugenics. It also notes his academic contributions to statistics, but remarks: Teach evolution and statistics. But dont teach them in a vacuum. Not publicly acknowledging the racism of Fisher is ahistorical. Honouring him is immoral.

In the wake of Black Lives Matter protests in Britain following the death of George Floyd, many monuments up and down the country which commemorate those involved in the historical oppression of black people and systemic racism in Britain have sparked renewed outrage, with calls for them to be removed. Protestors took matters into their own hands in the case of Bristols statue of slave-trader Edward Colston, which was pulled down on Sunday.

One of the Caius students involved in the petition told The Tab Cambridge that the college has been aware of the controversy surrounding the panel for some time and that numerous committees internal to GUSU (the colleges JCR) have brought up the panel with college as part of wider discussions in the past. But, despite these agitations, no action has been taken yet.

It is as of yet uncertain as to whether this petition will bring about the change that the Caius students who have set it up are hoping for, but meetings between the college and those involved have been organised in the wake of the petition.

The petition can be found here.

Gonville & Caius College has been contacted for comment.

Feature Image Credit: Marathon, User:Schutz (Creative Commons Licence)

View post:

Students petition for window commemorating eugenicist to be removed from college hall - The Tab

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Students petition for window commemorating eugenicist to be removed from college hall – The Tab

Abortion and Social Justice: The Case of ‘Liberal Eugenics’ – National Catholic Register

Posted: at 11:48 am

Eugenicist Margaret Sanger stands on the steps of a courthouse in Brooklyn, New York, in 1917.

Is eugenics wrong only when its forced, or is it wrong because its intrinsically wrong?

Abortion and Social Justice was the title of a book edited almost 50 years ago by Thomas Hilgers and Dennis Horan. The title is instructive, because the editors wanted to situate discussion of abortion not as part of sexual ethics or even bioethics but as a social justice question. Nine years ago, ex-priest Thomas Williams returned to the same question, writing about Abortion as a Social Justice Issue and detailing the baneful consequences flowing from the fact that de facto abortion is excluded presently from the realm of Catholic social teaching.

Fifty years ago, abortion was increasingly recognized as a social justice issue, both in terms of the treatment of the unborn and of the conditions and situations that made women believe they needed to resort to abortion. One should remember that back then social liberals including liberal Democrats not only voted against abortion but co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe. William Proxmire, Thomas Eagleton, Harold Hughes and Mark Hatfield were card-carrying liberals. Eagleton was George McGoverns first running mate. (His replacement, Sargent Shriver, was equally pro-life.) Harold Hughes opposed the death penalty in the early 1960s, when opposition to capital punishment was a minority view. Mark Hatfield was half of the Hatfield-McGovern Amendment, an appropriations rider that tried in 1970 to end funding for the Vietnam War. Only Eagleton and Shriver were Catholics. They opposed abortion as a social justice issue.

I underscore the social justice nature of the abortion issue for two reasons. One is that pro-abortionists have sought to capture it for themselves. While the primary defense of abortion rights illustrates what Mary Ann Glendon calls rights talk the rechristening of a policy preference as a right, thereby immunizing its discussion as a normal policy choice and instead elevating it to quasi-sacral status (and demonizing its opponents) some abortionists (Loretta Ross, Kimberly Mutcherson, Laura Salamanca) want to recast abortion as a matter of reproductive justice, with a whole panoply of rights (state subsidy of abortion, no state indications of disapproval of abortion, etc.) following.

My purpose today in recalling abortion as a social justice issue is bound up with an interesting phenomenon: liberal eugenics.

Although the mainstream use of liberal eugenics (as coined by bioethicist Nicholas Agar and promoted by Julian Savulescu et al.) is positive, I want to explore its pejorative understanding. Catalina Devandas-Aguilar has recently noted (no. 21):

Contrary to the eugenics movement, liberal eugenics aims to expand reproductive choices for individuals, including the possibility of genetic enhancement. While there may be no State-sponsored coercive eugenics programmes, in a context of widespread prejudice and discrimination against persons with disabilities, the aggregate effect of many individual choices are likely to produce eugenic outcomes. Indeed, ableist social norms and market pressures make it imperative to have the best possible child with the best possible chances at life. Some utilitarian bioethicists have further argued that genetic enhancement is a moral obligation and that it is ethical to give parents the option to euthanize their newborns with disabilities.

Eugenics writ large tries to use tools to achieved desired biological outcomes. Eugenics got a bad name from Germany because of its coercive nature, e.g., killing the disabled, kidnapping blue-eyed blond Slavic kids for Aryanization, etc. The ill-repute that the Nazis gave eugenics even temporarily put into eclipse its Anglo-American antecedents (vigorously promoted by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who, compared to other racists, curiously is still celebrated. We forgot that, in 1935, 28 states had sterilization laws on the books and legislation was introduced in another seven.

Legislation of abortion and, especially, advances in reproductive technologies since the 1970s have led to a eugenic renaissance. Our society is generally too polite to discuss such things openly, but procedures such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization (especially when involving donor gametes) and genetic surrogacy can and often do clearly entail eugenic and socio-economic considerations. How else does one explain that, when looking for egg donors, top dollar goes to Ivy League college co-eds, but when seeking gestational surrogates, poorer, even foreign women or Army wives, looking to supplement family incomes, will do?

One of the fundamental shifts in modern ethics is what can be called proceduralism. Because utilitarian and Kantian ethics eschew normative moral judgments (X is wrong because its wrong), preferring moral relativism (X is wrong for me), they instead focus on procedure or format. Have the relevant factors been disclosed? Has informed consent been obtained? If yes, then its OK. If you dont think proceduralism is the driving force in the ethics of medicine, just think of the number of forms you had to initial the last time you visited a doctor, affirming you were told what your treatment involved, you agree to it, you know your privacy rights, your medical information cannot be disclosed but under these conditions, etc. The point is: there is no content here, just procedure. Check the procedural checklist, and youre good to go. Consent validates everything.

That obviously has implications for bioethics.

Is eugenics wrong because its wrong, or is it wrong because it is forced? Was Hitlers crime killing, euthanizing, or sterilizing people or killings, euthanizing, or sterilizing them without their consent? And if in some bizarre world he had gotten their approval, would it have made it right?

This is not a theoretical question. It is very much at the heart of liberal eugenics.

Consider the question of states that try to restrict abortion for eugenic reasons. Indiana was in the U.S. Supreme Court last year over a state law that banned abortion when sought because of the fetus sex or disability. Modern prenatal techniques allow early identification of what sex a baby is and whether the child suffers from any genetic diseases. Note my word: I said identification, not diagnosis.

Why do I make this point? Well, there is no such thing as the wrong sex. (Most politically correct people would not admit it publicly, even if they thought it). So we dont diagnose the babys sex. But it is a motive a substantial motive in some son-centric cultures (India, China, especially under state-enforced child limits) to obtain abortions. And the primary victims of gender-specific abortion are girls because, tidal waves of feminism notwithstanding, residual I want a son biases still exist. Sex-specific abortion cause most pro-abortionists to tie themselves in intellectual knots: how does one defend a procedure that primarily eliminates female unborn children in the name of feminine empowerment?

I also made a point out of identification versus diagnosis, because rarely does an identification of genetic abnormality in an unborn child result in therapeutic intervention, even where possible. The default position in our reification of reproduction has become: defective product, lets eliminate it. Down syndrome, for example, is declining not because it is rarer, but because we abort unborn children identified with it. Some countries will soon be Behindertfrei, disability free because of such abortions.

Liberal thinkers (i.e., those who advocate a permissive procedural ethic) have to face a conundrum: are they abetting eugenics? They manage to evade the question by hewing to laws unscientific position that an unborn child is not a person possessing rights. But it does not relieve the question of the motives of persons seeking such abortions. I want this abortion because the fetus is a girl inherently involves a sexist assumption that, somehow, girls are less valuable than boys. To claim that choice sanitizes the bias is false: in no other case would we say that a preference of a boy over a girl or vice versa is justified exclusively because I prefer it. Why here?

The same problems arise about abortions because of disability. U.S. law prohibits discrimination against persons because they are disabled. Abortionists evade the issue by denying the personhood of the unborn, but they cannot evade the problem of the underlying motivation: that a disabled person is less worthy of life. That is lethal discrimination. That is what Indiana sought to stop.

In Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana the Supreme Court was faced with a case that would have stricken at the central theology of Roe that abortion can entail more than a mothers choice and the Court punted. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Indianas ban, Indiana appealed, and the Supreme Court refused to take the appeal, leaving the appeals court ruling intact without comment.

Except for Justice Clarence Thomas. He filed a 21-page opinion, in which he sketched out the lurid history of eugenics in America (including the Supreme Courts infamous and yet unreversed 1927 precedent in Buck v. Bell, upholding Virginias mandatory sterilization law). He closed by insisting that although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever.

Thomas opinion (which is worth reading) cited Adam Cohens book, Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck. Most scholars would be tickled to have their work used by the Supreme Court but, within days, Cohen churned out an article claiming Thomas had misrepresented his work, precisely for the procedural question raised above. Virginias offense was in compulsorily sterilizing Carrie Buck against her familys will; Indianas offense was in not giving parents of a disabled unborn child the choice to abort that child. Note the point: neither eugenically-driven abortion nor sterilization in itself is morally wrong. What is wrong is whether you have a choice about it.

And thats the liberal eugenics Devandas-Aguilar criticizes. The eugenic motives are the same. The eugenic outcomes (elimination of the undesired) are the same. The only difference is whether a choice was involved.

Is it permissible to make eugenic, even discriminatorily motivated choices as long as you can legally pretend their impact is upon a non-person? Does that non-personhood immunize those eugenic, even discriminatorily motivated choices from moral scrutiny? Is eugenics only bad when not a choice?

Read the original here:

Abortion and Social Justice: The Case of 'Liberal Eugenics' - National Catholic Register

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Abortion and Social Justice: The Case of ‘Liberal Eugenics’ – National Catholic Register

Human Rights Watch Festival 2020 Puts Power Back in the Hands of the People – The Moveable Fest

Posted: at 11:48 am

Since it started over 30 years ago, the Human Rights Watch Festival has long sought to close the gap both geographically and experientially across the globe by presenting films that address culturally specific hardships that could be addressed with common humanity, so when the COVID-19 pandemic forced the flagship festival in New York to shift the festival online, it made more sense than most when the program is being available for anyone in the world, starting today and streaming through June 20th.

Still, the program, which will continue its unique brand of live filmmaker Q & As that will be moderated by human rights advocates sprinkled throughout the week, will hit particularly close to home for Americans for reasons beyond the ability to watch the films in your living room. It speaks volumes that programmers have picked Belly of the Beast, Erika Cohns follow-up to The Judge, her 2017 profile of Kholoud Al-Faqih, the first female to preside over a Sharia family court, to open the festival.

Moving from Palestine to California, the filmmaker follows the case of Kelli Dillon, a recent African-American parolee who has returned to court with the Oakland-based prison advocates Justice Now to raise awareness around a systemic embrace of eugenics as she learned firsthand from receiving a hysterectomy after undergoing treatment for cancer that she was later told she didnt have. Dillon experienced injustice long before she was sent to the Central California Womens Facility to serve time for killing the abusive father of her two children in self-defense, but even on the outside, Cohn finds her living with an unfathomable life sentence when she is no longer afforded the opportunity to have more children and the two boys she already has are distant as a result of the 14 years she spent away from them. Even if Cohn didnt connect the dots between Nazi Germany and California prison system as it turns out, German doctors flew across the Atlantic to adopt certain techniques from American doctors when it came to eugenics Belly of the Beast is a startling reminder that anyone who says it could never happen here is unaware that it already has for American societys most vulnerable.

If the virtual world held the promise of freeing us from prejudice based on physical appearances, Coded Bias, which premiered earlier this year at Sundance, will also have some unfortunate surprises in store as Shalini Kantayya looks at how facial recognition software used by law enforcement is being built with the bugs passed along from its all-too-human programmers, finding a 21st century hero in self-described poet in code Joy Buolamwini, an MIT Media Lab researcher who leads the Algorithmic Justice League. Other women not to be reckoned with include Carmen Aristegui, the indefatigable star of Juliana Fanjuls Radio Silence whose crusade to pursue independent journalism in Mexico where she is regularly threatened for exposing corruption is energetically captured, and Mxima Acua, the refreshingly no-nonsense farmer at the center of Claudia Sparrows docudrama Mxima, concerning her David-vs-Goliath battle against an American mining company aiming to dislodge her from her home in the Andes Mountains that is thought to sit upon gold, unfolding over the course of seven years in which she learns of the failure at all levels of the government to protect her rights as a landholder against the deep pockets of foreign interests.

Christina Antonakos-Wallace also uses time to expose unfortunate truths that couldnt be sussed out from a snapshot in From Here, which tracks four people who never feel they belong to the country they reside in from 2007 to 2019. Based out of New York and Berlin, the film wouldnt be all that eventful if it zeroed in on a particular moment when its subjects movement is limited by the constant fear that everything could be taken away from them at a moments notice since they arent recognized as citizens either by the government in the case of Tania, a 27-year-old political science grad whos been living in the U.S. without citizenship since her family fled Bolivia when she was four, or Akim, a street artist who uses a pseudonym in part to protect his undocumented status, or culturally for Miman, a German of Roma descent, or Sonny, a Sikh living in New York where his turban makes him a target for harassment. However, Antonakos-Wallaces patience pays off with a compelling look at all the ways in which the arbitrary nature of status shapes and defines the lives of those who are seen as different, from the places that are available for them to live to the types of relationships they feel allowed to engage in.

The Human Rights Watch Festival is also offering a home to two rousing festival hits, David Frances Berlinale Audience Award winner Welcome to Chechnya (our review), detailing the development of a life-saving underground operation to smuggle gays and lesbians out of the Republic when their sexuality marks them for death under the barbaric rule of virulent homophobe Ramzan Kadyrov, and the recent Hot Docs smash The 8th (our review) Aideen Kane, Lucy Kennedy and Maeve OBoyles invigorating look at the transformative campaign to give women the right to choose in Ireland. At a time when one can feel helpless, these films are a testament to what strength of will and a little ingenuity can accomplish, which could describe as well the festivals closing night selection Gather, Sanjay Rawals hopeful portrait of Native Americans across the land who have looked to the past to create future sustainability in their food supply, contributing to their self-sufficiency as a whole. In this most unconventional of years where the barriers to access to the Human Rights Watch Fest have been greatly reduced, the organizations presentation of films that show people taking back their power feels even more within reach.

Human Rights Watch Fest runs from June 11th through 20th with a full digital pass available for $70 and individual online tickets available for $9. A complete guide on how to watch the festival online is here.

Related

Read the rest here:

Human Rights Watch Festival 2020 Puts Power Back in the Hands of the People - The Moveable Fest

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on Human Rights Watch Festival 2020 Puts Power Back in the Hands of the People – The Moveable Fest

Cryptocurrency: Redefining the Future of Finance – Visual Capitalist

Posted: at 11:46 am

Many people are familiar with blockchain technology, but did you know that Ethereum has the largest and most active blockchain community in the world?

Unlike many other blockchain networks, Ethereum is programmable. This customizable feature has enabled developers to solve problems ranging from digital identification and privacy, to corporate ownership and data security.

When the blockchain community disagrees on what changes the network needs to function smoothly or when such changes should take place, developers plan for a fork (an offshoot) of the underlying code rules.

Todays graphic maps out the major Ethereum blockchain forks that have occurred to date, highlighting key events that surrounded each of these updates. It also includes details on the highly anticipated Istanbul hard fork, planned for December 2019.

Forks are common practice in the software industry, and happen for one of two reasons: split opinions within the community, and required changes to the blockchain code.

When either reason is discussed, four major types of forks can occur.

There are currently three types of hard forks:

Lets dive into the timeline of major Ethereum forks, and explore a few of their defining moments and characteristics.

Below are some of the most prominent and important forksboth hard and softon the Ethereum blockchain since its launch.

Vitalik Buterin, founder of Ethereum, and his team finished the 9th and final proof of concept known as Olympic in May 2015. The Ethereum blockchain, also known as Frontier, went live shortly after, on July 30, 2015.

Also known as Frontier Thawing, this was the first (unplanned) fork of the Ethereum blockchain, providing security and speed updates to the network.

Homestead is widely considered Phase 2 of Ethereums development evolution. This rollout included three critical updates to Ethereum: the removal of centralization on the network, enabling users to hold and transact with ETH, and to write and deploy smart contracts.

The Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) event was the most contentious event in Ethereums short history. The DAO team raised US$150 million through a 2016 token salebut an unknown hacker stole US$50 million in ether (ETH), prompting the developer community to hard fork in order to recover the stolen funds.

Widely regarded as the only Ethereum fork of any significance, this hard fork was based on the controversial DAO event. The original chain became known as Ethereum Classic, and the new chain moved forward as the main Ethereum chain.

This September 2019 hard fork event required all software users to upgrade their clients in order to stay with the current network. Enhancements included better security, stability, and network performance for higher volumes of traffic.

Regarded as the third phase of Ethereums evolution, the Metropolis-Byzantium soft fork functioned more like an operating system upgrade, rather than a full split.

Constantinople is the current version of the Ethereum blockchain. This hard fork occurred concurrently with the St. Petersburg update. Important changes included closing a major security loophole that could have allowed hackers to easily access users funds.

Constantinoples most notable improvements include smart contracts being able to verify each other using only the unique string of computer code of another smart contract, and reduced gas feesnamely, the price users pay to process transactions more quickly.

The Ethereum community is preparing for the next hard fork event Istanbul, scheduled for release on December 4th, 2019.

Ethereums 4th and projected final stage of development is Serenity, which has yet to be scheduled. Community members have speculated what changes will come with Serenity, but many agree that the Ethereum blockchain will shift focus from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake.

Proof of Stake means that there is less competition for completing blocks of data, significantly reducing the energy required to process data. Currently, a single Bitcoin transaction consumes the same electricity as 1.75 American households do in a day.

Ethereum continues to be a leading blockchain platform, with the highest number of decentralized apps (dApps) and a massive, engaged community.

To date, cryptocurrencies have largely been the focus of news headlines. However, weve only begun to scratch the surface of what blockchain can offer, and the value it will create beyond the financial world.

[Blockchain] could be the foundation of a whole new era whereby our basic right to privacy is protected, because identity is the foundation of freedom and it needs to be managed responsibly.

Don Tapscott, Executive Chairman of the Blockchain Research Institute

Thank you!

Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!

Please provide a valid email address.

Please complete the CAPTCHA.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Read this article:
Cryptocurrency: Redefining the Future of Finance - Visual Capitalist

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Cryptocurrency: Redefining the Future of Finance – Visual Capitalist

A Cryptocurrency User Paid $2.6M In Transaction Fee To Send $136 Twice – Benzinga

Posted: at 11:46 am

An anonymous user paid approximately $2.6 million in transaction fee to transact small amounts of money in the Ethereum (ETH) cryptocurrency two times over the last 24 hours at press time.

The first transaction of 0.55 ETH, or $136.26, according to ETH's price at press time, was made at 5:47 am on Wednesday, according to data from Etherscan.

To make this transaction, the user paid 10,668.73 ETH, or $2.6 million, in "gas," as the transaction fee at the Ethereum network is called. A similar transaction was repeated at 11:30 PM later in the day. This time 350 ETH, or $86,712.5, were transferred for the exact same fees.

Gas is charged by miners on the Ethereum blockchain network based on the amount of computing it takes to verify a transaction. If the users agree to pay a higher gas price, the transaction becomes more lucrative to minersand is completed rapidly.

ETH Gas Station recommends paying $0.155 for a standard transaction that can take up to five minutes and $0.2 for a fast transaction that will be expected to complete in less than two minutes.

Paying $2.6 million for a transaction is extremely unusual and doesn't make operational sense, giving rise to speculation of accidental error, money laundering, or a technical glitch.

Some cryptocurrency community members on Twitter suggested that the transaction was more likely to be a technical error since the ETH transaction fee in both cases was exactly the same, which would be extremely unlikely to be an accident.

The transactions on blockchain can't be reverted, but the mining pool which verified the transaction can choose to return the money to the original owner by creating a new transaction. The first transaction was approved by Chinese mining pool "Spark Pool," and the second by "Ethermine."

Sparkpool said in a statement that it "has had the experience of handling similar issues properly. There will be a solution in the end."

Ethereum traded 1.2% higher at $247.75 at press time on Thursday. The apex cryptocurrency Bitcoin (BTC) was up 1.1% at $9,873.64.

2020 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

See the original post here:
A Cryptocurrency User Paid $2.6M In Transaction Fee To Send $136 Twice - Benzinga

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on A Cryptocurrency User Paid $2.6M In Transaction Fee To Send $136 Twice – Benzinga

CryptoMixer.bz: Bitcoin Mixer for your anonymity in the Crypto World – Yahoo Finance

Posted: at 11:46 am

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / June 14, 2020 / The concept of blockchain and thus, Bitcoin, came riding on the advantage of the anonymity of transactions, defiance to authority, lack of centralization and overseer authority among other advantages. Cryptocurrencies became popular because their programmers touted them as anonymous. It has, however, emerged that they are not and that transactions undertaken using altcoins can be traced.

Over time with the increased government scrutiny and unwanted invasion by phishers, users now realize that the cryptocurrency world is not as anonymous as most of them were led to believe.

A tech startup called, CryptoMixer is changing all this and giving back cryptocurrency enthusiasts their security and privacy. The start-up provides a cryptocurrency mixing platform that obscures your cryptocurrency transactions, making it hard for anyone to trace your dealings. CryptoMixer reintroduces anonymity by allowing online shoppers that pay using cryptocurrency through addresses that remain anonymous when the user is completing transactions. The shoppers, as such, cannot be associated with the various addresses they use.

How Does Coin Mixing Work?

Coin mixers work by essentially collecting cryptocurrency from the people using cryptocurrency, mixing it with a giant pile of other cryptocurrencies, and then sending them smaller units of cryptocurrency to an address of their preference, with total the amount that you put in minus 1-3%. The 1-3 % is generally taken as a profit by the coin mixing company. This is how they make money.

A cryptocurrency mixer (also known as a blender) allows you to spend, store and share cryptocurrencies, without your transactional data becoming public. In short, it makes your financial transactions anonymous in the true sense. It is done by mixing your transactional data with a pool of Bitcoin data. This ensures your data is secure, you have control over your privacy, and no data can be traced back to you, as the link between the sender and the receiver is broken.

Crypto Mixer: The crypto mixing solution

CryptoMixer is a unique cryptocurrency mixer/blender that ensures your cryptocurrency becomes untraceable, and no link exists between the stakeholders. They have designed different pools of cryptocurrencies based on their sources, with variable fee percentages. This segmentation and differentiation ensure the clean mixing of the currency. The three pools include Standard Pool, Smart Pool, and Stealth Pool. It uses a 'smart code' to avoid the same currencies from reaching a user on multiple occasions.

Features of Smart Mixer Platform

Zero Post-Transaction Logs - CryptoMixer platform keeps transaction logs for only as long as it needs them. The longest period that these logs can remain is 24 hours, otherwise, the platform keeps them only for as long as is necessary to complete a transaction.

Full Anonymity - The need for complete anonymity is greater in the online space, and it is only second to the information online prowlers seek. Users that mix cryptocurrency on the platform do not even need to input their information. Instead, only the recipient altcoin address is necessary.

Customizable Process - Users can set various parameters as they so choose. You, for instance, can choose the amount of cryptocurrency to mix, the commission to pay for the mixing, and the delay period you prefer.

Story continues

Go here to read the rest:
CryptoMixer.bz: Bitcoin Mixer for your anonymity in the Crypto World - Yahoo Finance

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on CryptoMixer.bz: Bitcoin Mixer for your anonymity in the Crypto World – Yahoo Finance

80% of US and European Institutional Investors Find Cryptocurrency Appealing: Survey – Bitcoin News

Posted: at 11:46 am

A new survey of about 800 institutional investors in the U.S. and Europe shows strong cryptocurrency adoption, particularly bitcoin. About 80% of institutions said they find cryptocurrency appealing, and 60% believe cryptocurrencies have a place in their portfolios.

Fidelity Digital Assets, the cryptocurrency arm of Fidelity Investments, announced Tuesday the results of a survey to better understand institutional interest and adoption of cryptocurrencies as well as key barriers to investing in them. It was conducted from November 2019 to March 2020. Fidelity Digital Assets offers a full-service, enterprise-grade platform for securing, trading and supporting cryptocurrencies.

A total of 774 institutional investors participated in the survey, 393 of which were in the U.S. while 381 were in Europe. Respondents include financial advisors, family offices, pensions, crypto and traditional hedge funds, high net worth investors, endowments, and foundations. This is the second consecutive year Fidelity has surveyed U.S. institutions but it is the first time it surveyed European investors. According to the results:

Almost 80% of institutional investors find something appealing about digital assets.

Breaking down the number, 74% of U.S. institutional investors find cryptocurrency appealing, while 82% of European investors do. A notable contrast is that 25% of European investors find the fact that certain digital assets are free from government intervention to be appealing, whereas only 10% of investors in the U.S. feel this way, the report further reads.

Moreover, 36% of respondents 27% in the U.S. and 45% in Europe revealed that they are currently invested in digital assets. Bitcoin continues to be the cryptocurrency of choice with over a quarter of respondents holding BTC while 11% have exposure to ETH. Looking out five years, 91% of respondents who are open to exposure to digital assets in a portfolio expect to have at least 0.5% of their portfolio allocated to digital assets, the report adds.

Three characteristics of cryptocurrencies are most compelling to both U.S. and European institutional investors. 36% of respondents said uncorrelated to other asset classes, 34% are compelled by innovative technology, and 33% by the high upside potential. The report notes:

The majority of institutional investors (6 in 10) feel digital assets have a place in their portfolio, though opinions vary on precisely where.

Despite growing interest among institutions, obstacles remain to cryptocurrency adoption. 53% of respondents cited price volatility as the main reason, 47% said market manipulation, and 45% said lack of fundamentals to gauge appropriate value.

Fidelity Digital Assets president Tom Jessop commented on the survey findings: These results confirm a trend we are seeing in the market towards greater interest in and acceptance of digital assets as a new investable asset class. This is evident in the evolving composition of our client pipeline, which spans from crypto native funds to pensions.

What do you think about institutional interest in cryptocurrency? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

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

Read disclaimer

See original here:
80% of US and European Institutional Investors Find Cryptocurrency Appealing: Survey - Bitcoin News

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on 80% of US and European Institutional Investors Find Cryptocurrency Appealing: Survey – Bitcoin News

Cryptocurrency Quotes and Forecasts: Last Updates on Cryptocurrencies – FinSMEs

Posted: at 11:45 am

In order to profitably trade in a highly volatile market like cryptocurrency trading, the trades have to be on top of all the expert quotes and forecasts they can find on a daily basis.

Cryptocurrencies are the revolutionary digital alternatives to the physical currencies regulated by the central banks around the world. Unlike traditional currencies like dollars, pounds, or euros, cryptocurrencies cant be converted to cash. However, they can be bought, exchanged, and traded on specialist platforms available online. The currencies themselves only exist digitally, with all the ownership information stored in encrypted ledgers.

The first successful cryptocurrency is Bitcoin and it was launched back in 2009. Within a couple of years, a few other cryptocurrencies were introduced, making the possibility of exchanging the digital currencies with one another. It works similarly to the traditional stock and forex markets and requires the use of a cryptocurrency exchange. On some platforms, you can also exchange or trade cryptocurrencies against dollars.

Trading and Exchanging Cryptocurrencies

Between 2017 to 2018, major cryptocurrencies such asBitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, etc. saw a massive surge ininterests from investors, which eventually pushed the Bitcoin value to as highas $20,000 each. It came down to $3,000 level in the following year, and now,experiencing a slow but steady upturn.

As you can see, cryptocurrencies are highly volatile assets. Their value goes up and down on a massive scale and is prone to speculative news and information. Therefore, traders in the cryptocurrency market need to be very careful. There are a number of technical analysis tools available, with many daily resources to learn about the latest quotes and forecasts.

Latest Forecasts on Major Cryptocurrencies

At the time of writing, Bitcoin (BTC) the most important cryptocurrency in terms of value is moving in the $9,000 marks, while Ethereum (ETH) is moving in and around $200. So, borsainside.com, tells us what lies ahead for the top three digital currencies in terms of value.

Bitcoin (BTC/USD)

After the halving in the second week of May this year, Bitcoin prices are experiencing some optimism from the investors. The price is moving just above $9,000 levels. With some analysts predicting a nine percent chance for the price to reach an all-time high, investors should be looking at the $10,050 level, breaking through which may lead to a consistent upward movement for a few days.

Ethereum (ETH/USD)

In light of Bitcoin halving and the launching possibility of Ethereum 2.0; analysts are mainly bullish about this coins value. If it holds the $190 level, and push upwards, all the technical signs suggest for the value to reach between $330 to $360, the level previously seen in 2019.

Ripple (XRP/USD)

December last year saw the value of XRP drop by amammoth 13%. While it somewhat recovered at the beginning of this year, thevalue continues to move around $0.15 $0.20. Analysts see some more downwardmovements, which may turn bullish only if it reaches $0.28 mark.

Continue reading here:
Cryptocurrency Quotes and Forecasts: Last Updates on Cryptocurrencies - FinSMEs

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Cryptocurrency Quotes and Forecasts: Last Updates on Cryptocurrencies – FinSMEs

Justice Gets 15 Guilty Pleas for International Crime Ring that Laundered Money Through Cryptocurrency Exchanges – Nextgov

Posted: at 11:45 am

Fifteen people entered guilty pleas for involvement in an international scam that posted fraudulent auctions online and laundered money through cryptocurrency exchanges, according to the Justice Department.

One expert says the case could serve as a template for nation-state actors using cryptocurrency exchanges to cover their tracks more in the future.

Todays modern cybercriminals rely on increasingly sophisticated techniques to defraud victims, often masquerading as legitimate businesses, said Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Departments Criminal Division in a press release Thursday. These guilty pleas demonstrate that the United States will hold accountable foreign and domestic criminal enterprises and their enablers, including crooked bitcoin exchanges that swindle the American public.

Law enforcement officials have noted that increased use of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin has made it especially challenging to nail down cybercriminals. But while cryptocurrency exchanges encode transactions hiding the identity of the parties, those codes are permanently and publicly recorded across a large number of computers. Its possible to study them and identify patterns in transactions that could eventually lead to the identity of a suspect, and law enforcement might be getting better at this.

Compared to 2016, in 2019 and 2020, were seeing more cases where its clear that law enforcement is following this stuff and is not totally dumbfounded because something involves a Bitcoin address, Yaya Fanusie, a former CIA analyst and current senior fellow at the Center for New American Security told Nextgov. It gives us the assurance that at least U.S. federal law enforcement is capable of doing an investigation that involves cryptocurrency.

In the case Justice highlighted Thursday, the defendantsindividuals in their 30s based both in Romania and the United Statesadmitted their involvement in a scheme where they established their own cryptocurrency exchange and used it as a passthrough for traditional payments they got from advertising non-existent high-value items such as cars on auction sites such as eBay and Craigslist.

According to court documents, members of the conspiracy created fictitious online accounts to post these advertisements and communicate with victims, often using the stolen identities of Americans to do so, the press release noted.

The defendants also used IP addresses anonymizing services, according to court documents. Fanusie said cryptocurrency exchanges are part of an ecosystem primed for cyber malfeasance.

Cyber services like domain names, [virtual private networks], servers, that infrastructure is ready-made to be leveraged through cryptocurrencies, he said. Its already an environment that invites anonymous use. Cryptocurrencies are the native money of the internet. So if we know that were going to have more cyber threats, it makes sense that cryptocurrencies are going to play a part.

So its good that law enforcement doesnt seem daunted by the changing landscape of criminal activity, he says, because this time [a cryptocurrency exchange] was being used by criminal fraudsters, but there are definitely parallels in what weve already seen from nation-state actors.

Fanusie has written about how cryptocurrency exchanges were used to launder and steal money and delay law enforcements identification of suspected hackers in high-profile cases involving persons affiliated with China and North Korea and Russia.

He said the 2018 indictment leading up to Thursdays guilty pleas is almost a blueprint for how nation-state actors could be thinking about running their operations, adding that the case confirms that the main thing to look out for is not so much fundraising, the biggest thing is that cryptocurrency is one part of a laundering process. Its to move the money to somewhere else so you lose the trace.

For now, law enforcement officials seem empowered by their success after an investigation that involved the U.S. Secret Service, Kentucky State Police, Lexington Police Department, IRS Criminal Investigation, and U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Justice Departments Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center, as well as the Romanian National Police Service for Combating Cybercrime and the Romanian Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism.

Through the use of digital currencies and trans-border organizational strategies, this criminal syndicate believed they were beyond the reach of law enforcement, said Assistant Director Michael DAmbrosio, U.S. Secret Service, Office of Investigations. However, as this successful investigation clearly illustrates, with sustained, international cooperation, we can effectively hold cybercriminals accountable for their actions, no matter where they reside. I commend the hard work and perseverance of all those who joined together in this investigation and prosecution. This includes our partners in Europe, as well as those closer to home.

It was also helpful that Romanian officials secured and coordinated the arrests and extraditions from that country of more than a dozen defendants, the release said.

The 15 defendants who have pleaded guilty in this case have yet to be sentenced, the release notes. Two other defendants in the case are scheduled for trial starting on Sept. 14, 2020, before the Honorable Robert E. Wier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Three others are fugitives. This case is being prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorney Timothy C. Flowers and Senior Counsel Frank H. Lin of the Criminal Divisions Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kathryn M. Anderson and Kenneth R. Taylor of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Read the original post:
Justice Gets 15 Guilty Pleas for International Crime Ring that Laundered Money Through Cryptocurrency Exchanges - Nextgov

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Justice Gets 15 Guilty Pleas for International Crime Ring that Laundered Money Through Cryptocurrency Exchanges – Nextgov

Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market Growth Trends, Key Players, Competitive Strategies and Forecasts to 2026 – Jewish Life News

Posted: at 11:45 am

Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market Overview

The Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware market report presents a detailed evaluation of the market. The report focuses on providing a holistic overview with a forecast period of the report extending from 2018 to 2026. The Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware market report includes analysis in terms of both quantitative and qualitative data, taking into factors such as Product pricing, Product penetration, Country GDP, movement of parent market & child markets, End application industries, etc. The report is defined by bifurcating various parts of the market into segments which provide an understanding of different aspects of the market.

The overall report is divided into the following primary sections: segments, market outlook, competitive landscape and company profiles. The segments cover various aspects of the market, from the trends that are affecting the market to major market players, in turn providing a well-rounded assessment of the market. In terms of the market outlook section, the report provides a study of the major market dynamics that are playing a substantial role in the market. The market outlook section is further categorized into sections; drivers, restraints, opportunities and challenges. The drivers and restraints cover the internal factors of the market whereas opportunities and challenges are the external factors that are affecting the market. The market outlook section also comprises Porters Five Forces analysis (which explains buyers bargaining power, suppliers bargaining power, threat of new entrants, threat of substitutes, and degree of competition in the Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware) in addition to the market dynamics.

Get Sample Copy with TOC of the Report to understand the structure of the complete report @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/download-sample/?rid=36386&utm_source=JLN&utm_medium=005

Leading Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware manufacturers/companies operating at both regional and global levels:

Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market Scope Of The Report

This report offers past, present as well as future analysis and estimates for the Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware market. The market estimates that are provided in the report are calculated through an exhaustive research methodology. The research methodology that is adopted involves multiple channels of research, chiefly primary interviews, secondary research and subject matter expert advice. The market estimates are calculated on the basis of the degree of impact of the current market dynamics along with various economic, social and political factors on the Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware market. Both positive as well as negative changes to the market are taken into consideration for the market estimates.

Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market Competitive Landscape & Company Profiles

The competitive landscape and company profile chapters of the market report are dedicated to the major players in the Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware market. An evaluation of these market players through their product benchmarking, key developments and financial statements sheds a light into the overall market evaluation. The company profile section also includes a SWOT analysis (top three companies) of these players. In addition, the companies that are provided in this section can be customized according to the clients requirements.

To get Incredible Discounts on this Premium Report, Click Here @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=36386&utm_source=JLN&utm_medium=005

Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market Research Methodology

The research methodology adopted for the analysis of the market involves the consolidation of various research considerations such as subject matter expert advice, primary and secondary research. Primary research involves the extraction of information through various aspects such as numerous telephonic interviews, industry experts, questionnaires and in some cases face-to-face interactions. Primary interviews are usually carried out on a continuous basis with industry experts in order to acquire a topical understanding of the market as well as to be able to substantiate the existing analysis of the data.

Subject matter expertise involves the validation of the key research findings that were attained from primary and secondary research. The subject matter experts that are consulted have extensive experience in the market research industry and the specific requirements of the clients are reviewed by the experts to check for completion of the market study. Secondary research used for the Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware market report includes sources such as press releases, company annual reports, and research papers that are related to the industry. Other sources can include government websites, industry magazines and associations for gathering more meticulous data. These multiple channels of research help to find as well as substantiate research findings.

Table of Content

1 Introduction of Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market

1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report1.3 Assumptions

2 Executive Summary

3 Research Methodology of Verified Market Research

3.1 Data Mining3.2 Validation3.3 Primary Interviews3.4 List of Data Sources

4 Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market Outlook

4.1 Overview4.2 Market Dynamics4.2.1 Drivers4.2.2 Restraints4.2.3 Opportunities4.3 Porters Five Force Model4.4 Value Chain Analysis

5 Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market, By Deployment Model

5.1 Overview

6 Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market, By Solution

6.1 Overview

7 Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market, By Vertical

7.1 Overview

8 Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market, By Geography

8.1 Overview8.2 North America8.2.1 U.S.8.2.2 Canada8.2.3 Mexico8.3 Europe8.3.1 Germany8.3.2 U.K.8.3.3 France8.3.4 Rest of Europe8.4 Asia Pacific8.4.1 China8.4.2 Japan8.4.3 India8.4.4 Rest of Asia Pacific8.5 Rest of the World8.5.1 Latin America8.5.2 Middle East

9 Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market Competitive Landscape

9.1 Overview9.2 Company Market Ranking9.3 Key Development Strategies

10 Company Profiles

10.1.1 Overview10.1.2 Financial Performance10.1.3 Product Outlook10.1.4 Key Developments

11 Appendix

11.1 Related Research

Customized Research Report Using Corporate Email Id @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/cryptocurrency-mining-hardware-market/?utm_source=JLN&utm_medium=005

About us:

Verified Market Research is a leading Global Research and Consulting firm servicing over 5000+ customers. Verified Market Research provides advanced analytical research solutions while offering information enriched research studies. We offer insight into strategic and growth analyses, Data necessary to achieve corporate goals and critical revenue decisions.

Our 250 Analysts and SMEs offer a high level of expertise in data collection and governance use industrial techniques to collect and analyse data on more than 15,000 high impact and niche markets. Our analysts are trained to combine modern data collection techniques, superior research methodology, expertise and years of collective experience to produce informative and accurate research.

Contact us:

Mr. Edwyne Fernandes

US: +1 (650)-781-4080UK: +44 (203)-411-9686APAC: +91 (902)-863-5784US Toll Free: +1 (800)-7821768

Email: [emailprotected]

Our Trending Reports

Telecom Operations Management Market Size, Growth Analysis, Opportunities, Business Outlook and Forecast to 2026

Mobile Satellite Services Market Size, Growth Analysis, Opportunities, Business Outlook and Forecast to 2026

Mobile Unified Communications and Collaboration Market Size, Growth Analysis, Opportunities, Business Outlook and Forecast to 2026

Continued here:
Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market Growth Trends, Key Players, Competitive Strategies and Forecasts to 2026 - Jewish Life News

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Cryptocurrency Mining Hardware Market Growth Trends, Key Players, Competitive Strategies and Forecasts to 2026 – Jewish Life News