Monthly Archives: May 2021

Marathon Digital Holdings (MARA) new mining pool has mined a bitcoin block that is fully compliant with U.S. regulations, meaning the company has started excluding transactions from entities it believes are sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Treasury or have been involved in dark web activity.

The Marathon OFAC pool, which was first announced in late March, refrains from processing transactions from those listed on the U.S. Department of Treasurys Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN) to stay compliant with U.S. regulatory standards, according to the company.

Marathon said it is addressing a concern among many large funds and corporations that have expressed interest in purchasing bitcoin by marketing its mined bitcoin as OFAC-compliant. Marathon spokesman Jason Assad confirmed that the firms first OFAC pool block censored some transactions, but didnt specify which ones.

By excluding transactions between nefarious actors, we can provide investors and regulators with the peace of mind that the bitcoin we produce is clean, ethical and compliant with regulatory standards, Marathon said in a statement.

It should be noted that Marathon is mining compliant blocks of its own volition and that nothing in the current U.S. regulatory or legal code explicitly mandates that practice for miners.

The company uses DMGs Walletscore blockchain surveillance software to filter transactions, Assad told CoinDesk. The blacklist is based on information provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Office of Foreign Assets Control, databases of OFAC restricted cryptocurrency addresses, as well as other sources including the dark web, he said.

Iran, which is included on OFACs sanctions list, is a hotbed of bitcoin adoption, partly in response to the pressures sanctions place on its citizens. (Notably but unrelated, Irans government just said that only bitcoin produced in Iran is legal to trade.)

What are clean bitcoins?

The practice of censoring transactions, sanctioned or otherwise (put another way, excluding them from blocks because of the senders presumed identity), is a subject of heated debate within the Bitcoin community. Satoshi Nakamoto designed Bitcoin mining to facilitate permissionless and censorship resistant transfers of value, but initiatives like Marathons undermine that feature for no reason, critics say.

It is totally against the Bitcoin ethos as they are trying to make it a permissioned protocol instead of open for all, said Ben Carman, a Bitcoin Core and Suredbits developer.

He also said Marathons approach doesnt make sense. They are mining blocks that will not have the highest fee transactions, but (are) still on top of blocks with transactions they deem bad, giving them more security, he said.

Others also questioned the practicality of making a compliance claim.

Indeed, despite Marathons surveillance, transactions from a Russian dark web market, Hydra, were still processed in the clean block.

Further, shortly after Marathon blazoned the clean block on social media, bitcoiners from Iran and around the world began to send bitcoin to the address that received the Marathon clean block reward. The gesture was meant to display how easy it is to undermine Marathons initiative (and thus demonstrate how futile the chase is for clean coins).

Miners speaking to CoinDesk from other pools declined to go on the record about Marathon and its compliance push, but the sentiment was generally negative. One miner laughed at the notion, while another called it a manufactured issue.

The economics of a compliant bitcoin block

Marathon began directing its hashrate, or computer processing power, to the OFAC pool on May 1 and mined its first block on May 5, Bitcoin block 682170. That blocks transaction fee reward, 0.05 BTC (worth less than $3,000 at the time) is substantially less than the fees collected in the blocks before or after it (both of which were 0.31 BTC or ~$17,800). Block 682172 included 0.48 BTC for nearly $28,000.

BitMEX Researchs diagnosis notes that the block contained 0.00330944 BTC less transaction fees than expected. The block excluded a number of transactions that BitMEXs own hypothetical template would have included, which could indicate censorship, the post said.

Interestingly, it also included many transactions that BitMEXs model excluded because their fees were too low to be considered a priority. That could indicate out-of-band payments for the fee, BitMEX says, which are under-the-table payments that are not included in the payers transaction.

If Marathon is not receiving out-of-band fees, then so far its compliant blocks are netting significantly less in transaction fees. That portion of the block reward has become increasingly important for miner profits as bitcoins block subsidy has dwindled to its current rate of 6.25 BTC per block and demand for bitcoin has grown.

Marathons block occurred only a minute after the one before, which could explain the blocks lower fee reward and transaction count. Marathon, however, still used it to censor transactions that, for other miners, would have gone through.

Read more here:
Marathon Miners Have Started Censoring Bitcoin Transactions; Here's What That Means - CoinDesk

Photo: Peter Macdiarmid (Getty Images)

The BBC has reportedly come under fire for censorship after editing an episode of RuPauls Drag Race Down Under in order to remove a joke made about Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew, a longtime associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was essentially sidelined from royal life after being accused of participating in the sex trafficking and sexual abuse of Virginia Giuffre, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents.

During the Snatch Game challenge, Drag Race Down Under competitor Anita Wiglitwho was dressed in full drag as Queen Elizabeth II at the timemade a joke referencing the allegations against Prince Andrew, commenting: I wish a dingo would have taken my baby, then I wouldnt have anything to do with Prince Andrew anymore. Some sources are also reporting that the BBC removed another joke made by Anita Wiglit about Prince Andrew.When somebody turns 100, I write them a letter, and when somebody turns 16 Prince Andrew sends them a text, she joked. The original broadcast also contained a joke made by an in-character Anita Wiglit about Prince Philipwhich was also removed by the BBC after being deemed inappropriate for British viewers.

A BBC spokesperson confirmed that the joke about Prince Andrew had been removed but did not elaborate on the reasoning behind that decision, instead saying: The BBC occasionally makes edits to acquired programmes in accordance with UK audience expectations.

I personally dont think there are many circumstances where its appropriate to joke about sexual abuse and pedophilia, especially considering the deeply horrific details we know about the as-yet-unaddressed allegations against Prince Andrew. But the BBCs choice to censor these particular jokes in accordance with UK audience expectations appears to be a failed attempt to shield the royal family from even comedic critique. This is the second time in recent months where the BBCs decisions on how to cover the royal family garnered pushback from viewersthe first was when the broadcaster decided to dedicate all its channels to covering Prince Philips death, a choice that attracted a record-breaking number of viewer complaints.

The BBCs censorship also appears to only apply to comments about certain members of the royal family. During the very same segment from which the BBC removed the Prince Andrew joke, they left in anotherjoke from Anita Wiglit as Elizabeth II, in which she remarked that heradvice to Meghan Markle was dont piss me off and wear a seatbelt.

Read more here:
BBC Faces Accusations of Censorship After Removing Prince Andrew Joke From Drag Race Episode - Jezebel

Fox News contributor Trey Gowdy said on Wednesday that conservatives have to fight Big Tech censorship in the marketplace.

"It is important that conservatives make the right argument. This is not a First Amendment issue. It's not a free speech issue because it's not government conduct," Gowdy told Fox News "Outnumbered."

"I mean, you have the right to come on Fox News, so you don't have a right to say whatever you want with any other private company. It's an antitrust issue," Gowdy said.

TRUMP BAN: REPUBLICANS THREATEN TO BREAK UP FACEBOOK AFTER OVERSIGHT BOARD DECISION

Facebook'sOversight Board on Wednesday upheld Trump's ban from Facebook and Instagram, but said it was "not appropriate"to impose the "indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension."

"The Board has upheld Facebooks decision on January 7, 2021, to restrict then-President Donald Trumps access to posting content on his Facebook page and Instagram account," the board said in a statement.

The board gave Facebook six months to review the "arbitrary" indefinite ban, saying in a tweet that the company "violated its own rules."

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Gowdy asserted that conservatives have to start their own social media platform if they don't like the rules enforced by sites like Google, Facebook and Twitter.

"Conservatives need to make the right argument, or else they need to find another platform to express their views. I mean, Facebook. I mean, why are they so popular? Why are conservatives using Facebook? I'm not, but why are others? So we gotta fight back in the marketplace."

Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Read the original:
Conservatives must fight Big Tech censorship in the marketplace: Gowdy - Fox News

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and other Republicans are expressing outrage following Facebook's decision to uphold its ban on former president Donald Trump. GOP leaders now contemplate whether it's necessary or not to 'break up' the social media giant. Fox Nation host Tomi Lahren weighed in on the Trump ban, telling "Fox & Friends First" Thursday that Facebook has become a Big Tech company that is "throttling conservative voices only."

TOMI LAHREN: Yeah, I really do think that it needed to come to this in order to wake people up and understand if they can do this to the former president of the United States, someone who may very well run again in 2024, it can happen to all of us.

It already does happen to all of us. The censorship, the shadow banning, the silencing of conservative voices. Big Tech has gotten away with this for far too long. And I wish they could just be a content curating platform. But they're not. They are content discriminating.

So I know that the liberals like to come after us and say, yes, we believe in private companies having the ability to control what they do in their own entities. But when you're going so far as to control the message and you are siphoning off and throttling conservative voices only and especially the president, the former president of the United States, it's time to stand up and say it's gotten this bad.

There needs to be action. And I would hope that the Democrats would join with us in this effort to protect free speech. At the end of the day, like our president said, what are they so afraid of? If his message is so horrible, if our message, our conservative values are so horrible, then why are we not allowed to express them and have the American people and the public decide what they want to believe and what they want to follow?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Why do you have to censor us? Why do you have to shadow ban us? Let this be a free marketplace of ideas again. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat. What are you so afraid of?

Read this article:
Tomi Lahren to Big Tech: Why do you have to censor conservatives? - Fox News

YouTube has been accused of curbing political opposition in Russia after access was temporarily restricted to links to a project by Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny that targeted President Vladimir Putin.

As he languishes in prison, the impact that Navalny can make on Putin hangs in the balance, especially after his key lieutenant Leonid Volkov disbanded his political network to pre-empt Russian authorities ruling it an extremist organization.

Volkov insisted last week he was still optimistic Navalny allies could make gains against the dominant United Russia party in September's parliamentary elections.

The key to that is "Smart Voting," a tactical method in which people are urged to vote for opposition figures no matter how unpalatable, as long as they were not in the ruling party.

First used in 2018, the method was effective in unseating pro-Kremlin figures and the hope was there would be similar success this time around.

But the independent news outlet, Sota.Vision complained that YouTube had removed its Smart Voting hyperlink from a video of opposition protests from August 2019 on its channel. Sota said on Telegram that it had been accused of violating rules on "spam, deception and fraud."

Opposition politician Ilya Yashin and the Kremlin-critical newspaper Novaya Gazeta said they had received similar hyperlink deletion notifications from YouTube, which is owned by Google.

Novaya Gazyeta said YouTube had suspended it from uploading videos and streaming live, while Yashin said that he was a victim of a complaint by Russia's media watchdog Roskomnadzor, tweeting, "@GoogleRussia are you alright there. Are you now a branch of state censorship in Russia?"

All three said that YouTube then withdrew its claims and apologized. Yashin later tweeted "good news. YouTube admitted it made a mistake and has withdrawn all its claims towards my channel."

Novaya Gazyeta said it was informed by YouTube that the decision to restrict access to its content was wrong, and that "unfortunately, sometimes we make mistakes. We apologize for the inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding."

In a statement to Newsweek, a Google spokesperson said that the videos were accidentally removed "due to a mistaken spam policy violation and they have since been reinstated."

"With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call," the statement said, adding that if a video has been removed mistakenly, "we act quickly to reinstate it."

"Occasionally, a video flagged by users or identified by our spam team is mistakenly taken down. When this is brought to our attention, we review the content and take appropriate action, including restoring videos or channels that had been removed."

However, the incident comes as the Kremlin adopts a strategy to attack global platforms they consider to be the main enablers of opposition protests. TikTok, Twitter, and Facebook have been fined in Russia after content they hosted linked to pro-Navalny protests in January.

"I think to some extent it reflects a very difficult and tricky relationship between the Russian opposition and YouTube," Andrei Soldatov, an investigative journalist and Russian internet expert said of the latest spat.

"YouTube is the most important thing right now for the Russian opposition, given the numbers of viewers of the Navalny channel," he told Newsweek.

"The problem is that the Russian authorities have been bombarding all the different departments of Google with a lot of requests," he said, adding that like other major platforms in more authoritarian countries, the tech giant rejected government requests to hand over account details of users.

"Sometimes they cooperated with the Russian authorities by taking down some videos because that helped them withstand the pressure from the Russian authorities."

"Now it is getting more dramatic because of the Twitter story," Soldatov said, referring to the Russian authorities' move in March to slow down the microblogging site because it had not removed content it deemed illegal.

Russia threatened to block the site completely in a move seen as a clampdown on free speech.

"Once the Kremlin made the show that they are ready to block at least one global platform they raised the stakes for everybody else," Soldatov said.

"After the Twitter story, we do not know the position of global platforms," he said, "and we do not know the extent of the talks between global platforms and the Russian government."

A Google spokesperson said it was "not the case" that the Russian government had put pressure to remove videos, adding "any requests we get from government in any country are disclosed on our transparency report."

Newsweek has contacted Roskomnadzor for comment.

The graphic below provided by Statista shows Vladimir Putin's time in power.

The story has been updated to include a further statement to Newsweek from Google.

Read this article:
YouTube Accused of Censoring Navalny Election Initiative Targeting Putin - Newsweek

Good Morning DC!Yesterday morning, we published thescoopthatElise Stefanikgot the stamp of approval from Donald Trump to replace Liz Cheney.

A few hours after our report was published, the former President issued a memo confirming his endorsement.

"Liz Cheney is a warmongering fool who has no business in Republican Party Leadership," Trump stated. "We want leaders who believe in the Make America Great Again movement and prioritize the values of America First," he continued adding that "Elise Stefanik is a far superior choice, and she has my COMPLETE and TOTAL Endorsement for GOP Conference Chair."

As the infighting continues,Liz Cheneyis holding on for dear life to stay in power. On Wednesday, she penned an OpEd in Washington Post.The GOP is at a turning point. History is watching us.In her column, Cheney calls on Republicans to"steer away from the dangerous and anti-democratic Trump cult of personality."

Cheney's OpEd is a footnote to history, an account that she's putting on the record for future historians to review.

Publishing editorials in WaPo and NYT does make any impact on the Republican Party as these people read Breitbart and Daily Caller and watch Fox, Newsmax, and OAN.

Trump loyalists do not change their minds.If Cheney wants to appeal to the Republican base, she needs to pen an OpEd where the Republican audience is.

Trump continues to claim that "Warmonger Liz Cheney," as he likes to call her, "has virtually no support left in the Great State of Wyoming."

Our party's turned a very dark corner," saidCindy McCainto Amanpour. "Liz Cheney's going to be thrown out because she told the truth. We've lost our way A small, very vocal few are running the [GOP], and the rest of us who consider ourselves Republicans are kind of left out in the cold."

Tech oligarchy continues to act as the tyrant of free speech.

Donald Trump won't be allowed to come back on Facebook, the board of censors hasannounced. The ban will be reviewed in six months.

"Facebook shouldpermanentlyban Trump," Democrats put out a call for censorship of their political opponent.

Take a good look at their message, as this is how censorship of political opponents looks like in dictatorships.

Chilling. Authoritarian.

I have nothing good to say about this. This is a nexus between tech monopoly and political power.

CongressmanKen Buckrespondedto the ban by saying that "Facebooks status as a monopoly has led its leaders to believe it can silence and censor Americans' speech with no repercussions." He added that "Now more than ever we need aggressive antitrust reform to break up Facebooks monopoly."

Jim Bankssaid that "If Facebook is so big it thinks it can silence the leaders you elect, its time for conservatives to pursue an antitrust agenda."

Trump shared his thoughts on the continued ban.

"What Facebook, Twitter, and Google have done is a total disgrace and an embarrassment to our Country," he began. "Free Speech has been taken away from the President of the United States because the Radical Left Lunatics are afraid of the truth, but the truth will come out anyway, bigger and stronger than ever before," he said.

"The People of our Country will not stand for it! These corrupt social media companies must pay a political price and must never again be allowed to destroy and decimate our Electoral Process."

Spread the news:Forward Good Morning DCtoyourfriends.

Caitlyn Jennerhad her first exclusive prime-time interview onHannitylast night, where she espoused her intention to be a "role model." Newsom challenger vowed the new path forward for Californians.

Caitlyn said she supports the Wall but that she ispro-legal immigrationand that we have to modernize our immigration system. On Trump, she kept a middle ground by saying that on some things, she agreed with the former president and that on some, she has been critical of him. The difference she pointed out was that with president Biden, she does not agree on anything.

The interview was powerful and heartfelt, depicting the inner struggles of a transgender woman.Caitlyn speaks like a human and can connect to Americans on a deep level. She is a Progressive Republican. If she continues to talk on the national stage about the problems in California the way she did in an interview with Sean Hannity, the gubernatorial electionwill be one of the most important stories to follow closely.

The U.S. has announced its support of a temporary suspension of intellectual property rights on Covid19 vaccines to bolster the global supply. Reactions are split, and many find the decision is setting a bad precedent for respect of intellectual property rights.

What will Biden do today?

EDT

9:30 AM, President Bidenreceives the Presidents Daily Brief 10:10 AM, President Bidendepartsthe White House en route Joint Base Andrews 10:30 AM, President Bidendeparts Joint Base Andrews en route Lake Charles, Louisiana CDT12:15 PM, President Biden arrives in Lake Charles, Louisiana 1:25 PM, President Biden delivers remarks on the American Jobs Plan 2:30 PM, President Biden departs Lake Charles, Louisiana en route to New Orleans, Louisiana 3:20 PM, President Biden arrives in New Orleans, Louisiana 4:20 PM, President Biden tours Carrollton Water Plant 5:40 PM, President Biden departs New Orleans, Louisiana en route Joint Base Andrews EDT8:45 PM, President Biden arrives at Joint Base Andrews. 9:05 PM, President Bidenarrives at the White House.

And that's a wrap for this Thursday morning, May 6, 2021.Good Morning DC will be back tomorrow to give you the latest first.

Read this article:
Notes On Tyranny And Censorship Of Political Opponents - The Pavlovic Today

The media office of the Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip has criticised social media platforms for "censoring Palestinian content" during the current escalation in Jerusalem. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram were mentioned specifically.

These platforms, it is alleged, are responsible for deleting Palestinian content and banning dozens of pro-Palestine accounts due to their coverage of events in Al-Aqsa Mosque and the unrest in Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood.

The office stressed that these measures are evidence of the complicity of these social media platforms with the Israeli authorities and their double standards. They divert the public gaze from the violations of the Israeli occupation while restricting pro-Palestinian content under the pretext that it breaches publishing standards.

Such measures by these major platforms constitute a "violation of freedom of opinion and expression," it is claimed. The Palestinian government in Gaza called on the aforementioned platforms to end their "anti-Palestinian position" and reactivate all accounts that have been banned.

READ: 'Dangerous and deplorable', Facebook bans MEMO staffer for advertising recently-published book on Hamas

See original here:
Twitter and Facebook accused of censoring Palestinian content - Middle East Monitor