I couldn’t have said it better myself although I have said as much about all cryptocurrencies which have a public ledger. Edward Snowden made the comment at the Blockstack event in Berlin, Germany. They are completely insecure and unsuitable for personal or business use in the long-term due to a lack of privacy. There are other issues that Edward touched on such as extremely slow transaction times and many more I’ve talked about in other posts.
Snowden also predicted that a coin which fixes these various issues could be the one to replace Bitcoin. While I fully agree privacy and security in Bitcoin and most other coins are an issue, aside from that most currencies are slow, inefficient, difficult to use and simply don’t work properly to send or receive payments. This will all eventually be fixed but so far what I find is that some currencies fix one problem while ignoring the rest.
I have warned for awhile about these hardware wallets. I’ve never trusted them as you truly don’t know what is in the hardware or firmware and if it could be extremely vulnerable. As bad as it sounds a traditional, secure PC is still the safer way to handle your cryptocurrency.
A teenager stumbled upon a vulnerability by noting the CPU that controls the private keys cannot differentiate between authentic or user made firmware. This CPU is used to transmit data including keys. Without much effort he was able to compromise this supposedly secure hardware wallet.
On top of that it looks like Ledger tried to downplay the issue and brush off the teenager who warned them of the vulnerability. In all fairness physical is required but that’s not good, you shouldn’t worry that if your hardware wallet is found that someone could easily extract your private keys and coins from it!
They’ve also recently admitted another vulnerability exists where attackers could trick users to send out their funds to hackers.
For this reason I still don’t recommend hardware wallets, you are much safer on a secure computer.
Unsurprisingly Edward Snowden recently revealed to the world that the NSA is tracking cryptocurrency users including Bitcoin. What makes it worse, but also not surprising is that they tricked users to install security software they wrote that actually feeds all of their private data, cryptokeys, back to the NSA directly. It is soon going to be an absolutely necessity to increase your own security and to start using better, more secure coins that cannot be so easily tracked. This is the equivalent of the government following you around and poking around your wallet and watching each transaction you do even with cash. There’s no privacy anymore and ironically cryptocurrency is part of this reason, or shall we say at least, the majority of insecure, public, permissionless blockchain based currencies. This could send the value of currencies like XMR/Monero skyrocketing as a Bitcoin alternative. While Monero is in my opinion better in almost everyway to Bitcoin, it is still not the perfect coin as it does have some issues including the use of PoW and of course the whole public, permissionless issue, speed issues etc..
Despite so much turbulence in the markets Ripple has returned 4.8% vs Bitcoin’s 2.64% in the last 24 hours or Ethereum’s -.75%. Ripple is proving itself to be able to withstand strong headwinds after nearly hitting the $5 mark last year. Of course $.70 is a far cry from its all time high but considering the market as of lately this is impressive. I think despite the concerns over XRP’s future in terms of it being associated with large and central banking clients, there is value in it being a hedge. This is one of the reasons I invested in Ripple as I feel with increasing government scrutiny, regulation, threats, bad news etc.. that this would all cause Ripple to return much better in the long-term. However as I’ve said in past posts, there appears to be the very real fear and possibility that Ripple may just dump XRP if the banks tell or pay them to. In fact I even e-mailed them with detailed concerns from another blog and they had no comment other than asking me to check their news, blog and website so at this point I feel it is very plausible. Ripple’s affiliation with banks and government will either help it right to the top or it could weight down Ripple. Besides that I feel Ripple is a fairly good currency but does suffer from a few other flaws that I won’t get into here.
In this case a Florida government employee was arrested for “mining Bitcoin”. But there’s more to the story that is probably missing or inaccurate.
Many people use work resources to mine but this case is unique. This IT manager apparently spent $22K using his workplace issued credit card on mining hardware including dozens of GPU cards.
Considering we are talking GPUs the IT manager was more probably mining Ethereum or another profitable coin. It also could be he had some ASICs for Bitcoin running considering he racked up an extra $800/month in power consumption!
The moral of the story is that he wouldn’t have been arrested and charged with theft and fraud had he not used his work credit card.
I could see it being normal for an employee to be disciplined but its a gray area especially for workplaces without applicable policies for mining.
As much I like mining here is one of the evils that it can impact anyone paying utilites.
Youtube has announced it will be the new thought police. They’ll be doing this by discouraging and contradicting any thoughts, beliefs or theories that are not within mainstream beliefs or teachings. At this rate they’ll have met the gold standard for censorship and subversion and China will be viewed as an easier place to share your thoughts. On its face it may not sound that bad to link to Wikipedia articles but in fact anyone can write and manipulate Wikipedia. Google will be choosing what counterpoints to make by of course selecting which article(s) get linked to. This is quite alarming and also frustrating since hate, racism and other harmful activity has been rampant on the web ever since it began but no company or government have made any concrete steps to counter it. So why worry about people posting their alternative beliefs and thoughts online and exposing the lies of the news? By the gauge of most the mainstream news is the fake news yet media giants like Facebook want to declare thoughts outside of that realm as “Fake News”. By this method then the PRISM system of spying on and intercepting people’s private information is a “bad conspiracy theory” that people have to be warned away from (of course most now understand this was never a conspiracy since Edward Snowden revealed more details about what most already knew). There are some valid reasons for this to be done (from the perspective of nice government men and corporate greed). There is a lot of information being shared on Youtube about pharmaceutical companies and really whole swaths of very solid information about a lot of things going on in our world. The majority of it is well sourced and quoted and most people won’t view that content as conspiracy. Could it be that anything that doesn’t fit the viewpoint or ends of certain elite companies and people are what is really being targeted? Until racism and hate has been cleaned up from these platforms I am just not buying there is any good or genuine reason for Google to do this. I think we’re heading down a slippery slope to the point where freedom of thought and expression will be completely eliminated gradually through these policies. Eventually Google will probably start deranking websites which fit into this category of “non-conformity” to the mainstream and elitists.
What do you guys think? I think it’s time to support Tron (TRX) and any other decentralized social media platforms. It’s time to take the internet back!
Based on an article from Brookings Institute they have a dire warning for all cryptocurrency users! They first take a shot at the very idea of it helping Venezuela in the first paragraph “the idea that the petro can ameliorate an economic crisis rooted in the bolívar’s volatility seems unbelievable”. It goes on to say it is a threat to all cryptocurrency “petro will not only fail to cure Venezuela’s economic woes but will also weaken the integrity of cryptocurrencies writ-large”. And my last but most favorite quote is what I think it’s really about “As Turkey, Iran, Russia, and other sanctioned countries deal with their severe economic impacts, they might pursue the same fraudulent strategy as Venezuela: create a cryptocurrency tied to a government-controlled asset, raise money in violation of sanctions, and proceed to manipulate that cryptocurrency’s value to maximize profit.”
While they do make some valid points governments around the world create their own currency usually without any backing of gold or resources out of thin error and continue to manipulate their currencies all the time. To call Petro Coin over any other coin or ICO doesn’t seem to be based on anything other than political views. I think the article is highly biased and that Brookings is essentially the mouth piece for Washington and cannot be taken seriously.
The fact that Petro raised over 700M USD is significant and is less likely to be a scam than the other 90% of ICOs out there. If I want to offer criticism of Petro I am frustrated that they don’t have their own top level domain for it and that they didn’t allow individual investors to get in on the coin. As an investor when things are difficult and information is not easy to find I get frustrated and lose interest. I think that is really the biggest risk to the Petro Coin. I also disagree with larger countries sanctioning smaller countries who do not do their bidding since it just ends up creating poverty and suffering for the average person.
I am long Petro Coin if they can get more organized and get out better information. Petro Coin stands to succeed if not for the reason that there are powerful backers of it. Historically this been enough for the weakest of states, currencies and assets to continue floating on. It’s also the same principle of what makes Bitcoin work, people have invested into it in different ways and it continues to be used although I do agree all cryptocurrencies essentially need an overhaul and they are certainly lacking in ease, functionality and security but his will be resolved in time.
Christine Lagarde of the IMF has suggested “fighting fire with fire” by regulating Bitcoin with the IMF’s own blockchain technology. I am not sure what they are proposing on a technical level or what this common is really based on, but let’s read between the lines of the intention.
This is very exciting news as it signals the IMF is acknowledging that cryptocurrency and Bitcoin especially are here to stay. They wouldn’t regulate something that they don’t expect to survive.
Now the bad news is that the IMF may have something up their sleeves that slows or impedes Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies from functioning as they should. After all the IMF has also played roles that many of us do not think is constructive or fair to the countries that have used it. If we apply the same scenario to Bitcoin it is time to get excited and scared at once. It also seems disingenuous to imply cryptocurrency has a darkside while implying fiat doesn’t. I get it and agree, fiat is better controlled so they like it but fiat is still used for crimes all the time. If fiat wasn’t regulated under their control they would probably make similar statements about fiat instead of cryptocurrency.
The real question is what is the real intention? Obviously as they’ve stated it is regulation but will the regulation make it so only the elite can trade Bitcoin or do they simply just want their own cut and control of cryptocurrency? I think if we look at the history of their role and fiat, the truth will lay right in the middle but only as far as what they’ve decided should be the fate and role of fiat. Both can coexist but do they intend for them to coexist or for one to roll over the other?
Either way announcements like this show us that cryptocurrency is certainly here to stay and it has caught the attention of the entire finance world.
Binance’s new blockchain which will be its own decentralized exchange could be just what the decentralized world needs. I am actually not a fan of a decentralized exchange as it really means no one is responsible for your losses and in fact more scams have happened on the more famous ones like Etherdelta. One look at most other decentralized exchanges just screams insecure and scam to me.
So this is where Binance comes in as a trusted central exchange. Centralization is not always bad so long as the person or team behind is trustworthy and conversely as we’ve seen with Etherdelta the opposite applies.
Binance has a real shot here of being the top player in cryptoexchanges.
I’ve found Binance to be easy, safe, and honest for an exchange. If they apply this to their new blockchain for decentralized exchange trading it could be a huge winner.
We must always remember it’s not so much about the technology but about the integrity, intention and ability of the team behind it.
I am still hesitant on decentralized exchanges because of rampant losses and scams, but if anyone can do it right I bet it will be Binance. Time will tell but this is exciting to me.
One aspect of cryptocurrencies that some users aren’t aware of is that decentralized blockchain based currencies are in their own ways their own worst enemy. The blockchain is the problem, as currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum keep getting slower due to their limited transactions per second, and the blockchain gets large this has started the end game. The end game is clearly spelled out in Ethereum’s current white paper and it’s that essentially the blockchain will get so large no small players (individuals) will be able to participate. This is because all transactions are stored in the blockchain ledger, and the more transactions the larger it gets. Eventually the blockchains will grow to several terabytes and require more memory. This will mean that only big corporate, government and banking players will have the resources to control these so-called decentralized currencies. It is really inevitable unless a mechanism is adopted for off-loading this storage to trusted third parties.
I may not be a huge Microsoft fan but I think Ankur Patel has stated what many in the cryptocurrency already understand to be correct.
Patel said that blockchains that increase network capacity through on-chain scaling, which involves raising the blocksize, will eventually experience degraded centralization and will not be able to function on a “world-scale.”
This is something that Stellar Lumens and Ripple essentially do. They are a centralized blockchain that are generally faster than the competitors but are centralized and literally supported by big corporate players and banks. These have pros and cons. As an investment they are an excellent hedge against threatened regulations that people fear for the decentralized currencies and they also provide real value and work very well.
Is this all bad? It’s hard to say because public blockchains can be attacked literally with DDOS/SPAM/bad blocks and this has happened with all the major currencies. On top of that you are still giving up trust to unknown people and the value and stability of these currencies are at risk for other reasons such as hardfork cash grabs like Bitcoin Cash and the Bitcoin Gold Group.
The future is bright for crypto but these uncertainties need to be accounted for and sorted out. It may be that the future is going to involve a combination of foundations and semi-decentralized currencies.