Monthly Archives: October 2021

Artificial Intelligence Opens New Farming Possibilities – AG INFORMATION NETWORK OF THE WEST – AGInfo Ag Information Network Of The West

Posted on by

Its time for your Farm of the Future Report. Im Tim Hammerich.

Often when we hear that artificial intelligence is going to change agriculture, the explanation of how thats going to look is a bit fuzzy. We are starting to see examples though in the way of automation. Precision AI is a Canadian startup thats developing drone spraying technology that is currently being trialed on farms. CEO Daniel McCann says its an example of how artificial intelligence can open up new ways of farming.

McCann The previous paradigm that's basically time immemorial is again, because human beings don't have the ability to make per plan level decisions on a giant field, you're going to spray everything, right. But with automation and AI well now everybody like, it's not just us, there's other people building robots, capable of making per plant level decisions. And when you can make a per plant level decision, it's a complete game changer, right? Because now as you say, we don't need to worry about whether or not this particular chemical's impact on the crop is going to be problematic because you won't have to spray the crop. Right? So even things that aren't currently possible, like using some organics like agricultural vinegar to control weeds, well you can't use that on a crop today, but if you could precisely spray it and target just the plants, now that becomes actually a viable method of weed control and resistance control. So there's all sorts of new types of completely outside the box approaches to this problem that I think are going to become the defacto standard as this technology becomes more and more prominent. And it's inevitable, it's coming, the efficiency improvements are just too great.

Tune in tomorrow to hear more about how artificial intelligence is finding real applications on the farm.

Excerpt from:
Artificial Intelligence Opens New Farming Possibilities - AG INFORMATION NETWORK OF THE WEST - AGInfo Ag Information Network Of The West

Podcast: The future of artificial intelligence with tech CEO Kai-Fu Lee – GZERO Media

Posted on by

Now, there's a lot of methodology that goes into this report. There's also judgment into the weightings of the methodology. Anyone that's ever dealt with an index understands how that works out. At Eurasia Group, we've had political risk indices for decades. And it's very clear that although it's quantitative, it's qualitative too, right?

But in this case, the numbers that were expected by the Chinese government, they were ranked number 78 in the 2017 report. They thought that they were doing better, and it turned out that the ranking was going to go down. It was going to be number 85. The Chinese government was quite surprised about this. The World Bank management was quite surprised about this. Chinese government came back and said, what the hell's going on? And according to Kristalina and Jim Kim, and again this was under Jim Kim at the time, they said, okay, go back, take a serious look and make sure that you didn't make any mistakes.

So far, so good. The Chinese ranking eventually came back to number 78, the same as it was the previous year. In other words, after the complaints, the ranking went up seven points.

Now, was there a methodology problem? Was there undue pressure being placed on the analysts? That's the result of an investigation that was ordered by the World Bank under David Malpass, the new leader of that institution. And Jim Kim is gone, but Kristalina Georgieva has gone on to bigger and better things, now running the IMF.

Now, a couple of interesting things about this report. First of all, when the law firm WilmerHale originally went to the IMF, to Georgieva, and this was, I guess, back in July, and wanted to interview her about the report, they explicitly said in the letter they sent her that she was not a subject of investigation, she was just being called in as a witness. And what I find interesting about all of that is Kristalina wasn't worried about her own role at all. She didn't bring in any lawyers. She didn't take any legal advice. She just went and spoke to them immediately, and later became subject of the investigation. And when the report came out, it's blaming her for involvement.

I think the fact that she chose to simply chat with them, number one implies she's not enormously politically savvy in a way that I think that Christine Lagarde, the former head of the IMF, would've been much more careful and cautious. But it also does show motive that she really didn't believe that there was anything she was personally involved in that would be a problem, and so why wouldn't she just answer their questions? In other words, she had no reason to think that this was going to be a problem for her own job or her own tenure.

Second point, this is a report that I would argue normally wouldn't have an awful lot of international impact, except China is massively politicized. Anything having to do with China these days, influence over the World Health Organization, that's nominally why President Trump then decided to leave the WHO in the middle of a pandemic. I mean, any potential sniff that the United States and an appointee in an institution, a multilateral institution where the US has the most votes, the IMF, was helping the Chinese, they're going to run in the other direction.

So it is problematic because it's China. And it's interesting in this regard, that the economic policy makers in the Biden administration like Georgieva, they think that her policies and her tenure so far have been strong, and they're generally supportive of her. But the political types in the White House think that they should run away, because they do not want any ability of opponents to be able to say you guys supported someone who's in the pocket of the Chinese, how dare you.

And again, in these days where there's zero trust between the United States and China, and it's only politically beneficial to be seen as more of a hawk, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you understand why they're doing that. Having said all of that, the Europeans have been supportive of Georgieva, continue to be so after a board meeting where they brought in both WilmerHale, as well as the Managing Director. And certainly if there were a smoking gun, if there were email evidence or other witnesses that were directly involved, and knew that Kristalina had directly and unduly pressured them, that would have come out, and the Europeans wouldn't be supporting her at this point. It's not like they're in her pocket.

So the Americans are backing off of her. The Japanese are with the Americans. It's a new Japanese government. They don't particularly have a dog in the fight, and they tend to line up with the Americans when things are important to the US. That being the case, I would say it's damaging to her tenure, but she sticks it out. I don't think she's going anywhere.

And so that's where I think we are in a nutshell, presently. It's going to be harder for the United States to be as aligned with her going forward. Very interesting thing, under Trump, despite the fact that Lagarde was seen as a multilateralist, and she's a European, she's French, the Trump administration never had a hard time with the IMF. In fact, the relations between Christine and Trump, and particularly former Secretary of the Treasury, Mnuchin, were actually very strong. And the reason for that was because there was a very warm and personal relationship between Ivanka, Trump's daughter, and Christine Lagarde.

And Ivanka went to the White House and basically said don't do anything to this organization, they're important, they're useful. He didn't really care so he left it alone. So it wasn't politicized under Trump. It's getting a little politicized under Biden because of the China issue, who would've expected that? But that's where we are, that's what I think, and that's your Quick Take today. Everyone be good, I'll talk to y'all real soon.

Read this article:
Podcast: The future of artificial intelligence with tech CEO Kai-Fu Lee - GZERO Media

Book Review: A Citizen’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence by John Zerilli, John Danaher, James Maclaurin, Colin Gavaghan, Alistair Knott, Joy…

Posted on by

InA Citizens Guide to Artificial Intelligence,John Zerilli, John Danaher, James Maclaurin, Colin Gavaghan, Alistair Knott, Joy Liddicoat and Merel Noorman offer an overview of the moral, political, legal and economic implications of artificial intelligence (AI). Exemplary in the clarity of its explanations, the book provides an excellent foundation for considering the issues raised by the integration of AI into our societies, writes Karl Reimer.

A Citizens Guide to Artificial Intelligence. John Zerilli, John Danaher, James Maclaurin, Colin Gavaghan, Alistair Knott, Joy Liddicoat and Merel Noorman. MIT Press. 2021.

Find this book (affiliate link):

A Citizens Guide to Artificial Intelligence is a text that ought to be read widely. The books subject matter is highly relevant and it provokes many probing questions that deserve further consideration on the part of the reader and broader society.

The book itself covers a multitude of topics, ranging from What is Artificial Intelligence?, where the science behind Artificial Intelligence (AI) is described, to Deep Learning, machine learning, neural networks and other material. Later in the text, Algorithms in Government and Oversight and Regulation consider the integration of AI into daily life. Given space constraints, I will focus on two particular chapters in closer detail: Transparency and Responsibility and Liability.

Authors John Zerilli et al begin the Transparency chapter with an anecdote suggesting one shouldnt trust technologies unless one has a way to investigate them (22). From this, they draw the relevant question: what exactly does it mean for a system to be transparent? The remainder of the chapter is dedicated to expanding upon the various facets of transparency including responsibility, accountability, accessibility and inspectability.

Zerilli et al explain the legal concepts behind the right that an individual has to an explanation. They then contrast this against algorithmic systems that fail to provide reasonable explanations for their actions. Further, such algorithmic systems cannot be appealed in their decisions as is the case in traditional legal cases (28). This then provokes the question of what explanations have been demanded of AI systems before the authors emphasise the relevant topic of standard-setting for AI. A given example of such a standard is the European Unions General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (30).

Image Credit:Photo byPossessed PhotographyonUnsplash

The Responsibility and Liability chapter is similar in its approach, which is evidence of the overall readability of the text. In this chapter, the leading questions are: do we want machines to be held responsible for decisions? and can machines be responsible? Drawing upon the work of jurisprudence scholar H.L.A. Hart, a hypothetical scenario of a drunk sea captain is given to highlight the complexity of responsibility (62). In the scenario, a fictional sea captain is responsible for the safety of his passengers and crew. However, he becomes drunk every evening of his voyage and at one point the ship is lost amidst a storm with no survivors. Because of his drunken state at the time of the accident, the sea captain is considered negligent and criminally responsible for the loss of life in legal proceedings following the accident. The important observation is that responsibility is a complex notion, which can refer to causal contribution as well as the obligations and duties that come with the professional role of a sea captain (62). Just as responsibility is complex for the sea captain, so too is it complex for AI machines.

Zerilli et al note that responsibility comes in the form of moral responsibility generally attached to individuals and legal responsibility attached to individuals as well as corporate entities such as Google or Facebook. Between AI technologies and human beings, there seems to be a responsibility gap whereby it is difficult to hold human individuals responsible for actions (71). For example, one can consider how a multitude of programmers combine their efforts to create a singular automated driving system one can argue it would be unreasonable to place responsibility onto an individual programmer. Toward the conclusion of the chapter, Zerilli et al also probe the possibility of morally and legally responsible AI, which indeed deserves consideration given the complexity of AI issues (76).

From a discussion of these two chapters, one can get a sense of the style Zerilli et al have used across the book. It is a well grounded and objective work. The text goes to the point of the actual issues that academics are working on at this moment. For this, the text is insightful and prescient: it neither presents the topic of AI as science fiction nor is it dismissive of the capabilities of AI. The text is also accessible to a wide audience. The authors come from legal and philosophical backgrounds yet are able to describe the complexities of AI systems with subtle nuance. The first chapter where the variety of AI systems is explained exemplifies this.

The criticism I have of the text is that it is uneven in the quality of its content as well as its scope and breadth. Consider the brief introduction, Algorithms in Government. Zerilli et al rightly observe a trade-off between legitimacy and efficiency (130), whereby policy agencies become removed from the citizenry who elected them when they are given increased discretionary unelected power. An example of this is the controversy surrounding UK GCSEs and A Levels based on a systematic calibration conducted by education regulator Ofqual. However, in this instance, as in others, there is little nuance to the argument made, which generally identifies a problem relating to AI, offers case studies showing this and then concludes that we need to think carefully about AI in society.

The Algorithms in Government chapter could be extended to discuss further issues, such as whether an AI system can itself wield any legitimate authority. Further, the chapter on Control could be summarised as an introduction to what scholars call the control problem when and whether humans ought to delegate effective control to AI systems. It is a reflection of the thin spread of the book that this one problem has an entire chapter for its discussion as opposed to being integrated into questions of responsibility and legitimacy.

A Citizens Guide to Artificial Intelligence is nonetheless a text that deserves to be read widely. It offers a sufficiently broad overview of the expansive literature on AI. Its a book that one could recommend to any individual without feeling guilty about sharing an overly complex topic. Zerilli et al are exemplary in the clarity of their explanations of AI and its influence on society.

The takeaway is this AI as we conceive of it is already integrated in our society through the algorithms and automated decisions carried out by policymakers and corporate entities. As such, a deep consideration of these issues is necessary. The work put forward by Zerilli et al is an excellent foundation to this end.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:https://bit.ly/3DHOssH

Karl Reimer Philosophy ExchangeKarl Reimer graduated from the London School of Economics with an Msc. in Philosophy and Public Policy. He now supports the Philosophy Exchange project (https://philosophyexchange.org/about/), aimed at sharing philosophical ideas and fostering community within the discipline via regular podcasts, conferences and a vibrant international community.

Read the original:
Book Review: A Citizen's Guide to Artificial Intelligence by John Zerilli, John Danaher, James Maclaurin, Colin Gavaghan, Alistair Knott, Joy...

Philip Hammond adds cryptocurrency role to post-Treasury jobs list – The Guardian

Posted on by

The former chancellor Philip Hammond has added another job to the dozen or so he has taken on since leaving the Treasury in 2019, this time as an adviser to a Mayfair-based cryptocurrency trading firm.

Lord Hammond, who also served as foreign secretary and was an early supporter of bitcoin and other digital currencies, joined Copper.co with immediate effect on Monday.

The former chancellor, who was said to be one of the wealthiest ever cabinet ministers with a fortune once estimated at 8.2m, has taken up as many as 14 paid and unpaid jobs since leaving politics after a bust-up with Boris Johnson over Brexit.

Hammond was last month criticised by Westminsters lobbying watchdog for using his government connections to assist OakNorth, a bank he is paid to advise.

Starting out as a schoolboy running church hall discos, then becoming a medical equipment entrepreneur, Philip Hammond has been involved in an eclectic mix of business ventures. In two years since leaving office he has been given the green light by the UKs lobbying watchdog, Acoba, for 14 roles, including advising three Gulf states and working with several companies set up by Tory peers.

1. Non-executive director, Ardagh

Hammonds first appointment after quitting politics was with the Luxembourg-based metal and glass packaging firm, on an estimated salary of 125,000.

2. Adviser to OakNorth

Hammond joined the board of SoftBank-backed British fintech bank alongside Conservative ex-minister Francis Maude and former senior regulators Adair Turner and Martin Stewart.

3. Keynote speaker, Washington Speakers Bureau and London Speakers Bureau

Last year Hammond applied for part-time paid appointments at these two events agencies. Being on their roster opens up opportunities for lucrative after-dinner speeches to corporate clients.

4. Adviser to Canary Wharf Group

He joined the board of the property company last summer. It is chaired and was until recently run by Sir George Iacobescu, a Romanian-born British property chief who helped transform the once-barren London Docklands estate into Canary Wharf.

5. Senior adviser, Chatham House

Hammond joined the international affairs thinktank in June 2020 and speaks on panels discussing international economic policies.

6. Adviser to Saudi Arabias finance minister.

Hammond had previous ties with the minister, having advised him on Saudi Arabias G20 presidency.

7. Adviser to FMA Partners

The consultancy was founded by Maude and co-run with Simone Finn, who was appointed as a non-executive director of the Cabinet Office last May. Its latest filing of accounts registered assets of 209,000.

8. Adviser to Nomura

Hammond joined one of Japans largest investment banks.

9. Adviser to Apidae

The Essex-based management consultancy is run by Boris Johnsons fintech ambassador, Alastair Lukies.

10. Co-chair of Future Economy Surrey Commission

The council-run body commissions reports about Surreys economic health and sets out solutions for post-pandemic recovery.

11. Partner at Buckthorn

The energy investment firm is run by Colin Moynihan, a former Conservative MP and hereditary peer.

12. Adviser to Bahrains finance minister

Acoba cleared Hammond to accept a paid, part-time role advising the country on a programme of economic and fiscal reform.

13. Adviser to Kuwait Investment Office

The office is part of the Gulf states sovereign wealth fund, with estimated assets of $592bn. Hammond told Acoba he would advise on economic challenges and investment opportunities.

14. Nominated for a peerage

Boris Johnson awarded a life peerage to Hammond in February 2020.

Thank you for your feedback.

Eric Pickles, a former cabinet colleague who chairs the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), said it was an unwise step for Hammond to contact a senior Treasury official about a project developed by OakNorth.

Lord Pickles said Hammonds use of his contacts in government was not consistent with the intention of the rules and was not acceptable because of the privileged access you obtained for OakNorth.

Hammond, who also served as defence secretary, was later cleared of breaching lobbying rules after an investigation by the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists (ORCL), an independent body that monitors lobbying activities of former ministers and senior civil servants.

ORCL accepted Hammonds argument that, since lobbying was not his main activity, there was no need for him to register as a lobbyist working on behalf of a third party.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

Copper said Hammond would focus on promoting the UK as a global leader in digital asset technology. The firm, which was founded in 2018, recently announced plans to expand into the US and Asia and secured $75m (55m) of investment from the British billionaire hedge fund manager Alan Howard and the venture capital firms Dawn Capital and Target Global.

Hammond said Copper was a true pioneer of crypto and digital asset investment technology. But the really exciting opportunity lies in the application of this technology to revolutionise the way financial services are delivered, he said. If we can bring together the best of Britain entrepreneurs, industry, government, and regulators to create and enable a blockchain-based ecosystem for financial services, we will secure the UKs global leadership in this field for decades ahead.

Dmitry Tokarev, the chief executive of Copper, said: We would like to drive growth in our client base within a regulatory framework which will allow us to thrive globally from our London headquarters. With Lord Hammonds expertise adding to the strength of our team, we look forward to growing Copper and further enhancing the UKs digital asset technology offering.

As chancellor, Hammond had called for light-touch regulations for cryptocurrencies. I am interested in bitcoin. The Bank of England, as you know, among the central banks, has been leading on looking at bitcoin, he said in 2018. What is really important is that in regulating cryptocurrencies, we dont inadvertently constrain the potential of the technology that underlies it, the blockchain technology, which has a wider and more important application.

Read the original here:
Philip Hammond adds cryptocurrency role to post-Treasury jobs list - The Guardian

Is It Safe for Retirees to Buy Cryptocurrency? – The Motley Fool

Posted on by

Cryptocurrency has become a hot investment over the past year as more people have begun dabbling in digital coins. The reality is that there's a lot of money to be made in cryptocurrency. But there's also a lot of risk involved -- generally more so than investing in stocks. And that begs the question -- should retirees invest in cryptocurrency? Or are they better off playing it safer with their money?

Tips and tricks from the experts delivered straight to your inbox that could help you save thousands of dollars. Sign up now for free access to our Personal Finance Boot Camp.

By submitting your email address, you consent to us sending you money tips along with products and services that we think might interest you. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please read our Privacy Statement and Terms & Conditions.

As a general rule, retirees are often advised to have more conservative investment portfolios than people who are still many years from retirement. The reason? Retirees commonly cash out their investments and use that money to pay their living costs. Many seniors can't live on Social Security alone, so they invest their savings in stocks and bonds and take withdrawals as needed.

Taking withdrawals can sometimes mean having to cash out investments when they're down. And since stock values tend to fluctuate a lot more than bond values, seniors are often advised to move away from stocks and load up more on bonds because they're a more stable investment.

Since cryptocurrency is even more volatile than stocks, at first glance, it may not seem like a suitable investment for retirees. But that doesn't mean retirees have to stay away from it completely.

Some retirees have access to many income sources. For example, someone might have money coming in from a pension, Social Security, an investment property, a dedicated retirement plan, and a separate brokerage account. So it wouldn't be a terrible idea for a financially-healthy senior to invest a small amount of money in cryptocurrency.

Those who are more cash strapped, however, may want to stay away from crypto. Because cryptocurrency is relatively new, it's hard to know whether it will end up being a solid long-term investment or not. Much of that will depend on whether it becomes a widely accepted form of payment and if demand for it stays strong. So retirees who don't have a lot of financial wiggle room may be better off playing it safe and staying away from digital coins.

In fact, a good rule of thumb when investing in cryptocurrency is to expect to lose all of your money. That may not happen at all. But it's a good expectation to set so you don't invest money you can't afford to lose.

Retirees who decide to buy cryptocurrency should start slowly and only invest a limited amount of money, at least at first. What's more, anyone planning to invest in cryptocurrency should research the various coins out there to land on the right ones for their situation. It's easy to assume that Bitcoin is the best choice because it's been around the longest, but that doesn't mean it's right for every investor.

Ultimately, cryptocurrency can be a solid investment, even for older people. But there's a danger to investing in cryptocurrency in retirement, and seniors should be aware of that before jumping in.

Retirees with a hearty appetite for risk may feel comfortable buying cryptocurrency. But proceeding with caution is ultimately the best bet.

Read the original post:
Is It Safe for Retirees to Buy Cryptocurrency? - The Motley Fool

Cryptocurrency prices today: Bitcoin, dogecoin slip while ether, cardano gain – Mint

Posted on by

In cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin prices today were trading marginally lower after rallying above the $55,000 mark on Thursday. The most popular and world's largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization slipped over 1% to $54,364. Though, Bitcoin has advanced 24% in a week.

Other cryptocurrencies were performing mixed over the last 24 hours. Ether, the second largest crypto by market capitalization, was hovering around $3,619, up over 2%. Cardano gained 5% to $2.29 whereas dogecoin prices tumbled marginally to $0.24. XRP, Litecoin, Uniswap gained while Stellar and Shiba Inu slipped.

Shiba Inu plunged 25% in the last 24 hours after soaring over 300% in a week as Elon Musk tweeted about his puppy, Floki, a Shiba Inu breed. The jump comes at the same time the wider crypto market is surging as well. Bitcoin is up about 30% in the past seven days and trading in the mid-$50,000s, and second-ranked Ether has been gaining as well.

Crossing the $50,000 threshold and Bitcoin's rally to the $55,000 level is something of a historic event. Total Crypto's market cap could soon reach $2.5 trillion based on the Cup and Handle pattern seen forming on the chart. However, for the Total Crypto limit to reach that level, BTC and other tokens need to be increased further. Bitcoin's performance over the last few days has been quite remarkable as the price of BTC has soared by almost 27%, nearly outperforming most, if not all, other major cryptocurrencies," said Siddharth Menon, COO of WazirX.

The Bitcoin rally has come after digital tokens remained under pressure post Chinas ban on cryptocurrency transactions and turbulence around El Salvadors troubled rollout of the digital coin as legal tender.

After that overwhelming bullish rally, COTI's performance over the past week has been quite dismal. The RSI indicator clearly shows that the token has been overbought and has started its decline after crossing 75 bringing it below 55. It is still in the buy zone and we can expect COTI to recover at any time," Menon added.

(With inputs from agencies)

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!

More here:
Cryptocurrency prices today: Bitcoin, dogecoin slip while ether, cardano gain - Mint

US Department of Justice creates cryptocurrency enforcement unit – The Verge

Posted on by

The US Department of Justice has created a team to investigate cryptocurrency-related crime. The National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET) will handle investigations of crimes committed by virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, and money laundering infrastructure actors, the agency said in a news release. Mixing and tumbling services can obscure the source of a cryptocurrency transaction, by mixing it with other funds.

Cryptocurrency is used in a wide variety of criminal activity, including ransomware demand payments, money laundering, and for the illegal sales of drugs, weapons, and malware, the agency noted. Several high-profile ransomware cases have involved demands in cryptocurrency, including the Colonial Pipeline attack in May, where the company reportedly paid a $5 million ransom to DarkSide (the group later apologized for the social consequences of the hack). And the Treasury Department issued sanctions against a cryptocurrency exchange for the first time last month.

The DOJ says the NCET, which will provide expertise in blockchain and cryptocurrency transactions for the Justice Department and other US government agencies, will draw team members from the DOJs money laundering, intellectual property, and computer crimes divisions, as well as from US attorneys offices across the country.

The team will be under the supervision of Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite Jr. to start, but the Justice Department is seeking to hire someone who has experience with complex criminal investigations and prosecutions, as well as the technology underpinning cryptocurrencies and the blockchain, on a more permanent basis.

Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said in a statement that NCET would draw on the Departments cyber and money laundering expertise to strengthen our capacity to dismantle the financial entities that enable criminal actors to flourish and quite frankly to profit from abusing cryptocurrency platforms.

See the original post here:
US Department of Justice creates cryptocurrency enforcement unit - The Verge

Ethereum – What I Hate, Love, and Fear About the Cryptocurrency – Gadgets 360

Posted on by

Ethereum is NOT a blockchain. It's NOT a cryptocurrency either! It's actually a protocol (a set of rules or procedures). When you browse the Internet, you may have noticed that website URLs begin with an HTTP or HTTPS. That's hypertext transfer protocol. Emails use simple mail transfer protocol, post office protocol. All the coolest tech stuff runs on protocols.

Ethereum is a protocol. And multiple independent blockchains run on it - most popular being Mainnet, Grli, Kovan, Rinkeby, and Ropsten. These blockchains do NOT talk to each other.

When most people talk about Ethereum, they are talking about Mainnet - the primary public Ethereum production blockchain. This is where actual-value transactions occur on the blockchain. The native crypto of this Ethereum is Ether (ETH). At the time of writing, the price of 1ETH is $3,577or approximately Rs. 2,77,750. Let's stick to this definition for this post.

And then there's Ethereum Classic, the original version, with its native crypto ETC.The moral of the story so far is - There's more to Ethereum than meets the eye.Let's dive in.

I hate that Ethereum is neither "immutable" nor "censorship-resistant".Surprised? Let's go back to 2016.

A bunch of really smart people came up with the concept of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO). That's kind of like a cooperative society think co-op banks or even the Amul milk co-op. The difference being that a DAO exists only on a blockchain and its rules are coded in "smart contracts". By the way, smart contracts are neither smart nor contracts. But that's a rant for another day.

So anyway, this DAO raised about $150 million USD worth of ether (ETH) through a token sale. But a really smart hacker exploited a bug in the "smart contract" and siphoned out all the money!Now, logically nothing should have been done about this. Blockchains are "immutable" and "censorship-resistant", right? Again, that's a rant for another day.

But a bunch of people proved that Ethereum is neither "immutable" nor "censorship-resistant". They implemented a "hard fork" and rolled back Ethereum's history to before the hack.This reallocated the hacked ether to a different "smart contract" and allowed investors to withdraw their funds.

The purists hated this and that's what led to Ethereum splitting into 2 blockchains: Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.

Did you know?

Ethereum has pioneered decentralized finance (DeFi).

An amazing multi-billion dollar ecosystem has evolved around it:

The high price of ETH will kill Ethereum.As a blockchain, Ethereum is valuable only if startups, DAOs, and developers continue to build upon and use it.

Investors, on the other hand, don't give a rat's a** for the blockchain. They only want ETH to "moon" and "lambo". So as ETH soars, Ethereum becomes infeasible for users. Imagine this it costs $160 to transfer $100 worth of tokens! Yes, that's how ridiculous things have become.

This is leading startups, DAOs, and developers tomigrate to "Ethereum-killers" like Cardano and Solana.

Let's take an example to understand how silly this situation has become.

In the conventional world, we need fuel (petrol, diesel, coal, electricity, etc) to power the transportation sector (trains, planes, trucks, etc). Now suppose the price of fuel skyrockets. It would impact the entire global economy. Everything would become very expensive. The transportation sector would then be forced to move to alternativeenergy like solar.

That's what the ETH price is doing to the cost of doing business in the world of decentralized finance (DeFi). ETH is the fuel for DeFi. Raise its price and you destroy DeFi.

The secondthing I fearisthe sudden creation ofa huge number of ETH. Unlike Bitcoin which has a cap of 21 million coins, there is no limit on how much ETH can be created. So, if a rogue group suddenly created a huge quantity of ETH, its price could crash to near zero!

The third thing I fearis a major flaw or bug being exploited. Ethereum is undergoing a lot of technological upgrades to improve transaction speeds, reduce gas fees and migrate from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake. One major bug and ETH could lose its value and crash to zero.

Rohas Nagpal is the author of the Future Money Playbook and Chief Blockchain Architect at the Wrapped Asset Project. He is also an amateur boxer and a retired hacker. You can follow himon LinkedIn.

Interested in cryptocurrency? We discuss all things crypto with WazirX CEO Nischal Shetty and WeekendInvesting founder Alok Jain onOrbital, the Gadgets 360 podcast. Orbital is available onApple Podcasts,Google Podcasts,Spotify,Amazon Musicand wherever you get your podcasts.

Cryptocurrency is an unregulated digital currency, not a legal tender and subject to market risks. The information provided in the article is not intended to be and does not constitute financial advice, trading advice or any other advice or recommendation of any sort offered or endorsed by NDTV. NDTV shall not be responsible for any loss arising from any investment based on any perceived recommendation, forecast or any other information contained in the article.

Visit link:
Ethereum - What I Hate, Love, and Fear About the Cryptocurrency - Gadgets 360

Edward Snowden: CBDC Is a Perversion of Cryptocurrency – CryptoPotato

Posted on by

The infamous US whistleblower Edward Snowden criticized CBDCs potential impact on the financial network. He labeled them as a perversion of cryptocurrency and a cryptofascist currency, as they could grant a lot of power to the governments and leave less freedom to the people.

The computer programmer who worked as a subcontractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) Edward Snowden opined strongly against the potential use cases of central bank digital currencies. In a recent note called Your Money and Your Life, he opposed the belief that a CBDC will be the representation of the digital dollar, explaining:

I will tell you what a CBDC is NOT it is NOT, as Wikipedia might tell you, a digital dollar. After all, most dollars are already digital, existing not as something folded in your wallet, but as an entry in a banks database, faithfully requested and rendered beneath the glass of your phone.

Snowed further explained on Twitter the main disadvantages of central bank digital currencies:

A CBDC is a perversion of cryptocurrency, or at least of the founding principles and protocols of cryptocurrency a cryptofascist currency.

He added that launching the financial tool would put the government at the center of every transaction, meaning less ownership of money from the general population and thus less freedom.

As an example of his statement, Snowden pointed out China. There, the total ban on everything crypto, alongside the release of the digital-yuan, is intended to increase the ability of the State to impose itself in the middle of every last transaction.

The 38-year-old American, who now resides in Russia because of his issues with the US government, has been both a critic and an admirer of the leading cryptocurrency throughout the years.

He interacted with bitcoin after embezzling numerous classified documents from the National Security Agency, such as proof of mass government surveillance, espionage, computer hacking, and phone tapping. Snowden admitted he used BTC to help him reveal the stolen information:

The servers that I used to transfer this information to journalists were paid for using bitcoin.

In March this year, Snowden stated that the digital assets operational structure has many disadvantages, especially when it comes to financial privacy:

Bitcoin sucks in many ways, such as financial privacy.

Last week, though, he praised bitcoins stability, saying that the Chinese ban only strengthened it. Thus, he joined the party of people who believe that the harsh stance on crypto in the most populated country is a huge opportunity for further progress of BTC.

Featured Image Courtesy of Politico

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter POTATO50 code to get 50% free bonus on any deposit up to 1 BTC.

See more here:
Edward Snowden: CBDC Is a Perversion of Cryptocurrency - CryptoPotato

Is it ethical to invest in cryptocurrency? – Stuff.co.nz

Posted on by

OPINION: As someone whos seen many investment fads, I think most retail investors will lose money from crypto currencies.

It is gambling, not investing. And, like gambling, only a few insiders will win.

Simplicity has recently become an indirect investor in a local crypto currency exchange called Easy Crypto, via an Icehouse Ventures fund we are invested in.

We insist our suppliers have an approach to ethical investing consistent with ours, but this is a good example of how different groups can reach different conclusions. Another KiwiSaver manager has invested directly.

READ MORE:* Monday thoughts: Why an ethical KiwiSaver provider invested in cryptocurrency industry* Four free online tools for investors* Warren Buffett becomes sixth member of US$100 billion club

Easy Crypto is a local success story, professionally run by people who passionately believe in the power of crypto to change the world.

And because it facilitates the buying and selling of crypto, investing in it is legitimising the industry. You might not invest in drugs directly, but if you own shops that sell them, youre invested in the drug trade.

So is crypto unethical? It is debatable. We have four areas of concern.

The first is how bad it is for the environment.

Chris McGrath/Getty Images

Cryptocurrencies show no evidence of allowing the unbanked greater financial inclusion, says Simplicity KiwiSaver chief executive Sam Stubbs.

No one knows for sure how much power is used to create (or mine) crypto. Estimates range from the amount of power used by Finland each year, to that used by Brazil.

An authoritative source, the University of Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, calculates total consumption at over 80 GwH, or the equivalent of 23 coal fired power stations.

That is a huge amount of power for relatively few crypto users and miners.

And the more people that mine crypto, the more power is required. It currently costs between USD $7-11,000 of electricity to mine one bitcoin. But because they sell for much more, there is every incentive to carry on mining and pay the power costs.

Charlie Riedel/AP

Because cryptocurrencies require so much coal to be burnt to mine them, they are contributing to global carbon emissions. One estimate says crypto mining has the annual equivalent power requirements of a large country.

But is it the planet that really pays? The Cambridge study says 39 per cent of crypto uses at least some coal fired electricity, with the combined carbon footprint of London. Some crypto operators claim they only use renewable energy, although these claims have been challenged. But even if its true, it ignores the obvious consequence - the renewable power they use is unavailable to others, which forces the burning of more fossil fuels.

And an over-looked consequence of all the computing power required to mine crypto is the e-waste. The ever-increasing computing power required means hardware usually needs replacing every 18 months. It is too rarely re-used, or re-cycled. Credit to Icehouse Ventures and others who have backed local recycling company Mint Innovation, which extracts precious metals from e-waste.

The second concern is it exploits the poor.

In spite of assertions that crypto banks the unbanked, there is very little evidence to substantiate this. Quite the opposite in fact. Like gambling, it can hook them into yet another get rich quick scheme.

I have travelled enough in the developing nations to know that crypto features nowhere in daily transactions and cannot be used for essential financial services.

Fourteen years after the internet and mobile phones were invented, they were a viable way for the third world to access useful financial services. In contrast, 14 years after crypto was invented, almost no one is using it to transact anything useful.

SUPPLIED

E-waste recycling around the world is patchy at best.

Instead, crypto offers the poor the allure of getting rich quick by investing their hard-won savings.

And if crypto is just another form of gambling, and ethical investors wont invest in gambling, how is investing in crypto ethical?

Another virtue signal from crypto investors is that it is building a better financial infrastructure. This is a very dubious claim, and arguably virtue signalling. Better infrastructure is provided by the internet and blockchain, neither of which are exclusive to or because of, crypto.

Getty Images

Do cryptocurrencies offer better financial future for the poorest people in the poorest countries? Simplicity KiwiSaver chief executive Sam Stubbs says theres no evidence to support this claim.

The third concern is it harbours illegal activity.

The crypto world was designed to operate outside regulation and the law. So its a natural place to hide and launder the proceeds of crime. Some negate this by saying how little illegal money there is in crypto. But due to its untraceable nature, this is a dubious assertion.

Simple logic says the un-traceable and un-taxable nature of crypto means it is highly likely to be a magnet for criminals.

LAWRENCE SMITH/Stuff

Simplicity's Sam Stubbs says crypto was designed in ways that help criminals launder money.

And defenders say because criminals also use cash for laundering, crypto is no worse. But two wrongs dont make a right, and at least cash used for crime is traceable. Crypto simply isnt, and was designed to be that way.

And if taxes are the price of civil society, anything designed to hide wealth and avoid tax is, ipso facto, ethically questionable.

The fourth concern is how crypto thrives on ignorance and greed I first became concerned about the ethics of crypto when, on the same day, two Uber drivers told me they were in crypto, and asked me which one to buy. Neither had any real idea what they were investing in. They both used get rich quick, FOMO-fuelled language.

NZ Police/Supplied

Photos of the firearms, cash and gold organised crime gang individuals had possession over.

And the marketing used by the crypto industry is hardly re-assuring. Many use language very similar to pay day lenders.

At best, crypto is ethically questionable. At worst, it could be environmentally toxic, exploitative, fostering criminal activity and thriving on ignorance and greed. Ethical investors take note.

And when it comes to the motivation of greed, I will leave the last word to the worlds best investor, Warren Buffett.

Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.

Visit link:
Is it ethical to invest in cryptocurrency? - Stuff.co.nz