« First...102030...1,5361,5371,5381,5391,540...1,5501,5601,570...Last »

GitHub Universe the elephant in the room for open source is called ‘going commercial’ – Diginomica

Posted on by

The cloud is a key component of any companys digital transition path. Most businesses now understand that coming to grips with the cloud model and how to exploit it is an inevitable, unavoidable step. It is perhaps less understood that a consequence of this is that they must also come face to face with using open source software, even if only indirectly.

Such an observation might at first promote a `so what? response, the what? in question being just how much the world of applications development has changed as part of that cloud transition process. But in practice the change is significant, for a couple of important reasons.

For example, even as recently as 10 years ago the majority of applications development work was built around single vendor, proprietary code of one sort or another. Open source code was very much on the periphery, providing a way of building some of the then bleeding edge applications that were starting to appear.

Now, of course, it is reckoned that there is hardly an application produced that does not contain at least some open source code in it, with many being complex amalgams of existing open source components and new code. Couple this with its particular prominence throughout the world of cloud-specific applications and services and it is easy to see the reliance that enterprise users are now putting on it.

The other main issue is that open source code is developed by a global community of developers rather than companies. And even if, as now, the majority of those developers do work for companies, they are still part of that community and its spirit and sense of direction. What happens in that community can be more important to enterprise users than might ever have been the case in days gone by.

This has put new pressures high up the enterprise CIOs check list. Two particularly important areas concern what licences are being used by every component of an open source application, not least because that can be a cause of legal problems and contentions, and whether some of the older open source components are now being properly maintained. A third issue now emerging is the possibility that the open source community may take a dislike to some aspects of their work and decide not to do it.

That last point is, at least in part, a reference to GitHub itself, and the subject did raise its head at last weeks GitHub Universe conference in San Francisco. The organisation not only acts as a repository of the worlds open source contributors, ranging from major software companies down to individual developers, but also acts as their distributor and sales agent. This is where the issue comes to a head.

The involves GitHubs contract with ICE, the US Government Agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This is the agency which many in the USA feel is responsible for the separation of Mexican children from their parents at the US-Mexico border, and many including some in the open source community and some staff at GitHub itself. Employees have asked GitHub CEO, Nat Friedman, to cancel the contract, and one staff member has publicly resigned over the matter.

But rather than digress into the details of that issue, which has already been widely reported, it is worth considering the sea-change that is shaping up in the world of applications development. Whereas an employee of a software house had the option of leaving if they did not like what their employer was producing or the customers which bought, there was no other measure of control over matters than departing the fold. The all-important software licence was held by the employer.

With open source, however, that does not hold true. These days most software businesses are at least starting to build open source applications it makes sense in a cloud environment so they hold the licence for that application. But only up to a point.

The key advantage of open source is that developers can use code from a wide range of repositories held and maintained by GitHub, many of which are public. This makes application development much easier and quicker because lots of routine processes do not have to be `rewritten they are there in one of the repositories to be used. Indeed, GitHub makes its money from selling their use to commercial software developers.

But many of those code components have been developed by individuals or small teams of them and this is where problems can, and do, arise. It can be that the licence for a component does not allow for commercial use and this is getting to be far more likely as components once developed for, say, gaming purposes amongst groups of individuals for fun and entertainment, find their way into other commercial projects. The increasing use of both gaming and mobile app coding models in new cloud-native business applications means the use of existing code designed for that use makes a great deal of sense, but potentially opens up a large number of problems.

Similarly, it is these old open source code components that run the risk of being left unmaintained, yet unknowingly used in new applications that could, for example, leave business users at risk of finding themselves non-compliant with regulations covering their industry, or worse still with software failures that are very difficult to trace.

In a brief conversation with me, CEO Friedman did acknowledge that there was a growing risk that enterprises might feel increasingly threatened by the change in the balance of power and said it is something that GitHub is starting to address. In particular, he sees two of its most important announcements at the Universe Conference as directly addressing these problems.

There was, as might be expected, a goodly clutch of new products and services announced at the event, including a completely new environment for mobile applications that covers both Android and i/OS, both of which should be available early next year, and a re-engineering of the code repositories to make them more readily deliverable to users. The two key ones, particularly when it comes to helping enterprises manage their open source portfolios, are a new Sponsorship Scheme, and the new Code Vault.

The Sponsorship Scheme is the work of Project Manager Devon Zeugal, and is aimed at two audiences: one of them is the individual coder, where a person is felt by others (individuals or companies) to be making a contribution that is, for whatever reason, worthy of financial support to the work can continue. So now GitHub has engineered a service whereby the sponsorship monies can be managed and directed to that individual.

The same approach is being targeted at project management and it is this one that Friedman sees as being the tool through which user businesses can target those code components that are regularly used, but are no longer supported. It is hoped that the appearance of financial support to the code itself as a project will attract members of the community to provide on-going support into the future. This should prove significantly cheaper than a software house having to re-engineer the code itself to ensure on-going compliance.

The Archive idea has been developed by Director of Product Management, Kyle Daigle and Thomas Dohmke, Vice President of Special Projects. Its goal is to capture every bit of detail possible about every bit of open source code that has been written. This will include not only the source code but information about the developer(s), the modifications and updates and, of course, the licence information.

This is complementary to the work being done by the Software Heritage Foundation of the French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation, (INRIA), with which GutHub is collaborating on the project. One of its novel side issues is that it marks a new use for QR coding in that all the data about a code component is stored in that form on photographic film using a specially-prepared, long-lasting silver-oxide coating, according to Dohmke, it provides extremely high density, long-lasting storage.

It also provides commercial users with something of an audit trail for all the open source software components they are ever likely to use, together with information on the type of licence that applies. This could prove invaluable as open source code components become the backbone of just about every application being written. Access to code provide users with a high level of protection against a wide range of legal `gotchas.

All this comes back to the one issue that GitHub is currently not looking at, yet may have to at some time even if it will certainly raise some complex issues, especially when dealing with the hidden use of old, but perfectly workable code components in new applications. This is the question as to whether GitHub needs to address the commercial use question by developing some licensing structure of its own that specifically addresses the issue.

A discussion with Erica Brescia, GitHubs Chief Operating Officer, suggested that this not something the organisation is currently considering. In her view it is not GitHubs role to play in the ecosystem, and she doesnt see it being well received by developers if it were to prescribe the ways that developers should think about code licensing:

Now there are some things that we can do, like tell developers, that if they don't have any licence assigned their code, they might want to think about doing that. But I don't think we should be very prescriptive and how people think about that. We are at the centre in a way, but I think our role in the ecosystem is to educate, not to direct around licensing or anything else.

In her view, the problem does not occur that often, for with most licensing within bigger projects, when an individual or organisation contributes code to a project, there is usually a contributor licence agreement that gives the project the rights to that code moving forward. And so the project controls it and the contributor signs over their rights:

Now, there are cases where, if a company violates the licence terms of a particular piece of open source software, they can and have been successfully sued.

But the contentiousness of legality surrounding this area is only likely to get worse, especially where individual businesses then try to insert their own licences into the legal mix, especially when a competitor, say, addresses the same market requirement with a solution broadly based on the same open source code.

Companies with projects that they develop, have been looking at changing the licences to try to combat what they feel is kind of IP theft. But the perspective on that, for me is, if you put code out there under licence, you need to understand what people have the right to do with it and they're within their rights to build services on top of it.

Put simply, the terms of the several open source licences are geared towards protecting the interests of the contributors in ways that suit them. But they do not fit well with the needs of commercial software houses, especially when they have their own world of licensing to preserve and protect. There have already been legal incidents in the area, and it will quite likely get worse. It most certainly will not be easy, but there does seem to be a time coming when a new licensing structure for open source will be necessary, and GitHub, together with its contemporary/rival GitLab, would be well placed to develop, front up, and manage.

Here is the original post:
GitHub Universe the elephant in the room for open source is called 'going commercial' - Diginomica

People have noticed WeWork’s ‘sad’ empty booth at a big software developer conference – Business Insider

Posted on by

WeWork is in the process of massive layoffs this week as the company restructures after its failed attempt at an IPO.

When WeWork released the paperwork for the intended IPO, the company tried to position itself as a tech company rather than a real estate company. Since WeWork makes its money renting shared office space, not software, investors and pundits universally rejected that idea.

But WeWork did pursue all kinds of tech projects, under the auspices of now-ousted CEO Adam Neumann. The company had big hopes to offer its tenants various software apps, and at one pointsaid it employed 1,000 engineers, product designers and machine learning specialists. It even wrote about its technology choices from time to time on Medium.

That might explain why WeWork had a tiny booth at KubeCon, a big conference held in San Diego this week around Kubernetes, a Google-created open source software project that's become something of a standard in the cloud computing industry. The conference has an estimated attendance of 12,000.

WeWork was known to be a user of Kubernetes or, at least, it was interested in hiring people who knew how to use it. A recent WeWork engineering job posting listed Kubernetes as a "nice to have" skill, among a boatload of other trendy technologies.

Whether the purpose of the booth was to recruit developers, or to try and nab startups to rent WeWork office space, we may never know because the booth was, apparently, un-staffed for much of the event.

The sight of the empty booth was viewed as a symbol for the struggling company by more than one KubeCon attendee, who posted pictures of it on Twitter over the course of the day. One described the sight as "sad."

Go here to see the original:
People have noticed WeWork's 'sad' empty booth at a big software developer conference - Business Insider

Sweden drops Assange rape investigation after 9 years – CFJC Today Kamloops

Posted on by

Still, Persson said her statements have been coherent, extensive and detailed.

Elisabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer for the rape victim a Swedish woman who was never identified told Swedish broadcaster SVT that the plaintiffs information is supported by heavy written evidence plus verbal evidence in the form of doctors who examined the plaintiff.

To me that would be sufficient, she said.

However, the current prosecutor has done a thorough and solid job and she should be commended for that, Massi Fritz wrote according to Swedish news agency TT.

The decision follows a ruling in June by a Swedish court that Assange should not be detained. Two months earlier, Assange was evicted from the Ecuador Embassy in London where he had been holed up for nearly seven years. He was immediately arrested and is currently serving a 50-week sentence in Britain for jumping bail in 2012.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, said in a tweet that the focus should now move to the threat that Assange has been warning about for years: the belligerent prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the First Amendment.

Swedish authorities have been investigating Assange since August 2010, when two women accusedhimof sexual offences.Sweden thenasked Britain to extraditeAssangefor questioning, and in June 2012 he sought refuge in Ecuadors London embassy to avoid arrest. That request was granted two months later.

After that, the investigation stalled. Swedish prosecutors dropped the case of alleged sexual misconduct when the statute of limitations ran out in 2015, leaving only the rape allegation.

While denying the allegations in Sweden, he sought asylum for protection from possible extradition to the U.S. on charges.

Ecuador withdrew Assanges asylum status in April and Assange was arrested by British police. He was sentenced in May to 50 weeks in prison for jumping bail in 2012. He remains in prison after authorities ruled he was a flight risk and faces an extradition hearing next year to the U.S. to face spying charges.

There, the Australian faces an 18-count indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia that accuses him of soliciting and publishing classified information and with conspiring with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a Defence Department computer password.

___

Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark, contributed to this report.

David Keyton, The Associated Press

The rest is here:
Sweden drops Assange rape investigation after 9 years - CFJC Today Kamloops

Why 2019 has been a big year for the big-screen whistleblower – The Guardian

Posted on by

Karim Amer and Jehane Noujaims documentary The Great Hack, released directly to Netflix this past summer, opens at Burning Man. Its there that we find Brittany Kaiser, one-time business director of Cambridge Analytica, the consulting firm outed for misusing data harvested from Facebook and potentially affecting the outcomes of the 2016 presidential election and the Brexit referendum. The film gets up close and personal with Kaiser as she flees to Thailand and returns to Europe to testify against her former employer, CEO Alexander Nix.

She provides valuable insight on the extent of the companys wrongdoing, but the film refrains from making her out to be a hero. Amer and Noujaim instead go the print-the-legend route and cover the entire fog of controversy that soon surrounded Kaiser, as some applauded her stand in the face of power, and others denounced her as a complicit party looking to get some money or attention by turning on her boss.

Going by pure verisimilitude, documentary cinema has the edge on fictionalized films about real life, and the gulf of difference in how the two fields have approached portraying the whistleblower as a concept, and as a human individual lays that bare. With upper-level malfeasances all over the place and citizens desperate for someone to do something, the past year or so has seen an odd spike in movies about people speaking truth to power, no matter the consequences. These narrative works make use of a universal model of struggle, pitting a morally upstanding David against a sinister, institutional Goliath. This approach may amount to stirring drama, having someone easy to root for, but it all bears little resemblance to how similar events have played out beyond the cineplex. Everyone loves someone who does the right thing, but for the audience, only within the four walls of the theater can the right thing be so clear-cut.

The whistleblower is something of an American myth, a type ossified over decades of pop culture valorizing those who dare to go up against The System. Those are the terms of the conflict, always an all-but-independent operator (if they are a lawyer, the head of the firm will gruffly tell them to stop wasting resources and pursue something safer and more lucrative; if they are a journalist, this talk will come from an editor) who puts it all on the line to get some justice for the common folk, possibly unaware that theyve been victimized. The 2000 film Erin Brockovich managed the triple crown of box-office returns, critical praise, and Oscar glory for the retelling of a single mothers mission to mount a lawsuit against a gas-and-electric behemoth. It pushed all the right buttons: an incredible true instance of victory for the little guy, hard proof that good can still win out over evil.

That sure sounds like the model for Dark Waters, Todd Haynes account of the corporate lawyer Robert Bilotts decision to switch teams and prosecute DuPont Chemical for contaminating huge swaths of West Virginian land. But in interviews, Haynes has clarified that his central point of reference was in fact All the Presidents Men, the classic retelling of Woodward and Bernsteins investigation that uncovered Richard Nixons wiretapping at the Watergate Hotel. In any case, all three films revolve around what Haynes articulated to this writer in a soon-to-run interview as the sensation of discovering something covered up. The truth would be that covered-up something, and once our protagonist shines a light on it, whatever resistance may have come from management or ornery townspeople evaporates. These films court a feel-good response, even if the final moments of Dark Waters cycle through title cards explaining that DuPont continues to wreak wide-scale ruin on the environment. At least weve got someone out there fighting the good fight.

This draws a harsh contrast with the reception of whistleblowers in the US and UK of today, which has not been nearly as universally positive. Once again, documentary tells the real story; such recent films as Laura Poitrass Citizenfour and Risk, along with this past summers XY Chelsea, have all focused on the publics polarized impression of the political whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Their supporters have vaunted them as defenders of the republic, courting charges of treason just to expose crimes at the highest level of classified intelligence. Detractors have branded them traitors, their actions having jeopardized the security of American operatives just to promote a partisan agenda. An honest assessment lies somewhere in between, far closer to the former take, but these films recognize that the conflicted reception is the meat of the work.

Even when whistleblowers do face opposition, fictionalized films depict them in a less ambiguous light. As Dan Jones, the Senate investigator responsible for uncovering the horrific torture practices utilized by American forces at black sites in the war on terror, Adam Driver leads Scott Z Burns terrific procedural The Report. The drum-tight script focuses on Jones quest to get his scandalous memo on the inefficacy of torture out into the world, and while his efforts were hindered both by Republicans and the hesitation of his overseer Senator Dianne Feinstein (Annette Bening), the film concludes with him triumphant.

Same goes for Official Secrets, in which Keira Knightley plays the British translator Katharine Gun, leaker of confidential documents revealing that the US had illegally spied on diplomats deciding a UN resolution on the Iraq war. Like Jones, Gun cuts an admirable figure, unquestionably correct even in her difficult choices. These films sell a relatively sober version of a fantasy, in which sunlight really can be the best disinfectant. The revelation of ill deeds is all it takes to place the whistleblower in the right, while back on planet Earth, the people will dig their heels in on whatever beliefs theyve already held. Look no further than the current hubbub over the mystery agent who pulled back the curtain on Donald Trumps possibly impeachable conduct on a phone call with the president of Ukraine. In the future, when Jay Roach or whoever turns this all into an Oscar horse fall release, the anonymous subversive will undoubtedly get a swell of string music and a vindicating third act. Meanwhile, those at the uppermost levels of authority are figuring out how to get this person in prison, with ardent support from huge swaths of the populace.

A greater ethical clarity sadly absent from everyday life can exist in these films, where its not that the moral nuance gets flattened as much as our relation to it. In the new reboot of Charlies Angels, our everywoman Elena (Naomi Scott) discovers that the miracle doohickey manufactured by the tech giant she works for can be turned into a weapon, and she does what she thinks shes supposed to. For reporting the problem, shes rewarded with a dismissal from the office and later an attempt on her life, but the film takes good care of her. Shes a feminist icon, both for her scientific acumen and her moral compass, and she makes it official in the final scenes by becoming an Angel herself. Her heroism couldnt be plainer, and it earns her a feel-good finish the likes of which her real-world equivalents will never get to enjoy.

View original post here:
Why 2019 has been a big year for the big-screen whistleblower - The Guardian

Commentary: Why President Trump was right to intervene in Navy SEAL Gallagher case – The San Diego Union-Tribune

Posted on by

If you read history, especially firsthand accounts of war, it gives the brutal honesty of what war is. If we used the same legal microscope that governs our military today on our greatest generation, we would have convicted and jailed tens of thousands of soldiers and generals and even President Harry Truman; wars havent changed, but laws have. I understand we are not lawless pirates on the battlefield like our enemies, but the benefit of the doubt should always go to the person who is actually in the arena fighting for their lives and this country.

Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher never got that benefit of the doubt in our system, even though he was a highly decorated eight-time war veteran and among the few in this generation who has seen more combat than any in history.

Ultimately the president of the United States is accountable for the military and everything that happens during his watch; he is the commander in chief. He has a lot of influence on our country and our reputation around the world. Every president inherits a less than perfect country. But no matter what presidents inherit, they still own the outcome of their presidency; they need to make their own decisions.

It doesnt matter who you voted for, the president was elected to do what he thought best within his powers that the Constitution allows. Every president has generals and admirals who can give expert advice, which they can either take or dismiss. Im sure President George W. Bush was advised by some generals not to invade Iraq in 2003, but he did. Im also sure that generals advised President Barack Obama to not pull out of Iraq in 2011, fearing that it would fall to chaos, but he did. So its not unheard of for a president to decide unilaterally on major military decisions, opposing his most trusted experts. But the president is ultimately accountable. He can take the advice or dismiss it. That is how the system works. The military is led by a civilian by design; it didnt just happen.

The decision by these presidents to ignore their military leaders is not uncommon, nor is it significant that President Donald Trump did not take expert advice with regards to the case of Gallagher. It happens, and he has the authority and moral obligation to this nation to decide for himself; accountability cannot be delegated.

Soon after the invasion of Iraq, Eddie Gallagher went to Mosul and fought to take control of the city. More than a decade later, after we pulled out of Iraq, parts of the country fell to ISIS. Eddie went back and fought in Mosul in the same streets and buildings he risked his life in more than a decade earlier, all because of decisions made at the top that went against expert advice. If presidents decided to ignore experts on major war decisions that impact millions of lives, national security and world peace, what would taking expert advice now signal to the troops, the ones in the arena doing the fighting and suffering the consequences of higher decisions? During this second liberation of Mosul Eddies eighth combat deployment he was accused of premeditated murder of an ISIS fighter and faced life without parole.

Eddie went to a court-martial and was found not guilty of murder. Also, a witness admitted on the stand that he had taken the life of the wounded ISIS terrorist, not Eddie. Eddie was found guilty of a petty crime of taking a photograph with the dead body, which he never denied. But since he was at court-martial, it was a felony conviction, something that normally would have been nonjudicial punishment, and a slap on the wrist, had he not been on trial for a crime he was not guilty of.

Every president pardons or commutes sentences. The last president even commuted convicted traitor Chelsea Manning.

I believe President Trump has made his commanders intent about Gallagher crystal-clear. Eddies pretrial confinement of nearly a year is more than enough punishment for a photo. President Trump is the commander in chief, and clearly intends for Eddie to retire; I believe any further action against Gallagher may be seen as insubordination or as retribution. The president just wants to help a hero with his transition home.

Hiner, a retired Navy SEAL, is the author of First Fast Fearless and founder of the Hiner Group.

Read more from the original source:
Commentary: Why President Trump was right to intervene in Navy SEAL Gallagher case - The San Diego Union-Tribune

All whistleblowers are equal, as long as they hate Trump – RT

Posted on by

In his full-bore efforts to impeach President Donald Trump, Congressman Adam Schiff has repeatedly demanded that the whistleblower responsible for the fiasco need protection. Just dont mention Snowden, Assange or Manning to him.

The whistleblower reportedly a CIA officer whose name has been circulating in the media but remains officially anonymous kicked off the impeachment inquiry by claiming that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine unless President Volodymyr Zelensky reopened a corruption investigation into former US VP Joe Bidens family. Despite Trumps release of a transcript of the call that showed the allegation of quid-pro-quo was flimsy at best, Schiff has nevertheless pressed ahead.

Cue a parade of deep state bureaucrats testifying over whether or not this quid-pro-quo took place, the answer to which varies wildly depending on the witness, and often on the wording of the question. Schiff has repeatedly denied knowing the identity of the whistleblower, but cuts off any questioning by Republicans that comes remotely close to picking out the agency he works for, under the auspices of not outing him.

Schiff has even gone as far as to suggest that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity a statement that, for better or worse, is simply not true. He also insisted that it may put the person in danger. Yet he has not shown such care for any other whistleblowers.

Whatever his reasons, Schiff has demonstrated a remarkable turnaround in his opinion on whistleblowing. Back in 2016, then-ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee didnt defend National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden. Instead, Schiff signed off on a report accusing Snowden of serial lying, colluding with Russia, and spilling agency secrets for personal gain.

"Snowden and his defenders claim that he is a whistleblower, but he isn't," Schiff said. "Most of the material he stole had nothing to do with Americans privacy... The US government must hold him accountable for his actions.

Unlike the supposed quid-pro-quo arrangement spelled out by the mystery CIA whistleblower, the NSAs warrantless collection of Americans phone records was very much illegal, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Schiff and a bipartisan consensus of swamp-dwellers didnt expend any energy defending Snowdens rights, however. Instead, Schiff personally wrote to President Barack Obama, urging him not to pardon Snowden. The former NSA contractor now lives in Moscow, where he sought asylum from espionage charges.

Ditto for Chelsea Manning, the US Army whistleblower who handed evidence of US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq over to WikiLeaks. Though Mannings sentence was commuted by Obama in 2016, she was thrown back in jail earlier this year for refusing to testify against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Schiff couldnt care less about Manning, though. When asked about Mannings sentence by a reporter at a gay pride parade in 2014, the California congressman simply responded Im just here for the party today.

Nor does he care about Assange, jailed in Britain and facing extradition to the US for his role in publishing Mannings revelations. As Schiff and his fellow Democrats thundered non-stop about Russian collusion last year, Assange offered to meet with Schiff and show proof that no such collusion took place, according to an intermediary.

Schiff was neither interested in the truth nor in protecting Assanges rights. Our committee would be willing to interview Julian Assange when he is in US custody, not before, he responded.

Thus far, with the whistleblower absent from Schiffs hearings, all the impeachment inquiry has on Trump is that he practiced foreign policy in a way that was inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency, in the words of witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman on Tuesday. In other words, Trump set his own agenda when speaking to Zelensky, and didnt act as a sock puppet for the US deep state.

The whistleblowers testimony may also prevent Schiff from ad-libbing the content of the Trump-Zelensky phone call, as he did before Congress in September, in a bizarre attempt to divine the essence of what the president communicates. After all, if the star witness cant confirm the allegations, he also cant deny them.

The noncommittal conclusion of the Mueller report was seen as grounds for impeachment by certain Democrats, and as a complete exoneration by Trump and the GOP. In selling the public on Schrodingers impeachment inquiry, first-hand testimony from the whistleblower himself might send Schiffs house of cards tumbling down.

By Graham Dockery, RT

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Here is the original post:
All whistleblowers are equal, as long as they hate Trump - RT

As Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripples XRP, And Litecoin Lose Billions, This One Small Coin Has More Than Doubled – Forbes

Posted on by

The bitcoin and cryptocurrency market has lost a combined $170 billion since its year-to-date high set in June, with major tokens ethereum, Ripple's XRP, and litecoin all falling steeply.

The bitcoin price has almost halved, dropping from almost $14,000 to trade at around $7,600 today (though some heavyweight crypto investors remain upbeat).

However, one relatively minor cryptocurrency, chainlink, has more than doubled since June, jumping from around $1 to $2.55 after the company behind the token revealed a raft of partnerships and deals to use its technology.

After rallying hard earlier this year, the bitcoin price has been stuck on a downward trend for the ... [+] last few months, dragging the likes of ethereum, Ripple's XRP, and litecoin with it.

The chainlink token, which trades under the name link, began the year at $0.25, climbing to highs of around $4 per link token, before falling back along with the wider bitcoin and cryptocurrency market.

Chainlink is currently the 14th most valuable cryptocurrency by market capitalization, according to CoinMarketCap data, which counts bitcoin, ethereum, Ripple's XRP, bitcoin cash, and litecoin as the respective top five (excluding so-called stablecoin tether).

Chainlink, an ethereum token that powers the Chainlink decentralized oracle network allowing smart contracts on ethereum to connect to external data sources, APIs, and payment systems, has managed to stage a strong recovery since the late summer sell-off, breaking away from the wider bitcoin and crypto market, which has been falling steadily.

Some of chainlink's recent gains could be due to its efforts to expand into China just as China's president Xi Jinping has revealed the country will work to widely incorporate blockchain technology over coming years.

In April, the Chainlink organization hired a Chinese community manager.

Last month, Chainlink teamed up with Binance, the world's largest bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange by volume, to develop blockchain and smart contract-based so-called decentralized finance products, including lending, derivatives, and decentralized exchanges.

Back in June, the Chainlink organization began working with search giant Google and enterprise software company Oracle to help bridge their legacy payment systems and databases using blockchain technology.

Elsewhere, OpenLaw, which is developing decentralized peer-to-peer legal agreements, started working with the Chainlink organization in April on its smart legal contracts.

The chainlink price is up almost 700% over the last 12 months, compared to bitcoin's 75% rise over ... [+] the same period.

Some analysts have, meanwhile, been talking up chainlink's prospects.

"Id be lying if I said I havent been watching chainlink incredibly closely," Eric Thies, a popular bitcoin and cryptocurrency analyst on Twitter, told crypto news outlet CCN.

"I noticed a similar structure to ethereums price behavior in 2016 or, dare I say, bitcoin between 2011 and 2012. I wouldnt be surprised to see link hovering around $10 and making it to the top 10 cryptocurrencies in CoinMarketCap by mid-2020."

Other crypto watchers have though warned chainlink investors that the token's bull run could be coming to an end.

"Anything can happen, [chainlink] often defies gravity," bitcoin and crypto trader Scott Melker said via Twitter alongside technical charts and analysis of the chainlink price. "But never bad to take profit if you have the chance."

Go here to read the rest:

As Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripples XRP, And Litecoin Lose Billions, This One Small Coin Has More Than Doubled - Forbes

Bitcoin Crashes Back to $7.4K Completely Wiping Out the October Rally – Cointelegraph

Posted on by

Bitcoin (BTC) finally dropped all the way down to the $7.4Ks in minutes as anticipated in our previous analysis if the key $7.8K level did not hold.

Cryptocurrency market daily performance. Source: Coin360

Over the past week, BTC/USD has faced a slow grind down to the $8,000 price level. Now, Bitcoin also broke below its 0.786 Fibonacci retracement level as well its last major level before a confirmed full retrace of the Oct. 25 rally to $10,500.

After a short bounce, Bitcoin has bounced back to around $7,600 at press time.

As Cointelegraph reported, rumors of Chinese authorities raiding Binances Shanghai offices were likely also responsible for the drop. However, the exchange said that they had not received a notice from Chinese authorities, which required Binance to detail its activities.

Specifically, a Binance spokesperson denied the rumors, saying:

Binance has no fixed offices in Shanghai or China, so it makes no sense that police raided on any offices and shut them down. [...] There has been a recent spike in the number of negative articles and activities against Binance in China. We wouldn't delve too much into what causes this, because we prefer to continue BUIDLing our solutions.

Nevertheless, after several days of choppy price action, BTC/USD finally posted a decisive drop below $8,000 falling under its 0.786 Fibonacci retracement level at $7,870 and plummeting all the way down to $7,390.

This was the level of consolidation prior to the historic 42% price rise on Oct. 25.

BTC USD daily chart. Source: TradingView

If Bitcoin falls further below $7,307, it may indicate its bullish swing up to $10,500 on Oct. 25 was a fluke, resulting in net sideways action for the past month. Furthermore, a bearish outlook might even see BTCs recent $10,500 upswing as a significant bullish correction albeit in a continuation of a general downward trend.

On a bullish note, however, Bitcoin did not yet breach the previous low and bounced with a fair bit of strength from $7,390 up to $7,640.

Market analyst Keith Wareing meanwhile anticipated the drop, shorting BTC to the $7.4K level, and then immediately taking a long position.

Decided that shorting to $7,350 was the logical move after the support on the Bollinger Bands was broken on all major time frames, said Wareing. If $7350 wasnt to hold, Willy Woo and Tone Vays would be right, and as there are no pigs in the sky or ice in hell, I knew it was the bottom.

If Bitcoin continues to tumble, however, $7,230 may provide a bit of support. Although beyond that, not much buying strength exists before the $6K range.

If $6,000 breaks as easily as it did to the upside in May, however, significant support exists between $5,800 and $5,000 as the market spent considerable time in this region earlier in 2019.

Additionally, the 200-week moving average (MA) now sits at $4,890. At the bottom of the last bear market in 2018, Bitcoins 200-week MA acted as strong support near $3,200. BTC has not closed below its 200-week MA since 2015.

XTZ USD daily chart. Source: TradingView

Tezos (XTZ), on the other hand, was the only standout today gaining on news that the French army is using the Tezos blockchain. But the rally didnt last long. The staking-based digital asset saw a high of $1.30 before dropping down to $1.19 at press time.

See the rest here:

Bitcoin Crashes Back to $7.4K Completely Wiping Out the October Rally - Cointelegraph

No, Bitcoins Circulating Supply is Not 18 Million – BeInCrypto

Posted on by

A recent analysis from CoinMetrics hints that over 1,500,000 Bitcoins could permanently be out of the total circulation. While BTCs active supply should currently be over 18 million, the quantity fell short.

Notably, on October 19 this year, 18 million BTC officially entered circulation, which happened at block 600,000. At this time, the community began cheering up as it highlighted the end of the inflation process for Bitcoin. However, things arent as they appear. The supply reportedly fell short which brought on a sense of fear, where are these lost coins going?

In essence, the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, capped the asset to a supply of 21 million coins, which highlights the scarcity of the giant digital asset. Bitcoin halves every four years on average, and with the latest finding, the network must have put BTCs circulating supply at approx 18 million Bitcoins. But the actual supply seems much lower than the reported figure, i.e 16 million BTC. Consequently, the difference between these figures drove the concept of lost coins.

Being a digital currency data and research site, CoinMetrics divided lost Bitcoin into two different segments provably lost and probably lost. The subject of lost coins often comes with the debate that Bitcoins most significant value proposition is scarcity. Interestingly, however, when Satoshi created the Bitcoin protocol, they clarified that lost coins could also be stolen, burned or even forgotten. Nevertheless, he had also mentioned that the lost coins make everyone elses coins worth slightly more.

According to CoinMetrics study, provably lost coins are those 50 BTC coins that are locked in the first block. The research firm adds:

The result is that those 50 BTC are not present in Bitcoins ledger, even if they are visible in a transaction included in the main chain.

As the firm dives into the calculation, it stresses that;

In total, we can compute Bitcoins actual supply at block 600,000 working backward from the expected 18M BTC value and subtracting what is provably lost, the study details. This figure of 17,999,817 BTC as of block 600,000 is the technically correct view of Bitcoins supply.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Twitter.

Did you know you can trade sign-up to trade Bitcoin and many leading altcoins with a multiplier of up to 100x on a safe and secure exchange with the lowest fees with only an email address? Well, now you do!Click here to get started on StormGain!

See the rest here:

No, Bitcoins Circulating Supply is Not 18 Million - BeInCrypto

Bitcoin: The hero’s journey – CoinGeek

Posted on by

Bitcoin is an archetypal element. It is simultaneously a general purpose tool for the masses while it is also the proverbial Excalibur to be wielded by the new world economy. In many ways, Bitcoin can also be described as the hero of its own story arc, as well as the reward for the hero to obtain from the stoneis that a mining metaphor?

But why is Bitcoin on a heros journey? The brief answer is that it is because it must be.

Humans react to great story-telling because we are programmed to respond to an elemental story arc. The Book of Jonah, The Odyssey, Rocky or Star Wars: the details dont matter because although the contexts are different, the story is the same. They appeal to the masses because of our deep desire to progress from the mundane, fight through challenges and then achieve a great victory.

Despite popular memeing about the financial crisis of 2009, Bitcoin actually evolved from the mundane financial climate of 2008. A peer-to-peer electronic cash system was simply designed to fulfill the goal of reducing friction for online payments per the opening words of the Bitcoin whitepaper. The real journey began almost immediately as the crisis hit headlines, and people began to discover bitcoin; fresh to the world but brimming with potential.

This signalled Bitcoins call to adventure: use by advocates of sound money and intrepid young businessmen looking to accumulate Bitcoin early, and also criminals seeking a new tool to give them an edge in illicit commerce. During Bitcoins first adventure, lessons were learned and proof of work had accumulated to be used later on in the journey.

The next phase of Bitcoins journey was the establishment of the mentors and the heros choice to move toward the light or the darkness. The initially bad choices in the journey led to the disappearance of Satoshi and the emergence of the villains who brought on the great ordeal: The three long years of scaling debate. Bitcoin emerged bruised and battered, but also resolute and wise. Realizing that the foundational wisdom of Satoshi was better than the advice of the antagonists, Bitcoin emerged from the trials of fire with a renewed understanding of what made it great at the beginning.

This is where we are today. Bitcoin has had many victories and taken some painful shots. It has the scars to prove that it battled the dragons until it was strong enough to fly among them. After stripping away the baggage of shoddy alliances, our hero is on the road back; guided by the members of the Bitcoin SV (BSV) economy.

Enemies still exist, and there are more battles to be waged. But Bitcoin is nearing catharsis with the Genesis upgrade in February, when it will be ready to compete against its foes from a position of the limitless bounds that it earned during the trials of the journey.

In conclusion, we are nearing that final showdown, and our opponents dont think they can lose. They also have not been training nearly as hard as those of us adding value to BSV with the businesses being built on chain. Bitcoin SV is coming to this fight with more transaction growth than any other blockchain, more capacity, more great ideas and more hungry entrepreneurs than the cryptosphere has seen in years.

Prepare to see an unbelievably grand finale!

To receive the latest CoinGeek.com news, special discounts on CoinGeek Conferences and other inside information direct to your inbox, please sign up for our mailing list.

See the original post:

Bitcoin: The hero's journey - CoinGeek


« First...102030...1,5361,5371,5381,5391,540...1,5501,5601,570...Last »