« First «...10 20 30...196 197198199 200...210 220 230...»Last »

Gov. Newsom Criminalizes the First Amendment NSSF – National Shooting Sports Foundation

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

July 15, 2022

By Matt Manda

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsoms new law to ban firearm advertising attractive to minors has criminalized First Amendment freedom of speech. Its not a law protecting children as the governor frames it.

Those who are backing this industry can no longer market to our children. The idea that we even have to do this is ridiculous, Gov. Newsom decried on Twitter. This law by the way goes into effect immediately. Because decent human beings, people with common sense, know that we should not be allowing this kind of disgusting marketing to go on another day.

Gov. Newsom held a .22-caliber youth model rifle and called it a weapon of war while pointing it directly at the cameraman.

What the governor and his handlers refuse to accept is his intentional and ill-conceived law is not a gun control law but is one restricting the First Amendment. Therein lies his greatest problem.

The law, AB 2571, prohibits firearm industry businesses, including gun and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, retailers and ranges, from advertising or marketing any firearm-related product, as defined, in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. State authorities are the arbiters determining if an advertisement is attractive to minors.

Bearing Arms Cam Edwards labelled the law as hog wash.

The fact that California Democrats seem to be targeting youth shooting sports specifically, if not explicitly, is evidence that this new law isnt about reducing firearm access to youth, Edwards wrote. That is what Gov. Newsom has in mind. Its not about stopping criminal firearm violence. Its not about holding criminals accountable for their crimes. Its always been about limiting the rights of law-abiding Californians.

Under the new law, potentially offending ads will include caricatures that reasonably appear to be minors or cartoon characters used to promote firearm-related products. That could be the use of images or depictions of minors in marketing materials. The law specifically forbids ads in publications created for the purpose of reaching an audience that is predominately composed of minors.

Californias new law would impose a $25,000 minimum penalty for sponsoring any adult-supervised youth shooting event. That includes the states Department of Fish and Wildlifes hunter education courses. Boy Scout target shooting merit badges could even be included.

While the law targets youth hunting, safe and responsible firearm education and more, as much as Gov. Newsom would like it to be, its not about the Second Amendment. Its about the freedom of speech First Amendment.

Now that Gov. Newsom signed this law, testimony at the state legislature in opposition to it regarding the laws premise is more relevant.

First Amendment Scholar Professor Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA, testified in opposition to the bill while it was being considered in the states legislature.

Prof. Volokh slammed the bill as an attack on Free Speech rights, saying, I think even the bill as proposed to be amended would be unconstitutional, for three reasons: One, it would cover fully protected political speech, not just commercial advertising; Two, even as to commercial advertising, the law is unconstitutionally vague: It covers any ads that are attractive to minors, even if they are equally attractive to legal adult buyers; and Three, the law also covers constitutionally protected commercial advertising, such as the use of caricatures of minors or cartoon characters in ads that are clearly targeted at adults who lawfully buy guns that their children could use for legal hunting or target shooting.

There are already lawsuits filed, including by Second Amendment gun rights groups and pro-hunting youth recreational shooting organizations. Still, California Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta, said his office will, take any and all action under the law to defend Californias commonsense gun laws.

Gov. Newsoms efforts to impose more gun control is not surprising. Its always been about doing what he can to crush Second Amendment rights. Now, hes stepping on First Amendment rights to show he sees no limit to his anti-gun agenda. Its Gov. Newsoms new blatant and unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.

How to Fix the Bias Against Free Speech on Campus – The Atlantic

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

A recent investigation of eight abortion-rights supporters at American University, in Washington, D.C., offers yet more evidence that college administrators and diversity-and-inclusion bureaucratssome of whom undermine free speech as if their job duties demanded itneed new checks on their power.

This matter began in May, shortly after the Supreme Courts draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization leaked, prompting numerous law students at American to join an online chat about the impending diminution of abortion rights. One student fretted about whether conservatives would overturn other precedents conferring rights to buy contraception, or to marry a partner of the same sex or of a different race. What are they going to go after next? the student wrote. Griswold? Obergefell? Loving?

A classmate replied, As a Republican, I find it insulting that conservatives would be thought of as overturning peoples civil rights. After another classmate interjected, Can we shut the fuck up about personal opinions while people process this? the Republican student responded. I find it interesting how the call to silence our personal opinions happens after I defended my deeply-held religious beliefs and yet nobody has mentioned that same sentiment about the pro-abortion posts. The discussion was deeply offensive to both me and my Greek Orthodox faith, he declared. On a campus that adequately valued students free speech, thats where the matter would have ended, with everyone having expressed their opinion.

Instead, the offended Republican student filed a harassment complaint. Then the Office of Equity and Title IX at American sent a formal letter to eight students alerting them that all were under investigation for allegedly harassing a classmate on the basis of his political affiliation and religious beliefs, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free-speech-advocacy group that took up the accused students cause.

Conor Friedersdorf: Why I cover campus controversies

Cases like this underscore the problem with administrators, often operating within or in conjunction with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) bureaucracies, who investigate speech on behalf of any complaining party no matter how weak their underlying claims. Some of the most easily offended university students in America have become adept at characterizing any speech they dislike as if it creates an unsafe, discriminatory, or hostile climate, or else constitutes harassment or even violence; and many of the accused find that being investigated in such cases is a punishment in itself.

Thats why, last month, I proposed a way to rein in such investigations: Universities should empower their faculty to check administrators and DEI staffers who undermine freedom of speech. If professorsor perhaps representatives chosen by professorscould sanction and, in extreme cases, terminate anyone who violates First Amendment rights or free-expression policies, administrators would have a powerful new incentive to avoid speech-chilling excesses. Administrators and DEI officials can, of course, be disciplined or fired by higher-ranking university bureaucrats, but they are essentially unaccountable to the scholars and students whose expression they are stifling. Faculty members are more likely than bureaucrats to understand that free speech is essential to academic freedom. On many campuses, when administrators have infringed on faculty or student rights, professorsespecially law professors steeped in First Amendment lawhave been unafraid to speak up.

Conor Friedersdorf: Professors need the power to fire diversity bureaucrats

A spokesperson at American argued in an email to me that universities are legally required to review all discririmination complaints and added that during the fact-finding process, no adverse action is taken by the university against any individuals. He went on to say that Americans Office of Equity and Title IX reviews only those matters related to a viable claim of discrimination and does not investigate matters related solely to disagreements based in speech.

But Alex Morey, a FIRE attorney who wrote to the university on the accused students behalf, lambasted Americans approach. This is absurd, he stated. Theres nothing even approaching harassment or discrimination in the chat. American cannot let its process for investigating actual discrimination and harassment be weaponized to investigate students opinions, but thats exactly whats happening. One of the accused students, Daniel Brezina, was similarly incredulous. I cant believe American is investigating us for having a frank discussion about abortion access, he said in a statement released by FIRE. This is going to have a massive chilling effect on honest discussions at the school. What good could possibly come of that? The investigation dragged into July before the students were told that they were not ultimately found responsible and would escape punishment.

Genevieve Lakier: The great free-speech reversal

When students can be investigated on the thinnest of pretexts and risk punishment for poorly defined transgressions, the safe approach is to self-censor rather than engage in exchanges on any sensitive subject. College administrators are seldom, if ever, punished for violating free-speech rights, even as they face significant incentives to expand the size and scope of their bureaucracies and to placate the aggrieved to avoid protests or negative publicity.

In recent weeks, Ive discussed my proposed solution to this problem with a variety of people in higher educationsome of whom, I should note, reject it entirely. I must disagree with the grounding premise that DEI administrators are serving to squash free speech and expression of University faculty members, Maria Dixon Hall, the chief diversity officer at Southern Methodist University, told me by email, noting that more senior administrators are typically calling the shots. She added, Inclusion is challenging to operationalize and enforce. But unfortunately, DEI Officers are made scapegoats by those on each side who feel we have too much power or not enough.

I say that the Princeton professor Robert George has it right. In an email to me, he noted that universities have rules, some of which protect free speech. University officials who violate those rules by trampling others free expression should not be exempt from punishment, he suggested.

George wrote,

Their rule-breaking should be treated no differently than the rule-breaking of faculty members, students, or anyone else in the community. Whats more, freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression are so foundational and central to the mission of universities that violations of peoples rights in this area need to be treated as extremely serious offenses subject to sanctions in line with those typically imposed on students and faculty for plagiarism, for example, or other serious acts of academic dishonesty.

At present, few institutions, if any, recognize overzealous speech investigations as serious transgressionsincluding in instances when courts rule that college administrators violated the legal rights of faculty, students, or members of the public.

Even among college professors who find the status quo unsatisfactory, there are doubts about whether empowering faculty to discipline administrators is a viable or optimal solution. Michael Behrent, a history professor at Appalachian State University, in North Carolina, believes diversity is an important goal, and that diversity officials can be useful, but that their current approach does result in efforts to undermine academic freedom. I think your basic idea is correct, namely, that there should be a mechanism for holding administrators accountable so that they respect academic freedom and free speech rights, he told me in an email. The problem is that what you propose is almost completely unrealistic in the current university environment in the US Its virtually inconceivable to imagine a modern university that would grant faculty the kind of authority you describe. I cant even imagine such a proposal lending itself to discussion. It would be rejected outright. This is not reflective of your proposal, but of the current situation in higher education.

Others feared that if my proposal were put into practice, faculty members might ally with administrators against free speech, or fail to protect free speech. Professors have incentives to avoid antagonizing the university brass. DEI officials, after all, are part of a sprawling administrative bureaucracy that, as Dan Eisenberg, a University of Washington professor, notes, has substantial powers in many different areas of campus, such as deciding where money goes to support raises, new hires, teaching assistants, research, retention, and lab space. If an administrator lies, cheats or steals, I might not want to go after them to the fullest extent the system permits, Eisenberg explains. I might get the particular administrator to have to publicly admit their wrongdoing and face some consequences, but if they or their allies stay in power, I might lose more over the long term. Many academics spend decades at the same institution.

Conor Friedersdorf: The threat to free speech, beyond cancel culture

Any effort to empower scholars against university bureaucrats would need to take account of those potential pitfalls. But all thats required to test out my approach is one institution willing to experiment, probably over the objection of administrators. In California, where I live, reform of the flagship state university system could be achieved by state legislators, the University of California Board of Regents, or a ballot initiative. I would urge the UC system to create an Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech and Expression Commission, which might be composed of, say, 15 First Amendment experts chosen by the law faculties of UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Hastings, UC Irvine, and UC Davis.

Any time administrators wanted to open an investigation into the speech of a faculty member or student based on someone elses complaint, they would need approval from the commission. Members would analyze the speech in question to determine if the speecheven if accurately described by the complainantwould nevertheless be allowed under the First Amendment or university policy. If so, the matter ends there, and administrators are denied permission to act. As Morey told me, When its painfully obvious that the only issue is a matter of students exercising their expressive rights, the only appropriate response is to stop any proceedings lest they chill speech. Even notifying students theyre being investigated for protected speech can chill them from expressing themselves in the future.

If this approach works for the UC system, other universities might well mimic it. The commission could also review complaints from faculty or students who allege that University of California administrators or staff abrogated their freedom of expression or academic-freedom rights, with any faculty member serving on the commission recusing themselves on any matter that originates on their home campus to safeguard against perverse incentives. Administrators would be subject to investigation and sanction for violating the law or policy, enjoying due process and appeals rights as strong as whatever they offer students.

Of course, any public-university system could try a similar approach. And any private college could experiment with variations adapted to its size and needs. I wish several institutions would try different experimental variations, because new threats to intellectual freedom keep emerging.

At the University of Washington, for example, the computer-science professor Stuart Reges is suing administrators, alleging that they violated his constitutional rights by encouraging faculty to include land acknowledgments in course syllabi and then punishing him when they disagreed with the viewpoint that he expressed. (Reges, who views land acknowledgments as empty and performative, wrote, I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.) If a court finds in Regess favor, wouldnt it be better if representatives of the faculty had some way to sanction the relevant administratorsas compared with a system where administrators can violate a persons rights without themselves suffering any professional consequences?

Im not suggesting that sanctioning misbehaving administrators and diversity bureaucrats should be a scholarly communitys only defense against excessive investigations. The academics whom I consulted proposed a range of alternative or complementary measuressuch as faculty unionization and the careful cultivation of ties with the press and First Amendment lawyersby which professors can at least protect their own academic freedom and at best promote a broader culture of free expression.

Do professors want to be newly empowered, or continue ceding control over the university to administrators? That, to me, is the biggest question about the approach I propose: not whether faculty could eventually win a fight to wield some check on free-speech violations by administrators, but rather, whether faculty care enough to claw back power. When it comes to free speech, do enough members of the professoriate care to do the work?

What happens when you have a beef with a judge? – Iowa Capital Dispatch

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

It was not in the menu, but there was a heaping helping of irony served up one evening last week at a restaurant in Washington, D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was dining at Mortons steakhouse. Demonstrators were outside, intent on ensuring he left with indigestion and not just a full belly.

At the center of this dinnertime dust-up was the right to choose interposed next to the right to chew. That is part of an ongoing debate over where such protests are appropriate.

The demonstrators oppose the Supreme Courts recent decision ending the Constitutions guarantee that women have a right to an abortion under certain circumstances.

That issue was front and center outside Mortons just as it has been in demonstrations in dozens of communities across the United States, including Iowa. People have peacefully gathered to express their views on the decision to end Roe vs. Wades protections for women.

Kavanaugh has been the target of many protesters, not only because he was one of the votes in favor of overturning Roe, but also because he assured us during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2018 that Roe was an important legal precedent that has been reaffirmed many times.

Whether you support the courts recent decision or not, we should all agree peaceful demonstrations are one of the freedoms that need to be protected in the United States. Of course, it is ironic how peoples views of the appropriateness of demonstrations and picketing change as the issues change.

About the demonstration at Mortons:

Critics of the Supreme Courts decision jumped on the symbolism of the reaction to the encounter on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant. At the same time,critics of the demonstration focused on the issue of people invading Kavanaughs privacy and keeping him from dining in peace.

Mortons management criticized the unruly behavior of the protesters. The restaurant statement caused some supporters of the demonstrators to choke on the assertion that the rights of restaurant patrons should not be infringed upon.

Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner, the restaurant said.

While some people were angered by the intrusions into the private lives of Supreme Court justices, other people mocked such concerns by using language similar to that in the Supreme Courts decision.

Alexandra Petri, a Washington Post columnist, wrote: The right to congregate and eat dinner is actually not to be found anywhere in the Constitution.

But there was much more at stake than steak in the demonstration outside Mortons.

There is that matter of peoples right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of their grievances, two foundations of the First Amendment. And there is the question of whether public officials like the justices should have to live by the same rules they set for the rest of us to follow.

This is where another helping of irony gets served up.

Some of the supporters of the Supreme Courts abortion decision have been vocal critics of demonstrators marching in front of the justices homes. These critics have expressed concern for the safety of the jurists and their families. They also have said the homes of justices should be off limits so the officials can go about their lives free of harassment.

There is irony, because the Supreme Court has for many years put the large public plaza in front of its own building off-limits to demonstrators. And in the weeks leading up to the abortion ruling, the court established a much larger buffer zone around its building, with an 8-foot-tall fence to keep demonstrators farther away.

Contrast that with the Supreme Courts past decisions in which the justices concluded that even a 35-foot-wide buffer zone around abortion clinics was an unconstitutional restriction on the First Amendment rights of abortion opponents to express their views and confront doctors and patients.

In a 1988 case, the court did uphold the constitutionality of a Wisconsin law that prohibited targeted picketing outside peoples houses. The issue then was protesters carrying baby killer signs who gathered outside the homes of doctors.

But the tables have turned now.

Then, it was people who were pro-choice who wanted targeted picketing banned. Now, it is people who are pro-life who support a ban on picketing outside homes of people like Brett Kavanaugh.

Then, it was doctors and employees of abortion clinics who feared for their safety. Now, it is judges and their families who have that fear. And both groups concerns are legitimate.

Through the years, several doctors and clinic employees have been murdered by pro-life zealots. Last month, a retired Wisconsin judge was killed in his home by man he had sent to prison a decade ago. Five days later, an armed man was arrested in the middle of the night outside Kavanaughs house.

There are other places to peacefully express our views without clogging the sidewalks in front of peoples homes, leaving occupants to fear a wacko might be in the group. Thats true whether a Supreme Court justice lives there or whether its an employee of an abortion clinic.

This is where common sense should come in.

Go here to see the original:

What happens when you have a beef with a judge? - Iowa Capital Dispatch

Grading the SCOTUS: Originalism Rules, and That’s a Good Thing – Heritage.org

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

The three words that best describe the Supreme Courts decisions this term are text, history and tradition. If thats one word too many, try this: Originalism Rules! And thats a good thing.

The court considered several important constitutional cases this term. The split in most of these cases was six-to-three, with the conservative justices in the majority and the liberal justices in dissent.

In the biggest case,Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, a five-justice majority ruled the Constitution has no right to obtain an abortion. This overturnedRoe v. Wade(1973) andPlanned Parenthood v. Casey(1992).

Nearly 50 years ago, Justice Byron White, in hisRoedissent, wrote that the errant ruling represented an exercise of raw judicial power. Similarly, John Hart Ely, an eminent scholar who supported abortion rights, stated thatRoewas not constitutional law and g(ave) almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

>>>5 Monumental Cases That Highlighted the Supreme Courts 2021-2022 Term

Those views were reflected in the majority opinion forDobbs, written by Justice Samuel Alito. He noted that the right to an abortion is not in the Constitutions text, nor was it part of our nations history or traditions. Indeed, virtually every state outlawed abortion when the Constitution and the 14th Amendment were ratified.

The court also decided on an important Second Amendment case,NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the six-to-three majority opinion, striking down a New York law requiring law-abiding citizens who passed a background check to demonstrate a special needbeyond a general desire to defend oneselfbefore being permitted to carry a firearm outside the home.

The court said that such a restriction was not supported bydrumroll pleaseeither the amendments text or the nations historical traditions. The court further stated that the amendment was the product of an interest balancing by the people and that it was improper for a court to engage in a judge-empowering interest-balancing inquiry once the protections of the amendment had been properly invoked.

In an important religious liberty case,Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the six-justice majority opinion ruling that a school violated the free exercise and free speech rights of a high school football coach when it fired him for offering a silent post-game prayer at midfield. The court relied uponyou guessed ithistorical practices and the original meaning of the First Amendments text in reaching its decision.

The court also finally declared that the courts much-criticized three-part test for analyzing Establishment Clause cases, promulgated inLemon v. Kurtzman(1971)which Justice Antonin Scalia once described as some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buriedwas indeed dead.

The court also sided with religious adherents in other significant religious liberty and free speech cases, includingCarson v. Makin,Shurtleff v. City of Boston, andRamirez v. Collier. Senator Ted Cruz also won a significant victory against the Federal Election Commission in which the court, again by a six-to-three vote, held that an FEC rule violated the First Amendment rights of candidates wishing to make personal loans to their own campaigns to engage in pure political speech.

And inNFIB v. OSHA,West Virginia v. EPAandAlabama Assoc. of Realtors v. HHS, the court (again via 6-3 votes) held that separation-of-powers principles require Congress to speak clearly before an administrative agency consisting of unaccountable bureaucrats can exercise nearly unlimited power over decisions of great economic and political significance.

>>>Supreme Courts Ruling in West Virginia v. EPA Delivers Win for Self-Government, Affordable Energy

In his dissenting opinion in the infamous case ofDred Scott v. Sandford, Justice Benjamin Curtis stated: When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men who, for the time being, have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their views of what it ought to mean.

During this momentous term, the court made great strides toward interpreting the Constitution with fidelity and restoring the rights of all Americans to govern themselveswith the exception of those few individual rights that are delineated in our Constitution or firmly rooted in our nations historical traditionsdebating, persuading and deciding contentious issues directly or through their elected representatives.

In terms of interpreting and adhering to the Constitution, I give the court an A-plus.

See the original post here:

Grading the SCOTUS: Originalism Rules, and That's a Good Thing - Heritage.org

Bitcoin (BTC) price bottom: Here’s what the market wants to see

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

Cryptocurrencies have taken a tumble in 2022.

Chesnot | Getty Images

An improvement in macroeconomic factors, a particular trading pattern and a further shakeout of companies and projects could be the key ingredients required for bitcoin and the broader crypto market to bottom, industry players told CNBC.

Bitcoin has plummeted more than 70% from its record high in November with around $2 trillion wiped off the value of the entire cryptocurrency market.

For the last few weeks, bitcoin has been trading within a tight range between $19,000 and $22,000 with no major catalyst to the upside and traders trying to figure out where the bottom is.

Here are some of the factors that could help the crypto market find a floor.

Bitcoin has been hurt by the macroeconomic situation of soaring inflation that has forced the U.S. Federal Reserve and other central banks into hiking interest rates which has hurt risk assets such as stocks.

Cryptocurrencies have seen some correlation with U.S. stock markets and have fallen in tandem with stocks.

There are also fears of a recession but an improving macroeconomic picture could help the crypto market find the bottom.

"I think if inflation is under control, the economy is under control, there is no really severe recession" then the market will stabilize, CK Zheng, co-founder of a cryptocurrency-focused hedge fund ZX Squared, told CNBC in an interview.

U.S. inflation data for June came in hotter-than-expected on Wednesday, deepening fears that the Fed will get more aggressive in its fight to tame rising prices. However, there are some signs it could be peaking.

If there are clues that the economy and inflation are "getting under control," that could help the crypto market find a bottom, according to Vijay Ayyar, vice president of corporate development and international at crypto exchange Luno.

"If we see signs of this this month or even over the next few months, it would give more confidence to the market that a bottom is in across all risk assets including equities and crypto," Ayyar said.

Meanwhile, a "softer" Fed and the peaking of U.S. dollar strength, could help the market find a bottom, according to James Butterfill, head of research at CoinShares. Butterfill said a weaker economic outlook could push the Fed to slow down its tightening push.

"A turn around in Fed policy and the consequent peaking of the DXY [dollar index] would also help define a true floor, we believe this is likely to happen at the Jackson Hole meeting at the end of the summer," Butterfill said, referring to an annual meeting of central bankers.

One of the key features of the latest boom and bust cycle in crypto has been the amount of leverage in the system and the contagion that has caused.

Firstly, there have been lending platforms that have promised retail investors high yields for depositing their crypto. One of those companies is Celsius, which last month was forced to pause withdrawals as it faces a liquidity issue. That's because Celsius lends out this crypto from its depositors to others willing to pay a high yield and then pockets the profit. That profit is then supposed to pay for the yield Celsius offers to its retail customers. But as prices crashed, that business model was put to the test.

Another company that highlights the issue with excess leverage is crypto-focused hedge fund Three Arrows Capital or 3AC, which was known for its bullish bets on the industry. 3AC has an extensive list of counterparties that it is connected to and has borrowed money from.

One of those is Voyager Digital, whichfiled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protectionafter 3AC defaulted on roughly $670 million from the company.

A number of other companies including BlockFi and Genesis also reportedly had exposure to 3AC.

Three Arrows Capital has itself plunged into liquidation.

"The deleveraging process we don't know if it is complete or not. I think it is still in the process of washing out the weak players," Zheng said, adding that when there are no more surprises with companies collapsing, that could help the market find a bottom.

CoinShares's Butterfill said so-called miners, which use specialized high-power computers to validate transactions on crypto networks, could be the next victims of the washout. With crypto prices under pressure, there will be many mining operations that are unprofitable. Butterfill notes there have been some mining start-ups that raised funding last and ordered equipment that has either not been delivered or turned on.

"A collapse in one of these mining startups or the associate lender is likely and would help define a trough to the cryptomarket," Butterfill told CNBC.

Luno's Ayyar explained some of the trading patterns that might help define a bottom for the market. He said there could be a "capitulation candle," where the price of bitcoin drops even further and "wipes out the last remaining weak hands," before "moving back up strongly."

If this happens, that indicates "liquidity has been captured at lower levels and the market is now ready to go back up," Ayyar said.

He noted that this happened in March 2020 when bitcoin fell more than 30% in a day before steadily climbing over the subsequent weeks.

A second pattern could be an "accumulation phase" where bitcoin bottoms and spends a few months trading within a range before moving higher.

In both cases, that could see bitcoin drop further to between $13,000 to $14,000, which would be a roughly 30% drop from the cryptocurrency's price on Wednesday.

Zheng of ZX Squared said that bitcoin at between $13,000 and $15,000 is a possibility. But if institutional investors step in then that could help to support prices.

Continue reading here:
Bitcoin (BTC) price bottom: Here's what the market wants to see

Bitcoin requires an immense amount of energy. Heres why thats sparking a crypto backlash – PBS NewsHour

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

The first time Jackie Sawicky learned that a Bitcoin mining operation was coming to Corsicana, a rural Texas city 60 miles south of Dallas, was on April 27, when she happened upon a Facebook video of a meeting at the local public library. The featured speaker was Chad Everett Harris, the upbeat executive vice president of Riot Blockchain, a Bitcoin mining company based in Castle Rock, Colorado. Bald and comfortably plump, Harris wore a suit jacket and open-collared shirt over blue jeans and delivered his message with the verve of a motivational speaker.

Were coming to Corsicana to build the largest [Bitcoin mining facility] in the world, Harris announced, describing the four-building, 400,000 square-foot complex that will occupy 265 acres with number-crunching machines. We turn energy into opportunity.

READ MORE: Landmark bill to limit energy-intensive cryptomining passes New York Legislature

Riot already operates the largest Bitcoin mine in the country in Rockdale, Texas. When someone in the audience asked Harris what drew him to Corsicana, the seat of Navarro County (pronounced Nah-verr-o in local parlance), he answered without hesitation. The Navarro Switch! he said, referring to part of the 192-mile, 345-kilovolt transmission line that moves power from West Texas to eastern parts of the state, where demand is high. And water, he added. You can pay a lot to bring power somewhere. But you cant get water.

He literally told us, Sawicky says, that he was coming to exploit our resources.

To some people, Bitcoin the most valuable and well-known of the 10,000 or so currently circulating cryptocurrencies is nothing more than a pyramid scheme; to others, it represents the future of money: decentralized, unregulated, and tracked on a virtual ledger in the digital cloud that everyone can inspect, known as a blockchain. But its production consumes dizzying quantities of electricity. In May of 2022, the worlds sum total of Bitcoin mining operations had an annual energy budget nearly equal to the entire country of Argentina, or the Czech Republic, or, according to Cambridge Universitys Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, all the tea kettles in England boiling water for 26 years.

In warmer climates, cryptocurrency-mining by the Bitcoin method, known as proof of work, typically needs water to cool those machines running fast and hot as they play the Bitcoin lottery (Riot says it will use a new technology in Corsicana that reduces water use). Proof-of-work mining is essentially a high-stakes guessing game: Computers spend all day throwing out random 64-digit numbers until one matches the right number, as determined by Bitcoins consensus-managed protocol. On the worldwide network of Bitcoin servers, you have 200 quintillion guesses every second of the day nonstop, explains Alex de Vries, a researcher at the School of Business and Economics at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. And even despite that, only one machine gets it right every 10 minutes.

The correct answer gets logged on Bitcoins blockchain, and the winner gets a reward: 6.2 Bitcoins. Thats not as much money as it used to be: In the coins current slump, each coin nets about $20,000, down from a high in November 2021 of just under $68,000.

Due to its high demand for electricity, proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining has not been welcomed in every corner of the world. Miners seek cheap energy to maximize their profits, but their energy-intensive activities typically drive electricity costs up for everyone. Even when mining plants run on renewable energy, critics say, they often exploit existing clean energy resources at the expense of ordinary consumers, who are then forced to buy more expensive, and often dirtier, power.

FILE IMAGE: A bank of cryptocurrency miners operates at the Scrubgrass Plant in Kennerdale, Pennsylvania, U.S., March 8, 2022. Alan Freed/Reuters

In Bonner, Montana, a small city in Missoula County, the Bitcoin company HyperBlock set up in 2016 and almost immediately began cutting into the communitys supply of hydropower from the Salish-Kootenai Dam; County Commissioner Dave Strohmaier called the plants energy use grotesque and equal to as much as one-third of the countys household demand. HyperBlock went bankrupt when Bitcoin plummeted at the start of the COVID pandemic. The county subsequently enacted a first-of-its-kind zoning ordinance requiring, among other things, that cryptominers supply their own, new renewable energy sources.

A similar scenario has played out in upstate New York. The region initially drew cryptominers with its abundant supply of cheap hydropower electricity from the 2.6 gigawatt Niagara Power Project. In 2017, when the Bitcoin company Coinmint set up in the vacant space behind the Family Dollar Store in Plattsburgh, a city of less than 20,000 residents, electricity costs were one-third of the national average. Bitcoin miners had registered as industrial consumers, says Colin Read, a professor of economics and finance at the State University of New York, Plattsburgh, who was also Plattsburghs mayor at the time. And our industrial rate was less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour, which might be the lowest in the world.

But Plattsburgh, which manages its own municipal utility, also has a monthly quota for electricity use. If the city exceeds that quota, it has to go looking elsewhere for electricity, forcing everyones utility bills up. In the winter of 2018, residents who heated their homes with electricity saw costs rise 30 to 40 percent, according to Read.

Plattsburgh quickly imposed a moratorium on new crypto-mining operations while city officials figured out how to make it more efficient. We imposed a regulation that says Bitcoin miners have to recycle a share of their heat, Read says. After that, they simply werent interested in coming here anymore. They always migrate to the places with the least regulation.

Bitcoin mining has faced similar challenges in other countries. China, despite once being the worlds largest supplier of the application-specific integrated chips used in crypto-mining, declared all virtual currency activities illegal in the fall of 2021, in part because the mining produces high carbon emissions. (The countrys central bank also wants to develop its own digital coin.) Icelands national power company, Landsvirkjun, which once attracted cryptocurrency miners with its climate-friendly geothermal energy, began denying power to new miners in late 2021. Even Iran, where the oversight-free nature of peer-to-peer currency had enabled entrepreneurs to dodge international sanctions, found crypto-mining so burdened its grid that the government was forced to ban it first for four months beginning in May 2021, then again the following December, as heating demands strained its electricity supply.

Neither energy consumption nor water nor Bitcoins volatility have deterred the elected leaders of Texas, who have welcomed the industry with effervescent enthusiasm. Blockchain is a booming business Texas needs to be involved in, Governor Greg Abbott tweeted last summer after signing into law a bill recognizing cryptocurrency in the states commercial code. (Texas was the second state to do so, after Wyoming.) And the miners have come, reveling in the states wide-open spaces, where the rattling fans that cool their hard-working rigs can operate without disturbing the neighbors, and abundant cheap energy keeps overhead low. Whereas once China hosted 75 percent of the crypto-mining business, now the United States is home to 40 percent of the activity, and one-quarter of it happens in Texas.

Three days after Harriss announcement at the Corsicana library, Jackie Sawicky founded Concerned Citizens of Navarro County to marshal opposition to Riot Blockhains plans for Corsicana. More than 600 people have signed a petition to stop the mine, and the group has more than 500 members on its Facebook page, where Sawicky and others post news stories about their states grid and water woes.

READ MORE: From the stock market to crypto, a punishing six months for investors

Were going to be paying increased electricity bills to upgrade ERCOTs grid to accommodate these places, she says, referring to Texass independent system operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. The grid notoriously slumped under the strain of winter storm Uri in 2021, cutting power to more than 4 million homes and businesses, many of which relied on electricity to heat their buildings. Hundreds of people died from extreme cold exposure or the failure of medical equipment.

Harris has insisted in news stories that mining only uses excess power when demand is light; when the grid is overloaded, ERCOT issues them credits for shutting down, which miners can do within minutes. In that way, he says, Riots participation in demand response can actually stabilize ERCOTs unsettled and isolated grid.

Thats at least partially true, says de Vries, the Dutch researcher. But the companys participation in demand response isnt exactly altruistic. Riot Blockchains filings with the Securities Exchange Commission, he points out, state plainly that the company will pay a mere 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour for its electricity, a full 10 to 11 cents less than the going residential rate. That figure represents our contractual cost of power, confirms Trystine Payfer, spokesperson for Riot Blockchain, minus the credits the company earns for participating in the utilitys demand-response program. That program is a sweet deal: It means that, when electricity supply is tight and Riot voluntarily shuts down, the company earns credits for power. If electricity prices shoot up to $9 per kilowatt hour, as they did during 2021s winter storm, it might be more profitable to unplug from the grid than to keep mining Bitcoin.

Our utility provider does not actually pay us the credited amount each month, Payfer stresses, rather, we have the right to apply the credits toward future [bills].

Nevertheless, de Vries argues, its hard to see how that wont drive prices up for everyone. The utility still has to buy the power, he notes, and the credits it issues under the demand-response program come from the same pool of money other customers fund when they pay their bills.

We have a saying here in Texas, Sawicky says. Dont piss on my boots and tell me its raining. And thats pretty much whats going on.

Not every community has fought Bitcoin mining the way Sawickys group has. Riot Blockchains Rockdale facility, initially built on 100 formerly forested acres near the former Alcoa aluminum plant, has by most accounts been a boon to the community, which had long been a company town revolving around the now-shuttered factory. We rebuilt the animal shelter, Harris said at the Corsicana launch meeting. When I learned kids didnt have lights in their parks, we put lights in the ball fields. For a year, we rented an entire hotel. Bitdeer, another Bitcoin mining company, set up shop nearby and bought emergency ventilator equipment for Rockdales volunteer firefighters.

But Corsicana, Sawicky argues, is different. People came to Navarro County for farming and ranching and open space. We have wildlife. We have two pair of nesting bald eagles and tons of migrating birds. I worry about all of them.

Mostly she worries about electricity prices. Electricity prices in Texas are already up 70 percent over what they were a year ago. We have a 15 percent poverty rate in Navarro County, Sawicky notes. We cant pay more for electricity than we already do.

FILE IMAGE: A geothermal energy plant in Ahuachapan, El Salvador, where the Salvadoran president has expanded that infrastructure to begin bitcoin mining projects. Image taken June 16, 2021. Photo by Camilo Freedman/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Some ambitious Bitcoin miners have tried to eliminate their pressure on utilities by buying up their own fossil-fuel plants to power their mining activities. The coal-fired Greenidge power plant in New Yorks Finger Lakes region, decommissioned in 2010 and revived seven years later as a gas-fired plant, in 2021 became a gas-powered Bitcoin mine; 120 miles west, in North Tonawanda, Canadian cryptominer Digihost intends to inhabit a still-operational gas-fired power plant using the plants power to mine its coin.

But more such projects in New York State could be in peril if Governor Kathy Hochul signs a pending bill instituting a two-year moratorium on new fossil-fueled proof-of-work crypto-mining in the state. The bill, passed by New York legislators on June 3, is designed to give the state time to evaluate how the technology fits within the states 2019 climate law, which commits New York to 100 percent zero-emissions electricity by 2040. The state law would be the first in the country restricting cryptocurrency mining.

Read doesnt think the bill does enough. Even if Bitcoin miners arent using hydrocarbons, he says, theyre displacing renewable energy that would be used for other purposes. And theres no easy way to measure that. Bitcoin, he says, will continue to increase the use of fossil-gas-fired power in the state, regardless of whether miners use clean energy or not. Nor has Governor Hochul committed to signing the legislation. Both she and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who has asked her to consider a veto, have received significant donations from the crypto industry.

There are ways to reduce the energy use and, consequently, the climate impact of cryptocurrency mining. Some energy companies have developed plans to capture fugitive methane from oil and gas drilling and divert it to electricity plants dedicated to Bitcoin mining. Crusoe Energy has already begun such operations in North Dakota and Colorado and plans to expand to Texas and New Mexico. Another company, the Casper, Wyoming-based JAI Energy was specifically founded to take advantage of waste gas to mine Bitcoin. The process could theoretically be a net win for the climate, as methane from the oil fields is typically ether flared or vented, releasing fast-acting planet-warming gases into the atmosphere.

An even better alternative, Read says, is to trade proof-of-work mining for another process, known as proof of stake. It doesnt use exorbitant amounts of energy, because it doesnt involve gazillions of computers taking 200 quintillion stabs per second at a random number. Instead of trying to win the lottery in 10 minutes, he explains, you put down a large deposit proving you have a stake in the outcome. You ensure you dont corrupt the system when you verify an entry on the cryptocurrencys blockchain. If you fail to verify properly, you lose your investment.

Proof-of-stake means you can have everything in crypto without having all these environmental problems, Read says. Several currencies, such as Cardano and Peercoin, use proof-of-stake exclusively; Ethereum, the second most-valuable coin next to Bitcoin, is in the process of transitioning to proof-of-stake.

In fact, almost all cryptocurrency currencies are mined with proof-of-stake right now, Read says. We just dont hear about it so much because Bitcoin represents 99 percent of all capitalization in cryptocurrency. There may come a day when you get auto and home loans on a smartphone with decentralized, digital currency. But that currency probably wont be energy-devouring proof-of-work Bitcoin.

Bitcoin, Read says, is cryptocurrencys Model T.

This article is reproduced with permission from Yale Environment 360. It was first published on June 21, 2022. Find the original story here.

Go here to read the rest:
Bitcoin requires an immense amount of energy. Heres why thats sparking a crypto backlash - PBS NewsHour

What is Bitcoin whale watching and how to track Bitcoin whales? – Cointelegraph

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

Whales are held responsible for sudden price fluctuations in the crypto and traditional markets every so often. Given their capability to manipulate market prices, it becomes paramount for the general Bitcoin (BTC) investors to understand the nuances that make one a whale and their overall impact on trading.

Wallet addresses that contain large amounts of BTC are identified as Bitcoin whales. Dumping or transferring large amounts of BTC from one wallet to another negatively impacts the prices, resulting in losses for the smaller traders. As a result, tracking Bitcoin whales in real-time allows small-time traders to make profitable trades amid a fluctuating market.

Despite Bitcoin's global and decentralized nature, tracking down and monitoring whales simply boils down to accessing readily available trading data from crypto exchanges and services. There are four primary ways to track whale activities, which include monitoring known whale addresses, order books, sudden changes in market capitalization and trades on crypto exchanges.

Monitoring known whales provide a headstart to smaller investors as the likeliness of coming across a whale trade increases significantly. Moreover, keeping track of market changes via order books and trades on crypto exchanges indicates incoming whale trades, which can be leveraged to profit during volatility.

The crypto community also uses free services that inform investors about successful whale trades, often including information about the senders and receivers wallets and the amount. One of the most popular services for automatically tracking whale trades is @whale_alert on Twitter, which issues alerts related to large transactions as shown above.

Related: Bitcoin whales still 'hibernating' as BTC price nears $21K

In a recent market update, Cointelegraph revealed that on-chain data suggested that the largest Bitcoin hodlers were reluctant to act at current prices. BlockTrends analyst Caue Oliveira supported the above finding by highlighting a "hibernation" continuing among whale wallet. He added:

Moreover, numerous altcoins continue to mimic Bitcoins bearish trends as whales await a greener sentiment across the crypto market.

Excerpt from:
What is Bitcoin whale watching and how to track Bitcoin whales? - Cointelegraph

‘World War III Has Begun,’ Says Gerald Celente; Plus, Long-Term BTC Predictions and Scorching US Inflation Bitcoin.com News Week in Review The…

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

Trend forecaster Gerald Celente told Bitcoin.com News that World War III has begun, weighing in on Covid-19, crypto, the Great Reset, and gold in an exclusive interview. Jordan Belfort, aka the Wolf of Wall Street, talked long-term BTC investing, as scorching inflation in the U.S. continues to plague Americans, though Bidens White House says the latest numbers are out-of-date. All this and more in your bite-sized digest of this weeks hottest stories from Bitcoin.com News.

This week Bitcoin.com News spoke with Gerald Celente, the popular trends forecaster, and publisher of the Trends Journal. During a telephone conversation, Celente discussed the uncertainty surrounding the global economy after governments worldwide locked down the worlds citizens over the Covid-19 pandemic, shut down businesses and injected trillions into the economy.

The discussion touches upon gold, bitcoin, the pandemic, the Ukraine-Russia war, and the Federal Reserve. The trends forecaster believes that World War III has already begun, and if people do not assemble to bolster peace in this world, then we the people are doomed. Celente stressed that if people want real change, they cannot rely on hope as they need to take a stand to make it happen themselves.

Jordan Belfort, aka the Wolf of Wall Street, says if you take a three, four, or five-year horizon, he would be shocked if you didnt make money investing in bitcoin because the underlying fundamentals are really strong.

Shark Tank star Kevin OLeary, aka Mr. Wonderful, has warned of an impending big panic event in the crypto space. I dont believe weve seen the bottom yet and I have a different view of it, he said.

According to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) report, U.S. inflation remains scorching hot as it has risen at the fastest yearly rate since 1981. Junes CPI data reflected a 9.1% year-over-year increase, even though a number of bureaucrats and economists thought Mays CPI data would be the record peak.

What are your thoughts on this weeks hottest stories from Bitcoin.com News? Let us know in the comments section below.

Bitcoin.com is your premier source for everything Bitcoin-related. We can help you buy bitcoins and choose a bitcoin wallet. You can also read the latest news, or engage with the community on our Bitcoin Forum. Please keep in mind that this is a commercial website that lists wallets, exchanges and other Bitcoin-related companies.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

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

US and UK to Deepen Ties on Crypto Regulation, Says British Regulator Regulation Bitcoin News – Bitcoin News

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

Britains top financial regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), says the U.S. and U.K. will deepen ties on crypto regulation. In the past, innovative firms would have been pleading for less regulation. Now they understand and appreciate that rules are there to help provide certainty, said the British regulator.

The U.K. Financial Conduct Authoritys chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, outlined the FCAs regulatory goals Wednesday at Peterson Institute for International Economics.

One area of global focus is crypto, both opportunities and risks, the FCA chief said. Currently, our remit is limited to anti-money laundering rules for platforms. We have applied those strict rules as we would to any other firm that wants to operate in the U.K. market.

The regulator added:

The U.S. and U.K. will deepen ties on crypto-asset regulation and market developments including in relation to stablecoins and the exploration of central bank digital currencies.

Rathi proceeded to mention that the FCA held Cryptosprints earlier this year, which drew nearly 200 participants. The objective of the events was to seek industry views around the current market and the design of an appropriate regulatory regime, the FCA explained on its website.

The chief financial regulator described:

Participants told us they wanted a regulatory regime for cryptoassets as a high priority They also want regulation phased in over time, to allow firms and investors to prepare and for the rules to fit the evolving crypto assets.

In the past, innovative firms would have been pleading for less regulation. Now they understand and appreciate that rules are there to help provide certainty, he opined.

The FCA chief noted:

We are demonstrably supporting responsible use cases for the underlying technology while ensuring it is not at the expense of appropriate consumer protection or market integrity.

The U.K. government outlined in May its legislative agenda for the next parliamentary year in the Queens Speech. One of the bills aims to support the safe adoption of cryptocurrencies and resilient outsourcing to technology providers. Another aims to create powers to more quickly and easily seize and recover crypto assets, which are the principal medium used for ransomware.

Furthermore, the British government unveiled a detailed plan in April to make the country a global crypto hub and a hospitable place for crypto. The plan includes establishing a dynamic regulatory framework for crypto, regulating stablecoins, and working with the Royal Mint to create a non-fungible token (NFT) to be issued by the Summer.

What do you think about the U.S. and the U.K. working together on crypto regulation? Let us know in the comments section below.

A student of Austrian Economics, Kevin found Bitcoin in 2011 and has been an evangelist ever since. His interests lie in Bitcoin security, open-source systems, network effects and the intersection between economics and cryptography.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

View post:
US and UK to Deepen Ties on Crypto Regulation, Says British Regulator Regulation Bitcoin News - Bitcoin News

Bitcoin Up, Stocks Down as BTC Correlation to Nasdaq Weakens – Decrypt

Posted on July 18, 2022 by admin

While the crypto and stock markets both remain bearish, Bitcoins correlation with stocks is close to its lowest point this year. The 40-day correlation between the largest cryptocurrency and the Nasdaq 100 index is now below 0.50, according to Bloomberg data.

Bitcoin is trading for $20,712 at the time of writing, a 2.5% increase in the past 24 hours according to CoinMarketCap. In contrast, U.S. stocks were hit hard on Thursday as investors worry about the Federal Reserve continuing to hike interest rates. And it isnt just the tech-heavy Nasdaq: global equities markets also took a beating on Thursdayalong with oilas more investors move towards holding onto their greenbacks.

Correlation with the Nasdaq is measured on a -1 to 1 scale: -1 means the prices always move in opposite directions; 1 means they move together. Today, Bitcoin is at its lowest correlation with the Nasdaq since early January.

This is a very different story from as recently as April, when its 30-day correlation with the Nasdaq was at its highest level in over a year.

The correlation is still positive, which means that Bitcoin and tech stocks still move in similar directions. But if the correlation continues to weaken, it might be taken as a sign crypto has seen the bottom and is ready to rebound.

For most of the pandemic, Bitcoin has moved in the same direction as stocks. Right now it is down nearly 70% from its all-time high last November near $69,000. This is largely because crypto is seen as a risky asset by many big investors, and we are in a risk-off environment as sky-high inflation hits virtually every country on the planet. Political uncertainty with Russias war in Ukraine and supply chain chaos from China make a recession seemingly imminent.

Since 2020, Bitcoin had been going more mainstream than ever as major companies like MicroStrategy and Tesla added it to their balance sheets and even previous Wall Street skeptics changed their tune, leading Bitcoin to perform like a tech stock. Until it crashed in May.

Could the crypto rebound be in full swing?

Get the biggest crypto news stories + weekly roundups and more!

View original post here:
Bitcoin Up, Stocks Down as BTC Correlation to Nasdaq Weakens - Decrypt

« First «...10 20 30...196 197198199 200...210 220 230...»Last »