Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

February 05 2018

5832 57ee 500
This is normal here in Cryptoland....
Reposted bykonikoni

February 02 2018

We believe privacy is a basic human right. And if you believe your transactions shouldn’t reveal the balance of your bank account, then is the thing for you.
— Riccardo “fluffypony” Spagni
Reposted bypaket paket

RÜCKWIRKENDE STRAFFREIHEIT FÜR KIFFER: Amnestie für Kiffer in San Francisco


Am 31. Januar 2018 verkündete der Bezirksstaatsanwalt George Gascón in einer Pressemitteilung, dass die Staatsanwaltschaft von San Francisco die Proposition 64 (per Volksabstimmung beschlossenes Gesetz zur Legalisierung von Cannabis), die den Besitz und die Freizeitnutzung von Marihuana für Erwachsene im Alter von 21 Jahren oder älter legalisiert, rückwirkend auf Vergehen und Verbrechen seit dem Jahr 1975 anwenden wird. Die Initiative forderte, strafrechtliche Sanktionen für Marihuana-Straftaten nach der Verabschiedung des neuen Gesetzes im November 2016 aufzuheben und Kürzungen der Haft oder Entlassungen auf Antrag einer verurteilten Person vorzunehmen. Die Staatsanwaltschaft von San Francisco wird bis zu 4.940 schwere Verbrechen mit Bezug zu Marihuana überprüfen, zurückrufen oder neu ausrichten. Verurteilungen aufgrund von 3.038 Ordnungswidrigkeiten werden aufgehoben. Dies erfordert keine Maßnahmen von denjenigen, die gemäß Proposition 64 berechtigt sind.

„Während die Drogenpolitik auf Bundesebene rückwärts gewandt ist, übernimmt San Francisco erneut die Führung, um den Schaden zu beheben, den der katastrophale und gescheiterte Drogenkrieg unseres Landes auf unsere Nation und insbesondere auf farbige Gemeinschaften hatte“ , sagte Bezirksstaatsanwalt George Gascón. „Vor langer Zeit haben wir unsere Fähigkeit verloren, das Gefährliche von einem Ärgernis zu unterscheiden. Dadurch ist das Gefüge von unseren Gemeinschaften zerbrochen und wir haben deswegen nicht mehr Sicherheit schaffen können. Während diese Entlastung gemäß Proposition 64 bereits für jeden mit einer Verurteilung verfügbar ist, müssen sie wissen, dass sie mit einen Anwalt die Löschungspapiere sofort beantragen können. Eine strafrechtliche Verurteilung kann ein Hindernis für eine Beschäftigung, eine Unterkunft und andere Vorteile darstellen. Anstatt also darauf zu warten, dass die Gemeinschaft aktiv wird, ergreifen wir Maßnahmen für die Gemeinschaft.“

„Dieses Beispiel, eines von vielen in unserem Bundesstaat, unterstreicht die wahre Verheißung von Proposition 64 und gibt Kaliforniern, vor allem Menschen mit dunkler Hautfarbe, neue Hoffnung und neue Möglichkeiten. Ihr Leben wurde durch ein kostspieliges, zerrüttetes und rassistisch diskriminierendes System der Marihuanakriminalisierung aus geregelten Bahnen geworfen“ , sagte der Vizegouverneur von Kalifornien, Gavin Christopher Newsom. „Dies ist nicht nur eine dringende Frage der sozialen Gerechtigkeit hier in Kalifornien – es ist ein Modell für den Rest der Nation.“

In Kalifornien wird geschätzt, dass zwischen 1915 und 2016 kalifornische Strafverfolgungsbehörden 2.756.778 Cannabis-Festnahmen durchgeführt haben. Während Proposition 64 ermöglicht, dass diejenigen, die wegen Marihuana-Verbrechen verurteilt wurden, eine Petition zur Reduzierung oder Aufhebung ihrer Strafe einreichen können, haben laut der Drug Policy Alliance nur 4.885 Kalifornier bei Staatsgerichten beantragt, dass ihre Cannabis-Verurteilungen seit dem Durchgang der Initiative aufgehoben werden.

Laut dem Cannabis Equity Report der Stadt San Francisco ging der Anstieg der gesamten Cannabis-Verhaftungen im Jahr 2000 mit einem Anstieg der Unverhältnismäßigkeit der Verhaftungen von Afroamerikaner einher. Die Verhaftungen stiegen zwischen 1999 und 2000 um 160% von 1.164 auf 3.042. Der Prozentsatz der Verhaftungen von Afroamerikanern stieg von 34% auf 41% aller Verhaftungen, ein Anstieg um 20%. Der Anteil der Schwarzen lag im Jahr 2000 in San Francisco bei lediglich 7,8% der Bevölkerung.

Nach der neuen Richtlinie werden alle Strafen aufgehoben, die den Besitz von 28,5 Gramm oder weniger Marihuana betreffen sowie den Besitz von 8 Gramm oder weniger konzentriertem Cannabis, wenn die Person zur Tatzeit 21 Jahre oder älter war. Verbrechen werden als Vergehen herabgestuft, wenn mit Marihuana gehandelt wurde oder mehr als sechs Cannabispflanzen angebaut wurden. Letzteres gilt im Rahmen des Gesundheits- und Sicherheitscode Abschnitt 11359, des Gesundheits- und Sicherheitsgesetzbuch § 11360 und des Gesundheits- und Sicherheits-Code Abschnitt 11358.
Reposted bydrugsstraycatznuhgingerglueTigerleswissfondue-interimfinkregh

February 01 2018

Play fullscreen
BTFD - Buy The F*#!ING Dip - "OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO"

January 31 2018

Reposted fromFlau Flau viacarsten233 carsten233
4983 f2d0 500
Reposted frommangoe mangoe viadako dako

January 30 2018

Reposted fromFlau Flau viakogs kogs
Don't Buy Bitcoin. It's Going To Crash!!!

3 More Lies Bitcoin Skeptics Tell Themselves


Note: This is a follow-up to “ 3 Lies Bitcoin Skeptics Tell Themselves ,” which was published earlier this month. I said I would write more on this topic if the first one did well, and nearly 75,000 views later, here I am.

It seemed like last week was the week of the bitcoin skeptic as everyone from Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman to legendary investor George Soros had negative things to say about the world’s first and most well-known cryptoasset.

Although the arguments against bitcoin keep coming, they haven’t evolved much since 2013, when the first major run-up in the price brought out all of the haters. With skepticism abound once again, I thought now would be a good time to cover three more lies bitcoin skeptics tell themselves.

Lie #1: Bitcoin Has No “Intrinsic Value”and Will Crash to Zero

One of the most common arguments against bitcoin is that the price will eventually crash to zero because there is no true, intrinsic value backing the asset.

On the other hand, the skeptics say the U.S. dollar is required for tax payments, and even gold has the underlying utility of industrial use cases. This argument is so common that well-known economist Nouriel Roubini made it in a new articlethat I saw while writing this one.

If the skeptics want to make this argument, then they need to come to grips with the fact that permissionless digital payments could also be construed as the underlying value of bitcoin. Much like you need U.S. dollars to make tax payments in the United States, you also need bitcoin to make permissionless, digital payments in an efficient manner online (gold bugs can also read this full breakdown of what they miss about bitcoin's intrinsic value).


Now, you could argue bitcoin is not required because there are so many altcoins that can also be used, but the issue there is that bitcoin is the most reliable, stable, secure, and long-lasting of all the cryptocurrencies, which is why people still prefer it in the face of high on-chain transaction fees (see my full explanation of why the bitcoin price has continued to rise in the face of higher transaction fees).

This point about bitcoin lacking any “intrinsic value” has been used as the reasoning behind many of the nearly 250 times people have said bitcoin is dead.

In addition to the contradiction in terms of a payments use case providing underling utility for U.S. dollars but not bitcoin, this argument sort of misses the fundamental value proposition of bitcoin in the first place — at least in terms of what drives its price. Bitcoin is a seizure-resistant digital asset with a transparent and incorruptible monetary policy, which provides the base, intrinsic (if you want to call it that) value proposition that attracts hodlers (see my full breakdown on hodlers providing a price floor for bitcoin).

Now, this is not to say the bitcoin price could not be in a short-term price bubble; that’s certainly possible. However, a price correction would not indicate that there is no value here at all.

Lie #2: Bitcoin Wastes Energy and Harms the Environment

Another common argument made by bitcoin skeptics is that decentralized transaction processing is a bad idea due to the inefficiencies involved and the headline-grabbing energy costs that go into the mining process. Skeptics often say that this energy is “wasted” and does nothing but harm the planet because, as I’ve already covered, they also think Bitcoin is a useless system anyway.

First of all, bitcoin mining is not wasteful by definition. Miners are incentivized to secure the network via rewards in the form of newly created bitcoin and transaction fees; therefore, miners only mine if people find bitcoin useful as a store of value and/or medium of exchange.

Secondly, as Coin Center’s Peter Van Valkenburgh has argued, bitcoin incentivizes the discovery and advancement of renewable forms of energy.

“The fact is that the Bitcoin protocol, right now, is providing a $200,000 bounty every 10 minutes (the bitcoin mining reward) to the person who can find the cheapest energy on the planet,” wrote Van Valkenburgh in a blog post last month.

Over the past few months, we’ve seen energy providers in Washington state and Quebec receive more requests than they can handle from cryptocurrency miners who desire low-cost electricity for their facilities. What do these two locations have in common? Cheap, clean hydroelectric power.

Lie #3: Bitcoin is a Bad Idea Because Bad People Might Use It

This third lie (or sixth lie if you started with the previous article) that bitcoin skeptics tell themselves is usually made when any new form of technology first hits the market: What happens if bad people use it?

While bitcoin is far from anonymous right now, it could eventually be made much more private. In fact, some altcoins, such as Monero and Zcash, already provide enhanced anonymity to those who seek it.

When thinking about the issue of some people using bitcoin to do bad things, it’s important to think of what the alternative option implies. If there is no anonymity allowed in online transactions, then that means the national government and/or a handful of companies will know about everyone’s online purchasing habits. At this point, it should also be remembered that the world is becoming an increasingly cashless society.

This argument that bad people will use bitcoin is similar to the arguments against encryption more generally. There is no grey area to deal with here. Privacy is binary; you either have it or you don’t.

Government officials have long contended there is a need for backdoors in encryption software so law enforcement can more easily solve cases once they have probable cause. Others say that backdoors don’t work because they cannot be sufficiently secured from hackers. The most famous version of this debate — at least in recent times — came in the form of the FBI trying to get Apple to unlock a domestic terror suspect’s phone.

Apple’s argument was that a backdoor in their phones would be nearly impossible to keep secure and out of the hands of hackers. Later in the same year, Apple’s point was illustrated when a set of hacking tools and exploits were stolen from the NSA.

According to Wired, the FBI was eventually able to unlock the terror suspect’s phone without Apple’s help anway.

So, in the context of bitcoin, the debate is between some centralized entity (likely a bank and/or government) knowing the financial activities of all of their users (and potentially leaking this data to hackers) and everyone having a right to financial privacy.

One last thing to consider for lie numbers two and three is that bitcoin doesn’t much care how you feel on these points. Even if bitcoin were extremely wasteful and only useful for criminals, the system is designed to be resistant to government-enforced shutdowns. We’ll have to wait for a serious crackdown or attack from a major government (if it’s not already happening) to see how well this aspect of the system holds up.

Reposted byp856 p856

FINDING YOUR VOICE Forget About Siri and Alexa — When It Comes to Voice Identification, the “NSA Reigns Supreme”

They may be always listening!

...This appears to be the NSA’s eventual goal. At a 2010 conference — described as an “unprecedented opportunity to understand how the NSA is bringing all its creative energies to bear on tracking an individual” — top directors spoke about how to take a “whole life” strategy to their targets. They described the need to integrate biometric data, like voiceprints, with biographic information, like social networks and personal history. In the agency’s own words, “It is all about locating, tracking, and maintaining continuity on individuals across space and time. It’s not just the traditional communications we’re after — It’s taking a ‘full arsenal’ approach.”
Reposted bypaket paket

Chaos vs. Order — The Cryptocurrency Dilemma


Crypto crypto crypto crypto. It’s here. It’s happening in a big way, and faster than anyone can keep track.

Let’s consider two main trends in the space:

  1. Blockchain as a technology — there is a nuclear arms race for the next best blockchain.
  2. Cryptocurrency as a disrupting force—this acts to destabilize and disrupt the world’s financial and state actors.

Blockchain as a technology is largely benign and community/consumer focused. It will serve to open up more transparency and collaboration in various world markets.

Cryptocurrency as a disruptive force is starting to emerge as an ancient narrative for the digital age—i.e. unregulated ‘chaos’ vs transparent order. This is the battle between community-based autonomy, privacy and anonymity— versus transparency, compliance and stately order.

In the United States we’ve seen this narrative play out since the 1800's:

  • States’ rights vs the Federal government
  • The autonomous and private individual vs government constraints
  • Global cooperation and financial compliance vs state and individual autonomy— we’ve seen this with organizations like the United Nations and the European Union

In other countries around the world this narrative is vastly more acute and important.

To date, global financial disruption has been constrained by things like real-estate, trade, shipping ports and the transparency and influence of the international banking system. USD $1M weighs 22 pounds and has a volume of 0.01282 cubic meters, or 0.45 cubic feet. Gold is heavier and more dense. Classic cars are much heavier and much less dense. Art is fragile and large. Real-estate cannot be moved. Sending an international wire for USD $50k is no small task. It is clear that value in the traditional system is highly constrained.

Chaos vs Order

The global community is the major player in crypto — and if global exchange value can now be decoupled from state-issued currencies and assets, while self-selecting and technologically savvy communities can autonomously dictate the terms and method of ideal financial exchange — it’s a revolution. These communities are breeding the most desirable cryptocurrency traits and making bold declarations about how money should be created, exchanged and how anonymous the process should be.

For the first time in history we see the possibility of financial freedom that is not aligned with the interests of sub-states, governments and global cooperatives. This will be the real narrative to watch in the next 10 years.

Moving forward it seems like governments will now only control a crucial piece of the puzzle—access to the Internet. In countries like China, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, this seems simple enough. In countries like England, the United States, and Australia, access to the Internet seems to be have become a fundamental human right.

Regulation vs The Innovation Born From Chaos

Regulation is here. At the North American Bitcoin Conference in Miami, the panel on regulation was asked about the real need to be ‘compliant’ around the globe when it comes to moving crypto money. The implication was that state actors are slow to act and far behind the curve. One of the lawyers on-stage put it simply: “well… the punishment for financial fraud in several countries is death…” The audience gasped, as they should. On other topics of compliance penalties, the panel seemed to agree that the USD $500M fines are near.

One of the most fascinating dramas of the next ten years will be watching the cryptocurrency community innovate toward greater autonomy and anonymity, while centralized industrial and state actors struggle to exert their control and regulation on top of decentralized systems. Bitcoin’s blockchain is just a test. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dash, Monero and Zcash are live research and empirical education—they are teaching tomorrow’s communities everything they need to know to create a more favorable strain of crypto.

Follow The Money

Two things are clear, 1) the primary blockchain narrative is all about distributed innovation, and 2) the primary cryptocurrency narrative is all about money—who has it, where it goes, who knows about it, and the efficiency with which it can be moved.

So many fundamental questions arise from the cryptocurrency dilemma:

  • Who has a right to know about our personal productivity and speculation?
  • Should we have the right to self-organize and select our financial exchange systems?
  • What could happen with provincial taxation in an age of global financial anonymity?
  • Why should citizens be incentivized toward financial and productivity transparency when governments have proven a tendency toward over-regulation, inefficiency, stagnant innovation and corruption?
  • If the government is meant to have a monopoly on the use of force to enforce the rule of law—which often manifests itself financially—what happens if their financial authority is removed?

These are just a few interesting questions that the cryptocurrency phenomenon is forcing us to ask. Crypto has socio-political implications beyond the realm of imagination.

Moving forward we will need to pay close attention to the future of money. While Blockchain will usher in new distributed innovation, the narrative of Chaos vs. Order that cryptomoney brings with it will force us to deconstruct the meaning of social and governmental influence on a new digital planet.

Reposted byMhos Mhos

January 29 2018

9323 2c71 500
https://legalfling.io 
"Get explicit about sexual consent - Secured in the blockchain"
4092 a182

soup.io

soup.io provides the most diverse feed on the internet for me. from shitposts to normie stuff over political opinions in all variations and memes in all variations to porn in all variations, ... anything is here and it's fucking glorious! i don't know how big this community really is but there's always enough content to browse here for hours every day - especially in the friends-of-friends feed and if the spam would go away of course in /everyone.

over the time i've seen a few people pointing out how this site provides a one of a kind experience, since nobody can recommend an honest alternative - which is always asked for, when the site went down again.

i really want soup.io to continue and fix its bugs (from failed youtube embedding to internal server errors and whatnot) but from the looks of it the soup•up model didn't quite work. my guess is, because the paying options are pretty limited. personally, i'm already patron to many projects and content creators but therefore almost everybody gets only 1€ per month, which sadly isn't an option for soup. a one time 200€ donation is out of the question and in general i am skeptical of the efficiency of one-time-donations anyway.

why not simply go on patreon and let people pay what they want and can afford? there surely must be a lot of people who are willing to throw in a buck or two, like me? or if there's any problem with that site in particular, just adapt the soup•up model to include more paying options?

i don't know but i fear the day soup.io goes offline and never on again ;_;

@kitchen @updates @elpollodiablo
Reposted fromshikaji shikaji via02mydafsoup-01 02mydafsoup-01

January 28 2018

Play fullscreen
Rick Reacts: Hodling is bullshit; spend-and-replace is what wins the game.
Reposted bypaketsofiasphinschlingel
Play fullscreen
Banking On Bitcoin - Full Documentary Film
Reposted byp-093-read p-093-read

January 25 2018

The practical consequence […is…] for the first time, a way for one Internet user to transfer a unique piece of digital property to another Internet user, such that the transfer is guaranteed to be safe and secure, everyone knows that the transfer has taken place, and nobody can challenge the legitimacy of the transfer. The consequences of this breakthrough are hard to overstate.
— Marc Andreessen
Reposted bypaket paket

January 21 2018


© copyleft by "M.I.F." (Ministerium für innere Frechheit) Mental Freeware, share...

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl