Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain
Token Daily is a place to discover trending news and products in crypto and blockchain.
Token Daily is a place to discover trending news and products in crypto and blockchain.
I'm gonna break down this article on stream Monday while I play Project: Gorgon. I'd love to get some people in there to discuss and have a dialogue. Come hang out twitch.tv/readscare
I don't think you would learn anything with the current crop of games. We don't have a game advanced enough where politics can play a huge part of the virtual world.
He says Bitcoin uses too much energy. Hogwash.
You know what uses a lot of energy? Cars, especially manufacturing them. Rockets use a lot of energy too. And last time I checked, you couldn't dig a tunnel without expending a fuckton of energy.
Elon is the most overrated celebrity of them all. He's never had a truly groundbreaking idea. He's just a kid who got lucky with PayPal and (to his credit) used it to do the stuff little boys like to do -- cars, rockets, digging tunnels, etc.
Wasn't it just on the front page yesterday that he said Tesla would never use cryptocurrency?
Conspiracy theory time. Maybe he just bought a bunch of Bitcoin prior to that statement, and that's why it bumped up to 4k? Haha
So why was he acting like he knew nothing and wanted no part of bitcoin for years?
I am glad that unique visioners like r/elonmusk starting to realize the inevitable truth, that digitally native money is the only logical direction for the digitally native products, including robots and autonomous vehicles. r/tezos network with the environmentally friendly PoS is, of course, a more logical fit for the companies promoting and standardizing sustainable energy sources, including r/teslamotors. I hope that very soon, all vehicles will be not only able to store and transfer value, but will do it with the only right way, by utilizing blockchain and cryptocurrency tech.
Musk has been voicing his interest in crypto for a while. There were even some rumours that Tesla will have something to do with cryptocurrencies. But in a recent podcast he said that Tesla will not be getting involved with cryptocurrencies, primarily due to their dedication to sustainable energy.
Edit: link to the podcast
Elon Musk probably low key invented bitcoin. My reason behind this theory is he hates what became of PayPal after he sold it.
Unfortunately he doesn't realize yet that crypto can significantly contribute to the use of sustainable stable energy sources.
Crypto mining tends to move to where there is abundant and excess cheap energy, such as hydro-plants.
New hydro-plants are always developed based on future demand, meaning there is a large surplus of abundant energy at start. This energy can be used to mine crypto, hence adding an additional revenue stream from the start to make the business case for a new and/or bigger hydro-plant more economical viable.
He thing is "paper" and "fiat" are not the same. And fiat is less and less being transferred with paper money.
Bitcoin is not an alternative to paper. It just doesn't have a paper version of itself like fiat has, due to its fundamental nature.
OH WOW This is great for Bitcoin! Do you happen to know what McAfee has to say about Bitcoin?
Pushing the adoption rate is paramount important to next phase of Bitcoin growth. Is Tesla accepting bitcoin?
he believe living on mars is possible and in bitcoin but I only believe in the 2nd one....
No shit, ur utxo is on a fork, if ppl buy and mine it, it survives, so many crappy forks btc gold, what moron would buy this shit coin. It has 0 utility
For more information on 51% attacks watch the HBO docuseries, “Silicon Valley se05 ep08”
Yyyyyyyup, saw it coming. There's an XKCD for that: https://xkcd.com/2030/
Basically if 51% of the computers submit the same wrong answer, the majority wins.
I want to be a part of those people who are going to stand up and fight for the right of Bitcoin.
Snapshots:
^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))
51% percent attack is hardly a 'hack' and was somewhat inevitable as a shrinking crypto population is spread over more and more currencies.
Blockchains are still unhackable. Blockchains that aren't using proof-of-work algos are obviously just centralized BS.
Nobody with sense ever thought they were unhackable. Block chains rely on the trust and security of the organisations and protocols running them
Working as intended. Two block chains sharing a common mining algorithms will be in competition and the weaker chain will be in danger of being destroyed (or should be, ETC is still around amazingly and holding value)
It's surprising it's not happening more. Some of the alt coins can be 51% attacked for only a few hundred dollars and most can be shorted at an exchange.
However a strong chain like BTC would cost significantly more and you can't simply hire enough hash and would need to purchase the mining hardware. As there are not any other valuable chains sharing it's mining algorithm the attacker also risks trashing their hardware investment should they succeed.
The author of the Bitcoin white paper was aware of 51% attacks - and Ethereum Classic is not the first example of this attack to ever occur. This is not what was meant by people claiming Blockchain is 'unhackable'.
It seems that the articale is only speaking about public blockchain, what's for the other private blockchain? Are they going through the same problem?
It is developing more and more with every new day, and it gets harder and harder to hack it.
This doesn’t feel like block chains fault. Flawed implementations on various different portals is to blame. The concept of block chain is still sound, but just like any other program it can have vulnerabilities depending on who built it and how.
"Sure, they can make it hack-proof. But that doesn't mean we're not going to hack it"
So 51 percent control of the ledger seems like something you might want to take a look at coding in some safety from sudden chain authority shifts
I might catch flack for this but if you ask any software engineer if we should have software based voting they all scream "NOOO!" (relevant xkcd lying around here somewhere...) When at the same they were all like "oh hmm this block chain thingy seems like a decent idea to put all your currency into. What could do wrong?" I never fully understood that because while the logic of the blockchain was sound at the time bugs and issues always exist.
TLDR this shitpost with clickbait title :
​
1/ shitcoins (with low hashrate) get 51% attack ( a risk known since satoshi's whitepaper )
2/Exchanges hacked (not related to blockchain tech at all
3/smart contract may be buggy / getting backdoor (again when a hacker is profiting from a buggy smart contract, the security of the blochain is not involved).
​
Thanks to downvote this very low quality article
But the only people who said they were unhackable are people that didn't understand how a blockchain works.
Even BTC used milestones when it first came out to avoid the 51% attacks and it didn't really avoid them just give you good grounding that everything before that time was 'safer'.
You can still 51% attack BTC and override all other nodes, you'd just have to spend so much money on hardware and computing that it wouldn't be worth it for the little BTC you'd make. Same as encryption, you can absolutely crack any encryption scheme like AES. I can write code in 5 minutes that'll do it, but you'll just be dead before it finished or broke, making it impractical.
Quite the debacle. I guess they didn't get the memo; sending uranium to your enemy is perfectly fine (as long as the appropriate parties reap appropriate profits), nuclear power technology to your allies is bad.
What's the worst that could happen? The saudis supporting terrorist groups with that tech?
I laugh just at the ridiculousness of the thought!
So sad that I read this post and immediately thought “fake news.” I really wish the msm hadnt jumped the shark with TDS. The MSM has cried wolf for so long that Trump could do anything now and it would just read like another daily tds headline.
These stories against trump are absurd
Who cares Obama give Iran 200 billion in cash
Russia gave Clinton’s 140 million for our uranium to Clinton’s foundation
Go deal with that first
Im waiting for conservatives to Lauren Southerns style support Saudi Arabia. Seeing as seriously criticising Trump is the last thing they want to do.
Trump could fuck a kid with a condom and they would be arguing that it was thick enough latex that it wasn't really pedophilia.
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason:
--
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the Subreddit Commandments. If you have any questions, please do not delete your submission and message the mods, Thank you.
jesus fucking christ
i'll assume if they can enrich for reactors they can enrich for bombs?
​
LKY said its fine for large pwoers to have nukes, but its dangeorus for small actors to have them.
Jesus.
The amount of “conservatives” in here trying to draw anything from this is hilarious. Bring proof of this kind of stuff or fuck off.
Why?
Because as the “Russian conspiracy” hysteria showed, you only need enough talking heads and momentum to make something out of nothing.
You dont even give credence to that shit unless you’re retarded or a ShareBlue shill.
Saudi Arabia as it stands today, is definitely one country who does not need their own nuclear weapons.
Prince Salman referred to below, is the current King of Saudi Arabia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_High_Commission_for_Aid_to_Bosnia
was a charity organization founded in 1993 by Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz
Among the items found at Sarajevo premises the Saudi High Commission when it was raided by NATO forces in September 2001[1] were before-and-after photographs of the World Trade Center, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole; maps of government buildings in Washington; materials for forging US State Department badges; files on the use of crop duster aircraft; and anti-Semitic and anti-American material geared toward children. Among six Algerians who would later be incarcerated at the Camp X-Ray detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba for plotting an attack on the US embassy in Sarajevo were two employees of the Commission, including a cell member who was in telephone contact with Osama bin Laden aid and al Qaeda operational commander Abu Zubayda.
Additional article - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/23/davidpallister
More context - http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=khalil_ziyad_1
By 1996, NSA wiretaps reveal that Prince Salman is funding Islamic militants using charity fronts
A 1996 CIA report mentions, “We continue to have evidence that even high ranking members of the collecting or monitoring agencies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan - such as the Saudi High Commission - are involved in illicit activities, including support for terrorists”
One file released by Wikileaks from Guantanamo Bay includes the text:
Prince Salman Bin Abdulaziz paid for seventy percent of detainee’s travel expenses to Afghanistan.
Who is this detainee? Glad you asked.
Executive Summary: Detainee is an admitted member of al-Qaida, a close associate to Usama Bin Laden (UBL) and has expressed his intentions to harm US citizens. Detainee admitted he swore bayat (oath of allegiance) to UBL, was a bodyguard for UBL and served as UBL’s personal secretary. Detainee has repeatedly stated he is a terrorist, a member of al-Qaida with leadership responsibilities, and an enemy of the US, and has acknowledged multiple ties to the 11 September 2001 attacks.
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/prisoner/39.html
That's just the current King of Saudi Arabia! We haven't even touched on Royal Family member Prince Bandar, the former Saudi Ambassador to the United States yet!
Just a little info on him - His wife sent money to the 9/11 hijackers living in San Diego , California.
"On at least one occasion," the documents show, "Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar's account. According to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $15,000. Bassnan's wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar."
Bassnan and Omar al-Bayoumi, another Saudi living in San Diego, "provided substantial assistance" to two of the hijackers — Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — the documents said.
There are still an estimated 80,000 pages on Saudi Arabia and 9/11 that the FBI is refusing to release....
Russian and China have nukes. One tells us what to do and the other sells us stuff because American manufacturing and paying a decent wage cuts corporate profits.
Flynn describing the nuclear reactor project as "good to go." According to the account, the whistleblower didn't see the substance of the text but recalled seeing a 12:11 p.m. time stamp. At that time, Flynn was on the dais during Trump's inaugural address.
Traitors could wait to sell us out. I'm all for the death penalty if this is all true.
Saudi Arabia is the overseer for American made terrorism. For them to receive nuclear capabilities means that the world of terrorism is becoming nuclear capable itself. This is probably in response to Iran developing weapons.
Is there anything this administration does that doesn't set off some kind of alarm?
As yes Saudis, paying so much for US military gear and in military spending, can't beat a puny Yemen and gets backstabbed by the U.S anyway.
I can't decide which one is the better joke.
US-Saudi relationship is hilarious. So I guess this move was a result of Saudi moving toward Russia and China geopolitically as a result of that whole Kashoggi affair
Turkey must be laughing their ass off.
But this isn’t the way to make up Trump. Give them flowers, a new car at the most a house but don’t give them a damn weapon of mass destruction. The fuck? The pussy isn’t that good.
http://ip3international.com/member/general-ret-john-m-jack-k...
* Iran Contra (does history repeat itself, or do we just like making the same mistakes?)
* 5 million emails "deleted" under the Bush administration
* The Iraq War
* DNC Hacking Scandal
* Use of executive emergency powers to bypass legislation based policy purely to inflame racial sentiments and dog whistles.
* Transferring nuclear secrets to a foreign government illegally <--- You are here
Just a short timeline of events under Republican/conservative U.S. administrations. There's definitely not a pattern or anything though.
I find it hard to believe that MIO can possibly act as a blind trust when it's owned by McKinsey and--in at least the instance covered in this article--shares some leadership.
In Virginia, the judge ordered a reopening of the bankruptcy case of Alpha Natural Resources after an official with the Justice Department’s Office of the United States Trustee argued that the hedge fund was not a “blind trust,” as claimed. The Justice Department pointed out that the head of McKinsey’s bankruptcy practice, Jon Garcia, sat on the fund’s board. Until he stepped down in 2017, Mr. Garcia received regular reports on the fund’s investment decisions and ratified them, the official said.
I don't believe there's anything illegal about this as long as investment decisions are not made based on non-public information McKinsey consultants are privy to due to their work, but it's not far to leap from McKinsey to MIO and the investment returns quoted as well as some of the investments mentioned certainly raise some questions.
This seems like this was included solely so they could mention Enron:
By October 2015, as Valeant’s share price was falling after reports about its undisclosed relationship with a mail-order pharmacy, one research firm described the company as the “pharmaceutical Enron.” Enron, an energy company and McKinsey client, collapsed in 2001. Its chief executive, Jeffrey K. Skilling, another former McKinsey partner, was sent to federal prison.
​
​
Starting to think there might be some questionable business practices in the consulting space. At least all other professional services are on the straight and narrow!
The article buried the mitigating factor in the middle of the article. Hedge fund managers don’t coordinate with consultants, and 90% of MIO’s capital is managed by outside funds, including this one the article is about.
The problem mckinsey faces is that they consult for everyone.
It does McKinsey, as a firm, very little good if their clients' business goes down in flames. They, obviously, cannot bet against their clients (it would be catastrophic to their core business if this was ever publicly disclosed) and so they can only bet with their clients, even if they (unethically and possibly illegally) used their clients proprietary information to trade.
It feels to me that there are some corporations that newspapers can just bash confident that most of their readers will nod along without applying much critical thinking. I understand the skepticism. I used to share it before I got to see the inner workings of organizations like this. There is much to criticize about organizations like McKinsey but violating clients' trust is not one of them.
One last argument against the insider trading inference, the results I have seen, while good, are not indicative of what is possible if smart people were truly trying to take advantage of their knowledge of the inner workings of the largest corporations in the world.
Here is a New York Times story about the “McKinsey Investment Office, or MIO Partners,” the in-house hedge fund of consulting firm McKinsey & Co., which invests employee money, including in companies that McKinsey advises. “That web of relationships underscores the unusual nature of McKinsey’s hedge fund, and the potential for undisclosed conflicts of interest between the fund’s investments and the advice the firm sells to clients,” says the Times, and I suppose there are some shady elements: When McKinsey advises on a bankruptcy, for instance, and its hedge fund owns one or another slice of the capital structure, then there’s a clear potential for conflicts of interest.
Mostly, though, it’s hard to get too worked up about this. For one thing, most of the fund’s money seems to be run by outside advisers, and even the stuff run by McKinsey employees seems to be mostly walled off from the consulting business. For another thing, the incentives are mostly good: McKinsey’s consultants are trying to make the company better, and its hedge fund is invested in the company and wants the company to get better, so there is no problem here. “The firm’s partners stood to profit from their own advice,” says the Times about McKinsey’s indirect investments in Valeant Pharmaceuticals, but why would that be bad? If they do stuff to make the stock go up, then they make money, but that is also what the company wants. (In the event, Valeant’s stock went down, which was bad for both Valeant and McKinsey.) Really companies ought to demand that their consultants buy some of their stock, so they have some skin in the game with their advice.
Of course, what would really be scandalous is if McKinsey’s hedge fund shorted companies that the firm advised, and then the consultants tried to give those companies ruinous advice. You couldn’t advertise that strategy, but much of the Times story is about how secretive MIO is, and if you can be secretive enough then maybe you could pull off this trade.
This is not a generic "all I-banks or management consultants are evil" - there are still plenty of specialized firms out there without these anti-patterns.
Isn't this something similar to insider trading?
They provide a service that is supposed to improve some aspect of a business, then they can internally do predictions on how successful they think their services will benefit/harm the firm and then make a bet either for or against that firm.
The substance of the article strikes me as, "potentially really bad, but no obvious smoking gun".
MIO is a special situations hedge fund, meaning that it looks for companies that desperately need capital for one reason or another, and who have been poorly served by the market for capital because some aspect of their story is messy and/or tough to understand, and provides them capital on terms that give MIO a lot of upside if the company gets back into good shape.
An important thing to understand about special situations investing is that it's usually very active relative to other types. That is to say, I can run a successful long-short equity fund and literally never once interact with any of the leadership of any of the companies in which I take positions; I can, for example, go long Verizon and short T-Mobile and never have to deal with either of those companies' management teams. For special situations on the other hand, the entire value proposition of the fund manager is what they can deliver through their active involvement with the portfolio company that takes the fund's money. So, you'll see special situations funds get super involved in issues like renegotiating long-term leases, or investing in sales teams, or reconfiguring operations to run on a single ERP system, etc -- activities which are right in the wheelhouse of former Big 3 consultants, whose work consists of bouncing from tough problem to tough problem at high-paying clients.
So it's not hard to understand why McK made the decision to found MIO. It kills multiple birds with one stone:
- Makes partners more money through an asset class that tends to post good returns
- Helps their recruiting pipeline because it makes it easier to capture aspiring buy side bigwigs out of college (perennially McK's Achilles heel vs. i-banking)
- Provides outgoing partners with something to do in semi-retirement; MIO employs a shit-ton of semi-retired McK partners to do deep dives on various topics. This importantly has the positive effect on McK's culture of helping clear out the top of the pyramid so young partners don't feel like their career is going nowhere
Anyway, much of what's in the article sounds concerning. For example, the still-serving head of McK's bankruptcy practice was on the board of MIO when it was considering an investment in a coal company that was going bankrupt. On the one hand, this raises hackles; on the other, it's really only a PROBLEM problem if McK was advising that coal company, or had advised them recently prior to the MIO investment. And that might have been the case, but the article does not say whether it was.
The description of the McK's interactions with Guo Wengui is....I'm not sure what point they're trying to make? And similarly, with Valeant, the NYT's gripe is that another fund in which MIO invested went long Valeant at the same time that McKinsey was advising Valeant to increase the price of certain medications.
If I had to guess I'd say that McK has advised 90% of the F500 at one point or another and is actively advising about 30 or 40% of the F500 on something at any point in time. So, I really don't think that McK giving Valeant pricing advice through a consulting project at the same time that a fund MIO invested in was buying Valeant -- with both parties expressly prohibited from communicating with each other and no evidence they did -- as incriminating, though a multiple-hundred percent increase on pricing for any drug is obviously icky.
Anyway, there could be other shoes to drop here, and they could be really bad (e.g. if there were secret backchannel communications regarding the coal company). But I don't see anything in this article that's incriminating on its face.
And the attempt to make Guernsey look like some shady nefarious offshore destination that confers fishiness on anyone whose business dealings go through that jurisdiction? GIVE. ME. A. BREAK. Probably almost half of the hedge funds in Europe are domiciled there, it's like the Caymans or Delaware, talk about a red herring.
This is a non-issue.
Now it’s McKinsey.
Yahoo source: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/technology/yahoos-in-of...
SEC news = instantly downvoted. Post news about Bitcoin's fundamentals if you want an upvote.
Why Building A Quant Fund In Crypto Is Harder Than People Think
Security Tokens Aren't Crypto’s Holiday Gift To Digital Asset Regulation
TokenSoft is the volume leader in compliant token sales.
The open protocol for tokenized debt.
A secure online platform for buying, selling, and storing digital currencies.
A second layer, off-chain scaling proposal for bitcoin.
Ensuring the blockchain is inexpensive and accessible to everyone.
An open protocol for decentralized exchange on the ethereum blockchain.