Mediaboss Marketing

(Updated 9.15.22, 7:50 p.m. for typos.)

An East Coweta High School sophomore is pushing back against a year-long campaign to remove certain books from school libraries.

Ill be frank, I don't believe that censorship is the correct option, Natalie Zern told the Coweta County Board of Education Tuesday. Historically, when books get banned, it doesn't end up well for the people or for the leadership.

A nationwide crusade to eliminate a particular batch of objectionable books in public schools made its way into the Coweta boardroom last fall, resulting in near-monthly tirades and a few lewd read-alouds from local activists who say they want to protect students from exposure to inappropriate materials.

Its been a long, contentious back-and-forth, further complicated by a Georgia General Assembly-mandated policy clarification that effectively excludes those activists from the decision-making process for evaluating objectionable materials unless they are doing so at a school their children attend.

An important voice missing from those tense exchanges, Zern said, has been that of the Coweta County School System students themselves.

Weve had teachers, parents, guardians and concerned citizens with nothing to do with the school system share their opinions, Zern said. However, we've got to hear from someone whom this censorship will actually affect someone you as teachers, parents, citizens and school board members are supposed to be representing.

Zerns parents, both educators, helped her understand that literacy is not only the ability to read and write, she said, but also knowledge or competence in a specific area.

While some speakers may have been able to read, they do not have literacy skills in areas such as childhood education, juvenile and adolescent development or political ideology, Zern told board members.

She recited part of the Coweta County School Systems Mission, Vision and Beliefs statement (www.cowetaschools.com): We believe, as leaders of learners, we must empower students to be active and accountable participants in their learning.

Zern told board members that, as leaders of 23,000 students, you must give us the tools to empower and educate ourselves on matters we deem important to us.

We are not active if we do not get to choose the materials we wish to read in an already very rigid curriculum, she said. We are not accountable if we aren't taught the freedom of media and the freedom to choose. We are not participating if our curriculum is being left in the hands of representatives who are going to take away our books. We are not learning if all media we ingest is tailored to fit the specific wants and wishes of people in the county. And we are not empowered if you refuse to dignify us with the right to learn about different cultures, ideas and things we're interested in.

She said she recently studied censorship in an advanced placement history class taught by Jennifer Sandlin at ECHS, where she learned that banned books throughout history have included any version of the New Testament that was not written in Latin, the works of Galileo, Voltaire, Copernicus and Victor Hugo, and George Orwells anti-authoritarian 1984.

When leaders censor books, they aren't looking out for the good of the people they're looking to forward an agenda that they believe in, Zern said.

They often do so with weak evidence and claims, she said, citing the reading of an isolated passage from Sarah J. Maas Court of Mist and Fury last December. The speaker chose a sexually explicit excerpt to make the point that the book should not be available to students, Zern said, but missed its wider purpose.

Had the speaker exercised their literacy skills, they would have found out that the book is a social commentary with focus on mental health, the main characters severe depression and the abusive relationship the main character undergoes, she said, noting that several areas of the Bible also include sexually explicit or inappropriate content.

Im not trying to bring religion into issues for the sake of controversy, she said. Im simply trying to illustrate that the inclusion of these passages does not undermine the influence or message of the Bible.

Zern also emphasized the importance of reading for fun as well as for school, citing a Scholastic study conducted in 2013 that indicated the practice can increase students Lexile scores and comprehension skills.

Both forms of reading are necessary to fully develop literacy skills and are needed to completely develop a childs reading process, so children should have equal opportunities to read the books they want, she said.

The practice of removing so-called objectionable materials from classrooms robs students of important educational opportunities, Zern said.

A child who is not permitted to read a book in class a book that's being taught by an educator that has been reading and studying it for years is missing out on the lessons, analysis and literacy development that goes along with it, she said. It may seem like a few angry adults now, and one or two censored texts, but before long, it's sure to become a systemic problem.

Convincing students to hate certain books will teach them to hate reading, Zern said.

You're teaching them that the happiness and the lessons found in literature don't exist, she told board members. You're telling them that you value your own personal comfort over their development into a functioning, intelligent and well-read adult. You're telling them that you want them to be treated like a 5-year-old.

Zern was not the only student speaker at Tuesdays meeting.

Seventh grader Colby Wilson also took to the lectern to make the board aware of her objections to the outdated dress code at Arnall Middle School.

Wilson said she has been pulled for dress code violations several times once when she was wearing sweatpants and a sweater.

I would never wear anything inappropriate anywhere, she said.

Shorts have been a particular issue, Wilson said. She was pulled for a violation recently while walking to class, surrounded by her friends and peers.

Not only was this embarrassing, but the situation was handled horribly, Wilson said. The administrator should have pulled me aside to speak about whatever they thought was the problem.

Wilson said she is tall and has trouble finding clothes to fit the dress code.

The teachers and staff say that girls thighs and legs are inappropriate and distracting, she said. But if anyone is distracted, then that person should be punished, not the girls. It is not that you can see my thighs. When girls wear jeans with holes in the thigh area, putting tape over the hole (a fix accepted by many schools) only makes people stare at the area.

Wilson said she thinks its unfair that boys also are allowed to wear shorts but never seem to get violations.

Administrators should be focused on girls education, not our clothing, she said. We are 14 and younger. We should not have to worry about this. When girls get punished for others actions, it makes us feel like it's our fault, and it is not. I hope you take all this into consideration and update Arnalls dress code.

While all seven elected board members were present at the meeting, only six appeared to have been supportive of the students who came before them.

During Zerns comments, Board Chair Beth Barnett gaveled down an interruption from board member Buzz Glover, reminding the board that it was the publics time to speak. Glover explained his outburst later, during board comments.

Ive been on this board a year and nine months, and I heard the most disgusting thing that I have heard said in this room tonight. And no, it was not from the speaker it was from my colleague to the right, Glover said, referring to District 4 representative Linda Menk. I heard my colleague say, What a dimwit. I don't know if she intended for me to hear it or not, but I did.

Glover said hes known Zern for several years and is proud of her. He apologized for Menks alleged comment, which was not picked up on audio.

I hope you didnt hear that, Glover said to Zern.

He went on to issue an open invitation for other Coweta students to speak at future meetings.

I invite all 23,000 of you that are out there to come speak on whatever subject you like, and I never and I hope nobody on this board would think anything less of any student whether I agree with them or not. Or any other speaker, he said. Im looking forward to January 2023.

Menk, an embattled two-termer, was unseated by challenger Rob DuBose in June after he earned nearly 80 percent of the runoff election vote.

DuBose takes office in January 2023.

See the rest here:
Student tells BOE censorship is not the 'correct option' - Newnan Times-Herald

Ethereums upgrade to proof-of-stake (PoS) may make it more vulnerable to government intervention and censorship, according to the lead investigator of Merkle Science.

Speaking to Cointelegraph following the Ethereum Merge, Coby Moran, a former FBI analyst and the lead investigator for crypto compliance and forensic firm Merkle Science, expressed his thoughts on some of the risks posed by Ethereums transition to PoS.

While centralization issues have been broadly discussed leading up to the Merge, Moran suggested the prohibitive cost of becoming a validator could result in the consolidation of validator nodes to the bigger crypto firms like Binance, Coinbase and Kraken.

In order to become a full validator for the Ethereum network, one is required to stake 32 Ether (ETH), which is worth around $47,000 at the time of writing.

A pre-Merge report from blockchain analytics platform from Nansen earlier this month revealed that 64% of staked ETH is controlled by just five entities.

Moran continued to say that these larger institutions will be subject to the whims of governments in the world, and when validator nodes identify sanctioned addresses they can be slashed rewards and then eventually kicked off the system, with businesses prevented from interacting with them:

Vitalik Buterin spoke about this risk in an Aug. 18 developer call, suggesting one of the forms censorship could take is validators choosing to exclude or filter sanctioned transactions.

Vitalik went on to say that as long as some validators do not comply with the sanctions, then these transactions would eventually be picked up in later blocks and the censorship would only be temporary.

On Aug. 8, crypto mixer Tornado Cash became the first smart contract sanctioned by a United States government body.

Related: Rep. Emmer demands an explanation of OFACs Tornado Cash sanction from Sec. Yellen

In reaction, various entities have complied with the sanctions and prevented the sanctioned addresses from accessing their products and services.

The development has had a large effect on the Ethereum community, with EthHub co-founder Anthony Sassano tweeting on Aug. 16 that he would consider Ethereum a failure and move on if permanent censorship occurs.

View post:
Ethereum may now be more vulnerable to censorship Blockchain analyst - Cointelegraph

Artists who have faced censorship are taking center stage at Unit London. Sensitive Content, curated by artist Helen Beard and art historians Alayo Akinkugbe and Maria Elena Buszek, presents artworks that have challenged the status quo by raising questions on artistic freedom and foregrounding issues linked to the circulation and suppression of art.

On view through October 16th, the group exhibition examines censorship and artistic freedom from multiple standpoints. The interrogative nature of Sensitive Content expands on social, cultural, and political issues touching upon gender, sexuality, religion, race, and eroticism, among other topics. Featuring 19 artists whose works have fought against the culture of censorship, the show addresses agency, access, and power to encourage viewers to engage in an expanded public discourse.

The personal is political in Sensitive Content. The works of Polly Borland, Micol Hebron, and Emma Shapiro draw attention to sexisms role in the policing and censoring of specific body types, deeming them as inherently sexual when unclothed. Feminist themes also emerge in Leah Schragers Infinity Selfie series (2016) and Caroline Coons performance piece I AM WHORE (2019). Schragers digitally manipulated photographs blur the line between model and photographer to question how one is represented and by whom. Meanwhile, in Coons compelling historical examination of misogynistic tropes, the artist forces the viewer to encounter the uneasy truths about the violence women still face in todays patriarchal societies.

With artworks depicting erotic and sexual themes that have often been deemed obscene, controversial, or inappropriate, Sensitive Content features pioneers in feminist artsuch as Carol Rama, Betty Tompkins, Penny Slinger, and Linderwho prominently incorporate explicit imagery in their practices. In the 1970s, French customs confiscated photorealistic works from Tompkinss Fuck Paintings series, declaring the pieces obscene. Whereas thousands of copies of Slingers 1978 book Mountain Ecstasy were seized and destroyed by British customs, Linders collages had to be published covertly due to the ongoing restrictions. Many of the shows artists still frequently battle with the limitations placed on exhibiting and disseminating their work.

One such artist is co-curator Beard, whose radiant paintings depicting female pleasure seduce through vivid and bold graphic shapes. Beards social media posts of her paintings are frequently removed due to alleged violations of community guidelines. Like Beard, Beverley Onyangunga has often been shadow-banned on social media. Onyangungas archival photomontages depicting the history of colonial violence remind viewers of the excruciating atrocities that took place from 1885 to 1908 in Congo Free State, present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo. Under the gruesome, 23-year-long colonial rule of Belgiums King Leopold II, Congolese children and adults were brutalized and denied access to food if they failed to meet their daily rubber quotas.

Onyangunga recalls this period of history in her installation Parts of a Rubber Tree (2022), in which the leaves of a tree are replaced by red rubber gloves. In Onyangungas photo collage Archive I (2022), a red rubber glove appears again; this time, it occupies the space where a Congolese childs hand was severed. A missionary grips the childs arm, while Black children pay witness to the scene and Leopold IIs head and torso peek up from behind them.

Other artists have faced repercussions outside of the digital sphere for the content in their work. Russian activist and performance art group Pussy Riot and Chinese artist Xiao Lu have previously been detained by their respective government authorities for political dissent. Pussy Riots three artworks in Sensitive Content, all titled Push This Button (2022), feature a call to action followed by a kaomoji: This button makes you squirt =^.^=, This button eliminates sexism =^_^=, and This button neutralizes Vladimir Putin =^.^=. Despite their cutified appearance, the politically charged works are met by viewers with caution.

In Xiaos performance Polar (2016), the artist climbs into a semi-transparent cubicle made of ice. With only a kitchen knife, Xiao repeatedly hacks at her icy confinement, even as she begins to draw blood and stain her surrounding environment. The violent and aggressive subtexts found in Polar are recurring themes in Xiaos transgressive work critiquing the CCPs political and social policies. Perhaps Polar can also be understood as a symbolic pursuit of breaking free from the constraints of a patriarchal society.

Meanwhile, Renee Coxs photograph Yo Mamas Last Supper (1996)which features Cox as Jesus in the center of the composition, surrounded by 11 Black men and a white man, Judaswas deemed sacrilegious and offensive by both the Catholic Church and thenNew York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. The latter called for a commission to set decency standards for all publicly funded art. Its worth asking whether the artwork sparked such opposition due to its reinterpretation of a biblical scene or because such artistic license was taken by a Black woman.

Operating as a site for thought-provoking public discourse that welcomes both contemporary and historical artistic acts of resistance, Sensitive Content responds to the complex sociopolitical and cultural mechanisms involved in silencing and suppressing narratives deemed threatening, disruptive, obscene, divergent, or offensive. As the curators stated in the exhibition catalogue, Ultimately, despite their many differences, the artists in Sensitive Content have a shared commitment to the real over the fakewhether in our politics, interactions or expressionsthat binds them more deeply than their works censorship. This exhibition hopes to honor that courageous common bond. And indeed it does.

Read this article:
With Graphic Works on Sex and Inequality, a New Show Addresses Artistic Censorship - Artsy

Finance Magnates got the opportunity to get the thoughts of Brian Pasfield, CTO at Fringe Finance on the future of Ethereum's move to PoS, DeFi's split into permitted and non-permitted, and shares his vision of where this could lead DeFi in the future.

Q. The transition to PoS is the dawn of the bifurcation of DeFi into 'permitted' and 'non-permitted' DeFi. What are the possible consequences of it?

Authorities have commenced attacks on the DeFi ecosystem by introducing censorship. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. So, any implementation of DeFi that enables censorship is not DeFi. Permissioned DeFi = on-chain CeFi, which eliminates all that is valuable about DeFi. Not even composability as a benefit remains, as it poses existential risks for protocols composed with sanctioned/permissionless protocols. And, much of DeFi has centralized components, which, therefore, attack vectors for authorities to coerce censorship.

Q. What are the prospects of DeFi then?

Keep Reading

DeFis only path is to pursue avenues that assure its censorship resistance. This means removing the reliance on a number of things that are variously characteristic of DeFi today, including doxxed teams, centralized pegged stablecoins and any notion of PoS given PoS introduces a greater attack surface for authorities to enact bribery attacks that can compromise the network.

Q: So Why is DeFi so valuable?

Many participants in the DeFi ecosystem do not recognize DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance. Many view DeFi as just an additional way to deliver financial services and a way to achieve rapid financial gains. But, DeFi is distinct because of its core value proposition. This proposition is valuable to those who have a security mindset - and those who do not want to be stolen from. A security mindset refers to the notion of personal sovereignty and that the aims of authorities and some supra-national organizations are all too often not in the people's interests. A good introduction to understanding this can be found in The Prince by Niccol Machiavelli.

Q. The censorship calls from the authorities will increase. Does this mean that DeFi projects will soon face new difficulties in obtaining licenses? Will they close more often due to censorship?

Any reference to licenses and DeFi in the same sentence indicates a misunderstanding of what makes DeFi useful. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. A truly censorship-resistant DeFi protocol can not be regulated, as it is not susceptible to state coercion. Any nominally DeFi protocol that does require a license is an example of on-chain CeFi. Given DeFis core value proposition, by definition, DeFi will not and cannot be regulated by authorities. It is the centralized aspects of current DeFi that are censorable.

Q. Give examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects. What are their risks?

Examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects are USD-pegged stablecoins. Ultimately, they rely on meat-space entities that can be and have been coerced by authorities to enact censorship. DeFi will move away from its current love affair with USD-pegged stablecoins because of the attack surface they represent in terms of coercion and censorship by authorities.

Q: Many people strongly hold that PoW is a danger and that a move to PoS is necessary. However is there a risk of PoSs attack vectors being exploited by vested interests?

Yes, there is a significant risk. PoS bribery attacks will be attempted. DeFi on PoS will then be TradFI but on a censored blockchain. For humans to unshackle themselves from coercion and censorship and to move to a state of greater freedom, a security mindset is needed. Proper DeFi, with its core value proposition of censorship resistance, is necessary. There are people in the DeFi ecosystem who understand the core value proposition of censorship resistance, and DeFi will find a way. Look for these people and follow their projects.

Q: The industry uses PoS for several reasons: to lower fees and use less energy, and it is also claimed to increase security. Is this true and are there any security issues caused by the adoption of PoS?

Lets analyze new security issues added by the adoption of PoS. Fees are a function of demand for block space. The market dictates the price. The participants demand the security afforded by the current blockchain and are willing to pay the fees. If participants did not demand it, the price would be lower. And we now have L2s which increase throughput and correspondingly reduce fees.

The remaining reason for Eth PoS is energy usage. PoW and PoS have different properties; hence, there are trade-offs moving from PoW to PoS. Particularly, PoS represents a greater attack surface for censorship via bribery attacks, which, if successful, could be fatal for the network. If more people were aware of this, they would ask, is the energy usage matter really as its been described by untrustworthy supra-nationalists? And if so, is reducing DeFis energy usage at the price of removing DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance worth it?

The solution to this is (proper) DeFi will find a way to remain uncensorable in the long term. This may or may not be on the Eth blockchain Blockchain Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Read this Term - and likely will not be, given the current PoS adherents ideological positions distort their ability to make decisions with the required objectivity.

Q: What's your vision of the future of DeFi?

B: DeFi is just starting. It is so new. Many DeFi projects have not fully embraced Its core value proposition of uncensorability. Were now seeing authorities taking action not only to sensor DeFi, but to confiscate assets and take legal action. There is effectively no reason for censored DeFi to exist. DeFi needs to divest itself of its current vulnerabilities to censorship so that it continues to deliver on its core value proposition.

DeFi is one part of the decentralized economy. It's a part of the future decentralized world. A whole new body of legal precedence would evolve in this decentralized space that completely bypasses the distortions of state-based legislation systems. In the areas where it competes with meat-space legacy institutions, the decentralized world will be more efficient and deliver greater prosperity to communities.

Brian Pasfield is the CTO at Fringe Finance with almost 10 years of expertise in blockchain, cryptocurrency, fintech and DeFi. He has delivered technically-complex projects that have leveraged his engineering background and keen understanding of industry trends and philosophies. Furthermore, Brian has worked with industry blockchain bodies to lobby for legislation and government policy changes.

Finance Magnates got the opportunity to get the thoughts of Brian Pasfield, CTO at Fringe Finance on the future of Ethereum's move to PoS, DeFi's split into permitted and non-permitted, and shares his vision of where this could lead DeFi in the future.

Q. The transition to PoS is the dawn of the bifurcation of DeFi into 'permitted' and 'non-permitted' DeFi. What are the possible consequences of it?

Authorities have commenced attacks on the DeFi ecosystem by introducing censorship. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. So, any implementation of DeFi that enables censorship is not DeFi. Permissioned DeFi = on-chain CeFi, which eliminates all that is valuable about DeFi. Not even composability as a benefit remains, as it poses existential risks for protocols composed with sanctioned/permissionless protocols. And, much of DeFi has centralized components, which, therefore, attack vectors for authorities to coerce censorship.

Q. What are the prospects of DeFi then?

Keep Reading

DeFis only path is to pursue avenues that assure its censorship resistance. This means removing the reliance on a number of things that are variously characteristic of DeFi today, including doxxed teams, centralized pegged stablecoins and any notion of PoS given PoS introduces a greater attack surface for authorities to enact bribery attacks that can compromise the network.

Q: So Why is DeFi so valuable?

Many participants in the DeFi ecosystem do not recognize DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance. Many view DeFi as just an additional way to deliver financial services and a way to achieve rapid financial gains. But, DeFi is distinct because of its core value proposition. This proposition is valuable to those who have a security mindset - and those who do not want to be stolen from. A security mindset refers to the notion of personal sovereignty and that the aims of authorities and some supra-national organizations are all too often not in the people's interests. A good introduction to understanding this can be found in The Prince by Niccol Machiavelli.

Q. The censorship calls from the authorities will increase. Does this mean that DeFi projects will soon face new difficulties in obtaining licenses? Will they close more often due to censorship?

Any reference to licenses and DeFi in the same sentence indicates a misunderstanding of what makes DeFi useful. The core value proposition of DeFi is censorship resistance. A truly censorship-resistant DeFi protocol can not be regulated, as it is not susceptible to state coercion. Any nominally DeFi protocol that does require a license is an example of on-chain CeFi. Given DeFis core value proposition, by definition, DeFi will not and cannot be regulated by authorities. It is the centralized aspects of current DeFi that are censorable.

Q. Give examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects. What are their risks?

Examples of DeFi projects with centralized aspects are USD-pegged stablecoins. Ultimately, they rely on meat-space entities that can be and have been coerced by authorities to enact censorship. DeFi will move away from its current love affair with USD-pegged stablecoins because of the attack surface they represent in terms of coercion and censorship by authorities.

Q: Many people strongly hold that PoW is a danger and that a move to PoS is necessary. However is there a risk of PoSs attack vectors being exploited by vested interests?

Yes, there is a significant risk. PoS bribery attacks will be attempted. DeFi on PoS will then be TradFI but on a censored blockchain. For humans to unshackle themselves from coercion and censorship and to move to a state of greater freedom, a security mindset is needed. Proper DeFi, with its core value proposition of censorship resistance, is necessary. There are people in the DeFi ecosystem who understand the core value proposition of censorship resistance, and DeFi will find a way. Look for these people and follow their projects.

Q: The industry uses PoS for several reasons: to lower fees and use less energy, and it is also claimed to increase security. Is this true and are there any security issues caused by the adoption of PoS?

Lets analyze new security issues added by the adoption of PoS. Fees are a function of demand for block space. The market dictates the price. The participants demand the security afforded by the current blockchain and are willing to pay the fees. If participants did not demand it, the price would be lower. And we now have L2s which increase throughput and correspondingly reduce fees.

The remaining reason for Eth PoS is energy usage. PoW and PoS have different properties; hence, there are trade-offs moving from PoW to PoS. Particularly, PoS represents a greater attack surface for censorship via bribery attacks, which, if successful, could be fatal for the network. If more people were aware of this, they would ask, is the energy usage matter really as its been described by untrustworthy supra-nationalists? And if so, is reducing DeFis energy usage at the price of removing DeFis core value proposition of censorship resistance worth it?

The solution to this is (proper) DeFi will find a way to remain uncensorable in the long term. This may or may not be on the Eth blockchain Blockchain Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Blockchain comprises a digital network of blocks with a comprehensive ledger of transactions made in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or other altcoins.One of the signature features of blockchain is that it is maintained across more than one computer. The ledger can be public or private (permissioned.) In this sense, blockchain is immune to the manipulation of data making it not only open but verifiable. Because a blockchain is stored across a network of computers, it is very difficult to tamper with. The Evolution of BlockchainBlockchain was originally invented by an individual or group of people under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The purpose of blockchain was originally to serve as the public transaction ledger of Bitcoin, the worlds first cryptocurrency.In particular, bundles of transaction data, called blocks, are added to the ledger in a chronological fashion, forming a chain. These blocks include things like date, time, dollar amount, and (in some cases) the public addresses of the sender and the receiver.The computers responsible for upholding a blockchain network are called nodes. These nodes carry out the duties necessary to confirm the transactions and add them to the ledger. In exchange for their work, the nodes receive rewards in the form of crypto tokens.By storing data via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), blockchain controls for a wide range of risks that are traditionally inherent with data being held centrally.Of note, P2P blockchain networks lack centralized points of vulnerability. Consequently, hackers cannot exploit these networks via normalized means nor does the network possess a central failure point.In order to hack or alter a blockchains ledger, more than half of the nodes must be compromised. Looking ahead, blockchain technology is an area of extensive research across multiple industries, including financial services and payments, among others. Read this Term - and likely will not be, given the current PoS adherents ideological positions distort their ability to make decisions with the required objectivity.

Q: What's your vision of the future of DeFi?

B: DeFi is just starting. It is so new. Many DeFi projects have not fully embraced Its core value proposition of uncensorability. Were now seeing authorities taking action not only to sensor DeFi, but to confiscate assets and take legal action. There is effectively no reason for censored DeFi to exist. DeFi needs to divest itself of its current vulnerabilities to censorship so that it continues to deliver on its core value proposition.

DeFi is one part of the decentralized economy. It's a part of the future decentralized world. A whole new body of legal precedence would evolve in this decentralized space that completely bypasses the distortions of state-based legislation systems. In the areas where it competes with meat-space legacy institutions, the decentralized world will be more efficient and deliver greater prosperity to communities.

Brian Pasfield is the CTO at Fringe Finance with almost 10 years of expertise in blockchain, cryptocurrency, fintech and DeFi. He has delivered technically-complex projects that have leveraged his engineering background and keen understanding of industry trends and philosophies. Furthermore, Brian has worked with industry blockchain bodies to lobby for legislation and government policy changes.

Continued here:
Censorship in DeFi and the Transition to POS: Causes and Consequences - Finance Magnates

Available: Espaol

According to confidential information accessed by El American, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), which oversees Radio Television Mart, has a list of between 25 and 30 federal employees who could soon be fired from that channel. Since November 2020, right on the brink of the controversial presidential elections, several dozen contractors have been laid off.

At first glance, the matter seems to be a consequence of the budget cuts to be made by the current administration. However, employees and former employees explained to El American that there is strong censorship in the channel and that the budget cut would be one of the numerous measures that have been implemented for months, which would intend to seek to silence both those who discomfort the Cuban regime and those from the United States who are interested in resuming relations with the oldest dictatorship in the hemisphere.

An employee of Radio Television Mart, who asked not to be identified, explained to El American that he has been instructed not to use the word dictatorship in reports and audiovisual products in general. He assured that he also cannot use the word regime and, instead, has been asked to use the word government to refer to Castros tyranny. Likewise, the word dictator is forbidden and the word president must be used, according to our source.

What they tell you had happened during the administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, which ended in 2017. Colleagues related to me how they were censored back then. The budget is a pretext, an alibi, an old trick of the socialist clique that has done so much harm to the dream of the visionary Jorge Ms Canosa and the great Ronald Reagan, Luis Leonel Len, a former OCB contractor who worked for years at Radio Televisin Mart, commented to El American.

Radio Televisin Mart has been since its creation a space that is supposed to be dedicated to showing not only Cubans, but the American people and the entire world, the truth of what is happening on the island under a regime that has been in power for decades. The statements and testimonies of employees and former employees about an environment of censorship that would be an open secret are of great concern to the entire Cuban community and to the defenders of freedom of expression.

"*" indicates required fields

Another source contacted by El American pointed out that the cut in funds is functional to continue firing people who are uncomfortable with the interests of the Castro regime. He also assured that what is being experienced in the working environment of the channel is fear.

Luis Leonel confirmed these statements, assuring that if not everybody, a great part of the people are afraid. I was not told that. I lived it. It was sad and frustrating to see how fear is a constant where freedom is supposedly defended. The people I worked with still regret it. And you dont have to be very enlightened to clearly understand that if there is fear, it is because something is very wrong there.

El American also spoke with Isabel Cuervo, a renowned investigative journalist who was fired from Radio TV Mart in 2018. When we asked her if she experienced any kind of censorship at the channel, she answered the following: The biggest censorship that has ever happened in the history of Radio TV Mart was imposed on me, when in October 2018 they censored a report on George Soros, deleted it from all platforms, escorted me out of the building and then subjected me to federal investigation.

In relation to the atmosphere in the media, Cuervo said: With the Soros case they left a strong precedent, but obviously the censorship and silencing of journalists will continue. It is a shame and a real danger that this is happening in the United States.

Regarding the importance and impact of the media, Luis Leonel pointed out that Radio Mart could be the detonator for the Cubans imprisoned on the Island to finally reach the longed-for freedom, which has not yet been achieved and which will not be possible without a media that directly and systematically sends them free information. He also added that deactivating Radio Television Marti would be a great victory for Castroism. They want it as much as they want the Embargo removed and the Guantnamo Naval Base handed over to them, he said.

Legislators from both parties have sent a letter to the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which is in charge of OCB, to reject the budget cut. Mario Daz-Balart, Carlos Gimnez, Mara Elvira Salazar, Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, among others, have stressed the importance of Radio Televisin Mart for the Cuban people and access to free information.

The budget cut for OCB is worrisome and would significantly affect a medium that for a long time has denounced to the world what Cubans suffer. However, the allegations of censorship within the media are even more alarming. Turning off the voices of Radio Television Mart that tell the reality of what is happening under Castros regime would almost be tantamount to legitimizing the Castro dictatorship and Miguel Diaz-Canel before the world. There are no media anywhere in the world that does what Radio Televisin Mart has done for decades in giving voice to the Cuban people.

Vanessa Vallejo. Co-editor-in-chief of El American. Economist. Podcaster. Political and economic analysis of America. Colombian exile in the United States // Vanessa Vallejo. Co-editora en jefe de El American. Economista. Podcaster. Anlisis poltico y econmico de Amrica. Colombiana exiliada en EE. UU.

Follow this link:
Censorship at Radio TV Mart? Employees of the Historic TV Station Talk About Possible Mass Dismissals - El American