Connect with us

Market

Google Down: The Perils of Centralization

Published

on


Google was down for only an hour, but Monday’s outage served as a jarring reminder of how much modern existence online depends on the centralized search engine colossus.

From Gmail and Google Calendar to YouTube and even Google’s two-factor authentication, the outage temporarily ground online work to a halt for many, including publications that would have otherwise been reporting on the outage

Moreover, it underscored the hidden costs of the easy-to-use systems that permeate the web, and just how taxing or debilitating they can be when the head of the many-tentacled beast that is Google nods off, even for just an hour. 

“If an internet giant like Google can suffer such a major attack – denying millions of users access to basic internet services – it just goes to show that under the surface of the shiny web interfaces we see, internet infrastructure actually hangs in a delicate and vulnerable balance,” said Jaro Šatkevič, head of product at Mysterium Network, an open-source Web 3.0 project focused on decentralizing the internet.

Google down and out

According to a tweet from Google, the company suffered an “authentication system outage” that essentially rendered a wide variety of servers useless for about 45 minutes because the system was unable to confirm users were who they said they were.

It seemed to largely affect Europe and extended well beyond what people might normally associate with not being able to get into their email. On Android smartphones, for example, native apps like Google Maps ceased to work, and internet-connected devices through Google Home were seemingly also down. 

Tal Be’ery, co-founder and security researcher at ZenGo, the cryptocurrency wallet company, said that, in theory, a decentralized solution that would have allowed users to authenticate their credentials with Google using other services might have solved that problem. Such solutions do exist; however, they were “probably not aligned with Google’s business model and therefore not implemented,” he continued. 

Read more: How a Hacker Launched a Decentralized Network to Track Internet Censorship

The blackout shows just how much control and how far-reaching the effect of having a single point of failure in a centralized system can be. Services and features critical to daily life were suddenly gone, with users having no idea, and much less control over, when they might be back. 

“Google infrastructure is distributed, with servers across all continents. But these depend on each other and are controlled centrally,” said Šatkevič. “They are upgraded centrally. They talk to each other – not just by using the same protocol, but through a shared software that is operated by the same employees (centrally).”

Limits of centralization

While the Google outage appears to be due to internal technical issues, the news comes on the heels of one of the more sophisticated cyber attacks the U.S. government has seen in years, with allegedly nation state-directed hackers infiltrating the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments through a standard remote update by SolarWinds that injected malicious code into a variety of systems. 

SolarWinds, which develops software to manage networks, has hundreds of customers including Fortune 500 companies and other government agencies. These include the Secret Service, the U.S. Defense Department, the Federal Reserve, Lockheed Martin and the National Security Agency.

The update allowed the hackers to then access internal emails at various agencies via Microsoft Office 365. It’s unclear what else they were able to do or access. 

In a rare move, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security issued  Emergency Directive 21-01, which  “calls on all federal civilian agencies to review their networks for indicators of compromise and disconnect or power down SolarWinds Orion products immediately.”

These single points of entry, automatic updates controlled by a central actor and the swath of disruption they can enable are part and parcel of Web 2.0, which relies largely on central actors to maintain systems, control access to them and ensure they run smoothly. But that has siloed power in the hands of a few massive, centralized companies such as Google, internet service providers and others. 

Pushing back on power

While there is some early pushback, including antitrust cases being brought against Google and Facebook in the U.S., there have also been extensive lobbying efforts on behalf of those behemoths to maintain their power in places like the European Union. 

“My personal opinion is these companies are just old-fashioned monopolies,”  said Canadian-British tech blogger and science fiction writer Cory Doctorow when I spoke with him earlier this year. “Their growth is not because of the magical properties of data or network effects or whatever. It’s just because they bought all their competitors, which is a thing that used to be illegal and is now legal.”

Read more: Cory Doctorow: The Monopoly Web Is Already Here

Decentralized architecture prevents this form of centralized control by design, making sure no one person can make a call, decision or update (or mistake) that might affect millions or even billions of people. CoinDesk has reported on the implications of this that play out in the public discourse, such as the debate over content moderation on social media, which some see as corporate censorship. 

But in the case of Google, such centralized constructions of data and power show the long shadow these companies cast over seemingly mundane and increasingly critical parts of our lives. 

Be’ery said at ZenGo they are not “religious” about decentralization; rather, he believes a hybrid model, smartly combining the robustness and security of decentralization and the simplicity often associated with centralized services, is the best solution for customers in many cases. 

What’s next is continuing a debate to decide whether that remains the case. 

“Explaining the advantages in decentralization to end users is usually harder as these advantages of greater stability and robustness do not manifest themselves on a daily basis,” said Be’ery. “Only in time of failures, such as the one experienced by Google users today, are the merits of decentralization highlighted.”





Source link

Market

Altcoin Rally Dimming Bitcoin’s Shine, Polkadot Gains 34% in One Week

Published

on

By


Polkadot (DOT) saw daily gains of 22.5% wrapping up an impressive week with an almost 34% rise in its value.

Bitcoin bullish run looks to have come to a halt amidst an altcoin rally which has seen relatively lower coins put up impressive performances in the past few weeks. Bitcoin dominance is gradually fading as many experts believe the biggest digital coin is backing down as some top altcoin are showing strong “moves” or signals. 

Bitcoin hit an all-time high over the weekend, the third time its price has done so in just over 2 months. The price of the biggest digital coin touched $28,400 on December 27, before a lightning drop took it to $27,000 just hours of that incredible feat. 

Bitcoin failed to hold onto the $27,000 mark as its price further dropped to $26,000 a day after and is now testing lower levels centered on $26,000 as immediate support. Reports from crypto exchanges revealed BTC/USD trading at lows of $25,830 during the early hours of December 29. 

While Bitcoin has seen red over a couple of days, some altcoins are putting up impressive numbers, giving off signals of a strong altcoin rally. Despite XRP’s current issues, the altcoin market is showing glimpses of its glory days as some digital coins are poised to see major gains over the next couple of weeks. Ethereum (ETH) is at the forefront of the rally, with its price climbing above $700 for the first time since May 2018. 

Polkadot (DOT) also saw daily gains of 22.5% wrapping up an impressive week with an almost 34% rise in its value. The coin is now the seventh-largest token by market cap. Kusama (KSM), a cousin of Polkadot, also saw its price gain 46% last week, pushing its price from $43.1 to $63. The digital token is currently trading at $56 but experts are adamant a breakout above $65 is possible as the token has rebounded off the 20-day exponential moving average ($50.90)

Speaking on the possibility of a long term altcoin rally, analyst Van de Poppe stated that altcoins are next in line to see greens. He added that the next “impulse wave” on Bitcoin next year should be able to take the market to $40,000 or $50,000, but until then, the possibility of a continuance altcoin rally is very much likely.

Although many factors could be in play with regards to the latest Bitcoin price dip, it’s recent fallout with Ripple’s XRP leads the way. Ripple was hit with a lawsuit from the United States Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and subsequently suffered drops that left its price in a pit. XRP, the fourth-largest cryptocurrency by market cap, is now trading at $0.20 as news broke that Coinbase, a major US cryptocurrency exchange has decided to suspend its trading from next month.

next Altcoin News, Bitcoin News, Cryptocurrency news, News

Crypto fanatic, writer and researcher. Thinks that Blockchain is second to a digital camera on the list of greatest inventions.



Source link

Continue Reading

Market

Taylor Monahan: The Year the Narrative Became the Truth

Published

on

By


The year 2020, as told by the Crypto Believers, will most certainly go down in history as the year the curtain was finally pulled back.

For so long we sounded the alarm about the threat of centralized entities. For so long we warned of the unsustainable monetary policy of the United States Federal Reserve. And then, suddenly, a global pandemic begets “money printer go BRRR” begets endless inaction by those who claim to be our leaders. Finally, those outside our bubble began to question what they once knew.

This post is part of CoinDesk’s 2020 Year in Review – a collection of op-eds, essays and interviews about the year in crypto and beyond. Taylor Monahan is the founder and CEO of MyCrypto, a simple dashboard for managing all your Ethereum-based assets.

There were signs of a new, shared realization as non-believers began to quip, “If we can just print money, I shouldn’t have to pay taxes” and, “This is unsustainable. We’re screwing ourselves.” There were also signs they began to see how much absurdity dominates our lives. Discrimination didn’t end in 1863 or in 1964 or in 2019. We have never had “the lowest Fatality (Mortality) Rate in the World.” The stock market is not the economy. Their truth is not true.

Moreso, the truth seemed to be whatever those in power wanted it to be. Or rather, the truth is whatever we, those not in power, believe it to be. So long as enough people believe it to be true, it is true.

Our new reality manifested in everything from increased anxiety and depression as the world remained in a state of locked-down uncertainty, to debates about masks and potential COVID-19 treatments, to the Black Lives Matter movement coming back with a vengeance. 

One of the least-complex manifestations of the power of shared belief was the curious case of Hertz’s stock price pumping 900% in the weeks following its bankruptcy filing. It left otherwise rational, mature, market-minded adults (and Hertz itself) bewildered. As far as anyone has been able to sort out, after a lifetime of believing The Adults knew what they were doing The Kids realized the truth and took action on the not-so-secret secret that you don’t win the market by betting on the future – you win when you bet on what other people think will happen in the future. The Kids also happen to know, more than any other generation, that technology is the key to changing what other people think.

(Wikimedia)

The Hertz moment

I actually completely missed the Hertz situation when it first made headlines. I’m sure I saw the articles as I doomscrolled through another day of lockdown. But, as the story is so familiar, I didn’t even bother registering it to my memory. Crypto has been pumping and dumping and re-pumping and re-dumping empty shells of coins for years.

Hertz was especially uninteresting as it followed the classic pump-and-dump scheme, like what might be found on bitcointalk.org in 2013. Today’s decentralized finance (DeFi) token schemes are wrapped up in automated market makers, interoperability and yields, often making it hard to discern whether the shared delusions of the players are giving the tokens value, or if the perceived value of the tokens are creating the shared delusion. To complicate things, there is a third, meta layer: The players are aware they are playing a game and can predict the cycle of their shared delusion. The whole thing is a grotesque ouroboros – all simultaneously feeding itself, and feeding off itself, and birthing itself in some eternal, cyclical, scammy mindf**k.

See also: Taylor Monahan – As We Hunger for Viability, Let’s Stay True to Our Values

Well, maybe not “eternal.” The folks who “ape’d into” the DeFi things this summer had such a finite view, usually minutes or hours rather than months or years. It’s hard to grok how any DeFi thing could survive once the heavily subsidized reward period wore off. Especially if two or three or 10 freshly subsidized DeFi things had launched since. Yet they somehow did … sorta.

It’s even harder to understand how this became a dominating force of 2020 considering the intense individualism and selfishness that it both fuel, and is fueled by. We’ve managed to build thousands of “every man for himself” sub-networks on a sprawling, decentralized, cooperative, consensus network. Luckily, or perhaps unluckily if we value our humanity, decentralized consensus networks don’t care about the morality of the things running on it.

And, as much as they continue to fight me on it, I remain convinced that these half-baked farming games are unsustainable in the same way initial coin offerings (ICOs) are unsustainable, in the same way hacked smart contracts are catastrophic, in the same way the money printer cannot go BRRRRRR forever and in the same way the serpent cannot devour itself in perpetuity. 

Better system?

Bitcoin has seemingly solidified its place as an alternative, though still slightly experimental, store of value. I would talk more on this but literally everyone is talking about it and I have nothing original to add. I will admit I was wrong in 2015 and 2016 and 2017 when I said the digital gold narrative will never be more valuable than the digital cash one. Any narrative that becomes truth is more valuable than the narrative that fades from memory.

I do wonder what will ultimately become of our historically most persistent narrative, that we are creating a better world. Have we made real progress on banking the unbanked, unbanking the banked, breaking down borders and removing power from repressive regimes and corrupt cabals?

For me, crypto is a worthwhile endeavor because it can provide a viable alternative to the existing systems. Crypto can give people the gift of choice. And with that choice we can opt into the systems that benefit us and opt out of the ones that oppress us.

I wonder if this system will ever be a ‘better system’ or just ‘a system that better serves me?’

CoinDesk’s Year in Review 2020

Between the diminishing returns on truth, the ever-increasing individualism, and our submissiveness to life’s cycles, I wonder if this system will ever be a “better system” or just “a system that better serves me?”

This is important. In one, we aim to remove the system’s very ability to have a 1%. We attempt to break the cycle of oppression. We create systems to humanize any and all participants and prevent ourselves, the early adopters, the influencers and the Believers, from gaining power on the backs of others.

In the other, we simply shift the power from the oppressors of today to the oppressors of tomorrow. The oppressed devour the oppressors. The oppressors are reborn as the oppressed. The cycle continues. And then, one day, some kids show up and it is the Crypto Believers who this time must shout, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”





Source link

Continue Reading

Market

House Approves $2,000 Direct Payments in COVID-19 Stimulus Payouts, Looks to Senate to Vote

Published

on

By


There is a possibility that the Senate Republicans may want to hold onto their conservative approach in increased spending citing longer-term consequences.

The United States House of Representatives passed the votes to support the issuance of $2,000 in stimulus checks to American households or beneficiaries, with expectations from the Senate to also sign off on the higher payments. According to a report from Newsweek, the vote from the House came a day after President Donald Trump signed off the COVID-19 stimulus bill with a $600 direct payment to Americans and his unusual demand to raise the payments calling the initial proposal a “Disgrace.”

The second batch of the COVID-19 relief funds which has been marred by months of negotiation impasse over differences in the budget from both the Republicans and the Democrats in the House and Senate respectively finally saw the consent of the lawmakers and the president who recognized the need to support American families during this holidays season. The President’s proposal to boost the payments has been well received by the Democrats and marked by a 275-134 vote in the House, beating the two-third majority required to pass the bill.

Speaking ahead of the House signing off on the deal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted that “the president of the United States has put this forth as something that he wants to see and part of his signing the legislation yesterday. I hope that view will be shared by the Republicans in the Senate, because we will pass this bill today.” “Republicans have a choice: vote for this legislation or vote to deny the American people the bigger paychecks this need. To reject this would be in denial of the economic challenges that people are facing and it would deny them, again, the relief they need,” added she.

Will the Senate Object to the House Ratified Higher COVID-19 Payments?

From the longer-term dispositions of the Republican-controlled Senate as seen in the months of negotiations for this new paycheck, many believe that there is a possibility that the Senate Republicans may want to hold onto their conservative approach in increased spending citing longer-term consequences.

However, many expect that a move in opposition to the higher payments will be a direct affront to the American people who needed these funds more than ever, and also to the president who is in his last days in office, barring any new developments in his attempts to overturn the results of the November 3rd Presidential elections.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., however, has noted he would force the chamber to take up the measure Tuesday but only one senator would need to object to block the bill from passing.

“Following the strong bipartisan vote in the House, tomorrow I will move to pass the legislation in the Senate to quickly deliver Americans with $2,000 emergency checks,” Schumer said in a statement Monday. “Every Senate Democrat is for this much-needed increase in emergency financial relief, which can be approved tomorrow if no Republican blocks it – there is no good reason for Senate Republicans to stand in the way.”

next Market News, News, Personal Finance

Benjamin Godfrey is a blockchain enthusiast and journalists who relish writing about the real life applications of blockchain technology and innovations to drive general acceptance and worldwide integration of the emerging technology. His desires to educate people about cryptocurrencies inspires his contributions to renowned blockchain based media and sites. Benjamin Godfrey is a lover of sports and agriculture.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending