Monday, October 30, 2017

BLOCKCHAIN, SMART CONTRACTS , HASHGRAPHS , PART 8 - CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL




THIS POST IS CONTINUED FROM PART 7 , BELOW--






Smart code MUST accurately reflect  obligations in the natural human language legal agreement.

In many respects, at least for lawyers, the external model is only a small step further than the operational mechanics derivatives counterparties already have in place. 

Indeed, there are areas where  such automation already takes place – for example, daily collateral flows are already automated in  the manner described above in certain margining arrangements.

That is not to belie the potential  impact a widespread adoption of the external model might have operationally, but merely to note  that it would likely be a fairly inconsequential step for lawyers.

In the external model, therefore, it is not the contract itself that is ‘smart’, but rather the code  building blocks that would accompany it and would be used to execute it.

In the internal model, much of the legal contract would likely remain in its present form but,  critically, with certain conditional logic elements of the legal contract rewritten in a more formal representation than the current natural human language form.

A computer would then take that more formal representation and execute the conditional logic automatically.


Lawyers would need to learn this programming language to be able to draft  smart contracts.    We cant have BOTTOM DREGS OF THE SCHOOL CEREBRAL BARREL LAWYERS anymore.


When everybody and every tech in the world was trying to build technology for our intermediaries – FIs, brokers and middle men in trade deals there was one guy Satoshi Nakamoto who believed that no intermediary should be involved in asset exchange and he invented blockchain, which is primarily a decentralized database with great and magical cryptography.




Blockchain can be used to guarantee that results of clinical trials won’t be changed by pharmaceutical corporations to fit desired results.  Creating a unique identifier for each clinical test and registering it in a blockchain, we can guarantee its safety and integrity.   In the medical field, blockchain can also be used to ensure the correctness of prescriptions for drugs.

Dubai announced that all government documents should be secured with blockchain by 2020. Such step may be considered as a prerequisite for agencies to stop using paper sooner or later.

Again, blockchain networks rely on a decentralized infrastructure that can’t be controlled by any one person or group. Unlike political regulation, blockchain governance is not emergent from the community. 

Rather, it is ex ante, encoded in the protocols and processes as an integral part of the original network architecture. To be a part of a community supporting a blockchain is to accept the rules of the network as they were originally established.

In a blockchain transaction, you don’t have to trust your counterpart to perform their obligations or properly record transactional data, since these processes are standardized and automated, but you do have to trust that the code and the network will function as you expect.

Blockchain networks resist political governance because they are governed by everyone who participants in them, and by no one in particular.

The power of blockchain technology is that it can algorithmically enforce private agreements and community principles at a global scale by shifting the cost of trust and coordination to the network. This is what allows blockchains to create new markets where they couldn’t exist before, whether for political or for economic reasons. To do this, we have to be able to trust the blockchain, and to trust that no one controls it.

In today's traditional banking system, a court might order a bank to freeze at-risk funds before a would-be thief has the chance to abscond with them. In the blockchain's completely trustless world, there is no such authority to implement the court's protective measures. 

Similarly, banks can often unwind or alter fraudulent transactions, such as those initiated by the victim of a scam. When settling a transaction on a blockchain, there is comparatively little that can be done once the transaction is broadcast to the network. 

Short of convincing a substantial majority of users to coordinate a hard fork and change prior entries to the ledger to return the stolen funds, victims are out of luck.

The ineffectiveness of legal remedies is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to the legal uncertainties associated with using blockchain technology. 

Courts will soon have to grapple with the jurisdictional implications of assets that exist solely in the cloud, on hundreds of identical copies of a digital ledger, and are stored on computers throughout the globe. 

For these and other reasons, anyone curious about the blockchain-ULU ( or is it blockchain-UDU? )  and its disruptive potential should consider the effect that existing, somewhat-incompatible laws could have on society's ability to regulate this emerging technology.

Not all legal principles can easily be converted or encoded into technical code or be expressed by means of Boolean logic (in which values are reflected as either true or false), for example, requirements of reasonableness and good faith.  

Similarly, a machine may have difficulty applying or verifying warranties that a certain state of affairs exists. For a smart contract to be purely self-enforcing, we would need to build it in a way which addresses these issues.

Smart contracts may need to anticipate every possibility, including factors extraneous to the contract itself, for example, if it later becomes evident that the agreement or performance is illegal. 

While this may be possible in relation to real-time performance (such as buying a Coke from a vending machine), this becomes more complex in long-term contracts. The DAO hack is again a good example of the need to anticipate multiple permutations.

Many of these issues can be addressed by the careful crafting of both the legal agreement and the smart code.. Our current legal system has been developed around traditional contracts, using well-established principles that have developed over time, such as reasonableness. Smart Contract 2.0 must bring new and unique challenges and risks, which will require creative legal and technical thinking.

Smart contracts are a natural progression for the legal system, and traditional lawyers will need to rise cerebrally  to meet their challenges.

For Smart Contract 2.0, our role as lawyers must extend beyond finding a way to apply traditional contract principles to smart contracts, to understanding and developing new constructs which support the operation of smart contracts. 

We may also need to start applying Boolean logic. After all, the aim is to develop the perfect smart contract which admits no ambiguity, can be interpreted in a binary fashion and anticipates every possible outcome.

 Smart Contract 2.0 will certainly need the BRAINY,  CREAM OF THE SCHOOL CEREBRAL BARREL  "smart lawyer".

 IoT is also implicitly about automating everything. And that implies bringing a lot of business concepts along for the ride -- including the idea of a contract to govern business transactions by.

Contract law has a rich history, with several centuries of common law practice and legislation. So, when forward thinkers propose to make contracts "smart" and power them through blockchain, it's both exciting and daunting.

One of the biggest issues in IoT is knowing who you are connecting to. That requirement for trust mechanisms across millions or billions of sensors is what makes a distributed system like a blockchain vital

The Internet of Things is rapidly expanding its potential to transform everyday life with smart homes, cities, farms and manufacturing facilities. 

This development is already taking place, however, he current server infrastructure and internet architecture is unlikely to be able to support the imminent IoT revolution. 

With so many devices connected to the internet, management and security are a concern. The servers will become overloaded and represent a single point of failure, making the system vulnerable to cyber-attack.

Blockchain allows digital information to be distributed but not copied and in doing so has created a new type of internet that seems incorruptible. Initially designed for financial transactions blockchain technology can be used to record just about anything of value. 

The objective is to create a single version of any particular transaction, containing more information than what can be offered by any one singular system, revealing transparent, real-time data for various uses.

The technology itself underpinning blockchain consists of encryption enabling security and anonymity, mutual consensus verification resulting in collective network updates and hence an accurate dataset at all times without the need for a central governing authority. 

By providing a secure mesh network, blockchain can deliver a platform for IoT to interconnect reliably and avoid the threats that plague central server models. 

There are companies already using blockchain to power IoT systems, especially in the agriculture and manufacturing industries where there is a need for remote sensors and automation. IoT, powered by blockchain technology, enables a low power, secure network that can remotely manage physical operations without centralized cloud servers.

Smart homes are the next port of call for blockchain technology.  Companies are  using blockchain to secure smart home IoT ecosystems by storing biometric and authentication data on a private blockchain. In this way, blockchain is able to verify identity of IoT devices and the people interacting with them to prevent compromised devices usurping the platform. 

Right now, IoT is mainly concerned with collection of data, remote monitoring and device automation. Going forward, the transition is likely to be towards a network of autonomous devices that interact with each other and the surrounding; and make input-based smart decisions, without any human involvement.

Blockchain has the potential to support this communal economy based on machine-to-machine interactions

Blockchain will permit the monetization of data, whereby IoT device owners can sell data generated from IoT sensors for digital currency.

 With the ability to create a secure and equal framework for interactions, where no one individual is in charge, incidentally levels the playing field and opens a development platform for digital entrepreneurs.

Adaptive/continuous analytics is about  ‘What are the appropriate actions /decisions, and how can we adapt to the latest changes?’

The interdependence between IoT and AI also works the other way. IoT’s capacity to enable real-time feedback is critical to adaptive learning systems, since other technologies do not really enable this advanced type of AI/analytics. So they both need each other.

Blockchain technology serves as a platform that allows the transit of digital information without the risk of being copied.

Imagine a spreadsheet that’s practically augmented tons to times across a plethora of computing systems. And then imagine that these networks are designed to update this spreadsheet from time to time. This is exactly what blockchain is.

Information that’s stored on a blockchain is a shared sheet whose data is reconciled from time to time. It’s a practical way that speaks of many obvious benefits. To being with, the blockchain data doesn’t exist in one single place. This means that everything stored in there is open for public view and verification. 

Further, there isn’t any centralized information storing platform which hackers can corrupt. It’s practically accessed over a million computing systems side-by-side, and its data can be consulted by any individual with an internet connection.

It is vital to note, blockchain cannot be controlled by a single people, entity or identity, and has no one point of failure.   Just like the internet has proven itself as a durable space since last 30 years, blockchain too will serve as an authentic, reliable global stage for business transaction as it continues to develop.

Veterans of the industry claim that blockchain lives in a state of consciousness. It practically checks on itself every now and then. It’s similar to a self-auditing technology where its network reconciles every transaction, known as a block, which happens aboard at regular intervals.

This gives birth to two major properties of blockchain – it’s highly transparent, and at the same time, it cannot be corrupted. Each and every transaction that takes place on this server is embedded within the network, hence, making the entire thing very much visible all the time to the public. 

Furthermore, to edit or omit information on blockchain asks for a humongous amount of efforts and a strong computing power. Amid this, frauds can be easily identified. Hence, it’s termed incorruptible.

There isn’t a defined rule or regulation about who shall or can make use of this immaculate technology. Though at present, its potential users are banks, commercial giants and global economies only, the technology is open for the day to day transactions of the general public as well. The only drawback blockchain is facing is global acceptance.

All IoT transactions on the Blockchain will be timestamped thus ensuring that they are available essentially – for posterity.

Navigating the human element needs to be a central component of an IoT strategy. Workers must be informed, trained and motivated to help ensure that IoT information flows freely through systems and is used to reduce the guesswork of decision-making. 

The IoT involves smart devices, deployed at scale, collecting massive quantities of data every day. And that data must be trustworthy.
Internet of Things (IoT) may be better understood by breaking it down into four elements:---

The widespread use of inexpensive sensor technology by billions of devices to collect data

The ubiquitous data networks through which that data then flows

The scalable, shared data center resources in the cloud, which ingest that data


The analysis of the data (often referred to as big data”), to extract value which justifies the considerable investments and challenges involved in the first three parts




WHEN I CHANGE MY EMAIL PASSWORD ,  I GET A OTP ( ONE TIME PASSWORD )  ON MY MOBILE. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO HOOK UP AADHAR TO  MOBILE PHONE, BANK ACCOUNTS, PAN CARDS, VOTER IDs, PASSPORT, DRIVER LICENCE  ETC

INDIA WILL SOON ABOLISH INCOME TAX AND GO FOR BTT




Last week, criminals launched a phishing scam against MyEtherWallet owners, reportedly earning over $15,000 over the course of a few hours.

The phishing email, claimed that the wallet provider was implementing a hard fork update, urging the victims to unlock their accounts using their Keystore Files or private keys, synchronize their wallets and verify their ETH and token balances. 

By doing all that, one could have exposed their private keys along with providing information on the hackers about his wallet balance.

The hackers went to great lengths to make the phishing site look almost identical to the legitimate MyEtherwallet.com site, even going to the lengths of registering an almost identical domain. 

Only upon closer inspection was it clear that the site used a Unicode trick and that there was a comma under the t.

When someone followed the link and entered their details, the phishers would then have access to a victim’s wallet, allowing for the transfer of funds

Blockchain account holders who have been tricked by the scam are asked to attempt to change their passwords and contact Blockchain for help.

To help protect their accounts against phishing scams Blockchain account holders can enable 2-Step-Verification on their accounts . 

This is an extra layer of security that will prevent cybercriminals from gaining access to their accounts even if they have stolen their account credentials.

A number of blockchain and cryptocurrency companies have fallen victims to phishing scams that utilize the messaging service Slack

Have you ever received a threat that your account would be closed if you didn't respond to an email message?

Phishing email messages, websites, and phone calls are designed to steal money. Cybercriminals can do this by installing malicious software on your computer or stealing personal information off of your computer.

Cybercriminals also use social engineering to convince you to install malicious software or hand over your personal information under false pretenses. They might email you, call you on the phone, or convince you to download something off of a website.

Phishing is the attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords, and credit card details (and, indirectly, money), often for malicious reasons, by disguising as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication.

The word is a neologism created as a homophone of fishing due to the similarity of using a bait in an attempt to catch a victim. According to the 2013 Microsoft Computing Safety Index, released in February 2014, the annual worldwide impact of phishing could be as high as US$5 billion

Phishing is typically carried out by email spoofing or instant messaging, and it often directs users to enter personal information at a fake website, the look and feel of which are identical to the legitimate one and the only difference is the URL of the website in concern.

 Communications purporting to be from social web sites, auction sites, banks, online payment processors or IT administrators are often used to lure victims. Phishing emails may contain links to websites that are infected with malware.

Phishing is an example of social engineering techniques used to deceive users, and exploits weaknesses in current web security.[8] Attempts to deal with the growing number of reported phishing incidents include legislation, user training, public awareness, and technical security measures.

Phishing attempts directed at specific individuals or companies have been termed spear phishing.  Attackers may gather personal information about their target to increase their probability of success. This technique is by far the most successful on the internet today, accounting for 91% of attacks.

Threat Group-4127 used spear phishing tactics to target email accounts linked to Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. They attacked more than 1,800 Google accounts and implemented accounts-google.com domain to threaten targeted users.

The most common form of phishing is the general, mass-mailed type, where someone sends an email pretending to be someone else and tries to trick the recipient in doing something, usually logging into a website or downloading malware. Attacks frequently rely on email spoofing, where the email header — the from field — is forged to make the message appear as if it was sent by a trusted sender.

However, phishing attacks don’t always look like a UPS delivery notification email, a warning message from PayPal about passwords expiring, or an Office 365 email about storage quotas. Some attacks are crafted to specifically target organizations and individuals, and others rely on methods other than email.

A phishing attack specifically targeting the enterprise’s top executives is called whaling, as the victim is considered to be high-value, and the stolen information will be more valuable than what a regular employee may offer. The account credentials belonging to a CEO will open more doors than an entry-level employee. The goal is to steal data, employee information, and cash.

Whaling also requires additional research because the attacker needs to know who the intended victim communicates with and the kind of discussions they have. Examples include references to customer complaints, legal subpoenas, or even a problem in the executive suite.

Attackers typically start with social engineering to gather information about the victim and the company before crafting the phishing message that will be used in the whaling attack.

Aside from mass-distributed general phishing campaigns, criminals target key individuals in finance and accounting departments via business-email compromise (BEC) scams and CEO email fraud. By impersonating financial officers and CEOs, these criminals attempt to trick victims into initiating money transfers into unauthorized accounts.

Clone phishing requires the attacker to create a nearly identical replica of a legitimate message to trick the victim into thinking it is real. The email is sent from an address resembling the legitimate sender, and the body of the message looks the same as a previous message.


The only difference is that the attachment or the link in the message has been swapped out with a malicious one. The attacker may say something along the lines of having to resend the original, or an updated version, to explain why the victim was receiving the “same” message again.

Vishing stands for “voice phishing” and it entails the use of the phone. Typically, the victim receives a call with a voice message disguised as a communication from a financial institution. 

For instance, the message might ask the recipient to call a number and enter their account information or PIN for security or other official purposes. However, the phone number rings straight to the attacker via a voice-over-IP service.

Snowshoeing, or “hit-and-run” spam, requires attackers to push out messages via multiple domains and IP addresses. Each IP address sends out a low volume of messages, so reputation- or volume-based spam filtering technologies can’t recognize and block malicious messages right away. Some of the messages make it to the email inboxes before the filters learn to block them

In a recent phishing campaign, Group 74 (a.k.a. Sofact, APT28, Fancy Bear) targeted cybersecurity professionals with an email pretending to be related to the Cyber Conflict U.S. conference, an event organized by the United States Military Academy’s Army Cyber Institute, the NATO Cooperative Cyber Military Academy, and the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.

 While CyCon is a real conference, the attachment was actually a document containing a malicious Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) macro that would download and execute reconnaissance malware called Seduploader.

A number of senior cyber security pros were in for an embarrassment after it came to light that they fell for a phishing scam conducted by Fancy Bear, a Russian hacker group.

Fancy Bear used a malicious code in a Word document that it sent to cyber security pros who were to attend the Cyber Conflict US conference.

Fancy Bear  is a Russian cyber espionage group.  They employ zero-day vulnerabilities and use spear phishing and malware to compromise targets. Fancy Bear's targets have included Eastern European governments and militaries, the country of Georgia and the Caucasus, security-related organizations such as NATO, as well as US defense contractors Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

Paranaoid travellers have always been wary of hotel Wi-Fi. Now they have a fresh justification of their worst wireless networking fears: A Russian espionage campaign has used those Wi-Fi networks to spy on high-value hotel guests, and recently started using a leaked NSA hacking tool to upgrade their attacks.

Russian hacker group Fancy Bear, has targeted victims via their connections to hacked hotel Wi-Fi networks

Fancy bear have used EternalBlue, the leaked NSA hacking tool, as one technique to broaden their control of hotel networks after gaining an initial foothold via phishing or other techniques

Once those hackers take control of hotels' Wi-Fi, they’re using that access to harvest victim computers’ usernames and passwords silently, with a trick that doesn’t even require users to actively type them when signed onto the hotel network.

The attackers used a network-hacking tool called Responder, which allowed them not only to monitor traffic on the hijacked networks, but also to trick computers connecting to them to cough up users' credentials without giving victims any sign of the theft. 

When the victim computer reaches out to known services like printers or shared folders, Responder can impersonate those friendly entities with a fake authentication process, fooling the victim machine into transmitting its network username and password. And while the password is sent in a cryptographically hashed form, that hashing can sometimes be cracked.

If the Fancy Bear cyberattack was successful, the team would attempt to siphon any secretive data from victims' computers. In one of its most famous attacks, it exfiltrated tens of thousands of emails from the DNC network, which were later leaked online for the world to see.

Cyberwarfare  includes denial of service attacks, hacker attacks, dissemination of disinformation and propaganda, participation of state-sponsored teams in political blogs, internet surveillance using SORM technology, persecution of cyber-dissidents and other active measures.

Ten months ago at Estonia's Tapa military base, Estonian soldiers noticed their contacts were disappearing from their phones and music that they had never downloaded would start playing

DHINKA CHIKKAA DHINKA CHIKKKA


Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..

Barah maheenay mein, Barah tareekay se,
In 12 months, in 12 different ways
Tujhko pyaar jataunga re
I shall express My love

Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..

Barah minute bhi lagta hai ab na tere bin reh paunga re
It feels now that I can't even live without You for 12 minutes

Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..

Haye January mein jab aayegi winter, on kar lenge chaahat ka heater
In January when there shall be winter, We will turn on the heater of Love
February jitni chhoti rajaai, Jis mein khelein hum chhupan chhupayi
The blanket shall be as small as February in which we shall play hide and seek

March hoga romantic mahina, Woh karenge jo kiya kabhi na
March shall be a romantic month, We shall do what we haven't done before
April mein jo hum mil na paaye, Hoga kya kuch nikalo upaaye
We will find a solution if we are not able to meet in the month of April

Ik tujhse chatting main karne ki khaatir, Internet lagwaunga re
Just to chat with You, I will get an internet connection

Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..

Garmi aayegi phir jab May mein, Poolside mein party karenge
In the hot month of May, we shall do poolside parties
June mein lenge lamba vacation, Hum chalenge kisi hill station
In June we shall take a long vacation and we shall go to a hilly area

Haan July mein saavan jo barse, Tujhse yeh mann lipatne ko tarse
In July when there is monsoon, I would love to embrace You tightly
Aish poori August karenge, Aisa kuchh bandobast karenge
We shall enjoy the whole of August, We shall make prepartions for that

London le jaaunga, Paris ghumaunga, World tour karwaunga re
I shall take You to London and Paris, I shall take You on a world tour

Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..

Mujhko lagta hai yaara September, Ik ho jaayega aana tere ghar
I think that in September, I shall be coming to your home
Phir October aaye toh suraj, Doobta dekhenge rakh kaandhe pe sar
And We shall together in October see the setting sun with our heads
on each other's shoulders

Jab tak aayega very November, Kar chuka hoga dil tu surrender
You would have surrender your heart to me till November
Baat pakki ho baarah December, Dil se iss dil ka thappa laga kar
Our marriage will get fixed on 12th of December, with the stamp
of one heart over the other

Na gaadi hogi na ghodi hogi, Paidal hi baarat launga re
There won't be any car or horses, I shall bring the procession on foot

Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..

Barah maheenay mein, Barah tareekay se
In 12 months, in 12 different ways
Tujhko pyaar jataunga re
I shall express My love

Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..

Barah minute bhi lagta hai ab na tere bin reh paunga re
It feels now that I can't even live without You for 12 minutes

Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
A..A..A..A..
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika
Dhinka chika, Dhinka chika

A..A..A..A..

DOUBT AAH GAYA MANN MANDIR MEIN

SHOULD THESE DANCERS 

TIP TOE 

DO PELVIC THRUSTS

DO SOMESAULTS

DO TRAPAZE

DO ROPE CLIMBIMG

DO ACROBATICS

DO BODY CONTORSIONS

ROTATE ON HEAD / ROUND ZE POLE

DO GYMNASTICS 

AND SPLAY THEIR LEGS WHILE WEARING THONGS 

SO THAT WE CAN GET A GENEROUS VIEW OF PIG SORPOTEL SHIT LADEN ASSHOLES

RAMESH GOPI NAIR-- NAY-- BROWN SAHIB REMO DSOUZA --BATAAOH NAAH-PLEAJJJE ?

PUT THIS COMMENT IN REMO DSOUZAs WEBSITE



Below: This is Demi Moore , showing her shit laden asshole  ( pig sorpotel flavored ) --peek a boo behind her thong 


Below: I used to hate Mika Singh's songs --till he sang this number

Aaja Pyaar Ki Ho Deal
Come on let’s make a deal of love
Deal Bole To Heart, Heart
Deal means heart
Amma Yaar Sauda Sauda, Oho…
No, it means deal

Dono Deal Kare Seal
Let’s seal this deal together
Tight, Tight Very Tight

Aankhon Se Ho Agreement
May there be an agreement with the eyes
Oho…
Chale Us Pe Permanent
May it remain permanent
Aa Ha… Ha…
Aur Hasraton Ke Court Mein
And in the court called desire
Yeh Dil Ke Judge Kahein
Let this judge called heart say
Order... Order...

Khaali-Peeli, Khaali-Peeli Rokne Ka Nahi
Don’t stop me without any reason
Tera Peechha Karoon To Tokne Ka Nahi
If I follow You then don’t scold me


Hai Tujh Pe Right Mera
I have a right over You
Tu Hai Delight Mera
You’re my delight
Tera Rasta Jo Rokoon
If I stop You in Your path
Chaunkane Ka Nahi
Then don’t be shocked

Tere Doggy Ko Mujh Pe Bhaunkne Ka Nahi
Your dog shouldn’t bark on me
Tera Peechha Karoon To Tokne Ka Nahi
If I follow You then don’t scold me
Khaali-Peeli, Khaali-Peeli Rokne Ka Nahi
Don’t stop me without any reason


Tu Mere Agal Bagal Hai, Main Tere Agal Bagal Hoon
You’re in my vicinity ,I’m in Your vicinity
Tu Mere Agal Bagal Hai, Main Tere Agal Bagal Hoon
You’re in my vicinity, I’m in Your vicinity


Haaye Fokatiyon Sa Pyaar Karoonga
I’ll love You like a broke man
Baaton Se Hi Pet Bharoonga
I’ll satisfy You with only talks
Miss Call Pe Phone Tu Karna
If I miss call You, You’ll call me back
Mar Jaoon Na Pyaar Mein Warna
Otherwise, I’ll die in Your love


Nahi Bolta Mamma
Otherwise why should mE mother have said this
Har Heart Ka Bhookha
That every heart is hungry (for love)
Majnu Se Kam Tu Sochne Ka Nahi
Never have desires less than a Romeo does
Sachcha Aashiq Hoon
I’m a true lover
Mujhe Tokne Ka Nahi
Don’t scold me
Dhichkiyon…
(Sound of a bullet being fired)
Tere Doggy Ko Mujh Pe Bhaunkne Ka Nahi
Your dog shouldn’t bark at me

Khaali-Peeli, Khaali-Peeli Rokne Ka Nahi
Don’t stop me without any reason
Tera Peechha Karoon To Tokne Ka Nahi
If I follow You then don’t scold me

Tu Mere Agal Bagal Hai, Main Tere Agal Bagal Hoon
You’re in my vicinity, I’m in Your vicinity


Ho... Ghar Se Nikalne Ka Time To Bata
Tell me the time when You come out of Your home
Taaki Rahoon Main Mod Pe Khada
So that I can stand on the corner of the street
Rehta Hoon Main Aaj-Kal Busy
I remain busy nowadays
Wait Karna Hai Mushkil Bada
Waiting for You is a difficult job
Main Road Romeo, Dil Jod Romeo
I’m a road-side Romeo, I’m the Romeo who bonds his heart with others
Raste Mein Mujhko Chhodne Ka Nahi…
Don’t leave me standing alone on the road
Chaahe Dil Tod, Sar Phodne Ka Nahi
Even if You break the heart, don’t break my head
Tere Doggy Ko Mujh Pe Bhaunkne Ka Nahi
Your dog shouldn’t bark at me

Khaali-Peeli, Khaali-Peeli Rokne Ka Nahi
Don’t stop me without any reason
Tera Peechha Karoon To Tokne Ka Nahi
If I follow You then don’t scold me

Tu Mere Agal Bagal Hai, Main Tere Agal Bagal Hoon
You’re in my vicinity, I’m in Your vicinity



Estonian troops on the base now have to follow a "no smartphones" policy and are forced to remove their SIM cards.. It's gotten so bad that their superiors order them to jump into lakes during operations to make sure they're following the policy, and some soldiers are even wrapping their phones in condoms… 

The victims of the phone hackings have largely been the 4,000 NATO troops currently stationed in Poland and other Baltic states



DONALD TRUMP SEND 59 TOMAHAWK CRUISE MISSILES FROM TWO US NAVAL SHIPS , INTO A REMOTE SYRIAN AIR BASE.    

HARDLY ANY MISSILE FOUND ITS TARGET—WASTE OF 75 MILLION USD


SAUDI KING CAME TO KNOW THE HARD WAY THAT HIS GOLDEN ESCALATOR FOR DESCENDING FROM HIS PLANE KOSHER STYLE COULD BE STALLED.


PUTIN SOMETIMES DOES GAAND MASTI




Security firm Cisco Talos announced that it has discovered a sophisticated phishing operation carried out by Russian hacker group Fancy Bear and targeted at cyber security professions attending the cyber security conferences

Fancy Bear posed as event organisers and sent an email to the targeted individuals with a detailed itinerary of the conference which they lifted from the conference website. 

The emails contained a Word document titled "Conference_on_Cyber_Conflict.doc" that contained a well-known reconnaissance malware dubbed 'Seduploader'. Seduploader Payload is a downloader used by Sednit's operators as reconnaissance malware

Fancy Bear targeted cybersecurity professionals for good reason – they are privy to huge amounts of vital data. These conferences are attended by large enterprises, security vendors, and government bodies, making them a huge payload for any hacker

Blockchain, the underlying technology of cryptocurrencies offers a completely unique approach to cybersecurity.

Some of the major corporations in the world, like Lockheed Martin and the US military, have deployed blockchain for securing their data. In India too, state governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, as well as a few commercial banks are using this blockchain-ULU ( or is it blockchain-UDU ? ) technology to protect their database records and fight against cybercrime. 

Recently, attackers had hacked into Equifax’s network that led to a potential compromise of sensitive data of over 146 million of its users, all of which was held in a centralized location. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide. 

Founded in 1899 and based in Atlanta, Georgia, it is one of the three largest credit agencies along with Experian and TransUnion (known as the “Big Three”) 

The company claims to have discovered evidence of the cybercrime event on July 29, 2017 Equifax did not immediately disclose whether PINs and other sensitive information were compromised, nor did it explain the delay between its discovery of the breach in July and its public announcement in early September. 

Equifax stated that the delay was due to the time needed to determine the scope of the intrusion and the large amount of personal data involved..  

Three Equifax executives sold almost $1.8 million of their personal holdings of company shares days after Equifax discovered the breach but more than a month before the breach was made public

In the corridors and break rooms of Equifax Inc.'s giant Atlanta headquarters, employees used to joke that their enormously successful credit reporting company was just one hack away from bankruptcy. They weren't being disparaging, just brutally honest. 

Founded in the 19th century as a retail credit company, Equifax had over the years morphed into one of the largest repositories of Americans' most sensitive financial data, which the company sliced and diced and sold to banks and hedge funds. In short, the viability of Equifax and the security of its data were one and the same.   

Hackers  homed in on a bounty of staggering scale: the financial data—Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and more—of at least 146 million Americans. 

Equifax breach compromised personal information of over 42% of the U.S. population. Equifax reports that the breach began as early as mid-May 2017. It wasn’t discovered until July 29. The company says hackers discovered and leveraged a vulnerability in a web application.

By the time they were done, the attackers had accessed dozens of sensitive databases and created more than 30 separate entry points into Equifax's computer systems. 

The massive breach occurred even though Equifax had invested millions in sophisticated security measures, ran a dedicated operations center and deployed a suite of expensive anti-intrusion software..
The true scale of the cyberattack’s impact remains to be seen.

The impact of the Equifax breach will echo for years. Millions of consumers will live with the worry that the hackers—either criminals or spies—hold the keys to their financial identity, and could use them to do serious harm. Besides amassing data on nearly every American adult, the hackers also sought information on specific people.

Attorneys general in at least five states are looking into why credit-reporting firm Equifax Inc. didn’t tell the public for nearly six weeks about the massive data breach that potentially compromised the personal information of 146 million Americans.

The architecture of blockchains is not designed for massive data sets.   In the case of Equifax, the company’s business practice is about using algorithms to query a massive repository of customer records in order to spit out a credit score. 

While consumers and companies could use a blockchain to access the score, it’s still up to the credit bureaus to protect the underlying pool of personal information. Doing that requires segregating sensitive data and properly encrypting it. Their focus should be on the latest encryption and security techniques for hardening and protecting data sources..

Websites like Equifax require users to enter multiple pieces of sensitive information in order to authenticate themselves and utilize that website’s services. Using blockchain consumers can limit the amount of personal information used to authenticate themselves.   

Consumers will have sovereign authority over their personal information when operating on blockchain since transactions are securely verified by permissioned participants. Hacks of centralized databases (Equifax) are inevitable. Decentralization of personal identity information storage is the only way forward,

In the future, blockchain infrastructure will help mitigate the effect and scope of cyberattacks through its two fundamental characteristics: decentralization and cryptography.  Incidents like the Equifax hack lend credence to the benefits of blockchain in enhancing cybersecurity. 

Bypassing centralized servers and databases will spread consumer information across secured peer-to- peer networks protected by layers of cryptography.

Blockchain in its purest form obsolesces central authorities. However, in order to truly protect consumers, identity management on blockchain must be backed by a robust, established legal framework. 

But while blockchain can’t be a substitute for good data hygiene, the technology will have a role in helping individuals exert control over their identity.  Blockchain may be marvelous but it’s not a magic bullet.


MOST OF THE INTERNET VIRUSES ARE CREATED BY RIVAL ANTI-VIRUS COMPANIES , WHO THEN SELL THE CURE .. 

THEY KNOW HOW TO CURE AS THEY ARE THE REASON WHY THE VIRUS WAS INTRODUCED , IN THE FIRST PLACE.



Blockchain technology uses a decentralized security model as compared to traditional centralized cybersecurity models, eliminating the perils of the single point of breach. This has been the perennial limitation of traditional methods of enterprise security

On a blockchain, the data is stored and distributed on decentralized networks without the authority of any single entity. Every new block of information being added to a chain is encrypted with a part of the previous chain, making the historical record of data unchangeable. 

It is designed in a way that if a hacker tries to alter anything on the blockchain, it will cause a change in the entire data signature, which can be easily identified and isolated to alert the network administrators. 

For a hacker to successfully attack the blockchain network, it would require him to simultaneously alter the constantly-updating nodes, making it almost immune to tampering.

To connect to any network, public keys are used for authentication and encryption under the current public key infrastructure (PKI). By attacking the central repository where certificates are stored, hackers can easily fake user identities and break encrypted exchange of data.

Encryption is performed to ensure the safety and privacy of information sent from one party to another. “Keys” are used to lock (encrypt) and unlock (decrypt) the data that’s transmitted, and if a single key is used for this purpose then symmetric encryption is said to have occurred. 

This method only works when the key that’s used is kept absolutely secure, and as a secret between the two communicating parties. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) uses a combination of asymmetric and symmetric processes. 

An initial “handshake” between communicating parties uses asymmetric encryption to protect the secret key which is exchanged to enable symmetric encryption. 

Asymmetric encryption is used for the rest of the communication, once the secret key has been exchanged. Digital certificates are vital to PKI operations. Each certificate acts as an “electronic fingerprint” for a digital transaction, giving a unique identity to each key pair, and establishing the identity of communicating parties within a group. 

A Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is a framework which supports the identification and distribution of public encryption keys. It provides a set of procedures and policies for establishing the secure exchange of information and enables individuals and systems to exchange data over potentially unsecured networks like the Internet and to authenticate and verify the identity of the party they’re communicating with.

PKI is a standards-based technology that enhances security policies with communications protocols, mechanisms, and procedures to facilitate confidential and trusted exchanges of information between different parties within and outside an organization. 

The infrastructure framework also provides security services such as authentication, integrity checking, confidentiality, and non-repudiation (legal non-deniability).

The PKI based identity on a blockchain is new security technology.. Blockchain technology is being used to protect sensitive records and to authenticate the identity of a user. Keyless Security Infrastructure (KSI) stores data hashes on blockchains and runs a hashing algorithm for their verification. 

Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), an encryption approach which is particularly vulnerable to man-in-the-middle and DDoS attacks, is therefore deleted out of the equation. 

Any data manipulation can be easily spotted as the original hash is available on other nodes linked to the system, enabling banks to go beyond asymmetric encryption and caching in public keys. 

Though blockchain has several advantages over other systems, there are still a few challenges in terms of compliance, regulations and enforcement that will need to be addressed. For example, regulatory issues demand clarity over jurisdictions and how to comply with KYC (Know your customer) and AML (anti - money laundering) laws.

Using technologies like PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) to encrypt the data and store it in the cloud creates a tremendous load and has serious scalability limitations. 

Finally, the centralised architecture of most IoT solutions, means that there are serious resiliency issues. All transactions are processed in the cloud and unavailability of these cloud resources could lead to a complete stop of your business operations. 

Blockchain being a distributed ledger, it can be used to distribute computation, it can be used to log transactions and business operations. KSI (Keyless Signature Infrastructure) blockchain is a technology that can be used to provide integrity of all assets, cloud and devices included.

With KSI, a cryptographically secure hash is created for each asset that we need to protect and it is stored in the blockchain. This allows us to perform audits to see if any data has been tampered with. 

Every change is logged and unwanted changes in data can be detected and acted on. At any point in time, anybody can validate what the truth should be.


By using KSI blockchain, we can log not only data changes in the cloud, but we can also log software changes and configuration changes at the device level. We can make sure that any change on our IoT device is logged and any unwanted changed can be acted upon. 

With blockchain we can make sure secure the data throughout its entire lifecycle. With the distributed architecture of blockchain we also remove the limitations that we have with centralised cloud architectures, both in terms of computation as well as resiliency. 

Keyless Signature Infrastructure (KSI) is a unique, permission-based participation, and independently verifiable calendar hash Blockchain to prove data integrity in perpetuity. Data records can only be added to the calendar hash Blockchain, never removed. 

Each new record is cryptographically linked to all previous records through the progression of the calendar hash Blockchain. Since records are cryptographically linked and nonreversible, it is impossible for one party to manipulate previous records without breaking the overall consistency of the database. 

Data participates in the calendar hash Blockchain through an adaptive and distributed architecture for a reliable, resilient system that produces an immutably timestamped Keyless Signature of the data item. Data is independently verifiable at the point of consumption through the widely-witnessed/distributed calendar hash Blockchain. 

This makes Keyless Signatures ideal for the recording of events, medical records, AM part provenance, transaction processing (smart contracts), and proving data provenance.

Blockchain-based keyless signature infrastructure (KSI), helps to securely manage the public keys, thus eliminating the risk of breach.

Because the data is not stored on one server, but distributed to many parties, even if there is an attack on one system, it will not be affected. That is where the blockchain really helps in preventing data breach attacks

Blockchain creates a trusted environment.  Blockchain allows users to deal with others whom they ordinarily cannot trust, without the need of a neutral third party or regulator. 

Using advanced cryptography, a blockchain is unreadable to the members it is shared with. It is based on hash functions that are constantly updated, making it more secure than simple encryption. The distributed nature of blockchain removes the presence of blind trust in third parties.

When you can trust everyone in the whole chain, it becomes safer and safer to transact upon. The current roll outs we see are communities which have deployed blockchain from the starting to the end point, from bank to the trader. When all parties are fully able to trust each other in a business environment, it is good for security.

To connect to any network, public keys are used for authentication and encryption under the prevalent public key infrastructure (PKI). The keys are awarded through digital certificates managed on an authorized central server. By attacking the central repository where certificates are stored, hackers can easily fake user identities and break encrypted exchange of data.

Because the data is not stored on one server, but distributed to many parties, even if there is an attack on one system, it will not be affected. That is where the blockchain really helps in preventing data breach attacks

Keyless signature infrastructure relies on the use of hash function cryptography as compared to the traditional asymmetric key cryptography used in public key infrastructure, and provides real-time signature validation to ensure comprehensive enterprise security

In a blockchain, an identity of a user can be tied to a tamper-proof hash, making it almost impossible for someone to copy the identity. By matching the identity of an individual tied to the blockchain hash, the entire identity management system can be reconstructed in case of a mishap.


Blockchain technology is also being used to serve as an alternate for HTTP web protocol. The Inter Planetary File System (IPFS) uses blockchain protocol and hash cryptography to make a more secure form of internet.   

HTTP is the foundation of data communication for the World Wide Web. Hypertext is structured text that uses logical links (hyperlinks) between nodes containing text. HTTP is the protocol to exchange or transfer hypertext. 

InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) is a protocol designed to create a permanent and decentralized method of storing and sharing files. It is a content-addressable, peer-to-peer hypermedia distribution protocol. Nodes in the IPFS network form a distributed file system.




InterPlanetary File System. It’s an hypermedia distribution protocol created to make the web faster, safer, and more open. The IPFS is designed to provide a decentralized alternative to the current http protocol that is censorship resistant and much more efficient.

IPFS is a peer-to-peer network run by multiple nodes that store files that are submitted to the network. These nodes store only content that are interesting, including common indexing information that helps users find the nodes that keep the files they are looking for within the network.

Each file submitted to the network is given a unique cryptographic hash that allows the IPFS network to automatically delete duplicates and track version history for every file. Historic versioning prevents information from being easily erased. Since the files are provided by distributed nodes, download speeds are higher.

These characteristics make the IPFS a perfect place to store data, which can be referenced and time stamped with blockchain technology.

IPFS and the Blockchain are a perfect match! You can address large amounts of data with IPFS, and place the immutable, permanent IPFS links into a blockchain transaction. This timestamps and secures your content, without having to put the data on the chain itself.

This creates a sort of beneficial relationship between the two technologies. Since blockchain technology is not fit to store large amounts of data, the IPFS can be used by blockchain applications that need a publicly accessible database. While the immutability provided by miners and the transparency of the blockchain, make it the perfect place to timestamp content and make it publically verifiable.

Certain big internet players have redundant data centers across the globe, but this merely proves the point that the internet has strayed from its mission.
IPFS’s vision is grand: it purports to re-architect today’s internet, which is monopolized by platforms like Google, YouTube and Facebook.  

THESE BIG KOSHER PLAYERS CENSOR THE SOCIAL MEDIA.    IF YOU SAY ONLY 5.9 MILLION JEWS DIES, INSTEAD OF SIX,  THEY TAKE YOUR SITE DOWN.

The internet is conceptually broken.

Our content is stored on servers by hosting and server companies (cloud hosts are merely clouding this fact). If the servers of the hosting company in question go down – our content is also down. Moreover, if your host decides to take down your content – they can do that.

Under the current model, our content / resources / information / knowledge is inherently censorable, extinguishable, and corruptible.

WIKIPEDIA PUBLISHED TERRIBLE LIES ABOUT HINDUISM—AND OUR GOVT HAS DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT



The Turkish government has blocked access to Wikipedia in April 2017 because Wikipedia wouldn’t take down an article that claimed that Turkey was sponsoring Al Qaeda and ISIL. The ban is still active. 

The government of China has blocked around one fifth of the world’s population from accessing websites like BBC, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Amnesty International and many, many others. It’s using what’s called “The Great Firewall of China”.

IPFS’s core improvement over HTTP is that it provides a means to retrieve content from a distributed network of storage providers, using a hashing function of the file to point to where the content is stored on the internet.

IPFS is working to reinvent the internet on the protocol level. IPFS decentralizes storage

Any computer on the network can be a server. Storage is decentralized and distributed. Since things / content are not addressed by IPs, there is no inherent need for static IP addresses. This eliminates the need for dedicated data centers, and reliance on hosting providers. This means that content is addressed by its cryptographic hash. 

A piece of content is named by its content, not by the location of its server. If we compare our strayed internet model to addressing a book by the physical address of a library and the number of the shelf the book is on, IPFS goes back to naming / addressing a book by its title.

Content-addressing (by way of hashes) ensures data integrity, because if even one letter in any stored file changes, the hash is completely different. This opens up the possibility of versioning content similar to git commits. Reverting, transparency, and immutability are all available with this model.

Content-addressing means that we can have CDN-level distribution and efficacy of fetching content, because content can be distributed on hundreds or thousands of nodes all over the internet in a redundant way. This ensures we can still easily require the same content regardless of where we are fetching it from – even if half the internet is down. 

In this system, circumventing things like the Turkish Wikipedia censorship becomes child’s play. Users can easily require same content from their local “swarm” of nodes inside Turkey. Any node on the IPFS network, once it retrieves the content (like a website for viewing), can cache it and become a trustable source of the same content.

In the existing internet model, if a piece of content is moved somewhere else, all links to it need to be updated.

Content-addressing means that the same content – hosted anywhere, or moved anywhere – is still accessible under the same address. The HOW part is up to the protocol

One of the appealing features of IPFS is its protocol versatility

Coupled with its DHT lookup scheme, this allows for development of applications that are immune to censorship attempts and able to “flow” under the radar. The implications of these two components (decentralized architecture and protocol versatility) are big.

A distributed hash table (DHT) is a class of a decentralized distributed system that provides a lookup service similar to a hash table: (key, value) pairs are stored in a DHT, and any participating node can efficiently retrieve the value associated with a given key. 

Responsibility for maintaining the mapping from keys to values is distributed among the nodes, in such a way that a change in the set of participants causes a minimal amount of disruption. This allows a DHT to scale to extremely large numbers of nodes and to handle continual node arrivals, departures, and failures.


DHTs form an infrastructure that can be used to build more complex services, such as anycast, cooperative Web caching, distributed file systems, domain name services, instant messaging, multicast, and also peer-to-peer file sharing and content distribution systems. 

Notable distributed networks that use DHTs include BitTorrent's distributed tracker, the Coral Content Distribution Network, the Kad network, the Storm botnet, the Tox instant messenger, Freenet and the YaCy search engine.






Hashgraph consensus algorithm is an entirely new distributed ledger technology that is much more cost-effective (no proof-of-work), 50,000 times the speed, safer (Byzantine), more efficient (no stale blocks) and mathematically fairer than the blockchain.



This is the future of the internet and decentralized technology.



The "hashgraph" is a data structure which stores stores and updates information with an algorithm which allows a distributed and decentralised community to reach consensus between nodes/members in a fast (250,000 transactions per second) and secure (Strong Form Byzantine Fault Tolerant) way with mathematically proven fairness in the absolute ordering of transactions.




Leemon Baird is the innovator of the hashgraph distributed consensus algorithm, and the Co-founder and CTO of Swirlds Inc..  He co-founded Trio Security and BlueWave Security which were both acquired.




 Capt Ajit Vadakayil puts his money on Dr Leemon Baird Baird Co-founder and CTO of Swirlds Inc.   to create a system better than blockchain   ( and its additional chrons asshole creating hardfork )




Unlike the blockchain, hashgraph is fast with a high throughput (300,000+ transactions per second pre-sharding), fair (mathematically proven fairness with consensus time stamping), and secure (asynchronous byzantine fault tolerant).

These properties expand its use to complex markets, auctions, crypto-currency micro payments, live games (even MMOs), and much more.

There are five different approaches to reaching distributed consensus.  One is  Proof-of-Work, which started with Bitcoin (blockchain).

The second is a Leader-Based system like PBFT, Raft, and Paxos.

Then, there is economy based, commonly referred to as Proof-of-Stake, where we’re kind of gambling money on our votes and hoping that we will come to a consensus in the same way that economies come to a consensus, except that they don’t always.

Then, there are Voting-Based systems that go back decades,-- very slow.


And now there’s hashgraph, which is virtual voting, which means you get all those strong guarantees that we’ve had for decades (with voting), but it’s incredibly efficient because we don’t actually send any votes over the internet. Hashgraph gives us a full history of how we talk to each other.






Hashgraph is a superior distributed ledger technology system that eliminates the need for massive computation and unsustainable energy consumption like those of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Most importantly, it is able to reach a consensus.
  
It has mathematically proven fairness (via consensus time stamping) meaning no individual can manipulate the order of the transactions.

In the blockchain world, a miner can choose the order for which transactions occur in a block, can delay orders by placing them in future blocks, even stop them entirely from entering the system.

Consensus time stamping prevents an individual from affecting the consensus order of transactions.

Once an event occurs, everyone knows about it within a couple of minutes. Only the effects of the transaction are necessary in storing, everything else can be discarded

This shrinks the amount of storage currently needed (Bitcoin: 60GB) to a fraction of 1GB, allowing a smart phone to now act as a node.

Improved Security: Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerant: No member can prevent the community from reaching a consensus, nor can they change the consensus once it has been reached.

With Byzantine, a consensus can be reached, whereas in the blockchain world, it is only a probability that increases over time.

If no consensus is ever reached, conflicts will always occur. This is why hard forks that result in alt coins, such as Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold are occurring.
100% Efficient: No mined block ever becomes stale.

In the blockchain, transactions are put into containers (blocks) that form a single, long chain. If two miners create two blocks at the same time, the community will eventually choose one and discard the other.

In hashgraph, every container is used and none are discarded.

Inexpensive: avoids proof-of-work (PoW), meaning it does not have to waste computations to slow itself down, therefore the expensive, custom hardware is no longer necessary.

In the blockchain, if new blocks arrive too quickly they can be discarded. This is why Bitcoin is currently PoW, as this artificially slows down the mining process — hence the expensive hardware needed to mine.

With hashgraph, every member can create transactions and containers whenever they want.

While Ethereum is looking at PoS with Casper, our algorithm uses something called Virtual Voting — its a voting system — without having to do the votes. Hashgraph uses a protocol called “Gossip about Gossip” to achieve consensus. Gossip is a well known computer science term, which can be defined as calling any random node and telling that node everything you know, that it does not know.

In distributed ledger technology the “baseline” or minimum bandwidth required is that the transactions go to every node. Gossip about Gossip refers to attaching a small additional amount of information to this Gossip, which contains the last person we talked to, hence, we are gossiping about the information we gossiped. Using this information, we can build the Hashgraph. 

Once we have the Hashgraph, it is extremely easy to know what a node would vote, because we know what each node knows, and when they knew it. We now can use the data from the Hashgraph as an input to 30 year old voting algorithms, and achieve consensus essentially for free. 

These 30 year old voting algorithms have strong math proofs- they are Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerant  which means we know when we will achieve consensus, guaranteed, and our math proofs make no assumptions about the speed of the internet, due to firewalls, ddos attacks, viruses or botnets. 

In addition, because of gossip about gossip, Hashgraph is extremely fast, (250,000 transactions/sec), and we also get fair ordering and time stamping on every event.”

Swirlds hashgraph provides unparalleled performance compared to alternative platforms that can only process thousands of transactions per second. The hashgraph can process 100,000's of transactions per second, making it possible for CULedger to directly address a much broader set of use cases.

Swirlds hashgraph is the only platform that meets the requirements for fully distributed trust in a distributed ledger and provides the highest level of security in the market by achieving all four of the criteria for banking-grade security, including:

Immutability of Transaction History - No single party can change the order of the transactions applied to the ledger.

DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) Resilience - No single party can disrupt the flow of transactions throughout the ledger, making it DDoS resilient. Competing platforms are highly susceptible to DDoS attacks. 

Using competing platforms, if even a single member of the network is compromised or malicious, then the attacker can direct a DDoS attack against a single computer that disrupts the flow of transactions for the entire network. This is not possible with hashgraph.

Fair Access - No single party can prevent the flow of transactions into the ledger. Competing platforms put the power of which transactions are accepted into the hands of a single party.

Fair Ordering - No single party can influence the order of transactions that the network ultimately agrees on. Competing platforms put the power of transaction order into the hands of a single party. With hashgraph, timestamps on transactions are determined by the community as a whole, not a single leader.

The hashgraph algorithm is resilient to DDoS attacks and ensures mathematically proven fairness in the absolute ordering of transactions.

Swirlds is a platform to build and run shared worlds — fully distributed applications that harness the power of the cloud without servers. Applications built on the Swirlds platform create trust in peer-to-peer networks without a central server, leveraging the hashgraph consensus algorithm to deliver high transaction throughput, low consensus latency, and fairness in transaction order. 

Rapidly gaining traction across a wide swath of categories from gaming to online collaboration to financial services, Swirlds is building the trust layer of the internet by enabling developers to create fair, fast and secure applications.

AIYYOOOOOOOOO

IPPIDI NAAN PAKKAVAI ILLAI


BLOCKCHAIN-ULU ( OR IS IT BLACKCHAIN-UDU )  FOLKS IN TELUGULAND HAVE FALLED PHUTTT ON THEIR FACES AT THE STARTING LINE EVEN BEFORE THE STARTING GUN WENT BAANG !



http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2017/10/blockchain-smart-contracts-part-8-capt.html

READ ABOUT HASHGRAPHS

PUT THIS COMMENT IN THE WEBSITES OF -

CM OF ANDHRA NAIDU

CM OF TELENGANA KCR

FINANCE MINISTER


PMO

PM MODI

LAW MINISTER

EDUCATION MINISTER

I&B MINISTER

ASK FOR AN ACK

capt ajit vadakayil
..


IN HASHGRAPH THERE AINT NO MINING !

Hashgraph does not require mining and is a variation of Proof of Stake.   

Proof of Stake (PoS) concept states that a person can mine or validate block transactions according to how many coins he or she holds. This means that the more Bitcoin or altcoin owned by a miner, the more mining power he or she has.

Proof of work is a requirement to define an expensive computer calculation, also called mining, that needs to be performed in order to create a new group of trustless transactions (the so-called block) on a distributed ledger called blockchain.

Proof of work is not only used by the bitcoin blockchain but also by ethereum and many other blockchains.

Mining serves as two purposes:--- 
To verify the legitimacy of a transaction, or avoiding the so-called double-spending; 
To create new digital currencies by rewarding miners for performing the previous task.

When you want to set a transaction this is what happens behind the scenes:--- 
Transactions are bundled together into what we call a block; 
Miners verify that transactions within each block are legitimate;

To do so, miners should solve a mathematical puzzle known as proof-of-work problem;

A reward is given to the first miner who solves each blocks problem;

Verified transactions are stored in the public blockchain


Proof of stake is a different way to validate transactions based and achieve the distributed consensus.

It is still an algorithm, and the purpose is the same of the proof of work, but the process to reach the goal is quite different.

All the network miners compete to be the first to find a solution for the mathematical problem that concerns the candidate block, a problem that cannot be solved in other ways than through brute force so that essentially requires a huge number of attempts.

When a miner finally finds the right solution, he announces it to the whole network at the same time, receiving a cryptocurrency prize (the reward) provided by the protocol.

From a technical point of view, mining process is an operation of inverse hashing: it determines a number (nonce), so the cryptographic hash algorithm of block data results in less than a given threshold.

This threshold, called difficulty, is what determines the competitive nature of mining: more computing power is added to the network, the higher this parameter increases, increasing also the average number of calculations needed to create a new block. 

This method also increases the cost of the block creation, pushing miners to improve the efficiency of their mining systems to maintain a positive economic balance. 

This parameter update should occur approximately every 14 days, and a new block is generated every 10 minutes.

Unlike the proof-of-Work, where the algorithm rewards miners who solve mathematical problems with the goal of validating transactions and creating new blocks, with the proof of stake, the creator of a new block is chosen in a deterministic way, depending on its wealth, also defined as stake.

No block reward

Also, all the digital currencies are previously created in the beginning, and their number never changes.

This means that in the PoS system there is no block reward, so, the miners take the transaction fees.



This is why, in fact, in this PoS system miners are called forgers, instead.



Below: HEY MINER-- FUCK OFF !  

ANY IDIOT CAN FIGURE OUT THAT BLOCKCHAIN IS A IMMATURE SYSTEM


Instead of some small subset of participants being responsible for validating transactions and adding to the ledger (like miners in blockchain), all nodes contribute. 

Consequently,  there is less need to incentivize through fees. Transaction fees are therefore expected to be very small, thereby making Hashgraph viable for micropayments.


A Blockchain lottery is used to award and compensate a miner for packaging and publishing a block of transactions to the community. One concern revolves around transaction packaging. 

Because a miner in Blockchain can exercise discretion in how transactions are assigned to and sequenced within a block, this can significantly alter the impact of settlement. 

Consider a situation where several people bid on the last share of stock and these bids all arrive at the same time and are for the same price. 

The actions of the miner in Blockchain will influence the outcome of transactions. The techniques used by the miner may or may not be fair.  

With a hashgraph, no individual can delay or manipulate the order of transactions. In a hashgraph, transactions are ordered based on when the majority of the active community receive them.

Consensus timestamping of transactions occurs when the majority of the community (as defined by the community) agrees to the validity of the block and its transactions. 

This approach eliminates the incentive to either bribe miners or delay a transaction from entering the system. 

Since the definition of fairness can vary (first in, highest bid, status, randomness, … or some combination of these) it is critical that the community select and contractually adhere to a transaction processing model that best addresses their needs.

The miner and consensus-driven approach of Blockchain mean that the time it takes for consensus is measured in minutes based. Bitcoin has a 1 MB per block limit and a settlement time that averages 10 minutes. 

This timing has everything to do with risk avoidance and is designed to give participants time to validate the transactions in the block. The more confirmations associated with a transaction the lower the probability of fraud.   

Hashgraph approach allows every community member to add block(s) at any time avoiding the Blockchain lottery. 

Every time a block is added, the community is made aware of the addition and once the majority of the community confirms receipt of the block and its contents, its order and addition to the ledger is finalized. 

This approach means that there is no governor or limit to how fast transactions can be processed. 

This way, if each participant has enough bandwidth to download 3,000 transactions per second, then this is the speed of the system. Hashgraph consensus times are dependent upon the time it takes the majority of the community to validate the transactions in the block.


Hashgraph approach as Byzantine, meaning that no single member of the community can stop the community from reaching consensus (subject to the rules established by the community for reaching consensus). 

The hashgraph approach also looks to be more efficient since there are no calculations necessary to slow down how blocks are mined or work that is discarded. This will ultimately make the hashgraph approach less expensive to implement.

The Hashgraph Network provides a distributed ledger implementation that has the following properties:--
no user registrations or "accounts" required
no root account or central authority
no native currency
no genesis ledger
fairness
byzantine
efficient (no mining)
ACID


In computer science, ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability) is a set of properties of database transactions intended to guarantee validity even in the event of errors, power failures, etc. 

In the context of databases, a sequence of database operations that satisfies the ACID properties and, thus, can be perceived as single logical operation on the data, is called a transaction. 

For example, a transfer of funds from one bank account to another, even involving multiple changes such as debiting one account and crediting another, is a single transaction.

How is Hashgraph different?   

There are five different approaches to reaching distributed consensus. Firstly we have Proof-of-Work, which started with Bitcoin. 

The second is leader-based systems like PBFT, Raft, and Paxos. 

Then there is economy-based, commonly referred to as Proof-of-Stake, where forgers stake cryptocurrency on votes in order to reach consensus. 

Then, there’s voting-based which are too slow to be used in real systems. 

Finally there’s Hashgraph, which uses virtual voting and is incredibly efficient because it does not actually send any votes over the internet.


Below: Meet the elephant-ULU of  blockchain-UDU



The Achilles Heel of permissioned networks is ignored …

The most important security mechanism used in public networks is removed in permissioned networks, to improve performance. 

Proof-of-Work is replaced with trust in network members. But what are members trusted to do or not to do?  

What is the nature of that trust? 

The answer is disturbing. 

In a DDoS attack, an attacker can flood a computer with enough messages to stop that computer from communicating. If the attacker has enough resources to flood all the computers, they can shut down the network.  

But if they can only shut down a few computers, the network can keep running. The challenge for current permissioned systems is that they use Leaders, which allows DDoS attacks to succeed even when only a single computer is attacked.

In order to prevent DDoS across a permissioned network, each member must trust every other member to protect their computers.  

If even a single member of the network is compromised and can communicate with outside attackers, transaction flow for the entire network can be shut down by merely attacking one computer at a time.

To understand why this is the case, it’s important to understand how pre-Bitcoin consensus algorithms work.

Leader-based algorithms such as Paxos, RAFT, PBFT and variants have existed for decades, and require a Leader or Coordinator. 

All nodes send all transactions to the Leader, and the Leader has responsibility for putting transactions in order and sending them to all nodes. 

Conventional databases can use these algorithms for ensuring consistency across all database instances.

Non-PoW blockchain algorithms invariably have a Leader. For example, members of the network might take turns publishing blocks of transactions. Because an attacker can predict who will next publish a block, the attacker can DDoS the appropriate member.

Voting-based consensus algorithms enable a community to decide on a yes / no question, which can be extended to put all transactions in order. 

But even for a single yes / no question, there can be many rounds of voting, and in each round every peer sends a vote to all other peers, and perhaps even a receipt on each vote received. 

Voting-based systems don’t require a Leader, and as a result are resilient to DDoS attacks. However, voting systems have been around for decades, and few in the industry use them because of their gross inefficiencies in bandwidth. 

Hashgraph-based consensus combines voting-based consensus algorithms with virtual voting, making it possible to have the benefits of voting-based algorithms without the need to send votes over the network.  

The result is exceptional performance and DDoS resilience, without the need for inefficient and costly Proof-of-Work.

Today the most prominent platforms for creating private, or permissioned, distributed consensus networks primarily use Leader-based algorithms. 

For example, according to the official documentation, R3 Corda uses RAFT, and HyperLedger Fabric uses PBFT. 

As a result, each member must trust every other member to prevent malicious insider threats and malware infections that enable an attacker to DDoS the Leader.

The good news is that both of these organizations have made clear that the currently used consensus algorithm is a pluggable component of their architecture. 

Clearly this decision was made in anticipation of a new generation of algorithms that will, for the first time, enable true ‘bank-grade’ security.

Until then, it will be hard to ignore the elephant in the room.

Hashgraph is a data structure and consensus algorithm that is faster, fairer, and more secure than blockchain. 

Hashgraph uses two special techniques:--

 (1) Gossip about Gossip and

(2) Virtual Voting to achieve fast, fair and secure consensus.

Gossip is a well-known computer science term, which can be defined as calling any random node and telling that node everything you know, that it does not know

A gossip protocol  is a style of computer-to-computer communication protocol inspired by the form of gossip seen in social networks.. 

Modern distributed systems often use gossip protocols to solve problems that might be difficult to solve in other ways, either because the underlying network has an inconvenient structure, is extremely large, or because gossip solutions are the most efficient ones available. 

The term epidemic protocol is sometimes used as a synonym for a gossip protocol, because gossip spreads information in a manner similar to the spread of a virus in a biological community. 

Computer systems typically implement this type of protocol with a form of random "peer selection": with a given frequency, each machine picks another machine at random and shares any hot rumors.

A gossip protocol is one that satisfies the following conditions:--

The core of the protocol involves periodic, pairwise, inter-process interactions.
The information exchanged during these interactions is of bounded size.

When agents interact, the state of at least one agent changes to reflect the state of the other.--
Reliable communication is not assumed.
The frequency of the interactions is low compared to typical message latencies so that the protocol costs are negligible.
There is some form of randomness in the peer selection. Peers might be selected from the full set of nodes or from a smaller set of neighbors.
Due to the replication there is an implicit redundancy of the delivered information. 

In distributed ledger technology, the “baseline” or minimum bandwidth required is that the transactions go to every node. 

A gossip protocol can achieve this transfer of information / syncing process exponentially fast. Gossip about Gossip refers to attaching a small additional amount of information to this Gossip / transaction payload, which are two hashes containing the last two people talked to (hence, gossiping about the information gossiped). 

Using this information, a Hashgraph can be built and constantly updated as more information is gossiped, on each node.

Hashgraph consensus algorithm, is proposed for replicated state machines with guaranteed Byzantine fault tolerance. 

It achieves fairness, in the sense that it is difficult for an attacker to manipulate which of two transactions will be chosen to be first in the consensus order. It has complete asynchrony, no leaders, no round robin, no proof-of-work, eventual consensus with probability one, and high speed in the absence of faults. 

It is based on a gossip protocol, in which the participants don’t just gossip about transactions. They gossip about gossip. They jointly build a hashgraph reflecting all of the gossip events. This allows Byzantine agreement to be achieved through virtual voting.

Byzantine fault tolerant protocols are algorithms that are robust to arbitrary types of failures in distributed algorithms. With the advent and popularity of the Internet, there is a need to develop algorithms that do not require any centralized control that have some guarantee of always working correctly. 

The Byzantine agreement protocol is an essential part of this task

Nakamoto Consensus, the set of rules that govern Bitcoin and other systems, has been to first solution to the Byzantine generals problem applied to peer-to-peer networks open to anonymous nodes.

Unlike the other systems, hashgraph is proven to be fully asynchronous byzantine. This means it makes no assumptions about how fast messages are passed over the internet, making it resilient against DDoS attacks, botnets, and firewalls. 

Hashgraph is mathematically guaranteed to reach consensus and be secure as long as less than one-third of participants are malicious (which is something that must always be assumed for DLT). 

In Bitcoin, there is never a moment in time where you know that you have consensus and you’ll never be wrong. All that happens is that you become more confident over time, but it’s not byzantine.

Guaranteed mathematically – that’s where the byzantine fault tolerance purely asynchronous all comes in. You do this with zero communication. You get it for free and in a fraction of a second. That’s hashgraph.

Swirlds hashgraph is the only platform that meets the requirements for fully distributed trust in a distributed ledger and provides the highest level of security in the market by achieving all four of the criteria for banking-grade security, including:

Immutability of Transaction History – No single party can change the order of the transactions applied to the ledger.

DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service)  Resilience – No single party can disrupt the flow of transactions throughout the ledger, making it DDoS resilient. Competing platforms are highly susceptible to DDoS attacks.  

Using competing platforms, if even a single member of the network is compromised or malicious, then the attacker can direct a DDoS attack against a single computer that disrupts the flow of transactions for the entire network.  This is not possible with hashgraph.

Fair Access – No single party can prevent the flow of transactions into the ledger. Competing platforms put the power of which transactions are accepted into the hands of a single party.

Fair Ordering – No single party can influence the order of transactions that the network ultimately agrees on. Competing platforms put the power of transaction order into the hands of a single party.  

With hashgraph, timestamps on transactions are determined by the community as a whole, not a single leader.

The hashgraph algorithm is resilient to DDoS attacks and ensures mathematically proven fairness in the absolute ordering of transactions.  A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack is an attempt to make an online service unavailable by overwhelming it with traffic from multiple sources. 

In computing, a denial-of-service attack (DoS attack) is a cyber-attack where the perpetrator seeks to make a machine or network resource unavailable to its intended users by temporarily or indefinitely disrupting services of a host connected to the Internet. 

Denial of service is typically accomplished by flooding the targeted machine or resource with superfluous requests in an attempt to overload systems and prevent some or all legitimate requests from being fulfilled 

In a distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS attack), the incoming traffic flooding the victim originates from many different sources. This effectively makes it impossible to stop the attack simply by blocking a single source.

A DoS or DDoS attack is analogous to a group of people crowding the entry door or gate to a shop or business, and not letting legitimate parties enter into the shop or business, disrupting normal operations.

Criminal perpetrators of DoS attacks often target sites or services hosted on high-profile web servers such as banks or credit card payment gateways. Revenge, blackmail and activism can motivate these attacks.

DDoS attacks have been carried out by diverse threat actors, ranging from individual criminal hackers to organized crime rings and government agencies. In certain situations, often ones related to poor coding, missing patches or generally unstable systems, even legitimate requests to target systems can result in DDoS-like results.

In a typical DDoS attack, the assailant begins by exploiting a vulnerability in one computer system and making it the DDoS master. The attack master system identifies other vulnerable systems and gains control over them by either infecting the systems with malware or through bypassing the authentication controls (i.e., guessing the default password on a widely used system or device).

A computer or networked device under the control of an intruder is known as a zombie, or bot. The attacker creates what is called a command-and-control server to command the network of bots, also called a botnet. 

The person in control of a botnet is sometimes referred to as the botmaster (that term has also historically been used to refer to the first system "recruited" into a botnet because it is used to control the spread and activity of other systems in the botnet).

Botnets can be comprised of almost any number of bots; botnets with tens or hundreds of thousands of nodes have become increasingly common, and there may not be an upper limit to their size. 

Once the botnet is assembled, the attacker can use the traffic generated by the compromised devices to flood the target domain and knock it offline

There are three types of DDoS attacks. Network-centric or volumetric attacks overload a targeted resource by consuming available bandwidth with packet floods. 

Protocol attacks target network layer or transport layer protocols using flaws in the protocols to overwhelm targeted resources. And application layer attacks overload application services or databases with a high volume of application calls. The inundation of packets at the target causes a denial of service.

"Gossip - information spreads by each member repeatedly choosing another member at random, and telling them all they know"

"Hashgraph - a data structure that records who gossiped to whom, and in what order. "

Gossip about gossip - the hashgraph is spread through the gossip protocol. The information being gossiped is the history of the gossip itself, so it is “gossip about gossip”. This uses very little bandwidth overhead beyond simply gossiping the transactions alone. "

"Virtual voting - every member has a copy of the hashgraph, so A can calculate what vote B would have sent him, if they had been running a traditional Byzantine agreement protocol that involved sending votes. 

So B doesn’t need to actually his the vote. Every member can reach Byzantine agreement on any number of decisions, without a single vote ever being sent."

Bitcoin security is based on economic assumptions but is extremely very inefficient. In fact, Bitcoin tends to concentrate power away from it's users and into cartels which can be considered a systemic risk.

Proof of Stake has similar risks but the difference is at least with Proof of Stake you get the efficiency gains in exchange for the same risk of concentration of power around cartels.

Once the Hashgraph is built, it is extremely easy to know what a node would vote, because we know what each node knows, and when they knew it. 

We now can use this data as an input to a 30 year old voting algorithm (which have strong security guarantees, maths proofs of being Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerant but typically lack the speed necessary for real world implementation), and know which transactions have reached consensus quickly.


The result of using this methodology is that we get the benefit of 30 year old voting algorithms which have have strong math proofs of being Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerant (meaning that we know when we will achieve consensus, guaranteed, and our math proofs make no assumptions about the speed of the internet, due to firewalls, ddos attacks, viruses or botnets), speed (due to use of a gossip protocol) and fair ordering and time stamping on every event.


Hashgraph does not suffer wasteful computational cycles of blocks to arrive at consensus (and hence the power savings). 

Hashgraph is the only bank-grade consensus algorithm as a result of the following properties:--

Mathematical proof of asynchronous Byzantine fault tolerance;

Resilience to DDoS attacks, network partitions, sybil attacks and firewall/virus attacks; and

Mathematical proof of fairness of ordering, access, and timestamps. 

Hashgraph is not currently available on a public network / ledger so there is no cryptocurrency at this time.    They will do it sooner than later 

Hashgraph is currently only available on a private network so its patents allow for market advantage in enterprise / commercial applications. This is not designed to stifle creativity or expansion of the emerging ecosystem, but to protect technological innovations that took years to develop.

If you want to use Hashgraph on a private network, you can apply for an enterprise / commercial license by contacting Swirlds. 

Hashgraph is the technology. Swirlds is the organization responsible for handling the licensing of Hashgraph.

Hashgraph reached 250,000+ transactions per second (TPS) in a single shard, with geo-distributed nodes, on mid-range Amazon AWS servers. Database partitioning would result in a much higher throughput. This number comes from our internal testing on AWS in early 2017.

The security risks specific to DLTs come from both internal and external attacks. An internal threat can include a computer in the network that is infected with a virus or worm other malware, or is run by a malicious party, or honest corporation that has a malicious insider with access to the computer.

An external threat can include a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack, where the attacker floods one or more computers with enough messages to temporarily shut it down. Another external attack is if an adversary owns a firewall surrounding some of the nodes in the network, which it can use to block or delay messages. 

 A consensus algorithm is characterized as BFT – ( Byzantine Fault Tolerance )--  if it guarantees a moment in time where all participants reach consensus, know that consensus has been reached, and they are never wrong. 

This can be contrasted with consensus algorithms based on PoW, where participants slowly become more and more confident that consensus is near, but may still not be correct. 

There are different levels of BFT, depending on the sorts of assumptions made about the network and transmission of messages. The strongest type of BFT is asynchronous BFT. Hashgraph is unique in supporting highest degree of BFT while still being very efficient. 

When a system is asynchronous BFT, it allows for malicious actors controlling the network, deleting or slowing down messages of their choosing. The only assumption made is that less than ⅓ are attackers, and some messages eventually get transmitted over the internet.

 Some systems are partially asynchronous, which are secure only if the attackers do not have too much power and do not manipulate the timing of messages too much. 

For instance, a partially asynchronous system could prove Byzantine under the assumption that messages get passed over the internet in ten seconds. This assumption ignores the reality of botnets, distributed denial of service attacks, and malicious firewalls. 

If unable to meet the criteria of asynchronous BFT, it is preferable that they be asynchronous less-than-Byzantine, rather than less-than-asynchronous Byzantine. In other words, they should prove they are somewhat secure in the real world instead of proving they are very secure in a fantasy world. 

A Sybil attack refers to an attempt to compromise a network through the creation of large numbers of spurious identities – these are directed to act in collusion to inappropriately impact the network. 

Sybil attacks are a particular concern for public DLTs in which no special permissions are required to become a node. Hashgraph inherently protects against Sybil attacks due to the nature of the core consensus algorithm which provides a mathematical guarantee that Sybil attacks cannot succeed as long as less than one-third of the population is dishonest. 

There is a mathematical proof that one-third is the best that can be achieved by any DLT.   

A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack occurs when it is possible to disrupt the flow of transactions for the entire network by targeting a single or a few computers. Different DLTs vary in their vulnerability to DDoS. 

Leader-based systems give special permissions to a particular node and are highly susceptible because the current leader is a bottleneck and is vulnerable to being targeted in the DDoS. Even if the role of the leader rotates amongst nodes, other nodes necessarily know the current leader, and so could direct a DDoS. 

PoW systems are resilient to DDoS because it’s difficult to predict which miner will solve the inverse hash and publish a block. Consequently, the attacker would not know which miner should be targeted. 

Hashgraph doesn’t use PoW, but neither does it have a Leader.   So Hashgraph provides DDoS resilience without the inefficiency and cost of PoW. 

Fairness refers to the ability of DLTs to prevent the ordering of transactions from being unduly manipulated. 

Hashgraph is fair in that it serializes all transactions with cryptographic timestamping, unlike blockchains where miners determine the order in which transactions are placed within each block. In certain use cases, the transaction order is important. 

Consider for instance two different people purchasing shares in a stock – the first order to go through will likely get a cheaper price. Hashgraph orders transactions according to the median timestamp of  when the population of nodes received them – thereby ensuring they are recorded fairly.  

Hashgraph Distributed Consensus Platform Enables Developers to Build Serverless, Secure Apps in the Cloud.. Swirlds is a software platform designed to build fully-distributed applications that harness the power of the cloud without servers. 

Now you can develop applications with fairness in decision making, speed, trust and reliability, at a fraction of the cost of traditional server-based platforms.

Java is a general purpose programming language with a large open source ecosystem and resources for developer support. 

There are also advantageous security measures in the Java development environment, such as sandboxing,  that will allow the platform in the future to run untrusted applications, while protecting the user and their hard drive from those applications.


In addition to Java, they want the option for developers who would like to develop in other programming languages, such as Python or JavaScript. This is part of the Hashgraph development roadmap.

Hashgraphs  technology is cost-effective, as it doesn’t require proof of work like Bitcoin does. It also is quicker, with a transaction throughput of 50,000 times that of most blockchains. 

The mathematically proven fairness of Hashgraph means that no individual can manipulate the order of transactions.  Miners prioritize transactions based on network fees in the cryptocurrency world.


In Bitcoin, transaction fees are used to incentivize miners to confirm transactions by including them in a block which is then appended to the previous blocks, creating a ‘block chain’.  

Hashgraph utilizes virtual voting, which doesn’t require actual votes. Instead, hashgraph uses Gossip to determine how nodes would vote. In this system, every node will know what other nodes know and when they knew it.

The blockchain model has five key problems in its implementation. These include the issues of scalability, processing power and time, storage, a skills gap, and legal and compliance issues.

All of the nodes that maintain the blockchain do exactly the same thing. Here is what millions of computers do:--

They verify the same transactions in accordance with the same rules and perform identical operations.

They record the same thing into a blockchain (if they were fortunate enough to be allowed to do so).

They store the entire history, which is the same for all of them, for all time.

There is no paralleling, no synergy, and no mutual assistance. There is only instant, millionfold duplication. 

It’s the opposite of efficient and is IMMATURE

If each network node does the same thing, then obviously, the bandwidth of the entire network is the same as the bandwidth of one network node. But do you know exactly what that is? 

The Bitcoin network is capable of processing a maximum of seven transactions per second — for the millions of users worldwide.

Aside from that, Bitcoin-blockchain transactions are recorded only once every 10 minutes. To increase payments security, it is standard practice to wait 50 minutes more after each new record appears because the records regularly roll back

You have  heard of miners and giant mining farms built next to power stations? 

What do they actually do? 

They burn a lot of electricity for no purpose at all for 10 minutes, “shaking” blocks until they become “beautiful” and thus eligible to be added to a blockchain.. 

The electricity consumed to achieve that is the same as the amount a city with a population of 100,000 people would use.   

APCO Modi want to use wind and solar power--  TEE HEEEEEE .

And don’t forget the expensive custom mining equipment, which is almost useless for any purpose other than mining bitcoins.

Blockchain optimists like to say that miners maintain the stability and security of the Bitcoin network. This is true, but the problem is that miners are protecting Bitcoin from other miners.

If only one-thousandth of the current number of miners existed, and thus one-thousandth of the electric power was consumed, then Bitcoin would be just as good as it is now. 

It would still produce one block per 10 minutes, process the same number of transactions, and operate at exactly the same speed.

The risk of a 51% attack applies to blockchain solutions as well. 

If someone controls more than half of the computing power currently being used for mining, then that person can surreptitiously write an alternative financial history. 

That version then becomes reality. Thus, it becomes possible to spend the same money more than once. Traditional payment systems are immune to such an attack.

Bitcoin has become a prisoner of its own ideology. 

“Excessive” miners cannot stop mining; that would dramatically increase the probability of a single person controlling more than half of the remaining computing power. 

Mining is still lucrative, and the network is still stable. 

However, if the situation changes (if, for example, the price of electricity increases), the network may come across a huge number of “double spending” incidents.

All “independent” miners are merged into pools (technically, they’re cartels). 

They have to merge on the assumption that it’s better to have a small but stable income than a huge payoff maybe every thousand years

Blockchain is open, and everyone sees everything. 

Thus, blockchain has no real anonymity. 

It offers pseudonymity instead. 

Putting aside the significant issues that crooked users have with that, here’s why pseudonymity is bad for honest users. 

A simple example: I am transferring a few bitcoins to my mother. Here’s what she can learn:

How much money I have at any given time.

How much I spent and, more important, what I spent it on. She could also find out what I bought, what I gambled on, and what politician I supported “anonymously.”

Alternatively, if I paid back my friend for some lemonade, I would thus let him know everything about my finances. That’s hardly a trifling matter: 

Would you reveal the financial history of your credit card to everyone you knew? 

Keep in mind that this would include not only past but also future transactions.

Some disclosure may be tolerable for individuals, but it is deadly for companies. 

All of their contracting parties, sales, customers, account amounts, and every other little, petty detail would all become public. 

Financial transparency is perhaps one of the largest disadvantages of using Bitcoin.


So so so  if someone tells you that the invention of the blockchain-ULU ( or is it blockchin-UDU )  can be compared with the invention of the Internet in terms of importance— tell him  BALLS !

If a blockchain is not a robust network with a widely distributed grid of nodes, it becomes more difficult to reap the full benefit. 

If a blockchain is used as a database, the information going into the database needs to be of high quality. The data stored on a blockchain is not inherently trustworthy, so events need to be recorded accurately in the first place.

The phrase 'garbage in, garbage out' holds true in a blockchain system of record, just as with a centralized database. 

There is one notable security flaw in bitcoin and other blockchains: if more than half of the computers working as nodes to service the network tell a lie, the lie will become the truth. 

This is called a '51% attack' and was highlighted by Satoshi Nakamoto when he launched bitcoin.   For this reason, bitcoin mining pools are monitored closely by the community, ensuring no one unknowingly gains such network influence.

A smart contract is a piece of code that is stored on an blockchain, triggered by blockchain transactions and which reads and writes data in that blockchain's database. That's it !

A smart contract is just a fancy name for code that runs on a blockchain, and interacts with that blockchain's state.

The problem with smart contracts isn’t just that people’s expectations are overblown, it's that these expectations are leading many to spend time and money on ideas that cannot possibly be implemented.

Often, the first use case proposed is a smart contract that changes its behavior in response to some external event. For example, an agricultural insurance policy which pays out conditionally based on the quantity of rainfall in a given month.

The imagined process goes something like this: The smart contract waits until the predetermined time, retrieves the weather report from an external service and behaves appropriately based on the data received.

This all sounds simple enough, but it’s also impossible. Why? Because a blockchain is a consensus-based system, meaning that it only works if every node reaches an identical state after processing every transaction and block.

Everything that takes place on a blockchain must be completely deterministic, with no possible way for differences to creep in. 

The moment that two honest nodes disagree about the chain's state, the entire system becomes worthless.

Now, recall that smart contracts are executed independently by every node on a chain. Therefore, if a smart contract retrieves some information from an external source, this retrieval is performed repeatedly and separately by each node. 

But because this source is outside of the blockchain, there is no guarantee that every node will receive the same answer. 

Perhaps the source will change its response in the time between requests from different nodes, or perhaps it will become temporarily unavailable. Either way, consensus is broken and the entire blockchain dies.

So, what’s the workaround? Actually, it’s rather simple. Instead of a smart contract initiating the retrieval of external data, one or more trusted parties ("oracles") creates a transaction which embeds that data in the chain. Every node will have an identical copy of this data, so it can be safely used in a smart contract computation.

In other words, as I have written before--an oracle pushes the data onto the blockchain rather than a smart contract pulling it in.

When it comes to smart contracts causing events in the outside world, a similar problem appears. For example, many like the idea of a smart contract which calls a bank’s API in order to transfer money. But if every node is independently executing the code in the chain, who is responsible for calling this API?

If the answer is just one node, what happens if that particular node malfunctions, deliberately or not? And if the answer is every node, can we trust every node with that API's password? And do we really want the API called hundreds of times? 

Even worse, if the smart contract needs to know whether the API call was successful, we're right back to the problem of depending on external data.

As before, a simple workaround is available. Instead of the smart contract calling an external API, we use a trusted service which monitors the blockchain’s state and performs certain actions in response. 

For example, a bank could proactively watch a blockchain and perform money transfers which mirror the on-chain transactions. This presents no risk to the blockchain’s consensus because the chain plays an entirely passive role.

Looking at these two workarounds, we can make some observations.

First, they both require a trusted entity to manage the interactions between the blockchain and the outside world. While this is technically possible, it undermines the goal of a decentralized system.

Second, the mechanisms used in these workarounds are straightforward examples of reading and writing a database. An oracle which provides external information is simply writing that information into the chain. 

And a service which mirrors the blockchain’s state in the real world is doing nothing more than reading from that chain. In other words, any interaction between a blockchain and the outside world is restricted to regular database operations.

Now—about using a smart contract to automate the payment of coupons for a so-called "smart bond". The idea is for the smart contract code to automatically initiate the payments at the appropriate times, avoiding manual processes and guaranteeing that the issuer cannot default.

Of course, in order for this to work, the funds used to make the payments must live inside the blockchain as well, otherwise a smart contract could not possibly guarantee their payment.

Recall that a blockchain is just a database, in this case a financial ledger containing the issued bond and some cash. So, when we talk about coupon payments, what we’re actually talking about are database operations which take place automatically at an agreed time.

While this automation is technically feasible, it suffers from a financial difficulty. If the funds used for coupon payments are controlled by the bond's smart contract, then those payments can indeed be guaranteed. 

But this also means those funds cannot be used by the bond issuer for anything else. 

And if those funds aren’t under the control of the smart contract, then there is no way in which payment can be guaranteed.

In other words, a smart bond is either pointless for the issuer, or pointless for the investor. And if you think about it, this is a completely obvious outcome.

From an investor’s perspective, the whole point of a bond is its attractive rate of return, at the cost of some risk of default. And for the issuer, a bond's purpose is to raise funds for a productive but somewhat risky activity, such as building a new factory.

There is no way for the bond issuer to make use of the funds raised, while simultaneously guaranteeing that the investor will be repaid. It should not come as a surprise that the connection between risk and return is not a problem that blockchains can solve.

The biggest challenge in deploying blockchains is the radical transparency which they provide.

For example, if 10 banks set up a blockchain together, and two conduct a bilateral transaction, this will be immediately visible to the other eight. 

While there are various strategies for mitigating this problem, none beat the simplicity and efficiency of a centralized database in which a trusted administrator has full control over who can see what.

Some people think that smart contracts can solve this problem. They start with the fact that each smart contract contains its own miniature database, over which it has full control. 

All read and write operations on this database are mediated by the contract’s code, making it impossible for one contract to read another’s data directly. (This tight coupling between data and code is called encapsulation, and is the foundation of the popular object-oriented programming paradigm).

So, if one smart contract can’t access another’s data, have we solved the problem of blockchain confidentiality? Does it make sense to talk of hiding information in a smart contract? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Because even if one smart contract can’t read another’s data, that data is still stored on every single node in the chain. 

For each blockchain participant, it’s in the memory or disk of a system which that participant completely controls. 

And there’s nothing to stop them reading the information from their own system, if and when they choose to do so.

Hiding data in a smart contract is about as secure as hiding it in the HTML code of a web page. 

Sure, regular web users won't see it, because it's not displayed in their browser window. 

But all it takes is for a web browser to add a ‘View Source’ function (as they all have), and the information becomes universally visible.

Similarly, for data hidden in smart contracts, all it takes is for someone to modify their blockchain software to display the contract’s full state, and all semblance of secrecy is lost.

A half wit programmer could do that in an hour or so.

The smart contract for a financial ledger performs the same three tasks as the administrator of a centralized database: checking for sufficient funds, deducting from one account and adding to another.

Both of these paradigms are effective, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. To summarize, bitcoin-style transaction constraints provide superior concurrency and performance, while Ethereum-style smart contracts offer greater flexibility.

So to return to the question of what smart contracts are for: Smart contracts are for blockchain use cases which can’t be implemented with transaction constraints.

Given this criterion for using smart contracts, I’m yet to see a strong use case for permissioned blockchains which qualifies.

In 2016, the Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) announced that a hacker had exploited a vulnerability in Ethereum, a blockchain platform utilized by the group. The total loss to the DAO was reported at $150 million.

The flaw was not in the blockchain platform itself, but rather in the smart contract. The hacker was able to trigger a recursive send vulnerability where the act of sending funds triggered another “send funds” request. 

Etherium had done exactly what it was supposed to do, but a loophole in the smart contract code exposed the organization to a hack. It was reported that the DAO lost $60 million in just the first 12 hours.

Remember that there are no standards for testing smart contracts, and having “adequate” testing exposes the company to potential risk.

Smart contracts are only as smart as the programming code on which they are based..    The DAO hack was enabled by a vulnerability in the code of the blockchain’s smart contract. 

The attacker’s knowledge of a particular feature in the code demonstrated that such an asymmetry in information could prove to be a lucrative, if nefarious or even illegal, competitive advantage.

Blockchain technology lacks a history of secure code, and specialists have not yet had enough time to anticipate what those flaws might be. Others, too, have suggested that smart contracts be written, tested, and deployed in well-defined processes with strong controls around them

Yet, some have cautioned against the implementation of too many security protection measures, which would decrease the efficiency of the blockchain and may obviate the value of the technology in the first place.

 Blockchain,  cannot entirely eliminate or automate the human dimension of trust. 

The stability of the entire blockchain depends on its users placing stock in the individuals who able to verify the code, thereby ensuring that smart contracts will be executed as intended.

The democratic nature of the blockchain and the current application of smart contracts might be a double-edged sword: while users at the base of the pyramid may benefit from some reductions in transaction costs as a result of less intermediation, without lawyers and other middlemen, it is unclear what protections or legal recourse these users would have in the event that their blockchain-enabled transactions are compromised. 

Furthermore, if even highly financially-literate and tech-savvy consumers cannot see fatal flaws in the smart contract code, can we reasonably expect less financially- and technically-literate users at the base of the pyramid to catch these same mistakes, even if the code is theoretically open to the public eye?

And even if users at the base of the pyramid could afford the services of lawyers who were well-versed in blockchain and smart contract coding, can we really be certain these individuals could recognize and enforce airtight smart contracts?

It is naïve, and even dangerous, to take an overly optimistic and utopian vision of blockchain and smart contract technology without further scrutiny of these unresolved fundamental issues on the alignment of economic incentives of users, consensus mechanisms, and trust.

Smart contracts are pieces of code that leverage the power of the Blockchain technology to facilitate, verify, or enforce the negotiation or performance of contracts.

Smart contracts  are pieces of software, not contracts in the legal sense, that extend blockchains’ utility from simply keeping a record of financial transaction entries to automatically implementing terms of multiparty agreements.   

Smart contracts are executed by a computer network that uses consensus protocols to agree upon the sequence of actions resulting from the contract’s code


The Ethereum network, which is valued at around 32 Billion USD, is struggling to deal with scaling issues despite its lack of actual user base

Initial coin offering (ICO) is an unregulated and controversial means of crowdfunding via use of cryptocurrency which can be a source of capital for startup companies. In an ICO a percentage of the newly issued cryptocurrency is sold to investors in exchange for legal tender or other cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. 

The term may be analogous with 'token sale' or crowdsale, which refers to a method of selling participation in an economy, giving investors access to the features of a particular project starting at a later date. ICOs may sell a right of ownership or royalties to a project.

The success of initial coin offerings (ICOs) as a new fundraising model is undoubtedly attracting an influx of tech talent to develop on Ethereum and other blockchain protocols. With over $1.25B raised this year to date, ICOs have surpassed early-stage venture capital funding. 

Furthermore, teams have raised tens of millions of dollars with only simple whitepapers describing their ideas. Some ideas are truly innovative and have captured the public’s imagination regarding what is theoretically possible with smart contracts. In practice, however, the vast majority of ICOs are for projects that are not yet feasible due to the technical limitations of blockchains.

Blockchains, as it stands today, are limited in their ability to scale.

Blockchains may be suitable for some niche use cases, but they do not work well for mainstream use due to scaling issues. Bitcoin and Ethereum are only processing three and five transactions per second (tx/s), respectively. To support Visa, Ethereum would need to scale to thousands of tx/s

While a decentralization consensus mechanism offers some critical benefits, such as fault tolerance, a strong guarantee of security, political neutrality, and authenticity, it comes at the cost of scalability. 

The number of transactions the blockchain can process can never exceed that of a single node that is participating in the network. In fact, the blockchain actually gets weaker as more nodes are added to its network because of the inter-node latency that logarithmically increases with every additional node.

In a traditional database system, the solution to scalability is to add more servers (i.e. compute power) to handle the added transactions. In the decentralized blockchain world where every node needs to process and validate every transaction, it would require us to add more compute to every node for the network to get faster. Having no control over every public node in the network leaves us up shit creek without a paddle.

As a result, all public blockchain consensus protocols that operate in such a decentralized manner make the tradeoff between low transaction throughput and high degree of centralization. 

In other words, as the size of the blockchain grows, the requirements for storage, bandwidth, and compute power required by fully participating in the network increases. At some point, it becomes unwieldy enough that it’s only feasible for a few nodes to process a block — leading to the risk of centralization.

In order to scale, the blockchain protocol must figure out a mechanism to limit the number of participating nodes needed to validate each transaction, without losing the network’s trust that each transaction is valid. It might sound simple in words, but is technologically very difficult.

Since every node is not allowed to validate every transaction, we somehow need nodes to have a statistical and economic means to ensure that other blocks (which they are not personally validating) are secure.

Even if a block looks valid from the perspective of a node not directly validating that block, making the data for that block unavailable leads to a situation where no other validator in the network can validate transactions or produce new blocks, and we end up stuck in the current state. (There are several reasons a node might go offline, including malicious attack and power loss.)

Transactions need to be processed by different nodes in parallel in order to achieve scalability. However, transitioning state on the blockchain also has several non-parallelizable (serial) parts, so we’re faced with some restrictions on how we can transition state on the blockchain while balancing both parallelizability and utility.

The bitcoin scalability problem is a consequence of the fact that blocks in the blockchain are limited to one megabyte in size.  Blocks larger than one megabyte are automatically rejected by the network as invalid.  Bitcoin blocks carry the transactions on the bitcoin network since the last block has been created. This allows for around three transactions per second maximum capacity rate.

A fork referring to a blockchain is what happens when a blockchain splits into two paths forward. Forks on the bitcoin network regularly occur as part of the mining process. They happen when two miners find a block at a similar point in time. As a result, the network briefly forks. 

This fork is subsequently resolved by the software which automatically chooses the longest chain, thereby orphaning the extra blocks added to the shorter chain (that were dropped by the longer chain). A blockchain can also fork when developers change rules in the software used to determine which transactions are valid

A hard fork is a change of rules that allows to create new blocks not considered valid by the older software.  A hard fork term refers to a situation when a blockchain splits into two separate chains in consequence of the use of two distinct sets of rules trying to govern the system.. 

A hard fork can split a network if all the network participants don't follow the fork. For example, Ethereum Classic came into existence as a result of the hard fork of the Ethereum network, which was a response to the DAO hack

Each block on the Bitcoin blockchain takes 10 minutes to mine . The Ethereum blockchain was built to support smart contract applications and so the transaction speed is much faster, at 15 transactions per second. The pace of exchange on the internet is even speedier. 

For example, 45,000 transactions per second are processed by Visa. In advertising, the number of transactions is even more so. The Facebook Audience Network serves ads to 1 billion people per day , and Google ads receive 29.8 billion impressions per day.

The extraordinary transaction demands of the digital world have led many blockchain critics to posit that the technology will never scale. While it's true that public blockchains using proof-of-work consensus algorithms across thousands of nodes are too slow for programmatic ads or any real-time system, private blockchains do not harbor such constraints. 

Private blockchains can be built using different consensus algorithms and channels, such as the Lightning Network. The Lightning Network allows for instant value transfers through the implementation of off-chain transactions. 

Distributed purists may take issue with the concept of private blockchains because they are centralized, but there may be some cases when private blockchains are more appropriate, such as in certain enterprise and governance models .

Another component of blockchain technology is that it is a harbinger of transparency. Because all transactions are recorded, there is no "black box" in which any single participant can hide their actions. 

The reason that this transparency is so revolutionary is that many of our existing systems are opaque and convoluted, allowing malicious actors to take advantage of the dark alleyways, so to speak, and steal data and value without repercussions.

Blockchains provide "streetlights" so that there are no hidden passageways. Some people have made the "too much of a good thing can hurt you" argument about this added transparency. In the long run, however, transparent pricing does nothing but good for buyers and sellers in the marketplace.

As each new block generates, it gets increasingly more difficult and energy intensive to generate the next block.

Bitcoin mining alone uses 27 times as much energy as the entire Visa network.

Unfortunately, in practice, this leads to scaling problems across two dimensions: energy use and speed.

The networks are also slow.

Currently, the Ethereum network currently caps out at around 13 transactions per second; ETH-based tokens such as OMG, Golem, & Civic cap out at around half of that, 7 transactions per second. An app of Facebook’s size makes around ~200K API requests per second. In Ethereum world, instead of API requests, users pay ether “gas” to run smart contracts. 

Running these smart contracts counts as a transaction. This “gas” has a maximum limit set per block in the Ethereum protocol.

Simply increasing the block size to allow for a higher amount of gas won’t work because it sacrifices decentralization — only industry-size miners could afford to participate. In addition, whatever scaling solution we introduce must also not sacrifice a reasonable amount of security. 

The challenge is what Vitalik calls the “scalability trilemma”: building a system that fulfills “decentralization”, “scalability”, and “security”.

This means Ethereum transaction capability needs to grow by an astounding multiple of x25,000 to handle the network traffic of a decentralized app comparable to Facebook. 

As nodes in the network use more computing power to generate new blocks, the puzzles miners need to solve get harder. Thus, more and more computing power is consumed by the network, but as miners work harder, no new benefits are generated.

The power is being consumed to prevent individual miners from influencing the network for their own benefit and recording those transactions that would most benefit any particular miner as the next block on the chain, but the computational power consumed by the network does not generate any independent value.
Vitalik Buterin, the 23-year-old creator of Ethereum, has proposed transitioning Ethereum from a proof-of-work system to a proof-of-stake system.

In a proof-of-stake system, entities can stake a portion of their tokens in the system on one new block or another. The block with the most stake behind it is the one added to the blockchain. A reward of network tokens is given to a random sampling of nodes on the network that chose to validate the latest block the network adds to the blockchain.

All the participants on the network are encouraged to validate the genuine version of the network in order to have a chance of receiving a reward for validating the genuine block.

In theory, proof-of-stake networks wouldn’t see spiraling energy requirements as miners vie for cryptocurrency with computational resources, which could make it more scalable.


For Ethereum to change from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake, a centralized group of Ethereum developers need to update the network’s code. Then users on the Ethereum network will decide if they want to use the new version of Ethereum or continue to use the old version. 

If they split, and some use the old version and some the new, then the chain undergoes a “hard fork,” and both versions of Ethereum are available.




Plasma is a scalability solution for blockchains.

Plasma whitepaper  details a collection of standard smart contracts used to create a tree of side-chains aptly called Plasma chains. These Plasma blockchain trees allow for off-chain transactions; transactions that only periodically commit hashed updated balances to its adult or root chain.

Plasma, the collection of smart contracts, includes a multitude of key innovations that together make up a powerful tool in the battle towards scaling Ethereum’s capacity. 

Among these innovations are computation concepts such as MapReduce, an evolved Proof-of-Stake consensus proposal, and submittable fraud proofs.

Proof-of-Stake, as the name implies, is a consensus algorithm that relies on users within the Plasma chain to stake some token amount in return for interest at some later point in time.

Stakers not only purchase stake bonds, but in doing so they also commit themselves to propagating and broadcasting the exact same number of blocks when said bonds are due. 

Opting for a tree structure allows Plasma to run MapReduce computations.

Instead of clusters of databases, we run MapReduce on Plasma chain trees. This is by far Plasma’s most important scaling solution.
The New York Stock Exchange, however, would need tens-of-thousands tx/s. Internet-of-Things, social media networks, massively multiplayer online (MMO) games, and other non-financial applications would need hundreds-of-thousands to millions of tx/s, Buterin continued.

Scaling blockchains to this capacity would likely require a significant tradeoff in security. Blockchains, therefore, are unable to support most interesting financial applications, let alone the entire internet. Fortunately, there’s a brand new approach to distributed consensus that does not suffer from the shortcomings of blockchains.

Hashgraph is a blockchain-alternative that achieves high scalability without sacrificing security. It has been proven to handle around 300,000 tx/s in a single network, and is expected to do millions of tx/s with sharding. It is asynchronous byzantine fault tolerant, meaning it has bank-grade security.

In addition, Hashgraph is fair in that it serializes all transactions with accurate timestamping, unlike blockchains where miners determine the order in which transactions are placed within each block. It uses an entirely different data structure than blockchains to achieve consensus, and it is a generational leap ahead of Ethereum.


When a company is successful, it starts to sell more products and buys more resources. That means that the leaders of the company have to hire more staff to deal with the sales and the new purchases. 

For instance, the company may face legal problems, so it will hire some lawyers and open a legal department. These issues have to do with finding solutions to deal with growth. This is called scalability.

Introducing proof-of-stake is going to make the blockchain a lot faster because it is much more simple to check who has the most stake then to see who has the most hashing power. 

This makes coming to a consensus much more simple. At the same time proof-of-stake makes the implementation of sharding easier. In a proof-of-work system it will be easier for an attacker to attack individual shards which may not have high hashrate.


Also, in POS miners won’t be getting a block fee, and they can only earn via transaction fees. This incentivizes them to increase the block size to get in more transactions (via gas management). 

Gas is the internal pricing for running a transaction or contract in Ethereum.   A miner can decide to increase or decrease the use of gas according to its needs. 


The gas system is not very different from the use of Kw for measuring electricity home use. One difference from actual energy market is that the originator of the transaction sets the price of gas, to which the miner can or not accept, this causes an emergence of a market around gas




The ability to tolerate what computer scientists call "byzantine failures" is a crucial part of blockchains' ability to maintain reliable records of transactions in a transparent, tamper-proof way. 

Essentially, it imagines a group of Byzantine generals and their armies surrounding a castle and preparing to attack. To be successful, these armies must all attack at the same time. 

But they know that there is a traitor in their midst. The problem they face is one of launching a successful attack with one, unknown bad actor in their system.

The metaphor describes a problem that plagues many computer networks. When a group is trying to make a collective decision about how it will act, there is a risk that traitors within the group may send mixed messages about their preferences. 

The traitors may tell some members of the group that they wish to do one thing, and tell other members of the group the opposite. This can cause problems for the group's ability to coordinate its actions effectively.

 If some members of the group are led to believe one thing and others believe something different, group members will fail to act in unison. The group's cohesiveness and effectiveness will then break down, exactly as the traitors would desire.

Examples of Byzantine failures-- honeybee swarms have to find a new home, and the many scouts and wider participants have to reach consensus about which of perhaps several candidate homes to fly to. And then they all have to fly there, with their queen.  The bees approach works reliably, but when researchers are so unkind as to offer two hives, equally attractive by all the criteria bees apply, catastrophe ensues, the swarm breaks up, and all the bees die..

Byzantine failures are considered the most general and most difficult class of failures among the failure modes. A Byzantine fault is any fault presenting different symptoms to different observers.  

A Byzantine failure is the loss of a system service due to a Byzantine fault in systems that require consensus.

In fault-tolerant computer systems, and in particular distributed computing systems, Byzantine fault tolerance (BFT) is the characteristic of a system that tolerates the class of failures known as the Byzantine Generals' Problem

Hashgraph is a fair and fast, byzantine fault tolerant consensus algorithm.. It has mathematically proven fairness via Consensus Time Stamping.  

Hashgraph eliminates the need for the massive computational and energy requirements that Proof-of-Work consensus succumbs to. 

Using the ‘gossip about gossip’ protocol enables hashgraph to be lightweight, nimble and much like gossip between friends, is able to spread exponentially and almost by definition is transparent. 

For example, the Bitcoin blockchain is about 60GB in size, where as hashgraph uses a fraction of that memory, about 1GB, allowing cell phones to act as nodes. 

Gossip about gossip uses votes instead of ‘blocks’, and as a result can achieve 
transaction times the likes of which blockchain can only dream of.

If used to create another cryptocurrency, hashgraph will eliminate the issue of network forks caused by network congestion thanks to its ability to scale infinitely.

 Some blockchains are Byzantine and others are Fault Tolerant, but no blockchain is both Byzantine AND Fault Tolerant. With hashgraph, the network is guaranteed to be Byzantine Fault Tolerant, 100% of the time.

Unlike a blockchain where a miner can choose the order for which transactions occur in a block, can delay orders by placing them in future blocks, and can even stop them entirely from entering the system, the hashgraph consensus method timestamps each node (event), so assumptions are no longer required, ergo Byzantine. 

In other words, no member can prevent the community from reaching a consensus, nor can they change the consensus once it has been reached. 

Blockchain merely assumes that a consensus was reached as probability approaches  whereas hashgraph guarantees it thanks to its generational “gossip about gossip”.


While Ethereum is looking at PoS with Casper, hashgraph algorithm uses  Virtual Voting – its a voting system – without having to do the votes. Hashgraph uses a protocol called “Gossip about Gossip” to achieve consensus. 

Gossip is a well known computer science term, which can be defined as calling any random node and telling that node everything you know, that it does not know. In distributed ledger technology the “baseline” or minimum bandwidth required is that the transactions go to every node. 

Gossip about Gossip refers to attaching a small additional amount of information to this Gossip, which contains the last person we talked to, hence, we are gossiping about the information we gossiped. 

Using this information, we can build the Hashgraph. Once we have the Hashgraph, it is extremely easy to know what a node would vote, because we know what each node knows, and when they knew it. 

We now can use the data from the Hashgraph as an input to 30 year old voting algorithms, and achieve consensus essentially for free. 

These 30 year old voting algorithms have strong math proofs- they are Asynchronous Byzantine Fault Tolerant, which means we know when we will achieve consensus, guaranteed, and our math proofs make no assumptions about the speed of the internet, due to firewalls, ddos attacks, viruses or botnets. 

In addition, because of gossip about gossip, Hashgraph is extremely fast, (250,000 transactions/sec), and we also get fair ordering and time stamping on every event. 

Think of Swirlds as a distributed Oracle, in that their main clients would be corporations and institutions that want to leverage the decentralized properties of permissioned consensus algorithms with absolutely no possibility of downtime, rather than just cryptocurrencies used by enthusiasts and cypherpunks alike.


In the blockchain world, a miner can choose the order for which transactions occur in a block, can delay orders by placing them in future blocks, even stop them entirely from entering the system. If two miners create two blocks at the same time, the community will eventually choose one and discard the other.

In the blockchain, if new blocks arrive too quickly they can be discarded. This is why Bitcoin is currently PoW, as this artificially slows down the mining process – hence the expensive hardware needed to mine.

In hashgraph, every container is used and none are discarded. With hashgraph, every member can create transactions and containers whenever they want.

In block chain, a transaction can be delayed by one or two mining periods, if many of the miners are refusing to include it. In alternatives to blockchain based on leaders, this delay can be extremely long, until the next change of leader. 

But in the hashgraph, attackers cannot stop a member from recording a transaction in any way other than cutting off their internet access.

The hashgraph is fast. It is limited only by the bandwidth. So if each member has enough bandwidth to download 4,000 transactions per second, then that is how many the system can handle. 

That would likely require only a few megabits per second, which is a typical home broadband connection. And it would be fast enough to handle all of the transactions of the entire Visa card network, worldwide. 

The Bitcoin limit of 7 transactions per second can clearly be improved in various ways. Though some ways of improving it, such as a gigantic block size, could actually make the fairness of the system even worse.

The hashgraph is provable. Once an event occurs, within a couple of minutes everyone in the community will know where it should be placed in history. More importantly, everyone will know that everyone else knows this. 

At that point, they can just incorporate the effects of the transaction, and then discard it. So in a minimal crypto currency system, each member (each “full node” in blockchain terminology) needs only to store the current balance of each wallet that isn’t empty. 

They don’t need to remember any old blocks. They don’t need to remember any old transactions. That shrinks the amount of storage from Bitcoin’s current 60 GB to a fraction of a single gigabyte. That would even fit on a typical smartphone.

The hashgraph is Byzantine. 

This is a technical term meaning that no single member (or small group of members) can prevent the community from reaching a consensus. Nor can they change the consensus once it has been reached. And each member will eventually reach a point where they know for sure that they have reached consensus. 

Blockchain does not have a guarantee of Byzantine agreement, because a member never reaches certainty that agreement has been achieved (there’s just a probability that rises over time). 

Blockchain is also non- Byzantine because it doesn’t automatically deal with network partitions. 

If a group of miners is isolated from the rest of the internet, that can allow multiple chains to grow, which conflict with each other on the order of transactions. 

It is worth noting that the term “Byzantine” is sometimes used in a weaker sense. But here, it is used in its original, stronger sense that (1) every member eventually knows consensus has been reached (2) attackers may collude and (3) attackers even control the internet itself (with some limits). Hashgraph is Byzantine, even by this stronger definition.

In blockchain, work is sometimes wasted mining a block that later is considered stale and is discarded by the community. In hashgraph, the equivalent of a “block” never becomes stale.

The hashgraph is inexpensive, in the sense of avoiding proof-of-work. In Bitcoin, the community must waste time on calculations that slow down how fast the blocks are mined. 

As computers become faster, they’ll have to do more calculations, to keep the rate slow. The calculations don’t have any useful purpose, except to slow down the community. This requires the serious miners to buy expensive, custom hardware, so they can do this work faster than their competitors. 

But hashgraph is 100% efficient, no matter how fast its “blocks” are mined. So it doesn’t need to waste computations to slow itself down. (Note: there are blockchain variants that also don’t use proof-of-work; but Bitcoin does require proof-of-work). 

The hashgraph is timestamped. Every transaction is assigned a consensus time, which is the median of the times at which each member first received it. This is part of the consensus, and so has all the guarantees of being Byzantine and provable

The hashgraph is DoS resistant. Both blockchain and hashgraph are distributed in a way that resists Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. An attacker might flood one member or miner with packets, to temporarily disconnect them from the internet. But the community as a whole will continue to operate normally. 

An attack on the system as a whole would require flooding a large fraction of the members with packets, which is more difficult. There have been a number of proposed alternatives to blockchain based on leaders or round robin. 

These have been proposed to avoid the proof-of-work costs of blockchain. But they have the drawback of being sensitive to DoS attacks. 

If the attacker attacks the current leader, and switches to attacking the new leader as soon as one is chosen, then the attacker can freeze the entire system, while still attacking only one computer at a time. Hashgraph avoids this problem, while still not needing proof-of-work.

The hashgraph is optionally non-permissioned, while still avoiding the cost of proof-of-work. A permissioned system is one where only trusted members can participate. 

An open system is not permissioned, and allows anyone to participate. Standard blockchain can be open if it uses proof-of-work, but variants such as proof-of-stake typically have to be permissioned in order to be secure.

A hashgraph system can be designed to work in a number of different ways. One of the more interesting is to use proof-of-stake, allowing members to vote proportional to their ownership of a particular cryptocurrency. 

A good cryptocurrency might be widely used, so that it is difficult for an attacker to corner the market by owning a large fraction of the entire money supply. If a large fraction of the currency owners all participate in a hashgraph system, then proof-of-stake will make it safe from Sybil attacks, which are attacks by hordes of sock-puppet fake accounts. 

Such a system would be secure even if it were not permissioned, while still avoiding the cost of proof-of-work. Why does hashgraph have these properties? Because it’s like a tree that’s braided, not pruned.

The Sybil attack in computer security is an attack wherein a reputation system is subverted by forging identities in peer-to-peer networks. 

In a Sybil attack, the attacker subverts the reputation system of a peer-to-peer network by creating a large number of pseudonymous identities, using them to gain a disproportionately large influence. 

It s a dangerous digital world out there. Security and antivirus software is important for any network. 

One way security can break down is in a Sybil attack. Named after the case study of a woman with multiple personality disorder, a Sybil attack is a type of security threat when a node in a network claims multiple identities. 

Sybil attacks have appeared in many scenarios, with wide implications for security, safety and trust. For example, an internet poll can be rigged using multiple IP addresses to submit a large number of votes. Some companies have also used Sybil attacks to gain better ratings on Google Page Rank.

In both blockchain and hashgraph, any member can create a transaction, which will eventually be put into a container (the “block”), and will then spread throughout the community. 

In blockchain, those containers are intended to form a single, long chain. If two miners create two blocks at the same time, the community will eventually choose one to continue, and discard the other one. It’s like a growing tree that is constantly having all but one of its branches chopped off.

In hashgraph, every container is used, and none are discarded. So all the branches continue to exist forever, and eventually grow back together into a single whole. This is more efficient.

Furthermore, blockchain fails if the new containers arrive too quickly, because new branches are sprouting faster than they can be pruned. That is why blockchain needs proof-of-work or some other mechanism to artificially slow down the growth. 

But in hashgraph, nothing is thrown away. So there is no harm in the structure growing quickly. Every member can create transactions and containers whenever they want. So it is very simple, and tends to be very fast.


Finally, because the hashgraph doesn’t require pruning, it is simpler, which allows more powerful mathematical guarantees, such as Byzantine agreement and fairness. 

Distributed databases such as Paxos are Byzantine, but not fair. 

Blockchain is neither Byzantine nor fair. 

But the Swirlds hashgraph is both Byzantine and fair.



Hashgraph is written in Java


SOMEBODY ASKED ME

YOU STOPPED BLOGGING- YET YOU DID A “EXTRA LONG COMMENT“  ON BLOCK CHAIN

WITH A MIGHTY VADAKAYIL BACK SWING –WHICH WOULD PUT JOHN FUCKIN’  GALT TO SHAME

INDEED !

THE MOST FERTILE BRAINED MEN ON THIS PLANET WENT GA GA ABOUT BLOCKCHAIN –ULU ( OR IS IT BLOCKCHAIN-UDU )

THIS IS  A SYSTEM WHICH REQUIRED CHOOT MINERS , SPENDING HUMONGOUS AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY – 

A SIMPLE EMP ATTACK ON POWER GRIDS CAN MADE BLOCKCHAIN-ULU ( OR IS IT BLOCKCHAIN-UDU ) FALL PHUTTTT ON ITS FACE , RIGHT?

AFTER THAT WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH THE HARD FORK USED TO CREATE AN EXTRA CHRONS ASSHOLE TO KEEP THE SHIT FLOWING?

WHOSE ASSHOLE  SHALL WE SHOVE INTO?

BLOCKCHAIN IS LIKE GANDHI

GANDHI IS INDEED AS HOLY AS GOD

BUY HEY, HE NEEDS A BLOCKCHAIN – NAY— AN ENEMA KIT  ( TO INJECT FRESH YOUNG GIRLs SHIT INTO HIS LARGE INTESTINE )  

AND ALSO TWO YOUNG TEENAGED GIRLS TO SLEEP WITH HIM UNDER THE SAME BLANKET,  FOR GOOD MEAYYYURRE -NAY--MEASURE-- TO CONTINUE DOING HIS HOLY JOB

BRRAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY !





LET US DANCE--WHILE SINGING THE PRAISES OF GANDHI-- NAY--- BLOCKCHAIN--  

DHINKA CHIKKA DHINKA CHIKKA 







HITLER IS UPSET !




HITLER SELLS ALL HIS BITCOINS


HITLER TOO WAS A MINER 


In 2016, a vulnerability in the DAO smart contract allowed hackers to steal $74 million USD from 11,000 individuals.


Bitcoin is not byzantine. It’s not even byzantine under bad assumptions. 

Guaranteed mathematically – that’s where the byzantine fault tolerance purely asynchronous all comes in.  

In hashgraph you  do this with zero communication. You get it for free and in a fraction of a second.

PERIOD !

CHINA DOES 82% OF THE WORLDs MINING -WHY ?



Chinese mining pools control more than 82% of the Bitcoin network’s collective hashrate.  Most mining pools are in China.




1. AntPool
Antpool is a Chinese based mining pool, maintained by the ASIC manufacturer, BitMain.  Antpool has mined nearly 20% of all blocks over the past year. Antpool currently has a hashrate of about 675 Petahash per second (PH/s).

AntPool disguises its true hashrate by running subsidiary pools. These are said to include ViaBTC, BTC.com, GBMiners, CANOE and possibly others.

2. F2Pool / DiscusFish
F2Pool, also known as DiscusFish, is based in China.  F2Pool has mined about 18.5% of all blocks over the past twelve months-- it controls about 380 PH/s.

3. BTCC
BTCC is China’s third largest Bitcoin exchange and also operates a large mining pool. The BTCC pool has mined about 11% of all blocks over the past year. It controls about 240 PH/s.

4. BW Pool
BW, established in 2014, is another mining company based in China. BW’s pool has mined about 10% of all blocks over the last year. It controls in the region of 225 PH/s.


China is home to four of the five largest Bitcoin mining pools over the past year.


Cloud mining is where you pay a service provider to miner for you and you get the rewards.  

KOSHER controlled Georgia is home to BitFury, one of the largest producers of Bitcoin mining hardware and chips.  

BitFury currently mines about 15% of all bitcoins.


The main difference between the Bitfury pool and other mining pools is that Bitfury is a private pool.


Bitfury, the company, makes its own mining hardware and runs its own pool. So, unlike Slush or Antpool, Bitfury cannot be joined if you run mining hardware at home.



IT IS NOT JUST —ROTHSCHILD IS BEHIND THE BITCOIN SHADOW



Bitcoin miners are crucial to Bitcoin and its security. Without miners, Bitcoin would be vulnerable and easy to attack.  Miners are responsible for the creation of all new bitcoins..   Mining is now mostly done in large, specialized warehouses with massive amounts of mining hardware.   

Antpool in China remains the largest Bitcoin mining pool in terms of its Bitcoin network hash rate. Antpool holds roughly 15% of the total hash rate of all Bitcoin mining pools.   

Chinaman Jihan Wu is the co-founder of BITMAIN, one of most recognized and valuable bitcoin companies.. Jihan Wu founded Bitmain maintains AntPool which holds the largest hashrate distribution amongst mining pools; currently AntPool mines 17 % of all blocks.

INDIA GOES BITCOIN-ULU ( OR IS IT BITCOIN –UDU?)










ADANIs FORTUNE COOKING OIL IS NOW USING BOLLYWOOD ACTOR AKSHAY KUMAR AND THE INDIAN ARMY

http://bestmediainfo.com/2017/11/akshay-kumar-wears-rajiv-bhatia-s-apron-to-cook-for-jawans-in-fortune-oil-s-latest-brand-film/

IS THIS WHY MODI MADE JNU WOMAN NIRMALA SITARAMAN AS OUR DEFENCE MINISTER ?

WHY IS THE INDIAN ARMY COMMERCIALIZED ? IS THE ARMY CHIEF INVOLVED ? WHO HAS GIVEN SUCH LIBERTIES ?

WE WANT SEVERE FINES TO BE SLAPPED ON THE MAKERS OF THIS AD

PREVIOUSLY THESE LIARS CLAIMED THAT FORTUNE VIVO COOKING OIL CAN CURE DIABETES

WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA WANT TO KNOW IF THE MODI GOVT SUPPORTS THIS ADANI WILMAR FORTUNE VIVO VEGETABLE OIL , WHICH CLAIMS TO CONTROL DIABETES .. THIS RUNS COUNTERSENSE TO SCIENCE . . . .

BEING CAPTAIN FOR 30 YEARS MY SHIPS HAVE CARRIED WILMAR OIL FOR YEARS , AND I KNOW WHO THEY ARE , AND HOW THEY SOURCE THE OIL ..

WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS OF THIS MAGIC ADANI VEG OIL?

HAS THE HEALTH MINISTER DONE A STUDY ? . . . OR IS IT GUJARATI EXEMPTED ? . . .

IS IT GM OIL ?

WHERE IS THE TEST CERTIFICATE BY THE INDIAN GOVT LABORATORY ? . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV1GMOgg43Y

THIS IS THE STATE OF INDIA-- A BANANA REPUBLIC --RULED BY AN APCO BRANED PM ..


PUT THIS COMMENT IN ARMY CHIEFs, DEFENCE MINISTERs, PMO, PM MODI, HEALTH MINISTER, I&B MINISTER, WEBSITES

capt ajit vadakayil
..


Captain


Here is an article that says US Debt problem is not manageable.

----
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-31/will-americas-prosperity-be-completely-wiped-out-our-growing-debt


The federal government is now 20.4 trillion dollars in debt, and most Americans don’t seem to care that the economic prosperity that we are enjoying today could be completely destroyed by our exploding national debt.

"Over the past decade, the national debt has been growing at a rate of more than 100 million dollars an hour, and this is a debt that all of us owe. When you break it down, each American citizen’s share of the debt is more than $60,000, and so if you have a family of five your share is more than $300,000. And when you throw in more than 6 trillion dollars of corporate debt and nearly 13 trillion dollars of consumer debt, it is not inaccurate to say that we are facing a crisis of unprecedented magnitude."
---

If Trump or someone who have balls, mint a coin, and call it a "20 Trillion USD" coin, and wipes the slate clean, what will be implications?

I am sure whichever the president does that, he will be assassinated. Will it solve problem? Don't think so. Federal Reserve is one evil Private Bankers Association, no one has balls to fight against.

Your thoughts sir?

-Cheers
Shan




  1. JEW OBAMA HAS SOLD USA TO ROTHSCHILD

    ROBERT MUELLER SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING OBAMA--WHY HE NEVER REVEALED THE 20 TRILLION DEBT , IN ANY OF HIS SOTU SPEECHES

    IF CHINA WANTS TO SCREW USA THEY CAN--THEY ARE THE LARGEST HOLDERS OF US DEBT 

    IN THE LINK BELOW, LOOK AT THE TOP LEFT HAND CORNER -- 20.45 TRILLION USD DEBT

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/
    Hilly Billy Yanks do not know that the Social Security Trust Fund, aka retirement money, owns most of the national debt.

    The U.S. Treasury manages the U.S. debt through its Bureau of the Public Debt.

    The debt falls into two broad categories: Intragovernmental Holdings and Debt Held by the Public.

    Intragovernmental Holdings. This is the portion of the federal debt owed to 230 other federal agencies. It totals $5.6 trillion, almost 30 percent of the debt. Why would the government owe money to itself? Some agencies, like the Social Security Trust Fund, take in more revenue from taxes than they need. Rather than stick this cash under a giant mattress, these agencies buy U.S. Treasurys with it.

    By owning Treasurys, they transfer their excess cash to the general fund, where it is spent. Of course, one day they will redeem their Treasury notes for cash. The federal government will either need to raise taxes or issue more debt to give the agencies the money they will need.

    Debt Held by the Public. The public holds the rest of the national debt ($14.7 trillion). Foreign governments and investors hold nearly half of it. One-fourth is held by other governmental entities. These include the Federal Reserve, as well as state and local governments. Fifteen percent is held by mutual funds, private pension funds and holders of savings bonds and Treasury notes. The remaining 10 percent is owned by businesses, like banks and insurance companies. It's also held by an assortment of trusts, companies, and investors.

    As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve is in charge of the country's credit. It doesn't have a financial reason to own Treasury notes. So why did it double its holdings between 2007 and 2014?

    That's when it ramped up its open market operations by purchasing $2 trillion in Treasurys. This quantitative easing stimulated the economy by keeping interest rates low. It helped the United States escape the grips of the recession.

    Did the Fed monetize the debt?

    Yes, that's one of the effects. The Fed purchased Treasurys from its member banks, using credit it created out of thin air. It had the same effect as printing money. By keeping interest rates low, the Fed helped the government avoid the high-interest rate penalty it would usually incur for excessive debt.

    MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR?

    DO YOU KNOW WHY PRICES OF GOODS ALWAYS GO UP AND NEVER DOWN ?

    THERE IS A METHOD TO THIS ROTHSCHILD MADNESS.
    THIS IS WHY I SAY—   95% OF INDIAN PROFESSORS WHO TEACH ECONOMICS NEED TO BE SACKED. 

    AND HULLO SWAMY—YOU HAVE BECOME SENILE. YOU ARE NOT THE OLD SWAMY

    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/01/murky-truths-of-inflation-and.html


    USA NEEDS A WAR WITH INDIA AND CHINA FIGHTING EACH OTHER--THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN COME OUT OF THEIR UNPAYABLE DEBT

    THE G7 NATIONS ARE BEGGARS

    THE UNSC IS MANNED BY 5 BEGGARS WITH VETO POWER

    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2017/07/can-china-afford-war-with-india-come-on.html

    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2017/08/can-china-afford-war-with-india-come-on.html


    APCO MODI--WE WE SEE YOU HUGGING WHITE JEWS--WE CRINGE AND SQUIRM

    DO YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF NATIONAL HONOUR ?

    http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2016/06/gpi-dog-shall-wag-gdp-tail-not-vice.html


    capt ajit vadakayil
    ..

  2. PUT THIS COMMENT IN THE WEBSITES OF --SWAMY, PMO, PM MODI, FINANCE MINISTER, SMRITI IRANI ( IF SHE DANCES HARD DHINKA CHIKKA SHE MAY UNDERSTAND ), LAW MINISTER, CJI, SUPREME COUR BAR COUNCIL, HOME MINISTER, DEFENCE MINISTER, YOGI ADITYANATH COMMERCE MINISTER , MEA, AND WEBSITES OF DESH BHAKTS


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/social-media-pokes-fun-at-ministers-vande-mataram-rendition/articleshow/61377738.cms

BASTARD BENAMI MEDIA

FIT ONLY FOR CRICKET AND BOLLYWOOD

WANTS TO FIRE OVER SOCIAL MEDIA s SHOULDERS..
MEDIA WHORES-- COMMIES FROM BROKEN HOMES

KNOWING THE LYRICS IS NO BIG DEAL-- THE INTENTION AND AN EFFORT TO BE PART OF THE SONG MATTERS

capt ajit vadakayil
..



Captain,

You blogged 7 parts on Block-chain technology only to tell us in the 8th part that the entire Block chain concept is a sham and POS !

Hahahahahhaha........unbelievable......this back-swing is like a horse kicking a man's nuts !!! :D




  1. BACKSWING IS A CHANGE MANAGERs TECHNIQUE

    WHEN INDIA SENT OUR ROCKET TO MARS--IT WENT THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FIRST

    Isro engineers employed an unusual "slingshot" method for Mangalyaan

    Lacking enough rocket power to blast directly out of Earth's atmosphere and gravitational pull, it orbited the Earth for several weeks while building up enough velocity to break free. That helped avoid using a more expensive more expensive heavy launch vehicle.

    Gravity assist, sometimes called an interplanetary slingshot (a CHOOT ter term), involves approaching an intermediate planet (not the one you initially start from, or are destined to go to) in a hyperbolic orbit.

    A gravitational slingshot, gravity assist maneuver or swing-by is the use of the relative movement and gravity of a planet to alter the path and speed of a spacecraft, typically in order to save fuel, time, and expense

    There was no gravity slingshot used on Mangalyaan.

    We did 6 periapsis burns at Earth to raise the apogee, then a burn to go to the Mars Transfer Trajectory, then another burn when they get to Mars to put themselves in orbit
    BALLS BRUTUS IS A HONORABLE GUY !
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

    TEE HEEEEEEEEEEEE

    capt ajit vadakayil
    ..







https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/russias-relationship-with-india-second-to-no-country-russian-envoy/articleshow/61410312.cms

INDIA MUST SIGN A TREATY WITH RUSSIA

THAT A WAR ON INDIA , WILL BE A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA

DONT BOTHER ABOUT VICE VERSA SITUATION --AS NO NATION HAS THE GAAND MEIN TATTI TO ATTACK RUSSIA. 

RUSSIA CAN DESTROY BRITAIN WITH JUST ONE SARMAT 2 UNSTOPPABLE ICBM. 

RUSSIA CAN MAKE USA A RADIOACTIVE WASTELAND WITH JUST 16 UNSTOPPABLE SARMAT2 ICBMs 

THIS TREATY WILL KEEP CHINA AWAY


RUSSIA NEEDS INDIA MORE THAN INDIA NEEDS RUSSIA
WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD TRIED TO BRAND RUSSIA AND EVIL EMPIRE --INDIA THE ONLY MORAL VOICE OF THIS PLANET SHORED UP RUSSIA - PUTIN KNOWS THIS AND HE MUST BE GRATEFUL.

####################

PUT THIS COMMENT IN 

PM MODIs

PMO ( I ASK MY READERS --JUST PUTTING A COMMENT IN PMO MEANS NOTHING--I KNOW THE BASTARD WHO DELETES IT )

CHIEFS OF ALL THREE AIR FORCE/ NAVY/ ARMY

AJIT DOVAL

DEFENCE MINISTER 

HOME MINISTER

ASK FOR AN ACK

capt ajit vadakayil
..










https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/carbon-dioxide-levels-grew-at-record-pace-in-2016-un-says/articleshow/61339924.cms

UN WAS CREATED BY JEW ROTHSCHILD

IT IS STILL A POODLE OF JEW ROTHSCHILD WHO WANTS TO PUSH PARIS COP21-- DONALD TRUMP BLOCKED IT GLEANING INFO FROM MY BLOGSITE 

WE SEND OUR SOLDIERS TO AFRICA ON UN PEACE KEEPING MISSIONS-- WE KEEP WATCH WHILE WHITE JEWS STEAL

INDIA CONTRIBUTES THE HIGHEST SOLDIERS 

AND OUR ELECTED PMs KEEP THIS A BIG SECRET---THAT OUR SOLDIERS HAVE THE HIGHEST MORTALITY RATE 

THIS IS THE GREATEST DECEIT MY OUR PM MODI-- HE WILL NEVER TALK ABOUT THIS IN MANN KE BAAATH OR HIS TWITTER SITE -AS THIS WILL CRAMP HIS APCO STYLE OF MILKING VOTES, USING HIS FAALTHU ETHOS.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/blogs/blog-datadelve/article6547767.ece

CARBON DI OXIDE IS A GOOD GAS

MODI USED CHITPAVAN PRAKASH JAVEDEKAR AT PARIS COP21-- TOTAL CAPITULATION TO WHITE JEWS ..
MODI HAS AWARDED PADMA VIBHUSHAN TO TWO ROGUE GURUS -- SRI SRI RAVISHANKAR AND SADGURU JAGGI VASUDEV



BOTH ARE PRETENDING TO BE GREAT ENVIRONMENTALISTS -- SUDDEN SPONTANEOUS KNOWLEDGE --LIKE SRUTI OF VEDAS ?



I CAN PUT THIS GRUESOME DUO THROUGH A THOUSAND ITEM EXAM-- BOTH WILL SCORE ZERO-- AND THIS INCLUDES INDIAs NGT

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2016/04/most-potent-greenhouse-gases-nitrous.html

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2016/12/arctic-ice-melt-and-methane-time-bomb.html

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2016/06/methane-time-bomb-arctic-ice-meltdown.html

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2017/05/nitrate-water-pollution-chemical.html


READ ALL 6 PARTS OF THE POST BELOW---

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2017/05/ground-water-resources-of-india-capt.html

I AM NOT A PRETENDER-- FOR 30 YEARS I COMMANDED CHEMICAL TANKERS --WITH 100% KNOWLEDGE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ITS RULES

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2014/06/ganga-manthan-cleaning-of-river-ganges.html

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2014/03/vanishing-lakes-rain-water-harvesting.html

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2014/05/interlinking-rivers-of-india-capt-ajit.html

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2015/11/foam-froth-on-bangalore-lakes-capt-ajit.html


PUT THIS COMMENT IN THE WEBSITES OF PM, PMO, FOOD MINISTER, WATER MINISTER, ENVIRONMENT MINISTER, YOGI ADITYANATAH, I&B MINISTER, LAW MINISTER , CJI, SUPREME COURT BAR COUNCIL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PRAKASH JAVEDEKAR, HOME MINISTER, DEFENCE MINISTER, FINANCE MINISTER

AND ALL DESH BHAKTS

capt ajit vadakayil
..



https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/pollution/centre-turns-to-sewage-eating-microbes-to-treat-ganga-water-at-54-new-sites/articleshow/61336579.cms

BE WARNED

GANGA DOES NOT NEED SEWAGE EATING BACTERIA LIKE OTHER RIVERS ON THIS PLANET...

GANGA HAS ITS OWN SELF CLEANING BACTERIA BUSTING BACTERIOPHAGES ....NO OTHER RIVER ON THIS PLANET HAS THIS UNIQUE LIVING CREATURES...THIS IS WHY GANGES IS A HOLY RIVER....

Bacteriophage, is a virus, any of a group of viruses that infect bacteria—it literally means “bacteria eater”

WHO IS GIVING PM MODI ALL THIS DEVASTATING ADVISE? .. HIS WHITE JEWS MASTERS IN ISRAEL?...

PROTECT GANGA AGAINST CHEMICAL ( FROM TANNERIES ) AND PLASTIC POLLUTION--THAT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED...

Thousands of varieties of such phages exist, each of which may infect only one type or a few types of bacteria.... The nucleic acid may be either DNA or RNA and may be double-stranded or single-stranded...

During infection a phage attaches to a bacterium and inserts its genetic material into the cell. ..

After this a phage follows one of two life cycles, lytic (virulent) or lysogenic (temperate). .. Lytic phages take over the machinery of the cell to make phage components... They then destroy, or lyse, the cell, releasing new phage particles...

After the discovery of antibiotics in the 1940s it was virtually abandoned. With the ever increasing rise of anti-biotic resistant bacteria , phages will now command fresh attention..

More than 120 years ago there was a cholera outbreak in India and dead bodies were dumped in the upper river... Yet strangely Ganges water did NOT spread the cholera down the river . ...

Ganges is heavily populated with phages which multiply rapidly , travel fast and home in on targets ...

They are harmless to humans because they are strain specific. ... This means phages that infect the cholera bacterium can only infect the cholera bacterium and no other bacteria....

When a bacteriophage finds a bacterium with proteins which match its receptors, it can insert DNA or RNA into the bacterium and direct the organism to start producing replicas of the virus.....

Phages have been keeping keeping bacteria in check for three and a half billion years! Antibiotics have been around for a few decades are they are already failing to do their job.....

I ASK MY READERS - SPREAD THIS COMMENT LIKE WILD FIRE.. INDIA IS BEING RULED BY DESH DROHIS OR VERY IGNORANT PEOPLE...

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2014/06/ganga-manthan-cleaning-of-river-ganges.html

WARNING--   DO NOT INTRODUCE EXTERNAL BACTERIA .. THIS WILL KILL GANGA ....

capt ajit vadakayil
..




  1. PUT THIS COMMENT IN THE WEBSITES OF PM, PMO, FOOD MINISTER, WATER MINISTER, ENVIRONMENT MINISTER, YOGI ADITYANATAH, I&B MINISTER, LAW MINISTER , CJI, SUPREME COURT BAR COUNCIL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PRAKASH JAVEDEKAR, HOME MINISTER, DEFENCE MINISTER, FINANCE MINISTER--CM s OF ALL STATES THROUGH WHICH THE RIVER PASSES. ( LEAVE OUT THAT STUPID BONG WOMAN )

    AND ALL DESH BHAKTS
THIS POST IS NOW CONTINUED TO PART 9, BELOW--










CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL
..