- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Cryptocurrency: Never Ask Permission, Evade The Broken System
by grarpamp 26 Jul '21

26 Jul '21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNFyLGlR-0w Never Ask Permission, Evade The Broken System

1 0

CryptoPotato: Locked Out of Millions: Couple Can’t Access $5.8M Worth of Ethereum
by jim bell 26 Jul '21

26 Jul '21

CryptoPotato: Locked Out of Millions: Couple Can’t Access $5.8M Worth of Ethereum. https://cryptopotato.com/locked-out-of-millions-couple-cant-access-5-8m-wor…

1 0

Bye-bye, bitcoin: It's time to ban cryptocurrencies | TheHill
by jim bell 26 Jul '21

26 Jul '21

https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/564696-bye-bye-bitcoin-time-to-ba… Jim Bell's comment follows: That opinion is utter nonsense. But governments may be tempted to follow it, probably because those governments suspect that they will eventually be destroyed by those cryptocurrencies, just as I believed (and continue to believe) when I wrote my Assassination Politics essay in January 1995. https://cryptome.org/ap.htm

1 0

Portable GPS Time Server Powered By The ESP8266 | Hackaday
by jim bell 26 Jul '21

26 Jul '21

https://hackaday.com/2021/07/25/portable-gps-time-server-powered-by-the-esp…

2 1

Cryptocurrency: The Bit Short - Tether-USDT
by grarpamp 25 Jul '21

25 Jul '21

The Bit Short: Inside Crypto’s Doomsday Machine by Crypto Anonymous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZTFNizSNGs This is the story of a Bitcoin trade — the most financially impactful trade I’ve ever made in my life. It’s also the story of the deep-yet-frantic investigation of the crypto ecosystem that led me to make that trade. And it’s the story of what’s really going on in crypto — and what we should do about it. If you own meaningful amounts of cryptocurrency or you’re considering buying some, you’re the reason I wrote this. Please do read to the end. Prologue: Tether & company Before I begin this story, there’s a bit of background you need to know first. There are things in crypto right now called Tethers. To simplify a bit, Tethers are issued by a crypto company called Tether Ltd. — meaning that if Tether Ltd. says you own a Tether, then you do. Tether Ltd. also says one Tether is worth exactly one US dollar. Can they do that? Well they say they can, because they hold $1 worth of assets for each Tether. But are those assets actual dollars? No, they are not. So what if the assets go down in value? Don’t worry; they will not. Okay, but can we at least see the assets? No, you may not. Who in their right mind would use something like Tether? Well, the short answer is that many people use Tethers to buy Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The long answer, though, is astounding — but more on that later. Because Tether sounds exactly like a currency fraud, it may not surprise you to learn that Tether Ltd. is currently under investigation by the Office of the Attorney General for the Southern District of New York. That investigation was announced to the public on April 25th, 2019. The trade Now fast-forward one year. In March of 2020, I bought a large amount of Bitcoin. At the time, I saw a market dislocation and the likelihood of significant dollar inflation due to the US Government’s likely response to the unfolding pandemic. I suspected Bitcoin would be inflation-resistant because of its enforced scarcity. To the extent that I thought about Tether at all, I remembered the OAG’s investigation, assumed Tether was now old news and would surely have been pulled from the markets, and dismissed it as a factor in my buying decision. That was a huge mistake. The HODL For the rest of 2020, my inflationary thesis looked right. Unrest in the United States, combined with anticipated high levels of lending and consumer spending post-pandemic, seemed likely to fuel substantial USD inflation in real terms through the end of 2021. During the same period, Bitcoin was becoming increasingly scarce on a secular basis. The market appeared to agree with my thesis. My Bitcoin position doubled in value, then doubled again. By the end of the year I was sitting on a 600% gain, and decently wealthy in nominal dollars. I had intended to hold my Bitcoin for the very long term — it never even crossed my mind to sell it, regardless of its day-to-day price variations. And then, in early January, a forum post caught my eye. The shock On January 8th, I saw this post on Hacker News about Tether manipulating the price of Bitcoin. That shook me: I’d assumed Tether had been purged from the crypto markets, yet apparently it was still around. But how much Tether could there really be in the crypto markets? Surely not that much. Still, I took a look. The answer, I was surprised to see, was a lot: Source: Coinlib BTC. The left-hand side of this chart shows which currencies are flowing into Bitcoin (that is, are being used to buy Bitcoin) across all crypto exchanges. The right-hand side shows which currencies are flowing out of Bitcoin (that is, that Bitcoin is being used to buy). The chart is showing typical numbers for early January 2021. The upshot: over two-thirds of all Bitcoin — $10 billion worth of it — that was bought in the previous 24 hours, was being purchased with Tethers. What’s more, this pattern wasn’t unique to Bitcoin. I saw the same thing for all the other popular cryptocurrencies: Source: Coinlib ETH, LTC, ADA, and BCH. It seemed I’d been wrong to dismiss Tether. Tether wasn’t just in the crypto markets — Tether was the crypto markets. The panic This worried me. Most of my wealth was exposed in the form of Bitcoin, and Bitcoin seemed like it might be exposed to Tether. And Tether’s issuing company was under active investigation. I urgently needed to find out if this risk was real. I cleared my schedule and started digging. Right away it was obvious that if Tether flows were partly or wholly fraudulent, that would have a significant effect on the correct market price of Bitcoin. (Even though $10B of Tether flows only constitutes 1.4% of Bitcoin’s $700B nominal market cap, all that really matters is what fraction of Bitcoin’s daily buying volume Tether accounts for — and that number is closer to 70%.) How could I find out if Tether was fraudulent? One quick proxy might be what kinds of exchanges it traded on. I knew that some exchanges, like Coinbase, used solid due diligence to curb money laundering, while many other exchanges weren’t as well-run. Was there a pattern to which exchanges supported Tether and which didn’t? There was. Here’s how crypto trades flow through Coinbase Pro in a typical 24-hour period: Source: Coinlib Coinbase Pro data. Notice that the money going into crypto is almost all dollars, Euros and British pounds — currencies that are subject to rigorous controls by their countries’ respective authorities. And here are the flows of crypto trades through Binance, Bit-Z, and HitBTC — the three biggest crypto exchanges in the world by nominal volume: Source: Coinlib Binance data. (Note: Excludes Binance US.) Source: Coinlib Bit-Z data. Source: Coinlib HitBTC data. The pattern was obvious. Practically all the crypto sold on these three exchanges was being bought with Tethers. None at all was being bought with USD. And the volumes were huge. Coinbase Pro is responsible for around $4B in crypto trades each day. But Binance alone accounts for over $50B worth of crypto volume, and each of the other two exchanges is bigger than Coinbase. Most of the crypto that gets bought each day, is getting traded for Tethers on those three exchanges. Binance, Bit-Z and HitBTC are “unbanked” exchanges. That means they don’t have direct access to the US financial system — most likely because no US institution is willing to serve as their correspondent bank domestically. (Binance US, an affiliate of Binance, does allow dollar purchases. But its daily volume is only 10% that of Coinbase — and less than 1% that of its offshore counterpart — so its effect on the crypto markets is negligible.) It’s hard for crypto exchanges to get banked, but Coinbase, Bitstamp, and several other high-quality exchanges manage it by maintaining strong know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money-laundering (AML) controls internally. But what I found most alarming was that neither of the two most reputable USD-banked exchanges — Coinbase and Bitstamp — supported Tether trades at all. If Tether was on the level, there’d be no reason for them to forego the fees on that trading pair — unless their risk and compliance departments had deemed the token too much of a liability to carry. The deep dive By now, I was concerned that my Bitcoin position might be too risky to hold. But I still needed more evidence before I unwound such a big trade. I had to get more context on Tether — context that was as free of marketing distortion as possible. I found what I was looking for in the case docket for the New York OAG’s ongoing investigation of Tether Ltd. (Note that the inquiry’s respondent is listed as “iFinex Inc., et al” rather than “Tether Ltd.” on the docket, for reasons that aren’t worth getting into here.) I’ll skip most of the content — I strongly urge you to review the files for yourself — and just list the three biggest takeaways that jumped out at me: On February 26, 2019 — two months before opening its official investigation — the OAG requests a large number of documents from Tether Ltd. The purpose of the request is to help the OAG understand how Tethers are being issued, backed, and accounted for, and how Tethers are flowing through the crypto ecosystem. From the beginning of the official investigation on April 25, 2019, through to July 9, 2020 — a period of nearly 15 (!) months — Tether Ltd. issues a series of legal challenges to the investigation that appear designed to delay their response to the OAG’s document request. On July 9, 2020, the New York Supreme Court dismisses Tether Ltd.’s final challenge on appeal, effectively forcing Tether Ltd. to comply with the OAG’s document request. What’s more, Justice J. Gesmer’s opinion eviscerates all aspects of Tether Ltd.’s arguments (good commentary here), suggesting that Tether Ltd.’s appeal was never intended as a realistic challenge to the documentation request at all. But it could, plausibly, have been part of a strategy to delay the document disclosure by any possible means. Things were looking bad. But then a question suddenly occurred to me: did any other significant event happen to Tether on or around July 9th, 2020? So I looked. And I found something. Source: Coinmarketcap USDT. The chart above shows the market cap of all issued Tethers between January 13, 2019 and January 13, 2021 (the blue curve). Because one Tether nominally equals $1, the total market cap of Tether in dollars is always equal to the total number of Tethers. (The numbers on the y-axis don’t refer to the market cap. But for scale, the highest point of the blue curve corresponds to about $25B.) The first red arrow on the chart points to April 25th, 2019: the announcement of the OAG’s investigation. Notice how, as the investigation progresses, the issuance rate of Tether begins to rise — initially in large single blocks, of around $1B, every few months. The second arrow on the chart is July 9th, 2020: the date of the New York court ruling forcing Tether Ltd. to begin the process of disclosing its documents to the OAG. Two weeks after that ruling, Tether Ltd. issues one more large block of Tethers, nominally worth about $800M. And shortly after that — on September 1st — the issuance pattern for Tethers changes completely. Beginning in September, Tether Ltd. begins to issue multiple large blocks of Tethers per day. The pace accelerates, with $2.3 billion worth of Tether issued in the first week of 2021 alone. This was consistent with the possibility that, as Tether Ltd.’s various legal challenges failed one after another in the New York courts, Tether Ltd. was choosing to issue Tethers faster and faster to maximize the amount of value it could extract from the crypto ecosystem before being shut down. The pace accelerates closer to Tether Ltd.’s final disclosure deadline — January 15th, 2021. I still needed to answer one last question. Did Tether issuance actually correlate with the price of Bitcoin? A glance at the charts gave me a clear affirmative answer: Source: Coinmarketcap BTC. There are three major periods of high relative Tether issuance on this graph: 1) April 2019 through July 2019; 2) April 2020 through July 2020; and 3) September 2020 through to the present. All three periods overlap with visible increases in Bitcoin’s market price. (The red arrows here point to the same two dates as on the Tether chart above.) This wasn’t a conclusive pattern: it still didn’t prove that Tether issuance was causing Bitcoin’s price increases. It was still possible that retail demand for Bitcoin was driving real USD into Tether Ltd. through some unknown mechanism; that Tether Ltd. was issuing Tethers in exchange for those dollars; and that those issued Tethers were then being used to buy Bitcoin. Under that scenario, Tether’s rise was being caused by Bitcoin’s demand, and Tether might be fully backed by dollars after all. Nonetheless, based on this evidence, I concluded my risk was now too great. I was long Bitcoin up to my eyeballs; Bitcoin was clearly correlated with Tether; Tether was clearly being issued at a frantic rate; and that issuance had a high probability of being backed by nothing at all. I made the call: it was time to get out. The exit On January 9th, 2021, I liquidated my crypto position for USD. In the process, I locked in a dollar-denominated gain that — in the interest of full disclosure — I can only describe as life-changing. At this point, I still didn’t grasp the entire picture. For example, I still thought there was a chance Tether could be backed by real assets. My state of belief was something like: “Of the 70% of Tether flows into Bitcoin, some fraction is real; some fraction is real-but-illicit (e.g., buying drugs); and some fraction is pure fiction. I have no clue what the respective fractions of each are, but I do know that my personal risk threshold has been exceeded.” I was still a bit concerned that I’d miscalculated. Tether might yet be largely real — and if it turned out it was, I’d have missed the boat. And then, by pure luck, I had a conversation that blew my mind. The epiphany I was catching up with my friend Bob (pseudonym) over video chat. I’d just sold my Bitcoin position and was nervously awaiting confirmation from my bank that my USD wire transfer out of the exchange had cleared. Crypto was on my mind, so I asked Bob about it. The conversation went something like this: Me: You don’t own any crypto do you? I’m concerned some of the exchanges in the ecosystem might be fraudulent. Bob: I actually have a whole bunch of crypto on this exchange called Bybit. Do you know if that’s one of the risky ones? Me: I’m not sure. Does it let you trade in USD? Bob: No, but a lot of other exchanges don’t either. In fact, you can’t even deposit USD directly into a Bybit account. Me: Really? But then how do you get your money onto their exchange at all if they don’t accept USD deposits? Bob: You send your USD to Coinbase and buy Bitcoin with it. Then you move your Bitcoin onto Bybit and trade with it there. Me: Hang on. If that’s the case, then why would anybody ever use an unbanked offshore exchange that trades purely in crypto? What does Bybit offer you that Coinbase doesn’t? Bob: Leverage. I personally only use 2–3X leverage, but they let you leverage your positions up to 100X if you want. You can’t do that on Coinbase. Me: *Gasps audibly* Bob: They also do a ton of promotions. They’ve got a bunch of timed missions where you can earn Tethers for doing stuff like inviting friends onto the exchange, joining their Telegram group, or trading on their platform. Me: HOLY $#!@ Bob: But thanks for the warning! I’ll pull my crypto out as quick as I can. It might take me a few minutes though, I’ll need to fire up my VPN first. Me: A VPN? But why, for the love of God? Bob: Because I need to spoof a Bolivian ISP to access the exchange. They’re illegal to use if you’re based in America. Me: *Head explodes* There’s a scene in The Big Short where Mike Baum meets a stripper who’s taken out mortgages on five properties. The stripper doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with doing that, because her mortgage broker told her she could always refinance her mortgages when the prices of her houses went up. And housing prices would always go up. Up to that point in the movie, Mike’s investigation had revolved around bonds, mortgage rates, and CDOs. But meeting that stripper personalizes the market for him: for the first time, Mike sees one of the human beings who’s on the other side of his mortgage trade. And that’s what finally convinces him to short the housing market. For me, that’s what talking to Bob represented: for the first time, I’d seen what it felt like to be on the receiving end of crypto’s doomsday machine. The smoking gun Talking to Bob changed my perspective on Tether. I no longer viewed Tether as a source of excessive risk. I now viewed it as a highly probable fraud. Part of the reason was incentives. The Tether-denominated amounts that Bybit, Binance, and other similar exchanges were giving away to people like Bob seemed inconsistent with the revenue those exchanges could expect to generate from an average user. To get a sense of the giveaways, I ran an anonymized Google search for “Binance promotion”. This returned as one of its top results a binance.com page that read, in part, “We have a special end-of-the-year promotion where we will offer eligible users a Savings Voucher worth 500 USDT [Tether]!” On the other hand, a similar search for “Coinbase promotion” returned zero first-page results hosted on the coinbase.com domain. This suggested that the offshore exchanges might be more willing to give away Tethers than Coinbase was to give away dollars, which implied the offshore exchanges were placing a lower value on Tethers than they should be. Now that I knew what to look for, everything started falling into place. First I found this Twitter thread, pointing out that Tethers were being issued in exact, perfect-round-number blocks. (In the screenshot below, “USDT” is the ticker symbol for Tether.) Source: Travis Kimmel via Twitter. This is unusual: if demand for Tethers were real, one would expect Tether Ltd. to combine together multiple USD deposits from investors into a single issuing block. Combinations like that shouldn’t add up to perfectly round numbers every time. What’s more, the supposed USD inputs (e.g., 401,431,056 USD in the top left transaction) are giving perfectly round Tether outputs (e.g., 400,000,000 USDT in the same transaction) in every block — regardless of the prevailing exchange rate or anything else. By itself, this is implausible. But when you compare it to the issuing pattern for USD Coin — Coinbase’s own issued stablecoin, which is backed by regularly audited reserves of real dollars — the difference is stark. (In the screenshot below, “USDC” is the ticker symbol for USD Coin.) Source: Travis Kimmel via Twitter. Coinbase issues its USD Coins very differently from how Tether Ltd. issues its Tethers. The issuing blocks for USD Coin are smaller, and their size varies more: Tether’s blocks range in size from 150M to 400M Tethers, while USD Coin’s blocks range from ~7M to ~60M USD Coins. The issuing blocks for USD Coin also have random-looking numbers of coins in them (e.g., 9,374,133 USDC in the top transaction). That randomness is what you’d expect if Coinbase was pooling real USD demand from a bunch of unrelated investors together in each issuing block. The last nail in the coffin was when I found out about the lack of visible reserves. If Tether Ltd. really was taking in 1 USD for each Tether it issued, then it should have as many dollars in its bank account as there are issued Tethers. And it turns out we can check if that’s true! Tether Ltd.’s bank is Deltec bank in the Bahamas, and the Bahamas discloses how much foreign currency its domestic banks hold each month. The answer was — at least up to the end of September 2020 — not nearly enough: Source: Anti-Washing Center via Twitter. >From January 2020 to September 2020, the amount of all foreign currencies held by all the domestic banks in the Bahamas increases by only $600 million — going from $4.7B to $5.3B. (The table is in Bahamian dollars, but the Bahamian dollar is pegged to the US dollar, so 1 BSD = 1 USD.) But during the same period, total issued Tethers increased by almost $5.4 billion — going from $4.6B to $10B! The implication was shocking: there weren’t nearly enough dollars in all the domestic banks in the Bahamas to back the Tethers that were floating around in the crypto market. So this was crypto’s big short: Tether Ltd. was short of US dollars — to the tune of about $25 billion. The big picture After this latest round of research, I waited anxiously. I’d sold out of my Bitcoin position, but my bank wire was still in transit — I’d still face counterparty risk until I’d fully exited a market I was now convinced was built on a fraud. While I waited, I combined what I knew of Bob’s experiences with my other evidence, which allowed me to build up a mental picture of the fraud’s core moneymaking engine. Here’s how it would work: Bob, a crypto investor, puts $100 of real US dollars into Coinbase. Bob then uses those dollars to buy $100 worth of Bitcoin on Coinbase. Bob transfers his $100 in Bitcoin to an unbanked exchange, like Bybit. Bob begins trading crypto on Bybit, using leverage, and receiving promotional giveaways — all of which are Tether-denominated. Tether Ltd. buys Bob’s Bitcoins from him on the exchange, almost certainly through a deniable proxy trading account. Bob gets paid in Tethers. Tether Ltd. takes Bob’s Bitcoins and moves them onto a banked exchange like Coinbase. Finally, Tether Ltd. sells Bob’s Bitcoins on Coinbase for dollars, and exits the crypto markets. My guess is that Tether Ltd. (through proxy accounts) is only responsible for a small fraction of the direct buying activity on these exchanges. But with $50B in nominal value flowing through Binance every day, even a small slice of the flow represents huge amounts of revenue. And when your business involves trading fake dollars for real ones, your profit margins can get pretty high. In the example above, Tether Ltd. bought Bitcoin from Bob at its nominal price in Tethers — but that Bitcoin was the cover charge Bob paid to get access to truly staggering levels of leverage and promotions from the exchange. And that very leverage, and those very promotions, are all denominated in Tethers — Tethers that I suspect Tether Ltd. is handing over to the exchange in huge quantities, to help it subsidize its user acquisition through more promotions. This explains how Tether has been able to maintain its $1 USD peg on the unbanked offshore exchanges. For a given amount of Bitcoin, a crypto trader gains effective access to far more Tethers than the public exchange rate would justify. The exchanges then book those extra Tethers as “leverage” and “promotions”, allowing them to maintain the fiction that those “free” Tethers aren’t being traded for Bitcoin at all — even though they are part of the package Bob receives for the Bitcoin he sells. Viewed from this angle, the fact that the offshore exchanges don’t support USD is a feature, not a bug: preventing USD and Tether from meeting on a transparent market is crucial for ensuring that the true price of Tether stays opaque — making it hard for an outsider to dispute its $1 peg. Forget the activity on the offshore exchanges for a moment, and just think of a simple mental picture. Imagine you could stand at a metaphorical booth, where Coinbase’s exchange connects with the US financial system. If you could do that, you’d see two lines of people at the booth. One line would be crypto investors, putting dollars in — and the other line would be crooks, taking dollars out. An hour after I finally wrapped my head around the whole, colossal mess, I got a notification from my bank. My wire transfer from the exchange had cleared. I was out of the trade. Epilogue: In the land of the blind In my day job, I’m the founder of a fairly successful startup. As a result, my experience on Twitter is heavily weighted towards seeing posts by other founders and venture capitalists. By and large, these folks are well-meaning, highly intelligent, and deeply competent in their understanding of markets. And yet, this selection of crypto tweets from the startup community is pretty typical: These are well-respected members of the community. I’ve met a few of them personally and have always come away impressed — by their goodwill as well as by their insights. What’s more, I must admit I’ve expressed similar sentiments about Bitcoin myself in private, during this latest bubble. So what’s going on here? What could be blinding our community to fraud on such a scale? Part of the answer, I believe, is illiquidity. An illiquid market is one you can’t cash out of quickly. The startup ecosystem is very illiquid: it takes years to decades for founders to cash out of the businesses they build. Startup founders — and the VCs who back them — mostly have experience dealing in illiquid markets. Crooks don’t like illiquid markets. Crooks like being able to cash out fast: the longer they stay in one place, the higher the chance they’ll be caught and arrested, because they are crooks. Since illiquid markets repel crooks, the illiquid startup ecosystem turns out to be largely (though not completely!) free from crooks. That’s part of what makes it such a pleasure to work in, but it also means that the community has never developed a great collective radar for fraud: it hasn’t needed one. But the startup community has a fantastic collective radar for things that 1) start small; 2) grow fast; 3) challenge the status quo; and 4) are broadly misunderstood. Those are the features of a promising startup! And the community has learned that it’s expensive to miss out on one of those. Unfortunately, those are also the features of a fraud. But the startup community doesn’t encounter much fraud, so it tends to discount the possibility — and in crypto, that’s a grave mistake. Unlike startups, crypto is a highly liquid market — exactly the kind that attracts crooks, and crooks like to do fraud. And that means that many things in crypto that look like promising startups, are actually frauds. But it’s more than that: on top of everything else, crypto really is a promising technology. There’s value to decentralization and censorship resistance; there’s value to trustless enforcement of contracts; and there’s value to having a Schelling point for a scarce asset. The startup community is, correctly, recognizing that this potential value exists. But without good fraud radar, it has no way to estimate how much of that value is real today. I believe the startup community is about to have its fraud radar recalibrated. That recalibration — and the exorbitant fee the market will charge for it — will be mandatory for anyone who holds a meaningful amount of crypto. So where does all this leave us? There are a few remaining questions. Can we break this fraud right now? Is there a way for us to collapse this fraud quickly, so fewer people get hurt by it? I believe there is. The legitimate crypto exchanges, like Coinbase and Bitstamp, clearly know to stay far away from Tether: neither supports Tether on their platforms. And the feeling is mutual! Because if Tether Ltd. were ever to allow a large, liquid market between Tethers and USD to develop, the fraud would instantly become obvious to everyone as the market-clearing price of Tether crashed far below $1. Kraken is the biggest USD-banked crypto exchange on which Tether and US dollars trade freely against each other. The market in that trading pair on Kraken is fairly modest — about $16M worth of daily volume — and Tether Ltd. surely needs to keep a very close eye on its movements. In fact, whenever someone sells Tether for USD on Kraken, Tether Ltd. has no choice but to buy it — to do otherwise would risk letting the peg slip, and unmask the whole charade. My guess is that maintaining the Tether peg on Kraken represents the single biggest ongoing capital expense of this entire fraud. If the crooks can’t scrape together enough USD to prop up the Tether peg on Kraken, then it’s game over, and the whole shambles collapses. And that makes it the fraud’s weak point. To be crystal clear: every time you sell Tethers on Kraken, you are forcing Tether Ltd. to pay you in US dollars. If you can manage to sell enough Tethers for USD on Kraken, then Tether Ltd. will run out of dollars and this whole machine — which currently undergirds 70% of all crypto trading flows — will fall apart. Well-capitalized hedge fund managers may wish to re-read the above paragraph, and ponder its implications. How can we stop this from ever happening again? I have a few suggestions. The New York OAG should seek an injunction from the courts blocking any further issuance of Tethers. This should be done as soon as humanly (and legally) possible. Not only are the livelihoods of countless people on the line — including those of thousands of Americans and their dependents — but allowing a USD-equivalent pseudo-currency to be minted without backing or restriction puts the nation’s ability to regulate its own currency flows in jeopardy. To be clear, US authorities should be extremely concerned about this. To a good approximation, there is currently an unregulated, foreign entity printing dollars with impunity. There’s a case to be made that this constitutes a direct, adversarial attack on the USD — and the longer it goes on, the more it risks impugning the integrity of the entire US financial system. The US Treasury should enforce 100% reserve requirements on all USD-pegged crypto stablecoins, with mandatory audits. There is a lot of genuine potential in crypto — the startup ecosystem got this part right! — but that potential won’t be realized if the industry is riddled with frauds. And while over-regulation is a real concern, the fact that this racket has gone on for so long and at such a scale is a clear sign that we need a mechanism to validate the reserves of stablecoin issuers. Healthy regulation makes an ecosystem more valuable, not less. Bitcoin might be trustless in itself, but if it’s being bought for fake dollars, its valuation in dollars will be fake as well. Whereas once we can trust that the dollars that go into Bitcoin are real, we’ll be able to trust that Bitcoin’s valuation is real, too. Why did I write this? Before my conversation with Bob, I was thinking about this problem in the abstract: there was a mystery to be solved; there was money to be made. But after speaking to Bob, I saw it differently: through the eyes of a real human being — one who had taken the wrong side of this trade. There are millions of Bobs, all around the world. Many of them are leveraged up to their eyeballs in Tether on unbanked exchanges. Thousands more are buying into the trade every day. And almost all of them are going to lose their money when it all comes crashing down. This would be bad enough in ordinary times. But during a pandemic, it’s catastrophic. Huge amounts of value for millions people will be wiped out — individuals, families, and the most vulnerable among us will be ruined at the worst possible time. This isn’t a game: the human pain will be immense. And the longer the fraud goes on, the more that pain will grow. I wrote this to stop it. Some of the source materials used in my investigation: Patrick McKenzie’s excellent blog post gives a clear picture of the Tether situation up to October 2019. Matt Levine dedicated an issue of Money Stuff to Tether. Cryptocompare has helpful historical data on the volumes of different currencies flowing into Bitcoin. I found the following Twitter accounts extremely insightful: @coloradotravis, @Bitfinexed [private], @DrHOSP1, @BennettTomlin, @patio11. (Note that Twitter appears to be intermittently suspending certain accounts that raise questions about Tether. There is a small chance some of the accounts listed here may be, or may become, temporarily inaccessible.) The content of this post is my personal opinion and doesn’t necessarily reflect the positions of any individuals or organizations I may be or have been affiliated with. I’ve chosen to post this anonymously, but I may decide to identify myself at some point in the future. Below is an SHA-256 hash of my real name, padded with random characters. To claim authorship of this post, I’ll use an account I control to publish the input string that yields this hash. 35a7b6e1eddac723b0097551f9a6768a8a48009255956bdbae0b2f38d75b13e9 Best of luck to all, — Crypto Anonymous. https://coinlib.io/coin/ADA/Cardano https://coinlib.io/coin/BCH/Bitcoin+Cash https://coinlib.io/coin/BTC/Bitcoin https://coinlib.io/coin/ETH/Ethereum https://coinlib.io/coin/LTC/Litecoin https://coinlib.io/exchange/binance https://coinlib.io/exchange/bit-z https://coinlib.io/exchange/coinbase%20pro https://coinlib.io/exchange/hitbtc https://coinlib.io/exchange/kraken https://coinlib.io/exchanges https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/tether/ https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/binance-us/ https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/binance/ https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/coinbase-pro/ https://decrypt.co/resources/gbtc-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gra… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos https://equity.guru/2020/12/30/the-bitcoin-bubble-is-tether-too-big-to-fail/ https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/smart-contracts/ https://hitbtc.com/ https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/attorney-general-james-announces-court… https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=npvulMdOYzFDY… https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=2AsYgvjJAsSda… https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=GknBw4wwWkCUH… https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=W_PLUS_AogKZj… https://media.kalzumeus.com/tether-docs/bitfinex-response-to-nyag.pdf https://www.kalzumeus.com/2019/10/28/tether-and-bitfinex/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25683586 https://stratechery.com/2021/internet-3-0-and-the-beginning-of-tech-history/ https://tether.to/ https://twitter.com/BennettTomlin/status/1335784240047255553 https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed https://twitter.com/DrHOSP1 https://twitter.com/ExkrementKoin/status/1338662619180371973 https://twitter.com/coloradotravis/status/1347010065509752834 https://twitter.com/coloradotravis/status/1347011092610912259 https://twitter.com/patio11 https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/cbe011667ecf4542b89f2754557… https://www.binance.us/ https://www.bitz.ai/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-14/why-crypto-traders-are-s… https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-26/things-got-weird-for-… https://www.bybit.com/en-US/wsot_planet/ https://www.centralbankbahamas.com/publications/qsd/quarterly-statistical-d… https://www.coinbase.com/usdc https://www.coindesk.com/tether-confirms-relationship-auditor-dissolved https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/btc/analysis/USDT?type=Currencies&perio… https://www.deltecbank.com/ https://www.google.com/search?q=binance+promotion https://www.google.com/search?q=coinbase+promotion https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/correspondent-bank.asp https://www.kraken.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZTFNizSNGs https://www.grant-williams.com/podcast/the-grant-williams-podcast-bennett-t… https://muellerberndt.medium.com/is-tether-a-black-swan-51095720b01c Tether tells us more about the flaws inherent in fiat currencies than it does about cryptos. Either way, the societal shift into crypto continues apace.

1 0

[Ot][wrong] sorry for posting
by Karl 25 Jul '21

25 Jul '21

Hi um What is this list Why do people say such funny things I would like to be a nice person who speaks directly.

1 1

New Shape Opens ‘Wormhole’ Between Numbers and Geometry
by coderman 25 Jul '21

25 Jul '21

https://www.quantamagazine.org/with-a-new-shape-mathematicians-link-geometr… New Shape Opens ‘Wormhole’ Between Numbers and Geometry Laurent Fargues and Peter Scholze have found a new, more powerful way of connecting number theory and geometry as part of the sweeping Langlands program. The grandest project in mathematics has received a rare gift, in the form of a mammoth 350-page paper [posted in February](https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.13459) that will change the way researchers around the world investigate some of the field’s deepest questions. The work fashions a new geometric object that fulfills a bold, once fanciful dream about the relationship between geometry and numbers. “This truly opens up a tremendous amount of possibilities. Their methods and constructions are so new they’re just waiting to be explored,” said [Tasho Kaletha](http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kaletha/) of the University of Michigan. The work is a collaboration between [Laurent Fargues](https://webusers.imj-prg.fr/~laurent.fargues/) of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu in Paris and [Peter Scholze](http://www.math.uni-bonn.de/people/scholze/) of the University of Bonn. It opens a new front in the long-running “Langlands program,” which seeks to link disparate branches of mathematics — like calculus and geometry — to answer some of the most fundamental questions about numbers. Their paper realizes that vision, giving mathematicians an entirely new way of thinking about questions that have inspired and confounded them for centuries. At the center of Fargues and Scholze’s work is a revitalized geometric object called the Fargues-Fontaine curve. It was first developed around 2010 by Fargues and Jean-Marc Fontaine, who was a professor at Paris-Sud University until he died of cancer in 2019. After a decade, the curve is only now achieving its highest form. “Back then they knew the Fargues-Fontaine curve was something interesting and important, but they didn’t understand in which ways,” said [Eva Viehmann](https://www.groups.ma.tum.de/algebra/viehmann/) of the Technical University of Munich. The curve might have remained confined to the technical corner of mathematics where it was invented, but in 2014 events involving Fargues and Scholze propelled it to the center of the field. Over the next seven years they worked out the foundational details needed to adapt Fargues’ curve to Scholze’s theory. The final result doesn’t so much bridge numbers and geometry as collapse the ground between them. “It’s some kind of wormhole between two different worlds,” said Scholze. “They really just become the same thing somehow through a different lens.” Root Harvest The Langlands program is a sprawling research vision that begins with a simple concern: finding solutions to polynomial equations like x2 − 2 = 0 and x4 − 10x2 + 22 = 0. Solving them means finding the “roots” of the polynomial — the values of x that make the polynomial equal zero (x = ±2–√ for the first example, and x = ±5±3–√−−−−−−√ for the second). By the 1500s mathematicians had discovered tidy formulas for calculating the roots of polynomials whose highest powers are 2, 3 or 4. They then searched for ways to identify the roots of polynomials with variables raised to the power of 5 and beyond. But in 1832 the young mathematician Évariste Galois discovered the search was fruitless, proving that there are no general methods for calculating the roots of higher-power polynomials. Galois didn’t stop there, though. In the months before his death in a duel in 1832 at age 20, Galois laid out a new theory of polynomial solutions. Rather than calculating roots exactly — which can’t be done in most cases — he proposed studying the symmetries between roots, which he encoded in a new mathematical object eventually called a Galois group. In the example x2 − 2, instead of making the roots explicit, the Galois group emphasizes that the two roots (whatever they are) are mirror images of each other as far as the laws of algebra are concerned. “Mathematicians had to step away from formulas because usually there were no formulas,” said [Brian Conrad](http://math.stanford.edu/~conrad/) of Stanford University. “Computing a Galois group is some measure of computing the relations among the roots.” Throughout the 20th century mathematicians devised new ways of studying Galois groups. One main strategy involved creating a dictionary translating between the groups and other objects — often functions coming from calculus — and investigating those as a proxy for working with Galois groups directly. This is the basic premise of the Langlands program, which is a broad vision for investigating Galois groups — and really polynomials — through these types of translations. The Langlands program began in 1967, when its namesake, [Robert Langlands](https://www.ias.edu/scholars/langlands), [wrote a letter](https://www.quantamagazine.org/robert-langlands-mathematical-vision… to a famed mathematician named André Weil. Langlands proposed that there should be a way of matching every Galois group with an object called an automorphic form. While Galois groups arise in algebra (reflecting the way you use algebra to solve equations), automorphic forms come from a very different branch of mathematics called analysis, which is an enhanced form of calculus. Mathematical advances from the first half of the 20th century had identified enough similarities between the two to make Langlands suspect a more thorough link. “It’s remarkable that these objects of a very different nature somehow communicate with each other,” said [Ana Caraiani](https://www.ma.imperial.ac.uk/~acaraian/) of Imperial College London. If mathematicians could prove what came to be called the Langlands correspondence, they could confidently investigate all polynomials using the powerful tools of calculus. The conjectured relationship is so fundamental that its solution may also touch on many of the biggest open problems in number theory, including three of the million-dollar Millennium Prize problems: the [Riemann hypothesis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlm1aajH6gY), the BSD conjecture and the Hodge conjecture. Given the stakes, generations of mathematicians have been motivated to join the effort, developing Langlands’ initial conjectures into what is almost certainly the largest, most expansive project in the field today. “The Langlands program is a network of conjectures that touch upon almost every area of pure mathematics,” said Caraiani. Numbers From Shapes Beginning in the early 1980s [Vladimir Drinfeld](https://mathematics.uchicago.edu/people/profile/vladimir-drinfeld… and later [Alexander Beilinson](https://mathematics.uchicago.edu/people/profile/alexander-beilin… proposed that there should be a way to interpret Langlands’ conjectures in geometric terms. The translation between numbers and geometry is often difficult, but when it works it can crack problems wide open. To take just one example, a basic question about a number is whether it has a repeated prime factor. The number 12 does: It factors into 2 × 2 × 3, with the 2 occurring twice. The number 15 does not (it factors into 3 × 5). In general, there’s no quick way of knowing whether a number has a repeated factor. But there is an analogous geometric problem which is much easier. Polynomials have many of the same properties as numbers: You can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. There’s even a notion of what it means for a [polynomial to be “prime.”](https://www.quantamagazine.org/in-the-universe-of-equations-virtually-all-are-prime-20181210/) But unlike numbers, polynomials have a clear geometric guise. You can graph their solutions and study the graphs to gain insights about them. For instance, if the graph is tangent to the x-axis at any point, you can deduce that the polynomial has a repeated factor (indicated at exactly the point of tangency). It’s just one example of how a murky arithmetic question acquires a visual meaning once converted into its analogue for polynomials. Mathematicians had to step away from formulas because usually there were no formulas. Brian Conrad, Stanford University “You can graph polynomials. You can’t graph a number. And when you graph a [polynomial] it gives you ideas,” said Conrad. “With a number you just have the number.” The “geometric” Langlands program, as it came to be called, aimed to find geometric objects with properties that could stand in for the Galois groups and automorphic forms in Langlands’ conjectures. Proving an analogous correspondence in this new setting by using geometric tools could give mathematicians more confidence in the original Langlands conjectures and perhaps suggest useful ways of thinking about them. It was a nice vision, but also a somewhat airy one — a bit like saying you could cross the universe if you only had a time machine. “Making geometric objects that serve a similar role in the setting of numbers is a much more difficult thing to do,” said Conrad. So for decades the geometric Langlands program remained at a distance from the original one. The two were animated by the same goal, but they involved such fundamentally different objects that there was no real way to make them talk to each other. “The arithmetic people sort of looked bemused by [the geometric Langlands program]. They said it’s fine and good, but completely unrelated to our concern,” said Kaletha. The new work from Scholze and Fargues, however, finally fulfills the hopes pinned on the geometric Langlands program — by finding the first shape whose properties communicate directly with Langlands’ original concerns. Scholze’s Tour de Force In September 2014, Scholze was teaching a special course at the University of California, Berkeley. Despite being only 26, he was already a legend in the mathematics world. Two years earlier he had completed his dissertation, in which he articulated a new geometric theory based on objects he’d invented called perfectoid spaces. He then used this framework to solve part of a problem in number theory called the weight-monodromy conjecture. But more important than the particular result was the sense of possibility surrounding it — there was no telling how many other questions in mathematics might yield to this incisive new perspective. The topic of Scholze’s course was an even more expansive version of his theory of perfectoid spaces. Mathematicians filled the seats in the small seminar room, lined up along the walls and spilled out into the hallway to hear him talk. “Everyone wanted to be there because we knew this was revolutionary stuff,” said [David Ben-Zvi](https://web.ma.utexas.edu/users/benzvi/) of the University of Texas, Austin. Scholze’s theory was based on [special number systems called the p-adics](https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-towering-p-adic-numbers-wor…. The “p” in p-adic stands for “prime,” as in prime numbers. For each prime, there is a unique p-adic number system: the 2-adics, the 3-adics, the 5-adics and so on. P-adic numbers have been a central tool in mathematics for over a century. They’re useful as more manageable number systems in which to investigate questions that occur back in the rational numbers (numbers that can be written as a ratio of positive or negative whole numbers), which are unwieldy by comparison. The virtue of p-adic numbers is that they’re each based on just one single prime. This makes them more straightforward, with more obvious structure, than the rationals, which have an infinitude of primes with no obvious pattern among them. Mathematicians often try to understand basic questions about numbers in the p-adics first, and then take those lessons back to their investigation of the rationals. “The p-adic numbers are a small window into the rational numbers,” said Kaletha. All number systems have a geometric form — the real numbers, for instance, take the form of a line. Scholze’s perfectoid spaces gave a new and more useful geometric form to the p-adic numbers. This enhanced geometry made the p-adics, as seen through his perfectoid spaces, an even more effective way to probe basic number-theoretic phenomena, like questions about the solutions of polynomial equations. “He reimagined the p-adic world and made it into geometry,” said Ben-Zvi. “Because they’re so fundamental, this leads to lots and lots of successes.” In his Berkeley course, Scholze presented a more general version of his theory of perfectoid spaces, built on even newer objects he’d devised called diamonds. The theory promised to further enlarge the uses of the p-adic numbers. Yet at the time Scholze began teaching, he had not even finished working it out. “He was giving the course as he was developing the theory. He was coming up with ideas in the evening and presenting them fresh out of his mind in the morning,” said Kaletha. It was a virtuosic display, and one of the people in the room to hear it was Laurent Fargues. Have Curve, Will Travel At the same time Scholze was giving his lectures, Fargues was attending a special semester at the [Mathematical Sciences Research Institute](https://www.msri.org/web/cms) just up the hill from the Berkeley campus. He had thought a lot about the p-adic numbers, too. For the past decade he’d worked with Jean-Marc Fontaine in an area of math called p-adic Hodge theory, which focuses on basic arithmetic questions about these numbers. During that time, he and Fontaine had come up with a new geometric object of their own. It was a curve — the Fargues-Fontaine curve — whose points each represented a version of an important object called a p-adic ring. Fargues needed geometry that didn’t exist. But as it turned out Scholze at that very moment was developing it. Tasho Kaletha, University of Michigan As originally conceived, it was a narrowly useful tool in a technical part of mathematics, not something likely to shake up the entire field. “It’s an organizing principle in p-adic Hodge theory, that’s how I think of it. It was impossible for me to keep track of all these rings before this curve came up,” said Caraiani. But as Fargues sat listening to Scholze, he envisioned an even greater role for the curve in mathematics. The never-realized goal of the geometric Langlands program was to find a geometric object that encoded answers to questions in number theory. Fargues perceived how his curve, merged with Scholze’s p-adic geometry, could serve exactly that role. Around mid-semester he pulled Scholze aside and shared his nascent plan. Scholze was skeptical. “He mentioned this idea to me over a coffee break at MSRI,” said Scholze. “It was not a very long conversation. At first I thought it couldn’t be good.” But they had more conversations, and Scholze soon realized the approach might work after all. On December 5, as the semester wound down, Fargues gave a lecture at MSRI in which he introduced a new vision for the geometric Langlands program. He proposed that it should be possible to redefine the Fargues-Fontaine curve in terms of Scholze’s p-adic geometry, and then use that redefined object to prove a version of the Langlands correspondence. Fargues’ proposal was a final, unexpected turn in what had already been a thrilling season of mathematics. “It was like this grand finale of this semester. I remember just being in shock,” said Ben-Zvi. A Local Correspondence The original Langlands conjectures are about matching representations of the Galois groups of the rational numbers with automorphic forms. The p-adics are a different number system, and there is a version of the Langlands conjectures there, too. (Both are still separate from the geometric Langlands program.) It also involves a kind of matching, though in this case it’s between representations of the Galois group of the p-adic numbers and representations of p-adic groups. While their objects are different, the spirit of the two conjectures is the same: to study solutions to polynomials — in terms of rational numbers in one case and p-adic numbers in the other — by relating two seemingly unrelated kinds of objects. Mathematicians refer to the Langlands conjecture for rational numbers as the “global” Langlands correspondence, because the rationals contain all the primes, and the version for p-adics as the “local” Langlands correspondence, since p-adic number systems deal with one prime at a time. In his December lecture at MSRI, Fargues proposed proving the local Langlands conjecture using the geometry of the Fargues-Fontaine curve. But because he and Fontaine had developed the curve for a completely different and more limited task, their definition required more powerful geometry that could provide the structure and complexity the curve would ultimately need to support these enlarged plans. The situation was similar to how you could arrive at a three-sided shape that’s independent of any particular geometric theory, but if you combine that shape with the theory of Euclidean geometry, suddenly it takes on a richer life: You get trigonometry, the Pythagorean theorem and well-defined notions of symmetry. It becomes a fully fledged triangle. “[Fargues] was taking the idea of the curve and using the powerful geometry that Scholze developed to flesh out that idea,” said Kaletha. “That allows you to formally state the beautiful properties of the curve.” Fargues’ strategy came to be known as the “geometrization of the local Langlands correspondence.” But at the time he made it, existing mathematics didn’t have the tools he needed to carry it out, and new geometric theories don’t come along every day. Luckily, history was on his side. “[Fargues’ conjecture] was a bold idea because Fargues needed geometry that didn’t exist. But as it turned out Scholze at that very moment was developing it,” said Kaletha. Foundation Building Following their time together in Berkeley, Fargues and Scholze spent the next seven years establishing a geometric theory that would allow them to reconstruct the Fargues-Fontaine curve in a form suitable for their plans. “In 2014 it was basically already clear what the picture should be and how everything should fit together. It was just that everything was completely ill-defined. There were no foundations in place to talk about any of this,” said Scholze. The work took place in several stages. In 2017 Scholze completed a paper called “[Étale Cohomology of Diamonds](https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07343),” which formalized many of the most important ideas he had introduced during his Berkeley lectures. He combined that paper with [another massive work](https://www.math.ku.dk/english/calendar/events/condensed-mathematics/) that he and co-author [Dustin Clausen](https://www.math.ku.dk/english/about/news/new-names/dustin-clausen-associate-professor/) of the University of Copenhagen released as a series of lectures in 2020. That material — all 352 pages of it — was needed to establish a foundation for a few particular points that had come up in Scholze’s work on diamonds. You have to rebuild a lot of foundations of geometry in this kind of framework, and it was very surprising to me that it is possible. Peter Scholze, University of Bonn “Scholze had to come up with a whole other theory which was just there to take care of certain technical issues that came up on the last three pages of his [2017] paper,” said Kaletha. Altogether, these and other papers allowed Fargues and Scholze to devise an entirely new way of defining a geometric object. Imagine that you start with an unorganized collection of points — a “cloud of dust,” in Scholze’s words — that you want to glue together in just the right way to assemble the object you’re looking for. The theory Fargues and Scholze developed provides exact mathematical directions for performing that gluing and certifies that, in the end, you will get the Fargues-Fontaine curve. And this time, it’s defined in just the right way for the task at hand — addressing the local Langlands correspondence. “That’s technically the only way we can get our hands on it,” said Scholze. “You have to rebuild a lot of foundations of geometry in this kind of framework, and it was very surprising to me that it is possible.” After they’d defined the Fargues-Fontaine curve, Fargues and Scholze embarked on the next stage of their journey: equipping it with the features necessary to prove a correspondence between representations of Galois groups and representations of p-adic groups. To understand these features, let’s first consider a simpler geometric object, like a circle. At every point on the circle it’s possible to position a line that’s tangent to the shape at exactly that point. Every point has a unique tangent line. You can collect all those many lines together into an auxiliary geometric object, called the tangent bundle, that’s associated to the underlying geometric object, the circle. In their new work, Fargues and Scholze do something similar for the Fargues-Fontaine curve. But instead of tangent planes and bundles, they define ways of constructing many more complicated geometric objects. One example, called sheaves, can be associated naturally to points on the Fargues-Fontaine curve the way tangent lines can be associated to points on a circle. Sheaves were first defined in the 1950s by Alexander Grothendieck, and they keep track of how algebraic and geometric features of the underlying geometric object interact with each other. For decades, mathematicians have suspected they might be the best objects to focus on in the geometric Langlands program. “You reinterpret the theory of representations of Galois groups in terms of sheaves,” said Conrad. There are local and global versions of the geometric Langlands program, just as there are for the original one. Questions about sheaves relate to the global geometric program, which Fargues suspected could connect to the local Langlands correspondence. The issue was that mathematicians didn’t have the right kinds of sheaves defined on the right kind of geometric object to carry the day. Now Fargues and Scholze have provided them, via the Fargues-Fontaine curve. The End of the Beginning Specifically, they came up with two different kinds: Coherent sheaves correspond to representations of p-adic groups, and étale sheaves to representations of Galois groups. In their new paper, Fargues and Scholze prove that there’s always a way to match a coherent sheaf with an étale sheaf, and as a result there’s always a way to match a representation of a p-adic group with a representation of a Galois group. In this way, they finally proved one direction of the local Langlands correspondence. But the other direction remains an open question. “It gives you one direction, how to go from a representation of a p-adic group to a representation of a Galois group, but doesn’t tell you how to go back,” said Scholze. The work is one of the biggest advances so far on the Langlands program — often mentioned in the same breath as work by [Vincent Lafforgue](https://vlafforg.perso.math.cnrs.fr/) of the Fourier Institute in Grenoble, France, on a different aspect of the Langlands correspondence in 2018. It’s also the most tangible evidence yet that earlier mathematicians weren’t foolish to attempt the Langlands program by geometric means. “These things are a great vindication for the work people were doing in geometric Langlands for decades,” said Ben-Zvi. For mathematics as a whole, there’s a sense of awe and possibility in the reception of the new work: awe at the way the theory of p-adic geometry Scholze has been building since graduate school manifests in the Fargues-Fontaine curve, and possibility because that curve opens entirely new and unexplored dimensions of the Langlands program. “It’s really changed everything. These last five or eight years, they have really changed the whole field,” said Viehmann. The clear next step is to nail down both sides of the local Langlands correspondence — to prove that it’s a two-way street, rather than the one-way road Fargues and Scholze have paved so far. Beyond that, there’s the global Langlands correspondence itself. There’s no obvious way to translate Fargues and Scholze’s geometry of the p-adic numbers into corresponding constructions for the rational numbers. But it’s also impossible to look at this new work and not wonder if there might be a way. “It’s a direction I’m really hoping to head into,” Scholze said.

3 5

Re: your lawproposal from a few years back
by coderman 24 Jul '21

24 Jul '21

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 hello stef :) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, July 21st, 2021 at 5:04 AM, stef <stef(a)ctrlc.hu> wrote: > hey, > > i remember you posted some (i think hs) address a few years back, listing a > couple of points regarding security research. something like kids need to be > taught how to hack. hackers must be immune from prosecution if they publish, > and some other points. i cannot really find this, do you still have a copy? sounds like something i would say *grin* you might be thinking the response below, however, it's interesting that i can't seem to find this message in the list archives. E.g. https://www.freelists.org/archive/cryptome/07-2014?threads=1 John? - --- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:26:03 -0700 Delivered-To: coderman(a)gmail.com Message-ID: <CAJVRA1StBOA1HNjrQMBaXfu+jZ9vRrTpvuK0K9+1Eb5t--L1NQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [cryptome] Re: Security and the Rise of Snakeoil From: coderman <coderman(a)gmail.com> To: "cryptome(a)freelists.org" <cryptome(a)freelists.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:41 PM, In Harms Way <11414150173(a)riseup.net> wrote: > Security and the Rise of Snakeoil > Published: 04 June 2014 > The original of this essay was written by stf in Hungarian. I decided to go > ahead and translate it into English because I liked it. good indeed! ... now if only it wasn't so depressing and intimidating ;) i have some other ideas for a way out of the mess.[0] > how often do you update your systems? constantly. > how strong are your email passwords? do you reuse them for other pages, too? i pick a new one for every purpose, the stronger the better. (some services don't let you pick a strong password) [1] > how many of your peers use GMail, Facebook, Skype, and do you keep in touch > with them through these? i have no idea about Facestab or Skrap, but i and a few others use GMail to express contempt for email as a whole and better data mine (search) public list archives. nothing conveys my contempt for email like a gmail account! best regards, 0. "security by self evident existence" """ Red-Team Networks Everywhere!!! This effort attempts to remedy the pervasive and comprehensive vulnerability of consumer, industry, and government hardware and software systems. In order to achieve best effective posture with maximum haste apply four principles globally: 1) Blanket Legal Invulnerability Remove all criminal and civil liability for "hacking", computer trespass, and all related activities performed over data networks; establish proactive "shield" legislation to protect and encourage unrestricted security research of any subject on any network. extend to international agreements for blanket protection in all jurisdictions. 2) Educational Support Everywhere Establish lock picking, computing, and hacking curriculum in pre school through grade school with subsidized access to technical resources including mobile, tablet, laptop test equipment, grid/cloud computing on-demand, software defined radios with full receive/transmit, and gigabit internet service or faster. 3) Collaborative Competitions Organize a program of blue and red teaming challenges for educational and public participation at the district, regional, and national level cultivating expertise and rewarding it with hacking toys, access, and monies. 4) Privileged Positioning Direct and unrestricted backbone access to various individuals or groups who demonstrate competence in either the educational or competitive realms, in order for them to mount additional attack strategies against any reach-able target. this access must consist of both passive taps of backbone traffic as well as injection taps for raw packet transmission at core rates. this should be available on the Internet backbone at internet exchanges, private fiber through public right of way, and core networks of operators of licensed wireless spectrum. end result / strong attractor: Open software and hardware widely in use in post-privacy-protection-purge future will invert power structure to defender with near unassailable advantage in "cyber domain". Any attacker required to compete against the global, collaborative, massive, iterative-crowd-hardened systems publicly in use. """ 1. some free passwords! these are all sekure, don't worry :) dad2d212-3c6e-4d8e-9930-a8283186ed4b f3a56155-5f06-4e0f-8812-4e3b27050268 d66fba0b-f8fa-4bc9-9e35-26b368398712 cbf4152c-5753-471a-89b6-f6ae92943ca1 ve7zahchohla4iehoh6EimahgaireeN2 Ohph3shieth1shoal7ohQuohpohs4eed ex5eenoobeeRoyie4Oe5uchoo8ashooK soowugh6lah1fohraiMahnobaeShai1A o2{|!y)ebr-VsP.RXN214']('TcU;/SJ 4(a)2a,T.,N;os9Swe$`*(pn7z'T|o&J&Q }}!"m;QV"QoAkN4.8]jLGhhnnSfL+&y3 [t++W|/#`I\S<DlO7/=%3}t7H0xHJ.zs K%EMKqh$k7%>86erJ>_19>e!GQh12N0s ;tyN9Zc>%}ZnydEIHCN^RQVH>6Cny'[W %^XSnBXc!3Z~~P/fF=>8 U[:ninIDx9i;4Rja|%m$ 6E6<ZtYu~;R\L?<HGoJn Q+H=|Q9Ul"-|,_fFi[4h rDFsP{waE5>*DN#j5U?I 2/!3PVzFp-'`u5C#+40I <.-[#Yf=9P#3Va$GdXrp x+1'T%1Yzb-CxM*l+yP/ ;tAa!q@41P%w5:zX0Xjy <b/5Ylgfow3vB/%A nlYF+IXpK|3QND)" r`'%UTZ)7F?&&U|C iLXRef}T:I3WR}m? &@ytq(nN-K+^z89' 7snnm46zH?f`'N)M w3&Hz.6rj=uxq=pV Ac_>,D~hHY{P5CkJ 1<"dOj=g*^Ek+fiX G|]rfs1i.'+H}3*7 gaP!%8N$3Wz-dB2M LR"yyx|C6-)_za=' H[`R0a+NIu1E 4S#|Q>,}XFsg LZ.3jE.9l/J= 9MZq38P<3,K< P9G!|-TeR3$n lzOb4I#>F(yx h~UDZ_;.8@eB BN1R@AkD%6]c zt6.w|kG1Ub' *%QnT\!99}Ee ;BO#gNUzc5!e 1SM(>nM'^#12 Ni;#Yl2GX':g F@A*WYc@06%f T(-w$/$t_9*z W,/9I+&xsDx/ :7MVV|#2|CFd lJz?Z)m1)2<7 ohhu1foh3Eivah6Ohngo cothahquaiQuuogo6dei oba8ui7doh8eik0Ap4fe jooReedi4huneo7Pohto oox7eix2paeShoo3kohh eiteash9footi7Cheequ Ye9ka9uashoo6uYah8ei XohxeeC8paQueirielae aezol4ai0cahhaiCaeli goh7phae4chaWo0U ieloo7ish1Ievooz NiyoosaePaghau4e eif1geeZuoth0eNg PhishooshooYif9w neenahQu9ileesh2 ahMo2rooF3Faevei Ahqu7ukees1shool Joocie9ge1aecang iew4po5eNgeetoce Thoh1iu6ief4ohVi Ohme5PhaeSho8uxe eif1yei8 ietig0oo keif4eil dah5fafu bie3oshu saiviz1u ese1uec2 ietohbe3 ahxizee4 aid1aek9 rohjugh2 eo1if3ph ohoh1uu8 dooz8ze6 nai9saeh aeking0z ha4equie jae6iz2j noo8aeyu iech2jam ba0feech ohng6aer aa1eid0u yoh6paep 21414 25410 12686 04946 11072 19016 26291 0176501025 2925313469 2932201624 1,5,13,17 1,8,16,20 4,5,13,17 2,7,15,19 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iNUEAREKAH0WIQRBwSuMMH1+IZiqV4FlqEfnwrk4DAUCYPg1bF8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0NDFD MTJCOEMzMDdEN0UyMTk4QUE1NzgxNjVBODQ3RTdDMkI5MzgwQwAKCRBlqEfnwrk4 DLKcAP0dQOY6MSgff1C6VKSa8YgjWtQy85CTE6Cdtzpg8aFIIAD8CtIm7nDlJkRv 4oAqtS9Zow4xWpEuZeJr4T+HGCMqL+Y= =HPi+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

The infinite corruption of the US sewer.
by Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 24 Jul '21

24 Jul '21

"Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage" https://fair.org/home/key-assange-witness-recants-with-zero-corporate-media… This shows that the US 'free press' is just a mouthpiece for the US military and wall street. This is in turn shows that corruption is the founding principle of the US at all levels and that corruption in the US operates at all levels. And that is especially important to bear in mind when US govt agents like jim bell, 'coderman' and david barrett spam their sick propaganda, bell being a sick accomplice of the musk mafia.

1 0

Cryptocurrency: Dangers of CBDCs, BIS Regime of Total Control, WarOnCash, ARRR
by grarpamp 23 Jul '21

23 Jul '21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaYsQPEXTgA BIS - Total Control Regime WarOnCash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbVd7lK2Oc4 Kyle Bass: Dangers of CBDCs https://news.yahoo.com/tiktok-bans-financial-services-ads-pyramid-scheme-cr… Financial services and products were added to TikTok's "globally prohibited industries" list, alongside "lending and management of money assets, loans and credit cards, buy now pay later services, trading platforms, cryptocurrency, foreign exchange, debit and pre-payment cards, forex trading and pyramid schemes" Posts labeled #bitcoin have received 4.4 billion views and those labeled #cryptocurrency have received 1.5 billion views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhRWM1WW6ak ARRR https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnouYyjQ95buGKVs0-RbdgQ It is the duty of every pilgrim to seek out this page... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RatbYqc0-jE

1 3