Baidu Stops Accepting Bitcoins After China Ban - Bloomberg

BREAKING NEWS: Baidu bans Bitcoin

BREAKING NEWS: Baidu bans Bitcoin submitted by oeidBIG to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Chinese Search Engine Baidu Bans All Bitcoin Advertisements

Chinese Search Engine Baidu Bans All Bitcoin Advertisements submitted by fearofhellz to btc [link] [comments]

Baidu’s Ban on Bitcoin Advertisement Will Affect Digital Currency Industry

Baidu’s Ban on Bitcoin Advertisement Will Affect Digital Currency Industry submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

Baidu's Slap of Bitcoin with a Ban Is a Wake up Call to All

Baidu's Slap of Bitcoin with a Ban Is a Wake up Call to All submitted by mistaik to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Baidu Ban Makes Bitcoin's Fate Unknown in Its Largest Market

Baidu Ban Makes Bitcoin's Fate Unknown in Its Largest Market submitted by reminesjoseph to DeepDotWeb [link] [comments]

Baidu's Slap of Bitcoin with a Ban Is a Wake up Call to All

Baidu's Slap of Bitcoin with a Ban Is a Wake up Call to All submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Chinese Search Engine Baidu Bans All Bitcoin Advertisements

Chinese Search Engine Baidu Bans All Bitcoin Advertisements submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Baidu's Move to Ban Bitcoin Related Ads from Its Network Raises Speculations

Baidu's Move to Ban Bitcoin Related Ads from Its Network Raises Speculations submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Baidu Stops Accepting Bitcoins After China Ban

Baidu Stops Accepting Bitcoins After China Ban submitted by habichuelacondulce to TechNewsToday [link] [comments]

China’s top search engine Baidu Stops Accepting Bitcoins After Ban

submitted by XKryptonite to worldnews [link] [comments]

Baidu Stops Accepting Bitcoins After China Ban

submitted by platypusmusic to China [link] [comments]

Following Ban in China, Baidu Stops Bitcoins

submitted by ericvonradio to ericvonradio [link] [comments]

Baidu Stops Accepting Bitcoins After China Ban [FML]

Baidu Stops Accepting Bitcoins After China Ban [FML] submitted by badboyant to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why you should invest in OCEAN Protocol

Why I am investing in Ocean Protocol
Unlocking data for AI
Partnered with; Unilever, Roche, Johnson&Johnson, Aviva, MOBI (BMW, Ford, GM)
Currently at $0.03, IEO price $0.12, ICO price $0.2.
Staking coming Q2.
The world has a data problem. The more we create, the more we are forced to entrust it all to fewer data monopolies to profit from.
Data is also siloed, and generally hosted on proprietary databases across vast systems, geographies and business units. Whilst there have been fixes and APIs that have helped improve the sharing of corporate and public data, fundamentally this doesn’t change the fact that client-server architecture and corporate IT networks are inherently designed to prevent data sharing.
Regulation and privacy laws combine to make organisations concerned about sharing data both internally and publicly unless forced to do so. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the US or the Data Protection Act in the UK explicitly state how and what data can and cannot be shared. But these are complicated policies. The technical difficulty of implementing them, combined with bad UX means people err on the side of caution when approaching these issues. There is simply no incentive to outweigh the risk and hassle of sharing data.
Even where sharing is encouraged, current infrastructure makes monetising data through open source licensing complex and equally difficult to enforce. So ultimately, you are left with two options: give your data away for free (which what most individuals do) or hoard it and see if you can make sense of it at some time in the future (which is what most companies do). Neither is very efficient or effective.
The consequence is a few increasingly powerful companies get the vast majority of data at little cost, and large amounts of valuable data are sat dormant in siloed databases.
Simply put, there is no economic incentive to share data. This is a massive issue in the AI market (expected to be worth $70 billion in 2020 according to BoA Merrill).
The best AI techniques today, such as deep learning, need lots (and lots) of quality and relevant datasets to deliver any kind of meaningful value. Starving most new entrants (such as startups and SMEs) of the ability to compete.
AI expertise and talent is expensive and hard to come by, typically concentrating within organisations that already have the data to play with or promise to generate vast quantities of it in the future. Companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Baidu swallow up almost all the best talent and computer science and AI PhDs before they even come onto the jobs market.
This creates a self-propagating cycle, increasingly benefiting a few established organisations who are able to go on to dominate their respective markets, extracting a premium for the priviledge. Think of Facebook & Google in the Ad Market, Amazon for Retail, now imagine that happening across every single industry vertical. Data leads to data network effects, and subsequent AI advantages which are extremely hard to catch up with once the flywheel starts. The way things are going, the driver-less car market will likely consolidate around one single software provider. As old industries like education, healthcare and utilities digitize their operations and start utilizing data, the same will likely happen there too.
The benefits of the 4th Industrial Revolution are in the hands of fewer and fewer organisations.
Currently the expectation is that companies, rather than trying to compete (if they want to stay in business), are expected to concede their data to one of the big tech clouds like Amazon or Microsoft to be able to extract value from it. Further extending the suppliers’ unfair advantage and increasing their own dependency. Look at autonomous vehicles, German manufacturers unable to compete with Silicon Valley’s AIs for self driving cars could be left simply making the low-value hardware whilst conceding the higher-value (and margin) software to companies that drive the intelligence that control them.
I’ve always argued companies don’t want Big Data. They want actionable intelligence. But currently most large organisations have vast dumb data in silos that they simply don’t know what to do with.
But what if…
they could securely allow AI developers to run algorithms on it whilst keeping it stored encrypted, on-premise.
And open up every database at a ‘planetary level’ and turn them into a single data marketplace.
Who would own or control it? To be frank, it would require unseen levels of trust. Data is generally very sensitive, revealing and something you typically would not want to share with your competitors. Especially in say, consumer health how could that be possible with complex privacy laws?
What’s needed is a decentralised data marketplace to connect AI developers to data owners in a compliant, secure and affordable way. Welcome to Ocean Protocol.
Why decentralised and tokenised?
Primarily because of the need for the provenance of IP, affordable payment channels, and the ensure no single entity becomes a gatekeeper to a hoard of valuable data. Gatekeeper, in the sense that they can arbitrarily ban or censor participants but also to avoid the same honeypot hacking problems we encounter in today’s centralised world.
But aren’t there already decentralised data market projects?
The Ocean team have focused their design on enabling ‘exchange protocols’, resulting in massive potential for partnerships with other players in the domain. As investors in IOTA, understanding how this could work with their Data Marketplace is an interesting case in point.
What we like most about Ocean is they have been deploying many of the constituent parts that underpin this marketplace over the last 4 years via a number of initiatives which they are now bringing together into one unified solution:
(digital ownership & attribution) (high throughput distributed database to allow for high throughput transactions) (Scalability – build on proven BigchainDB / IPDB technology for “planetary scale”) (blockchain-ready, community-driven protocol for intellectual property licensing)
What is being added is a protocol and token designed to incentivize and program rules and behaviours into the marketplace to ensure relevant good quality data is committed, made available and fairly remunerated. The design is prepared for processing confidential data for machine learning and aggregated analysis without exposing the raw data itself. Ocean will facilitate in bringing the processing algorithms to the data through on-premise compute and, eventually, more advanced techniques, like homomorphic encryption, as they mature.
Think of the Ocean Token as the ‘crypto asset’ that serves as the commodity in the data economy to incentivise the mass coordination of resources to secure and scale the network to turn in to actionable intelligence.
If Ocean is about trading data, can’t it use an existing cryptocurrency as its token, like Bitcoin or Ether?
While existing tokens might serve as a means of exchange, the Ocean protocol requires a token of its own because it uses its a specific form of monetary policy and rewards. Users get rewarded with newly minted tokens for providing high quality, relevant data and keeping it available. This means the protocol requires control over the money supply and rules out using any existing general purpose protocols or tokens. Furthermore, from the perspective of Ocean users, volatility in an uncorrelated token would disrupt the orderly value exchange between various stakeholders in the marketplace they desire.
OCEAN Data Providers (Supplying Data)
Actors who have data and want to monetise it, can make it available through Ocean for a price. When their data is used by Data Consumers, Data Providers receive tokens in return.
OCEAN Data Curators (Quality Control)
An interesting concept to Ocean is the application of curation markets. Someone needs to decide what data on Ocean is good and which data is bad. As Ocean is a decentralised system, there can’t be a central committee to do this. Instead, anyone with domain expertise can participate as a Data Curator and earn newly minted tokens by separating the wheat from the chaff. Data Curators put an amount of tokens at stake to signal that a certain dataset is of high quality. Every time they correctly do this, they receive newly minted tokens in return.
OCEAN Registry of Actors (Keeping Bad Actors Out)
Because Ocean is an open protocol, not only does it need mechanisms to curate data, it needs a mechanism to curate the participants themselves. For this reason a Registry of Actors is part of Ocean, again applying staking of tokens to make good behaviour more economically attractive than bad behaviour.
OCEAN Keepers (Making Data Available)
The nodes in the Ocean network are called Keepers. They run the Ocean software and make datasets available to the network. Keepers receive newly minted tokens to perform their function. Data Providers need to use one or more Keepers to offer data to the network.
Ocean is building a platform to enable a ‘global data commons’. A platform where anyone can share and be rewarded for the data they contribute where the token and protocol is designed specifically to incentivise data sharing and remuneration.
So let’s see that in the context of a single use-case: Clinical Trial Data
Note: that this use-case is provided for illustrative purposes only, to get a feel for how Ocean could work in practice. Some of the specifics of the Ocean protocol have yet to be finalised and published in the white paper, and might turn out different than described here.
Bob is a clinical physician with a data science background who uses Ocean. He knows his industry well and has experience understanding what types of clinical data are useful in trials. Charlie works at a company that regularly runs medical trials. He has collected a large amount of data for a very specific trial which has now concluded, and he believes it could be valuable for others but he doesn’t know exactly how. Charlie publishes the dataset through Ocean and judging its value (based on the cost to produce and therefore replicate), as well as his confidence in its overall quality, he stakes 5 tokens on it (to prove it is his IP, which if people want to use they must pay for). Charlie uses one of the Keeper nodes maintained by his company’s IT department. Bob, as a Data Curator of clinical trial data on Ocean, is notified of its submission, and sees no one has challenged its ownership. By looking at a sample he decides the data is of good quality and based on how broad its utility could be he stakes 10 Ocean tokens to back his judgement. Bob is not alone and quickly a number of other Data Curators with good reputation also evaluate the data and make a stake. By this point a number of AI developers see Charlie’s dataset is becoming popular and purchase it through Ocean. Charlie, Bob and the other curators get rewarded in newly minted tokens, proportional to the amount they staked and the number of downloads. The Keeper node at Charlie’s company regularly receives a request to cryptographically prove it still has the data available. Each time it answers correctly, it also receives some newly minted tokens. When Bob and Charlie signed up to join Ocean, they staked some tokens to get added to the Registry of Actors. Eve also wants to join Ocean. She stakes 100 tokens to get added to The Registry of Actors. Eve is actually a malicious actor. She purchases Charlie’s dataset through Ocean, then claims it’s hers and publishes it under her own account for a slightly lower price. Furthermore, she creates several more “sock puppet” accounts, each with some more tokens staked to join, to serve as Data Curators and vouch for her copy of the dataset. Bob and Charlie discover Eve’s malice. They successfully challenge Eve and her sock puppet accounts in the Registry of Actors. Eve and her sock puppet accounts get removed from the Registry of Actors and she loses all staking tokens.
I am greatly encouraged by the fact that Ocean were aligned to building what we term a Community Token Economy (CTE) where multiple stakeholders ( & ) partner early on to bring together complementary skills and assets.
As two existing companies (one already VC backed) they are committing real code and IP already worth several million in value*.
*This is an important point to remember when considering the valuation and token distribution of the offering.
The open, inclusive, transparent nature of IPDB foundation bodes well for how Ocean will be run and how it will solve complex governance issues as the network grows.
I am also impressed with the team’s understanding of the importance of building a community. They understand that networks are only as powerful as the community that supports it. This is why they have already signed key partnerships with XPrize Foundation, SingularityNet, Mattereum, Integration Alpha and ixo Foundation as well as agreeing an MOU with the Government of Singapore to provide coverage and indemnification for sandboxes for data sharing.
The team understands that the decentralisation movement is still in its early stages and that collaborative and partnership is a more effective model than competition and going it alone.
Ocean protocol is a fundamental requirement for the Convergence Ecosystem Stack. It is a protocol that enables a thriving AI data marketplace. It is complementary to our other investments in IOTA and SEED both of whom provide a marketplace for machine data and bots respectively.
Marketplaces are critical to the development of the Convergence Ecosystem as they enable new data-based and tokenised business models that have never before been possible to unlock value. Distributed ledgers, blockchains and other decentralization technologies are powerful tools for authenticating, validating, securing and transporting data; but it will be marketplaces that will enable companies to build sustainable businesses and crack open the incumbent data monopolies. IOTA, SEED and now Ocean are unlocking data for more equitable outcomes for users.
submitted by Econcrypt to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

Crypto Daily News Update 6/13

submitted by QuantalyticsResearch to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Da Hongfei interviewed by Dutch Financial Times, states he "was contacted by Chinese regulators to provide information before crackdown, and Chinese mining ban is nonsense and never confirmed"

The Dutch Financial Times ( (leading financial newspaper of the Netherlands) published an interview with Da Hongfei this weekend. The article is (naturally) in Dutch and behind a paywall, but please find a Google Translate-extract below.
Main points: - Chinese regulators have not specifically targeted NEO during the recent crackdown on ICO's/Chinese exchanges; - Da Hongfei was contacted by Chinese regulators to provide information and "suggestions"; - Chinese mining ban is nonsense, never confirmed; - Da Hongfei agrees with current Chinese crackdown to prevent scams; - Da Hongfei does not expect collaboration with Chinese government on short term, but medium-term "why not?".
What are your thoughts? He seems confident which is reassuring to me. Article:
Chinese Crypto-emperor: 'I have not seen a regulator'
The storm that the Chinese government unleashed with its interventions on the market for crypto coins has calmed. That is stated by Da Hongfei, founder of China's largest cryptocurrency Neo, in conversation with Het Financieele Dagblad. "What else can you do?", He said in response to the ban on stock markets with crypto coins (ICOs). The price of the bitcoin fell sharply after China's interventions. "But then the value of the coin rose again," says Da.
The authorities did not aim at him or Neo with the recent action, says Da. "No, none of the supervisors have contacted me. But before they started cleaning up the market, I was asked for information and suggestions. "
Messages on various news sites that China would also consider a ban on the cryptocurrency mines are myths according to Da. "It's never confirmed. I think the supervisors are particularly worried about the challenges that bitcoin and other crypto currencies entail. The status of fiduciary money came under pressure. '
Fear of pressure on Chinese currency Since the end of last year, there are strict capital restrictions that make it difficult to get big sums of yuan out of the country in fear of sustained downward pressure on the Chinese currency. "It is worried that crypto currencies will take over existing ways of money transactions and investment. One is afraid to lose control. "
China's actions are not self-evident, rather, the withdrawal of capital through an ICO has already been raised by US regulatory authorities, and also in Russia, the government is concerned about crypto currencies. Although China is the first country to shake the market, Da believes that digital coins have a bright future. "You may own bitcoins or other crypt currencies in China. That's not illegal. "It's just a matter of getting out of a trading platform. Different managers of trading platforms are reportedly not allowed to leave the country.
Blockchain "You should not mix up blockchain technology and trading in crypto currencies", the Chinese Crypto emperor continues. Blockchain, a method of tracking decentralized transactions with computers, is the foundation of the crypto coins. But this technology is already introduced for many sectors, such as insurance or logistics. Da says that China is encouraging the development of blockchain technology. The People's Bank, China's central bank, would work on its own digital currency.
"I think you can better check what's happening in South Korea and Japan. That applies to the bitcoin, and also to Neo ' Neo, set up in 2014 to allow smart contracts through blockchain, has been busy for a long time. Last year, Neo held for Rmb 30 mln (€ 3.8 mln) a crypto IPO, ie an Initial Coin Offer (ICO). Before, one paid less than a penny for NEO, in mid-August, Neo was valued at over $ 52, which meant a market capitalization of $ 2.4 billion.
Becoming a multi-millionaire The 37-year-old Da became multimillionaire in a short period of time. "On paper, yes," he laughs, leaning back in a comfortable armchair in the luxurious W hotel in Beijing. The Neo-founder understands that traders strongly respond to the ongoing flow of news from China, but believes that markets are more giving such news more attentione than necessary.
The influence of Chinese traders has been decreasing for a long time, he says. "I think you can better check what's happening in South Korea and Japan. That applies to the bitcoin, and also to the Neo. China will continue to be an important factor in the course of the short term, but I think most of the issued Neo's are now in foreign hands. "
The course of the Neo has fallen sharply since mid-August, but that does not seem to keep Da awake at night. 'The price moves on the basis of sentiment. The way the market looks at the product does not always allign with the way that product is currently advancing. I'll keep an eye on the price, but I do not trade much with Neo. "
The course of the Neo has fallen sharply since mid-August, but that does not seem to keep Da awake at night. 'The price moves on the basis of sentiment. The way the market looks at the product does not always allign with the way that product is currently advancing. I'll keep an eye on the price, but I do not trade much with Neo. "
Blood bath Similar to the significant share of Chinese crypto traders in the record hikes of recent months, it was the Chinese who caused a crackdown on the global crypto markets. Initial coin offerings (ICOs), or disguised stock issues by crypto currencies, were prohibited.
Trading platforms must have closed their doors by 30 September, the Chinese authorities reported earlier this month. Also transactions between persons, so-called peer-to-peer transactions
'What the Chinese are doing now is the right thing ' is the firm belief of Da Hongfei, who in 2012 unsuccessfully tried to set up a trading platform, but founded Neo much shortly thereafter. "The vast majority of ICO projects were fake and fraud." He refers to the internet bubble that burst in 2000. "When you started a business that ended on .com, you could easily attract capital. The same is what you see with the ICO crazy. '
It is preferable to focus on the roll out of Neo's technology. "We want to be a widely applicable ecosystem with many developers on which many smart contracts can be built." These include contracts for the transfer of real estate or shares. "There we still have plenty of room to grow."
Collaboration with government? Will Neo succeed in expanding on its own, or should it seek cooperation with the government, a party that is never far away in China? "The government is not a business," replies Da, who, with his consulting company AntChain, previously agreed with the local government of Guiyang for a blockchain project in which citizens can judge each other on good behavior. "Even though strong companies are often encouraged by the government to compete internationally." The latter has happened to Baidu and Alibaba, says Da, referring to two successful Chinese internet giants. The question is whether China applies that model to blockchain, and Neo is given a role similar to Alibaba. "I do not expect the government to call me in the short term and say," Let's use Neo as the blockchain technology infrastructure in China. "But in the medium term? Why not? I think it's possible. "
submitted by rookert42 to NEO [link] [comments]

A Couple of Notes on the 2013/14 Bubble VS. 2017 Bubble

I'm seeing a lot of posts comparing the 2017 Bubble to the 2013-14 Bubble. I think the comparisons are fair. However, many people are mixing up what happened in 2013-14 and the timeline. One of the most common mistakes I'm seeing is that the 2013-14 bubble popped due to Mt. Gox insolvency. That is false.
The 2013-14 bubble was abrupt, even when compared to the 2017 bubble. The price skyrocketed from $200 USD to $1200 USD in one month. From November 1st to November 30th, BTC went up basically 6X. Back in 2013-14, there were basically two markets which were getting solid volume. BTC/USD and BTC/CNY. BTC/USD was mostly taking place on Mt. Gox, Bitstamp, Coinbase, and BTC-e. BTC/CNY was mostly taking place on OKCoin and BTCChina. There was no Korea or Japan back then, which definitely played a major role in the recent bull market.
And while Chinese exchanges were creating a lot of fake volume back in 2013-14 through 0% exchange fees, the fact was that China was leading the markets. [1] They consistently held a 10%+ premium over USD exchanges during the bull run. At the height of the bubble in China, before the PBOC stepped in with its clampdown on Bitcoin, China Telecom and Baidu announced support for Bitcoin. It was on the verge of literally replacing the CNY. [2]
On November 30th, 2013, a rumor emerged that the PBOC (People's Bank of China / China Government) was about to crack down on Bitcoin. A mass panic ensued. The price crashed from $1200 USD to $780 USD. In one day. That's a 35% crash in a single day. However, the market quickly bounced back as people argued that these rumors were fabricated. However, this rebound was short lived.
On December 5th, 2013, the PBOC made an official announcement. The government banned financial institutions from interacting with Bitcoin. They also clarified that products / services in China could not be priced in BTC (they must be priced in CNY). The markets went straight down on this news. From $1150 USD when it broke to $540 on December 7th. A 3 day drop of over 50%.
Where was Mt. Gox in all this? They were chugging along, delaying fiat withdrawals. Bitcoin withdrawals were working fine. Deposits too. For much of November and December there was very little noise about Mt.Gox actually being insolvent. The overwhelming market sentiment on the matter was that their banks were being disrupted by the US Government investigations into Silkroad. This was true to a very mild extent.
If you'd like to argue that people knew Mt. Gox was insolvent at the time of the 2013-14 bubble crash, I'd like to point out that Bitfinex basically had the exact same issues arise in 2017. Fiat withdrawals and deposits were basically turned off. Clearly Bitfinex was a different situation in hindsight (we hope!), but initially it was playing out just the same as Mt. Gox. The markets never really reacted to Bitfinex fiat issues, just as they didn't react to the Mt. Gox issues. There was so much money going through Mt. Gox that it had a Titanic feel to it. The majority of people bought their first BTC on Mt. Gox.
The Chart:
This chart outlines the dates of the key events in the 2013-14 bubble crash. The most significant event in the crash was absolutely the China ban. That is what kicked off the 2013-14 bubble crash, and it definitely had the most profound impact on price. While the Mt. Gox fiasco certainly did not help the markets, it's not the reason for the bubble and should not be quoted as the reason. [3]
So in conclusion, when people are comparing the 2014 bubble with the 2017 bubble, it should be noted that they are very different. But not for the reasons most people assume. They are different because the 2014 bubble was almost entirely based on the Chinese market, and it was squashed by the PBOC themselves by imposing big regulations.
Today, the markets are certainly more spread out and there are less single points of failure. There is no single event which turned the bull market to a bear market this time around, although I personally believe we ran out of gas this time around because of regulation in Korea and China.
submitted by bitreality to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

The Internet Cloud Has a Dirty Secret

The music video for “Despacito” set an Internet record in April 2018 when it became the first video to hit five billion views on YouTube. In the process, “Despacito” reached a less celebrated milestone: it burned as much energy as 40,000 U.S. homes use in a year.
Computer servers, which store website data and share it with other computers and mobile devices, create the magic of the virtual world. But every search, click, or streamed video sets several servers to work — a Google search for “Despacito” activates servers in six to eight data centers around the world — consuming very real energy resources.
A lot of them.
Today, data centers consume about 2% of electricity worldwide; that could rise to 8% of the global total by 2030, according to a study by Anders Andrae, who researches sustainable information and communications technology for Huawei Technologies Ltd.
U.S. data centers consumed 70 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2014, the same amount that 6.4 million American homes used that year. Data centers need electricity to power their servers, storage equipment, backups, and power cooling infrastructure; most servers require temperatures below 80 degrees Fahrenheit to operate, and cooling can comprise up to 40% of electricity usage in conventional data centers.
“People don’t think about the backend consequences of Netflix streaming,” says Debra Tan, the director of Hong Kong-based nonprofit China Water Risk. “The information and communications technology (ICT) sector is probably one of the most power-hungry sectors going forward.”
The global shift toward what Tan calls “cloud-based societies”—and the rise of nascent tech like 5G networks, robotics, artificial intelligence, and cryptocurrencies—means electricity consumption in data centers will keep surging.

Data’s massive carbon footprint

Because servers are housed in nondescript data centers rather than factories with billowing smokestacks, the size of their carbon footprint is easily overlooked.
But the constant and increasing demand for connectivity means ever more energy funneled into these data centers, and much of that energy is non-renewable and contributes to carbon emissions. Data centers contribute 0.3% to global carbon emissions, according to Nature; the ICT sector as a whole contributes over 2%, and those numbers could increase.
The U.S. is home to 3 million data centers, or roughly one for every 100 Americans. A large number are clustered in Loudoun County in northern Virginia. Tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google operate data centers there, and county officials claim that 70% of the world’s Internet traffic flows through the area’s data centers.
Only 12% of Amazon’s Loudoun County data centers and 4% of Google’s are powered by renewable energy, despite their pledges to shift to 100% clean energy, according to Greenpeace. The region’s low commercial electricity rates make it an attractive site for power-guzzling data centers.
Debra Tan of China Water Risk says that American tech firms with a global presence like Google and Facebook must step up their existing commitments to clean energy, as must Chinese tech companies like Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent, which sourced 67% of their energy from coal in 2017. China’s data center industry is the world’s second-largest, comprising 8% of the global market.
“The ICT sector can definitely lead the world in aggressive decarbonization because they’re the sector that will add on the most power going forward,” says Tan. “They have the capability [and] they have the scale.”

The data never ends

The Internet’s “never-ending creation of data” explains why electricity demand in data centers will likely surge in the future, says Huawei researcher Anders Andrae, who cites more advanced video, 5G networks, A.I. training, holography, and cryptocurrency mining as some of the drivers.
The energy consumption of Bitcoin mining has been a concern for many watching the rise of cryptocurrencies, and analysts have said Bitcoin mining consumes around 0.3% of global electricity (some skeptics argue that such estimates are exaggerated, however).
In China, the government is starting to crack down on the practice. Authorities in China’s Inner Mongolia province said earlier this month that they will no longer support the crypto mining industry, though they did not issue an official ban.
Inner Mongolia’s cheap electricity, thanks to a wealth of coal, is what first drew crypto miners to the far-flung province. In China, data centers get 73% of their power from coal and 23% from renewable sources. The country’s clean energy industry is still developing, so there is a lack of infrastructure compared to coal-powered sources, which are relatively cheap and abundant—China accounts for half of global coal consumption.
China’s data centers emitted 99 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2018 and will emit two-thirds more by 2023 unless industry addresses its energy consumption, per a 2019 study by Greenpeace and North China Electric Power University.
Ye Ruiqi, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace East Asia, says that the initiative to move the industry towards renewable energy “must come from internet data center companies themselves.”
“We need to start addressing the carbon emissions and air pollutants associated with the source[s] of power that feed into our data centers.” Ye says, noting that a handful of Chinese companies have started shifting to renewables and “the results are promising.”
While consumers can make some daily changes to their consumption—streaming Netflix on medium quality rather than high-definition could save over 75% of carbon and water used—companies and governments must take the lead in the greening of the supply chain and development of renewable energy infrastructure, says Tan.
“We can get more efficient […] but our demand is also going to go up,” Tan says. “Your best bet is to go 100% renewables for the backend, cloud, all the transmission towers, et cetera. If you can get that infrastructure to green then there’s less pressure to curbing demand.”
It will be difficult, but if the sector takes action to shift from coal to renewable energy, electricity consumption can decouple from carbon emissions, Ye says: “Technology innovation doesn’t have to contradict [sustainable] development.”

More must-read stories from Fortune:

China is the world’s biggest coal user. Can it break the habit?
—How the [energy industry is using data to decarbonize itself
](—Why solar execs say [the game is already over for non-renewable energy
](—BP’s CEO says he’ll sell oil projects to meet [Paris climate accord goals
](—Listen to our audio briefing, [_Fortune_500 Daily
]( to[_The Loop](, a weekly look at the revolutions in energy, tech, and sustainability._
* More Details Here
submitted by acerod1 to Business_Analyst [link] [comments]

Perspectives on each of the TOP 10 cryptos -- your thoughts?

DISCLAIMER: These are obviously just my personal thoughts, and everyone is free to have differing views. I've held eight out of ten of these over the past years, but at the moment hold just four. Hopefully this post could serve as a discussion starter, with different people sharing their analytically/rationally justified arguments for being bullish/bearish on different cryptos.
BITCOIN. The coin that started it all and got most of us interested in cryptocurrencies to begin with. The hands-down leader in adoption, and very robust in doing what it's doing. I'm not bearish on Bitcoin, as such, and I think as a distributed/democratic store of value it certainly has its place for the long term. What I don't like are the political battles between Bitcoin Core/Blockstream and the miners, neither of which really is objectively looking after just the interests of the common people. One can also criticize Bitcoin for the high fees and scalability challenges, but over long enough a period, the challenges are fundamentally the same for any other blockchain-based currency. In summary, I'm not loving the governance setup and thereby the slowish technological progress, but nevertheless think Bitcoin is here to stay.
ETHEREUM. A highly disruptive force across industries, unlocking massive potential in enterprises around industrial-scale automation, trust, robustness etc. The EEA is fantastic, and the investment into Ethereum-based development across large enterprises is just unparalleled. And I like the stronger leadership, which enables the technology to move ahead faster than Bitcoin. Yes, I love Ethereum, and really my only bigger question regarding the long-term value of Ethereum tokens is how much of the large-scale development will use ETH as is vs. having a solution based on the technology that is Ethereum, but not using the standard token (which is my main criticism towards Ripple).
RIPPLE. Highly targeted to unlock significant efficiency gains from using blockchain in banks, and would certainly expect it to get traction, as such. My main reservation -- and it's a big one -- is how much of the adoption will actually use the XRP token vs. just use the technology as a protocol, but not the token. In the latter scenario, the protocol itself could become as widely adopted as let's say TCP/IP (as maybe an absurdly extreme example), but the inventors of the protocol would really not get much benefit -- apart from maybe consulting and system integration business with the banks, I suppose similarly what IBM's business model is with HyperLedger -- while investors in the token would get pretty much nothing.
BITCOIN CASH. OK, how to put this... I suppose most of us liked getting some extra cash for our Bitcoins, but seriously, what is the long-term sustainability of BCH? Virtually all the developers went with Bitcoin, and the only real backers are a few (if not just one?) big miners. This is not a sustainable model for the long term. Sorry to be blunt, and happy to be proven otherwise with sound well-thought arguments.
LITECOIN. The silver to Bitcoin's gold, as they say. Yeah, I think that's true in many ways. And I like Charlie Lee and that due the stronger leadership Litecoin is able to move faster technologically than Bitcoin, but... on balance, being the 'little brother' of Bitcoin doesn't seem like a long-term viable value proposition. Let's say Bitcoin implements all the stuff they've planned on implementing, the Lightning Network and all that -- why would someone use Litecoin? There are network effects, and in large-scale deployment where your parents and cousins are using cryptocurrencies every day, the economies of scale (incl. stability) would favor the leader. So, I think Litecoin is a nice project, but don't see what its unique long-term value proposition is.
DASH: I apologize up front, I haven't really studied Dash in any great detail, but my impression is that what they're good at is marketing (incl. the somewhat catchy name) and driving adoption. Technologically, I don't see anything here that would make Dash competitive long-term -- not in terms of the technological vision nor a highly competent team (similar to Bitcoin Core, the Ethereum team and EEA, or on a smaller scale the IOTA team and the caliber of people they are bringing in). Again, I'm sorry if this was blunt, and happy to be proven wrong -- with facts and well-founded analytical/rational arguments.
NEM: I don't know too much about NEM, but what I have seen looks kind of good, to be honest. What I think the team is lacking the most is what Dash has in abundance: marketing savvy. The team is making good progress in adoption and the tech seems sound. On the other hand, "New Economy Movement" is not really the sexiest of names, and in general people don't quite seem to even know about the project, and the trading volumes of NEM have typically been the lowest of the TOP 10 cryptos. I would love to know more about NEM, and would be great to see the team get the project more into limelight and really onto the arena so that it's pros and cons vs. the other cryptos would be debated more.
MONERO: I've liked Monero for some time. However, as far as I know, it's main value proposition has been anonymity, and as other cryptos also implement similar mechanisms, I wonder what Monero's long-term value proposition and raison d'etre is. Keen to hear other people's thoughts on this. As a side note, which is not a criticism towards Monero itself, but more the community, is that as the value of Monero has been pushed up over the past few months largely driven by listing on the (highly gambling-oriented) Korean exchanges, there is a fair amount of "Monero is great because the value went up and therefore I bought into it also" kind of thinking. Again, not a criticism towards Monero itself, but when commenting why you think Monero is a great technology and has unique value-add for the long-term, please let's stick to real solid arguments.
IOTA. The project that seems to be sparking a lot of debate recently, incl. somewhat dirty tactics from people affiliated in competing projects masquerading as neutral/independent researchers. Anyway. What is unique about IOTA is that it's zero fee. That is highly, highly disruptive. Also, the tech has no limitation in tx/sec -- apart from speed of networks and economical cost of storage, the physical realities any technology has to deal with, of course, but no limitation similar to the block size with Bitcoin etc. The technology has also been designed to have quantum-resistant security, but as far as I know also other initiatives like Ethereum will implement similar mechanisms over time. But nothing else is really zero fee, not even any of the other DAG-based projects. This is massive. Now, let's be clear: IOTA is still in early development, and the team is aiming for production grade in 2018. They still have the Coordinator as 'training wheels' for the system, they had the somewhat funky/ballsy copy-protection mechanism in place, etc. And some of the key guys can be a bit edgy or borderline arrogant if challenged with incomplete facts/context/logic. That's all fair. But the bottom line for me is that the technology holds massive potential, and hence the key question is whether they have and are building the team to deliver on this vision. I have high confidence in the edgy-yet-capable core team, and the people they are bringing in are very impressive from top-notch researchers to folks like the former CIO of SAP and UBS.
NEO. I used to be more sceptical and critical about NEO, or Antshares, as it used to be called. It's been dubbed the 'Ethereum killer from China'. Well, based on what I know, it's certainly no Ethereum today -- nor do I see it as more of a threat to Ethereum than let's say Baidu has been a 'Google killer'. Having said that, the comparison also surfaces why I'm increasingly liking NEO. China is a special market. Which explains also the recent 'bans' on ICOs, exchanges, etc. -- and why Westerners often interpret these moves wrong and then over-react. But that's another story. Anyway, as China puts some regulation in place to protect its people from outright scams, local front-runners like NEO will certainly benefit, I would expect. And China will want to have its iconic leaders also in this tech, similarly as they've wanted to have in the Internet wave in the form of the Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba, etc. So, while NEO isn't technologically really in a place to compete head-to-head with Ethereum today, I think it has potential to become something significant over time. Because China.
Thanks for reading! Look forward to any comments -- but let's keep things civil. And don't be offended if I don't respond to comments; time is limited, and would really hope the discussion to take off between different contributors rather than a one-to-many debate.
submitted by DragonSorbet to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Self-censorship is why Baidu stopped accepting bitcoin

There is now an ongoing debate about whether bitcoin is banned as payment or not in China. here is my take:
It's still a gray area.
So why Baidu stopped accepting it? Because of self-censorship. For you westerns to understand this you need to understand the "river crab culture" .
All contents on Chinese internet are self-censored. there is never an official notice about what words are banned, but every website have their own list. How do they make this list? some of them are common sense, like "64" June 4th or the name of the guy who won Noble Peace Price. others can be from a direct phone call from some officer. If your website is deemed to be not clean, then can just shut down the server. Then you move your sever abroad? then you get GFW'ed.
Baidu is just applying the same mentality to Bitcoin, The Party said it's dangerous, and we don't know it'd be deemed OK or not, Then we shouldn't risk it: what we could gain is little but what we could lose is a lot.
You really need to understand this is a different the society, there are grey areas everywhere. Recently the Premier said to Jack Ma, the boss of and, publicly that, "Comrade Ma, according to the regulations, your companies(those that sell stuff on Taobao) were illegal, ..., they are now legal with our now regulations."
Don't be surprised, these are just how things work. Bitcoin will be endorsed if it helps the economy just like Taobao, on the other hand, if it endangers the regime, it'll be kill without mercy, at least they'll try.
Edit: fixed the river crab link; added google translate link for the Jack Ma news.
submitted by oxfeeefeee to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

China's recent guidance great for Bitcoin in China, terrible for the US.

(Originally posted to bitcoin...the 10th circle of hell since Wednesday) (Thank you mods for this board.)
America believes that yesterday's People's Bank of China statement on Bitcoin constituted a "crackdown." They said it's not a currency, banks can't touch it, and payment processors can't facilitate transactions. Therefore, China is trying to reign in Bitcoin. This is completely false. With this announcement, China now has one of the most favorable and friendly regulatory environments in the world. China has acted quickly and decisively, and established very clear permissible behaviors re: Bitcoin (esp. vis-a-vis the US). And the US, be it the media or the government, doesn't understand this development.
Generally speaking, China had to balance two vital concerns. One, how to mitigate Bitcoin's potential to circumvent the State Administration of Foreign Exchange. (People's Bank controls all foreign exchange for the Chinese banking system). And two, how to corner and keep as much Bitcoin wealth as possible.
In declaring Bitcoin a "virtual commodity" AND expressly saying Bitcoin is NOT a currency, they avoided the utter mess of having to integrate Bitcoin into current foreign exchange controls. It's a pretty sizable challenge to both allow internal Chinese bitcoin transactions, and forbid all international bitcoin transactions. Even if that was possible, they certainly have no idea how to do it at present. Further, had they permitted banks and payment processors to do anything involving Bitcoin whatsoever, they would've tremendously exacerbated the wealth flight problem. They can't declare it a currency without regulating it as a fiat currency, and they can't permit banks and payment processors to handle it w/o risking capital flight. Assuming China's goal is to not blow up their own foreign exchange controls, which seems likely, a strict separation between Bitcoin and bank is really the only option they had.
In addition, by declaring Bitcoin a virtual commodity and placing its regulation under the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), China hasn't burdened Bitcoin's growth with banking regulations and controls. Now, exchanges like BTCChina know they don't have to become a bank or financial institution - they are simply a virtual commodity company. MIIT is the regulatory body that approves and manages, essentially, anything having to do with the internet (save for content). While "payment processors" cannot handle Bitcoin because it's not a currency, facilitating virtual commodity (which is "private property") trading and exchange (even for goods and services) looks to be perfectly legal. Expect the MIIT to approve a "payment processor" for BTC as something like a "virtual commodity processor." This would now be a "natural" expansion of BTCChina's business platform.
So this guidance achieves both goals; China reduces the risk of capital flight while also establishing the regulatory future of BTC as free of undue financial institution regs. The US has effectively gone in the opposite direction - since BTC can be defined various ways, and there have been multiple "official" declarations of what it is, various federal agencies / regulators are involved, and most are bewildered. Exchanges must have banking relationships, have state-by-state money transmitter licenses, surety bonds, etc... BTC faces nearly all the financial services barriers-to-entry the US can muster. Not so in China.
Separating Bitcoin and bank, expressly defining BTC, and assigning a regulator are brilliant moves by the Chinese. The rules and regulations around "virtual commodities" are now free to develop unencumbered by the Banking system's controls. Unlike the US, China has laid the legal and regulatory framework that can best facilitate Bitcoin growth.
submitted by gidbit to BitcoinSerious [link] [comments]

The Exchange Problem

TL:DR – China is following logic. As such NEO is set up to do well in this market…and if you bought it, this should have been why.
This is an opinion. Do your research. I apologize if some of my facts are not totally exact, but the overall point is an opinion and holds irrespective.
In some countries, China being one of them, capital outflows are controlled so that the currency can be controlled. Control in this case includes inflation/deflation, criminal transactions and laundering money. In this type of environment Bitcoin/crypto is no longer allowed to be a currency, but can maintain its existence as a commodity, like gold or silver. Through this loop it can continue to operate, as long as the commodity is seen and used as a store of value, not as a way to export value, launder money or engage in criminal behavior.
Recent Events (prior bans on Bitcoin excluded as they led to the commodification of crypto and are already documented):
Event 1: Banning of extraction of bitcoin/crypto to USD through Chinese exchanges and the banning of Chinese using foreign exchanges
Clearly this was the PBOCs method of making sure that money didn’t flow through bitcoin and out of the country which would violate the export of value proposition. Essentially you can buy crypto and trade crypto but it can’t (or shouldn’t) be exported out of the country. This being said, it is not foolproof and this less than robust measure probably helped lead to Event 3.
Event 2: The banning of ICOs
While ICOs have value to crypto enthusiasts and fintech innovation, it doesn't take much to understand why they are a dodgy experiment in getting around the regulatory framework it takes to register securities. You aren’t buying a share of a company, but a token which is worth…whatever everyone thinks it is worth. While there are of course great ICOs, there are an equal or higher quantity more that are nothing tokens that don’t really hold value beyond the promise of future tech. Selling something based on a promise of future benefits at its extreme is like selling snake oil and so is a criminal activity as people get preyed upon. (In free markets, this is less of a problem because people getting suckered is their problem. This is not so in this environment) So it is banned until regulated in a way that adheres to either securities law or commodities listing and regulation.
Event 3: The banning of exchanges. Or more likely the banning of the CNY/-insert token here- pair.
While the previous two events tackled the export of value and the prevention of criminal activity, the ability to enter the market with large quantities of fiat, convert it to tokens (many of which are designed for anonymity) and then sell it back out or transfer it to another anonymous entity, is a clear opportunity to launder money. Likewise, it is an easy way of transferring money between two parties without oversight and so also would allow for large scale tax evasion.
So what?
When viewed through the lens of the government, as cryptos grow, they become a clear threat to these three aspects of financial governance. Unsurprisingly this has resulted in actions being taken towards stopping them.
Why now?
Probably because crypto went from an approx 40 billion dollar industry to a 180 billion dollar market cap in the space of a year. That gets people’s attention and also represents the beginning of a structural threat to an economy.
So what next?
There needs to be a resolution to these issues and this (or something like it) is what I see as that resolution.
Event 1: This is a no go and won’t change. The outflow of value is too big a deal and when it isn’t allowed in fiat, it won’t be in crypto. So don’t hold your breath.
Event 2: ICOs represent an innovative way of promoting fintech, this is thus more complicated to control. I would say that having a system where the ICO issuer is vetted, and their ICO is valued independently by a regulatory body will be what happens (akin to a gov’t run market). As such, a quick resolution to this will likely be long in coming and when it is resolved will be highly regulated. It is possible that the big current exchanges will morph into the platform for this. The total banning of new crypto tokens will of course cause innovation to take a hit and so, for a country interested in fintech innovation, maybe that hit is too hard to pass up on ICOs entirely. We shall see. I personally think it isn’t and the ICO age is over in this neck of the woods as blockchain innovation can make you money a great number of ways, and VC funding can cover good ideas without having to turn to investors who are sold on hype and don't understand the technology. ICOs are essentially just a way to skirt accountability and get quick money fast from people who don’t have the resources to vet the company (not hating on crypto, just stating a reality).
Event 3: In order for there to be a way to prevent money laundering (and value export), purchasing into the market will need to be regulated specifically so that a.) Who buys what, when, and how, is known (digital identity) and b.) when that crypto is bought it isn’t washed through an anonymity token and then sold on elsewhere as an invisible transfer (token availability limitations). This will likely mean that any token that wants to be listed on exchanges in markets like China will need to adhere to a digital identity protocol. Given the libertarian nature of much of crypto, and the fact that investors internationally may not like this, few tokens currently will want to do this. This means bad news or difficult decisions for a great many tokens wishing to be listed long term in this type of environment.
Conclusion: This leads to the final conclusion that China will (like it has done with Baidu, Wechat, Renren, and all the rest) begin the development of its own blockchain ecosystem. The only token platform that I can see in the market right now (apart from Civic which isn’t a platform as far as I know) is NEO as it is specifically designed for this scenario. That said, this is early days and NEO only has first mover advantage, so it’s entirely possible that things go another way (govt tokens, Company tokens, existing tokens forking, etc). But such is the way this all works and the risks we take.
We have a rocky couple of months (maybe even year or so – hope not but hey) ahead as this all gets sorted out. But if you are playing the long game and you believe in the tech, and this is your play, then this is a good thing as it gives you time to accumulate. I could be totally wrong but I hope I’m not because a little pain now, is worth a big win in the future.
This is just my two gas on the situation.
-Also for what it’s worth, I live in Asia, am in my 30s and have a post-grad degree in social psychology. I am not Chinese, an economist, programmer or market analyst (I include this as I think it’s useful to provide a context to where my opinions come from. Take it as you will)-
submitted by neomoonman to NEO [link] [comments]

CRYPTO MARKET PUMP! Bitcoin over $5,200 - Nasdaq Bitcoin Comparison - China Baidu Bitcoin Search Florian Söllner: Bitcoin, Bitcoin Group, Nvidia, OHB, Apple, Tesla und Baidu in der Analyse North Korean Hackers Target Bitcoin Exchanges  Crunch Report JP Morgan Coin!!?? Baidu Blockchain, KT Korea, HSBC, Kriptomat - Crypto News Qatar Bans Bitcoin

Baidu Jiasule users can use bitcoin to pay for any Jiasule services. Baidu Jiasule, as the innovator of the Internet, has become the first cloud services vendor to support bitcoin, giving us ... The ban on Bitcoin ads may not necessarily reflect the company’s stance towards Bitcoin. Baidu is one of the investors in the Chinese subsidiary of Circle – the bitcoin peer-to-peer payments platform. 1xBit: anonymous betting, the best odds & a generous 7 BTC Welcome Bonus! NEWXBIT promo code to get a 125% 1st deposit bonus now! In spite of Bitcoin being not so popular among the ruling ... The ban was imposed in response to the widespread acceptance of QQ, the virtual currency of Tencent, the Chinese social media giant. QQ, incredibly, had grown to about 13% of the Chinese cash economy. Der Trading-Tipp des Tages ist diesmal PayPal. Es gibt spannende Neuigkeiten. Der Online-Bezahldienst will über seine Plattform künftig auch Zahlungen mit ausgewählten Kryptowährungen ermöglichen. Anl BAIDU.COM Fundamentalanalyse - hier erhalten Sie eine Analyse der BAIDU.COM Aktie nach fundamentalen Kennzahlen wie KGV, relative Performance, Mittelfrist-Trend usw. Anhand dieser Analyse wird ein ...

[index] [10931] [20858] [45845] [10021] [29905] [2859] [16201] [32326] [24600] [13910]

CRYPTO MARKET PUMP! Bitcoin over $5,200 - Nasdaq Bitcoin Comparison - China Baidu Bitcoin Search

Florian Söllner, leitender Redakteur beim Anlegermagazin DER AKTIONÄR, blickt in regelmäßigen Abständen auf die Entwicklungen in der Tech-Branche. Heute geht es um Bitcoin, Bitcoin Group ... 🔴 Bitcoin and Stocks LIVE : Saint Patrick's Day Stream 🔴 Ep. 903 Crypto Technical Analysis Mitch Ray 762 watching Live now Bittorrent Token and Tron - Everything you need to know about BTT ... In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert discuss the bitcoin price plunge as Baidu ditches the crypto currency and China bans it for financial firms. Unnoticed at the ... Facebook bans monetization of hate, porn, drugs and violence on its platform, some shake-ups happen at Baidu and WhatsApp, and North Korea is allegedly targeting bitcoin exchanges. All this on ... Qatar Bans Bitcoin Chronos Crypto. Loading... Unsubscribe from Chronos Crypto? ... China Baidu Xuperchain Blockchain Crypto - Binance XRP Futures - Duration: 8:11. Thinking Crypto 2,246 views. 8 ...