Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov meanwhile questioned the reliability of the “unsubstantiated” information, after it detailed hidden wealth linked to President Putin and members of his inner circle.
BBC Panorama and the Guardian have led the investigation in the UK.
Other leaders linked to the leak include:
Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis, who allegedly failed to declare an offshore investment company used to purchase two villas for £12m in the south of France
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who – along with six members of his family – has been linked to 13 offshore companies
Chile’s President Sebastián Piñera, a billionaire businessman, who is accused of selling a copper and iron mine in an environmentally sensitive area to a childhood friend, as detailed in Spain’s El Pais newspaper
And Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, whose family and close associates have allegedly been secretly involved in property deals in the UK worth more than £400m
Coinbase, a major U.S.-based bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange, disclosed today that a hacker was able to bypass the company’s SMS multi-factor authentication mechanism and steal funds from 6,000 users, Bleeping Computer reported.
The breach of Coinbase customers’ accounts happened between March and May 20, 2021, in a hacking campaign that combined phishing scams and a vulnerability exploit on the company’s security measures.
The U.S.-based exchange, which has approximately 68 million users from more than 100 countries, reportedly said that in order to conduct the attack, the hackers needed to know the user’s email address, password, and phone number, as well as have access to their email accounts. It is not clear how the hackers gained access to that information.
“In this incident, for customers who use SMS texts for two-factor authentication, the third party took advantage of a flaw in Coinbase’s SMS Account Recovery process in order to receive an SMS two-factor authentication token and gain access to your account,” Coinbase told customers in electronic notifications.
Beyond stealing funds, the hackers also exposed customers’ personal information, “including their full name, email address, home address, date of birth, IP addresses for account activity, transaction history, account holdings, and balances,” per the report.
Today, Tim Sweeney confirmed on Twitter just how massive of an “L” Epic took in its recent trial against Apple. Apple has effectively “blacklisted” Fortnite from all Apple products until the legal clash between the two massive corporations reaches its conclusion, which could take as long as five years. (It’s even longer in Peely years.)
In the tweet, Sweeney posted a letter Epic had received from Apple confirming that Epic’s Apple developer account will not be reinstated, and that Epic cannot even request reinstatement until “the court’s judgement becomes final and unappealable.” That can take up to five years, according to Sweeney, who also claims that this is a renege on Apple’s previous position expressed to both the court and the press. However, given that Epic is currently trying to appeal the decision, I’d argue that Apple’s reticence to let it return to the platform makes perfect sense.
This letter reinforces the reality of this trial, that both Epic and Apple resoundingly lost. There was no court order to get Fortnite back on the store, and Apple lost its ability to refuse payments outside of its ecosystem. Both massive corporations lost, and all other developers will reap the rewards of Epic’s hubris.
China’s central bank said on Friday that all cryptocurrency-related transactions are illegal in the country and they must be banned, citing concerns around national security and “safety of people’s assets.” The world’s most populated nation also said that foreign exchanges are banned from providing services to users in the country.
In a joint statement, ten Chinese government agencies vowed to work closely to maintain a “high pressure” crackdown on trading of cryptocurrencies in the nation. The People’s Bank of China separately ordered internet, financial and payment companies from facilitating cryptocurrency trading on their platforms.
The central bank said cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin and Tether, cannot be circulated in the market as they are not fiat currency. The surge in usage of cryptocurrencies has disrupted “economic and financial order,” and prompted a proliferation of “money laundering, illegal fund-raising, fraud, pyramid schemes and other illegal and criminal activities,” it said.
Offenders, the central bank warned, will be “investigated for criminal liability in accordance with the law.”
The Chinese government will “resolutely clamp down on virtual currency speculation, and related financial activities and misbehaviour in order to safeguard people’s properties and maintain economic, financial and social order,” the People’s Bank of China said in a statement.
The move has already started to cause panic among some crypto traders, sending the price of bitcoin and several other currencies down. Bitcoin was down 5.5% at the time of publication.
NEW DELHI, Sept 18 (Reuters) – Google abused the dominant position of its Android operating system in India, using its “huge financial muscle” to illegally hurt competitors, the country’s antitrust authority found in a report on its two-year probe seen by Reuters.
Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google reduced “the ability and incentive of device manufacturers to develop and sell devices operating on alternative versions of Android,” says the June report by the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) investigations unit.
[…]
Its findings are the latest antitrust setback for Google in India, where it faces several probes in the payments app and smart television markets. The company has been investigated in Europe, the United States and elsewhere. This week, South Korea’s antitrust regulator fined Google $180 million for blocking customised versions of Android.
‘VAGUE, BIASED AND ARBITRARY’
Google submitted at least 24 responses during the probe, defending itself and arguing it was not hurting competition, the report says.
Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), Apple Inc (AAPL.O), as well as smartphone makers like Samsung and Xiaomi, were among 62 entities that responded to CCI questions during its Google investigation, the report says.
Android powers 98% of India’s 520 million smartphones, according to Counterpoint Research.
When the CCI ordered the probe in 2019, it said Google appeared to have leveraged its dominance to reduce device makers’ ability to opt for alternate versions of its mobile operating system and force them to pre-install Google apps.
The 750-page report finds the mandatory pre-installation of apps “amounts to imposition of unfair condition on the device manufacturers” in violation of India’s competition law, while the company leveraged the position of its Play Store app store to protect its dominance.
Play Store policies were “one-sided, ambiguous, vague, biased and arbitrary”, while Android has been “enjoying its dominant position” in licensable operating systems for smartphones and tablets since 2011, the report says.
The probe was triggered in 2019 after two Indian junior antitrust research associates and a law student filed a complaint, Reuters reported.
Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan signaled changes are on the way in how the agency scrutinizes acquisitions after revealing the results of a study of a decade’s worth of Big Tech company deals that weren’t reported to the agency.
Why it matters: Tech’s business ecosystem is built on giant companies buying up small startups, but the message from the antitrust agency this week could chill mergers and acquisitions in the sector.
What they found: The FTC reviewed 616 transactions valued at $1 million or more between 2010 and 2019 that were not reported to antitrust authorities by Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft.
94 of the transactions actually exceeded the dollar size threshold that would require companies to report a deal. The deals may have qualified for other regulatory exemptions.
79% of transactions used deferred or contingent compensation to founders and key employees, and nearly 77% involved non-compete clauses.
36% of the transactions involved assuming some amount of debt or liabilities.
What they’re saying: In a statement, Khan said the report shows that loopholes may be “unjustifiably enabling deals to fly under the radar.”
Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, said the high percentage of non-compete clauses was especially troubling.
“If nothing else, it’s a clear anticompetitive intent to just take talent and prevent them from competing with you,” Stoller said. “And there is a limited amount of tech talent.”
The other side: Nothing in the report indicates that rules were broken or that the deals were anticompetitive, Neil Chilson, a former FTC adviser, pointed out.
“I think the message is pretty clear from the chair: She’s suspicious of mergers, no matter what the size, just based on a belief that mergers at any size are suspect and should be reviewed,” Chilson, now senior research fellow for Tech and Innovation at Stand Together, told Axios.
“The law certainly is not behind her on that, and I don’t think the economics are particularly there either, and nothing in the report supports that assertion.”
A man who the Department of Justice says unlocked AT&T customers’ phones for a fee was sentenced to 12 years in prison, in what the judge called “a terrible cybercrime over an extended period,” which allegedly continued even after authorities were on to the scheme.
According to a news release from the DOJ, in 2012, Muhammad Fahd, a citizen of Pakistan and Grenada, contacted an AT&T employee via Facebook and offered the employee “significant sums of money” to help him secretly unlock AT&T phones, freeing the customers from any installment agreement payments and from AT&T’s service.
Fahd used the alias Frank Zhang, according to the DOJ, and persuaded the AT&T employee to recruit other employees at its call center in Bothell, Washington, to help with the elaborate scheme. Fahd instructed the AT&T employees to set up fake businesses and phony bank accounts to receive payments, and to create fictitious invoices for deposits into the fake accounts to create the appearance that money exchanged as part of the scheme was payment for legitimate services.
In 2013, however, AT&T put into place a new unlocking system which made it harder for Fahd’s crew to unlock phones’ unique IMEI numbers, so according to the DOJ he hired a developer to design malware that could be installed on AT&T’s computer system. This allegedly allowed him to unlock more phones, and do so more efficiently. The AT&T employees working with Fahd helped him access information about its systems and other employees’ credentials, allowing his developer to tailor the malware more precisely, the DOJ said.
A forensic analysis by AT&T showed Fahd and his helpers fraudulently unlocked more than 1.9 million phones, costing the company more than $200 million. Fahd was arrested in Hong Kong in 2018 and extradited to the US in 2019. He pleaded guilty in September 2020 to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
It’s not clear from the DOJ release whether anyone besides AT&T was harmed as a result of the scheme; there’s no mention of customers’ phones being otherwise compromised or any personal data being accessed. We’ve reached out to the DOJ to clarify whether any AT&T customers were affected.
South Korea’s competition regulator on Tuesday announced it will fine Google 207.4 billion Korean won ($176.9 million) for allegedly using its dominant market position in the mobile operating system space to stifle competition.
Google’s Android operating system currently holds the lion’s share of the smartphone market, ahead of Apple’s iOS platform.
The U.S. tech giant allegedly used its market position to block smartphone makers like Samsung from using operating systems developed by rivals, according to the Korea Fair Trade Commission.
Yonhap News added that the regulator, which published its decision in Korean, said the tech giant required smartphone makers to agree to an “anti-fragmentation agreement (AFA)” when signing key contracts with Google over app store licenses and early access to the operating system.
This content is blocked because you are not allowing cookies.
To view this content, click on Manage Cookie Preferences here or at the bottom of the page to allow all cookies.
That agreement prevented device makers from installing modified versions of the Android operating system, known as “Android forks,” on their handsets, Yonhap reported.
The regulator alleged that Google’s practice stifled innovation in the development of new operating systems for smartphones, the news site added. The KFTC has asked the tech giant to stop forcing companies to sign AFAs and ordered it to take corrective steps, according to Yonhap.
[…]
Tuesday’s fine is small compared with the tech giant’s quarterly figures. Last quarter, Google’s parent company Alphabet reported $61.88 billion in revenue.
[…]
In late August, the country’s parliament approved a bill that will allow app developers to avoid paying hefty commissions to major app store operators, including Google, by directing users to pay via alternate platforms.
Docker will restrict use of the free version of its Docker Desktop utility to individuals or small businesses, and has introduced a new more expensive subscription, as it searches for a sustainable business model.
The company has renamed its Free plan to “Personal” and now requires that businesses with 250 or more employees, or higher than $10m in annual revenue, must use a paid subscription if they require Docker Desktop. There are no changes to the command-line Docker Engine. The $5/month Pro and $7/month Teams subscriptions continue as before, but a new $21/month Business subscription adds features including centralized management, single sign-on, and enhanced security.
The new Docker plans
The Docker platform has a number of components, of which Docker Desktop is just one part. Docker images define the contents of containers. Docker containers are runnable instances of images. The Docker daemon is a background application that manages and runs Docker images and containers. The Docker client is a command-line utility that calls the API of the Docker daemon. Docker registries contain images, and the Docker Hub is a widely used public registry. Much of Docker (but not Desktop) is open source under the Apache v2 licence.
OnlyFans dropped plans to ban pornography from its service, less than a week after the U.K. content-creator subscription site had announced the change citing the need to comply with policies of banking partners.
On Wednesday, the company said it “secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community,” suggesting that it has new agreements with banks to pay OnlyFans’ content creators, including those who share sexually explicit material.
[…]
An OnlyFans spokesperson declined to say which bank or banks it has new or renewed payment-processing agreements with. “The proposed Oct. 1, 2021 changes are no longer required due to banking partners’ assurances that OnlyFans can support all genres of creators,” the rep said.
So was this all much ado about nothing?
OnlyFans may have been able to resolve its conflict with banks, some of which had refused to do business with the site, by going public with the issue — and publicizing the large amount of money that flows through the site, on the order of $300 million in payouts per month.
OnlyFans founder and CEO Tim Stokely put the blame for the porn ban on banks in an interview with the Financial Times published Aug. 24, saying that banks including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon and the U.K.’s Metro Bank had cut off OnlyFans’ ability to pay creators.
The furious backlash among OnlyFans creators also certainly pushed the company to quickly resolve the problem. OnlyFans’ decision to ban porn had infuriated sex workers who have relied on the site to support themselves. In frustration, some adult creators had already nixed their OnlyFans pages and moved to alternate platforms.
Epic Games’ objections to Google’s business practices became clearer on Thursday with the release of previously redacted accusations in the gaming giant’s lawsuit against the internet goliath.
Those accusations included details of a Google-run operation dubbed Project Hug that aimed to sling hundreds of millions of dollars at developers to get them to remain within Google Play; and a so-called Premiere Device Program that gave device makers extra cash if they ensured users could only get their apps from the Play store, locking out third-party marketplaces and incentivizing manufacturers not to create their own software souks.
[…]
As part of the litigation, Epic made some accusations under seal last month [PDF] because Google’s attorneys designated the allegations confidential, based on Google’s habit of keeping business arrangements secret.
But on Wednesday, Judge James Donato issued an order disagreeing with Google’s rationale and directing the redacted material to be made public.
“Google did not demonstrate how the unredacted complaints might cause it commercial harm, and permitting sealing on the basis of a party’s internal practices would leave the fox guarding the hen house,” the judge wrote [PDF].
The unredacted details, highlighted in a separate redlined filing [PDF] and incorporated into an amended complaint filed on Friday [PDF], suggest Google has gone to great lengths to discourage competing app stores and to keep developers from making waves.
For example, the documents explain how Google employs revenue-sharing and licensing agreements with Android partners (OEMs) to maintain Google Play as the dominant app store. One filing describes “Anti-Fragmentation Agreements” that prevent partners from modifying the Android operating system to offer app downloads in a way that competes with Google Play.
“Google’s documents show that it pushes OEMs into making Google Play the exclusive app store on the OEMs’ devices through a series of coercive carrots and sticks, including by offering significant financial incentives to those that do so, and withholding those benefits from those that do not,” the redlined complaint says .
These agreements allegedly included the Premiere Device Program, launched in 2019, to give OEMs financial incentives like 4 per cent, or more, of Google Search revenues and 3-6 per cent of Google Play spending on their devices in return for ensuring Google exclusivity and the lack of apps with APK install rights.
[…]
Google’s highest level execs, it’s claimed, suggested giving Epic Games a deal “worth up to $208m (incremental cost to Google of $147m) over three years” to keep the game maker compliant. And if Epic did not accept, the court filing alleges, “a senior Google executive proposed that Google ‘consider approaching Tencent,’ a company that owns a minority stake in Epic, ‘to either (a) buy Epic shares from Tencent to get more control over Epic,’ or ‘(b) join up with Tencent to buy 100 per cent of Epic.'”
The filing contends that in 2019 Google’s internal estimate was that the company could lose between $1.1bn and $6bn by 2022 if Android app stores operated by Amazon and Samsung gain traction. The Epic Games Store, it’s said, could have cost Google $350m during that period.
And this kind of nasty pressure is how monopolies strongarm their dominance
Court documents reveal that LG, Motorola, and HMD Global, which makes Nokia phones, are part of the Premier Device Program. Premier devices are effectively mandated to make Google’s services the “defaults for all key functions” for up to 90% of the manufacturer’s Android phones. This includes blocking apps with the ability to install APKs on the device, except for the app stores designed for and managed by the respective original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). In turn, Google promised a higher cut of search revenue earned on the device, raising the rate from 8% to 12%, which is not an insignificant increase. In some instances, Google also agreed to share up to 6% of the “Play spend” revenue from the Play Store, essentially how much money that phone made for Google based on the user’s interactions.
In addition to the other brands mentioned above, Xiaomi, Sony, Sharp, and BBK Electronics, which owns OnePlus, and overseas brands like Oppo and Vivo, were all involved in the program in varying capacities. Google even had contracts with carriers to dissuade them from launching app stores that would compete with Android’s app marketplace—explicitly demonstrating deep pockets prevent competition and innovation.
display items that come from the same category as the target product, such as a board game matched with other board games, enhance the chances of a target product’s purchase. In contrast, consumers are less likely to buy the target product if it is mismatched with products from different categories, for example, a board game displayed with kitchen knives.
The study utilized eye-tracking—a sensor technology that makes it possible to know where a person is looking—to examine how different types of displays influenced visual attention. Participants in the study looked at their target product for the same amount of time when it was paired with similar items or with items from different categories; however, shoppers spent more time looking at the mismatched products, even though they were only supposed to be there “for display.”
“What is surprising is that when I asked people how much they liked the target products, their preferences didn’t change between display settings,” Karmarkar said. “The findings show that it is not about how much you like or dislike the item you’re looking at, it’s about your process for buying the item. The surrounding display items don’t seem to change how much attention you give the target product, but they can influence your decision whether to buy it or not.”
Karmarkar, who holds Ph.D.s in consumer behavior and neuroscience, says the findings suggests that seeing similar options on the page reinforces the idea to consumers that they’re making the right kind of decision to purchase an item that fits the category on display.
Receiving a publishing deal from an indie publisher can be a turning point for an independent developer. But when one-man team Jakefriend was approached with an offer to invest half a million Canadian dollars into his hand-drawn action-adventure game Scrabdackle, he discovered the contract’s terms could see him signing himself into a lifetime of debt, losing all rights to his game, and even paying for it to be completed by others out of his own money.
In a lengthy thread on Twitter, indie developer Jakefriend explained the reasons he had turned down the half-million publishing deal for his Kickstarter-funded project, Scrabdackle. Already having raised CA$44,552 from crowdfunding, the investment could have seen his game released in multiple languages, with full QA testing, and launched simultaneously on PC and Switch. He just had to sign a contract including clauses that could leave him financially responsible for the game’s completion, while receiving no revenue at all, should he breach its terms.
“I turned down a pretty big publishing contract today for about half a million in total investment,” begins Jake’s thread. Without identifying the publisher, he continues, “They genuinely wanted to work with me, but couldn’t see what was exploitative about the terms. I’m not under an NDA, wanna talk about it?”
Over the following 24 tweets, the developer lays out the key issues with the contract, most especially focusing on the proposed revenue share. While the unnamed publisher would eventually offer a 50:50 split of revenues (albeit minus up to 10% for other sundry costs, including—very weirdly—international sales taxes), this wouldn’t happen until 50% of the marketing spend (approximately CA$200,000/US$159,000) and the entirety of his development funds (CA$65,000 Jake confirms to me via Discord) was recouped by sales. That works out to about 24,000 copies of the game, before which its developer would receive precisely 0% of revenue.
Even then, Scrabdackle’s lone developer explains, the contract made clear there would be no payments until a further 30 days after the end of the next quarter, with a further clause that allowed yet another three month delay beyond that. All this with no legal requirement to show him their financial records.
Should Jake want to challenge the sales data for the game, he’d be required to call for an audit, which he’d have to pay for whether there were issues or not. And should it turn out that there were discrepancies, there’d be no financial penalty for the publisher, merely the requirement to pay the missing amount—which he would have to hope would be enough to cover paying for the audit in the first place.
Another section of the contract explained that should there be disagreement about the direction of the game, the publisher could overrule and bring in a third-party developer to make the changes Jake would not, at Jake’s personal expense. With no spending limit on that figure.
But perhaps most surprising was a section declaring that should the developer be found in breach of the contract—something Jake explains is too ambiguously defined—then they would lose all rights to their game, receive no revenue from its sales, have to repay all the money they received, and pay for all further development costs to see the game completed. And here again there was no upper limit on what those costs could be.
It might seem obvious that no one should ever sign a contract containing clauses just so ridiculous. To be liable—at the publisher’s whim—for unlimited costs to complete a game while also required to pay back all funds (likely already spent), for no income from the game’s sales… Who would ever agree to such a thing? Well, as Jake tells me via Discord, an awful lot of independent developers, desperate for some financial support to finish their project. The contract described in his tweets might sound egregious, but the reality is that most of them offer some kind of awful term(s) for indie game devs.
“My close indie dev friends discuss what we’re able to of contracts frequently,” he says, “and the only thing surprising to them about mine is that it hit all the typical red flags instead of typically most of them. We’re all extremely fatigued and disheartened by how mundane an unjust contract offer is. It’s unfair and it’s tiring.”
Jake makes it clear that he doesn’t believe the people who contacted him were being maliciously predatory, but rather they were simply too used to the shitty terms. “I felt genuinely no sense of wanting to give me a bad deal with the scouts and producers I was speaking to, but I have to assume they are aware of the problems and are just used to that being the norm as well.”
Since posting the thread, Jake tells me he’s heard from a lot of other developers who described the terms to which he objected as, “sadly all-too-familiar.” At one point creator of The Witness, Jonathan Blow, replied to the thread saying, “I can guess who the publisher is because I have seen equivalent contracts.” Except Jake’s fairly certain he’d be wrong.
“The problem is so widespread,” Jake explains, “that when you describe the worst of terms, everyone thinks they know who it is and everyone has a different guess.
While putting this piece together, I reached out to boutique indie publisher Mike Rose of No More Robots, to see if he had seen anything similar, and indeed who he thought the publisher might be. “Honestly, it could be anyone,” he replied via Discord. “What [Jake] described is very much the norm. All of the big publishers you like, his description is all of their contracts.”
This is very much a point that Jake wants to make clear. In fact, it’s why he didn’t identify the publisher in his thread. Rather than to spare their blushes, or harm his future opportunities, Jake explains that he did it to ensure his experience couldn’t be taken advantage of by other indie publishers. “I don’t want to let others with equally bad practices off the hook,” he tells me. “As soon as I say ‘It was SoAndSo Publishing’, everyone else can say, ‘Wow, can’t believe it, glad we’re not like that,’ and have deniability.”
I also reached out to a few of the larger indie publishers, listing the main points of contention in Jake’s thread, to see if they had any comments. The only company that replied by the time of publication was Devolver. I was told,
“Publishing contracts have dozens of variables involved and a developer should rightfully decline points and clauses that make them feel uncomfortable or taken advantage of in what should be an equitable relationship with their partner—publisher, investor, or otherwise. Rev share and recoupment in particular should be weighed on factors like investment, risk, and opportunity for both parties and ultimately land on something where everyone feels like they are receiving a fair shake on what was put forth on the project. While I have not seen the full contract and context, most of the bullet points you placed here aren’t standard practice for our team.”
Where does this leave Jake and the future of Scrabdackle? “The Kickstarter funds only barely pay my costs for the next 10 months,” he tells Kotaku. “So there’s no Switch port or marketing budget to speak of. Nonetheless, I feel more motivated than ever going it alone.”
I asked if he would still consider a more reasonable publishing deal at this point. “This was a hobby project that only became something more when popular demand from an incredible and large community rallied for me to build a crowdfunding campaign…A publisher can offer a lot to an indie project, and a good deal is the difference between gamedev being a year-long stint or a long-term career for me, but that’s not worth the pound of flesh I was asked for.”
Ethereum is making big changes. Perhaps the most important is the jettisoning of the “miners” who track and validate transactions on the world’s most-used blockchain network. Miners are the heart of a system known as proof of work. It was pioneered by Bitcoin and adopted by Ethereum, and has come under increasing criticism for its environmental impact: Bitcoin miners now use as much electricity as some small nations. Along with being greener and faster, proponents say the switch, now planned to be phased in by early 2022, will illustrate another difference between Ethereum and Bitcoin: A willingness to change, and to see the network as a product of community as much as code.
[…]
the system’s electricity usage is now enormous: Researchers at Cambridge University say that the Bitcoin network’s annual electric bill often exceeds that of countries such as Chile and Bangladesh. This has led to calls from environmentally conscious investors, including cryptocurrency booster Elon Musk and others, to shun Bitcoin and Ethereum and any coins that use proof of work. It’s also led to a growing dominance by huge, centralized mining farms that’s antithetical to a system that was designed to be decentralized, since a blockchain could in theory be rewritten by a party that controlled a majority of mining power.
[…]
The idea behind proof of stake is that the blockchain can be secured more simply if you give a group of people carrot-and-stick incentives to collaborate in checking and crosschecking transactions. It works like this:
* Anyone who puts up, or stakes, 32 Ether can take part. (Ether, the coin used to operate the Ethereum system, reached values of over $4,000 in May.)
* People in that pool are chosen at random to be “validators” of a batch of transactions, a role that requires them to order the transactions and propose the resulting block to the network.
* Validators share that new chunk of blockchain with a group of members of the pool who are chosen to be “attestors.” A minimum of 128 attestors are required for any given block procedure.
* The attestors review the validator’s work and either accept it or reject it. If it’s accepted, both the validators and the attestors are given free Ether.
5. What are the system’s advantages?
It’s thought that switching to proof of stake would cuts Ethereum’s energy use, estimated at 45,000 gigawatt hours by 99.9%. Like any other venture depending on cloud computing, its carbon footprint would then be only be that of its servers. It also is expected to increase the network speed. That’s important for Ethereum, which has ambitions of becoming a platform for a vast range of financial and commercial transactions. Currently, Ethereum handles about 30 transactions per second. With sharding, Vitalik Buterin, the inventor of Ethereum, thinks that could go to 100,000 per second.
6. What are its downsides?
In a proof of stake system, it would be harder than in a proof of work system for a group to gain control of the process, but it would still be possible: The more Ether a person or group stakes, the better the chance of being chosen as a validator or attestor. Economic disincentives have been put in place to dissuade behavior that is bad for the network. A validator that tries to manipulate the process could lose part of the 32 Ether they have staked, for example. Wilson Withiam, a senior research analyst at Messari, a crypto research firm, who specializes in blockchain protocols, said the problem lies at the heart of the challenge of decentralized systems. “This is one of the most important questions going forward,” he said. “How do you help democratize the staking system?”
7. How else is Ethereum changing?
The most recent change was called the London hard fork, which went into effect in early August. The biggest change to the Ethereum blockchain since 2015, the London hard fork included a fee reduction feature called EIP 1559. The fee cut reduces the supply of Ether as part of every transaction, creating the possibility that Ethereum could become deflationary. As of mid-August, 3.2 ether per minute were being destroyed because of EIP 1559, according to tracking website ultrasound.money. That could put upward pressure on the price of Ether going forward. Another change in the works is called sharding, which will divide the Ethereum network into 64 geographic regions. Transactions within a shard would be processed separately, and the results would then be reconciled with a main network linked to all the other shards, making the overall network much faster.
The Open App Markets Act, which is being spearheaded by Sens. Richard Blumenthal, and Marsha Blackburn, is designed to crack down on some of the scummiest tactics tech players use to rule their respective app ecosystems, while giving users the power to download the apps they want, from the app stores they want, without retaliation.
“For years, Apple and Google have squashed competitors and kept consumers in the dark—pocketing hefty windfalls while acting as supposedly benevolent gatekeepers of this multibillion-dollar market,” Blumenthal told the Wall Street Journal. As he put it, this bill is tailor-made to “break these tech giants’ ironclad grip open the app economy to new competitors and give mobile users more control over their own devices.”
The antitrust issues facing both of these companies—along with fellow tech giants like Facebook and Amazon—have come to a boiling point on Capitol Hill over the past year. We’ve seen lawmakers roll out bill after bill meant to target some of the most lucrative monopolies these companies hold: Amazon’s marketplace, Facebook’s collection of platforms, and, of course, Apple and Google’s respective app stores. Last month, three dozen state attorneys general levied a fresh antitrust suit against Google for the Play Store fees forced on app developers. Meanwhile, Apple is still in a heated legal battle with Epic Games over its own mandated commissions, which can take up to 30% from every in-app purchase users make.
Blumenthal and Blackburn target these fees specifically. The bill would prohibit app stores from requiring that developers use their payment systems, for example. It would also prevent app stores from retaliating against developers who try to implement payment systems of their own, which is the exact scenario that got Epic booted from the App Store last summer.
On top of this, the bill would require that devices allow app sideloading by default. Google’s allowed this practice for a while, but this month started taking steps to narrow the publishing formats developers could use. Apple hardware, meanwhile, has never been sideload-friendly—a choice that’s meant to uphold the “privacy initiatives” baked into the App Store, according to Apple CEO Tim Cook.
Here are some other practices outlawed by the Open App Markets Act: Apple, Google, or any other app store owner would be barred from using a developer’s proprietary app intel to develop their own competing product. They’d also be barred from applying ranking algorithms that rank their own apps over those of their competitors. Users, meanwhile, would (finally) need to be given choices of the app store they can use on their device, instead of being pigeonholed into Apple’s App Store or Google’s Play Store.
Like all bills, this new legislation still needs to go through the regulatory churn before it has any hope of passing, and it might look like a very different set of rules by the time it finally does. But at this point, antitrust action is going to come for these companies whether they like it or not.
Google Pay is an online paying system and digital wallet that makes it easy to buy anything on your mobile device or with your mobile device. But if you’re concerned about what Google is doing with all your data (which you probably should be), Google doesn’t make it easy for Google Pay has some secret settings to manage your settings.
A report from Bleeping Computer shows that privacy settings aren’t available through the main Google Pay setting page that is accessible through the navigation sidebar.
On that screen, users can adjust all the same settings available on the other settings page, but they can also address three additional privacy settings—controlling whether Google Pay is allowed to share account information, personal information, and creditworthiness.
Here’s the full language of those three options:
-Allow Google Payment Corporation to share third party creditworthiness information about you with other companies owned and controlled by Google LLC for their everyday business purposes.
-Allow your personal information to be used by other companies owned and controlled by Google LLC to market to you. Opting out here does not impact whether other companies owned and controlled by Google LLC can market to you based on information you provide to them outside of Google Payment Corporation.
-Allow Google LLC or its affiliates to inform a third party merchant, whose site or app you visit, whether you have a Google Payments account that can be used for payment to that merchant. Opting out may impact your ability to use Google Payments to transact with certain third party merchants.
According to Bleeping Computer, the default of Google Pay is to enable all the above settings. In order to opt out, users have to go to the special URL that is not accessible through the navigation bar.
As the Reddit post that inspired the Bleeping Computer report claims, this discrepancy makes it appear that Google Pay is hiding its privacy options. “Google is not walking the talk when it claims to make it easy for their users to control the privacy and use of their own data,” the Redditor surmised.
A Google spokesperson told Gizmodo they’re working to make the privacy settings more accessible. “The different settings views described here are an issue resulting from a previous software update and we are working to fix this right away so that these privacy settings are always visible on pay.google.com,” the spokesperson told Gizmodo.
“All users are currently able to access these privacy settings via the ‘Google Payments privacy settings page’ link in the Google Pay privacy notice.”
Here’s hoping that my bank can set up it’s own version of Google Pay instead of integrating with it. I definitely don’t want Google or Apple getting their grubby little paws on my financial data.
Pfizer is raising the price of its covid-19 vaccine in Europe by over 25% under a newly negotiated contract with the European Union, according to a report from the Financial Times. Competitor Moderna is also hiking the price of its vaccine in Europe by roughly 10%.
Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine is already expected to generate the most revenue of any drug in a single year—about $33.5 billion for 2021 alone, according to the pharmaceutical company’s own estimates. But the company says it’s providing poorer countries the vaccine at a highly discounted price.
Pfizer previously charged the European Union €15.50 per dose for its vaccine ($18.40), which is based on new mRNA technology. The company will now charge €19.50 ($23.15) for 2.1 billion doses that will be delivered through the year 2023, according to the Financial Times.
Moderna previously charged the EU $22.60 per dose but will now get $25.50 per dose. That new price is actually lower than first anticipated, according to the Financial Times, because the EU adjusted its initial order to get more doses.
[…]
While most drug companies like Pfizer and Moderna are selling their covid-19 vaccines at a profit—even China’s Sinovac vaccine is being sold to make money— the UK’s AstraZeneca vaccine is being sold at cost. But AstraZeneca has suffered from poor press after a few dozen people around the world died from blood clots believed to be related to the British vaccine. As it turns out, Pfizer’s blood clot risk is “similar” to AstraZeneca according to a new study and your risk from dying of covid-19 is much higher than dying from any vaccine.
[…]
“The Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine contributed $7.8 billion in global revenues during the second quarter, and we continue to sign agreements with governments around the world,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said last week.
But Bourla was careful to note that Pfizer is providing the vaccine at discounted rates for poorer countries.
“We anticipate that a significant amount of our remaining 2021 vaccine manufacturing capacity will be delivered to middle- and low-income countries where we price in line with income levels or at a not-for-profit price,” Bourla said.
“In fact, we are on track to deliver on our commitment to provide this year more than one billion doses, or approximately 40% of our total production, to middle- and low-income countries, and another one billion in 2022,” Boula continued.
Incredible that this amount of profit can be generated through need. These vaccines should have been taken up and mass produced in India or wherever and thrown around the entire world for the safety of all the people living in it.
Chinese antitrust watchdog, State Administration of Market Supervision (SAMR), announced Tuesday it has started investigating price gouging in the automotive chip market.
The regulatory body promised to strengthen supervision and punish illegal acts such as hoarding, price hikes and collusive price increases. SAMR singled out distributors as the object of its ire.
In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, prices for items such as hand sanitizer, face masks, toilet paper and other health-related items saw startling inflation that required legal intervention.
As the pandemic wore on and work from home kit became a necessity, the world saw a new kind of shortages: semiconductors.
The automotive industry was hit particularly hard by the shortage, largely because its procurement practices sent it to the back of the queue. The industry has since endured factory shutdowns and reduced levels of vehicle production – which, given cars have long supply chains, is not the sort of thing anyone needs during difficult economic times.
Chinese entrepreneurs are clearly alive to the opportunities the silicon shortage presents. Last month several Chinese would-be bootleggers were caught smuggling the critical tech with tactics like taping US$123,000 worth of product to their calves and torso or hiding them in their vehicle as they attempted to cross borders.
Analyst firm Gartner has predicted semiconductor shortages will remain moderate to severe for the rest of 2021 and continue until the second quarter of 2022. Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC has said shortages will continue until 2023.
The Register imagines that those that can influence chip prices in China, and elsewhere, will continue to try their luck until demand deflates. Or until SAMR gets a grip on regulation, whichever comes first
The Chinese regulators are doing a way better job than the EU and US in terms of price gauging and monopolies. Maybe the EU and US shouldn’t let big companies lobbying determine their courses of action.
Nvidia’s Shield TVs are some of the best streaming video boxes on the market, but following a recent update to Android TV, Shield TV users are starting to see ads on their home screen and they aren’t happy about it.
The latest update to Android TV on Shield TV devices began rolling out earlier this month and featured a small UI redesign that added large banner images to Android TV’s home screen, similar to what you get when using Google TV devices like the Chromecast with Google TV.
Now technically, Google calls these banner images “recommendations,” as they are regularly updated and rotated to help users find new streaming content Google thinks they might enjoy. However, a number of Shield TV users consider these images to be advertisements (especially when they recommend shows on services users aren’t even subscribed to), and as such, have taken to showing their displeasure with the recent update by review bombing the listing for the Android TV Home app, which now has a one-star rating across more than 800 reviews.
[…]
As seen in a number of reviews and complaints on Reddit, many Shield TV users are unhappy about the way Google has killed off Android TV’s previously minimalist design by implementing intrusive banner ads that take up significantly more space, particularly on what is supposed to be a premium streaming device that goes for $150 or $200 depending on the model.
[…]
But more importantly, the addition of new banner images in Android TV is merely just one example of a growing trend in which major OS makers have begun inserting ads in a number of devices from smartphones to smart TVs. Sometimes these ads are presented as tools to help users find new content, while in other situations (like on Samsung phones), ads can appear as unwanted notifications alerting users about a newly announced Samsung device or service.
[…]
Unfortunately, oftentimes there’s no easy way to get rid of the ads, which causes user dissatisfaction or may even eventually drive users away from their current devices or platforms. But the real sad part is that until users make enough noise or cause a company’s sales to drop, it’s hard to say when this trend of seeing more and more ads in modern gadgets will stop.
The argument for ads everywhere was that as you were accessing a free service, it had to be paid for by advertising. These products have all been paid for though and as such belong to you. The manufacturer has no business being on these products trying to monetise something you own even further.
A Which? investigation has found that printer ink is one of the most expensive liquids consumers can purchase when bought from the big inkjet printer manufacturers – and people could save a small fortune by opting for third-party alternatives.
Which? research has uncovered that inkjet printer ink bought from the manufacturer could be up to 286 per cent more expensive than third-party ink and could easily lead to consumers paying hundreds more than they need to over a five-year period.
During the pandemic, printer ink has become an essential as households across the country have been forced to rely on their home printer for work and homeschooling.
However, many are unaware that they are paying over the odds by buying printer ink from their printer’s manufacturer – and the costs quickly stack up.
The consumer champion surveyed more than 10,000 consumers who own inkjet printers to find out about their experiences with original-branded and third-party inks.
Just over half (56%) of inkjet printer owners said they stick with using potentially pricey original-branded cartridges every time.
Which? assessed the cost of original-branded and third-party ink for the Epson WorkForce WF-7210DTW printer. A multipack of colour ink (cyan, magenta, yellow) costs £75.49 from Epson. This works out at an astonishing £2,410 a litre – or £1,369 for a pint.
The Epson printer also requires a separate Epson black cartridge (£31.99), bringing the total cost of a single original-branded ink refill to £107.48.
On the other hand, restocking with a full set of black and colour inks from the highest-rated third-party supplier in the consumer champion’s survey would cost just £10.99.
[…]
It is not just Epson’s ink prices that are sky high, either. Brother, Canon and HP also charge huge prices for cartridges.
A multipack of ink for the Brother MFCJ5730DW cost £98.39 compared to just £29.21 from the cheapest third-party alternative – a price difference of £1,037 over five years assuming the full set of cartridges were replaced three times each year.
Similarly, a full set of original-branded, high-yield cartridges for a Canon Pixma MX475 costs £80.98 compared to just £12.95 from the cheapest third-party ink supplier- a difference of £68.13 for each purchase, or £1,021 over five years assuming the full set of cartridges were replaced three times each year.
The price difference between own-brand and one of the third-party inks Which? looked at for the HP Officejet 6950 would leave consumers £705 out of pocket over a five-year period assuming the full set of cartridges were replaced three times a year. For a single refill, own-branded inks for the HP 903XL total £91.96 for both black and colour cartridges and just £44.99 from a third-party retailer.
Some HP printers use a system called ‘dynamic security’ which recognises cartridges that use non-HP chips and stops them from working. Over the course of its testing programme, Which? has found 28 HP printers that use this technology.
Other manufacturers use similar tactics such as promoting the use of ‘approved’, ‘original’ or ‘guaranteed’ cartridges on their websites and in instruction manuals. For example, the Epson printer Which? tested flashed up a ‘non-genuine ink detected’ alert on its LCD screen whenever we inserted third-party cartridges.
It is highly concerning that manufacturers are discouraging consumers from using third-party inks – and that some HP printers are actively blocking customers from exerting their right to choose the cheapest ink.
Because of these practices, consumers are understandably confused and concerned about using non-manufacturer inks. Two in five (39%) of the people we surveyed who do not use third-party cartridges said they avoided them because they thought they would not work in their printer.
[…]
“Printer ink shouldn’t cost more than a bottle of high-end champagne or Chanel No5. We’ve found that there are lots of third-party products that are outperforming their branded counterparts at a fraction of the cost.
“Choosing third-party ink should be a personal choice and not dictated by the make of your printer. Which? will continue to make consumers aware of the staggering cost differences between own-brand and third-party inks and give people the information they need to buy the best ink for their printer.”
So basically that’s a practical monopoly on printer ink then. This is a saga that’s been going on for decades but the price increase recently has been insane!
You can spot a veteran of the Browser Wars a mile off. These fearsome conflicts, fought across the desktops of the world not 20 years ago, left deep scars.
[…]
By Gen XP, it was all over and the internet desktop was under total Empire control. Then came the Rebel Alliance of Chrome and Firefox, and in a few short years we were liberated.
Like every peacetime generation, those since have forgotten the conflict. They assume that freedom is here by right. The desktop is an antique battleground, as obsolete as warships in the Baltic. We are mobile, we are cloud, all places where access lock-in is baked out.
[…]
the new superweapon you’ll get for free is Microsoft Teams, which is now super-snugly installed on the Windows 11 desktop and just a click away from easy-peasy sign-on to the Empire. Everything else that MS really wants you to use – OneDrive, Office 365, those blasted widgets – you can do away with. Teams? Ah, not so much. Teams is there, ostensibly, to talk to other people, and if they’re on Teams you have to use it too. Documents, spreadsheets, files of all sorts – a OneDrive, Office 365 user can swap stuff with your Google Drive and apps.
[…]
What makes the conferencing space as tempting a resource as Mesopotamian oil fields to the Great Powers? It’s the same as the Browser Wars – those who control the conversation between humans and the digital control the world. Every file you share, every connection made, every link swapped, is treasure to be collected. It’s all funnelled together automatically. Watch as in-Teams access channels spring up across businesses for helplines, content accumulators, special offer conduits, payment systems.
The long trail of interactions between conferencing system users, each other, and their resources, produces a rich seam of ready-to-mine behaviour that, because it is so task-focused, is massively monetisable.
[…]
This is a terrible prospect, not just for Slack but for everyone. IE6’s reign was marked by stagnation; all companies see spending development resources for a monopoly service as waste. It had its slave army toiling in the factory, they should be grateful for what they get. And if you think Teams is less fun than tickling the tonsils of a decomposing turbot, wait until Microsoft has settled in to enjoy its new monopoly.
What saved the world were internet open standards – Microsoft couldn’t manage that lock-in, hard as it tried. This time, the standards don’t exist or where they do, they’re not used by the big players, who control the whole chain end-to-end. Third-party endpoints are not allowed. So it doesn’t matter if you’re on a non-MS desktop or a mobile device, you’ll have to use the Microsoft app.
The mastermind behind what the government says is one of the largest cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes prosecuted in the US has been sentenced to 15 years in prison. While crypto scams have been getting increasingly common, Swedish citizen Roger Nils-Jonas Karlsson defrauded thousands of victims and stole tens of millions of dollars over a period that lasted almost a decade. He pleaded guilty to securities and wire fraud, as well as money laundering charges on March 4th.
According to the Department of Justice, Karlsson ran his fraudulent investment scheme from 2011 until he was arrested in Thailand in 2019. He targeted financially insecure individuals, such as seniors, persuading them to use cryptocurrency to purchase shares in a business he called “Eastern Metal Securities.” Based on information from court documents, he promised victims huge payouts tied to the price of gold, but the money they handed over wasn’t invested at all. It was moved to Karlsson’s personal bank accounts instead and used to purchase expensive homes and even resorts in Thailand.
To keep his scheme running for almost a decade, he’d rebrand and would show victims account statements in an effort to convince them that their funds are secure. Karlsson would then give them various excuses for payout delays and even falsely claimed to be working with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the sentencing, US District Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered his Thai resorts and accounts to be forfeited. He was also ordered to pay his victims in the amount of $16,263,820.
Acting US Attorney Stephanie Hinds of the Northern District of California said:
“The investigation into Roger Karlsson’s fraud uncovered a frighteningly callous scheme that lasted more than a decade during which Karlsson targeted thousands of victims, including financially vulnerable seniors, to callously rob them of their assets and all to fuel an extravagant lifestyle surrounded by luxury condominiums and lavish international vacations. The court’s decision to order a 180-month prison term reflects the fact that Karlsson’s cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme is one of the largest to be sentenced to date and ensures that Karlsson now will have plenty of time to think about the harm he has caused to his victims.”
As expected, Google is facing a fresh legal assault regarding its Play Store, the 30 per cent cut it took from developers’ revenues via the software souk, and other rules and restrictions.
In an antitrust lawsuit [PDF] filed in a federal district court in San Francisco on Wednesday, 36 US states and commonwealths, plus Washington DC, alleged Google ran roughshod over the Sherman Act, screwing over users and software makers by abusing its monopoly on Android and the distribution of apps.
Those states include New York, California, Florida, Washington, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Arizona, though not Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, nor Illinois, among others. There doesn’t appear to be an obvious partisan split.
The complaint is wide-ranging and extensive, from criticizing Google’s commission from app and in-app purchases and that it must handle payments, to undue pressure on phone makers, to a ban on advertising by non-Play stores on Google’s web properties, like YouTube, and more.
[…]
In March, Google dropped its cut of app sales from 30 to 15 per cent for the first $1m a developer makes. The move mirrored a similar decision by Apple last year, matching the same terms almost exactly. This was not enough, it seems, to hold off attorneys general.
TikTok’s AI is no longer a secret — in fact, it’s now on the open market. The Financial Times has learned that parent company ByteDance quietly launched a BytePlus division that sells TikTok technology, including the recommendation algorithm. Customers can also buy computer vision tech, real-time effects and automated translations, among other features.
BytePlus debuted in June and is based in Singapore, although it has presences in Hong Kong and London. The company is looking to register trademarks in the US, although it’s not certain if the firm has an American presence at this stage.
There are already at least a few customers. The American fashion app Goat is already using BytePlus code, as are the Indonesian online shopping company Chilibeli and the travel site WeGo.
ByteDance wouldn’t comment on its plans for BytePlus.
A move like this wouldn’t be surprising, even if it might remove some of TikTok’s cachet. It could help ByteDance compete with Amazon, Microsoft and other companies selling behind-the-scenes tools to businesses. It might also serve as a hedge. TikTok and its Chinese counterpart Douyin might be close to plateauing, and selling their tech could keep the money flowing.
The Federal Trade Commission has filed charges against Broadcom over allegations that the chip maker monopolized the market for semiconductor components, the agency announced Friday.
According to the commission’s complaint, Broadcom entered into long-term exclusivity and loyalty agreements with both original equipment manufacturers and service providers to prevent them from buying chips from Broadcom’s rivals. The FTC’s investigation, which dates back years, found that Broadcom had been making “exclusive or near-exclusive” deals since 2016 with at least 10 manufacturers of TV set-top boxes and broadband devices. The company also threatened customers who used a rival’s product with retaliation, with nonexclusive customers facing higher prices for slower delivery times and less responsive customer support, the FTC claims.
“By entering exclusivity and loyalty agreements with key customers at two levels of the supply chain, Broadcom created insurmountable barriers for companies trying to compete with Broadcom,” the agency said in a press release Friday.
The FTC said that under a proposed consent order, Broadcom must stop engaging in these kinds of contracts and conditioning access to its chips based on exclusivity or loyalty deals. Broadcom would also be prohibited from retaliating against customers that do business with its competitors.
[…]
The proposed consent order is still subject to a public comment period and a final commission review. For its part, Broadcom has pushed back against the FTC’s allegations while also indicating that it’s willing to cooperate on a settlement. The company resolved a similar antitrust dispute with the European Union last October in which it agreed to stop pushing exclusivity arrangements for chips used in TV set-top boxes and modems for the next seven years.
