Blockchain: Adoption Lag Lies in the Implementation
April 15, 2025
Why haven’t cryptocurrencies taken over the financial world yet? The Observer shares some theories in, "Blockchain’s Billion-Dollar Blunder: How Finance’s Tech Revolution Became an Awkward Evolution." Writer Boris Bohrer-Bilowitzki believes the mistake was trying to reinvent the wheel, instead of augmenting it. He observes:
"For years, the strategy has been replacement rather than integration. We’ve attempted to create entirely new financial systems from scratch, expecting the world to abandon centuries of established infrastructure overnight. It hasn’t worked, and it won’t work. … This disconnect highlights our fundamental misunderstanding of how technological evolution works. Credit cards didn’t replace cash; they complemented it. They added a layer of convenience and security that made transactions easier while working within the existing financial framework. That’s the model blockchain has always needed to follow."
Gee, it makes sense when you put it that way. The write-up points to Swift as an organization that gets it. We learn:
"One of the most promising developments in this space is the international banking system SWIFT’s ongoing blockchain pilot program. In 2025, SWIFT will facilitate live trials, enabling central and commercial banks across North America, Europe and Asia to conduct digital asset transactions on its network. These trials aim to explore how blockchain can enhance payments, foreign exchange (FX), securities trading and trade finance without requiring banks to overhaul their systems."
That sounds promising. But what about consumers? Many are baffled by the very concept of cryptocurrency, never mind how to interact with it. Intuitive interfaces, Bohrer-Bilowitzki stresses, would remove that hurdle. After all, he notes, folks only embrace new technologies that make their lives easier.
Did the esteemed Observer overlook these blockchain downsides?
- Distributed autonomous organizations look more like Discord groups and club members
- Wonky reward layers
- Funding “hopes” is losing some traction
- Web3 seems to filled with janky STARs.
Novelty alone is not enough to drive large-scale adoption. Imagine that.
Cynthia Murrell, April 16, 2025
Stanford AI Report: Credible or Just Marketing?
April 14, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby sharing an observation about younger managers and their innocence.
I am not sure I believe reports or much of anything from Stanford University. Let me explain my skepticism. Here’s one of the snips a quick search provided:
I think it was William James said great things about Stanford University when he bumped into the distinguished outfit. If Billie was cranking out Substacks, he would probably be quite careful in using words like “leadership,” “ethical behavior,” and the moral sanctity of big thinkers. Presidents don’t get hired like a temporary worker in front of Home Depot. There is a process, and it quite clear the process and the people and cultural process at the university failed. Failed spectacularly.
Stanford hired and retained a cheater if the news reports are accurate.
Now let’s look at “The 2025 AI Index Report.”
The document’s tone is one of lofty pronouncements.
Stanford mixes comments about smart software with statements like “
Global AI optimism is rising—but deep regional divides remain.
Yep, I would submit that AI-equipped weapons are examples of “regional divides.”
I think this report is:
- Marketing for Stanford’s smart software activities
- A reminder that another country (China) is getting really capable in smart software and may zip right past the noodlers in the Gates Computer Science Building
- Stanford wants to be a thought leader which helps the “image” of the school, the students, the faculty, and the wretches in fund raising who face a tough slog in the years ahead.
For me personally, I think the “report” should be viewed with skepticism. Why? A university which hires a cheater makes quite clear that the silly notions of William James are irrelevant.
I am not sure they are.
Stephen E Arnold, April 14, 2025
Paragon: Specialized Software Revealed
April 14, 2025
It can be difficult to get information about spyware and the firms that produce it. That is why we welcome the report, “Virtue or Vice? A First Look at Paragon’s Proliferating Spyware Operations” from University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab. The detailed report gives a brief background on the company and a thorough map of its spyware infrastructure. Eye-opening. We learn about the effort by Meta and WhatsApp to thwart a Paragon zero-click exploit. The lab also shares details from its investigations into links between Paragon and the Italian and Canadian governments. See the article for all the details.
The report’s conclusion? “You Can’t Abuse-Proof Mercenary Spyware.” The authors emphasize:
“Paragon specifically courts media attention with claims that by only selling to a select group of governments, they can avoid the abuse scandals plaguing their peers. The implicit message: if you do not sell to autocrats, your product will not be used recklessly and in anti-democratic ways. History, however, shows us that this is not always the case. Many democratic states have histories of using secret surveillance powers and technologies against journalists and members of civil society. Mercenary spyware is no exception, with multiple democracies deploying spyware against journalists, human rights defenders, and other members of civil society. Indeed, organizations working against the proliferation and abuse of spyware, including the Citizen Lab, have warned that the temptation to use this technology in a rights-abusing way is so great that, even in democracies, it will be abused. Overall, the cases described in this report suggest that Paragon’s claims of having found an abuse-proof business model may not hold up to scrutiny. We acknowledge that this report does not seek to cover the totality of Paragon cases, but rather a set of cases where targets have chosen to come forward at this time and in our report. However, the pattern in these cases challenges Paragon’s marketing approach which has claimed that the company would only sell to clients that ‘abide by international norms and respect fundamental rights and freedoms.’”
Quite a surprise. The researchers are not stopping here. On the contrary, they describe this report as a first step. We look forward to hearing what they find next.
Cynthia Murrell, April 14, 2025
Programming in an AI World: Spruiked Again Like We Were Last Summer
April 14, 2025
Software engineers are, reasonably, concerned about losing their jobs to AI. Australian blogger Clinton Boys asks, "How Will LLMs Take Our Jobs?" After reading several posts by programmers using LLMs for side projects, he believes such accounts suggest where we are headed. He writes:
"The consensus seems to be that rather than a side project being some sort of idea you have, then spend a couple of hours on, maybe learn a few things, but quickly get distracted by life or a new side project, you can now just chuck your idea into the model and after a couple of hours of iterating you have a working project. To me, this all seems to point to the fact that we are currently in the middle of a significant paradigm shift, akin to the transition from writing assembly to compiled programming languages. A potential future is unfolding before our eyes in which programmers don’t write in programming languages anymore, but write in natural language, and generative AI handles the gruntwork of actually writing the code, the same way a compiler translates your C code into machine instructions."
Perhaps. But then, he ponders, will the job even fit the title of "engineer"? Will the challenges and creative potential many love about this career vanish? And what would they do then? Boys suggests several routes one might take, with the caveat that a realistic path forward would probably blend several of these. He recognizes one could simply give up and choose a different career entirely. An understandable choice, if one can afford to start over. If not, one might join the AI cavalcade by learning how to create LLMs and/or derive value from them. It may also be wise to climb the corporate ladder—managers should be safer longer, Boys expects. Then again one might play ostrich:
"You could also cross your fingers and hope it pans out differently — particularly if, like me you find the vision of the future spruiked by the most bullish LLM proponents a little ghoulish and offensive to our collective humanity."
Always an option, we suppose. I had to look up the Australian term "spruik." According to Wordsmith.org, it means "to make an elaborate speech, especially to attract customers." Fitting. Finally, Boys says, one could bet on software connoisseurs of the future. Much as some now pay more for hand-made pastries or small-batch IPAs, some clients may be willing to shell out for software crafted the old-fashioned way. One can hope.
Cynthia Murrell, April 14, 2025
Ad Blockers and a Googley Consequence
April 11, 2025
Another dinobaby blog post. Eight decades and still thrilled when I point out foibles.
Motivated individuals are acting in a manner usually associated with Cloudflare-type of outfits. The idea of a “man in the middle” is a good one. It works when one buys something from Amazon. The user wants convenience and does not take the time to hunt around for a better or cheaper version of a particular product.
“Block YouTube Ads on AppleTV by Decrypting and Stripping Ads from Profobuf” provides a recipe for dumping advertisements in some streaming services, but the spotlight is on the lovable Google and Apple’s streaming device. (Poor Apple. Like its misfiring AI and definitely interesting glasses, the company caught a bright person’s attention.)
Social media needs two things: Beacons that phone home and advertising because how else is a company going to push products and services. The write up provides step-by-step instructions for chopping out ads from two big outfits.
Here’s what I think will happen at the monopolies:
- At least two software people will tackle this “problem”: One from Apple and one from Google.
- One will come up with a “fix” to the work-around
- The “fix” will be shared with the company who did not come up with an enhancement first
- The modified method will be deployed
- The game begins again.
The cat-and-mouse sequence is little more than that von Neumann game theory just in real life with money at stake. It’s too bad Johnny and his pals (some of whom were quite quirky) are not around to work on ad blocking instead of nuclear weapons.
Well, Johnny isn’t around, and I think that game theory does not work when one battles multi billion dollar monopolies with lots of reasonably bright people around providing they aren’t veterans of the Apple AI team or the original Google Glass product.
The write up is interesting. I admire the effort the author put into the blocking. How long will it persist? Good question, but the next iteration will probably be designed to preserve the money flow. Ads and user tracking are the means to the end: Big revenue.
Stephen E Arnold, April 11, 2025
Trapped in the Cyber Security Gym with Broken Gear?
April 11, 2025
As an IT worker you can fall into more pitfalls than a road that needs repaving. Mac Chaffee shared a new trap on his blog, Mac’s Tech Blog and how he handled: “Avoid Building A Security Treadmill.” Chaffee wrote that he received a ticket that asked him to stop people from using a GPU service to mine cryptocurrencies. Chafee used Falco, an eBPF-powered agent that runs on the Kubernetes cluster, to monitor the spot and deactivate the digital mining.
Chaffee doesn’t mind the complexity of the solution. His biggest issue was with the “security treadmill” that he defines as:
“A security treadmill1 is a piece of software that, due to a weakness of design, requires constant patching to keep it secure. Isn’t that just all software? Honestly… kinda, yeah, but a true treadmill is self-inflicted. You bought it, assembled it, and put it in your spare bedroom; a device specifically designed to let you walk/run forever without making forward progress.”
One solution suggested to Chaffee was charging people to use the GPU. The idea was that if they charged people more to use the GPU than what they were making with cryptocurrencies than it would stop. That idea wasn’t followed of reasons Chaffee wasn’t told, so Falco was flown.
Unfortunately Falco only detects network traffic to host when its directly connected to the IP. The security treadmill was in full swing because users were bypassing the Internet filter monitored by Falco. Falco needs to be upgraded to catch new techniques that include a VPN or proxy.
Another way to block cryptocurrency mining is blocking all outbound traffic except for those an allowed-user list. It would also prevent malware attacks, command and control servers, and exfiltration attacks. Another problem Chaffee noted is that applications doesn’t need a full POSIX environment. To combat this he suggests:
“Perhaps free-tier users of these GPUs could have been restricted to running specific demos, or restrictive timeouts for GPU processing times, or denying disk write access to prevent downloading miners, or denying the ability to execute files outside of a read-only area.”
Chaffee declares it’s time to upgrade legacy applications or make them obsolete to avoid security treadmills. It sounds like there’s a niche to make a startup there. What a thought a Planet Fitness with one functioning treadmill.
Whitney Grace, April 11, 2025
The UK, the Postal Operation, and Computers
April 11, 2025
According to the Post Office Scandal, there’s a new amendment in Parliament that questions how machines work: “Proposed Amendment To Legal Presumption About The Reliability Of Computers.”
Journalist Tom Webb specializes in data protection and he informed author Nick Wallis about an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that is running through the British Parliament. The amendment questions:
“It concerns the legal presumption that “mechanical instruments” (which seems to be taken to include computer networks) are working properly if they look to the user like they’re working properly.”
Wallis has chronicled the problems associated with machines appearing to work properly since barrister Stephen Mason reported the issue to him. Barrister Mason is fighting on behalf of the British Post Office Scandal (which is another story) about the this flawed thinking and its legal implication. Here’s more on what the problem is:
“Although the “mechanical instruments” presumption has never, to the best of my knowledge, been quoted in any civil or criminal proceedings involving a Subpostmaster, it has been said to effectively reverse the burden of proof on anyone who might be convicted using digital evidence. The logic being if the courts are going to assume a computer was working fine at the time an offence allegedly occurred because it looked like it was working fine, it is then down to the defendant to prove that it was not working fine. This can be extremely difficult to do (per the Seema Misra/Lee Castleton cases).”
The proposed amendment uses legal jargon to do the following:
“This amendment overturns the current legal assumption that evidence from computers is always reliable which has contributed to miscarriages of justice including the Horizon Scandal. It enables courts to ask questions of those submitting computer evidence about its reliability.”
This explanation means that just because the little light is blinking and the machine is doing something, those lights do not mean the computer is working correctly. Remarkable.
Whitney Grace, April 11, 2025
Meta a Great Company Lately?
April 10, 2025
Sorry, no AI used to create this item.
Despite Google’s attempt to flood the zone with AI this and AI that, Meta kept popping up in my newsfeed this morning (April 10, 2025). I pushed past the super confidential information from the US District Court of Northern District of California (an amazing and typically incoherent extract of super confidential information) and focused on a non-fiction author.
The Zuck – NSO Group dust up does not make much of a factoid described in considerable detail in Wikipedia. That encyclopedia entry is “Onavo.” In a nutshell, Facebook acquired a company which used techniques not widely known to obtain information about users of an encrypted app. Facebook’s awareness of Onavo took place, according to Wikipedia, prior to 2013 when Facebook purchased Onavo. My thought is that someone in the Facebook organization learned about other Israeli specialized software firms. Due to the high profile NSO Group had as a result of its participation in certain intelligence-related conferences and the relatively small community of specialized software developers in Israel, Facebook may have learned about the Big Kahuna, NSO Group. My personal view is that Facebook and probably more than a couple of curious engineers learned how specialized software purpose-built to cope with mobile phone data and were more than casually aware of systems and methods. The Meta – NSO Group dust up is an interesting case. Perhaps someday someone will write up how the Zuck precipitated a trial, which to an outsider, looks like a confused government-centric firm facing a teenagers with grudge. Will this legal matter turn a playground-type of argument about who is on whose team into an international kidney stone for the specialized software sector? For now, I want to pick up the Meta thread and talk about Washington, DC.
The Hill, an interesting publication about interesting institutions, published “Whistleblower Tells Senators That Meta Undermined U.S. Security, Interests.” The author is a former Zucker who worked as the director of global public policy at Facebook. If memory serves me, she labored at the estimable firm when Zuck was undergoing political awakening.
The Hill reports:
Wynn-Williams told Hawley’s panel that during her time at Meta: “Company executives lied about what they were doing with the Chinese Communist Party to employees, shareholders, Congress and the American public,” according to a copy of her remarks. Her most explosive claim is that she witnessed Meta executives decide to provide the Chinese Communist Party with access to user data, including the data of Americans. And she says she has the “documents” to back up her accusations.
After the Zuck attempted to block, prevent, thwart, or delete Ms. Wynn-Williams’ book Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism from seeing the light of a Kindle, I purchased the book. Silicon Valley tell-alls are usually somewhat entertaining. It is a mark of distinction for Ms. Wynn-Williams that she crafted a non-fiction write up that made me downright uncomfortable. Too much information about body functions and allegations about sharing information with a country not getting likes from too many people in certain Washington circles made me queasy. Dinobabies are often sensitive creatures unless they grow up to be Googzillas.
The Hill says:
Wynn-Williams testified that Meta started briefing the Chinese Communist party as early as 2015, and provided information about critical emerging technologies and artificial intelligence. “There’s a straight line you can draw from these briefings to the recent revelations that China is developing AI models for military use,” she said.
But isn’t open source AI software the future a voice in my head said?
What adds some zip to the appearance is this factoid from the article:
Wynn-Williams has filed a shareholder resolution asking the company’s board to investigate its activity in China and filed whistleblower complaints with the Securities and Exchange Administration and the Department of Justice.
I find it fascinating that on the West Coast, Facebook is unhappy with intelware being used on a Zuck-purchased service to obtain information about alleged persons of interest. About the same time, on the East coast, a former Zucker is asserting that the estimable social media company buddied up to a nation-state not particularly supportive of American interests.
Assuming that the Northern District court case is “real” and “actual factual” and that Ms. Wynn-Williams’ statements are “real” and “actual factual,” what can one hypothesize about the estimable Meta outfit? Here are my thoughts:
- Meta generates little windstorms of controversy. It doesn’t need to flood the zone with Google-style “look at us” revelations. Meta just stirs up storms.
- On the surface, Meta seems to have an interesting public posture. On one hand, the company wants to bring people together for good, etc. etc. On the other, the company could be seen as annoyed that a company used his acquired service to do data collection at odds with Meta’s own pristine approach to information.
- The tussles are not confined to tiny spaces. The West Coast matter concerns what I call intelware. When specialized software is no longer “secret,” the entire sector gets a bit of an uncomfortable feeling. Intelware is a global issue. Meta’s approach is in my opinion spilling outside the courtroom. The East Coast matter is another bigly problem. I suppose allegations of fraternization with a nation-state less than thrilled with the US approach to life could be seen as “small.” I think Ms. Wynn-Williams has a semi-large subject in focus.
Net net: [a] NSO Group cannot avoid publicity which could have an impact on a specialized software sector that should have remained in a file cabinet labeled “Secret.” [b] Ms. Wynn-Williams could have avoided sharing what struck me as confidential company information and some personal stuff as well. The book is more than a tell-all; it is a summary of what could be alleged intentional anti-US activity. [c] Online seems to be the core of innovation, finance, politics, and big money. Just forty five years ago, I wore bunny ears when I gave talks about the impact of online information. I called myself the Data Bunny. and, believe it or not, wore white bunny rabbit ears for a cheap laugh and make the technical information more approachable. Today many know online has impact. From a technical oddity used by fewer than 5,000 people to disruption of the specialized software sector by a much-loved organization chock full of Zuckers.
Stephen E Arnold, April 10, 2025
Extra Effort Required to Find Some Google Information
April 10, 2025
Dinobaby says, “No smart software involved. That’s for “real” journalists and pundits.
We are plugging along on a little project. As part of our checking assorted publicly accessible sources for being publicly accessible, we were delighted to verify that Exploit Database is alive and kicking. Plus, it appears to be current as of August 2024.
Since we are doing some poking around for information related to the newly-almost-free Pavel Durov, we were interested in the Google Hacking Database. You can locate that list of “Google dorks” at this link. The most recent additions or dorks provide some information about finding files containing passwords.
Here’s the little discovery. None of the almost 8,000 dorks are Telegram specific. However, many of the methods can be applied to Pavel Durov’s interesting outfit. We tried a handful and learned that Google’s index either is filtering Telegram-related content or simply does not make much of an effort to provide pointers to certain types of public Telegram information.
How does an analyst or researcher locate current, comprehensive information about bots, Groups, Channels, and third-party specialized services for that platform? That is an excellent question which leads to some Russian resources which are often presented in Russian, semi low profile outfits like Forbidden Stories.
Net net: OSINT professionals depend on Google. However, certain large services engaged in a wide range of activities require pushing beyond the Google and its ever-helpful smart software.
Stephen E Arnold, April 10, 2025
AI Horn Honking: Toot for Refact
April 10, 2025
What is one of the things we were taught in kindergarten? Oh, right. Humility. That, however, doesn’t apply when you’re in a job interview, selling a product, or writing a press release. Dev.to’s wrote a press release about their open source AI agent for programming in IDE was high ranking: “Our AI Agent + 3.7 Sonnet Ranked #1 Pn Aider’s Polyglot Bench — A 76.4% Score.”
As the title says, Dev.to’s open source AI programming agent ranked 76.4%. The agent is called Refact.ai and was upgraded with 3.7 Sonnet. It outperformed other AI agents, include Claude, Deepseek, ChatGPT, GPT-4.5 Preview, and Aider.
Refact.ai does better than the others because it is an intuitive AI agent. It uses a feedback loop to create self-learning and auto-correcting AI agent:
• “Writes code: The agent generates code based on the task description.
• Fixes errors: Runs automated checks for issues.
• Iterates: If problems are found, the agent corrects the code, fixes bugs, and re-tests until the task is successfully completed.
• Delivers the result, which will be correct most of the time!”
Dev.to has good reasons to pat itself on the back. Hopefully they will continue to develop and deliver high-performing AI agents.
Whitney Grace, April 10, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
