How Cryptocurrency Mining Works


This is oversimplified and doesn’t touch on all aspects of cryptocurrency. It’s just my take on it.

What does it mean to mine cryptocurrency?

Let me try to explain the relevant concepts of cryptocurrency first.

In usual currencies, e.g. the US dollar, there’s someone controlling and printing money, e.g. the US Treasury Department. Therefore it’s centralized.

A cryptocurrency is decentralized, means that it’s not controlled by any bank or government. How then do we print money for cryptocurrencies?

The solution: allow everyone to print money. But very slowly.

This is cryptocurrency mining.

To expand: to mine for cryptocurrency (e.g. bitcoin), someone has to download and run software that solves a meaningless but extremely computer-intensive maths problem, like what is the 1-billionth number behind the decimal place of the square root of 2? (Very wrong example but you get my gist). Someone (Mr. X) will have to run their computer for 1 hour to get this answer, and then the software will give them 1 bitcoin. Then the maths problem iterates to asking the 1-billionth and 1 number etc., and the solving goes on.

The bitcoin is now basically electronic money. Like usual currencies, it is traded in currency exchange markets, which will give you 1 bitcoin equals 100 US Dollars, which of course changes every second/minute/hour/day.

How does it help generate money for websites?

As you can see from the above, basically solving maths problems on computers will generate money.

How do I make it faster?

Solution 1: Buy a faster computer

This is already being done, and miners are buying so much that the supply of fast computers can’t keep up, and are now much more expensive than a year ago.

Solution 2: Use many computers

What if I can use computers that are not mine? Like other people’s computers? Some websites have found a way to make visitors of the websites run a program to solve the aforementioned maths problem for the website. It will run very slowly, but that doesn’t matter to the website owner, because he’ll now have millions of visitors running the program for him all at once.


Hopefully that was understandable. It doesn’t touch on many other aspects of cryptocurrency which is even more mind-boggling, but you’re right, it is a very futuristic concept and a whole paradigm shift in thinking about currency. So don’t worry about not understanding about it, you’re probably in the majority.

Language of Bipartisan “Bump-Stock Bill” Could Effectively Make All Modern Firearms Illegal

The bill that is ostensibly designed to ban bump-stock devices is gaining traction in the House of Representatives, thanks to the bipartisan group of legislators who are working on it. However, the bill is written in a terribly ambiguous way, that one could read into the text an effective ban on all semi-automatic weapons.

Late last week, I wrote about how the bill’s licentiously ambiguous language can be construed to mean that any combination of parts that is designed to make the rifle fire at a higher rate would become illegal. That means new trigger groups, bolt-carrier groups, gas blocks, charging handles, bolt release, mag release, etc. could fall under the bill’s language because the ambiguity (and that’s by design).

Rather than specifically targeting bump-stocks, the gun-grabbers made the language to be as expansive as possible, so that all sorts of things can be read into the language. Rather than letting the text speak for itself, by providing specific things that are clearly and properly promulgated, the bill is written with the explicit purpose of expanding their power over us, and providing themselves any sort of legal avenue possible to come after anything we do with our firearms.


In fact, it’s so bad that the language may even effectively prohibit all semi-automatic firearms, as Sean Davis discusses at The Federalist.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

With that in mind, no one should be surprised that’s the case. If you are surprised, you’re not paying attention.

The gun-grabbers will do anything possible to take your right to bear arms. They will use any loophole, any little obscure thing to attack you and your self-defense rights. They simply do not care if it’s unconstitutional, if you are innocent, or if it will do anything to stop more mass shootings.

They. Do. Not. Care.

One of the other issues that Sean Davis discussed was the fact that there are no grandfathering provisions included in the bill. Even if the enforcement agencies only targeted bump-stocks, there is not an enforcement method that does not run afoul of the prohibition of ex pos facto laws in Article I section ix of the Constitution, as I discussed last week.

It is because of that clause of the Constitution that all-out confiscation measures are doubly problematic for gun-grabbers; they cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and they cannot make laws that make a certain action retroactively illegal.

Possession of the devices would be illegal 90 days after the bill became law. Even if one had purchased the device legally, it would then become illegal to possess. The only way to legitimately enforce this law is by confiscation, by finding out sales records, searching those who have bought the devices. It’s simply a matter of fact.

But it just gets worse as one looks at the language of the bill. While the bill advocates for an explicitly unconstitutional ex post facto law, the language also enables one to read into it whatever they want regarding devices that enhance the rate of fire on a given firearm.

But alas, possession of the device will become illegal if the bill passes, even if the device was bought legally. Would there be just compensation if the feds mandate confiscation of these devices, as per the Fifth Amendment?

Don’t count on it; like I stated before, they do not care. They will do whatever possible to take away your guns. Though they have not yet, don’t doubt for a second that they will if given any chance whatsoever.


This bill is that chance. Do not let them take advantage of it.

From: The Federalist Papers

Media Silent As Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches is Being Pushed

As the mainstream media provides relentless coverage of the Harvey Weinstein Hollywood sex scandal, there is one major piece of legislation it is ignoring, and if passed, it will have massive repercussions for all Americans.

More than 40 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, have joined together to condemn the USA Liberty Act, a trendy name for a dangerous bill that reauthorizes and creates additional loopholes for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the coalition noted that one of the most obvious problems with the USA Liberty Act is that it fails to address concerns with the “backdoor search loophole,” which allows the government to conduct warrantless searches for the information of individuals who are not targets of Section 702, including U.S. citizens and residents.”

“The USA Liberty Act departs from the recommendation made by the President’s Review Group on Surveillance, appropriations amendments that have previously passed the House, and urgings of civil society organizations, which would have required a probable cause warrant prior to searching the Section 702 database for information about a U.S. citizen or resident absent narrow exceptions. As written, it raises several concerns. First, the bill’s most glaring deficiency is that it does not require a warrant to access content in cases where the primary purpose is to return foreign intelligence. This is an exception that threatens to swallow the rule.”

Not surprisingly, the USA Liberty Act claims that it will “better protect Americans’ privacy” by requiring the government to have “a legitimate national security purpose” before searching an individual’s database. Then when they do have that purpose established, they will be required to “obtain a court order based on probable cause to look at the content of communications, except when lives or safety are threatened, or a previous probable cause-based court order or warrant has been granted.”


However, as The Free Thought Project previously reported, what the USA Liberty Act does not advertise is the fact that the FBI’s “legitimate national security purpose” could be justified by just about any reason the agency chooses to give, and agents will only need supervisory authority in order to search Americans’ metadata.

As the coalition noted in its letter, “the bill’s current language leaves room for the government to conduct queries and access content for law enforcement purposes without a warrant,” which should be considered a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

“The current language does not make clear that the government must have a warrant to access content for law enforcement searches where the purpose may not be to specifically obtain evidence of a crime, or in cases where there may be a dual foreign intelligence and criminal purpose. As such, the bill could still permit the government to conduct queries and access content without a warrant in cases involving criminal investigations and prosecutions.”

The coalition also criticized the USA Liberty Act’s broad consent and emergency exceptions, noting that, “the emergency provision does not parallel analogous provisions in FISA and require imminence or that the government go back to the FISA court for a warrant after beginning the emergency surveillance.”

While the government claims the purpose of FISA is to allow surveillance on the communications of foreign targets who were suspected terrorists, it should be noted that the law has been used to spy on the communications of innocent Americans—despite the practice being ruled illegal—and any reauthorization of the law will only allow the practice to continue under the guise of “preventing terrorism.”

When the USA Patriot Act was passed in 2001, and the USA Freedom Act was passed in 2015, the U.S. government used fear-based propaganda disguised in the form of All-American titled legislation, which was spread without contest by the mainstream media. Section 702 is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2017, which means that Americans will likely see the same game come into play as the government prepares to pass the USA Liberty Act—a bill that is the opposite of its namesake.

Clinton Foundation and Presidential Campaign Financed by Sexual Predator

The Clinton Foundation will not return or re-donate any of the $250,000 it received from disgraced film producer and Democratic donor Harvey Weinstein, saying the funds have been spent already.

Democratic Party organizations have similarly been under pressure to return or donate money they received from Weinstein over the years. Some have donated the funds to organizations that work to combat sexual violence agains women, for example, but some have donated the money to Democratic Party-aligned groups.

Weinstein gave over $35,000 to Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, and leading up to 2014, gave between $100,000 to $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation has also been pressured to rid itself of Weinstein’s money, but they have said that the money was already spent on projects, the Daily Mail reports. The organization claims the Weinstein money was spent on supporting women and girls around the world, as well as on lowering the cost of HIV medication.

Some Democrats believe all donations from Weinstein should be re-donated. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) has said he believes anyone who received political contributions from Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein should re-donate the money to organizations that fight sexual assault.

On Saturday, Chelsea Clinton avoided a reporter who asked about Weinstein’s donations as she went into a Clinton Global Initiative event in Boston.

Weinstein has been accused of sexually harassing and raping women in Hollywood over the course many years, and while his behavior was described as an “open secret,” it continued unabated for decades.

It’s Not Just Weinstein — Entertainment Industry is a “Rape Culture”

It’s not just Harvey Weinstein.

Weinstein is accused of using his powerful position in Hollywood to serially abuse women, particularly models and actresses.  At least 20 women have now accused Weinstein, who is a major Demoratic donor and fundraiser, of sexually harassing them. The New Yorker published a bombshell report containing graphic details of Weinstein’s abuse of several women, three of whom accused him of raping them.

That Weinstein was sexually abusive is said to have been an open secret among Hollywood elites.

But Weinstein is far from alone. The entertainment industry is filled with men accused of sex abuse.

Rapper R. Kelly was accused in July of running an abusive sex cult out of his home. Kelly allegedly made teenage girls sign nondisclosure agreements, before forcing them to be his personal sex slaves.

Legendary film director Woody Allen is still writing and directing star-studded films despite his own sex abuse scandal.

Allen was accused of sexually abusing his adopted daughter when she was as young as seven years old. Allen’s son, Ronan Farrow — who broke the bombshell New Yorker report on Weinstein — wrote a column last year describing the media’s complicity in keeping his father’s alleged abuses out of the public eye. Allen is still welcome among Hollywood elites: his upcoming movie “Wonder Wheel” will star Kate Winslet and Justin Timberlake.

Director and producer Roman Polanski was accused of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977. He later pled guilty to the lesser charge of statutory rape but avoided prison by fleeing the country to Poland, where he has successfully fought efforts to extradite him to the United States. Four different women have now accused Polanski of sexually abusing them as teens.

Polanski’s sexual abuse scandals haven’t kept him from popularity among Hollywood elite.

An audience full of movie stars, including actress Meryl Streep, gave Polanski a standing ovation at the 2003 Academy Awards.

Polanski continues producing films today.

“The truth is that Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with what he did for so long because Hollywood, led by two-faced Ms Streep, doesn’t really give a damn about powerful men abusing young women,” Daily Mail columnist Piers Morgan wrote on Wednesday. “That’s why they cheer Polanski and still finance and star in his movies.”

Mark Salling, the former star of “Glee,” pled guilty to child porn charges earlier this month. Salling is expected to serve between four and seven years in prison. He was previously accused of rape, although police never brought charges. (RELATED: Investigate Hollywood, Mr. President)

Actor Corey Feldman has said that he and another actor, Corey Haim, were repeatedly sexually abused as child actors by men in the movie industry. Pedophilia, Feldman said, is more prominent in Hollywood than the public realizes.

Feldman said he “would love to name names” but fears getting sued if he does. At least one of his accusers, he said in 2016, is “still prominently in the business today.”

Director Victor Salva pled guilty to five felony accounts related to his abuse of a 12-year-old child actor. Salva served three years in prison but remains active today. Earlier this month, The Daily Beast described Salva as “The Pedophile Director Embraced by Hollywood.”

Actor John Travolta has faced a string of sexual abuse claims. Documents published by Gawker in 2013 revealed that Travolta’s insurer paid out $84,000 the previous year in regard to sexual assault claims against Travolta. At least seven different men have accused Travolta of sexually abusing them.

Fox News host and Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson has said the Department of Justice should investigate Hollywood’s culture of “systematic sexual abuse.”

From: Daily Caller

NRA Opposes New Bump Fire Stock Ban Bill

Bill’s language may reach far beyond bump fire stocks


The National Rifle Association announced on Wednesday its opposition to a new bill that would ban any firearm part that effectively increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle.

“We are opposed to the Feinstein and Curbelo legislation,” Jennifer Baker, a spokesperson for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon.

The legislation, introduced by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R., Fla.) and cosponsored by 10 representatives from each party, is intended to be a response to the Las Vegas shooting, where a number of the rifles found at the scene were equipped with bump fire stocks. The text of the bill goes beyond banning bump fire stocks, however. Instead, in addition to banning bump fire stocks and requiring their surrendering or confiscation, it bans and requires the surrendering or confiscation of any part that increases how quickly a semi-automatic rifle can be fired.

“It shall be unlawful for any person—in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun,” the bill reads, “or to manufacture, possess, or transfer any such part or combination of parts that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.’”

The language of the bill may ban the manufacture, sale, or possession of aftermarket triggers, bolts, or other components that have any effect on increasing a rifle’s rate of fire. The ban would go into effect 90 days after the enactment of the bill into law.

“For the first time in decades, there is growing bipartisan consensus for sensible gun policy, a polarizing issue that has deeply divided Republicans and Democrats,” Curbelo said in a statement. “This common-sense legislation will ban devices that blatantly circumvent already existing law without restricting Second Amendment rights.”

Curbelo’s colleague, Rep. Seth Moulton (D., Mass.), said Congress could do more on the issue, but the bill represents a “crucial starting point.”

“I am proud to be leading on the only bipartisan effort to take action in the wake of this tragedy,” Rep. Moulton said in a statement. “We can always be doing more, but this bill is a crucial starting point. Congress needs to take a serious look, after every crisis, at whether a law consistent with the Second Amendment would have prevented it. It is time for Democrats and Republicans alike to find the courage to act.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), who has introduced bills with similar wording in previous years, said calls from the NRA and others for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to reexamine the legality of bump fire stocks were not enough.

“The ATF lacks authority under the law to ban bump fire stocks,” Feinstein said. “Period. The agency made this crystal clear in a 2013 letter to Congress, writing that ‘stocks of this type are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes.’ Legislation is the only answer and Congress shouldn’t attempt to pass the buck.”

The ATF has explained its classification process for firearms and firearms accessories but has not yet said whether they will review their decision on bump fire stocks.

From: Washington Free Beacon

The FCC Should Regulate Facebook Like AIM

Sixteen years ago, the government stopped AOL from building a closed system where everyone had to use AIM, meaning it had to adopt interoperability. The decision provides a blueprint for how the government could similarly regulate today’s gigantic internet platforms: many see Facebook — with its over 2 billion monthly users — as having egregious control over our relationships on the internet. If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge.


Trying to build a competitor to Facebook in 2017 is “just insane, it doesn’t make any sense,” said Stoller, who is writing book on the history of monopoly power in the twentieth century. “It would be like starting a competitor to your local water company.” The FCC’s decision freed other companies to build new, better instant-messaging apps without AOL standing in their way. And frankly, AIM wasn’t able to keep up with them. If Facebook were to actually compete in the market, it might die too. And in its place, something better, or at least different, could emerge.

EZVIZ Mini-O Review

Score: 9/10

Price Range: $39.99-$59.99

I’ve had the EZVIZ Mini-Plus HD 1080p for a while and already had the app on my phone, so set up was really easy once I had it connected to my network. There are 2 methods to connect it. Both are basically automatic and it feels like you have to have the moon and 3 planets aligned just right in order to connect the camera to your network. I had to reset the camera 3 times, and re-run the configuration app countless times to eventually get it to connect. But once it connected the experience was wonderful.

The video quality is amazing and the wall mount options (wall-tape on plate, or screws) are appreciated. I like that when using the camera I can have a two-way conversation with whomever is in the vicinity. Sound is a bit distant on the phone when I hear people, and sound quality from the camera is about as good as an AM Radio. That may not sound good, but when you consider the price, and the overall quality of the device and video quality, that “cherry on top” doesn’t take away from how much I like this camera.

Keep in mind, this is an indoor camera only, it would get destroyed outside. I can see this used as a baby-monitor (especially this pink one that EZVIZ sent me) as the two way audio is more thank functional.

It’s MSRP is about $60, but I’ve seen it on sale as low as $40. At either price, it’s a solid camera.

Purchase Links:



Judge Recommends ISP and Search Engine Blocking of Sci-Hub in the US

A judge over in Virginia has recommended a broad order to block access to Sci-Hub. The site operates as a “Pirate Bay of Science” giving users access to over 62 million academic papers and articles for download. Due to not being present in legal hearings for its charge of copyright and trademark infringement by the American Chemical Society, the judge’s injunction would award ACS with $4,800,000 in statutory damages including the blockage.

Article Image

If the U.S. District Court Judge adopts this recommendation, it would mean that Internet providers such as Comcast could be ordered to block users from accessing Sci-Hub. That’s a big deal since pirate site blockades are not common in the United States.

7 Deceptive Claims Jimmy Kimmel Made About Guns in One Monologue


by AWR HAWKINS of Breitbart

During his opening monologue on Monday night’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!, host Jimmy Kimmel made seven false or misleading statements about gun laws as part of a push to shame Congress into enacting increased gun control measures following Sunday’s attack on a country music concert in Las Vegas that left 59 people dead and hundreds more injured.

Ironically, he did this after admitting that the Las Vegas attacker complied with all gun controls in purchasing a number of firearms–meaning he passed background checks for those guns. Moreover, Kimmel even admitted that the attacker had “no criminal record,” and therefore, nothing to keep him from passing a check to acquire a gun.

Breitbart News reported Monday that the attacker purchased three guns within the last year from Guns & Guitars in Mesquite, Nevada, where store manager Christopher Sullivan said the attacker came across as “a normal guy.” Sullivan said the attacker had no criminal history and indicated that he passed a FBI background check for his firearms.

Kimmel is correct on one point–there was nothing in the attacker’s past that signaled a problem. But after making that point, Kimmel argued that there are still things that Congress could be doing (and this is where the falehoods and/or misdirection come into play).

1. Kimmel said, “Orlando, Aurora, Newtown, San Bernardino, [in] every one of these shootings the murderer used automatic or semiautomatic rifles.” The inclusion of the word “automatic” is very misleading. In all four instances the rifle used was semiautomatic, period. Pistols were also present. Moreover, Kimmel did not mention that in three of the four instances, the attackers acquired their guns via background checks. Exceptions to this would be the rifles used in San Bernardino–they were acquired via a friend–but the San Bernardino handguns were acquired via a background check. And the guns used by the Newtown attacker were stolen. He stole them from someone who passed a background check for them.

2. Kimmel made the classic leftist claim that AR-15s and the like “are not weapons used for self-defense.” In doing so, he ignored the report of the Houston boy who used his father’s AR-15 to defend his sister’s life during a home invasion. When the two intruders broke into the home, the boy grabbed his father’s AR and shot one of them three times. He also ignored the Michigan gas station owner who stopped a robbery in progress at his station by pulling his AR-15 on the robbers. He also ignored the Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, son who was home alone when he used his father’s AR-15 to stop a home invasion by shooting all three suspects. The suspects died but the son’s life was preserved.

3. He accused President Trump of “signing a bill that made it easier for people with severe mental illness to buy guns legally.” This was a reference to Trump’s repeal of Obama’s Social Security gun ban; a ban that was actually not directed toward people with severe mental illness but toward recipients of disability benefits who required help with finances. Yes, mental health labels were given to these people, but those labels could reference easily treatable and temporary conditions. This is why Duke University psychiatry and behavioral science professor Jeffrey Swanson said Obama’s Social Security gun ban targeted the “vulnerable” rather than the dangerous.

4. He said that House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “won’t do anything about [the attack] because the NRA has their balls in a money clip.” In reality, Breitbart News has been reporting that NRA-supported legislation revolving around concealed carry reciprocity has stalled because of Ryan.

5. Kimmel said, “Right now, there are loopholes in the law that let people avoid background checks if they buy a gun privately–from another party–if they buy a gun online or at a gun show.” For starters, there is no loophole. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 and since that point (and before), Americans have been buying guns from Americans. It is not a loophole, it is freedom. The left pushed background checks and secured them on retail sales in 1998–i.e., there have been background checks on retail sales for nearly two decades–and the left has spent the last four or five years inaccurately describing private sales as a “loophole” as a way to persuade Americans to support more gun control. Also, it must be noted that it is illegal to buy a gun online without going through a background check. If an individual from Florida wants to purchase a firearm online from a gun store in Oklahoma, that gun has to be shipped to an Oklahoma store where the buyer passes a background check before taking possession of it.

6. Kimmel then showed a collage containing the photos of Senators who voted against closing the fictional private sale, online sales, and gun show “loopholes” after the June 12, 2016, Orlando Pulse attack. He did not mention that the Orlando Pulse attacker did not use these “loopholes.” Rather, he passed background checks and a waiting period for his firearms.

7. Lastly, Kimmel said Congress is now working to “legalize the sale of silencers.” In reality, “silencers”–or suppressors, as they are properly called–have been legal and are legal in 42 states. They are widely owned and used by hunters and sport shooters because of the hearing protection benefits they offer. What Congress is considering is a bill that removes the federal tax on suppressors, as well as the burdensome acquisition process to obtain one.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at