Have you fallen into the ‘rabbit hole’ of covenants?

Interviewer: Hua, freelance writer, independent researcher. X: @AmelieHua

Interviewee: Poly, a Controls Specialist, maintains multiple Distributed Control Systems (DCS’s) and has worked with other five nine systems (99.999% uptime availability). X: @Polyd_

Covenants are an old yet fresh topic. As early as 2013, developers began discussing this topic, and in recent years, multiple BIPs aimed at implementing covenants have been proposed, sparking intense debates and making it one of the hottest topics.

Covenants warrant serious discussion due to their powerful capabilities. They are considered to bring new possibilities to the programmability of Bitcoin and are believed to enable smart contracts. For Bitcoin, this is undoubtedly a double-edged sword. In this article, we will explore what covenants are, how they work, their robust functionality, and their significance for Bitcoin. While discussing details, this article often uses CTV as an example, but CTV is not the only method of implementing covenants.

This article delves into the exploration of covenants but also magnifies a slice of Bitcoin under a microscope for observation. Through this observation, we can understand how Bitcoin operates at a granular level, comprehending both its capabilities and limitations. Understanding what it cannot do is as crucial as understanding what it can do because only then can we choose the right path for building on Bitcoin.

1.

Hua:

Before discussing covenants, clarifying two issues related to Bitcoin may be necessary, which can help us better understand covenants.

We know that Bitcoin uses a scripting language, and it is known that scripting languages support the implementation of smart contracts. However, in reality, smart contracts have not been implemented on the Bitcoin main chain. This inevitably creates a sense that implementing smart contracts on Bitcoin faces some insurmountable obstacles, and it seems impossible on the Bitcoin network.

However, many people may not be aware that although Bitcoin can be programmed using a scripting language, the set of opcodes is extremely limited. This limited set of opcodes restricts the programmability scope of Bitcoin, meaning that, although the scripting language can implement smart contracts, programmers do not have sufficient “tools” to implement smart contracts.

Poly:

Definitely, Bitcoin Script can be considered limiting as it can only perform the basic operations such as making simple payments. Some of the reasons that people may find it “limiting” is that it doesn’t have a global state, it’s not considered turing complete, it uses a UTXO-based system (which has “value blindness”) instead of an account-based system. The last big reason is that very little data from the blockchain itself can be integrated into contracts causing blockchain-blindness.

This has created a lot of challenges over the years as people have worked around these limitations. We’ve also had a semantic shift with the term “smart contract” to mean one specific thing when you should consider the lightning network a production of many smart contracts formed by many individuals. Those multi-sigs with hashlocks and timelocks are not only smart contracts, but also have time-based covenants.

The problem is, just as you mentioned before, because Bitcoin only has simple opcodes to perform just the basics, if you attempt to scale beyond two people in a smart contract, you can get either a lot of bloat for an on-chain footprint or the things you want to do just might not be possible. This strict limitation comes from a few places, I think the biggest being that when the inflation bug occurred back in 2010, Satoshi had disabled a whole list of higher order opcodes including OP_CAT which would’ve allowed us to create more dynamic smart contracts via transaction introspection.

BCH has since overcome this limitation within their own script, showing that Script isn’t as weak as everyone assumes, just that Bitcoin has always been slower due to its decentralization and coordination is near impossible except over long periods of time. We’ve also barely touched on Taproot and Tapscript which will alleviate a lot of the footprint concerns and allows for new behaviors such as BitVM by rolling up the contract into the signature and you only reveal as necessary.

Hua:

Why are there strict limitations on opcodes? Can you use OP_CAT as an example to help us understand this point?

Poly:

So OP_CAT is deceptively simple, it will take two strings and add them together. It was originally disabled because it had resource issues and could be used to cause nodes to crash, but I’m not sure if that’s the full story as Satoshi set the 520 byte stack limit and disabled OP_CAT in the same commit so there could be more to it than just simple resource exhaustion.

But just to give a short list of what OP_CAT can perform: CTV/TXHASH covenants, verify SPV proofs, double-spend protection for 0-conf TXs, 64-bit arithmetic, vaults, quantum-resistant signatures. The list goes on, with OP_CAT alone, it can emulate both CTV[CheckTemplateVerify] and TXHASH style transactions. The only issue is it’s highly inefficient in the manner that it performs these actions that might be possible, but that could just preclude these transactions from being desirable except by users of scale such as custodians.

2.

Hua:

Let’s talk about another “limitation” of Bitcoin. Bitcoin only supports “verification” as a form of computation and can’t do general-purpose computation.

We also know that, for example, smart contracts on Ethereum contain rules for state transitions. It completes the state transition through computation, enabling the functionality of smart contracts. In comparison, Bitcoin can’t do general-purpose computation, meaning it cannot achieve state transitions through computation on its own.

Is my understanding correct?

Poly:

Yeah, I’d agree that’s a simple summary of the current state of things. Bitcoin could be made to support computational transactions and the line can become quite thin when covenants and state transitions are involved, but those proposals aren’t as well researched and might not be something that’s considered desirable.

I’m actually not that much of a fan of the way Ethereum does things. Due to it being computational in nature with the verification built on-top, if I attempt to perform a trade, my window could shift and I could “fail to trade” but the transaction for the attempt to trade was still valid so i still paid for fees which wasted my money on what i’d want to consider a failed transaction and wasted blockspace for someone else. Another weird aspect are the Oracles in Ethereum. Oracles must pay gas to update their oracle prices whereas in Bitcoin DLC’s, the Oracle are blinded and are just providing a signature and can’t be “pinned” due to a change in fees nor can Oracles target specific contracts.

Earlier I discussed all the downsides to the UTXO model compared to the account model and global state model, but what allows the UTXO model to shine is parallelism. The only concern you have is the child transactions to the same UTXO, nothing else matters, this allows the system to scale much better.

3.

Hua:

Let’s start discussing covenants now. What are covenants?

Poly:

Covenants usually refer to restrictions on how coins can be transferred. The word covenant seems to carry some sort of connotation with it so it helps to demystify it and explain it as simple locking mechanisms you can place only on your *own* coin.

We have two covenants already inside Bitcoin and they power the Lightning Network, CSV [CheckSequenceVerify] and CLTV [CheckLockTimeVerify]. Some just call these opcodes “smart contract primitives” as they’re simple time locks, but they can also be classified as time covenants.

CTV [CheckTemplateVerify] is a proposed Bitcoin upgrade and is included in BIP 119. It is different from CSV and CLTV, you can think of CTV as a “TXID [Transaction ID] lock” or “UTXO lock”, only these TXID’s can be made from this lock. For CTV, we refer to this TXID lock as “Equality Covenants” as the resulting transactions must equal to the original transactions that were committed. It’s also called a deferred commitment covenant, as you can see that your UTXO has been committed to, but it isn’t yet placed on-chain.

The most known alternative is SH_APO [Any Previous Out or AnyPrevOut] which focuses on the payout commitment being ensured while allowing the pay-in method to be flexible. A few others discussed are OP_CCV [also known as MATT], OP_EXPIRE, TXHASH and TEMPLATE KEY.

Hua:

When you mention “covenants usually refer to restrictions on how coins can be transferred,” can I understand it like this: Covenants are a method of specifying how funds can be used, or in other words, it’s a way of restricting where funds can be spent.

Poly:

Yep, it effectively earmarks the UTXO to be distributed in a specific manner, once you commit to it, you can’t take it back, it’s now consensus bound, and only its new owner can decide how to spend their funds.

When a UTXO is created on-chain, our instinct is to assume that a single private key is holding that UTXO in place. But if it was a CTV bound UTXO, when the UTXO is spent, you’ll see an extra 32 byte hash paired with the new transaction that represents the hidden state that was inside the original UTXO.

Hua:

You’ve mentioned “TXID lock/UTXO lock” multiple times. Can I understand it like this: To understand how CTV achieves their functionality, we need to understand what TXID lock is and how it works. TXID lock is a key mechanism.

Poly:

Yes, It creates a strong foundation to build further schemes. The TXID is determined by the contents of a tx. And if you can add inputs to a tx, you can manipulate the TXID. CTV makes you lock the number of inputs and outputs. This is how we ensure that CTV commitments are trustless, if the TXID could be malleable, you could potentially be able to steal someone’s funds. Once you have a TXID locking mechanism, you combine it with other locking mechanisms such as the time locks to build even greater smart contracts.

4.

Hua:

Why do you think covenants are a rabbit hole?

Poly:

I call covenants a rabbit hole because there’s so much you can do with simple restrictions on transactions such as a time lock or a TXID lock. We’ve managed to build the entire Lightning network with simple time locks and while it isn’t perfect, it is the only truly decentralized L2 in existence. I don’t like how it’s slowly shifting towards being custodial focused, but that’s exactly why I’ve started down this rabbit hole to begin with: To make our smart contracts more powerful. We refer to the TXID lock as a Template. With Taproot, we gained the ability to have signature aggregation. With Templates and CTV, we gain the ability to have transaction aggregation.

CTV serves as a replacement for a pre-signed transaction oracle, which eliminates the trust and interactivity requirements needed to create more sophisticated smart contracts that are needed for things like vaults and payment pools. The vaults and payment pools that you can make with CTV are technically possible today, but currently they’re precluded by the trust or interactivity needed to make it work. Moreover, with CTV, we can build channel factories, additional layer 2 solutions such as Ark, Timeout-Trees, Stakechains or Surfchains, and JIT fidelity bond solutions such as PathCoin.

Probably my favorite feature is Non-Interactive Channels [NIC’s] that we’ve also been referring to as Cold Channels. The basic idea is to take a normal lightning channel and simply place it in a CTV template. What makes this different from a normal lightning channel is that neither party actually needed to be online to create this channel. So if I need a channel with another person, I don’t need them to be online to create it, I don’t even need to tell them I made it until I’m ready to spend from it! This allows for cold storage capability on lightning because I don’t need a watchtower nor a node to safeguard my funds in any channels that aren’t yet active. Third-party coordinators can also establish NIC’s for two individuals so there’s a lot of flexibility in what’s possible.

As it stands, CTV won’t allow you to build a DEX on-chain, but I’m not sure if that is such a bad thing as people are currently trying to build DEX’s off-chain using the Lightning Network as it is today. I think this ties back into the “Verification vs Computation” discussion, how much do you really want on-chain versus how much do you need to verify on-chain. One concern I have about on-chain DEX’s, besides the excessive on-chain updates driving higher fees, is MEV. We’ve already spotted some MEV from BCH’s DEX’s transactions and as the market matures, this is bound to get worse.

Hua:

Can you give an example to help us understand how CTV works?

Poly:

Let’s say I am expecting to receive 5 BTC, as of right now, the only thing I can do is receive the payment and verify it on-chain. With CTV, I can commit to future addresses or to people and reduce it down to a simple pubkey that I give to my payer to pay me. They don’t know the details of it so it remains private to everyone but me. Once I can confirm that they’ve paid me, all of the actions I took using the CTV template have now also taken effect.

So if I had elected to create a channel with Bob, once Alice pays me, the channel with Bob is now committed, even though the channel with Bob is nowhere to be seen on-chain, it is only accessible by my template and the transaction that Alice had created. It’s only known to me until I share the channel details with Bob. Once I do share the details with Bob, we can use the channel as normal. When we cooperatively close the channel, instead of needing to place an open channel details on-chain, we just place the closing channel on-chain. This allows us to perform transaction cut-through, reducing the total number of transactions that need to be on-chain by at least half for layer 2 solutions.

The opening portion only needs a commitment, what we really care about are the closing details. If this was a shared UTXO with multiple people, we could collaborate to close our transactions together as well, reducing the number of on-chain transactions even further.

5.

Hua:

As you mentioned before, we can introduce different opcodes to implement covenants.

Poly:

So if we re-introduced OP_CAT, I think it would allow for nearly every type of covenant possible as you can emulate any form of introspection for TXHASH. The more limited method would be to introduce opcodes representing the explicit behavior desired like with CTV, CSFS or CheckSeperateSignature. CTV is the ability to do deferred outputs. CSFS is the ability to do deferred signatures so you can defer the payment itself. They sound similar and in fact they work well together as building blocks to enable LN-Symmetry, but the commitments are happening at different levels.

TXHASH and TEMPLATE KEY both enable introspection and serve the same purpose, but TEMPLATE KEY uses a single-byte mode while TXHASH uses multi-byte flags. This allows for much more powerful capabilities inside script and smart contracts, but many are concerned about the side effects it could have. TXHASH and TEMPLATE KEY are more of a CTVv2, something that would make CTV more powerful and expressive.

Hua:

I’ve noticed that there doesn’t seem to be a significant disagreement about whether to support the implementation of covenants. However, in comparison, there seems to be more significant divergence among people regarding which method or set of opcodes to add to implement covenants.

Poly:

I think a large part is there’s different camps of thought. There’s a lot of the lack of understanding the intent behind each proposal as they have different goals in mind and are designed in completely different ways.

A lot of developers have only had their eye on Lightning and how it’s to evolve, they tend to favor opcodes like SH_APO since it enables LN-Symmetry. For a lot of developers that don’t particularly like Lightning due to its limitations such as Inbound Liquidity constraints or the requirement to be online, they tend to favor opcodes like OP_CAT, TXHASH as more expressive scaling solutions. The developers that prefer CTV are more neutral and are looking at it from a systems point of view, it doesn’t necessarily do any one thing perfectly but it greatly enhances everyone’s ability to do their preferred thing, whatever it may be without introducing risks that can’t be measured since it doesn’t introduce introspection.

6.

Hua:

Before discussing covenants, we talked about issues related to opcodes in scripting language and the problem of limited computation leading to state transition. We already know the relationship between covenants and opcodes. Now, let’s delve into the issue of state transition. I’m not sure if looking at covenants from the perspective of “state transition” is correct, but this perspective truly fascinates me.

Without covenants, the scripting language’s main function is to retrieve transactions’ signatures and verify them. The transaction can only be completed when the private key is correct, and there is no intermediate state. With covenants, a transaction can be completed when certain conditions are met. Moreover, a transaction can only be completed when specific conditions are satisfied (not just the correctness of the private key). Can we understand it this way: Covenants indirectly provide conditions for state transition.

Poly:

The covenant is the template shell or the “state”. Inside of it, you’re going to need to make time locks and other functions to enable the desired functionality that you’re wanting, be that a vault, lightning channel or some other layer 2 solution.

So CTV allows for the state creation to occur, but you have to dynamically rebuild the state at each transition to keep it in homeostasis, we call this meta-recursive. Whereas something like SH_APO allows you to create a state and then periodically update that state, making it recursive. CTV can also create a chain of transactions that would allow you to “step-through” that state.

A good example to think about is Ark, it’s a giant smart contract, almost like a giant coinjoin and the one running the protocol creates a new state [or rounds as it’s called] every few seconds to facilitate participants to pay others as needed. Once the Ark operator is ready, they will send a transaction to the mempool to commit the current state to on-chain. These on-chain placeholders can be thought of as the “transition states.” The operator has to constantly recompute new states to present to the Ark participants and what’s sent to on-chain is the verification of that state.

Hua:

Can we understand it this way: Covenants implement a form of smart contract based on verification rather than computation?

Poly:

Yes. Definitely. This smart contract is just comparing a transaction to an associated sha256 hash. Block speed verification would actually increase since there’s no signature operations.

Hua:

One direction of development for blockchains is modularity, including off-chain computation. However, Bitcoin seems naturally designed for off-chain computation, appearing behind but actually leading the way. What do you think?

Poly:

Time is a flat circle. It’s crazy how it seems like we’ve come full circle to what’s wanted in a blockchain. Bitcoin still seems to have some modularity issues and footprint issues. I wish we had better side-chains that weren’t simply multi-sig solutions and used actual cryptographic means to secure one’s funds and allowed for Unilateral Exits. I think that would help push the boundaries on Bitcoin’s modularity. Taproot has allowed for even more off-chain computation with things such as BitVM, which would allow us to compute almost anything off-chain. But unfortunately, it can’t emulate things inside Bitcoin such as CTV so it seems we still have progress to make.

7.

Hua:

What possibilities can be achieved by combining covenants with other opcodes like DLC?

Poly:

So DLC’s have a few problems that would be fixed with covenants such as increasing the flexibility of the parameters of the DLC by making many price points [if we’re wagering on the price of something such as Bitcoin]. Another one is that hardware wallets [HWW] can’t interact with a lot of DLC’s, the signing rounds for DLCs and attempting to do it with HWWs causes DLCs to take several minutes to open. With CTV, this delay to enter a DLC can be reduced down to seconds.

8.

Hua:

Are there any other points you’d like to introduce to the readers?

Poly:

We went over a lot of concepts. We touched on how it can be used to mitigate excessive blockspace demand and potential ddos attacks. We discussed how people could save space by making Non-Interactive Channels. I think another good one to discuss is the “L2 exit problem”. If we managed to get everyone off of the L1 layer and get them onto a large L2, there’s currently no good way to get people off that L2 in an expedited manner. We could think of that L2 as Lightning [we call the potential mass exodus on Lightning, the “Thundering Herd problem”], or we could think of Coinbase, Binance or Liquid as the L2. There are people who hold claims to Bitcoin, but their only way to actually acquire that claim is by submitting a transaction to get it placed on-chain. There’s millions of people on Coinbase, I have no idea how to get them off of there and onto Bitcoin in any orderly fashion in today’s environment. There would be a mempool backlog of 6 months attempting to get people off the exchange. CTV can fix this.

Make an Ark or a Timeout-Tree with CTV. The exchange could even offer the service directly. Everyone could be offloaded from the original “shared UTXO” that was under Coinbase’s consensus and pushed into a “shared UTXO” with a consensus of their choice, be it a simple pool or a large Timeout-Tree. This is where it really wrinkles the brain, this was a pure L2 L2 conversion. There was no intermediary step requiring me to go down to L1 first. And I can continue repeating this process indefinitely, using any layer of my choice. There isn’t a need to return to the base layer unless I was forced there such as from an uncooperative closeout from my channel or perhaps an unvaulting from my vault. The Ark and Timeout-Tree pitfall is that they have rollover requirements, you have to move your funds every few weeks or months or you forfeit your funds. This isn’t an ideal solution for long-term funds but works great for any short term holdings and larger markets.

I’d like to provide a full list of every concept that’s been developed using CTV and its ability to simply aggregate pre-signed transactions: Non-Interactive Channels, Timeout-Trees, Ark, Darkpools, Payment Pools, Payment Channels, Ball Lightning, Congestion Control, Dpool’s, Compaction, Tree Swaps, PathCoin, Stakechains, Surfchains. But don’t think of these as all independent Templates, if there’s a feature of one that you wish to include in another, you can create your own custom Template to try and find your desired behavior.

References:

Owen’s Covenants 101 https://x.com/OwenKemeys/status/1741575353716326835

Owen’s Covenants 102 https://x.com/OwenKemeys/status/1744181234417140076

Owen’s CTV Demo https://x.com/OwenKemeys/status/1752138051105493274

Dallas’s Primer https://x.com/dallasirushing/status/1740443095689318566

Batching Lightning Channels Required Covenants https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-October/022006.html

Timeout-Trees https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-September/021941.html

Ark https://www.arkpill.me/

Darkpools https://gist.github.com/moonsettler/6a214f5d01148ea204e9131b86a35382

PathCoin https://github.com/AdamISZ/pathcoin-poc

This is a guest post by Aemlie Hua. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Source link

In the evolving landscape of contemporary art, few artists capture the essence of change and permanence as powerfully as Ryan Koopmans and Alice Wexell. Their artwork bridges the gap between the natural world and urban decay. They delve into the heart of abandoned places and transform them into digital masterpieces that question the boundaries between reality and digital artificiality. Together they explore the concept of legacy and preservation in the digital age by inscribing their work into the immutable ledger of Bitcoin. Their latest work, ‘The Origin’, is a demonstration of their innovative approach to digital art. It combines photography, digital manipulation and Bitcoin ordinal technology to create a dynamic on-chain artwork that reflects the passage of time in the ruins of an Italian building. As pioneers in this field, Koopmans and Wexell challenge us to rethink the value and permanence of art in the digital age and invite us to question our concepts of time, memory and heritage.

Steven Reiss: Many people will know you from your series ‘The Wild Within’, which you do together with Alice Wexell. Perhaps you could briefly explain how you came up with the idea of creating works of art with and through abandoned architecture.

Ryan Koopmans: The Wild Within is a series of digital artworks that bring new life into abandoned buildings from a bygone era. After 15 years of working as a documentary photographer, I felt the urge to create work that involved more of an imaginative intervention rather than purely as a ‘real world witness’.

After photographing a series of abandoned buildings in the country of Georgia, we realized that there was more conceptual work that could be done to enhance the images and truly emphasize the feelings and mood we experienced while exploring these crumbling ruins.

The result was a project that my wife Alice Wexell and I began, The Wild Within, whereby real-world physical spaces, in countries that have undergone dramatic transitions such as Georgia, Lebanon, Armenia, Italy and Poland, are photographed and then transformed into conceptual works of art.

Upon returning, we digitally introduce vegetation and modify the structure and lighting with the intention of reviving the empty spaces, essentially bringing life back into the rooms.

The results are a surreal collision between the past and future, natural and manmade, physical and digital, and the real and imaginary.​

Furthermore, many of the buildings depicted in The Wild Within have been demolished in recent years or continue to deteriorate, emphasizing the theme of time passing in the cycle of growth and decay.

We chose to inscribe the artwork [Ryan refers to ‘The Origin’, SR] on a satoshi mined on March 24, 2021, a tribute to the day that the first artwork from ‘The Wild Within’ was minted on Ethereum.

SR: What is the fascination and how do you go about it? When is a scene the right one and how do you process the image?

RK: We have long been inspired to travel to remote locations and discover places that have not yet been extensively photographed.

Especially fascinating to us are buildings that were abandoned and left to deteriorate without intervention. They act as time capsules, especially rooms that have been sealed off from outside visitors for decades.

It takes a long time to research, discover, and photograph these buildings, and then to create an artwork. Thus we are very selective with what we actually release into the world. Sometimes when we are shooting a particular room, we get a feeling in our core that this will be an image that belongs in the project.

By exploring and then carefully composing images that are then turned into artworks, our interests related to architecture, nature, creative expression and the human condition are all activated.

The structures that we like to base pieces on are inherently rare as many are deteriorating or have already disappeared since we first discovered them.

Whether due to fires, demolition, looting or the natural elements, in many cases the buildings cease to exist in the form they once were as our world rapidly modernizes.

Importantly, the artwork immortalizes and preserves not only itself but also its subject matter on the blockchain, functioning as an act of artistic, interpretive architectural preservation.

SR: Why did you choose this particular location for ‘The Origin’?

RK: It was important to us to enter the world of inscriptions on Bitcoin with a concept that not only embraced the technology’s potential but also stayed true to the inherent themes of our work.

Given that the theme of time is a recurring element, we collaborated with the Inscribing Atlantis team to create a dynamic time-based artwork. This piece seamlessly transitions between day and night modes, synchronized with the Bitcoin clock.

In order to achieve this, using an interior with expansive windows connecting to the external surroundings was crucial. Situated in the forest just outside a small town in Northern Italy, this particular architectural space occupies the top floor of a tower. Accessing it posed a challenge, requiring climbing into a window and carefully navigating along precarious hanging wooden floors.

The distinctive patterns on the walls and circular forms within the space made it an ideal setting for the construction of this artwork, since it felt like a nucleus or an encapsulated hub for a grand idea.

SR: In your announcement of ‘The Origin’, you intriguingly describe both abandoned buildings and digital artifacts inscribed on Bitcoin as anthropological markings. Could you elaborate on how this concept influences your work, particularly in terms of contributing to the broader discourse on digital heritage and cultural preservation? Furthermore, how do you reconcile the juxtaposition between the physical decay of buildings and the enduring nature of Bitcoin in your artistic process?

RK: Architecture serves as anthropological markings on the landscape, albeit temporary ones. Within the structures themselves, one finds markings left by people and the passage of time, whether by inhabitants, vandals, or the forces of nature. The concept of impermanence and the eventual disappearance of these markings inspire the idea to photograph, creatively intervene, and then preserve the visuals on the blockchain.

Exploring these buildings often reveals intriguing artifacts, creating a sense of discovery that evokes the feeling of uncovering forgotten eras.

Inscriptions on ordinals, albeit more permanent, are also digital artifacts scattered throughout the network. Over time it will be interesting to go back and see the evolution of these markings, which range in quality and intention, but reflect a distinct moment in time and cultural context from which they were created.

While creating digital artwork is a form of preserving this experience and idea, inscribing it on a secure and immutable blockchain elevates it to a higher level of permanence.

Our goal is not to create historically accurate representations or documentations of architecture. Instead, we aim to preserve our interpretation of this fleeting subject matter by crafting artwork that depicts the decaying buildings in an imaginatively overgrown state.

Ultimately, our objective is for the artwork to outlive us, and utilizing this technology provides a solid medium to secure the digital legacy of the artwork.

SR: With the intention that your artwork will outlive you, how do you see the role of digital art in the future? Do you believe that digital artworks can achieve the same emotional and cultural significance as physical artworks once the physical impact is completely removed?

RK: Absolutely. Digital artwork is being created in an era where the future display methods are not fully realized yet. We are yet to know what kinds of frictionless screens or immersive perspectives will become integrated into our daily visual landscape.

In the present approaches to showcasing digital art, the appeal of printing it out or presenting it on a wall screen lies in the residual value attributed to the tangible nature of art. However, these methods are far from ideal for showing digital artworks at their highest potential, and directly ‘competes’ with traditional art in the realm of physical display which it shouldn’t have to.

As tools for creating and distributing art become more widely accessible, there will be an unprecedented surge in digital art production. In my opinion, it’s inevitable that certain digital works will attain the same status as some of the world’s most treasured physical assets.

I anticipate a continued transition towards a more digital future, particularly with the rise of younger generations who are already digitally native.

While the preference for collecting either physical or digital works may fluctuate over time, as cultural tastes often do, digital artworks are undoubtedly progressing towards achieving similar, if not greater, cultural significance, even without a physical impact.

SR: For many artists, bitcoin as an art medium is still new. What made you decide to release a work on bitcoin in the first place? And what were the particularities? Were there any difficulties or new opportunities?

RK: Being innovative and embracing new techniques is a core value of The Wild Within project. We love the crossover between traditional and timeless art, whilst integrating innovative technologies, which we’ve done in several instances. We were the inaugural collaborator with the AI artist Botto whereby we created a unique collaborative artwork in partnership with the Botto DAO. Additionally, we’ve created an immersive 3D space for another one of our pieces, allowing viewers to virtually ‘walk into’ a painting that led into an animated overgrown room.

While Ethereum has fewer file size limitations when minting than Bitcoin, the development of recursion has been a game changer for us by enabling the creation of larger artworks through multiple inscriptions.

Each blockchain presents a cost-benefit analysis, with both compromises and advantages in releasing artwork. Ordinals, functioning as digital artifacts, evokes a sense of preserving these deteriorating architectural ruins, and the artwork, on the blockchain.

Reaching new audiences is integral to being an artist, and the Bitcoin art community has been welcoming, supportive and enthusiastic.

Furthermore, having the opportunity to work with such talented developers at Inscribing Atlantis meant that an artwork could be created which was customized and true to our artistic vision.

SR: The name ‘The Origin’ suggests that there is more to come. Can you reveal anything about it yet?

The ability to create a structure of provenance that organizes one’s presence on ordinals is truly exciting. The Ancestor, Parent, and Child structure of provenance is very appealing, as it establishes the foundations for growth into the future. We have left the possibility open to add another 1 of 1 artwork under the Parent in the future, and the structure allows for the potential release of editions under their own category.

What we release next and when is still to be determined, but one thing is certain: now is an opportune time to leave one’s mark on Bitcoin. However, it should be done with respect, an understanding of the culture, and with creative intent and meaning because once your mark is made, there is no going back!

This is a guest post by Steven Reiss interviewing Ryan Koopmans. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Source link

As the world of cryptocurrency continues to evolve, the need for secure and reliable systems to manage these digital assets is more critical than ever. One of the leading voices in this field is Billy Mullins, a renowned expert in blockchain technology and decentralization. In this exclusive interview, we delve into his insights on how decentralization can secure crypto assets.

Understanding Decentralization in the Crypto World

Before we dive into the interview, it’s essential to understand what decentralization means in the context of cryptocurrency. In a decentralized system, no single entity or authority has control over the entire network. Instead, control is distributed among a network of computers, or nodes. This structure is a stark contrast to traditional financial systems, where a central authority, like a bank or government, has control.

Interview with Billy Mullins

We sat down with Billy Mullins to discuss the role of decentralization in securing crypto assets. Mullins, with his extensive experience in the field, provided valuable insights into the current state of cryptocurrency security and the future of decentralization.

Why is Decentralization Important for Crypto Security?

According to Mullins, decentralization is the backbone of crypto security. “In a decentralized system, there’s no central point of failure. This means that even if one node is compromised, the rest of the network remains secure. This is a significant advantage over centralized systems, where a single breach can compromise the entire network,” he explained.

How Does Decentralization Protect Against Fraud?

Mullins highlighted that decentralization also plays a crucial role in preventing fraud. “In a decentralized network, transactions are transparent and can be audited by anyone. This transparency makes it incredibly difficult for fraudulent activity to go unnoticed,” he said.

What are the Challenges of Decentralization?

Despite its advantages, decentralization is not without its challenges. Mullins pointed out that “the biggest challenge is scalability. As the network grows, so does the amount of data each node needs to process. This can slow down transaction times and limit the network’s capacity.”

What is the Future of Decentralization in Crypto Security?

When asked about the future of decentralization, Mullins was optimistic. “I believe we’ll see more and more systems adopting decentralization. It’s the best way to ensure the security and integrity of crypto assets. However, we’ll need to find solutions to the scalability issue to fully realize its potential,” he concluded.

Decentralization in Action: Bitcoin and Ethereum

Two prime examples of decentralization in the crypto world are Bitcoin and Ethereum. These cryptocurrencies operate on decentralized networks where transactions are verified by a community of miners. This structure has proven to be highly secure, with both networks resisting numerous hacking attempts.

• Bitcoin, the first and most well-known cryptocurrency, operates on a decentralized network known as a blockchain. This network is maintained by miners who verify transactions and add them to the blockchain. Despite handling billions of dollars in transactions, the Bitcoin network has never been successfully hacked.

• Ethereum, another popular cryptocurrency, also operates on a decentralized network. Ethereum’s network not only handles transactions but also supports smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement directly written into code. This feature adds another layer of security and functionality to the Ethereum network.

Decentralization plays a crucial role in securing crypto assets. As Billy Mullins highlighted in our interview, a decentralized system offers robust protection against breaches and fraud. However, challenges like scalability need to be addressed for decentralization to reach its full potential. With cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum leading the way, the future of decentralization in crypto security looks promising.

Source link

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

Tuesday, August 29th @ 11:36 AM

The following is an interview with Brian Consolvo, Principal–Technology Risk at KPMG. He is a co-author of KPMG’s new report “Bitcoin’s role in the ESG imperative” alongside KPMG’s Director of ESG and Climate Advisory Kirk-Patrick Caron. The report is a significant milestone in mainstream Bitcoin discourse, particularly on environmental grounds, and represents a point of convergence between pro-Bitcoin environmental advocates and a wider swath of the professional world involved in the ESG landscape.

For many years, Bitcoiners have taken issue with the narratives put forth by those with an unfavorable view of the technology, and have been frustrated with unfounded and hysterical claims from Bitcoin detractors on its environmental and social merits.

This interview covers the recent KPMG report and has been edited for concision and clarity. The views of co-author Brian Consolvo are his own and do not necessarily represent the perspective of KPMG.

Nichols: To kick things off, what was the impetus behind writing this report? Why did you decide to look at Bitcoin through an ESG lens, and was there anything specifically that prompted that?

Consolvo: If I just think back to the amount of time I’ve been in this space and seeing what some of the critics put forth about Bitcoin, and then going through my own journey with KPMG, who is obviously very big on ESG, you start going through each of the categories and come across a lot of the benefits that Bitcoin provides — both the asset and the technology. It’s interesting because a lot of people attack the energy consumption, which again is only one part of the ESG framework, but I think I’d never really seen anyone take a full attempt at explaining all the benefits that it provides across all three pillars.

The big impetus was the article that came out back in January-February by the New York Times that attacked Bitcoin’s energy consumption. I thought, “Hey this is a really good time for me to use my platform to document all the benefits, all the public good that Bitcoin does”. I sort of had a fundamental idea about what I was going to put in the paper, but as I started researching, I started coming across all these other things I had never even thought of. I think the paper did a pretty good job of showing how much good it does versus just the same kind of FUD we hear day in and day out.

Nichols: Why do you think there is so much FUD out there? Where and why does this FUD emanate, and what can we do to solve it?

Consolvo: For me, it comes down to education. Bitcoin is just such a complex topic. It’s not something that most people understand very well. When I go back to when I first started to research Bitcoin and do my own homework on it, it took me a while. It was kind of frustrating because you’re like: “What am I missing here? Why don’t I get this?”, because it’s just not foundational concepts that we’re all used to. It requires you to be open-minded to not just how Bitcoin works, but to understand what problems it’s actually solving. So then you start to understand how Bitcoin works, but before you can even go any further, you start having to research economics and you have to start being an expert in energy consumption and things like that. It’s just a very broad range of topics that Bitcoin starts to touch.

I think the report does a pretty good job of saying “Yes, Bitcoin does use a lot of energy, but I don’t think energy consumption is really the issue here”, and we need to really focus on the emissions behind that energy production. I would flip it around and ask somebody who’s a staunch Bitcoin critic: “If you’re concerned about the amount of energy that it’s using, if the world could snap its fingers and move to a fully sustainable energy mix, would you still attack the energy consumption?” I don’t think they would. So that’s why you have to really bring it back to the emissions, but then also look at the ways that it’s actually helping with the transition to more sustainable energy and the way it’s able to help monetize some of these projects.

Nichols: You delineate between Scope One and Scope Two emissions as they relate to Bitcoin. Can you walk us through that? What is Bitcoin’s emissions profile and how do you contextualize the emissions Bitcoin is associated with?

Consolvo: People hear about all the environmental impacts of Bitcoin and we tried to make it clear in the paper: Scope One emissions are virtually zero for Bitcoin, it’s just using electricity.

It’s funny because, I guess society sees electric vehicles as zero-emission vehicles which for the most part, that’s relatively true — they’re not using combustion and gasoline etc., they’re running on electricity. Bitcoin is no different. Bitcoin runs off electricity. But, where the Scope Two emissions come from is: Where is that energy coming from? Is it coming from a power plant burning fossil fuels, or is it coming from a solar or wind farm? That’s where we try to make that distinction in the paper.

One of the things my ESG counterpart Kirk-Patrick Caron actually pointed out to me in the paper is that some bitcoin mining actually does have Scope One emissions. If you think about using flared gas, you’re using something that enters into the atmosphere at least to some degree. So I think behind the meter, mining does have some Scope One emissions, but by and large, the industry is primarily zero emissions as it relates to Scope One.

Nichols: I want to dig down a little bit more into the natural gas component of this. Your report mentions Crusoe Energy as well as Vespene. Can you describe what people are using this vented methane for and kind of what the potential of this might be in terms of reducing GHG emissions from a market-based mechanism? There’s pure incentive here, which I find fairly novel.

Consolvo: If you think about Crusoe Energy and their partnership with Exxon to co-locate around what they’re doing around the oil and gas wells — a company like Crusoe can co-locate next to them and rather than letting that methane enter the atmosphere directly, they convert it to energy use. So now you have a company like Exxon who not only is able to reduce the greenhouse gasses that they’re responsible for, but they’re able to monetize it.

So the question that I’m asking is: Why the hell isn’t every single oil and gas producer reaching out and partnering with bitcoin miners to do exactly that?

Some of it is just a matter of perception with some of these companies. But again, I think it goes back to education. Imagine being a big executive at some oil and gas producer and someone’s telling you, “Hey we need to partner with these bitcoin miners and here’s why”. You’re probably thinking, “Wait a minute. That sounds kind of crazy”, right? Especially given preconceived notions you might have about Bitcoin. But I think that is something that will likely change over time given the benefit that each party has.

Nichols: As far as how much landfill natural gas is out there, can you speak to that as far as the potential of Bitcoin to capture this? You do mention Vespene in the report, I would be curious for a bit more color there.

Consolvo: They were probably one of the truly unique use cases that I came across before doing the paper. They’re basically co-locating at landfills to use the methane that seeps out of those areas — I think landfills are one of the biggest contributors of greenhouse gases, so that’s another example that you could start to see a lot more adoption just given the benefits to both parties and what it can help do to your greenhouse gas emission profile.

Nichols: The last piece on the energy subject I’d like to go over is the grid management aspect of Bitcoin as far as demand response. You mention winter storm Uri in Texas as an example. Can you speak to the importance of balancing load on the grid and what role Bitcoin can play in that? Why is demand response important for the grid as we bring more renewable energy generation online?

Consolvo: I’m not an energy expert, but I think the long and short of it is when you have a public utility that’s generating power, they have to generate more power than they’re actually going to use, given the different fluctuations in demand throughout the day. It’s called a duck curve, where the amount of power that we use fluctuates throughout the day and it kind of looks like a duck when you map it out on a chart: Most power consumption takes place around the early evening when everyone’s getting home from work. Let’s say we get home from work at 6 p.m. Well, at 6 o’clock in December, the sun’s not shining, so you’re not really able to tap into solar energy. Wind supply can be a little bit more problematic, just given the lack of adequate predictability.

But what demand response does is, when certain events take place in this example, winter storm Uri — granted, there were some major issues that happened with the actual infrastructure that caused some of these things to happen. But miners are incentivized to shut off because the power starts to become too expensive. So they get beyond their breakeven point if they weren’t able to shut down or they didn’t shut down.

Well, now everyone’s paying a significant price for energy. There are some regulations on that so I’ll be careful with how far I go with this, but they’re basically able to balance the price and the economics of it all, because they can shut down at a moment’s notice, pretty much. And they’ll do that the minute the price to mine becomes too expensive. They’re able to give a lot of that power back to the grid when it actually needs it.

Nichols: What would your response be to someone who says “bitcoin mining is a waste of energy”? I think you’ve done a good job of showing the utility of bitcoin mining as far as grid management, emissions reductions and monetizing wasted renewable energy, but that could serve as a nice segway into the S and G parts of the ESG discussion.

Consolvo: The first thing I’d say nowadays is, “Hey, to each their own”. There are probably things I might feel that are a waste of energy for people too. How much time do people spend video gaming, right? I don’t have any issue with that, but that’s fine if you think it’s a waste of energy. Where I start to think there’s a problem is if policy is influenced based on whether or not you think your use of electricity is any more beneficial than mine.

If I want to mine bitcoin in my house, if I want to mine bitcoin at scale, like a large bitcoin miner, I’m paying for that energy just like you are. There shouldn’t be any stipulations or additional rules like this tax that’s been mentioned on miners. To me, that doesn’t seem like that’s a fair treatment. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I respect anyone’s opinion on whether or not they think it’s useful or not. But, I think to me, that’s ultimately what it comes down to.

Now to answer your second question in terms of the social aspect, I think we in Western society probably don’t have as much of a need for bitcoin as other countries, and I think that’s a really important part that we try to cover via the social aspect. Here in the United States, women can open bank accounts, women get paid, women have jobs. That doesn’t apply to every other country. The example we put in the paper was this was a way for them to have a job and have their value that they’ve created not stolen from them.

If you look at El Salvador, they are very dependent on international remittances. If you’re in El Salvador, a lot of these folks that might migrate to the United States send money back home.

Well, the money they send back home is probably going through a Western Union-type company that takes their cut. Again, I’ll point back to the paper but the amount of effort that they have to go through to get that money, I don’t see how you can’t think that bitcoin doesn’t solve a fundamental problem with the way these monetary rails are set up.

Nichols: To move on to the governance piece, you guys talk about the decentralization of Bitcoin, the incentives of miners, and the lack of single points of failure in the network. What value for society do you think that type of decentralization might offer?

Consolvo: The value that it solves is that there’s no one that can come in and abuse their power. If you just look around the world at the various governments that have certainly abused their power over the years, that’s a fundamental issue. The way the governance is built into the protocol — in the asset class in general — I think inherently solves for that issue. I don’t ever have to worry if someone’s gonna come in and freeze or seize my assets or if they’re gonna change the rules — say, to increase the 21-million supply — because it helps their objectives. They don’t have the ability to do that and I think that’s pretty powerful and it’s not something that we’ve ever seen before prior to Bitcoin.

Nichols: For the last part of this, I want to set the stage for what the Bitcoin community should be doing when it comes to ESG — what is the importance of engaging with people who are ESG-minded for Bitcoin and Bitcoin companies? That also leads into why KPMG is looking at Bitcoin through the ESG lens.

Consolvo: This is an extremely important topic for a lot of companies, one of which is KPMG as well. When you think about these ESG proponents or ESG-minded people, it comes down to education. Many of these ESG proponents just think “oh, Bitcoin’s using way too much energy, that’s a problem, that’s not gonna fit into my portfolio” or whatever else they might be using bitcoin for. So I think it comes back to education again.

Nichols: What do you think integrating Bitcoin into the ESG conversation might yield? There’s obviously a lot of ESG funds investing in publicly traded companies. So what can bitcoin miners specifically do? I think that’s probably one of the largest sticking points here — what they can do to engage with that community to get them to see the importance of Bitcoin, for the reasons you just said.

Consolvo: I just really think it comes down to education. I think a lot of Bitcoin companies are doing it, but it’s making people aware of what value Bitcoin actually provides. It’s dispelling some of the myths and misconceptions about Bitcoin that are still out there today. But I do think that the body of people who kind of view Bitcoin as bad for the environment, used by criminals etc., is starting to dwindle. I think it’s never going to fully dwindle for probably as long as I’m here, but what they can do is just continue to make it known what purpose the miners solve other than just creating a secure protocol for a speculative asset. I think a lot of people view it that way. It’s a lot more than that.

Nichols: One thing that I think is not discussed enough in the environmental conversation around bitcoin is its finite supply. There’s a big conversation around climate change and how we discount the future costs of climate change back to the present. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on the difference in a discount rate on a bitcoin standard versus a fiat standard.

Consolvo: What I view that is very beneficial to Bitcoin is it really promotes saving and not consuming. I think we currently live in a consumption-based society and if you think about being a consumption-based society and the amount of money that we will print at various times in order to jumpstart the economy, that’s just creating consumption. If you’re an ESG proponent, I don’t see how you can have those two things relate to each other — they’re contradictory. If you’re going to be in a consumption-based economy, you’re going to use resources and you’re gonna have a huge impact on the environment, whereas bitcoin promotes saving, and if you’re saving, you’re not consuming. Therefore that to me seems like just a natural positive impact on the environment over a long period of time.

Nichols: Also, needing to exponentially grow GDP at a given percentage per year in an open-ended manner, that is simply not a possibility on a long-term time scale. So I think that’s something that has gone under the radar as far as the environmental and social consequences.

Consolvo: That’s spot on. You’re inherently going to be having a significant environmental impact based on consuming that much and by meeting these GDP targets or inflation targets, etc.

Nichols: Lastly, what has the response to your report been?

Consolvo: The response has been pretty overwhelmingly positive. I couldn’t have imagined the amount of outreach that I was going to get from this paper prior to doing it. I figured the Bitcoin community would be very pleased with it, and I even underestimated that. What I’m really curious about is, what about the naysayers? Did I present anything to them where they said to themselves, “You know what, I was wrong about this. I never realized that bitcoin can do this or do that. I never realized that there’s people in Afghanistan that have a huge need for it, or people in any of these countries with massive hyperinflation”.

So I mean, those are the people I’m curious to hear from.

Click here to download a PDF of this article.

This article is featured in Bitcoin Magazine’s “The Primary Issue”. Click here to get your Annual Bitcoin Magazine Subscription.

Source link

After a plane, a ferry, and a train had brought me to Manhattan, NY, we found ourselves with thirty-something minutes to set up for a sit-down interview with presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., thirty-something floors high in a Hudson Yards’ hotel. Captured by filmmaker Jeremy Poley, RFK answered our questions for about forty minutes. His responses were sharp and well articulated with an encyclopedic recall ability. He answered every single question I had prepared. Perhaps lost in the mainstream noise attempting to diminish his inarguable counterculture resonance is his general likability. But while Americans might love their Kennedys, the DNC sure doesn’t. At least not while his campaign is putting an outside-yet-still-partisan pressure on the Democratic party, forcing the Biden reelection campaign to at least pretend to get their act together.

His entrance was hurried. His breathing controlled, but heavy like the hands of a prizefighter, wrapped around his tea cup. After a warm but truncated introduction, Jeremy gave us the green light and the interview started in earnest a few minutes after the middle of the hour.

Goodwin: If your father was around today, would he recognize the current state of the DNC? What is a Kennedy Democrat to you?

RFK: I would say Kennedy Democrats are the traditional Democratic Party which was the party of the working class, the working poor. It was a party that was very strong traditionally on the environment. Its tradition has been anti-war and skeptical of the military industrial complex, and also skeptical of Wall Street. I would say taking the position of preventing Wall Street from dictating policies that end up serving the American general interest of the corporate aristocracy and the corporate kleptocracy and stripping of the middle class, working people, and union members of their wealth and their power.

Goodwin: This doesn’t sound like the DNC today.

RFK: No.

Goodwin: How do you plan to take on the super monopolies that control our food, media, currency, and health?

RFK: For each sector you have to do something different. It’s true that there’s been this extraordinary consolidation where these three giant finance houses — BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard — control 88% of the S&P 500 and they control virtually all of the military contractors. They control most of the U.S.-based agricultural sector, the big packing companies and seed companies, the pharmaceutical industry. For each sector, you have to do different things. And in each sector, those industries also have 20 or 30 years of developing methodologies for capturing and controlling the regulatory agencies — that are supposed to protect the public from bad behavior by those companies. But instead those regulators have become sock puppets for the industries they’re supposed to regulate. And in each case, you have to unravel corporate capture. I think that I’m probably the best person at this point, in this country, that’s suited to do that because so much of my career has been litigating against those agencies and the industries that have corrupted them.

And when you bring litigation, you really almost get a PhD in corporate capture. You really understand the dynamics of it and understand, therefore, the methods for unraveling it. And I’ll give you an example. When we brought the Monsanto case, we uncovered discovery documents that showed that the head of the pesticide division at EPA, a man named Jess Rowland, was secretly working for Monsanto and that his orders were being given to him by Monsanto executives who were instructing him to kill studies that they thought might link glyphosate — the active ingredient in their flagship pesticide Roundup — from links to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers. And it was clear that although he was being paid by the American taxpayer, he was actually working for Monsanto. And this is true unfortunately throughout the agencies. This is more the rule than the exception. Because I’ve been so deeply involved in this kind of litigation, I actually know the names of people that I need to move as soon as I get into office.

Most politicians are very intimidated by these agencies because the agencies do have the capacity at many levels to commit civil disobediences to embarrass the president if you feel that they’re coming under pressure. And I understand that dynamic and I understand what needs to be done to unravel this corrupt merger of state and corporate power.

Goodwin: A carousel of C-suite executives to regulatory positions. When you do take office, what actions would you take to ensure free speech, free press, and an open internet acting as a public square for discourse, especially for dissident voices against these kinds of propaganda machines?

RFK: Number one, my first day in office, I’ll issue an executive order against any federal agency or any federal regulator encouraging or promoting censorship at any social media site. In addition to that, I will promote legislation to change the RICO Act, the Racketeering Act, which my father originally wrote, to include as a predicate offense government-dictated censorship of free speech. I’ll also summon the heads of all of the major social media sites, including YouTube and Google, which continue to censor political speech in this country. And I’ll tell them that they need to come up with a plan about how they’re going to avoid censoring political speech. The sanction, ultimately, is to transform them into public utilities and recognize that they now have become the public square. And then I will put in legislation to amend the Communications Act, which includes Section 230, and I will, in that act, make the censorship of political speech illegal.

Goodwin: If democracy innately necessitates informed consent, can the U.S. government fairly call for the violent defense of democracy as a pillar of foreign policy while working with Big Tech to censor stories within its own country?

RFK: Can the government censor criticism of, for example, the war in Ukraine? That should be illegal. Individual media sites, of course, should be able to criticize the war, and they can either criticize it or they can choose not to allow criticism on their pages. That’s their option. But if they’re doing it at the direction of the government, then the First Amendment is implicated and it becomes illegal. And that’s the way that I would treat it.

The idea that America promotes democracy worldwide is generally regarded as canard around the world. The CIA has participated, I think, in 87 coups between 1947 and 1997 — a third of the nations on Earth. And most of them are democracies. And the USAID, which is a CIA front, spends $10 billion a year in efforts to overthrow democracies in various countries. They do a regime change operation. When you do a regime change operation, you’re countervailing democracy in that country, because usually the regime has been put in place through some kind of consensus by the people who live in that country. Often this consensus is manufactured by projects like Operation Mockingbird. The CIA today is the biggest funder of journalism in the world. It’s not supposed to fund journalism in the U.S., but it does. And if you look around the world, it owns newspapers, it runs newspapers, it pays editors, and it pays leading journalists in most of the developing world and in Europe.

Goodwin: Speaking of journalists, do you intend to pardon Julian Assange when you take office?

RFK: I will pardon Julian Assange on day one and probably Edward Snowden as well. And then I will look at other cases for pardon. I’m going to look at Ross Ulbricht’s case to see if he was justly convicted and whether his conviction in his sentence reflects the seriousness of his crime, or whether he was being made an example of in order to discourage Bitcoin or the industry of cryptocurrencies. And if I find out that is the case, I will pardon him as well.

Goodwin: How is what Ross did any different than what AT&T executives did, allowing drug dealers and human traffickers to use their systems? Or JPMorgan Chase, allowing known human traffickers to utilize their bank services? How is what Ross did any different than that?

RFK: There are many ironies that accompany Ross’ convictions. I think that’s a really good point — the things that he was accused of are things that are just part of the business structure and the business plan of these leading blue chip corporations. But he didn’t have that power of the lobbying clout. And if I find that his sentence was unjust, I will reverse it.

Goodwin: Do you think if people knew that they would have their taxes raised and experience high inflation in order to expense the trillions of dollars needed for these wars, or for the COVID response, that there would be public support?

RFK: I don’t think any of the wars that we fought at least since the Korean War, and maybe including the Korean War, would have been approved by taxpayers in advance. Fiat currency was created in order to enable nations to go to war without levying the taxes outright on populations. The population still pays through a self-tax called inflation. But fiat currency was invented long before the Fed. And it was invented at the outset, from the beginning, in order to fund the cause of war.

Goodwin: Speaking of fiat currencies, what initially sparked your interest in bitcoin and why are you interested in the Bitcoin voting bloc?

RFK: My interest in Bitcoin began when I saw the truckers and what happened in Ottawa. You had peaceful demonstrations for people who were exercising their right to protest, to petition public officials, for very good reasons. And they were silenced and punished by the government in an extraordinary way. The government used surveillance techniques to determine their identities, to determine the license plates of their cars, and then closed their bank accounts, depriving them of their access to their own money without any charges being filed, and certainly without any conviction. Simply to silence them. The government has the capacity to shut down your bank account to starvation. These are people who could not pay their mortgages. I talked to one trucker who couldn’t pay his alimony and he was getting in criminal trouble with the courts. People couldn’t pay for their children’s clothing, medicine, and food. And of course they couldn’t pay for gasoline to move their vehicles — their credit cards no longer worked. And if the government has the capacity to do that, the government has the capacity to enslave us. If they can starve their critics, they can accomplish any atrocity. At that point, I began to understand that freedom of transaction is as important as freedom of speech. And that Bitcoin is this. I can also see the trajectory toward central bank digital currencies, and that will give nations this ultimate power over whether we live or die. And I understood that we need a currency that is a freedom currency — a currency that is independent and that can’t be controlled by the government.

Goodwin: You recently floated this very novel idea of, alongside other hard assets, backing the U.S. dollar with bitcoin. Are you concerned at all about government influence or restrictions with regards to Bitcoin or bitcoin mining?

RFK: I’m very concerned about all the government attacks on Bitcoin. But what I would like to do is to at least provide some issuance of Treasury bills that are backed by hard currency. And that could be a bucket that includes bitcoin, that includes platinum, gold, silver, and other hard assets. And that would not be completely covered, but maybe beginning with 1%. And the reason for that — it’s really a drop in the bucket — but we can see if there’s a market out there and if it would impose a kind of discipline on this out-of-control printing of money because the consumers would have access to an asset that at least had some basis in hard currency — at least some immunity from runaway inflation. And if there’s a preference for that, then we could increase the amount every year, 1% to 2%, 3%, and so on. And get back to at least some level of options for base currencies.

Goodwin: How do you see the future of the U.S. dollar developing as we’re seeing CBDCs, stablecoins, and other kinds of dollar derivatives coming out? We’re seeing a rapid globalization of the dollar at a very high velocity. Obviously, I think you can see this potential Bitcoin future, but how do you see the dollar developing?

RFK: I think the future of the dollar is uncertain. One of the big factors is the exponential growth of BRICs. BRICs, which, you know, began with just Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, are now adding another six countries. They’re offering an alternative to the dollar as a reserve currency and while they don’t issue their own currency, they allow transactions to be settled in local currencies. Ultimately this is a threat to the position of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and to American power, to American wealth. It’s accelerating, and it’s our own doing. It comes from the weaponization of currency, the use of military and even simply military posture from the United States. The unilateral bellicosity of our country, which has made many other countries wary of participating with us, or putting themselves within our power. When we freeze assets of people who are Vladimir Putin’s friends or Russian oligarchs, who may or may not have anything to do with what’s happening in Russia, people say, “Why are we putting ourselves in a position where we can do that? Why don’t we start our own markets?” and that’s a very dangerous thing for the U.S. dollar.

Goodwin: Do you believe the U.S. government should directly issue a digital currency to citizens?

RFK: No, I’m against central bank digital currencies. I think they will become an instrument of power and control. And ultimately, they’ll be used as an excuse to abolish cash currencies. And they give the government complete control over our lives. Even before the Ottawa event, I gave a speech in Milan warning the people of Italy because they were looking at vaccine passports and central bank digital currencies at that time and I said, “Here’s what they’re doing in China”. If you don’t meet a certain social credit score, if you show up on a mask day not wearing your mask properly, or you’re not boosted, whatever your offense is, the government can turn off your capacity to spend money. They can program it so that your credit cards will only work, for example, at grocery stores within a half a mile radius of your home, but they won’t buy you gasoline. They won’t allow you to get an airplane ticket. They don’t want to allow you to travel and buy items and foods in other parts of the country or abroad. And if the government has those kinds of powers over us, we’re all in a lot of deep trouble.

Goodwin: Do you have any concerns with the update of the legacy system with the formation of FedNow and this kind of permissioned walled garden that already exists in the Federal Reserve System?

RFK: I think FedNow is the first step. It’s not essentially a digital currency, but it’s the first step. We’re all on this slippery slope. It worries me.

Goodwin: Can you talk a little bit about the government’s actions during COVID? Do you believe it was orchestrated similar to the 2008 crisis to shut down small businesses and regional banks in order to consolidate financial power within the super monopoly?

RFK: I don’t think it was orchestrated specifically for that purpose. I think those same entities, powerful entities, will use any crisis as a pretext for removing public rights and for clamping down totalitarian controls.

Goodwin: Like 9/11 and the Patriot Act?

RFK: Every crisis throughout history becomes a pretext for powerful actors in the society to expand their power and to reduce public power and to subvert democracy.

Goodwin: Would you consider canceling debt or recovering ill-gotten gains from the super monopolies that stole wealth from the working class?

RFK: I would look at litigation against any type of fraud.

Goodwin: Why do you think Trump gets a free pass from the media for the lockdowns and disastrous monetary policy decisions made during his administration? Do you think he gets a free pass?

RFK: Yeah, I think the mainstream media were committed to that agenda. And so it’s an area that they’re not going to criticize him on. Probably because of a conflict of interest of similar investments in pharma. There’s huge pharmaceutical ad revenues — one of the primary advertising revenues going into the major media outlets. And those pharmaceutical companies also ultimately dictate content on the stations.

Bitcoin Magazine Annual Subscription

Goodwin: How do you hope to lead a movement against such a powerful, unified coalition? And what do you say to those that are demoralized and don’t believe that the political system can be used to help citizens anymore?

RFK: I would tell them to watch me and watch what I do. I still believe that there’s hope for democracy. And let’s give it a chance. And, if I get in there, I also have absolute confidence that I can fix it.

Goodwin: Do you think that Bitcoin will play a big part of that? Do you think currency addresses the super monopoly head on?

RFK: I’m going to make sure that Bitcoin is protected and that people can keep their own wallets, and that the current White House’s war on Bitcoin will be over, that transactions will be protected and encouraged. I’ll look ultimately at treating it as a currency rather than a commodity. Particularly for smaller Bitcoin owners, for transactions made by owners. I don’t want to provide a windfall for the billionaires who accumulated bitcoin, but I think smaller actors and their transactions should be protected. They should be able to exchange currencies the same way as when you go to Canada and you’re using the Canadian dollar. You shouldn’t have to pay for it in taxes if there’s some appreciation in the Canadian dollar.

Goodwin: Do you see using something akin to the Section 230 protections or even an amendment that would protect such transactions?

RFK: I don’t know how I would do it, but I can tell you the general tenure of my approach and my administration. I can’t tell you the details about how I’m going to do it. I’m going to consult the smartest people in the industry, people like Stanley Druckenmiller and Paul Tudor Jones. And then Bitcoin specialists in order to figure out the best way to do it in ways that will protect our freedoms in ways that will encourage the re-industrialization of America and that benefits can accrue to working Americans.

Goodwin: Say right now you’re sitting next to the best good faith representation of the Bitcoin community as possible, and I’m feeding you exactly what it is that should be done. How do you plan to work with a compromised Congress to get some of this regulation in place to protect Bitcoin?

RFK: I’m going to do everything that I can without having to go to Congress. I’m going to do it through my control over Treasury policy, even if it means bringing in the banks. A lot of the bad policies toward Bitcoin are not being driven by legislation. They’re being driven by White House policies. I’m going to end the war.

Goodwin: Speaking of ending the war: The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about seems to be in full effect with the provocation of Russia by NATO increasing its military presence in Ukraine. And yet there are some here back home that would say that this is good for the U.S. economy because they’re buying U.S. arms. Would you say the war in Ukraine is actually an economic victory for Biden?

RFK: No. The war is a catastrophe for everybody. We’ve killed 400,000 Ukrainian kids and probably 70,000 to 100,000 Russians. I know Mitch McConnell said that we shouldn’t worry about the $140 billion that we’re paying over there because it’s all going back to U.S. arms makers. Who owns all those arms makers? It’s BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, right? It’s going to the richest people in our country. It’s not helping the working poor. It’s actually draining a lot of intellectual resources that could be used to re-industrialize our country at home, to build products that are actually valuable, that don’t kill people, that make people’s lives better, to rebuild our education system. With the $8 trillion that we’ve spent on war, we could make Social Security solvent for 30 years. We could pay for every American child’s education up through university, and give them incredible education. We could pay for child care for every American. We could liquidate all the credit card debt in our country. So many of the problems we face could be solved if we kept that money at home. And that’s what I’m going to do as president.

Goodwin: Can you maybe talk about the Weimar Republic and its consequences as an analog or metaphor to what’s happening in the U.S. now? Could this inflation cause a revolution of sorts? And is there an alternative for the lower, middle, and working class that isn’t a violent revolution?

RFK: I’m going to try to solve the problems, beginning with housing. Right now, you have these big companies — again, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard — that own so much of America already now trying to buy all the single-family homes. By 2030, just six and a half years from now, corporations will own 60% of the single-family homes. My kids can’t buy homes. So many people, kids your age, my kids age, are still living in a home with their parents or they’re living in rentals. There’s very few of them that are actually purchasing homes. They go out to try to buy a home and somebody comes in at the last minute with a cash offer or some amorphous LLC with an ambiguous name that you can trace back to BlackRock. And it’s not a good thing. Thomas Jefferson said American democracy has to be rooted in tens of thousands of independent freeholds owned by individual Americans. This is a colonial model; it’s an aristocracy; it’s a feudal aristocracy. If corporations own all the land in our country, Americans can’t own a home. If they can’t own it, they don’t have equity. If you have a home and you want to start a business, you can take a second mortgage and take that risk. But if you don’t own equity, you can’t get access to capital. And that’s where the power is — access to capital. And those companies have access to capital at much cheaper rates because of their bank books — and they’re competing against our children to buy homes. We built prosperity in this country after World War II making sure Americans could get into homes. Now that promise within the American dream is being lost.

Goodwin: Do you think it’s a coincidence at all that just moments after the Civil Rights Act passed that the Nixon shock happened and we got taken off the gold standard?

RFK: In 1971, the tipping point of getting taken off the gold standard was the Vietnam War, which was putting us in debt and they needed to print money. And they were frustrated. Kissinger and Nixon were frustrated that they may not be able to get support from the war, from Americans, and support for those appropriations from Congress. And so they changed the rules. They abandoned Bretton Woods. They divorced America from the gold standard. And they started this inflationary cycle that we’ve been dealing with ever since. There’s definitely a choice made between, for example, the war on poverty and the Vietnam War. Martin Luther King said we can either go to war against poverty at home or we can go to war against yellow people in Vietnam. And we can’t do both. We don’t have the money. And I think those are connections that are clear.

Goodwin: I appreciate your time and your thoughtful answers to all these questions.

RFK: Thank you very much.

This article is featured in Bitcoin Magazine’s “The Primary Issue”. Click here to get your Annual Bitcoin Magazine Subscription.

Source link

In the heart of Manhattan, high above Hudson Yards in a bustling hotel, Bitcoin Magazine’s Editor in Chief, Mark Goodwin, sat down with US presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for a candid and engaging interview that shed new light on his political vision.

The interview commenced with RFK’s assessment of the Democratic Party and the evolving definition of a “Kennedy Democrat.” According to him, Kennedy Democrats are rooted in the party’s historical values of advocating for the working class, environmental stewardship, anti-war principles, and skepticism towards corporate influence. He emphasized the need to counter the undue influence of financial giants like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, which control a significant portion of the economy, including military contractors, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals.

One of the central themes of the interview was RFK’s plan to address the growing power of tech giants and their influence on free speech and the open internet. He outlined a multifaceted approach that involves executive orders against government-promoted censorship on social media, legislative amendments to protect free speech, and summoning the heads of major social media companies to ensure political speech remains uncensored.

RFK’s stance on controversial figures like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden was clear. He pledged to pardon them on his first day in office, and also expressed interest in reviewing the case of Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, to assess whether his sentence was just.

The conversation then shifted towards the economy and the question of whether taxpayers would support policies that raise taxes and potentially lead to inflation to fund various initiatives, including wars and responses to crises like COVID-19. RFK highlighted the historical use of fiat currency to fund wars without directly taxing the population, noting that inflation was a form of hidden taxation.

The interview took an intriguing turn as RFK discussed his interest in Bitcoin and the need for financial freedom. He shared how the government’s actions during the Ottawa trucker protests, where individuals’ bank accounts were closed without due process, sparked his appreciation for the importance of freedom of transaction. RFK expressed his intention to protect Bitcoin, potentially backing the U.S. dollar with cryptocurrencies and other hard assets to provide an alternative to fiat currency.

The future of the U.S. dollar was another significant topic. RFK highlighted the challenge posed by the rapid globalization of the dollar and the emergence of alternatives offered by BRICs and other nations, potentially eroding the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.

Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) were met with skepticism. RFK argued that they could become instruments of control and warned against their potential to eliminate cash currencies, ultimately giving governments complete control over individuals’ financial transactions.

The interview delved into the challenges of implementing Bitcoin-friendly policies, including working with a compromised Congress. RFK expressed his intent to use executive orders and Treasury policy to make changes without relying solely on legislative action.

The conversation also touched on the military-industrial complex and the war in Ukraine. RFK criticized the detrimental impact of wars on both domestic and global fronts, emphasizing the immense resources spent on military endeavors that could be directed towards solving pressing domestic issues.

Drawing parallels to history, RFK discussed the potential consequences of inflation and the risk of social upheaval. He underscored the importance of addressing economic disparities and protecting the ability of Americans to own homes, in line with Thomas Jefferson’s vision.

The interview concluded with RFK’s vision of hope for American democracy and his commitment to addressing pressing issues. He acknowledged the challenges posed by powerful interests but urged citizens to watch his actions, promising to make a difference.

In a political landscape often dominated by familiar faces, RFK’s unconventional approach and commitment to tackling powerful interests make him a notable candidate worth watching. His dedication to preserving individual freedoms, addressing economic disparities, and promoting financial independence through Bitcoin sets him apart in the crowded field of presidential hopefuls.

Source link

Chris sits down with Thomas Shewchuck from Evertas to talk about having his company Bitshure get acquired to make the bitcoin mining insurance landscape more robust. He talks about bitcoin mining insurance, bitcoin mining, the bear market, and preparing for the halving and the next bull run.

See the full interview on YouTube.

Bitcoin mining has become a global phenomenon, with individuals and businesses around the world investing in powerful computers and specialized hardware to participate in the process of verifying transactions on the blockchain. However, this rapidly growing industry is not without its risks. In this exclusive interview, we speak with Thomas Shewchuck, co-founder of Bitshure, which was recently acquired by Evertas, two leading companies in the Bitcoin insurance space, to gain insights into the importance of insuring Bitcoin mining and the unique solutions they offer.

Understanding Bitcoin Mining Insurance

Bitcoin mining insurance is a specialized form of coverage that protects individuals and businesses engaged in the mining process against a range of risks, including hardware failure, loss or theft of mining equipment, and cyber attacks. It provides financial compensation and support to miners in the event of unforeseen circumstances, enabling them to continue their operations and mitigate potential losses.

The Need for Insurance in Bitcoin Mining

The necessity for Bitcoin mining insurance stems from the significant investment required to set up and maintain a mining operation. Miners often spend substantial amounts of money on hardware and electricity costs, and the loss of equipment or interruption in operations can have severe financial implications. Insurance safeguards miners against these risks, offering peace of mind and financial security.

Furthermore, Bitcoin mining insurance not only protects miners from financial losses but also provides them with additional benefits. For instance, some insurance policies offer technical support and assistance in case of hardware failure. This can be particularly valuable for miners who may not have the expertise or resources to quickly resolve technical issues on their own.

In addition to financial protection, Bitcoin mining insurance can also play a crucial role in fostering trust and credibility within the mining community. By having insurance coverage, miners demonstrate their commitment to responsible and secure mining practices. This can enhance their reputation and attract potential business partners or investors who prioritize risk management and security.

Navigating the Risks of Insuring Bitcoin Mining

Insuring Bitcoin mining comes with its fair share of challenges. The industry’s evolving nature, coupled with the complex technical and cybersecurity risks, requires insurers to constantly adapt and reassess their coverage. However, these challenges also present significant opportunities for insurers to develop specialized expertise and innovative solutions that cater specifically to the needs of Bitcoin miners.

In conclusion, the importance of insuring Bitcoin mining cannot be overstated. Miners have access to specialized insurance solutions that cater specifically to their unique needs. These companies are shaping the future of cryptocurrency insurance by developing innovative coverage options and staying ahead of emerging risks. As the industry continues to grow and evolve, comprehensive insurance coverage will play a pivotal role in safeguarding the financial investments of Bitcoin miners around the world.

Source link

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly growing field, and as a result, the job market for AI professionals is expanding. AI job interviews can be particularly challenging because of the technical nature of the field. However, technical expertise is not the only factor that interviewers consider. Non-technical candidates who can demonstrate an understanding of AI concepts and an eagerness to learn are also valued.

Technical candidates should be prepared to answer questions that test their knowledge of machine learning algorithms, tools and frameworks. They may be asked to provide detailed explanations of their past projects and the technical solutions they used to overcome challenges. Additionally, they should be prepared to answer questions about data preprocessing, model evaluation and their experience with AI-related tools and frameworks.

Related: 5 natural language processing (NLP) libraries to use

Non-technical candidates should focus on their understanding of the transformative potential of AI and their eagerness to learn more about the field. They should be able to explain the importance of data preprocessing and cleaning and provide an understanding of how machine learning algorithms work. Additionally, they should be prepared to discuss their ability to collaborate and communicate with team members and their methods of staying up-to-date with the latest developments in AI.

Here are nine common interview questions for AI jobs. While these are common interview questions for AI jobs, it’s important to keep in mind that every job and company is unique. The best answers to these questions will depend on the specific context of the role and the organization you are applying to.

Use these questions as a starting point for your interview preparation, but don’t be afraid to tailor your responses to fit the specific job requirements and culture of the company you are interviewing with. Remember that the goal of the interview is to demonstrate your skills and experience, as well as your ability to think critically and creatively, so be prepared to provide thoughtful and nuanced responses to each question.

1. What motivated you to pursue a career in AI?

This question is aimed at understanding a job seeker’s motivation and interest in pursuing a career in AI. It is an opportunity to showcase one’s passion and how it aligns with the job they are applying for. A candidate’s answer should highlight any experience or training they may have had that sparked their interest in AI, as well as any specific skills or interests they have in the field. 

Recipe to getting a job in data science in 6 months

– Learn Python & SQL
– Brush up on stats & linear algebra
– Implement key ML algorithms using Kaggle data in notebooks
– Use real-world data, build machine learning models
– Practice interview questions

Get job

— Bindu Reddy (@bindureddy) March 3, 2021

Technical candidates can highlight their interest in the mathematical and statistical foundations of machine learning, while non-technical candidates can focus on the transformative potential of AI and their desire to learn more about the field.

2. What experience do you have with AI-related tools and frameworks?

This question is aimed at assessing a candidate’s technical knowledge and experience with AI-related tools and frameworks. Their answer should highlight any experience they have had working with specific tools and frameworks, such as TensorFlow, PyTorch or scikit-learn. 

Wanna break into ML? Master these essential ML and DL Python libraries.

Which ones to choose for your specific use case? Depends

ML: NumPy/Scipy, Pandas, SkLearn
DL: PyTorch, TensorFlow/Kerashttps://t.co/v0MvCEcrKj #MachineLearning #pythonprogramming #DeepLearning pic.twitter.com/VJS5F4lt7l

— Parmida Beigi (@ParmidaBeigi) April 19, 2023

Technical candidates can provide specific examples of tools and frameworks they have worked with, while non-technical candidates can highlight their willingness to learn and adapt to new technologies.

3. Can you describe a machine learning project you worked on?

This question is designed to assess the candidate’s experience and understanding of machine learning projects. The interviewer is interested in hearing about a machine learning project that the candidate has worked on in the past. The candidate’s response should be structured to describe the project from start to finish, including the problem that was being solved, the data used, the approach taken, the models developed and the results achieved.

The candidate should use technical terms and concepts in their answer but also explain them in a way that is easy to understand for non-technical interviewers. The interviewer wants to gauge the candidate’s level of understanding and experience with machine learning projects, so the candidate should be prepared to provide details and answer follow-up questions if necessary.

Technical candidates can provide a detailed explanation of the project, including the algorithms and techniques used, while non-technical candidates can focus on the project’s goals and outcomes and their role in the project.

4. How do you approach data preprocessing and cleaning?

This question aims to assess the candidate’s approach to data preprocessing and cleaning in machine learning projects. The interviewer wants to know how the candidate identifies and addresses issues in data quality, completeness and consistency before feeding the data into machine learning models.

The answer should describe the steps taken to ensure that the data is properly formatted, standardized and free of errors or missing values. The candidate should also explain any specific techniques or tools used to preprocess and clean the data, such as scaling, normalization or imputation methods. It is important to emphasize the importance of data preprocessing and cleaning in achieving accurate and reliable machine learning results.

Day10: #100DaysOfCode: Data Preprocessing Techniques

Why is Data Preprocessing Required?
Data preprocessing is required tasks for cleaning the data and making it suitable for a machine learning model which also increases the accuracy and efficiency of a machine learning model. pic.twitter.com/ilEci6PaVz

— Tarun Jain (@TRJ_0751) May 3, 2022

Technical candidates can provide a step-by-step explanation of their data preprocessing and cleaning techniques, while non-technical candidates can explain their understanding of the importance of data preprocessing and cleaning.

5. How do you evaluate the performance of a machine learning model?

The purpose of this question is to evaluate your knowledge of machine learning model evaluation techniques. The interviewer wants to know how to assess the performance of a machine learning model. One can explain that various evaluation metrics, such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score and AUC-ROC, among others, are available. Each of these metrics has its own significance based on the problem at hand.

One can mention that to evaluate the performance of the model, the data is typically split into training and testing sets, and the testing set is used for evaluation. Additionally, cross-validation can be used for model evaluation. Finally, one should consider the problem context and specific requirements while evaluating the model’s performance.

Technical candidates can provide a detailed explanation of the metrics and techniques used to evaluate the performance of a model, while non-technical candidates can focus on their understanding of the importance of model evaluation.

Related: 5 programming languages to learn for AI development

6. Can you explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning?

The interviewer aims to gauge how well you comprehend the core ideas of machine learning through this question. The interviewer wants you to explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised learning.

You can explain that supervised learning is commonly used for tasks like classification and regression, while unsupervised learning is used for tasks like clustering and anomaly detection. It’s important to note that there are other types of learning as well, such as semi-supervised learning and reinforcement learning, which combine elements of both supervised and unsupervised learning.

Technical candidates can provide a technical explanation of the differences between the two learning types, while non-technical candidates can provide a simplified explanation of the concepts.

7. How do you keep up with the latest developments in AI?

This question is aimed at understanding your approach to staying up-to-date with the latest developments in the field of AI. Both technical and non-technical candidates can explain that they regularly read research papers, attend conferences and follow industry leaders and researchers on social media.

Additionally, you can mention that you participate in online communities and forums related to AI, where they can learn from others and discuss the latest developments in the field. Overall, it’s important to show that you have a genuine interest in the field and are proactive in keeping up with the latest trends and advancements.

8. Can you describe a time when you faced a difficult technical challenge and how you overcame it?

This question is aimed at understanding the problem-solving skills of the job seeker. The interviewer wants the candidate to describe a time when they faced a challenging technical problem and how they tackled it. The candidate should provide a detailed description of the problem, the approach they took to solve it and the outcome. 

It is important to highlight the steps taken to resolve the issue and any technical skills or knowledge utilized in the process. The candidate can also mention any resources or colleagues they reached out to for assistance. The purpose of this question is to evaluate the candidate’s ability to think critically, troubleshoot and persevere through difficult technical challenges.

Technical candidates can provide a detailed explanation of the challenge and the technical solutions used to overcome it, while non-technical candidates can focus on their problem-solving skills and ability to learn and adapt to new challenges.

9. How do you approach collaboration and communication with team members in an AI project?

This question aims to assess the candidate’s ability to work collaboratively with team members in an AI project. The interviewer wants to know how the candidate approaches collaboration and communication in such a project. The candidate can explain that they prioritize effective communication and collaboration by regularly checking in with team members, scheduling meetings to discuss progress and maintaining clear documentation of project goals, timelines and responsibilities.

The candidate can mention that they also strive to maintain a positive and respectful team dynamic by actively listening to and valuing the perspectives of their team members and providing constructive feedback when needed. Finally, the candidate can explain that they understand the importance of establishing and adhering to a shared code of conduct or best practices for collaboration and communication to ensure the success of the project.

Both technical and non-technical candidates can explain their methods of communicating and collaborating with team members, such as providing regular updates, seeking feedback and input, and being open to new ideas and perspectives.