Doomscroll News ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

Author: David Gross

  • The Crypto Eradication and Corporate Fraud Retribution Act (Hypothetical)

    The Crypto Eradication and Corporate Fraud Retribution Act (Hypothetical)

    Preamble: To ensure the integrity of financial markets, discourage speculative and potentially illicit activities associated with certain digital assets, and hold accountable high-level corporate executives who defraud investors in smaller public companies, this Act establishes a stringent taxation regime for digital assets and dedicates the resulting revenue exclusively to the prosecution and incarceration of culpable C-suite executives.

    Section 1: Taxation of Digital Assets

    • (a) Capital Gains and Income: All realized capital gains and income (including staking rewards, mining income, airdrops, and interest) derived from digital assets shall be taxed at a rate of 90%.
    • (b) Capital Losses: No capital losses from digital asset transactions may be deducted against gains from digital assets or any other form of income.
    • (c) Annual Wealth Tax: An annual wealth tax of 10% shall be levied on the total market value of all digital assets held by a U.S. person (individual or entity) as of December 31st each year, regardless of whether the assets have been sold or generated income.
    • (d) Transaction Tax: A 5% excise tax shall be imposed on the fair market value of every digital asset transaction, including purchases, sales, exchanges (crypto-to-crypto, crypto-to-fiat, fiat-to-crypto), and payments for goods or services. This tax is payable by the U.S. person initiating the transaction.
    • (e) Reporting: Taxpayers must report all digital asset holdings and every transaction, regardless of value, on their annual tax return with detailed information including dates, values, counterparties (where identifiable), and transaction IDs. Brokers and exchanges must issue detailed 1099 forms for all customer activity.
    • (f) Penalties: Failure to comply fully with reporting requirements or tax payments under this section will result in penalties including, but not limited to, a fine equal to 100% of the unreported assets’ value or unpaid tax, plus potential criminal charges including tax evasion. Egregious non-compliance may result in asset forfeiture.
    (more…)

  • Before RussiaGate: Unanswered 9/11 Questions & the Figures Who Later Targeted Trump

    The official 9/11 story has always been shadowed by intense political maneuvering and questions about the integrity of the investigation. TDS figures involved Robert Mueller and Jeff Sessions then became central to later political firestorms, like the Trump-Russia probe, leading critics to question if patterns of bias or “sketchy” behavior were present from the start. Add the chaos of the post-9/11 Anthrax attacks targeting leaders like Sen. Tom Daschle, and you have an environment ripe for suspicion. Here are the really interesting, specific questions that remain, viewed through that critical lens:

    Questions About the Investigation’s Integrity & Key Players:

    1. The Mueller FBI’s Actions: Robert Mueller led the FBI during 9/11 and its immediate aftermath. Considering his later controversial role heading the Trump-Russia investigation (labeled the “Russia Hoax” by critics), specific questions about his FBI’s handling of 9/11 gain new scrutiny for some observers: Why did the Phoenix Memo warning die within his FBI? Why was the WTC steel evidence removed and disposed of so quickly under his FBI’s jurisdiction? What were the full findings and actions taken regarding the Saudi flights authorized post-9/11? How effectively was the Anthrax investigation (targeting Sen. Daschle) handled by his FBI, and were its ultimate conclusions fully verified?
    2. The Zelikow Conflict & Commission Bias: How could the 9/11 Commission claim independence when its director, Philip Zelikow, had such tight links to the Bush White House (Condoleezza Rice), as highlighted in 2004 reports (CNN)? Did this connection, slammed by critics at the time, effectively allow the White House to steer the investigation?
    3. Political Pressure & Information Control: Were findings, like the “28 pages” on potential Saudi links, kept secret for years due to political pressure (perhaps involving figures like Jeff Sessions in his Senate role then, whose later actions as AG raised questions for critics) rather than legitimate security concerns? Did the White House improperly limit the Commission’s access or scope, as alleged during the 2004 hearings (CNN)?
    (more…)
  • Signal Chat’s Group Verification Blind Spot

    Signal Chat’s Group Verification Blind Spot

    Think of verification (V) as a required security check (like that special handshake) between any two members in a secure chat.

    1. One-on-One Chat: Let the chat be just between Alice and Bob. The set is S = {Alice, Bob}. Signal provides the mechanism (Safety Numbers) for Alice to verify Bob (V(Alice, Bob)) and for Bob to verify Alice (V(Bob, Alice)). For full trust, this verification should happen. Signal makes it possible and encourages it for this single pair (Alice, Bob).
    2. Group Chat (Signal’s Current Design): Let the group be the set G = {Alice, Bob, Charlie, … N}. Signal allows Alice to individually verify Bob (V(Alice, Bob)), or Alice to verify Charlie (V(Alice, Charlie)), and so on for any pair, optionally. Crucially: The group chat works even if these verifications haven’t happened. Alice can be in the group and talk to Bob and Charlie without the system forcing her to verify them, and without them having to verify her using the Safety Number check.
    3. Ideal Group Chat (Logical Requirement): Let the group be the set G = {Alice, Bob, Charlie, … N}. For this group G to have the same fundamental identity assurance as a verified chat between just Alice and Bob, the system design should require or enforce that verification V exists between all relevant pairs within the group. This means: For Alice to securely participate, the system should ensure that V(Alice, Bob), V(Alice, Charlie), and V(Alice, Y) for all other members Y in the group G are established (or at least flagged clearly if not). The same should apply to Bob verifying everyone else, Charlie verifying everyone else, and so on. Think of it like needing a “complete graph” of verification: Alice is securely linked to Bob, Alice to Charlie, Bob to Charlie, and so on for every pair.

    The baffling point is: Signal built the tool for Alice to verify Bob (V(Alice, Bob)), but didn’t make establishing these verification links across the entire group (G) a mandatory prerequisite for group operation. It treated security within the group G as a collection of optional one-on-one checks rather than a fundamental, required property of the group itself.

    Originally Posted on ๐• on April 19, 2025

    David Gross

    Follow me at https://x.com/dgapps and https://davidgrossapps.com

  • The MADC ‘Defense Pact’: A Playbook for Evading Accountability

    Universities, nudged by faculty groups and unions primarily within the Big Ten, are floating a plan for a “Mutual Academic Defense Compact” (MADC). The idea is to create an alliance where member schools pool resources to defend each other against what they term “political attacks.” While presented as a shield for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the MADC looks more like a coordinated strategy to sidestep accountability to elected governments, taxpayers, and the public, particularly regarding controversial programs and policies.

    Breaking Down the Goals: A Pattern of Evasion

    Examining the stated aims reveals a consistent thread of trying to avoid oversight and consequences:

    1. “Collective Defense”: This isn’t about protection in the usual sense. It’s about creating a shared war chestโ€”funded by tuition, endowments, or potentially taxpayer moneyโ€”to fight back against governmental investigations, audits, or legislative actions. It’s a mechanism designed explicitly to resist accountability measures imposed by elected bodies.
    2. “Resisting Political Interference”: This frequently serves as code for resisting laws, regulations, and oversight that university administrations or faculty dislike. It suggests an attempt to operate outside the normal democratic process where institutions are subject to political (i.e., governmental) direction, especially public universities. Shielding specific research agendas or programs, like contested DEI initiatives, from scrutiny under the guise of fighting “interference” is a direct dodge of public and governmental accountability.
    3. “Protect Academic Freedom”: While crucial, this principle can be misused. In the context of the MADC, there’s a risk it becomes a justification for insulating specific, often left-leaning, ideological viewpoints or controversial scholarship from legitimate criticism and external review, thereby evading intellectual and public accountability.
    4. “Support Vulnerable Communities / Uphold DEI”: The push to use pact resources to defend DEI programs is particularly telling. These programs face significant legal challenges and public criticism as discriminatory, promoting division, and chilling speech. The MADC aims to provide a financial and legal shield to prevent these programs from facing accountability through courts or legislatures, essentially using collective power to protect contested initiatives from consequences.
    5. “Mitigate Financial Pressure”: This goal is perhaps the most blatant attempt to avoid accountability. If a university faces funding cuts due to legislative decisions, declining enrollment, or public disapproval of its policies, the MADC seeks to use funds from other (potentially out-of-state) universities to cushion the blow. This undermines the basic principle that institutions should be accountable for the consequences of their actions and policies, including financial ones.
    (more…)

  • Ethereum Classic on Coinbase: Seriously? Let’s Talk About That Hash Rate and the 2020 Ownage.

    Forget the deep history lesson. Let’s talk about the here and now, and the flashing red warning light whenever Ethereum Classic (ETC) pops up on major exchanges like Coinbase: its security is fundamentally shaky.

    Why? It boils down to one critical factor in Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies: Hash Rate.

    Hash Rate = Security (or Lack Thereof)

    Think of hash rate as the total computing power protecting the network. Miners use this power to validate transactions and add blocks to the chain.

    • High Hash Rate (like Bitcoin): Makes it incredibly expensive and difficult for anyone to gain 51% control and attack the network (e.g., reverse transactions, double-spend coins).
    • Low Hash Rate (like ETC): Makes it comparatively cheap and easy for attackers to rent enough computing power to overwhelm the network and launch a 51% attack.

    And with ETC, this isn’t just some abstract threat. It’s a documented reality. Remember August 2020? Ethereum Classic didn’t just get 51% attacked once โ€“ it happened three times within that single month. Yes, you read that right. Attackers repeatedly gained majority control, reorganized thousands of blocks, and successfully double-spent millions of dollars worth of ETC. The very ledger that’s supposed to be immutable got forcibly rewritten, not just once, but again and again in rapid succession. It got owned. Publicly and embarrassingly.

    (more…)

  • Okay, Let’s Actually Fix Immigration: Apps, Accountability, and Opportunity

    So, the U.S. has this ongoing challenge with lots of people crossing the border illegally. We need to get a handle on it, but we also want America to stay strong, prosperous, and basically open to folks who want to be here the right way. People act like this is rocket science, but honestly? A practical fix using tech we already have isn’t that far-fetched.

    Using Apps for Smarter Immigration (It’s Just Common Sense)

    Apps can help manage the whole immigration process, keep track of people, and make communication way easier. This isn’t about slamming the door shut; it’s about having a system that actually works and is fair.

    Two Lanes: Handling Things Fairly but Firmly

    The main idea here is to treat people differently based on their record:

    1. Folks Just Looking for a Shot (Non-Violent): Let’s be real, a lot of people come here illegally just wanting a better life. That drive is kind of what America’s built on, right? If someone hasn’t committed violent crimes, let’s be decent about it.

    * Get the Paperwork Started: Let them start the *legal* application process, maybe even while they’re still here. If it looks like they’ll probably get approved anyway, why go through the whole drama and expense of deporting them just to have them apply from outside? Let technology help manage their case.

    * Managed Transition (If Deportation is Necessary): Okay, if deportation is required by the rules for non-violent folks, the process itself needs to be respectful. Crucially, this isn’t about just ‘dumping’ them and forgetting about it. The U.S. still has a responsibility to manage this transition properly. The idea is to handle their departure in a way that still keeps the possibility of legal return clearly defined and accessible. We should leverage technology (like that app we talked about) to provide them with clear information before and after departure on exactly how they can apply legally from abroad and track requirements. Think of it as respectfully managing their exit while keeping the lines open and providing the tools for a legal comeback if they qualify down the road. We need to keep tabs on their potential re-application status through the system. And importantly, even after they’ve left, there needs to be a dedicated 1-800 emergency hotline they can call if they face a serious crisis overseas. This provides a crucial safety net.

    (more…)

  • A “Manhattan Project” for Measles Detection: Our Urgent Non-Invasive Moonshot

    Measles is back, spreading rapidly through communities where vaccination isn’t universal. Relying solely on traditional methods while facing deep public distrust presents an immense challenge. We need a bold, new approach โ€“ a focused, massive scientific undertaking akin to the Manhattan Project, dedicated *now* to developing cutting-edge, non-invasive technologies purely for *detecting and warning* against this airborne threat. This is not about altering bodies; it’s about illuminating the invisible danger.

    Priority 1: Nationwide Atmospheric Viral Surveillance

    Imagine a national crash program to deploy hyper-sensitive sensors across all critical public infrastructure โ€“ schools, transit, hospitals, community centers. These sensors wouldn’t be simple air monitors; they’d be the result of a concentrated scientific push to detect the specific airborne signature of the measles virus with unprecedented speed and accuracy.

    * The Mission: Instantly identify *where* the virus is present in the air. The system wouldn’t neutralize, only detect and report. Data would feed into immediate public alerts via screens, apps, and emergency broadcasts (“Warning: Measles virus detected at [Location]. Advised precautions: High-filtration mask, avoid area if possible.”). This requires a Manhattan Project-level effort in sensor physics, micro-engineering, and secure data networking, deployed nationally.

    * The Goal: Provide real-time, location-specific intelligence on viral presence, empowering individuals and public health officials with the critical information needed to take immediate protective actions.

    (more…)