Amuse Labs, creators of PuzzleMe: the leading digital platform for Smart Games, is a B2B SaaS company trusted globally by brands and publishers. Specialising in the digital and tech prowess powering Smart Games like Crosswords, Sudokus, Jigsaws, Quizzes and more.

Amuse Labs

Anne's House of Dreams by L. M. Montgomery, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . A FOUR WINDS WINTER CHAPTER 17. A FOUR WINDS WINTER Winter set in vigorously after New Year's. Big, white drifts heaped themselves about the little house, and palms of frost covered its windows. The harbor ice grew harder and thicker, until the Four Winds people began their usual winter travelling over it. The safe ways were "bushed" by a benevolent Government, and night and day the gay tinkle of the sleigh-bells sounded on it. On moonlit nights Anne heard them in her house of dreams like fairy chimes. The gulf froze over, and the Four Winds light flashed no more. During the months when navigation was closed Captain Jim's office was a sinecure. "The First Mate and I will have nothing to do till spring except keep warm and amuse ourselves. The last lighthouse keeper used always to move up to the Glen in winter; but I'd rather stay at the Point. The First Mate might get poisoned or chewed up by dogs at the Glen. It's a mite lonely, to be sure, with neither the light nor the water for company, but if our friends come to see us often we'll weather it through." Captain Jim had an ice boat, and many a wild, glorious spin Gilbert and Anne and Leslie had over the glib harbor ice with him. Anne and Leslie took long snowshoe tramps together, too, over the fields, or across the harbor after storms, or through the woods beyond the Glen. They were very good comrades in their rambles and their fireside communings. Each had something to give the other—each felt life the richer for friendly exchange of thought and friendly silence; each looked across the white fields between their homes with a pleasant consciousness of a friend beyond. But, in spite of all this, Anne felt that there was always a barrier between Leslie and herself—a constraint that never wholly vanished. "I don't know why I can't get closer to her," Anne said one evening to Captain Jim. "I like her so much—I admire her so much—I WANT to take her right into my heart and creep right into hers. But I can never cross the barrier." "You've been too happy all your life, Mistress Blythe," said Captain Jim thoughtfully. "I reckon that's why you and Leslie can't get real close together in your souls. The barrier between you is her experience of sorrow and trouble. She ain't responsible for it and you ain't; but it's there and neither of you can cross it." "My childhood wasn't very happy before I came to Green Gables," said Anne, gazing soberly out of the window at the still, sad, dead beauty of the leafless tree-shadows on the moonlit snow. "Mebbe not—but it was just the usual unhappiness of a child who hasn't anyone to look after it properly. There hasn't been any TRAGEDY in your life, Mistress Blythe. And poor Leslie's has been almost ALL tragedy. She feels, I reckon, though mebbe she hardly knows she feels it, that there's a vast deal in her life you can't enter nor understand—and so she has to keep you back from it—hold you off, so to speak, from hurting her. You know if we've got anything about us that hurts we shrink from anyone's touch on or near it. It holds good with our souls as well as our bodies, I reckon. Leslie's soul must be near raw—it's no wonder she hides it away." "If that were really all, I wouldn't mind, Captain Jim. I would understand. But there are times—not always, but now and again—when I almost have to believe that Leslie doesn't—doesn't like me. Sometimes I surprise a look in her eyes that seems to show resentment and dislike—it goes so quickly—but I've seen it, I'm sure of that. And it hurts me, Captain Jim. I'm not used to being disliked—and I've tried so hard to win Leslie's friendship." "You have won it, Mistress Blythe. Don't you go cherishing any foolish notion that Leslie don't like you. If she didn't she wouldn't have anything to do with you, much less chumming with you as she does. I know Leslie Moore too well not to be sure of that." "The first time I ever saw her, driving her geese down the hill on the day I came to Four Winds, she looked at me with the same expression," persisted Anne. "I felt it, even in the midst of my admiration of her beauty. She looked at me resentfully—she did, indeed, Captain Jim." "The resentment must have been about something else, Mistress Blythe, and you jest come in for a share of it because you happened past. Leslie DOES take sullen spells now and again, poor girl. I can't blame her, when I know what she has to put up with. I don't know why it's permitted. The doctor and I have talked a lot abut the origin of evil, but we haven't quite found out all about it yet. There's a vast of onunderstandable things in life, ain't there, Mistress Blythe? Sometimes things seem to work out real proper-like, same as with you and the doctor. And then again they all seem to go catawampus. There's Leslie, so clever and beautiful you'd think she was meant for a queen, and instead she's cooped up over there, robbed of almost everything a woman'd value, with no prospect except waiting on Dick Moore all her life. Though, mind you, Mistress Blythe, I daresay she'd choose her life now, such as it is, rather than the life she lived with Dick before he went away. THAT'S something a clumsy old sailor's tongue mustn't meddle with. But you've helped Leslie a lot—she's a different creature since you come to Four Winds. Us old friends see the difference in her, as you can't. Miss Cornelia and me was talking it over the other day, and it's one of the mighty few p'ints that we see eye to eye on. So jest you throw overboard any idea of her not liking you." Anne could hardly discard it completely, for there were undoubtedly times when she felt, with an instinct that was not to be combated by reason, that Leslie harbored a queer, indefinable resentment towards her. At times, this secret consciousness marred the delight of their comradeship; at others it was almost forgotten; but Anne always felt the hidden thorn was there, and might prick her at any moment. She felt a cruel sting from it on the day when she told Leslie of what she hoped the spring would bring to the little house of dreams. Leslie looked at her with hard, bitter, unfriendly eyes. "So you are to have THAT, too," she said in a choked voice. And without another word she had turned and gone across the fields homeward. Anne was deeply hurt; for the moment she felt as if she could never like Leslie again. But when Leslie came over a few evenings later she was so pleasant, so friendly, so frank, and witty, and winsome, that Anne was charmed into forgiveness and forgetfulness. Only, she never mentioned her darling hope to Leslie again; nor did Leslie ever refer to it. But one evening, when late winter was listening for the word of spring, she came over to the little house for a twilight chat; and when she went away she left a small, white box on the table. Anne found it after she was gone and opened it wonderingly. In it was a tiny white dress of exquisite workmanship—delicate embroidery, wonderful tucking, sheer loveliness. Every stitch in it was handwork; and the little frills of lace at neck and sleeves were of real Valenciennes. Lying on it was a card—"with Leslie's love." "What hours of work she must have put on it," said Anne. "And the material must have cost more than she could really afford. It is very sweet of her." But Leslie was brusque and curt when Anne thanked her, and again the latter felt thrown back upon herself. Leslie's gift was not alone in the little house. Miss Cornelia had, for the time being, given up sewing for unwanted, unwelcome eighth babies, and fallen to sewing for a very much wanted first one, whose welcome would leave nothing to be desired. Philippa Blake and Diana Wright each sent a marvellous garment; and Mrs. Rachel Lynde sent several, in which good material and honest stitches took the place of embroidery and frills. Anne herself made many, desecrated by no touch of machinery, spending over them the happiest hours of the happy winter. Captain Jim was the most frequent guest of the little house, and none was more welcome. Every day Anne loved the simple-souled, true-hearted old sailor more and more. He was as refreshing as a sea breeze, as interesting as some ancient chronicle. She was never tired of listening to his stories, and his quaint remarks and comments were a continual delight to her. Captain Jim was one of those rare and interesting people who "never speak but they say something." The milk of human kindness and the wisdom of the serpent were mingled in his composition in delightful proportions. Nothing ever seemed to put Captain Jim out or depress him in any way. "I've kind of contracted a habit of enj'ying things," he remarked once, when Anne had commented on his invariable cheerfulness. "It's got so chronic that I believe I even enj'y the disagreeable things. It's great fun thinking they can't last. 'Old rheumatiz,' says I, when it grips me hard, 'you've GOT to stop aching sometime. The worse you are the sooner you'll stop, mebbe. I'm bound to get the better of you in the long run, whether in the body or out of the body.'" One night, by the fireside at the light Anne saw Captain Jim's "life-book." He needed no coaxing to show it and proudly gave it to her to read. "I writ it to leave to little Joe," he said. "I don't like the idea of everything I've done and seen being clean forgot after I've shipped for my last v'yage. Joe, he'll remember it, and tell the yarns to his children." It was an old leather-bound book filled with the record of his voyages and adventures. Anne thought what a treasure trove it would be to a writer. Every sentence was a nugget. In itself the book had no literary merit; Captain Jim's charm of storytelling failed him when he came to pen and ink; he could only jot roughly down the outline of his famous tales, and both spelling and grammar were sadly askew. But Anne felt that if anyone possessed of the gift could take that simple record of a brave, adventurous life, reading between the bald lines the tales of dangers staunchly faced and duty manfully done, a wonderful story might be made from it. Rich comedy and thrilling tragedy were both lying hidden in Captain Jim's "life-book," waiting for the touch of the master hand to waken the laughter and grief and horror of thousands. Anne said something of this to Gilbert as they walked home. "Why don't you try your hand at it yourself, Anne?" Anne shook her head. "No. I only wish I could. But it's not in the power of my gift. You know what my forte is, Gilbert—the fanciful, the fairylike, the pretty. To write Captain Jim's life-book as it should be written one should be a master of vigorous yet subtle style, a keen psychologist, a born humorist and a born tragedian. A rare combination of gifts is needed. Paul might do it if he were older. Anyhow, I'm going to ask him to come down next summer and meet Captain Jim." "Come to this shore," wrote Anne to Paul. "I am afraid you cannot find here Nora or the Golden Lady or the Twin Sailors; but you will find one old sailor who can tell you wonderful stories." Paul, however wrote back, saying regretfully that he could not come that year. He was going abroad for two year's study. "When I return I'll come to Four Winds, dear Teacher," he wrote. "But meanwhile, Captain Jim is growing old," said Anne, sorrowfully, "and there is nobody to write his life-book." About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. L. M. Montgomery (1996). Anne's House of Dreams. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/544/pg544-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html. The lead image was generated using HackerNoon's Stable Disffusion Al Image Generator feature, via the prompt "ANNE'S HOUSE OF DREAMS".

A FOUR WINDS WINTER

THE LAST RESOLUTION

What is identity in the digital space? Is it a mere reflection of what we are offline, or is it an augmented version of ourselves? Is there a “minimum viable tech stack” that can be combined to create verifiable individuals? In my article, I’ll lean toward the technical side of this matter, and I won't provide one trivial answer but I’ll consider different aspects of digital identities, verifiable individuals, security, privacy, anonymity, unique digital fingerprints, and verification approaches. Digital identity The digital identity is a complex set of data points – often referred to as a digital footprint and fingerprint that you leave behind everywhere you present yourself online. These data points can be traced back to the real “YOU”, revealing unique aspects of your presence in the digital space/online. What is Identity? Identity is a collection of information and attributes/parameters that describe an entity. It is used to determine the actions in which this entity can participate or has participated. Three main categories of entities – people like you and me and anyone else. Individuals Corporations, companies, services. – physical items - objects, such as houses, laptops, planes, etc, and nonphysical items - such as software, data, etc. Assets The identity of each entity is based on its attributes, which can be divided into 3 main categories: Core: base characteristics (for example: name, date of birth). Derived: computed or inferred from core attributes - base characteristics (for example: age, location, gender). Transactional: related to specific actions (for example: tax or bank account number, online shopping history). Digital identity systems In the past, identification systems relied on face-to-face interactions and physical proofs. The transition to digital systems introduces new identity systems. A digital identity system uses the structure of a physical one but operates entirely with digital artifacts/attributes. It eliminates the usage of physical documents and manual processes. Modern trends driving the need for identification systems include increasing transaction volumes, data breaches, and the global shift toward digital/virtual interactions. Importance of digital identity Privacy and security cannot be ensured solely by constructing walls around sensitive information. Identity is now the matter where privacy and security intersect. Strong identity protocols protect against cyber risks and enable secure transactions of any kind and activities – logging into a website, making an online purchase, or accessing services – identity (or some technical attributes of it) plays a critical role in many aspects of our daily lives and actions. Your digital identity is more than just a username, profile photo, name/nickname, age, location, etc, and password – it’s a multifaceted representation of who you are in the digital and real world. Real and digital identities might be different because different attributes define them but they may intersect and be traceable to each other. Digital fingerprints and online identity In the digital world, where our virtual presence is often more noticeable than our physical one, the concept of online identity has become complex and unclear. At the bottom of this digital identity lies . These fingerprints serve as the basic characteristics of our online identity, leaving behind a trail of unique identifiers/params that reveal our digital and real identity, and influence how we interact within the virtual world – software, different online services, DBs, and other real and virtual identities. a huge set of details/attributes known as digital fingerprints Understanding digital fingerprints Digital fingerprints, in a nutshell, are a bunch of parameters that define our online identity. These parameters include everything from user-agents, IPs, and screen resolutions to browser plugins, time zones, and hardware characteristics. Each parameter contributes to the set of characteristics (params) of our digital identity, forming a unique “signature” that distinguishes us in cyberspace. For example, user agents provide critical information about the user's browser, OS, and device, giving valuable info on users’ digital environment. IPs serve as coordinates, revealing the user's network and geo-location, and affecting their online experiences and interactions. These simple and familiar to everyone params, when they are together in one set, create identifiers that reflect our online presence and define the way we navigate and interact with online services. Detection and spoofing Detecting and manipulating digital fingerprints is a complicated process for users seeking anonymity and platforms seeking authenticity. , users can use different techniques to hide/spoof their digital trails and change their true identities. By using tools such as VPNs, you can encrypt their network traffic and mask their IPs (some basic parameters of digital fingerprints and identity), making it challenging to trace their online activities back to their original identities. Through fingerprint spoofing, users can manipulate the aforementioned parameters such as user-agents, browser characteristics, and device params to mask as unique, verifiable entities, and evade detection by bot detection systems and identity verification protocols. For example, you may use the fingerprint of a legitimate user, to gain access to restricted content or circumvent security measures designed to detect fraudulent activities. There is a constant battle for anonymity and authenticity in the digital world. Speaking about proxies and VPNs Implications for online identity The ability to detect and spoof digital fingerprints has different implications for online presence, changing the dynamics of authenticity and flooding digital services with fake/incomplete data. Consider a scenario where a user in a country with strict censorship can’t access blocked content on social media. By using a VPN to mask their IPs and manipulate their digital fingerprints, the user can circumvent geo-restrictions and access the blocked content anonymously, expressing their freedom of access to information. Speaking about online security, the manipulation of digital fingerprints can be used to evade detection by bot detection systems, allowing users to engage in activities that may be suspicious or fraudulent. Fingerprint spoofing also raises concerns about potential abuse and misuse, as people/services may exploit these approaches for malicious goals, such as spreading fake information or engaging in cyberattacks. Balancing privacy and security involves managing digital fingerprints and online identity carefully, which requires strong security policies and ethical guides. Faking online identity The manipulation of fingerprints gives us the ability to fake online identities that are significantly different from our offline ones, blurring the lines between authenticity and fake. By crafting digital fingerprints that use ones of authentic users, we can assume roles and identities that ensure their physical existence, expanding the boundaries of our online presence and influence. Let’s consider a case where a user spoofs fingerprints to create multiple online accounts for social media marketing. By masking their true identity and presenting themselves as distinct, authentic users, these people can amplify their online presence and get a wider audience, all while tricking detection algorithms and security measures. However, fake online identities also raise concerns about trust and credibility in online interactions, as individuals may struggle to identify genuine users and imposters/bots. Faking online identity raises ethical concerns that outweigh the need for transparency and accountability, as well as the importance of technical literacy in these aspects and responsible online behavior. Digital fingerprints are important aspects and characteristics of our online identities. From detection to spoofing, the manipulation of these unique parameters offers a way to anonymity and different positive and negative cases of using this “anonymity”. The essence of our online identities is not only in the set of our digital fingerprints but also in the choices we make and the actions we take on the web. Understanding digital fingerprints gives us additional depth in understanding online identities, and concepts of authenticity, transparency, privacy, and autonomy. Modern Tech's Approach to Identity and Information Identity Digital identity – our identity is no longer limited to physical one. It includes our digital footprint – interactions, actions, preferences, and behaviors across different platforms, services and devices. Multiple identities – we can have different identities online, each tailored to specific contexts and goals (e.g. professional, social networks, gaming, etc). Self-representation – social media profiles, avatars, photos, music, posts, bios, etc allow us to show how we present ourselves to others. Personal expression Social networks – , , , , etc allow us to express our identity through photos, videos, stories, posts, etc. We share thoughts, experiences, and expertise, creating a sense of community. Emojis and GIFs are visual elements that show emotions and reactions – showing parts of our identities. From profile pictures to personalized music playlists, different platforms give us tools to express our uniqueness. Instagram TikTok YouTube FB Verification mechanisms Biometrics - fingerprint (real, not digital fingerprints) scanners, facial recognition, and voice recognition can verify identity quite securely. 2FA – combining passwords with a second factor (or even 3rd %) ) (e.g. SMS/OTP codes, app notifications, secure questions) improves security. Decentralized systems ensure transparency and prevent identity fraud. Digital proofs (for example: diplomas, degrees, certifications, etc) can be cryptographically verified. Prove knowledge without revealing sensitive data - zero-knowledge proofs. Challenges Balancing personalization with privacy and anonymity is crucial. Access to tech may vary for different people, affecting the online presence and, as a result, identity representation. Cybersecurity measures to protect identities and personal data. Responsible use of data and avoiding biases in algorithms, and false alerts without getting and storing too much personal data which poses additional risks. Verifiable individuals There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution but here’s some tech stack (a combination of technologies and protocols) that can contribute to establishing verifiable identities. Blockchain or DLT (distributed ledger technology) An immutable and decentralized record of identity-related transactions can be created. The idea: Our identity attributes (such as name, date of birth, avatar, location, bio, etc) are stored on the blockchain. Transactions related to identity verification (e.g. permissions, updating personal info) are recorded as blocks. The decentralization ensures transparency and prevents tampering. For example, check out Ethereum and Hyperledger Indy. SSI (self-sovereign identity) Give people control over their identity data. The idea: People create a “digital wallet” where they store their verifiable credentials. Credentials (artifacts) are issued by trusted organizations (governments, universities, corporations, etc) and digitally/cryptographically signed. People can share these pieces of data with others without relying on any kind of central authority. For example, check out Sovrin or uPort. DIDs (decentralized identifiers) Create globally unique and verifiable identifiers for people. The idea: DIDs are linked to crypto keys and stored on a decentralized network. They allow people to prove ownership of their identity without revealing their data. For example, check out the DID specification by W3C. VCs (verifiable credentials) Issue and verify digital credentials. The idea: VCs are digitally signed statements about a person’s attributes. Issuers sign VCs, and holders present them as proof. Verifiers (e.g. corporations and service providers) verify the credentials. For example, check out the W3C verifiable credentials data model. ZKPs (zero-knowledge proofs) Prove a statement without revealing the actual data. The idea: ZKPs allow people to prove knowledge (age, eligibility, etc) without showing the particular data. Ensuring privacy and verification. For example, check out zk-SNARKs and Bulletproofs. Biometric auth Verify an identity based on unique biological features. The idea: Biometrics (fingerprint (real, not digital fingerprints), eye scan) are captured while using some online services. During authentication, the system compares the biometric data with stored templates. For example, probably, many of you have seen and have used fingerprint scanners or facial recognition. The tech stack is a starting point. Depending on the use case, additional components (such as secure hardware modules, identity wallets, and privacy-preserving algorithms) may be implemented. Different approaches might be combined and implemented as a multistep procedure – more steps passed more transparent verification and credibility. Verifiable identities in the digital space require a complex approach with a balance of security, privacy, anonymity, uniqueness, verification, and usability.

Identity in the Digital Era: Balancing Security, Privacy, and Authenticity

ডিজিটাল যুগে পরিচয়: নিরাপত্তা, গোপনীয়তা এবং সত্যতার ভারসাম্য

Identität im digitalen Zeitalter: Sicherheit, Datenschutz und Authentizität in Einklang bringen

Identidad en la era digital: equilibrio entre seguridad, privacidad y autenticidad

L'identité à l'ère numérique : équilibrer sécurité, confidentialité et authenticité

डिजिटल युग में पहचान: सुरक्षा, गोपनीयता और प्रामाणिकता को संतुलित करना

デジタル時代のアイデンティティ: セキュリティ、プライバシー、信頼性のバランスをとる

디지털 시대의 신원: 보안, 개인정보 보호, 신뢰성의 균형

Identidade na Era Digital: Equilibrando Segurança, Privacidade e Autenticidade

Идентичность в цифровую эпоху: баланс безопасности, конфиденциальности и подлинности

Dijital Çağda Kimlik: Güvenlik, Gizlilik ve Orijinalliğin Dengelenmesi

Bản sắc trong kỷ nguyên số: Cân bằng giữa bảo mật, quyền riêng tư và tính xác thực

数字时代的身份：平衡安全性、隐私性和真实性

Today, I am speaking with Yves La Rose, and we'll discuss the evolving blockchain and cryptocurrency landscape in Turkey, focusing on innovation, regulatory changes, and the increasing adoption of digital assets among Turkish citizens. Please introduce yourself and tell us what you do. My name is Yves La Rose, and I am the founder and CEO of the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). The ENF was created to promote technological advancement and the sustainable growth of EOS. This includes key initiatives like educating developers, supporting the community, funding research, and enhancing EOS's technological base through the development of its core protocol. Our goal is to unlock the full capabilities of blockchain technology, forging a sustainable digital future that offers tangible benefits to developers, businesses, and consumers. Can you provide an overview of the recent changes in Turkey's stance towards crypto regulation and what prompted this shift? Turkey has been preparing new legislation covering crypto-assets as a way to persuade an international crime watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), to remove it from a "grey list" that it has been on since 2021 of countries that have taken insufficient action to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. The specifics of Turkey's new rules to regulate the crypto market are yet to be made public but will likely focus on licensing and taxation. How significant is cryptocurrency adoption among Turkish citizens, and what factors have contributed to this high level of adoption? The main reason for the adoption of cryptocurrencies in Turkey is the general lack of trust in the stability of the Turkish Lira, prompting people to explore other financial options to protect their assets. The lira has seen record inflation levels over the last few years, making wealth accumulation nearly impossible. Even before crypto began to take off in Turkey, it was pretty standard for most retail establishments to accept alternative paper currencies such as the Euro and US dollar. The adoption of cryptocurrencies can be seen as the evolution of that trend. As a matter of fact, Tether is one of the most widely used currencies in the Turkish market, and it is commonly accepted as a form of currency there. Recent studies have indicated that up to 40% of Turkish citizens have a crypto wallet. What specific regulations has the Turkish government introduced, and how do they compare to those in the EU, particularly the MiCA regulation? The new regulations have yet to be officially proposed, so it is difficult to make comparisons at this time, but it can be assumed that there will be some inspiration from MiCA. Turkey will likely focus on licensing and taxation. Introducing specific licensing standards will be one of the top priorities for the upcoming regulation to prevent system abuse. The regulations could also include capital adequacy requirements, custody services, mandatory proof of reserves, and other measures to improve digital security. How does President Erdoğan's approach to crypto regulation post-election reflect on Turkey's political landscape and its impact on digital asset policy? President Erdoğan has been very forward-looking in his approach to crypto policy. In December, he added blockchain technology and cryptocurrency specialist Fatma Özkul to the central bank's monetary board. She is expected to have a significant impact on the forthcoming crypto laws that were considered. How do you assess the potential of projects like the EOS Network Foundation’s Turkish Web3 Industry Lab's expansion into the Turkish market? The country's growing prominence in the cryptocurrency sector drove the decision to establish a lab in Turkey. Turkey’s adoption rate for crypto is among the highest in the world, with recent surveys estimating that two-fifths of Turkish citizens currently hold crypto. This widespread adoption is mainly attributed to the high inflation rates in Turkey, prompting residents to turn to cryptocurrencies as a hedge against the declining value of the Turkish lira. The adoption rate makes the barrier to entry for new user acquisition in Turkey incredibly low, giving blockchain startups a greater chance for success than in other markets, requiring significantly more user education for onboarding the masses. The Turkish market has also shown a keen interest in technological innovations, with a burgeoning community of developers, entrepreneurs, and enthusiasts actively engaging with blockchain technology. This provides a fertile ground for incubating new blockchain projects, as both the technical talent and the market are eager to adopt new digital solutions. High crypto usage, a climate influenced by economic considerations that promote digital currencies, and a fast-expanding market excited about blockchain developments make Turkey a unique opportunity for crypto investors and users. These elements collectively make Turkey an up-and-coming location, aligning perfectly with our vision of fostering groundbreaking projects in the blockchain space. Can you discuss the growth of Web3 activity at the grassroots level in Turkey and how international partnerships influence this landscape? At the grassroots level, we’ve seen an uptick in in-person events in Turkey. Each of these events presents opportunities for new connections at the local grassroots level. International partnerships have played a significant role in facilitating these events and ensuring their success, as seen with last year’s Binance Blockchain Week Istanbul and the ETHGlobal Istanbul hackathon, which brought together and showcased Turkey's growing web3 developer and startup communities. We also hosted our event in partnership with CoinTR to celebrate their 2nd year anniversary. How can Turkey leverage its unique position to become a global blockchain innovation and adoption leader? Turkey just needs to continue on the path that it is currently on. We will see new regulations in 2024, which will ideally lead to Turkey being removed from the FATF grey list, which should be a significant step forward. We also saw two of Turkey’s largest banking groups announce their crypto initiatives in December, which could be the beginning of this trend that will continue into this year. The investment division of Akbank acquired, Stablex a crypto company that enables transactionvs via the Turkish Lira and Garanti BBVA launched their digital wallet as a mobile app.

Innovation and Growth in Turkey's Web3 Ecosystem

Any views expressed in the below are the personal views of the author and should not form the basis for making investment decisions, nor be construed as a recommendation or advice to engage in investment transactions. I recently read a fascinating book about the history of the East India Company (EIC) called “The Anarchy” by Wiliam Dalrymple. For those unfamiliar with this chapter of European colonialism, the EIC was a joint stock company that was given a royal charter/monopoly over the trade between Britain and the Indian subcontinent. Over a few centuries, what was initially a weak and poor commercial enterprise that survived at the whim of various Indian rulers conquered the entire subcontinent and paved the way for the British Raj, which lasted from the late 19th century until 1947. When it became known that the EIC employed unsavory methods to extract its immense profits, certain members of the company were called in front of the British Parliament for questioning. Fortunately, because many high-ranking members of parliament were also EIC shareholders, scant, if any, punishments were ever handed out. In fact, on various occasions, the EIC requested and received government bailouts due to its over-indebtedness. EIC was the first Too Big to Fail company, and conflicted politicians back then did as their contemporaries do today … use the public purse to bail out private companies for their own personal benefit. In effect, privatize the gains, but socialize the losses. The EIC is apropos to crypto because I want to talk about the evolution of crypto project ownership structures and fundraising methods. I will write about Bitcoin, ICO’s, yield farming/liquidity mining, and finally, points. The goal of this essay is to provide context for why points as a way of engaging users is a natural progression that follows on from previous engagement and fundraising methods of the past. Many of Maelstrom’s portfolio companies will launch their tokens in 2024, and you can expect to learn about points programs, which all share a goal of generating usage of their protocols. Therefore, I want to discuss why points exist and how they will drive adoption in this cycle. Web 2 vs. Web 3 Who your shareholders/token holders are and what they are promised is very important to any commercial enterprise's success, whether in crypto or otherwise. I am specifically going to compare and contrast how Web 2 (technology startups) and Web 3 (crypto startups) fundraise and acquire users. Whether you are founding a Web 2 or Web 3 startup, acquiring and retaining users is the most challenging and expensive aspect of your business. In Web 2, which was most prevalent from 2010 to 2020, a VC fund looked for startups with a modicum of initial traction and subsequently provided cash money rocket fuel for the startup to go on a user acquisition spree. Usually that entails handing out the service for free or at a discounted rate, well below its actual cost of delivery. Remember when ride-sharing apps were all fighting viciously for market share, and fares were incredibly cheap? That was all paid for with billions of dollars worth of VC money. Think of it as a subsidy in return for users. At the end of the rainbow for a VC firm was a successful initial public offering (IPO). The IPO allowed the plebes to own a piece of a successful Web 2 company for the first time. IPOs are the way to dump on retail in TradFi. However, various regulations barred the plebes from crowdfunding early-stage Web 2 companies. The irony is that the vast number of plebe users who drove the success of the company were prohibited from owning a piece of it. Considering the law of averages, more than 90% of all new companies fail. Investing in early-stage Web 2 companies is a recipe for losing all of your money. Even though that is the case, most investors, in a normal Gaussian distribution sense, believe they are 3-sigma traders even though they always seem to earn returns around the mean. What this means is that the plebes always want in early on the sure thing ex-post but throw a fit when they invariably lose money on the myriad of failures. At that point, the plebes point the finger at the government because, in our modern age, the average person believes it's the government's job to live their lives for them. I don’t blame them for that belief; the politicians all outdo themselves to paint the picture that nothing in life can ever go wrong if you support them. From a securities regulator’s perspective, there is no upside to allowing poor people to crowdfund early-stage companies. For every Facebook, there are 1,000 MySpaces. Why lose the shot at a promotion because you got sacked for allowing a gaggle of plebes to blow their paycheck on some piece-of-shit company they got sold by a bucket shop huckster? That’s my regulator-sympathetic reasoning behind why plebes aren’t allowed to collectively invest in early-stage companies. My more cynical explanation is that the TradFi gatekeepers earn a fuck ton of fees from IPOs. Let’s go down the list of who gets paid from the IPO process: The investment banks that underwrite the IPO syphon off between 2% to 7% of the capital raised. The lawyers make hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars preparing and filing the prospectus and other offering documents. Being a paper pusher never paid so well. The audit and accounting firms make hundreds of thousands of dollars per deal creating the audited financial reports. Quickbooks on steroids! The exchanges charge hefty listing fees. Nasdaq Labs anyone? The cartel of trust described above loves IPOs. A few successful IPOs in a calendar year ensures that everyone in TradFi gets their phat bonuses. But without a hungry hoard of retail buyers who are excluded from investing earlier at much cheaper prices, there would be no buying pressure to create a successful IPO. That is why retail participation must be saved for the end and not the beginning of the fundraising lifecycle. While these fees may seem egregious, before Bitcoin, there was no other efficient way to raise funds publicly. And being objective, this process created many super important, useful, and profitable companies. It worked. But fuck nostalgia, let’s move forward. From a user’s perspective, the major issue with how Web 2 companies are formed is that using the product or service doesn’t accrue equity in the company providing it. You don’t get shares of Meta by ogling Instagram thirst traps. Nor do you get shares in ByteDance while you destroy your brain watching pre-teens dance like Cardi B on TikTok. These centralized companies take your attention, your actions, and your money, and yes, they provide a service or product you enjoy, but that’s it. And even if you want to invest, you can’t unless you are rich and well-connected. Participation ≠ Ownership Bitcoin Paradigm Change Bitcoin and the subsequent evolution of the crypto capital markets changed this. As of 2009 – the genesis Bitcoin block – it became possible to reward participants with ownership in the startup. This is what I will refer to as Web 3 startups. Before you could purchase Bitcoin on an exchange starting in 2010, mining it was the only way to acquire it. Miners, by burning electricity, validate transitions, which creates and upkeeps the network. For this activity, they are rewarded with newly minted Bitcoin. Participation = Ownership The participants or users now have skin in the game. Similar to the EIC example, users with skin in the game will do whatever they can to protect their investment. In the EIC case, that meant looking the other way as war and famine were visited upon a population in the name of profit. In the Bitcoin example, it means owners of Bitcoin want to convert as many people as possible into Bitcoin users as well. Look into my laser eyes, bitch! The Initial Coin Offering (ICO) Quickly, the crypto capital markets recognized a way to crowdfund technology startups in a way that was unavailable to Web 2 startups. If a Web 3 startup eschewed fiat as payment for ownership or governance rights and only accepted Bitcoin, it could sidestep the entire TradFi cartel of trust that “safeguards” the filthy fiat financial system. To raise funds, a project launched a website announcing that if you gave them Bitcoin, they would give you tokens that did something or gave some sort of economic rights in the future. If you believed this team had the ability to execute their advertised vision, in less than an hour, you could own a piece of an exciting new network. The first major project that conducted an ICO was Ethereum in 2014. The Ethereum Foundation pre-sold Ether, the commodity that powered its virtual decentralized computer, in exchange for Bitcoin. In 2015, Ether was distributed to buyers. It was a successful ICO. The foundation pre-sold its token for funds that were used to develop the network further. The amount of ICO deals and the amounts raised went asymptotic. The best ICO ever done was by Block.one, the creators of EOS. They conducted an ICO over a whole year and raised $4 billion worth of Ether at prices back then. EOS is an excellent example of the ICO craze because it raised the most money, and it was a complete piece-of-shit blockchain that barely worked. As time went on, the projects got shittier, but the amounts raised grew larger. This was because for the first time ever, anyone with an internet connection and some crypto could own a piece of what were sold as the next hottest technology startups. Retail entered the game and made a lot of crypto bros filthy rich. The ICO mania peaked in the fall of 2017 when the Chinese regulators explicitly banned them. Exchanges like Yunbi were shut overnight, and many projects that recently raised money from Chinese retail investors returned the funds. Around the world, regulators keen to protect the cartel of trust from competition in how early-stage ideas are fundraised swung into action, and ICO issuance disappeared. ICO investors gave money and became motivated marketing agents for the projects. However, just because you sold tokens at a high price didn’t mean anyone would use your product. Ownership was just a function of money invested but not usage of the protocol. ICOs were a step forward, but we could do better. Yield Farming DeFi summer, from a northern-hemispheric perspective, started in mid-2020. A slew of projects launched during the depths of the 2018-2020 bear market started being used meaningfully. The tokens were already listed as many of these projects had either done an ICO or a token pre-sale followed by a public token generation event (TGE) by mid-2020. The project foundations allocated a large amount of tokens to be awarded to community members who performed valuable activities. Many of these projects, like Uniswap, AAVE, and Compound, were focused on borrowing, lending, and trading. They wanted users to borrow, lend, and/or trade their crypto assets using their protocols. In return for doing said actions, the protocols would instantly emit freely tradable tokens. And thus, yield farming was born. Traders borrowed, lent, and traded cryptos on these platforms for the specific purpose of earning the governance token of the protocol. In many cases, the trader would lose money just so they could “farm” or earn more tokens. Because the tokens went up in price on a mark-to-market basis, the traders appeared to be in profit. All of this assumes you sold at the top; many didn’t, and all that activity was for naught. From the project’s perspective, all this activity juiced their trading volumes, total value locked (TVL), and number of unique wallets that interacted with the protocol. These metrics convinced investors that DeFi was working and creating a parallel financial system governed purely by code run on decentralized virtual computers. Participation = Ownership All was good, except the unlocked token supply grew too quickly for many projects. Invariably, the projects had to slow emissions, and the market started to ask, “What’s next?” If all activity is predicated on aggressive token emissions schedules, what happens if the token price falls and there are no more tokens available to give prospective users? What happens is the price of the project’s token plummets alongside activity. The lesson learned is that yield farming or liquidity mining is a great way to incentivize usage, but if it is pursued too aggressively it becomes a liability. The question then becomes, how do you emit tokens in a more sustainable manner? Points Yield farming as a user acquisition tool died alongside the 2021 crypto bull market. But points were created in its wake, and have quickly become the go-to pseudo-ICO fundraising and user acquisition tool for projects in this current bull cycle. Points combine the best aspects of ICOs and yield farming. ICOs Allow the millions of retail crypto hodlers to purchase a piece of a new protocol. But when you sell something to retail, some regulators call that a “security” and require you to do a lot of shit that you don’t want to do … namely, stop selling shit to poor people. Yield Farming Emits tokens to users for using the protocol. However, if pursued too aggressively, it will inflate the finite token supply too quickly, and once the token price falls, the user will have no incentive to use the protocol any longer. What if a project gave you points for interacting with the protocol? These points would be converted into tokens, which would then be airdropped free of charge into users' wallets. What if the points to airdrop token price was completely opaque and at the discretion of the project? What if there was actually no promise that points would even convert into future airdropped tokens? Here is a simple example to bring it home. Suppose that Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) is offered a points program by his bunkmate. His bunkmate can get an infinite supply of Emsam; this is the amphetamine SBF claims he needs for his ADHD condition. His bunkmate really likes back massages. He makes a deal with SBF. For every back massage SBF administers, his bunkmate will give him a point. At a future date of his bunkmate’s choosing, the points might convert into a certain number of Emsam pills. SBF wants his meds so bad he is willing to agree to a lot of rubbing in exchange for a soft promise of future Emsam pills. Are points a contract between the project and the user for a tangible reward in the future? No. Is there any form of money, fiat, crypto, or otherwise that is exchanged between the user and the project for points or tokens? No. Does the project have complete flexibility regarding the points-to-token conversion price and the timing of a token airdrop, if one happens at all? Yes. Let’s make some other assumptions and observations. If you have a small, talented engineering team, there is no need for many other employees. That is the beauty of software. The layer-one blockchain itself handles cybersecurity; users pay gas in the native token, such as Ether, in part to pay validators or miners to secure the network. Do you need in-house lawyers? If your project is truly decentralized, maybe not. And furthermore, after your foundation is created, what other major work is there for expensive lawyers? Your biggest problem is how to get more users and that is a marketing and business development effort. Assuming you built good tech, all your money will be spent doing things to attract usage. Building an amazing project without little, if any, VC funding is entirely possible. The project needs money to acquire users, and points are the new and exciting way to guerilla market. With points, the project doesn’t lock itself into an aggressive token emissions schedule. That is because the points-to-token ratio can be changed at any time. There is no contract that says the project must match a specific points-to-token ratio. With points, the project generates usage in the specific ways it believes will increase the long-term value of its service. Many of the most impactful crypto projects are some sort of two-way marketplace. Points help jumpstart network activity and overcome the cold-start or chicken-and-egg problem. The ability to surgically, dynamically calibrate points emissions to specific actions throughout the project’s ecosystem means that the project can be very effective in generating the exact type of user interaction it desires. Finally, with points, the project doesn’t have to lean as heavily on signing token pre-sale deals with VCs and other high-net-worth investors. The major purpose of VC capital is to pay for user acquisition; points can accomplish this. The best part is that the project can implicitly sell its token at a much higher price via the opaque points program than a transparently priced round. Points are great for the project, but what about retail users? Since ICOs went out of favor, retail must be super wary of VC unlock schedules. If retail apes into a token at the same time a VC’s portion unlocks, it’s REDRUM REDRUM REDRUM for retail’s portfolios. Using points, projects don’t need to engage in pre-sale token sales to such a large extent. Using points, retail can “invest” earlier and hopefully get a cheaper price than if they waited until after the TGE. While ambiguity surrounds the timing of the airdrop and the points-to-token ratio, points might represent a more equitable way to reward users for their participation. A points program is only effective if there is a high degree of trust between users and the project’s founders. The user trusts that after interacting with the protocol, their points will convert into tokens at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame. As points programs proliferate, there will be bad actors who abuse this trust. Ultimately, an egregious breach of trust that encompasses a large amount of money might be what kills points as a fundraising and user engagement tool. But we aren’t there yet, so I ain’t fussed. All Aboard Whether you like it or not, every successful project, and by success I mean, token number go up, will enact a points program before their TGE. This will create usage of the protocol, hype around the probable token airdrop, and a Pump Up The Jam! public listing. I am a businessman, not a priest. The only dogma I subscribe to is “number go up!” If points create better alignment between users and the protocols, LFG. If the cartel of trust’s hold on fundraising of the new and innovative technology startups further erodes because points are considered a better user engagement and fundraising mechanism, sign me up. I hope this essay provides some context on what points are and why I believe they will power this cycle's best-performing token launches. Maelstrom’s got bags, and I’m not ashamed to tell readers about them. Expect many more essays on exciting projects in our portfolio that launch points programs before their eventual TGE. My body is ready, is yours?

Points Guard

পয়েন্ট গার্ড

Guardia de puntos

Garde de points

पॉइंट गार्ड

ポイントガード

포인트 가드

Guarda de Pontos

Разыгрывающий защитник

Puan Muhafızı

Bảo vệ điểm

得分后卫

In the intricate realm of cybersecurity, the saga of denial-of-service (DoS) attacks unfolds across the annals of computing history. In 1974, , inadvertently launched the first recorded DoS attack when he accidentally flooded the ARPANET with messages. From that fateful event to the disruptive Meris botnet of 2021, the evolution of these attacks mirrors technological progress and underscores the increasing sophistication of threat vectors. Ray Tomlinson, the inventor of email As we embark on a journey through the historical nuances, recent trends, and prospective challenges of DoS attacks, our narrative intersects with the potentially transformative impact of quantum computing on this cyber threat. A Historical Deep Dive The roots of DoS attacks delve into the embryonic stage of computer networks during the 1970s. Ray Tomlinson, the progenitor of email, unwittingly etched the first recorded DoS incident by inundating the ARPANET with messages in 1974. The field was developing in the 1980s. In that period, several new types of malicious activities emerged. For instance, in 1988, a 23-year-old student at Cornell named Robert Morris created a worm that was later called 'the Morris Worm.' It was one of the earliest and most infamous computer worms. It spread rapidly across the early Internet, infecting thousands of UNIX-based systems. The worm was not intended to cause damage but ended up significantly slowing down many computers, leading to the first conviction under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The most interesting developments in the field were made in the following decade. In the 1990s, one of the common concerns was the "Ping of Death." This attack involved sending a malicious package to a computer. Typically, it was broken into smaller parts. When the target computer attempted to reassemble it, the system couldn't handle the size, leading to a crash. This vulnerability also created an opportunity for attackers to inject harmful code into the system. What made the "Ping of Death" stand out was its simplicity and widespread impact. It could impact various operating systems such as Unix, Linux, Mac, and Windows, exploiting vulnerabilities that existed at that time. Fortunately, as the late 1990s arrived, security experts identified and fixed these vulnerabilities, rendering the "Ping of Death" a thing of the past. In 1996, Panix Networks became a notable victim of an attack, highlighting the increasing threats to early internet infrastructure. Panix, one of the oldest and most prominent internet service providers (ISPs) at the time, faced an intrusion that disrupted its services, raising concerns about the vulnerability of foundational internet structures. Although specific details of the attack may be limited in publicly available records, the incident underscored the growing sophistication of cyber adversaries. The 2000s witnessed the emergence of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. A consortium of hackers orchestrated synchronized assaults on major services, including Amazon, eBay, Dell, and CNN. This marked a pivotal moment, demonstrating the potency of large-scale, coordinated attacks and exposing vulnerabilities in interconnected networks. Amid the rising security threats in the early 2000s, Microsoft introduced STRIDE, a threat modeling framework designed to help software developers and security professionals systematically identify and mitigate security threats during the design and development phases of a software project. STRIDE stands for Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, and Elevation of Privilege, representing different categories of security threats. The New Epoch of DDoS Between 2010 and 2016, the cybersecurity landscape continued to witness complicated and impactful attacks. The Stuxnet worm, targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure in 2010, exemplified the potential of state-sponsored cyber warfare. The 2014 Sony Pictures hack exposed sensitive internal communications and was attributed to North Korean retaliation. Significant data breaches affected millions, including the Anthem Health breach, compromising 80 million records, and the OPM breach, exposing 20 million federal employee records. Additionally, in 2016, the Mirai botnet surfaced as a harbinger of unprecedented DDoS onslaughts. Mirai exploited vulnerabilities in Internet of Things (IoT) devices, morphing them into a colossal army of remotely controlled, infected machines. This heralded a paradigm where DDoS attacks reached staggering levels, measuring in petabits of data per second. The Mirai incident highlighted the urgency of fortifying security measures to immunize IoT devices against cyber exploitation. Another noticeable event in the history of cyber attacks is a rise of Meris, that is a botnet behind a series of DDoS attacks that have targeted thousands of websites around the world in 2021. It was originally detected in late June that year by Qrator Labs. This  research identified 30,000 to 56,000 bots, with a note that numbers were actually much higher, in the ballpark of 250,000 bots. Later, Cloudflare  mentioned the attack reaching 17M requests per second, which was almost three times larger than ever before. The Landscape of DDoS Attacks According to Qrator Labs - a global DDoS filtering network based in Eastern Europe - there is an array of DDoS attack types and severities. The company explains that one approach to classifying DDoS attacks is based on what level of the network the attackers are targeting: L2 – attacks on channel capacity exhaustion, so-called "volumetric attacks" L3 – attacks on network infrastructure and equipment L4 – attacks aimed at the TCP/IP Internet protocol stack L5-L6 – attacks on encryption mechanisms (TLS/SSL) L7 – attacks on network application protocols (HTTP, DNS, XMLGate) Volumetric attacks means that hackers try to overload network communicators with an excess amount of data. Protocol attacks target specific network protocols, such as TCP or DNS. Application-layer attacks target particular web applications or protocols. Several other DDoS attacks include resource exhaustion attacks, desynchronization attacks, and service disruption attacks. Recent Trends and Future Challenges As technology marches forward, so does the sophistication of DDoS tactics. Recent trends indicate rise of DDoS UDP and HTTP attacks, coupled with the deployment of types of reflection attacks. The latter utilize a third-party server to amplify the attack by reflecting or bouncing malicious traffic off of these servers, such as the - a former internet performance management company - which was targeted by a DDoS reflection attack that used vulnerable DNS servers to generate over 1.2 terabits of traffic per second. The attack disrupted the DNS services of many major websites, including Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon. attack in 2016 on Dyn In 2021, the magnitude of such attacks reached unprecedented levels. In November of that year, Microsoft successfully countered a , registering a staggering throughput of 3.45 Tbps and a packet rate of 340 million PPS — marking it as potentially the most massive DDoS attack ever documented. Additionally, 2021 witnessed a surge in the utilization of , either to halt ongoing attacks or prevent their initiation. DDoS assault aimed at an Azure client DDoS as leverage to extort ransom payments And things aren’t slowing down. As this shows, the number and length of attacks continue to increase. report from Q3 2023 Knowledge and access will determine the future In retrospect, the chronicles of denial-of-service attacks unfurl as a dynamic saga shaped by the ever-evolving interplay of technology and cyber threats. The imminent advent of quantum computing introduces a new dimension, augmenting the challenges and avenues for defense against DDoS attacks. Cybersecurity professionals are compelled to maintain vigilance, navigating the technological currents to devise strategies that not only shield against evolving threats but also harness the potential advantages offered by quantum computing for a fortified defense. In this intricate dance between offense and defense in the digital arena, adaptability, collaboration, and proactive measures emerge as the linchpins of effective cybersecurity. Ultimately, whoever understands the latest technology and techniques best and has access to them first holds the power to attack or defend.

Denial-of-Service Attacks: A Technical Odyssey from Past to Quantum Future

240 Stories To Learn About Astounding Stories

116 Stories To Learn About Noonies2021

AMUSE LABS

amuselabs.com

11-50 employees

Since 2014

COMPANY RANKING

AMUSE LABS

EVERGREEN INDEX #364

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Amuse Labs WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

AMUSE LABS

amuselabs.com

11-50 employees

Since 2014

COMPANY RANKING

AMUSE LABS

EVERGREEN INDEX #364

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT AMUSE LABS

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Amuse Labs WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!