US To Publish Economic Data On Blockchain, Commerce Chief Says (cointelegraph.com) 87
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that the Department of Commerce will begin publishing GDP statistics on the blockchain, touting it as part of President Trump's push to make America a "crypto government." CoinTelegraph reports: Lutnick made the announcement during a White House cabinet meeting on Tuesday, describing the effort as a move to expand blockchain-based data distribution across government agencies. Speaking to US President Donald Trump and other government officials, he said: "The Department of Commerce is going to start issuing its statistics on the blockchain, because you are the crypto president, and we are going to put our GDP on the blockchain so people can use it for data and distribution." Lutnick said the initiative will begin with GDP figures and could expand across federal departments after the Commerce Department finishes "ironing out all of the details" for the implementation.
Pee the numbers into a snowbank (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So we can't trust the data because Trump fired someone who consistently produced bad data?
As a security professional I still want that data on a blockchain because it makes changing the story retroactively without making a mistake more difficult. That the POTUS has no shortage of security experts advises him means he knows that is and is choosing transparency and accountability anyway... hardly a move suggestive of someone cooking the data.
You need to get off the desperate propaganda teat. Anyone who accept
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"1. The DOJ just followed evidence that lead to Trump."
Following smoke to fire is a past behavior [following smoke] which has been historically consistent in leading to the same outcome [fire]. Everything they accused Trump of involved a novel prosecution and indeed a new and never tested legal interpretation to find his actions to be criminal. The claim it wasn't persecution doesn't hold up in hindsight. The problem for your case is that the persecutors were so confident in the need to 'get Trump' and that
Re: Pee the numbers into a snowbank (Score:2)
Come on, tell me you aren't falling for that garbage. What we are seeing right now is weaponization of the Justice department to punish anyone Trump perceives as an enemy.
Expect a shit-ton of consequences once Trump is out of power for anyone who goes alone with the charade.
Re: (Score:1)
"As soon as the people accused take power, suddenly they're pure as snow and the prosecutors investigating them are all the bad guys."
As soon as? It was openly the case all along. The prosecutors were literally bragging about how they were going to get Trump in interviews on MSDNC and speeches. As for going after them for claiming two locations as primary residences for local benefits... sure everyone does it but it's 'technically fraud' just like Trump lowballing the subjective valuation of a property for
Re: Pee the numbers into a snowbank (Score:2)
If you really think he's not going after all his enemies with the Justice department as a weapon, you haven't been paying attention. That is exactly the kind of person he is. And that kind of norm-breaking unethical behavior is exactly what caused some people to resist him in the first term.
Re: (Score:2)
"the things Trump was impeached for are public record too, and he definitely deserved it"
He was literally tried and acquitted of the baseless accusations both times and there are grand juries reviewing charges against the people who fabricated evidence to create and promote those hoaxes as we speak. Even MSDNC and CNN have retracted everything they published suggesting any of that nonsense was true... not that it's stopped their talking heads from continuing to reference the false claims against Trump.
"If y
Re: Pee the numbers into a snowbank (Score:2)
And of course there are now charges against the people involved. That's what weaponization of the Justice Department looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
"There was never any chance of them convicting no matter what Trump did."
That's certainly not true. RINO Republicans like Mitch McConnell aren't fans or allies of MAGA and Trump. But regardless they didn't convict because there was no evidence of any crime. All he had to do to establish his defense was add back a few seconds of context before and after all the media clips that were intentionally edited to give misleading impressions of Trump statements.
"And of course there are now charges against the people
Re: Pee the numbers into a snowbank (Score:2)
I agree that the mechanisms of government should not be used this way and it needs to end, full stop. But Trump isn't going to be the one to end it. He's hitting the gas.
Re:Pee the numbers into a snowbank (Score:4, Informative)
The person Trump fired reported the data; they did not produce it. But that data has been accurate. Perfectly accurate when you compare the collected data with the reported data. And still quite accurate when you compare the collected data with data measured a year or so later.
But a problem with blockchain is that all of the problems it solves can be solved in other ways. Provably unchangeable data existed for decades before Bitcoin. And unchangeable data isn't really a GDP-generator. This is a "rah rah cryptocurrency is SO COOL BRO" story, not a "this is how the administration has improved the country" story, and the only people excited about it are the "Trump is SO COOL BRO" people.
Re: (Score:2)
The data has not been accurate, it was inaccurate even during the previous administration. But the bigger isn't the data itself but HOW they released the data and corrections to the data.
"But a problem with blockchain is that all of the problems it solves can be solved in other ways. Provably unchangeable data existed for decades before Bitcoin. And unchangeable data isn't really a GDP-generator. This is a "rah rah cryptocurrency is SO COOL BRO" story, not a "this is how the administration has improved the
Re: (Score:3)
But the bigger isn't the data itself but HOW they released the data and corrections to the data.
You mean the same way they've been doing it since they started releasing data?
Re:Pee the numbers into a snowbank (Score:4, Funny)
They've clearly been doing it incorrectly forever. The unemployment should be 2.1% whenever a conservative is president, and 80% whenever a liberal is president. Anything else is clearly, by definition, ipso non-facto, inaccurate!
Put another way: if reality disagrees with Trump, then reality is incorrect. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Re: (Score:1)
So we can't trust the data because Trump fired someone who consistently produced bad data?
As a security professional I still want that data on a blockchain because it makes changing the story retroactively without making a mistake more difficult. That the POTUS has no shortage of security experts advises him means he knows that is and is choosing transparency and accountability anyway... hardly a move suggestive of someone cooking the data.
How is a blockchain with only one party, the federal government, that can write to it secure? If they want to rewrite an older block and make the later blocks consistent, they can do that. People who are watching for changes will notice, the same as for data published to a website, etc.
Transparency and accountability? I'll believe in that more when masked anonymous "federal agents" are not roaming the streets with impunity.
Re: (Score:3)
"How is a blockchain with only one party, the federal government, that can write to it secure?"
The federal government isn't one party; there are three branches and many agencies.
"If they want to rewrite an older block and make the later blocks consistent, they can do that. People who are watching for changes will notice"
Yes, that's how transparency and blockchain works but you won't need to trust some third party scraping entire websites [who can themselves be compromised] though. Anyone can attached to and
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody sane thinks doxing the personal identities of federal agents is a good plan.
The normal police roam the streets every day with their faces visible. They wear uniforms that proclaim which department they work for (local PD, sheriff, etc.) They display their badge, ID number, and name tag clearly for anyone to see. Their identities are known.
What possible valid reason could you have for wanting the personal information of enforcement agents known?
The normal police are -required- to provide their identifying information to any member of the public upon request, so that the person can seek redress with their superior officer or the courts for any alleged abuse of power or violation of civ
Re: (Score:2)
This is the narrative the unpopular opposition would like you to believe. But no, these are a normal federal policing service and are accountable to their superiors, the courts, and internal checks and balances. They just aren't accountable to random domestic political terrorists and cartels.
Re: (Score:2)
"They wear uniforms that proclaim which department they work for (local PD, sheriff, etc.) "
So do ICE, except when undercover but regular police skip the uniforms when undercover as well.
"The normal police are -required- to provide their identifying information to any member of the public upon request"
No—there’s no universal rule. Whether an officer must give name/badge on request depends on the country, state/province, and often the specific police department’s policy. Undercover cops don
Re: (Score:2)
>> "They wear uniforms that proclaim which department they work for (local PD, sheriff, etc.) "
> So do ICE
Do they ? He wrote "They wear uniforms that proclaim which department they work for (local PD, sheriff, etc.) They display their badge, ID number, and name tag clearly for anyone to see. Their identities are known."
So ICE doesn't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
"So ICE doesn't do that."
I didn't say they did. I said they wear uniforms which proclaim their federal agency, no different than DEA, FBI, and other federal law enforcement. None of them openly display their badge/id number, etc. Also most local law enforcement do show a badge but not necessarily a name tag and the ID number on a badge isn't always an identification number for the officer. Local police certainly don't do these things when undercover. They go without uniforms and identifying vehicles wheneve
Re: (Score:2)
> I didn't say they did.
That was clear. I was annoyed that you side-skirted half the differences Local ID10T brought up.
> Local police certainly don't do these things when undercover.
I've seen lots of ICE agents and clearly not undercover with no identification, including no ICE acronym. Some ICE agents may be undercover sometimes may be undercover but it's far from the main kind of operations that have been going on these past months, so much so that bringing undercovers up feels like a diversion.
Re: Pee the numbers into a snowbank (Score:4, Informative)
"I still want that data on a blockchain because it makes changing the story retroactively without making a mistake more difficult"
That highly depends on which blockchain. If the government is creating its own blockchain, they have full control to rewrite it however they wish.
If it's published to the Bitcoin blockchain, then you are correct, that would ensure no one can change history.
But so does a newspaper. Anything with a publication date that can be verified.
Re: (Score:1)
"That highly depends on which blockchain. If the government is creating its own blockchain, they have full control to rewrite it however they wish."
Sure but first there is no unified 'they' in the government, our government is composed of multiple branches deliberately put in contention to check and balance one another but even if it's just one government agency, if the blockchain itself is public then any rewrite or tampering could be easily detected and identified with precision as long as people can READ
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but first there is no unified 'they' in the government, our government is composed of multiple branches deliberately put in contention to check and balance one another but even if it's just one government agency
You sound like a government employee in denial about being fired by the president god-king Trump-the-Great for not towing the party line.
A few years ago I may have agreed with you, but right now your comment comes across like you've been in a coma the entire year.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... those are all employees of the executive branch. The POTUS is the source of literally all constitutional executive authority and those people are his staff. Generally speaking anyone can fire their employees, not just the POTUS. That doesn't make him a god-king or even a regular king, a king would have the authority to make law and try criminals in addition to being in charge of execution and would also have a lifetime appointment.
We can't trust the data because of numb skulls (Score:2)
I don't normally directly insult people but you are either extremely stupid, extremely evil or both.
I'm going to lose here now because I'm going to explain and as God man Reagan told us if you're explaining you are losing, praise be to Reagan praise be to Trump.
So the person question collected data from various sources and summarize them into reports. These reports would periodically need to be corrected because the underlying data was less than perfect because in a country of 340 milli
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, any minute now rsilvergun will be right about something. In the meantime aren't you glad you listened to him instead of me when he told you bitcoin was a ponzi scam with no innate value at $15 - $40k instead of me pointing out the advantages and innate utility? I mean if you'd dropped your $150k retirement savings listening to me you'd be bankrup.... oh wait, no you'd be one of the billionaires rsilvergun hates.
"We have 2,000 people in this country close enough to being trillionaires that if they can j
Re: (Score:1)
Please don't be so rude with rsilvergun. I reviewed the Slashdot user profile for rsilvergun and some of their comments. Here's an analysis of patterns that might align with common traits found in some autistic individuals again, this is not a diagnosis, just speculative behavioral observation based solely on writing style:
Observed Traits:
1. Intense focus on specific topics
The user writes frequently and at length about niche technical subjects. Linux desktops, memory management, retro gaming systems, low-le
Re: (Score:2)
Consistently bad, or only bad as of 2025?
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up to counteract trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, doesn't this mean you can't change any reported numbers without throwing away all later reported numbers? Seems a method to lock in incorrect amounts and outlaw readjustments when more information becomes available.
Um ... (Score:2)
put our GDP on the blockchain so people can use it for data and distribution
Fairly certain blockchain isn't require to use anything for data and distribution.
because you are the crypto president [U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said]
Smooch, smooch; slobber, slobber ... /s
Re: (Score:2)
because you are the crypto president [U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said]
Indeed.
crypto-
combining form
: hidden by dissembling : unavowed
crypto-fascist
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um ... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh man, what a succinct description of the US executive branch heads these days.
For a little more verbosity: Trump’s Cabinet Meeting Was Stuffed With Flattery for Dear Leader [rollingstone.com]
The televised groveling festival lasted over three hours.
I was going to quote the sycophantic remarks in the article by Trump Cabinet members, but I got nauseous just reading them. Seriously, even Trump must know they're kissing his ass, but maybe that's the point. Trump *loves* that kind of thing. Betting this will show up on South Park...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The man has committed so many impeachable offenses at this point, the senate might wake up and convict.
First you have to go through the House. They start the impeachment process.
Second, Republicans are spineless. We all saw what happened the last time they were given a chance to uphold the law and chose not to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The man has committed so many impeachable offenses
An impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives decides is an impeachable offense. They could impeach someone for forgetting the words of the Pledge of Allegiance if they could get the votes. It is (and always has been) a political decision and not a legal one.
The bar to actually getting removed is a bit higher - you have to convince 2/3 of the Senators, but it is the same principle.
The problem right now is that the setup of government is different than the designers of the Constitution beli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about spending... (Score:2)
And not just spending, logged evidence and other official documents created/obtained by government agencies should also be on a blockchain and make most all information created by the government available out of the gate instead of waiting for FOIA requests. Anything marked private on creation can be reviewed under FOIA and made public if released, not just provided to the requestor.
Basically, I want the government to have as few options for rewriting history or burn bagging documents without screwing up p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, I want the government to have as few options for rewriting history or burn bagging documents without screwing up publicly accessible metadata as possible
Indeed, if they had implemented blockchain back in 2019, it would have been plainly obvious if someone had retroactively revised government hurricane prediction plots with a Sharpie.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, because the publicly available checksum of the real plot would match and the sharpie version would not.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, I want the government to have as few options for rewriting history or burn bagging documents without screwing up publicly accessible metadata as possible.
Make burn bags out of U.S. Flags ... :-)
Trump moves to ban flag burning despite Supreme Court ruling that Constitution allows it [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"despite the supreme court ruling that the Constitution allows it"
And that ladies and gentlemen is called bias and begging the question. The court went through a long period of ideological rulings and it is perfectly valid for the POTUS to test them. Sadly they've upheld some garbage but they've also tossed out [generally revised] a fair number of bad historical judgements inconsistent with the Constitution.
Personally, I think burning the flag is universally repulsive [since it amounts to spitting in the fa
Re: (Score:2)
The flag is just a symbol; what it stands for is what truly matters. Disrespecting the rule of law and principles upon which this nation was founded is the true insult against those who have suffered and died to uphold the American way of life.
Re: (Score:2)
"The flag is just a symbol; what it stands for is what truly matters."
Exactly, it stands for the founding principles and those who have suffered and died to uphold them and it. Many have died to keep that flag from touching the ground; our national anthem is a tale about people who took turns dying to hold up the flag bodily to prevent it from falling.
When someone insults the flag or the anthem it isn't a protest of government because that isn't what the flag stands for. It's a protest of our principles and
Re: (Score:3)
Many have died to keep that flag from touching the ground; our national anthem is a tale about people who took turns dying to hold up the flag bodily to prevent it from falling.
No, it isn't. [si.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
I prefer to think it is but it's true that's a legend and we and Key didn't actually know if that bit was true. What is definitely true is that watching the still flying flag throughout the 25hr bombardment of the Fort signaled the refusal to surrender. Ultimately the British, with their mercenaries and slaves [referenced in the later verses of the poem] weren't able to take the fort and couldn't shelter there. But none of that was ever part of our national anthem.
The people who hate America and want to bur
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think burning the flag is universally repulsive ...
Noting that the actual proper way fo dispose of a U.S. flag is to burn it.
How to Properly Dispose of Worn-Out U.S. Flags [defense.gov]
The American Legion passed a resolution about flag retirement ceremonies in 1937, and they've been an important ritual ever since. According to the resolution, "The approved method of disposing of unserviceable flags has long been that they be destroyed by burning."
How to Properly Dispose of an American Flag [nationalfl...dation.org]
The U.S. Flag Code says, “The Flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.”
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think burning the flag is universally repulsive
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: How about spending... (Score:2)
Yes, it's clear the poster has zero idea what the word "think" means.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Trump's administration has said that they will not enforce the laws regarding bribery in foreign countries. Even with that, no reasonable company is going to show that "above the table". Other countries and the country with the people being bribed still have laws with penalties. Plus whomever is President in the future might retroactively change that policy.
"crypto government" (Score:2)
Is that anything like "cryptozoology?" Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that searches for and studies unknown, legendary, or extinct animals whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated, particularly those popular in folklore, such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, the chupacabra, the Jersey Devil, or the Mokele-mbembe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Scholars have noted that the subculture rejected mainstream approaches from an early date, and that adherents often express
Re: (Score:2)
Is that anything like "cryptozoology?"
It's more like cryptobiotic soil [wikipedia.org]... old and crusty.
Informationless fluff piece article (Score:2)
How about telling us which blockchain? Ethereum? TrumpCoin? Some new shitcoin mining rig Barron set up in The White House bathroom? That'd be on-brand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--- after the Commerce Department finishes "ironing out all of the details" for the implementation.
They're just in the bootlicking stage at this point. Nobody knows what they're doing or why.
Re: (Score:2)
Critical point. In a fair world I'd expect it to be one of the biggies with a deep market. In a less fair world it'll be one that just so happens to be mostly controlled by connected insiders where paying the coinage to publish the stats is in effect a transfer of public funds to those insiders.
Re: (Score:2)
2015 called... (Score:2)
they want their hype fad back.
Gross domestic lies (Score:2)
Great, documented lies. (Score:1)
This is great, that would make the liars fully accountable for the manipulated lies they publish. No way to change it later, like hiding Trumps name from the Epstein files to protect victims (victims of the report, not of the crimes committed)
Grifter gonna grift (Score:2)
Using taxpayer money to promote crypto...Now that Trump has understood he can make big money from it..
Not a bad thing, necessarily (Score:2)
What is published on the blockchain can't be redacted later. If what is published is bs, then it is bs and will remain bs. But that bs will be visible, and verifiable in the long term - they can't later deny they wrote it. If the current administration have their grubby hands all over the numbers, and manipulate things to suit their ends, then those manipulations will still be visible in the future, and hard to hide. It's like the thief making a livestream of them in the act, so as to show off.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I think a second benefit could be that interested high school (or college) students now get a data source that doesn't change locations from administration to administration. It is mildly frustrating to me that many government websites simply change where things are each year. Worse is when a department goes through the amazingly beneficial operation of name change. /s