How much the threat weighs?

Increasing user options of UAV decreasing prices and availability of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone at the today’s market has caused rapid growth in the number of UAV users. Despite that many photographers, artists, even foresters and farmers, use UAV’s as “flying cameras” as artistic or agriculture tool , it is imperative to remember that UAV is an aircraft in the first place.
Hence, as aircraft, the UAV regulations must be adjusted to general rules governing of safe air traffic. Rapid growth of the numbers of new users and UAV’s in the airspace generate new threats for the safe airspace.
The threat can be categorized in two categories:

- Threats for humans and object on the ground
- Threats for other users of the airspace.

Current legal regulations implemented worldwide and in EU in particular, classifies UAV taking into consideration the weight ( mass) of the UAV as main factor. In these regulations the weight and airspeed calculated and expressed as kinetic energy is main destructions factor. Of course in this considerations UAV DJI “ Phantom” weighting 1,5 kg represents less danger for human life then 9 kg DJI “ Matrice “…. Kinetic calculations indicates that the “safe weight” for UAV is 250g. Hence, UAV’ weighting 250g or less can use the airspace with almost no limitations. Above regulations are applicable for the UAVs overflights above urban areas where the risk of fall of UAV is substantial.
In the Polish UAV regulations ,the weight varies from 25kg to 150 kg , where 150 kg is the limit. At this juncture question arises; what from such diversification is emanating from ?
In certain circumstances, like risk of the fall of UAV weighting 25 kg on industrial ground sturdy structures, can be accepted. However the fall of 150 kg UAV exceeding acceptable risk.
However in deliberations of UAV air safety regulations , do risk of damages, based on the kinetic formula make sense, while in real life we accept overfly of 100 ton commercial liners over city centers?
This is a subject of separate deliberations.
Risk calculations of the fall of UAV on the ground and scale of damages to ground structure are being literary interpreted as equal to a midair UAV collision with other airspace user. Is it a correct approach?
In case of the UAV , threat calculation for ground infrastructure, the weight of UAV is interconnected to the vulnerability of its weakest element e.g. a human. Risk calculation of collision of UAV with other aircraft midair requires completely different approach, assessment tools and methodology.
Another question raises ;what weight of AUV can be considered as safe, in case of an AUV collision with other aircraft?
In this deliberation the weight of UAV is not the only factor which poses the threat. Factors like: airspeed, impact vector of UAV correlated with other aircraft travel direction (vector), average density of AUV and, last but not least, random factor e.g. which part of fuselage of the aircraft the UAV strikes.
Taking account above mentioned factors, it is apparent that no aircraft pilot would consider midair collision with 25kg UAV as acceptable risk. Many air safety experts consider collision with 5-7 kg flying object as acceptable safe, meaning that the “flying objects” are…birds.
Contemporary commercial liners are designed to withstand collision with most of the birds providing sufficient level safety for the structure of the aircraft , crew and passengers.
The weight of majority of UAV’ s of most popular models varies from 0,5kg to 10 kg. Thus, theoretically , UAV’s called commonly as “drones” should not generate threats for the aircrafts not more as collision with a bird.
There are however at two substantial differences in collision a with drone and a bird of the similar weight.
First difference is the density of materials used in UAV structure and density of bird’s body. Body of most popular UAV are built of various plastics, while crucial elements of UAV are metallic ones, e.g. engines and batteries. Due to very high density, these metallic elements cause majority of the damages to wings and fuselage of the aircraft.
Second difference is the birds’ instinct which commands birds to avoid aircraft. The works on autonomic systems DAA ( “ Detect And Avoid “) for UAV are in progress.
Collisions with birds are always accidental, at least on the side of birds Ground countermeasures systems designed to keep birds away from the airports and landing paths are widespread for many years. Normally birds do not causes deliberate collisions with aircrafts.
If so, collisions happen due to bird spatial disorientation or by a mishap. In order to reduce the risk of midair bird strike, airports worldwide have been applying multiple countermeasures like: illumination/acoustic bird distractors, trained dogs and large predator birds. Despite all above countermeasures, airports authorities record hundreds bird striks every year.
Bird strike tests have been carried widely used for many years, resulting in creation of rich data base. The data base has been used for creation of reliable aircraft designs and construction standards.
However, in terms of collision UAV- aircraft, the database is surprisingly poor.

Personally I know only three works on this subject.

In 2017 British Department of Transport , Military Aviation Authority and British Airline Pilot Association ordered consortium QUINETIC and NATURAL IMPACT to carry out computer simulation of collision of various UAV’ s with helicopters and commercial liner windscreens. Digital UAV models weighting : 0,4 kg,1.2 kg and 4 kg have been used. The tests indicated that bird strike against certified aircraft windscreen withstand collisions with birds and 1,2 kg UAV;s however collisions with 4 kg UAV cause critical damages to windscreens. The tests indicated also that helicopter’s and general aviation a/c-GA aircraft windscreens are more vulnerable then commercial airlines windscreens as airspeed of helicopter and GA are much lower than the liners. Mass (weight) and airspeed of UAV appeared to be not only factors of destruction. Tests indicated that 400g multirotor UAV with unprotected metal engine caused much more damages then 1.2 kg drone with engine in a plastic casing. In 2018 researchers of the Daytona University testing bird strikes carried out strike test using DJI “Phanton 2” where “ Phanton “ was striped off gimbal and camera. In the test, “Phantom” stroke the wing of aircraft “Mooney M20 “ at the airspeed 383 km/h . Damage assessments indicated that the “Phantom“ strike ripped off wing plating and damaged wing structures. In another strike test, a gelatin block simulating a bird body equal of mass of the “Phanton”, travelling at the same airspeed e.g. 383km/h ripped off wing plating but did not cause wing structure. Video clips taken during the test were posted on YT and Google.

In 2019 German Fraunhofer EMI Institute carried out number of strike tests where various components and materials used in UAV’s hit 8 mm aluminum plates at the air speed 115 – 225 km/h. Post test damage assessments indicated clear indents of the plate. It is worth to mention, that indents at impact points of metal parts of UAV like : engine casing and batteries were significantly deeper.

In 2018 results of computer tests carried out by : Impact and Armor Group, Cranfield University and UK Defense Academy were a base for the digitalized model of UAV strike colliding with running jet engine. The model depicted that the drone broke off turbine blades causing critical damages to the jet engine. The recordings of above test shows also that lit coming from damaged battery casing easily interacting chemical reaction with oxygen triggering self-ignition, thus compounding the extend of damages by fire. The results of the tests and video recording are available in the internet. Aviation jet engines are subject of dynamic test where “chicken gun” shots chicken body into running jet engine. The test is designed to proof that jet engine would still run after a collision with a bird body. After such collision all jet engines supposed to work normally while the engine turbine supposed to “grind” chicken body. All contemporary jet engines must obligatory undergo chicken gun tests. To my best knowledge, tests where an UAV been used as damaging factor of jet engines, never been carried out. In conclusion, new EU regulations related to UAV’s do not bring new elements to the air space safety. The new law making regulating air safety policies should demand UAV manufacturers to design their products such way that metal elements should be encased in flexible plastic casings. Such casing would cushion and disperse kinetic energy of the midair collision with an UAV. This would be the last resort in improvements of airspace safety. The first priority however will be always avoidance of the midair aircraft – UAV collision.

Who benefits of illegal immigration and human smuggling?-text from 2018 but..nihil novi..

Taking benefits of illegal immigration and human smuggling has always been considered as two separate punitive acts, although often the modus operandi was very similar or even identical. However, the difference was the purpose of the procedure.
The migrant crisis, or rather its escalation in 2015, has completely changed the situation in relation to this process. By 2015, the trafficking of people usually involving victims of prostitution or slave / forced labor was a significant percentage of the income of European criminal groups, but limited by numerous conditions.  
In 2013, Europol estimated the profits of this "organized" sector of organized crime at 25 billion euros a year. With about 50 billion euros of narcotic business it is no small gain for criminal groups.
However, the smuggling of people to Europe was severely limited both by restrictive EU visa regulations and by the well-protected UE external borders. It is also important to note that in Europe, the "human trafficking" market has its own demand-side constraints.  
Almost 2 million people storming the UE borders in 2015 through land and across the sea have changed the balance of power in Europe.
 In 2016, the Eastern sea and land route to Europe was crossed primarily by the Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis. On the other hand, the path through the central part of the Mediterranean was lesser used by these nations and used by people from Libya and the Eritrea.
Frontex data on the number of illegal immigrants indicate that in 2015 the following was detected:
a/ 764 038 illegal attempts to cross the EU border on the so-called Western Balkan-Turkey route, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Hungary, Austria;
b / 885,386 on the Eastern Mediterranean-Turkey route, Greece;
c/ 153,946 cases on the central Mediterranean route;
d/ less than 2000 attempted or crossed the border of Poland whereas the coast of Spain "visited" more than 7000 people;
In 2016, the number of illegal border crossings fell by almost 70%, but the situation is far from satisfactory. Frontex reports of 511,371 cases of border violations, where the western Balkan and eastern Mediterranean attempts fell respectively from 764 038 to 130 261 and 885 368 to 182 277.
By contrast, the route through the central Mediterranean recorded an increase in incidents from 153 946 to 181 459. Also, the Spanish traffic increased by almost 30 percent.

The decrease in illegal border crossings on the Eastern smuggling routes was probably triggered by the first agreement between the EU and Turkey, which increased Turkish activity in the area of ​​border sealing and the activities of the states on the Balkan route that closed the border crossing the trail, which caused a large proportion of immigrants to "be stuck" in the camps.
They are not able to get to countries like Germany, Great Britain or Sweden.
The huge money involved in the smuggling of illegal immigrants caused a fivefold increase in the number of people living from trafficking and related businesses. Frontex estimates that the number of people involved in the organized crime groups was reached in 2016 between 12,000 and 15,000 people— mainly Moroccans, Hispanics, Albanians and Syrians.
These figures, however, come from Frontex and are the most reliable in terms of estimates based on the expertise of the European Union's external borders. In contrast, what is happening inside the Union is already as Kipling used to say a completely different story.
Europol claims, there are more and more cases where groups smuggling to Europe illegal immigrants work with groups selling people to public houses or work camps. Often the fee for smuggling to Europe exhausts the financial capacity of immigrants, making them an easy target for recruiting traffickers.
This phenomenon is disturbing for humanitarian reasons (dramatically increases the number of sexually exploited and forced laborers) and consolidates and strengthens the black market of organized crime.
One of the last identified "trends" is the engagement in the smuggling of non-government organizations (NGOs) working to help and rescue immigrants on the central Libyan-Italian smuggling route.
Since 2015, the EU has created a tactical team of ships and police forces to intercept smugglers and illegal immigrants. The EUNAVFOR Med is operating in the Mediterranean Sea.
The group's activities are commonly called the Sophia operation.
 In 2017, NATO joined the operation to form a separate unit under the code name Sea Guardian. During the year, five EU warships sent 35,000 displaced emigrants to Italy and Greece. Only 109 suspected of organizing smuggling were stopped and handed over to the Italian prosecutor's office.
NATO and EU operations whose main goal is to combat the smuggling of people to Europe slowly turned into rescuing thousands of migrants that are picked up from the sea. The military-police mission has changed into a rescue operation. Initially the ships patrolled the coastal waters of Italy near Sicily and international waters in the costal line of Italy.
Sicily divides nearly 500 kilometers of sea to Libyan coast, and in 2015, when the migration crisis began; rescue operations in the Mediterranean took place 10-30 sea miles from the coast of Sicily.
Currently, vessels belonging to various NGOs patrol the sea in the immediate vicinity of Libyan territorial waters. These vessels are picking the ​​immigrants from the sea and transporting them to the Italian coast or when the number of immigrants exceeds their loading capacity they call on NATO or EU task forces. Before the appearance of NGOs, the emigrants had to overcome about 450 sea miles to reach the rescue service, now 15-20 miles off the Libyan coast they could count on the help of humanitarian organizations that can travel them to Italy or call for help warships.
NGOs engaged in helping immigrants in the Mediterranean with ships (in brackets called ships) are: Jugend retter (Iuventa),Medecins Sans Frontier (Burbon Argos, Dignity, Aquarius), Prooactiva Open Arms (Astral),Stichting Bootvluchting, Sea Watch (Moonbeard), Migrant Offshore Aid Station (Phoenix, Topaz Responder), Sea-Eye (Sea Eye, Audur, Speedy)), Lifeboat (Minden), SOS Mediterrannee,, Mission Lifeline, Dutch Boat Refugee Fundation (Golfo Azzurro)
The modus operandi of such cooperation is supposed to look like this: Smugglers are organizing a group of 200 to 500 people, and then loading them on the boat. The Libyan-Sicily transit price is between $ 2000 and $ 5000, of course exact amount depends on the demand. Smugglers inform their sources in the NGO of the shoreline and determine where the ships are to be assisted.
Boats crossing the Libyan territorial waters flow into a fixed location where the "NGO rescue vessel" is located. It should be noted that crews or volunteers may not realize that they are involved in a process that is based on the cooperation of smugglers and their NGOs. 
For anyone who knows how to count, it is clear how much money goes to the smugglers after every such transport ...


Smugglers are looking for people willing to travel to Europe in the African camps and ghettos, using the services of the so-called Chasseur who, is in contact with local ghetto bosses. Often at this level, the smuggling of illegal immigrants and human trafficking is occurring because young women can count on a "loan" for a journey from the Ghetto Boss to get on a boat without knowing they have been sold to human traffickers. In addition, the family is convinced of the "debt" created after the daughter's departure to pay back to Ghetto Boss.
Immigrants are packed into trucks and buses whose drivers often work "after hours" in travel agencies or hotels and caravans are moving through the Sahel to the North. They are accompanied by so called FIXERs who are moving on motorcycles, searching for threats, pay extortions and bribes on the way to the coast.
Various companies are involved in the financial support of this entire procedure and are under the cover of tourist agencies that carry out business in North Africa. The combination of travel agencies and NGOs generates many potential opportunities for illegal activities.
INVENTA and SEA EYE vessels issued MAYDAY signals on April 24, 2017 due to the large number of refugees they had boarded. Both shelters took on about 600 immigrants and around 200 more were riding on rafts and pontoons.
Ship wreckers boarded a German Bremen frigate from the EU combat group. German organizations say that over 26,000 emigrants have been rescued since the beginning of this year....
On April 23, prosecutor Katanie Carmelo Zuccaro told in an interview with La Stampa that he had evidence of telephone contacts between people in Libya dealing with human smuggling and a humanitarian organization that kept ships at sea to save sinking refugees.
This allegation correlates with the conservative statements made by Frontex chief, who also criticized the increasing involvement of NGOs in the dirty business of organized crime reaping benefits from transporting immigrants. The only thing that is optimistic is the information from this month about the agreement between the Italian government and the governments of Libya, Chad and Niger to seal the borders between these countries to reduce the flow of immigrants flowing to the Libyan shore.

Is cash alredy dead?

(...)Going back to three stages of money laundering, observing scenarios and procedures of analysts' work, one can notice that our AML system is focused primarily on flows within the financial system. We focus on electronic money and its flows between customer accounts. We rarely see paper money in CDT. In the statistics from 2016, there was not even one structuring alert. Very often cases are raised in which the perpetrators have made millions of dollars using a shell company, using trusts, foundations or TBML. The media success of the AML operation is often based on the amounts disclosed. However, 80% of these cases are related to financial crimes carried out on a large scale, such as tax evasion, VAT fraud and excise or customs offenses. At this level, there is usually no cash involved, it is no longer the banknotes that are dirty, but magnetic impulses... Meanwhile, such crimes as prostitution, human trafficking, drugs and arms trade on the black market still base their huge profits on cash. Profits generated by the black market and organized crime, in particular based on so-called street crime, still require 80% cash flow from hand to hand. From the point of view of the street life, nothing has changed since the times of Al Capone. A dealer sells a fix to a buyer on the street for the price that includes the wholesaler's fee and the organization's profit. The wholesaler pays the distributor from the criminal organization a price that covers not only the profit but also the costs of smuggling and producing drugs. In this way, from the price of $50 per gram at the street level, the organization has a profit at the level of bosses of $180,000 per kilogram (on average). Only this level of profits will be transferred to the financial system for washing. But let's remember that these $180,000 are suitcases of cash in 5, 10, 20 and 100 dollar bills. The organization introduces tons of goods, so profits are proportional to the amount of kilograms. To sum up, the AML system of financial institutions is mostly focused on the level where the above profits flow between different organizations after the introduction of cash into financial systems. Cocaine of Mexican cartels distributed in Europe causes millions of dollars from its sales to be transferred to Mexico or the USA in various ways, most often with the usage of transfers under the cover of commercial transactions (TBML) and less and less with cash by couriers. If we asked people from organized criminal groups, which stage of money laundering is the most difficult for them, in the majority you will hear that the first one - placement. Why? Because in differs from the actions on electronic funds, as cash requires people's involvement. Someone must bring it to the bank or a deposit window and divide it into sums below the threshold. They have to open accounts or companies on someone’s name, etc. And it is not easy to find people who would not report to the police, would not get caught and, if so, would keep silent about their employers. Also, you have to look after that cash. Not only the police, but also competition is trying to take it over. The increasing power of the police services and the increasingly effective methods of tracking electronic transactions results in the use of more sophisticated layering and integration methods. Nowadays, thanks to the shell company's anonymity that is largely accepted and using the global network of commercial transactions, the effectiveness of combating money laundering is not growing at all. That is why more and more often people talk about returning to the sources which is the lowest stage of money laundering. What are the critical elements of placement? First of all, the accounts, or to be precise, opening the accounts. KYC procedures are insufficient, especially when it comes to setting up a business and the account is opened on the basis of company registration. In some countries, establishing an LLC is easier than obtaining a driving license. In the situation of individual accounts, the bank obviously requests an ID, however, it is not possible to verify its authenticity. Customer service based on such limited possibility of obtaining information from the customer leads to the situation that even if the crime is revealed, the perpetrator cannot be determined or he/she is a pawn who has no idea who the real criminals are. Of course, it is still a thin line between the possibility of citizen control and their civil rights. Financial institutions are not and will not be investigative authorities, so they will not receive such rights. Second of all, support of accounts that are powered by cash. The use of individual accounts for the placement is so popular that if they were opened on false documents or on a pawn / post it guarantees the anonymity of the perpetrator in case of disclosure of the procedure. However, because the introduced thresholds limit the amount of sums deposited to the account without raising suspicion, and the laundering resources are large, it requires a large number of accounts and at least several "smurfs" to make deposits. Hence the popularity of so-called mixed funds or front companies. Assuming an economic activity based on the sale of goods or services for cash, it is possible to introduce large amounts in cash into the financial system. Car washes, sushi bars, etc. allow safe and regular introduction of cash into the financial system. At the same time, we place money on the account of a real-life company, so we actually have already done a layering... The awareness of how important the companies using mostly cash are in the process of money laundering by organized criminal groups is the basis for preparing for changes in AML systems in the near future. Brexit and political weakness of the EU, the increasingly real customs conflict between China and the US, Russia's superpower policy, all cause that the forecasts about the expiration of cash transactions on European markets are moving away into a rather distant future. Only four years ago, it was possible to imagine regulations abolishing cash transactions. The strong EU economy, the well-being of citizens, stable economic policy all made these forecasts probable. Now, the decline in confidence in the governments of states and fears of economic crises following unpredictable political changes cause that people once again prefer to have banknotes next to the credit card in their wallets.(...)

Cryptocurrency - the currency of the future?

Cryptocurrencies from a technological and Internet point of view in a dynamic and spectacular way are beginning to become one of the elements of the global financial system.
The most known and the most widespread of their representative - bitcoin (BTC) - is increasingly noticeable in the press, online forums and, recently, legal provisions and regulations. This means that also the governments of individual countries and international financial organizations see crypts as not only a technological novelty but also as a competitor or partner (depending on the approach to the issue) in the financial markets.
What is a cryptocurrency?
The word crypto (kryptos) comes from Greek and means "hidden". In many languages the crypto added to another word changes its meaning in this area. In a literal translation, a cryptocurrency is a "hidden currency". However, the semantic similarity of cryptocurrencies is much closer to cryptology, the domain of knowledge from the borderline of logic, mathematics and computer science dealing with secrecy, and in a manner protected against access to information by unauthorized people.
The term cryptocurrency was first described by the American computer engineer and computer scientist of Chinese origin Wei Dai. This engineer working as a Microsoft cryptography specialist, fascinated with cryptology, mathematics and various theories of anarchy, published in 1998 the concept of "B-money, an anonymous, distributed electronic cash system" which describes the concept of a new payment instrument that is impossible to be controlled by centralize control both in terms of generation (emission) as well as distribution.
The B-money which Wei Dai describes is to be based on the following principles, which, moreover, the creation of Bitcoin was based on a decade later:

1/ emission, distribution and transactions require a specific amount of computational work performed by central processing units of computers
2/ the work done is verified by the community, let's call it network, which updates the data in the "transactional consolidated book" by means of mathematical calculations
3/ a member of the network community who performs calculations for a transaction or emission receives remuneration for his / her work
4/ the replacement of the cryptocurrency takes place by means of collective accounting and authentication using cryptographic hashes.
5/ contracts are enforced by issuing and signing transactions with digital signatures (ie public key cryptography)

Ten years after the concept of b-money an outline of a new currency came to life - bitcoin (BCT), created by Satoshi Nakamato - probably a fictitious character, and perhaps a group of people who hid under this pseudonym.
The identity of the creator of bitcoin is a topic for a separate article and still the answer to the question of who it is remains in the sphere of conjecture. Bitcoin operates on the basis of principles defined by Wei almost a decade ago, but in order for it to appear realistically on the market, technology that would enable the above-mentioned conditions (blockchain) had to appear earlier.
In fact, it was only the development and implementation of blockchain technology that allowed to create what we now call a cryptocurrency. The first block called Genesis appeared in 2009, and the first customers and the first bitcoin transactions appeared within a few days later. The crypto-currency Bitcoin has become a fact, not just the idea of programmers and mathematicians.For a person from outside the IT environment who does not have the knowledge about numerical sequences and other mathematical nuances like block chains or cryptographic keys, all these technological assumptions are probably completely incomprehensible.
Therefore, for a better understanding of the subject, I suggest to look at BTC through the purpose of its creation declared by its creators.
Why was the cryptocurrency created?
Both Wei Dai and creator of bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamato, were looking for an alternative to fiat money (Latin fides-faith). This little known name hides today's currencies / cash present on global financial markets. Fiat money is colloquially speaking paper money or means of payment whose value is not based on its physical value (eg a banknote, after all a piece of colored paper) but on trust in its issuer / producer, in fact central banks of countries that emit / print their currencies . It is worth noting that the gold coin issued by some central bank will also be fiat money if its market value is greater than the value of the gold from which it was made. The money, the introduction of which was wrongly attributed to the Phoenicians, allowed mankind to go from local barter transactions to real trade.
The concept of fiat money is derived from the time when gold or silver was used as a payment instrument, and trusted institutions (bank, chamber of commerce, guild of craftsmen) stored ore guaranteeing its safe storage while issuing to the owner a paper certificate that authorized to collect their gold or silver in other branches of these institutions. With time, the paper certificate itself began to serve as a means of exchange in payment transactions, and this meant that the value of a paper certificate was no longer just stored gold or silver and the trust in the issuer of the certificate that stored them.
Contemporary economic systems are based on issuing money by central banks that implement monetary policy of states. The main instrument regulating the amount of money in circulation is the interest rate on loans granted by central banks. The purpose of changes in interest rates is to keep the stability of the economy of a given country.
Of course, the central bank is also a monopolist in the issue of money which is a legal currency in a given country. The concept of cryptocurrency was supposed to be an alternative to conventional means of payment.
Because both Dai and Nakamoto acknowledged that the world financial system has long ceased to be controlled by citizens within the tools available in democracy, is subject to market manipulation, does not guarantee the anonymity of transactions, is highly oppressive and limits the right to the protection of personal interests.
And of course, banks are the villain of the financial system because shareholders 'profits are a priority for their actions, which often leads to violation of clients' rights.
And at the end, and perhaps most importantly: the banks controlling the financial system control the entire trade experience in the world, which, according to the above-mentioned men, is contrary to the definition of a free market.
Therefore, their concept of a new currency was to ensure the anonymity of the transaction participants while at the same time making it public, base the currency emissions and its distribution on mathematical algorithms and not political decisions and ensure the irremovability of transactions and their authorization also based on mathematical algorithms and a distributed registration system.
Nakamoto has created a virtual currency whose number "on the market" has been pre-limited to 21 million bitcoins, with each bitcoin being divided into 100,000,000 smaller units called satoshi. Bitcoin functions virtually in the network of Internet connections, computers and other devices that use its software.
The generation of bitcoins and their subsequent transfer is based on the use of blockchain technology. The "block chain" is a specific transactional virtual register that has two important features: it is written on all connected central units and has a sequential structure, i.e. each subsequent transaction is added to the previous one and must be matched to it by using mathematical algorithms. The distribution of the BTC emitted and transactions carried out on the entire network ensures that these data are not removable.
In contrast, the structure of the chain of encrypted blocks that are created and combined based on solving complex mathematical activities is a real technological breakthrough that really allowed crypts to be created. The block chain is a specific arrangement of blocks, each of which has its own name, list of user transactions and also a shortcut of the previous block's content. In order to attach another block to our chain, a specific calculation work must be performed by the network units.
The results of calculations (so-called proof of work) will authenticate the new block and allow it to match the previous correct block in the chain if, of course, the math task is done correctly. Any interference or attempt to change the chain will not allow the addition of a new block.
By definition, this prevents duplication and falsification of bitcoins. If these explanations are not very clear below there’s the definition from Wikipedia:

“A blockchain, originally block chain, is a growing list of records, called blocks, which are linked using cryptography. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree). By design, a blockchain is resistant to modification of the data. It is "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way". For use as a distributed ledger, a blockchain is typically managed by a peer-to-peer network collectively adhering to a protocol for inter-node communication and validating new blocks. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires consensus of the network majority. Although blockchain records are not unalterable, blockchains may be considered secure by design and exemplify a distributed computing system with high Byzantine fault tolerance. Decentralized consensus has therefore been claimed with a blockchain.”
Calculations are performed by participants connected to the network using their computing devices. Because they are more and more often specialized in electronic systems of high computing power that "dig" through large numbers and characters, they are called "excavators" and their owners are "diggers" or "miners". Each "digger" collects from the network all unconfirmed transactions, each of which includes, among others, the cryptographic "cipher" (hashes) of the previous valid block stored in the system.
Then, using its computing power, it attempts to break the cryptographic code of this block with certain features, which requires a predictable number of trials and errors. When he finds a solution, he announces it to the rest of the network. Other participants verify the broken code, receiving a newly resolved block, checking its correctness before accepting and adding to the chain.
For the solution of a given algorithm, the " digger" is rewarded by the network, which means that by solving the cryptographic tasks significant for the network he "digs" his prize in the form of bitcoin. The first-come-first-served principle applies, so the probability of bitcoin extraction depends on the ratio of computing power brought to the network through it to the sum of the computing power provided by all other "diggers".
Each new block in the chain after joining and verifying new transactions is generated every 10 minutes and currently the prize paid to the "diggers" is 12.5 BTC (to be shared, of course, among the winners). When the BTC network started in 2009, the payment for the block was 50 BTC.
The creator of bitcoin has introduced to the system a tool called "bitcoin halving" which with every 210,000 blocks generated (this occurs every four years) reduces the prize, or emissions of new bitcoins by half. The next halving is expected in 2020 and will reduce the prize for the block to 6.25 BTC. This mechanism is to prevent exceeding the maximum number of emissions, that is 21,000,000 BTC. Is bitcoin or cryptocurrency rightly called the currency of the future? In the current state of its use, it seems doubtful.
Let's look at what's happening now with bitcoin. T he cryptocurrency was created as an alternative to "state" money, eliminating its greatest disadvantages and at the same time providing the user with security and anonymity of the funds used.
And as long as BTC is used as a means of payment in commercial transactions as global as retail, the creators' assumptions are met.
Confidence and faith in BTC transactions guaranteed by blockchain technology (cryptographic keys, use of distributed records and registers, etc.) makes it an ideal payment instrument, especially in online transactions. It is a kind of return to the past, a trade that has since barter changed to settlements based on the assessment of the value of goods and services, but there has not yet appeared a monopoly of banks with their paper banknotes. Before the invention of paper money, people traded on the basis of clearing books, assigning values to their goods and services - instead of exchanging money.

The introduction of means of payment has allowed to introduce trade on a large scale and significantly accelerate it. Unfortunately, the speed of transaction execution is no longer the main BTC domain.
Transactions are generally free, but if we care about the time and we want the transaction to be a priority, the network will charge you a fee. If we do not get a paid priority then we can wait for the transaction to be completed even four days until the "block" of our transaction goes to one of the "diggers".
These fees are still lower than those charged by other financial tools for wire transfer, so BTC is still competitive even in this field.
BTC still performs one of the most important principles of the creation of cryptocurrency, that is, the anonymity of the transaction participant with full transparency of its occurrence. It is worth noting that the need for anonymity does not have to be criminal in nature.
For example: a man buying Viagra does not want the trace of this transaction to remain on the network or in his account. A woman paying for breast enlargement also may not want this information to be recorded in the registers and be available to others.
The two examples are just based on the feeling of shame, but it results from human nature and its various complicated aspects, which at the level of retail trade can constitute a large percentage of transactions using cryptocurrency as a guarantor of anonymity. In times of permanent interference in our private lives with various technical means supervised by both the state and business corporations, starting from special services through the tax office to Facebook, anonymity becomes a commodity or a desirable service, and BTC still provides it. Another assumption: cryptocurrency is not manipulated when issued by governments or banks, ie a strictly defined number of bitcoins will be generated, which means that the level of inflation is adjusted only to supply and demand, and not to the monetary policy and economy of different countries. BTC also meets this criterion.
Due to the fact that the moment when BTC reaches the limit value, ie the maximum emission of 21,000,000, there are questions about the behavior of the BTC market in terms of its price. And here are my doubts about the future of BTC. All the advantages of BTC as a hallmark of features programmed for it by Nakamoto prove its existence on the market and translate into its success as a new means of payment.
However, what constitutes the greatest threat to BTC as an independent payment instrument is its incredibly volatile price and a significant change in the way BTC is used on financial markets.
The modest beginnings of Bitcoin are $ 1 for BTC in February 2011 and one of the first major transactions, namely the sale of 27-year-old Toyota Supra for 3,000 BTC in the same year.
The first price bubbles (step changes in value) in 2013 where BTC reaches the price of 1242 dollars and then a sharp drop in price. And finally, the memorable year 2017 when bitcoin reaches the price ceiling so far, that is $ 18,300 in December 2017. The whole year up to the December peak the price goes up at a rate of over 1000% growth. Another fall to $ 6,000 in 2018 and the current price which ranges around $ 4,000.
Of course, since BTC became a means used in stock exchange transactions and in large commercial contracts, the increase in its price as a currency is natural. However, not at such a rate and scale.BTC has become an attractive currency and convertible into other currencies, and currently it is these settlements that seem to have the greatest impact on its growing price.
Exchange and currency manipulations, that is what the b-coin was supposed to fight according to the ideas of their creators, have an increasing impact on the price and BTC position.
In addition, many users are starting to treat BTC as resources in "virtual gold" by investing their capital in them and investing in it. Holders believe in bitcoin as a means to ensure their financial security and profit over time.
So history has come full circle. After creating a virtual currency to be free of defects in fiat money, its operation based on distributed transaction records, cryptographic algorithms and anonymity of participants, it now once again returned to the exchange of paperwork with marked denominations but in the digital version, no longer to pay and finance commercial transactions, but to generate profits on the trading of cryptocurrency itself.
Of course, bitcoin still has basic advantages programmed by its developers, but if we look at the current system and compare it to the one before 2013, we can observe the following facts: the computing network is dominated by specially constructed electronic machines tailored only to solve BTC algorithms, and they are actually only able to generate new bitcoins.
This means that other devices such as private computers or laptops have no chance in this race and the network is becoming less and less involved and its "nodes" are dispersed. Of course, the computing power of the network is still huge because it is based on specialized machines but the number of "nodes" connected to it decreases.
What happens when all BTCs are "dug up"?
Remember that BTC will function as long as its algorithms in the blockchain will be processed in the network. Optimists say that nothing will change. Simply, the "diggers" will reclassify from generating BTC, to charge for the use of their computing power and the network will continue to operate. Is it really so obvious? Already, BTC is not competitive with other cryptocurrencies in terms of speed and price for priority transactions, and the network is still 100% active because there are still hidden rewards for proof of work.
Shouldn’t reclassification of fees for proof of work from mining to transaction services affect the speed and price of the transaction?
Well, bitcoin from an easily available trusted and anonymous currency has turned into a "virtual gold" which people want to accumulate rather than pay. As I wrote above, the story has come full circle, the cryptocurrency has turned into a deposit whose value is based on the conviction of those who have it about its lucrative nature.
Is BTC a currency worth investor confidence?
Especially compared to other "classic" currencies?
I will quotes my friend who asked me if I think that the US dollar is a reliable currency and if I would base my security on it, eg in terms of future retirement? Or would I prefer BTC, for example? To my evasive answer, he said: you can support Republicans or Democrats, you may be afraid of a recession or a Wall Street crisis or a war, but Washington's paper portrait is not just the US Federal Reserve Bank and better or worse politicians. Behind this paper is one of the world's largest economies and 280 million Americans. And what is behind BTC? What about the use of cryptocurrencies for criminal purposes?
By nature, their advantages predispose them as a great tool used in both classic crime and Money Laundering processes. More and more often we hear that banned substances are being offered online, objects from crime or whose possession is forbidden and transactions are finalized using BTC or other cryptocurrencies. And we're talking about a normal public network, not Darknet. This is, of course, an example of using cryptocurrencies in the "black market" in the field of retail and let's call it a wholesale.
But it is also illegal auctions stolen art departments, or transferring ransom for kidnapped people. The use of crypts by criminals is limited only by their imagination. In the field of money laundering, it is also an almost ideal measure. Anonymity and the fact that physically "money" does not exist, provides a lack of evidence of crime and prevents their confiscation.
That is why the critical moment of criminal use of cryptocurrencies is the moment of their exchange into classic means that are actually washed out. Until BTC is exchanged for dollars or euros, we do not know who owns the money and where they came from. And although it is difficult for me to imagine BTC on bank accounts, it is easy for me to use it in MSB.
However, the use of cryptocurrencies by informal hawala-type financial systems is quite certain. Of course, in terms of balancing the flow of funds between hawalleries. The wider use of cryptocurrencies in commerce will complicate the difficult tracking of the schemes used by TBML and BMPE...
However, the future of blockchain technology looks completely different. Whereas the probability of using cryptocurrencies in licensed financial institutions is problematic because of one of its the biggest advantages, owner's anonymity, which from the point of view of AML policy imposed on financial institutions (KYC) is not such an advantage, distributed blocking and block-based transaction authentication can already be completely freely used by banks.
The blockchain technology can be used in any process that involves the scattering of the recording and the authentication of the subsequent stages of operation in an automatic manner using cryptography. Companies such as IBM are already offering services for forwarding companies, where it is true that there is no distributed scaling system used for cryptocurrency (IBM uses "nodes" or dedicated servers for the network), however, the system of registering and authenticating goods is done by using blockchain technology. Imagine a commodity in Africa that is destined for Europe.
The forwarding company must pack it, deliver it to the customs point, send it to Europe, carry it through customs, unpack it and deliver it to the customer. Each stage consists of documents: a contract with a client, container rental, transport to a port, customs papers, freight papers, customs documents in the recipient's country, transport of a container to the distribution center and sending the goods to the customer. Of course, in most countries, we already use electronic documents, but blockchain causes that the whole flow of documentation about the shipment and its authentication is supported by cryptographic algorithms modeled by the IBM network so supervision of the shipment does not require so many document authorization procedures and gives better control over shipment movement.
By definition, blockchain as a system based on an encrypted cryptographic structure does not need intermediaries or additional entities verifying or identifying the processes being developed, ie its costs are lower and the efficiency is higher. The increasing access to the Internet, the ever-increasing speed of network operation, are the reasons for blockchaine technologies to be more and more applicable. We can imagine public registers such as: a car register, land registers or registers of clients of large corporations that will be based on this technology. Potentially wide application of blockchain can also be used with all sales operations of services where customers and suppliers usually use the services of intermediaries when finalizing transactions and registering contracts, such as the sale of electricity or other utilities.
Does digitization of means of payment have a future?
Of course. Even now, and without a cryptocurrency, the basis of everyday life is the use of plastic cards, not banknotes and coins. In developed countries, electronic money marginalized cash on the market. But human nature is such that we accept what we do not see and cannot touch as long as we believe in its existence. As long as we believe that a piece of plastic will allow us to pay for fuel and food for a long time, the need to have cash is negligible. If we lose faith in what this piece of plastic represents, the need to have cash or a golden Krugerrand in the "sock" for a rainy day returns...
Let's remember that according to Wei b-money was supposed to be "electronic cash". The political situation in the world is currently not conducive to super optimistic forecasts. Therefore, on the one hand, the citizens' confidence in the economic stability guaranteed by governments and their means of payment decreases, which, among other things, explains the popularity of cryptocurrencies, and on the other hand, the old good gold bar is still more reliable than the virtual one, especially when there is no electricity....

Drones as a weapon...

The rapid development of the technology of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and the ever-increasing accessibility result in an ever wider range of possibilities of its use. In addition to lawful applications, the problem is more and more frequent incidents indicating the possibility of using this technology for criminal purposes. UAV as a crime tool operating in the airspace can pose a threat to all participants of the air traffic as wells as citizens and structures on the ground.
The following activities can lead to a security risk:

· Unintentional/Independent of the user's will (technical failures, breakdowns, weather conditions, etc.)
· Non-compliance with the rules (routine, lack of ability, lack of knowledge, aloofness )
· Deliberate action (crimes, assaults and terrorist attacks)

The first two cases of threats can be limited by means of: legal regulations, technical requirements for equipment manufacturers and social information campaigns. Unfortunately, the deliberate use of UAV as an attack tool cannot be stopped by the above-mentioned measures.
UAV used by perpetrators as a means of attacking objects on earth and in the air, is limited only to their imagination and ingenuity. A wide range of possibilities to use UAV as a weapon with increasing availability and low price makes them the equivalent of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) commonly used in terrorist attacks in the inflammatory regions of the world Kamikaze drones, drones carrying explosives, chemical agents, or other dangerous substances have become a fact, and, like the IED, they are increasingly used in the activities of terrorist organizations.
Just as for IED terrorists, they are a substitute for unavailable specialized equipment and military equipment, so for terrorists UAV can be a substitute for an artillery missile or anti-aircraft missile. UAVs are also increasingly used by organized criminal groups to commit ordinary criminal offenses.
In Europe and USA the first were protected the most sensitive elements of critical and military infrastructure .
Unauthorized flights over nuclear power plants, bases with strategic nuclear weapons or naval ports caused the rapid emergence on the market systems whose aim is to secure the above-mentioned objects against the threat from the UAV / drones: C-UAV.
These C-UAV systems usually consist of three elements:

1. Detection
2. Identification
3. Neutralizing

The use of devices designed for detection and identification does not raise any controversy, that may limit their use. As for the neutralization of detected and identified drones, it still raises a number of doubts of legal nature and the threat of safety.
C-UAV systems most often neutralize UAV using the following factors:

· kinetic
· non kinetic

Kinetic neutralization of UAV consists simply in its destruction by means of various propelling elements (bullets, missiles, rockets, nets) or energy stream (microwaves, laser)
Non kinetic neutralization of the UAV consists in jamming the communication line between the vehicle and the operator, and dimming the GPS signal.
It's more of an Electronic Warfare(EW) tools than an air defense system weaponry. The specificity of UAV, ie small size, construction based on plastics, the ability to fly very close to the earth's surface causes that the detection and identification systems are effective usually at distances of no more than 1-3km.
This causes great difficulties for the fire control system and especially the aiming system. A small, fast and low-flying target is simply difficult to hit. Especially when you have a few seconds to detect, identify and eliminate...
The danger of eliminating UAV using kinetic elements is primarily the threat of missiles that missed the target or which did not lose the firepower even after hitting the target, and the fall of the wreckage of the destroyed UAV to the ground after the hit.
The use of jamming devices also does not guarantee safe bringing a threatening UAV to the ground, but it is definitely safer for the safety of people and objects on earth. It should be noted, however, that kinetic systems are much more effective to use (destroy target) than jamming systems. The fully developed system gives the possibility of preventing unlawful interference of the UAV in the protected infrastructure, based on the control of airspace in its vicinity.
Airports and communication airports are exceptional objects in the area of issues related to UAV threats. On the one hand, the airport area with its infrastructure (i.e. runway, aprons, planes on the ground, fuel tanks, passenger terminals, hangars) is a classic element of the critical infrastructure of the state transport system.
The intrusion of unauthorized UAV in its borders is a very serious threat to the safety of people and objects on ground. On the other hand, the start of the runway and the final part of the approach path near the airport are the places where the aircraft is still in the air and is beyond the range of the security system of the airport.
For this reason, when discussing threats to airports, they should be considered as two types:

• threats to unlawful interference with airport infrastructure
• and the danger for air traffic in the area of the danger of landing and taking off aircraft with UAV collision.

In the most of the countries for the security of the airports, Airport Management/owners is responsible .


IACO standards and more stringent EU regulations define the entire scope of necessary physical security of airport infrastructure. The type and height of fences, security organizations, technical measures, emergency response procedures, etc. have for years been an algorithm whose application gives high security standards at European airports.
The threat of unlawful interference of UAV with airport infrastructure, especially in the aspect of a direct attack, requires extending the scope of protection with new system elements. However, certainly the scope of physical protection of the airport is the responsibility of the airport manager.
He has legal tools as well as technical and operational capabilities for this. The safety of the aircraft to the moment of landing is the responsibility of the aerodrome control service, the popular so-called - tower (TWR). ANSP providing service in airfield controlled area (CTR) is responsible for providing the commander of an aircraft with all data regarding a safe take-off or landing approach. If a threat to an aircraft is detected, the TWR controller orders to interrupt operations and initiate emergency procedures for aircraft safety hazard. Information about the flight of an unauthorized UAV near the airport may be the reason for this kind of procedures. It should be emphasized, however, that ANSP has no tools or possibilities to counter any possible threats in this area of responsibility.
Situations such as violation of the CTR airspace by another aircraft that may cause airborne collisions, blockage or damage to the runway, or the appearance of birds on the approach, triggers emergency procedures. However, the elimination of the threat is no longer in TWR competence. The same applies to the threat of an unauthorized UAV flight.
An aerodrome controlled zone (CTR) is usually an area of space ranging from 300-900 square kilometers, reaching a height of not less than 500m AGL most often over urbanized areas or cities because this is usually the location of city airports. The airport is usually the central point of the CTR and the heart of the airport is its runways, their length is usually 2500-3500m.
As you can see, the area of the airport is just a small point in the CTR area. Analyzing the threat of UAV flights resulting from unintentional violations of regulations, it can occur practically in the entire CTR and is a real threat everywhere where landing aircraft descend below the most popular UAV flight height, ie 100-300m AGL.
However, if the threat is to be an attack intending to cause a collision with UAV or blocking operations due to the danger of such a collision, the sensitive area of the potential threat is the last two miles of approach.
Why two miles?
Because airlines planes at this distance:

• they are low enough,
• they fly the slowest,
• have limited maneuverability, they are always at the same point each time they land which in total is the best recommended position for a potential attack.

The start of the runway (its beginning) and the final section of the approach to the runway are a common element of the airport security perimeter at the interface to ensure the physical protection of the airport infrastructure and the safety of the aircraft in flight.
This is a critical part of the airport security perimeter that should be secured by system solutions to prevent unauthorized UAV flights.
Both from the point of view of legal conditions and the analysis of objectives, tasks and operational possibilities, the role of ANSP in the field of securing airports with C-UAV systems should be:
• checking technical parameters of active system elements in terms of their possible interference with CNS systems (communication, navigation, observation) • determination of procedures with the operator of the C-UAV system in case of detection of UAVs and proceedings to avoid collisions

The involvement of such a highly specialized structure as the air traffic management systems in the direct operation of C-UAV systems (closer to air defense and the protection of objects) is inefficient, economically unjustified and causes technical and legal complications.
And finally one more sentence. In the light of recent events at Gatwick, the ideas of installing C-UAV systems at airports based only on detection and identification elements are completely wrong. These concepts result from attempts to avoid taking responsibility for the neutralization of UAV. Recent examples have shown that information about the presence of a "drone" has resulted in the halt of air operations for several hours and excluded one of the most important airports in the UK from traffic. Huge financial losses and thousands of people with ruined travel plans. And probably the most painful experience: loss of confidence in the effectiveness of the system that has "fallen" due to several “dron” lights on the approach. Of course, information about the threat is a key element of ensuring safety, but the lack of the possibility of removing the existing threat leaves us at the mercy of those who thoughtlessly or intentionally decided to "grounded" the airport