I found this today and I couldn't believe it
"7. Satoshi Removed His Name from the Bitcoin Software Before Leaving.
Finally, a last interesting find was that Satoshi did formally “quit” Bitcoin, removing his name from the copyright claim in the software and leaving the code to all “Bitcoin developers.” "
10 Years Ago Today, Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Sent His Final Message.
Pete Rizzo
Apr 26, 2021,12:30pm EDT
|1,026,250 views
https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/peterizzo/2021/04/26/10-years-ago-today-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-sent-his-final-message/amp/
"7. Satoshi Removed His Name from the Bitcoin Software Before Leaving.
Finally, a last interesting find was that Satoshi did formally “quit” Bitcoin, removing his name from the copyright claim in the software and leaving the code to all “Bitcoin developers.” "
10 Years Ago Today, Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Sent His Final Message.
Pete Rizzo
Apr 26, 2021,12:30pm EDT
|1,026,250 views
https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/peterizzo/2021/04/26/10-years-ago-today-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto-sent-his-final-message/amp/
Forbes
10 Years Ago Today, Bitcoin Creator Satoshi Nakamoto Sent His Final Message
On April 26, 2011, Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto sent his final emails to fellow developers. New research explore the full story further.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/882164196e5b1971313493f95a6d027f05e2ec92#diff-7116ef0705885343c9e1b2171a06be0e
https://archive.is/Elzqp#diff-400d38e5cfee181230373a8b02d38f50271a5bf62c62410382efddb8e8b19e22
https://archive.is/Elzqp#diff-400d38e5cfee181230373a8b02d38f50271a5bf62c62410382efddb8e8b19e22
GitHub
Update all copyrights to 2012 · bitcoin/bitcoin@8821641
Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree. Contribute to bitcoin/bitcoin development by creating an account on GitHub.
1/2
What you going to soon find out is that most of what the other side have if not all is a combination of hearsay and character attacks. It is been difficult not responding on much of this for a period of over two years. But for instance, they talk about made up companies in the trust and said that they didn't exist because this is all they have.
This is the part that nobody wants you to look at.
Craig Wright R&D was the original name of the trust. Even though the trust was overseas, I registered these in Australia. As trustee I acted for it is an overseas entity. When they say how this didn't exist, or that the trust didn't exist, that is one little problem. The problem is that I registered it for an Australian business number.
Craig Wright R&D and the other entities as businesses representing the trusts have been registered since 29 February 2000. It was reformed under the trust business name for myself, remembering that a business called Craig Wright is not Craig Wright the person, on 10 February 2007. This is when I started creating bitcoin.
At that point I changed from DeMorgan to using myself as the trustee name. There are multiple other overseas trusts that were registered in Australia.
These all have records. These are not as difficult to check as people think either.
In January 2009 I formed a company called information defence in Australia.
In May 2009 I formed a company called integyrs in Australia.
In June 2009 with other people I formed a company called Greyfog in Australia. Others such as Cloudcroft all followed before Panopticrypt was formed in 2011.
All of these entities were held in trust. That is my shares were held in trust.
What people don't seem to understand is that the legal owner of an asset is the trustee and the trust maintains equitable ownership.
Tulip is simply the renamed version of the trust called Craig Wright R&D and DeMorgan at various times in history.
The overseas companies owned the Australian companies.
The Australian companies did the creation of intellectual property and any activity such as bitcoin mining. Many of the activities that I did I published widely and hence the intellectual property in those has been given freely to the world.
More importantly, every single bitcoin was created on the launch of bitcoin in January 2009. At that point I was controlling a company in Australia that owned all of the just under 21 million bitcoin denominated tokens that would ever exist.
Bitcoin was created using what is known in legal circles as a unilateral contract, this is a concept that even a junior law student would understand. See carbolic Smoke Ball.
In 2009, there was no millions in bitcoin as some people seem to think. There was around $2 million worth of running computers that was cost coupled with further sunk costs. The value of the bitcoin was nothing. It was not the value of computer hardware, it was only the value that people would be willing to pay for it and that was zero right up until 2010.
The interesting thing that people don't understand in an analysis of partnership, if there was one with Dave, he would owe me money. There isn't of course but the reality is partners have to share cost and profit.
The distribution was created on the launch of bitcoin. It's not the distributor, that is a process. The contract is the issue, I am simply put the issuer.
The distinction here is that bitcoin is issued initially without value and hence in the manner it was issued there isn't all the problems people speculate about. By creating bitcoin and launching it the way I did, all of the increase in value was created after the launch. More importantly, it took a lot of money, time and machines to be able to enable all of this.
CSW
May 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590505437082800?thread_ts=1590505437.082800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2365
What you going to soon find out is that most of what the other side have if not all is a combination of hearsay and character attacks. It is been difficult not responding on much of this for a period of over two years. But for instance, they talk about made up companies in the trust and said that they didn't exist because this is all they have.
This is the part that nobody wants you to look at.
Craig Wright R&D was the original name of the trust. Even though the trust was overseas, I registered these in Australia. As trustee I acted for it is an overseas entity. When they say how this didn't exist, or that the trust didn't exist, that is one little problem. The problem is that I registered it for an Australian business number.
Craig Wright R&D and the other entities as businesses representing the trusts have been registered since 29 February 2000. It was reformed under the trust business name for myself, remembering that a business called Craig Wright is not Craig Wright the person, on 10 February 2007. This is when I started creating bitcoin.
At that point I changed from DeMorgan to using myself as the trustee name. There are multiple other overseas trusts that were registered in Australia.
These all have records. These are not as difficult to check as people think either.
In January 2009 I formed a company called information defence in Australia.
In May 2009 I formed a company called integyrs in Australia.
In June 2009 with other people I formed a company called Greyfog in Australia. Others such as Cloudcroft all followed before Panopticrypt was formed in 2011.
All of these entities were held in trust. That is my shares were held in trust.
What people don't seem to understand is that the legal owner of an asset is the trustee and the trust maintains equitable ownership.
Tulip is simply the renamed version of the trust called Craig Wright R&D and DeMorgan at various times in history.
The overseas companies owned the Australian companies.
The Australian companies did the creation of intellectual property and any activity such as bitcoin mining. Many of the activities that I did I published widely and hence the intellectual property in those has been given freely to the world.
More importantly, every single bitcoin was created on the launch of bitcoin in January 2009. At that point I was controlling a company in Australia that owned all of the just under 21 million bitcoin denominated tokens that would ever exist.
Bitcoin was created using what is known in legal circles as a unilateral contract, this is a concept that even a junior law student would understand. See carbolic Smoke Ball.
In 2009, there was no millions in bitcoin as some people seem to think. There was around $2 million worth of running computers that was cost coupled with further sunk costs. The value of the bitcoin was nothing. It was not the value of computer hardware, it was only the value that people would be willing to pay for it and that was zero right up until 2010.
The interesting thing that people don't understand in an analysis of partnership, if there was one with Dave, he would owe me money. There isn't of course but the reality is partners have to share cost and profit.
The distribution was created on the launch of bitcoin. It's not the distributor, that is a process. The contract is the issue, I am simply put the issuer.
The distinction here is that bitcoin is issued initially without value and hence in the manner it was issued there isn't all the problems people speculate about. By creating bitcoin and launching it the way I did, all of the increase in value was created after the launch. More importantly, it took a lot of money, time and machines to be able to enable all of this.
CSW
May 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590505437082800?thread_ts=1590505437.082800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2365
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
May 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590505437082800?thread_ts=1590505437.082800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2365
May 26, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1590505437082800?thread_ts=1590505437.082800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2365
The license of the database is not applied under MIT.
under an MIT license each file needs to individually have the license applied. The database was not created with a license and it was put up for download without license.
The agents of the network other nodes.
Nodes are paid to provide a contract service. They are not instantly paid, there is a maturity level of 100 blocks that means that they cannot quickly act and take a block that is orphaned
Blocks do not act to issue or create bitcoin.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/https://bitcoin.org/
The original site states this very clearly.
Coins are distributed to the nodes.. They are not created by the nodes
Nodes "generate blocks".
They do not create bitcoin
nodes are agents of the network and are paid
Nodes create entries in the database as an outsourced agency. They are an agent.
Without an explicit agreement stating that they maintain intellectual property rights, agents don't gain rights.
The creation of blocks is a distributed process because of the hundred block maturity level.
Nodes do not merely find a block solution, they have to propagate it to other nodes and have it valid for 100 blocks. The validation process involves other nodes ensuring that its correct
Note, the way that you validate a block is by creating another block on top of it, so only miners are nodes
The ordering of transactions is contained as a database right. That will include the Merkle tree and hash structure
the block headers will be included as a database right
Think about the contents of the database table.
You can own a database or public emails - the structure matters
And, in Bitcoin, it cannot have the structure changed
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/database-rights-the-basics
The creator of a database can allow use any way he wants.
Bitcoin requires that people can append and view the database. It does not allow them to take it and use it in other means outside of the use in bitcoin.
The nodes provide a service in creating the database. The database can be protected if there is a substantial investment. So far around 20 million bitcoin (and BTC on the copy) have been put into the payment of obtaining and verifying and presenting this information.
I think given the current value of the complete system that this is a substantial investment.
An infringement occurs when an individual or company extracts already utilises all or a substantial part of the contents of a protected database. This has to be done without the consent of the owner.
The rights to the bitcoin database a limited for the verification, exchange and validation of bitcoin transactions. When used for bitcoin, the databases validly deployed. That is bitcoin the electronic cash system.
The mere consultation of a database, using the database to send transactions or to act as a node is not an infringement under the provisions.
77m Limited v Ordnance Survey Limited [2019]
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5dcb8f992c94e07f88e8ddb2
The TX to Finney was not until days later and after Bk 70
No, Each block contains at least 1 TX
A database is not covered under MIT licenses unless it is explicitly and independently licensed.
The database rights provisions of Europe do not cover software. These are two separate issues.
When individuals started using the original version of code, they downloaded the first version of the database from my nodes.
CSW
Jan 4,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1609783515120700?thread_ts=1609775039.107700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2430
under an MIT license each file needs to individually have the license applied. The database was not created with a license and it was put up for download without license.
The agents of the network other nodes.
Nodes are paid to provide a contract service. They are not instantly paid, there is a maturity level of 100 blocks that means that they cannot quickly act and take a block that is orphaned
Blocks do not act to issue or create bitcoin.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/https://bitcoin.org/
The original site states this very clearly.
Coins are distributed to the nodes.. They are not created by the nodes
Nodes "generate blocks".
They do not create bitcoin
nodes are agents of the network and are paid
Nodes create entries in the database as an outsourced agency. They are an agent.
Without an explicit agreement stating that they maintain intellectual property rights, agents don't gain rights.
The creation of blocks is a distributed process because of the hundred block maturity level.
Nodes do not merely find a block solution, they have to propagate it to other nodes and have it valid for 100 blocks. The validation process involves other nodes ensuring that its correct
Note, the way that you validate a block is by creating another block on top of it, so only miners are nodes
The ordering of transactions is contained as a database right. That will include the Merkle tree and hash structure
the block headers will be included as a database right
Think about the contents of the database table.
You can own a database or public emails - the structure matters
And, in Bitcoin, it cannot have the structure changed
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/database-rights-the-basics
The creator of a database can allow use any way he wants.
Bitcoin requires that people can append and view the database. It does not allow them to take it and use it in other means outside of the use in bitcoin.
The nodes provide a service in creating the database. The database can be protected if there is a substantial investment. So far around 20 million bitcoin (and BTC on the copy) have been put into the payment of obtaining and verifying and presenting this information.
I think given the current value of the complete system that this is a substantial investment.
An infringement occurs when an individual or company extracts already utilises all or a substantial part of the contents of a protected database. This has to be done without the consent of the owner.
The rights to the bitcoin database a limited for the verification, exchange and validation of bitcoin transactions. When used for bitcoin, the databases validly deployed. That is bitcoin the electronic cash system.
The mere consultation of a database, using the database to send transactions or to act as a node is not an infringement under the provisions.
77m Limited v Ordnance Survey Limited [2019]
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5dcb8f992c94e07f88e8ddb2
The TX to Finney was not until days later and after Bk 70
No, Each block contains at least 1 TX
A database is not covered under MIT licenses unless it is explicitly and independently licensed.
The database rights provisions of Europe do not cover software. These are two separate issues.
When individuals started using the original version of code, they downloaded the first version of the database from my nodes.
CSW
Jan 4,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1609783515120700?thread_ts=1609775039.107700&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2430
Pinsent Masons
Database rights: the basics
Databases can be a valuable commercial asset and generally time and money is invested in their creation and maintenance.
If I copy Facebook and Twitter's databases and run up a competing system, the are not FB and Twitter
Change the protocol
Copy the Databases
And you are not bitcoin
BTC is nothing like bitcoin
It is merely a copy of the database that is used to start a copy by breaches of copyright
A theft
CSW
Jun 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623330469323100?thread_ts=1623330469.323100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2564
Change the protocol
Copy the Databases
And you are not bitcoin
BTC is nothing like bitcoin
It is merely a copy of the database that is used to start a copy by breaches of copyright
A theft
CSW
Jun 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623330469323100?thread_ts=1623330469.323100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2564
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jun 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623330469323100?thread_ts=1623330469.323100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2564
Jun 10, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1623330469323100?thread_ts=1623330469.323100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2564
Will attempts to enforce Bitcoin DB rights in the EU be effective?
Have seen discussions arguing no because Directive 96/9/EC restricts protections to 15 years. If true, this would provide just over 4 years of protection remaining.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0009:EN:HTML
Have seen discussions arguing no because Directive 96/9/EC restricts protections to 15 years. If true, this would provide just over 4 years of protection remaining.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0009:EN:HTML
Bitcoin como un Security
Por Craig Wright
25 julio 2021
https://es.ramonquesada.com/espanol-es/bitcoin-como-sistema-de-seguridad-por-craig-wright/
Bitcoin as a Security
By Craig Wright
25 Jul 2021
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/bitcoin-as-a-security/
Por Craig Wright
25 julio 2021
https://es.ramonquesada.com/espanol-es/bitcoin-como-sistema-de-seguridad-por-craig-wright/
Bitcoin as a Security
By Craig Wright
25 Jul 2021
https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/bitcoin-as-a-security/
Ramon Quesada
Bitcoin como un "Security". Por Craig Wright | Ramon Quesada
Bitcoin como un “Security” (Depósito de valor) Por Craig Wright 25 julio 2021 https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/bitcoin-as-a-security/ En la publicación de hoy, me esforzaré por explicar algunos de los razonamientos detrás de cómo creé…
And, in a way, there always was a kill switch in Bitcoin. But is is not the technicall one people think.
Bitcoin does not survive a nuclear war.
Bitcoin does not exist without a highly interconnected society. The mythology around bitcoin is quite frankly complete bullshit. There is literally no way that you will have bitcoin surviving in an anarco capitalist world without government.
The reality here is that bitcoin is not about decentralisation and never was. The only decentralisation happens in terms of cash and SPV. The use of mining precludes a large number of individuals that people such as those in 2008 sought to bring about. They didn’t want to listen to me back then, and they talked about how they could improve my system, but the reality is, it was designed very carefully to ensure that that never happens.
We kill switch in bitcoin is not technical and also very simple. In 2009, the Australian government could have shot down bitcoin if they managed to bankrupt me as they tried and failed to do successfully.
The database is not covered by copyright under MIT. Further, database rights restrict what people can do. There are no encryption protocols within bitcoin. Bitcoin is purely clear text. It is not cryptographic but rather uses a digital signature algorithm to simplify the verification. There is no other way to verify billions of people without identity. But, that does not preclude other methodologies for enforcement, and the reality here is that these act outside of the necessary forms of control that users need. There are very few courts in the world compared to the number of people. There are very few governments in the world compared to the number of people. Governments and courts are never pseudonymous, let alone anonymous.
If I had not taken the actions I took in 2011...
Bitcoin would already be shut down
If that had occurred, it would never occur again.
The concept of digital currency was already rejected when I made bitcoin and if bitcoin failed, every future attempt would likely fail
Bitcoin enforces property rights
The construction of the Corporations overseas and the trusts Was carefully planned starting even before the development of bitcoin is a commercial project in order to isolate ownership from me
Because of the weakness in bitcoin is my ownership at the start that was transferred in 2009
If the Australian office succeeded in their attempt too bankrupt me...
The Austrian government would have owned and closed bitcoin
There would be no Domains running exchanges
there would be no Internet connections and IP addresses associated with applications
bitcoin does not run outside of connectivity requirements and naming
bitcoin does not run over anonymouus systems such as Tor
CSW
Oct 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635199476387200?thread_ts=1635199476.387200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3199
Bitcoin does not survive a nuclear war.
Bitcoin does not exist without a highly interconnected society. The mythology around bitcoin is quite frankly complete bullshit. There is literally no way that you will have bitcoin surviving in an anarco capitalist world without government.
The reality here is that bitcoin is not about decentralisation and never was. The only decentralisation happens in terms of cash and SPV. The use of mining precludes a large number of individuals that people such as those in 2008 sought to bring about. They didn’t want to listen to me back then, and they talked about how they could improve my system, but the reality is, it was designed very carefully to ensure that that never happens.
We kill switch in bitcoin is not technical and also very simple. In 2009, the Australian government could have shot down bitcoin if they managed to bankrupt me as they tried and failed to do successfully.
The database is not covered by copyright under MIT. Further, database rights restrict what people can do. There are no encryption protocols within bitcoin. Bitcoin is purely clear text. It is not cryptographic but rather uses a digital signature algorithm to simplify the verification. There is no other way to verify billions of people without identity. But, that does not preclude other methodologies for enforcement, and the reality here is that these act outside of the necessary forms of control that users need. There are very few courts in the world compared to the number of people. There are very few governments in the world compared to the number of people. Governments and courts are never pseudonymous, let alone anonymous.
If I had not taken the actions I took in 2011...
Bitcoin would already be shut down
If that had occurred, it would never occur again.
The concept of digital currency was already rejected when I made bitcoin and if bitcoin failed, every future attempt would likely fail
Bitcoin enforces property rights
The construction of the Corporations overseas and the trusts Was carefully planned starting even before the development of bitcoin is a commercial project in order to isolate ownership from me
Because of the weakness in bitcoin is my ownership at the start that was transferred in 2009
If the Australian office succeeded in their attempt too bankrupt me...
The Austrian government would have owned and closed bitcoin
There would be no Domains running exchanges
there would be no Internet connections and IP addresses associated with applications
bitcoin does not run outside of connectivity requirements and naming
bitcoin does not run over anonymouus systems such as Tor
CSW
Oct 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635199476387200?thread_ts=1635199476.387200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3199
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Oct 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635199476387200?thread_ts=1635199476.387200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3199
Oct 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635199476387200?thread_ts=1635199476.387200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3199
What none of you truly seem to understand and that I’m going to try to clarify something from Frank Herbert’s novel. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing.
In 2011, I constructed a series of corporate movements that removed assets from my name. This is not part of the Ira Kleiman case; rather, it was done because of the action being taken illegally by the Australian Tax Office against me.
Some people, including I guess, this the other side, don’t want this case. I am resigned to it. I have been for quite some time now. I have zero issues with the case, and right now, you would have to offer me something to even have may consider settling. Not, note to settle, to even consider to settle. You have to pay me to come to the table.
My answer to the case is very simple - bring it on. The best that anyone would do is bring out the truth and that’s what I want.
When I left the further development of bitcoin, including the task of scaling and getting the opcodes back and working functionally so that people didn’t complain about security issues, I did so having removed all property assets that anyone can take all simultaneously, allowing myself a means to control the database.
If Core had simply continued on the plan that I had set and left my protocol unchanged, likely, you would never have heard about me again or even in the first place. I had never planned on coming out as Satoshi and taking control of my invention. You see, with a set protocol, there is no need. TCP doesn’t have anyone in charge.
The only way that bitcoin is decentralised, as people say, is to have the protocol fixed. However, this still does not stop what others are calling legal attacks. Because there is no legal attack and a rule of law country. The only people who are attacked under legal provisions are criminals. I didn’t build bitcoin for them. I built an honest system.
The thing that I decided in 2016 would eventually happen depending on the path taken. If Core had not stolen my database and created an airdrop that I would not have cared. I did want to scale, but it is the theft of my intellectual property that gauls me most.
The mantra of your key, your bitcoin, was never mine. It was never something that started with bitcoin, and it will never be something that is in any system that I have created.
People do not seem to understand that every issuer and every Blockchain maintains some control because of database rights. The new copy that database, you copy obligations, and you breach the owner’s rights if you do not negotiate a settlement with that person. You do not have the right to take the database, and you don’t get to say, “it’s open-source; it is mine”. Bitcoin is not one of the Communist versions of open source. It doesn’t give you rights because of the MIT license.
I will not destroy value - even in a crap system unless they refuse to follow the rules
CSW
Oct 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635332434444400?thread_ts=1635332434.444400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3208
In 2011, I constructed a series of corporate movements that removed assets from my name. This is not part of the Ira Kleiman case; rather, it was done because of the action being taken illegally by the Australian Tax Office against me.
Some people, including I guess, this the other side, don’t want this case. I am resigned to it. I have been for quite some time now. I have zero issues with the case, and right now, you would have to offer me something to even have may consider settling. Not, note to settle, to even consider to settle. You have to pay me to come to the table.
My answer to the case is very simple - bring it on. The best that anyone would do is bring out the truth and that’s what I want.
When I left the further development of bitcoin, including the task of scaling and getting the opcodes back and working functionally so that people didn’t complain about security issues, I did so having removed all property assets that anyone can take all simultaneously, allowing myself a means to control the database.
If Core had simply continued on the plan that I had set and left my protocol unchanged, likely, you would never have heard about me again or even in the first place. I had never planned on coming out as Satoshi and taking control of my invention. You see, with a set protocol, there is no need. TCP doesn’t have anyone in charge.
The only way that bitcoin is decentralised, as people say, is to have the protocol fixed. However, this still does not stop what others are calling legal attacks. Because there is no legal attack and a rule of law country. The only people who are attacked under legal provisions are criminals. I didn’t build bitcoin for them. I built an honest system.
The thing that I decided in 2016 would eventually happen depending on the path taken. If Core had not stolen my database and created an airdrop that I would not have cared. I did want to scale, but it is the theft of my intellectual property that gauls me most.
The mantra of your key, your bitcoin, was never mine. It was never something that started with bitcoin, and it will never be something that is in any system that I have created.
People do not seem to understand that every issuer and every Blockchain maintains some control because of database rights. The new copy that database, you copy obligations, and you breach the owner’s rights if you do not negotiate a settlement with that person. You do not have the right to take the database, and you don’t get to say, “it’s open-source; it is mine”. Bitcoin is not one of the Communist versions of open source. It doesn’t give you rights because of the MIT license.
I will not destroy value - even in a crap system unless they refuse to follow the rules
CSW
Oct 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635332434444400?thread_ts=1635332434.444400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3208
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Oct 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635332434444400?thread_ts=1635332434.444400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3208
Oct 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635332434444400?thread_ts=1635332434.444400&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3208
The thing people are missing in the case.
Bitcoin are property. The coins in dispute are Satoshi's coins. The only way properety rights esist is tied to an identity - courts are not about possession.
If Satoshi was not me, then there was four years for this to be found.
This case is solely about the identity of Satoshi
No Satoshi Identity, no ownership.
CSW
Oct 28, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635456409038100?thread_ts=1635456409.038100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3223
Bitcoin are property. The coins in dispute are Satoshi's coins. The only way properety rights esist is tied to an identity - courts are not about possession.
If Satoshi was not me, then there was four years for this to be found.
This case is solely about the identity of Satoshi
No Satoshi Identity, no ownership.
CSW
Oct 28, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635456409038100?thread_ts=1635456409.038100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3223
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Oct 28, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635456409038100?thread_ts=1635456409.038100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3223
Oct 28, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635456409038100?thread_ts=1635456409.038100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3223
Passing off occurs deliberately or unintentionally when an individual or group attempts to provide goods or services as if they are something else and the right doesn’t belong to them. It is a form of misrepresentation.
It is a form of deception. To claim that BTC is bitcoin involves many parties, but all those parties, including Blockstream, Core and even bucket shops like Coinbase, are complicit in such an action. Changing bitcoin and the fork into something else is possible under MIT licensing from a new Genesis block, but this does not give any rights to call it bitcoin.
The issue of database rights is a separate component and applies to the deception made by those promoting BTC. All of this is about property rights. It does not matter how many people vote to say something is different. Bitcoin was never a community project. It was my project and my protocol that people could have used to create value. By building upon my protocol, I provided the means to create a digital cash system and a token system that would provide many opportunities for many people, and I did this freely.
When I offer something, the terms I offer them remain the terms that bind the offer.
Passing off as a form of deception and also unfair competition. When I created bitcoin, I specifically noted that the protocol would not change. That precludes introducing SegWit, creating systems like lightning, using changes to the OPCodes that significantly vary how the system works and then passing it off as if that was my original protocol.
The deception is not only by Core. Individuals in companies like Coinbase are essential in making a deception of this type work. The concept that has been produced would not have worked without the promotion and payments by these individuals.
And no, passing off does not require intention
Goodwill and the value of an asset are difficult in many cases to determine. Still, due to the nature of Bitcoin, BTC and the other related copies that forked from bitcoin such as BCH, it becomes very simple to determine.
The entire market value has been skewed. Very simply, determining the entire market value is a difference becomes the range of damages. The distribution of damages between parties is then distributed. In the case of something like Coinbase would likely end up exceeding the value of their entire company on the market.
Just because a lot of people have been involved in deception is completely irrelevant. The BTC deception will lead to a large-scale problem for them.
CSW
Oct 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635515371113200?thread_ts=1635515371.113200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3230
It is a form of deception. To claim that BTC is bitcoin involves many parties, but all those parties, including Blockstream, Core and even bucket shops like Coinbase, are complicit in such an action. Changing bitcoin and the fork into something else is possible under MIT licensing from a new Genesis block, but this does not give any rights to call it bitcoin.
The issue of database rights is a separate component and applies to the deception made by those promoting BTC. All of this is about property rights. It does not matter how many people vote to say something is different. Bitcoin was never a community project. It was my project and my protocol that people could have used to create value. By building upon my protocol, I provided the means to create a digital cash system and a token system that would provide many opportunities for many people, and I did this freely.
When I offer something, the terms I offer them remain the terms that bind the offer.
Passing off as a form of deception and also unfair competition. When I created bitcoin, I specifically noted that the protocol would not change. That precludes introducing SegWit, creating systems like lightning, using changes to the OPCodes that significantly vary how the system works and then passing it off as if that was my original protocol.
The deception is not only by Core. Individuals in companies like Coinbase are essential in making a deception of this type work. The concept that has been produced would not have worked without the promotion and payments by these individuals.
And no, passing off does not require intention
Goodwill and the value of an asset are difficult in many cases to determine. Still, due to the nature of Bitcoin, BTC and the other related copies that forked from bitcoin such as BCH, it becomes very simple to determine.
The entire market value has been skewed. Very simply, determining the entire market value is a difference becomes the range of damages. The distribution of damages between parties is then distributed. In the case of something like Coinbase would likely end up exceeding the value of their entire company on the market.
Just because a lot of people have been involved in deception is completely irrelevant. The BTC deception will lead to a large-scale problem for them.
CSW
Oct 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635515371113200?thread_ts=1635515371.113200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3230
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Oct 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635515371113200?thread_ts=1635515371.113200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3230
Oct 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635515371113200?thread_ts=1635515371.113200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3230
Remember, there is MORE than the coins, the assets are the rights, the database and the coins
And even the coins are recoverable
The Core guys don't want you to know, but they lied
The passing off and database claims for me are worth about 252 billion USD.
I don’t see a downside.
I will let you know that Bitcoin Cash will not survive. I have no interest in negotiating with Roger. He burnt his bridges.
CSW
Nov 2, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635846497089900?thread_ts=1635846497.089900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3288
And even the coins are recoverable
The Core guys don't want you to know, but they lied
The passing off and database claims for me are worth about 252 billion USD.
I don’t see a downside.
I will let you know that Bitcoin Cash will not survive. I have no interest in negotiating with Roger. He burnt his bridges.
CSW
Nov 2, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635846497089900?thread_ts=1635846497.089900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3288
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Nov 2, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635846497089900?thread_ts=1635846497.089900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3288
Nov 2, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1635846497089900?thread_ts=1635846497.089900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3288
Carta de los abogados de CSW a:
Bitcoin.org,
Square,
BTC Core,
Blockstream,
Coinbase,
Etoro, and
Payward Ventures (Kraken)
“since 2017, you have been using and encouraging the use of that database without a licence or otherwise without WII’s permission. We therefore put you on notice that WII intends to enforce its rights against you in respect of the Bitcoin Blockchain database.”
https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-lawyers-warn-coinbase-kraken-and-others-over-misuse-of-bitcoin/
Bitcoin.org,
Square,
BTC Core,
Blockstream,
Coinbase,
Etoro, and
Payward Ventures (Kraken)
“since 2017, you have been using and encouraging the use of that database without a licence or otherwise without WII’s permission. We therefore put you on notice that WII intends to enforce its rights against you in respect of the Bitcoin Blockchain database.”
https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-lawyers-warn-coinbase-kraken-and-others-over-misuse-of-bitcoin/
CoinGeek
Craig Wright lawyers warn Coinbase, Kraken and others over misuse of Bitcoin
Dr. Craig Wright has sent legal notices to a number of digital asset entities and groups over their use of the Bitcoin name, warning of formal legal action if they do not take steps to address the situation.
The database was never MIT.
I never loaded it on SourceForge
You connected to MY nodes directly.
These used IRC to send IP addresses and data concerning the nodes that were available
The money is the property of the bank - you have a note- a loan.
Once money is in an account, the effect is to have you owed a debt. That debt is not the same as it being your money and it is not your money. It is a debt the bank must repay. No more
The strange structure of bitcoin sets a database schema. Where there is a combination of little and big endian values, it becomes simple to assert rights over a database.
It is not accident but design that lead to a seemingly strange transaction structure.
CSW
Nov 16, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1637062062133300?thread_ts=1637062062.133300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3438
I never loaded it on SourceForge
You connected to MY nodes directly.
These used IRC to send IP addresses and data concerning the nodes that were available
The money is the property of the bank - you have a note- a loan.
Once money is in an account, the effect is to have you owed a debt. That debt is not the same as it being your money and it is not your money. It is a debt the bank must repay. No more
The strange structure of bitcoin sets a database schema. Where there is a combination of little and big endian values, it becomes simple to assert rights over a database.
It is not accident but design that lead to a seemingly strange transaction structure.
CSW
Nov 16, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1637062062133300?thread_ts=1637062062.133300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3438
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Nov 16, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1637062062133300?thread_ts=1637062062.133300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3438
Nov 16, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1637062062133300?thread_ts=1637062062.133300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3438
For those interested;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/contents/made
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/contents/made
www.legislation.gov.uk
The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997
These Regulations implement the provisions of Council Directive No. 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 (O.J. No. L77, 27.3.96, page 20) on the legal protection of databases (“the Directive”). The Regulations come into force on 1st January 1998.
what defines the database?
part 2, section 6
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/6/made
part 2, section 6
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/6/made
www.legislation.gov.uk
The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997
These Regulations implement the provisions of Council Directive No. 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 (O.J. No. L77, 27.3.96, page 20) on the legal protection of databases (“the Directive”). The Regulations come into force on 1st January 1998.