Before I leave you for the day, point you to the meaning of the word ownership as Black’s legal dictionary defines it.[1] The ownership of bitcoin has been upheld in its real sense across many court cases worldwide and in the UK. Ownership is different from mere possession. Moreover, the ability to have a bailment of assets in bitcoin differentiates it fundamentally. It is the first digital asset that this has been available to. That does not mean you cannot recover; bitcoin is not encrypted. I have stated this many times, and people have dismissed what I’ve said; whilst you cannot recover encrypted assets and files without a key, bitcoin is not encrypted in any way.

I have several papers, work for nChain, and several assignments that I need to get busy with over the next few days so, I shall leave you to cogitate further without my intervention. You may note, I shall be rather quiet for the next few days, I'm not avoiding people but I have assignments for four universities due by the weekend and I have at least eight papers to review for work each of which is about eighty pages in length.

For now, I will leave you with that word and the whitepaper. When you read the whitepaper, note that it defines ownership in the legal sense of the word. The Bitcoin White Paper does not define key holding.

[1] ownership (enacademic.com)

CSW
Feb 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614183557236000?thread_ts=1614183557.236000&cid=C5131HKFX

The most important aspect of bitcoin that needs to be pushed constantly is ownership. Bitcoin is designed to remove disputes in small transactions. It is not designed to replace the financial system and the process of course and recovery for large transactions and holdings. When you make a large payment, the information is concerning identity is not something that you can opt-out of. Identity can be isolated only in small casual transactions.
 
The bitcoin whitepaper defines a chain of ownership. The White Paper does not define the ability to sell identity because this is not something that is available. You do not own your identity, you are associated with your identity and it can never change. Ownership is related to something that you can buy and sell. You cannot own a person. Slavery is not available in our societies. You can only own things that are property and your identity is not proper.

CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614420697350100?thread_ts=1614420697.350100&cid=C5131HKFX

TY - JOUR
AU - Nakamoto, Satoshi
PY - 2009/03/24
SP -
T1 - Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
JO - Cryptography Mailing list at https://metzdowd.com
ER -

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3440802

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Bitcoin is defined in section 2 as a chain of ownership.

You do not gain ownership through theft. Bitcoin is not defined as a chain of mere possession.

CSW
Feb 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614159752410100?thread_ts=1614159682.409900&cid=C5131HKFX

You will note that I am very specific in the Whitepaper. In the sentence above,

_To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power._


I have stated that a public history of transactions is created that is computationally impractical for an attacker to change. This is an important aspect that people overlook. I have not stated that bitcoin cannot be changed. If the honest nodes are acting to enforce the system, they can always seek to make the necessary alterations that they are required to do. Miners acting within the law can change the system. Those changes will be recorded. This leaves an audit trail available for all people to inspect and act on if necessary.

It is not impractical for the honest nodes to seek to change the public history while leaving a record of the change. Honest nodes will act to stop people who have been found to be money launderers, drug dealers, dealers and illicit material including stolen art or property or child porn.

When you read that comment in the conclusion to the Whitepaper what you need to consider is the nature of both the statement and its alternative. I have clearly stated that it is computationally impractical for an attacker to seek to change the bitcoin network. To do this they will leave evidence and come under the law.

What is missed in this statement is that I have not said at any point that it is impractical for an honest node working in conjunction with the other nodes to make a change to the bitcoin blockchain or code. By nature, miners are able to vote on the implementation of changes. If they seek to vote to act against the law they will face the consequences the law and this will include confiscation and civil loss.

Bitcoin is not a cryptographic solution, it is not the desired anti-government thing that was wished for by cyberpunks, it is the product of my mind and I believe in law.

CSW
Sep 26, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1569516609039600?thread_ts=1569516387.039500&cid=C5131HKFX

Why on earth would any authority need to capture private keys.

I have not mentioned this in any post. You just need to know the address owned by the malfeasor. Forget an attacker, this is in the rules. Rules by definition are a superset of law. Any system of rules includes law. That is the definition of the word. If you argue that rules don't need to include law, you're doing some Orwellian 1984 bullshit.

The Whitepaper says an attacker. If a valid court order is issued, the attacker would be any individual miner deciding that they don't want to follow the decision of the courts. By not making the change to the blockchain, by not having exchanges follow this any entity that defects and does not implement the change is in contempt of court. If they continue to mine and they have together more than 51%, they have engaged in a computer crime.

It is not an invalid transaction, it's a change to say what the new output is. There is no attacker here is an attack that is a dishonest party. I'm tired of arguing anti-law anarchist bullshit. This is real world. Anarchist crap doesn't exist and never will. In fact it's a disingenuous powerplay mostly by collectivists seeking to implement their own will on others and realising that there are in the minority so that they can't use democratic processes.

The documentation would go on chain. Either linked by hash because BTC is too small and feeble all in full on real bitcoin.

There are less than there are less than 10 miners of any note. An exchange refusing to push the change would immediately become a global criminal organisation. It would be something that government would love to do individuals such as binance. They could basically walk 100 Federal agents into CZ's house, businesses et cetera and sees every asset that he is ever looked at let alone owned.

Bitcoin doesn't exist outside the real world. There is no online version of reality without physical systems and crypto has no value at all without the ability to exchange.

Any BTC fool that wanted to break off and have a forked coin would then have an immediately illegal asset that could not be traded ever. Mere possession would become a crime. You could be arrested and your other assets seized just because you have a copy of the old chain that you're still pushing.

For those in BTC, they seem to forget that digital gold means it has simplified seizure rights like gold. Gold was seized multiple times throughout history.

And here's the thing, seizing a million pennies is far harder than seizing $1 billion of gold.

CSW
Oct 31, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572518489101700?thread_ts=1572511059.077700&cid=C5131HKFX

Tengo que irme, pero os recuerdo, por si queréis entender qué es BitcoinCash:

bitcoincash.org/bitcoin.pdf

Lynam’s April 2 deposition is also one of the few contemporary accounts of Wright’s behavior up to and around the time Bitcoin was being invented. Lynam swore under oath that Wright was ’obsessed’ with mathematics, cryptology and internet security, and that in mid-2008 Wright gave him a rough copy of the Satoshi Nakamoto whitepaper, even telling his uncle of his intent to use the now-famous Satoshi pseudonym in its publication.

“I think the actual determination of the actual name [of the paper] was still floating at the point I got the white paper, Lynam testified, but it was clearly to be a digital monetary system…I have no doubt in my mind that that was the precursor because it had the same content as the paper that came out, or very similar content.”


Craig Wright, WW2 code breakers and Satoshi Nakamoto
Jun 29, 2020
Jordan Atkins

https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-ww2-code-breakers-and-satoshi-nakamoto/

The reason a private blockchain cannot work stems directly from that statement. It is not the fact that there is a chain of hashes that secures the chain, it is the fact that there are hashes that are public.

The SPV chain allows people external to the miners to maintain a list of attestations. They can do this without having the full file. In collapsing the Merkel tree to a single hash value, you can encapsulate the entire stream of transactions in a single hash. In this, any alterations may be detected. Where you do not have a public chain, it is simple to run multiple chains simultaneously and thus to be able to do the Enron or Bernie Madoff scam. That is, an organisation could simply and easily run multiple sets of books.

----

The reason section 3 of the Whitepaper states that bitcoin is a timestamp server is that a hash has to be publicly validated by multiple parties at a point in time to be part of a security protocol.

_The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]._

It is for this reason that the bitcoin White Paper states the nature of proof:

_The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the time, obviously, in order to get into the hash. Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in its hash, forming a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it._

Without some form of public attestation, without the hash being publicly recorded, there is no security. The solving of a proof of work puzzle is not what secures the network. As stated, this can provide no security on its own. There is no way to market the value of the token unless it is traded in a public system and openly. Without such a value, any party can set up a system that appears to be valid at face value and yet runs multiple copies with every possible history. This is why system such as hyper ledger and any other private blockchain are incredibly foolish. They are less secure than a native Oracle database with write controls enabled.

The peer network and bitcoin is designed to distribute the block hashes widely. Every single SPV user would have a copy and the base for the timestamp server would become universalised. Unlike multiple chains, a single source of truth could then evolve. In this, it becomes possible to set up protocols that linked to identity that would ensure a single sub- chain of private transactions that could be provably linked to an original start point or Genesis foundational point that would be associated with private transactional data.

It is not the nodes fighting to gain distributed hash rate but rather the mere fact that the hash exist publicly an action may be taken on that hash. The public nature of the hash is what makes it possible to use it as an attested value. Hash cannot guarantee something existed at a point in time. A hash that is publicly displayed and that can be widely attested by people, not computers, in a court of law is secure. The failing people managed to avoid is that bitcoin is designed around legal evidential principles requiring humans and not machines. Machines store the data, humans make an attestation that they had the copy and that they can prove that it existed at a time

Bitcoin in this manner acts in a methodology and knowledges to publishing a statement in a newspaper. Where copies of that newspaper are widely distributed, stored on microfiche, held by people in a manner that is provable, the copy in that physical paper may be used in an evidential basis. Likewise, the publication of hash that can be collapsed through the hash of a hash allows the ordering and chronological time stamping of an event to occur.

This is how bitcoin sold the double spending problem. The first hash in chronological order is correct. Any further double spends are rejected......"

CSW
Nov 14, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1573721687274800?thread_ts=1573721307.272200&cid=C5131HKFX

Security

[2] H. Massias, X.S. Avila, and J.-J. Quisquater, "Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirements," In 20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux, May 1999.
Massias, Avila, and Quisquater note the importance and criticality of digital time stamping and seek to produce a fully trusted timestamp system. The authors use a trusted third-party approach as the did not believe that a distributed trust model as I created in bitcoin could be made to work. The requirement to trust a secure timestamp authority (STA) has led to multiple problems. One example was with the compromise of Diginotar, a Belgian CA. With the compromise of the system, the timestamp validations issued did not only fail from the moment of compromise, but every certificate and timestamp ever issued was effectively invalidated.

The structure of the blockchain itself comes from this document. In this, the round value from the preceding round is incorporated into the next round. Effectively, it is a blockchain structure based on a trusted authority.

CSW
Jan 6, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1578343292140800


The security obtained through bitcoin comes through publishing each of the round route values. The audit function proposed in the paper is distributed to all parties holding copies of the blockchain. As the block hash or in this paper the round identifier cannot be changed without altering every other associated value that is connected to, the widespread distribution of just the block header (which we do using SPV) means that we achieve security in a distributed system without the trust issues being proposed by the authors of this document.

In reading just these two pages above, you see the primary mechanism used within bitcoin for the creation of blocks. The most frequently overlooked section of the bitcoin White Paper, section 3 on time is the most important.

CSW
Jan 6, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1578343461141000

As I've stated many times before, everything existed in bitcoin. All I needed to do was at the economic system and make it pseudonymous rather than anonymous. The jump to solving the problems of bitcoin really came about through having a wide breadth of knowledge. In knowing all of these different obscure arts; computer science, law, mathematics and more, the solution is right there.

CSW
Jan 6, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1578343643142000

If you read this paper, that is a blockchain. The authors use it as a secure time stamping service. But if you look at the image in that paper and also in my Whitepaper, what you will see in effect is my horribly drawn version of the original.


CSW
Jan 6, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1578343740142200?thread_ts=1578343740.142200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/1935