Telegram Chat
(about CSW post)
Please feel free to share your thoughts and comments about CSW posts.
https://t.me/CSW_SlackChat
(about CSW post)
Please feel free to share your thoughts and comments about CSW posts.
https://t.me/CSW_SlackChat
Telegram
CSW ( Slack) Chat
Chat about Slack
https://t.me/CSW_SlackChat
Craig Wright - Slack Channel
https://t.me/CSW_Slack
https://ramonquesada.com/english/telegrams-channels/
https://metanet.icu/
https://t.me/CSW_SlackChat
Craig Wright - Slack Channel
https://t.me/CSW_Slack
https://ramonquesada.com/english/telegrams-channels/
https://metanet.icu/
Halton House 20-23 Holborn, EC1N 2JD United Kingdom Londres, Reino Unido
+44 20 7183 1701
http://www.ontier.net/
ONTIER is a global law firm, headquartered in London, with a presence in 14 countries and three continents: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Chi
"ONTIER is a global law firm, headquartered in London, with a presence in 14 countries and three continents: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Italy, Spain, the USA, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, the UK and Venezuela. It is currently the international firm with the largest footprint in Latin America, and the best legal partner for any company with interests in the region.
https://m.facebook.com/OntierLaw/
+44 20 7183 1701
http://www.ontier.net/
ONTIER is a global law firm, headquartered in London, with a presence in 14 countries and three continents: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Chi
"ONTIER is a global law firm, headquartered in London, with a presence in 14 countries and three continents: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Italy, Spain, the USA, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, the UK and Venezuela. It is currently the international firm with the largest footprint in Latin America, and the best legal partner for any company with interests in the region.
https://m.facebook.com/OntierLaw/
Ontier
Ontier - Más que abogados
Somos un despacho que piensa como tú. Lo que cuenta no es el tiempo que dedicamos, sino el valor que creamos contigo.
Craig Wright is taking legal action to recover $3.5bn of “stolen bitcoin”
Craig-toshi Nakamoto is back. And he means business.
25 de febrero de 2021
por Jemima Kelly
https://www.ft.com/content/56ba5a61-367e-4b10-abc8-4f79bab4144d
Craig-toshi Nakamoto is back. And he means business.
25 de febrero de 2021
por Jemima Kelly
https://www.ft.com/content/56ba5a61-367e-4b10-abc8-4f79bab4144d
Ft
Craig Wright is taking legal action to recover $3.5bn of “stolen bitcoin”
Craig-toshi Nakamoto is back. And he means business.
Forwarded from Ramon Quesada - News 🌷 (@RamonQuesada 🌷)
The role of the Bitcoin Association
Craig S Wright
2021 03 18
https://ramonquesada.com/bestofcraig/the-role-of-the-bitcoin-association
Craig S Wright
2021 03 18
https://ramonquesada.com/bestofcraig/the-role-of-the-bitcoin-association
There seems to be a little bit of confusion about the nature of Bitcoin. Some of this comes from people saying that we should be targeting the miners. This process is not correct, and I'll explain why.
In creating a system, only a few individuals or organisations have any involvement in the issue of a coin or the creation of the database. This is not distributed as people say, it can be a group of people and developers, but it still only that group.
When I created Bitcoin, I was the sole individual, which went into my companies and trusts. Being that I have now tasked the stewardship of the protocol to the Bitcoin association, they are responsible for all changes to the protocol.
The development team at nChain are contracted to the Bitcoin Association. Consequently, the developers do not hold liability for any action and do not need to act. The Bitcoin association needs to retain responsibility in this case.
Next, miners don't set the rules. Miners enforce the rules. This is a significant distinction that I've been trying to get people to follow. The police enforce rules; you don't want police setting rules.
Miners vote on the acceptance of valid rules; they don't decide on the rules. Miners act under a unilateral contract. A unilateral contract can be breached. Every block is offered as a unilateral contract that any party can seek to be paid on. A miner is paid not for setting the rules but for enforcing them. The whitepaper uses the word enforced very specifically. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced, and this means that the miners are required to follow the rules that the Bitcoin association sets.
As the steward of my protocol, changes that are within the protocol may be implemented. The alert key allowed Bitcoin to be frozen. OP_CODESEPARATOR would have allowed multiple methods for this to be enacted in the first version of Bitcoin. One of the reasons Mike Hearn took this out of Bitcoin and changed other parts of the code was that people thought this was a problem. It isn't a problem. Moreover, Bitcoin is not this decentralised system that is designed to bypass the law.
So, this is the breakdown:
1- The creator and issuer is me.
2- I have assigned stewardship of the protocol to the Bitcoin association.
3- The Bitcoin association distributes Bitcoin to the miners under contract for the enforcement of rules.
4- The miners are contracted to follow the rules of the system.
5- Developers work for the association under contract or otherwise.
There is nothing new here, there is nothing cypherpunk about bitcoin, and that it is not about the decentralisation of political power.
CSW
Feb 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1612439877287600?thread_ts=1612439877.287600&cid=C5131HKFX
In creating a system, only a few individuals or organisations have any involvement in the issue of a coin or the creation of the database. This is not distributed as people say, it can be a group of people and developers, but it still only that group.
When I created Bitcoin, I was the sole individual, which went into my companies and trusts. Being that I have now tasked the stewardship of the protocol to the Bitcoin association, they are responsible for all changes to the protocol.
The development team at nChain are contracted to the Bitcoin Association. Consequently, the developers do not hold liability for any action and do not need to act. The Bitcoin association needs to retain responsibility in this case.
Next, miners don't set the rules. Miners enforce the rules. This is a significant distinction that I've been trying to get people to follow. The police enforce rules; you don't want police setting rules.
Miners vote on the acceptance of valid rules; they don't decide on the rules. Miners act under a unilateral contract. A unilateral contract can be breached. Every block is offered as a unilateral contract that any party can seek to be paid on. A miner is paid not for setting the rules but for enforcing them. The whitepaper uses the word enforced very specifically. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced, and this means that the miners are required to follow the rules that the Bitcoin association sets.
As the steward of my protocol, changes that are within the protocol may be implemented. The alert key allowed Bitcoin to be frozen. OP_CODESEPARATOR would have allowed multiple methods for this to be enacted in the first version of Bitcoin. One of the reasons Mike Hearn took this out of Bitcoin and changed other parts of the code was that people thought this was a problem. It isn't a problem. Moreover, Bitcoin is not this decentralised system that is designed to bypass the law.
So, this is the breakdown:
1- The creator and issuer is me.
2- I have assigned stewardship of the protocol to the Bitcoin association.
3- The Bitcoin association distributes Bitcoin to the miners under contract for the enforcement of rules.
4- The miners are contracted to follow the rules of the system.
5- Developers work for the association under contract or otherwise.
There is nothing new here, there is nothing cypherpunk about bitcoin, and that it is not about the decentralisation of political power.
CSW
Feb 4, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1612439877287600?thread_ts=1612439877.287600&cid=C5131HKFX
There is a simple question.
In 12 months to 18 months from now, there will no longer be any mainstream doubts as to my identity and I will fully own my creation. It will be recognised by courts and government and more importantly within the next 12 months I will of patented every aspect of bitcoin that people haven't understood. Not just the things you can build on top of it but SPV, addressing, scaling techniques et cetera.
Of course, this then places nChain in the leadership role. IBM, Amazon, or the large players will need to come to us. There's a simple reason, as one known method of creating a scalable distributed micropayments and tokenisation system that acts within the law to ensure continuation. It's the one I created.
So, the question is who buckles first. Will they act like men and show a willingness to admit their wrongs or will they try and bury it and leave me to bury them...
CSW
Oct 28, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572252439025500?thread_ts=1572252439.025500&cid=C5131HKFX
In 12 months to 18 months from now, there will no longer be any mainstream doubts as to my identity and I will fully own my creation. It will be recognised by courts and government and more importantly within the next 12 months I will of patented every aspect of bitcoin that people haven't understood. Not just the things you can build on top of it but SPV, addressing, scaling techniques et cetera.
Of course, this then places nChain in the leadership role. IBM, Amazon, or the large players will need to come to us. There's a simple reason, as one known method of creating a scalable distributed micropayments and tokenisation system that acts within the law to ensure continuation. It's the one I created.
So, the question is who buckles first. Will they act like men and show a willingness to admit their wrongs or will they try and bury it and leave me to bury them...
CSW
Oct 28, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1572252439025500?thread_ts=1572252439.025500&cid=C5131HKFX
_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._
You will note that I am very specific in the Whitepaper. In the sentence above,
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
You will note that I am very specific in the Whitepaper. In the sentence above,
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
Something people have not grasped. The word proof refers to evidence. If we take the OED we will see the definition:
Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
‘you will be asked to give proof of your identity’
This differs from the concept of proof in mathematics. Bitcoin is not mathematically or cryptographically founded. You will also note that the paper does not say ownership is granted through keys but that digital signatures and the framework "which provides strong control of ownership".
This is an important distinction that few people understand. Control of ownership is not the same as possession nor of clear ownership of property. Nodes or miners enforce rules and as such should not be involved with the regulation of disputes involving property. Nodes can enforce changes, but to do so it would require that ownership of property must be absolutely clear. Where ownership is in real dispute, nodes should not be involved until the ownership has been established in civil or criminal courts.
The paper talks about proof in the sense of law. It is not a complete and definitive statement of truth, no proof or evidence ever can be. What people do not understand is where it states that there is an ongoing chain of hash based proof of work forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing that work that this does not preclude change. In an honest system, an alteration to the blockchain that is publicly appended does not alter the ongoing proof of work. Altering that so that the changes are secret is the nature of an attack. Honest nodes can enforce changes as required by simply adding a record to update the database, and bitcoin is simply a ledger or database.
CSW
Oct 14, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1571073993158000
Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
‘you will be asked to give proof of your identity’
This differs from the concept of proof in mathematics. Bitcoin is not mathematically or cryptographically founded. You will also note that the paper does not say ownership is granted through keys but that digital signatures and the framework "which provides strong control of ownership".
This is an important distinction that few people understand. Control of ownership is not the same as possession nor of clear ownership of property. Nodes or miners enforce rules and as such should not be involved with the regulation of disputes involving property. Nodes can enforce changes, but to do so it would require that ownership of property must be absolutely clear. Where ownership is in real dispute, nodes should not be involved until the ownership has been established in civil or criminal courts.
The paper talks about proof in the sense of law. It is not a complete and definitive statement of truth, no proof or evidence ever can be. What people do not understand is where it states that there is an ongoing chain of hash based proof of work forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing that work that this does not preclude change. In an honest system, an alteration to the blockchain that is publicly appended does not alter the ongoing proof of work. Altering that so that the changes are secret is the nature of an attack. Honest nodes can enforce changes as required by simply adding a record to update the database, and bitcoin is simply a ledger or database.
CSW
Oct 14, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1571073993158000