You do not own your address. You own the tokens that are held in an address. Bitcoin firewalls identity that it does not remove the need for identity. You cannot sign anonymously. There is no such thing. Pseudonymous signatures can be linked to a non-public identity. Identity cannot be transferred. There is no such thing as the ability to transfer identity. It is not a technical problem, it doesn’t exist. It is not something that needs to be solved, it is a definitional condition. You cannot sell or transfer identity.

This is where Antonopoulos and others went wrong on the Silk Road case. Making up the Dread Pirate Roberts defence was asinine. If multiple people use the same key, this does not change identity but rather links each individual vicariously. You don’t remove liability cover add extra people to the liability. In criminal law, where multiple people are involved in a crime, all of those people are guilty.

There have been provisions for many years that mean that in certain crimes, every single individual that has anything to do with the crime is equally guilty.

Consequently, you do not remove guilt by saying you bought the key. You are just as guilty if you did that. If you receive someone else’s key, and you do this willingly, you are willingly attaching yourself to all of the liability that goes with that key. You cannot assume identity but you can take other people’s guilt and share it. This does not mean that another person would get off but rather makes both people equally guilty. Criminal prosecution is not a zero-sum game. If two individuals are involved the total length of prison time just doubles.

When we are talking about small transactions, anything under £1000 or so, then the levels of protections and controls can remain limited. There are different provisions for cash then there are four large transactions. This does not change because you’re using bitcoin.

These are the people who are opposed to recovery of BTC

Arrest =/= charged =/= conviction

CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614421233352100?thread_ts=1614421233.352100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2477

The first thing people don't realise is that I don't follow the herd.

I do things my way. I succeed or fail my way. If you don't like it, too bad.

I have no obligation and I have never had any obligation to prove to people in any way or to do anything to the population at large in any way.

To think that I am required to all that I owe you is to show ignorance. Those who believe that because I created bitcoin means that I have to follow the group mentality have no idea about how bitcoin works.

It is not about democratising finance

It is not about the collective

Honestly, screw the collective

Bitcoin was created by one man, me.

I didn't receive large amounts of help or encouragement from anybody, so to think that I owe anybody now and that I should act in a manner that people state is how I should act is to fail to understand bitcoin

bitcoin is not about the collective

bitcoin works within the law

bitcoin is not opposed to governments or banks, it is a cash system

CSW
Apr 22, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1619089151200500?thread_ts=1619089151.200500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2523

There is a VERY fine line, BCH is on the tight rope

No digital signature needed...

Segwit alters it

Digital signature law....

Yes. Digital signature law is robust

Law is law

Code is evidence

More, but a signature is essential

CSW
May 07, 2018
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1525675677000169?thread_ts=1525675677.000169&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2569

The definition of legal tender....

This is because of been asked this by a few of you are not going to keep typing it multiple times because doing exactly the same thing many times is rather insane

legal tender differs from currency

Legal tender is by definition the coins or banknotes that by law must be accepted if offered in payment of a debt.

That is, if tended they cannot be rejected if you want to get paid.

not all bank notes and coins issued by a country are legal tender

for instance, you cannot force a bus driver to take a handful of pennies

money in a bank is not legal tender

a bank transfer is not legal tender even though it is done in the national currency

In the case of El Salvador, merchants CAN accept BTC or other means if they so choose

the law states that they can

to be legal tender it needs to say that they must

As the Bank of England states, this does not mean that you can make a shop contract with you and accept cash but rather that you cannot sue for recovery of some other methodology of payment

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-legal-tender

if a shop decides they don't want to take cash, and they tell you this at first, you are still obligated to pay if you only have cash and you lie to the shop saying that you have card

as the Bank of England states, even banknotes are not legal tender throughout the entire United Kingdom with Scotland for instance not taking bank of England banknotes and only accepting coins

all that the pulse of the Dorian government has said is pass a fluffy law that says merchants who already had the ability to accept payment in bitcoin can accept payment in bitcoin

in reality it is utterly meaningless

to quote the Bank of England

Legal tender has a narrow technical meaning which has no use in everyday life. It means that if you offer to fully pay off a debt to someone in legal tender, they can’t sue you for failing to repay.

remembering that you don't have a debt at a shop unless you have an account

when you make an offer to purchase goods at a store, it is not a debt

the transaction has not been completed and you don't have credit

it is only where you have credit and that you can be sued for non-payment that legal tender becomes involved in this exchange.

CSW
Jun 20, 2021 (14:08)
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1624190496318100?thread_ts=1624190496.318100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2619

Continúa la batalla por los derechos de autor del libro blanco de Bitcoin de Craig Wright
 Zemes Gaoson
 3 de julio de 2021
https://telegra.ph/Craig-Wrights-Bitcoin-Whitepaper-Copyright-Battle-Continues-By-Zemes-Gaoson-07-03

.@SimonCohen85 discusses the latest #litigation in a series of legal claims issued on behalf of Dr Wright with @ConnorSephton on the @CoinMarketCap podcast.


INTERVIEW: WHY HAS BITCOIN.ORG BEEN ORDERED TO TAKE DOWN THE WHITEPAPER FOR BITCOIN?

https://t.co/sOVNhmmwnL

It's time we had the same thing for money. With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless.

What this refers to is what Bitcoin can do. Bitcoin is NOT a currency nor even e-currency. It is a commodity, electronic cash.

BUT...

You can build a currency ON Bitcoin IN Script.

Mann on money

Currency is a legal term of art.

the question was argued and debated because of the Euro and Stirling choice bill of 2001.

If this bill was accepted, it would have conferred a unilateral right upon the debtor to discharge a Stirling obligation by payment of euros

currency means current money

to be currency, it needs to be the legally accepted form of money that is in general use within a particular country

foreign currency of course is currency that is accepted in other countries

so, unless bitcoin is widely accepted and even able to be used in the payment of bills to government as well as small casual payments as cash, when that is that the majority of some countries use is in bitcoin, then bitcoin will not be currency

Cash is a form of money in notes or coins. Bitcoin is created in a form of a digital coin and under the electronic transactions act the ability to substitute electronic methodologies for paper is considered viable in the UK hence making this legally something that can be cash

unlike popular opinion in many areas cash does not need to be a form of legal tender but it needs to be imediately final

I final what I mean is that it is not like a cheque that needs to be taken and processed somewhere else

when you are handed a cash transaction you have the final value in the final form

Not always, script enables the creation of predefined systems that ensure that double spending cannot occur if that needs to be implemented

For instance, using multi-signature scripts allows for the signing and distribution of transactions in a chain. Through this, a combination of payment channels and signing can create a system that does not allow for any double spends.

CSW
Jul 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1626880032027500?thread_

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2747

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/

If a miner withholds transactions the other miners have a right to reject the block.

Transactions do not need to get to every miner instantly, but they cannot be withheld. A node that withholds a tx is in breach of contract and is also not exempt for the requirements to KYC each transaction. They have as much to do as a bank on every tx.

Every other node could sue for the FULL value of a block if they can show that the miner who wins a block has hidden even a single tx.

The simple answer is that if a node requests an inventory and the other doesn't send the FULL tx list, the node that loses has an argument to claim the full reward legally

It is one thing to take a tx directly, it is another thing to withhold it

Taal is not hiding txs

Hidden blocks don’t make money because other miners will take legal action. A hidden transaction depends on what you define as hidden. Does it mean that your miner hasn’t received it, or does it mean that someone is actively suppressing it? These are very different things.

People don't fucking operate nodes

corporations do, businesses do

the consensus of the system is purely economic

it is not about radical distribution, it is not about democracy and it is not about any of that other bullsshit that people are spouting about how it takes down banks

bitcoin is a commercial enterprise system

it was always designed to be a commercial enterprise system

commercial systems get lawyers

CSW
Ago 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1628488585314000?thread_ts=1628488585.314000&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2852

1/2
What people need to understand.

It is more important for the concept of bitcoin that I developed to be understood than anything else to survive. Over time, BTC will go the way of eGold and eCash. The reason being the same reasons each of those failed. There is no more decentralisation in BTC than there is in a recent small IPO. In fact, Facebook has over a thousand times more decentralisation than BTC will ever achieve. This is what people fail to understand; decentralisation is not the distribution of power or control.

Bitcoin is not about your keys. Your keys in reference to the private keys and that are associated with certain types of locking scripts are equivalent to the key to a safe deposit box.

Bitcoin is a series of tokens.
It is not an account, each individual digital token is a separate item. Each individual Satoshi is a token. Those tokens are put together in an envelope that is referred to as a UTXO. That is locked in the virtual safe-deposit box in a massively large wall full of safe-deposit boxes.

The safe-deposit box number is the equivalent of the identifier for the public address or public key associated with most locking scripts. This information can be used to hold multiple envelopes that I referred to above as the UTXO’s. Each envelope holds a series of tokens. Thus, the safe-deposit box can be used multiple times. Reusing the safe-deposit box means that people can view you going to it, and you lose privacy. There are around ten with eighty zeros possible safe-deposit boxes that all have multiple means of being accessed. Note, collisions always exist between locking scripts, but finding those collisions is infeasible. For instance, they could be a 3 of 3 locking script that matches a single hash puzzle locking script and has the same hash but finding that is an infeasible exercise.

Bitcoin tokens are never lost. As a result, the system always has the same number of tokens as when it was first created. Tokens can be replaced. This can be done in a variety of ways as the ledger is updated. Remember, the decentralisation in any Blockchain is never more than the decentralisation in a small listed firm. In fact, like all of these, a few entities on the board choose the direction of the system. There is no possible way to change how that works in a Blockchain system with you using PoS or any other hybrid.

If you lose your keys, it is the equivalent of losing your keys to a safe deposit box. You can gain access to the safe-deposit box, but that cost money, time and effort. For example, if your safe-deposit box contains five dollars and you lose the keys, and the cost of regaining access to the keys is $5000, it is very unlikely that you will try and regain access unless you are completely insane.

Bitcoin is not encrypted, and it cannot be made to be encrypted. The system was designed this way to differ from previous digital cash and digital currency systems, making it a digital or electronic cash system and not Cryptocurrency.

Lightning is an attempt at a Cryptocurrency, but the problem is that it’s built on top of bitcoin, and the system within bitcoin can be repointed, and the tokens can be moved to new safe-deposit boxes. Doing this breaks lightning. This is not a problem with bitcoin but rather a problem with lightning that they don’t want to admit, and their answer is to lie about how bitcoin functions.

Lost tokens don’t break the system. What they do is require people to keep records for large amounts of tokens. The cost to miners and the implementation of changes such as those three court orders to regain access will preclude the use of recovery for small amounts and leave it to those with large addresses. This is because bitcoin is designed to be cash, and cash is not designed to be a system that you have billions of dollars sitting in a room.

CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632211154383800?thread_ts=1632211154.383800&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3023

The simple analogy for you is to imagine a wall of safe deposit boxes that are locked using a key.
The safe-deposit box is the bitcoin address or rather the locking script.
The private key or unlocking process is the key to the safe-deposit box. Some safe-deposit boxes use multiple keys.

Each safe-deposit box works like a night deposit box. Any person can send money into the box. That deposit is made in an envelope that contains a defined number of indivisible tokens. Each token is one Satoshi. There is no such thing as ½ Satoshi.

If you lose a key to a safe-deposit box, you can still gain access even if it’s a Swiss safe-deposit box. This requires not having a key to prove your identity but rather having other things to prove your identity. The thing people seem to be missing is that keys don’t prove identity. Keys aren’t ownership. Holding the key to your car doesn’t mean that you own the car; the ownership rights may allow you to use the key that they are not the other way round.

Safe-deposit boxes can be drilled.
Bitcoin addresses can be reassigned. The tokens can be reassigned. Just as individuals such as Peter Todd said bitcoin from Satoshi would be burnt, it can be reassigned. This is not a community vote. It never was. There is no democracy in bitcoin. More importantly, they cannot be a democracy in bitcoin. Bitcoin countered Sybil attack. It did not build in demagoguery.

If all that mattered to me was keeping my money, I wouldn’t be saying this. For instance, the court can order bitcoin addresses to be reallocated.

More importantly, there is around 2 million bitcoin to be mined. These still belong to me technically. The question I’ve been asked in court is how many bitcoin did you mine. The answer to that one is practically none. If you ask me alternatively how many bitcoin did the company that I founded and ran mine in 2009, that is a far larger answer. The company I set up in 2009 was registered in Australia. That company had a share registry and it was started in January 2009 not only to mine bitcoin but to build on the system.

The difficulty is that people keep asking the wrong questions. The question is not how many bitcoin did you mine. It is how many bitcoin did your company or any company you own mine in 2009 and 2010. This

CSW
Sep 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1632212057386400?thread_ts=1632212057.386400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3026

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios%2C_Inc._v._Grokster%2C_Ltd

CSW
Oct 9, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1633795608096300?thread_ts=1633795608.096300&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3117

If you think November is not about my showing that I created bitcoin, then, you are delusional.

The entire case is based on a premise of my being Satoshi and Ira being a greedy ass who thinks he can steal

The thing most people don’t understand is that the lies about Cryptocurrency will die in this case.

Then we are left with mopping up exercises with McCormick and others.

When the case is finished, there will be about a snowflake’s chance in the hottest part of hell that people don’t understand that bitcoin can be recovered. And this is important. Nobody cares about recovering $50. Not in real terms. They care about recovering large amounts of money, which will ensure that this case ends in a way that most people don’t expect.

Following this case, the mantra of your keys, your bitcoin, will be forever buried in a forgotten grave. There is a reason that I set things up the way that I did. It wasn’t for this case that this case will bring it to a head.

Nobody seems to understand that when I said the bitcoin is not being moved other than a court order, I did mean it.

Honestly, if you need Proof that I’m Satoshi by someone signing the keys then you’re a fucking moron.

When I stated that bitcoin is not encrypted, I meant it because it’s true. If you think that bitcoin is a crypto anarchist wet dream then you have no idea. The thing is, none of their little schemes will work because it’s all on the Blockchain and it cannot be subverted.

When I said that no bitcoin will move outside of a court order I mean that is the court order was set all of the movement in motion and it will have nothing to do with the key. People have been proving identity for centuries in courts and the thing is, I’m not going to change that to some, insane plan to allow people to identify themselves with a distributable key that they can give to anyone.

The simple answer is that if bitcoin was not recoverable, i.e. if it was encrypted, then it is lost and it is lost forever but the truth of the matter is that that’s not the case. Developers and miners follow court orders. The truth is that they are all a bunch of pussies who act tough but are really like three-year-olds who miss their mommy.

As I have explained many times the bitcoin is property of a company.
That company is owned by another company.
The owning company is in a trust.

No bitcoin owned by those companies will move now without a court order.

Those bitcoin will move.

No amount of anarco capitalist- really anarco Communist criminal assholes bullshit will stop that.

Nothing that people say on Twitter will have any impact on the court issuing an order.

The reality is that the case will be over in November.

The reality is that the coins will have to be moved when the court states they have to be moved. If people complain enough then they can go through the whole soft fork bullshit. But, any miner or developer who chooses to stay as a miner or developer will be sequestered under contempt of court.

Any miner in China is breaking the law as it currently stands. They are an easy target.
Anyone outside of China will realise that the exchanges are linked into the pro system and banking and that an American order will close every bucket shops that doesn’t comply. Every single non-compliant miner will find themselves earning nothing and having everything they own frozen.
So, they can go down the hard way or they can make profit as this becomes legitimate.

I would prefer that they fight but, as I said that is unlikely because they are all pussies

there will not be a single instance of a Blockchain that people say cannot be recovered by a court order in America or Britain or somewhere equally associated with the rule of law system in two years from now

This ends in November.

There is about zero chance of mistrial.

The reality here is very very simple.

This is ending and the court makes the decision.

Where have you been

CSW
Oct 12, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1634022652192400?thread_ts=1634022652.192400&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/3125