"also notice that I'm not listed anywhere in that wiki thing".

CSW
May 19, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621402725057700?thread_ts=1621402725.057700&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2375

Craig Wright Patent - nChain
https://t.me/CSW_Patent

CSW
May 19, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621405877060900

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2377

Cobra Bitcoin
https://t.me/joinchat/VNOTBvWDr9d8ZCTc

CSW
Jun 9, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1591698313216200?thread_ts=1591698313.216200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2379

There is NO such thing as mixing to hide Bitcoin.

Laws of the following and Tracy through a mixture have existed for centuries. They are well and truly decided. Bitcoin is not anything like an account based system. It is indivisible property. Each and every single token can be tracked. You don't need to know which particular token is owned but if you receive stolen bitcoin, a percentage of what you may think you own actually belongs to someone else.

If Alice sends 9 bitcoin that are stolen (AS) and 9 that are okay (AG) to 3 addresses the following scenario occurs:
    AS (9) -     B (6)        
    AG (9) -     C (6)
            D (6)

Here, half of the bitcoin is tainted. The reality is that each of the UTXO's, B, C and D will have received stolen property. Each of the UTXO's, B, C and D will be able to be followed. The law of following and tracing applies. The true owner of the stolen bitcoin does not lose the bitcoin. They now have a claim against both Alice and the three recipients.

AML - Know your customer - all exists in law

Bitcoin is cash, cash rules apply

And, stollen goods remain stollen goods.

If there is notice (see Alert key) then, that is it

CSW
Jun 9, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1591698313216200?thread_ts=1591698313.216200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2379

CSW Mixing BitCoin
https://t.me/joinchat/g60zvmNd7NY5Zjc0

CSW
Jun 12, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1591983357446200?thread_ts=1591983357.446200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2382

Most importantly, not a single thread of PoSM matters.

No matter how much they attacked me, no matter how much they make false statements about me and no matter how much they tell social media and Twitter that I'm a bad man and all the other silly stories it won't matter a shred.

Their entire world is about to come crashing down.

Think about it.

There is no scenario here where bitcoin core does not end up writing changes to the Blockchain. There is no scenario here where this bitcoin is not going to be recovered. It does not matter how many times they mix it or try and move it, it will be subject to a court order and the developers in bitcoin core and bitcoin ABC will either implement changes or will be irrelevant.

The nodes will either implement changes that there directed to implement or their equipment will be seized. It is after all a monetary value that courts can award and if those miners don't want to do the act, they can pay the money in lieu of doing the act. They will find themselves out of money very quickly if they don't follow the court orders that are going to come ended up in contempt.

Then think about what gets told to their minions.

They have been advertising bitcoin is being a system outside of state and government, a system that allows you to commit crimes, a system that allows you to have money that no one can touch no matter what.

They promoted not as a system of digital electronic cash but of a system that is anonymous money that nobody can take from you. Nobody can take it even if they commit crimes with according to the false mantra that is promoted.

And soon, that entire fabrication comes crashing down.

CSW
Jun 12, 2020
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1591983751447100?thread_ts=1591983751.447100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2384

CSW
May 19, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621433138127500?thread_ts=1621433138.127500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2387

1/2
I should let people know that I have a Masters degree in financial econometrics from the University of London.

So, I understand the move that happens from shares to bonds when the interest rate increases.

We are going into a period after a lockdown where people are going to start interacting with the market all over again.

Goods and services have not been produced but will go into demand.

Cars haven't been sold in the last year and now people will be updating their vehicles.

The demand for vehicles will follow the same demand for other goods with the end result that inflation is going to rise.

This will occur over all goods and services as the market opens up

We have "printed money" in order to pretend to keep the economy going and now we're going to have people spending that money all at once

Inflation doesn't happen when you print money it happens when people spend the money that they have been given

When inflation starts to rise people move away from risky assets such as shares and go into safe assets such as bonds

The risskiest asset on the market as BTC

shares are going to continue to plunge

and those assets that call themselves Cryptocurrencies that are based on a pure concept of trading are about to find themselves having more than a haircut

by a haircut I mean razor across the throat for most of them

about 6 inches deep and through the jugular on both sides

For those of you who like a little bit of Latin like myself....

Carpe jugulum...

The real test of when bonds will kick in is around 4% by 5% it starts to beccome a bloodbath as people move over and the share price starts diminishing and bonds go uup in value

between four and 5% the system becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy

it is times like this that flush most of the industry and start the slide to what we saw in 1999 and between that period and 2001

At the end of this period, those organisations but have a viable business reason to exist that are looking at profit go up in value

This is where building something like nChain starts to pay off

Just as Amazon survived the crash twenty years ago, because they concenntrated on scale and achieving profitability and growing their business

so will a very few industries

The opening up of economies following a slowdown and a large injection of free capital will lead to a huge increase at least comparatively in inflation for a world that is used to nearly 0 inflation

all I can say is I wouldn't want to be something like coinbase right now

@Roh
This is a time when if you pick the right assets you will make a lot of money if you picked the wrong ones you will lose a lot of money.

Those who have no appetite for risk will go into bonds and they will still increase their value.

Those selecting risky assets will find that they either win big time or lose and if they try and balance between a spread

they are going to lose

So, you will find that if you have a managed portfolio it will go down in value

So, if you select the right growth asset that survives all of this you will find yourself very well-off if you don't you will find yourself bankrupt.

If you train hedge on those that have assets the negatives will still wipe out all of the gains from the growth asset.

So, there is no benefit in a distributed portfolio of shares or other risky assets including Cryptocurrencies right now.

If you choose right, you will win
if you choose wrong you will lose

I know where my investment will remain.

And I can assure you, at the end of all this I will be fine.

Then again contrary to what most people think, I managed to manage my risk.

I always understand all of the information that is available good and bad negative and positive hidden and not hidden.

CSW
May 19, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621433138127500?thread_ts=1621433138.127500&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2387

2/2
When you see the hundred papers I'm about to publish on a variety of topics and you read just how much I have read in the last year, consider that for every book on history or other topics that are not related to my work there will be at least five or six times the amount of reading into topics directly related to what I'm doing and you might come to understand just how much research I really do.

But, even then I doubt it

The following is a weekly discussion post or rather not the following but the previous

in a weekly discussion where I am asked in a masters level and not my doctoral level what my opinion is on foreign policy in the altered states in the early Republic I go out there and I find source material and not just read textbooks read what the people at the time said

The problem is, it's not something that people should be doing for themselves

You're asking about how to manage risk and choose investments.

Tthe answer is to grow slowly and understand what you're building.

don't gamble

Stop expecting to be rich by the time you're thirty. If you are, good

The onnly way that you should be getting richer by the time you are thirty is if you invent something or your part of some company that invent something that has a way of changing the world and that doesn't mean Facebook because I mean changing it for the better the entire shit show that a silicon valley has created skewed idea of investment

Stop looking at other people with envy, be happy to spend fifty years working and if you want more, you willing to risk everything not in gambling but in building something

invest in yourself

the the best that you can possibly be in everything you do

When you have time spare, develop yourself in some way

Never believe people who tell you that formal education is a waste of time or money.

The reality is that you cannot truly learn without others to act as your foil

if you want to learn don't just take what is said but really learn

This is why I take courses I disagree with. not just so that I could say I disagree with them but to truly find the heart of the argument and in most things that are valid points to an argument, and to understand all of the aspects that are being argued

In this, you will not only learn something new but also how to argue and how to engage with people even if it's only at an academic and expert level

The simple answer is the best investment you will ever make is in yourself.

No matter what happens nobody can take away your education.

Even if you go bankrupt, there are opportunities that will be available for you if you are educated and trained and skilled.

CSW
May 19, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621433138127500?thread_ts=1621433138.127500&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2387

CSW
May 20, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621509353240100?thread_ts=1621509353.240100&cid=C5131HKFX

May 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1621561716301900?thread_ts=1621561716.301900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2391

Aquí tienes la verdadera historia de BitCoin que nunca fue contada!!!

Stefan Matthews TAAL CEO
SirToshi Talks
May 20, 2021
Streamanity (Original) 1h32
https://streamanity.com/video/M8TxFAf9HWU0

(Telegram channels)
Stefan Matthews
https://t.me/StefanMatthews

The Satoshi affaire.
Andrew O’Hagan
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEbzbs0p7fbPbsJ7vw

Craig Wright Gizmodo
https://t.me/joinchat/SJQQOn2ZPdGwwtaZ

nChain Holdings Limited (chronology)
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEjJgin1cClCv1Q_7w

CSW Business
https://t.me/CSW_Business

Craig Wright Tax
https://t.me/joinchat/SBbeMoAtC3kxs4eN

Bitcoin White Paper
https://t.me/BitCoinWP
___________________
25:30 the way we meet (2005 CSW was working in BDO)

27:55 I read the WP in 2008

31:02 in 2010 I left Australia to London

31:59 in 2015 Craig contact me in London, and said: "I will value your opinions..."

34:36 My advice is: What do you want to do in your life?
CSW answer was: "I want to create and be quiet", then nChain was born

38:00 this guy is a genio!!!

40:00 Gizmodo

47:00 Tax office battle
"CSW had 15 research companies"

53:40 Starting nChain in London on july of 2015

54:40 I read WP in 2008, but I didn't see what was the application for. " I design a car, but I only has delivered a wheel"

59:30 ha ha moment!!
data sorvergty?

1h01 I don't regrets what I was doing in the past, someone offer me a lot of BitCoin and I didn't accepted it

1h10:45 Open question to CSW

1h22 CSW: "My project is destroyed"

1/3
Let me finally explain the bit that everyone keeps missing. I'm presenting this in Cambridge this month. Bitcoin is a game. It is not a Nash game, but a Stackelberg dynamic game.

What this means is that you cannot treat the second round as being analogous to the first. If you have a 40% selfish miner, and they start hiding blocks, you end up with orphan blocks. Also, chains of unseen blocks.

The argument is that on the difficulty change that the miner hiding blocks will gain an advantage. There is one part missing but I been hinting at for two years. It's not a static game. Miners do not throw 100% of the hash rate that they control to mining at any time. They turn machines on or off based on the current difficulty and reward. That is they act on incentives and profitability. A selfish miner at 40% will be acting at 100% of their hash rate. The reason to explain this a simple, if the selfish miner had 50% of the hash rate already, they would not need to do selfish mining as the process of controlling the network with 50% is more cost-effective. That is, it is more profitable to add hash where it is available and thus the selfish miner will be acting at the complete hash rate they control.
Alternatively, other hash will be idle. This is simple to explain. At any point in bitcoin's history, the total hash rate available has always been more than double the hash rate deployed. It would include older machines as well as machines that are turned off for reasons including maintenance or simply lower profitability. All of these machines would be re-enabled in the event of a drop in hash rate where the price remains stable.

During the attack, the hash rate will vary.
For a 40% selfish miner, the selfish miner now earns 51.52 blocks of the original 144. The problem is that this assumes a stable hash rate. The reality is that 44% of the hash rate has been turned into orphans. To an external miner not paying attention this would appear to be simply a massive opportunity. Where we before had 100 units of hash power, these are now turning out 56 units. As such, it would be expected that the remaining units start to come online to their profitability level. If these disabled units are profitable at 80% of the machines that are turned on for the main pool of non-selfish miners, we will have lower overall hash rate that is creating blocks but still increase overall. In this case, 0.80x44 units will come online. This now creates a scenario for the follower group where they are profitable with an additional 35.2 mining units for a total act of hash rate of 132.2 mining units.

The overall hash power of the selfish miner now drops to under 30% of the total network.

The argument made on the selfish mining attack is that the attacker will recoup lost profit after the difficulty change. Unfortunately, the non-static nature of bitcoin leads to a follower reaction. That is, the leader has a choice of acting profitably in a Stackelberg game or defecting and losing their advantage. If the leader decides to act outside the rules, the system reacts as the follower miners are sequential. That is, the total hash power is deployed publicly in round one and in round two all other miners act. If hash power is hidden, the follower miners act as if the hash power has been turned off or removed in some other way.

As such, we can show that mining is not profitable with in the difficulty change period and is also restrained following this. More importantly, the cost of attacking the network is far greater in a dynamic network than a static one. In a static network, the selfish miner can only start to recover after a difficulty adjustment. However, miners will quickly see the difference in orphans and lost hash rate and react to this. The reaction would occur in as little as 1 to 2 hours which is a small fraction of the two-week difficulty period.

CSW
May 6, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1557132490418500?thread_ts=1557132490.418500&cid=C5131HKFX
1/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2398

2/3
So, the network is self resilient. As miners move hash, other miners react. This creates an efficient market within bitcoin. It is not possible to have pseudonymous mining groups act in full collusion and remain secret doing this. As with other attacks, a selfish mining scenario can be modelled as a simple Stackelberg duopoly. In this, the selfish miner acts as the leader and all others who are mining or potentially mining act as the follower group.

https://econpapers.repec.org/article/aeaaecrev/v_3a80_3ay_3a1990_3ai_3a5_3ap_3a1231-37.htm

This is important to note, as with Daughety (1990), we can show that asymmetry and concentration affect the results and can lead to beneficial societal consequences. These consequences come from noncooperative firm interactions. In reacting, the Stackelberg followers ensure that a leader acts within a socially and individually optimal range. Focusing on concentration is misguided. The actions within the system that reduce and increase concentration based on profitability are welfare enhancing for the overall bitcoin system. Nodes within the bitcoin system increase and reduce the amount of investment and the amount of hash power deployed dynamically.

The difference with a Stackelberg market from a Cournot is the increase in aggregate output. Daughety (1990) demonstrated that in an and firm Stackelberg oligopoly with (m<=n) Stackelberg leaders and (n-m) Stackelberg followers that the market will compensate in a way that can be shown to create an overall loss of profitability but again in customer surplus. In bitcoin mining, an action such as selfish mining increases losses to the Stackelberg leader who seeks to alter the consensus process by hiding blocks. The reaction of the followers in increasing the total hash power delivers the followers more profit while reducing the profitability of the leader or selfish miner even further.

The perceived Nash equilibrium that would result in a static system that acts more like a Cournot market does not exist due to the dynamic nature of bitcoin mining. As soon as the leader sets a strategy, the followers will react. The reason selfish mining does not exist in the real world comes from the strategic process. The selfish miner will take the strategy of the follower into account. The leader back propagates its actions based on the expected action of the follower. The selfish miner as leader understands that if they hide blocks and increase the often rate they will simultaneously make mining more blocks at a higher hash rate more attractive to the followers and thus the result is an increased total hash rate. This increase in hash rate significantly reduces the profitability of the selfish miner even as they start to try and orphan other blocks. This increase in hash rate also decreases the benefit of hiding blocks. As the 40% miner drops to under 30% of the total hash power, the selfish mining strategy changes from one that produces more blocks to one that becomes increasingly less profitable. The breakeven point for a selfish miner is 33% of the resulting network. To achieve this the selfish miner needs to have 50% of the original network in which case, there is no benefit from selfish mining.

The problem that has been common when analysing bitcoin as a system is to treat it as a static and not dynamic game. Bitcoin is nonstatic. As the profitability increases and discovery rate drops, other miners enter and start to compete. As the profitability decreases, miners leave.

I tried to help others to see all this...

I have hinted for years now

I have stated, it is a STACKELBERG Game over and over

That means - a NON STATIC game

Starting to get it now?

CSW
May 6, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1557132490418500?thread_ts=1557132490.418500&cid=C5131HKFX
2/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2398

3/3
So basically, when I started this people believed it was instantly profitable to selfish mine. I then demonstrated that it is not instantly profitable because the often rate makes everyone lose. We then moved to the difficulty adjustment saying that everyone is going to be static and that in two weeks the huge and I mean massive losses suffered by the selfish miner will start to be recouped.

The problem is, it is a Stackelberg or dynamic game. It is not a Caurnot game and does not have a single static Nash equilibrium. Bitcoin is far more complex in nature than any Nash game. There are no equilibrium is outside of the initial rules. The equilibrium is honest mining. Every other state is a loss.

The assumption that keeps being made is static hash power. At any point there are additional mining systems that are not profitable with the current hash rate. These might be older S7s or even new machines that are on higher-up power cost-based facilities. It could even be that these miners have differential pricing based on the amount of power used. That is, if they use 10 units they pay a profitable rate but if they need more power and use 12 units the incremental power costs for the additional two units would be at a higher cost.

The result of this is that where the total hash power is perceived to drop, and remember if you are hiding blocks you are lowering the perceived hash rate, then other miners will add hash rate.

The result of this is that where the total hash power is perceived to drop, and remember if you are hiding blocks you are lowering the perceived hash rate, then other I'll miners will add hash rate. The consequence is that you lose any perceived game. Strategically, a miner is acting based on the fact propagated results of the follower. The selfish miner always signals. In hiding hash rate, the leader or selfish miner in this instance has signalled that they are reducing hash rate. The reaction to a follower miner for a profitable scenario where the hash rate has dropped significantly is to react by increasing hash rate. These miners will likely overshoot. The initial additional hash rate will exceed the amount lost through orphan and hidden blocks but will then start to come to an equilibrium as the isolation process of over and under shooting based on a probabilistic and not known true hash rate starts to be found.

This is a Bayesian process.

The simple result is that reacting to hide blocks is not seen as a selfish mining attack until it has been countered through the reaction of the follower miners who expect higher profits. The reaction of the leader in this instance delivers those profits. The leader miner who acts to reduce their lead through dishonest processes in effect stops their own leadership by reducing their overall hash rate on an ongoing basis.

CSW
May 6, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1557132490418500?thread_ts=1557132490.418500&cid=C5131HKFX
3/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2398

CSW
May 6, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1557132490418500?thread_ts=1557132490.418500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2398