CSW
May 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622285891279000?thread_ts=1622285891.279000&cid=C5131HKFX

CSW
Jan 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1609919165252200?thread_ts=1609919165.252200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2437

https://twitter.com/BlockchainAssn/status/1346249873683869698

Bitcoin has the ability to record transactions and identity. This was in the original protocol. The information can be exchanged and a hash of that information can be recorded on-chain proving the existence of the verification of the time.

The original concept of bitcoin allowed for IP to IP transactions between individuals. You will note on my original website, that you can send comments:
" If the recipient is online, you can enter their IP address and it will connect, get a new public key and send the transaction with comments."
https://web.archive.org/web/20090131115053/http://bitcoin.org/

At the same time as your sending all that information that is required for larger transactions, you simply hash the exchange and for the hash on-chain with the payment. That doesn't seem like a large change to anything.

All these claims of basic fairness and yet they are trying to manipulate my original design. Moreover, it's not even an expansion of the Bank Secrecy Act. I have noted for several years now that the BSA would apply and that is only through the misrepresentations and false information provided by disingenuous actors in this industry that have spread malicious information about the nature of bitcoin and related systems that leads people to believe that this is not the case.

A hash on changes not have any link to privacy and general exchanges of cash are monitored over a few hundred dollars. Basically, criminals don't want to stop being criminals and they want to enable a system that allows them to keep doing the kiddie porn, keep doing the drug sales and keep not paying taxes.

The implementation of identification that associates with more than $10,000 transactions is simple. It could be implemented in hours. There is no new technology that needs to be created and an individual could sign a root key using a standard government certificate in less time than it takes me to write this message.

This would not stymie innovation at all. The entire solution could be created in days. There are better ways of doing it of course but the reality here is existing technology allows for a complete exchange of records right now.

The only two options that can be taken from this are that the Council of the Blockchain Association (note not the bitcoin Association) are acting deliberately and maliciously to mislead government regulators or they are incredibly ignorant and incompetent or both. My experience with the industry leaves me in the position that I believe these individuals are most likely receiving dirty money and are intentionally malicious. All of the interactions of had with people in this system demonstrate strong ties to illegal activity. The entire attack on regulation and the implementation of controls has been around tax avoidance, promotion of fraud, avoidance of just law and promotion of criminal activity generally.

So when I see something by a Blockchain Association which is effectively an organisation to create gambling assets that have no value in order to scam people, individuals who claim innovation cannot occur with regulation, I am a on the side of thinking these individuals are not just ignorant but are paid off criminal scumbags.

I could be wrong but all of the evidence points to the contrary.

CSW
Jan 6, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1609919165252200?thread_ts=1609919165.252200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2437

CSW
May 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622305948309800?thread_ts=1622305948.309800&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2439

CSW
Jan 13, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610568058131500?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2440

Banks and bitcoin have completely different purposes, it reintroduces cash but in a digital manner

If you are not doing loans, you are not a bank and you are not replacing a bank.

The people who are unbacked are not and banked because they don't have cash but their own banked because they can't have loans and other facilities.

And, you will see
Soon

CSW
Jan 13, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610568058131500?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2440

CSW
Jan 6,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610561442114600?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2442

More, the non-KYC miners will face legal challenges

Not at 50%, but a 10% KYC miner will have legal redress against other nodes who orphan their blocks.

I really don’t think people are thought this through. A miner with 10% of the total hash rate manages to set up a node and then starts filtering addresses that are under a KYC/AML ban and then other miners decide to orphan blocks that this miner is now creating.

Think about the outcome here. The argument is that you should be able to enable and facilitate crime without consequence. The node who is following the law will be the one that the court supports. So, if the node decides to take action for all of the lost blocks, not only will they gain compensation for any block that is orphaned but also the cost of taking and executing the enforcement action.

Think about the rational outcome to such a strategy. A miner who does not follow AML will end up with court orders against them and eventually have their assets seized. For every block that they allow, they create a competitive advantage that will help grow the smaller miners who are compliant.

The node operators will think about this. A node with 10% of the hash rate could end up capturing up to 25 to 30% of the total returns. Not by blocks but by recovery and this will lead to an economic incentivization others to do the same strategy. The rational choice is to follow this action.
Once a miner starts such a strategy, even a 2 to 3% total percentage of the network starts to become more profitable. By more profitable I mean 50 to 60% more profitable than other miners in the industry.
Think what that means.

CSW
Jan 6,. 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610561442114600?thread_ts=1610549144.100200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2442

CSW
Jan 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610878341009900?thread_ts=1610878341.009900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2444

I want to make this very clear. Bitcoin was not and has never been about censorship resistance. That is a position promoted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and had nothing to do with myself.

It came about because of WikiLeaks. Promoted by people who build sites for child porn and originally Silk Road.

I have never once mentioned in the entire history of being myself openly or as Satoshi that bitcoin was ever anything to do with this concept of censorship resistance. Bitcoin is digital cash. It is an electronic cash system that allows micro payments. Once you get more than a few hundred dollars worth of bitcoin, and you reuse addresses...

It becomes traceable and very simple to filter.

Everybody seems to neglect this one really key point here.

I created the alert key !

https://craigwright.net/blog/law-regulation/if-gold-turned-to-lead/

The introduction of the alert key allowed bitcoin to be frozen. Nodes would be able to filter stolen bitcoin addresses very easily.

This was introduced well before the concept of bitcoin being decentralised and unable to be frozen. The ability to signed messages freezing particular UTXO's would allow the filtering of individual transaction streams. So, this concept that bitcoin is uncensorable is easy to discredit. It was never designed to be a system that acted outside of law.

It is difficult to stop legal transactions

That is different from Twitter

Privacy and resilience

yes, bitcoin does not solve political issues

bitcoin is but a tool. People have to stop thinking that they can simply hand the responsibility to a computer program and think that it will be solved. If you want freedom, you have to fight for freedom

Bitcoin does not stop your money being seized. If you live in an authoritarian country, using bitcoin could get you in trouble and may be illegal. Bitcoin doesn't solve this. What bitcoin does is leave trails and evidence so that people can take action against corrupt governments.

The problem is that too many people are downright lazy.

They expect freedom just to be free.

Freedom is incredibly expensive and requires a lot of effort to maintain.

Bitcoin gives you a tool to prove and provide evidence and then you need to do the hard work to make sure that you maintain hard-won freedoms that you have already.

CSW
Jan 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1610878341009900?thread_ts=1610878341.009900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2444

Los mitos de BTC /
BTC Myth

Store of value - Bitcoin gold myth
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEXKSGQdOfI5cWUI2g

BitCoin isn't a Cryptocurrency - Digital Currency
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFkN9nGVUn78aHVXnw

BTC is not Bitcoin / Passing off
https://t.me/joinchat/WJGEbY1pSqscchfm

1 MB block size
https://t.me/joinchat/C1SRjZeluIowZWQ0

Bitcoin Censorship Resistance
Government cannot stop Bitcoin.
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFXh5kE5TES-Ja1S2g

Community project
https://t.me/joinchat/cIDSrzxKPf04NWQ0

Myth Run a node
https://t.me/joinchat/m7veOblozms5ZDQ0

Security by Hash Power Myth
https://t.me/joinchat/UlrnU3RzPqZlMjM0

Negative Gamma
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEifeK9oRtxTzddQ9Q

Satoshi Nakamoto Porqué es importante identificarlo?
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE-nzU1oWoSOi78KiQ

Myth BitCoin Consensus/ Voting System
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFUa4h0lu-bKboKr9A

BitCoin NO King - No central authority
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEj_Uni1rg3brTXY4A

Bitcoin consumes electricity
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFef24k5sbgsBKF36Q

Cripto/ Bitcoin Mitos
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEwgzjSwwVhyxZwu9Q

Code is Law Myth
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEjbx17bM6Hwidaw_g

Crypto 51% Attack
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEY8agj9gKxeZpwrVA

Selfish Mining Myth https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEzPJc1oRrRa-BwiAQ

Bitcoin Malleability
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFInN4imd6BSU350NA

Quantum computing
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEjB9xyujw7qHWkusw

Myths. Don't trust verify
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEyMmBuGOy0HRu8BnA

Turing Complete/ machine
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAE-NhOk72eVCL44c9g

CSW
Jan 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611221252079200?thread_t

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2447

Cobbie fails to realise that the whitepaper was not in the same Sourceforge file and folder as the license.

More importantly, MIT licensing covers source code.

The PDF is not source code. But the simple part is the research paper is in a separate folder without any license.

https://web.archive.org/web/20091127010808/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/

Notice - separate directories and NO license on the Wp

https://web.archive.org/web/20091128183828/http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=640697

No license in the Paper folder.

As author - I have copyright

I have also registereed.

The registration in the US is only a preclude to court action.

This is what people don't seem to understand. The people falsely filing saying that they wrote the whitepaper now have to defend. If they cannot, they either have to admit that they committed intentional fraud and falsified the filing or commit perjury in court.

They need to prove they created the whitepaper and the code if they want to defend. If they do not, that is they don't prove, then they could end up in prison

I fail to understand why people think that I work to their timetable.

The simple fact is I'm willing to take two years or more to put everything into place properly.

I am highly rational and incredibly detailed in calculating

I did note these in 2017...

CSW
Jan 21, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611221252079200?thread_t

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2447

1/2
If an individual such as myself can cause people to be upset, think what a government can do. The digital currency space is about to be regulated. Going forward, arguments about decentralisation will be overturned in court. I'm not talking about myself here. I'm talking about actions that governments will start taking.

There are many arguments that promoted the market price as value. These are not new arguments. Charles Ponzi used them. Bernie Madoff used them.

The price an item can be sold for is not an indication of value. The market is always easily manipulable in the short term. This is the reason regulation always ensues.

What needs to occur is use. Not arguments of store of value or digital gold. None of those matter. What does matter is digital electronic cash. A system that allows micropayments and the transaction of incredibly small value transfers.

The dot.com crash occurred in total in around ten days. On public exchanges, somewhere between two and $3 trillion was wiped off market value. If you include all of the web IPOs (ICOS today) and alternative methodologies that existed at the time, the digital currency is the time and everything else the total value was somewhere around 6 to $7 trillion US.

This was completely destroyed in under ten days.

It did not bounce, 98% of companies, ICO's, and everything else at the time disappeared. You are being told that this is value because it's on an exchange. Value occurs only when it is used.

That is not digital gold.

There is next to no value in digital gold.

E-gold disappeared in moments. Liberty reserve disappeared in hours.

You are falsely told that bitcoin is the first distributed Cryptocurrency. It is not. It is not even the one hundredth Cryptocurrency.

The first distributed Cryptocurrencies that were based on proof of work were released in the late 1990s.

Investment means understanding risk.

I don't recommend that anyone speculate unless they're willing to lose their money. I recommend people use bitcoin. Bitcoin is not merely a speculative asset but a commodity system designed to be used, exchanged and as a methodology to create a new free version of the Internet.

So, I'm not going to tell you to speculate on bitcoin like many people will. If you invest in bitcoin, you should be doing something to ensure that the value of your investment goes up. That is not merely holding bitcoin and hoping that other people do things. It is creating businesses that use bitcoin and hence aid in the development of an ecosystem that does more than promote HODL and pumping price in an internal Ponzi that will eventually collapse

When I made the comment a number of years ago saying "it might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy", I was not saying to HODL.

https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/015014.html

If you read the complete statement, you will see that I stated that it could be used. When I was saying that everyone could get some and if enough people did this I was not stating get some and hold it. I was talking about bootstrapping the system.

This quote has been taken out of context so many times and used in a maligned way to promote something that I never intended nor stated

In that comment, I had stated that we could start using it as reward tokens, that we could use it as game currency or even as payments on adult sites. I was stating that can be used on services that are nearly but not quite free.

In this, we are talking about payments of a fraction of a cent. I gave the idea of pay to send email.

Only after stating all of that did I say that it might make sense to get some because it would enable us to bootstrapped the system so that we could pay a few cents to a website as easily as dropping coins in a vending machine.

CSW
Jan 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611491629460100?thread_ts=1611491629.460100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2449

2/2
That is not a promotion of get rich scheme as people try and make it out. However, my comments are cherry-picked and taken out of context.

Bitcoin will not survive another five years in the way that people are trying to promote it

I would love sites to start replacing pay walls with micro payment systems.

Importantly, if you buy fifty cents worth of BSV and you utilise it in accessing pay walled sites, it becomes rather unimportant about the volatility. The website that is pay walling you can either enter into forward contracts to negotiate a set payment for the amount the receiving and thus reduce volatility completely or they can sell the amounts they receive on an hourly basis collecting the income into an account that they take out of the exchange every week

In this scenario, volatility is not an issue.

The individual using it has only a few dollars. They could buy fifty dollars US worth of BSV and that would pay for their website access for several months. If the amounts go up and down, they won't care too much.

But, this is not the model that has been promoted by financial Ponzi schemers and get rich quick schemes, none of which are aiming to create any form of micro payment system or to introduce value into the system at all. And in that, good and passionate developers are being exploited into believing that they are doing something that will lead to this end when in fact it is only those in the Ponzi schemes, bucket shops that call themselves exchanges and Silicon Valley companies like Square that profit

CSW
Jan 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611491629460100?thread_ts=1611491629.460100&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2450

CSW
Jan 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611492198463300?thread_ts=1611492198.463300&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2451

Lightning nodes and watchtowers are money services businesses..

There are of course companies who benefit from these. Square and other financial services businesses already maintain databases of client activity. This is the traditional method utilised before the creation of bitcoin. This is the model based on a trusted third-party.

This is what people are being deceived into developing with little risk to square or these other organisations.

The lightning system will require that all transfers are maintained and monitored and that all the requirements that are associated with a money handling and money services business are adhered to.

This is not a cash based system but rather a traditional system based on trusted third parties. Organisations in the system such as square know all of the information about the users of the system. In the same way that Twitter sells your information, product sizes the user and sells them, square will be able to sell your financial history and leverage the information that companies such as Twitter already maintain.

This is not what bitcoin does.

Bitcoin is a digital cash system.

But, development groups have been deceived into creating something else. They are working on systems that allow financial Ponzi's such as Tether that have no true backing to manipulate and deceive and they allow for the creation of a more effective credit system such as lightning.

And importantly, the companies involved in deceiving developers into receiving income payments that are falsely referred to as donations in order to make them believe they don't need to pay tax and thus earn more when they are being ripped off by these organisations who benefit at the developer's expense, these organisations such a square make money and propagate a closed system that allows them to maintain information about everyone's financial activity

that's not what bitcoin does

CSW
Jan 24, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611492198463300?thread_ts=1611492198.463300&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2451

CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611739466369100?thread_ts=1611739466.369100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2453

1/2
The reality is that if BTC core changed their name to SegWit or lightning coin or anything else similar, I would have absolutely no problems with them.

I'm very happy for developers to continue on alternative paths and even ones I don't believe are valuable. The fact that I don't believe something will be successful is not a reasoning for why other people will stop.

Those who want to develop lightning want to make a system that is analogous to the one we have already. It has no interest to me and it has no relationship to bitcoin.

The Bitcoin White Paper defines digital cash. It is a system that allows for micro payments. Lightning and the other systems being sold as digital gold do not allow for any of this.

There is nothing anarchist in my system at all. It was never released on a cypherpunk mailing list or anything cypherpunk or anarchist in any manner.

The nature of bitcoin is one that allows you to send payments directly from one party to another.

This statement is used to head up the abstract. Sending bitcoin from an individual to a node to a node to another person eventually is not analogous to a direct electronic cash payment.

The first paragraph of the bitcoin White Paper defines bitcoin as a system that allows for small online payments. The system that does not exist is not digital gold. Digital gold is common, digital gold has existed for forty years in one form or another.

The system that interested me and that has not come to fruition and that should be pushed is very simply a system that allows for small casual transactions.

The creation of a system to do small transactions is the true invention of bitcoin. It is not a system that allows for exchanges of large amounts of money for high fees as a primary mechanism.

And, no I don't have a timeframe I'm sorry.

The fact that you can form a record that does not change unless you redo the proof of work does not mean you cannot change the ownership structure in bitcoin either. There is a difference between saying that a record has been changed and that a ledger entry has been made.

When you run corporate accounts under Sarbanes Oxley in the USA or under provisions in the UK in IFRS it is necessary to ensure that records do not change. That is distinct and different from saying that they cannot be updated.

You can update a record without changing the original entry

The nature of large transactions provides for changes. This would not work on small transactions. The cost of reversing a transaction is part of the process. If you make a five dollar coffee purchase, it can be considered final straightaway. If you make a $5 million purchase, that is never finalised until the law says it is finalised.

And yes, nodes may add any necessary rules through the incentive structure of bitcoin

The consensus mechanism is the mining of blocks

I think bitcoin would be far larger without silk Road

The narrative of silk Road has hindered bitcoin by decades. It ruined the last twelve years and it has put barriers in front of us even now

There is nothing that cannot be done in the original protocol that is not being discussed here.

The alert key allowed for the freezing of funds.

The system was messy but still allowed for addendums to the system. Users would never know unless they were the people impacted. A court order could be written on chain and all of this would be public.

Each UTXO could be captured using a spandrel for the miners. It's only the miners that make these decisions. The so-called user nodes have no decision on this matter.

The cost of doing such an action would be extensive. It's going to preclude recovering small amounts completely and any amount such as US$50,000 would even be out of reach.

CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611739466369100?thread_ts=1611739466.369100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2453

2/2
However, large amounts when we are talking about single UTXO's with potentially millions if not millions of dollars are within reach. None of this is outside of the original White Paper and protocol.

No, thieves would still be stopped.

There is no requirement to change the protocol to implement a freeze. The consensus mechanism in bitcoin allows this to occur. A proceeds of crime order is completed by government. These can be done in batches by government officials.

More, the alert key allowed the entire network to know of any issues instantly. If a dispute occurred the owner would be able to send out a message alerting a court and other individuals.

In this manner, exchanges would know instantly that they can freeze a particular key securely and if they don't they could be subject to a tracing order under the existing rules that we find in the global banking system. Bitcoin does not operate outside of the real world. This is the error many people who are anarchist in nature do not understand. Money is just a proxy to buy goods and services. You cannot act outside of the real world even with bitcoin.

Yes, core has disabled the alert key and other aspects. However, no matter how many UASF hats are worn, the alert key cannot be stopped by user nodes. If this is added back into the protocol, it is part of the protocol, then the ability to freeze bitcoin and act on court orders is instantly re-enabled. This of course is why they complain about it and took it out.

All that said, I have no interest in any other system that is not bitcoin. If BTC is no longer called bitcoin, I no longer have an interest in it outside of what has occurred already. This is why don't care about Ethereum. I'm happy for people to compete with me and to innovate on their own, to try things that I think are dead ends and have been tried before.

CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611739466369100?thread_ts=1611739466.369100&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2453

CSW
May 31, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622452601395300

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2456