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

CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611740610388700?thread_ts=1611740610.388700&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2457

There have been over 500 Cryptocurrencies, hundreds of online cash systems that are not Cryptocurrencies and since the 1990s there have been peer-to-peer proof of work systems that act in manners similar to bitcoin. The difference is bitcoin is fully traceable and for that reason does not need a trusted third-party. Where a system is not traceable, then you end up with the scenario such as with blinded eCash that you need third parties.

Monero is analogous in this way. You cannot trust the system without other individuals being involved.

The innovation in Bitcoin is the creation of a system that allows micro payments that could be a fraction of a cent.. The purported innovation and digital gold is nothing new. It is not something that will not be seized, it is not something that will not be taken under proceeds of crime orders and it is definitely not something that can act outside of taxation rules.

As I said, bitcoin was never a cypherpunk project.

Unfortunately, individuals with alternative concepts and no belief in hard work over a long period of time in building something that works and scales have come into the project and a hijacking the concept. There is no community aspect of bitcoin that dictates a protocol. This is analogous to the Internet, the community does not change how TCP works they build upon the protocol. The same happens in bitcoin. The community can do all types of things and innovate or they like, they do this because the protocol is fixed

CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611740610388700?thread_ts=1611740610.388700&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2457

CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611742632404200?thread_ts=1611742632.404200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2459

The nature of bitcoin is a system that forms a record that cannot be changed.

Lightning on the other hand, and other information such as SegWit are not records that cannot be changed.

https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/accounting/correcting-accounting-errors

You see, in accounting, you never delete a record. To make a correction you merely add a journal entry that is known as a correcting entry.

The original record remains with all of the changes that have been applied to the system. This is something that any person who runs an accounting system will understand. The process of correcting entries is part of the accrual accounting system. It is one of the fundamental aspects of how double entry bookkeeping works.

The correcting entry needs to have both the debit and credit. It would reference the error and link any changes that are required. This is a standard process when accountants perform reconciliations. An example will be during the process of comparing accounting records to bank statements and fixing any erroneous entries.

For instance, you do not change the date of the original entry that is entered into your log, a correcting entry is made noting the difference.

The analogous case can be made with regards to bitcoin and for that matter any Blockchain.

You will notice that I have never said at any point that bitcoin is designed to be a decentralised political system. There is a distinction between a robust distributed system of computers and a distributed political system.

Bitcoin is not a voting system. Users do not vote.

I stated in the whitepaper that if the majority were based on individuals, one IP address to represent a single vote, then that could be easily subverted. That is not the decision process or the consensus mechanism in bitcoin.

The CPU power of the network is exclusively the miners or nodes. It is not the CPU power presented by individuals and users. This has been misrepresented because people have not followed the description in section 5 or network design of the paper.

The simple fact here is that this does not stop tax authorities from taking what is due. It does not stop a proceeds of crime order from being applied.

This is why I am attached. The ONLY ability for Bitcoin to not be seized comes from the PoSM lie.

It is the myth. The myth is not reality.

CSW
Jan 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611742632404200?thread_ts=1611742632.404200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2459

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611923673284000?thread_ts=1611923673.284000&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2461

1/2
Innovation cannot occur when the system keeps changing

You will note in our software group risk reports from Olga that my team were getting disillusioned because we had to make global changes every month.

When BTC core try and tell you that it's about innovation, this is my point, this is a complete and utter falsehood

If you cannot work on a large scale project that does not have to be re-factored every month wasting time because you're implementing useless experiments that have nothing to do with bitcoin to allow other people to make changes that they can say they made changes, then you are doing nothing that stifling innovation

In part, some of the problems I had with the tax office in Australia came from the moving goalpost. I had project deadlines that I had filed in the research and development applications.

You cannot create a software package when the foundation of what you're creating changes every month.

If you have a twelve month project and you have random monthly changes that are completely unpredictable you cannot create anything.

This is why I'm telling you that innovation requires a stable platform where the protocol is set in stone. A few individuals within BTC core have intentionally misled others who are diligent and hard-working developers making them believe that this needs to be done to innovate.

There are no changes required in the original bitcoin protocol at all to make all of the software forms I have discussed. This exceeds everything currently available in every possible version of Cryptocurrency or Blockchain or hyper ledger application or anything else

All of this will come out in the coming months with all of the required disclosures that need to happen.

If you read Olga's statement, as it is put in the monthly risk report,

"the detailed design and architecture was updated globally according to new solutions. Previous solutions were discarded"

In that statement, we are discussing a distributed node system integrated into Hadoop and Cassandra that utilised rabbit M Q and other messaging frameworks.

In effect, a system for bitcoin that is more technically complex than advanced that everything done by BTC core, bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin XT and every other crypto project in the entire history of bitcoin and the primary reason it was never delivered on time is stated right there.

At the end of 2013, beginning of 2014 my companies had fifty-five staff in Australia alone. These were individuals working on bitcoin.

These people included developers, project managers and more.

Even with that number of people we could not keep up with the changes being made by core. Think about that for a moment.

What that came down to is a system of control and centralisation of power.

Rather than having multiple node software development teams all able to work on the same protocol, this created a system where everyone built using the BTC core implementation. By pushing out changes on a monthly basis, development teams for other projects could only manage to deliver a result by following whatever core did.

If you wanted to create a wallet but core did not like what you are doing they could make a change that would make your system obsolete and they did this to many people. Note, when I say Cora money saying a few people because the myth that BTC core is truly decentralised and pushed out to many developers is false and easily proven to be so.

There is no community voting method, no community consensus. BTC core is a tight run group who tell people what they think.

This is what permission and permissionless are truly about. If you think about it, you will see that every time a small group controlling a base protocol is allowed to update that protocol they can set the direction of a project. In doing so, they could ensure that my companies could never scale bitcoin.

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611923673284000?thread_ts=1611923673.284000&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2461

2/2
You will notice that we will be building a system that already included thresholds

The advanced node system that we were talking about utilised threshold keys. That concept dates for 2011. It started being implemented properly in 2012.

We could not roll out thresholds and secure signature algorithms for bitcoin because these break very easily when you change the nature of ECDSA being utilised

The claim many make against me is that I want to block and stifle innovation. This could not be further from the truth. You see, if even I cannot change the protocol, that is how it becomes truly decentralised.

Anybody who wanted to compete with what I was doing or develop another application very easily could. With the protocol strictly defined, nothing I would be doing would stop anyone else from doing anything they wanted.

The sole distinction would be from innovation itself.

I had sought to compete by making an application, node software for miners, that was superior to everything else on the market. Home user nodes that don't mind and don't become part of the consensus could still run. Nobody stopped any of that..

On the other hand, the Australian office approached Mr Maxwell as an expert to validate some of what I was saying towards the end of 2013. Interestingly, a person who is diametrically opposed to everything I seek and who was financially incentivised with block stream was given access to confidential intellectual property that I was developing which of course would have destroyed everything Blockchain was doing not by permission but by competition.

Software =/= Protocol

TCP has not changed since 1981

I had around $20 million worth of my own money from working on software and other applications in the past.

My initial fight with the tax office cost me close to $3 million. I won, the tax office even needed to apologise which rarely happens but the end result of all the fights was the dissolution of my first marriage and a lot of money spent.

The thing that I don't want to do and that I wasn't doing is promoting bitcoin as a trading and speculating asset to gamble on.

The reason and purpose that are created bitcoin has nothing to do with that.

When we had cash flow problems in 2014 and I put a liquidator over one of the companies we had $1.5 million worth of money due.. That was over the next 90 to 120 days.

What people fail to see is that even when you own larger amounts of capital that you can end up with problems of liquidity.

I had around fifty staff earning an average of 124,000 dollars per year. On top of that, we had offices, computers, network systems and contracts and licensing agreements with banking software firms.

The thing people fail to note is that I paid all creditors and staff 100 cents on the dollar

in placing the company into administration I didn't need to do that. I could have made deals and I could have cancelled a number of contracts and got out of paying a lot of money.

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611923673284000?thread_ts=1611923673.284000&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2461

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611853699135100?thread_ts=1611851593.125500&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2466