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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611923673284000?thread_ts=1611923673.284000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2461
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611923673284000?thread_ts=1611923673.284000&cid=C5131HKFX
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611923673284000?thread_ts=1611923673.284000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2461
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611923673284000?thread_ts=1611923673.284000&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2461
I don't need to justify myself.
This is the flaw in a lot of this.
If we are talking about a group of people who argue permissionless society and property rights and then arguing that I need to get their permission to use my property rights as I wish, we have a system of cognitive dissonance that is impacting a few people
The simple answer is that I have created a system that is designed not to change. Like TCP, it is designed to be the same twenty, fifty even 100 years from now.
To build upon that system requires no permission
Individuals don't need to ask me if they can do so, and more importantly even if they did I can't do anything to stop them
Nobody can have a favour granted to friends when you can't grant favours at all
Nobody can accept corruption when there is nothing to corrupt
What people are failing to understand is that every single thing possible that can be done on a digital ledger was possible on the original protocol in bitcoin.
There were things to be fixed in the software. I left Gavin to steward my project. Note that word, steward. He was never given the right to allow the system to be taken over by others.
In fixing the software, in re-enabling the opcode's as he was tasked to do and to scale bitcoin as he was tasked to do nothing that was developed on the platform would have broken.
A company that had created a wallet that did not use some of those opcode's would not break if they were re-enabled.
a bunch of people who want control
In a fixed protocol I don't have control
My mistake was to leave the project to soon and to trust others without really explaining things to them. More importantly, I really didn't understand what other people wanted to do.
I was completely daft enough to believe that when I said the protocol cannot change that this would be enough to make sure that people like Gavin another stewarding the project wouldn't change it. I don't blame Gavin, Mobs can be difficult to resist
But - and this is a key point.
Nobody is going to get rid of me before I get my protocol back in the way I created it. And once that happens, people can build any copy of it that does not call itself bitcoin to their hearts content the same way they can build a copy of the Internet protocol that is different for the sake of it. The distinction is that I will not let them call it bitcoin. Just as you can't call a copy of a Tesla Tesla.
In doing this, the irony that people don't get is that I have no power other than saying that the protocol is set. The only power I have is to stop myself exercising power to change the protocol and that is a power that other people can enforce on me.
CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611934475332900?thread_ts=1611851593.125500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2466
This is the flaw in a lot of this.
If we are talking about a group of people who argue permissionless society and property rights and then arguing that I need to get their permission to use my property rights as I wish, we have a system of cognitive dissonance that is impacting a few people
The simple answer is that I have created a system that is designed not to change. Like TCP, it is designed to be the same twenty, fifty even 100 years from now.
To build upon that system requires no permission
Individuals don't need to ask me if they can do so, and more importantly even if they did I can't do anything to stop them
Nobody can have a favour granted to friends when you can't grant favours at all
Nobody can accept corruption when there is nothing to corrupt
What people are failing to understand is that every single thing possible that can be done on a digital ledger was possible on the original protocol in bitcoin.
There were things to be fixed in the software. I left Gavin to steward my project. Note that word, steward. He was never given the right to allow the system to be taken over by others.
In fixing the software, in re-enabling the opcode's as he was tasked to do and to scale bitcoin as he was tasked to do nothing that was developed on the platform would have broken.
A company that had created a wallet that did not use some of those opcode's would not break if they were re-enabled.
a bunch of people who want control
In a fixed protocol I don't have control
My mistake was to leave the project to soon and to trust others without really explaining things to them. More importantly, I really didn't understand what other people wanted to do.
I was completely daft enough to believe that when I said the protocol cannot change that this would be enough to make sure that people like Gavin another stewarding the project wouldn't change it. I don't blame Gavin, Mobs can be difficult to resist
But - and this is a key point.
Nobody is going to get rid of me before I get my protocol back in the way I created it. And once that happens, people can build any copy of it that does not call itself bitcoin to their hearts content the same way they can build a copy of the Internet protocol that is different for the sake of it. The distinction is that I will not let them call it bitcoin. Just as you can't call a copy of a Tesla Tesla.
In doing this, the irony that people don't get is that I have no power other than saying that the protocol is set. The only power I have is to stop myself exercising power to change the protocol and that is a power that other people can enforce on me.
CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611934475332900?thread_ts=1611851593.125500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2466
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611853699135100?thread_ts=1611851593.125500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2466
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611853699135100?thread_ts=1611851593.125500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2466
This is what I want to achieve.
I want to get the protocol fixed just like TCP has been fixed.
I want the bitcoin protocol to be completely secure and functional in the manner that I intended when I first built bitcoin.
I want the bitcoin protocol to be unchanged forty years from now just as TCP remains unchanged forty years from now.
In time, there will be a necessity to update and increment some of the opcode is within the protocol but that does not mean that we need to or should depreciate any of the others.
For instance, OP_SHA1 is a part of the protocol.
SHA1 has been marked as no longer being secure yet it remains in the prottocol.
There are unassigned protocol markers. There are not as many as people like to think.
I want bitcoin to be here in 200 years time. It won't be if it changes.
In 2009 when I started all this I had around $20 million in overseas trusts. I listed my first company when I was in my twenties. I helped take the first online casino through a licensing process that made them the first legal casino on the Internet. I helped banks and other organisations go online.
I was wealthy enough before I started working on bitcoin
If I'd continued I would have ended up as a partner in a global firm and a professor. The average income for a global partner in an accounting firm is in the order of 1 to $2 million a year. When I chose a path into bitcoin I risked everything.
I had a farming property that I loved in Australia. It was a cattle ranch. I owned five horses. When I sold the property to help pay for some of the cash flow problems and in 2014 I had to sell my horses. I had nowhere else to put them. One of them had been my pet for seven years.
But what I will say on all of this is that I don't regret it
I have not achieved what I want to achieve yet. But the thing is that isn't the issue I can keep fighting to get what I want.
I will have achieved what I want when nobody can change the protocol any more and that all works the way I originally envisioned.
In that, every single thing that I can imagine being done on the Internet will be possible in a bitcoin transaction
I would be less emotional parcels wouldn't promote bitcoin as a get rich quick scheme or a methodology to allow rich assholes to not pay tax or to avoid money-laundering rules all for twelve dollars.
There are people in this world who work in entire week for only twelve dollars.
There are Filipino maids who have to send their money back every six months.
Even then they pay excessive fees.
I want people to be able to trade and send money and not even pay a cent.
That is the entire purpose of what is written in the whitepaper.
not digital gold to pay corrupt politicians
A system that tracks and records everything so that privacy is maintained for those who are honest and those who are not are undetected.
I have said before that bitcoin is not something I can tell you how to use. When I state that bitcoin is fully under law, I don't control or issue law. People seem to forget is that bitcoin is not anarchist and cannot be made to be anarchist. In democratic countries, people choose their leaders and the choose the law.
I cannot determine what people will do. I can tell individuals what I think they should do but it is not for me to make them and if they don't listen is little I can do to stop them.
That is unless they breaking the law and committing criminal acts in which case I can report them for that. It has nothing to do with bitcoin of course. But, if you're committing crimes on bitcoin you are living in evidence rather cannot be wiped
if you are just gambling or wasting your money, that's fine if you have enough to waste but when your children go hungry because of that problem is not a good thing
CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611935338338800?thread_ts=1611935338.338800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2468
I want to get the protocol fixed just like TCP has been fixed.
I want the bitcoin protocol to be completely secure and functional in the manner that I intended when I first built bitcoin.
I want the bitcoin protocol to be unchanged forty years from now just as TCP remains unchanged forty years from now.
In time, there will be a necessity to update and increment some of the opcode is within the protocol but that does not mean that we need to or should depreciate any of the others.
For instance, OP_SHA1 is a part of the protocol.
SHA1 has been marked as no longer being secure yet it remains in the prottocol.
There are unassigned protocol markers. There are not as many as people like to think.
I want bitcoin to be here in 200 years time. It won't be if it changes.
In 2009 when I started all this I had around $20 million in overseas trusts. I listed my first company when I was in my twenties. I helped take the first online casino through a licensing process that made them the first legal casino on the Internet. I helped banks and other organisations go online.
I was wealthy enough before I started working on bitcoin
If I'd continued I would have ended up as a partner in a global firm and a professor. The average income for a global partner in an accounting firm is in the order of 1 to $2 million a year. When I chose a path into bitcoin I risked everything.
I had a farming property that I loved in Australia. It was a cattle ranch. I owned five horses. When I sold the property to help pay for some of the cash flow problems and in 2014 I had to sell my horses. I had nowhere else to put them. One of them had been my pet for seven years.
But what I will say on all of this is that I don't regret it
I have not achieved what I want to achieve yet. But the thing is that isn't the issue I can keep fighting to get what I want.
I will have achieved what I want when nobody can change the protocol any more and that all works the way I originally envisioned.
In that, every single thing that I can imagine being done on the Internet will be possible in a bitcoin transaction
I would be less emotional parcels wouldn't promote bitcoin as a get rich quick scheme or a methodology to allow rich assholes to not pay tax or to avoid money-laundering rules all for twelve dollars.
There are people in this world who work in entire week for only twelve dollars.
There are Filipino maids who have to send their money back every six months.
Even then they pay excessive fees.
I want people to be able to trade and send money and not even pay a cent.
That is the entire purpose of what is written in the whitepaper.
not digital gold to pay corrupt politicians
A system that tracks and records everything so that privacy is maintained for those who are honest and those who are not are undetected.
I have said before that bitcoin is not something I can tell you how to use. When I state that bitcoin is fully under law, I don't control or issue law. People seem to forget is that bitcoin is not anarchist and cannot be made to be anarchist. In democratic countries, people choose their leaders and the choose the law.
I cannot determine what people will do. I can tell individuals what I think they should do but it is not for me to make them and if they don't listen is little I can do to stop them.
That is unless they breaking the law and committing criminal acts in which case I can report them for that. It has nothing to do with bitcoin of course. But, if you're committing crimes on bitcoin you are living in evidence rather cannot be wiped
if you are just gambling or wasting your money, that's fine if you have enough to waste but when your children go hungry because of that problem is not a good thing
CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611935338338800?thread_ts=1611935338.338800&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2468
Yes.
I created bitcoin.
No, you can not decide how I prove. I chose law, I chose the courts. I chose to discredit anarchy.
I chose honesty.
I owe you nothing for using my protocol, but if you do it as cash, purposefully I thank you.
You can not prove identity with keys.
No method exists
To say it is possible is to be a fool or a liar
Others can innovative as well. Most get it wrong as they are trying to solve the wrong problem, the lie that has become the myth.
CSW
Feb 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614321187137300?thread_ts=1614321187.137300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2473
I created bitcoin.
No, you can not decide how I prove. I chose law, I chose the courts. I chose to discredit anarchy.
I chose honesty.
I owe you nothing for using my protocol, but if you do it as cash, purposefully I thank you.
You can not prove identity with keys.
No method exists
To say it is possible is to be a fool or a liar
Others can innovative as well. Most get it wrong as they are trying to solve the wrong problem, the lie that has become the myth.
CSW
Feb 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614321187137300?thread_ts=1614321187.137300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2473
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614321187137300?thread_ts=1614321187.137300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2473
Feb 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614321187137300?thread_ts=1614321187.137300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2473
When you buy an asset that you are not in control of, you are gambling on the future.
In this, it is a bet on the actions and success if another.
As such, the only promise I make, and I will be held and bound on this, is to make bitcoin, my bitcoin as I defined it in the white paper actualized.
If this takes 30 years, so be it
Digital cash
Working inside the legal framework
Scaled
With a set protocol allowing development to build as SPV without impact and constant requirement of changes
It is not a promise to make you rich, bit that I will spend all I own and more as long as it takes to make it work
And, that is the Tip of the tip of the proverbial iceberg
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614460335026200?thread_ts=1614460335.026200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2475
In this, it is a bet on the actions and success if another.
As such, the only promise I make, and I will be held and bound on this, is to make bitcoin, my bitcoin as I defined it in the white paper actualized.
If this takes 30 years, so be it
Digital cash
Working inside the legal framework
Scaled
With a set protocol allowing development to build as SPV without impact and constant requirement of changes
It is not a promise to make you rich, bit that I will spend all I own and more as long as it takes to make it work
And, that is the Tip of the tip of the proverbial iceberg
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614460335026200?thread_ts=1614460335.026200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2475
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614460335026200?thread_ts=1614460335.026200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2475
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614460335026200?thread_ts=1614460335.026200&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2475
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
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
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614421233352100?thread_ts=1614421233.352100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2477
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614421233352100?thread_ts=1614421233.352100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2477
1/2
It really does not matter whether you think bitcoin should be different or not. I did not invent a crypto currency but rather invented a digital cash system that works on the public dissemination of information. That comes with a whole lot of legal obligations. The fact that you do not like that legal obligations come with money is not relevant here.
I am not stopping you from going out there and trying to create a working crypto currency. I have never stopped anyone from doing that. What you cannot do is run around trying to break bitcoin to try and make your boondoggle project that will never work on top of the Blockchain because blockchains are secured not by cryptography but by public information.
In 2010 I did not invite people to come out there and create drug markets.
I tried to give people opportunities to create all types of commerce and exchange and EDI with a focus on the easy low hanging fruit of web-based micro-payments, something that was simple that the time because advertising was in its nascent stage and could have easily been overtaken by digital currency payments
There will not be institutional investment, real institutional investment while there is no methodology that is available to recover stolen or otherwise lost assets from these institutional investors.
It does not matter how many people on discord or telegram tell you otherwise. The law applies to all of these organisations and in fact, following Sarbanes Oxley there are criminal penalties that apply to executives who try and do otherwise
Everybody keeps talking about how all these big organisations are going to start using bitcoin.
Not the scammy MS that we are seeing, that people are calling institutional investors but real institutional investment
Before that is legally available, options for recovery need to be available
No institutional investor who has a real track record and it has not had fraud charges against them in the past will invest in this or build on this or create on this when if something goes wrong the CEO of the company goes to prison which is exactly the state that bitcoin is in without recovery
Have people thought about that one?
When you're pitching this to a major bank or hedge fund or merchant financing facility or Fortune 500 company and the Treasury thereof have you considered that telling the CEO that investing in bitcoin without a recovery mechanism means that the level of risk is excessive and that legally that if the coins are lost that CEO will be facing criminal prosecution under a number of financial acts within the US
My perspective is, probably not
I tried to in 2013
The constant red flag on the project team reports every week was major changes on the code that led to re-factoring the application over and over and an inability to launch because of Core's incessant changes to the protocol that was meant to be set
add to that all of the lies
every myth that is being spread about bitcoin being encrypted, that it is censorship resistant, all of these things are the lies that kill this off
banking, no
Exchange yes
You don't need the alert key, there are better ways of doing this.
banks don't care
you're missing the point, you have to set something up that is better than a bank before a bank will want to compete
way better ways
I am a former academic who taught C++ and C# and not a developer that needs to work in doing this for commercial applications
there is a difference
Yes, I have a Sans Institute coding award for secure coding but that's not the same as writing code that scales well and is really well factored
and banks will take the sawn when they see value, when it is economically viable for them
this is why a spent a lot of money trying to get core banking software and to understand it in the past
It needs to be developed
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614442861424100?thread_ts=1614442861.424100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2479
It really does not matter whether you think bitcoin should be different or not. I did not invent a crypto currency but rather invented a digital cash system that works on the public dissemination of information. That comes with a whole lot of legal obligations. The fact that you do not like that legal obligations come with money is not relevant here.
I am not stopping you from going out there and trying to create a working crypto currency. I have never stopped anyone from doing that. What you cannot do is run around trying to break bitcoin to try and make your boondoggle project that will never work on top of the Blockchain because blockchains are secured not by cryptography but by public information.
In 2010 I did not invite people to come out there and create drug markets.
I tried to give people opportunities to create all types of commerce and exchange and EDI with a focus on the easy low hanging fruit of web-based micro-payments, something that was simple that the time because advertising was in its nascent stage and could have easily been overtaken by digital currency payments
There will not be institutional investment, real institutional investment while there is no methodology that is available to recover stolen or otherwise lost assets from these institutional investors.
It does not matter how many people on discord or telegram tell you otherwise. The law applies to all of these organisations and in fact, following Sarbanes Oxley there are criminal penalties that apply to executives who try and do otherwise
Everybody keeps talking about how all these big organisations are going to start using bitcoin.
Not the scammy MS that we are seeing, that people are calling institutional investors but real institutional investment
Before that is legally available, options for recovery need to be available
No institutional investor who has a real track record and it has not had fraud charges against them in the past will invest in this or build on this or create on this when if something goes wrong the CEO of the company goes to prison which is exactly the state that bitcoin is in without recovery
Have people thought about that one?
When you're pitching this to a major bank or hedge fund or merchant financing facility or Fortune 500 company and the Treasury thereof have you considered that telling the CEO that investing in bitcoin without a recovery mechanism means that the level of risk is excessive and that legally that if the coins are lost that CEO will be facing criminal prosecution under a number of financial acts within the US
My perspective is, probably not
I tried to in 2013
The constant red flag on the project team reports every week was major changes on the code that led to re-factoring the application over and over and an inability to launch because of Core's incessant changes to the protocol that was meant to be set
add to that all of the lies
every myth that is being spread about bitcoin being encrypted, that it is censorship resistant, all of these things are the lies that kill this off
banking, no
Exchange yes
You don't need the alert key, there are better ways of doing this.
banks don't care
you're missing the point, you have to set something up that is better than a bank before a bank will want to compete
way better ways
I am a former academic who taught C++ and C# and not a developer that needs to work in doing this for commercial applications
there is a difference
Yes, I have a Sans Institute coding award for secure coding but that's not the same as writing code that scales well and is really well factored
and banks will take the sawn when they see value, when it is economically viable for them
this is why a spent a lot of money trying to get core banking software and to understand it in the past
It needs to be developed
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614442861424100?thread_ts=1614442861.424100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2479
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614442861424100?thread_ts=1614442861.424100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2479
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614442861424100?thread_ts=1614442861.424100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2479
2/2
And, before this will ever be developed and used, banks need to know the same as any institutional investor would want to know which is can I recover
no recovery, no application
The importance of the alert key is to let the network know very quickly that something is wrong.
Equally fast, a false alert can be reversed or disputed
the cost of doing a recovery is going to never be small.
In the short term I cannot and I emphasise cannot see any recovery claim costing less than £50,000
Now, take that into account
proceeds of crime orders will be different and could be collated but, once some of the money has been used in commerce it will be protected from being grabbed and redistributed
as far as banks are concerned the custodial services will be created so that it is unlikely that any bank would ever have less than £50,000 in an account.
Remember, banks do not hold your money
The nature of banking is that you contract with them and give them your money for some other amount such as interest
you do not have money in a bank
you have a debt that the bank owes you
this is the same as bitcoin exchanges right now
you do not own the bitcoin in an exchange
Ever
you own a debt that the exchange has to repay
Ah
now you are talking about something called a depository
The Florentine Medicis would hold gold and issue deposit notes and this is analogous to what you're discussing
my wife's father was an executive at a major bank in Singapore, but the problem is the banks in the period between the 50s and the 70s are not the same thing as they are now
they have moved away from banking and customer service to quick returns in the financial market
banking really is not the problem
The problem is that most banks aren't banking
the small amounts will end up with proceeds of crime is orders. It won't recover everything, likely $0.60 on the dollar but this will be enough to dis-incentivise most crime
Right now, laundering money results in as little as 20% of the proceeds of crime
if you can take away more than that you make it uneconomical
exactly, thanks used to work in partnership with small businesses and firms to grow them
that is the model we need to get back to
but, this idea of bonuses based on short-term profit that often leads to long-term debt has developed since the 1980s
Banks DO NOT hold your money
They pool it
You own a debt
A bank cannot exist with under 50k accounts and deposits
The bank does not care if it is 5usd, you are not holding, they pool
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614442861424100?thread_ts=1614442861.424100&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2479
And, before this will ever be developed and used, banks need to know the same as any institutional investor would want to know which is can I recover
no recovery, no application
The importance of the alert key is to let the network know very quickly that something is wrong.
Equally fast, a false alert can be reversed or disputed
the cost of doing a recovery is going to never be small.
In the short term I cannot and I emphasise cannot see any recovery claim costing less than £50,000
Now, take that into account
proceeds of crime orders will be different and could be collated but, once some of the money has been used in commerce it will be protected from being grabbed and redistributed
as far as banks are concerned the custodial services will be created so that it is unlikely that any bank would ever have less than £50,000 in an account.
Remember, banks do not hold your money
The nature of banking is that you contract with them and give them your money for some other amount such as interest
you do not have money in a bank
you have a debt that the bank owes you
this is the same as bitcoin exchanges right now
you do not own the bitcoin in an exchange
Ever
you own a debt that the exchange has to repay
Ah
now you are talking about something called a depository
The Florentine Medicis would hold gold and issue deposit notes and this is analogous to what you're discussing
my wife's father was an executive at a major bank in Singapore, but the problem is the banks in the period between the 50s and the 70s are not the same thing as they are now
they have moved away from banking and customer service to quick returns in the financial market
banking really is not the problem
The problem is that most banks aren't banking
the small amounts will end up with proceeds of crime is orders. It won't recover everything, likely $0.60 on the dollar but this will be enough to dis-incentivise most crime
Right now, laundering money results in as little as 20% of the proceeds of crime
if you can take away more than that you make it uneconomical
exactly, thanks used to work in partnership with small businesses and firms to grow them
that is the model we need to get back to
but, this idea of bonuses based on short-term profit that often leads to long-term debt has developed since the 1980s
Banks DO NOT hold your money
They pool it
You own a debt
A bank cannot exist with under 50k accounts and deposits
The bank does not care if it is 5usd, you are not holding, they pool
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614442861424100?thread_ts=1614442861.424100&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2479
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614442861424100?thread_ts=1614442861.424100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2479
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614442861424100?thread_ts=1614442861.424100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2479
1/2
Logic is directly associated with analysing truth rationally and coming to a valid answer. Bitcoin is a system based on a predicate. A predicate is a means of constructing a valid proof but to do so requires that each of the inputs also happen to be defined in a way that allows you to construct a proof.
When it comes to bitcoin, it is essential in analysing the system to determine all of the factors behind it.
Bitcoin is not encrypted.
This is an important aspect to note in that encrypted files mean that without a key there is no possibility of recovering the unencrypted information. If you lose the key to an encrypted file, if that key is of adequate length such as 256 bits, the chances of recovery are exceedingly slim and you should give up before beginning.
This point is relevant because had bitcoin been a cryptocurrency that was based on encrypted information, the recovery of data without a key would not be only infeasible but close to impossible. It would not matter if there was a court order. If the court orders information to be decrypted without a key, that leaves an impossible scenario that cannot be met.
The purpose of a system such as lightning is to create a system that does not maintain records. You add a trusted third-party in the form of watchtowers to monitor the transactions that act commercially while illegally deleting financial information.
You see, when you define the terms in a way that a judge understands it becomes much simpler.
So, the defence against changing bitcoin would be that it’s a distributed system and its encrypted. However, anybody who is knowledgeable who runs such a defence would be committing perjury. Perjury is a serious crime. Bearing false testimony and false witness in court as a developer would have to do in order to state that bitcoin is encrypted would lead to a prison sentence if it was demonstrated that they were not being honest.
Luckily, it is very simple to demonstrate that bitcoin is not encrypted by simply providing access to a block Explorer and demonstrating that there are no keys involved at any point. Further, a forensic analysis would demonstrate how all the information within the Blockchain can be extracted using any text and hex viewing tool.
Perjury is an indictable offence in the UK.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6
The enactment and commission of such a lie in stating that bitcoin is encrypted by a person who is knowledgeable outside of court and on a sworn testimony is known as a false statement under oath outside of a judicial setting leads to a prison sentence of up to 7 years, it is an indictable offence.
However, where the testimony is delivered in a judicial scenario under oath, this is known as perverting the course of justice.
I would definitely not recommend that any developer stated that bitcoin was encrypted and hence outside the reach of judicial review.
In the UK, the indictable offence of perverting the course of justice is considered incredibly seriously.
When the scenario overlaps and perverting the course of justice and perjury link such that a witness or expert witness in legal proceedings knowingly makes a false statement that is designed to affect the outcome of the case, the sentencing guidelines allow for the discretion of the judge with seven years penal sentencing and other criminal provisions.
The same would apply would a developer state that the GitHub repository is a community management project that is not controlled by a small number of developers. Developers using these tools know very well that a limited number of individuals control access to them and control access to loading the new software.
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614448358445100?thread_ts=1614448358.445100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2482
Logic is directly associated with analysing truth rationally and coming to a valid answer. Bitcoin is a system based on a predicate. A predicate is a means of constructing a valid proof but to do so requires that each of the inputs also happen to be defined in a way that allows you to construct a proof.
When it comes to bitcoin, it is essential in analysing the system to determine all of the factors behind it.
Bitcoin is not encrypted.
This is an important aspect to note in that encrypted files mean that without a key there is no possibility of recovering the unencrypted information. If you lose the key to an encrypted file, if that key is of adequate length such as 256 bits, the chances of recovery are exceedingly slim and you should give up before beginning.
This point is relevant because had bitcoin been a cryptocurrency that was based on encrypted information, the recovery of data without a key would not be only infeasible but close to impossible. It would not matter if there was a court order. If the court orders information to be decrypted without a key, that leaves an impossible scenario that cannot be met.
The purpose of a system such as lightning is to create a system that does not maintain records. You add a trusted third-party in the form of watchtowers to monitor the transactions that act commercially while illegally deleting financial information.
You see, when you define the terms in a way that a judge understands it becomes much simpler.
So, the defence against changing bitcoin would be that it’s a distributed system and its encrypted. However, anybody who is knowledgeable who runs such a defence would be committing perjury. Perjury is a serious crime. Bearing false testimony and false witness in court as a developer would have to do in order to state that bitcoin is encrypted would lead to a prison sentence if it was demonstrated that they were not being honest.
Luckily, it is very simple to demonstrate that bitcoin is not encrypted by simply providing access to a block Explorer and demonstrating that there are no keys involved at any point. Further, a forensic analysis would demonstrate how all the information within the Blockchain can be extracted using any text and hex viewing tool.
Perjury is an indictable offence in the UK.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6
The enactment and commission of such a lie in stating that bitcoin is encrypted by a person who is knowledgeable outside of court and on a sworn testimony is known as a false statement under oath outside of a judicial setting leads to a prison sentence of up to 7 years, it is an indictable offence.
However, where the testimony is delivered in a judicial scenario under oath, this is known as perverting the course of justice.
I would definitely not recommend that any developer stated that bitcoin was encrypted and hence outside the reach of judicial review.
In the UK, the indictable offence of perverting the course of justice is considered incredibly seriously.
When the scenario overlaps and perverting the course of justice and perjury link such that a witness or expert witness in legal proceedings knowingly makes a false statement that is designed to affect the outcome of the case, the sentencing guidelines allow for the discretion of the judge with seven years penal sentencing and other criminal provisions.
The same would apply would a developer state that the GitHub repository is a community management project that is not controlled by a small number of developers. Developers using these tools know very well that a limited number of individuals control access to them and control access to loading the new software.
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614448358445100?thread_ts=1614448358.445100&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2482
2/2
The logical conclusion in all of this is to very simply not attempt to prevent justice because in the coming cases there will be no way that all the attempted provisions of justice will not be brought to light. We will be ensuring that forensic testimony from respected individuals demonstrates the nature of what I’ve been explaining incredibly clearly. Moreover, the simple fact that we can implement controls of this nature overrides any argument saying that you can’t.
Miners are not issuing but rather act under a unilateral contract. You cannot enforce the rules against a miner unless they are acting in breach of contract. To be in breach of contract, they have to violate the conditions set by the fiduciary managing the network which in this case happens to be the development group.
If miners do not wish to follow the rules, they are not bound because it is a unilateral contract. They have the option to simply stop mining.
Any exchange that decided to list such a fork would also be in contempt of court and subject to freezing orders that would cut them off from all banking, limit them from using AWS, Google, cloud services, DNS, Internet protocol routing…
You get the gist
You see, people seem to think that they can simply avoid all of this but there are interesting avenues that come with contempt of court even globally. Not only is DNS available as an option to take against a rogue miner or exchange, but additionally filters could be imposed in BGP routing tables.
Effectively, the node or exchange seeking to breach court orders would be completely shut off from the Internet. Those who have been involved in Internet gambling understand just how effectively this can work. It costs money to do but then, I have considered all of that in my actions.
So @Rob the simple answer is that miners enforce rules but they don't create them. The requirement to implement those rules would come to a developer group following a court order.
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614448358445100?thread_ts=1614448358.445100&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2482
The logical conclusion in all of this is to very simply not attempt to prevent justice because in the coming cases there will be no way that all the attempted provisions of justice will not be brought to light. We will be ensuring that forensic testimony from respected individuals demonstrates the nature of what I’ve been explaining incredibly clearly. Moreover, the simple fact that we can implement controls of this nature overrides any argument saying that you can’t.
Miners are not issuing but rather act under a unilateral contract. You cannot enforce the rules against a miner unless they are acting in breach of contract. To be in breach of contract, they have to violate the conditions set by the fiduciary managing the network which in this case happens to be the development group.
If miners do not wish to follow the rules, they are not bound because it is a unilateral contract. They have the option to simply stop mining.
Any exchange that decided to list such a fork would also be in contempt of court and subject to freezing orders that would cut them off from all banking, limit them from using AWS, Google, cloud services, DNS, Internet protocol routing…
You get the gist
You see, people seem to think that they can simply avoid all of this but there are interesting avenues that come with contempt of court even globally. Not only is DNS available as an option to take against a rogue miner or exchange, but additionally filters could be imposed in BGP routing tables.
Effectively, the node or exchange seeking to breach court orders would be completely shut off from the Internet. Those who have been involved in Internet gambling understand just how effectively this can work. It costs money to do but then, I have considered all of that in my actions.
So @Rob the simple answer is that miners enforce rules but they don't create them. The requirement to implement those rules would come to a developer group following a court order.
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614448358445100?thread_ts=1614448358.445100&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2482
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614448358445100?thread_ts=1614448358.445100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2482
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614448358445100?thread_ts=1614448358.445100&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2482