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

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1611935338338800?thread_ts=1611935338.338800&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2468

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

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2470

CSW
Jan 29, 2021
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2471

CSW
Feb 26, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614321187137300?thread_ts=1614321187.137300&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2473

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

CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614460335026200?thread_ts=1614460335.026200&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2475

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

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

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2477

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

CSW
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
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

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

CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614448358445100?thread_ts=1614448358.445100&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2482

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

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

CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614431519387900?thread_ts=1614431519.387900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2486

What people in the BTC world do not understand or try hide is that identity will become part of bitcoin and the overall solution

When this happens, there will be a rush to get out because there is a lot of money that has not pay tax and that has not been legally transferred

Still less than Dot com

Global Dot Com was 4 T USD

In todays money - 7T

which will never exist

Nothing is reversed, it can be returned.the process is not quick and it is not cheap

A freezing order needs to 1st be enacted and then the ownership is disputed.

In the case of my wife and her suit against UFX but she won, the freezing order was issued in 2017. The order to have her money paid was issued only last year.

So this is not a means of taking away cash. What it does mean is that any large amount transacted needs to be done with full AML we see under existing monetary handling laws and with all of the requirements to know your customer and to record all of these details

if you record all the details and if you buy legitimately for value you have no issue

my watch is rated to 1000 m not that I would ever survive that far

but, everything is economic and you're taking a scuba-diving query where you haven't said how deep are you going and implying that you must spend an infinite amount which is utterly in error

In time, it will be likely that different jurisdictions will put different restrictions on serving information

Everything comes down to a cost benefit analysis of some sort

If you have an asset worth $1000 it is no good spending $1 million to secure it

CSW
Feb 27, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1614431519387900?thread_ts=1614431519.387900&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2486

CSW
Mar 8, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615199298478600?thread_ts=1615199298.478600&cid=C5131HKFX

https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2488

1/3
How were the 21m Bitcoin actually created, were they in an address or was there some kind of a contract that enabled miners to distribute them? How did the circulation start?

You are confusion the tokens and the coins

The tokens always existed - miner distribute these

Miners DO NOT control Bitcoin

They are acting to enforce the existing rules

There is a virtual pile - these are put into envelopes and given to the miner

In the current code - no. The issue is not specified that way - there are a set number of coin.

Coins are just an envelope to place the tokens into

a satoshi is a token

a coin consists of tokens

in the real world coin consists of atoms it's not so hard

token is Satoshi

each token is individual

bitcoin is created in a virtual envelope or coin

tokens are contained in the coins or envelopes

a token is fungible bitcoin is not

a token is just an integer number

this is why there are no half Satoshi's and there can never be fractional Satoshi

it does if you consider the law of money

a coin or a note contains a certain number of things it doesn't go by weight

think of it like a negotiable instrument

the way the notes came about in history was that they gained a string of signatures

every person who accepted the node signed it

just because money doesn't work this way now and we don't see any of the workings of how many functions doesn't mean that it's not how it is

you can't accept it as a credit card credit cards have nothing at all to do with money they are a credit system

you don't sign a string of credit card receipts,

you have to think of this as a cheque that is being distributed from person to person and never going back to the bank

if you read the history of money, you could reissue different notes as long as you attached the history of the prior note

again, you are not looking into the history of money and how money works

you could give a cheque to 2 different people in the past as a negotiable instrument that was split-level in this, it could be rejoined and different notes could follow as long as there was a history and a ledger of all of the transactions

bitcoin is completely utterly exactly analogous to a negotiable instrument I keep pointing out for people to read books like Mann on money and not the trash that people keep reading that has nothing to do with reality

Yapp stones wwere never money the way that the false story makes out

and if you don't read valid sources you get crud

I specified this above I said the token is fungible

it does not matter which grain of rice you get from a pile of rice

it does not matter which individual Satoshii you get from a pile of Satoshi

the coin is not fungible

just the same way that a negotiable instrument is not completely fungible

the same way a banknote is not fungible

each individual banknote has a completely separate and utterly different serial number that is never repeated

the term bitcoin is completely irrelevant it has nothing to do with bitcoin other then as a marker for a number of Satoshi it is not how many Satoshi are issued or anything to do with a coin it is like a kilogram is 1000 g

a bitcoin does not exist, a Satoshi does

a kilogram doesn't really exist either

when I released bitcoin, every single token was issued

there are just under 21 million times 10 to the eighth

it is not quite exact but it doesn't need to be

miners are rewarded and that is the formation of the distribbuted coin

a coin is not fungible

every coin is not equal

every coin is not directly interchangeable

and yes, a bar of gold versus atoms of gold

you don't care which atom you have

in the case of small coins and nobody cares anymore because it's not worth caring

once, things were different the value of money has changed

a coin is every single UTXO

I UTXO is the coin

the address is just an arbitrary thing that people keep misusing

CSW
Mar 8, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615199298478600?thread_ts=1615199298.478600&cid=C5131HKFX
1/3
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2488