SeAL
eMule credit
KaZaA Token
CNDs
KARMA
Bucking FRs
Micropay
PPay
Grid Acc
Stamps
MicroMint
Payword
Bread pudding
Swift (file store not banking system)
Mojo Nation
MNet
MMAPPS
EP
PlanetLab
Pastry
MobiTip
eCash
Digicash
Shark
Triple
eMule credit
Ellacoya
Globus
Mondex
This is only a small introduction and I've missed out on many peer-to-peer currency systems. All of these existed in the 90s. Every one of them was dead by 2004. Everything being created in league distributed networks or permissioned networks mirrors the work done in these networks.
Basically, everything we're seeing as an alternative to bitcoin has been done. It's been tried, and its failed. My list of Cryptocurrencies from the 90s exceeds 200 so far. Every single time, they worked on closed permissioned systems and isolated tokens. There are proof work systems. There are token systems. Everything was seeing in bitcoin and its copies except the economic system I created.
The one thing that makes bitcoin different is that it is a public blockchain.
All these central-bank systems are regurgitating failed systems from the 1990s and they're not even considering why they failed. I don't think they even know they existed. Large banks tried these. Literally, the market capitalisation for all these Cryptocurrencies in the 90s exceeded $1 trillion in 2001 before the crash. That is larger than we are currently at and were ignoring inflation on this calculation. And it wasn't the same pump either. There was much more investment back then and many more systems.
All of these have been tried. All of them failed. The single system that has succeeded and delivered has been mine.
1 trillion USD.
that was the 2001 market cap
Why would 100s of failures do anything to change their opposition
Besides
Bitcoin is not a crypto currency
That is a myth
Central Banks are not answerable to the public.
CBs don't deal in cash
Bitcoin can be a foundation to create a better ledger, but that is all for a CB
Cash is a function outside of the Central Bank
CBs DON'T issue cash.
That is the mint
CBs issue bonds
In amounts that exceed millions as a base
CBs are responding to pressure based on a lie, that Bitcoin can become a global base money for every thing
They issue a debt
A CB will not be doing this, a digital mint could.
As I have noted the value of bitcoin is as a commodity.
Commodities gain value when they are used and have a purpose. Although wheat will go up in price due to speculation, this also drives others to release excess stock. But that said, the purpose of which is not to hoard but to be used as wheat
the purpose of bitcoin is to be used as a token ledger system
the more it is used, the more underlying value it obtains
I'm trying to tell you that digital cash is indeed possible but it will not be managed by the central bank unless the central bank starts a completely new role
Cash does not impact a CB operation at all
Banks are not cash
CBs operated on Gold - gold cannot be copied
This is been something I have been trying to get people to understand.
Gold has been used as the ledger for a long time but that is not as cash but rather a unit of measurement.
the bank has to eventually buy gold to repay debt
But something important to note here is that bitcoin needs to be used.
it doesn't work is just the HODL asset long-term
So, if you think that it's just volts of gold then you have a problem with how bitcoin will be enabled and valuable
Bitcoin cannot just act as a reserve asset between government banks - those believing this failed to understand how bitcoin and how banks both work.
The error has always been people thinking that gold has been primary money. It hasn't
The majority of the money has never been golden history - here in England, the majority of money was issued as small lead tokens for a long time.
CSW
Nov 26, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1574763022166200?thread_ts=1574763022.166200&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2492
eMule credit
KaZaA Token
CNDs
KARMA
Bucking FRs
Micropay
PPay
Grid Acc
Stamps
MicroMint
Payword
Bread pudding
Swift (file store not banking system)
Mojo Nation
MNet
MMAPPS
EP
PlanetLab
Pastry
MobiTip
eCash
Digicash
Shark
Triple
eMule credit
Ellacoya
Globus
Mondex
This is only a small introduction and I've missed out on many peer-to-peer currency systems. All of these existed in the 90s. Every one of them was dead by 2004. Everything being created in league distributed networks or permissioned networks mirrors the work done in these networks.
Basically, everything we're seeing as an alternative to bitcoin has been done. It's been tried, and its failed. My list of Cryptocurrencies from the 90s exceeds 200 so far. Every single time, they worked on closed permissioned systems and isolated tokens. There are proof work systems. There are token systems. Everything was seeing in bitcoin and its copies except the economic system I created.
The one thing that makes bitcoin different is that it is a public blockchain.
All these central-bank systems are regurgitating failed systems from the 1990s and they're not even considering why they failed. I don't think they even know they existed. Large banks tried these. Literally, the market capitalisation for all these Cryptocurrencies in the 90s exceeded $1 trillion in 2001 before the crash. That is larger than we are currently at and were ignoring inflation on this calculation. And it wasn't the same pump either. There was much more investment back then and many more systems.
All of these have been tried. All of them failed. The single system that has succeeded and delivered has been mine.
1 trillion USD.
that was the 2001 market cap
Why would 100s of failures do anything to change their opposition
Besides
Bitcoin is not a crypto currency
That is a myth
Central Banks are not answerable to the public.
CBs don't deal in cash
Bitcoin can be a foundation to create a better ledger, but that is all for a CB
Cash is a function outside of the Central Bank
CBs DON'T issue cash.
That is the mint
CBs issue bonds
In amounts that exceed millions as a base
CBs are responding to pressure based on a lie, that Bitcoin can become a global base money for every thing
They issue a debt
A CB will not be doing this, a digital mint could.
As I have noted the value of bitcoin is as a commodity.
Commodities gain value when they are used and have a purpose. Although wheat will go up in price due to speculation, this also drives others to release excess stock. But that said, the purpose of which is not to hoard but to be used as wheat
the purpose of bitcoin is to be used as a token ledger system
the more it is used, the more underlying value it obtains
I'm trying to tell you that digital cash is indeed possible but it will not be managed by the central bank unless the central bank starts a completely new role
Cash does not impact a CB operation at all
Banks are not cash
CBs operated on Gold - gold cannot be copied
This is been something I have been trying to get people to understand.
Gold has been used as the ledger for a long time but that is not as cash but rather a unit of measurement.
the bank has to eventually buy gold to repay debt
But something important to note here is that bitcoin needs to be used.
it doesn't work is just the HODL asset long-term
So, if you think that it's just volts of gold then you have a problem with how bitcoin will be enabled and valuable
Bitcoin cannot just act as a reserve asset between government banks - those believing this failed to understand how bitcoin and how banks both work.
The error has always been people thinking that gold has been primary money. It hasn't
The majority of the money has never been golden history - here in England, the majority of money was issued as small lead tokens for a long time.
CSW
Nov 26, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1574763022166200?thread_ts=1574763022.166200&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2492
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2492
2/2
gold was only ever a settlement coin between large debt holders. The majority of people never saw gold in their life in the past
even when gold was the base, silver was generally that which was used for large denominations for normal people
if bitcoin becomes gold...
Bitcoin dies
bitcoin requires high-volume exchanges and gold doesn't do high-volume exchanges, it never has
bitcoin has never been designed to be digital gold
the fees increase more than gold
and, with the halving built-in, if bitcoin does not scale and I mean massively scale, bitcoin dies
to work, bitcoin needs to be digital copper
it replaces pennies
You need to check your premises and look at any argument that is being given to you to ensure that you are logically and rationally sound and what you say.
When it comes to the topic of individuals sitting there saying how Cryptocurrency is there to help the people, the first part of the premises that the people were never helped by gold but rather were helped by small tokenised value
the average person throughout history never traded in gold at any point in their life
most people traded at most even in large amounts in silver
digital gold helps criminals and those with a lot of money if anyone
the companies I set up such as Denariuz were formed with that name because that is the name for silver coins not gold
the denarius represented 10 "as" or assarius
depending on when these were issued in history, these were represented by 272, 327, or 341 grams, bronze copper or mixed coins
these replaced ingots of copper
a small lead token was rather valueless
the tokenised value that it represented was what mattered
buying a beer at a pub 600 years ago involved tokenised forms of money including small pieces of pressed lead that most individuals that you see in the movies, the elite would never touch
similarly, the Royal family in England never touches money
the majority of people in England do
The same applied in China
Chinese money was considered as the lowest the nomination being a string of cash
In this, a large number of coins were strong together
Each of those points still had value but they were not considered valuable by the government unless they were strong together in hundreds
eCash and all the others sought anonymity
the government stepped in, the next day they were gone
by the next day, I mean literally not figuratively literally the next day they were gone
bitcoin is no different
This is a distributed system it has nothing to do with political decentralisation all the people all running things in a socialist collective or some BS
This is economically distributed
If one miner goes bankrupt the system doesn't fail
This should be really simple.
Every other system failed because a single company went bankrupt.
In bitcoin, if a miner or some other entity goes bankrupt the entire system does not fail.
That is the only point the sole point the only reason for decentralisation
and section 5 refers to commercial systems
nodes are not average people
SPV is used to send the block header but only nodes need require sending to all other nodes and nodes are big commercial entities
It is very simple, the centrally controlled nature had nothing to do with any of the political BS right now.
it is not about collectivist everyone runs a node BS
It is not about how many nodes people have out there
Three would be fine
Just three nodes existing in the world is fine
Just three companies running all of bitcoin is fine
The entire point is that if one company goes bankrupt, there is someone to replace them.
The point being made of centrally controlled nature is that where a single company fails the entire system fails.
That's it
CSW
Nov 26, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1574763022166200?thread_ts=1574763022.166200&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2492
gold was only ever a settlement coin between large debt holders. The majority of people never saw gold in their life in the past
even when gold was the base, silver was generally that which was used for large denominations for normal people
if bitcoin becomes gold...
Bitcoin dies
bitcoin requires high-volume exchanges and gold doesn't do high-volume exchanges, it never has
bitcoin has never been designed to be digital gold
the fees increase more than gold
and, with the halving built-in, if bitcoin does not scale and I mean massively scale, bitcoin dies
to work, bitcoin needs to be digital copper
it replaces pennies
You need to check your premises and look at any argument that is being given to you to ensure that you are logically and rationally sound and what you say.
When it comes to the topic of individuals sitting there saying how Cryptocurrency is there to help the people, the first part of the premises that the people were never helped by gold but rather were helped by small tokenised value
the average person throughout history never traded in gold at any point in their life
most people traded at most even in large amounts in silver
digital gold helps criminals and those with a lot of money if anyone
the companies I set up such as Denariuz were formed with that name because that is the name for silver coins not gold
the denarius represented 10 "as" or assarius
depending on when these were issued in history, these were represented by 272, 327, or 341 grams, bronze copper or mixed coins
these replaced ingots of copper
a small lead token was rather valueless
the tokenised value that it represented was what mattered
buying a beer at a pub 600 years ago involved tokenised forms of money including small pieces of pressed lead that most individuals that you see in the movies, the elite would never touch
similarly, the Royal family in England never touches money
the majority of people in England do
The same applied in China
Chinese money was considered as the lowest the nomination being a string of cash
In this, a large number of coins were strong together
Each of those points still had value but they were not considered valuable by the government unless they were strong together in hundreds
eCash and all the others sought anonymity
the government stepped in, the next day they were gone
by the next day, I mean literally not figuratively literally the next day they were gone
bitcoin is no different
This is a distributed system it has nothing to do with political decentralisation all the people all running things in a socialist collective or some BS
This is economically distributed
If one miner goes bankrupt the system doesn't fail
This should be really simple.
Every other system failed because a single company went bankrupt.
In bitcoin, if a miner or some other entity goes bankrupt the entire system does not fail.
That is the only point the sole point the only reason for decentralisation
and section 5 refers to commercial systems
nodes are not average people
SPV is used to send the block header but only nodes need require sending to all other nodes and nodes are big commercial entities
It is very simple, the centrally controlled nature had nothing to do with any of the political BS right now.
it is not about collectivist everyone runs a node BS
It is not about how many nodes people have out there
Three would be fine
Just three nodes existing in the world is fine
Just three companies running all of bitcoin is fine
The entire point is that if one company goes bankrupt, there is someone to replace them.
The point being made of centrally controlled nature is that where a single company fails the entire system fails.
That's it
CSW
Nov 26, 2019
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1574763022166200?thread_ts=1574763022.166200&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2492
SuperAsset Contracts: A Scalable Layer 1 Account Contract and Token Design Using The Bitcoin UTXO Model
Attila
jun 2, 2021
https://attilaaf.medium.com/superasset-contracts-a-scalable-layer-1-account-contract-and-token-design-using-the-bitcoin-utxo-e4d933478d7a
Attila
jun 2, 2021
https://attilaaf.medium.com/superasset-contracts-a-scalable-layer-1-account-contract-and-token-design-using-the-bitcoin-utxo-e4d933478d7a
Medium
SuperAsset Contracts: A Scalable Layer 1 Account and Token Contract Design Using The Bitcoin UTXO Model
A Breakthrough design is presented that enables arbitrary state storage and computation in a Bitcoin UTXO by leveraging a technique known…
Craig Wright BitCoin Foundation
https://t.me/joinchat/BZPpc-viP_A3YjU8
https://t.me/joinchat/BZPpc-viP_A3YjU8
Telegram
CSW 306* Foundation BitCoin
BitCoin Foundation
https://t.me/joinchat/BZPpc-viP_A3YjU8
https://archive.is/qjWgg
Jon Matonis
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEyP5Soq8N2tCEHAMQ
B. Association
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEk8wooV-gVBJvYLAg
https://t.me/joinchat/BZPpc-viP_A3YjU8
https://archive.is/qjWgg
Jon Matonis
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEyP5Soq8N2tCEHAMQ
B. Association
https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEk8wooV-gVBJvYLAg
Financial inclusion
Does not involve huge fees
CSW
Jun 2, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622637566477700?thread_ts=1622632179.470300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2503
Does not involve huge fees
CSW
Jun 2, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1622637566477700?thread_ts=1622632179.470300&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2503
There are limitations on what central banks hold and the reality is they are not about backing things with assets in the traditional sense
Central banks are not about gold holdings or other such things although they can manage these for the government
The way to look at this is to think that each dollar or pound or whatever else is a transferable asset that has no dividends - as with most tech stocks - and no voting rights but still links to a percentage from the value of the overall underlying asset.
The underlying asset is based on the government and the taxation of assets in the country which links to GDP
When more cash is printed it is analogous to when a company issues more shares.
when cash is taken up it is when you see an analogy to a company doing a buyback
the assets owned by a central bank and not related to gold or shares or anything about that are linked directly to the value of business in that country
The value of Fiat money is directly tied between the need to pay tax to the government in the country compared with the value in international trade and foreign finance
Where the government issues to many bonds the common equivalent given is that they are printing money.
The entire process is one of exchanges of financial instruments and debt
Countries hold foreign currency in their central banks to repay obligations
they don't invest in RMB in the US Federal reserve system to invest - they hold foreign currency including RMB so that they can pay obligations as due
So, unless there are reasons to pay debts in BTC or some other system, there is no reason for a central bank to hold it
CSW
Mar 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615726940499900?thread_ts=1615724524.492500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2508
Central banks are not about gold holdings or other such things although they can manage these for the government
The way to look at this is to think that each dollar or pound or whatever else is a transferable asset that has no dividends - as with most tech stocks - and no voting rights but still links to a percentage from the value of the overall underlying asset.
The underlying asset is based on the government and the taxation of assets in the country which links to GDP
When more cash is printed it is analogous to when a company issues more shares.
when cash is taken up it is when you see an analogy to a company doing a buyback
the assets owned by a central bank and not related to gold or shares or anything about that are linked directly to the value of business in that country
The value of Fiat money is directly tied between the need to pay tax to the government in the country compared with the value in international trade and foreign finance
Where the government issues to many bonds the common equivalent given is that they are printing money.
The entire process is one of exchanges of financial instruments and debt
Countries hold foreign currency in their central banks to repay obligations
they don't invest in RMB in the US Federal reserve system to invest - they hold foreign currency including RMB so that they can pay obligations as due
So, unless there are reasons to pay debts in BTC or some other system, there is no reason for a central bank to hold it
CSW
Mar 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615726940499900?thread_ts=1615724524.492500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2508
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Mar 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615726940499900?thread_ts=1615724524.492500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2508
Mar 14, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615726940499900?thread_ts=1615724524.492500&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2508
1/2
Question:
Share ownership: If activist shareholders buy 51% of a company and vote to change the rules of the company, they can, right?
If they buy 51% of the vote
Reality - 30%
Most do not vote
bitcoin isn't a company and there are no shares so that's not a valid question
bitcoin is offered as a unilateral contract
there is no voting involved
you don't get to change the rules, they were defined do not change so no it doesn't matter if you own 99.99999% of bitcoin available you get to change anything
Satoshi, a.k.a. me cannot change the system from its base
BTC is not bitcoin in any way
BTC is a system that is passing themselves off as bitcoin
irrelevant, there is no voting rights associated with bitcoin it's a commodity
ownership does not give you any rights other than the right to sell it to someone else or transmit
if you own a bar of gold you don't own a percentage of all gold in existence that will ever be available and have rights to them
no you own the amount you have and you do not have the rights to anything else other than the amount you have
you do not vote on gold
you do not vote on bitcoin
the point in the White Paper wasn't that people vote, it was that will lead to a system of sybils
people don't vote with an IP address, that was the point not that they should be voting that they don't vote
except that the Constitution isn't up to the people to change
if they don't like bitcoin they can set up a new system with a different constitution
just as the American government of the colonies set up a new government when it left England
but, just like that they don't get to call themselves England
there isn't a majority stake
it is irrelevant how much steak you have there is no argument to make it is not sold as a share it is not listed as a chef and is not
distributed as a security
to make that argument means it is a security
for bitcoin to be a security, it is illegal and breaching the law
if they make that argument, they have to immediately stop distributing bitcoin and stop mining
so, that is not a valid argument
it is a commodity and the way that commodities work is that you don't get to sit there and say that you want to vote for change
If there is a standard contract for the delivery of grain at a certain quality, your decision to change the quality because you own 60% of all the grain at that quality is invalid
if you own 100% of every bitcoin that exists you still would not have the right to change the contract.
You say they will make the argument, but there is no argument
to break this into a logical predicate form:
Group X owns the majority of a commodity
Group X believes that commodity contracts should be changed
Group Y defined the contract for the commodity
Therefore, as group Y is the contract creator or issuer group Y does not give a shit about what group X thinks
There is no community in bitcoin.
It is not about the community.
It is not about a community.
It is not about voting.
It is a commodity token
you cannot make a community thing using bitcoin or Blockchain
you cannot desire to make any of this because bitcoin is capitalist
not mildly capitalist
utterly through and through heartfelt pure unrefined capitalism
the only thing you get when you try and take the law out of bitcoin is a bunch of fraudulent capitalists who seek to make money using crime and defrauding investors to make a quick buck
bitcoin is everything that every single socialist will ever hate squared
it always was
there is no split, there is a group of individuals who never wanted bitcoin who fought me from before I launched bitcoin and seek to make something else
this is never about bitcoin, it is about the ideas that started coming out in 2008 when James Donald started telling me how wrong my project was because government would take it over
none of this has ever been new
CSW
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615987197014900?thread_ts=1615987197.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2510
Question:
Share ownership: If activist shareholders buy 51% of a company and vote to change the rules of the company, they can, right?
If they buy 51% of the vote
Reality - 30%
Most do not vote
bitcoin isn't a company and there are no shares so that's not a valid question
bitcoin is offered as a unilateral contract
there is no voting involved
you don't get to change the rules, they were defined do not change so no it doesn't matter if you own 99.99999% of bitcoin available you get to change anything
Satoshi, a.k.a. me cannot change the system from its base
BTC is not bitcoin in any way
BTC is a system that is passing themselves off as bitcoin
irrelevant, there is no voting rights associated with bitcoin it's a commodity
ownership does not give you any rights other than the right to sell it to someone else or transmit
if you own a bar of gold you don't own a percentage of all gold in existence that will ever be available and have rights to them
no you own the amount you have and you do not have the rights to anything else other than the amount you have
you do not vote on gold
you do not vote on bitcoin
the point in the White Paper wasn't that people vote, it was that will lead to a system of sybils
people don't vote with an IP address, that was the point not that they should be voting that they don't vote
except that the Constitution isn't up to the people to change
if they don't like bitcoin they can set up a new system with a different constitution
just as the American government of the colonies set up a new government when it left England
but, just like that they don't get to call themselves England
there isn't a majority stake
it is irrelevant how much steak you have there is no argument to make it is not sold as a share it is not listed as a chef and is not
distributed as a security
to make that argument means it is a security
for bitcoin to be a security, it is illegal and breaching the law
if they make that argument, they have to immediately stop distributing bitcoin and stop mining
so, that is not a valid argument
it is a commodity and the way that commodities work is that you don't get to sit there and say that you want to vote for change
If there is a standard contract for the delivery of grain at a certain quality, your decision to change the quality because you own 60% of all the grain at that quality is invalid
if you own 100% of every bitcoin that exists you still would not have the right to change the contract.
You say they will make the argument, but there is no argument
to break this into a logical predicate form:
Group X owns the majority of a commodity
Group X believes that commodity contracts should be changed
Group Y defined the contract for the commodity
Therefore, as group Y is the contract creator or issuer group Y does not give a shit about what group X thinks
There is no community in bitcoin.
It is not about the community.
It is not about a community.
It is not about voting.
It is a commodity token
you cannot make a community thing using bitcoin or Blockchain
you cannot desire to make any of this because bitcoin is capitalist
not mildly capitalist
utterly through and through heartfelt pure unrefined capitalism
the only thing you get when you try and take the law out of bitcoin is a bunch of fraudulent capitalists who seek to make money using crime and defrauding investors to make a quick buck
bitcoin is everything that every single socialist will ever hate squared
it always was
there is no split, there is a group of individuals who never wanted bitcoin who fought me from before I launched bitcoin and seek to make something else
this is never about bitcoin, it is about the ideas that started coming out in 2008 when James Donald started telling me how wrong my project was because government would take it over
none of this has ever been new
CSW
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615987197014900?thread_ts=1615987197.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
1/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2510
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615987197014900?thread_ts=1615987197.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2510
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615987197014900?thread_ts=1615987197.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2510
2/2
the guys at course started taking over before I even left and had plans to do this before I even guessed that they were planning to do this
the Github repository started being developed in 2010 eight months before I left
all this goes back to a group of individuals who hijacked my system because they had failed with either gold and they failed with eCash and they failed with liberty and they failed.
So they came from the failure of liberty and the gold and piled onto bitcoin thinking that they could make this into their drug coin
but bitcoin is designed not to work that way
it is not encrypted and it cannot work if it's encrypted
which means everything that these guys have been doing for the last twelve years has been a complete waste of time
whereas, I have continued building everything that needs to be in a legally working system
and hence, they have lost their opportunity
Bloody Dragon
There is no takeover ability - it is a commodity
No, SegWit is a new system that links an airdrop to deceive investors
It is a classic financial fraud
Blocksize is something miners can fight on.
BUT - they MUST accept losing - if they mine large blocks - the losers do not have a new chain.
The rules are simple - the losing chain loses.
That is, everything is lost
No extended votes - 100 blocks
CSW
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615987197014900?thread_ts=1615987197.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2510
the guys at course started taking over before I even left and had plans to do this before I even guessed that they were planning to do this
the Github repository started being developed in 2010 eight months before I left
all this goes back to a group of individuals who hijacked my system because they had failed with either gold and they failed with eCash and they failed with liberty and they failed.
So they came from the failure of liberty and the gold and piled onto bitcoin thinking that they could make this into their drug coin
but bitcoin is designed not to work that way
it is not encrypted and it cannot work if it's encrypted
which means everything that these guys have been doing for the last twelve years has been a complete waste of time
whereas, I have continued building everything that needs to be in a legally working system
and hence, they have lost their opportunity
Bloody Dragon
There is no takeover ability - it is a commodity
No, SegWit is a new system that links an airdrop to deceive investors
It is a classic financial fraud
Blocksize is something miners can fight on.
BUT - they MUST accept losing - if they mine large blocks - the losers do not have a new chain.
The rules are simple - the losing chain loses.
That is, everything is lost
No extended votes - 100 blocks
CSW
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615987197014900?thread_ts=1615987197.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
2/2
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2510
Telegram
CSW - Slack Channel
CSW
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615987197014900?thread_ts=1615987197.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2510
Mar 17, 2021
https://metanet-icu.slack.com/archives/C5131HKFX/p1615987197014900?thread_ts=1615987197.014900&cid=C5131HKFX
https://t.me/CSW_Slack/2510